March 10, 1977
Page 7128
PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1977
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill (S. 427) to provide additional appropriations for the public works employment program, to authorize a program for employment of teenaged youth in community improvement projects, and for other purposes.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, am I correct in assuming we are now back on the unprinted amendment of the Senator from Louisiana?
The PRESIDING OFFICER, The Senator is correct.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I rise in support, and very wholehearted support, of the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana. I would ask this body and its Members to look down the road toward the future effect of that thing called cost-benefit ratio, and see if, in any of the more sparsely populated States, whether they be in the West or the Northeast, any project in hydraulics might ever again qualify for public works funding in those areas on the basis of cost-benefit.
The plain fact is that if we use cost-benefit as the single guiding light in these decisions, or the primary guiding light, then we are making a conscious, specific decision, a Federal land use planning decision for the West which will do nothing but channel more and more of that resource of water to the major population centers of the West. Wyoming water and western slope Colorado water will go to Denver, Los Angeles, Phoenix, or Albuquerque for major industrial projects, but it will never again go to enhance the economic hopes of the sparsely populated areas.
That will hold true for all areas. Never again will the sparsely populated areas of the country see the benefit of a major water project.
I put the Senate on notice that we had better, at some time in the near future, begin to figure that there is an environmental benefit to be gained by overlooking, in certain instances, the cost-benefit ratio. We may be facing a major drought in the West this year, which could cause serious human and economic disruptions, and the longer we go on enacting such measures, the more we will concentrate the uses of water in the major population centers. In times, to come, in 50 or 75 years, when other big droughts arise, the potential human disaster is unforecastable.
The uses of water will be one of the most critical decisions that these decades face. Water projects and cost-benefit ratios do not and must not necessarily go hand in hand. Other considerations, including the economic hopes and dreams of some of the rest of the country, must be taken into account, as well as the safety and well being of the population.
So I shall definitely support the Senator's amendment, and ask to be permitted to be a cosponsor of it.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the Senator. At this time I ask unanimous consent that the names of the following Senators be added as cosponsors of the amendment: Messrs. WALLOP, HATHAWAY, YOUNG, GRAVEL, HOLLINGS, HATFIELD, RANDOLPH, BENTSEN, BAKER, THURMOND, HANSEN, CANNON, and HASKELL.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, will the Senator include my name?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes; Senator JACKSON as well.
Mr. JACKSON. Here is another over here.
Mr. JOHNSTON. And Senator BURDICK.
Mr. JACKSON. I think Senator MAGNUSON, too.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Senator MAGNUSON. Senators BURDICK and MAGNUSON.
Mr. DOMENICI. And Senator DOMENICI, of New Mexico.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Senator DOMENICI.
Mr. JACKSON. And the Senator from California, I think.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Senator CHURCH, Senator CURTIS—
Mr. CURTIS. Does the Senator have me?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Senator SCHMITT, Senator CURTIS, Senator HAYAKAWA.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request? Will the Senator include me as a cosponsor?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I ask unanimous consent that the name of Senator MUSKIE also be added. I also ask unanimous consent that I may be able to yield to the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) for a unanimous consent request without losing my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sally Walker of the staff of the Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted the privilege of the floor.
Mr. STONE. Mr. President, I make the same request on behalf of Bruce Malone and Mary Repper of my staff.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment by adding, at the end of section 402, the following language: "and expended for the purposes for which appropriations are made."
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment will be so modified. Will the Senator send his modification to the desk?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. Mr. President, all this modification does is make doubly clear that those funds appropriated in the fiscal year 1977 budget shall not only be expended, but be expended for the purposes for which the appropriations are made.
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield for that purpose.
Mr. WALLOP. I ask unanimous consent that a member of my staff, Robert Jerome, be accorded the privilege of the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I would hope we could vote right away, mainly because my distinguished colleague from Louisiana (Mr. LONG) must catch a plane, and is anxious to be recorded in the affirmative.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield.
Mr. BUMPERS. About how much time does the Senator think it will be before the vote?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I do not know that there is any opposition. Is there opposition to it?
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has the floor.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I will yield for a comment from the distinguished minority leader, just in case there is opposition.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I am delighted the Senator from Louisiana yielded. I have sat here enraptured. I am delighted with the amendment which has been offered by the distinguished Senator from Louisiana. I am delighted to ask him to let me be a cosponsor of the amendment, if I may be.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I do that with great pleasure, Mr. President.
Mr. BAKER. I am not only enraptured but fairly lyrical in my praise of my colleagues on the Democratic side. I only note that on occasion they are trying to identify a second, third, or fourth place level bureaucrat who made up these cancellations. When a Republican was in the White House there was no such timidity. The authority still rests there. I am sure President Carter does not disavow the efforts of those people, misguided as they were.
But, Mr. President, seriously, I think this is a service to the Senate and the country. I commend my Democratic colleagues for doing it. I hope and trust there will be unanimous support in the tradition of bipartisanism on this side of the aisle.
Mr. DANFORTH. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I believe the distinguished Senator from Missouri had a short amendment which he wants to present. I am not in a hurry, but other colleagues are in a hurry. I wonder if there will be objection if we ask for unanimous consent to vote immediately after consideration of the amendment to the amendment by the Senator from Missouri.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I would like 1 minute to finish my remarks which were interrupted at 2 o'clock.
Mr. NELSON. Is this a unanimous consent request that the Senator poses?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Immediately after the consideration of the amendment to the amendment by the Senator from Missouri and any amendment to that, with 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New York.
Mr. NELSON. Before the vote, I would like to ask a couple of questions for clarification. I would object to the unanimous consent request.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I have not asked for unanimous consent. I will yield at this time to the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. NELSON. I did not hear all the discussion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be order in the Senate. Will Senators please take their desk?
Mr. NELSON. This is an unprinted amendment?
Mr. JOHNSTON. That is correct, it is an unprinted amendment.
Mr. NELSON. Do I understand the effect of the amendment to be that the interest rate would be tied to section 80 the 1974 Water Resources Department Act?
Mr. JOHNSTON. It is a simple reaffirmation of the law of the land at this time. The law of the land at this time is set out in the Water Resources Act of 1974 and in other congressional declarations. We are not changing the law one whit or one tittle in respect of interest rates. It is simply a reaffirmation of that. Apparently some in the executive do not understand what the law is and we are reminding them what the law is.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I am attempting to further document what the able Senator from Wisconsin is requesting and which has been answered. That came out of the Public Works Committee in a bill which became law in 1974. I am indicating that the Senator from Louisiana is correct as to the change which was made at that time.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the Senator.
Mr. NELSON. This would have the effect, as I understand it, of legislatively blocking the proposal of the President to reconsider projects at the interest rate of 6%. Is that correct?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Not of legislatively blocking that, but, in effect, reminding the President what the law of the land is. The law respecting interest rates is on the books now and no one in the executive branch, not the President, the Secretary of the Interior or anyone else, can change that interest rate unilaterally. We have had Government by the executive too long around here, in my view, and I believe we need to remind this good President as to what the law of the land is.
Mr. NELSON. Since this amendment is not printed and I have not had a chance to look at it, I am not sure what the impact of the language will be. I am not sure whether it is a good or bad idea. How does it affect the President's authority under the law now for a rescission or a deferral?
Mr. JOHNSTON. With respect to fiscal year 1977 appropriations this operates as a disapproval of any such rescission or deferral.
Mr. NELSON. Do I have it clear that the effect of this amendment is to bar the President from utilizing the authority he now has for a deferral or a rescission by legislative action in advance of the President making a decision for deferral or rescission on any one of the 19 projects?
Mr. JOHNSTON. That is correct. The reason for that is that the President has already announced 19 projects which, on the basis of the most flimsy evidence in the world — and many Senators have already seen the evidence on which that action is based, it being virtually nonexistent — I believe the President will try to go beyond the power of rescission and deferral by failing, for example, on March 18 to put under contract the Bayou Chene, Boeuf, and Black Project in my State. That is March 18. If he fails to do that, he does not have to defer or rescind in order to fail to make that contract.
All this amendment says, in effect, is that the Congress really meant what it did by passing these projects through authorizations over a period of years, and we meant what we intended to do by the Appropriations Act of 1977. Further than that, it also has a statement of policy, a statement of intent by the Congress, that we believe these public works projects are the keystones, the centerpieces, the most important part of any jobs programs. Not only do they produce jobs but they produce water, flood protection, recreation, economic activity, and they are in the national
interest. That is a statement of policy in the first section. That is what this does.
If the President wants to throw out some of these water projects, and maybe some of them should be reconsidered, what it says is "Reconsider those under the Constitution and under the law and not under some highhanded policy under which you grab 19 projects here and 38 projects there."
Thirty-eight projects are on the second hit list and I do not know how many are on the third hit list of the Bureau of Reclamation. In a period of 5 days, we are told, all of these projects are going to be up for public hearing. Senators and the public will be given the opportunity of coming in to defend the projects. After years of work by Congress we are told, "In 5 days you have to come in and re-justify your project." This amendment says no to that kind of action. That is precisely what it says.
Mr. NELSON. I am not qualified, by any means, to make an individual judgment on the merits of all those 19 or even a major portion of them. It is clear to me that some of them are disasters from every standpoint, the welfare of the country, the cost-benefit ratio, ecological impact — all kinds of ways.
I do not support the procedure followed by the President. I believe it was precipitous. On the other hand, I respect and support the instinct of the President to finally say, "For heavens sake, let us not dam every river, every stream and every water shed in this country just as part of some project that is desired by some groups or Members of Congress."
I can say something about one Corps project in my State that was terminated all alone, 30 days ahead of these 19.
It is the largest water resource project in the history of Wisconsin. It is the LaFarge Dam on Kickapoo River in my State. The Corps of Engineers created a disaster, in my judgment. Finally, after expending millions of dollars, $18 million to be exact, condemning 9,500 acres of land, chasing over 75 farmers off the land, starting the dam as a flood control project, the project was finally stopped. So there we sit with a partially built dam, 9,500 acres of condemned land, no flood control — a situation, in fact, in which you could have bought every single farm and every building in every village on the shores of the flood plain of the Kickapoo for half the money it would cost to build the dam.
We have been arguing with the Corps on that project for years. Finally it stopped because, after being notified in 1965 that the water quality of the lake would be very low, highly eutrophic, and after assuring me in 1969 and 1970 that it would not be — finally, finally — they are stopped because the lake they were going to create had a water quality standard in violation of the State law and the Federal law. So a real disaster has been created for the people in that valley, a tremendous waste of money. I hope we can recoup and do something about it.
Anybody who says to me that the Corps of Engineers is not prepared to build anything we ask them — anything — does not know the politics of the Corps or of the Congress.
Mr. JOHNSTON. If the Senator will yield
Mr. NELSON. No, I am just saying that I know that of one project in my State and I know the disaster it has created for the people involved. I am satisfied that the President's instinct is absolutely correct in saying, let us bring a halt to this wholesale dam building in this country just because Members of Congress or sections of the country want some kind of project. I am not saying all these projects are bad; they are not. There is no question that some of them are good.
Some of them are very bad. I do not want the Senate to do anything this afternoon that would handicap the President in providing some long needed national leadership to force us to address ourselves very carefully to these projects and start rapidly cutting back on them, because we are wasting money. We are damaging water sheds, ruining rivers, and the cost-benefit ratio in lots of them is not there. In many cases the cost benefit ratio is a sham.
Every time they are short on the cost-benefit ratio, they just decide that the recreation benefit is five times as great — will be greater — as it really is. That is what they did on the Kickapoo, that's what they do all across the country. It is a game. When the cost-benefit ratio did not work, they just goosed up the recreation benefit.
So because this amendment is brought out at this time, without a chance to study it — it is not printed — I am concerned about precipitately adopting something here without having a chance to give it some study. If we have to vote on it now, I shall have to go against it, whether the Senator from Louisiana is correct on the merits or not correct. I think that this is a major act; that, at least, we ought to leave this amendment until tomorrow and let us have a chance to take a look at it on the merits. Then I shall be happy to vote yea or nay tomorrow. But the Senator is asking us to vote on a major thing — and the Senator from Louisiana is very able — on which he has done his own studying and is satisfied that his position is correct, or he would not take it. But I am not satisfied that it is correct, because I have not had a chance to look at it.
I wonder if the Senator will not agree to hold up this amendment until it is printed and allow us to look at it overnight and vote on it tomorrow. As far as I am concerned, I do not want to delay it. We can have an agreed time to vote tomorrow. Just give us a chance to sit down and spend a little time evaluating how it fits into the 1974 law, what the President, in fact, what authorities he was attempting to utilize or is utilizing, so we can make this major decision in the light of some thoughtful consideration.
Mr. EAGLETON. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DANFORTH addressed the Chair.
Mr. NELSON. The Senator from Louisiana has the floor. I am through.
Mr. LONG. Will the Senator yield to me?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.
Mr. LONG. If the Senator is going to hold it up until tomorrow, I shall not be here tomorrow. I hope the Senator from Wisconsin will accord me a pair if we vote on this tomorrow. I have a longstanding commitment that will take me away from here this afternoon. I hope I may have the benefit of the Senator's giving me a pair on this matter, if we are going to vote tomorrow, because I should like to vote.
Mr. NELSON. The Senator well knows that I have had a longstanding position, as a matter of principle, not to give a pair; but because of the importance of this issue, I am prepared to give the Senator from Louisiana a pair if he is voting on the wrong side of the issue — opposite from me.
Mr. LONG. I shall take my chances, I say to the Senator. But my guess is I shall be safe if I am on the other side of the issue from the Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. NELSON. I think that may be so in the Senator's State. But I am prepared to give the Senator a pair.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Let me respond first to my good friend from Wisconsin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has the floor.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I take his advice on most things legislative and ethical.
Let me say that this amendment is as clear as the noon day Sun on a cloudless day. There is nothing precipitate about it. It simply undoes what the President proposes to do. It is the President who is precipitate. It is the executive who is precipitate in trying to undo years of work of Congress, slowly taken, very considered in its judgment — hearings, lawsuits, hearings in the Public Works Committee, hearings in the Committee on Appropriations. We have been working, Mr. President, on some of these projects for in excess of 25 years and here, in a period of days — even hours — we are supposed to junk all those projects. I think the Senate is ready to vote.
I just received, Mr. President, two more coauthors. I ask unanimous consent that Senator HANSEN and Senator STONE be added as coauthors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I do not think that is a majority, but I think we are ready to vote as soon as we dispose of this matter.
I yield to the Senator from Missouri.
Mr. EAGLETON. I thank the Senator from Louisiana. I shall be brief. I wish to underscore the remarks made by the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. NELSON).
This matter is not as cut and dried as every Senator might like to believe. There are 19 projects. Each project has its own problems in its own area — cost-benefit ratio, ecological ramifications, and the like. I learned about this amendment just about 20 minutes ago, at the time of the last roll call vote. My distinguished colleague from Missouri, who, I am sure, will speak in a moment, showed me an amendment that he intends to offer to the Johnston amendment.
The Meramec Park Lake, one of these projects, is a project in Missouri. My distinguished colleague (Mr. DANFORTH) is opposed to that project in any way, shape, or form. He can better express himself on this than I. I have a somewhat different position.
Along with the Governor of Missouri and two Members of the House, I have called for a referendum in the appropriate counties in eastern Missouri on the future of the Meramec Park Lake project. If that referendum is not forthcoming, then it is my intention to join with my colleague to terminate that project. The referendum concept is still pending in the Missouri legislature, so I do not want to see the project terminated here today. Yet I do not want it to proceed, full blast, with $9 million in unexpended funds that are still available from the fiscal 19'77 budget which money might be expended wastefully and imprudently if the project were in fact later to be cancelled.
What I am saying is I personally would very much appreciate the same thing that Senator NELSON of Wisconsin has said he would appreciate; namely, the luxury of an evening to try to examine the proposal of the Senator from Louisiana and to see the interrelationship of the amendment that is to be offered by my colleague from Missouri. After some overnight reflection, I may want to add an amendment that would put enough money into the project to keep it afloat for the foreseeable future, without sinking it entirely at this time.
Now, that is my dilemma. I do not know if there are dilemmas in other States with respect to the other 18 projects. Therefore, I think the request of the Senator from Wisconsin is certainly a legitimate one, for all of us to have the luxury of one evening's repose or reflection on a very important bill.
Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana still has the floor.
Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator yield for a couple of questions?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.
Mr. BUMPERS First, I would like to say that I concur wholeheartedly in the comments made by the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin. I also would like a little extra time.
Let me ask a couple of questions, if I may, regarding specific language here at about the middle of the Senator's unprinted amendment, where it says:
Section 402 is also equivalent to a Congressional statement of intent not to uphold any rescission of budget authority with regard to funds appropriated for construction projects in Public Law 94-355 or Public Law 94-351 or for construction projects in any prior law appropriating funds for the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
That seems awfully broad to me and I do not know what is included, but I assume that more than the 19 projects are included in all those public laws mentioned here; is that correct?
Mr. JOHNSTON. That is correct. What we have involved are the Corps of Engineers appropriations, the Bureau of Reclamation appropriations, and the Agriculture Department appropriations.
Mr. BUMPERS. That means if the proponents or the opponents of any of the 300 — I understand 320 projects are covered under those public laws — if the President, the opponents, the proponents, and everybody else agreed that an egregious mistake had been made, they would still have to go ahead under this amendment.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Of course not.
All this does is uphold the intent of the Congress in the 1977 Appropriations Act. What we are saying to the President is that if he wants to kill any of these projects, then follow the law; that is, follow the Constitution of the United States and the provisions.
If we look on section 401(C), let me read it:
(C) Such projects have been authorized by the Congress after protracted hearings and consideration extended over many years. Appropriations have been made and are being made pursuant thereto. It is the judgment of Congress that such projects should not be discontinued except by following the legislative process provided by the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of Public Law 93-344, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
There is no conflict between that and section 403.
Mr. BUMPERS. How can this Congress, how can the Senate, in good conscience say we are today passing an amendment here which is a congressional statement of intent not to uphold any rescission of budget authority by the 93d and 94th Congresses, is that binding on every Member of the Senate?
Mr. JOHNSTON. It is a statement of intent which is what we used to call in the law imprecatory suggestion.
It is a statement of what the Congress intent is at this time because we are fighting a blanket disapproval by the Executive and what we invite the President to do is, if he has a project he wants de-authorized, then come in with a bill to de-authorize it. If he has a project he wants to defer the money on, then come in pursuant to subsection (C) of 401 and propose a deferral or rescission.
Mr. BUMPERS. Why would he do that if we are stating it is our intent not to uphold it?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Because that simply is a statement of intent.
What we are saying in this amendment is that the Congress meant what it said in the 1977 Appropriations Act, and the Congress can change its mind pursuant to the law.
What this amendment does is ask the President and the Congress to uphold and follow the law and under that law the President has the legal right to present a deferral or a rescission.
All we are saying, as a matter of intent to not support that decision on deferral.
Now, if the Senator has a particular matter that he wants deferred or rescinded, I can tell him that it will be no problem to get the Congress of the United States to go along with the President's deferrals or rescissions.
Mr. BUMPERS. Let me ask a specific question about a specific project in my State that the President has torpedoed: Let me give the status of it.
It is a long channelization from the north part of the State to the south part of the State of a river in the Mississippi flyway. It has been highly controversial for many years.
The first year I was Governor, in 1971, they started on the south end and channelized about 4 miles — 4 miles of over 150 miles.
About a week before the President announced the deferral or rescission of funds for all the projects, they started a second 3.1 miles. That gives 7.1 miles in one county, on the low end of this river.
That means, as I understand it, if the Senator's amendment passes, whatever funds are in these laws right now to the Corps of Engineers for that project, they can channelize that stream as far as the money will go, is that correct?
Mr. JOHNSTON. That is the law of the land without this amendment, and my amendment—
Mr. BUMPERS. I understand that.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.
Mr. BUMPERS. I understand that. But I am on record publicly, at least in the press, saying if that project is going to be discontinued, it is absolute folly to do 7 miles of it.
All we are doing is opening up a little funnel down on the lower end of this river for all that water to come down on those poor people in one county.
If it is discontinued, it should be now, without additional work done. But if I know the Corps of Engineers, they will not give way until they have spent every penny of that money.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Let me explain to the Senator, I think we have a philosophical question here of some note. That is the question of whether when the President wants to discontinue a project he ought to have a right without coming to Congress.
I believe he should not have that right. I believe we got in trouble with Mr. Nixon about that and that we settled it with the Budget Control Act.
However, if the Senator wants more assurance and would like to put a special exception for that project, I would be glad to so modify my amendment.
Mr. BUMPERS. I do not know for sure how an exception could be made. The Senator has language here saying any rescission, any deferral of any of these funds that the 93d and 94th Congresses passed.
I am just simply saying I am not here to defend or to condemn this particular project. But there is one thing I know to an absolute certainty, that if the President is going to be successful in stopping that project it should be stopped right now before any additional work is done.
Mr. JOHNSTON. The President can send us a deferral on that project, or a rescission, and this amendment does not prejudge that deferral or does not prejudge him from doing that, nor does it prevent Congress from approving it. That is very clear under the amendment.
Mr. BUMPERS. Let me ask a further question, if I vote for the Senator's amendment, the premise I mentioned a moment ago will hold true, the corps can spend until all the money in these appropriation laws of the 93d and 94th Congress is exhausted.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Precisely, and let me say, without—
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield at that point?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. It is not my impression of the Senator's amendment that this adds anything with respect to the authority of the Corps of Engineers over these projects.
Mr. JOHNSTON. That is exactly right. It adds nothing at all.
Mr. MUSKIE. What the Senator, my good friend from Arkansas, fears might be done under the amendment, it could be done without the Senator's amendment.
Mr. JOHNSTON. That is precisely correct.
Mr. BUMPERS. My problem is that I recognize that the corps right now, under present law — and the President did nothing — has the right and would continue with that project, which has passed environmental muster in the court of appeals in St. Louis and probably will pass muster in the Supreme Court of the United States. I do not know whether or not it will, but I do know one thing: If the courts or the President ultimately are going to be successful in stopping that project, all the work that is going to be done between now and then is goingto have a terrible environmental impact on our State.
I am saying that if it is going to happen, I want it to happen now, and I am willing to wait until the President or the courts make the final judgment.
Mr. MUSKIE. My view of Senator JOHNSTON's amendment is that if the President, indeed, wishes to challenge this project, to stop it, there are processes available to him to do that.
Mr. JOHNSTON. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. And he should take advantage of those processes to do that.
Mr. BUMPERS. Has he done that?
Mr. MUSKIE. Not to my knowledge.
This was mentioned in the Democratic caucus yesterday and on the floor today. His people have aborted, subverted the environmental impact process which is designed to raise the legitimate questions about which the Senator is talking. They themselves, aborted the process.
What the Senator from Louisiana is seeking to do is to put these decisions into the proper processes, and I could not agree with him more.
The consequence that the Senator from Arkansas fears is one of the consequences that the President and his people should take into account when they threaten the kind of action they have threatened.
If a project has proceeded to the point which the Senator has described eloquently — and I understand him clearly — that is a consequence the President should take into account, but has not, because he has been given such poor advice by the people who are responsiblefor the decisions that he has to make.
All the Senator from Louisiana is trying to do is to give pause to that kind of helter-skelter, casual, poorly thought out executive action. There is a process for dealing with these questions. Congress has followed those processes and will continue to do so, and the President has every right to force us to do so. So I do not think it is unreasonable for us to ask that he do so as well.
In this case, he has not done so, not on the basis of any evidence we have been given; and I have tried to get every piece of evidence I could get out of the executive branch as a justification for every decision the President has made.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, will theSenator yield for a question at that point?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. BUMPERS. I ask this, because I honestly do not know. What legal steps has the President taken to implement the stopping of these 19 projects?
Mr. MUSKIE. He has not taken any legal steps of which I know.
Mr. BUMPERS. So far, is this just a press conference?
Mr. MUSKIE. What he has done, if he follows through on what he has said he is seeking to do, is to withhold any funding that Congress has provided for these projects. He is going to withhold it.
He has told us he is going to withhold it. Presumably, he will use deferrals and rescissions.
He might conceivably — although I do not read this in his intentions — send up legislation to accomplish what he is talking about, or he might fight appropriations approved in the Ford budget for these projects for the 1978 fiscal year. He has every right to do all that. But what we should challenge him on at this point is that he has formed hard and fast judgments about these things that establish firm executive branch policy, without having followed the processes that enable others, with a legitimate interest in the projects, to inform and to influence his decision. He has not done that.
Mr. BUMPERS. My second question: Under the Rescission and Deferral Act, when must the President act on an appropriation to rescind it or defer? Is he not under some sort of time schedule?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Impoundment Control Act is designed not to encourage deferrals and rescissions, but to give Congress a procedure for dealing with them, if and when Presidents use deferrals or rescissions.
The view of those of us who wrote that law was that a President never should use an impoundment. Deferrals and rescissions are simply other words for impoundment. Certainly, the President never should use an impoundment to kill a program or a project for a policy reason. If there should be a policy reason that prompts his disapproval of a program or a project, then he should come to Congress with legislation to change the policy, and should not use an impoundment for that purpose. But if he does, then the Impoundment Control Act gives Congress a procedure for dealing with that exercise of Presidential authority. I think the record up to this point indicates that Congress frowns very strongly upon abuses of impoundments, and Congress has a way of dealing with it.
What the Senator from Louisiana does with his amendment is to warn the President in advance that if he sends us a deferral or a rescission with respect to these projects, we are telling him in advance, "We don't think you have made a case for them, and you ought to think about it a second time." I think that is an appropriate message to send the President.
Mr. BUMPERS. An additional question, based on what the distinguished Senator from Maine has just said — and I am not sure the question was fully answered: If the time has elapsed, the time has passed, for the President to issue a deferral or a rescission of any of these funds, and I expect that it has—
Mr. MUSKIE. He can do it at any time before the end of the fiscal year to which the appropriation applies.
Mr. BUMPERS. That answers my question.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator CANNON's name be added as a coauthor and that Senator STONE's name be withdrawn. I think the name of Senator MAGNUSON already has been added, and Senator HASKELL's name should be added.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MOYNIHAN) . Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.