September 28, 1979
Page 26778
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I hope the Chair will recognize the Senator from Maine for a reservation of the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has the floor. The Senator from Maine is recognized to reserve the right to object.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to ask a question to clarify the unanimous consent request. But before I do, I would like to make a few observations about my reaction to this situation.
I think what we are confronting here is a carefully crafted plan on the part of the House to nail down the 5.5 percent pay increase. I suspect that if the Senate were to insist upon its position on the abortion issue, and then vote for the conference report, the effect would be, as I understand it, to nail the 5.5 percent pay increase in place, and the House would somehow gracefully retreat from its position on the abortion issue, and we would be confronted with a fait accompli.
Mr. President, I am not about to become a party to that. I will vote on the abortion issue in accordance with my previous record. I will vote against the conference report, because I think that is the only way we have to force the House to face the issue of the pay raise on its merits.
What they have undertaken to do with us is generate several pressure points: First, the question of the pay raise for judges; second, the question of employees' pay after midnight on Sunday; and third, the risk of public disapproval for appearing to support a 12.9 percent pay raise.
That is what the House is trying to do to us. It is legislative blackmail, one of the most blatant examples of it that I have seen in my 21 years in the Senate, and I will not be a party to it.
One of the reasons why I am standing, though I do not often get involved in these preliminary discussions to a procedural proposal, is that I want to make it clear what my position is. I am against a 12.9 percent pay raise, and I am against a 5.5 percent pay raise, for only one reason: I think the credibility of this institution is on the line. The people out there believe that we use our power in order to line our own nest. And I have never seen such an example of devious maneuvering. Not really that devious, it is so transparent. It is so transparent that if we were to become parties to it, the Senate would be tarnished as I am sure the House will be.
I cannot understand how the House can deliberately participate in this kind of maneuvering and then go home to face the people if we were to defeat this conference report and the 12.9 percent pay raise go into effect on midnight
Monday, those people will be faced with a firestorm back home the like of which they have not seen in years. Thank God we will be here, and will not have to face it. The outrage of the country will be such that they will be forced to come back and reconsider the consequences of their action. I cannot believe otherwise. And then we will really look like fools — devious fools, so interested in picking up $3,200 in additional pay, of which half will return to the Treasury in taxes, and we will participate in this deviousness to nail it down.
I will be no party to it. As to the abortion issue, I have no objection to what Senator MAGNUSON proposes; I have no objection to voting on the abortion question first. But I did not want there to be any doubt back home among my people about how I will vote on the conference report. I will vote no, on the assumption that though the House has recessed, it still has time before midnight Sunday to contemplate the consequences of its action and come back and repeal it.
Why should I assume they have so abandoned responsibility that they will permit that 12.9 percent pay raise to go into effect on midnight Sunday? I will not assume it. If they want to assume it and do it, that is their responsibility and not mine, and I will not accept an iota of responsibility for the consequences.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has the floor. The Senator from Vermont is recognized to reserve the right to object.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I find much in which to concur with my distinguished neighbor from New England, the senior Senator from Maine. I think that the distinguished majority leader, just this once, in trying to take the most responsible way of working this out, perhaps has been overly generous to the other body by saying the responsibility is now ours.
Let us review a little bit what has happened here. We are caught in this bind because of two actions by the other body. One is their constant effort to get an abortion prohibition by a back door way, through funding, and forcing us to vote up or down if we want to stand on our constitutional amendment in contrast to a back door way.
The other thing is on the pay raise issue itself. If you look at the record, it passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives at a time when nobody's name was on a standing vote. When somebody suggested that perhaps if we are going to dip our hands into the Treasury, we ought to have a roll call vote, that time it lost, and it has gone back and forth.
I happen to have voted against the pay raise before, and I think the Senator from Maine did also.
But let us vote up or down on the pay raise. For $3,200, for God's sake? Or any amount; the principle remains the same. And then to acquiesce in a back door way of facing the abortion issue? I think that, regardless of how anyone stands on it, that issue should not be faced on the appropriations process, but up or down on a constitutional amendment basis, which is the only way it could legally be done.
I have stood against a pay raise, and I will vote against the conference report, to put the responsibility right back where it belongs, on the people who are out at National Airport, hoping to be cleared for takeoff before anybody else finds out what they have done.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, who has the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has the floor. The Senator from Virginia is recognized for the purpose of reserving the right to object.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MAGNUSON. Yes.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. This changes the subject slightly.
The Senator mentioned that there are three amendments in disagreement.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Two.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. That may be a difference of opinion.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Well, two of them are technical amendments.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Well, that may be a difference of opinion.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Well, there is no difference of opinion.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Amendment No. 12, as I understand it, deals with travel limitations.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Yes.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. If my memory is correct, the Senate proposal was for a $750 million reduction.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Right.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. The proposal brought back tonight is not for a $750 million reduction.
Mr. MAGNUSON. It is for $500 million.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I do not call that a technical disagreement. I call that a $250 million disagreement. I think that is an important item.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Well, the technical part of it is that the House wanted some language to exempt loan collectors in the Farm Labor Administration to go out and try to collect loans. We agreed to it.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Would it be in order to move that the Senate insist on the $700 million figure?
Mr. MAGNUSON. That would be in order, sure.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I do not think there is any problem on that.
The House crowd wanted to exempt collectors who go out and collect farm loans.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. But they also reduced by $250 million what the Senate did.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Well, the Senator from Tennessee finally agreed to that. His original proposal was $500 million and I made it $750 million.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I want to support the chairman.
Mr. MAGNUSON. All right.
Mr. President, I think that, in view of the discussion here, we probably ought to — the conference report is here. I think we just ought to leave it alone until Tuesday and then think it all over.
The only problem on that is that the judges will get 12.9-percent raises. If you want the judges to get 12.9 percent, then leave it alone. If you do not mind the judges getting a 12.9 percent raise in salary, the other matters can be taken care of. The congressional pay can go down to zero or 5 or something, but that is all right.
I think that we ought to send it back to conference in disagreement with No. 17 — that leaves everything else open — and see what the House does. Apparently, I am not going to get a unanimous-consent agreement.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,may we have the Chair put the question for unanimous consent?
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia would like to have a vote on the proposal that the Senate insist on its amendment No. 12, namely, a $750 million reduction in travel expenditures rather than what the committee brought back.
My parliamentary inquiry is if the unanimous consent agreement is entered into as requested by the Senator from Washington, will the Senator from Virginia then have an opportunity to make a similar request with regard to amendment No. 12?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is uncertain about the request of the distinguished Senator from Virginia. Does the Senator wish the question to be placed before we vote on the conference report, on amendment 12?
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 12 be considered separately from the conference report and that the Senate insist on its position.
Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,there is already one unanimous consent request before the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's request does not take a unanimous consent. It can be considered separately and will be subject to the motion he makes.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. It will take unanimous consent for that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, sir, it will be considered separately after the conference report is disposed of.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. After the conference report is disposed of?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. If the conference report is adopted. Then if the conference report is voted down, it will be unnecessary.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is correct.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
The Senator from Washington poses a unanimous consent request that amendment No. 17 be voted on before the conference report. Would he add to that that, following the vote on amendment No. 17, there be a vote on amendment No. 12?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the question to the Chair or to the Senator from Washington?
Does the Senator from Washington modify his request?
Mr. MAGNUSON. I can do that, that is no problem.
Mr. WEICKER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. WEICKER. Mr. President, I object to the unanimous consent request of the Senator from Washington.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Just a minute, Mr. President, I modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection of the Senator from Connecticut is heard.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I modified my unanimous consent request to add disagreement to No. 12, to add $250 million.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Then the Senator must renew his request. The Senator objected to the first request.
Mr. President, is there a request before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no request.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Then, Mr. President, will the Chair recognize me?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,the distinguished Senator from Maine has spoken of deviousness. Mr. President, I advocated that we vote on the abortion amendment, vote to send it back, and then vote on the conference report. Because of the exigencies of the situation, the circumstances that we are in, we vote to adopt the conference report and put it back in the lap of the House.
Lest the Senator from Maine or anyone else might extrapolate from that that I am participating in any deviousness on the pay raise, I stated in my press conference, I believe last Saturday, that I am personally opposed to the pay raise. So my position on the pay raise is a matter of record.
I merely thought that the Senate ought, however, to send the conference report back and put it in the lap of the House.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the majority leader yield?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Certainly the majority leader understands that the comments were not directed at him in any way.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I know that.
Mr. MUSKIE. I can understand the reasons why the majority leader, as a leader, would advocate this procedure from his very high sense of responsibility. I was not critical of him at all, nor would I be critical of any Senator who disagreed with me on procedural grounds.
I was simply trying to describe the trap which I think the House has undertaken to put us in, and I am not picking anyone in the House.
Second, the effect that will have with respect to the public perception of the Senate equals the House, and I am not critical of the majority leader at all.
Could I put a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair at this point?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I yield for that purpose.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has yielded to the Senator from Maine for that purpose.
The Senator will state the parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. MUSKIE. If the procedure suggested by the distinguished Senator from Washington were agreed to and we were to vote on the amendments, however many, and then get to the conference report, would it be possible to send the conference report back with instructions to delete the pay raise for Members of Congress?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. In the Chair's opinion, it would not.
Mr. MUSKIE. I was afraid of that. Is that the only recourse parliamentarily available to us?
If we believe we ought to protest the pay raise, would be to vote against the conference report?
Is that a proper parliamentary inquiry?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator restate it?
Mr. MUSKIE. Then the only recourse for those of us who would like to vote against the pay raise would be to vote against the conference report?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will not interpret that question for the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. But the Chair has advised me that sending the conference report with instructions to delete the congressional pay is not available to any Member of the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. Well then, as far as I can see, there is no other recourse.