June 30, 1965
PAGE 15387
DEBATE ON H.R. 7105,CONTINUATION OF AUTHORITY FOR REGULATION OF EXPORTS
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill H.R. 7105 to provide for continuation of authority for regulation of exports, and for other purposes.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a time limitation of 25 minutes on the debate on the pending business, with 15 minutes allowed to the Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS] and 10 minutes to the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] who is in charge of the bill on the Senate floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, before we settle on that question, may we have a quorum call? I should like to have the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. WILLIAMS] present. It may take a few minutes.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator permit the Chair to announce the agreement at the end of the quorum call?
Mr. JAVITS. Yes. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I ask for order in the Chamber. We are about to discuss something totally different from the presidential succession conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. KENNEDY of New York in the chair). The Senate will be in order.
Is there objection to the unanimous consent request that there be a time limitation of 25 minutes on the pending bill, that 15 minutes be allotted to the Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS] and 10 minutes to the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE]? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. President, the Export Control Act of 1949 will expire at midnight tonight. The Banking and Currency Committee, after two sets of hearings in the general field, has reported the House bill on the subject, H.R. 7105. We urge the Senate to act at once on this bill so that it can be sent to the President for his signature before it expires.
This is essential because the Export Control Act of 1949 is the act under which exports of strategic and critical materials from the United States are kept from going behind the Iron Curtain. In the absence of an extension, American producers and shippers will be free to send commercial and industrial materials and equipment to Communist China, the U.S.S.R., and the rest of the Soviet bloc.
The Banking and Currency Committee has accepted the House bill, without change.
The bill would accomplish three purposes. First, it would extend the Export Control Act for 4 more years -- to June 30, 1969. Second, it would authorize the administrative imposition of civil monetary penalties not exceeding $1,000 for violations of the act. Third, it will make a formal declaration that it is the policy of the United States (A) to oppose restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by foreign countries against other countries friendly to the United States and (B) to encourage and request domestic concerns engaged in the export of articles, materials, supplies, or information, to refuse to take any action, including the furnishing of information or the signing of agreements which have the effect of furthering or supporting the restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by any foreign country against another country friendly to the United States.
It will also require the issuance of regulations to implement this policy within 90 days after the enactment of the bill. The bill leaves in the President the necessary discretion as to the type and terms and scope of these regulations. This administrative flexibility is appropriate in view of the President's constitutional role in the field of foreign policy.
The committee's report contains a full description of the Export Control Act and its administration and enforcement. It also contains a full description of the several amendments made by the bill, which need not be repeated here.
The committee in considering the bill devoted considerable time to three proposals.
The first was a proposal by Senator WILLIAMS of New Jersey, to amend the provisions of the bill relating to boycotts, along the lines of the Senator's bill S. 948, on which hearings had been previously held. The committee agreed that the general purpose of S. 948 should be included in the bill. However, a majority of the committee felt that the provisions included in the House bill constituted an appropriate statement of policy and supplied adequate legal basis for enforcement of the policy, while at the same time providing the necessary flexibility to meet the changing needs and circumstances of our foreign policies.
Another amendment, strongly supported by Senator HARTKE, of Indiana, and other Senators, and strongly opposed by others, would have required the imposition of quotas on exports of materials under certain circumstances -- when exports had increased to five times the 1955 volume, and other countries imposed similar restrictions on similar products. This amendment was sponsored with a particular view to exports of black walnut logs.
This matter was discussed by the Secretary of Commerce, who testified that he had received a letter from the Senate Committee on Commerce requesting that he restudy his decision to remove export quotas on black walnut logs. He assured the committee that he would comply with this request.
Senator McGOVERN testified in opposition to the current requirements that 50 percent of wheat sales from the United States be exported in domestic bottoms. The Secretary of Commerce testified that he is making a thorough review of the problems of American shipping, including particularly requirements for shipment in American bottoms. The committee report calls upon the Secretary to consider the problem raised by Senator McGOVERN's amendment from the point of view of its effects on American agriculture and American shipping and from its relation to the policies and objectives of the Export Control Act.
I should like to urge again that the Senate act promptly on this bill so that it can be sent to the President for his signature before the expiration of the Export Control Act on June 30, 1965.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. On behalf of myself and the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. WILLIAMS], I send to the desk two amendments. After they are stated, I shall ask unanimous consent to have them considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments will be stated.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page line 6, before the period at the end of the sentence, insert the following: "and shall require that all domestic concerns receiving requests for the furnishing of information or the signing of agreements as specified in section 2(4) must report this fact to the Secretary of Commerce for such action as he may deem appropriate to carry out the purposes of section 2(4)."
On page 4, line 10, after "agreements" insert a comma, and strike out "have" and insert in lieu thereof "has".
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. JAVITS. I yield.
Mr. PASTORE. May my name be added to the amendments as a cosponsor?
Mr. JAVITS. We shall be honored to do so. I ask unanimous consent that the name of the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE] may be added as a cosponsor, and also the name of the Senator from New York [Mr. KENNEDY].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JAVITS. I wish to state also that the only reason why the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. WILLIAMS] is not the principal sponsor of these amendments is that he most graciously asked me to do it.
We are equal partners, and I hope that in every respect it will be considered in that way.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments may be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, we have labored long and hard over a question arising under the Export Control Act. The question is, Shall anything be done in the act to deal with the practices to which U.S. firms and individuals -- I emphasize that these practices relate to U.S. firms and individuals -- have been subjected in being made party to the Arab boycott? The boycott operates against those who wish to sell in an Arab state any product which originates in Israel or has even a component of that character, against those who happen to be doing any business in Israel, against even those whose concern with Israel is on a rather casual or intermittent basis, and also against firms which may have Jewish persons as officers or directors.
Questions are submitted by the so called Arab Boycott Office to firms which seek to do business in Arab countries, and various types of certificates are required, many of them of a negative character, applying to goods exported to Arab countries, which would make these firms liable to be subjected to the boycott.
There are quasi-public agencies engaged in this practice from which the Arab boycott office requires certification, either by negative representations or affirmative representations, in order to avoid the placing of certain firms on the boycott list.
Some 164 firms are on the boycott list. This boycott has been a constant bone in the throat of Congress, and on a number of occasions efforts have been made, by policy declarations, by denunciations on the floor, and by stimulating the State Department to put some iron in its back, so that the United States not be made party to the practice of permitting a boycott.
The boycott, of course, is not airtight. Many companies have properly and successfully defied the boycott and have done business in Israel without being put on the boycott list or without having it enforced against them.
There is eloquent correspondence on this subject, as for example, between the Hilton Hotel Corp. and those who threatened it with boycott because the corporation had a hotel in Cairo and was proposing to put up a hotel in Tel Aviv. Mr. Hilton turned down any idea of abandoning his plans to build in Israel, despite the warning that this meant placing the Cairo hotel in jeopardy. Today, Hilton has its hotel in Israel and its hotel in Egypt, no enforcement action having been taken against it.
I ask unanimous consent that an article from a special May 1965 issue of the Near East Report, containing excerpts from this exchange of correspondence, be placed in the RECORD at this point in my remarks.
There being no objection, the correspondence was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
A FIRM PUBLIC STAND
MR. HILTON GETS A LETTER
(NOTE. -- Some businessmen have taken firm public stands against the boycott and have left it to the Arabs to justify their own defeat. In this connection, the story of Conrad Hilton and the boycott bears reviewing.)
Hilton Hotels International owns a hotel in Egypt. In 1961, the company contemplated building a hotel in Tel Aviv. Onto the scene came Alfred Lilienthal, Secretary and Counsel of the American-Arab Association for Commerce and Industry in New York.
Just when Hilton was concluding his Tel Aviv venture, Lilienthal happened to be in Cairo and Damascus, where he heard ominous noises from Arab officials regarding Hilton. He says he believed he was doing no more than his duty by the American-Arab Association when he wrote Hilton as follows:
"Perhaps you are not aware of the full details regarding the activities of the Boycott Committee and hence, as a member company of this Association, it is our duty to bring the facts as they were told to me to your attention.
"Should Hilton Hotels persist in going ahead with its contract in Israel, it will mean the loss of your holdings in Cairo and the end of any plans you might have for Tunis, Baghdad, Jerusalem or anywhere else in all Arab countries.
"It is important for me to put you on notice that the Arab visitors, including the Saudi Royal Family, Egyptian businessmen and the general flow of persons from the Arab world that have frequented your major hotels in New York City and elsewhere throughout the country, will unfortunately come to an end. And it may well adversely affect the ability of American companies from continuing to bring important business to your well-known establishments.
"I did what could be done to delay any action that the Boycott Committee will take. They have promised that no action to invoke the boycott will be taken prior to the end of January 1962, and I am writing to Colonel Aidi to remind him of this. This will give you and the members of your board of directors an opportunity to review the decisions which have been made and to redress this serious situation.
"As a friend to the Hilton Hotels and a long time political observer as well as the counsel to this association, I should personally add my own voice by asking you to consider whether your plan to enter into an economic relationship in Israel could possibly be worth the grave loss that you will be committing yourself to throughout the Arab world and in the United States.
AND WRITES A REPLY
Mr. Hilton's reply speaks eloquently for itself. He did not take offense, as many Americans did, at Lilienthal's letter. But he took offense at the boycott:
"Many thanks for your letter. It is thoughtful of you to have postponed the action of the Boycott Committee relative to Hilton Hotels Corp.
"What that committee proposes is absolutely counter to the principles we live by -- and which we hold most dear. I speak of the principles of Americanism as set out by our Founding Fathers and of the principles for which America has stood since its founding. I also speak of the principles under which the Hilton Hotels Corp. goes about the world, establishing hotels so that people of all nations can gather in peace. We believe that through world travel we may be helping in the goal that all Americans seek -- world peace.
"As Americans, we consider Arabs and Jews our friends and hope that ultimately we can all live in peace with one another. There was no threat from Israel when we opened our hotel in Cairo. Our corporation finds it shocking that the committee should invoke the threat of boycott condemnation in the case of our contract with the people of Israel. Does the committee also propose to boycott the U.S. Government because it maintains diplomatic relations with Israel?"
The Tel Aviv Hilton is nearing completion -- scheduled to open in August. The Nile Hilton remained in Mr. Hilton's hands and stayed wide open for business -- in fact, the Arabs held a summit meeting there.
How did the Arabs explain this surrender to the American hotelier? Since he had prized his dignity above theirs, since the exchange of letters received wide publicity, there had to be some explanation by the Arabs to themselves justifying capitulation.
The explanation was this: the profits which Hilton is taking out of Israel create a drain on the Israel economy; therefore the Arabs welcome hotel investment in Israel because it depletes Israel's hard currency reserves. (The same explanation applied to the Sheraton Corp. which defied the boycott successfully.)
This fantastic explanation applied to finished consumer goods as well. Thus, they convince themselves that Israel's prosperity, which has encouraged foreign investment, is really a sign of economic disintegration.
F00TNOTE
The American-Arab Association for Commerce and Industry has about 100 company members, many of whom do business in both Israel and the Arab States. Alfred M. Lilienthal, the association's secretary and counsel, is a lecturer and journalist whose vehemently anti-Israel views are well known.
The association encourages Arab-American business contacts, social and cultural exchange. Mr. Lilienthal maintains that he never imposes his personal views on the association as a whole.
"Some members agree with the boycott," he told the Near East Report. "Some do not. To all of them, I say: the boycott is an economic fact of life. You should obey it." Even though Arab boycott threats specifically state that the boycott is part of their war against Israel, Mr. Lilienthal considers that the boycott is economic rather than political activity.
The following article appeared on November 13, 1963, in Al Gomhuria, a Cairo daily:
"The ruler of Kuwait asked the American journalist, Alfred Lilienthal, what he thinks is the effect of the Arab boycott against Israel. To this, Lilienthal answered: 'For the boycott to be effective, it must be comprehensive and in effect in every Arab country. But today, parts of Frazier cars are being assembled in Rabat, Morocco. From there they are sold to Sudan and transferred to other countries. While the company is listed in the Arab boycott blacklist for 7 years.'
It seems rather unfair of Mr. Lilienthal to advise American businessmen that the boycott is too strong to resist on the one hand and recommend to the Arabs that they strengthen it on the other.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. JAVITS. I yield myself 2 additional minutes. This boycott activity has run so against the grain of American business morality that we felt duty bound to do something about it, especially as the State Department has not found any effective way to resolve the problem.
In an effort to do something about the situation, a bill was introduced by the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. WILLIAMS] and myself, called the Williams-Javits bill, and similar bills were introduced in the other body, which proposed to require that American firms should not in any way aid this boycott by furnishing information or taking other action in compliance with it. The bill which the House sent over to us adopted a statement of principles on the subject, to the effect that the United States would oppose such boycotts and would encourage and request domestic concerns engaged in this export business not to furnish requested information or otherwise become parties to the boycott.
Rules and regulations were required to be issued to implement that statement of policy. The provision for encouraging and requesting noncompliance with the boycott was the product of the work of the other body, particularly Representatives MULTER and HALPERN, of New York.
Representative WIDNALL tried to make the language of the amendment mandatory, rather than hortatory, but failed. We realize the great difficulty of providing an absolute prohibition. Other governments which enforce such prohibitions on their business concerns can do so more easily because their form of government permits them to communicate their views to their businessmen in a fairly informal way. We, on the other hand, because of our governmental practices, would have to incorporate a prohibition in a strict statute. Therefore we have done our utmost, because of the deep and continuing objections of the Departments of State and Commerce, to get something positive done, but without going all the way to a flat prohibition. We think that by these amendments we have arrived at a reasonable solution which does not do undue violence to the deep-seated feelings of our governmental authorities on this subject, yet which provides us with an effective weapon against the boycott.
What would these amendments do?
First, they would correct a mistake of grammar in the fundamental declaration of policy -- the declaration of encouragement and request. More important, they would implement the purpose of the Congress by requiring that domestic concerns report to the Commerce Department situations in which they are called upon to furnish boycott information which the Williams-Javits bill sought to prohibit completely.
We believe this is a proper interim step, at least, which will result in firming up the attack of our authorities upon this very vexatious and commercially immoral policy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 additional minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. JAVITS. I hope that the Senator from Maine will give us some of his time if we need it.
The effect of these amendments is supported by a letter which the majority leader has. I would not be so presumptuous as to read it into the RECORD, but the Senator from Maine will do so. The letter indicates that if we do what these amendments provide and what was done in the other body, we shall at long last, after all these years of trying and writing provisions of a precatory character into bills, be making a really determined effort to see that American business is not demeaned in the fashion in which it has been demeaned up to now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 additional minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized for 1 minute,
Mr. JAVITS. As a result of our action today, the boycott practices may at long last cease, because American business will not cooperate with them. If the bill becomes law with these amendments, American business will finally be given some protection against the boycott practices to which it has for so long been subjected.
I ask unanimous consent that the names of the Senators from Michigan [Mr. HART and Mr. McNAMARA] be added as cosponsors of the two amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey. Mr. President, the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague is a good one. It will clearly put the administration on notice that the Congress will no longer tolerate the intrusions of the Arab boycott on the normal course of American trade. The Secretary of Commerce will have the authority to establish regulations to give effective aid and protection to American businessmen from Arab harassment -- or from harassment by the boycott office of another nation or group of nations. The requirement that businessmen approached for information by the Arab boycott office must report these demands to the Secretary of Commerce will give teeth to these regulations. The Secretary of Commerce will be kept constantly informed of the actions of the boycott in this country and can act accordingly to carry out a program in behalf of American businessmen.
I am particularly heartened by the strong promises made by the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of State that they will conscientiously follow the mandate of the Congress, and that they will develop an adequate series of regulations. This pledge marks a significant change of direction from the administration's attitude at the beginning of this session, when we were blandly assured that legislation was not needed and that the Commerce and State Departments were already dealing effectively with the boycott. These claims were refuted by every witness before the Banking and Currency Committees in the House and the Senate. The arguments of the administration simply did not convince the members of these committees.
Under the provisions of the bill, as it becomes law, the President will still maintain his control over the control of foreign policy. But he will have discretionary power to act against the Arab boycott. I am confident that he will use this discretionary power. I have the greatest respect for John Connor and Dean Rusk; I respect their public pledge that they will develop a good anti-boycott program in accordance with the clear mandate of the Congress.
I appreciate the generous comments of my good friend the distinguished Senator from New York. In our joint efforts, we have worked along, and I think the amendments represent proof that the work has been fruitful.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. It would be pertinent to quote the following from testimony of Under Secretary Ball in hearings on Senate bill 948, which was introduced by the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. WILLIAMS]. He said:
I need hardly tell this committee that the administration is opposed to that boycott. We have repeatedly made our position clear to the Arab Government. We shall continue to express our opposition and to assist American firms affected by the boycott.
The question with which we then struggled was to find an effective means of expressing the intent of Congress and also to implement the policy of the U.S. Government as stated by Secretary Ball. The report of the Senate committee contained the following language with reference to the House amendment which is before us on H.R. 7185:
The new provision requires the President to issue regulations regarding this matter. At the same time it leaves in the President necessary discretion as to the type and terms and scope of these regulations. In view of the President's constitutional role in the field for foreign policy, it is, of course, appropriate to continue in him the administrative flexibility which has marked the Export Control Act of 1949 and its predecessors over the past 25 years.
CONTINUATION OF AUTHORITY FOR REGULATION OF EXPORTS
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill H.R. 7105 to provide for continuation of authority for regulation of exports, and for other purposes.
Mr. MUSKIE. With reference to the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from New York, and the Senator from New Jersey, we have the letter from Secretary of Commerce Connor to the distinguished majority leader, to which the Senator referred. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
June 30,1965.
Hon. MIKE MANSFIELD,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MANSFIELD: In extending the Export Control Act, the House approved an amendment which provides that it is the policy of the United States to oppose restrictive trade practices or boycotts by foreign countries against countries friendly to the United States. Further, this amendment declares that it is the policy of the United States to encourage and request domestic concerns to refuse to take any action which has the effect of furthering or supporting such practices or boycotts. To carry out this new policy statement, there is an expressed requirement for the promulgation of rules and regulations.
This proposed amendment to the Export Control Act, contained in H.R. 7105, has been approved by the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency and is now pending before the Senate.
If the Senate approves the bill recommended by the Senate committee, the Department of Commerce will be required to issue rules and regulations within 90 days after the date of enactment.
The Department of Commerce will have the obligation, and will, in fact, request American business firms not to cooperate in restrictive trade practices or boycotts imposed by a foreign country against another foreign country friendly to the United States. I am expressly authorized by the Secretary of State to say that the Department of State would, if H.R. 7105 is enacted into law, take all appropriate steps through diplomatic channels and other means that may be available to the Department in opposing restrictive trade practices or boycotts by foreign countries against a country friendly to the United States.
Further, it is our understanding that an addition that strengthens the bill as passed by the House will be offered on the Senate floor as follows: On page 5, line 6, before the period at the end of the sentence: "and shall require that all domestic concerns receiving requests for the furnishing of such information or the signing of such agreements must report this fact to the Secretary of Commerce for such action as he may deem appropriate to carry out the purposes of section 2(4) hereof."
It is clear that the language of H.R. 7105, with the suggested addition quoted above would require specific action by the executive departments and the executive departments will, of course, follow through on those requirements if this bill is approved by Congress.
Sincerely yours,
JOHN T. CONNOR.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I invite the attention of the Senate to the following language in the letter, which I believe is of particular pertinence to the concern of the Senator from New York and the other cosponsors of his amendment:
The Department of Commerce will have the obligation, and will, in fact, request American business firms not to cooperate in restrictive trade practices or boycotts imposed by a foreign country against another foreign country friendly to the United States. I am expressly authorized by the Secretary of State to say that the Department of State would, if H.R. 7105 is enacted into law, take all appropriate steps through diplomatic channels and other means that may be available to the Department in opposing restrictive trade practices or boycotts against a country friendly to the United States.
The letter also expresses approval of the additional language, similar to that offered by the Senator from New York. The differences between the language set forth in the letter and the language of the amendment actually offered by the Senator from New York are technical and do not change the substance of the amendment. So the letter of the Secretary of Commerce can be construed as approving the amendment of the Senator from New York. As the manager of the bill, I am willing to accept that language on behalf of the Senate committee.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I yield myself an additional minute.
When the Senator amends his remarks, he will say "The Senator from New York and the Senator from New Jersey and the cosponsors."
Senator MUSKIE. I shall indeed be glad to recognize the devoted and effective efforts of the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. WILLIAMS] in support of this amendment.
Mr. JAVITS. I should like to ask the Senator from Maine a question, if I may have his attention, because this is an important point.
I consider this to be a very meaningful plan to be implemented and to have a material effect on stopping the Arab boycott against American firms, because the Secretary of Commerce will be notified by every firm which could be reached by the boycott. That will be required by law. Therefore, the Secretary will be in a position to act.
In view of the fact that this is a really meaningful step forward in trying to end the Arab boycott of American firms, unreasonable and immoral, as I have described it, I ask the Senator from Maine this question:
If the House does not accept the bill -- I believe it will, and it certainly should -- as we have passed it, and if it becomes necessary to go to conference, will the Senator from Maine assure the Senate that if there is to be any change in any of the amendments or this plan, he will not agree but will bring the bill back to the Senate?
Mr. MUSKIE. If I correctly understand it, the request of the Senator from New York is that the bill as approved by the Senate with the amendment which he has offered should be insisted upon in conference.
Mr. JAVITS. The Senator is exactly correct; and the Senator will bring it back to the Senate if he cannot have the amendment agreed to in conference.
Mr. MUSKIE. I agree to that.
Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. JAVITS. I yield back the rest of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Maine yield back the remainder of this time?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from New York.
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment. If there be no further amendment to be proposed, the question is on the engrossment of the amendment and the third reading of the bill.
The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a third time.
The bill was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I move that the Senate reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.
Mr. MUSKIE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.