September 19, 1972
Page 31201
AMENDMENT NO. 1523
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1523 and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read the amendment, as follows: The Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) proposes Amendment No. 1523.
Amendment No. 1523 is as follows: On page 78, between lines 17 and 18, insert a new subsection as follows:
"(c) a process to assure that:
"(1) no public or private development will be permitted unless, in the process of development, and in the completed project, the development will conform with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, as determined by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;
"(2) no industrial, residential, or commercial development shall occur on agricultural land of high productivity, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture, unless specifically approved by the Governor as necessary to the public health and welfare or to provide adequate housing, that would otherwise be unavailable;
"(3) no industrial, residential, or commercial development shall occur that would exceed the capacity of existing systems for power and water supply, waste water treatment and collection, solid waste disposal and resource recovery, or transportation unless such systems are planned for expansion and have financial support adequate to support operation and expansion as necessary to meet the demands of the new development;
"(4) redevelopment and improvement of existing communities and other developed areas are favored over industrial, commercial, or residential development which will utilize existing agricultural lands, wild areas, woodlands, and other undeveloped areas, and that development contrary to these principles shall be allowed only where it will provide significant and permanent jobs, housing, and educational opportunities for low- and middle-income families;
"(5) as determined by the appropriate Federal agencies to the extent possible, no development shall occur on water-saturated lands such as marshlands, swamps, bogs, estuaries, salt marshes. and other wetlands without replacement of the ecological values provided by such lands;
"(6) except where no alternative exists, there shall be no further commercial, residential, or industrial development of flood plains of the navigable waterways in the state;
"(7) those responsible for making less permeable or impermeable any portion of the landscape will be required to hold or store runoff water or otherwise control runoff from such lands so that it does not reach natural waterways during storm conditions or times of snow melt;
"(8) to the extent possible, upland watersheds will be maintained for maximum natural water retention; and
"(9) all private and public forest lands which are leased for timber cutting under compliance with existing statutes shall be harvested in such a way as to avoid any loss in productivity of site, including nutrient and water holding capacities of the site, and take all available precautions to protect the air, water, and soil of the site and surrounding regions, apart from removal of timber itself"
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, before I get to the substance of this amendment, I think it is appropriate to make a prefatory remark.
First of all, it has been my feeling that this legislation, touching as it does so many Federal programs and the jurisdictions of so many Senate committees, should have been given careful review and hearings by all committees that are involved – not out of any sensitivity to their prerogatives as committees, but because such committees have the expertise and the background in so many policy areas involving land use that they should have been given an adequate opportunity to make an input into this bill. No part of this bill is more relevant and important than the part to which this amendment makes reference.
This amendment is inadequate in the sense that it represents the input of just one Senate committee, the Committee on Public Works, and specifically the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution. The guidelines and criteria that this amendment contains come out of the expertise of that committee. Other committees, such as the Committee on Banking and Currency, the Committee on Agriculture, the Committee on Armed Services, and a lot of other committees should have made inputs to the shaping of the guidelines which are to govern the Federal supervision of land-use policy, if we want to make sure that the Federal decisions are not arbitrary and are sensitive to local requirements.
Other committees had no such chance to conduct hearings, to bring in people, and to apply their expertise, and we have got to try to do it on the floor. I made the commitment to the leadership that I would try to do it on the floor. But with respect to no amendment do I feel the effort more inadequate than with respect to this one.
On this subject, let me read what I think is the most perceptive commentary on this aspect of the bill. It is contained in a letter written to the editor of the New York Times on August 23 by an able young man who was once minority counsel to the Senate Committee on Public Works and is now Director of Environmental Studies at Williams College. He is an able young lawyer by the name of Thomas C. Jorling, and was of inestimable value to our committee. I commend to the Senate the following excerpts from that letter.
The letter was written because the New York Times, on August 15, had published an editorial urging immediate passage of the pending legislation. This is what Mr. Jorling had to say:
In its Aug. 15 editorial on the National Land Use legislation presently pending in the U.S. Senate, The Times has fallen victim to the attractive notion that any legislation is better than no legislation. Such a notion, especially applied to environmental legislation, is a cop-out. For several reasons your superficial support of the bill S. 632 is misguided.
The bill purports to establish national land use policy; yet nowhere in the bill is such a policy stated, only the empty buzz words, "sound environmental, economic, and social values and which encourage the wise and balanced use of the nation's land resources" and the like appear.
Such is not policy, it is empty rhetoric. If this nation is to develop land use controls, by definition it means regulation, and effective regulation must be supported by a clear statement of the elements of land use that Congress considers good, or alternatively that Congress considers bad. One searches in vain to find any such statement in the bill.
The bill would establish a bureaucratic maze unequaled in the history of the Federal Government; all of this to implement a policy which, in fact, is nonexistent. In such a situation – which represents an unparalleled and perhaps unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the executive branch – the gnomes of Federal bureaucracy will, in fact, establish the regulatory land use program.
Without a measure of performance established in the authorizing legislation, this bureaucratic effort will lead to anything but good land use (or due process protection, for that matter). And yet, because it will be in law and a great bureaucracy will have been set in motion, repair will be nearly impossible and the nation will have embarked on a course leading to no one knows where. It is infinitely preferable to have Congress say what it intends rather than simplistically assume a Federal bureaucracy can somehow translate nothing into something.
Your editorial quotes Russell Train as supporting the present bill. Perhaps Mr. Train believes that the development of flood plains is poor land use, that loss of agricultural land to sprawl is poor land use, that rapid loss of wetlands is poor land use. Perhaps Mr. Train feels that open space per capita must be increased. But unless Congress establishes these as policy, the Federal bureaucracy will be helpless in the face of competing economic forces that are deeply rooted in our social fabric.
I find nothing in the bill to justify your conclusion that it will "safeguard a growing nation's rapidly diminishing land resources."
A bill simply entitled "National Land Use Policy" does not insure coming to grips with the issues of directing the destiny of the nation.
Mr. President, that letter states the nature of my concern about this bill better than any other language that I could propose.
The only national policy included in S. 632 is the policy that the States should establish land-use programs and override local authority in many areas. The amendment proposes specific national land-use planning criteria to give guidance to the States in developing their land-use programs.
As I indicated in my opening remarks yesterday, I believe these policy criteria are vital to protect both Federal and State efforts which are affected by the national land-use program.
Without specific policy criteria, the many Federal programs which are required to subject themselves to the State land-use programs under section 306 could have Federal policy objectives compromised by the differing requirements of 50 State plans. Without policy criteria, it will be an easy matter for administrators in the Interior Department to impose their will upon the States as to what is best.
Congress, Mr. President, not program administrators, must give policy guidance in this vital area. Otherwise, State programs may be confused by changing signals at the Federal level.
I have said the legislation provides no policy guidelines, and it does not. As a practical matter, of course, as Mr. Jorling's letter suggests, Federal policy guidance may quickly develop because the lack of policy guidelines in the bill will present an opening for those in the Federal bureaucracy to impose their individual views of what is best upon the States. Stating a national policy in the law will assure that States are not subjected to these bureaucratic whims, and assure a true national policy.
Land-use policy is but one of the considerations which must be identified in making public policy. There is no question but that land-use decisions will affect transportation, energy, and the environment; and yet we have or should have a national policy for each. To impose one on top of the other without consideration of their relative impact would, Mr. President, be irresponsible.
Land-use control does not by itself protect the public health, even though public health may be adversely affected by air and water pollution associated with a given land use. But existing law, Mr. President, provides for that. The Interior Committee does not argue that S. 632 is public health legislation. Certainly, no one would suggest that air and water pollution laws designed to protect public health and welfare should be subrogated to land-use decisions which may relate only to economic development. Therefore, it is essential that we not only have guidance as to land-use but also have the capacity for the Federal Government to become sufficiently involved in the development of land-use plans to assure that other equally or more important national policies will not be upset in pursuit of land-use decisions.
Mr. President, I will be frank to say that I feel so deeply on this point that unless the Senate and Congress adopt policy guidelines, whether they are those contained in my amendment or other and better ones, I would find it impossible to support the proposed legislation, because I would disagree with the New York Times editorial. In that event, it would be my judgment that no legislation would be better than any legislation.
I had hoped that in the course of this year, working on my committee with Senators on other committees which have had background in land use legislation, we could work together to frame policy guidelines that would make it possible for us to enact meaningful, wise, and long-range Federal legislation in this field. I regret that we reach this point in the consideration of this bill with that issue inadequately treated. No one could regret it more.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. JACKSON. I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Maine said that other committees should have been allowed to hold hearings on S. 632. The Senator, in my judgment, is mistaken if he feels that this did not occur. Just to make the record clear, let me point out what happened.
We invited all committees to hold hearings on the pending measure, and both the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs – July 12, 13, and 14, 1971 – and the Committee on Commerce – May 5, 6, and 11, 1971 – did hold hearings on S. 632.
Further, my good friend, the Senator from Maine, is mistaken if he feels that no input was made by other committees. The Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs and the Committee on Commerce suggested excellent language, subsequently included in the bill.
Furthermore, the chairman of the Senator's committee, the Committee on Public Works, suggested the language of amendment No. 1535, which I endorsed, and which, as the Senate knows, I accepted.
I state that only to make the record clear, because this bill has been pending on the calendar since June 19. There has been all the time in the world. The chairmen of the three main committees have been in agreement on this. So, let us set the record straight.
Mr. President, I must oppose the pending amendment. The amendment proposes to add to the bill a number of specific and detailed requirements which would greatly extend Federal influence oven State planning efforts.
For example, the second subsection, page 2, line 4, would assign a priority to agricultural uses over other social concerns. It would make a Federal zoning judgment, as a matter of law, that agricultural lands of high productivity, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture, would be preserved unless exceptions in each instance are made by the Governor. The sheer difficulty of achieving individual consideration of each development, however limited, on agricultural land is forbidding.
Furthermore, the whole substance of the pending measure is to achieve a balanced program for the future of a State. Agriculture must have important consideration but not exclusive priority.
Another example is found in subsection (4) of the Senator's amendment. This subsection provides that redevelopment and improvement of previously developed areas is to be favored over developmental activities of any kind on lands which have not been previously developed. The concept proposed is one that most people would agree upon as a planning goal.
To set it forth as a Federal guideline or requirement is, however, in my view not workable. It would create mischief, in that Federal officials would be called upon to look at and perhaps even to approve every developmental activity taking place on previously undeveloped lands. This is not in accord with the basic philosophy of the land use bill. The basic philosophy of the bill is to build upon State competence and responsibility.
The same comment is applicable to subparagraph 5 and other subsections of the Senator's amendment. The specific requirements proposed would have the effect of a Federal zoning act for large parts of the Nation. This, in my view, is not workable. The land use patterns and requirements of the Nation are too diverse and their needs too varied to meet the very requirements the Senator proposes.
Mr. President, I urge that the amendment be rejected.
I reserve the remainder of my time, and I now yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Georgia.
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, I concur with the distinguished floor manager of the bill with reference to this amendment. I find some provisions in it virtually incredible.
For example, I read from section 2, line 4, on page 2:
... no industrial, residential, or commercial development shall occur on agricultural land of high productivity, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture, unless specifically approved by the Governor as necessary ...
It seems utterly incredible to me that the Secretary of Agriculture, in Washington, would determine the use of land in all 50 States of the Union, and the only appeal from the Secretary of Agriculture's decision would be to the Governors of the respective States. In my opinion, that would limit the value of all agricultural land in the United States, because it would restrict its purpose purely for agricultural purposes. That is at a time when we are paying billions in diversion, at the present time, to take agricultural land out of production. To my mind, that seems incredible and a denial of the constitutional rights of every citizen in America who owns agricultural land.
Let us go to section 3, page 2:
... no industrial, residential, or commercial development shall occur that would exceed the capacity of existing systems for power and water supply, waste water treatment ...
Mr. President, we have in many areas of our country, including my State of Georgia, many humble people. They do not even live at a water supply system. They do not even live at a sewage system. But they try to improve their homes. This provision would prevent some of them from building a modest home and digging a well in the front yard to establish a septic tank there, because it would be a denial of the right to do so, because the home would not be at a sewage system and would not be at a power system.
This amendment would deny someone who owns some land in a remote area of our country, who wanted to build a summer camp that did not have a power system, the right to go out and build that little cottage and use an old-fashioned kerosene lamp, which was all I ever had until I was an adult. Not all of them can have sewage systems and power systems at their humble cottages. But this is what the amendment would require. Otherwise, they could not utilize the land.
Let us go to paragraph (4), line 20, on page 2:
"(4) redevelopment and improvement of existing communities and other developed areas are favored over industrial, commercial, or residential development which will utilize existing agricultural lands, wild areas, woodlands, and other undeveloped areas.
We have seen the trend in recent years where large corporations in the United States, particularly in the city of New York, are trying to flee their environment, going out to the quiet countryside, moving into Connecticut and establishing their location there, to get into an area which is relatively free of crime, where people can live together in peace, comfort, and harmony, and free of pollution.
This amendment of the Senator from Maine would absolutely prohibit that. Just recently, the Senate passed the rural development bill by a vote of 77 to 0. One of the reasons the Senate passed that bill was that over 70 percent of the people of the United States live on 2 percent of the land. Yet the Senator's amendment wants to keep those people hemmed in by this congestion, where 70 percent of the population live on that same 2 percent of the land. His amendment would prohibit them from spreading out. It would prohibit new industries from being established in areas of high unemployment, where we could attract jobs to the rural areas of America – just exactly the opposite of what the Senate decided by a vote of 77 to 0 only a short time ago.
As the able floor manager of the bill pointed out, this amendment, in the final analysis, would have Federal control of the lands of the United States. It would have Federal control of our farmland by the Secretary of Agriculture. It would also have Federal control of our urban lands, because it would say that the urban areas would be favored for industrial development over the less densely populated areas.
To my mind, this amendment should be rejected and I hope that it will be rejected by an overwhelming majority of the Senate.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CHILES). The Senator has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment proceed for another 20 minutes, to be equally divided
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, because I think we can find another way. There is time on the bill. I wonder whether the Senator would withhold his request for time as it can be yielded to him on the bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would like to go for 10 minutes at this point.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 5 minutes on the amendment and 27 minutes on the bill.
Mr. JACKSON. Let us try – I can yield the Senator time on the bill – let us see if we cannot move along now and I will yield time to the Senator as he needs it.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Does the Senator want 10 minutes now?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. I asked for 10 minutes.
Mr. JACKSON. I am happy to yield 10 minutes on the bill to the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I ask that the time be equally divided between the Senator from Idaho (Mr. JORDAN) and the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE). That is, 5 minutes out of my time and 5 minutes out of the time of the Senator from Idaho (Mr. JORDAN).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is all night.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, there are several points to which I should like to respond.
May I say to the distinguished Senator from Georgia (Mr. TALMADGE) that his disagreement with me, when he focuses on the bill, has nothing to do with whether he and I agree on what national land use policy should be. We are agreed that we should not set in motion the land use policy-making machinery without giving guidelines for its administration in the legislation. That is what is at issue here. Because if the Senator believes – and I do not believe that he does – that the kinds of policies with which he takes issue in my amendment will not be suggested by some Federal bureaucracy under the ambiguous and general grant of authority in S. 632, he is sadly mistaken. If the Senator from Washington believes that the kinds of considerations or judgments involved, on page 2 of the amendment, will not take place with what he is advocating, then he is mistaken.
There is no way of setting up a process of land use policy administered by a Federal bureaucracy that does not get that bureaucracy involved in making judgments about what the policy will be.
The question raised by this issue is whether we establish the guidelines for that bureaucracy in the legislation, on whether we leave it to an ad hoc process.
The Senator from Washington referred to the hearings. The only hearings before us, unless I am mistaken, are the record of 4 days in this Congress, in the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. There were another 4 days in 1970 – and I do not know whether that was on this legislation. I do not have a record of the hearings before the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, or the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, or other committees involved.
There is no hearing record, they tell us. I was not aware of any, either. There was none in the Committee on Public Works. In July, the Committee on Public Works considered this and approached the Senator from Washington with respect to holding Public Works Committee hearings on the bill. We were told no, that the bill was on the calendar. The Senator from Washington pressed for Senate consideration of the bill in late July and all through August until the recess. There was no time for a hearing. We were discouraged from holding hearings in July and August. The bill came to the floor, when? In June? There was a National Democratic Convention in the interim. There were no hearings. There was no opportunity for hearings.
Rather, there was pressure to bring the bill to the floor of the Senate. There was no adequate opportunity for other committees to make an input to the legislation. If there were other hearings, I should like to know where they were, where is the record, and what do they say.
Now let me say to the distinguished Senator from Georgia (Mr. TALMADGE) that this legislation provides, on page 60 of the bill, beginning on line 15:
(b) The Congress further declares that it is the national policy to–
(1) favor patterns of land use planning, management. and development which are in accord with sound environmental, economic, and social values and which encourage the wise and balanced use of the Nation's land resources;
I ask the Senator from Georgia rhetorically, who will make the judgment as to whether a given land use policy adopted by a community in his State meets that standard?
There is another provision in the bill, on page 86, line 22,
Federal agencies shall not approve proposed projects that are inconsistent with the program ...
Who will decide whether they are inconsistent, and will the decision relate to whether they are inconsistent with the language on page 60, which I just read?
Let me refer to other language, on page 76 of the bill:
(a) an adequate statewide land use planning process as provided for in section 302 of this Act; and
(b) (1) methods of implementation for–
For doing what? For exercising determinative State authority over the use and development of land in areas of critical environmental concern within the State.
Does the Senator believe that that would not involve considerations such as are raised by my amendment?
Look over on page 77 of the bill, line 4: (c) assuring that local regulations do not unreasonably restrict or exclude development and land use of regional benefit;
Who will decide that? Then on line 7, on page 77, exercising determinative State authority–
"Determinative" – what does that mean to the Senator?
Continuing reading:
– exercising determinative State authority over proposed large scale development within the State of more than local significance in its impact upon the environment.
Who is going to make that decision when the Secretary of the Interior determines how State planning agencies set up those determinative State authorities if he feels that they are not adequate? What is the Senator's guess as to whether the Secretary will or will not try to reshape those State plans as they relate to these points.
The Senator is as familiar with bureaucracy at the Federal level as I am. I ask him to consider whether it is wise to give the bureaucracy some guidelines, whether of the Senator's choosing, or mine, or someone else's. They ought to be the guidelines that the Senate has considered and adopted as a whole.
If the Senator takes this exception to my amendment, how about all of the unseen, unspoken decisions for land use that will filter into the land use process under this bill? We will not have a chance to evaluate or judge whether they are arbitrary or not. We will not have a chance to rewrite the law. It is difficult to change a law once its gets started.
That is the sort of thing that the Senate ought to be considering.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I yield myself one-half minute.
Mr. President, hearings were held by the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on July 12, 13, and 14, 1971 and by the Committee on Commerce on May 5, 6, and 11, 1971. I will say that those documents will be available here shortly.
I am amazed that the Senator from Maine would raise the question that hearings were not held. I ask unanimous consent that citations to those hearing records be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Page reference to testimony directed to S. 632 and S. 992 in the printed record of hearings to consider: "land-use, planning, and management" before Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs of Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs to consider S.J. Res. 52 and title II of S. 1618, July 12, 13, and 14, 1971, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
1. Memorandum from Chairman John Sparkman – page 2.
2. Under Secretary of HUD, Richard C. Van Dusen, pp. 39-44, 46-47, 59-60.
3. Boyd Gibbons, Secretary of CEQ, pp. 61-70.
4. Thomas Bradley, Councilman, City of Los Angeles, representing National Service to Regional Councils, pp. 114-115, 123-124.
5. James G. Martin, vice president, National Service to Regional Councils, pp. 153154,156-157. 6. Stanley Waranch, First Vice President, National Association of Homebuilders, pp. 172-175, 177-178.
7. George Raymond, past president, American Society of Consulting Planners, pp. 182183, 190-196.
3. Max O. Urbhan, president-elect, the American Institute of Planners, pp. 214-215, 217, 219-221.
9. Frederick Harris, on behalf of Edward J. Logue, president and chief executive officer, New York Urban Development Corp., page 223.
Examples of discussion to S. 632 in hearings before the Senate Committee on Commerce May 5, 6, and 11, 1971.
42-112, bill text of 632.
119-140, discussion by Administration witnesses of relation among the bills including 632 and 992.
P. 171, comments of President of Carolina Power & Light.
Page 178, comments of Clair Guess Carolina Water Resources Commission.
Page 192, comments of V.P. American Land Development Assoc.
Page 270, Asst. Conservation Director, Sierra Club.
Page 325, American Institute of Architects letter.
NOTE: The balance of the RECORD (about 350-807) is made of State codes etc. relating to land use.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. As a cosponsor of S. 632, I rise to associate myself with the comments made by the Senator from Washington (Mr. JACKSON) and I would like more specifically to address myself to part 9 of the amendment of the Senator from Maine.
Mr. President, one of the subjects considered by the Subcommittee on Public Lands during field hearings last year was that of nutrient recycling on harvested forest areas. The evidence presented was conflicting, some witnesses saying that timber harvesting depletes the soil of its nutrients and others saying that the nutrient depletion arguments were based on inadequate or nonexistent scientific data. Everyone agreed that additional research into the nutrient problem was desirable.
Part 9 of amendment No. 1523 to the National Land Use Policy Act (S. 632) is addressed to the forest soil nutrient question. I doubt that we know any more about the question today than we did when the question came up before the Public Lands Subcommittee last spring. There is nothing to indicate the language in the amendment is appropriate to the problem, if indeed there is a problem.
What many people do not understand is that any time a plant is harvested, be it in the forest or on the farm, nutrient losses can occur and the water holding capacity of the soil will be affected.
This has been observed to be the case in general agriculture as well as in the forest. But never before has this phenomenon been viewed with the alarm that the amendment's proponents have raised.
An additional consideration is that manipulation of the forest cover is frequently used to influence water yields, especially in the Western States. This amendment would prohibit using timber removal to increase water yields.
Rather than focusing on cutting timber, which yields useful products for human needs, we should direct our focus to getting prompt reforestation of harvested areas.
Should this amendment be approved as it is now written, it would be possible for a well-meaning but misled preservationist to stop any timber harvesting operation by any method.
Considering the vagueness of the language in part 9 of amendment No. 1523, the fact that it might be addressing itself to a problem that does not exist and the fact that it might be used as a tool to obstruct orderly management of the Nation's forest resources, I call for the defeat of the amendment.
I would like to point out also that the vagueness of part 9 could easily put the State into a managing role of Federal forest lands and the Federal Government in control of private lands.
I think it is a very unwise amendment. I hope that it will be soundly rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. JORDAN of Idaho. Mr. President, 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. JORDAN of Idaho. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have nothing further to say on the amendment.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Maine. On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced – yeas 14, nays 61, as follows:
[Roll call vote tally omitted]