December 21, 1973
Page 43196
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, this amendment represents the compromise we have worked out with the minority, which I hope the Senate will accept. The amendment is everything that was in the conference report, except four areas, to which I shall refer at this time.
First, it would delete the windfall profit section of the bill, section 110.
Second, it would change the act regarding the termination date in section 126 from May 15, 1975, to April 1, 1974.
Third, there would be a deletion in section 103 (d), creating the Federal Energy Emergency Administration, regarding the requirements off the Federal Reports Act, and provisions for simultaneous budget submissions. That would be eliminated from section 103.
Fourth, there would be a modification of the industry reporting section – that is section 124 – to require reporting only to the Departments of Justice and the Interior.
The compromise – these four points – will enable the administration to take such actions as are necessary to deal with the current energy emergency for this, winter. At the same time, it will provide Congress an opportunity to legislate a new bill in January, February, and March. It will give Congress an opportunity prior to April 1 to complete more in depth action dealing with these important areas of conservation of energy, which is a critical area, the longer term gas rationing authority, and problems on clean air provisions which do extend to May 15, 1975; and also the long-term requirements which would run to the same date, May 15, 1975, regarding the conversion from oil to coal.
I think this is the best possible agreement that can be reached under all the circumstances, with Senators on both sides giving and taking in the spirit of sensible compromise, in light of all the circumstances.
There were a number of other proposals made which we could not accept. I think we might mention just one area. One area relates to a list of some 20 proposed conservation measures which the administration would like to delete from that part of the bill which gives Congress the right of veto. Specifically they have asked for a deletion of the veto right in the area relating to the volume of gasoline that could be restricted in sales to individual consumers.
Second, they wanted a deletion from the veto right as it pertains to a reduction in lighting, in commercial and industrial usage. It was my judgment that these are sensible and necessary things to do. We took this matter up in conference.
I believe most, if not all, of the Senate conferees did agree in these two areas. We were almost unanimous on these two points. But I think it would create nothing but confusion to make an exception in this area. I would oppose any attempt to delete the veto in the two areas I referred to, and I think the Senator from Maine, who joined me in that effort in conference would agree on that.
Under this proposal Congress will have ample time to deal with the question of veto by legislating because we will have to legislate between January 21 and April 1 when the act would expire.
Therefore, I feel that these are two items on which Congress should refrain from any veto action while we are considering the extension of the act, with any changes to be made after April 1.
Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Maine. May I say that the distinguished senior Senator from Maine played a very important role in trying to hammer out a series of compromises in the conference. I wish to pay tribute to him for the good sense, and good judgment of give and take he displayed in trying to resolve this matter. I compliment him as well as other members on the committee for their efforts during that 30-hour conference period in 2 days. I especially wish to call to the attention of my colleagues the usual fine cooperation and many contributions of the senior Senator from West Virginia and chairman of the Public Works Committee, Mr. RANDOLPH. Throughout this long and tiring conference, which lasted until nearly midnight on two consecutive difficult circumstances. All of the members of the conference committee have my appreciation for their dedication, good humor, and patience during this effort. I hope we will succeed and pass a bill which the Nation needs at a very critical time in our history.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank my colleague. It was a difficult conference to manage and I compliment him for bringing it to a head.
On this subject, as I said in conference, at least respecting my State, to really save fuel under any conservation program we are going to do it now or at least we will have to set the pattern. I feel the Administrator should have the authority to do whatever can be done between now and then to maximize the savings. If we do not do it between now and then, we will have lost the major opportunity to see us through the winter with minimum damage.
For that reason I urged the House Members to eliminate the congressional veto and put this job in the Administrator's hands, and to give him the authority to move. But the House would not buy that.
The laundry list of possible conservation measures the Administrator might take was a little scary from the point of view of the House conferees. So ultimately we tried what the Senator proposes here, and that is that we give the Administrator authority to ban the Sunday sale of gasoline and limit electric lighting to business, industrial, and residential. But the House would not buy even that.
So I think it would be foolish to send such a laundry list to the other body. I think the administrator should be reassured on the floor of the Senate by those of us who had any role to play in framing this legislation that we would oppose the use of that veto with respect to these particular measures. I give that assurance for whatever it is worth. I speak only for myself, but I am happy to give it.
If the Administrator moves in this direction the country and the Congress will support him. It is reasonable, and I am confident he will be supported.
Mr. JACKSON. I join in the expression of the problem by the able Senator from Maine. I think we ought to make very clear that we, of course, expect the Administrator to meet the requirements of due process as they make these moves; if the moves are to be sensible there must be that due process.
Under the provisions of this act the Administrator can put such measures into effect immediately, but it does require a hearing and notice after they have been into effect. We expect that the administrator, and I have great confidence in Mr. Simon, will not act in an arbitrary and capricious way, but the notice and hearing procedure will be carried out in good faith. They are necessary to have the support of those called upon to submit to the restrictions.
Mr. MUSKIE. I, too, have confidence in Mr. Simon. I am impressed by the way he goes about his job. I think he will handle it responsibly and he has my support for these particular measures.