February 7, 1974
Page 2693
Mr. PASTORE. Let me say, before Senator Jackson speaks, why cannot we have a vote on the motion to recommit today or tomorrow to find out where we stand? Why do we have to wait until February 19 to find out. At that time, it might be recommitted – and then we will be in this hassle all over again?
I think we should determine now as to whether, on February 19, when we do come back we will vote on the conference report up or down, and not get ourselves once more into this mess having it recommitted and starting all over again.
Mr. JACKSON. May I just say to the Senate – especially to my good friend from Rhode Island – that we were prepared on our side to take it up, as we are taking it up now, to get a vote today. There is no reason why we cannot vote. But when we were confronted with a problem, with the clear indication that there would be no vote today or tomorrow, we had no other alternative but to work out the unanimous consent agreement that was agreed to.
Mr. PASTORE. Do you not think that the people of this country are entitled to know who is solving the energy crisis and who is not, and why we have to get into a filibuster over it?
Mr. JACKSON. Absolutely. Let me just say that there is one key issue on this conference report – forget about all the other things in it – there is one major issue, and that is whether the Senate will go on record and vote to roll back the prices of petroleum products. We have had an astronomical increase in the price of petroleum, both crude oil, and petroleum products. That is the issue. There are many things in this conference report, of course, and I have the assurance from the leadership on the minority side that the administration can get along under the provisions of this report – and I asked this specifically – because I am prepared to vote today. There is not that much to be discussed. It is an up and down question, really, on the issue of the price roll back. The leadership has agreed, and I have gone along with it on a realistic basis, that it is not possible to get a vote today or tomorrow. That is where we are.
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. Mr. President, will–
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I make the following unanimous-consent request–
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Senators will come to order. The Senator from Montana may continue.
Mr. MANSFIELD [continuing]. – which I think has been cleared all around.
Ordered, that on Tuesday, February 19, 1974, at 4 p.m., a vote occur on the motion to recommit the conference report on S. 2589.
That on Tuesday, February 19, 1974, the Senate convene at 10 a.m., and that after the recognition of the two leaders under the standing order, the conference report be laid before the Senate, and that the time until 12:30 p.m. be equally divided between and controlled by the Senator from Washington (Mr. JACKSON) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. FANNIN), and the time from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. on that day be similarly divided and controlled.
That if the conference report is not recommitted, a vote on the adoption of the conference report on S. 2589 follow immediately the vote on the motion to recommit.
That all points of order be excluded, so that the votes will occur on a motion to recommit and a motion to approve or disapprove the conference report.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have been on this floor now for about three-quarters of an hour. There has been a confab going on, sometimes above a whisper but still not audible to Members of the Senate. We have been told time and time again that the No. 1 priority in this country is the energy crisis. I do not know what the agreements are, and I do not know what the difficulties are in the conference report, but I think the people are entitled to know.
Why can we not have these motions determined today or tomorrow? Why do we have to wait until the 19th? If we can vote on these motions on the 19th, why can we not do it today, or why can we not do it tomorrow?
The people of this country want an answer. They want results, and I think the people are entitled to know what the difficulty is, why this postponement is taking place, and why we have to do it this way.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, the Senator from Rhode Island raises some very valid points.
It was the hope of the leadership that we could finish with the conference report today or tomorrow at the latest. Unfortunately, events have developed which indicated that that would not be possible to do.
Therefore, on the basis of the best judgment of the joint leadership, it was decided to agree to vote at a time certain–
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. Will the distinguished majority leader yield?
Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. The distinguished majority leader is quite right in making the point that the joint leadership was prepared to vote before we take this recess. I have had no word whatever from the administration in opposition to a vote as soon as we can. What we are discussing here, however, is the fact that objections were heard on both sides of the aisle to immediate consideration. We are moving as expeditiously as we can. We are proposing to vote on the second legislative day after today – that is, assuming that we do not come in tomorrow and that we take the recess and come in on February 18, debate on February 18, and vote on February 19.
So we are agreeing to vote on the second legislative day. So, as the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. PASTORE) has pointed out, that is not perfect. He would like to see action now. I would be glad to see action now myself, so far as I am personally concerned, if the leadership were ready. But there have been objections. There have been a number of objections from both sides of the aisle. As in all cases, I must follow the precepts of my favorite Greek Menander, who said, "We live not as we were, but as we must."
Mr. PASTORE. That may be so. I am a little bit of a philosopher on my own, but the fact still remains that the fly in the ointment here is this agreement on a vote to recommit. What I am saying is that this is an eyewash for the people of this country. I do not understand why we have to wait to vote on February 19 and apparently that is satisfactory to the administration, the leadership, and to the members of the conference. Why can we not on that day, vote this conference report up or down, without going through the gymnastics of voting on a motion to recommit?
Let us assume that we wait until February 19 and then recommit it. Then where are we?
All I am saying is, we could dispose of this vote to recommit before we leave. If we have got to go back into conference, we can go back into conference next week without waiting until February 19.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. AIKEN. I simply want to say that as of now there are 205 million people in this country who have been blaming either the Arab countries or the oil companies for their present predicament.
However, if we postpone action or even discussion until February 19, and in the meantime take several days vacation, the American people will stop blaming the Arab countries and the oil companies and they will blame Congress – and very properly so.
Mr. PASTORE. They are already doing that.
Mr. AIKEN. I think we should have a record vote on whether we want to postpone this or not.
Mr. JACKSON. I am for that.
Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, we should go further than just talk about one section. There are 40 separate sections in the conference report. There are not more than 10 Senators who know what is in the bill. Why should we vote on something without knowing what we are voting on? Certainly we are entitled to know what is in the bill. Every Senator is entitled to know what is in the bill. It will take some time to discuss these 40 separate sections.
Mr. PASTORE. We have talked about this bill until the cows came home.
Mr. FANNIN. But now we have changed it.
Mr. PASTORE. We have filibustered this bill
Mr. FANNIN. We wanted some time–
Mr. PASTORE. All right – why do you not tell us where the changes are?
Mr. FANNIN. We wanted some time to do that. It takes time to do that.
Mr. PASTORE. In the meantime, what do we do about gasoline?
Mr. FANNIN. This conference report is 103 pages long with 40 separate sections. You cannot memorize that overnight.
Mr. PASTORE. You cannot do it during your vacation, either. You cannot do it in the Florida sun. [Applause in the gallery.]
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. METZENBAUM). May we have order in the galleries – and in the Chamber.
The Chair would point out to those in the galleries that they are guests of the Senate and any disorder may cause the galleries to be cleared.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, first, let me say that I want it clearly understood, so far as our side is concerned, the Democrats handling the bill on the Senate side, that they are ready and prepared to vote on this today. There is no reason why we cannot finish it today, but those on the other side disagree.
Mr. FANNIN. It is on both sides – let us not say that–
Mr. JACKSON. Those on our side–
Mr. FANNIN. Those who are handling the bill or those who are talking about the handling of the bill?
Mr. JACKSON. We came in here – we worked late last night. The staff prepared–
Mr. FANNIN. Whether it is the Senators who handled the bill or the Senators who did not, they are entitled to know what is in this bill.
Mr. JACKSON. We have today and tomorrow. Let us vote tomorrow. The point I want to make is that I think it should be understood now that the administration does need power to do certain things. That power is contained in this bill. Without it the administration cannot act effectively. Any postponement could affect that. I do not want the White House coming around here saying that, had Congress only acted, we would be able to deal with the queuing up at the gas stations. There is no authority in current law to set the hours of opening or the hours of closing at a gas station.
This is a matter of great concern in the country. There is one central issue here. Let us be candid. We have rolled back the price of unregulated domestic crude oil from a current high of $10.35 to a maximum of $7.09. In fact, we rolled it back to $5.25, and included in the rollback are all petroleum products, including propane; propane that has seen an astronomical rise in price that is really hurting the little folks of America.
The overriding issue is that those who are receiving these astronomical prices in the United States – it is bad enough what is being done abroad – will continue to until this bill becomes law.
That is the issue. The oil industry will have to take a great deal of the responsibility for nationwide inflation, because these astronomical prices are digging away not just at the consumer, but at the free enterprise system itself, inflating it higher and higher.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. JACKSON. I yield.
Mr. PASTORE. The Senator keeps using the expression "the other side." Whom does he mean? Let the record show who he means.
Mr. JACKSON. Let me just say that all the Democrats who are conferees – that is why we stayed late came in here prepared to vote today. I asked for the session to start at 10 a.m. so that we could finish. That is the record.
Mr. PASTORE. "The other side" would be the Republican side. Is that correct.
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. I do not think that is correct.
Mr. PASTORE. We keep using the words "the other side." What side are we talking about?
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. What is the Senator from Rhode Island talking about?
Mr. PASTORE. We have the Democratic side and the Republican side, and I understand that the Democrats are ready to vote now.
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. The Senator is not correct.
Mr. PASTORE. Let us find out. Let us have a vote.
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. The Senator can do what he wants. Personally, I am prepared to vote. I always have been prepared to vote, and I am not going to be included in any such statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent request?
Mr. FANNIN. I object to voting on a recommital motion today, Mr. President. I do not object to the unanimous-consent request of the Senator from Montana (Mr. MANSFIELD).
It would be very unfair to have a vote, and I say there are not 10 Members of the Senate who will know what they are voting on. I feel that they should have the information available to them. I know that some of them are very interested in this matter, and they have called me, from the Democratic side, so I do not want it said that it is just the Republican side. I had two calls from the Democratic side.
Mr. PASTORE. What does that have to do with the vote to recommit? Why do we not dispose of that today or tomorrow?
Mr. FANNIN. It has a great deal to do with it. They want to know why they are voting for or against recommittal.
Mr. PASTORE. That is the crunch. You are waiting until February 19. You are lulling the people of this country into a false sense of security.
Mr. FANNIN. There is no way of saying it is going to delay anything at all, because the House did not get a rule. There is no determination that the House is going to act any quicker if we vote on Tuesday, the 19th, than if we vote today – no assurance whatsoever.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object – and I shall not object – I favor the adoption of the conference report. I am ready to vote on it now.
I oppose the motion that may or may not be made to send the bill back to conference. I am ready to vote on that. But I am persuaded that we can get quicker action on this bill and on this conference report by agreeing to the unanimous consent request made by the distinguished majority leader, because we have experienced extended discussion on the bill. It would be no problem whatever to extend this discussion.
I believe it would serve the interests of the people for whom the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island speaks to agree on this time; because in the vast majority of cases where an agreement is made on a time for a vote, that takes time. I am persuaded that if this agreement is not entered into, it will be well beyond the 19th of this month before we have a final vote.
I urge the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island not to insist on his objection.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. ALLEN. I yield.
Mr. PASTORE. The one crunch, as I have already pointed out, is the motion to recommit. What I am fearful of is that the people of this country are looking to Congress for a solution of this problem and we are not doing our job.
Thus far, the administration has not been able to solve it. They have been trying. They have a good man at the head of it – Mr. Simon. He came before our committee yesterday. I congratulated the man.
I said, "Mr. Simon, you are the right man at the right time to do the right job."
But the job has not been done, because I understand there are certain powers that the administration needs, but which it will not get until we pass the energy bill. The point I am making is this: In the unanimous-consent agreement that has been proposed, we are talking not only about the final vote at 4 o'clock; we are talking about a vote on a motion to recommit first.
There is a motion to recommit the conference report and a motion on final passage – back to back. But the motion to recommit comes before the final motion to adopt the conference report.
We are telling the people of the country that we will solve this question on February 19. But what might happen on February 19, when the motion to recommit comes up, is that the report might be recommitted. Thus it will go back to conference, and we will start all over again.
If we are sincere, let us reject the motion to recommit and vote on the merits of the report, even if we have to do it on February 19.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I believe I still have the floor. I say to the Senator from Rhode Island that I believe it is only fair that those who saw the report only yesterday should have an opportunity to study it and make their points on the floor of the Senate. I do not believe it is asking too much to have this vote come at a time when arguments could be made on recommittal and could be made on the adoption of the report. I do not believe we will lose any time whatsoever.
The Senator from Rhode Island made the point, and stated it well, that this vote will show where we stand in the matter. I hope he will not throw any barrier in the way of the adoption of the conference report. If he insists on his objection, I think it will be barrier to the adoption of the report. I hope he will withdraw his motion.
Mr. PASTORE. I merely reserved the right to object. I never said I would object. I think the people of the country should know what this is all about.
Mr. FANNIN. I agree that the people should know what this it about. So should Senators know what it is about. I am hopeful that we can have time for the Senate to study this proposal before a motion is made to recommit. I support the distinguished majority leader, but I would certainly object to a vote on a recommittal motion today because, as I said before, there are not 10 Members of the Senate today that have any idea what the report contains. There are 40 separate sections. I simply hope we will give Senators – some of them not here today, and will not be here today – the opportunity to determine, after study, whether they want to vote to recommit or not.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would hope that after this agreement is entered into – and I believe it will be entered into – a time would be set apart this morning for a colloquy on the report, so that Senators may question the distinguished Senator from Washington (Mr. JACKSON).
Mr. MANSFIELD. Does the Senator mean a limited time?
Mr. ALLEN. No; simply that time be allowed us to discuss the report. I think we will discuss it at some length today.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President. I must say to my distinguished friend from Arizona that I am puzzled by this reluctance to move to a decision on this legislation. I was a member of this conference in December and I was a member of the conference this month.
Because of my responsibility with respect to the environmental matters contained in the report I was advised by the White House, by Mr. Simon, that we were going to proceed expeditiously, not this month but in December, and I was urged to resolve quickly whatever doubts I had about the matters for which I was responsible, because of the need for urgent action. We met that responsibility, putting doubts behind us.
Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. May I finish the point?
Mr. FANNIN. I want to praise the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I finish, and then I will be happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. FANNIN. I want also to comment–
Mr. MUSKIE. I will give the Senator the opportunity.
But I must say I am disturbed and concerned. My primary responsibility was not with respect to the energy conservation provisions of the report. But I was given to believe that under the urging of the administration Senators were proceeding with a sense of urgency to resolve those issues; and I was asked to give a similar sense of urgency to the environmental matters.
Now, there are changes in environmental policy in this bill that merit long and deliberate consideration; matters that were not even considered on the floor of the Senate but were included in the House version of the bill. I was willing to consider these matters, because Mr. Simon told us he needed this authority and asked, would I not please resolve my doubts – in the interest of urgency.
Now, if we are going to become involved in a stretched out, delaying process, I may be tempted to reconsider my view with respect to the actions taken in regard to environmental matters.
Is the authority contained in the conference report eventually needed by Mr. Simon or not? That is a question I answered affirmatively in the interest of reaching a decision.
The Senator said there are 40-odd provisions of the bill. The Senator knows as well as I know that there is only one issue that prompts this delay and that is the question of whether or not there should be a rollback in prices.
Mr. FANNIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. May I finish?
If that provision were not in the conference report, we would pass this conference report in the Senate either today or tomorrow, and the Senator knows that. So the question is, whether on that issue we have had enough time to make up our minds. It is a legitimate question, and I know the Senator's views on it, because he has expressed them eloquently and at length in conference. He and I disagree; but the point is not whether we disagree. I submit we have had as much time to resolve that question as I gave myself to resolve my doubts about the environmental matters in this report.
I submit, and I do so only to direct my remarks to the White House, that I am having reservations about the urgency of this legislation. I am having reservations about the need to take the action we have recommended to both Houses with respect to environmental matters, because the administration does not exhibit the sense of urgency it asked me to demonstrate with regard to my responsibility in the conference.
So I say to the Senator that I am deeply disappointed – deeply disappointed – that we are now being asked and urged to drag our feet.
If the matter is truly a national emergency, every Senator has a responsibility to collapse his timetable, to focus on this matter, to brush everything else aside, and make up his mind about whether he favors a price rollback or not and make up his mind this week, not 10 days from now.
If the matter is not that urgent I doubt there is anything urgent in this bill. Now, I yield.
Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to have the chance to respond. In the first place there is no assurance that if we acted today this legislation would be approved before the 19th; there is no assurance whatever.
Mr. MUSKIE. We do not need that assurance. All we need is added momentum.
Mr. FANNIN. May I explain my position?
Mr. MUSKIE. Certainly.
Mr. FANNIN. If the Senator does not want to yield to me, that is his privilege.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator has the floor.
Mr. FANNIN. There are other objections that I have to the measure, and I have offered amendments. So do not say it is just one section, because that is not correct.
The Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) was there at the time – he worked hard and I commend him for it. He said he would like to have a chance to explain the changes made.
Mr. MUSKIE. I can do it in 30 minutes.
Mr. FANNIN. Fine. Many Senators are not here today, and they would not have the opportunity to hear the Senator. As far as what has been said that we gave the Administrator what he wanted, that is not correct. He came before us; he made a request; we turned him down. I did not turn him down. A majority of the conferees voted against his every suggestion. There is no reason to say it is going to be acted on earlier if we act in the next 5 minutes. It just is not right.
So I hope the Senator takes into consideration that there are at least 90 Senators who did not have the privilege – 89 to be specific, because there are 11 on the conference committee – that did not have the opportunity to look over this measure in detail.
Many changes have been made. So I feel it is very essential, because more than one section is involved, that we have a thorough study of what is in this particular legislation.
Most of the Members – I would say all the Members – did not have an opportunity to look at this until they came to the Chamber this morning. Here we are talking about acting on it today and it is a very complex piece of legislation.
I hope the distinguished Senator from Maine will realize he is being fair and equitable without hurting anyone by taking the time necessary to explain this bill to his colleagues.
Mr. MUSKIE. I appreciate the Senator's explanation, but I am not impressed, because the rhetoric he is using is the rhetoric of delay. This rhetoric was just as available to me in conference, but I did not choose to use it, because I was urged to be expeditious. The Senator has chosen to use it. It is his privilege, but in exercising that privilege he undermines my confidence in the urgency of this legislation.
Nothing the Senator can say can disabuse me of my disappointment or my interpretation of what he is doing.
I urge the Senator to reconsider, because I think delay – delay for reasons that seem sound to him – is a temptation to delay to others who have other reservations about the bill. If the Senator wants to risk undermining the whole package, which has been carefully, delicately, and sensitively put together, delay is the way to do it, and I say it with all the sincerity at my command. Delay is the wrong instrument for the administration to be using today.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I withdraw my request.
Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield in connection with the statement that I want to delay the legislation? Why does the Senator select one Senator when many want it? At least 90 Senators do not know what is in the report.
Mr. MUSKIE. If I want to mount an army of Senators and Congressmen to promote delay on issues that the Senator does not question in this report, if I want to mobilize an army to delay, I can do it, and somebody else can. The Senator is using the rhetoric of delay. I have heard the rhetoric of delay on the floor of the Senate for 16 years. I recognize it when it is used. I am sure the Senator recognizes it when it is used. The Senator knows as well as I that if the White House were interested in a decision on this bill today or tomorrow, we could get it. That is my conviction. I sense delay in everything the Senator has said. That is not to attack his integrity or sincerity, or anything of the sort, but the Senator is talking about deliberate and intentional delay, which would promote the forces which are out to kill this conference report.
I shall yield to the Senator from West Virginia, but first I yield to the Senator from Washington.