September 26, 1975
Page 30504
AMENDMENT NO. 878
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. How much time will the Senator yield himself?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The second assistant legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
In lieu of the language proposed by Mr. MANSFIELD to H.R. 9524, an Act to extend the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973, strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1975".
EXTENSION OF MANDATORY ALLOCATION PROGRAM
SEC. 2. Section 4(g) (1) of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 is amended by striking out "August 31, 1975," wherever it appears and inserting in lieu thereof November 15, 1975".
SEC. 3. It is the intent of the Congress that the regulations promulgated under the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 shall be effective for the period between August 31, 1975, and the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. The purpose of this limited extension of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act is to provide Congress and the Executive adequate time and opportunity to reach mutual agreement on a long-term petroleum pricing policy. During the period of this extension it is the intent of the Congress that the status quo shall be maintained and the President shall institute no major change in petroleum pricing policy under section 4(g) (2) of the Act prior to November 1, 1975. Any adjustment the President may make in price shall be in accord with his policy on inflation impact statements and economic justification set forth in Executive Order Numbered 11821 and in Circular Numbered A-107, January 28, 1975, Office of Management and Budget.
Any Senate resolution to disapprove a Presidential decontrol proposal submitted under 4(g) (2) shall be immediately placed upon the Senate legislative calendar and any motion by The Majority Leader on his designee thereafter to proceed to the consideration of such disapproval resolution shall be decided without debate and by majority vote, and within 48 hours after the disapproval resolution is made the pending business or sooner if otherwise ordered by the Senate, the Chair shall direct the Clerk to call the roll on the final disposition of the disapproval resolution without any further debate on intervening motion, any other rule or provision of law notwithstanding.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I do not think it is necessary for me to prolong discussion of this amendment. It is the product of negotiations involving the administration and the Republican leadership of the Senate as well as the Democratic leadership.
As Members will recall, a week before last Senator MANSFIELD introduced an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the House bill which would have provided for an extension of the Allocation Act until 60 days after enactment, which, in effect, would have extended it until about mid-November. There was considerable discussion of the substitute at that time and we were unable to reach agreement on going to a vote on it. On both sides there appears to be some difference of opinion as to whether or not the Allocation Act ought to be extended for the purpose of giving both sides an opportunity to respond to the situation created by the veto and the failure to override the veto.
My own feeling has been that we need to keep the lid on prices as much as we can while we are tying to work out an agreement and hopefully a compromise of some sort.
There is restraint at the present time in the marketplace. The administration, at the time of the veto, indicated that restraint had been promised.
We have no indication as to how long that restraint might be effective or when it might begin to break down.
For that reason, I felt it was very important to continue the restraints imposed under the Allocation Act for the last year and more so that we could respond to the new situation created by the veto and the failure to override. It was in that spirit that I offered a resolution in the Democratic caucus providing for this kind of an extension, and Senator MANSFIELD introduced it, reflecting the response of the caucus to that proposal.
Now, since that time, there has been considerable discussion of this kind of an extension. The amendment which I have called up reflects the results of that discussion. What it would do is this:
First. It would provide for extension until November 15 of this year.
Second. It would provide that the President would suspend use of the so-called section 4(g) (2) authority until November 1. That authority, as Members will recall, gives the President the prerogative of sending up a plan to the Congress, that plan to take effect, unless rejected by either House, within 5 days. It was my feeling and the feeling of the caucus that that 4(g) (2) authority ought not to be used for some time in the extension period so that we could have a meaningful, uninterrupted effort to reach a pricing policy on which agreement might be reached.
There was not really a serious challenge to that idea on either side. But the argument was as to how much time ought to be provided for the suspension of that authority.
The administration, as I understand it, has now agreed that authority be suspended until November 1. The amendment reflects that agreement.
The final point that is covered by the amendment is this one: Senator JACKSON several times in the discussion of this proposal has, I believe, identified another problem. At the time the 5-day provision was written into the law, adequate consideration was given to the fact that 5 days was not long enough as a practical matter to permit the Senate to act, if any Senator or Senators desired to prolong discussion.
So it was felt that there ought to be written into this amendment safeguards that would insure a Senate vote within that 5-day period, if that was the desire of the Senate.
This, then, is what the amendment proposes:
First. An extension of the Allocation Act until November 15.
Second. Suspension of the President's 4(g) (2) authority until November 1.
Third. In the event the President uses that authority after November 1, procedural safeguards which will insure that the Senate can come to a vote on any plan the President might send up within the 5-day period given for congressional action.
I think that is a pretty clear description of the amendment.
As I said, I applaud the efforts of the minority leadership in resolving this matter — especially the work done by the Senator from Delaware (Mr. ROTH) who introduced the first price extension amendment immediately after the President's veto.
I might add just one further observation. There is, of course, no assurance in my amendment that there will ultimately be an agreement on the substantive issues involved, that there will ultimately be an agreement on a pricing policy, for example. All there is in this amendment is an effort to insure that there is free and unrestricted time, not prolonged, reasonably short, for both sides to pursue their own substantive directions in the hope that maybe at the end of the line, there can be an agreement, a result, and a policy.
I think the country wants a result. I think the country wants a policy. I think it is incumbent upon all of us, in the administration and in Congress, to work toward that end. But as far as I, personally, am concerned, I have not come hard down on a substantive pricing policyas yet. I feel very strongly that prices ought to be held at the present level, in the present economic circumstances. I have said so and I have said so vigorously.
At the same time, I do not think the country can afford to have this continued, prolonged disagreement without a resolution of that disagreement at some point. It is in that spirit that I offer this amendment.
It is in that spirit that I have discussed it with representatives of the administration and the Republican leadership. It is in that spirit that I urge the Senate to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 more minutes for the purpose of answering questions that may come up. If there are no questions at this time, I shall withhold that time.
Mr. ALLEN. If the Senator will yield, there is one question I would like to ask.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. ALLEN. I should like to comment on the amendment at a later time.
The Senator has spoken of the compromise. Has the compromise been agreed to, more or less, in the other body as well?
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand that the leadership has agreed to it and has agreed to push this compromise.
Mr. ALLEN. And probably it can be enacted within the next few days.
Mr. MUSKIE. I should hope that no conference will be needed. I should hope that it might be adopted today.
Mr. ALLEN. If the Senator will yield
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield the floor for the moment.
Mr. ALLEN. Will the Senator yield time to me if he is in control of the time, 5 minutes?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Alabama.
Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Senator from Maine. I commend him for his leadership in his amendment, the majority leader's amendment, which was submitted, I believe, back in September. This amendment is not dissimilar to the majority leader's amendment which was offered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield for a request for the yeas and nays?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. ALLEN. This amendment is not too dissimilar to the amendment of the distinguished majority leader when the bill was offered before the Senate on September 11, I believe. The House bill, of course, extends the Allocation Act for 2 months from its expiration, which would carry it, then, to the 1st of November. It did not have a provision preventing the President from immediately sending up a decontrol plan under the provisions of 4(g) (2) . The majority leader's amendment, which was the product of the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), provided for a 60-day extension from date of enactment. The present amendment would be for a somewhat lesser period, because it would only be a little over — it would be less than 50 days' actual extension.
The majority leader's amendment had the feature that the President could not send up a plan, a decontrol plan. He could send up all the proposed legislation he wanted to, but he cannot send up a decontrol plan under provision 4(g) (2) of the act until the expiration of 45 days. Then he would have the last 15 days. This gives Congress a somewhat lesser period than the original Mansfield amendment gave, so the President would be precluded from sending up such a take-it-or-leave-it plan until the 1st of November. Then, between the period of November 1 and November 15, he would have authority, under the present amendment, to submit such a decontrol plan.
In conference, when this matter was under consideration, I suggested this 15-day period, because I did not want and I do not want to see controls extended more than this one time. If Congress is unable to come up with a pricing system or a control plan, or whatever it wants to offer, in the allotted time, the President would have a 2-week period or a period of 15 days in which to submit a plan. I am going to serve fair warning that if Congress cannot come up with a plan that can be agreed to in Congress and approved by the President, or else passed over his veto, then I am going to give very serious consideration to the President's gradual decontrol plan. If he would submit the 39-month period again, then I would be inclined to support that. But I do favor Congress having the untrammeled right, or the right that would not be interfered with by the President, having the right solely to consider such a plan or a policy without having to look over its shoulder, so to speak, to see if the President is going to submit an additional decontrol plan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield him 2 more minutes.
Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Senator.
I do favor the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Maine, which is not too different from the original plan.
It has the added feature that there would be a mandatory vote on a gradual decontrol plan which the President might submit under the provisions of 4(g) (2) There is that approval.
I spoke in favor of the majority leader's amendment 2 weeks ago. I would still be for it if that were submitted. I think that, very likely, the present amendment is an improvement and I do plan to support it.
I hope Congress can come up with a policy or a plan in this allotted time. We go out for a recess, it seems, in a week or10 days, right in the midst of this plan. I question our ability to act in this time. But if we do not act, I think we ought to give very serious consideration to the President's gradual decontrol plan.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the distinguished Senator from Alabama and I especially would like to express my appreciation for his contribution in the form of this amendment. The idea of giving the President some time at the end of the period to submit a plan for the purpose of crystalizing the issues, I think, was a constructive contribution. I think that that contribution has made possible this agreement on a time extension. I wish to express my appreciation to the Senator.
Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Washington.
[Unrelated intervening action omitted]
EXTENSION OF THE EMERGENCY PETROLEUM ALLOCATION ACT OF 1973
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill (H.R. 9524) to extend the Emergency Petroleum Act of 1973.
Mr. FANNIN. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. WEICKER. I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona.
Mr. President, I rise to very reluctantly to support the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Maine.
At the outset, I believe it is important to note that the Senate has had this matter before it for 2 years, and for 2 years we have been unable to come up with a national energy policy.
It is very well to criticize the President, and I disagree with many of the specifics that he has proposed. The fact is he has had the plan; we have not.
I wonder whether or not within an additional 30 or 45 days we are going to be able to accomplish what we have not been able to do within a period of 2 years.
On the other hand, there is a major conference of which I am a member coming up as between the House of Representatives and the Senate. I am sure there will be input also from the administration. In one last attempt to arrive at an energy plan for the United States of America, rather than any particular political party or Presidential candiate, I feel that this amendment should receive our approval.
I also very much support the comments of the distinguished Senator from Alabama. If the Congress is unable to do the job by November 15, then I certainly intend to support the President's plan. This country needs a national energy program. The energy crisis is not a northeast crisis, or a southern crisis; it is not a crisis of poor or a crisis of rich; it is a national crisis that demands national attention. It is incumbent upon the Congress and the executive branch to develop a national energy plan, which is so essential to our economic recovery.
Before we begin these important negotiations, I want to point out one thing. Price, as far as I know, is going to be determined by the law of supply and demand. We can fudge or hedge that point if we want but the fact remains that price is going to be determined by that law.
On the demand side, no one apparently has been willing, politically, to do what is necessary, specifically, to impose mandatory fuel conservation.
Oh, we can talk about more fuel efficient cars, mass transit, and alternate sources of fuel. Those are easy solutions. However, the impact of these long-range programs will not be felt for 5 years or more.
The only thing we can do today is to conserve. Therefore, we have two choices.We can either thrust that burden on the poor, elderly, and fixed income people, if we ration by price, or we can go ahead and devise a plan and distribute the solution over all Americans.
Congress and the President have both determined that the imposition of a tough energy conservation program is politically not the wise thing to do. I think it is the right thing to do. By dampening demand, we will take an important step toward reducing price.
We now come over to supply — that is the other part of the equation — to get enough of the commodity onstream so that, in effect, it will bring the price down.
That is why I have supported and continue to support decontrol.
Mr. President, we cannot continue this present course of inaction. To date, we have done nothing to encourage conservation or to spur domestic oil production. What we have ended up with is scarce and high-price energy.
That is exactly what we have today, because we insist, as politicians, to ignore that very basic law of supply and demand.
It is very interesting to note that many of the Democratic Governors have been making statements of late that indicate they might favor some decontrol of natural gas because they realize what the crisis is going to be this winter in that area. They realize that, again, the law of supply and demand has to come into operation if indeed they are going to have enough of that commodity in their States.
Why have decontrol? Having voted for decontrol and having been accused of being anticonsumer, what is it that all of a sudden makes decontrol all right in the area of natural gas but not all right in the area of fuel?
Mr. President, the unemployment rate in my State of Connecticut continues to rise. As I have often stated, the gasoline lines of 1973 were replaced by the unemployment lines today.
The sudden boost in fuel prices in 1973 raised havoc with our economy. We are still feeling the effects today — until we begin to resolve this energy crisis, the United States will remain economic prisoners of war to an oil cartel.
We must face up to some tough decisions and recognize the simple economic facts of life. The most basic truth of all — the law of supply and demand must be followed. Never mind how tough it may be on the Congress politically. Mandatory conservation means lower demand. Price decontrol means greater supply. The combination means a way out of the economic hell that has wracked this country, in my State of Connecticut in particular.
I am hopeful that the House-Senate conference committee will agree on an energy policy that puts this Nation on the read to energy self-sufficiency.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Ohio.
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding.
Mr. President, this is a welcome development. Indeed, it removes our energy policy, however briefly, from the realm of confrontation and at the same time, we are making a promise, I trust, to take action without undue delay.
The energy problem, it seems to me, is not merely one of price, which has been mentioned a good deal here this morning, but one of energy supply, conservation, and capital necessary to make the investments produce the additional energy supply that is needed in all of the various fields.
I find I am very much in agreement with the approach taken to a temporary answer to this problem. In fact, last Friday I wrote to the President and delivered a letter to the White House advocating almost exactly the step that has been taken in this amendment, that is now proposed, and I welcome it.
I heard almost immediately the next morning from Mr. Zarb, and he commenced by agreeing with the general position I took, and he then came to the Hill and, working with the Democratic leadership, was able to work out this compromise solution.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at the end of my remarks a copy of my letter to the President of last Friday.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, there is clearly a need for a long-range solution to this problem. As the Senator from Connecticut has said, we have taken some 2 years of worrying around this problem without ever really getting down to the brass tacks of doing something about it. In spite of my welcoming this temporary emergency extension, which I think is necessary and eliminates some risks that might be involved, I must say I am not sanguine at all about the prospects of our being able to work out a solution to the problem in the period that is involved here.
If it does not work out, I must say I think there is little alternative but to go to decontrol and take the risks that are involved. The lack of any response of the market to the brief period that just occurred in the past few weeks is some indication of what might happen.
I think also this morning we should all look at the developments in the Arab oil world very carefully because apparently there was a major breakup in OPEC yesterday over the proposed increase in pricing that is involved.
I also suggest to those who are working on committees that they take a look at another suggestion that came up recently that seems to me to have merit of being considered fully by Professor Adelman, a great expert in this area, advocating that we turn to looking at import licenses to the nations desiring to import oil into the United States with those import licenses bid on a secret bid basis and kept on a secret bid basis.
I believe firmly this might have an impact on OPEC where we already see, I think, some tendency to see division and breakup with market factors beginning to be taken into consideration.
Mr. BARTLETT Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. TAFT. I note the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma mentioned that, and I am glad to yield to him.
Mr. BARTLETT. I ask the Senator from Ohio a question because he mentioned the OPEC meeting that is going on now.
Does the Senator believe that the action taken here today presumably by Congress and the President extending price controls will encourage the OPEC nations to reduce the increase or have a larger increase in price?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. TAFT. I do not know which way, but for any prolonged period, I am inclined to think the impact could be adverse insofar as we are concerned. The temporary extension, my inclination is, is not going to be of any significant moment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. BARTLETT. I thank the Senator.
EXHIBIT 1
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: As one who has supported your efforts to develop a national energy policy, including the support I gave to your veto of the six-month postponement of action by the Democratic leadership in Congress, I am today urging you to agree to a 60-day extension of the Emergency Petroleum Act. I am also urging you to agree not to use section 4(g) (2) of the emergency bill during the 45-day period requested.
I believe that this action will place the energy bill squarely in the court of the Congressional leadership.
During the long debate over oil pricing policy I have advocated phased deregulation. I have written to you in the past that I do not feel that immediate deregulation is in the best interest of our economy, as we come out of the recession and try to combat inflation.
In candor, I have severe doubts that the Congress can agree on a phased deregulation in 46 days. As you know, the record of the Congress is not good on the issue.
The Democratic Policy Committee has asked for a 60-day extension with no use of section 4(g)(2). This section permits you to submit a deregulation plan subject to Congressional disapproval. I would urge you to accept their proposal, to go the extra mile, and to agree not to use the 4(g) (2) power for the 45 days, and to have the 60-day period begin on day of enactment, if enactment comes before September 26, next Friday.
After spending time recently traveling in many parts of Ohio, I am convinced that the people are tired of confrontation and want compromise on the issue.
While I am not convinced that this good faith effort on your part will be accepted, it can do no harm and might resolve the issue.
I look forward to continuing to work with you on the passage of a national energy program.
Sincerely,
BOB TAFT. Jr.
Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from Oregon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Less than 2 minutes.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be an additional 5 minutes, time to be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut well put the problem with which the Senate and this Congress has been involved for at least 2 years, generally, and at least since last February, specifically, trying to solve the energy crisis.
We all remember the debates we had here in the middle of February when the President had imposed his $1, then $2, and it was to be $3 tariff. Congress overruled his power to do it. He vetoed it.We asked for 60 more days in order to have an energy policy. We did not complete one.
I am not here to blame anyone, but we did not have one, or certainly we did not have one that was acceptable to the President.
We now have an additional roughly 45 days from the time this will go into effect, and that is time enough to come up with an energy policy. I think it is time enough to come up with an energy policy that will be acceptable to the President, but it means more than just decontrol of oil, whether it is immediate or over 2 or 3 or 4 years, and the deregulation of natural gas. That is not an energy policy. That is part of an overall policy. That is not conservation of resources. That is not production of additional energy.
I hope that we do not bog down in the next 45 days as to whether we should decontrol oil over 1 year or 2 years or 3 years or 4 years and whether we should deregulate gas, or that just the Outer Continental Shelf should be regulated, and the internal gas be unregulated, because that will not solve our problem. That may get us through part of it temporarily. I hope we look at the broader picture in the next 45 days — less the 10-day recess — the next 45 days that Congress has.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, the cooperation of the President has been outstanding during the months of negotiation and energy legislation. Time after time he has demonstrated his sincere interest in reaching a compromise with the Congress on energy policy. He has not let partisan politics cloud his judgment on the need for reaching a fair compromise.
I have previously praised the majority leader and the other leaders on the Democratic side, including the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Washington, for their work in bringing this matter to a conclusion so that we have a chance to go forward on this legislation.
In agreeing to this extension, the President has agreed not only to accept an extension of the act until November 15, 1975, but also has agreed, as the distinguished Senator from Maine has brought out, not to submit a plan for administrative decontrol prior to November 1, 1975.
Mr. President, I emphasize that the President has continually met Congress more than halfway on this very difficult pricing issue. It should be clear that this extension places a burden on Congress to legislate an acceptable program to phase out price controls during the extension period.
Should an agreement not be reached during the period of extension the Congress will also have an obligation to pass the legislation requested by the President in order to insure an orderly transition to complete an abrupt decontrol. This includes an acceptable windfall tax program, legislation to assist independent refiners and retail marketers, and standby legislation to control propane marketers during periods of natural gas shortages.
The last matter is of very great importance from the standpoint of shortages. The shortage of propane may be the most serious of all. Of course, a shortage of natural gas results in a shortage of propane.
It goes without saying that Congress must simultaneously move to pass the natural gas legislation to both avoid serious disruption this winter and begin a long-term solution to our declining natural gas supplies.
Mr. President, this morning we are taking the first step in what I hope will be a solution of our energy problems. I assure the majority leader and the Senator from Maine — both of whom will be very active in the decisions that are going to be made — of our cooperation. I know that Senator SCOTT has expressed his full cooperation. We want to work together in taking this necessary step, which will help us greatly in solving the problems we have had in the past.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Arizona has expired. The Senator from Maine has 2½ minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I will not use the 2½ minutes.
We all have had a great deal to say in the past months about our differences of opinion with respect to energy policy. I am not going to try to review that; I do not think it would be useful. Under this amendment, we will have 45 days to continue to express our differences.
The point I should like to emphasize is that what we are trying to create here is a period of accommodation. I emphasize that if we are to have an energy policy, accommodation is going to be essential. That is going to require movement — movement on both sides. If either side takes this period as a period of bringing pressure on the other to achieve a unilateral movement, it is not going to work.
So what we are trying to create here is a period of accommodation. I hope that all Senators understand that: that it does not inhibit us from pressing our points of view; but I hope that prior to November 15 — and earlier than that, if possible — we will have achieved that accommodation. It is for that purpose that I have offered this amendment.
I yield back the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. 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. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the agreement of the Senate as to a roll call vote on the Mansfield amendment be vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
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 72, nays 5, as follows:
[Roll call tally omitted]
So Mr. MUSKIE's amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Montana, as amended.
The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SUBMITTED ON
H.R. 9524
OIL CONTROL EXTENSION
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I support this legislation to extend the oil allocation program temporarily in the hopes that the Congress can work out a reasonable energy program.
I supported this temporary extension 2 weeks ago. For the Senator from Kansas is concerned about the possible adverse impact immediate decontrol could have on consumers, industry, agriculture, and even on some parts of the oil industry, such as the independent marketers and refiners.
So consumers should applaud this compromise. Except for one thing — we have gone 2 more weeks without a comprehensive program to achieve energy independence.
But what is 2 weeks? It is a miniscule amount of time that could surely be of no harm to anybody as long as something in the way of a clearcut policy comes out of it. By the same token, what is 2 months? Or 6 months? Or 2 years — since the time it first became obvious that we had better come up with a policy to achieve independence from foreign produced oil.
COST TO CONSUMERS
The harm is very simple to explain. Every time we delay it costs consumers. Some of the costs are hard to see because they are remote and not apparent to consumers. For instance, consumers may not know it but they ultimately bear the costs of inefficient practices and businesses that are kept in existence by Federal controls and bureaucracy.
Some of the costs are not so hard to see. You can read about them in the newspaper. According to my very rough calculation, our lack of a clear-cut energy independence program is probably going to cost consumers something over $2.5 billion. That is 10 percent of our annual oil bill, except that our oil imports are going up all the time — about 40 percent now — so the extra tab consumers pick up will be a little higher.
Ten percent is the increase that it appears the OPEC nations are going to impose on us as a result of the meeting they are having right now. Yet 10 percent is down from the 30 percent that was advocated earlier.
OPEC DISARRAY
And we can see that from the newspaper account that the OPEC nations are in considerable disarray. Moderate members are advocating only a 5-percent increase. The reason is obvious.
There has been a very substantial softening of world demand for OPEC oil and the age-old force of competition and supply and demand is coming to bear. OPEC nations are beginning to recognize that their price increases are having repercussions on them and other nations that are supposed to be their friends around the world.
Mr. President, I am firmly convinced that if we had a clear and firm policy that would lead us to energy independence the OPEC nations would not be talking about a 30-percent increase, or a 10-percent, or any increase. In fact, they would be talking about lowering their prices to something closer to the cost of production.
And if we had adopted that policy 2 weeks ago, or 2 months ago, or 2 years ago, the cost to consumers in the end would have been less.
CONSERVATION AND PRODUCTION
This is not to say we have not made some progress. We have passed some legislation to improve our conservation efforts. We have passed some legislation to increase our energy research efforts. So we are making some progress toward a comprehensive policy.
But I repeat, Mr. President, that the first premise of my support for this temporary extension and compromise is that during the next 6 weeks, a reasonable and comprehensive energy policy will be worked out and agreed to.
Such a policy, if it is to be both reasonable and comprehensive, must pursue two complementary goals — conservation and increased production.
So far, those few halting legislative steps we have taken since the end of the embargo have done quite the opposite. By holding down the price of oil we have encouraged its consumption rather than decreased it. And by holding down the price of oil, we have also discouraged domestic production, rather than increased it.
Neither result moves us in the direction of energy independence, which is our ultimate goal. Only a comprehensive policy that takes the factors of production — which must be increased — and conservation — which must be encouraged — can achieve that goal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there are no further amendment, 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 the third time. The bill was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced — yeas 75, nays 5, as follows:
[Roll call tally omitted]
So the bill (H.R. 9524) as amended, was passed.