October 1, 1976
Page 34412
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I am shortly going to send to the desk the concurrent resolution providing that the two Houses of Congress shall adjourn on today, Friday, October 1, 1976, and that when they adjourn on said day they stand adjourned sine die.
I shall take only a few minutes to explain the situation before I send the resolution to the desk.
For several days the leadership has stated that it was its intention to adjourn sine die today or tomorrow. As a matter of fact, the majority leader months ago, I believe, announced to Members of the Senate that it was the intention to adjourn Congress by October 2, which is tomorrow.
Before the majority leader left to go to China, he and I visited with the Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the other body. We stated that it was the intention of the Senate to adjourn this weekend, meaning no later than October 2.
I have, since Mr. MANSFIELD departed, repeated that statement— Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. — repeated that statement to the leadership of the other body. It has been stated to the Democratic Policy Committee, by me, and I believe that it has been stated to the Democratic Policy Committee by Mr. MANSFIELD.
It has been stated to all Members of this body publicly by me and I think that everyone has been notified of its publication.
I am in a difficult and painful position, in view of the fact that we are going to try to adjourn in accordance with the announcement by the majority leader and me, an announcement which was taken at face value by the leadership in the other body, an announcement which has been heard and taken at full value by the Members of this body. We are operating under a time constraint that makes it impossible to stay on any measure for long.
I convened a meeting of the policy committee only a few days ago, stated this problem, got the unanimous consent of that committee to proceed as best I could to take up certain measures with the understanding that if we could not dispose of them after a reasonable length of time, and that reasonable length of time has to depend upon the narrowing time frame, then I was to take steps to set those measures aside and go on to something else.
Members know that this is the policy that I have tried to implement. I carried it out yesterday with respect to the Murphy nomination.
The conference report now before this body was brought up late last night. There is a filibuster in progress. I support the legislation. But I feel that I have a duty to implement the announcements, the commitments, that have been made by the leadership.
The Senate has been debating this measure since 10 o'clock this morning, with one or two interruptions. I only recall one, that being the interruption to dispose of the message from the House on the continuing resolution.
Now we only have 7 hours and 45 minutes remaining before midnight. I have attempted to delay, as long as I felt that I possibly could, any action that would have the effect of setting aside this conference report. I know that the distinguished Senator from Maine feels strongly about this measure. He has worked hard for at least 2 years to bring it to enactment. He has spent many, many hours, days, and weeks in that effort.
My senior colleague, the distinguished JENNINGS RANDOLPH, from West Virginia, as chairman of the committee, is equally deeply committed to the enactment of that measure.
We have before the Senate also the black lung bill. There is no measure on the calendar that I know of that means more to me personally than the black lung bill. Next to that is the mine safety bill, because of my own circumstances in representing a coal mining State.
There are Members, other than myself, who would like to see final action on both of those measures. There are Members who want to see action on other measures that are of particular benefit to their own respective States.
But we have reached the point where we can only do what we can do in the time frame that remains.
I hope that the Senate will pass the black lung bill before the day is over. Every passing minute diminishes the reality of the eventuality of that.
So, what I am about to attempt to do is certainly not meant to offend any Senator. It is not taken because of any personal animus to any Senator.
Mr. BUMPERS. May we have order, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend for a moment. Will the Senate be in order?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Or any personal animus toward the legislation that is before us now.
If it were not the Clean Air Act, it would be something else. I have been notified by various and sundry Senators that if this is brought up they are prepared to filibuster; if that is brought up they are prepared to filibuster; if something else is brought they are prepared to filibuster. So it in this case unfortunately happens to be the Clean Air Act.
But whatever act it might have been, and were it black lung, I would have to take the very same action that I am going to have to attempt to do now.
There are other measures that are very important, equally important as this one, and certainly in the minds of some Senators perhaps more important; in the minds of others, less important.
We will soon have the message from the House on the unemployment compensation tax bill. I am told that if any measure is an absolute must before we go out, that one is.
The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Finance came to me today and outlined to me a number of measures that he felt were in the "must" category. I convened a meeting of Senators to discuss those measures, to see if we could find some consensus as to which measures we should proceed to in the event we can proceed. I think the meeting was a productive one.
I am not in a position at the moment that is a very comfortable one to me, as all Senators recognize, I know; but I cannot pass that responsibility to someone else.
So I shall shortly send my resolution to the desk and move its consideration. However, before I do, I should like the Chair to protect my rights, and I want to yield to the distinguished Senator from Maine, with the understanding that my rights are fully protected in so yielding.
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. Will the Senator then yield to me?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from West Virginia will yield to the Senator from Maine without losing his right to the floor.
The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.
It must be obvious that we have discussed this somewhat preliminarily off the floor, and I indicated my strong opposition to the action that the distinguished assistant majority leader is about to take. It leaves me virtually defenseless, since it is a privileged motion, as I understand it. It is nondebatable when it is put. So there will be very little opportunity, except these few minutes — as to which the Senator has proposed no limitations, may I say — to give my reasons for opposing it.
I will concede that there are a number of important measures that Members would like to attend to. I suspect that the Senator from Alabama has one of those in mind, and there are others.
My point, Mr. President, is this: when a major Senate priority such as the Clean Air Act, which has consumed 2 years of intensive work by a Senate committee, which has been overwhelmingly supported in several votes by the Senate, which has consumed many hours and several days of thoughtful and constructive consideration by a House conference committee, which has been substantially supported in the other House, reaches the last 2 or 3 days of a session, it should not be possible for a handful of Senators to frustrate the will of the Senate and to block even a vote on that major measure.
I ask: What incentive is there for any committee to take a complex issue such as this, which was obviously time consuming, and carry it through to this kind of legislative conclusion?
It is said that because we have taken 2 years, the last step is being taken in haste. What kind of logic is that? We have invested hundreds of hours of work and effectively persuaded the Senate, by 3 to 1 votes, that this is sound public policy.
If we do not enact this bill, just to take one consequence, the automobile industry of this country, with respect to its next model year cars, will be manufacturing cars that are in violation of the laws of this country. They will be subject to the applicable civil and criminal sanctions in the present act. As I said earlier, that does not seem to deter them. They have made it clear that they want to kill this bill, and they dare Congress to hold them accountable. They have made that clear.
I say to my colleagues that, as one Senator, I will do nothing to give them a quick fix in January.
If they precipitate this kind of problem, if they want this country of 200 million Americans to sit in the grandstands watching while this great American industry blithely rolls illegal car after illegal car off the assembly lines, challenging Congress to do anything about it, that is their prerogative, and apparently we are going to serve that prerogative here today.
With respect to when we should adjourn, as against that consequence and the importance for the country, is it that important that we adjourn by midnight today? We do not even take the maximum time tomorrow that the distinguished majority whip suggested we might take yesterday. Even then, is that an imperative? Is that a national priority? Is that so overriding in its consequences that we can close our eyes to the consequences of failure to take action on this bill?
I do not believe so.
I told the distinguished Senator from West Virginia in our private conversation that I thought this step was unwise, against the public interest, and I still think it is. This is not to denigrate his personal integrity or his intention. I have watched his performance on the Senate floor, and it has been superb. It is not an easy job to manage the business of the Senate and to manage its floor. I have not challenged his performance of those duties or the discharge of those responsibilities at any time. I think the Senator will agree with me.
However, I simply cannot sit here silently and let this abortion of the legislative process — and I do not refer to the Senator's act — take place without protesting, with whatever eloquence I can, that the purpose of the legislative process is to serve the interests of the people of this country; that so long as we have reasonable access to that process to achieve an important national goal, we should do it.
What are we asking for? We are asking for nothing more than a vote — a vote — the last step in a process that has taken 2 years, with many steps, agonizing steps, occupying hundreds of hours of effort. The last step is all we ask.
If those who have a case against this measure cannot make a case sufficient to persuade a majority of the Senate, they have no case at this point. The people have made their case through their elected representatives, through this long process, which has not been hasty. It has been as deliberate, as careful, as thorough, and as comprehensive as the legislative process in connection with any other piece of legislation I have ever seen. They choose to call it hasty, but they are not prepared to make their case and let the Senate judge it with a vote.
It is for that reason, Mr. President, that I think — it is only my view, perhaps — that the leadership has some responsibility to support a committee of the Senate which has undertaken to discharge its responsibilities in this responsible way.
I do not like to say this, and I certainly would not want the Senator from West Virginia to think that I take any personal offense to his action. He is doing his duty as he sees it. But the effect of what he is doing this early is to play into the hands of those who would deny the Senate a vote.
Even another 24 hours could have made a difference. Thirty-six hours or 48 hours could have made a great difference and could have meant that the Senate could have had that vote, in the interests of the people of the Nation. But because of some commitment taken when the circumstances facing us tonight were not anticipated, because of a commitment made to adjourn by October 1 or 2, we have given, by that commitment that did not anticipate these circumstances, to anybody, who wants to do the same thing, a blank check to do it. The Senator from West Virginia, by proposing this action even if he does not go through with it, has effectively torpedoed any chance we have to break this filibuster, because now, the opponents of this bill know that the impatience to conclude the Senate is playing on their side. So I guess it does not matter at this point whether the Senator from West Virginia moves his concurrent resolution or not. I think that, by simply suggesting it, we have destroyed whatever promise there was in the legislative environment for getting final action on this bill.
For that, Mr. President, I am deeply regretful. There is no personal bitterness in it. But I will tell you, if this happens, when January rolls around and somebody says to me, "Senator MUSKIE, don't you think it is time to begin working on another Clean Air Act?" I shall say to them, "Gentlemen, obviously, I am not the man to do it. I presided over an effort for 2 years that you killed. The prospect of spending another 2 years to find out what was wrong with that bill and what we should do differently is just so forbidding — just so forbidding — that I cannot see any point in making the effort."
How do you please these people when you write a bill, take hours to explain it, make several efforts to do so, and then you sit here listening all day to such utter distortions of what it says, of what it would do, after you have for all these days tried to address in as precise language as possible the public interest in economic growth and the environment in a balanced way with the help of a committee that will always rank as high as any group of men that I have ever worked with; with the help of a committee whose members gave unstintingly of their intelligence, their understanding, their legislative expertise, to bring about sound balancing judgments. To see all that wasted, so utterly wasted, gentlemen, is what prompts me to say what I have had to say.
I thank my good friend from West Virginia for his usual courtesy. I want him to understand again that I understand he is doing his duty as he sees it.
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. Will the Senator from West Virginia yield?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. If the Senator will indulge me very briefly, I thank the distinguished Senator from Maine. I appreciate what he has said. I understand thoroughly his views.
If we had not been on a prolonged action in connection with the civil rights attorneys' fees bill, it is possible that we could have gotten more done than we were able to do. If the Senate were to remain in tomorrow, I do not believe there would be any difference in the outcome, because, at this stage — at this stage — the matter was only sent to conference on September 16 or 20 — I see two dates there. This was not the fault of the distinguished Senator from Maine. But if the Senate were to stay in all night tonight and all day tomorrow, until midnight tomorrow night, I am convinced that one Senator or two Senators; or a half dozen — in this instance, I have reason to believe that it is more than a half dozen — can prevent the passage of this conference report or any other conference report, other than — well, I do not think of any that might escape that penalty.
I yield with the same understanding, Mr. President, to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia yields to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania without losing his right to the floor.
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. I thank the distinguished assistant majority leader.
I say first of all, if it were possible to get to a vote on the Clean Air Act conference report, I would vote for it. I think the work done by that committee and the conferees deserves the highest praise. I am aware of the feeling of those who do not believe that the bill is as good as the Senator from Maine thinks it is, as good as I think it is — granting some defects. If there were any way under the beneficence of the Senate rules by which we could secure action on it, I would be in favor of doing it.
We have found, in the last few weeks, that we are somewhat better at delay and a degree of obstruction than we are at constructive enterprises, the same constructive enterprises that do mark our work throughout most of the session.
I have been in touch with some of the leadership on the other side of the Capitol, so I rise chiefly to say that they have adopted an adjournment resolution, or so I understand. They have also adopted a reconvening resolution for the 4th of January, the latter being of only academic interest to me.
I believe the distinguished acting majority leader is entirely in his rights in proposing adjournment sine die after the Senate has disposed of some remaining bits and pieces, inelegantly known as cats and dogs and it looks as if we have sidetracked the lions for the cats and dogs. I do not know if that is any sort of victory for the environment or not. But I do not think the air is going to get any cleaner in here between now and midnight. Therefore, I believe that we should take into serious consideration the fact that the House of Representatives knows what it wants to do.
I congratulate them for that. I think this represents an achievement and, I may even dare to say, progress. But I do hope that we can find our way out of this embattled impasse. I do think we have to face a decision which is the responsibility of the majority, which the minority does not wish to impede. That is adjournment sine die.
Personally, I wish all of you well. I hope that some of you are reelected. Since I am not going anywhere, it would be the height of gracelessness for me to suggest that some of you are not, either. But more generously speaking, I wish you all the very best of success and happiness and, as the Chinese say, you are sentenced to live in interesting times. I hope that whatever you do, you will find it in accord with your highest hopes, your greatest aspirations, and your happiest wishes.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a clarification?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Republican leader for his comments.
May I say it has been a pleasure to work with him. I have found the relationship between the two sides to be one that has always given me considerable comfort in that there was mutual respect and understanding and cooperation. As far as I am concerned, his presence will be missed in this regard.
Mr. President, I now yield to the distinguished Senator from Alabama with the same understanding that my rights will be protected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALLEN. Under the resolution, would the distinguished assistant majority leader seek to provide a period of from 2 to 3 to 4 hours for the possible passage of the bills on the calendar and possible conference reports as to which there is a unanimity of opinion? I have reference, for one, to the omnibus rivers and harbors bill that is in conference. The conferees are in session now. It involves 39 States. Senator RANDOLPH says there is no objection to that from any source.
Would we stay on this measure or will we be given an opportunity to pass some bills, understanding that one Senator, in all likelihood, could prevent the passage of any such bills?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, it is the intention of the leadership to proceed as rapidly as the leadership is able to proceed to other measures. The unemployment compensation tax message will come over from the House; the measures which were referred to earlier by me in connection with the Finance Committee. I have made a solemn promise that I would try to bring up the Bilby nomination. I had to make that commitment in order to get certain Senators to stop objecting to every unanimous consent request that is made. I did not promise that the nomination would be confirmed. I obviously could not, but I did assure them I would do what I could, and that may not be very much, to get that nomination up. I would have done it last evening but for the fact that a Senator on this side of the aisle, who is expected to be back at 5 o'clock, circa 5 o'clock, yesterday afternoon but who could not get back because of the weather. I had assured him I would do nothing yesterday until he returned. But he could not return because of the weather.
I have to carry out my commitment at some point now, and I want to do what I can. But the Senate will determine whether or not the Bilby nomination gets anywhere.
There are various and sundry unanimous consent matters on the calendar that have already been cleared on both sides which can be rapidly disposed of if there is no objection. There are some other measures which, while they may not be disposed of by unanimous consent, can possibly be disposed of within a matter of minutes, 5 or 10 minutes, if we can be allowed to proceed.
Mr. ALLEN. One further question: Under the wording of the resolution, which has not yet been presented, since it will say something to this effect, that when the Senate adjourns today it will adjourn sine die, would that then leave the Senate free to go beyond midnight for its adjournment?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Well, I have been in legislative bodies in which the clock has been turned back. I personally hope we would not have to do that.
Mr. ALLEN. I am not talking about turning back the clock. But this legislative day might extend well over into tomorrow.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I understand that, but I believe if this resolution should be adopted it would be binding on the Senate to adjourn by 12 midnight, and I would like, without losing my right to the floor—
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. — to ask the distinguished Chair if I am correct. I will read the resolution. I would like to know if that is correct. The resolution reads:
That the two Houses of Congress shall adjourn on Friday, October 1, 1976, and when they adjourn on said day they stand adjourned sine die.
Would that mean that at 12 midnight the Senate would have to go out under the precedents?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. By 12 midnight the Senate would go out.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes, I will yield at that point.
Mr. CURTIS. I thank the distinguished majority leader.
I wonder if he would give some consideration to changing the language so that when the Senate adjourns that it adjourn sine die. It may not be a measure I am interested in, but it may be somebody's measure that we would have to see die, because of the lack of 7 minutes, if it is the will of the Senate to undertake it or 10 or 20 minutes. We have stayed in session beyond midnight before. It seems to me it is a little bit rigid to fix an exact hour and minute.
I would like to ask whether this could be changed to when this session for this day adjourns that it be a sine die adjournment, and I would earnestly urge consideration of that approach.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD, Well, as the Senator first phrased his suggestion "When it adjourns it adjourn sine die," this means it could go on and on for any number of hours beyond midnight or conceivably into tomorrow, Sunday, and Monday.
Mr. CURTIS. I am sure there are parliamentarians present who could help form language that would give a flexibility of a matter of minutes or maybe an hour or two in cases where the Senate in good faith is taking up something and messengers cannot get back and forth through the halls.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. May I say I am always amenable to workable suggestions. I certainly am not going to turn this one down flat. But this will not be a precedent setting resolution, may I say. This same type of resolution has been enacted many times; sine die resolutions.
Mr. GARY HART. Mr. President, will the Senator yield briefly?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I am told I should go to the telephone to talk with the Speaker. Will the Chair indulge me?
Now, Mr. President I yield to the distinguished Senator from Colorado (Mr. GARY HART).
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS CONFERENCE REPORT
The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report on the bill (S. 3219) to amend the Clean Air Act, as amended.
Mr. GARY HART. I thank the assistant majority leader.
Mr. President, I have not been in the Senate long but during the time I have been here I spent more time working on the legislation we have been discussing here today than anything else.
The effect of this resolution is to kill that legislation. The American people have a right to know the effect of this and the meaning of it over and above the impact on their lives.
Mr. President, what this suggests to me is that a few companies in a handful of industries still can control the great Senate of the United States. It is as simple as that. This is a measure that sought to protect the public health and welfare of the people of this country. It has been frustrated for a period of time which the subcommittee chairman mentioned, day after day after day and week after week every step of the way and, finally, that frustration is going to succeed on the last day of this session of Congress.
I think the message the American people deserve to have is that in addition to sacrificing their public health on the altar of expediency, that even in an era of sunshine, open government, participatory democracy and all the rest, forces representing concentrated power and wealth in this country still can dominate the Congress of the United States and can still shut off legislation that is designed to protect all the people of this country. That is exactly what is happening here in the Senate of the United States today.
The subcommittee chairman is absolutely correct. The net effect of this legislation is going to put a number of the largest corporations in this country in violation of the laws, probably within the next 12 to 14 months. For my part, I think it would be extremely interesting to have an Attorney General of the United States who would enforce those laws. Then we might see an end to that kind of domination that I am complaining of here today.
I frankly do not find the prospects of that too likely.
But if those companies think that they can come back to the Senate, as the subcommittee chairman has indicated, and get the kind of quick relief from violating the laws of the United States that I think they anticipate, they have it from this Senator from Colorado that they will not have an easy time. I, for one, intend to put to them solid proof, much greater proof than they offered the Congress in the last year, that they can implement and comply with the present technology, that they can do both.
Mr. President, I think the lesson of the CIean Air Act of 1976 is that the day of dominant industry and corporate power by a handful of people is not over.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. GARY HART. I yield.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I yield to the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. I appreciate the remarksof the Senator from Colorado. He has stated the case precisely as I see it. We are facing forces on the last day, forces which have been nibbling away at this bill for 2 years.
Incidentally, Mr. President, when this concurrent resolution is before the Senate, I would like to ask for the yeas and nays so that I may indicate my objection to an adjournment sine die with this vital piece of public business unsettled, even if I am the only one to vote against it. Is it in order to ask for the yeas and nays?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BAKER). The Chair will advise the Senator from Maine—
Mr. MUSKIE. May I ask unanimous consent that I may ask for the yeas and nays at this time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is asking unanimous consent that it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays on the resolution. Is there an objection? There is no objection.
Mr. MUSKIE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Are there other Senators, Mr. President? I will yield to the Senator from Utah and then to the Senator from Louisiana. I yield with the same understanding as before, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GARN. Mr. President, I listened to the distinguished Senator from Maine throughout his entire presentation on this legislation. During my presentation he was here for part of it, as others were here, when we were trying to make our case. I tried to make a case and not too many people were here to listen to it.
That is neither here nor there. We did try to make a case and we feel we do have a case.
I must say with all due respect to my colleague from Colorado, our neighboring State, I resent the continuing implications that somehow big business lobbies are running this Senate.
No one has talked to me from industry, nobody has been here. I am trying to protect my State.
I am also rather disgruntled when I continue to hear talk about the health of the people of this country. The primary and secondary standards are still in effect. We are talking about nondegradation going far, far beyond what has been certified as public health. But we constantly use that. We are talking about health.
The distinguished senior Senator from Utah and others who are opposed to this will not let anybody in this body indicate by implication that we are not concerned about the public health of this country, or that somehow big business is running this Senate.
To the contrary, as long as those remarks have been made, I think it is rather humorous, that constant rhetoric in the press that we hear about the effect of business lobbies and how powerful they are.
I think they are just about extinct, with the Ralph Naders and George Meanys and Common Cause and all the liberals, so-called public interest groups, running rampant, with more arm-twisting ability than all the business lobbies put together. They might as well stay home.
Let it not be said that any of us are against the public health. We think we have a case against this bill. We think it is detrimental to this economy. We think it will produce unemployment. We do not have the easy answers to stand up and say public health, and everybody else who is against this is for dirty air and people dying. I resent that kind of comment.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I promised to yield to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I understand the Senator's problem. I think I have been around here long enough to see these things both ways. When a very major and important piece of legislation is before the Senate and there is determined opposition, if only by one or two Senators, we have to decide whether we think we can overcome that opposition, or whether we think we cannot. Then we have to think in terms of how long we should try to keep the Senate in session.
It is a matter of judgment that somebody has to make. I do not envy the acting leader for having to make that decision. I am satisfied that he is convinced we are not going to be able to pass this bill at this time. He has no choice but to keep the commitment that he has made with regard to adjournment, which means that he will have to move the bills that he thinks can be passed.
As much as one might talk about yielding to big business and that kind of thing, and I would be happy to vote for the bill if it can be brought to a vote, I submit the Senator's motion would be voted down. By about noon tomorrow Mr. MUSKIE and Mr. GARN put together cannot get a quorum in this body.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. To say nothing about the other body.
Mr. LONG. That is correct. Members should in all good faith plan to cancel their planes and be here for the next 2 or 3 weeks, long enough to defeat the opposition of those who are doing what they have every right to do.
I have been around here long enough to see it both ways. I have seen bad bills that I joined with others in helping to defeat, and took great pride in having done so. Sometimes we have seen the President veto bills of that sort.
On the other hand, I have seen the case where we decided to pull in our neck and stay in as long as necessary in order to pass a bill.
I have also seen where we thought we had no choice but to go on our way.
The Senator is faced with something this year that does not happen every year. That is that at least one-third of this body are up for reelection. When it comes down to the question of whether this bill will die in this Congress or their political contribution to this Nation will come to an end at the polls a month from now, they are going to have to vote for their own survival so they can come back and try to do more good for the country.
One thing I have learned is if you cannot be elected you cannot do any good for anybody.
So people are faced with those sorts of hard choices to make.
I want to say to the Senator that I have complete sympathy with the position in which the acting leader finds himself. Recognizing that, I will resolve my doubts about whether we should come back in November and support the Senator.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the Senator. I will yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.
Incidentally, I have inquired as to whether or not the House would be in a position to take the resolution, amended, to meet until 2 o'clock on Saturday morning, which would give 2 additional hours. I have the word back that they want the resolution the way it is, the way we discussed it, and the way we have agreed upon it. It would cause them real problems over there. Mr. O'NEILL told me personally within the last hour and 15 minutes on the telephone that he would be in bad trouble with respect to losing a quorum if we went very late tonight.
Mr. PELL. I thank the acting majority leader for yielding.
I speak as a Senator who in the past has supported three-fifths cloture, not majority cloture, and I must say that the events of the past week where I have seen the will of a substantial majority thwarted time and time again, and the events of the past few hours where I have seen the will of a substantial majority again thwarted, make me believe, as a member of the Rules Committee, and speaking to the Senator from West Virginia in his capacity as chairman of the Rules Subcommittee, that we must reexamine those rules to prevent situations of this sort happening in other times, not only with regard to cloture, but how the rights under cloture will be exercised. I think the impression left with the country as a whole is that the will of a substantial majority time after time is thwarted. That situation should not be permitted to continue.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I must propose my resolution. I promised to yield to Mr. STEVENS. I hope I have been fair to Senators on both sides in yielding. I yield to the Senator from Alaska (Mr. STEVENS) under the same conditions.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia has always been fair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator use his microphone?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. And, Mr. President, please may we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I wish to echo, to a certain extent, what the Senator from Utah has said, and express my feelings about the comments of the Senator from Colorado.
I hope we will not reach the point where those of us who try to protect the interests of our States are deemed to be speaking for these "unknown large interests." I, too, have not been contacted by anyone. But I wish to point out on this bill, the conference report has yet to be made available to us for study, and I do think that something this significant in terms of change of the clean air standards, in terms of nondegradation, ought to be available to Members before it is voted on.
I think it is unfortunate that we have to face it in the last few days. I am not critical of anyone that we do, but I do not think it is proper to assess the situation and credit some unknown "large major interest" for this delay when it happens to be the Senators from very small States of this Union who are objecting to this bill.
My people are thousands of miles away from here and have no chance at all to see this conference report. They must rely upon my judgment as to whether or not it is in the best interests of Alaska. Until I can at least study the bill, I do not know how I can be charged with that duty and carry it out, in the waning hours of the session.
It does not disturb me very deeply to have comments come now that the major industries of this country have somehow or other brought about this delay of the clean air standards. As I have told the Senate, I am perfectly willing to stay another week and work out a clean air bill. I would like to see a clean air bill, but one that is fair to all areas of this Nation.
My State happens to have one-half of all the public lands of the United States. The most significant impact of this bill is on public lands, and until my State government can see this conference report, I think it is improper for the Senate of the United States to vote on it.
That is why I voted not to take it up at this time.
I do believe also that that vote ought to be taken in the light of the fact that we have the threat of a total filibuster, with many other things still to be taken up tonight, it disturbs me to hear Senators speak in terms of so-called defeat. I do not think it is a defeat. I think Senator MUSKIE has done a great job. I remember many bills before that have died at the end of a session, and come back to life in the next Congress; for example, the Alaska pipeline bill. Our Alaska Land Claims Settlement Act was defeated, but it passed the very next Congress.
I believe the people of this country will be better off when all of the people understand what is in this bill, and not just those who are in Washington.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me just 1 minute?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I am constrained to insist that we proceed as expeditiously as possible. I yield momentarily to the Senator from Utah.
Mr. MOSS. I, too, commend Senator MUSKIE and all the members of the committee for all their work on this bill. I commend the assistant majority leader for the actions he has taken, and I commend also what the Senator from Alaska has said.
All this amounts to is a hiatus while we try to go through a bill of this size to see what it will do to our States.
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I have at the desk the unemployment compensation message. It will be my intention, following the action on the resolution of adjournment, to see that that is called up, because that is a serious matter. It is a matter that, as I understand, we must act on before we go out.
Then, Mr. President, I wonder if we could have unanimous consent that upon the disposition of that matter, I could be recognized to take care of sundry matters on the calendar that have been agreed to on both sides and can be adopted by unanimous consent, because that may put to rest a good deal of concern on the part of many Senators with respect to some of those measures. I ask unanimous consent that I be granted that opportunity.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do not think I will, will that agreement leave opportunity for Senators to address themselves to the individual items and any individual unanimous consent requests that may be put as the Senator goes through those items?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes; any Senator could object, but as of now they have been cleared on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from West Virginia?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate? I yield the distinguished Senator from Minnesota 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Senators will kindly clear the well.
The Senator from Minnesota may proceed.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I thank the acting majority leader. I was just wondering if he could indicate to me when we might take up a conference report on the grain inspection bill. I do not believe it will take too long; I trust it will not. I would like to do it as soon as possible.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes; Mr. President, it would be my hope that once we have disposed of the unemployment compensation conference report and if I can get agreement on the part of all Senators that I may proceed with unanimous consent items on the calendar and at the desk that have been cleared on both sides, we would then proceed with the adoption of that conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator already has that unanimous consent.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes, I have that consent, that I may proceed to that conference report at that time.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Does the Senator prefer, however, that I hold it until we have taken up the unemployment compensation report?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I would prefer that.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes. The House of Representatives has passed this grain inspection matter, so I will withhold it; that will be all right.
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I yield.
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. I am going to ask the Senator if at some point he will examine H.R. 14535, which the House has passed. It has been cleared on our side of the aisle and I understand it has been cleared on the other side.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes; that is one of the items that have been cleared on both sides, and I will include it when I am recognized for that purpose.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Does the unanimous consent request also include H.R. 15531, which is not at the desk but which has been cleared?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. If it is cleared to pass by unanimous consent, it would be so included.
Now, Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Senators and staff will kindly clear the aisles. The Senate will be in order.
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I will yield to one more Senator, and then I must proceed with the resolution; because of the passage of time. I was necessarily absent earlier. We are in conference, hoping to complete the water resources bill. We feel that we may reach an agreement, but I cannot speak for the conference.
Mr. RANDOLPH. If there were an agreement in the conference what would be the position of bringing that report to the Senate?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Which House acts on that first? Would it be the other body?
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senate does.
ROBERT C. BYRD. I hope the Senate could take some action if that be the case. I cannot assure the Senator of that. I would certainly hope it could.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I appreciate it. May I ask another question?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. RANDOLPH. We have had under consideration the black lung bill. I am informed that if we were able to pass the black lung bill, the House would agree to the Senate measure. Do we have any knowledge of that?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. May I answer the Senator? If I can get a unanimous consent agreement on that measure, and if time does not run out, that is the one that is dearest to my heart, may I say. But I do not know. I cannot give the Senator any assurance. I will do the. best I can.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I thank the Senator.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 211 — PROVIDING FOR THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE CONGRESS ON FRIDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1976
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I send to the desk a concurrent resolution, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the concurrent resolution. The legislative clerk read as follows:
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring) , That the two Houses of Congress shall adjourn on Friday, October 1, 1976, and that when they adjourn on said day, they stand adjourned sine die.
Without objection, the Senate will proceed to the immediate consideration of the resolution.
UP AMENDMENT NO. 521
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows :
The Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) proposes unprinted amendment numbered 521, to amend the resolution by striking "Friday"and inserting "Saturday."
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, this is non-debatable.
But I ask unanimous consent that the Senator may have 1 minute and I may have 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, first, I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the clear purpose of the amendment, and I shall not take but a moment, is to provide additional time for debating the Clean Air Act in the hope that we may be able to enlighten those Senators who feel they still have not had enough time, after 2 years, to understand it so that we may get to a vote.
That is the only purpose.
So I asked for the yeas and nays.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I respect the Senator's intention. I do not think it would change the situation here one whit. And, of course, the Senator does not agree with that, and he is within his rights. I think it would create problems in the other body. I have been told by the majority leader over there, as I said a moment ago, that they would be in grave danger of losing a quorum late this evening.
I am constrained to move to lay the amendment on the table.
Mr. MUSKIE. Before the Senator does, will the Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Before I do that, I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I know the Senator and I have had different intelligence from the other body, but I have had intelligence from sources who seem to be close to the majority leader to the effect that if we would send them this bill they could hold until Saturday. I think that is worth an effort.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I simply cannot go on and on yielding.
Mr. ABOUREZK. Regular order, Mr. President.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to lay the Senator's amendment on the table, and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the amendment of the Senator from Maine. 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 36, nays 33, as follows:
[Roll call vote tally omitted.]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, may we proceed with the vote on the resolution?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to Senate Concurrent Resolution 211. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
So the resolution was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair points out that the guests in the gallery are guests and order must be maintained in the gallery as well as in the Chamber.
The Senate will be in order. The galleries will be in order.
The Senators will kindly clear the well. Will those Senators wishing to converse kindly withdraw to the cloakrooms? The Senators and visitors will kindly clear the aisles, and if they wish to converse, do so in the cloakroom. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope the Senators will respect the Chair's efforts to get order. Those efforts are chewing up the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thanks the Senator from West Virginia.
Will the Senators wishing to converse kindly clear the aisles and withdraw to the cloakrooms? Will the Senators and their visitors kindly withdraw if they wish to converse?
The clerk will proceed.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was agreed to.
Mr. LONG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.