October 2,1979
Page 27070
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield to my able colleague.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me first commend the Senator for his tremendous remarks here today.
Obviously it must be very difficult for him, having seen the problem of America being without alternatives in terms of energy, and yet having so much coal and other resources, to be unable to act, when he knows we had a chance to bring those technologies into fruition years ago. It must be enormously frustrating for him.
In the Senator's honest opinion, does he believe that we could bring onboard 8 or 10 synthetic fuel plants — and I say 8 or 10 — the 3 major conversions, with 8 or 10 technologies, 50,000 barrels a day or so for each conversion. Does the Senator think we could bring them onboard with business as usual in terms of the regulatory process in this country?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Absolutely not.
Mr. DOMENICI. So whether this Mobilization Board says synthetic fuels or not, if they happen to end up being energy projects, it is the Senator's opinion that without an expediting procedure, they will not be built, is that correct?
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is my feeling. I have so said and I am glad to reaffirm it now.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I simply want to thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for putting this whole matter into context, particularly in historical context. As he says so very eloquently, if we do not change this law, if we stay with business as usual, then, by the time that I have been in this body as long as the distinguished Senator from West Virginia has been in Congress, we shall still be talking about synthetic fuels and the opportunity we missed back in the late 1970's.
I thank the Senator for putting it so well in the context of his leadership.
Mr. DOMENICI. Does the Senator from Louisiana really think he is going to be here that long?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I have served for and with eight Presidents. You know, Presidents come and go. It is a privilege to be here with all of the Senators.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Hope springs eternal, I say to the Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I am sure the Senator's people will continue to exercise their good judgment and continue to bring him here. But we hope we do not have to make that hindsight observation.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the Senator for his comments
The question of committee jurisdiction is a sensitive one, and all of us, to the maximum extent, should try to accommodate it, not just by the strict text of the rules but also by the spirit of what the rules provide.
I say to the Senator that I had an amendment in committee which would have waived substantive law, and that was really the key amendment, it seems to us, which might go right up to the edge of the jurisdiction of the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
The first thing we did was to check with the Parliamentarian on the question of whether that, in fact, would encroach upon the jurisdiction of the Senator's committee. We were advised that so long as the Energy Mobilization Board would make the decision for the local boards or for the Federal boards, it would not, in his judgment, encroach on the jurisdiction of the Senator's committee.
Nevertheless, we determined in our committee that, in the event we were able to agree to that amendment in the committee, we would present it on the floor as a committee amendment and not present it as part of the bill — that is, to keep from encroaching on the jurisdiction of the Senator's committee..
As it happened, we compromised the whole issue and withdrew any waiver of substantive law and came up with this joint bill, which we do not feel and which we hope does not encroach on either the letter nor the spirit of the jurisdiction of the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
But the Senator has been a strong leader in this whole field and a strong leader on the consolidated approach. I recall he was the coauthor, and in fact the principal author, of Senate Resolution 45, where we studied this whole energy thing and had a joint committee effort.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Senator JACKSON and I and many others worked together.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I hope we have achieved a proper respect for the various committee jurisdictions. To the extent that we have not — and I hope the Senator agrees that we have — but to the extent that we have not, I, for one, will certainly redouble my efforts to continue to work with the Senator from West Virginia in this area in the future because it is a sensitive one and I respect not only his committee's jurisdiction but the distinguished Senator from West Virginia has been a great leader in this whole field, as well as the distinguished Senator from Maine and others on the committee.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes; I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. This colloquy, I think, offers an appropriate opportunity to discuss the procedure for disposing of this legislation on the floor. The fact is that most of the substantive legislation impacted by the pending bill is within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee. We agreed prior to the August recess to not insist on sequential referral in order to make our contribution to the shape of this legislation and agreed that as a substitute we will try to work at the staff level on a consultative and cooperative basis in order to expedite this legislation.
The staffs did consult, and I gather the staff of the Energy Committee was cooperative in the sense that they received suggestions from our staff and communicated them to the members of the Energy Committee. What I find happened is the members of the Energy Committee, without our background in the substantive law, produced a result that to me does not sufficiently reflect the substantive problems that we see emerging.
The Energy Committee has undertaken to try to make a distinction between substantive and procedural law.
It has been a long time since I was a law student; not quite as long as when I was a lawyer. But I remember an admonition of my law professors that a substantive right without a remedy is no right. It is not quite that easy to separate substantive law from procedure. I think the pending legislation has problems in that respect that we seek to address.
Not having had an opportunity, as members of the Environment and Public Works Committee, to make our impact on the pending legislation we have worked informally and included in our group members of the Governmental Affairs Committee because of Senator RIBICOFF's, Senator ROTH's, and Senator PERCY's very great interest in these issues to try to develop a common approach to the problems that we see.
Senator RIBICOFF took the leadership in shaping the substitute which has been offered. I think the substitute that has been offered is a good piece of legislation and it moves, I think, effectively in the two directions of expediting regulatory decision and also protecting important issues of substantive law.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. RIBICOFF. I am pleased the majority leader is in the Chamber. Before the recess the majority leader, because of his deep concern to move the President's energy program, called to his office the distinguished Senator from Washington, the chairman of the Energy Committee, the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) , of the Public Works Committee, myself of Governmental Affairs, and Mr. PROXMIRE of the Banking Committee. He asked us to cooperate together in such a way as not to delay this bill. All of us promised the majority leader that we would try to work this out, not have sequential referrals, since we wanted to expedite the legislation, and that during the recess the staffs would meet for substantive discussions and then after the recess they would come back to the distinguished Senator from Maine, the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. PROXMIRE) , and myself, for further discussions to see whether we could have an input coming out of our varied jurisdictions.
There were some desultory conversations between the staffs, but little of substance was changed by the members of the Energy Committee.. All of us from the other committees devoted many hours to try to fashion this legislation to have meaning. All of us had an interest in this legislation and we were, for all purposes, willing to give up our jurisdictional rights so that we would satisfy the request of the majority leader to have something of substance and in which we could all have an input.
It is very interesting that here we have as cosponsors of the substitute five chairmen of major committees. We came in here this noon. We discussed with the distinguished Senator from Washington and the Senator from New Mexico the possibility of working out a time agreement of some 6 hours for a discussion of this substitute so we could have a full debate on major issues and then we would have a vote. There was no intention to either filibuster or to have a delay. But there were so many Members of this body who wanted to have an input in the debate that we felt that 3 hours on a side was a minimum and that we would debate most of the day with votes coming early tomorrow. It was to my amazement that I find now that the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, who was not part of this agreement, now intends to move to table this legislation without giving an opportunity to really discuss this measure in its entirety.
This legislation is of such substantive meaning for the entire Nation. There is an alternative that has the support of many organizations. Every governmental group — the Governors, the counties, the cities — and every environmental group is in favor of the substitute and yet there is not any opportunity for a discussion.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield to the Senator.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I simply say to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, as I told the distinguished Senator from Maine, I do not want to cut off Members who have important statements to make. At the time I talked about the motion to table there was virtually no one on the floor and we were speaking to ourselves. At least that is one way to get the attention of those who wish to speak. As long as there is someone who really wants to speak and has a substantive statement to make, we will certainly allow that.
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is exactly what I am doing.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a second, the majority leader is here. There was a willingness, apparently, for a time agreement and there is still willingness on our side for a time agreement where we could have a full debate and then have an opportunity to vote. I thought as we discussed this with the members of the Energy Committee that there was this understanding. I had cleared this with the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the Senator from Maine, and the Senator from Delaware, Mr. ROTH. All of us had come to what we thought was agreement for a 6-hour time limitation.
On a bill of such major importance I do not think that that is too much time to discuss this.
Mr. JOHNSTON. May I say to the Senator that is fine with our side. We are willing to go along with any time agreement that you wish.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. President, we cannot hear.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,will the distinguished Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield to my majority leader.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I would like to make this observation to what the distinguished Senator from Connecticut has said. On a time agreement, I was approached with the idea of having a 6-hour time limitation on the substitute and 1 hour on any amendment. I understood in talking with the minority there were some problems over on that side at that time. However, it was indicated that we might proceed and yet be able to arrive at some kind of a time agreement, and I hope we can.
So, if at the moment, as I have listened to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, and where I have gathered from what he has stated that he does not intend to press a tabling motion immediately so that the debate can go forward, we can reach a conclusion on the matter or we can get a time agreement hopefullythat will be fair to all sides, that may be accomplished.
Mr. MUSKIE addressed the Chair.
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator from West Virginia now has the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I will yield; yes, sir.
Mr. MUSKIE. You know, it is one thing to be given time at the sufferance of the floor manager of the bill, to decide when and if he will offer a tabling motion. It is another thing to have time as a matter of right.
I understand the Senator from Louisiana is a generous man, but if I were in his shoes floor managing a bill, controlling time at my own will as to when I will make a tabling motion, I could use that pretty arbitrarily, and I think those who support Senator RIBICOFF's substitute have a right to sufficient time to make the case.
What we wanted to do was to use that time, rather than a series of amendments, and I have 40 amendments at the desk which I would be glad to call up one at a time in order to get the time. But what we prefer to do would be to have an adequate time to cover the range of issues indicated so that Senators could be informed and then make a decision.
I have no objection to that. I have no desire to prolong this debate. I am not a natural filibusterer.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I would be willing to go along with anything the Senator wishes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Would 6 hours do it?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
Mr. JOHNSTON. That is agreeable to me. If the minority agrees, 6 hours are fine with me.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me say to my good chairman he knows that from early this morning I was unable to get agreement, because some Members are absent, to a time certain, but I have clearly indicated that I do not want to be part of cutting anyone off from debate. I told Senator JOHNSTON that you wanted to speak and Senator RIBICOFF wanted to speak, and he knew you were coming down here. He is of the opinion that we eventually ought to have a motion to table, and I think you agree that is certainly an acceptable procedure. From our standpoint, even though we cannot agree to 6 hours, 3 hours, or 2 hours, you have our assurances that we in no way intend, at least I do not as the floor manager for our side, to hurry the matter up and to deny you, or any of those who support the substitute, time.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,will the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield to my majority leader.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Why do we not use this approach so that all Senators will know when a vote will occur: I suggest that, perhaps, we agree that a vote occur, say, tomorrow in respect of . the substitute at a given hour, say, at 2 o'clock, and in the meantime there be a time limitation on any amendments thereto of, say, 1 hour. That would give ample time to debate the matter — or make it 3 o'clock — ample time to debate the matter, and Senators would know when there was going to be a final vote.
We could leave intact a Senator's right to table if he wished, but in any event we would know that there would be a showdown on the amendment or on a tabling motion at a given hour tomorrow. Would that be agreeable?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me say to the distinguished majority leader that I cannot agree to any time limit. I want my friends to know that this bill is in a very complicated parliamentary position. Your bill is a substitute to a substitute. We have amendments that are not drafted to the substitute but drawn to the original bill, a very important water amendment, and they do not know whether it belongs on yours or it belongs on this, and those are all very natural things, and they have asked that we not agree to a time limitation. I think it will evolve that we will vote on your proposal before the day is out. I am willing to be here and it will come about. You said you do not want to filibuster, is that not right, I say to my good friend from Maine?
Mr. MUSKIE. I never found that skill.
Mr. DOMENICI. You do not know of anyone on your side who intends to?
Mr. MUSKIE. There are a number of Senators, and the number seems to grow as the Senators focus on the implications of the legislation, who want to speak. There are a half dozen of us who have been involved in the Ribicoff substitute, including the distinguished chairman of the Public Works Committee (Mr. RANDOLPH), and he has amendments of his own to which he will address himself before too long, but if we could have some assurance — it does not necessarily have to be a time agreement — someone else may come here and make a motion to table — but if we can have some assuranceof 6 hours
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield to the Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Perhaps it will help the debate if I say I will not move to table before, say, 6 o'clock or before — or unless we have the opportunity to have a unanimous consent agreement in the meantime.
Frankly, at 6 o'clock if somebody has to have more time, then I would be inclined to go along with that. But there is one thing about a motion to table hanging over one's head and that is it does get people over on the floor to debate.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would rather be holding it up.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I will tell the Senator from Maine, if it will suit him, that I will not move to table before 6 o'clock. Will that satisfy the Senator?
Mr. MUSKIE. Make it 7.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I would we could be through by 7.
Mr. MUSKIE. Make it 7.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,will the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield to my majority leader.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I hope, if it is going to be beyond 6 o'clock, that it will be tomorrow.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I think the Senator makes a good point.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes; I think he does.