480 HISTORY OF THF COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



accomplish this within less than a 10-year time period. I think, to 

 put that into the bill, is certainly not going to add anything to it." 

 Mosher supported Fuqua's argument: 



I think I must associate myself with the comments you just made. I am a prag- 

 matist. Even though I personally sympathize rather strongly with the emphasis that 

 \li Emery's amendment would encourage, I must say, having gone through this 

 business for three or four years, I recognize that as a matter of strategy at this time 

 we are probably going to get further with the wording of the Lloyd proposal. I would 

 support the Lloyd proposal. 



Lloyd added: 



All that we are talking about is how to make this the most palatable. * * * The 

 problem that we have had in the past has been a hangup because of the 10-year 

 situation. 



Emery asked for a rollcall, and Lloyd's substitute version was 

 adopted by a vote of 9 to 1 in the subcommittee. Harkin then added 

 an amendment specifying that agriculture be represented on the Board, 

 and McCormack replaced the phrase "sizes and shapes" with the more 

 definitive "dimensions and configurations. " Fuqua then offered this 

 bouquet to Symington : 



I would like to take a moment to commend the Chairman for his diligence in 

 holding days of hearings, in trying to work out a compromise encompassing different 

 views of many people that have expressed them on this legislation. He has done a 

 fine job. I think the Subcommittee owes him a real debt of gratitude. 



When the full committee assembled for its markup session on 

 June 16, the argument over the 10-year timeframe flared up again. 

 Symington announced that by eliminating the timeframe and giving the 

 Board "authority to consider what adverse impact might flow from 

 the bill and make such recommendations as are deemed fit", both the 

 AFL-CIO and small business would not oppose the bill. Goldwater 

 took up the battle: 



It concerns me that there is not some sort of target to shoot at. * * * It would 

 appear that one of the reasons for the bill would be to announce to the world and to 

 the American people that it is our goal. * * * If we do not have a goal set, no one 

 will take us seriously. 



Wydler argued against the time limit, observing that "I don't 

 know how you can try to say you are going to have a voluntary pro- 

 gram and set a time limit." In response to Wydler's question on where 

 the AFL-CIO stood, Symington responded: 



While they may not carry banners and march on behalf of the bill * * * they will 

 accept it. 



This prompted Wydler to announce: "I want to express my lukewarm 

 support for the legislation." 



