THE CONGRESS: Healing Hand

It was a moment the Democrats had long dreaded: the opening of the U.S. Senate debate on the natural gas bill passed last year by the House. In passionate support of the bill were Democratic Senators from such gas-producing states as Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas. In furious opposition were Democratic Senators from such gas-consuming states as Illinois, Minnesota. The prospect of a Democratic bloodletting was eminently pleasing to Republicans, who figured they had only to sit back and enjoy the spectacle. They reckoned, however, without the healing hand of Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson.

Soothing Words. Texan Johnson was himself in the forefront of those who supported the bill, which would relieve gas producers from the federal rate controls now imposed on them. But, foreseeing the consequences of party split in an election year, Johnson urged the extreme partisans on both sides to discuss the issue on its merits, avoiding all forms of invective and recrimination. Several times on the Senate floor, when Illinois’ Paul Douglas became excited in his attacks on the bill, Johnson strolled over, threw an arm around Douglas’ shoulders and whispered soothing words of party unity.

To handle the bill on the floor, Johnson picked Oklahoma’s amiable Senator Mike Monroney, at whom nobody ever gets mad. Backing Monroney was Arkansas’ syrup-toned Senator William Fulbright, who specializes in charm. In the background was Oklahoma’s heavy-fisted, wrath-kindling Senator Robert Kerr, longtime champion of the gas producers.

Lyndon Johnson also worked out a leisurely Senate schedule—noon to 6 p.m., five days a week—so that Senators might not succumb to the irritability that comes with fatigue. The gas bill’s backers presented their case during the first three days of debate, then gave over the floor to the opponents. Johnson privately warned his side not to interrupt the opponents with too many questions but, rather, to let them talk themselves out. The result of Johnson’s managerial tactics was an orderly and uncommonly high-quality discussion of the gas bill’s issues.

Pro & Con. The bill’s supporters argued that gas production is a competitive business (there are more than 5,000 producers, with the largest 100 companies having some 80% of the market) and therefore should not be subjected to public utility rate-making processes.

The bill’s opponents denied that competition among gas producers is enough to protect consumers, on whom any increase in production rates would eventually fall. Explained Paul Douglas, in beginning a 150-page speech: “I know that the widespread publicity campaign of the oil and gas industry that ‘competition’ can be relied upon to protect the consumer against exorbitant prices is not supported by the evidence. It ignores the decisive fact that, unlike coal, oil, cheese, milk, beer, potatoes, copper and other commodities to which industry literature mistakenly compares gas, there is only one feasible method of distribution of gas—the pipelines and the local gas mains.”

In that tone, the debate continued. By midweek, Lyndon Johnson was satisfied that there would be no unhealing wounds among Democrats. He made a brief speech on behalf of the gas bill, then took the rest of the week off.