CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
September 12, 1969
Page 25321
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, quite briefly, and for the information of Senators, after all this attack on the carrier, the whole concept of the carrier, and the carrier fleet and everything else, the only real issue here now is, shall the Senate vote on whether or not there is need for this particular new carrier? To turn our backs now and run away from that issue, I think, would be terribly misleading to the country.
Of course, Senators can offer any amendment they wish to offer after the vote is had on this proposal. But to just turn now and run away and leave this matter wide open as to the sentiment of the Senate, with appropriation bills coming in in a very short time after this bill becomes law, it seems to me that we would be going back on our duty. I believe that with all my heart. I think the issue has been so sharply drawn it will have to be passed on.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, for which the time will come out of the opponents' time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. CASE. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The bill clerk resumed the call of the roll.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object -- and I am not going to object -- I want to make a parliamentary inquiry. Is it certain that we vote at 3 o'clock?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A call of the quorum is now proceeding. The quorum call has not been called off. The Chair is advised that the Senator may not reserve the right to object or to make a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senate will be in order. The clerk will continue the call of the roll. The Senate will be in order. Those who are not entitled to be on the floor will leave the floor immediately.
The call of the roll was concluded and the following Senators answered to their names
[List of Senators omitted]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is present. The Senate will be in order. Senators will take their seats.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me, to let me find out how much time I have remaining?
Mr. MONDALE. I yield.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from Mississippi that all of his time has been consumed in the quorum call, and that 17 minutes remain to the Senator from Minnesota. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. MONDALE. Am I correct that the substitute amendment I earlier proposed to call up can in fact be voted on now, under another precedent found by the Parliamentarian, as the first order of business at 3 o'clock, but without debate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. MONDALE. Will the Parliamentarian advise the Senator from Minnesota as to what steps must be taken to assure that it is the substitute Mondale-Case amendment which will be the item voted on?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is advised that the Chair makes the rulings, not the Parliamentarian.
Mr. MONDALE. The Senator from Minnesota stands corrected.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MONDALE. I yield to the Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding to me.
The Senator has stated the parliamentary situation as he understands it, and I wish to ask this in the form of a question, staying within the rules: As the Senator understands the situation, then, his amendment not being in order now under the rules, it would be in order come 3 o'clock?
Mr. MONDALE. My understanding is -- and this was the second question I attempted to raise -- that under the current ruling of the Chair, the amendment the Senate will vote on at 3 o'clock is the substitute amendment that we will offer in a manner which the Chair prescribes, which does not apply to the current nuclear carrier, but simply calls for a study of force levels and of the other relevant facts surrounding the attack carrier force level.
Mr. STENNIS. In other words, the Senator now proposes to abandon all reference, in his amendment, to this No. 2 attack carrier, and that would leave the Senate without any chance to pass directly on the matter that has been debated here, as to whether or not this money would be stricken out; is that correct?
Mr. MONDALE. No; the Senator does not understand the nature of the substitute.
As I have pointed out earlier, the heart of this amendment has always been the study issue: The question of whether we should have 15 attack carriers, what kind of attack carriers they should be, how attack carriers should be deployed, and, in the light of their cost and vulnerability, the proper mix in land and air tactical forces. That is the issue, and has always been the issue.
It has been the opposition that has sought to twist this into a question of whether we wanted a new nuclear attack carrier, whether we wanted a modern fleet, and, finally, whether we were foolish enough to leave this Nation undefended.
The issue involved in our amendment really is whether Congress wishes to assert its prerogatives under the Constitution, and decide whether it is acting wisely, whether there is waste, and whether we are spending the amount of money we should spend in the defense of this country. That is the issue.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, regardless of the Senator's purpose and the main focal point of the amendment, I respectfully think that the real issue here is whether or not this carrier is going to be authorized and the funds voted for it. We have debated that here for days and days.
Is it not true that if the Senator's substitute should now be adopted, it would leave the Senate without a chance to pass directly on that exact question?
Mr. MONDALE. The Senator is in error. The Senator from Minnesota or the Senator from New Jersey -- and the record makes this clear -- have never said that the issue here is whether there is to be a new nuclear attack carrier. That has never been raised by us. It has been the effort of those who oppose this amendment to create that confusion in the minds of our colleagues.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. MONDALE. I wish to complete my remarks; then I shall be happy to yield. Let me yield first to the Senator from New Jersey, and then I shall state, as precisely as I can, what is involved in this amendment.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, first, may we have order, please?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota has already accurately and succinctly described the purpose for which we offered our original amendment, and the reason why we would modify it to clear away any of the objections, several of which have been held by people seriously concerned that Congress should reassert its power over foreign policy and broad military spending, to take away from that issue any question that some people, favoring that, had about the wisdom of constructing this second carrier, on which contracts to the extent of some $133 million for long lead items had already been let.
In order to eliminate that and to raise into sharp and single focus the question we are really concerned about, we have sought to make this amendment.
Apparently the opponents of our amendment, because they wanted to have the question confused and wanted to have it appear that those who opposed stopping this single carrier were opposed to the reassertion by Congress of its basic constitutional authority, refused to allow us the normal right of Senators to make this amendment to our own amendment; and it is for that reason, and that reason alone, that we have pressed this matter and now have obtained, through the Presiding Officer from the Parliamentarian, a ruling that we have the right to offer and have voted on first, at the conclusion of the time fixed, the amended amendment.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Rhode Island that I promised the Senator from Maine I would yield to him. I will then yield to the Senator from Rhode Island for a question.
First I ask the Chair to advise the Senator from Minnesota what the procedure is as to the vote at 3 o'clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from Minnesota that at 3 o'clock all time will have been consumed. At that time the Senator may offer his amendment. However, there will be no time for debate.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I should like to address a question, if I may, to the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services in order to avoid confusion as to what issue we will be voting on at 3 o'clock.
Would the Senator from Mississippi object to calling the amendment up as the pending amendment under the rule and voting on it at 3 o'clock so as to avoid any confusion?
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator restate his question?
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I propose to call up the substitute amendment, the study amendment, as the matter we will vote on at 3 o'clock under the previous unanimous-consent agreement. In the light of the fact that we could do that in any event, but in a more complicated way, does the Senator still object to our doing so?
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I respond in this way to the Senator from Minnesota. The major matter that we have debated here concerns the authorization and appropriations at this session for this carrier. If his original proposal is withdrawn, there will be no chance for the Senate to pass on that question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, for that reason I respectfully submit to the Senate that if the Senator would let us go on and vote on his amendment as he now has offered it, the Senator could then offer an amendment to the pending bill for study or in any other form that he would want to modify the amendment. We would debate it. I would consider supporting the measure if it contained what I thought was reasonable language.
I think this is something that goes far too far. I make that suggestion.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, let us be aware in the Senate of what has happened. We have asked to modify the pending amendment so that we might study the central question of what our carrier force level should be. That is the key issue which the Senator from New Jersey and I wish to present.
Even though there had been debate about this at the time we agreed to vote, the chairman of the committee objected to our having that right which would be otherwise available if we had not made the agreement.
The Parliamentarian has now ruled that we can vote on the amendment.
It is a question of whether we can make it perfectly clear as to what the amendment is or whether there is still objection and it might be possible that some Senators will not know the nature of the amendment.
The chairman of the Armed Services Committee again objects. In light of that, I wish to repeat nevertheless that we will present our study amendment which is presently on the desks of all Senators. It is an exceedingly modest amendment. It does not reach the question of the 1969 nuclear attack carrier at all. It simply seeks to advise the Senate on the facts and contains a date for securing information that will permit the Senate to make a wise choice in this critical area.
Mr. President, I yield now to the Senator from New Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I want to make it perfectly clear that the first vote will be on the study.
The first vote will not be against providing funds for the second nuclear carrier. The provisions of the bill as presented by the committee in that respect will be undisturbed. So, a "yea" vote on the first vote, when time has run out, will in no way take away any funds from the second nuclear carrier.
If the Armed Services Committee -- and the Senator from Mississippi is chairman -- wishes to have a separate vote on the nuclear carrier, it could be arranged very simply by another amendment to strike the funds for that carrier. That can come up later if the Senator wishes.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I point out to the Senator from New Jersey that I might very well vote against a new nuclear attack carrier if such an amendment were to be offered by itself. But that was never the intention.
Mr. CASE. Never.
Mr. MONDALE. It is only that some of the opponents seek to make the issue one of nuclear or non-nuclear or new carrier against old carrier. When some seek to raise that issue, I point out that I am not among them.
Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I intend to support the new amendment of the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from New Jersey for a very simple reason. It is found in the language of the amendment on the first page. I read it:
Prior to April 30, 1970, Congress shall complete a comprehensive study and investigation of the past and projected costs and effectiveness of attack aircraft carriers and task forces and a thorough review of the considerations which went into the decision to maintain the present number of attack carriers. The results of this study shall be considered prior to any authorization or appropriation for the production or procurement of the nuclear aircraft carrier designated as CYAN-70.
In this form the amendment affects no funds in the bill for carriers.
As one Senator, I think that the Senate and the House of Representatives ought to have the benefit of these studies proposed by the new amendment. I urge every Senator in the room who believes that we are entitled to the benefits of that kind of a study before committing ourselves finally on the question of force levels in our attack carrier fleet to vote for the amendment.
I find it incredible that it should be urged on the floor that the Senate oppose an amendment designed to do nothing more than furnish the Senate with the information and the understanding and the knowledge necessary to determine the extent to which attack carriers are to be a part of our defense posture.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MONDALE. I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, referring to the language just read by the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), I notice that the first sentence says:
Prior to April 30, 1970, Congress shall complete . . .
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order so that we may hear the majority leader.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, did the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from New Jersey have in mind, instead of Congress, the Armed Services Committee, which then should report to the Senate?
Mr. MONDALE. Exactly. That is what is involved. When the amendment refers to the General Accounting Office, we want to make it clear that the study would be available to the Senate. Of course, the Armed Services Committee of the Senate is an appropriate body of the Senate.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MONDALE. I have only 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, the Senator is mistaken. It is another one of those amendments about what the Comptroller General is going to do. It would provide that he is to make a survey and report. In effect, it would take it out of the hands of Congress for a time. Is that not correct? Did the Senator read the amendment? It is three pages long.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, did the chairman of the Armed Services Committee ask if I had read my amendment?
Mr. STENNIS. I ask if that is not contained in it.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I point out in response to the Senator from Mississippi that the first portion of the amendment reads:
Congress shall complete–
Section (b) reads that in order to assist Congress, the GAO is instructed to make certain studies.
The control is in Congress, and in the Armed Services Committee under the language of the amendment.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MONDALE. I yield.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I want to make it very clear what the amendment would do. The chairman of the committee has attempted to make it clear that in his judgment we would be turning over to the Comptroller General the whole question of the future welfare of the United States.
Specifically our amendment is limited to two matters that the Comptroller General himself said he could handle. They relate to statistical matters and cost-effectiveness only. Those are the only questions which we are asking the Comptroller General to pass upon. He would be summarizing other studies purely for the benefit of Congress.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I should like to clarify the matter. The Senator from New Jersey is correct. This is a study amendment designed to determine not whether the existing carrier should be constructed, but whether the next nuclear carrier should be constructed. It interferes in no way, in a practical sense, with nuclear carriers. It is simply a question of whether the Senate wants to understand what it is doing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SCHWEIKER in the chair). All time has expired.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I ask that we vote on the substitute amendment.
SEVERAL SENATORS. Vote! Vote!
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question before the Senate is amendment No. 146.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, may we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
The Senator from Minnesota will have to call up his amendment.
Mr. MONDALE. I call up my amendment.
Mr. STENNIS. A point of order, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, in the unanimous-consent agreement entered into, the amendment being debated, the agreement was to vote at 3 p.m. today. That hour now having arrived, I make the point of order that no amendment is in order and nothing is in order now except to vote on the pending Mondale-Case amendment, amendment No. 146, on which it was agreed that there would be a vote at 3 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair states that under a previous precedent on August 30, 1949, the Vice President ruled that a unanimous-consent agreement to vote on an amendment at a specified time without further debate does not preclude offering an amendment to such amendment. Debate, however, is not permitted.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President–
Mr. MONDALE. I call up my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair holds that under this precedent, the amendment is in order.
Mr. STENNIS. I appeal, with respect, from the ruling of the Chair, and ask to be heard on it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Appeal is debatable, and the Chair recognizes the Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state the parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. CASE. Is the appeal debatable in spite of the fact that we are operating under unanimous consent?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair states that it is correct that we are operating under a unanimous-consent agreement; but under the rules, an appeal from the decision of the Chair is debatable and the Chair finds no precedent to the contrary.
Mr. CASE. Without limit, unless ordered by the Senate, under the rules?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the rules.
Mr. CASE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, as I understand, the Senator from Mississippi has been recognized on the appeal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, first, I emphasize that the appeal from the ruling of the Chair is made with great deference to the Presiding Officer.
I wish to preface my remarks by explaining the parliamentary situation, as I understand it.
Mr. President, this amendment carries with it the amendment that was originally filed, which has been debated for days, which would absolutely strike out of the bill the money, the $377 million, required to finish this carrier. That is plainly written on the face of the amendment. It changes the figures in the bill by the exact amount and is identified as deleting from this appropriation bill the $377 million. There can be no argument about that.
What would that mean if it were adopted in that form? It would mean that this would not be authorized, work on it would stop, and no appropriation could be had this year to finish the carrier.
There was an additional provision in the amendment, in its original form, that there should be a study made by the General Accounting Office and certain things should be done, and so forth. It was almost like the provision on the subject of the tank. That idea came under rather severe attack. Over and over again, the idea of the General Accounting Office making special reports on these military weapons was attacked. It fell more and more in disfavor. That is my judgment.
So about the time the debate started on this amendment, certain revisions were made by the authors -- and they had a right to do it -- partly eliminating the General Accounting Office and saying that Congress should make this study. Well, of course, Congress makes studies, anyway.
But they did not strike out the portion with reference to the General Accounting Office, and that is what I referred to a moment ago when I asked the Senator from Minnesota -- I refer to clause (b). The language which was left in reads:
He shall also–
Meaning the Comptroller General -- review any studies which have been made, or may be made, by the executive branch which relate to other items listed in subsection "a", above. He shall provide summaries.
That is true under the amended form. It does come back to Congress. But it would come back there, anyway. It would have to, under our Constitution, for one reason, about providing for the national defense.
So this amendment still could be improved greatly on that point alone.
I objected, as did many other members of the Committee on Armed Services, to this thing being abandoned at the last minute before voting.
I think the Senate would be marching up the hill and then marching down the hill. The people are entitled to a clean, clear-cut vote up or down as to this particular carrier.
I have taken it up with the Defense Department, and I am going to take it up with the President of the United States, as to a review of the carrier situation, as to the old ones, and as to the other items in the military program -- in the Air Force, the Navy, the Army, the Coast Guard, the Marine Corps -- all of them.
But this matter is really abandoning the amendment in part. Under the ruling of the Chair, it permits them to bring in an amendment that is just a part, a very small part, of their amendment.
Mr. PASTORE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I speak at the indulgence of the Chair, as I recall the ruling. Yes, I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, is this debate limited, may I ask?
Mr. CASE. This is on an appeal.
Mr. STENNIS. May I finish this thought before yielding to the Senator from Rhode Island?
The clear-cut decision will have to be made on voting this carrier up or down. Then, when that is disposed of, I would look with favor on some kind of amendment providing for a study not only of the carrier but also of any other phase of the military program. I do not think one ought to be singled out. But I would consider on its merits any kind of amendment that the Senator from Minnesota might have. I tried to convey that a moment ago, but time was too short. I think that is the orderly way to do it, rather than to leave this matter up in the air as to the carrier and whether money is going to be appropriated and where we stand.
So I respectfully ask the Senate to reject the substitute amendment, if we do not overrule the Chair, and then vote on the amendment as originally offered, and then vote on any other proposal.
I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, may I ask the indulgence of the Chair to make a parliamentary inquiry at this point?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator for that purpose.
Mr. PASTORE. In the event the Chair is sustained and the substitute becomes the order of business, would a motion to lay on the table the substitute amendment be in order on the ground that it is untimely, with the condition that it can be renewed after the vote takes place on the original amendment? Do I make myself clear?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair states that amendment would be in order.
Mr. PASTORE. It would be.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. PASTORE. In other words, if the status is that the substitute amendment comes up for vote and a motion is made to lay it on the table, because it precedes the original amendment which has raised this much confusion, the substitute could be introduced because those of us who believe the original amendment should be defeated and still believe an investigation and review should
be made, should have the opportunity to vote on that study.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I shall move to lay on the table as being untimely, that we have a vote on the original amendment, and then bring up the other amendment also.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. STENNIS. I have the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi has the floor.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. MONDALE. I will get my own time.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, may we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I call the attention of the Chair to this matter. On the front page of the Calendar of Business for today we find this unanimous-consent agreement:
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT ordered, That effective at 10:30 o'clock a.m., Friday, September 12, 1969, further debate on pending Amendment No. 146, offered by the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Mondale, to S. 2546, the military procurement authorization bill, be limited to 41/2hours to be equally divided and controlled by the proponents (Mr. Mondale) and the opponents (Mr. Stennis), and that the Senate proceed to vote on said Amendment No. 146 at 3:00 o'clock p.m. on that day. (Sept. 10, 1969.)
Mr. President, my point is this. It makes no difference what kind of precedent, so-called, might have been found by the Parliamentarian. The facts are just as they are written here on the front of this calendar which contains the unanimous-consent agreement.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, would the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. We could not possibly go wrong by following the agreement to which we agreed. I make the point that we should sustain this agreement.
I yield briefly to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Senator emphasized the fact that we are operating under a unanimous-consent agreement on a specific proposal. The Senator has been most anxious, as I have listened to the discussion on this bill, to develop unanimous-consent agreements in order that we may get on with the business. If we did not have the unanimous-consent agreement at the present time the original Mondale-Case amendment would be subject to amendment and we would not be blocked, as the Senator from Mississippi has undertaken to block that substitute. So the course of action the Senator is pursuing, it seems to me, is against his objective of reaching unanimous-consent agreements which have this effect on the rights of other Senators.
The debate on the floor of the Senate should influence the shape of the questions upon which the Senate is asked to decide. As a result of this debate the proponents of the original amendment want to modify and respond to the results of these deliberations on the floor of the Senate.
Why, then, should we not at this point consider a modification or substitute, which we would be able to consider but for the unanimous-consent agreement which was agreed to for the convenience of the Senator from Mississippi?
Mr. STENNIS. I beg the Senator's pardon, if I may. No unanimous-consent agreement has been made here for my convenience. I asked for those things considering the Senate's business. If it cannot be agreed to on the merits, it should not be agreed to on the basis of what I said or failed to do.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. COTTON. Is it the Senator's contention that if the Senate should adopt the substitute amendment that the effect of that adoption cuts out of the bill the $377 million?
SEVERAL SENATORS. No!
Mr. STENNIS. No. That is not the situation. The original amendment would cut it out, but their proposal now leaves that money in for the second carrier.
Mr. COTTON. It states that the results of the study shall be considered prior to any authorization or appropriation for the production or procurement of the nuclear aircraft carrier designated.
Does not that, in effect, cut it out for this year?
Mr. STENNIS. The intention of the language in the amended amendment refers to another carrier of the future. It is a third carrier. In the bill is a second carrier.
Mr. COTTON. So this substitute amendment does not cut out the proposed appropriation.
Mr. STENNIS. No.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. STENNIS. I yield to the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I wonder if I might have the Senator's attention because he properly called to the attention of the Senate that we had an agreement to vote at 3 o'clock. We have not been talking since then. It has been he, for his own purposes.
Would the Senator from Mississippi be willing to consider endeavoring to approximate compliance with the Senate's earlier decision by an agreement limiting time on this appeal?
Mr. STENNIS. I am not going to take more than a few more minutes.
Mr. CASE. Would the Senator consider an agreement fixing the time equally divided, say 10 minutes to a side?
Mr. STENNIS. Yes. I would be glad to.
Mr. PASTORE. What is that unanimous-consent proposal?
Mr. MANSFIELD. Ten minutes to a side, to bring the debate to an end.
Mr. PASTORE. To bring what debate to an end?
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and in order to meet the situation here, Senators have previous engagements. They were told they would vote at 3 o'clock. Under that agreement I withdraw my appeal from the Chair's ruling, with the understanding the Senator from Rhode Island be recognized.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognized the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PASTORE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. CASE. Has the Senator withdrawn his appeal?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The appeal has been withdrawn.
Mr. PASTORE. I have the floor.
Mr. CASE. Has the Senator withdrawn his appeal or not?
Mr. PASTORE. Yes, he has.
Mr. CASE. I make the point of order there is no time for debate or recognition of any Senator.
Mr. PASTORE. Yes, there is; to make a motion to lay on the table. Of course there is, and that is why I am standing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is permitted to make a motion.
Mr. PASTORE. I move to lay the substitute on the table as being untimely.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is not debatable. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced -- yeas 51, nays 34, as follows:
[Roll call vote tally omitted]
So the motion to table the substitute amendment was agreed to.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion to table was agreed to.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, in light of the adoption of the motion–
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question first arises on the motion to table.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to table the motion for reconsideration of the vote.
The motion to table was agreed to.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, in light of the fact that the issue arose on a motion to table, and without debate–
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry. There have been some rather peculiar rulings under the unanimous-consent agreement, but I thought the debate had been brought to an end.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state that further debate is not in order.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, do I have the floor? I move to table the pending amendment, and after it is, I will propose my substitute amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, would the Chair state the motion or the parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state that a motion to table the original amendment is not in order because of the unanimous-consent agreement.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I appeal from the ruling of the Chair, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not a sufficient number of seconds for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were not ordered.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President–
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for the purpose of speaking on the pending appeal from the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, the last vote on the motion to table by the Senator from Rhode Island raised the issue, but not in correct form, as to whether the U.S. Senate wanted to study what its attack carrier force level should be, what the purpose of those attack carriers should be, and the other costeffective matters which many Members of the Senate feel should be debated.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, may we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, we had hoped to make that the issue we would vote on at 3 o'clock. That had been the objective of the Senator from New Jersey and myself since we first laid this amendment before the Senate, not a week ago, but a day and a half ago. We wish that this study could be made, and we would like to have a direct vote which would permit the Senate to say whether it wanted a study of the aircraft carrier issue or whether it did not.
The substitute amendment in no way affects the authorization for the construction of the nuclear aircraft carrier CVAN-69. It simply asks that information be received from the General Accounting Office, based on its study, in time to permit the Senate to consider a matter which has been profoundly debated even within the Department of Defense and by the National Security Council itself.
Therefore, by moving to withdraw the original Case-Mondale amendment, I intended to lay before the Senate this amendment, thereby giving the Senate an opportunity to face directly the issue of whether it wanted to inform itself on a matter which is costing billions and billions of dollars a year, and which many responsible people in this country, including the Defense Department's own systems analysis branch, thinks needs long overdue study.
It is for those reasons that I proposed to introduce the substitute amendment with a different date for a report from the General Accounting Office, so we might have this information, and so the Senate might have an opportunity to be heard on the matter.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MONDALE. I am glad to yield.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I join the Senator from Minnesota in his appeal from the ruling of the Chair. It seems to me utterly incredible that the Senate could become so enmeshed in a web of rules that we would be taking an appeal from the ruling of the Chair denying a motion to table the original amendment, when debate on the substitute amendment was immediately cut off.
I would say the Senate has not been given an opportunity to work its will today.
I have followed rather closely the debate going on. I have not taken part in it, but I would say the Senate, in the course of debating a matter which is so important that it has debated the issue for over 2 days, should allow Senators to speak so that perhaps some minds should be changed a little. If not, why do we fan all the air and make all the talk? Why do we say, "You cannot change your minds. You have to be snubbed up. You have got to vote on this"?
As I understand the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from New Jersey, they said, "All right, we are ready to talk about it. You have talked about funding that second carrier long ago. We are willing to fall back and say, 'All right, we will fund our second carrier, but we would like to find out what the policy is before we get to the third carrier, instead of finding ourselves in the same box where we are snubbed so we cannot debate it at all.' "
It seems to me utterly incredible that the two Senators were not allowed to get a vote on their amendment, but were cut off with a tabling motion, when, in all the time I have been here, notice has always been given ahead of time that, after some talk about it, there would be a motion to table. Here it came out of the blue and it was said, "We will table that, snub it off. Now we will compel a motion on an amendment that the authors themselves say they do not want to have a vote on at this time."
Mr. MONDALE. I thank the Senator. Actually, we wanted to agree to a 3 o'clock voting time 3 days ago for the convenience of Senators. I had recommended 4 o'clock, but the representatives of our Armed Services Committee said, "No, you cannot have a vote after 3 o'clock." I tried to make it 3:30. "No," they said, "you have to have it at 3." Now here we are at 20 minutes of 4 and we still have not voted. We could have voted on this issue and had it out of the way. Here we are still trying to raise an issue that would permit the U.S. Senate to say, "Yes" or "No" on whether it wants to study the carrier program before it appropriates billions and billions of dollars.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has the floor.
Mr. MONDALE, I yield to the Senator from Washington for the purpose of asking a question.
Mr. JACKSON. Would it not be wiser to offer an independent amendment, bring it up on Monday, and offer it in the form that the Senator from Minnesota deems appropriate? Why avoid voting on that which was agreed to?
Mr. MONDALE. We have been trying to vote on it all day. We propose the very thing the Senator suggests.
Mr. JACKSON. The unanimous-consent agreement was to vote on the carrier, period.
Mr. MONDALE. No; the Senator from Washington is not correct. The heart of the pending substitute amendment was the heart of the original MondaleCase amendment, which in to study nuclear and other attack carrier forces. That has always been the issue. The Armed Services Committee does not wish us to vote on that question, because if we do, we will all know how many Members of the U.S. Senate think that matter should be opened up for study.
Mr. JACKSON. The original amendment was to cut the heart out of the CVAN-69.
Mr. MONDALE. No; the Senator apparently did not hear our debate. We said time and time again that the heart of that amendment was to raise the issue I have stated.
Mr. JACKSON. I have the amendment right here, No. 146.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has the floor. Has the Senator yielded?
Mr. MONDALE. I yield to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Minnesota this question: Is it not true that the original amendment encompassed two elements, first, the study, in the very same language as is found in the substitute amendment that the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from New Jersey have been undertaking to get before the Senate all afternoon; and the second element, raised by these two Senators only in their original amendment, was the question of the funding of the CVAN-69?
Mr. CASE. At this time.
Mr. MUSKIE. At this time. Now, these two Senators have asked that half of that amendment be set aside, in order to focus on what they said they considered the most important part of their amendment. As I understand the Senator from Washington and the Senator from Mississippi, they are saying to these two Senators that what they considered most important was the funding of aircraft carrier 69. The Senators are replying, "That is not what we considered most important; we considered most important the study. That is what we would like the Senate to vote on."
Now, why should not you gentlemen, who do not yourselves propose to cut out the funding for CVAN-69, permit the movers of the original amendment to focus on that part of their amendment that they considered important, and which obviously a number of Senators on this floor would like to vote on first?
Mr. MONDALE, And, if I may say so, the only reason we cannot vote on the amendment, in the first place, is because we agreed to a unanimous-consent agreement on time for the convenience of the Senate, and thus forfeited the benefit of certain rules which permit modification of amendments. Because we agreed to do that, we are denied rights that would otherwise be ours, to bring the issue to a vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Minnesota suspend for 1 minute?
Mr. MONDALE. Without yielding the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is informed that on page 300 of the book "Senate Procedure," it is stated that debate is not in order on appeals relative to the motion to table.
At this point, the Chair rules that further debate is not in order, and we have to go back and vote on the question of appealing the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, in spite of the fact that I have now explained my position, I move to table, with the understanding that the sponsors will support that motion, and then we will raise again a modified substitute amendment to permit us to vote on the main issue of the study of attack carriers.
I move to table, Mr. President, and I hope no one will object.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry. Will the Chair restate the ruling he made as to whether debate is in order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Debate in this instance is not in order, because on page 300 of "Senate Procedure" it is stated that debate is not in order on appeals relative to the motion to table.
The Senator from Minnesota has just moved to table the pending appeal of the decision of the Chair
Mr. MONDALE. No; the Presiding Officer did not exactly understand what I am seeking to do.
In spite of the fact that I have explained my position, I am moving to table the pending Mondale-Case amendment, with the understanding that we will vote for that motion, and then call up the substitute amendment.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has ruled that the motion is not in order, because we still have the matter of appealing the decision of the Chair to dispose of.
Mr. MONDALE. I withdraw that, and I move to table.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum while this is worked out.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. STENNIS. A point of order, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistance legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STENNIS. A point of order, Mr. President. Under the unanimous-consent agreement, the time to vote on the original amendment 146 has arrived.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senate that a quorum call is in progress, and debate is not in order.
The rollcall was continued.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, may we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The clerk will continue the rollcall.
The rollcall was continued.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded and that the Chamber be cleared except for those who should be in it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Chair orders that the Chamber be cleared of all unnecessary personnel.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, is my understanding correct that the pending vote is now on amendment No. 146 as originally proposed by the Senator from New Jersey and me?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state, so that everyone understands, that the pending matter is the appeal taken from the decision of the Chair that the motion to table the original amendment was not in order. That can only be withdrawn by unanimous consent.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the appeal from the ruling of the Chair be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I believe we are closer to a decision on this matter now than we could possibly get otherwise. The pending matter here will be whether we should vote on amendment No. 146. The time has already arrived for that vote. The yeas and nays have been ordered on the appeal. And I think we ought to take these matters as they come and get down to a vote.
The Chair has ruled correctly, I believe, and I think we ought to have a vote on that appeal and then bring up the only other matter pending-the vote on amendment No. 146.
I point out, if I may, that I am willing after a vote on amendment No. 146, the original Mondale-Case amendment, to try to work out something that calls for a study of some kind.
I am not willing to do so in the present form of the amendment. However, I would be willing to support the matter down to the figure "70" on page 1, and have a comprehensive study all the way through and see what can be done about it. If it passes, there will be an honest effort in conference. However, I object to withdrawing the appeal under these circumstances.
Mr. MONDALE. Does the Senator object to the withdrawing of the appeal?
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, excuse me. Perhaps I did not understand.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I renew my unanimous-consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Minnesota to withdraw his request? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have the right to object.
Mr. MANSFIELD. It is too late.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, a point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will announce that the Senate is now going to vote on the original amendment.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, does the pending amendment not only apply to the study which the original sponsors of the amendment have asked for, but also hold up funds temporarily for the 1969 carrier?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state that it is not authorized to interpret the amendment.
All time having expired, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senators from Minnesota and New Jersey. On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, is it impossible now for the sponsors of the amendment to state that they are going to vote against their amendment? .
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Further debate is not in order. The unanimousconsent request was agreed to.
Mr. CASE. I make that statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll and Mr. AIKEN voted "nay.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi will state it.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I wholeheartedly support the regular order; but there ought to be some statement by the Chair about what the Senate is voting on.
Mr. CASE. I do not think there is any question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 146. The Chair has ordered that the roll be called. The rollcall will proceed.
The legislative clerk resumed the call of the roll.
The result was announced-yeas 7, nays 75, as follows:
[Listing of the roll call vote omitted]
So the amendment (No. 146) was rejected.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be read.
The bill clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered, and the amendment will be printed in the RECORD.
The amendment, ordered to be printed in the RECORD, is as follows:
At the end of the bill add a new section as follows:
"SEC. 402 (a) Prior to April 30, 1970, Congress shall complete a comprehensive study and investigation of the past and projected costs and effectiveness of attack aircraft carriers and their task forces and a thorough review of the considerations which went into the decision to maintain the present number of attack carriers. The results of this study shall be considered prior to any authorization or appropriation for the production or procurement of the nuclear aircraft carrier designated as CVAN-70. Such study and investigation shall, among other things, consider
"(1) what are the primary limited war missions of the attack carrier; what role, if any, does it have in strategic nuclear planning;
"(2) to what extent and in what way is the force level of onstation and backup carriers related to potential targets and the number of sorties needed to destroy these targets;
"(3) what is the justification for maintaining on continual deployment two carriers in the Mediterranean and from three to five in the Western Pacific;
"(4) what is the overall attack carrier force level needed to carry out these primary missions;
"(5) does the present 'one for one' replacement policy for these carriers have the effect of maintaining or increasing this force level, in light of the fact that the newer carriers and their aircraft are more expensive and have far more capability than the older carriers which they are now replacing;
"(6) would a policy of replacing two of the oldest carriers with one modern carrier maintain a constant force level;
"(7) how many, if any, attack carriers and carrier task forces are needed to back up a carrier task force 'on the line';
"(8) what efficiencies, such as the Polaris 'blue and gold' crew concept, can be utilized to increase the time in which a carrier can stay 'on the line';
"(9) what type of military threats are faced by the attack carrier; what proportion of the costs of a carrier task force are allocated to carrier defense against various types and levels of threats;
"(10) to what extent does the carrier's vulnerability affect its capacity to carry out its missions; what are the plausible contingencies in which carriers may be committed;
"(11) what type of resources should be devoted to carrier defense, considering the range of threats, the costs and effectiveness of the defense, and the plausible contingencies in which a carrier can be effectively used;
"(12) to what extent can land-based tactical air power substitute for attack carriers; to what extent should the role of the attack carrier be restricted to the initial stages of a conflict;
"(i3) what are the comparative systems costs for land-based and sea-based tactical air power;
"(14) what is the comparative cost effectiveness of land-based and sea-based tactical air power; and
"(15) how is the attack carrier being used in support of American foreign policy; if there is a need for a 'show of force' in support of foreign policy commitments, can this need be met by smaller carriers or other types of ships.
"(b) In order to assist the Congress in carrying out such study and investigation, the Comptroller General of the United States shall review and make a report to the Congress on items numbered '(8)' and '(13)' in subsection 'a', above. He shall also review any studies which have been made, or may be made by the executive branch which relate to the other items listed in subsection 'a', above. He shall provide summaries of such studies, together with any appropriate comments or questions, to the Congress. The report and summaries provided for by this subsection shall be furnished to the Congress not later than March 1, 1970."
Mr. STENNIS and Mr. MONDALE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I have an amendment to offer as a substitute to the amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the amendment.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I do not know whether the clerk can read my writing. I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to read the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears no objection, and it is so ordered.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I wish to state that most of the amendment is the same as the language on the first page of the amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota which was just read.
I offer this now as a substitute.
At the end of the bill add a new section as follows.
"Sec. 402. (a) Prior to April 30, 1970, Congress shall complete a comprehensive study and investigation of the past and projected costs and effectiveness of attack aircraft carriers and their task forces and a thorough review of the considerations which went into the decision to maintain the present number of attack carriers. The results of this comprehensive study shall be considered prior to any authorization or appropriation for the production or procurement of the nuclear aircraft carrier designated as CVAN-70."
Mr. President, that refers to the third aircraft carrier of this type, and not the one in the bill.
Now, here is the language no one can read except me:
The committee shall call on all Government agencies and such outside consultants as the committee may deem necessary.
Mr. JACKSON and Mr. ERVIN addressed the Chair.
Mr. STENNIS. I yield to the Senator from Washington.
Mr. JACKSON. Is that the end of the amendment?
Mr. STENNIS. I will make a brief statement of explanation.
I yield to the Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator consider a suggestion? I suggest that the Senator substitute or strike out the word "Congress" and substitute the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives?
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I shall yield, but first I would like to respond to the Senator's suggestion. This is exactly what it means.
Mr. JACKSON. We will cover it in colloquy.
Mr. STENNIS. I yield to the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, we understand that when reference is made to "Congress" we mean the Committee on Armed Services. We use "Congress" so that studies would be generally distributed to Members of the Senate.
Mr. STENNIS. The Senate will be entitled to the information and that is the way I understood it in the discussion here; that the committees would be making the–
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. ERVIN. To me, the word "Congress" means 100 Senators and 435 Representatives.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. JACKSON. Is it fair to say to the author of the substitute amendment that under this language it is the intent of Congress that the Armed Services Committee of the Senate and the House Armed Services Committee undertake this study as projected in the amendment?
Mr. STENNIS. Does the Senator direct that question to me?
Mr. JACKSON. I direct the question to the author of the amendment.
Mr. STENNIS. That is the way I understood the discussion; that these matters were to be carried on by the respective Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Mr. CASE. The Senator is correct, as the Senator from Minnesota suggested, that this is our agreement and it is based on the assurance of the chairman that the study would indeed be a comprehensive and broad study by his committee, regardless of this discussion in the other body.
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct. That is the way I understood it. The focal point in each House will be the Armed Services Committee. They will make the study.
Mr. MONDALE. That is correct. We discussed with the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services the possibility of setting forth specific questions as in the original amendment. We agreed this was probably not the time to do that but I do hope that some or all of those questions will be considered in the comprehensive study contemplated by this amendment.
If it is appropriate, I wish to ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. STENNIS. If I may make a further statement on this matter I shall then yield to the Senator for the yeas and nays.
The amendment that I offered as a substitute has the very purposes already stated. That is not a perfunctory matter or just a formality. This is a promise that before there is any more authorization brought in for further carriers this real study will be made and made by these two committees. I think that is all the explanation I have.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. MANSFIELD. May I suggest that the questions the Senator raises in his original amendment be incorporated in the RECORD at this point?
Mr. MONDALE. I so request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair did not hear the request.
If the Senator will address his motion to the Chair again, the Chair will rule.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my original amendment be modified along the lines as proposed by the Senator from Mississippi.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears no objection, and it is so ordered.
Mr. MONDALE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President–
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All those in favor
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, where does that leave my amendment now? I offered an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state that the Senator's amendment has now been accepted and is included in the Senator's amendment.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I misunderstood for the moment. I am not going to raise my amendment. This is the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi which I would be willing to join as a cosponsor. What I was asking for was unanimous consent to include the questions to which I had made reference earlier.
Mr. JACKSON. I believe the Senator had in mind putting in at this point in the RECORD what was suggested by the able majority leader, the original amendment which he had offered and wanted as a part of his discussion.
Mr. MONDALE. The Senator is correct. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I want to make clear for the RECORD that my references to the comprehensive study by the committees did not undertake to bind the House committee to a joint undertaking. I think the committees of each body would have to proceed on that as they might see fit; otherwise, it would greatly complicate the amendment.
[Intervening unrelated Senate action omitted]
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1970 FOR MILITARY PROCUREMENT, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, AND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF MISSILE TEST FACILITIES AT KWAJALEIN MISSILE RANGE AND RESERVE COMPONENT STRENGTH
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 2546) to authorize appropriations during the fiscal year 1970 for procurement of aircraft, missiles, naval vessels, and tracked combat vehicles and to authorize the construction of test facilities at Kwajalein Missile Range, and to prescribe the authorized personnel strength of the Selected Reserve of each Reserve component of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota as modified.
On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced -- yeas 84, nays 0, as follows:
[Listing of roll call vote omitted]
So Mr. MONDALE's amendment, as modified, was agreed to.