October 3, 1977
Page 31923
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Missouri has a good point. All he would have had to have done within the 13 days would have been to ask for the yeas and nays on one of my amendments. My amendments are sitting there now. Conditions have changed. These are no longer amendments which are in order. As far as I am concerned, I have no desire to offer them, but they sit on the desk and someone else could call them up for the purpose of delay. I think a Senator has the right to withdraw his amendments and in doing so I believe that the matter of withdrawal could be subject to an appeal from the ruling of the Chair each time. If a Member wants to keep one of these amendments on the desk, he could appeal the ruling of the Chair as to that amendment.
I do believe we are entitled to remove the vehicles of delay that we offered for well-intended purposes at the time and no longer need.
I would call to the attention of the Senate that there is one of my amendments still at the desk which I intend to offer, should the circumstances require it.
To me, it is wrong to have my amendments become the vehicle for delay, for someone who has no intention to offer them for their substantive purposes. As a matter of fact, they would no longer be of any use to anybody except for delay. I think under these circumstances I am entitled to withdraw them.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the Senator from Alaska. If this precedent is established, it could be invoked on the first day after cloture. There is nothing to say that it would be invoked only after 13 days following cloture.
I think the point made by the distinguished Senator from Missouri is a valid one. I do not that often agree with my good friend from Alabama, but I expect he is moved by the same consideration.
After all, the limitations on our right to consider amendments after cloture, preventing us from introducing any new ideas, is sufficiently serious so that we ought not, I think, accede to the point being raised.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Under rule XXII, this is not subject to debate.
Mr. CRANSTON. Point of order, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I make the point of order when the Senate is operating under cloture the Chair is required to take the initiative under rule XXII and rule out of order all dilatory motions, including calls for a quorum, when it has been established by a quorum call or a rollcall that a quorum is present, and the Chair's count reaffirms that a quorum is still present.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Parliamentarian advises me that this point of order is not in order because there is a pending point of order which the Chair has submitted to the Senate.
Mr. CRANSTON. I accept that. I serve notice at the next opportunity I will raise the point again.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, Iask for the yeas and nays.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SCHMITT A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it.
Mr. SCHMITT. Is it the Chair's intention that the question apply also to amendments against which other amendments have been drafted?
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair is submitting this question to the Senate.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,would the Chair restate the question? Mr. President, I have no objection to the Chair restating the question, but I would like the question to be restated.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will state the question.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Does a Senator have the right to recall his own amendments qualified and pending under cloture and have them removed from the desk prior to being called up.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would like to read a letter dated September 30, 1977, addressed to the Honorable HOWARD S. METZENBAUM U.S. Senator, Washington, D.C.:
DEAR Howard: As you know, I have five amendments at the desk pending to the Jackson substitute to S. 1022. I intend to bring up one, if not all, for Senate consideration. For this reason, I would appreciate your cooperation in not offering amendments 1059, 1060, 1061, 1062 and 1063.
With best wishes, cordially,
TED STEVENS.
Mr. STEVENS. It is true, Mr. President, I sent that letter when it was apparent that there was going to be an attempt by Senators to call up amendments which they, themselves, had not offered. We have since examined them. As I indicated, one would be called up. Amendment 1060 will still be at the desk.
Mr. MUSKIE. But there is no control by the addressee of this letter or others who were relying on the fact that the Senator's amendments were on the desk. That is the point. I do not criticize the motive, but this is an important separation.
Mr. STEVENS. These are amendments which pertain only to the State of Alaska and certainly are not amendments which would be called up by the Senator from Ohio.