March 21, 1978
Page 7749
UP AMENDMENT NO. 1215
Mr. MELCHER. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. President, a week ago tomorrow when we were considering in committee the question of where loan rates should be for wheat we attached to the Dole bill a loan rate on wheat of $2.85. The McGovern amendment before us has a loan rate of $2.80. For the sake of consistency, I suggest to the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. MCGOVERN) that we ask him to modify his amendment. I have an amendment prepared that would merely increase the loan rate from $2.80 to $2.85 to be consistent with that action of last week.
I might point out to the Senator from Maine, the chairman of the Budget Committee, that by doing this we reduce the exposure for wheat. Hence, the deficiency payment is reduced by $75 million if the amount of wheat that would go under loan and be subject to a deficiency payment would be 1.5 billion bushels.
The reason for that is the market would automatically go to a floor of $2.85.
I have an amendment prepared and I ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
Mr. MELCHER. This is on behalf of myself and Senator HATFIELD of Montana that I offer this.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Montana (Mr. MELCHER) for himself and Mr. PAUL G. HATFIELD proposes an unprinted amendment numbered 1215: On page 1 line 13, of amendment 1735 strike $2.80 and insert $2.85.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I think the points the Senator from Montana has made on this modification are well taken, and I move the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Is there any reason why I cannot yield myself my own time?
Mr. DOLE. Does the Senator wish 10 minutes?
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not need that much, only a couple of minutes.
I hope the Senator's amendment has the effect he described. Unfortunately, since we did not have the basic McGovern amendment for purposes of analysis, I have no really precise measure of its consequences, so I sort of have to take the Senator's word. He is knowledgeable about this field, I have no question about it. I have to sort of take the Senator's evaluation of the consequences of his amendment. I hope they are as beneficent as the Senator described.
My basic problem is not with the Senator's amendment but with the McGovern amendment which we simply have had no opportunity whatsoever to analyze, and I think that is—
Mr. MELCHER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Of course.
Mr. MELCHER. I thank the Senator for yielding.
I merely point out again this was the loan level amount for wheat that was adopted last Wednesday in the Committee on Agriculture to the Dole bill, so the Senator and the Budget Committee have had the $2.85 figure before them, and it would be consistent with that.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is not an accurate description of the events of the past few days since Wednesday. No. 1, we did not get anything by way of a written description of what DOLE was until the weekend. I did not get an analysis of it until Sunday evening, and that did not include the McGovern amendment at that point. I understood the committee was working on the question of support prices and target prices, and so on, but as a component of the policy we would debate today I was not informed to that effect.
We had job enough, may I say to the Senator, to analyze the two propositions on which we had reached agreement, a time agreement. One was the Talmadge bill separately, and one was the Dole bill separately.
Now, to say that we should somehow have had judicial notice, or committee notice, or something else from the Committee on Agriculture that might be added to this bill I do not think is very realistic or fair to us.
Getting these analyses is an unprofessional challenge. We have to check with the Department of Agriculture, with CBO, with the affected committees in order to insure that our analyses are based on agreed-upon facts or if there is disagreement that the disagreement is identified.
We just cannot casually produce these analyses. We simply did not have time to respond to the McGovern amendment as a piece of action that we would face today. Maybe we should have read the signals more clearly, but we did not. The time agreement simply did not include it.
Mr. MELCHER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield again?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I yield. I do not know where the time is coming from, but I yield.
Mr. MELCHER. I repeat that the $2.85 loan rate for wheat is the same loan rate for wheat that was in the Dole bill that was given to the committee, and it is for the basis of consistency.
Mr. MUSKIE. But the Dole bill is a set aside proposal. Obviously McGovern adds something to that or it would not be offered. I mean, you are talking about support prices here in a different sense than you are talking about it as part of a set aside program.
Mr. MELCHER. The Dole bill contained the loan rate at $2.85.
Mr. MUSKIE. As part of a set aside program.
Mr. MELCHER. As part of the bill which would modify existing legislation.
Mr. MUSKIE. I was prepared to discuss the Dole amendment. I am not prepared to discuss the McGovern amendment, because I do not have the analyses, and I make that point with all the emphasis at my command, which is not insignificant.
Mr. TALMADGE. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. TALMADGE. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Ohio and to the Senator from—
Mr. BUMPERS. I ask unanimous consent that Richard Arnold and Grace Ellen Rice of my staff be granted floor privileges.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. METZENBAUM. I make the same request with respect to Dan Grady of my staff.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I rise to indicate that I intend to support the Talmadge bill in the form in which it was reported by the Committee on Agriculture. It is beginning to look, however, as if this bill may become another Christmas tree measure by the time it is passed. If that happens, I may be forced to reconsider my position.
I am prepared to cast my vote in favor of the Talmadge bill as reported by the committee because I recognize that farmers in all parts of our country are on the edge of financial ruin. As the result of conditions beyond their control, tens of thousands of family farmers have been forced in recent years to leave the land. Farm prices are now lower in real terms than they were in 1970, but farm operating expenses have increased since that date by over 60 percent. Similarly, farm debt has escalated from $59 billion in 1970 to over $100 billion today.
I concur with the judgment of the Senator from Georgia that strong and immediate Federal action is needed in order to restore an orderly agricultural market.
Farmers must be able to plan for a future in which they can reasonably expect to get a fair return on their investments in dollars and in labor.
The vast agricultural surpluses created by almost a decade of shortsighted Federal agricultural policy must be reduced to manageable levels.
Farm income must no longer be subject to the wild fluctuations we have experienced in recent years.
And other nations of the world must realize that the temporary existence of large American surpluses is no excuse for the world's failure to move ahead aggressively to create adequate international food reserves.
This bill is a temporary expedient. It is an emergency measure, designed to cope with an extreme situation. I will support it as such, but I must say to my colleagues that I will cast my vote with the greatest reluctance.
Mr. President, I believe that there is something deeply wrong about paying American farmers not to produce. I believe it is a tragedy that our farmers are suffering as a direct result of their success in responding to the need of a still hungry world for additional food production. It is a shame that American taxpayers must intervene to sustain the world's most efficient farm industry and that American consumers must look forward to rising food prices.
A few short years ago, in 1974, I attended the World Food Conference in Rome. That Conference, called in response to the potential disasters that confronted the world in 1972 and 1973, seemed at the time to offer the hope that a process could be set in motion to create an effective international approach to a common problem for all humanity.
But the 4 years that followed have been disappointing.
We have had 4 years of relatively good weather.
We have lost the sense of urgency that motivated the delegates who assembled in Rome in 1964.
We have made little progress and it appears that we will make little more until we are confronted once again with the specter of massive starvation.
Mr. President, the world food shortage is over, but it is only over for now. The bumper crops of the last few years represent merely short-term increases in the food supply. The 2.5 percent annual rate of growth achieved worldwide in the 1970's falls well below the 4 percent growth rate recommended by the World Food Conference.
Current world food stocks — now about 14 percent of annual consumption — are still well below the 17 to 18 percent designated by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization as the minimum "safe level." Current stocks are, in fact, comparable to what they were in 1972-73, when poor weather and massive crop failures in the Soviet Union caused a rapid depletion in world reserves.
In taking the steps proposed by this bill, we will remove 31 million acres of American land from production.
These steps are inevitable. They may be necessary. They are certainly sufficient to make a major, positive impact on farm income. But we must face the fact that they involve real and substantial risks for this country and for the poor of the world.
Mr. President, we must find a better way to deal with the long term needs of our farmers and of the world. World food security cannot, I submit, be left to chance. We must move to initiate vigorous international action to provide a truly international solution to the problem of secure food supplies. And we must do so now.
I believe that we should pass this measure as reported. But I do not believe that we should stop there.
American agriculture, more than virtually any other American industry, is vitally tied to the world economy. Solutions to our agricultural problems must be considered on the international as well as on the national level.
Mr. President, I believe that our incomparable agricultural potential can and should be fully harnessed in the cause of ending hunger and malnutrition in our own country and in the world at large. The prospect that people anywhere in the world will go hungry while our farmland lies idle is unacceptable to me and, I am convinced, to the farmers of America.
Mr. President, let us take this emergency step. but let us also move to insure that we will never have to do such a thing on such a scale again.
Let us say to the world that we in America are ready and willing to do our share to meet our international responsibilities. Let us say that we are ready to take the lead in negotiating international agreements to insure that buyers who depend on the world market and farmers who produce for it will be able to enjoy a degree of protection from roller-coaster price fluctuations and alternating periods of shortages and glut.
We are responding today to an immediate emergency, but I hope that we will learn from this painful experience and do what is necessary, at home and abroad, to permit our farmers to produce to their capacity in a rational and stable market.
Mr. President, I will support the Talmadge bill because I know that the farmers of this country are suffering as they have not suffered in many a year. I believe that it is our duty to do something about this situation and I am convinced that the bill we have before us is a fair response. It is fair to the farmers of America and acceptable to American taxpayers and consumers as a short term solution.
But I must reiterate, Mr. President, that massive set aside programs are not and cannot be our policy in the long run.
I call upon the President, the Secretary of Agriculture, and chairmen of the Agriculture Committees of both the House and Senate to provide the leadership and the programs so that the men and women who have made the United States the food basket of the world will never again be called upon to plow under or to refrain from growing crops that could be grown to feed the hungry mouths of the world.
Mr. TALMADGE. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. ABOUREZK. Mr. President, I would like to direct a question to the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee. I think a little while ago he said that he was willing to accept the Dole amendment and the McGovern amendment and take them to conference; did I understand the Senator correctly?
Mr. TALMADGE. Yes; I said it was my feeling that the conferees on the part of the House and the White House would be willing to accept the Dole amendment.
Mr. ABOUREZK. If I might have 1 more minute
Mr. TALMADGE. Of course, I am only speculating and speaking as one Member of the body.
Mr. ABOUREZK. Senator DOLE yields me 2 additional minutes.
I would like to say to the Senator from Georgia (Mr. TALMADGE) that I think his bill is good as far as it goes, the McGovern amendment is good as far as it goes, and the Dole amendment is good as far as it goes, but I think there are additional protections for cattlemen that ought to be put into the bill, whichever one of them we accept.
I do want to say that the American Agricultural Movement, all the farmers we have seen in Washington for several weeks now, have come here in a sincere effort to try to get something through that will mean something to prevent them from going into bankruptcy. I think it is not only in their interest and in the interest of the people who represent those farmers, but in the interest of the country in the long run, that something be done so that they do not have to come back. If we are simply going through an exercise today that will get some legislation over in the conference committee that will be dropped out in the operation of the conference committee and will never see the light of day again, I think we are doing a disservice to all these people who have worked so hard, including the fellow from South Dakota — as my colleague, GEORGE McGOVERN, who has been talking with him, knows — Wayne Peterson left his farm, he and his wife came to Washington, and they have not even made arrangements for people to feed their cattle; and I had a farmer out there last week tell me his cattle were dropping over because they have not had any feed or water; but they are here in a desperately serious effort to get some kind of legislation so that they can go back to their farm and stay there.
I appeal to the members of the committee — I know they have put in a lot of effort, but I am pleading with them, including Senator DOLE and the other members on that side as well, not to send these farmers home just to be disappointed, but to stand by them, or in fact keep the farmers here in Washington. If you send them back home with the hope they are going to get something, and later it gets dropped out over your objection, it will not do any good, and they are going to have to drop everything and come back to Washington again.
So I am asking you that you stay in conference and talk as firmly as you can.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me say to my friend from South Dakota that that is certainly the intention of this Senator. I think the distinguished chairman of our committee joins me in the hope that, without going to conference for an unloading operation, we will come back from conference with something for the American farmer.
I happen to believe that there is a way to nail some of these proposals together to get a very good farm bill, much like the one in which the distinguished junior Senator from South Dakota wants.
So I pledge right now that it is not my intent just to shove it off to conference, wave goodby to the farmers, and let them go home and be disappointed. I hope my chairman shares my view in that respect.
Mr. TALMADGE. I do.
Now, Mr. President, is the amendment of the Senator from Montana pending?
Mr. MELCHER. It is.
Mr. TALMADGE. Could we have a vote on it?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Montana (Mr. MELCHER) .
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. TALMADGE. Now the question is on agreeing to the McGovern amendment as modified; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the McGovern amendment, as amended.
Mr. TALMADGE. I believe the distinguished Senator from Maine wanted the yeas and nays on that question.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I would like the yeas and nays, but before I request them. I would like to make sure that there is complete understanding on the next order of business. I understand that the Dole amendment will be the next order of business. I would like to have some definite time. I do not have an analysis of the Dole amendment to present.
Mr. TALMADGE I think the Senators will be glad to give the Senator time.
Mr. MUSKIE. I will be glad to do that, and I have been asked to provide some time for other Senators as well.
Mr. TALMADGE. How much time remains on each side, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has 57 minutes.
Mr. TALMADGE. And the Senator from Kansas?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas has 78 minutes.
Mr. DOLE. How much time does the Senator need?
Mr. MUSKIE. If I could be sure I could have up to an hour of that time, I doubt that I will use it all, but so that I can yield to other Senators. Or we can start with 45 minutes.
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from Maine, the chairman of the Budget Committee, may have 45 minutes in opposition to the Dole amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. In other words, the time will not be charged to either side?
Mr. TALMADGE. Not charged to either side.
Mr. DOLE. I want to furnish the Senator all the rope I can.
Mr. TALMADGE. I could not agree more.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kansas yield?
Mr. DOLE. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Earlier, I indicated that we had not had any kind of analysis, and I gave some rough figures as to the budget costs. I have now received a letter from Alice Rivlin of CBO on the budget cost question; and in order that the record may be complete, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the RECORD. It simply confirms the figures I estimated roughly in the course of the debate.
There being no objection, the estimate was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,
Washington, D.C.,
March 21, 1978.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office is providing the following estimate in response to a request from the Budget Committee staff.
If H.R. 6782 were amended to authorize an additional $500 million for P. L. 480, effective October 1, 1978, and to raise for 1978 crops only the wheat loan rate to $2.80 per bushel and the wheat target price to $3.55 per bushel; the corn loan rate to $2.25 per bushel and the corn target price $2.50 per bushel; and the cotton target price to $.60 per pound, CEO's cost estimate of March 15 would be changed as shown in the following table:
[Table omitted]
This revised estimate assumes that loans and targets will revert to the levels specified in P. L. 95–118 for the 1979 and following crops.
The above costs of this amendment represent our best estimate in the brief time we had available to study the effects of H.R. 6782.
We are unable to estimate at this time, the budget effects of an additional authorization of $500 million to the P. L. 480 program. We would be able to provide further details later should you desire.
Sincerely,
ALICE M. RIVLIN,
Director.
Mr. MUSKIE. I now ask for the yeas and nays on the McGovern amendment.
The result was announced — yeas 58, nays 35, as follows:
[Rollcall vote tally omitted]
So Mr. MCGOVERN's amendment (No. 1735) as modified and amended, was agreed to.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was adopted.
Mr. TALMADGE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The following Senators requested and, by unanimous consent, the privilege of the floor was granted in behalf of the following staff members: Mr. CRANSTON: Kathryn Files; Mr. D0MENICI: Darla West; Mr. PACKWOOD: Greg Dow; Mr.DANFORTH: Burleigh Leonard; Mr. DECONCINI: Lois Pfan; Mr. HELMS: George Dunlop; Mr. GLENN: Tom Dougherty; Mr. THURMOND: William E. Twilley; Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR.: Mr. John Mac Ilroy.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I make a parliamentary inquiry related to the time schedule for today.
The time agreement that was reached last week was to the effect that the first 4 hours today would be devoted to the Talmadge bill, with the final vote at 4, and the next 4 hours to the Dole bill. Now what is happening is that the Dole bill is being offered as an amendment to the Talmadge bill, which, for me, confuses the time situation.
In addition, I wonder what it does to the order of voting. We are to vote, as I understood it, back to back at 4 o'clock. I should like to know what the situation now is.
Is that time agreement still controlling? Should we have another one? I think Senators would like to know for their own information when we can expect votes and in what order, because these are two very serious issues. They will have adequate debate, I am sure.
I wonder if this might not be the time, and I do not see the majority leader, to propose another unanimous consent agreement, taking into account the new order of things here.
Mr. TALMADGE. I did not hear the Senator. I was engaged in a conversation.
Mr. MUSKIE. I wondered if it might not be well, given the fact that we are now considering these two proposals together, Dole and Talmadge, why it might not make sense to arrange a new time agreement and a new time for voting.
Mr. TALMADGE. I requested that the Senator be allotted 45 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am not complaining about that. I am not sure — we are supposed to vote on the Talmadge bill at 4, followed by the Dole bill at 4. Obviously, we are going to have a vote on Dole before 4.
Mr. TALMADGE. No; we cannot do that. The unanimous consent agreement provides that we cannot vote on either bill prior to 4 o'clock.
Mr. MUSKIE. Even though it is offered as an amendment?
Mr. TALMADGE. If it is offered as an amendment, the amendment can be voted on, but passage of the bill cannot be voted on until 4 p.m.
Mr. MUSKIE. What was that?
Mr. DOLE. If I offer my bill as an amendment, which I am about to do, it is my understanding that the amendment can be voted on at any time.
Mr. TALMADGE. That is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DOLE. If that amendment, by some strange event, were defeated, I still have the right to offer it separately later today. Then it would fall into the 4 o'clock agreement, because I understand this is a primary day in Illinois. We are trying to protect the Senators from that State.
Mr. MUSKIE. If that were to happen, it would be a strange reason, indeed.
Mr. DOLE. It would be very unfortunate for the American farmer, but it could happen.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is all right. The matter has been straightened out as far as I am concerned.
Mr. BUMPERS. Who has the floor, Madam President? I wish to make a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas has the floor.
Mr. DOLE. I am happy to yield.
Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, a parliamentary inquiry on this unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. BUMPERS. On this unanimous consent request on which we are, the agreement under which we are operating, how is the time divided, No. 1, on the Dole amendment, who controls it?
No. 2—
Mr. TALMADGE. The Dole amendment time will be controlled by the distinguished Senator from Maine and the distinguished Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. Two hours on either side?
Mr. TALMADGE. Not if it is offered on the amendment, only on the bill, but by the unanimous consent I got 45 minutes allotted to the distinguished Senator from Maine and he will handle the time in opposition thereto.
Mr. BUMPERS. Second, Madam President, how much time will be given for amendments to the Dole amendment?
Mr. TALMADGE. There is no time allotted on that.
How much time remains for the distinguished Senator from Kansas and the floor manager of the bill, myself?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no specific time allotted.
Mr. TALMADGE. Yes, there is, Madam President. There is a time allotment of 4 hours on the bill and to that 4 hours will be added 45 minutes to the Senator from Maine.
Will the Chair please give me the time remaining to the Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Georgia?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has 57 minutes. The Senator from Kansas has 72 minutes.
Mr. BUMPERS. Does this mean an amendment offered, unless the floor managers elect to yield time to offer that amendment, it would have to be voted on without debate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. TALMADGE. If the Senator from Arkansas desires time, I am sure the Senator from Maine will allot him some. I am sure the Senate would allot him time.
I do not want to foreclose debate on any Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. As I understood my discussion with the majority leader on the time agreement basically controlling this, it is all confusing by the proposal to offer the Dole amendment, it was that there would be 4 hours on Talmadge which would include time for amendments. There is no doubt about that, in my judgment.
Now, no specific time, no specific amount of time, but that was supposed to include time for amendments.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The Senator is precisely correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not know who will determine how much time, but I would think maybe this would be a good time to arrange for that. We are going to have a whole day. I would suggest we have half an hour on amendments.
Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator from Kansas yield?
Mr. DOLE. Yes.
Mr. BUMPERS. I have an additional inquiry on the agreement we are operating under now.
I understand we cannot vote before 4, but that does not mean we cannot vote at sometime after 4; is that correct?
Mr. DOLE. That is correct.
Mr. BUMPERS. So we are not under any real time constraints of the unanimous consent request propounded for additional time, the present agreement would not prohibit that?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The Senator is correct.
But I hope the time on amendments could come out of the 4 hours, as earlier agreed, and then, if we find 4 hours does not accommodate that situation, we can adjust ourselves to it at that time.
Mr. BUMPERS. I hope the majority leader would, as he always does, monitor this because I have an amendment that I would certainly like 20 or 30 minutes on, and there may be others similarly situated.
Mr. DOLE. I have not discussed this, maybe it is something we can accommodate the Senator on.
Mr. BUMPERS. Maybe, and I will be happy to talk to the Senator on it, and the chairman of the committee, both.
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOLE. I yield to the distinguished Senator.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Madam President, it seems to me we have a total of 8 hours here between the two bills and that Mr. DOLE is going to offer his bill as an amendment to the bill that is now pending.
It would seem to me we could merge the two allotments of 4 hours each and make a total of 8 hours. That should be sufficient for all amendments, motions, and so forth.
Mr. DOLE. The Senator from Kansas has only one reservation.
As I indicated to the Senator from Maine, if, by some misfortune, the Dole amendment should be defeated as an amendment, then I would still want the right to offer it separately because it might make a difference with some Senators on how they vote.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOLE. But I am very happy to take 2 hours out of the 4 and add it onto this.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. That might be an answer, may I say to the Senator from Maine, take 2 hours off the bill, add it to this.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the arrangement whereby 4 hours were to be allotted to the bill now pending be modified to allow 6 hours under the same conditions, to wit, that amendments, motions, and so forth, come out of that 6 hours and that on the bill by Mr. DOLE, in the event we still take up that bill, the time be limited to 2 hours under the same conditions.
Mr. MUSKIE. Who is to control the time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from Maine still to have 45 minutes in addition thereto?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Well, I would hope it would come out of the 6 hours because I think the Senator from Maine wants time and if it is allowed out of the 6 hours I would hope he would be agreeable to that, so that we do not start making exceptions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. MELCHER. Madam President, might I inquire of the majority leader what the constraints would be of the 4 o'clock vote then?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Well, the earlier agreement was that the vote come not before 4 o'clock.
Mr. MELCHER. So, it could occur at 6 o'clock, if need be?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. It could, yes.
Mr. MELCHER. I thank the Senator.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. In answer to—
Mr. MUSKIE. I suppose a vote on the Dole amendment, as against the Dole bill, the Dole amendment, I take it, could take place at the end of 6 hours, as the Senator is suggesting?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes; the vote on the Dole amendment would not have to wait, under the agreement, only the two final votes were to begin no earlier than 4 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Votes on amendments could occur earlier.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. TALMADGE. For the purpose of clarification—
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Reserving the right to object, the Senator from Virginia has no amendments to offer to this bill, but the Senator from Virginia is concerned as to the precedent of such a unanimous consent agreement, because, as the Senator from Virginia understands the situation, no amendments could be. offered unless the managers of the bill or those in opposition were to grant time.
I think that rules out, without the consent of someone else, the right of a Senator to offer an amendment.
For that reason, I would be inclined to object to this unanimous consent request, except that goes back to the original unanimous consent request, which contains the same provision.
So I will not object to this, but in the future I will object to any unanimous consent request that does not permit time on an amendment.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Madam President, may I say to the Senator, this agreement in this instance does not set a precedent. I have arranged similar unanimous consent agreements in the past. I can understand his concern. I feel sure that the Senator, if he wishes to offer an amendment, will not be shut out.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I have no amendment to offer.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The leadership will do everything it can to cooperate and accommodate Senators. I know the managers of the bill, Mr. DOLE and Mr. TALMADGE, will do the same.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I have no amendment to offer, but I do not want in a future bill another Senator not get time to offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. May I say again, this is not a precedent.
Mr. TALMADGE. Reserving the right to object, for the purpose of clarification now, I understand we have 6 hours of time on the bill to be equally divided. The original proviso was the time to be divided between the distinguished Senator from Kansas and myself. I have by unanimous consent requested, and the Senate has agreed, that the distinguished Senator from Maine have 45 minutes in opposition on the bill. How will the time be handled now in opposition to the Dole amendment and the time limitation thereon? I want to allot the time in opposition to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. That would be agreeable.
Mr. TALMADGE. How about reaching this agreement: an hour and a half on the Dole amendment, to be equally divided between the distinguished Senator from Kansas and the distinguished Senator from Maine
Mr. MUSKIE. Madam President, reserving the right to object
Mr. TALMADGE. The time to begin as soon as he offers the amendment.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The time to come out of the 6 hours.
Mr. TALMADGE. The time to come out of the 6 hours.
Mr. MUSKIE. Reserving the right to object, when I agreed to 45 minutes, I did not expect the possibility of someone using my time to offer an amendment. Forty-five minutes would be restrictive. I may not need the full 45 minutes. If we should need additional time for an amendment in opposition—
Mr. TALMADGE. I suggest this to the majority leader, the Senator from Maine, and other interested parties: I ask unanimous consent that time on the Dole amendment be evenly divided between the distinguished Senator from Kansas and the distinguished Senator from Maine, the time not to exceed an hour and a half, and that any amendment thereto be limited to 30 minutes, to be equally divided between whoever offers the amendment and the distinguished Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, with all time to come out of the total 6 hours.
Mr. TALMADGE. All time to come out of the total 6 hours allotted on the bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is agreeable.