October 2, 1979
Page 27080
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, this agreement has been cleared on all sides.
I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the amendment offered by Mr. RIBICOFF and Mr. MUSKIE, there be an agreement as follows: That a vote occur tomorrow at the hour of 12 noon on a tabling motion, that time between this point today and 6 p.m. today and again beginning at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow and 12 noon tomorrow be equally divided between Mr. RIBICOFF for the proponents and Mr. JOHNSTON for the opponents, with the proviso that no amendments be in order other than amendments with respect to the Ribicoff amendment that are satisfactory to Mr. RIBICOFF and Mr. MUSKIE, which would, therefore, be accepted by them and, in essence, constitute a modification of the amendment by the authors, and with respect to the committee substitute that no amendments be in order up until 12 noon tomorrow that are not acceptable .n the same way, to wit, acceptable to Mr. JOHNSTON and Mr. DOMENICI, which, in essence, would constitute a modification by the authors of the committee substitute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BUMPERS). Is there objection?
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the majority leader, of course, is correct. We have conferred at length on this agreement. It is a suitable arrangement as far as I can ascertain on our side.
I have one inquiry, the amendments that might be dealt with between now and tomorrow noon would be only those amendments which the proponents of the substitute would be willing to accept?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. That is correct. The substitute, in each instance.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I have no objection to the request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, I think it would be understood that these amendments we have referred to would be germane, is that correct?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I think that would have been understood. But we made it a subject of each sponsor, and that it further be germane.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Let us accept that. In any event, they would not be acceptable to the authors of the committee substitute and the Ribicoff substitute, respectively.
Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, I would like to make one further inquiry of the Senators that have been party to the understanding.
I think we are all aware that sometime tomorow Senator STEVENS has to leave. He had a pending substitute. I wonder if we could agree that in the event the Ribicoff-Muskie-Roth substitute is tabled that Senator STEVENS could proceed with his immediately thereafter.
Does anyone have any objection to that?
Mr. JOHNSTON. That we proceed—
Mr. DOMENICI. With Senator STEVENS. He has a pending substitute. That would not be in order until and unless the substitute offered by Senator RIBICOFF and Senator MUSKIE is disposed of
I was asking, would there be any objection there, in the event it is tabled to proceed next with Senator STEVENS amendment. He has asked that I ask the Senate this request, and I see no problem with it myself.
Mr. MUSKIE. Reserving the right to object, I would have no objection myself. I am not sure I am in a position to agree to making that a part of the agreement. I would personally have no objection but ought to reserve
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Let us not include that in the agreement then. Then the Senator would have no objection.
We will have that as part of an understanding, that Mr. STEVENS will be able to proceed with his amendment.
That is not an order of the Senate, and perhaps
Mr. DOMENICI. I do not understand the difference. Is the Senator saying that those of us who are here would understand that, but it is not binding as a matter of unanimous consent?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I am perfectly willing to go with the request as it was made.
I think the majority leader would indicate his intention to join us to see that Senator STEVENS has that opportunity tomorrow. So far as I am concerned, that is as good as an order. That would satisfy me.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator from Maine that that is the same, is it not?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the one question I have with respect to what is proposed is this: If the substitute is defeated by a close vote, there may be an amendment that builds on that close vote to amend the committee bill in a narrower way, and I would not want to bind myself to losing whatever momentum I have at that point.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator from Maine that I do not know how we can put that into a unanimous consent agreement. Yet, I agree with him that that is a legitimate concern, and I would not push the other as a matter of accord.
However, I ask the majority leader and the minority leader if they would express, on behalf of Senator STEVENS' request, that they would do what they could to see that it is the next matter after the disposition of the Muskie amendment, if it is disposed of.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. We have to recognize that the majority leader and the minority leader cannot guarantee that that would be the case. So I would not want any of us to go into this with our eyes closed. If it is an order of the Senate, it is one thing; but if it is not, we can have a sort of gentlemen's understanding. But that does not keep some Senator tomorrow from wanting his amendment called up in contravention of the understanding.