October 3, 1979
Page 27163
Mr. MUSKIE. I would like, first of all, to express my appreciation to Senator RANDOLPH, who is the original author of this modification which has been modified further somewhat, but the essence of what he proposed is here.
Second, as in the case of most compromises, this does not deal with all of the implications of the committee bill which have troubled me and which I have described here today, but this is the principal problem I found with the committee bill and the grandfather clause, that is, that if unanticipated pollution effects occurred after construction of a project, there ought to be clear authority to deal with them. This does provide clear authority.
Of course, there must be a finding that emissions would reasonably result in substantial endangerment to the public health, in accordance with the criteria here, but nevertheless there is authority to deal with such unanticipated pollution risks.
Recognizing the need for a compromise at this point, I was delighted to collaborate with Senator RANDOLPH, principally, and Senator RIBICOFF, Senator JOHNSTON, and others, in the development of this compromise.
On this point, I think it is appropriate that Senator RANDOLPH speak for himself, rather than through me.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, does the Senator from West Virginia have the floor?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,will my distinguished senior colleague yield to me for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I ask unanimous consent that on the disposition of the Stevens amendment and the Huddleston amendment, the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. BRADLEY) be recognized to call up an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, may I inquire if it is possible to fix a time for the vote on the Muskie amendment? We did have 4:30. That was vitiated by this effort to separate the issues in the Muskie amendment. I would like to see if we could get a time certain to dispose of the Muskie amendment; that would trigger the Huddleston amendment and my amendment.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, would it be agreeable that the Senate vote at 5 o'clock on the amendment by Mr. RIBICOFF and perhaps Mr. RANDOLPH?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, if anyone requires a roll call vote on that, I do not know of it. I would not require a roll call vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would inform the Senator that the pending amendment is the Johnston amendment to the Ribicoff-Randolph amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, at this point we are not expected to have an up-or-down vote on this one, are we?
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, this Senator expects to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I mean we had not upto this point.
Mr. McCLURE. Well, we do now.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Very well. Could we begin voting on the Johnston amendment at 5?
Mr. JOHNSTON. If the Senator will yield, I wonder if the Johnston amendment to the Ribicoff-Randolph amendment could be adopted, and then vote on the Randolph-Ribicoff amendment as amended by the Johnston amendment?
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I suspect the Senator from Connecticut would allow his amendment to be modified by the Johnston amendment, and I would have no objection to that, but I think there ought to be a roll call vote on that amendment as so modified.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Then I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on the amendment by
Mr. RIBICOFF on behalf of Mr. RANDOLPH, as modified, if modified, at 5 p.m. today.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think that is reasonable, but I would hope the Senator from Idaho could be recognized for 5 minutes somewhere within that time.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I modify that request to make it 5 minutes after 5, with the additional time to be allotted to Mr. McCLURE.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That the vote occur on the amendment as amended, or as modified?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. As amended or modified, in either event, and that upon the disposition of that amendment, the Senate vote on the second half of the Muskie amendment immediately, and there will be roll call votes on those amendments. I ask unanimous consent that the second vote be a 10-minute roll call vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wonder if we could have 10 minutes of debate, 5 minutes on the side, on the second half ofthe Muskie amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, I would like to be assured of 5 minutes on the second half of the Muskie amendment and the Johnston modification.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Make it 15 minutes, with 5 minutes to Mr. DOMENICI.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would inquire of the Senator, if the Ribicoff -Randolph amendment is not agreed to, does the Senator wish a vote to occur on the whole Muskie amendment?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes; I am glad the Chair made that observation on the distinction.
I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on the Johnston amendment at 5 minutes after 5; with the time up to 5 o'clock being equally divided in accordance with the usual form, and the remaining 5 minutes to be under control of Mr. McCLURE; that if that amendment is adopted, the vote occur after 15 minutes of debate, with the time to be divided in accordance with the usual form in connection with the first 10 minutes, with the last 5 minutes to Mr. DOMENICI, and that the vote then occur on that amendment.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think the Senator meant to say that the vote would occur on the Ribicoff amendment as modified, if modified; is that correct?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. No; I had already passed that point. Let me restate the request.
I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur at 5 minutes after 5 on the amendment by Mr. JOHNSTON, the time to be equally divided in accordance with the usual form with respect to the first 10 minutes, the last 5 minutes to be under Mr. McCLURE's control; and if that amendment is agreed to, then the vote occur on the Ribicoff-Randolph amendment 15 minutes after that time, with 10 minutes to be equally divided and 5 minutes to be under the control of Mr. DOMENICI. Is that correct?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I do not think it is necessary to vote on the Johnston amendment but, rather, on the Ribicoff amendment as modified, if modified.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur at 5 minutes after 5 on the Ribicoff amendment as modified or amended by the Johnston amendment, the 10 minutes of that time to be under control as in the usual form, with the last 5 minutes to be under Mr. McCLURE'S control; then, if that amendment is adopted, that the vote then occur on the second part of the Muskie amendment within 15 minutes after that, 10 minutes under control as in the usual form and 5 minutes under Mr. DOMENICI's control.
Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. And that, in the alternative, if the Randolph amendment is objected to, the vote occur within 10 minutes after the disposition of the Randolph amendment on the entire Muskie amendment, the time to be divided in accordance with the usual form.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, is there some way the Senator can modify that to put my 5 minutes in with Senator McCLURE's on the first part? I do not want 5 minutes after the amendment has been adopted if adopted. I want it on that one.
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is OK with me.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Fine. I make that adjustment, Mr. President, that the vote occur at 10 minutes after 5, with Mr. DOMENICI having 5 minutes under his control.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I nowask to put the question on the Johnston amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. JOHNSTON.)
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need.
Mr. President, this is, to say the least, a rather involved situation. I do want to say for the RECORD, and I shall speak very briefly, that, as Senator MUSKIE knows, the original amendment which I presented was not hastily drafted. It was an amendment on which I had worked, and it was printed and was at the desk. It is not something that evolved here, in the Senate, itself.
I was trying very much to take a middle ground. I have done that often in the Senate. I was troubled with the problems that Senator MUSKIE had and the problem that Senators JOHNSTON and DOMENICI have had.
Mr. President, I am troubled by the provisions of S. 1308 which allow the Board to waive substantive requirementsof State, local, and Federal law adopted after a priority energy project begins construction. Even with the modifications offered yesterday by Senator JOHNSTON, section 36 of S. 1308 is essentially still a device to immunize energy projectsfrom regulation in perpetuity, no matter what advances are made in knowledge.
In a very fine letter, the League of Women Voters pointed out:
Environmental laws and regulations are not luxuries we can do without: They are vital to the health and welfare of our people . . . Discovery of new problems will require application of new solutions. Energy projects should not be exempt from those solutions.
Of course, not only environmental laws could be waived under the Energy Committee bill. Severance taxes, siting requirements, economic mitigation measures such as public facility dedication requirements — all could be waived.
I understand, however, that many Senators are concerned about the problems that changing the rules after construction starts could create for critical energy facilities. Therefore, I am offering amendment 490 as a middle ground between the unacceptable waiver provisions of S. 1308 and the complete absence of any protection from later-imposed requirements. I have modified the amendment to reflect some of the improvements put forward yesterday by Senator JOHNSTON.
My amendment would allow a majority of the Board to extend the time for compliance with any requirement imposed after construction commences which would otherwise cause a significant delay in the completion of a priority energy project. This is preferable to a complete waiver. The extension would last only as long as necessary to phase in compliance without any significant delay in startup for the energy facility, up to 5 years.
In addition to the Board's finding that the waiver is necessary to avoid delay, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency can veto the waiver if it may reasonably be expected to result in the release of any toxic or hazardous pollutant or in a condition which "may reasonably be anticipated to present a substantial endangerment to the public health." These are words with defined meaning, used in the Solid Waste Disposal Act and the Clean Air Act.
Also, the Secretary of the Interior can veto the waiver if it will cause an irretrievable loss of fish or wildlife which cannot be mitigated.
I have incorporated the exemptions for labor and occupational safety laws, civil rights laws, and antitrust laws suggested in the Johnston amendment.
The definition of "commencement of construction" is modified to prevent simple earthmoving or site clearance from qualifying a facility for the protection of this section. The test really should be whether the owner has expended so much effort, time, and expense that he cannot modify his program of construction without substantial loss.
For those who are seeking a reasonable way of protecting priority energy projects against the disruption of later enacted requirements, I offered this amendment.
First of all, I think the characterization by the floor manager on the majority side of this legislation is correct. I could talk further about it, but I think that he has characterized it in a reasonable fashion.
I commend Senators DOMENICI and McCLURE upon their steadfastness to something that they believe in connection with an alleged deficiency in the modification which has been made.
Certainly, the record is proof positive that no one in the Senate has been more interested over a longer period of time and has helped to develop legislation, with Senator DOMENICI and others in more recent days and months, than the Senator from West Virginia who now speaks. I refer to synthetic fuels. It is my feeling that what we have done in the modification from the original amendment would not in any way stop the construction of synthetic fuels plants.
I know that Senator DOMENICI and Senator McCLURE feel otherwise. But Ido not think that that is going to happen. If I felt so, I would stand here, and I have never engaged in a filibuster, but I would filibuster now if under the rules I could do so.
We must use judgment in a matter of fears are not grounded in fact, that there will be a way to proceed reasonably, without violence to health and safety in the United States of America, or the pushing into the background of the environmental considerations of which I am very conscious. I believe that now we have an opportunity to proceed with synthetic liquid fuel production, which we have worked for, in a reasoned manner.
I have tried to take the middle ground, but in doing so, I have not attempted to withdraw from something that I believe in very much. I am on the ramparts for synthetic fuels development. I am not within the recesses, somewhere back there. But there comes a time, I say to my dear friends, when I think we have to compromise.
Sometimes our differences can become our strengths if we try, in this body, to bring a modification of an amendment previously offered.
I was troubled as to the original amendment. I want to proceed with the construction of synthetic fuels facilities. I want health and safety and the environment to be very much a part of that proceeding, and it can be.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from West Virginia has expired.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I thank my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator RANDOLPH indicated that he would not want to be part of anything which might seriously jeopardize the future construction of a synthetic fuel plant — at least, from the standpoint of this Board and its authority-making. It is reasonably certain from the outset that a plant can be built.
Let me say to my good friend from West Virginia, I do not know if this amending language does that or not. But having said that, the mere fact that I am not sure it does and I am not sure it does not, I submit, means that there will not be any bill. I regret to say that, because, what is going to happen — and I shall just ask anyone here with any kind of business judgment to advise a corporate board or the public sector that they should commence a plant that would cost $3 billion and take 9 years to build when a State or the Federal Government can come along at any time during its construction and pass a law that might very well stop its construction so long as they find that — and I am going to read the language, I say to the Senator from West Virginia, because I just want to say that it is very uncertain to me and I think uncertainty is what precludes them from being built.
It says that so long as "EPA has not disapproved on the basis that it may reasonably result in the discharge, emission, or release of any toxic or hazardous pollutant or any other pollutant which may be reasonably anticipated to present a substantial endangerment to the public health or in any other condition which may reasonably be anticipated to present such endangerment."
Senator JOHNSTON may be right. That may end up being construed to mean that there is a real danger to the public health. I submit it may be interpreted to mean any toxic substance which a synthetic fuel plant may emit, which we do not know about, so "it may reasonably be expected to release any toxic substance which may be reasonably anticipated to present a substantial endangerment to the public health" probably means it is so uncertain that you would not tell anyone to invest $3 billion.
Mr. RANDOLPH. If my able colleague will yield, I do not want to break the continuity
Mr. DOMENICI. I am really finished, I say to my good friend. I am not going to make a big issue out of this.
I truly hope it means what the Senator thinks it means, because if it means what the Senator thinks it means, we are all right. If it means what I have seen courts interpret language like this in the past to mean, then I submit they will not make the first investment.
They may take 3 to 4 years to interpret this. and it may come out what the Senator thinks. But the point is that at the beginning we have to be told about the uncertainties.
I am asking whether an attorney will tell somebody this really means that only if they pass a law, and if that law finds that the plant is truly dangerous to the public health, they will have to stop, and should stop, Mr. President, they say to them.
But I will say this does not mean that nobody knows what it means. So I am afraid we are back into the unexpected. I yield whatever time
Mr. RANDOLPH. One minute.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Forty-five seconds.
Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does the Senator from New Mexico have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 35 seconds.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield my remaining time to the Senator.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, this amendment, modified, will not restrain synthetic fuels development. In fact, it will help, by removing opposition on environmental grounds.
The words of this amendment will allow a reasonable judgment on environment risks. There is no automatic bar to any plant — the EPA Administrator would have to find a real problem and then act to veto the waiver.
These words have a specific meaning, drawn from the Solid Waste Disposal Act and the Clean Air Act.
The test in the Senator's bill was just "unduly endanger" — more uncertain and vague than the language to which the Senator objects.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Who yields time?
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Idaho has 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I share the concern my friend from New Mexico has already expressed. I will state it a little more strongly.
I believe the Senator from West Virginia, who has been speaking, is sincere. I think he believes what he has said.
But I read the language in the way which simply says that if the EPA administrator has reasonable grounds to believe, and reasonable or reasonableness is repeated three times in the amendment, that the EPA administrator can make any judgment he wishes and the court cannot overturn him, as a practical matter.
This reminds me of the insurance policy in which the bold print giveth and the fine print taketh away.
We are saying that we are going to give a certainty to these projects and we are just now injecting uncertainty.
Rather than giving them the green light that they know they can go ahead and make the investment and complete the project, we have said to them, "Here is the yellow light."
It is a very pink yellow light that does not just say "caution". It says, "Hey, watch out, friend, this is probably a blinking red light that says more than just caution. You are probably going to have to stop here." That they are going to find a way somewhere during the process of construction to stop the construction.
What happened under RCRA, the Resource Recovery Act, EPA gave somewhat similar but more restricted authority set under their broad definition criteria:
Almost all oil production, muds, brines, crude oil residue, and mining tailings, may be determined to be hazardous.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McCLURE. Let me complete this, if I may, because I am very much concerned that the standards established in this amendment and the standards for appeal have not really been thought through.
I do not object to what the Senator from Maine and the Senator from West Virginia are attempting to accomplish by saying that if there is a real health hazard involved, and everybody is in agreement with that, and that judgment is based on substantial evidence and the court can review that and can then make the finding that the judgment was correct, that we ought to respond to that health hazard.
But that is not what the amendment says. That is my concern, that we have erected not a green light for these projects, but a flashing red light that says to anybody who invests in these projects that the very uncertainty we were going to take away with this statute has now been erected, and rather than expediting the process, it will probably halt the process.
I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I have tremendous respect for the Senator from Idaho. I do not believe he is correct in his fear in this amendment because it requires that two probabilities be found before the waiver can be vetoed.
Mr. McCLURE. If he is going to ask a question, the Senator better hurry because I am about out of time and I want to respond.
Mr. JOHNSTON. First, reasonably be expected means a probability.
Mr. McCLURE. It does not mean a probability. It means reasonable in the judgment of the EPA Administrator.
Mr. JOHNSTON. The intention of the language
Mr. McCLURE. If, as a matter of fact, they want to say what the Senator just said, the language fails to say it.
Mr. JOHNSTON. It is my intent that it means a probability, as opposed to a possibility.
Mr. McCLURE. All right. I do not misunderstand the Senator from Louisiana's intention. I just say the language did not do it.
I think the Senator from Maine has everything he wanted. The grandfather clause has been eliminated and he can declare a big victory.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I do not think that is true.
Mr. McCLURE. Reasonable men can differ on that subject, Mr. President.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I want to say that this is a national day of prayer. If it is proper, I want to pray the Senator is wrong.
Mr. McCLURE. All I say to my friend from West Virginia is that he may get a special dispensation from the Pope this week, but the Pope is not always going to be here.
He may have a little problem getting that on some of these issues when we may need it the most.
Mr. President, I think I understand what is up here. We have all kinds of people now on the wave of euphoria thinking we have found an answer rather than creating a problem.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays on this be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. LEAHY). They have not been ordered.
Mr. McCLURE. They have been ordered under the unanimous consent agreement, I say to the Parliamentarian and the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises that they have not been ordered, so that they cannot be withdrawn.
Mr. McCLURE. I do not wish to quarrel with the Chair, but I wish the Parliamentarian would listen to the unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Louisiana wish to yield time? He has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and put the question of the Randolph-Ribicoff amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Randolph-Ribicoff amendment.
The amendment (No. 490) was agreed to.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I ask that the RECORD may reflect that the Senator from Idaho voted "no."
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. And the Senator from New Mexico.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The RECORD will reflect the objections.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to table was agreed to.
Mr. HAYAKAWA. I want to be recorded as voting "no," also.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 10 minutes of debate on partII of the Muskie amendment, with a vote to follow, a rollcall at the expiration of that.
The yeas and nays have not been ordered on the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I take it the 10 minutes are available to me. I yield myself such time as I may take, and I will not take 5 minutes.
Mr. President, I just want to make clear to my colleagues that the second half of my amendment, which is now before us, involves section 21(a), Enforcement of the Project Decision Schedule, which gives the Energy Mobilization Board — namely, its chairman — the power to make a decision or take an action involving Federal, State, and local laws if the Federal, State, or local agency has failed to take action within the time required by the project decision schedule.
This issue has been described at length yesterday and today, and this afternoon I discussed it at length. I am quite sure that all my colleagues have been alerted to the issue and the concerns that have been expressed about this provision by the National Conference of State Legislatures, by the National Association of Counties, by the National Governors Association, and by the National League of Cities; and there is no need for me to expand further the arguments with respect to this provision.
This is a grave intrusion, a significant intrusion, upon State and local prerogatives and their responsibilities to administer their laws, and I urge my colleaguesto vote "aye" on this amendment.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment in the strongest possible way.
This amendment would gut the enforcement provisions of the setting of the deadline provisions.
The very essence of this bill is to give to the Energy Mobilization Board the power to set a schedule. We are assured that that schedule will be reasonable, because we grant the right of appeal if it is unreasonable. But once that schedule is set, it is the intent of this bill to require that the State, local, or Federal agencies decide within that schedule; and if they do not, it is essential that the Energy Mobilization Board be able to decide in their place.
If you have to go to court every time you want to enforce a deadline, this will be another of those bills that is a bonanza for lawyers, and it puts delay upondelay and, in effect, works counterproductive with respect to the purpose we are trying to achieve.
In my view, if this amendment is agreed to, this bill will be worse than a paper tiger. It will be a paper bureaucracy that results in delay rather than expedition.
Mr. President, what we are voting on is the very essence of this bill, the very centerpiece of the bill; and I urge all Senators to vote against this amendment and at least to give us this essential part of the bill. I think we have accommodated to the serious objections about the grandfather clause. Some believe we have accommodated too much.
I implore Senators to give us the centerpiece of this bill, and that is those provisions which are necessary to enforce a deadline.
Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on a number of occasions, Senators have indicated, as I see it, that they want a bill that has a chance of expediting major energy projects for this country.
Some said that the committee's bill was a toothless tiger. We did not think so. But I assure Senators that if we accept this amendment, which will place almost every one of these before a court instead of the Board we are creating, we will have produced not only a toothless tiger, but also it will be a stuffed toothless tiger, incapable of doing anything.
I hope Senators will vote to turn down the amendment and leave the bill with a reasonable chance of expediting energy projects which this country needs desperately.
I thank the Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Maine. On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced — yeas 34, nays 60, as follows:
So Mr. MUSKIE's amendment (No. 486) beginning on line 2, was rejected.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, we have two amendments we are prepared to accept: The Javits amendment—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator can withhold for just a moment, if the Chair understands correctly, there had been an order entered earlier for the recognition of the Senator from Alaska (Mr. STEVENS). If the Chair is correct in that regard, the Senator from Alaska would have to yield — would be recognized by the Chair at this point but would have to yield — to the Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Would the Senator from Alaska yield so that I can inform the Senators with respect to other votes?
Mr. STEVENS. I will do that if we can work out with the Senator from Kentucky to vote on an amendment that he will offer following the disposition of my amendment, by 6:40.
Mr. JOHNSTON. By what time?
Mr. STEVENS. By no later than 6:40.
Mr. HUDDLESTON. Six-forty or 6:30 will suit me.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object—
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my intention to offer my amendment and withdraw it and explain why. Then I will yield to the Senator from Kentucky and vote for his amendment and I expect the vote for his amendment will be in time for some of us to catch a plane.
Mr. MUSKIE. His amendment, as I understand it would give the Board authority to waive substantive law.
Mr. STEVENS. That is correct. It would be approximately an hour under my amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am not sure that the amendment can be discussed in an hour. We were talking all day about language that the Senators disagree on as to whether or not it affects substantive law.
His amendment, as I understand it, is positively an amendment that gives that kind of authority, and I think Senators ought to understand it before we vote. So I am not sure an hour will do it before we vote.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me? We are aware of an amendment by Senator JAVITS which we are prepared to accept; an amendment by Senator BRADLEY which we are prepared to accept; an amendment by Senator DURKIN which we are prepared to accept; an amendment by Senator HUDDLESTON which will take some debate and a vote, and one by the Senator from Ohio (Mr. GLENN) .
Mr. GLENN. I have one which we have not discussed with you, and I am not sure it will be acceptable.
Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator from Alaska also has an amendment.
I wonder if the Senator from Alaska could tell me how much time his amendment will take?
Mr. STEVENS. Depending upon the circumstances of the Senator from Kentucky's amendment, but not very long. If we are going to debate all the rest of these, it might take a little time. Let me yield to the Senator from Kentucky to see if we can get agreement.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I wonder if we could work out an agreement whereby we disposed of these noncontroversial amendments and then set all of the others for a time limitation tomorrow with a time certain to vote?
Mr. HUDDLESTON. Well, reserving the right to object, Mr. President, if we could have some idea from the distinguished Senator from Maine about how much time he anticipates he might need on my amendment then we can make some determination. We might be able to start it now and complete the amendment by 6:30 and then hold the other amendments until later. That would be my hope. I do not want to hold up the Senate.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not really need that much time. What I think about the amendment is that I want to be sure that the Senators have time to understand what the amendment means, and that conceivably could be enough, but I understand the Senator from Alaska wishes to offer his amendment first. How much time would that take?
Mr. STEVENS. If my amendment comes up and there is a vote on it, not very long. With respect to the understanding we reached yesterday, my amendment was supposed to come up in the afternoon, and I deferred all day under the circumstances, which was a very good arrangement so far as I wasconcerned. I am not objecting. My amendment deals with waiving State and local law. His deals with waiving Federal law, and I am prepared to have a vote on his amendment, if we can, tonight.
Mr. MUSKIE. How much time will be involved in discussing the Senator's amendment before we get to his amendment? I may say I withheld my amendment today from 12 o'clock until 3 waiting for you to offer your amendment. I did not rush to offer my amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. I understand, and the Senator has been very kind, but we both gave way to other amendments. I am sure the Senator realizes that.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. DOMENICI. What is the pending business?
Mr. STEVENS. My amendment is the pending business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from Alaska is recognized and does have the floor, holds the floor, to be recognized to call up an amendment, which amendment has not yet been called up.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President.will the Senator yield?
Mr. STEVENS. I yield.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,the distinguished Senator from Alaska has to leave no later than 6:30 tonight, and he will not be back tomorrow, he cannot come back. So I think it is fair to him and reasonable to all the others that I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on the amendment by Mr. HUDDLESTON, with the understanding that Mr. STEVENS would offer his, would withdraw it, within this time context, very, very shortly, as he indicated, at 6:30 tonight.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not, that is perfectly agreeable to me. I find I will not consume a whole lot of time, anyway. I am glad to yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. Without objection, the Senator from Alaska is recognized to call up an amendment which he will then withdraw, and yield to the Senator from Kentucky, who will call up his amendment, on which a vote will occur no later than 6:30 p.m.