November 7, 1979
Page 31232
ORDER OP PROCEDURE
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate will shortly proceed to the consideration of the conference report on the second concurrent resolution on the budget. But, before it does so, I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on the adoption of the report no later than 6:30 p.m. today.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Reserving the right to object, I shall not object, I hope that the majority leader would let us get a couple of uncontested amendments adopted here before we move on to the budget.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. TSONGAS) . The Senate is not in order.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Senators will allow me to make this request, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the committee amendment that is in disagreement, the Budget Committee amendment is in disagreement
Mr. MUSKIE. An amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator it would be a motion to concur with an amendment.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. President, if I may have the attention of the Senate, may I say first that it is the intention to move to a privileged matter, that being the conference report on the second concurrent budget resolution.
I ask unanimous consent that the vote which will occur, and which will undoubtedly be a roll call vote on the motion to concur in the House amendment with an amendment, occur no later than 6:30 p.m. today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, but I would like to make an inquiry.
I have been talking with the managers as to when we can get to an amendment sponsored by myself, and several others, to S. 932, amendment No. 569, calling for the elimination of GOCO's.
The Senator from Illinois is willing to wait for that, but he would like to know when that would be the pending business.
We have been waiting all day, trying to get this amendment up. We would like to have this the first order of business when we deal with GOCO's.
There may be an infinite variety of ways to handle this. But is there some understanding we can get as to when our amendment will be considered?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. PERCY. Would this be the pending business tomorrow, the next amendment up on this bill?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, if I may respond to the distinguished Senator.
Mr. DOMENICI. May we have order, Mr. President?
Mr. JOHNSTON. If I may respond to the distinguished Senator from Illinois, it is our purpose, our hope, that we could first adopt the pending amendment, which would be a voice vote, Domenici-Johnston.
Then I have informed the distinguished Senator from Texas that we would accept a noncontroversial amendment — I believe it is noncontroversial — of his.
While we do not control the order of amendments, I would be delighted to take up the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Illinois thereafter and make it the pending business tomorrow morning.
Mr. PERCY. It may be noncontroversial, but that amendment may impinge considerably. It deals with the same subject as the amendment of the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. JOHNSTON. If I may tell the Senator, all the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Texas does is tighten up and restrict the circumstances under which a GOCO could occur.
So it is headed in the same direction as the amendment of the Senator from Illinois, although it does not go as far. I would assume the Senator from Illinois would have no objection to that kind of amendment. I think it is appropriate to adopt it first so the Senate as a whole may know what the options are, because we intend to accept that, in any event.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me say that while I have indicated I support the amendment of my good friend from Texas, because it does clarify and make more difficult the time that GOCO's could arrive on the scene, if ever, I certainly did not, in agreeing to support that, intend to in any way infringe on the good Senator from Illinois' purposes or his amendment.
If he thinks that one harms his chances, I mean, I certainly did not concur with the idea of harming his rights and his amendment.
So, if he does not want to agree—
Mr. PERCY. Speaking on behalf of my cosponsors, I know we would all like to have the issue settled up or down. Do we, or do we not, have GOCO's? If we do have, we will certainly support the Bentsen amendment. I would not want to support the Bentsen amendment now, or just let it go and be accepted without discussion, unless a full discussion as to whether or not we want to establish the principle of GOCO's had first taken place.
That is the essential thing.
I would hope the distinguished Senator from Texas would feel that is an issue that should be debated considerably.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, the issue ought to be debated. I think it should.
As the manager of the bill has stated, what my amendment does, it moves in that direction. I have some concern over GOCO's. If we want to talk about strategy, I will make it obvious that mine will be offered one way or the other, and that will be in the consideration of Members voting.
I would like, frankly, to improve the situation because of my concern about GOCO's, that, in effect, what it says is that they cannot proceed in the construction of such a plant without advising industry through the Federal Register, citing the objectives, what they are trying to accomplish, and let private industry respond to it, decide whether or not they want to file an intent to go ahead and fulfill the objectives without the building of a GOCO.
That is, in essence, what this amendment proposes.
We can vote that one, or, as I understand it, the manager for the majority and the manager for the minority have stated they are willing to accept that. I would propose it and then we could have a vote on the Senator's, whatever the leadership wants to do.
I do not want to deny the Senator's vote at all.
Mr. PERCY. If the Senator will yield, one of the basic reasons why we have to bring this amendment up all day is simply because we think it ought to be a clear-cut case of do we have, or do we not have the full knowledge of the impact of GOCO's in the Senate.
The Senator from Illinois and all his cosponsors would support the Bentsen amendment if we have GOCO's. The question is first, I should think, to be resolved, do we, or do we not, have
GOCO's. Let us have a chance to have that vote up or down and get it over with. Then if they are out, we do not need a Bentsen amendment. If they are in, we would obviously, all support the Bentsen amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. PERCY. I am happy to yield.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The question has been agreed to?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.