[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 102 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7751-S7752]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--S. 1936

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for an agreement with regard to 
nuclear waste. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of S. 1936, the nuclear waste bill, on Tuesday, July 23, 
at 12 noon, and immediately after the bill is called up, the majority 
leader be recognized for the purpose of filing a cloture motion on the 
bill, and there then be 15 minutes for debate prior to the cloture 
vote.
  This is the latest version. The time is equally divided in the usual 
form, with the cloture vote occurring at 2:15 on Tuesday, July 23. If 
cloture is invoked, the bill will immediately be laid aside and it will 
become the pending business on Tuesday, September 3, 1996, at a time to 
be determined by the two leaders; and following final passage of the 
bill, if in the affirmative, then it would be in order for the Senate 
to insist on its amendments, if applicable, request a conference with 
the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part 
of the Senate, all without further action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BRYAN. I object.
  Mr. LOTT. Could I inquire of the Senator from Nevada what his 
objection is to that?
  Mr. BRYAN. I would be happy to state my objection. As you know, the 
Senators from Nevada have worked with the majority leader, with those 
on the other side of the aisle who are proponents of this legislation. 
We have had an exchange of proposals, as the majority leader knows, 
during the course of this afternoon.
  The latest proposal that was brought back by the other side of the 
aisle had a provision in it which had not previously been discussed and 
was unacceptable, so we could not accept it.
  Mr. LOTT. The provision with regard to going to conference?
  Mr. BRYAN. That is the provision that had not heretofore been 
discussed, as the majority leader knows, and we had assumed within the 
parameters of what was being discussed all rights would be reserved 
under rule XXII, including any options that might be available to us in 
the event that this legislation moved to conference.
  So it was on that basis that we interposed our objection.
  Mr. LOTT. I want to make sure I understood. I just note that if every 
opportunity was taken with regard to going to conference, that could 
lead to at least three more votes, three more debatable motions, and 
would take up days, and therefore without that, we have accomplished 
almost nothing with that.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I would be glad to yield.
  Mr. REID. I do have the right to object. I think there has been an 
objection. I say respectfully to my friend the majority leader and to 
the minority leader, we have an obligation to move legislation along 
here. We agree with the statement of the majority leader, we should 
move legislation, but take it a step at a time.
  What we thought we were doing, the Senators from Nevada, is moving 
this--

[[Page S7752]]

we were jumping two steps. We were willing to do away with those, but 
we cannot waive all of our rights, and we know how important it is to 
move legislation. We felt that by going directly to the Defense 
appropriations bill, getting that completed, doing other things that 
will be able to be completed, without the two Senators from Nevada 
exercising their rights--under the rules, we felt we were doing the 
country and the two leaders here, in effect, a favor, but to have us 
avoid three or four different procedural moves that we have, seems to 
be a little bit too much.

  We appreciate you trying to work with us. I object.

                          ____________________