On the recordSeptember 18, 1997
if you want to vote ``no'' because of the constitutional technicality which is raised by the point of the order by the Senator from Washington, bear in mind that the point of order is clearly not valid at all against the royalty provision in this bill. The reason I can tell you that with absolute certainty is because the bill of the Senator from Alaska, the Senator from Idaho, and the Senator from Nevada, has a royalty provision in it. The Parliamentarian of this body referred it to the Energy Committee--not the Finance Committee. There isn't any question that there is no point of order against the royalty provision in this bill.
Source
govinfo.gov
