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.
Dale Bumpers: “If you want to vote ``no'' because of the constitutional technicality which is raised by the point of the order by the…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing a point of order regarding the royalty provision in a bill during Senate debate.
Share
More from Dale Bumpers
Yes, Senator Johnson, I do have some concerns about the amendment. However, I am prepared to accept the amendment today if I can secure a commitment from the Senator from South Dakota to sit down and address my concerns between passage of…
I noticed there was no prompt response on that side of the aisle to a request for the yeas and nays, so I assumed some sort of cabal was in the works.
I must say, his determination--his fierce determination--to get this bill passed was reflected in the fact that he asked me every day for 6 months when I was going to take my hold off. This morning, I was very happy to tell him that my…
I first brought this issue to the Senate's attention in 1984 when it was determined that Charles Wick, who at that time was head of the U.S. Information Agency, had been tape recording conversations with just about everybody he talked to…





