just to make it clear, I am focused on the semantics and I think the Senator from Idaho is right. I am focused on line 16 and 17, page 21, where it says, ``It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider'' and then it goes on and says any bill or joint resolution, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. That to me is not semantics. That is more than semantics to say ``it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider.'' I think the whole purpose of the Congress in our Federal system is to consider legislation of this type dealing with major national issues. Treating and storage of nuclear waste is just one of those. But I consider that to be an area of concern peculiarly in the purview of the National Government. So I do think I have a concern when we pass legislation, as we are getting ready to do here, as I understand it, that says, ``It shall not be in order for the Senate to consider'' various pieces of legislation. So there is a basic disagreement. I think it is more than semantics. I think it is the language of the statute. Mr. President, I appreciate the chance to discuss it.
Jeff Bingaman: “just to make it clear, I am focused on the semantics and I think the Senator from Idaho is right. I am focused on line…”
On the recordJanuary 23, 1995
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of legislative language regarding the consideration of bills in the Senate.
Share
More from Jeff Bingaman
Dec 19, 2012
I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 19, 2012. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With objection, it is so ordered. Committee on Foreign Relations
Dec 6, 2012
I want to first, of course, commend the Senator from Virginia for his great leadership here in the Senate on a whole range of issues. He has served with great distinction here, and it has been an honor for me to serve with him. So I…
Sep 16, 2013
The President, in my view, could not have chosen a better nominee for the position than Mike.





