macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I also call attention to the fact that the amendment includes a senseoftheSenate provision that "the Senate conferees on the reconciliation bill will not insist on the Senatepassed provisions of title III. part C. provided that the House conferees do not insist on title III. subtitle A. of H.R. 3982. or any amended version thereof." Mr. President. the appropriate place for instructing the Senate confereesalthough I admit this is only a senseoftheSenate provision and has no binding effect and therefore is uselessthe appropriate place for instructions to the conferees is following the passage of the bill. following the consent to a conference. if the House has requested one. .which it has not. or following the request by the Senate for a conference with the House and before the appointment of conferees. That is the place for instructions to the conferees. This means nothing. In addition. it is in the wrong place. and I do not believe the Senate should be voting on this provision at this point. We agreed that the amendment would not be divisible. therefore. we have to take it all or reject it all. I hope the Senate will vote against this amendment. We have cured the backdoor problem by virtue of the consent agreement that was entered into. and this amendment is something that is being brought in the front door. so to speak. We are all voting on it with our eyes open. I believe we have to discourage what may become a practice here. as we have seen legislation on appropriation bills become a practice. I recall that Senator Magnuson. before he left the Senate. and other Senators. myself included. have long deplored the increasing use of appropriation bills as vehicles for legislation. The budget process. in the long run. will suffer. It will gradually fall into disrepute here. I believe it has been used fairly appropriately by the majority up to this point. because the only way a package of budget cuts could be brought to the Senate and not broken apart piecemeal is by using the budget process. This is the only way the majority could effectively enact such a program. I compliment the majority party on so doing. But if it is misused and we fall into a pattern of abuse of the budget process. someday that process will be rejected. and there will come a time. if it is going to become the practice. when majorities in the future will attach legislation to budget reconciliation bills that may be very objectionable and hurtful to any minority at that point.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

I yield myself 30 seconds on the bill. I urge the Senate. in the interest of protecting the budget process in the long run. to reject this amendment.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma . the Senator from Nevada . the Senator from California . the Senator from Montarn . and the Senator from Ohio are necessarily absent.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. the measures the distinguished majority leader has referred to have been cleared on this side of the aisle and the minority is ready to proceed with their consideration.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. the minority is ready to proceed with die consideration of nominations beginning with the nomination of Lawrence F. Davenport. of California. under ACTION agency. and proceeding through District of Columbia Court of Appeals. and all nominations on page 2 and page 3 of the Executive Calendar. provided that the nominations which were reported by the Armed Services Committee today and which are at the desk be included.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I need not attempt to equal the eloquence of the distinguished Senator from Tennessee. the majority leader. as he has expressed welldeserved tributes to the managers of the reconciliation bill. Mr. DoMENICI and Mr. HOLLINS. Both of those men have comported themselves with great dedication. and have acted in a most admirable way to skillfully pilot. the legislation through the Senate. I must say that I am concerned about the budget process. I thank the distinguished majority leader and all who worked to eliminate the matter which had been put into the reconciliation bill by the Budget Committee. and which it was required to do upon the request of the authorizing committees. That material was deleted. But as I watched the Senate then proceed to include in the bill by majority vote certain amendments which were offered on the floor. and which certainly came within the purview of the act. I more and more have come to the conclusion for the first time that the Budget Reform Act needs some reform. I saw happening to the budget reform process what has happened to the appropriation bills Increasingly in recent years when legislation has been tacked onto appropriation bills. legislation which had had no hearings. no committee markups. legislation which was added without the benefit of the testimony of witnesses and appearances before committees. Now we see the same prostitution of the process taking place with regard to budget reform. I compliment the distinguished majority leader on the Job he is doing as majority leader. He is doing an excellent job. I admire the way he has handled this budget legislation. It Is the only process by which the Presidents proposals could be brought before the Senate in a single package and acted upon. Had it not been possible to have done this. the Presidents package and proposals would have been torn apart piece by piece and little by little and nickled and dimed to death. I think the American people expect better than that. Fortunately for the President. the Budget Reform Act was in place. But I watched this development with some sadness. because It Is a great piece of legislation if not misused. And I think that what I have seen this afternoon Is the beginning of the erosion of the Budget Reform Act. And it will be regrettable. because in the last few years. under the joint leadership of Mr. Muskie and Mr. Bellmon and now under the equally skillful and dedicated and able leadership of Mr. DOMENICI and Mr. HoLLINGs. the Budget Reform Act has enabled us to discipline ourselves and to act with fiscal restraint. But I am afraid that we are going to become undisciplined if we allow what I perceive to be an erosion of the process to continue. So I want to state that for the record so that others may think about it and perhaps there yrill be some needed modifications of the budget reform process. I say this with the utmost desire to up. hold the process. because I think it Is a beneficial one if not misused. Mr. President. I thank the distinguished majority leader for his kind comments concerning me and concerning
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

I move to lay TON on his dedication to his duty as he CONCLUSION OF MORNING that motion on the table. saw It. Mr. President. I feel that at 1:15 BUSINESS The motion to lay on the table was in the morning. almost anybody may The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time agreed to. lose his temper a little bit. Happily. this for morning business has expired.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. is one of those bodies in which men and I hope that we shall all go home with a women do so and then forget about It spirit of friendship in our hearts. We when they emerge from the doors and have found our way out of this brier come back on the next day with entirely DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE patch. I compliment the Senator from new feeling in their hearts. AUTHORIZATION North Carolina on agree- May I express to the majority leader The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk ing to the unanimousconsent request again my good wishes and my thanks. will state the pending business. that was put by the majority leader May I wish him a very pleasant and en- The legislative clerk read as follows: which made the enactment of this meas- Joyable. happy and restful holiday. A bill to authorize appropriations ure possible. Mr. BAKER. Mr. President. 1 thank for the purpose of carrying out the activities I want also to compliment Mr. EAGLE- the minority leader. o the Department of Justice. House of Representatives
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. Chairman. I from Texas so that the significant yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin issues with respect to the Armed Serv-
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: S

I thank the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. Chairman. there were two items that I did not cover related to the proposal or the socalled substitute that I would like to mention. As I stated before. and if I was not too clear. let me again state. as far as our reconciliation. process. which I feel we responsibly met. this area is not touched or will nottbe touched. as I understand. by the substitute. except the area related to food stamps. and in the area related to food stamps. only three items have been singled out. The Puerto Rican block grant that we have discussed. There is another item. which is the thrifty food plan. and this is one area that I feel very strongly about because this plan represents the lowest amount of money that is allowed per meal per person under any food plan. It is something like 44 or 46 cents per meal per person. If the people of the United States can understand what having to prepare a meal for 46 cents would meanwe have an escalator providing for inflation and what the substitute will do. as I understand it. is to extend for 6 more months or for 1% years time wherein we allow the escalator to provide for inflation. This means that the amount of money given in food stamps will buy less food for the family that is needy and requires the use of food stamps. This. I think. is something that we should look at because we have already dealt with possible areas of abuse. We have already dealt in reductions. We have already touched every area we could find to tighten up the law or to reduce expenditures. But this is one that goes to the heart of the program. that you do not allow timely inflation impact on the amount of food that you can buy. This is going to come out of the poor and the working poor. The other item is the benefit deduction which we have now as 30 percent of household income.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. Chairman. this other item provides there is a deduction in the household allotment representing 30 .percent of household imrcome. The proposed substitute would increase that to 31.5. and then 32.5 percent. It brings a substantial amount of savings into the picture. My disagreement with that is the fact that it cuts across. to the poorest. the one who has almost no income at all. .the same as the one who has a little bit more income. So some of the people who are Social Security recipients. for example. who would get $86 and $96 or $120 a month. as many people in my congressional district do. they will be reduced by that greater amount. For every dollar of earned income. instead of reducing the allotment by 30 cents. they will reduce it by 31/ cents. My fault with that is that it cuts across the board to the very poorest of the poor. the same as to those who have a little higher income. There ought to be a better way. I do not fault the gentleman from Missouri. Anything I have said about exterior forces. none was aimed in any way whatsoever to the members of the Committee on Agriculture. all of whom on both sides. as I stated before. worked diligently. worked long hours. worked with great devotion and care as far as the chairman is concerned. So. I have no faVIt with any Member or with any of the members of our committee. But the technical aspect of this is that regardless of the intentions. nonetheless. it impacts on the poorest of the poor. We are the only country in the world that has this program. Granted it may be out of control. I am not going to argue with that. Granted it costs a lot of money. But this is to feed people who cannot feed themselves. to feed people who need the assistance of the Government. Our system provides for that. Our Government provides for that and it is something that we need to do. What our responsibility was and where I keep insisting that we meet that responsibility is to cut out any possible areas of abuse. to cut out any possibility of fraud and then to control the program so that it is aimed. as everyone in my district tells me it should. only to those who need it. This is what I think we did. but this is what is being criticized as somehow not meeting our obligation. I thank the gentleman.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: S

The gentleman is correct. That is my disagreement with the proposed amendment. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his kindness and generosity.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: S

I would like to make an observation. I recalled while listening to Chairman GONZALEZ that Mr. Stockman attended Havard Divinity School. He was a lucky chap. That is a very cozy place. well built. warm. and well endowed. nicely heated. He did not face the rigors of New Englands winters as many underprivileged and disadvantaged people do. and perhaps. that is why weatherization grants and decent. sanitary. heated housing does not mean much to him.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: S

If the gentlewoman would yield back to me. the thing that confuses me is that from that side of the aisle it came from the Duncan amendment that we will not Increase rent for those people in subsidized housing. if the gentlewoman will remember. when their social security checks are increased. The conference was held up for months on that one. Now I hope those same people who voted for that will realize they are going to be answerable at home for increasing the rent of elderly citizens I percent per year over the next 5 years.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: PHILLIP BURTON (democrat)
Chamber: S

Is my distinguished colleague from New York upset that we have nothing in print and the 10 inches thick that embody the Latta proposal are on its way to the print shop just now. 10 inches thick. making more changes in the United States Code in one bill than normally takes place in a decade? Is my friend from New York trying to convey that he is upset at this kind of process?
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: PHILLIP BURTON (democrat)
Chamber: S

Is my friend from New York trying to convey the impvession that there is a procedural concern in the world that can accept this kind of mindless consideration of something that affects this whole country?
Date: 1981-06-26
Speaker: PHILLIP BURTON (democrat)
Chamber: H

No. Can the gentleman suggest our appropriate position this morning? My staff got a 3V -inchthick version of what I gather will be the Bducation and Labor section. He gave it to me. and in carrying it to my desk. it was so thick and so heavy that I got a hernia.
Date: 1981-06-26
Speaker: PHILLIP BURTON (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. it was just a few moments ago that our distinguished majority leader asked the rhetorical question: "How many more jokers are in this bill?" I would like to inform our distinguished majority leader and our colleagues that in the Education and Labor changes this proposal gives a $500 million windfall to the big coal companies of the country by eliminating the requirement that we increase a user fee to the extent that the black lung trust fund will be selfsustaining. Under this alternative. the taxpayers will pick up that $500 million. and they balance It out by cutting back on school lunch programs. cutting back on scholarship grants and the rest. is that what we want to do?
Date: 1981-06-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. the gentleman yielded time to the gentleman from Texas . Will the gentleman from Ohio yield him an additional minute?
Date: 1981-06-26
Speaker: DE IA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to ask the gentleman a question. I have seen some figures that tell us that GrammLatta I had a higher deficit than the Jones bill.
Date: 1981-06-26
Speaker: DE IA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. as I said. I have seen figures wherein it appeared that the GrammLatta had a higher deficit than the Jones version for the first year and the second year. and the Jones version had a surplus the third year over the GrammLatta. is that correct?
Date: 1981-06-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

But. Mr. Chairman. if the gentleman will yield. that is not what the President was telling us. I understood that these were targets. What I have been told. as one who has been insisting on a balanced budget. was that the Jones version had a lesser deficit than the GrammLatta for the first 2 years. Now. the gentleman tells us that the fact is that he has a lower deficit. is that correct?
Date: 1981-06-26
Speaker: PHILLIP BURTON (democrat)
Chamber: H

If there is a culpable party. I am the culpable party. and simply stated. it was this: There was only one copy of this amendment. not available to all the Members.
Date: 1981-06-26
Speaker: PHILLIP BURTON (democrat)
Chamber: H

If I may continue. I said I believed In the absence of having more than one copy we should see if the matter would lend itself to some kind of- reproduction. Normally when a bill is presented. or a substitute. we are required to present three or six copies at the desk. The gentleman from California was only ascertaining as to its bulk whether or not it lent itself to reproduction. That is when we learned It was several inches thick. Once It was ascertained It did not lend itself to reproduction. the papers were then for. warded. Those papers never left the hand of the officer of the House who had responsibility for them. There were no papers spread all over. The gentleman from California only tried to make one other assessment which was in this rather thick. 6 or 7 inches thick. sole copy proposal. whether it reflected anything that had previously been In print. and the gentleman from California discovered to his complete alarm there was not anything that had previously been in print. It was a hodgepodge of various legislative counsel individually typed. and whathaveyou. Once we assessed we could not in a ready way duplicate thisall this in the presence of the officer of the House or the employee of the Housewe then got the papers forwarded. The gentleman from California. if this be a culpable act. I will admit It. I affirm it was an act in an effort to ascertain on a matter affecting this country of this gravity. to ascertain to what extent the sweeping scope of this amendment was. because obviously when the people voted for the Latta substitute. they had no idea In the world what was In it. and we do not have today any idea of some of the barnacles on this "ship of state".
Date: 1981-06-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I do not know who intercepted what. and I do not know. who prepared the document. All I know is that at 11:30 this morning. this multipage document came into my possession. I have looked at it as best I can. I have inquired from committee staff. from Mr. GRAMM. from Mr. LATTA. from anyone who would listen to m6. No one knows entirely what is in this document. I certainly do not know. I would abridge my constitutional oath as a good legislatorwhich I hope I amI would abridge everything I have stood for in my legislative career if I were to vote for this today. I understand that it has the possiblity of affecting the poor. the crippled. the orphaned. the poorest of the poor. and I will not vote for It. Now to the area related to agriculture. something has been passed out. I do not know who the author was. but this has been the theme throughout the process. and I wanted to read it to the Members. This instrumentprepared by whomeveris what I have read in the media. that our committee does not meet the eligibility and benefit changes necessary to prevent massive supplemental appropriation requests this year. This Is not true. It is patently untrue. It is unjust. It is unfair. It is malicious if it Is done by someone who knows better. Our committee met its responsibility. We passed the cuts. We did everything necessary under the legislative process. To say that without these necessary reforms. any savings would be illusory is not right and it Is not fair.
Date: 1981-06-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. RicnMOND). the chairman of the subcommittee. who has done an outstanding job in securing necessary legislative changes.
Date: 1981-06-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I wish the gentleman would address the issue at hand and not worry about what everyone knows is a parliamentary situation. Would the gentleman now yield me additional time?
Date: 1981-06-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. a few minutes ago I received a telegram from a constituent of mine which said. "Support the President of the United States." How can I support the President when I do not know what is in this package? I cannot do that. The only bill that has passed this House that has been signed by the President that saved any money was handled by myself out of our committee and it saved $160 million. No one can challenge that fact. We have met our responsibility. The only bill which has saved money this year for President Reagan came out of our committee handled by the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Virginia and that is a uncontroverted fact. So it is not a question of supporting the President or not. It is a question of whether we are going to be legislators or not. That is why I will vote against this package. I will not. I cannot fulfill my obligation and my duty to the people of my district if I were to vote for a cut in social security benefits. present benefits. for the first time ever in the history of the social security program. The cut on the minimum benefit would cut from the poor elderly. those 70 and 80 years old. I cannot and will not vote to cut from the widows and the orphans. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues. our committee has met its responsibility. we have made our cuts. so have all the other committees. This procedure. this 11th hour attempt to undo the orderly work of our committees is wrong. it does not do justice to the Presidency. it does not bring honor to this House and its Members for which I have the highest respect. I have worked hard for a balanced budget. I have gone above and beyond my duty and responsibility to reduce expenditures. We agonized over some of the cuts we made. but we had to make them and we did. Finally. Mr. Chairman. let me say there is only one Member of Congress from the 15th District of Texas. it is not Mr. GRAMM. it is not Mr. LATTA. it is not Mr. Stockman of OMB. it is not the President. I am the only one here who knows the area. who knows the people. who knows the needs. and I am sorry to say. who knows the suffering and the pain that this package could bring upon people who are my friends. who are my neighbors. good. honest people. hardworking people. I cannot. I will not let them down. when the only voice they have in this Chamber is mine. I have worked for reduction of expenditures. I will continue to do so. but not from the poor. the elderly. the widow. and the orphan.