macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1981-10-28
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I oppose the amendment offered by our distinguished colleague. the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL. Existing law. not H.R. 4603. gives the FSLIC authority to provide contributions to thrift institutions. The FSLIC has been able to make contributions to ailing thrifts and thereby to facilitate mergers and acquisitions since 1935. Granted. FSLIC Is asking for some new conforming language to clarify that contributions can go to an acquiring institution as well as to the troubled Institution directly-. but the fact remains that FSLICs basic authority to help carry out mergers has been on the books for 46 years. Therefore. the amendment would have the effect of cutting back on the longstanding flexibility of the FSLIC In dealing with Institutions needing assistance. The FDIC_ section of the bill Includes this "contribution" language. because the Financial Institutions Subcommittee adopted an amendment designed to make the FDIC and the FSLIC assistance sections parallel. so the existing F.3LIC language became part of the FDIC portion of the bill. I would. oppose this effort to reduce rather than enhance the regulators flexibility.
Date: 1981-10-28
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

A contribution is Just what it sounds like. It is a way to provide a subsidy to a troubled Institution without- requiring repayment. Now obviously It would. be. preferable to have FDIC and FSLIC provide assistance in the form of a loan that would be. repaid. but In. some cases that Is simply not. possible. Sometimes. If the agencies cannot offer a contribution to help effectuate a merger.. the only alternative Is liquidation and. as the gentleman knows. and. as the Members of the House know. that can be a very. very expensive route to travel. For that reason. it Is Important authority for FSLIC to keep. since they have already had it for 46 years.
Date: 1981-10-28
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

The Insuring fund. Actually It is made to avoid a larger cost to the fund should a failure and liquidation occur.
Date: 1981-10-28
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Wait a second. The Insurance concept Is exactly that. You have workmens compensation insurance. Fortunately not everybody gets Injured on the job. But just because the people who did not get inJured on the Job are not collecting that does not mean you do not assist those people who have beenm injured on the Job. In this Instance. there are institutions that have been Injured on the Job. The insuring fund Is there for that purpose and. I submit further. the reason for utilizing this technique is to minimize the cost to thatinsuring fund. and. therefore. to all those other healthy institutions that have contributed over the years.
Date: 1981-10-28
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I have no objection to this amendment. The provision would provide State savtogs and loan supervisors the same opportunities as State bank sutiervisors are provided In the FDIC merger and acquisition section. Thus. the supervisor would be notified by the FSLIC that an acquisition transaction is going to be used to resolve a problem case.. The supervisor would have at least 24 hours to object. If he or she did. .then the Corporation would need a unianimous vote of Its trusteesthe Federal Home Loan Bank -Boardto approve the transaction.
Date: 1981-10-28
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that . the balance of the bill be considered as read. printed In the REcORD. and open -to amendment at any point.
Date: 1981-10-28
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. and I rise to address the two amenfdments offered en bloc. Mr. Chairman. as to the equal consideration amendment td section 8. I have no objection to that particular amendment. As I understand Its effect. the FSLIC would have to give equal consideration to minimizing Its costs and to the merger priorities specified in section 8 of the bill. In the event that a bill Is received equaling or exceeding the FSLICs cost of liquidating. which I feel. will be In very rare Instances. then the preferred bidder under section 8s hoop system who offers. to at least equal FSLICs costs would get the award. Since this will only occur in very unusual circumstances. in most instances the FSLIC will only be bound by the general "equal consideration" language. Therefore. I do not object to the amendment. Now. as to the amendment to section 15. I do indeed have serious reservations about this one. It would further tie the hands of the FDIC In dealing with problem Institutions. The FDIC along with the other regulatory agencies came to the Congress and requested flexible yet limited authority to respond to problems they perceive. The Corporation. in particular. requested very limited authority to arrange. if necessary. Interstate mergers or acquisitions of large commercial and mutual savings banks. Only 90 commercial banks and 10 mutual savings banks would be affected by the language. These Institutions. because of their size. present the Corporation with its most difficult problems. and this newv authority would provide more flexible authority to handle them. However. because the bill contains a sunset provision and because the most Immediate problem for the agency is Indeed the mutual savings bank Industry. I will not oppose the amendment. I would like to state thisthat we wvill not have to come back here on an emergency one day and reinstate that which we are deleting with this amendment to section 15. that Is: the authority for FDIC to assist commercial banks as wellwhose assets are $2 billion or more. So under the circumstances. as I stated. I support the amendment to section 8. and reluctantly support the amendment to section 15.
Date: 1981-10-28
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I and that no large commercial bank move to strike the requisite number of will encounter financial problems In words. the future.
Date: 1981-10-28
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

If the gentleman will yield. as a matter of fact. we adopted an amendment a little earlier that now restricts Its application to mutual savings banks and savings banks. so we have deleted the commercial banks entirely. Second. with respect to the language the gentleman quoted. pages 26 and 27. that language has been in the present law. In the Bank Merger Act and Bank Holding Company Act. for many years. The reason for that particular language is to preserve the local bank. and so we were not changing any law but merely reiterating present law. As I say. an amendment earlier adopted to .the legislation totally does away with any effect on commercial banks of $2 billion or more. or less. or anything. We restrict it to mutual savings banks.
Date: 1981-10-28
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I trio lighting. Moreover. this substan- date ask unanimous consent that all Mem- tial savings can be achieved with little (Jun bers may have 5 legislative days in or no expenditure by the Federal Gov- it." which to revise and extend their re. erment. H marks and include extraneous materi- The bill also takes steps to lessen avai al on the bill just passed. the minor adverse consequences of ex- Jun
Date: 1981-10-28
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

M~r. President. according to press reports. the administration has hit upon a surefire way to reduce Inflation painlessly: They plan to change the way It Is measured. Evidently. the last 3 months of doubledigit inflation convinced the administration that Its bankrupt policies of high interest rates. high unemployment. and tight money would not bring Inflation down. Promises of lowered Inflationary expectations If Congress enacted David Stockmans economic program have fallen with the autumn leaves. so the decision was made to grab the bull by the horns and make a statistical adjustment In the Consumer Price Index. Economists and statisticians have long argued about the pros and cons of the Consumer Price Index. but none of them has told us how changing the way inflation is measured will make It easier .to buy a new home or to make payments on a new car. Perhaps the CPI has overstated inflation because of Its heavy use of interest rates. but has the CPI overstated the damage these interest rates have done to our housing and automobile Industries? Has the CPI overstated the disappointment tbat young couples feel when the promise of owning a home turns i~nto nothing more than a lost dream? The CPI may be adjusted. and It may show slower Inflation. but the changes cannot make the economy work better. or lower the impact which Inflation has on our citizens. Perhaps the administration should begin to pay Closer attention to the contradictions and bad numbers In its own economic statistics rather than worrying about ways to make it look like their programs are succeeding In whipping inflation. now. Mr. President. I ask una .nimous consent to ha~re printed. in the ECORD an article published in the Baltimore Sun of October 27. 1981.
Date: 1981-10-30
Speaker: MASON ROSE (democrat)
Chamber: S

Chairman. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. Washington. D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We are writing to provide you with commnents on the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Boards (A&TBCBs) July 10. 1981. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Federal Register. August 4. 1981. p. 39704) on Minimum Guidelines and Requirements for Accessible. De3ign. Section 502(b) (7) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. as amended. requires the A&TBCB to issue minimum guideline and requirements for accessibility and usability by physically disabled persons of federal and federally funded buildings and facilities. This requirement was enacted to provide an Impetus toward and more uniform meaurement of compliance with the Architectural Barriers Act of 1908. as amended. The peralstent failure of federal departments and agencies to achieve the level of asccessibility required in the Architectural Barriers Act has twice recently been pointed out by the Senate Environment and Public Works Cammitteein the commnittee report on 5. 2080 last Congress (May 15. 1980). Senate Report No. 90771. pages 3339. and more recently in Its report. Senate Report No. 9748. pages 3230. on S. 5133. as passed by the Senate on AY 0. 1981. In our judgment. the rescinding of the A&TBCBs minimum guidelines would leave the mandata of section 502(b) (7) of the Rehabilitation Act entirely unfulfilled and would represent a most regrettable erosion of the federal commitment to help disabled citizens overcome their handicaps and. to the maximum extent possible. lead productive. independent lives in their communities. We are aware that significant concerns have been expressed that parts of the guidelines issued by the Board on January 0. 1981. are -unduly demanding. Many of these concerns appear legitimate In light of the Intended scope of section 507(b) (7) about which some of us wrote you on November 20. 1980. and efforts should be undertaken by the Board to modify the particular provi-
Date: 1981-10-30
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. the legislative items mentioned by the distinguished majority leader are cleared on this side of the aisle. However. the executive items -have not been cleared.
Date: 1981-10-30
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. will the distinguished majority leader state the program for Monday. and - as far into next week as he can at this time foresee?
Date: 1981-11-02
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. New England. uniquecin many ways. Is the only region of the Nation whose business interests are represented in Washington by a nonprofit. nonpartisan organization of business leaders committed to the continued growth and economic development of the area. The New England Council. a memberbased organization of 1.200 corporations which employ over onesixth of the working population of New England. recently elected as Its chairman of the board. Bruce G. Sundlun. a Rhode Islander of enormous talents In many facets of community life and a remarkable business leader both in the State and throughout New England. Bruce Sundlun not only has a long and distinguished career as a businessmanpresently he Is president and chief executive officer of the Outlet Co.. In Rhode Islandhe has also earned a brilliant record in Government service. He was assistant U.S. attorney from 1949 to 1951. a Special Assistant with the Department of Justice from 1951 to 1954. and was appointed by President John F. Kennedy as an Incorporator of the Communication Satellite Corp.. In 1963. where he served as a senior director. An outstanding citizen. Bruce Sundlun Is a highly decorated World War II veteran. having received the Distinguished Service Cross and the Purple Heart. In addition. Bruce Sundluns accomplishments extend beyond the limits of our Nation as he has also received the Chevalier Legion DHoneur from France and the Prime Ministers Medal from Israel. A retired Air Force colonel. he has served on the advisory group of Na.tional Aviation Goals and the Air Force Academy Board of Visitors from 1978 to 1980. Indeed. Bruce Sundlun Is an individ-. ual whose description demands superlatives and whose achievements extend beyond these few examples I have given. I commend the New England Council for its commitment to bringing the needs of the New England business community to tiue attention of the nations policyniakers. In particular. the councils decision to open a Washington officejust three blocks from the White Housereaffirms the commitment of New England business interests to actively pitSue the goal of a vital and thriving economy for the region. In addition. I applaud the councils choice for chairman of the board. Bruce 0. Sundlun.9
Date: 1981-11-02
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

That does not come until the close of morning business. It does not occur at the beginning of morning business.
Date: 1981-11-02
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. this is a simple amendment. It expresses the sense of the Senate that social security benefits will not be taxed. If we have learned anything over this last year. It is that the current budget crisis. whigh has been created largely by the KempRoth tax cut. and by a failure to employ realistic economic and budgetary assumptions at the beginning of the budget process this year. leaves no Program safe. no tax Unthinkable. and no promise to the American people secure. Documents which have been prepared by the majority on the Senate Budget Committee point up the peril created by this KempRoth induced budget crisis. A table included as part of the markup documents for the second budget resolution entitled "Potential Tax Policy Changes" lists some of the options that the committee might undertake so as to close the K~empRoth budget gap. The list is replete with Items which the American people will find hard to believe are being seriously considered as options In the U.S. Senate. I ask unanimous consent that this table which is contained In the revenue section of the Budget Committee documents. page 5. be printed In full at the close of my statement.
Date: 1981-11-02
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

One of the "revenue enhancements" is a proposal to tax half the social security Income above $20.000 for singles and $25.000 for coulples. This initiative would yield about $2.8 billion in fiscal year 1084. Mr. President. it is difficult to believe that the majority in the Budget Committee is actively considering a tax on social security benefits. It is also hard to believe that they would be considering Increasing the social security tax paid by selfemployed people. or that they would be considering taxing all unemployment compensation. or that they would be considering eliminating the student exemption and the casualty deductions. But the fact that these tax increases are even included in a list of options to be considered by the commidttee. points to. the problems that lie ahead and the areas which may be subject to cut The majority on the Budget Committee. basically using the administrations economic assumptions. with the exception of its interest rate assumption. projects a budget deficit of $99.8 billion In fiscal year 1984. assuming that the as yet unidentified spending cuts are not made in fiscal year 1983 and fiscal year 1984. and the unspecied COLA cuts in fiscal year 1982. fiscal year 1983. and fiscal year 1984 are not made. Earlier this year. we saw an effort by the administration to severely slash social security benefits. The initiative the administration put forth in May came in spite of the repeated promises made during the 1980 Presidential campaign and subsequently In the development of the "safety net concept" by the administration. I believe we have no more reason to have faith that social security benefits will not be taxed than to believe that future efforts will not be made to cut social security benefits. As an example of the dimension of the problem created by the KempRoth tax cut. the Senate Budget Committees markup document contains a table entitled "Comparison of Budget Outlook Under Alternative Economic Assumptions."1 That table lists several different alternative projections. The Congressional Budget Office projects that. in the absence of further tax increases or budget cuts. the deficit In fiscal year 1984 will be $121 billion. That same table lists a "consensus" figure of private forecasts of a $138 billion deficit in 1984 without further spending cuts or tax increases. It is the dimension of this budget crisis which gives me grave concerns. It Is the dimension of the crisis which suggests that nothing Is sacred. despite previous assurances about "safety nets." I am concerned that the fate of our most basic government programs has been tied to budgetary decisions which are driven by the KempRoth budget crisis. Any budgetary decision to tax social security benefits would constitute a precipitous and unfair benefit cut for elderly Americans who have planned for their retirement upon the promise of a specific level of social security Income. The Congress will not support changes In social security designed to reduce the Federal budget deficit rather than insure financial solvency of the social security trust funds. The purpose of this
Date: 1981-11-02
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

If the distinguished Senator will yield. the Sen ate did adopt a resolution in this respect earlier this year by a vote of 98 to 0. I believe..but that was before the Budget Committee listed this tax as an option to be considered. I feel that now that the Budget Committee has indicated that it is indeed an option. the Senate should go on record again.
Date: 1981-11-02
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I think that would be very nice. If the Senate would adopt this amendment by a unanisnous vote. It would Indicate to the Budget Committee that the Senate S 12722 co will not support such a proposal if the committee were to recommend this option. The majority leader is correct. that the Budget Committee has not chosen this as an option yct. but it Is at least one of the options for consideration. Senators will note that one of the items In that table on page 5. which I earlier asked to be printed in the RECORD. states: Tax half of social security Income of $20.000 for singles and $25.000 for couples. For FY 1883. the amount saved being $2.2 billion. ifl FY 1984. the "revenue enhancement" would be $2.8 billion. making a total of $5 billion. Mr. President. -I ask for the yeas and nays.
Date: 1981-11-02
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. If the distinguished Senator will yield. the verbiage of the resolution Is preeminently clear. It states as follows. and - the distinguished Senator from Kansas has read it into the RECORD. also: "The Congress will not support any social security benefit reduction"-any social security benefit reductions-"which are designed to reduce the Federal deftcit" and so on. That is the object of the subject and the verb: "any social security benefit reductions which are designed to reduce the Federal deficit" rather than Insure
Date: 1981-11-02
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I would not want to say "any changes." to use the distinguished Senators phrase. I am saying that I would not support Just any old changes that are ostensibly for the purpose of insuring solvency. What I am saying Is. I think the Senator and I would agree that the solvency of the social security trust fund must be maintained. What Is required to assure that .solvency we may differ on. What I am saying Is that Congress will nort support social security benefit reductions which are designed to reduce the Federal deficit rather than insure the solvency of the social security system. It is true. Mr. President. that this option has not yet been agreed to. The Committee on the Budget has not yet voted to propose this option. But. Mr. President. earlier this year. the President included as one of his proposals the reductIon of social security benefits for Americans who elect to retire at age 62 rather than wait until age 65. The total reduction would have been 40 percent. In other words. if they elect ot retire at age 62. they would get 55 percent rather than 80 percent of what they would otherwise get If they waited until 65 to retire. The Senate went on record and voted. I believe unanimously. In the final analysis. against such a proposal. So we have not heard any more about the Presidents proposal. That was the end of that. Another option has now surfaced and it is In the table from page 5 of the budget document. which I have asked to be printed In the RECORD. It presents another option. It is an option that would be tantamount to a cut in social security benefit payments. If social security benefit payments are to be taxed. that is tantamount to a cut In payments. So I think. although the Senate went on record earlier this year and voted for a resolution that would do the same as this sense of the Senate resolution would do. I think that the Senate ought to go on record again. now that this option has appeared as one among other options that can be considered by the Senate Budget Committee. I think the Senate ought to go on record again. now that the option has surfaced. so that the committee will have the advice of the full Senate. Hopefully. the Senate will vote unanimously so that the Budget Committee will then know that this is an option that will not be supported o~n the Senate floor.
Date: 1981-11-02
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I appreciate the offer of cosponsorship by the distinguished Senator. I ask unanImous consent that his name and the name of the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania be added as cosponsors. I also ask unanimous consent that the names of Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. MELCHER. Mr. HATCH. Mr. DEC)NCINI. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. FORD. and
Date: 1981-11-02
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. lam pleased to ask unanimous consent that the name of the distinguished Senator from Tennessee c . BAKER). the majority leader. be ad( .1 as a cosponsor. as well as the names of the Senator from New Jersey and my senior colleague from West Virginia .