Date: 1982-05-21
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. Presdent. I thank the distinguished Senator. - I Mr. President. I hope that all Senators will listen. I have tried very hard to lay out the merits of this amendment that was just tabled. and other Senators on this side of the aisle did the same. We offered this amendment in good faith and for a very conscientious pur. pose of trying to assist millions of Americans. That includes West Virginians and people from at least 30 States other than West Virginia at this point and eventually at least another halfdozen States. I believe that a dispassionate view of the merits of this amendment would suggest to a healthy majority in this Senate that the amendment should have been adopted. I do not find any fault with any Senator who. on the merits of the amendment. felt that he could not vote for it. I have no quarrel with that. I will never hold that against any Senator. If he cannot vote with me for reasons of his own conscience or if he just does not see a matter as I see it. that is perfectly all right with me. I do not fault any Senator for that. But this was a truthinbudgeting amendment because as the recession deepens or simply continues. it is very likely that Congress will enact a supplemental benefit program such as that contemplated by this amendment and by the legislation which I introduced earlier this week. Only yesterday the House Ways and Means Committee took action and reported legislation to deal with this problem. But here is the thing I want to call attention to. and I do it without rancor and I do it because I believe it appeals to the basic conscience and patriotism of my friends on the other side of the aisle. Few amendments considered in this session or during the last session of Congress have been decided on their merits. The tabling of this amendment was not decided on the merits of the amendment. It just seems to be very clear that If a Democrat offers an amendment. Members on the other side of the aisle simply automatically vote against it. they vote against the amendment. There vas no debate on this amendment except for the little bit of time that Senators on this side of the aisle took in explaining the amendment. the reasons for it. and the need for it. and except for the distinguished Senator from Kansas . who made a few brief remarks. There were no further remarks made .about the amendment. no discussion of the merits from that side of the aisle. I think that situation is a sad commentary on the extent to which the "governance" of America has degener ated into the "politics" of America. I know It is said amendments are offered for political reasons. and all of that. and that can be said on both sides. I can remember when I was maJority leader. amendments being offered on the other side of the aisle where we could have said. "Well. those are getelected amendments. Those are amendments that are politically motivated. Those are amendments to get this one or that one or this side or that side on record." But we have seen in the last session of this Congress and in this session an almost consistent pattern of simply moving to table or of voting an amendment down if that ameniment is offered by a Democratic Senator. It is done without serious debate from the other side of the aisle. The people of West Virginia. where unemployment is over 11 percent. and who have exhausted or who are about to exhaust their unemployment benefits. do not care whether a Democrat offers an amendment or not. They do not care whether the amendment is offered by Republicans. Last year. if you remember. we on this side of the aisle offered an amendment that would put the Senate on record as being against the Presidents proposed cuts in social security benefits for persons who elected to retire at age 62. and we were defeated by one voteone vote on an almost party line vote. Then once we had been defeated on our amendment the other side of the aisle picked up our amendment. changed a word or so. so that the amendment would be parliamentarily in order. and offered virtually the same amendment. We did not vote against that amendment because it was then offered by the Republican side. We joined them. We said. "Hooray. whoopee. We want the elderly community of this country to get the message that the Senate is not going to stand for that kind of a cut." So we joined with the Republicans in voting. I think 96 to 0. to put the Senate on record as against that cut. For the people of Indiana. where unemployment is 12.9 percent. they do not care whether it is a Republican or Democratic amendment. The people of Washington. where unemployment is 12.8 percent. do not care whether an amendment is offered by a Democrat or a Republican. in Oregon. where unemployment is 12.3 percent. the people do not care whether a Democrat or a Republican offered the amendment. An empty stomach does not know whether the hand that feeds it is a Republican hand or a Democratic hand. and the people of this country I think are entitled to hear these amendments debated on their merits. and then if the Senate votes them down that is one thing. But for Democrats simply to repeatedly call up amendments. have those amendments summarily voted down or tabled. is just simply not fair to the American people and it does not reflect very well on a body that is sup-. posed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. I had hoped to get an upordown vote on the amendment. I do not quarrel with the Senator from Kansas for moving to table it. but I think it was a worthwhile amendment. I think it was an important amendment. and I think it merited some discussion on both sides. and I think it really merited an upordown vote. So I think at some point. Mr. President. this kind of partisanship has to stop. Sometime. at some point in time. the Senate has to again becore a deliberative body which considers issues on their merits and not on the basis of who sponsors the amendment. not on the basis of what party sponsors the amendment. I thank the Senate for its indulgence.