Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. as we all have known for some time. legislation on an appropriation bill is against the rules. except in certain instances. But the Senate has. from time to time. voted to add legislation on an appropriation bill. I have no quarrel with that. If Senators want to fly in the face of the rule and include a matter that constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill. that is the Senate working Its will. We have a somewhat similar situation here. What I strenuously object to Is what we are seeing happen in connection with the reconciliation bill and what hap* pened last year. Nobody made a point of it last year. nobody raised the question. I was not aware that the reconciliation bill was being used to include extraneous matter. nonreconciliat!on matter. But I am aware of it now. I am aware that it is being done here. I am greatly concerned if we do not challenge what is being done. As I said yeterday. nobody is charging that It Is a plot or that it is a design to run roughshod over the minority or anything like thatup to this point. But I am concerned that if we do not challenge this action. it is going to become the practice and it will grow. And while we have legislation included here today that I may or may not opposein this instance. I think I shall oppose the amendment to put it back inwhat will it be tomorrow? If the Senate puts its imprimatur on this practice. then I want to be in on the deal in the future. if this is definitely the way we are going to go. when I have some extraneous natter that I want to include. The Budget Committee is helpless. it is bound and it is gagged. It has to put it In. If we are going to go down this road of including extraneous matter. I want it to be done here. on this floorcome In the front door and let every Senator. with his eyes open. have a chance to vote on it as we now have in connection with adding legislation to an appropriation bill. So. Mr. President. with my amendment. I have proposed that we strike out all nonreconciliation matter in the bill. I ant not setting myself up as a judge as. to what is nonreconcillatlon and what is reconciliation. That is for the people here who are much clbser to the bill than I to decide. Whatever they clearly decide Is extraneous or clearly decide is reconciliation. I am content to go with. But that which is nonreconciliation ought to be stricken and we ought to alert the authorizing committees by our action today that. in the future. they must not take nonreconciliation matter and impose on the Budget Committee to include it in a reconciliation bill that comes to this floor. That Is what the majority leaders proposal would allow. Mr. President. The nonreconciliation matter would be stricken. Only that matter which is clearly reconciliation would stay in the bill at this point. The other matter would be taken out. Then we would agree. in this one instance only. that no point of order would lie against the amendments that would be offered to put the same material back in. It Is not setting a precedent. Next time a matter comes up that is not germane or against which a point of order would ordinarily lie. no Senators right is waived in the future. But in this one instance. we would waive the right to raise any point of order that might otherwise lie against the amendments. Let them be offered. Let the Senate vote on those amendments. I will vote against. including all nonreconciliation matter In this bill. just as I said yesterday that we should reject the amendment by Mr. DURENBERGER to include extraneous matter. So no further rights are being waived. At the present time. there are various ways in which a minority can filibuster the reconciliation bill. I can filibuster this bill right now. I do not have to wait until the 20 hours are up. All I have to do is send this book to the desk as an amendment and object to dispensing with its reading. The amendment would have to be read and will be read. except by unanimous consent. I could send it to the desk. offer it as an amendment. and it would be read. A single objection would cause the reading to go forward. The time that would be consumed in reading that amendment cannot be charged against the 20 hours. because the 20 hours cover debate. and reading an amendment is not debate. So I can keep us all In over the weekend. but there would be no action except the reading of this amendment. It would not be charged against the 20 hours. Then. of course. at the end of the 20 hours. amendments can still be called up. There can be a filibuster by a minority at the end of the 20 hours simply by calling up amendment after amendment. having no debate. and demanding rolleall votes. So the rights that a minority has now. be it any minoritya Republican minority. a Democratic minority. or a minority that cuts across both party linesare not being waived by the request that the distinguished majority leader will make. The proposed agreement would simply provide that. in this one Instance. the right of Mr. PACKWOOD to offer an amendment. which he has in any event. and the right of Mr. GARN to offer an amendment. which he has in any event. will be observed. but that any point of order that otherwise would lie against either of those amendments at this time will be waived in this instance. No precedent is being set by anything we are doing in this request. We would have established the principle we have fought for. We will be protecting the Budget Committee. we will be protecting the budget process. we will be protecting the committee system. and we will be protecting the integrity of the Senate. if this request is agreed to. I yield the floor.