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

Mr. President. I do not talk with respect to the merits of the amendment. I may very well support the amendment on its substantive merits. But I oppose the inclusion of nonbudgetrelated items in this bill. Why? For the reasons I have already expressed earlier today and on yesterday in support of the amendment which I offered. Where do we draw the line? If we include this nonbudgetrelated legislation in this measure. why not go further and include additional nonbudgetrelated legislation? I have some nonbudgetrelated legislation I would like to get passed. This is the ideal vehicle on which to place it. Why do I say that? Because the legislation I am interested in is very controversial. It would undoubtedly be debated at length. and Senators might want to resort to invoking cloture. This is the ideal vehicle for me to use in attaching legislation in which I am interested in order to circumvent section 2 of rule XXII. in order to have this priceless. ironclad time cap which I can use to my advantage. Not only is there a time cap on this legislation. but when the conference report on the reconciliation bill comes back. there is a time cap on that. an even more restrictive time cap. So the legislation in which I am interested. if it can be included in a reconciliation bill. it goes to conference and comes back in a conference report. which protects me even more to the Senates disadvantage. because there is a 10hour cap on a reconciliation conference report. In order to discourage ROBERT BYRD or any other Senator from utilizing this vehicle or a similar reconciliation vehicle in the future for the inclusion of legislation which would otherwise be hotly and long debated. and to which many amendments might be proposed. I think we should attempt to draw the line now. If we establish a pattern of strong opposition on the part of the leadership to the inclusion of such legislationby that I mean nonbudgetrelated legislationin reconciliation bills. we will have served the Senate and the people. and we will have imbedded in concrete the principle of free and unfettered debate. I think it is a principle that is worth handle this Issue in Just this way. try to standing for. worth fighting for. and I remove the precedential effects of this hope that the Senate will reject this measure. present It squarely on the basis amendment and any other amendment of of the merits in this case. like natureby like nature. I mean non- The merits are. in my view. Mr. Presbudget relatedin order that such legis- ident. No. 1. regardless of what the lation will come to the floor in the normal Intended the Budget Act to be. it has course of things. after having had com- provided a system by which. in this case. mittee hearings. after having had the the House of Representatives has Incalling of witnesses before the commit- cluded much of this same material In tees. after having had committee markup. their reconciliation bill. with whom we and after having had full debate in the shall have to go to conference at Some Senate in the normal legislative process. point. We are going to have to go meet I am told that this particular legisla- with our colleagues in the Housesome tion did have hearings. In that respect. of us willand deal with this measure. it may be a little different from other So I think. If for no other reason than to amendments that may be called up. But give the Senatean opportunity to meet if we include this on the basis that the them on an even basis. on an even keel. Senate has already acted upon it. there we should support the amendment being may be other such measures that would offered by the Senator from Utah. fall in the same category. I reiterate. Mr. President. I express I do not think that it is a valid argu- my appreciation to the minority leader. ment for the inclusion of such legislation. to the distinguished ranking member of In the interest of establishing a pattern the Committee on the Budget. to the of rejection by the Senate of legislation Senator from Mississippi. the Senator that is nonbudget related. and by way of rom Louisiana. and so many others. for looking down the road into the days and making it possible by unanimous conmonths and perhaps years beyond this sent to remove the question of whether day. in the interest of establishing a we are doing damage to the precedent of strong principle around which we can the Senate in proceeding th!s way. We rally in the future. I urge the Senate to are not. We have now provided for a vote down this amendment. straight shot at the question at hand: As I say. I do not argue against the How can the Senate best protect its amendment on its merits. I might support Position in conference with the House it if it should come In at another time in of Representatives? I urge my colleagues the normal course of the legislative proc- to support this amendment. ess. But In this instance and for the rea- Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President. I ask sons I have stated. I shall vote against i the distinguished Senator from Utah if I urge my colleagues to do likewise. he will yield this Senator 5 minutes on