Date: 1981-06-24
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I think we know that the traditions of the Senate are not just casual traditions. We know that its procedures have not been developed accidentally. and this understanding knows no party lines. It is shared by Republicans and Democrats. without regard to the partisan control of the Senate. I have offered an amendment which goes to the heart of the traditions and d procedures of the Senate of the United I States. d Although this amendment enjoys the almost unanimous support. if not the unanimous support. of the Members on I my side of the aisle. it is not a partisan amendment. It is an amendment which I hope will enjoy the support of every Senator. Republican and Democrat. be he a freshman or Be he the President pro tempore of the Senate. This amendment would eliminate from the reconciliation bill all provisions that are not related to the process of cutting the budget. I support some of the provisions that would be eliminated by the adoption of this amendment. and I am sure that many other Members on this side of the aisle would probably do likewise. My argument is not with the substance of these provisions but with the procedure which seeks to bring them before the Senate by including them in this reconciliation bill. By the inclusion thereof in this bill we eliminate the hope of adequate debate. adequate opportunity to amend. and judicious consideration. The reconciliation process was crafted by the authors. of the 1974 Budget Act as a procedurally ironclad mechanism to rollback spending measures. and to keep spending levels within the limits set by the second concurrent budget resolution. This mechanism was intentionally designed to foreclose some of the Senate traditions or procedures which allow for free and extensive debate. Specifically. the motion to proceed to the consideration of this bill is not debatable. so it is a very privileged bill. Total debate on the bill is limited to 20 hours. thereby eliminating the need to invoke cloture on any amendment to the bill. or on the bill. Amendments to the bill are limited to 2 hours in the first degree and 1 hour in the second degree. Any amendment to the bill is subject to a severe test of germaneness. These very significant procedural changes were made because Congress recognized the need to provide an ironclad mechanism to control Federal spending. But they were not so crafted with the intent to open the door to bring before the Senate nonbudget related items shielded from debate. protected from adequate consideration of amendments. and subject to the brute force of a tyrannical majority. Some Items which I wish to strike from.. this bill are controversial. some are probably not. The majority in this body today under the very able leadership of Senator HOWARD BAKER could hardly be characterized as dictatorial or tyrannical. I could not askas the leader of the Demdcratsthe leader of the minority for more consideration. more courtesy. more deference than the distinguished majority leader has consistently from the beginning shown to me and to my colleagues on this side of the aisle. But times change and majorities change in the Senate. My amendment addresses a principle. I o not offer it with any partisan intent. do not offer it in any partisan spirit. I o not charge the majority with any plot r any design. I feel that the problem I am addressing my remarks to here today ias. to some extent. been promoted with good motives on a bipartisan basis and with the support of Senators on both ides of the aisle. So again I say there is no plot. there is no sinister design. to so utilize this vehicle as to undermine the budget process or the integrity of the Senate or to take advantage of an ironclad time limitation to put something over on the minority. I do not have the slightest thought that that is the case. But this amendment addresses a principle that is important both to the majority and to the minority. It is important to Democrats and to Republicans. now and in the future. It is important to any single Senator in this body who may at some future time wish to stand on his feet as long as his physical and mental endurance will allow him to stand here and plead for his State. his region. his cause. and his people. This is a central and basic principle of the Senate for the entirety of its 192 yearsfree. full. unfettered debate. This principle does not protect only the Senators on my side of the aisle because we are now in the minority. It protects every Senator In this Chamber no matter how small his State. no matter how sparse the population of his State. no matter how large his State. Not only will the majority control of this body changewe have heard many times that history repeats itself. the majority has changed from one party to another throughout the history of the Senatebut Members of the majority party themselves will. also. on occasion. find themselves to be in the minority when the votes are counted. So I appeal to every Senator on both sides of the aisle to look beyond today. I urge every Senator to look back at the history of the traditions and customs and the rules of this great body. I ask every Senator to look forward to the day when. if this amendment fails. the reconciliation procedure will become a mechanism to rain through this body legislation without adequate debate but which deserves full and free and unfettered debate. This procedure can be utilized by a tyrannical majority. and that tyrannical majority could be on this side of the aisle on a future. day and it can cross party lines. There could be a tyrannical .majority in this body even now. not a Republican majority. not a Democratic majority but a tyrannical majority that cuts across party lines. That majority could. if it so wished. use this vehicle for its purposes. It could include any legislation one might wish to think of. other than a constitutional amendment. It could use this vehicle to include such legislation. The legislation would be under an ironclad Lime agreement. and free and unfettered debate would be avoided and judicial consideration would be avoided. This legislation that is in the measure today. as I say. the extraneous legislation. is not legislation that I particularly oppose. as far as I know. I may support it. But where do we draw the line? If this procedure is not challenged now. where do we draw the line int he future? Will we in some future day include legislation to abolish the court system in this country. except for the Supreme Court? Congress established the Federand court system and it has the authority to do that under the Constitution. And what Congress gives. it can take away. And such legisltalon. may I add. would be under a time limit of 20 hours. Would we want to include legislation under such strict time limit imposing the death penalty for certain Federal crimes committed? I am supportive of such legislation if adequate due process is provided -for. But would this be the appropriate vehicle to include such legislation? Labor reform. ObeyRailback. campaign financing. DavisBacon. Gas deregulation. Civil Rightsyou name It. Any legislation at some future time could be included under this type of closed rule. The Senate would have 20 hours in which to debate. And a tyrannical majority could further reduce that time under the provisions of the act to any number of hours that the majority wished to Impose on the Senate. because such a motion to further reduce the time Is not debatable and the 20 hours could be reduced to 5 hours or 3 hours or 2 hours or 1 hour. Whatever the majority has the votes to provide. the majority could impose as Its will on the Senate. At the present time. twothirds of the Members voting are required to invoke cloture on a change in the Senate rules. But if this procedure is allowed to go unchallenged. at some future day a majority of the Senate can change the rules of the Senate by majority cloture. A motion to take up a proposed rules change is now debatable. It is the one thing that is debatable regardless of what time during the legislative day the motion to proceed is made. It is debatable. It can be filibustered. And it requires a twothirds vote to cut off that filibuster on a change in the rules. But the motion to proceed to this reconciliation measure is not debatable. Once it Is before the Senate. 20 hours of debate are the maximum. and a majority vote is all that is necessary to pass the measure or enact an amendment. So I say to you. this Is a real Pandoras box if I ever saw one. It was never the intention of the drafters of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act to provide an avenue to circumvent the basic underpinnings of this great institution. The committee system of authorizing programs after careful review. indepth hearings. and informed drafting is a basic element in responsible legislation. Including these extraneous authorizations in this measure. in most instancesand in any other reconciliation bill that will subsequently come before the Senate. in most instances with little review by the committeejeopardizes the credibility and the effectiveness of th committee system. And as anyone who has observed Congress for any time knows. the committee system is one of the integral strengths of the Congress. This reconciliation procedure has already been stretched well beyond the considerable role originally intended for it by the framers of the 1974 Budget Act. The reconciliation process was to have begun after the appropriations process was completed. and after the second budget resolution is adopted. For 2 straight years we have considered reconciliation as part of the first budget resolution. The framers of the Budget Act envisioned reconciliation addressing the fiscal year which is about to end and the fiscal year about to begin on October 1 for which appropriations bills had just been enacted- not 3 years into the future. as this bill directs. The framers of the Budget Act envisioned reconciliation as treating spending authority. basically appropriations and entitlements. borrowing. and contract authority. The bulk of this bill contains changes in authorization legislation. or at least a great portion of the bill contains changes in authorization legislation. which was never envisioned by the Budget Act. . While many Senators have raised concerns over the abrogations of the Budget Act. they have gone along in the name of fiscal restraint. But when the budget process is stretched to the point where it no longer involves saving money. the line has to be drawn. I draw that line with my amendment. I know that the majority leader and many Senators from the other side of the aisle share the concerns that I have expressed. The distinguished majority leader worked very hard with me on Monday to develop an amendment which eliminated many extraneous matters from the bill. I know that he is concerned about the principle involved here. I say again that this amendment deals with the principle. not the merits of the items being stricken by this amendment. Mr. President. I served three terms in the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives fills an extremely important role under our constitutional system. But if there was one stroke of geniusand there was morethat came from the minds of those constitutional forbears. it was the Senate. because it is here where men will stand against the storms of political frenzy and in many instances throw the light of public scrutiny upon legislation which would otherwise be detrimental to the Republic. I do not want to see the Senate become a second House of Representatives. In the other body. they have what is known as a closed rule. Mr. President. this is a closed rule that governs the debate on the reconciliation bill. In many ways it is a closed rule. Perhaps. it Is not the kind of closed rule that we generally talk about in the other body. where the Rules Committee allows a rule that will allow only one amendment or two amendments or three amendmentsor noneto be offered. and may even designate the authors of those amendments. and limiting the time for debate. But It is a closed rule to the extent that there are only 20 hourswhich can be further reduced by nondebatable motion if the majority of the Senate so wishes to further reduce the time. Debate on an amendment is also limited. and there is a strict rule of germaneness. I would hope that we would understand that if we vote to uphold this procedure. we are going in the direction of a closed rule. There was never any intent in the minds of those who drafted this Budget Reform Act that it would be used to undermine the committee system. to undermine rule XXII. and undermine the integrity and uniqueness of the Senate as an institution. I say to my friends that if the Senate upholds this bill against the amendment that I am offering today. every Senator in this body is going to rue this day and this vote. because it may be someone elses ox that is getting gored today. Or perhaps nobodys ox is getting gored except the Senates ox. But one day it will be my ox. it will be my State. and the same prospect confronts every other Senator as we approach our decision on this particular amendment. The amendment which I am offering will strike a number of sections as reported by the Commerce and Banking Committees. The Commerce Committee reported seven substantive legislative initiatives to the Budget Committee as part of their reconciliation instructions. Three of those issues were eliminated by the bipartisan amendment offered by Senator BAKER and me on Monday evening. The other four. however. still remain in the bill. My amendment would strike the following major sections: Section 443. subsections 17. which establish an international telecommunications and information task force. Section 441. subsection 2. which mandates a managing director and annual report on the Federal Communications Commission. Section 445. subsection 14. which include the radio deregulation provisions. and Section 446. subsections 13. which includes the television licensing provisions. The most extensive list of nonbudget related authorizations included in this bill were reported by the Banking. HousIng. and Urban Affairs Committee. Those provisions include large portions of the Housing bill which recently passed the Senate. The major items which do not relate to the budget. but are included in this bill. which my amendment would strike areSection 321. subsection 1(b). which conditions authorizations for appropriations on enactment of policy changes contained in section 3212 through 13. Section 321. subsections 2 through 13 (except subsections 8(a). 9. 10. and 11) which change community development block grant (CDBG) program application and approval procedures: modify grant formulas. and change urban develonment action grant (URAG) program criteria. Section 322. subsections 1(i) and 3 through 13. which modify assisted housing programs. Prohibit cities and States with rent control or stabilization policies from receiving new construction funds. Section 323. subsections 2 through 5. 7 through 10. and 13. which include miscellaneous amendments to housing programs and achieve no savings. Section 324. subsections I through 18. which establish uniform nonjudicial procedures for foreclosure of HUDowned mortgages. Section 325. subsections 2 through 4. which allow the Secretary of Agriculture discretion in establishing income eligibility and interest subsidies for rural assisted housing and requires a report on rural housing. Section 326. subsection 1. which exempts Hawaiian savings and loans from reserve requirements on checking accounts. One of the most obvious examples of extraneous legislation left in this bill is the material on radio and television deregulation reported from the Commerce Committee. Section 445 incorporates the entire Radio Deregulati6A Act of 1981. The legislation. of minimal consequence to the budget of the Federal Communications Commission. accomplishes the deregulation of the radio Industry. including. among other things. new procedures for selecting radio licensees and the termination of long standing program content requirements. Section 446 is identical to S. 601. the Television Licensing and Renewal Act of 1981. This legislation significantly revamps television licensing procedures. with important consequences to the future of commercial television. Again. there are no significant budgetary consequences. and therefore no overriding reason why this legislation ought to be included in the reconciliation bill. These two issues would normally attract far more intense scrutiny from the public. the radio and television industries. and other Members of the Senate who are interested in communications matters. Yet despite the farreaching importance of this legislation. only five pages of information are provided by the report on the reconciliation bill. No report of any substance lias ever been provided. This is not the way the Senate should go about legislating. especially with regard to issues of such major consequence. An argument has been made by some who support the inclusion of these nonbudget related housing measures in the reconciliation bill. that since the Senate already passed the housing bill. their inclusion does not damage the budget process nor Senate rules and traditions. If this argum:nt were to hold. should we not then attach to the reconcillition bill every measure which the Senate has passed? Either the reconciliation bill is a specially crafted. singlepurposed. budgetcutting measureor it is not. If it Is not. if it is to be a freight train on to which every major piece of authorizing legislation which has passed the Senate should be added. then it should not enjoy the procedural safeguards of limited debate. strict germaneness. and automatic cloture. which were built into the narrowly conceived budgetcutting devise known as reconciliation. But this reconciliation bill does not include the housing bill as it passed the Senate. The Banking Committee. in a straight party line vote. selected among the provisions of the housing bill which passed the Senate. For example. FHA insurance provisions were In the housing bill as it passed the Senate. Yet. they are not in the reconciliation bill. The same applies to increased manufactured home loan limits and terms. reauthorization of the national flood insurance program. extension of the National Institute of Building Sciences authorization. Federal riot reinsurance program reauthorization: and repeal of the crime insurance program authorization. I know that there are others who wish to speak and I will not further detain them long. perhaps a couple of minutes. An argument has been made by some who support the inclusion of this nonbudgetrelated housing measure in the reconciliation bill that since the Senate alreadypassed the housing bill. inclusion thereof here does not damage the budget process or Senate rules. Mr. President. I understand there is a strong feeling of Senators. and I sympathize with their concerns. But that is entirely unrelated to the principle that is involved here today. If that argument would hold. should we not attach to the reconciliation bill every measure the Senate has already passed? While it may be housing today. it could very well last year have been the surface mining amendments which I very much wanted and which were passed twice by the Senate and twice derailed in the other body. It could be any other measure. So I say. let us not yield to that argument. but I do not question the sincerity of purpose of those who take that position. I must utter a word of caution that this is a fundamental principle about which we are talking. It is not Dentocratic. it is not Republican. Again I hasten to say as far as the leadership of the majority is concerned we could never think. much less say. that the Republican leadership has been tyrannical or dictatorial to date toward any of us on this side of the aisle. Actually. it has bent over backward to be considerate. fair. and understanding of our needs. But. as I say. majorities do change. I say either the reconciliation bill is a specially crafted. singlepurpose. budgetcutting measure or it is not. If it is not. if It is to be a horse or a freight train on which every major piece of authorizing legislation which has passed the Senate should be added. then why stop there? Why stop at legislation that has already been passed by the Senate? Why not just include all of the rest of the legislative calendar. send the authorizing committees homeabolish themand put it all on this measure? We only have 20 hours of debate. We could get out on the 1st of July and spend the rest of the time back in the mountains of West Virginia and not have to stay around here. But if it is going to be that kind of horse. Mr. President. then it should not enjoy the procedural safeguards of limited debate. strict germaneness. and automatic clotureautomatic cloturewhich were built Into the narrowly conceived budgetcutting device known as reconciliation. Mr. President. I understand that there were some authorizing committees which were not so instructed by the Senate in the reconciliation instruction resolution that approached the Budget Committee to include in this reconciliation package legislation which those committees wanted to attach. But the Committee on the Budget said. "No. we dont have the authority to include your legislation." At some future day. a majority in the Senate could instruct all committees. could issue instructions to all committees. and if this procedure is allowed to go unchallenged here. all authorizing committees at some future dateincluding the Committee on Rules of the Senatecould include legislation that has no budgetary impact. extraneous matter. in this reconciliation bill and Senators would not have the opportunity for free and full and unfettered debate. This reconciliation bill. let me say. too. I want to make it eminently. preeminently. absolutely crystal clear-