macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1981-06-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill just passed.
Date: 1981-06-24
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

It may be that I will be ready to offer my amendment. to which Senator BAKER referred. by that time. At that time. the three amendments referred to will have been disposed of.
Date: 1981-06-24
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I should like to call to the attention of Senators who voted against the motion to table that this amendment constitutes legislation. and it has no place on this particular bill. The reconciliation bill was not meant to be the horse on which all kinds of legislation. controversial or otherwise. could ride. If we proceed here to do this. I am going to offer an amendment a little laterwhether we proceed to do this or notto strike from this reconciliation measure all the extraneous matter in it that has no budgetary impact. and I will save my argument for that later. I merely want to say to my friends that I am very sympathetic to the substance of this amendment. If this amendment were offered to another bill. I probably would vote to support the amendment. unless there is something I do not know about the amendment. There is a principle involved here. and we should not attach this kind of amendment to this reconciliation bill. That was never the intent of the authors. nor was it the intent of Congress in enacting the Budget Reform Act. So. as a Senator who supports this amendment otherwise. and who will vote against it momentarily. I urge my colleagues to respect the intent of the budget process and not begin to erode it little by little by little by little. as we are about to do here. Inasmuch as the tabling motion failed. and I voted for the tabling motion. I urge my colleagues that we look down the road. rather than at the immediate item. and try to protect the budget process and reject this amendment.
Date: 1981-06-24
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

It will be just for 1 minute. Mr. President. the distinguished majority leader says he is amazed to have found that there was nonbudgetary legislation on the reconciliation bill last year. I. too. was amazed because when I got into this act and I was alerted to the extraneous matter in this bill. I was amazed upon talking with the Parliamentarian to find that there was indeed some extraneous matter in the reconciliation bill last year as alluded to by the majority leader. and he is correct. I was amazed. But let me say this. Had I known at that time that such extraneous matter was included and that the budget reconciliation measure was being used for that purpose. I would haveI think I would have. I like to think I would have. I feel that I know I would havetaken the same stand then that I am taking today. Of course. that may appear easy for me to say. But I say it in all sincerity. But that does not excuse our doing it again. The old saying. two wrongs do not make a right. is valid. Finally. may I say. Mr. President. that we should not condition our dedication to. and our protection of. the fundamental principles of this body upon what the other body may do. I think we have to fight for the principles by which we feel that this body lives and breathes and has its being and then take our stand with the other body on that firm base. I thank the majority leader. Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Date: 1981-06-24
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. as the chief author of the amendment. I have no objection to setting the amendment temporarily aside and letting the Senate pursue other amendments while we have our discussions outside the Chamber.
Date: 1981-06-24
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. so that in the future we know what the procedure would be where we have an amendment pending. amendment A. temporarily laid aside for amendment B. temporarily lay that aside for amendment C. would it not be the normal procedure that when we go back on that measure. as we will tomorrow. amendment B. or Mr. Scanzzs amendment. is still before the Senate. that when that is disposed of. amendment A. Mr. CRANsTONs amendment. which was temporarily laid aside in order that Mr. SCHMITTS amendment would come up. would normally come back down. after which my amendment. which was ternporarily laid aside in order that Mr. CRANSTONS amendment could be called up. would then come back before the Senate? So that no order really is needed. Am I not correct?
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I wonder if I may have an opportunity to explain my viewpoint on this first and then let it be open to question.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I have no objection to the Senator from Louisiana asking a question. What I want to say is that perhaps what I shall .say will eliminate the Senators concern or it may not. After that. he should certainly have the right to speak.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I think there is a little confusion here as to what we mean by "free debate." Under the act. as all Senators will recall. any amendment in the first degree is limited to 2 hours. any amendment in the second degree is limited to 1 hour. By order of the Senate. we have reduced that time further in this particular bill. Also under the act. those in control of time on the billnamely. the majority leader and the minority leadercan yield time from the bill to Senators who want additional time on any amendment. This is all the "free debate" we have in this Budget Reform Act. There is not unlimited debate under this act. The distinguished majority leader is going to offer a proposal. The only thing it waives is the right of any Senator to make a point of order against the amendment by Mr. GARN and/or against the amendment by Mr. PACKWOOD. It allows them to call up those two amendments without risk of any point of order. It does not limit the debate to 20 minutes or 30 minutes or 40 minutes. except under the order that is already entered here. which I believe limits all amendments to 40 minutes. But that previous order does not prevent the two leaders from yielding additional time on any amendment. The two leaders. I am sure. could yield additional time. I say to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana. on either or both of these amendments. So insofar as the Budget Act framework allows. I say to the distinguished Senator. nothing is being done by this request to take away any Senators right that he otherwise has under the act.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. if that extraneous matter is to be added Is t will the Senator yield to me for another to a reconciliation resolution. there mad important matter without losing his should be a point at which every one of opex right to the floor? the 100 Senators has the right if he seco
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. that this subject matter will be stricken one I am informed that the Labor Subcom- and also that It may be offered. at that wou mittee of Human Resources Committee point the matter would be subject to de- sent is meeting without permission of the bate without limitation under the Budget M Senate. They have been advised that they Act and then thereafter not be a part con do not have permission of the Senate. of the initial agreement. Once the matter tim but they are continuing to meet. has been offered with the understanding M I make a point of order against the that It would not be subject to a point Sen committees meeting. I object to further of order. but that it would be subject to M meetings of the committee and I obiect free debate. the matter could then be the to further meetings of the committee debated for a brief period of time at Posi without the consent of the Senate today. which point a request to which prior con- Sen I also suggest to the distinguished ma- sent had not been given would be made ame Jority leader that in the future any re- that there be a limitation. pad quest of committees to meet beyond the I. for my point. would not be inclined Stan normal 2 hours that they are allowed to to object. I would not object. I would be Act meet when the Senate is in session be willing to agree to a limitation. but I Sen cleared the day before so that we will not wish to make it clear that I am not L have this happen again. speaking for any other Senator. hap
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. In the context where in order to move will the Senator yield? from a situation where a Senator has a sit
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. freely given In both Instances. there was by t will the Senator yield? no coercion Involved. we were willing to don
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Any action at that second point when we limited de- M the committee might take might be sub- bate the consent was freely given. there Ben ject to challenge in the courts at some was no condition attached to it. I th future time. Mr. BAKER. Mr. President. will the spok
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

And I suggest Mr. BAKER. I could not agree more. gon again that we try to .get the clearance If we get this agreement clearly It will tion the day before because otherwise com- be consent freely given. una mittees can go ahead and meet and then I repeat what I have said before: I ac- if t at the end of the day seek the approval knowledge that if we work this out on prec of the Senate after having met. and I this basis it Is a gift of grace of the Sen- doin think that we should try to avoid this ate and I happen to think that it is the a pr and I will cooperate with the majority way we have to do It In order to get the got leader in seeking to get those agreements work done but not because we are in advance as much as I can. coerced or constrained to do It by any alm I thank the distinguished Senator from act. coul Louisiana. It Is a gift of grace of the Senate. And and THE PROPOSED BUDGET RECONCILIATION REQUEST I think It happens to be a good way to you
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. if we have no agreement. the time under the act is going to run out within about 6 hours. am I correct?
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

When that time runs out they can offer any amendment they want to. of course. The time may be lagging. but the majority may decide the point of order. but there will be no debate on any amendment after those 20 hours run. and they will expire in 6 hours. After that time there is no time for debate on any amendment. What we are seeking to do here is to really extend that 20 hours and allow Senators to call up amendments after that 20th hour has expired. and to have some time on those amendments. Minus the agreement they will have no time for debate on the amendments. May I assure the Senator from Mississippi that I am not agreeing to take something out of this bill and then. in the second instance. to agree to go just in the opposite direction on that principle. The principle we have been fighting for here is to eliminate extraneous matter from the reconciliation bill. We would have established that principle beyond any doubt by striking this out of this bill. so that in the future authorizing -committees that might say. "Let us go to the Budget Committee and put this in or that in." would have this precedent staring them in the face. As to the amendments being offered from the floor. that can be done now. We are not opening up a new way of getting extraneous matter in the debate. That is open now. Unless the Senate will uphold points of order. if such amendments are not germane. and the Senate upholds that point of order. fine. they are out. But a majority can decide what that Point of order is as to germaneness on this bill. as a majority often does as to germaneness on an appropriation bill. So we are not opening up any new ave. nue. We are simply saving if any amendment Is going to be offered to add extraneous matter it will have to be offered that no germaneness objection to the on the floor. which can be done now and amendments would be made on which. may I say to the distinguished What do these two contain. the total Senator from Louisiana. at the present Commerce package and the total Banktime they only have 2 hours of debate at ing package? the most. plus any additional time that Mr. BAKER. It is not the total packthe two leaders may yield time on the age. I might say to the Senator from bill. and that time runs out in 20 hours. Kentucky. One reason why I did not put
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Yes. That the Banking Committee section and. protection is not being waived in the perhaps. some material in the Commerce future. It is only being waived on these Committee section I think everyone will two amendments. agree is relevant and nonextraneous and
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I have no objection to temporarily laying my amendment aside to take up another amendment at this point.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I am pleased that the Senate has the opportunity today to adopt the conference report on the Steel Industry Compliance Extension Act of 1981. This legislation represents a balance between the capital needs and energy requirements of our domestic steel industry and our longterm national environmental goals. The steel industry will be permitted to comply with the requirements of the Clean Air Act under a reasonable timetable established by this legislation. At the same time. the industry can make sorelyneeded capital expenditures for plant modernizations while it defers compilance with the act. This measure enjoys the support of the steel industry. regulatory officials. and the environmental community. I hope that their support can be interpreted as a recognition of the burdens arising from inflexible regulatory systems. The Steel Industry Compliance Extension Act will help remove that burden. Adoption of this conference report will put the steel industry in a much better position to decide how and where to spend its capital. Each steel producer will be able to plan modernization expenditures with a higher degree of certainty than presently exists. Steel producers will sit down with the Environmental Protection Agency one by one. and work out consent agreements covering pollution control initiatives to be taken at each plant. A major policy goal underlying this legislation is to prevent the loss of jobs at steelmaking facilities. The steel industry has assured the Congress that it fully supports this goal. and will seek to reinvest any funds saved by the deferral of compliance with the Clean Air Act in ways that increase the productivity of their plants. I commend my distinguished colleague from West Virginia. Mr. RANDOLPH for his labors with respect to this legislation. He has been a strong voice for balanced environmental policies. as has the distinguished Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Mr. STAFFORD. As a cosponsor and strong supporter of this measure. I look forward to its enactment forthwith. I urge the adoption immediately of the conference report on H.R. 3520.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. the pending amendment is the amendment I have offered. I say to the distinguished manager of the bill that I have no objection to laying this amendment aside once more temporarily to allow one additional amendmentto be called up.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

I announce that the Senator from Nevada . the Senator from California and the Senator from New York are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting. the Senator from Nevada would each vote "yea."
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

I announce that the Senator from Nevada . the Senator from California . and the Senator from New York are necessarily absent. I further announce that. if present and voting. the Senator from Nevada would vote yea."
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. reserving the right to object. and I do not have any intention to object. but I do want to make sure that in taking action on prospective amendments by limiting time thereon that we are not automatically waiving any points of order that otherwise might lie.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

I ask the distinguished majority leader whether or not the phrase it be in order thereafter to offer an amendment relative to those same provisions" anticipates that Mr. GARNs amendment would go beyond. In any way. the provisions of the language in the bill which is being stricken and which came out of his committee.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

I call to the attention of the distinguished majority leader that that would be a provision in addition to provisions that are contained in title II.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

So that the language of the request that has been made by the distinguished majority leader would have to be altered to provide that those additional provisions could be included in the Garn amendment. else a point of order would indeed lie against it.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

I must say that I do not believe that it would be broad enough because the sense of the Senate provisions which deal with instructions to conferees are not included in the present language that is being stricken. I would hope that the distinguished majority leader would so alter the provision so that there would be no misunderstanding that could arise later. Furthermore. if this additional language relative to the sense of the Senate language regarding instructions could be brought in as being language "relative to those same provisions." conceivably other language could also be similarly brought in. I do not think the majority leader proposes that.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Now. Mr. President. further reserving the right to object. the order would provide that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in recess until the hour of 9 oclock tomorrow morning. Would the distinguished majority leader indicate what he has in mind for a time for closing business today?
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Let me say that what the distinguished majority leader is doing in this request is. for one thing. extending by grace the debate on this bill an additional 5 or 6 hours over and above what the law provides for.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. reserving the right to objectand I will not and do notwhat will be the then unfinished business before the Senate?
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. will the distinguished majority leader further yield just for the information of all Senators? May I ask the leader or the Chair what the pending question with respect to the Department of Justice authorization bill would be at that time?
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

The fact is that I do not know. There is a possibility we may deal in both ends. There is a possibility thatI do not know what will come out of this committee in the final version. I do not know what will come out of conference. We do not know where we are or where we will be. as has been the case throughout this GrammLatta process. As of now. at 3:32 p.m. this afternoon. we still do not know for a certainty what is in Gramm and what is in Latta and what we are expected to do.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I think the gentleman from Missouri is going to handle that end. I would expect that he will advise the Members of what is in the substitute. I will mention briefly my end of it. I do not think that I would impose on the House. except to say that we met the figures imposed on us. We cut in the reconciliation process for 1982 In outlays. $2.596.000.000. In 1983. it is $3.552.000.000. In 1984. it is $4.382.000.000.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Well. with the exception of three items. that is correct. We were accused of not having legislated meaningful reform. We did.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Will the gentleman allow me to reclaim my time at this point? We do not know what the final ver sion of OrammLatta II is going to be. We do not know what amendments are going to be offered in the block grant that we will not be able to separate and for which we will not be able to offer any amendments and for which we will only have to vote yes or no. That is a fact. That is the situation as of this time. The ientleman from Texas cannot tell you what is going to be the final amendment offered by the GrammLatta II. I doubt that the gentleman from Texas or the gentleman from Ohio know.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

The gentleman is correct. not. for any ignorance on the part of the gentleman from Texas. let me state. but for lack of availability from the proposed sponsors.
Date: 1981-06-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

In the package that will be offered and explained by my colleague from Missouri . there is a proposition for a block grant to Puerto Rico. I must advise the Members that as this administration is trying to formulate a foreign policy. this administration is speaking .of a Caribbean program for the Caribbean. and to single out the people of Puerto Rico for different treatment as American citizens. different from any other State. I think it is an affront of Puerto Rico. I know that it saves money but. as one American citizen. I resent that another American citizen will be treated differently than the rest of us for the sake of a few dollars. You do not sell citizenship for a few dollars. * There ought to be someplace. somewhere. that we can find a savings without treating our brethren in Puerto Rico different than the rest of all of the other American citizens.