76-09-B6
- Main Page \ Reagan Radio Commentaries \ 1977
| << Previous Broadcast | Next Broadcast >> |
Congress[edit]
Transcript[edit]Congress is back in session and, with great fanfare and self congratulation, informed all of us that a new code of ethics would bring the looks of Camelot to the House of Representatives. The bearer of this good news was the new speaker of the House, Congressman Tip O'Neill. Either he lost his voice after that announcement, or decided one such gift from on high was enough. There was no fanfare when he changed the House rules by way of a, "privileged resolution". A "privileged resolution" is one that slides, smoothly and almost secretly, through the legislative process without debate or explanation. This one had to do with the customary procedure when a court or grand jury decides it has to look into the doings of a Member of Congress. For example, up til now, if the court or grand jury issued a subpoena for the payroll records or expense accounts of a member, or members, of the House, the subpoena was printed in the Congressional record and voted upon by the House. Publicity followed, as a matter of course, and the capitol press corps was made aware. You and I would then read about it over our morning coffee. The new speaker just pulled the curtain on that. From now on, when a House member's records are subpoened only he (or she) and Speaker O'Neill will know about it. There will be no voting on it, nor will it be announced in the Congressional record. Now, here is an interesting aspect -- if the subpoena should be directed to the Speaker himself only he would have knowledge of it. What was all that furor about an "imperial" Presidency? The Senate was busy doing a little changing on it's own and, in my opinion, democracy was the loser. Once again it was the new leadership, Senator Robert Byrd called it, modernizing the Senate. Actually, it makes it easier for the majority to ram through legislation without some of the debate that, now and then, takes place. I'm sure all of us from time to time have wondered about the filibuster and whether it was a legitimate tool in the legislative workshop. Then we'd find ourselves thankful when a controversial matter came along and we were on the side of those who filibustered. In the movie, "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington", it was the only weapon Jimmy Stewart had to block a nefarious special interest bill and, thanks to him, evil was thwarted and right triumphed. Two years ago, the Senate weakened the filibuster by reducing the two-thirds vote required, to limit debate, to only 60%. Now Senator Byrd's resolution provides that after the 60% have voted, individual Senators' speaking time will be cut in half, a time limit will be imposed on total debate and by a two-thirds vote debate can be virtually ended. One Senator, of the majority leader's own party, has described what's going on as "cutting off a dog's tail one inch at a time". What makes, or has made, our Senate a unique deliberative body is protection for the minority view point. It is not unusual for a filibuster to focus the people's attention on an issue that such an extent that the majority view in the Senate is discovered to be at odds with the will of the people and a mistake is avoided. Isn't it strange that some who have argued the loudest about the right of dissent would deny that right to their fellow Senators? This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening. |
Details[edit]
| |||||||||||
Added Notes[edit] |
