macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1981-06-11
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. effective June 6. 1981. Marilyn Courtot became Assistant Secretary of the Senate. I am pleased that the present Secretary of the Senate has recognized her ability and experience by appointing her to this top Senate staff position. Ms. Courtot was. hired in 1973 to help modernize the offices under the Secretary and improve the services they provide to Senators. In the last 8 years. she has lent her considerable analytical and administrative talents to this task. She has been instrumental in developing the automated legislative information system. expanding the bill status telephone query service of the Senate Library. and designing and implementing the very educational staff seminars which address various important aspects of the Senate. I commend Mr. Hildenbrand on his wise selection for the position of.Assistant Secretary of the Senate. and I extend every good wish to Ms. Courtot as she pursues her new responsibilities. I yield to Mr. PROXMIRE such time as he may require.
Date: 1981-06-11
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. reserving the right to object. and I do not think I will object. as I understand the circumstances. they are as follows: A vote. without such an agreement. would probably occur shortly. I have a Member who would like to have the vote at 1:30 p.m. today. I have a Member or Members who would not make the vote if it were delayed beyond 12:30. So. being between a rock and a hard place as I have. explained it. I think It is best for us to accede to the request. Otherwise. the vote would occur now and my Member who would otherwise lose a vote by not being able to be here by 12:30 and would not be here until 1:30 would lose in any event. Having made that statement for the record. Mr. President. I have no objection.
Date: 1981-06-11
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. all nominations on page 2 of the Executive Calendar. beginning with New Reports. have been cleared on the minority side. and if the Senator wishes to proceed en bloc. it would be agreeable on this side.
Date: 1981-06-11
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. reserving the right to object. and I do not plan to object. I simply want to state for the RECORD that I have run the cloakroom lines twice on this measure. and I did that because it has not cleared the 3day rule as yet. nor has it cleared the 1day rule. But I have run the cloakroom lines on this side of the aisle twice. once for 30 minutes and once for 5 minutes. I have received no objections and. therefore. I have no objections.
Date: 1981-06-11
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. the Steel Industry Compliance Extension Act of 1981 seeks to balance the capital and energy requirements of our domestic steel industry with longterm environmental goals. The legislation permits the steel industry to comply with the Clean Air Act under a reasonable timetable. and at the same time spurs badly needed modernization efforts in our steel plants. - It is encouraging to note that -this stretchout of the compliance deadlines of the Clean Air Act has overwhelming support not only from the steel Industry. but from State and Federal regulatory authorities and the environmental community. I hope that this support signals a recognition of the difficulties that may arise from inflexible regulatory schemes. and the burden that such systems may place on our economy. Adoption of this measure will provide a shot in the arm to the steel industry. which will be in a much better position to make decisions on how and where to spend its capital. The money saved by deferring expenditures for pollution control equipment is to be invested in plant modernization. Improvement in the productivity and efficiency of American steel producers will benefit our entire economy to some extent. Almost every region of the country has some steelmaking capacity. and steel is important to virtually every industrial segment of the national economy. Automobile production. construction work. manufacturing. and the production and transportation of coal. oil. and gas are just some of the elements of our economy that are affected by the steel industry. I strongly support this bill. of which I am a cosponsor. as an appropriate change in the Clean Air Act. Public health is fully protected under the provisions of this bill. At the same time. the steel industry will be able to better plan its capital investments and better predict the compliance requirements of the Clean Air Act. I commend my distinguished colleague from West Virginia. Senator JENNINGS RANDOLPH. for his fine efforts in connection with this legislation. As the former chairman. and now the ranking Democratic members of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. he has long -espoused the need for balance in environmental legislation. The current chairman of the committee. the distinguished Senator from Vermont has carried on in that tradition. I commend both Senators for bringing this bill through the Senate expeditiously. and I look forward to working with them in the future.
Date: 1981-06-11
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I take the floor at this time to inquire of the distinguished majority leader what the program will be for the remainder of the day and for the early part of next week.
Date: 1981-06-11
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I thank the distinguished majority leader. I know of no further business that is required on this side of the aisle.
Date: 1981-06-15
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. if the distinguished acting majority leader would like to utilize my remaining time. I will be glad to yield.
Date: 1981-06-15
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I am proud to rise as a cosponsor of the amendment being offered by the distinguished senior Senator from California
Date: 1981-06-15
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I am proud to cosponsor this amendment. Unfortunately. many Vietnam veterans believed that they had been betrayed earlier this year when the administration recommended budget cuts in programs specifically designed to help those who served in Vietnam. The administrations recommendation not to continue the readjustment counseling program sparked some of the loudest cries of outrage from Vietnam veterans across the Nation. Those cries of injustice were somewhat relieved. when the Senate Budget Committee restored the approximately $25 million that had been deleted from the Presidents budget request. for the unequivocal purpose of insuring that the readjustment counseling program continue beyond September. 1981. As a candidate for the Presidency. Mr. Reagan lamented that "we have been shabby in our treatment of those who returned" from Vietnam. And. in part. we have been. It is regrettable that it took Congress 10 years to enact a readjustment program for Vietnam veterans. But. now we have a program that appears to be a success. having been in operation for less than a year in many regions of the countryat a relatively modest cost. Obviously. many of us want to see it continue. The American Psychiatric Association has recognized a unique disorder troubling a disproportionate number of Vietnam veteransdelayed stress syndrome. which is a complex term meaning emotionally suffering from combat long after returning from the war. Unfortunately. the problems associated with delayed stress syndrome are not disappearing. In fact. In recent years. they have been growing. A congressionally mandated independent study of Vietnam veterans problems by the Center for Policy Research. Inc.. strongly supports an eligibility extension for readjustment counseling. Mental health professionals from both within the VA and outside have testified before the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. that Vietnam veterans are still suffering from the residual effects of the war and are in need of counseling services. I urge all Senators to vote for the readjustment counseling amendment. (By request of Mr. CHAFEE. the following statement was ordered to be prined in the RECORD:)
Date: 1981-06-15
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Date: 1981-06-16
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I think I should say that I feel there will be no objection to proceeding to the Department of Justice authorization bill today following the hour of 2 oclock. I do wish to discuss both of these matters. the Department of Justice and the Department of State authorization bills. in conference today. and following that conference I will be in touch with the distinguished majority leader and. hopefully. the response will be in the aflirmative insofar as unanimous consent to proceed is concerned.
Date: 1981-06-16
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

I thank the distinguished majority leader. I yield such time as he may require to Mr. HART and then. following him. to Mr. BOREN.
Date: 1981-06-16
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. reserving the right to object. will the distinguished majority leader alter his request so as to provide that beginning with the session on tomorrow the majority leader. after consultation with the minority leader. may at any time proceed to take up the Department of State authorization bill. so that the Senate will be assured today that the Senate will be on the Department of Justice authorization bill?
Date: 1981-06-16
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

I move to lay that motion on the table. Mr. President. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Date: 1981-06-16
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. the Democratic policy staff. under my direction. is exploring the possibility of proceeding by unanimous consent with action on the bills that the distinguished Senator has named and. overnight. the staff will continue to do that. Perhaps by tomorrow. we can have at least some of them cleared. I hope so.
Date: 1981-06-16
Speaker: WON PAT (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speakers desk the Joint resolution (H.J. Res. 238) to approve a Constitution for the U.S. Virgin Islands. with Senate amendments thereto. and concur in the Senate amendments.
Date: 1981-06-16
Speaker: WON PAT (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the Senate amendments be dispensed with and they be printed In the RECORD.
Date: 1981-06-16
Speaker: WON PAT (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. let me say that the Senate amendments are clarifying and technical changes which are not controversial. They correct printing errors In the bill and correct an omission and a spelling error. The most significant change merely makes it clear that the consultation is being approved for submission to the voters of the Virgin Islands as provided in Public Law 94584. All of the amendments are germane to the subject matter of the joint resolution.
Date: 1981-06-16
Speaker: WON PAT (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 Joint resolution just considered.
Date: 1981-06-16
Speaker: WON PAT (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I rise to express my support for H.R. 3480. the Legal Services Corporation authorization bill. The people of my district. the Territory of Guam. are well served by the Legal Services Corporation through funding It is now providing to the Guam Legal Services Corporation. The Guam Bar Association strongly favors continuation of the Legal Services Corporation and passed a resolution to that effect which. with your permission. I would like to enter into the RECORD at this point:
Date: 1981-06-16
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to H.R. 3480 for many of the reasons that others of my colleagues have said they support this legislation. I would like to point out one thing in particular because it was mentioned a moment ago that there may have been some meddling. by Legal Services people. with the further indication that such meddling was a good thing. I would like to point out one or two cases where. in my opinion. the Legal Services people have meddled. and in areas where I think they have no reason to be. The Legal Services people brought a suit to compel the payment of SSI benefits to alcoholics. There was litigation brought by Legal Services to compel the New York City Transit Authority to hire former heroin addicts. There was a suit in New York to pay State welfare benefits to an illegal aliens parent. There was a Federal district court suit challenging practices of Oregon school districts of searching students without warrants. And listen to this: An attorney fbr the Hartford neighborhood Legal Services last year sought $7.000 to $10.000 from the State of Connecticut to mandate payment for a welfare recipients sex change operation. I say that is meddling and that the American people should not be called upon to finance that kind and character of litigation. It is said these people cannot get representation. In my part of the country we have what is known as a contingent fee contract. That contingent fee contract meana what it says. If a person has a meritorious cause of action they can get representation. I practiced law for 28 years before coming to Congress. and I daresay that I saw very few people. if they had a meritorious case and needed a lawyer. that could not get one if they tried. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 3480.
Date: 1981-06-16
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Would the gentleman explain to me. please. what he means by an area with a population of less than 100.000? Is that a county? What is an "area"? What is the definition of an "area"?
Date: 1981-06-17
Speaker: DE LUGO (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. on May 28. 1981. I inserted some remarks into the section of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD known as Extensions of Remarks. In those remarks. Glen Willians was identified incorrectly as being associated with the Los Angeles Lakers when. In fact. he was with St. John University. The remarks should read as follow: "and in basketball. Glen Williams of St. John University and Butch Lee * * " Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that these changes be made in the permanent RECORD of May 28.
Date: 1981-06-17
Speaker: JOHN L. BURTON (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the gentleman rising to speak while I am on the floor and having an opportunity to hear his words of wisdom.
Date: 1981-06-17
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to associate myself with the gentlemans amendment. I think it is an excellent amendment. The gentleman and I both have adjoining districts in Texas. We have been plagued with what this amendment seeks to stop.
Date: 1981-06-17
Speaker: DE LUGO (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. the Caribbean is becoming an increasingly important part of the overall foreign policy picture of the United States. President Reagan and his administration are to be commended for taking a new initiative in looking at this critical area of the world. The importance of the American presence in the Caribbean. and that presence is exemplified by the U.S. Virgin Islands. cannot be overemphasized. . Strong cultural and social ties exist between the Virgin Islands and the emerging island nations of the Caribbean. In fact. it has been estimated that over 50 percent of the population of the U.S. Virgin Islands can trace their roots to other islands of the West Indies chain. Consequently. the U.S. Virgin Islands acts as Americas showcase in this region of the world. and can and should play a vital and Integral role in our foreign policy as it relates to the Caribbean. I sincerely trust that the Reagan administration will see the wisdom of utilizing the Virgin Islands as a valuable resource in furthering its new initiative. The President is launching a realistic and intelligent course of action in regard to their Caribbean policy. as H- 30.19 noted in the comments by Georgie Anne Geyer entitled "Aid to Caribbean Offers New Path to Greatness" and published in the Washington Star of June 4. 1981. Ms. Geyer presents an excellent oommentary on what is taking place and what we expect from the proposed Caribbean plan. and. therefore. Mr. Speaker. I have included her comments with these remarks:
Date: 1981-06-17
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. a week ago the House Banking Committee completed its consideration of cuts mandated by the first concurrent resolution on the Budget. Although Members had reservations about the implications of this process. they recognized their responsibility and voted for passage of a package which more than meets the GrammLatta targets. The committee print submitted to the House Budget Committee reported savings of $13.2 billion in budget authority. and $760 million in outlays. Having met the budgetcutting requirements. the Banking Committee is now being attacked by David Stockman for not doing it in precisely the manner the administration wishes it done. But if the constitutional provision for separation of powers means anything. the administration must allow Congress to make decisions for itself on the particular distribution of the cuts. The Reagan administration has made its list of desired cuts known through its acceptance of the GrammLatta targets. and the program reductions suggested therein. The massive reductions demanded by this process left the Banking Committee with little choice about which programs to cut. but the committee attempted to spread them as evenly as possible. It was our belief that the burden of spending cuts should be shared by all segments of society. and not dropped solely on the shoulders of the lowwage earners. the elderly and the poor. Still. the final cuts forced on the committee resulted in program reductions similar to those suggested by the administration. I include a table comparing the suggested Reagan/GrammLatta cuts with the cuts made in those programs by the Banking Committee:
Date: 1981-06-17
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. will the distinguished majority leader rescind cancellation of the special order in favor of the Senator from Nevada and transfer the 15 minutes ordered for the recognition of Senator LAXALT to the Senator from Oklahoma ?
Date: 1981-06-17
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I now yield back to the distinguished majority leader. after which I will yield to my friend from Illinois and my friend from Virginia.
Date: 1981-06-17
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

The Senator will admit. will he not. that the Congress has acted with speed in dealing with the Presidents economic program? I think Congress has acted remarkably expeditiously in dealing with the Presidents proposed budget cuts.
Date: 1981-06-17
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

The first concurrent resolution was enacted. the reconciliation resolution was enacted. the reconciliation bill is being marked up now and will be on the floor next week. Should not the Congress be given credit for having acted expeditiously and responsively and responsibly with respect to that portion of the Presidents economic program?
Date: 1981-06-17
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I congratulate the Senator on the speech he is making. He is calling the attention of the Senate to the dangers of including in the reconciliation bill legislation that has no budgetary impact. This was not the intent of Congress in enacting the budget reform legislation. I had a bit to do with the enactment of that legislation. I was chairman of the Subcommittee on Rules of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration at that time. and I spent an entire Lincoln Day recess working with staff in developing that piece of legislation. I think it was a forwardlooking measure. I think that the budget reform process has proved to be feasible and under the leadership of Mr. Muskie and Mr. Bellmon. and now Mr. HOLLINGS and Mr. DOMENICr. I think the Senate has been able to exercise disciplines in connection with the budget process. all to the good of the Republic. But now if this process is used as a vehicle whereby controversial nonbudgetary legislation can be cranked into the reconciliation bill. thus avoiding adequate debate on the Senate floor and avoiding amendments on the Senate floor. will be a violation of the intent and spirit of the Budget Actperhaps not a violation of the words as written. but the practical effect will be the circumvention of rule XXII which provides for cloture to shut off debate. It would also virtually eschew the authorization process. We might as well do away with authorizing committees if this Is the way we are going to legislate. and just put all authorizing legislation into the recapitulation bill. which will be covered by a time agreement of 20 hours. with no nongermane amendments in order. The minority. which today is the Democratic Party. is virtually powerless to debate or to amend the legislation under such circumstances. but tomorrow it may be the other side of the aisle which will be in the minority. So it does at least three things. First. it effectively circumvents provisions of rule XKII for terminating debate. Second. it preempts the responsibility of authorizing committees and it can do the same with the Appropriations Commnittee. as well. in connection with rescissions. And. finally. it violates the spirit and intent of the budget reform process and ultimately will lead to its destruction. I do not say it is being done by design. I do not know that. I think it probably is not being done by design. I think it may be a happenstance development that is unfolding before our eyes. and I think that at the moment it may just appear to be convenient for committees. but I am glad to see Members on both sides of the aisle becoming concerned about this development and I hope that action can be taken to protect the budget reform process against this violation. I thank and commend the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin and apologize to him for taking so much of his time.
Date: 1981-06-17
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Why. Mr. President. the death penalty could be included. the Office of Civil Rights could be abolished. the campaign financing laws could be rewrittenthere is just no limitation as to what can be done using this approach as long as the majority. whatever party is in the majority at the time. wishes to proceed in that way. and if the majority has the votes. the minority can be absolutely crushed. There would be strictly limited time for debate on very controversial legislation. strictly limited opportunity to amend. The Chair ran be overruledor sustainedif the majority has the votes. So. wrong would prevail if the majority of votes are on the side of wrong. I am happy to state to the distinguished Senator that in my conversations with Senator BAKER there is the realization on both sides of the potentially destructive effect that this approach might have. on the budget reform process. and there is concern. and rightly so. on the side of the majoritybecause it is recognized that the majority today may not be the majority tomorrow as we look down the road. and what the majority can do today to the minority. the majority of today can have done to it tomorrow if the majority again switches to this side of the aisle. This is not. good for the budget reform process. and is not good for the Nation.