macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1981-11-02
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. today the Senate considered and passed unanimously S. 1085. the Older Americans Act Amendments of 1981. This measure extends a highly significant piece of legislation for an additional 3 years. I take this opportunity to thank the Senator from Missouri . manager of the bill for Senate Democrats and ranking Democratic member of the Labor and Human Resources Subcommittee on Aging. Family and Human Services. for his hard work on this measure. He and the manager of the bill. the Senator from Alabama . made every effort to accommodate the needs of Senators on both sides of the aisle. Senator EAGLETON has made numerous contributions to legislation affecting senior citizens. This bill Is another excellent example of the careful oversight and review of Federal programs for elderly Americans which the Subcommittee on Aging has performed. The legislation which just passed the Senate today. Is not intended toand indeed. could not hope toaddress and solve all of the many pressing concerns facing elderly Americans today. but It should help to fill some needs of senior citizens. who comprise approximately one out of every nine Americans.
Date: 1981-11-03
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: 1981-11-03
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. the measure before the Senate today recognizes the determination on the part of the committee that every mode of transportation should be preserved. We have the very able and experienced chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation
Date: 1981-11-03
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I thank thc distinguished Senator from Florida t Mr. CITILES). I yield to the distinguished Senator frm North Dakota .
Date: 1981-11-03
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. 1 thank the distlnguished Senator. Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President. I say again what I said before. We are starting down a track. if I might use that metaphor. that I do not think the Senate wants to go down. Amtrak has cut out the International which is service from Seattle to British Columbia. the North Star service from Duluth to Chicago: the InterAmerican service to Houston. San. Antonio. and Laredo because those trains did not meet the criteria that we have set in the stattue of 10 passengers per trainmile. The Senator from West Virginia cited the figures for June and July on the Cardinal which Indeed Indicates that it slightly exceeded 150 passengers per trainmile. The number of passengers on all trains go up In June and July. There is nothing unusual about that. If we aire going to you meet the 150 passengers per trainmile criteria in June and July. you may have your service all ycar." then we have a lot of trains that meet the criteria that we cut. The Cardinal for all of fiscal year 1980. which was the last full year we have. averaged 87 passengers per trainmile. No matter wha~t anyone says. if we are going to add $10 million to the cost for Amtrak to run the train system in this country. If we run the Cardinal on a daily basis and we do not increase their budget. some other service or some other train has to be cut. I say to my fellow Senators do they wish. to write into lawand they may think of their own trains in their own Statesat premier train? There Is no other train in this Nation that Is designated by law to run. But if this amendment is not agrecd to. if we keep this in the appropriations bill. we are saying there is one train that Is preferred and it does not run from Los Angeles to New Orleans or from Chicago to Atlanta or from San Francisco to Denver or from Washington to Miami. It runs from Chi1cago to Washington. D.C.. through Cinicinnati and through West Virginia. at a cost of $10 million a year on a basis that does not meet any criteria that we set in statute. It is up to this Senate. If that is the kind of favoritism Senators wish to write Into law. so be it. But in writing It In let every one of them beware. Then It may be their train that goes down that does meet the criteria because some money is being cut out > run a train that does not deserve it.
Date: 1981-11-03
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I challenge that statement by the Senator from Oregon. As I have already indicated. the Secretary of Transportation and the president of the Amtrak Board were In my office. and they indicated that Amtrak could be operated within this figure or $735 million and that Its operation would not Jeopardiz e any other route. Mr. President. ridership on the Cardinal continues to improve: and. for example. in comparison of July 1980 to July 1981. ridership Improved by more than. 10 percent. I suggest that Amtrak pursue alternatives in rerouting and that it pursue local advertising. both of which efforts would Improve the ridership. and both of which efforts have been mentioned by Mr. Boyd as efforts that Amtrak would make which would Improve the local ridership. Mr. President. I am ready to vote. I hope the Senate will reject the amendment now.
Date: 1981-11-03
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. reserving the right to object. and I will not object. providing the second vote begins right on the nose at 2 p.m.
Date: 1981-11-03
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I wish to thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota who is the floor manager of this bill. and my distinguished colleague from Florida who is the ranking Democrat for their inclusion at my request. of $4 million In construction funds for the WeirtonSteubenville Bridge in the fiscal year 1982 Department of Transportation and related agencies appropriation bill. Construction of this bridge was originally proposed before 1970 to replace two existing. obsolete bridgesthe Market Street Bridge and the Fort Steuben Bridge. The need for this new bridge Is evident. The existing Market Street Bridge is so delapidated that vehicles no heavier than a car may pass across it. While the Fort Steuben Bridge is somewhat sturdier. it is only a total of 18 feet wide. The present situation is such that wvaitinig periods of up to 45 minutes to cross the river are presently being experienced. Construction of this new bridge will encourage economic development in the WeirtonSteubenville area and help protect the jobs of those presently working In the area. So this bridge represents more than simply an expenditure of Federal dollars. it Is an investment In this region. To date. $3.6 million has been expended to construct the bridge piers In the river. These piers werecompleted in 1979 but have stood as lonely monuments for thela..t 2 years because continued funding has not happened in a timely manner. So. Mr. President. I wish to thank my distinguished colleagues for including $4 million for construction of this bridge and. In doing so. fulfilling a promise to the people of West Virginia.
Date: 1981-11-03
Speaker: WILLIAM J. ANDERSON (democrat)
Chamber: S

Di rector. General Government Division. U.S. General Accounting office. Washington. D.C. DEAR Ma. ANDERSON. This is in reply to your letter of April 6. 1981. enclosing a copy of the GAO proposed draft report entitled "TenliesseeTombigbee Waterway--Some Answers to Help Resolve Diffiult Issues." The report Is a very balanced presentation of the questions which must be addressed concerning the Tennessee.Tombigbee Waterway. Our comtients on the report are very brief. The remaining benefit to remaining cost ratio Is mentioned In the report on page 09. We would point out that this ratio Is an analytical tool which can be used as a factor in making budget decisilons en the continued funding of a large capital project like the TennesseeTombigbee Waterway. As noted In Your report. tihe remaining benefit to remainIng cost ratio for the TennesseeTombigbee Waterway Is currently 3.0. The fact that this ratio supports the continued funding of the TenneseeTonlhigbee Waterway should be expressly mentioned in your report. [GAO comment: 0MIB Is correct in stating that the remainling beneflt to remaining cost Is a factor lin making budget dei~ionls onl TennTom. As suggested. we have noted tils lit the Introduction chanpter rather thlan jumst. In appendix I.) We also believe that the question of developing a new federal project io expanld tile existing Demopolis to Mobile Waterway Is unrelated to the question of completing tile TetinessieeToni bigbee project. Should suich a project be authorize~d by tile Congress. It would be subject to the Samne policy review and competition for scarce budget resources as any othler potential new water resource project before being Included lin the Admin. Istrations budget. [GAO comment: See dicussion onl pag.i 88 aRnd 89.1 1 wvant to thlank you for providing us withl thle opportunity to coluiRnlt oil this draft report. Sincerely. FuF:oF~aicic N. Kllaoouau. Associate Director /or Natural Resources. Energy and Science.
Date: 1981-11-04
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. further reserving the right to object. will the majority leader assure that none of the amendments that are provided for In the agreement which he has just proposed would deal with DavisBacon?
Date: 1981-11-04
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

I would have to object to that amendment. The manager of that bill is not here on this side of the aisle. I personally do not have an objection.
Date: 1981-11-04
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

I am sure the distinguished majority leader and I are looking at the same list. I count 21. Including the four at the bottom.
Date: 1981-11-04
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of H.R. 3464. legislation to strengthen both our naval forces and our economy. Mr. Speaker. today we have the opportunity to vote on legislation which wvill insure that strengthening our naval forces will also strengthen our economy. H.R. 3464 will prohibit the procurement of U.S. naval vessels or their major hull or superstructure components from foreign shipyards. We have been enacting this provision since 1968. and It Is now time to make the prohibition permanent. Passage of this bill means that American naval vessels will be built In American shipyards. Passage means national security Interests Involved in the design and construction of Navy ships will be safeguarded. Finally. passage of H.R. 3464 means that American Jobs in the defense Industry will be protected. I need not emphasize the growing rate of unemployment and the economic stagnation prevalent throughout the country. Nor do I need to stress the Importance of jobs in the naval construction industry to the economic health of the Northeast. We should. however. recognize and stress the value of these shipbuilding jobs to both our naval preparedness and to our economic condition. This legislation will tie the benefits of building a strong Navy to the growth of a vital industry by enacting a permanent ban on the purchase of vessels from foreign shipyards. This bill will create and retain American Jobs as we Improve our naval capabilities. and I strongly support passage of H.R. 3464.
Date: 1981-11-04
Speaker: DE LUGO (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. and I would agree with the statement made by the gentleman from New York and I also join in agreement with the statement just made by the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.
Date: 1981-11-04
Speaker: DE LUGO (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. first. let me commend the gentleman from Kentucky. the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee. and also the gentleman from New York for providIng leadership that has brought us to this point. I can say. having worked on this matter for a long time. In fact. for almost 10 years. that it took tremendous leadership. and I want to thank both the gentleman from Kentucky
Date: 1981-11-05
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

to reconsider holding the rest of these hearings because they are fundamentally political in nature and because of the great cost to the American taxpayers. I would suggest that instead the Banking Committee would be wiser to harness its energy to find ways to strengthen the financial institutions of this Nation to meet the economic challenges in the years ahead.
Date: 1981-11-05
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I am today Introducing a resolution requesting that serious discussions be undertaken with the Government of Canada. regarding the establishment of a regional strategic petroleum reserve by the United States and Canada. Recent events In the Mideast heighten my concern for future dependable sources of petroleum from the Persian Gulf area. especially for purposes connected with the continued uninterruptible operation of key American defense industries. A number of very important considerations dictate that the United States proceed imnmediatcly with the designation of and filling of regional strategic petroleum reserve requirements as provided for by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. That act. required that regional petroleum reserves be established in areas of the country which import at least 20 percent of the petroleum products consumed there. The completion date for all regional reserves was set for December 1978. No action has been taken. A major concentration of the Western Hemispheres defense Industrial base is located In the Northeastern and Middle Western States of the United States and the Eastern Provinces of Canada. Any significant disruption of imported petroleum supplies to these areas would pose a critical threat to that concentration of key defenserelated Industries. and clearly endanger the national security and economic health of the two countries. The existing strategic petroleum reserve is not located in the close proximity of this defense industrial base. Moreover. its pipelines could be subject to destruction from possible attack or sabotage. It is In this special regard that I propose that President Reagan direct the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of State to begin discussions with appropriate officials of the Government of Canada on the feasibility of establishing a joint strategic petroleum reserve by the United States and Canada.*
Date: 1981-11-05
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

I would hope the time would be equally divided or not charged against either side. Would the Senator object to that?
Date: 1981-11-05
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Reserving the right to object. Madam President. may I suggest to the distinguished Senator that following third reading he include that there be no further intervening dedate.- appeals or points of order at that point also because such debate could occur after third reading. I am Just trying to help the Senator.
Date: 1981-11-05
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Madam President. I think we have an understanding of what the Senator wants to do. and we on our side are fully in accord with that. May I state that It is our understanding that following the vote on the Jackson amendment. which will occur at the hour of 3:30 pm. today. the Senate. without further debate. amendments. points of order. appeals. or motions. will proceed Immediately to third reading. and upon third reading will proceed to the House bill. take it up. strike out all after the enacting clause. insert the Senate bill as amended. if amended. and then to final passage without any further -intervening debate. motion. appeal. point of order. and so forth. We have that understanding. and that being the intent of the request. there is no objection on this side.
Date: 1981-11-05
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Madam President. will the distinguished Senator yield to me for a question? May I ask the Chair. the Senate has now ordered the roilcall vote on the Jackson amendment. it has ordered a rolicall vote on the House bill. as amended by the Senate bill.
Date: 1981-11-05
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Madam President. I have another question. Does the request as put and acceded to by the Senate rule out a motion to reconsider the Jackson amendment?
Date: 1981-11-05
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

I do no" believe the Senator really meant that. Would Senator Thurmond wish to change the order so that a motion to reconsider would be in order?
Date: 1981-11-05
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Madam President. will the Senator allow a motion to reconsider on the Jackson amendment If Senators should wish to make such a motion. and does the Senator wish to provide that there ba no debate on a motion to reconsider on the final passage of the House bill?
Date: 1981-11-05
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

And a motion to reconsider the passage of the House bill would be In order but would not he debatable. am I correct?
Date: 1981-11-05
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

I want to support the- statement that has just been made by the distinguished majority leader. There Is at least one Senator. I will say at least two Senators. on this side of the aisle who do not waive the possibility that there might be a rollcall vote on the adoption of this conference report. So I am going to ask my cloakroom to put out that word so that Senators will be on notice. I am not saying there will be a rollcall vote. but I would not want Senators to go home under the impression that there will not be a rollcall vote.
Date: 1981-11-05
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

What I am trying to understand is when the Senator says it will widen the window of vulnerabilityI am trying to quote himin the next 5 years. Is he saying that the window of vulnerability will be expanded by an additional 5 years?
Date: 1981-11-05
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

What will the curve be doing In the light of this budget conference report after the next 5 years? Will the curve level off. wvill it continue to go down. or will it begin to go up?
Date: 1981-11-05
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

I noted In the press some time ago that an Army division would be skeletonized by the cutNotvmber 5. 1981 CO backs in defense funding. What does the authorization here do in that respect? WVill there be a skeletonizing of Army divisions?
Date: 1981-11-05
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

I believe Mr. WALLOP sometime ago proposed an increase in laser weaponry. I supported his effort In that regard. I am very interested to hear that In the Judgment of the distinguishied Senator from Texas the laser weapon technology will be enhanced.
Date: 1981-11-05
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I congratulate the distinguished Senator from Arkansas for his incisive remarks concerning this particular conference report. I also compliment Mr. LEVIN. Mr. ExoN. and Mr. NuNN. I have listened with great Interest to what they have had to say. While complimenting Senators on my side of the aisle. I wish to compliment the distinguished chairman. Mr. TowER. I was back in the State of West Virginia when I rcad of his very keen disappointment over the decisions of the administration with respect to the Bi 5Ind the MX He had the courage to speak out and to express his disagreement with the administration. and that was not an easy thing to do. It was not easy for him to do. It might be easy for someone on this side of the aisle. but he Is the chairman of the Armed Services Cn-"mittee. I believe that jnany people throughout this country took heart when they read and heard and saw the media accounts of his November 5. *1981 reaction to the administrations decision in that instance. I also compliment the distinguished Senator from Virginia . HIS name has been alluded to a number of times here this evening. particularly by
Date: 1981-11-05
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I did not wish to interrupt the Senator in his speech but Senator NUNN did do that so I Just wish to remind the distinguished chairman that from this side of the aisle ho may recall that last year and the year before this side of the aisle has not been reticent or lax In supporting increased appropriations. We upped the budget that was submitted under the Carter administration for national defense.
Date: 1981-11-05
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

We also upped the figure over what thle House authorized in appropriations. So this Senate. under the leadership of Mr. NUNN. Mr. HOLLINGS. and Mr. STENNIS. and Senators on the other side of the aisle. stood for a stronger defense and increased funding. Having done so under Mr. Carters administration. I think the Senator can well understand our concern about this budget conference report and he. I think. should feel renewed confidence that there are those on this side of the aisle who will support increased appropriations when those bills come along where we think there is justification. By our record of the last few years. we in the Senate. sought to improve our defense capability even over and above the requests of the administration that was then under the leadership of our own party.
Date: 1981-11-05
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. before responding to the distinguished majority leader. could he tell us when we might expect the small business innovations bill to be called up?
Date: 1981-11-05
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

I cannot at this moment state the number or the nature. I will be glad to do that perhaps on tomorrow. But may I say that there Is no problem on this side of the aisle with clearance.
Date: 1981-11-05
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. In response to the majority leaders Inquiry. the minority leader Is ready to proceed with the items listed.
Date: 1981-11-05
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

I move to lay that motionl on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. MADE" The Senate proceeded to consider the concurrent resolution to provide for the printing of the brochure "How Our Laws Are Made." which had been reported from the Committee onl Rules and Administration. with an amendment: On page 2. after line 6. insert the following: SEC. 2. There shall be printed for the use of the Senate fiftytwo thousand additional copies of the document specified In section 1 of this concurrent resolution.
Date: 1981-11-05
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I thank the distinguished majority leader for his customary courtesy. I bclieve there are certain other matters that are cleared for unanimous consent.