macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1982-06-21
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I am pleased to support expeditious Senate action on H.R. 3863. a bill to amend the Poultry Products Inspec. tion Act to raise the number of tur. keys that can be slaughtered on an annual basis without continuous Federal inspection. Under current regula. tions. only 5.000 turkeys can be slaughtered annually by small turkey producers without installing expensive equipment to provide for birdbybird inspection. For other poultry farmers this figure is 20.000 per year before continuous Federal inspection is required. The purpose of this bill is to put turkey farmers. under the same regulations as those for other poultry producers. Prompt enactment of this legislation would enable a smallsized turkey producer to increase his production to 20.000 turkeys per year before having continuous inspection. All health and sanitation requirements. which must be met at the current time. will continue to be enforced. Much of the turkey production in this country is by small producers. In my own State of West Virginia. 2.3 million turkeys were slaughtered in 1980 and many of these were by relatively small producers. Removal of restrictive Federal inspection regulations will permit these farmers to increase their production in a costefficient manner. I support the adoption of this measure.
Date: 1982-06-21
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. Presdent. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Date: 1982-06-21
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: 1982-06-21
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. efforts are being made on this side to determine whether or not the 3day rule may be waived. I should think the chances are fairly good.
Date: 1982-06-21
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I support H.R. 5879. Although I have serious concerns that we are bringing in more refugees than we can handle. this bill incorporates the kinds of sensible approaches and policies this country needs if we are to create a more effective resettlement program for those we do admit. It should be noted that the funds provided under this bill relate Drimar ily to refugees already here or whose admission has already been authorized and it does not relate to the question of further admissions. The State of Texas has more refugees than any State except California. There are between 50.000 and 85.000 refugees in Texas. I say "between" because nobody knows for sureand this has been one of the big problems with our resettlement program: inadequate data. The Federal Government has no idea how many refugees pick up and move to another State. How in the world. then. can the Government determine whether a locality is being severely impacted? How can it determine the proper level of social service funding for that area? Fortunately. this problem of insufficient data is addressed in H.R. 5879. The bill directs the Office of Refugee Resettlement to compile information on secondary migration. It also requires the Office to find out what the welfare dependency rates are in each State. Believe it or not. the Federal Government does not know that. either. Mr. Chairman. the bill contains a number of other meritorious provisions. For example. the Immigration Subcommittee was told by the Texas Department of Health that Indochinese refugees "have presented overload problems to our taxsupported health care systems." The bill addresses this problem by line itemizing. for the first time. $14 million to assist local health agencies with their costs in providing health assessments and initial treatment to refugees. What is more. the bill addresses headon the problem of high welfare dependency. Fulltime college students would no longer be able to receive welfare. voluntary agencies would have to notify welfare offices whenever a refugee turned down .an appropriate job offer. welfare offices would have to notify voluntary agencies whenever a refugee applies for welfare. and the bill removes the provision in current law that says that a refugee does not have to sign up with an employment agency until he has been here 2 months. The able chairman of the subcommittee has already explained all the provisions of the bill. I would just reiterate that the bill has the strong support of State and local governments which continue to feelquite properlythat the Federal Government must be willing to assume primary financial responsibility for this program. the main reason being they have helped cause this program and I certainly think they need to be a part of it. I urge each of my colleagues to supPort H.R. 5879.
Date: 1982-06-21
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I would like to also congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from New York who have done a tremendous job in getting this bill to where it is today. * The gentleman from California . who is also facing this problem daily in his State. has worked very well with all the members of the committee. Certainly. I would like to give to those gentlemen the thought that I think they have made this what it is today. a good bill.
Date: 1982-06-21
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. with reference to what the gentleman just saidand I agree with it entirelywhen we were in Southeast Asia last year. not only were these people being told about the welfare payments before they got into our country. they were being told at that time by pictures that when they come to the United States that they firt should make an application for prenatal training. welfare benefits. unemployment benefits. all of which was on a sign in a building. Next to that sign they were teaching them not only how to use telephones. but they were using the area code from my State of Texas and for the gentlemans State of California. area codes 213 and 214.
Date: 1982-06-21
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Well. please do not change it to 214. because we have all of them that we can "say grace over" right now.
Date: 1982-06-22
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking. Finance and Urban Affairs be allowed to sit on tomorrow. Wednesday. June 23. 1982. during the 5minute rule. said request having been cleared with the minority.
Date: 1982-06-22
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations of the Committee on the Judiciary be permitted to sit while the House is reading for amendment under the 5minute rule on Wednesday. June. 23. 1982. The purpose is to have a markup on H.R. 24. Tort Claims Act. H.R. 6168. threats against Presidential candidates. H.R. 6204. Supreme Court Police. and S. 2317. National Federation of Music Clubs. The minority has been consulted about this request.
Date: 1982-06-22
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I yield time to the Senator from Georgia. to follow the special order of the Senator from Florida.
Date: 1982-06-22
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. what does the distinguished majority leader see insofar as the program is concerned for tomorrow and Thursday. and. if possible for him to look into next week. what would he expect next week? Along with. that. I assume that the President may veto the supplemental appropriations bill because of the housing provision. Does the distinguished majority leader have any word on this. so that we will know what to anticipate?
Date: 1982-06-22
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

I thank the majority leader. I have one final question. So Senators will know what to expect next week on Tuesday. Wednesday. and Thursday. is the majority leader prepared to state there will be rolicall votes on each of those 3 days and. if so. Is he prepared now or later during the day to indicate which measures might be called up on Tuesday. Wednesday. and Thursday of next week?
Date: 1982-06-22
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

It is not that I would wish it. I do not mean to give the Senator an impertinent answer. but I merely wanted to be sure whether or not that might be -expected.
Date: 1982-06-22
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. Prestdent. if I may address another question to the majority leader. Is it not important that the debt limit extension. certainly the short term. be consummated before we go out this week? Because the House will be leaving this week and if that is amended in any way and it is held over until the House gets back. it is going to create some problems in Government for some people. as I understand it.
Date: 1982-06-22
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. first. let me say I have no objection to calling up the resolution. That question should have been put. Second. I have no objection to the request of the distinguished Senator and give our unanimous consent on this side of the aisle for calling up the resolution. I commend his work on this resolution. Following his statement. I shall have a statement. The Senate proceeded to consider the concurrent resolution.
Date: 1982-06-22
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. (During Mr. HEINz remarks the following occurred:)
Date: 1982-06-23
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. the Senator from Ohio will have to seek recognition. One Senator cannot parcel out time to another Senator.
Date: 1982-06-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking. Pinance and Urban Affairs may have until 5 pam. on July 1. 1982. to file its report on the bill. H.R. 6016. the Bank Export Services Act.
Date: 1982-06-24
Speaker: THOMAS P. ONEILL (democrat)
Chamber: S

Speaker of the House. Washington. D.C. DEAR MR. ONEILL. I try to follow the "Battle of the Budget" as well as I can through newspapers. periodicals. radio and television broadcasts and I am concerned about the attitude that seems to prevail among many of our legislators about the 45 million people covered by Federal Benefit Programs. While this concern is very commendable on your part. it is also very conveniently sell serving. However. unless you begin to think about those of us who work to pay these programs. you are going to kill the goose that pays the taxes to support them. Incidentally. these automatic increases amount to unearned income and is total contrary to the concept of the "Windfall" taxes you levied on businesses. A year ago we had 102 employees. today we have 87 and none of us who are left have had an increase in our income. It is incomprehensible to know why you think the 45 million people who are recipients of Federal Benefit Programs are entitled to automatic increasestry to explain to automobile. rubber. airline. etc. workers how you justify such a policy. For example. military retirees have an increse of 8.7% in 1982 over 1981. Why? We work for the same money and many are not even working at all. Millions of us served our time in the milItary service of our country and only ask for the opportunity to work. Much less have automatic increases. Food stamp recipients have had an increase of 11.5% in 1982 over 1081. Why? The cost of food is down this year from last. Social Security recipients have had an increase of 7.4%. Why? I understand that many of these recipients have paid into the fund. but so have I for 35 years. Not only do I not get the benefit of any increase. I have to pay more into the Social Security fund. And you have spent all the money we have paid into the fund. Send me back my money and at todays high Interest rates. I can invest it in savings and be sure that I too will someday be able to get my money back. The same principle applies to most of the other Federal Benefit Programs. (Disabled coal miners. Railroad retirement. Supplemental security income. Veterans pensions. Federal Civilian retirees.) To pay for these programs. the Federal Government is borrowing about one third of all the monies available in the total money market. As small a business as we are. we cant compete with the interest rates you are willing to pay with our tax dollars. Run the government in a businesslike manner for the benefit of those who are paying. not to assure yourself of a Job with all its tax benefits. Well rehire people. buy more cars so the manufacturers can hire mpore people. the insurance agent will sell more insurance. the finance company will finance more cars and hire more people. and the Federal Programs will benefit because more people will be paying taxes. which we are willing to pay at current rates. (no decreases) as long as you cut spending. Respectfully.
Date: 1982-06-24
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I move to lay the motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Date: 1982-06-30
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

There is no objection. Mr. President. The Senate proceeded to consider the concurrent resolution. which had been reported from the Committee on Foreign Relations. with amendments. as follow: On page 2. linq 3. strike "Bahdis". and insert "Bahdis": On page 2. line 5. strike "Bahdis". and insert "Bahais". and On page 2. line 7. strike "Bahdis". and insert "Bahdis".
Date: 1982-06-30
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: 1982-06-30
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. on behalf of myself and my colleague from West Virginia I send an amendment.to the desk and ask that it be stated by the clerk.
Date: 1982-06-30
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. the amendment which I offer today is a technical change to the fiscal year 1982 military construction authorization bill. That bill. which was signed by the President on December 22. 1981. authorized the Secretary of Defense to engage in a land exchange with the city of South Charleston. W. Va. That exchange will permit the Department of Defense to consolidate three separate and obsolete reserve centers in one efficient combined armed forces reserve center to be constructed near South Charleston. The bill which we passed last Devember specified a specific site for the new combined reserve center. Subsequently. the various planning aspects for the new center have gone smoothly. The Department of Defense has indicated. during this planning period. an Interest in another parcel of land which is owned by the State of West Virginia. The State. I am told. is willing to exchange land with the Department. I believq that it Is In the interest of all parties that the Secretary of Defense be given flexibility to choose an alternative site. should he choose to do so. The amendment which I offer today will grant to the Secretary of Defense the flexibility to select an alternate site and to enter Into a land exchange agreement with the State. If appropriate. The amendment In no way restricts the prerogative of the Secretary. and it is my understanding that the Department of Defense supports this amendment. Mr. President. it Is my understanding that this amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. Would the distinguished manager of the bill confirm my understanding?
Date: 1982-06-30
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I thank the distinguished Senator from South Carolina for his courtesy. I also thank the distinguished majority leader for his courtesy.
Date: 1982-06-30
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

I announce that the Senator from California . the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. JO!NsTON. and the Senator from Montana . are necessarily absent.
Date: 1982-06-30
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I compliment both Senator THURMOND and Senator HART on the skill and craftsmanship they have demonstrated in handling the military construction bill on the floor.
Date: 1982-06-30
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I rise in opposition to H.R. 3663. the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of West Virginia is a State with a number of small mining and farming communities. and a population dispersed largely among rugged. rural areas. Bus service in a State such as West Virginia is likely to deteriorate under this legislation. West Virginia did not benefit from the implementation of airline deregulation several years ago. While air travel in the State is slowly improving. routes are inconvenient and fares are high. Whatever positive national effects airline deregulation has had. and there are signs that it has been a successful policy in some States. its effect on West Virginia has not been salutary. Trucking deregulation has had a different impact on my State. Both large and small trucklines have gone bankrupt. or into serious financial difficulty. in trying to operate on some West Virginia routesand only two of the major trucklines that serve West Virginia or nearby States have sustained healthy operating ratios. In short. it is clear that some of the transportation deregulation measures that have become law in recent years contain hidden pitfalls for West Virginia and other small. largely rural States. While these regulation measures are seen by many to be satisfactory national transportation policies. the effect that these policies have on my State has not been generally beneficial. When the airline deregulation bill was before the Senate. Senators from small. rural States were assured that the legislation would not cause a deterioration in service. or a rapid increase in cirfares. Both occurred in West Virginia. Assurances that rural areas and small communities will not suffer ill effects from this kind of legislation are no longer persuasive. The people that would bear the brunt of a loss of bus service. or a reduction in service. are the elderly and those without alternative forms of transportation. Many places in West Virginia are difficult to reach under present circumstances. Any decrease in bus service would only result in greater isolation for these communities. The chairman of the Public Service Commission of the State of West Virginia. E. Dandridge McDonald. has written to me. on behalf of the Commission. in opposition to H.R. 3663. Chairman McDonalds letter indicates that 39 communities in West Virginia would be threatened with a total loss of bus service if this legislation is enacted. His letter states: In my opinion this is but a fraction of those communities which would be subject to a loss of bus service if this legislation is passed. For those reasons. I cannot support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Chairman McDonalds letter on the likely effect of H.R. 3663 in West Virginia be inserted in the RECORD at this point.
Date: 1982-06-30
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

I move to lay on the table the motion to reconsider. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Date: 1982-07-01
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

If he has not arrived when the Senator has f1nished his opening statement. will the Senator then put in a quorum call?
Date: 1982-07-01
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I ask uanimous consent that it be in order at this time to order the yeas and nays on the passage of Senate Resolution 340.
Date: 1982-07-01
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

I announce that the Senator from California and the Senator from Montana are necessarily absent. I further announce that. if present and voting. the Senator from Montana
Date: 1982-07-01
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

r announce that the Senator from California and the Senator from Montana. Mr. MELCHER are necessarily absent. I further announce that. if present and voting. the Senator from Montana
Date: 1982-07-01
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

The terminology "in the usual form" would provide that if both the managers were in favor of a particular amendment time in opposition thereto would be given to the minor.ty leader or his designee. and I would be very happy to designate the Senator or anybody else on either side who might be opposed.
Date: 1982-07-01
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. there is no objection to proceeding with the nominations under "New Reports" on page 3 and page 4. and with the nominations at the desk referred to by the able assistant majority leader.
Date: 1982-07-01
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: 1982-07-01
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: 1982-07-12
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

According to the schedule which he has laid out. which is very helpful to all of us. does he have any thoughts concerning the urgent supplemental appropriations bill which was twice vetoed by the President. passed by the Senate the third time. and sent to the other body where it presently rests? Does the majority leader have any new information on that matter?
Date: 1982-07-12
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Madam President. the remarks of the majority leader have been very helpful and informative. certainly most appropriate. Does the Senator from Georgia wish me to yield him some time?
Date: 1982-07-12
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Madam President. I yield such time as I have to the distinguished Senator from Georgia for his use and for his yielding to other Senators as needed.
Date: 1982-07-13
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. the July 11. 1982 issue of the New York Times magazine contained an article by Mr. Daniel Yergin which raises a number of very important points about our continued vulnerability to oil supply disruptions. Mr. Yergin is one of the authors of the widely read Harvard Business School Energy Report which was published several years ago. The article makes several important points: First. The current oil situation has lulled the Nation into a false sense of security. Falling oil prices and plentiful supplies have contributed to a falso impression that the energy problems experienced in the 1970s are a thing of the past. Mr. Yergin points out that the current situation is only temporary and that the problem is as bad. if not worse. than ever. Second. The political and economic costs of another oil shock to the United States and other nations could be devastating and far reaching. Another disruption could bring about the conditions for increased social and political discontent. The economic costs of the two major oil shocks of 1973 and 1979 were staggering and could be even larger in the future. Mr. Yergin etimates a cost of $1.2 trillion to the United States and other industrialized nations in lost economic growth. Losses of such magnitude are among the major contributors to the current economic troubles of the United States and other nations. Mr Yergins article is very timely. for he reminds us that we have not yet met the challenge raised by the energy crisis of the 1970s. We must not be deluded into a false sense of security by shortterm considerations. such as OPECs recent failure to reach agreement on production limitations. We must continue to press forward with the bipartisan energy initiatives which were overwhelmingly endorsed by the last Congress. The task of securing the Nations energy future is not yet finished. As Mr. Yergin shows. we ignore that task at our peril. IMr. President. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Mr. Yergins article be inserted in the RECORD.