macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1982-03-23
Speaker: PHILLIP BURTON (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. now pending before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and National Parks are two different bills. each entitled the Wilderness Protection Act of 1982. One of these bills. H.R. 5282. which I introduced on December 16. 1981. would protect wilderness areas from leasing and mining threats. The other bill. H.R. 5603. subsequently was introduced on February 24. 1982. on behalf of Secretary Watt and was labeled with the identical title. Before even reading the two bills. my colleagues would surmise that they would differ from one another somewhat. I want to clarify for the record. however. that the similarity between the two bills ends with their titles. Mr. Speaker. when Secretary Watt ceremoniously announced his apparent change of direction on wilderness leasing on "Meet the Press." I was willing to give his wilderness legislation a chance. But when copies of the bill became available. a reading of the fine print confirmed my worst fears. H.R. 5603 is a complete fraud and deception. It is a devastating antiwilderness measure masquerading as a wilderness protection bill. Its apparent prohibition on new mineral development in wilderness before the year 2000 is merely a smokescreen. In actuality the Wilderness Act would close those areas permanently to such development beginning in 1984. whereas H.R. 5603 would open them after the year 2000 and in the !nterim gut protections already available under current law so that they could be developed before them. H.R. 5603 is in fact a blueprint for destroying the central purpose of the national wilderness system by opening the door to mining. leasing. clearcutting. and other development on millions of acres of wild areas in California and nationwide. Mr. Speaker. I would like to Insert into the RECORD an outline of the provisions of H.R. 5282 and a list of the deficiencies in H.R. 5603 so that my colleagues can judge the legislation for themselves:
Date: 1982-03-23
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. The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows:
Date: 1982-03-24
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I only add my comments to those just expressed by the distinguished majority leader. and most deservedly. to the distinguished Senator from Nevada and the equally distinguished Senator from Vermont
Date: 1982-03-24
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. there is no objection. I would like to get one question answered: Would Mr. METZENBAux be assured of 10 minutes?
Date: 1982-03-24
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleague In introducing this legislation. which would give States more flexibility In expanding veterans cemeteries. without resulting in substantial cost increases to the Veterans Administration. Current Veterans Administration policy prevents the expenditure - of funds for the establishment of new national veterans cemeteries. and the VA will approve the enlargement of existing cemeteries only if the proposed tract of land to be annexed is donated to the VA. and only if the land is "adjacent" to an existing cemetery. "Adjacent" is defined by VA Administrator Robert P. Nimmo as "land directly touching or separated by a roadway on one or more sides of the boundary of a national cemetery . . ." The purpose of the "adjacent" reqiirement presumably is to avoid possible additional operation and maintenance costs which might be incurred if a cemetery were to be comprised of several different sites. spread hundreds of miles apart. Our bill would requir6 that the VA accept the annexing of suitable. donable tracts of land to existing cemeteries. when such tracts are within 5 miles of the existing cemetery. and when the total cost of operating and maintaining the new "nonedjacent" addition would not be "substantially greater" than the cost of operating and maintaining a parcel of the same size which is adjacent. My own State of West Virginia provides an example of how this additional flexibility would work. The National Cemetery for Veterans at Grafton. W. Va.. has been closed for years because of lack of space. Many efforts to find additional space to reopen the cemetery have failedincluding the implementation of a plan originally suggested and approved by the VA to combine the remains of some 650 Civil War unknowns into a common grave similar to the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington Cemetery. Although this plan had the overwhelming support of the West Virginia veterans. the VA rescinded its original approval. The only available land tract which would meet the VAs "adjacent" requirement would result in acquisition expenditures which neither the VA nor the State of West Virginia could incur. There is a Stateowned tract of land. however. which the State of West Virginit is willing to donate for annexation to the cemetery. It is located at Pruntytown. about 3V2 miles away. and could be easily operated by the VA personnel at Grafton. Passage of the bill which I am joining in introducing today would permit Grafton to reopen. and it would allow other States more flexibility in exploring possible land donations within a 5mile radius of an existing cemetery. without resulting in substantially greater cojsts to the Federal Governmont. Thank you. By Mr. TSONGAS:
Date: 1982-03-24
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I am pleased to join with the distinguished majority leader in offering the resolution. And I am pleased that the distinguished majority whip and the distinguished minority whip are cosponsors. This resolution reflects the consensus and unanimous agreement of the Senate that this select committee must be established to conduct the investigation described. I would anticipate a thorough and probing examination of the issues which are involved. and I look forward to receiving the select committees report at the end of the year. I thank the distinguished majority leader. and the majority and minority whips for their assistance and hard work in joining together to produce a resolution which we can all endorse and support.
Date: 1982-03-24
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

In that event. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent under the rules that I be excused from attendance in the Senate tomorrow.
Date: 1982-03-24
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

I leave with the majority leader my recommendations as to the appointment of the following four Senators to be minority members of the select committee: Messrs. INOUYE. HUDDLESTON. DECONCINi. and LEAHY. SO that if action is taken on this tomorrow the majority leader may make that announcement.
Date: 1982-03-24
Speaker: WILLIAM J. COYNE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. this week the administration announced its legislative plans for the much discussed but little tested urban enterprise zones. In its eagerness to create still more tax breaks. in this instance for firms which locate in distressed areas. I would hopd the administration does not compound the damage it has caused HUDs urban development action grants (UDAG). a job creating program with a proven track record. Funds for UDAG. a program established by the Carter administration in 1977. have been reduced by a third in the administrations most recent budget request. The Carter fiscal 1981 budget Provided $675 million. the Reagan fiscal 1983 budget asks $440 million. It is no secret that some at the Office of Management and Budget. including Director David Stockman. would like to see the program eliminated altogether. The enterprise zone proposal is apparently designed to take up the slack that results from UDAG fund reductions or elimination. I do not believe that reducing the Federal urban presence will necessarily mean more private investment and jobs. a philosophical tenet of the enterprise zone concept. Herbert Liebenson. president of the National Small Business Association. has described the situation in many urban areas. "Most small firms are hanging on by their fingernails just trying to survive." he says. le notes that "Moneys whats needed. not tax deductions." UDAG provides that money. and the private investment that results provides the jobs. At my request. the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has projected what we might expect If the UDAG program is funded at $500 million per yearthe amount authorised by Congress In fiscal 1982through fiscal years 198284. CRS projects that we could expect to create or retain more than 200.000 private sector Jobs. $11 billion in new private investment. and $98 million in new local property tax revenues. This extrapolation is based on data compiled in a recent HUD evaluation of the UDAG program. While the administrations lack of enthusiasm for the UDAG progran is clear. I would hope that the decisionmakers consider exactly how much 200.000 jobs. $11 billion in private investment. and $98 million in new local taxes can mean in a depressed economy. We should preserve and improve Federal programs such as UDAG. programs which do the job they were designed to do. An experiment with enterprise zones. if it is accompanied by further reductions in the UDAG program. would be a mistake. The UDAG program is a winner. We should keep itI would be happy to share with my colleagues the complete text of the CRS report on the projected performance of the UDAG program over the next 3 years. Please contact. my office if you desire a copy of the report.*
Date: 1982-03-29
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. 1 thank the distinguished majority leader for yielding. There are four Members on this side of the aisle whose names I have presented. They are Senators INOUYE. HUDDLESTON. DECONcrN. and LEARY.
Date: 1982-03-29
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I believe it wao the understanding on this side of the aisle that no amendments would be offered at the desk.
Date: 1982-03-29
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. it was the understanding that there would be no amendments on this side of the aisle. It is our understanding that there would be no amendments offered today. I ioin the majority leader in stating that I hope we shall stand by that understanding.
Date: 1982-03-29
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I think that probably is desirable. I should like to make sure I have full clearance. and I will get back to the majority leader.
Date: 1982-03-29
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I feel that it will probably he desirable on this side. but I should like to touch another base. and then I will be back in touch with the majority leader.
Date: 1982-03-29
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. the minority is ready to proceed with all the nominations on the Executive Calendar. I ask unanimous consent that if and when the distinguished majority leader proceeds with the nominations. a statement by Mr. NuNN in connection with the confirmation of James C. Sanders. to be Administrator of the Small Business Administration. be inserted in the RECORD at the time that nomi.ation is voted on or approved under the unanimousconsent request.
Date: 1982-03-29
Speaker: WON PAT (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I was privileged to attend the groundbreaking ceremonies on March 26 for the Vietnam Memorial ceremony here in Washington. D.C. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Veterans Affairs Committee. I have long urged that this Nation establish a memorial to those who fought. and all too often died serving the United Stated in Vietnam. These brave men and women have in many respects become the forgotten soldiers of America. In our efforts to forget that terrible and undecided war we tend to forget the heroic deeds of those who went into combat for their country. One of the most remarkable aspects of the Vietnam veterans is that they served without question in a war that was widely questioned at home. This was particularly true of the hundreds of veterans from Guam who gave of themselves unselfishly in Vietnam. The fame of Guams soldiers is justly widespread. but few know that more Guamanians died in combat in Vietnam based on total population figures than did the rc.idents of any other American State or territory. Those from Guam who died in Vietnam will have their names engraved on the memorial along with the names of over 50.000 other Americans who died in that tragic war. The time has come for this Nation to stand up and honor our Vietnam veterans. They deserve our appreciation no less than the veterans of other conflicts. I am proud of their love for this Nation and am pleased to salute the veterans of Guam and every State and territory. Thank you.
Date: 1982-03-30
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. Presi-. dent. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows: NATioNi. TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD James Eugene Burnett. Jr.. of Arkansas. to be Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board.
Date: 1982-03-30
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I would suggest to the distinguished acting majority leader that we have our cloakrooms inform Senators that this may indeed be a late night. I would much prefer to have the Senate run late today than to have it run late tomorrow. I will have the cloakroom on my side of the aisle notify Members that tonight will be a late night.
Date: 1982-03-30
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. last spring Senate Democrats. under the leadership of the distinguished Senator from Arkansas. Senator BUMPERS. offered an amendment to the budget reconciliation resolution to restore $6 million for childhood immunization programs in fiscal years 1982 and 1983. The administrations budget called for a 25percent cut in immunization for children. and the Bumpers amendment would have restored assistance to full funding. minus the toll of inflation. The Bumpers amendment. like other Democratic amendments offered to the Budgetsupporting adequate health care for veterans. child nutrition programs. and elementary and secondary education. to name a fewwas defeated by a party line vote. As with these other measures. the amendment was not intended to be part of any partisan plan. It proposed to meet real human needs. to alleviate human suffering. and reduce our Nations future medical bills. Immunization for children represents one of the most costeffective. efficient. and humane actions that the Federal Government has ever undertaken. Moreover. all evidence indicates that substantial cutbacks in immunization will jeopardize. and could possibly reverse. some of the most important and dramatic accomplishthents the Nation has ever made In preventing severe illness. Many of the most serious of childhood diseases are preventable. including rubella. red measles. mumps. chicken pox. whooping cough. and polio. Measles can leave children blind and with impaired hearing. We do not have the resources to treat children for disabling conditions that could have been avoided in the first place. Moreover. none of us wants to see a child suffer or die from a disease we have the technology to eradicate at a relatively low cost. The National Journal recently carried an article describing the beginnings of the effects of the first round of budgetary cutbacks in immunization funding. The article suggests that perhaps States can make up for the loss of immunization dollars. by tapping into the preventive care block grant or the maternal and child health care block grant. But. funding for programs under these block grants was severely reduced last Year. These cutbacks will have similar longterm impacts: without screening and nutrition services during pregnancy. the chances of having a crippled child. greately rise. thereby increasing future costs. Ironically. Senate Democrats fought deep cuts in these programs as well. but were again defeated by party line votes. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the March 13. 1982. Journal article be printed in the RECORD in full.
Date: 1982-03-30
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I see no other Senator asking for time on my side. I shall be glad to yield my time also to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island.
Date: 1982-03-30
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: 1982-03-30
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. on behalf of Mr. BUMPERS. I ask unanimous consent that there be a star print of Senate Resolution 60. and I send a corrected copy to the desk.
Date: 1982-03-30
Speaker: WON PAT (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. now that it appears that there may be a compromise on the budget I want to remind and urge my colleagues involved in the negotiations not to overlook the needs of the territories. They were overlooked by the administrations budget which requested a 36percent decrease in funding from last year. That is insufficient for the fundamental objective of encouraging selfdetermined development. The territories are largely dependent upon the Federal Government and severe budgetary cuts will be devastating to these areas. In these times of economic hardship and severe constraint. assistance must be provided to: Develop and maintain the basic capital infrastructure needed to assure a decent quality of life and allow commercial development activity. . Remove inappropriate Federal constraints which inhibit economic growth. Alleviate crippling local budgetary pressures inadvertently caused by Federal policy changes. and Provide technical assistance to improve insular management capabilities. The alternative territories budget recommended by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs does so to the limited extent permitted by the fiscal situation and I urge that it be incorporated into any compromise.
Date: 1982-03-31
Speaker: DE LUGO (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. there 35.186 has been a lot of talk about the Carib6:006 bean lately. As the Representative of islands that are at once part of Amer149.169 lea and the Caribbean. I welcome this 54539attention. 20.708 Count me among those who support 2348the development of a Caribbean Basin 116.089 Initiative. This Nation. for reasons of 1.99selfinterest as well as humanitarian 32.352obligations. should have developed a 3232Caribbean assistance policy lung ago. 8.041 But we cannot ignore the persistent 33.822 problems plaguing our own Caribbean - LTS..flag territories if we expect to promote economic and political stabil480.280 ity in the region. The President recognized this by proposing that special measures for the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico bg 14.408 part of the initiative. However. the Caribbean Basin legislation. as writ48.028 ten. would not adequately translate 417.844 this policy premise Into actual policy. It needs to be steagthened to insure that we do not assist the foreign areas $48.052.060 of the Caribbean at the expense of the $3.794.024 domestic areas of the Caribbean. A New York Times article last Friday described the problems facing the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Federal responsibility to help overcome them. I commend the article to the Members attention: [From the New York Times. Mar. 26. 19821
Date: 1982-03-31
Speaker: WILLIAM J. COYNE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. on April 1. 1982. .a unique project for those suffering hearing impairments will be launched in my district. Pittsburgh has been selected as the second major city in the United States to introduce the deaf to closecaptioned television. Sixteen million people in our country are hearing impaired. 150.000 in the Pittsburgh area. making up a segment of the population that Helen Keller described as far more isolated than the blind. Closecaptioned television allows the deaf and hearing impaired to see what the rest of the world hears. To enable a hearingimpaired person to participate in the world of television. adapters are connected to a television set. The hearing impaired can now choose among 40 hours of television programs a week and 150 commercial advertisements. Caption readers are caught up in a stream of language matched to visual action. a link that is otherwise missing from their daily lives. Our goal in the city of Pittsburgh is to increase public awareness about the availability of captioning. To kick off this major undertaking. Pittsburgh Mayor Richard Caliguirl hao declared April TeleCaption Month. We are enlisting the support. of local sports figures. radio. television personalities. and government officials to insure the success of this project. A telecaption child has been named and will be featured in public service announcements and in personal appearances throughout the city. Pittsburgh corporations will pledge donations to purchase captioning equipment for area nursing homes. schools. and clubs for the hearing impaired. Sears. Roebuck has agreed to have the special equipment available in each of their Pittsburgh stores. To Aurther inform the deaf public on the use of closecaptioned television. spt akers will visit schools and clubs and public forums will be held. Tippi Comden. media director at the Western Pennsylvania School for the Deaf recently stated: For our students. captioning is only one tool on the road to becoming an Intelligent viewer. but it is crucial. While it is conceivable that a teacher or other hearing person could interpret the programs for them. captioning enables them to be truly independent viewers. I am pleased that Pittsburgh is participating in this special project. Hearingimpaired persons deserve the stme benefits and privileges as their hearing friends and neighbors.e