macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1982-05-27
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

The answer to the Senators question is that if a consent agreement is entered into. it will take twothirds of the Senators present and voting to suspend the rules so that Mr. LUGAR can call up his amendment. in effect. meaning that we have to have twothirds of the Senators present and voting to adopt his amendment. If we do not go the consent agreement route. if we go with cloture. a point of order can be made against Mr. LUGARS amendment. but that can be overruled. if the Senate wants to overrule the Chair. by a majority vote. There is no twothirds majority vote required.
Date: 1982-05-27
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I wonder if it will be possible to get consent to proceed to amendment No. 7. have a brief time limitation on that amendment. say. of 5 minutes. and let the Senate vote up or down on the amendment dealing with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting so that if cloture were to be invoked. and if that amendment could be passed. it would not be subject to a point of order after cloture is invoked. It passed overwhelmingly in the committee. may I say. the Committee on Appropriations. and if cloture is invoked this amendment will fall. I believe that the great majority of the Senate want to see this amendment adopted. and if we could just have 5 minutes on it. we would have a 5minutes limitation before the cloture vote and vote up or down on it. I believe the amendment would be saved.
Date: 1982-05-27
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Yes. but I am afraid that unanimousconsent agreement is not going to be agreed to. and the Senate will vote on cloture and if cloture is invoked. this amendment will be knocked out of the bill.4
Date: 1982-05-27
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

I can appreciate the sentiments and the position of the distinguished Senator from Oregon as chairman of the committee. and I respect him for it. But I would just hope he would in this one instance relent and let the Senate vote on this amendment before it votes on cloture because if we invoke cloture this amendment may go down the drain.
Date: 1982-05-27
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. reserving the right to object. and I do not think I will object. will the Senator repeat that?
Date: 1982-05-27
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I am still trying to protect a Member. As I understand the request. with the provision deleted. Mr. LUGAR could call up his amendment. if cloture is invoked. and if it falls because of germaneness or otherwise an appeal could be made and that appeal could be supported by a majority vote and his a.nendment then could be voted on?
Date: 1982-05-27
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Or if he chose to go the route of moving to suspend the rules. it would require a twothirds vote. and. if he failed. that ruling could be appealed which. in turn. could be decided by a majority vote?
Date: 1982-05-27
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Let me say this. Mr. President. I nearly got horsewhipped in 1978 for not allowing Senators to appeal rulings of the Chair. If Senators will remember. the most vicious postcloture filibuster that ever occured in the history of the Senate was over deregulation of natural gas. It had run fcr 13 days and 1 night. and hundreds of amendments were still at the desk. I came in here and got th Chair to uphold some points of order and bang. bang. bang. we knocked about 35 amendments out in less than 10 minutes. The filibuster folded within 20 hours. My own side of the aisle almost disowned me because they did not have the opportunity to appeal the rulings of the Chair. That is the only objection that I am raising here on behalf of another Senatorthat we are ruling out an appeal. In case the Senators motion to suspend the rulesI never admitted heretofore that I had acted highhandedly. but that was the only way tu break that filibuster. If I had it to do over again. I would do it again. because the Natural Gas Deregulation Act would never have become law if we had not broken that filibuster.
Date: 1982-05-27
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. the Senator from Indiana can call up his amendment without going the route of moving to suspend the rules. He can do that.
Date: 1982-05-27
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Does he say he will not do.that? I hope he does not say he will not do that. Mr. President. I hope he does not rule out that approach.
Date: 1982-05-27
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

No. Mr. President. he has the right to call up his amendment and without going the suspension of the rules route. He has that right and it would take only a majority vote to overrule the Chair. I am just saying I hope he would not rule out one or the other courses. Third. I might say that any other Senator may call up the Senators amendment under the rules. That is clearly understood. is it not. that any other Senator could call up the Senators amendment without going the route of moving to suspend the rules?
Date: 1982-05-27
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Madam President. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin. I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Wisconsin. This amendment would eliminate the provision of the Tax Code. passed late last session. over my opposition. which permits Members of Congress to deduct $75 per day that Congress is in session as a living expense. without any substantiation. The amendment offered by my distinguished colleague will reinstate the tax provision whicb existed prior to 1981 with respect to the costofliving expenses for Members of Congress. Members may not deduct more than $3.000 for the living expenses incurred while maintaining two residences. I believe that this provision is reasonable. I voted against the provision which has permitted the deduction of over $18.000 of living expenses in tax year 1981 without substantiation of these expenses to the Internal Revenue Service. I do not personally believe that additional expenses innurred while living in Washington. D.C.. or Northern Virginia or Maryland. should be deductible under section 162 of the Tax Code as living expenses. Madam President. in my own opinion. serving in Congress is not the same as being a traveling salesman or international banker where the pursuit of taxable income occasionally necessitates travel away from home. Members of Congress understand prior to running for office. and while they are seeking the honor of holding this office. that they will be relocating to Washington. D.C.. northern Virginla. Maryland. certainly in the area of Capitol Hill. that they may require a change in their living arrangements in their home State. Members accept that reality when they run for public office. I think we should have kept it down. and I commend my colleague from Wisconsin for offering this amendment. I fully support it and I hope the Senate will adopt it.
Date: 1982-05-27
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: 1982-05-27
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. the housing industry in this country is in trouble and when one considers the associated industries and how they are impacted by the housing industry. it contributes from onefourth to onethird of the total economy. the total GNP. There are 300.000 single family. new. mediumpriced homes on the market right now that will not move because of high interest rates. There are over 5 million previously occupied singlefamily units on the real estate listings that will not move because of high interest rates. Now. the distinguished Senator from Indiana has offered an amendment of which I am a cosponsor and he has offered a motion to suspend the rules. Make no doubt about it. This is a key vote. if Senators want to get the housing industry off its back. want to get people back to work. and want to cut down on unemployment they should vote to suspend the rules. Let us remember that with each 1 percent of increase in unemployment the Federal deficit is increased by $25 billion. So this is a key vote. If Senators want to do something about unemployment. if they want to do something about the housing industry. if they want to do something to get this country going again. and if they want to make it possible for the young people to achieve the dream of owning a home they May 2 7. 1982 should vote to suspend the rules. Only 5 percent of the families in America today can afford to buy a home. 95 percent of families in America today are shut out of the housing market because of the high interest rates. So this is the time. This is the showdown. This is the key vote. And if Senators want to really do something to help the housing industry. now is the time to do it. and the way to do it is to vote for the motion to suspend the rules so that the amendment by the Senator from Indiana can be adopted. I hope that the Senate will vote to suspend the rules. SEV9RAL SENATORS. Vote.
Date: 1982-05-27
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I have no other matters. I shall take this occasion. however. to congratulate the majority leader on his skill. diplomacy. tact. and good judgment in getting the urgent supplemental appropriations bill passed today.
Date: 1982-05-27
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. if the distinguished majority leader will yield. I add my commendation to those he has expressed wl!h respect to the work that has been done by the manager of the bill. Mr. HATFIELD. and the ranking minority manager. Mr. PROXMIRE.
Date: 1982-05-27
Speaker: PHILLIP BURTON (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I would like to commend our colleague in the well. Congressman HOYER. This is a very. very important amendment and deserves the support of all of us. Our Federal employees should not be required to bear an unfair burden in terms of our economy. They should be dealt with equitably. It is a good amendment. and I hope it succeeds. The data makes clear that our Federal employees are dropping behind the comparability requirement provided in the Federal Pay Comparability Act. Further. in the event this amendment is approved. I do intend to support the deletion of the congressional pay increase for this year when the matter comes up. It would be most unfair that our underpaid Federal employees be held hostage to the issue of whether or not Members of Congress deserve a pay increase.
Date: 1982-05-27
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. reserving the right to object. I shall not object. This matter has been cleared on this side of the aisle.
Date: 1982-05-27
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I am pleased to inform the distinguished majority leader that the minority is ready to proceed to the confirmation of the nomination.
Date: 1982-05-27
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I am introducing today. a streamlined version of the Fair Trade Act of 1982. which I had introduced earlier. This bill addresses the need for machinery to deal with the unfair trade practices of our trading partners. For too long we sat back and urged their compliance with international trade principles they have not moved to embrace. Export subsidies and other unfair practices by foreign governments put American manufacturers and workers at a great disadvantage. In these days of economic hardship. unemployment.and recession. we need the means to deal with unfair competition from abroad. My bill does this by mandating the following procers: A study of unfair trade practices an . other barriers to our trade abroad to be accomplished by the U.S. trade representative and sent to the President. legislation proposed by the President and sent to Congress with options for retaliatory actions against offending trade partners. congressional action endorsing specific actions within 60 days of receiving the Presidents report and options. and enforcement of the options unless the unfair practices cease within 60 days of enactment of the legislation. With this incentive to treat American exports fairly In their own markets and to cease unfair subsid!es by trading partners of their own exports to us. other nations are likely to think twice before they raise new barriers. A more open and equitable world trading system is more likely to result. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.
Date: 1982-05-27
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. late last year. I introduced House Joint Resolution 355. calling for the President to direct the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of State to begin discussions with appropriate .Gficials of the Government of Canada on the feasibility of establishing a ) int regional strategic petroleum reserve for the United States and Canada. It is my intention to reintroduce this resolution on June 15. and I urge my colleagues to join in its bipartisan cosponsorship at that time. In the interest of providing my fellow Members with some essential background on the regional reserve question. I ask consent that the following background information memorandum prepared for me. be entered in the RECORD. The memorandum follows:
Date: 1982-06-03
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

I would like to join in the remarks of the gentleman. As he knows. we had a meeting yesterday in my office. I am awaiting the results of a rule and hope to proceed with this regulatory reform bill as soon as it can be possible to get it on this floor.
Date: 1982-06-08
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill . to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to proceed with development of the WEB pipeline. to provide for the study of South Dakota water projects to be developed in lieu of the Oahe and PollockHerreid irrigation projects. and to make available Missouri basin pumping power to projects authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944 to receive such power. as amend9*
Date: 1982-06-08
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas . who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. and who shares jurisdiction with us on this legislation.
Date: 1982-06-08
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank all of the Members who have worked so diligently on this legislation. This is to assure all of the Members that al of the different opinions and all of the different needs I think have been satisfied. and everyone now is in accord and working in unisonperhaps not all entirely satisfied. but satisfied enough to allow this legislation to continue. with the assurances given by the Members affected primarily by the legislation.
Date: 1982-06-08
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that all Memw bers may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill just passed.
Date: 1982-06-09
Speaker: JOHN L. BURTON (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. 1move to suspend the rules and pass the bill to amend sections 5702 and 5704 of title 5. United States Code. to increase the maximum rates for per diem and actual subsistence expenses and mileage allowances of Government employees on official travel. and for other purposes. as amended.
Date: 1982-06-09
Speaker: JOHN L. BURTON (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. H.R. 7072 provides for the first increase in 5 years in the maximum per diem. subsistence. and mileage allowances paid to Federal employees while on official travel. It does not authorize the enactment of any additional appropriations or for any new budget authority. It will not result in any additional cost to the Government. The Office of Management and Budget has already directed agencies to absorb any increased costs by reducing the amount of official travel or by reducing administrative costs. OMB will not permit any agency to seek supplemental or additional appropriations. The current maximum travel allowances were established in 1975. The actual cost of travel has increased by over 30 percent. largely because of increases in the cost of energy. Often. these allowances do not adequately reimburse employees for the costs that they incur while on official travel and they are forced to subsidize Government travel out of their salaries. H.R. 7072 increases the maximum per diem reimbursement from $35 to $50 per day. the maximum actual expense reimbursement for high cost areas from $50 to $75 per day. and the overseas rate from $21 to $33. Maximum mileage allowances paid to employees using privately owned vehicles on Government business is increased from 20 to 25 cents for automobiles. from 11 to 20 cents for motorcycles. and from 25 to 45 cents for airplanes. Under H.R. 7072 the General Services Administration could establish reimbursement rates which reflect its cost determinations. so long as they did not exceed the maximum rates. In addition. this legislation requires the GSA to provide three annual reports to the Congress on an agencybyagency basis with information about how much is being spent on Federal travel. and ways that amount can be reduced. Mr. Speaker. this bill Is needed both to provide fair compensation to Federal employss who must travel on Government business. and to provide information about travel expenditures to the Congress in order to evaluate future travel reimbursement proposals and insure that expenditures are made only for necessary Government travel. H.R. 7072 received unanimous approval in the Committee on Government Operations. and I urge your favorable consideration.
Date: 1982-06-09
Speaker: JOHN L. BURTON (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Government operations. the gentleman from Beaumont. Tex.. the Honorable JACK BROOKS.
Date: 1982-06-09
Speaker: JOHN L. BURTON (democrat)
Chamber: H

There is no indication it costs that much. It does not go up a nickel a mile. It is average costs up to 25 cents a mile. So I mean if it only costs 7 cents a mile as an average of actual costs set by GSA. the employee only gets that kind of reimbursement. so it is average expenses up to. There was a Government study that the present cost of mileage now. not only gasoline. wear and tear on the car. tire depreciation. et cetera. is 21.5 cents a mile. and. in addition. that utilization of the automobile would encourage them to use this means of travel possibly other than using more expensive ways such as air travel. Again. the bill provides a maximum reimbursable amount. but the actual allowance is a weighted average mileage rate. which can be up to 25 cents a mile. You do not get an automatic 25 cents a mile.
Date: 1982-06-09
Speaker: JOHN L. BURTON (democrat)
Chamber: H

No. It is set Iat different costs up to the maximum. Ibased on agencybyagency experience. L Mr. GLICKMAN. Naturally. we want to keep the amount of travel down. I just do not want to see anybody unjustly l enriched.
Date: 1982-06-09
Speaker: JOHN L. BURTON (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislatives days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill. H.R. 7072. just passed.
Date: 1982-06-09
Speaker: WILLIAM J. COYNE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. while the administration sings the praises of the marketplace. it is dragging its feet on countering an influence that throws the marketplace out of kilterforeign intervention. In the steel industry. subsidized foreign steel means a loss of Jobs. Here is how the United Steelworkers of America President Lloyd McBride described the current situation in recent congressional testimony: We have efficient steel plants and steel companies on the brink in this country in part because of dumping and subsidization of steel operations abroad . . . One out of four tons of steel consumed in the U.S. currently is produced in foreign mills. Entire steel communities are hard hit. Mr. McBride accurately describes the situation in my city. In the Pittsburgh area. United States Steel has about 13.500 of Its 28.000 steel workers laid off. At Jones & Laughlin Pittsburgh facilities. 1.160 of 3.200 employees are out of work. West Virginia Senator ROBERT BYRD has suggested that the International Trade Commission. which last week announced it would continue its investigation of unfair subsidies involving steel imports from Spain and West Germany. would add to its knowledge as to the affect of steel imports by holding hearings in Weirton. W. Va. In that town. 25 percent of National Steel mill employees are laid off. in part as a result of foreign imports. The International Trade Commission would do well to consider the Job situation in western Pennsylvania and in the steel industry at large. In January 1981 there were 291.000 hourly employees in the domestic steel industry. By January 1982 that number had dropped to 252.000. The American Iron and Steel Institute reports that for the week ending May 29. 1982. domestic steel industry capacity utilization dropped to 46.1 percent. the lowest level since 1938. These depressing statistics are not the result of steel imports alone. The administrations failure to revitalize the economy bears some of the blame. By failing to act expeditiously on requests by the steel industry for relief from low priced. subsidized steel imports. the administration risks adding insult to the injury already made. The evidence of harm resulting from foreign intervention is already before the Commission. University of Penn. sylvania Prof. Lawrence R. Klein has estimated that 30 percent of foreign steels costs is subsidized by foreign governments. I urge the Commission to act quickly to alleviate the foreign pressure on a severely depressed industry.*
Date: 1982-06-09
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Committed on Banking. Finance and Urban Affairs. Supplemental report filed on H.R. 5540 (Rept. No. 97530. Pt. III). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Date: 1982-06-09
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: 1982-06-09
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. reserving the right to object. I apologize to the distinguished Senator. Will he go just a little more slowly?
Date: 1982-06-09
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

May I say to the distinguished acting majority leader that this side of the aisle is ready to debate and ready to vote. ready to act on this measure. I thought the distinguished acting majority leader would appreciate knowing that on this side of the aisle we are ready to go ahead. We can vote today or we can vote tomorrow.
Date: 1982-06-09
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I assure the acting majority leader that we are trying to clear measures on this side of the aisle.
Date: 1982-06-09
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. we were told that the action this week would be on the voting rights legislation. and that is what we expected. This side of the aisle is ready to proceed with the voting rights legislation and ready to vote after some reasonable amount of time. not later than tomorrow. That is what we were all told. that that was going to be the business. I can assure the distinguished acting majority leader that we on this side of the aisle will continue to try to help clear some of the other measures. But I would hope that we would get on with the voting rights measure which was announced 2 weeks ago that we would be acting on this week. I want to assure him again that this side of the aisle is ready to proceed with the Voting Rights Act and ready. after some little debate. to vote on that measure this week.