macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1982-08-02
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. this is to notify Members that when the Commnittee on Agriculture appears before the Committee on Rules on Thursday. August 5. to request a rule for consideration of the bill H.R. 6892. I will seek a rule which limits amendments.*
Date: 1982-08-02
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I yield to Mr. PROXMIRE such time as he may wish to consume out of my 10 minutes.
Date: 1982-08-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speakers table the bill to establish the Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Area. and for other purposes. with Senate amendments thereto. disagree to the Senate amendments. and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
Date: 1982-08-03
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I yield to Mr. PROXMIRE 3 minutes or more. Following him. I yield the remainder of my time to Mr. NUNN if he should need it. If he does not. the time can be turned back.
Date: 1982-08-03
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I hope there will not be a motion to table. I urge my colleagues on this side not to move to table. I think we should vote up or down.
Date: 1982-08-03
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. reserving the right to object. I will not object. In the first place. the majority leader does not need unanimous consent to proceed to the second reconciliation bill. it is covered by a 20hour time limitation and no nongermane amendments are in order. So I August 3. 1982 . CO would hope there would be no objection to that request. The second part which the majority leader does not put in the form of a request Is in fulfillment of the request on the part of various Senators. and It meets that request with respect to no votes being taken on Friday and Monday. As a matter of fact. although that is not a part of the unanimousconsent request. that is a factor in the agreement which the majority leader is seeking. I hope there will be no obJection.
Date: 1982-08-03
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I appreciate what the majority leader has said. The understanding was. although it may not have been ordered strictly by word. the understanding was that all amendments would be disposed of today. with the exception of an amendment by Mr. CRANSTON. and there would be 1 hour on that amendment. I understood he had 2 hours. and was willing to give up one of the hours. Then we would have 2 hours of debate on the constitutional amendment. and the majority leader and I discussed that yesterday. We entered into an agreement. I am sure that was my intent. my understanding of the agreement we entered into. I cannot speak for the majority leader but I feel that my understanding isthat he understood that that was our agreement. I would hope there would not be another amendment now called upon tomorrow in addition to the Cranston amendment because the understanding was the Cranston amendment. which was the substitute the minority whip has been working on all along. would be the only amendment that would be voted on tomorrow. If that agreement. if that understanding. is going to be breached. then I think other Senators would have a right to call up an amendment also if they so wish. I would just hope. as the majority Ileader has expressed the hope. that we could stick to that understanding be. cause it clearly was the intent and understanding. I had no idea there would be any effort to call up an amendment tomorrow or I would have sought to. in talking with the distinguished majority leader. tie the agreement down to the point that there would be no doubt. That is all I have to say. (The following proceedings occurred after midnight:)
Date: 1982-08-03
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. may I say to the distinguished Senator I personally have no feeling on this particular bill. but I do think that Senators on my side have expressed concern about this bill and they ought to at least have the opportunity to know that it is being introduced. It is only for that reason that I interpose the objection to the introduction of the bill on this legislative day.
Date: 1982-08-03
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I may very well be very supportIve of the bill. I do not know. What the distinguished Senator from South Carolina is attempting to do is get this bill on the calendar under rule XIV. I have no objection to that. The Senator from Georgia is not here. the Senator from Florida is not here. I hope that the distinguished Senator will desist in attempting to introduce the bill tonight. Tomorrow. I might have no objection.
Date: 1982-08-03
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. he certainly has a right to do so. Since I have objected to the introduction of this bill on this legislative day. on a new legislative day. he could introduce it and there may be no further objection. I hope the Senator will allow me. and he has indicated that he will. to talk to the two Senators whose names he has mentioned on my side of the aisle. There may be no objection. In that case. I shall have no objection.
Date: 1982-08-04
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. today we near the end of an historic debate on a constitutional amendment that would attempt to Insure a balanced budget. This debate comes at a time when there is widespread concern about Federal deficits. and with good cause. We have seen. in the past 2 years. a President elected oh a pledge of balanced budgets. who has sponsored tax cuts and defense spending Increases and a tight money policy that have led to record deficits. deficits that may amount to $150 billion or more next year. Clearly. a balanced budget is a worthy goal. The question is whether this particular amendment is the best vehicle to achieve that commendable goal. I must confess to many doubts. Some of our colleagues have raised serious objections to this amendment. They have questioned whether it will harm the economy. They have asked if it is enforceable. They have questioned the wisdom of requiring a threefifths vote of Congress to make exceptions to the amendment. They have questioned the restrictions on the raising of revenues. They have asked whether the amendment might produce congressional stalemates that the courts would be called upon to resolve. Mr. President. all these questions and others. have been raised. and I must say they trouble me greatly. Nunetheless. I have decided to cast my vote in favor of the amendment. There are two main reasons for my decision. First. we must all agree that excessive Federal deficits are a matter of genuine concern. Somehow. we must break our old habits and move back toward more prudent. more responsible fiscal policy. This amendment. everm if imperfect. can be an Instrument to help us in that difficult task. We have never had deficits in this country like we have today. We face an extraordinary situation. and perhaps the extraordinary step of a constitutional amendment is what we need to start on the road back to economic responsibility. Second. Mr. President. we must recall that the vote today is not the end of the process. but only the beginning. If the Senate approves this amendment. and if the House of Representatives approves a similar measure. In all likelihood a conference will be necessary to develop a new version to be considered by both Houses. It is my hope that many of my concerns and those of my colleagues will be alleviated by the work of that conference. If a conference version is approved by both Houses. thr--quarters of the State legislatures must then ratify it In order for it to become law. A great national debate will take place. I believe that debate will be healthy. I believe It will force citizens and elected officials to focus on the urgent questions of public spending and national priorities. Under our Democratic system. to put a question of this magnitude directly to the people Is a wise and proper action. Therefore. I will vote for the amendmentand thus vote to put this question directly to the American people. I cannot doubt that their ultimate decision will be the right one.
Date: 1982-08-04
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. reserving the right to object. and I shall not object. I thank the distinguished colleague for asking questions whether or not it has been cleared. I think it was very appropriate of him. and I thank him for actions in protecting the minority in that regard. The Senator from Georgia was correct. It had been cleared. But I wish to thank my colleague for that.
Date: 1982-08-04
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I would like to ask the distinguished majority leader if he would at this time outline the program for the rest of the day.
Date: 1982-08-04
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. reserving the right to object. I am advised that this is agreeable with our side. so I have no objection.
Date: 1982-08-04
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I respectfully suggest to the majority leader that he get unanimous consent now to proceed with the supplemental appropriation on Friday and not use a motion because that might require a rollcall vote.
Date: 1982-08-04
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I am advised that Mr. KENNEDY is agreeable to reducing the time on one of his amendments. an amendment on veteran student benefits. to 30 minutes. equally divided.
Date: 1982-08-04
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. will the distinguished acting majority leader state again the items on the calendar that he wishes to dispose of?
Date: 1982-08-04
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. as world attention is riveted on the crisis in the Middle East. strategic arms negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union. and the growing division in the Atlantic Alliance over economic issues. Afghanistan remains the forgotten war. However. the war has not been forgotten by the freedom fighters in Afghanistan. nor by the Soviet Unions own moslem population. Newsweek magazines Andrew Nagorski recently traveled to a Soviet Central Asian republic bordering on Afghanistan. He found the war was having an increasingly unsettling influence on the regions young Muslim population. The Tajik muslim community lives on both sides of the Soviet and Afghanistan border. According to the August 9 edition of Newsweek the Soviets have "sent a proportionately far greater number of them (Tajiks) to fight in Afghanistan." There has to be an element of racism in a decision such as this. Rather than risk high casualties among ethnic white Russians. the Soviets appear to be content to have muslims killing muslims in Afghanistan. One can only wonder why the Islamic world has not raised a hue and cry about this set of circumstances. Certainly this is not lost upon the ethnic Tajiks of the Soviet Union. As Nagorski reports. while they largely accept the Soviet rationale for the war. they balk at fighting the Afghans because of their common faith. "People here dont like to go to Afghanistan because they are Muslims too." one teenager was quoted as saying. There is even evidence of the young taking steps to avoid the Soviet draft so they are not compelled to serve in Afghanistan. And Afghans living in Tajikistan say they will not return to Afghanistan until the fighting Is over. One Tajik was quoted as saying that if he were in Afghanistan he would join the freedom fighters. It is estimated there are now 100.000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan. Yet. for all the modern weaponry at the disposal of the Soviets the freedom fighters refuse to submit to Russian oppression. The fertile Panjshir Valley has been the target of most of the fighting In Afghanistan in recent months. Several hundred Afghan troops have defected to the side of the freedom fighters. bringing tanks and other military equipment with them. according to published reports. The July 5 edition of Time magazine carried a stirring report on the Afghan resistance. The report paints a picture of increasing frustration on the part of the Soviet military in attempts to break the back of the Afghan nationalists. Mr. President. the Islamic world is very outspoken over Israels attempts to rid themselves of PLO terrorism. but strangely silent when it comes to the Soviet Union sending Muslims to kill Muslims and so is the United States and the American press stringly silent. I ask unanimous consent that the two articles be printed in the RECORD.
Date: 1982-08-04
Speaker: WILLIAM J. COYNE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. when the administration was making its case for Reaganomics. Treasury Under Secretary Norman Ture told the Senate Finance Committee on March 20. 1981. that: I think you will see an upturn in the very. very near future. following the adoption of the Presidents program. One of the first statistics that you will see in the upturn would be an increase in the capacity utilization rate which we use for existing production capacity. I think that would turn up very promptly." The future is now for the steel industry. but precisely the opposite has occurred. In August 1982. steel operates at less than half capacity. Empty administration promises translate into empty western Pennsylvania manufacturing plants. There is no greater blight. urban or otherwise. than a deserted manufacturing facillty. Unemployment goes up. community moral goes down. and a jobless workers self respect Is eroded. Reaganomics has caused a blight on western Pennsylvanias landscape. Mr. Speaker. when the administration took office. there were 291.000 hourly employees in the domestic steel industry. Now there are 210.000. That statistic indicates that the administrations policies have failed.
Date: 1982-08-04
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. last week the Southern Governors Conference held its 48th annual meeting in South Carolina. During that meeting the Governor of North Carolina made some remarks that I wish could be heard by every Member of this House. August 4. 1.989 Governor James B. Hunt told the conference that high interest rates are forcing many farmers in the South out of business. The Governor said. "Agriculture is in trouble. A lot of farmers have gone out of business. Others are on the verge." Mr. Speaker. I did not read that comment to the House because it underlines a problem which affects only the South. I want us all to hear what the Governor said because his words underline a severe and growing problem which affects practically every part of the country. And I want our urban colleagues to know that economic trouble in the Farm Belt is not something they can regard as somebody elses problem. When this bell tolls. my friends. it tolls for thee as well as for me. It affects all of us. and if you have any doubts about that. I hope you read the stories last week about the current problems of the International Harvester Co. Harvesters problems are not all due to the fact that low prices in agriculture have reduced farmer purchases of farm equipment. But the agricultural recession certainly is a major factor in the picture. .The Harvester Co. last week announced what the Washington Post called a radical survival plan. This will cut the number of -Harvester manufacturing plants by more than onethird and will lead to the dismissal of thousands of employees. Mr. Speaker. not. all American farmers are in deep economic trouble today. We are thankful for the fact that some commodities. like hogs. have shown some improvement. But across wide portions of our farm country. there is a severe economic squeeze. Grain prices are still below production costs. and many farmers are wondering how long they can hold on. Net farm income will be severely depressed this year for the third consecutive year. Dairy farmers. who had been doing reasonably well in many cases in recent years. now are facing a severe pinch. Interest rates continue to keep farm costs above what many farmers can get for their productsand we are being challenged now to give farmers improved supply management and export programs to help them work their way out of todays problems. Just a few days ago. Mr. Speaker. the Agriculture Department released its monthly report on farm prices and costs. Farm prices in July were 3.5 percent below 1 year ago. Farm costs in July were 4.7 percent above a year ago. That tells us what has been happening. Mr. Speaker. American agriculture is a full partner in the problems which have been affecting our entire economy.
Date: 1982-08-04
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Chairman. I would like to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania for this amendment. I think it is a good amendment. and I support it.
Date: 1982-08-05
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

If I may respectfully make a suggestion. I suggest the bill be laid down now so there will be absolutely no business in the pro forma session.
Date: 1982-08-05
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I am sorry to be a thorn in the side of the distinguished Senator from South Carolina. I. too. checked with
Date: 1982-08-05
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I am pleased to cooperate with the majority leader by stating that those nominees have been cleared on my side of the aisle.
Date: 1982-08-05
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: 1982-08-05
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill to limit the salaries and expenses of certain offices within the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Date: 1982-08-05
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Chairman. I have been working very closely with the chairman of our Housing Subcommittee. the gentleman from Texas . and with the Banking Committees ranking minority member. the gentleman from Ohio
Date: 1982-08-05
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman. initially. I would just like to comment on the amendment that I offered. The purpose of that amendment is to authorize appropriations for the Bureau of the Mint for fiscal year 1983. not to exceed $50.165.000. That is so the mint can continue to function. and I do not think that there can be any quarrel with that. We do need the Bureau of the Mint.
Date: 1982-08-05
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Chairman. I thank the gentleman. I am prepared. therefore. to accept the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio as amended. provided I have his agreement that any surplus savings credited to our committee following the conclusion of the budget process can be utilized for other programs within our jurisdiction such as. just as an example and not to be specific. subsidized housing or housing for the elderly or what have you.
Date: 1982-08-05
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I assume the gentleman would also join me in urging the Budget Committee to follow this same course of action as far as any excess funds are concerned.
Date: 1982-08-05
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

The rebate has nothing to do with the appreciation. The rebate would still be there if the house was sold. There is no tiein to appreciation there.
Date: 1982-08-05
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Just as the premiums that have been going into FHA since the inception of FHA are set aside for that purpose.
Date: 1982-08-05
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Just a minute. If it is a paper savings or any kind of sayiags. the point is that the OMB. the Budget Committee. and everybody else agrees that it is a savings and It does meet the requirements of reconciliation. And. to the extent the change in PHA procedures reduces net out. lays. these savings can be used to offset spending in other areas.
Date: 1982-08-05
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Reclaiming my time. what this does is perfect. perfect that which the Secretary of HUD could do without any action. It perfects it. makes it more workable. more feasible and. in the opinion of many. more consumer oriented than otherwise. I yield one last time.
Date: 1982-08-05
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Chairman. I have a parliamentary Inquiry. If the gentleman from Minnesota would ask unanimous consent to withdraw his point of order relative to a quorum not being present. could that not be accomplished?
Date: 1982-08-05
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation just passed.
Date: 1982-08-05
Speaker: WILLIAM J. COYNE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 521. the nuclear freeze resolution. The action Congress takes on this most important matter is a tribute to the thousands of Americans who set out to put the issue of nuclear weapons control on the political agenda. This body is debating a nuclear weapons freeze not because political pundits deem it to be the issue of the day. nor are we reacting to a wellmanaged media campaign. We are considering this resolution because grassroots activity has placed the matter on the national agenda. It calls to mind the observation by President Eisenhower that "people want peace so much that one of these days government had better get out of the way and let them have it. Stockpiling nuclear weapons beyond an already attained capacity for world destructiona capability of both the United States and the Soviet Unionis a strategy that quite rightly has been called into question. In fact. the acronym used to describe this situationMAD. for mutually assured destructionaptly describes our current condition. In response to that condition. 125 city councils across the Nation. including the council of my own city of Pittsburgh. have passed nuclear freeze resolutions. as have the legislatures of Oregon. Connecticut. Massachusetts. Maine. Vermont. Minnesota. Wisconsin. and Iowa. As Members of Congress. we have a responsibility to provide for the common defense. We have no responsiblity to provide for common destruction. mutually assured or otherwise. President John F. Kennedy once noted: "We have the power to make this the best generation in the history of the worldor to make it the last." For this generation. and those to come. I urge a yes vote in favor of House Joint Resolution 521. the nuclear freeze resolution.
Date: 1982-08-05
Speaker: WILLIAM J. COYNE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. when Roger Ahlbrandt left HUD this year. the Federal Government lost the services of an able public servant. The silver lining for those of us in Pittsburgh is that he will return to the University of Pittsburgh as a professor. where he will. I am sure. continue to distinguish himself as a thoughtful urban critic. Ahlbrandt pointed up some flaws in the concept of urban enterprise zonesthe "crown Jewels" of the Reagan administrations urban policyin a recent New York Times article. His cogent criticism of these zones rings all the clearer when one considers how little serious analysis has been done on their possible effectiveness. For HUDs part. it is worth noting that Ahlbrandt. a former Reagan administration official. suggests thatThe Administration is having a difficult time establishing its credibility in the urbanpolicy area because it has listened too long to the ideologists of the far right who say that competitive markets will solve the problems and that government intervention should be minimized. These wellconsidered arguments should be an important part of upcoming debate on urban enterprize zones. I would like to share with my colleagues the full text of Ahlbrandts recent article: