Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, 8 years ago, this Congress built a bridge so that future generations would be able to cross from budget deficits to budget surpluses. That bridge resulted in lower interest rates, a booming economy, and provided the nation with an opportunity to fix Social Security and Medicare and retire the national debt. The senate today blew up that bridge, and plunged our grandchildren and ourselves into the deficit ravine below. I have spoken many times in recent months about my concerns regarding the size of this tax cut. The events of recent days do not change these concerns, as the fundamental dynamics of the fiscal year 2002 budget and appropriations process remain the same. While I would favor a much smaller tax cut, the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution that was put into place in April, and this $1.35 trillion tax cut package that was passed today, will make it impossible for this Congress to come up with the appropriations necessary to fully address our Nation's priorities. I fear that this tax cut will return us eventually to annual deficits and impede our efforts to retire the national debt. I fear that this tax cut will consume vital resources that could otherwise be used to ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare and provide for a prescription drug benefit. I fear that this tax cut will put this Congress in a position where it will be unable to adequately finance our nation's fiscal and human infrastructure needs. For all of the promises being made as the senate debates the education reform bill, the Congress will not have the funds it needs to appropriately address these necessary reforms. The administration has tried to assuage these fears by promising the best of all worlds: massive tax cuts that will maintain budget surpluses without draining resources away from infrastructure investment and retirement programs. Abraham Lincoln said in his 1862 Message to Congress that ``we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves.'' History will hold us accountable for what we did here today in passing this monstrous tax cut. This tax cut, which mainly will benefit the wealthy, is based on pie-in-the-sky projected surpluses which probably will not materialize. History will not forget that the national needs of today and of future generations have been sacrificed for the sake of carrying out a political promise made in the heat of a political campaign last year.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Did I understand the last request to be that the nomination of Howard Baker to be Ambassador to Japan take place tomorrow?

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. BYRD. Very well. I was going to make the recommendation it be done today. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on the nomination of former Senator Howard Baker to be the next U.S. Ambassador to Japan. This will be a vote I will long remember and of which I will long be proud. It will be one of those proud moments in the history of the Senate. I have voted on many nominations, and I have cast 16,027 votes as of now. This will be one of the best votes I have ever cast. I have no doubt that this former colleague, with whom I worked so closely, will be an excellent representative of the United States to the Japanese Government and the Japanese people. Senator Howard Baker served his home State of Tennessee in this Chamber for three terms, from 1967 to 1985. As the country began to recover from the scandal of Watergate, Howard Baker was chosen to lead the other side of the aisle as minority leader while I served as majority leader, positions that we would later exchange. Senator Baker distinguished himself as a man of strong character, sound judgment, and good humor. Having followed his father, with whom I served in the House of Representatives, his stepmother, and his father-in-law in Congress-- again, speaking of his father-in-law, I can see Everett Dirksen standing in his place. I can see his unruly hair. I can see him gesturing and uttering the most beautiful phrases. He could paint word pictures, Everett Dirksen-- Senator Baker comes with great credentials in many ways. He had a deep and abiding understanding of and respect for the legislative branch. There was no doubt in Howard Baker's mind as to where the legislative branch stood. He knew of the Constitution. He knew about the separation of powers and the checks and balances. He was one who would always uphold those principles. His love for the Senate, his love for his country always came before partisan imperatives. Senator Baker was often a voice of reason in challenging times. As the ranking Republican on the select committee that investigated the Watergate affair, his stated intent for the hearings was to determine the answer to the memorable question, as he put it: What did the President know and when did he know it? I think everyone in this country has heard those words and probably most of us will remember having heard them. Senator Baker and I joined together on a number of major initiatives that were important to the country as well as to the Senate. I can remember the Panama Canal treaties. I was majority leader. I was against the treaties to begin with. Howard Baker was against the treaties. I went to Panama and took with me six other Senators: Senator Sarbanes, Senator Metzenbaum, Senator Matsunaga, Senator Riegle. There were seven, I believe. We went to Panama. We talked to Americans living there. We talked to our military people. We talked with our State Department people. We talked with the representatives of the Government of Panama, including General Torrijos. I read all about the history of the Panama Canal by David McCullough, ``The Path Between the Seas.'' It is fascinating. Anything David McCullough writes is fascinating. I changed my mind about it. Both Howard Baker and I knew we were swimming uphill, so to speak. The polls showed that the great majority of the American people were against those treaties. There were two of them. They were against those treaties. A majority of the Members of the Senate were against the treaties. So we had an uphill battle. We both came to the conclusion that it was in the best interest of the United States to ratify those treaties. It was a difficult task. I can remember coming in here on a Sunday and meeting with the Panamanian Ambassador to the United States and with our own State Department people right down the hall to my right here, in room 207, which was and is named the Mansfield Room. I remember our meeting; and then in the room there, which was formerly the room of the Presidents pro tempore of the Senate, we met to hammer out some differences. Howard Baker and I formulated two amendments to the treaty, and but for those two amendments--which we called the leadership amendments because the two leaders were joining--but for the leadership amendments, the treaties would not have been approved. What I am saying is this. Here was a man who stood above party and voted for what he thought was in the best interests of the country, realizing that in the next election he would pay a price for that. I am still paying a price in West Virginia. There are still those who remember my votes for the treaties and continue to write to me about them to remind me. But he was in a far more difficult position than I. The Democrats controlled the Senate. We had at that time a Democratic President, President Jimmy Carter. So it was more difficult for Howard Baker. But notwithstanding the difficulties, notwithstanding the politics of the matter, which were adverse to the position we took, Howard Baker proudly took that position, stating it clearly, articulately, and effectively; and because he joined in approving the treaties, we were successful. We ended up, on both treaties, getting a vote of two-thirds of the Senate plus one vote. We had one vote to spare. So we joined together on that occasion. I can't forget that. I have said many times--and I said it this morning in the Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the nomination--that there are several medallions in the Senate reception room just off the floor here, and in five of those medallions we find the pictures of Webster, Calhoun, Clay, La Follette, and Taft of Ohio. I have stated one day this Senate will determine the names of other Senators whose pictures and names will go in those remaining medallions. The Senate has already made a decision, I believe, with regard to the next medallion or so. But at some point in time Howard Baker's picture--it is my hope--will appear in those medallions. So today, for the Record--although I won't be here, I am sure, when that decision is made--I nominate Howard Baker because he was a Senator who stood above the fog in public duty and in private thinking and took a hard position. It was hard for him and hard for his party, more so than mine. He provided invaluable support in that instance, as I say. And he also joined me in my effort to bring television coverage to the floor of the Senate. In later years, he served well. You see, he served as minority leader first with me when I was majority leader, and then I served as minority leader while he was majority leader. Always, I found Howard Baker to be a very agreeable, down-home, homespun person, a person who had great common sense, which is so often absent in the halls of Government-- common sense, and a man of good humor, very intelligent, exceedingly knowledgeable, highly articulate, a man of the people. He served as President Reagan's Chief of Staff at a time when mature counsel and moderate leadership in the White House were needed. In a 1998 address to the Members of this body, Senator Baker recalled the lessons that helped him as majority leader from 1981 to 1985. This is what he said: What really makes the Senate work--as our heroes knew profoundly--is an understanding of human nature, an appreciation of hearts as well as minds, the frailties as well as the strengths, of one's colleagues and one's constituents. That is bringing it right down to the common understanding, bringing it right down to earth. I suggest that this lesson will continue to serve him well in his role as Ambassador to Japan. Over the years, the United States has sent some of its finest citizens to Japan to act as the President's representative, most recently Tom Foley, former Speaker of the House of Representatives; and prior to him there was Walter Mondale, former Vice President of the United States, and Mike Mansfield, former majority leader of the Senate. The appointment of Senator Baker to this position will again demonstrate the importance of our relationship with Japan, the most prosperous country in Asia, and, more importantly, allow our Government to regain the services of a very talented individual who has spent more than half of his life in the service of this country. As Senator Thompson mentioned a little while ago, Nancy Kassebaum, a former Senator, will be there likewise. Howard Baker and his wife Nancy will be a great team. She could well serve as U.S. Ambassador to Japan in her own right. Japan will be a vital partner to the United States in what many are calling ``the Pacific century.'' Senator Baker will represent our country in a nation of great importance, in a region of great change, in a world in transition. I am confident that he will work to the best of his considerable abilities to ensure a prosperous, peaceful, and productive relationship with Japan. I don't know of anyone, Democrat or Republican, I would be happier to stand on this floor and recommend to the people of the United States as Ambassador of Japan, or anyone who could serve more ably, or one who would be more effective. There isn't anyone who would be more patriotic and dedicated to the service of his country than Howard Baker. I came to the floor immediately after the hearing and urged the majority leader to bring this nomination up today. There is no point in waiting. Bring it up today. I asked my own leader on this side of the aisle if we could do this nomination today. Of course, they had already made up their minds to do it today. I have looked forward to this moment. I am proud of my service with Howard Baker. I am proud of Howard Baker because he typifies to me a true Senator, a Senator who understands the importance of party, political party, but a Senator who puts the Senate and the Constitution and his country above political party. I know because I was here when he did it. As my former colleague prepares to journey to Tokyo following his confirmation, Erma and I will be wishing him and Nancy, his lovely wife, the best and a very successful tenure in that office. Mr. President, I close by those words first written by Horace Greeley because they typify what I think is best about Howard Baker and basically what is most needed by every statesman who serves in government, whether at the national or local level, and basically what distinguishes one individual from another perhaps: Fame is a vapor, popularity an accident, riches take wing. Only one thing endures, and that is character. This man has it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, during the course of this week's debate, several amendments have been offered that would direct the Treasury Secretary to adjust marginal tax rates in a way that would provide the necessary savings to fund particular tax benefits. I opposed these amendments because the U.S. Constitution explicitly vests that power in the legislative branch. It is the responsibility of the Congress--the people's representatives--to determine the appropriate level of taxation and, consequently, the proper marginal rates. By delegating such duties to the Treasury Secretary, the Congress would continue a dangerous pattern of recent years of ceding congressional responsibilities to the executive branch. Placing these powers in the legislative branch was part of the Framers' carefully crafted constitutional design, comprised of an intricate system of checks and balances and separation of powers. I hope that the Senate will continue to protect the balance of powers by rejecting any amendment that would attempt to transfer its Constitutional responsibilities to the executive. amendment no. 695

Mr. BYRD. May we have order.

Mr. BYRD. May we have order.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Now, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be waived.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the purposes of the pending amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Congress has the opportunity to ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare. This tax cut, however, would squander that opportunity. My amendment would reduce the size of the tax cut and place the savings into a reserve fund for Social Security reform, Medicare reform, and a prescription drug benefit. This amendment would retain those tax cuts included in the bill that would benefit lower and middle-income taxpayers, such as the creation of a 10-percent bracket, expansion of the child credit, marriage penalty relief, pension reform, education tax incentives, and alternative minimum tax relief. This amendment would also retain the estate tax relief provided in the bill through an increased exemption credit. But the amendment would strike from the bill the marginal rate reductions and the estate and gift tax repeal, both of which would only benefit the wealthiest taxpayers in the Nation, so that those funds can be redirected into Social Security and Medicare reform. Unlike the underlying bill, this amendment would help to ensure that Social Security and Medicare benefits are available for future retirees, while still providing a substantial tax cut that would be more evenly distributed amongst the American taxpayers. I hope the Senators will vote to support the amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank both of the managers again. I respect their reasons for opposing my amendment. I hope the Senate will adopt my amendment later. Reference has been made to President Reagan's 5-year deficit/surplus estimates. Those projected surpluses in that instance were as follows: In 1982, the projected deficit was $45 billion; the actual deficit was $128 billion. The projected surplus for 1985 was $5.9 billion--that was the projected surplus under the Reagan administration tax cut--whereas instead of a $5.9 billion surplus, the actual deficit was $212 billion. In other words, for the 5 years projected under the Reagan tax cut, the difference between the projected deficit and the actual deficit was $921 billion. That experience should teach us to be cautious. I close by referring to Joseph in the Bible. We will recall that Pharoah had a dream in which he saw seven fat cattle come up out of the river to feed in a meadow. They are referred to as ``kine'' in the Scriptures. They were followed by seven lean cattle who ate up the seven fat cattle. Pharoah turned to his soothsayers, his wise men, for interpretation of this dream, but they could not interpret the dream. Someone spoke of Joseph as one who could interpret dreams, so Pharoah asked that Joseph, be brought forth from the dungeon where he was being held. Joseph interpreted the dream to mean that there would first be 7 years of plenty, represented by the fat cattle in Pharoah's dream--7 years of plenty. The 7 years of plenty would be followed by 7 years of famine. Joseph recommended that in the time of plenty they should save, put the grain into the warehouses and prepare for the 7 lean years that were sure to come in Egypt. We have had in this country some very good years. We have had projected surpluses. I think we ought to return to history, realizing that in some form or another it does repeat itself. We have this golden opportunity to use these years of plenty and the fruits therefrom to apply to the problems that confront the Nation, the problems that will come with Social Security, and Medicare, for example. Now is the time to deal with Social Security and Medicare. The President has said he doesn't want to leave any child behind. The President's budget, which was referred to by my friend from Montana, leaves the old folks behind. I can call them old folks because I am one of them. The old folks, the senior citizens are being left behind. But no millionaire is being left behind. I urge again that the Senators vote for my amendment later in this day. I thank all Senators for listening. I particularly thank the Chair for his courtesy and kindness.

Mr. BYRD. Do I have time remaining, Mr. President?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last week as the Senate began debate on the fiscal year 2002 budget reconciliation tax cut bill, the President was in Minnesota unveiling his energy strategy. Over the weekend the American people read about the content of the President's plan. Essentially, the administration is promoting a national energy strategy heavy on increased production to respond to a number of current and near-term energy shortages that have manifested themselves through rolling blackouts in California and rising gasoline prices across the country. No one is pretending that the planned construction of new power plants or distribution lines will provide immediate relief to consumers. Instead, the President argues that the only short-term relief for energy-starved, price-gouged consumers is a tax break. Somehow I think that is not quite sufficient comfort to victims of rolling blackouts--those men and women who have been stuck in elevators, or involved in automobile accidents when the power suddenly cut off. It won't shed light for those families who have had to walk around in the dark, feeling their way along the walls, and tripping over things that they can't see right in front of them. What amuses me, Mr. President, is that this administration, in using blackouts to promote both its energy and tax cut plans, has seemingly forgotten about the fiscal blackouts of the 1980s. I remember them, when the Congress found itself wandering around in the dark and the economy had tripped over the 1981 Reagan tax cut plan. In 1981, the Reagan administration promised that massive tax cuts would reinvigorate the economy. Instead, the American economy nearly collapsed. In 1982 and 1983, the annual unemployment rate increased to 9.7 percent and 9.6 percent, respectively--the highest rates recorded since 1950. In 1985, while America's wealthy were reaping the largest share of the national income since World War II, businesses and banks were failing at a record breaking pace. Our savings rate was the lowest in 4 decades, and our national trade deficit had reached a record high. The Congress had no choice but to pass, and Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton had no choice but to sign, eight in all--numerous bills three of them were not as significant as the five that I will mention. The five that I shall mention are TEFRA, DeFRA--sounds like twins but, wait, they are quintuplets--TEFRA, DeFRA, OBRA of 1987, OBRA of 1990, and OBRA of 1993--to correct our mistake. Why were these all passed? Why were these tax bills passed? To correct our mistakes and the mistakes of the then administration, and increase taxes in hopes of stemming the unprecedented tide of red ink. The protracted deficits during the 12 years of Presidents Reagan and Bush resulted in higher interest rates for the American taxpayer. This forced the average American to pay more for his mortgage, to pay more for his car, to pay more for his child's education, because of our rush--our mad rush--to enact a huge tax cut--the benefits of which went--in that instance, as will be the case in this instance--the benefits of which went mainly to the wealthiest taxpayers. Mr. President, this administration, the Bush administration, the Bush No. 2 administration, has tried to juxtapose tax cuts and the threat of a recession in the minds of the American people, even though the most recent economic data suggests that a recession only exists in the rhetoric--in the rhetoric--of the administration. There is where the recession exists, in the rhetoric of the current administration. And now, of course, the administration has offered tax cuts as a solution to this Nation's energy crisis; the idea being, I suppose, that Californians would be able to purchase more candles and flashlights to deal with the rolling blackouts. E.J. Dionne pointed out in a recent Washington Post editorial that-- and I quote--``there's absolutely nothing the president won't say in support of his tax cut. When times were good he told us we needed a tax cut to keep the good times going. When times threatened to go bad, he said we needed a tax cut to get the economy [rolling]. Now that times look a bit better, he says we need a tax cut to pay the gas bills. Someday soon, he'll tell us tax cuts will solve the problems of crime, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, traffic jams and static cling.'' And that if you do not have hair, it will make your hair grow, and make your fingernails longer. And if your hair is black, it will make it turn white over night or vice versa. I would only add, Mr. President, that we may soon hear from the administration that tax cuts can provide whiter teeth, fresher breath, and may even cure the common cold. But, how much are the American taxpayers willing to shell out for this miracle tonic, this tax cut? Are the American people ready to spend the money that they invested into the Social Security and Medicare programs? In 2025, the number of people age 65 and older is projected to grow by 73 percent--in 2025. In contrast, the number of workers supporting the Social Security system would grow by 13 percent. The Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees project that the Social Security's taxes will be inadequate to pay full Social Security benefits by 2016. This $1.35 trillion tax cut package spends vital resources that could otherwise be used to ensure that Social Security benefits will be paid to future retirees. The Medicare program faces a similar fate. Medicare's projected costs for hospital expenses will grow 60 percent faster than its income over the next 75 years. By 2075, Medicare's costs will be more than two times larger than its income. Again, this $1.35 trillion tax cut spends resources that could otherwise be used to ensure that hospital insurance benefits will be paid to Medicare beneficiaries. Now, what about our domestic investments in highways, bridges, agriculture, health care, education, and a host of other areas? Are the American people willing to trade these away for a tax cut? This tax cut package starves the domestic discretionary side of the budget, resulting in a spending level that is $5.5 billion below what is necessary to maintain domestic investments in FY 2002, and an incredible $62 billion cut below what the Congressional Budget Office says is necessary to maintain current services over the next 10 years. That means cuts--cuts, cuts--veterans programs, crime prevention, highway construction and maintenance, and a host of other areas, other categories, in order to provide for these tax benefits. Now what about the national debt? Well, we are just going to dump that on these youngsters here, the pages, and on people such as my grandchildren, my great grandchildren, and yours, yours out there. Are the American people ready to trade away this historic opportunity to retire the national debt for a tax cut? Our current gross debt is $5.7 trillion. How much is a trillion dollars? At $1 per second, how long would it take to count $1 trillion? At the rate of $1 per second, how long? It would take 32,000 years. That is big money. We are not used to having that kind of money in my State of West Virginia. When we talk about $1 trillion, our current gross debt is $5.7 trillion. That amounts to $929 for every man, woman, boy, and girl in the world--that is some debt, isn't it?--$929 for every man, woman, boy, and girl in the world. That is not just pocket change. It represents $20,062 per man, woman, and child in the United States. Are we to disregard these financial obligations? Are we? Or should we look at our grandchildren and just wash our hands? We can wash our hands, I say to Senators, we can wash our hands of this debt and just leave to it our grandchildren. This the sacrifice that average Americans are being asked to make. I am almost 84; 83\1/2\ yesterday. I could just walk away from the debt and let you folks pick up this obligation. We can enjoy a tax cut for ourselves--just vote for this bill and enjoy the tax cut, but leave this heavy debt burden to the folks who are going to come after us. We won't be around, so what does it matter to us? Let's vote for the Bush tax cut. I am a little selfish, perhaps a little self-centered, so I would like to have this tax cut. Let's vote for the Bush tax cut and let future generations worry about paying off the national debt. Even if you happen to be lucky enough to be one of the privileged few who would receive any real tax relief under this proposal, you most likely wouldn't receive those tax benefits for another 5 to 10 years. Under this proposal, most of the tax cuts--estate tax repeal, increased IRA contribution limits, expanded child credit, marginal rate reductions--wouldn't be fully in place until sometime between 2007 and 2011. Marriage penalty relief wouldn't even begin to phase in until 2006. How about that, 2006? Let me say that again. Marriage penalty relief wouldn't even begin to phase in until 2006. I am going to be a little late in reaping the benefits therefrom. A week from tomorrow we will have been married 64 years, my wife and I. Yet, the marriage penalty relief won't even begin to phase in until 2006. That is 5 years away. This bill would put these tax cuts into effect when the surplus projections are most unreliable and least likely to accurately project our ability to pay for them. There are so many accounting gimmicks in this proposal to hide the true cost of the bill that the only reasonable, accurate measure of its cost would be in the second 10 years, which the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities projects would be $4.1 trillion. What kind of a balanced tax cut proposal pushes the real costs into the future at the exact moment that money is needed to finance the retirement of Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries? Where is the balance? Where is the balance in a proposal that delays marriage penalty relief for lower and middle income taxpayers so that the top marginal rates can be reduced more quickly? Where is the balance? Where is the balance in a proposal that provides one-third of its benefits to those taxpayers with annual income over $373,000 by cutting those programs that benefit lower and middle income families? Well, Mr. President, I submit that the day that this tax cut is enacted and signed into law will be remembered as a black day in our national history. So I propose that we limit the size of this tax cut until we are more certain of whether we can afford it, and that any savings be put aside in a reserve fund for Social Security, Medicare reform, and a prescription drug benefit. My amendment would eliminate the marginal rate reductions that would benefit the wealthiest taxpayers in the Nation and leave in place the 10-percent bracket reduction that would benefit all taxpayers--lower, middle, and higher income. Under my amendment, those funds that would be allocated to repealing the estate tax for the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers would be redirected to ensuring the solvency of those retirement programs from which lower and middle-income taxpayers would benefit much more. Not only would this amendment put back those funds that should have been set aside for Social Security and Medicare reform in the first place, but it would also provide for a substantial tax cut that would be more evenly distributed amongst the American taxpayers. This amendment would avoid the fiscal disasters that would certainly occur if these tax cuts were allowed to take effect under this bill, if the wild projections of 5 and 10 years out don't materialize. This amendment would ensure that Social Security and Medicare benefits are available for future retirees and that the national debt is being retired. Mr. President, last week, at the Senate Finance Committee markup, the Democratic leader stated that he found it ``difficult to accept, impossible to explain'' that Congress was about to repeat the same mistake it made in 1981 by passing another massive tax cut that the Nation was not equipped to afford. As I view these comments, and as I view this Bush tax cut, which had its genesis in the snows and cold winds of New Hampshire last year during the campaign, it reminds me of a story about Benjamin Franklin, a great American statesman, philosopher, and revolutionary of the 18th century. As Franklin recalled later in his life: When I was a child of seven years old, my friends on a holiday filled my pocket with half-pence. I went directly to a shop where they sold toys for children, and being charmed with the sound of a whistle that I met by the way, in the hands of another boy, I voluntarily offered and gave all my money for it. When I came home, whistling all over the house, much pleased with my whistle, but disturbing all the family, my brothers, sisters, and cousins, understanding the bargain I had made, told me I had given four times as much for it as it was worth, put me in mind of what good things I might have bought with the rest of the money, and laughed at me so much for my folly that I cried with vexation; and the reflection gave me more chagrin than the whistle gave me pleasure. With the wisdom of age, Franklin added: As I came into the world, and observed the action of men, I thought I met many who gave too much for the whistle. Mr. President, the Congress paid too much for its whistle in 1981, and it almost wrecked the economy. Insight will come after the fact when we realize again that we sacrificed too much for this tax cut. I urge my colleagues to oppose the unsound fiscal policy in this bill. I urge my colleagues not to pay too much for the whistle. I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am going to offer an amendment. But, before I do, I feel compelled to express my appreciation to the two managers of this bill for the work they have given to the task, for the time they have given to the task. I know it is not easy. I know they have had pressures from colleagues on both sides. I know each has had his own pressures from his own colleagues on his own side. I do not envy you. I am going to offer an amendment which the managers may not accept. But that will not lessen my appreciation and respect for them. We can't all agree on everything. When I was majority leader I, from time to time, had colleagues on my own side who did not support me. But those who did not support me today might be those who would support me tomorrow. So like the waves of the sea, the tide comes in, the tide goes out; it comes back again. I just want to express my appreciation, first of all, to the two managers of the bill. Mr. President, I am going to send an amendment to the desk, as I said. But, before I send it to the desk, let me say to Senators what the amendment would do. The purpose of the amendment is as follows: I shall read it, then I will send the amendment to the desk. Purpose: To strike all marginal rate tax cuts except for the establishment of the 10 percent rate and strike all estate and gift tax provisions taking effect after 2006 in order to provide funds to strengthen social security-- Here is your chance, my friends, to strengthen Social Security-- extend the solvency of the Social Security Trust Funds, maintain progressivity in the social security benefit system-- A great Roman said: Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears. My colleagues, listen. This amendment would: maintain progressivity in the social security benefit system, continue to lift more seniors out of poverty, extend the solvency of the Medicare Trust Funds, and provide prescription drug benefits. ``provide prescription drug benefits.'' Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we are not going to finish this bill tonight. We are just not going to finish it. I hope the majority leader will let us go home. Not everybody in this Chamber has a wife who is as old as I am. We will be married 64 years next Tuesday. I think it is time to go home. I have been here many nights late. It has been my experience that when you reach this point in time, you don't accomplish a great deal. One Senator can pretty much take a lot of time right at this point. I don't want to do that. I ask the distinguished majority leader to get a unanimous consent request and put us out. Let us come back in tomorrow, and we will all feel better. I need to get home. I just plead with the leadership, we don't have to finish this bill tonight. We don't have to. This is Monday, isn't it? So we have several days yet left in the week. There is no reason why we have to pass this bill tonight and stay until midnight or 1 or 2 in the morning. To begin with, this is a bad bill. It ought not pass. I am going to ask the majority leader once more to put us out.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I don't have the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I respectfully urge the majority leader to put us out. Let's come back on tomorrow and finish voting on these amendments. It is 15 minutes after 11 o'clock. We have several amendments yet listed. I think the Senators ought to have an opportunity to call up those amendments. And Senators ought to be able to understand what they are voting on. Why is it that we have to continue going tonight? Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned with that anomaly in the tax code known as the ``marriage penalty.'' However, I opposed the Hutchison amendment No. 659 because it would accelerate the marriage penalty relief in this bill at the expense of those education provisions that would benefit students who borrow money to attend college. In particular, the Hutchison amendment would eliminate the provision that would allow student loan interest to be deductible 60 months after graduation. While I support marriage penalty relief, I do not believe that it should be provided at the expense of these education tax benefits.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator from Massachusetts for his thoughtfulness, his consideration. I thank the Chair. I also thank those Senators who are listening, even though they may not be in this Chamber. I thank the majority leader for arranging for me to have this time without its being charged against the time on the reconciliation bill. Mr. President, the day before yesterday, Americans turned on their television sets to see live coverage of a runaway freight train traveling through northwestern Ohio. I saw it. Many of you saw it. Nobody was at the controls and officials were failing in their attempts to stop the train. To make matters worse, the train was carrying toxic chemicals. News stations were bracing for disaster. The safety mechanisms put into place to prevent such a scenario were not working. Local and emergency personnel were left simply to block highway intersections, to issue warnings, and to let the runaway train rumble through, endangering the environment, endangering the infrastructure of whatever cities or small towns happened to be in the way, and endangering the lives of citizens. Mr. President, the Senate, today, faces its own runaway train. These tax cuts have been on the fast track since they were first proposed in the snows of New Hampshire during last year's campaign. A budget resolution was rushed through this body to authorize this tax cut bill, bypassing the Budget Committee, and without the benefit of the President's detailed budget, or any analysis from the Joint Tax Committee, or the Congressional Budget Office. Senate Democrats were then excluded from the conference committee to further expedite the process. Mr. President, I was talking with one of our new Members about the concurrent resolution on the budget, and about the fact that the members of the Budget Committee representing the minority were excluded. This was a relatively new Member in this Senate. He said, ``I was disturbed by that.'' But he said, ``The Democrats did it when they were in power. That is what they tell me.'' Mr. President, not a word by those who say that was done by the Democrats when they were in control--not a word--is true. The Democrats, when they were in control, never excluded the then minority from the conferences or from the committees with respect to the budget. I was majority leader and it was not in my makeup; it would be totally alien to me to exclude the minority, when I stand up so many times, as I have over the years, to say that the Senate is the protector of minorities, the Senate protects the minority's rights. I have read about those tales told by some Senators--often, the aides of the minority--who are presently in the minority who said: Well, Byrd did this; Byrd did this. Those Members were not even in the Senate when Byrd was majority leader. They were not here. Three-fifths of the Senate makeup today were not here when Byrd was majority leader, were not here when Senator Mansfield was majority leader, were not here when Lyndon Johnson was majority leader. So much for that. The safety mechanisms that the Senate put into place to prevent such a reconciliation disaster have been disabled, and there seems little anyone can do but issue warnings, and watch the train rumble through, endangering our Nation's infrastructure investments and our Nation's fiscal soundness. The tax cuts that are involved here--and let me say parenthetically that I like to vote for tax cuts. Over the 55 years I have been in public office, I have voted for a several tax cuts, and it is always a great pleasure to do that. Let me say this. I respect every Senator in this body, no matter if he disagrees with me, no matter if he votes for this tax cut. I respect his or her decision on that matter. I found when I was majority leader, that the Senator who hurt me today by his vote saved me tomorrow. I say what I say today with great respect. I am not against all tax cuts, but I am against this one, this colossal tax cut that is based on projections over 10 years away when we cannot even project the economy 1 year away or 6 months away. It is like the weather. These things are really unpredictable. This is a tax cut that threatens to ignite an explosion in the national debt and blow up the economy as resources are squandered and long-term problems are ignored. Mr. President, a few days ago, the Senate passed the FY 2002 budget resolution, and even before Senators had voted, there was little reason to believe that this body would abide by the revenue levels set forth in that budget resolution. Senators were openly talking about how tax cuts would exceed those authorized in the budget resolution. In other words, Mr. President, that budget resolution was a sham. Its primary purpose was to authorize a reconciliation bill by which this body would pass a massive tax cut bill that could not be passed as a free standing bill. This $1.35 trillion tax cut could not be passed in this Senate as a freestanding bill. Section 103 of the FY 2002 budget resolution allows the Republican leadership to bring this massive $1.35 trillion tax cut bill to the floor as a reconciliation bill. And why is it so important to that leadership? Because section 103 permits the Republican leadership to bring the tax cut bill to the floor with, at most, 20 hours of debate. And reconciliation allows time to be yielded back on a nondebatable motion. Section 103 makes sure that the bill cannot be filibustered. So section 103 makes sure that 51 votes will be enough to pass the tax cut bill. In other words, Mr. President, the most important feature of the budget resolution for the Republican leadership was the provision that allows the leadership to muzzle debate on a bill that will change the fiscal landscape of this Nation for a generation and by so doing, to thwart the will of the minority in this Senate. Under our Constitution, under our Senate rules and precedents, under our laws, it is the Senate that is supposed to ensure that complex bills have a thorough debate. The people are entitled to that. Yet, this tax bill will not get the debate that it so richly deserves. In all likelihood, it will be passed before midnight of this black day. Under the Congressional Budget Act, reconciliation bills are limited to 20 hours of debate. The 20 hours can be reduced by a nondebatable motion. We have a $5.6 trillion gross debt, $20,062 for every man, woman, boy, and girl in this country; to put it another way, it represents $929 for every man, woman, boy, and girl in the world; $929 for every man, woman, boy, and girl in the world! The budget resolution and this $1.35 trillion tax bill will result in an increase in that gross debt to $6.7 trillion in 2011, or over $22,000 per person in this country. Was that budget resolution a disciplined plan for tax policy? No. It squandered potential surpluses on a $1.35 trillion tax cut that is conveniently drafted to have exploding costs in the outyears. I probably will not be here. Many of us will not be here when that time comes in the outyears. Some Senators will be defeated--mark my word--because of the votes they will cast on this bill. Over 61 percent of the revenue losses contained in the tax cut bill will come in the second 5 years of the 10-year plan. Tax reductions grow from $10 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $186 billion in fiscal year 2011. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that in the second 10 years--get this--in the second 10 years, from 2012 to 2021, the key years when Social Security will be in jeopardy--hear me now, you elderly citizens; hear me, you young people whose parents will become elderly, who may be already elderly and when you, too, will become elderly, if God blesses you to live long enough--the key years when Social Security and Medicare will be in jeopardy, the revenue losses will total $4.1 trillion. How long does it take to count a trillion dollars at the rate of $1 per second? Thirty-two thousand years! This is a bear trap. This bill could just get 10 hours of debate. If the majority wishes to yield back its time, the minority will have 10 hours. It is that plain and simple. So why do we have a reconciliation bill process that limits debate? What was the common good that warranted our sacrificing our tradition of full debate in this Senate? I helped to craft the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. I can assure Senators that the authors of that act did not intend the reconciliation process to be used for a large tax cut. That was called the Budget Reform Act of 1974. Well, if it was called, as it was, the Budget Reform Act, surely it did not intend to be used to pass colossal tax cuts. The intent in creating the House and Senate Budget Committees, the Congressional Budget Office, and the budget and reconciliation process was to assert Congress' prerogatives in the budget process. The Constitution vests in the Congress the power over the purse. That is a power for which our English forbears fought and spilled their blood at the point of the sword, to wrest from tyrannical monarchies the power of the purse and place it in the hands of the people's elected representatives in the House of Commons. Yet, in the recent years before the passage of this Budget Act--I was here. I was here. I didn't just read about it; I was here; Senator Kennedy was here; a few other Senators were here--in the recent years before the passage of the Budget Act, the power of the purse was being usurped more and more by the executive branch. There were deferrals of appropriations; there were rescissions of appropriations. Made by whom? The Chief Executive. And so Congress got its belly full of that and passed the reconciliation process. The Budget Reform Act was established. The reconciliation process was established as a mechanism to make sure that the goals set out in the budget resolution were implemented through the spending and tax bills that followed. It allowed the Congress to establish enforceable reconciliation instructions on the authorizing committees so that both spending and revenue targets would be achieved. The reconciliation bill was intended to be a tool to reconcile any differences between those goals and the final bill. Most importantly, reconciliation provided a tool to deal with persistent budget deficits. As a deficit-fighting tool, reconciliation has proved to be quite effective. Since 1980, reconciliation bills have been passed and signed into law 14 times, resulting in trillions of dollars of savings. Regrettably, in recent years the Senate Republican leadership has chosen to take a course that has fostered political polarization. In 1999, a reconciliation bill was used to consider a $792 billion omnibus tax cut, targeted to the wealthy, that would have slowed the progress on reducing the debt. It was vetoed. In 2000, the reconciliation process was again used for huge tax cuts and, again, the bill was vetoed. The desire to limit the rights of Senators--and when we limit the rights of a Senator in the chair or the Senator from Massachusetts or the Senator from Georgia or the Senator from New Jersey or the Senator from Nevada or other Senators--we limit the rights of the people they represent. Limit my rights in this body and you limit 1.8 million West Virginians' rights in this body. In both 1999 and 2000, the appropriations process ended with large omnibus appropriations conference reports that were unamendable and contained bills and issues that had never been before the Senate. What are we doing to the Senate process? What are we doing to the legislative process? What are we doing to the rules and precedents of the Senate? We are ignoring them. We are making them irrelevant. In the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2000, five appropriations bills were included, along with numerous non- appropriations bills such as a State Department Authorization bill, arms control compliance legislation, and Superfund recycling rules. Last year, three bills were included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 along with Medicare and Medicaid reforms and new tax legislation establishing new tax expenditures. One of those Appropriations bills, the Treasury/General Government Appropriations Bill had never been taken up in this Senate. Now this is no way for the Senate to take care of the Nation's business. We should do better. All of us, majority and minority alike, should seek to protect the institution of the Senate. This Senate is going to be here long after the Presiding Officer has served his tenure here. The Senate will be here long after the Senator from West Virginia has been forgotten. This Senate will be here, it will stand. We should remember that the Senate is for the people, all the people, the people who are yet unborn. We hold their rights in our hand. We should not bend our rules to promote the partisan political goals of the moment. In the 107th Congress, this Congress, we should insist on our rights as Senators for a full debate. Last year we took direct action to address the issue of omnibus appropriations containing matters that had not been before the Senate by reasserting rule XXVIII. I thank the majority leader and the minority leader and Senator Stevens for joining with me in reasserting, reinstituting, rule XXVIII last year. This year the Senate approved my amendment to the budget resolution to extend debate on the reconciliation bill to 50 hours and to limit the so-called vote-aramas by ensuring that amendments were printed in the Congressional Record for all Senators to see. Sadly, my amendment was dropped during the closed-door conference between the two Houses. Senators should have an opportunity at length to debate and to amend the tax cut legislation. Why is the Republican leadership insisting on using the reconciliation process for tax cut legislation? What are they afraid of? The Republican leadership did not hide behind a reconciliation bill for President Reagan's tax cut. Senator Howard Baker was the majority leader at that time. They didn't hide behind a reconciliation. They brought it up as a freestanding bill. In 1981, President Reagan sent to Congress a large tax cut proposal and numerous proposals to cut spending. The Congress used the reconciliation process, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, to debate the spending cuts. The tax cuts, however, were fully debated as a freestanding bill, the Economic Recovery Tax Act, without depending on reconciliation. There were 118 amendments debated over 12 days. What a difference. The American people elect their representatives to come to Washington to debate the issues that affect their daily lives. They did not elect Senators to be rubberstamped. That is why I say to every Senator, every new Senator: Remember one thing. You don't serve under any President. You serve with the President. I have served with 11 of them, counting the current one. The Senate is not a quivering body of humble subjects who must obey. They only must obey the people who send them here. We should not short circuit debate on a bill that will hit home in the pocketbook for decades to come. In the Federalist No. 10--there were 85 Federalist Papers, I urge Senators to read these Federalist Papers again. Let me read from the Federalist No. 10 by Madison. Listen to what he said and apply it to today's Senate: Complaints are every where heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty; that our governments are too unstable; that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of the rival parties; and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rule of justice, and the rights of the minor party; but by the superior force of an interested and over-bearing majority. That was James Madison speaking, and it sounds as if it were written only yesterday. After 6 years of divided government, President Bush promised that he would be a unifier. The President has said that he wants bipartisanship. He has said that he has faith in his plan. If those statements are true there is no need to hide behind the iron wall of reconciliation. Webster defines reconciliation as a restoration of friendship or harmony. Let us not use the reconciliation process to divide and polarize this Congress. Now is the time to hear all the voices and build consensus among ourselves and among our people. The American people expect and deserve a full debate. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if this tax cut is such a good idea, why don't we take the time to debate it? Why don't we debate these tax cuts at length, if this is such a good idea? I say to you, Senators, your votes are going to have consequences. We don't even know yet what the review of the military services and the Defense Department will cost. We don't yet know the cost. That is still out there to be heard from. We don't have an energy policy in this country. We haven't done anything to shore up Social Security. We have crumbling schools. We have dangerous highways. We have unsafe airports. Our people don't have pure drinking water in many of the rural areas. Now is the opportunity for us to do something about those things. What are we going to tell our old people, our senior citizens? This is a red letter day for the American people. Here is the calendar. I will say it is a black day. I remember Black Tuesday, October 29, 1929, which marked the beginning of the Great Depression-- Black Tuesday. This is Black Thursday, May 17, 2001. Remember it--Black Thursday. This is a Black Thursday for the American people, a day on which we will have squandered the unalienable right of our elderly citizens to the pursuit of happiness mentioned in our Declaration of Independence. We will have squandered the unalienable right of our elderly citizens to the pursuit of happiness by bartering it for a mess of tax pottage. Mr. President, when Aaron Burr in 1805 addressed the Senate before his departure through the Senate doors of the old Chamber for the last time, he uttered these prophetic words: This House is a sanctuary; a citadel of law, of order, and of liberty; and it is here--it is here, in this exalted refuge; here, if anywhere, will resistance be made to the storms of political phrensy and the silent arts of corruption; and if the Constitution be destined ever to perish by the sacrilegious hands of the demagogue or the usurper, which God avert, its expiring agonies will be witnessed on this floor. Mr. President, we are witnessing the demise of the U.S. Senate as our forefathers knew it and as I knew it when I came to this body. We are witnessing the demise on this day--Black Thursday--and in these times. Burr's prophetic words are being borne out before our very eyes. History will not be kind to us, nor will our children and grandchildren rise up to call us blessed. Remember, my colleagues, May 17, 2001--Black Thursday! I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, if we are listing amendments, I would like to be on the list for an amendment before we complete action on the bill, with 30 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. I know we will not be excluded, but I want to make sure I have 30 minutes.