Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, my amendment to the budget resolution would add $100 million in Fiscal Year 2002 to Function 500 (Education). This increased funding will allow for the continuation of an American history grant program that I initiated last year. This program is designed to promote the teaching of history as a separate subject in our nation's schools. An unfortunate trend of blending history with a variety of other subjects to form a hybrid called social studies has taken hold in our schools. Further, the history books provided to our young people, all too frequently, gloss over the finer points of America's past. My amendment provides incentives to help spur a return to the teaching of traditional American history. Every February our nation celebrates the birth of two of our most revered presidents--George Washington, the father of our nation, who victoriously led his ill-fitted assembly of militiamen against the armies of King George, and Abraham Lincoln, the eternal martyr of freedom, whose powerful voice and iron will shepherded a divided nation toward a more perfect Union. Sadly, I fear that many of our nation's school children may never fully appreciate the lives and accomplishments of these two American giants of history. They have been robbed of that appreciation--robbed by schools that no longer stress a knowledge of American history. In fact, study after study has shown that the historical significance of our nation's grand celebrations of patriotism--such as Memorial Day or the Fourth of July--are lost on the majority of young Americans. What a waste. What a shame. An American student, regardless of race, religion, or gender, must know the history of the land to which they pledge allegiance. They should be taught about the Founding Fathers of this nation, the battles that they fought, the ideals that they championed, and the enduring effects of their accomplishments. They should be taught about our nation's failures, our mistakes, and the inequities of our past. Without this knowledge, they cannot appreciate the hard won freedoms that are our birthright. Our failure to insist that the words and actions of our forefathers be handed down from generation to generation will ultimately mean a failure to perpetuate this wonderful experiment in representative democracy. Without the lessons learned from the past, how can we ensure that our nation's core ideals--life, liberty, equality, and freedom-- will survive? As Marcus Tullius Cicero stated: . . . to be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child. For what is the worth of human life, unless it is woven into the life of our ancestors by the records of history? I am not the only one who recognizes the importance of teaching American history. Many groups are interested and have expressed support for this grant program. Representatives from the National Council for History Education, the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History, the American Historical Association, and National History Day have all expressed enthusiasm for this grant program. They are very supportive of this effort. So, for those reasons, I offer this amendment to the budget resolution to increase Function 500 (Education) by $100 million in Fiscal Year 2002. Amendment No. 207

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank the distinguished Senator from Ohio.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session, and I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of the following nominations, and further that the Senate immediately proceed to their consideration: Chris Spear and Kristine Ann Iverson. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like to see this written agreement. I may not have objection, but I would like to see what we are doing.

Mr. BYRD. Fine. Is it clear that the majority leader will have an amendment and the minority leader? Is it clear, absolutely clear that they will have one amendment each?

Mr. BYRD. That is correct.

Mr. BYRD. That will mean then the vote-arama, which I do not like and I do not believe the distinguished Senator likes either, would occur. Whatever amendments there are, if Senators chose to call them up, they would have votes on them.

Mr. BYRD. Second, will the distinguished Senator from New Mexico read the final proviso which deals with the final vote at 2:30 p.m. tomorrow or circa 2:30 p.m.?

Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, two things: First, is it clear that the vote on the Domenici reconciliation amendment will occur at the expiration of the 3 hours allotted to that amendment?

Mr. BYRD. Absolutely. I will be glad to do that. I will postpone what I was going to say in response to the chairman's claim that this Budget Act can be in conformity with the act's intent and be used to cut taxes. I challenge that. I am ready to do so. I will not do so at the moment. On the other hand, I think I should. Section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act, as enacted in 1974, was arguably neutral in its purpose. The provision merely authorized reconciliation instructions to change laws or bills within a committee's jurisdiction. However, several amendments to the Congressional Budget Act have made it quite clear that the purpose of reconciliation was for deficit reduction. Section 310 of the act was amended by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, to prohibit amendments to reconciliation bills that reduced revenues, if the amendment caused a committee to fail to meet its reconciliation instruction. This prohibition would make no sense if committees could be instructed to reduce net revenues. It only makes sense if a committee could be instructed to increase revenues. Furthermore, the Byrd rule was added as section 313 of the Budget Act. It prohibits as extraneous any provision reported by a committee that reduces revenues if that committee failed to meet its reconciliation instructions. The Byrd rule also prohibits as extraneous a provision that results in net revenue losses in the years beyond the budget resolution, the outyears, unless those losses are compensated for by outlay reductions. Again, these provisions make no sense if committees could be given a reconciliation instruction to reduce net revenues. They only make sense if committees could only be instructed to increase revenue. It should also be noted that section 310 was amended in 1990 to specifically authorize a reconciliation instruction ``to achieve deficit reduction''. Thus, there is explicit and there is implicit language standing for the principle that the purpose of reconciliation is for deficit reduction. There is nothing in the Congressional Budget Act stating that reconciliation can be used to reduce revenues. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that this process is for deficit reduction. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Chair enforce the rule that Senators must address each other through the Chair and in the third person.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Let me briefly respond to the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. A chairman of any committee could be no more distinguished than the chairman of the Budget Committee. Anent the chairman's statement that what we are doing today is fully in accord with the intent of the Budget Act, I am saying that it absolutely is not.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Herodotus, the Father of History, instructs us that on his way to Salamis, Xerxes the Great, the Persian monarch, ascended a hill because he had a longing to behold his mighty army, which was probably the largest army that was ever assembled in the history of the world. And arriving there, he paused to look upon all of his mighty hosts. As there was a throne of white marble, which had been prepared beforehand at his bidding, Xerxes the Great, son of Darius and grandson of Cyrus the Great, took his seat upon it, and he gazed thence upon the shore below, beheld at one view, all of his mighty land forces and all of his ships, which he had assembled for this great battle, which would soon occur in the Sea of Aegina, and which is recalled to us as the battle of Salamis in 480 B.C. As he looked and saw the whole Hellespont covered with the vessels of his fleet, all the shores and every plain about him as full as possible of men, Xerxes congratulated himself on his great power and his great fortune, but after a little while, he wept. Then, Artabanus, the King's uncle, when he saw Xerxes in tears, said to Xerxes: ``How different, Sire, is what thou art now doing from what thou didst a little while ago? Then thou didst congratulate thyself; now, behold, thou weepest.'' Replied Xerxes: ``There came upon me a sudden pity when I thought of the shortness of man's life, and considered that all of this mighty host, which has gathered from the many provinces under my control as King of Persia, so numerous as it is, not one --not one--will be alive 100 years from today.'' So, Mr. President, as I stand today and gaze upon this Chamber, I, like Xerxes, consider that of the 100 Senators--when I came here there were 96; and there were 100 Senators in the original Roman Senate--of the 100 Senators who will cast their votes today, not one will be alive when 100 years are gone by. But just as we who live today revere the names and the works of our illustrious forebears who framed the Constitution 214 years ago, so will our posterity--our children, our children's children, and our children's children's children--look back upon us and our works. And may our children, oh, God, have cause to bless the memory of their fathers, as we have cause to bless the memory of ours. Posterity will see fit to look back upon us, whether it be 100 years from today or whether it be 10 years from now, and will have reason to judge us, in considerable measure, by whether we, in our time, so serve as to perpetuate the blessings that have come down to us from our forbears, the greatest blessing of all being the Constitution of the United States--I hold it in my hand--and the perpetuation of the rights of men and women, the perpetuation of the constitutional principles laid down in that document, the perpetuation of the principles of freedom to debate and amend that have been handed down to us as Senators by our forefathers. Will our posterity thank us for perpetuating a Senate founded upon the bedrock principles of freedom of debate and amendment? Will they remember us as having so acted as to hand down to them unblemished, untarnished, and unstained the right and freedom to speak, to debate, and to amend? The rights of Senators to debate and amend at length are being denied. And such a denial is a denial of due process--due process. And that denial is not only a denial of our rights to amend and to speak freely in this Chamber at length, but a denial to our constituents who send us here. These rights go back hundreds of years. They did not originate in 1787 in Philadelphia. They did not originate there. They were recognized centuries ago. And their roots are buried deep in the mists of antiquity. I will read just a few words from the Magna Carta, which was signed at Runnymede, in the meadow at Runnymede, on June 15, 1215, when the King was compelled by his subjects to sign that great document. Let me read briefly therefrom. Chapter 12: No scutage nor aid shall be imposed on our kingdom, unless by common counsel of our kingdom. . . . What was an aid? An aid was a revenue, a kind of revenue that vassals of the King were compelled to pay him. No scutage nor aid shall be imposed in our kingdom, unless by common counsel of our kingdom. . . . That means everybody. Chapter 14: And for obtaining the common counsel of the kingdom anent the assessing of an aid (except in the three cases aforesaid) or of a scutage, we will cause to be summoned the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons, severally by our letters [under seal]; and we will moreover cause to be summoned generally, through our sheriffs and bailiffs, all others who hold of us in chief, for a fixed date, namely, after the expiry of at least forty days, and at a fixed place; and in all letters of such summons we will specify the reason of the summons. And when the summons has thus been made, the business shall proceed on the day appointed, according to the counsel of such as are present, although not all who were summoned have come. Now what was King John saying? He was saying: No tax, no aid, no revenue will be imposed upon my vassals, my people, except by the common consent of the kingdom, not just by the common consent of a few. And he indicated in writing, by the way he defined the various groups of people--meaning all of his people would be represented: the archbishops, the bishops, the earls, and so on--that they would gather and that they would pass upon the revenues that he requested. So as we deal with the matter before us, which involves revenue, let us remember that our rights, our people's rights to be represented by us in full, the roots of those rights go back centuries and centuries ago. At Runnymede, at Runnymede, What say the reeds at Runnymede? At Runnymede, at Runnymede, Your rights were won at Runnymede! No freeman shall be fined or bound, Or dispossessed of freehold ground, Except by lawful judgment found And passed upon him by his peers! Forget not, after all these years, The Charter signed at Runnymede. Today we are finding, over the experience of the last few days, that those rights, the roots of which go back to Runnymede and beyond, are being short-circuited. They are being trampled upon. We are in very uncharted waters with this budget. It is a 10-year budget. This is the first time in my long tenure of nearly 49 years on Capitol Hill that the Congress has ever tried to enact a 10-year budget. No one is very sure of any of the assumptions and estimates underlying this 10-year budget plan--nobody. Even those witnesses who appeared before our committee, the Budget Committee, indicated they couldn't be sure of their estimates. Yet, some in this body are perfectly willing to roll the dice and let the devil take the consequences. I am amazed that this tactic is even being attempted. We have an equally divided Senate, 50 Republicans, 50 Democrats. The Presidential election was virtually a tie in the popular vote. There is no clear mandate for this President. Mr. Bush is President. He took the oath of office. There is no question regarding his being the President of the United States--no question--no question whatsoever as to his legitimacy in holding this office--none. But there is no clear mandate. We have not heard the voices of the people clamoring for this economic plan. Yet, the majority side is using this procedural straitjacket called reconciliation to keep free-flowing debate, for which our forefathers fought and died, from happening, free-flowing debate and amendment on the forthcoming tax cut. There is no mandate for that tax cut, with 50/ 50 in the Senate and the membership in the other body being likewise very close insofar as the number of Republicans and number of Democrats are concerned. This President has said over and over and over again that he wants to change things in Washington. This President has said he wants bipartisanship. Yet we are very far from any attempt at bipartisanship when we resort to heavy-handed tactics to shut out one side of the aisle. We wanted a markup in the Budget Committee. We asked for a markup in the Budget Committee. We pleaded for a markup in the Budget Committee. We were entitled to have a markup in the Budget Committee. But didn't get it. The Budget Committee is split 11 to 11. In fact, instead of bipartisanship, then, what we have here is gamesmanship--gamesmanship of the worst sort. There are those in this town who are so polarized, so intent upon winning that nothing else matters but to win. They don't care what they win as long as they win. They don't care what the cost is to this body, the central balance wheel of the Constitution, this body, the master stroke of the Framers, the jewel of the Constitution--the Senate. They don't care what the cost may be to the country. Winning is everything. They have to win. We are tied here 50/50, and it doesn't matter so much how we attain the end, how we win; the important thing is that we win. At the time of the enactment of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, it was thought that Congress would pass its first budget resolution at the beginning of each session, and this would be followed by the annual Appropriations Bills and any other spending measures. Then, Congress would issue any reconciliation instructions that might be necessary to bring the spending and revenues into line with the Budget Resolution, and that process was to involve the passage of a second Budget Resolution. Reconciliation involves a two-stage process, in which reconciliation instructions are included in the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget-- that is what is before the Senate--to direct appropriate Committees to achieve the desired budgetary results, and then to incorporate those results into an omnibus bill which is considered under expedited procedures in the House and in the Senate. Fast track procedures were included in the Congressional Budget Act to help Congress quickly to enact necessary changes in spending or revenues so as to insure the integrity of the Budget Resolution targets. The fast track procedures limit Senate debate on reconciliation bills to 20 hours and allow only germane amendments. Time on reconciliation bills may be further limited by non-debatable motion. The managers of a reconciliation bill may yield back their time, which can further cut the time for consideration. Unfortunately, reconciliation bills have proved to be almost irresistible vehicles for Senators to use to move all manner of legislation because of these fast-track procedures, and, in recent times, the misuse has been gross. Fast track procedures take away from Senators--the elected representatives of the people in this Chamber-- the opportunity to offer their amendments and to fully debate them. Reconciliation, therefore, is a non-filibusterable ``bear trap" that should be used very sparingly and only for purposes of fiscal restraint. In other words, reconciliation should be used only--hear me now-- reconciliation should be used only for reducing deficits. I know my good friend from New Mexico says otherwise, but hear me. To trample upon the rights of men and women in this body, to take away from them the right to freely debate and amend measures, is a very serious thing. We passed that act in 1974 saying, yes, we will, for a very narrow purpose, under certain narrow circumstances, take away for a brief time and for a brief purpose those rights, the right to debate and to amend. The Senate is the foremost upper body in the world today. Why is it so unique? Why? Because in this Chamber, men and women who are elected by the people back home have the right, the constitutional right, to freely debate and amend. Augustus, the first great Roman Emperor, from 27 B.C. to 14 A.D., didn't like to hear senators argue and debate. So he was critical of senators who had the nerve to debate. And their answer was: ``Don't senators have the right to debate, to speak, to criticize the commonwealth?" Reconciliation was established only for reducing deficits. In 1999, the reconciliation process was used by the Republican leadership to allow for a $792 billion tax cut to be brought to the Senate using fast-track procedures, taking away the right to debate fully and amend that tax cut bill. I believe this was the first time--or at least one of the rare times--that reconciliation instructions were issued that mandated a worsening of fiscal discipline for the Federal Government. Unlike the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution, I do not believe that the budget reconciliation instructions in 1999 resulted in improving the fiscal status of the Federal budget. Again, in the year 2000, the reconciliation process was used to allow for major tax cuts to be brought before the Senate in reconciliation bills. In short, we have, in my view--and I think my view is based upon facts. I am not interested in who wins, whether it is Democrats or Republicans, as far as that is concerned; I am interested in maintaining unblemished, untarnished, and unstained the fundamental principles on which this Senate rests, and they are involved here. In short, we have, in my view, abused and distorted beyond all recognition the original, very limited purpose of the reconciliation procedure. Now let those who wish to contest that do so. It is obvious that the Republican majority will, for the third straight year, attempt ultimately to fashion a budget resolution that will contain reconciliation instructions to the Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means Committee, directing them to bring forth the Bush administration's $1.6 trillion tax cut bill. Taking advantage of the reconciliation procedures in this way would be the latest in what has become a steady degradation of the congressional budget process. Reconciliation, which was created to make it easier to impose budget discipline, is instead being used to make it easier to get around the Senate's rights to debate and amend. Reconciliation, therefore, is being turned on its head. Hear me. ``O, that my tongue were in the thunder's mouth, then with a passion would I shake the world!'' There is no reason whatsoever to consider the President's tax cut proposal as a reconciliation bill. The Senate should take up this massive tax cut proposal as a freestanding bill. That is the way we have always done it. It is a tax cut bill. It should be fully debated and amended. That is what was done in 1981 when President Reagan sent to Congress his tax cut proposal. On that occasion, Congress used the reconciliation process to accomplish the spending cuts in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, but the Reagan tax cuts were brought before the Senate as a freestanding bill and were fully debated, without depending on reconciliation fast-track procedures. More than 100 amendments were disposed of, and the Reagan tax cut bill was debated for 12 days prior to its passage. The Senate Republican leadership in that instance chose to do the right thing by bringing the Reagan tax cut bill to the Senate as a freestanding measure rather than use fast-track reconciliation procedures. It was thoroughly aired. Taking the easy way and doing the expedient thing rarely requires much leadership. The former Republican leader, Howard Baker, who was the majority leader--I was the minority leader --did the right thing for the Senate, for the President, and for the country. In 1993, my own Democratic leadership--now, listen to this. In 1993, my own Democratic leadership pleaded with me. How many of my friends on the Republican side today would stand as firm as the Rock of Gibraltar as I did on that occasion? The Democratic leadership pleaded with me at length to agree to support the idea that the Clinton health care bill should be included in that year's reconciliation package. They came to my office on the floor below. Not only did Majority Leader George Mitchell and others of my colleagues attempt to persuade me to go along and not raise a point of order under the Byrd rule, which would require 60 votes to waive, President Clinton got on the phone and called me also and pressed me to allow his massive health care bill to be insulated by reconciliation's protection. He called me on the telephone. Here is the President of the United States calling this lowly former coal town boy and asking me to let his huge health bill come before the Senate on that fast track. I could not, in good conscience, however, look the other way and not make that point of order and allow what would clearly have been an abuse of congressional intent to occur. How many others would do that today on that side of the aisle, stand against their President. Well, perhaps that is not too important. I felt that changes as dramatic as the Clinton health care package, which would affect every man, woman, and child in the United States, should be subject to scrutiny. I said: Mr. President, I cannot in good conscience turn my face the other way. That is why we have a Senate--to amend and to debate freely--and that health bill, important as it is, is so complex, so far reaching that the people of this country need to know what is in it and, moreover, Mr. President, we Senators need to know what is in it. He accepted that. He accepted that, thanked me, and we said goodbye. I could not, I would not, and I did not allow that package to be handled in such a cavalier manner. It was the threat of the use of the Byrd rule--and my how that Byrd rule has been maligned and excoriated and criticized by many Members of the other body who should be thanking the Senate for it. It was the threat of the use of the Byrd rule that bolstered my position. My view prevailed then; my view is the same today. It is time for the abuse of the reconciliation process to cease. We should not be using tight, expedited procedures to take up measures that worsen the fiscal situation of the Nation and that have far reaching, profound impacts on the people. Reconciliation was never, never, never intended to be a shield, to be used as a shield for controversial legislation by depriving Senators of their rights and their duty to debate and to amend. I want the Senate to have an opportunity to work its will and to apply its considered judgment to the massive tax cut that is being proposed by the Bush administration. I strenuously object to having such a far-reaching, critical matter swathed in the protective bandages of a reconciliation process and ramrodded through this body like a self-propelled missile. Nobody who has listened to the testimony of witnesses before the Budget Committee could possibly claim that the right choices are clear. There is vast uncertainty and disagreement about nearly every aspect of the Bush tax cut. The President's proposal is not an edict, and the Senate is not a quivering body of humble subjects who must obey. Come one, come all! this rock shall fly From its firm base as soon as I. This is the Senate. Reliance on reconciliation as the torpedo with which to deliver a knock-out punch for the President is a tactic that ought to be abandoned. It is not a fair course. It is not a wise course. It is not right to enforce this reconciliation gag rule upon the Senate. It is wrong. We must not shackle the intellects of 100 Members of the Senate in this way. We should not fear the wisdom of open and free-ranging debate about a proposal which is, at best, risky business. Now is no time to circle the wagons. Now is the time to hear all of the voices on both sides of the aisle. Now is the time to build consensus among ourselves and among the people we represent. There will be no victory if we make the wrong choices and plunge this Nation back into a deficit status. There will be no victory. We will have plenty of time to regret and to weep. The President has said that he wants bipartisanship. He has said that he has faith in his plan. I believe, therefore, that there is no need to hide behind the iron wall of reconciliation. This would be a hollow victory, indeed, for the President, and for the majority leadership in this body. As to the tax cut itself, the Bush proposal is pretty stale bread. It probably came from last year's campaign wars that blew up in the snows of winter in New Hampshire. If it ever was a good idea, it probably is not now. The economic picture has changed since then and changed radically. The type and size of the tax cut proposed in the President's budget--and we have not seen his budget. Why haven't we seen his budget? It was promised to us for Monday of this week, but now we know that it will be Monday of next week before the budget comes here. I have been among those who have urged that we just wait a little bit and, before we cross that railroad crossing where the lights are flashing, have the budget before us. We can have it by Monday. It is within 3 blocks of the Capitol right now being printed. So it is around. Why can't we have it? The economic picture has changed, as I say, and it has changed radically. The type and size of the tax cut proposed in the President's budget obviously bears rethinking. The size of the proposed surplus has already been diminished by the stock market plunge. Even the staunchest supporters of the President's $1.6 trillion tax cut idea would have to admit that the ground has shifted and that the President's plan might need some adjustment. Only an extremely doctrinaire mind would continue to claim that this tax cut is still a perfect fit for the present economy or the projected surpluses that go out to the far end of 10 years. That would be like claiming that your size 42 pants still fit fine after you have dropped 25 pounds. The economy has lost some weight since the President's plan was created. I can understand the desire to win one for the new President. I can understand my good friend from Texas, of whom I am very fond and whom I consider a friend. I live with him here 5 days a week, 4 days a week in many of the weeks of the year. I live with the chairman of the Budget Committee who is an extremely able chairman. He is of the true Roman stock, and I admire him. I admire him. I am sorry that on this occasion we have to disagree. We will disagree, but disagreement, as far as I am concerned, lasts only for a day and then it is all in the past. On the other hand, it is always well to remember that the Senate is an equal branch, with Members having decades--decades--of experience which is their duty, their responsibility to apply. The Senate should not behave like some eager puppy taking slippers to its master for a good word and a pat on the head. We do this new President no favors to let him have exactly his way if that way is flawed. He will be blamed. President Bush will be blamed if this budget turns out to be a disaster for the American people. And we might be able to avoid some mistakes if the Senate is given a chance to debate and amend the tax proposal in a separate and freestanding bill. The President would still get the credit if the amount was cut, but why would it not be better if it were handed to him after a freestanding debate? What is a Republic? Madison in the Federalists No. 14 answered this question: In a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a Republic, they assemble and administer it by their Representatives and agents. Madison answered that question. Consequently, to whatever degree that Senators, the elected representatives of the people, are prevented from debating and amending the legislation of that Congress or the Senate, to that same degree the people are denied their rights to be heard and to make decisions through their elected representatives in the Senate. Benjamin Franklin was asked by a lady following the Constitutional Convention's close on September 17, 1787: Dr. Franklin, what have you given us? The answer: A republic, madam, if you can keep it. Now, in this regard, let's listen to one of the complaints enunciated in the Declaration of Independence against King George III of England. In this little book is contained the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. At the beginning of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson enunciated the complaints that the people had against King George III and the reasons why the colonialists were going to sever those bonds forever. Listen to this: He [meaning King George III] has refused to pass any laws for the accommodations of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the Right of Representation in the legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only. He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly. One of their major complaints was that the King had refused to pass laws unless the people would give up something, would give up their right of representation in the legislature. That really, in essence, is what is happening here. A budget plan for 10 years is about to be passed and, as a result of that budget, unless the Senate votes otherwise today and/or tomorrow, the people, through their elected representatives, will be relinquishing their rights to have full freedom of debate and amendment when it comes to the Bush tax cut. I say to Senators, the ranking member of the Budget Committee said only a little while ago that this is the most important legislation the Senate will act upon in this session. Why? Not only because it will involve a huge tax cut, the ramifications of which we cannot clearly see because we have no budget before us, but also because it goes to the root, the very marrow of the bone of Senators' constitutional rights on behalf of their constituents to fully debate and amend. I say to Senators, our ancestors fought a war with England because of the denial of representation in the legislature where taxation was concerned. When the reconciliation process is employed to curtail debate and amendments on bills making huge tax cuts, the people are being denied true representation in the Senate because their elected representatives here, who happen to be in the minority, are being gagged by the fast-track procedures of the reconciliation process. When a minority of Senators--and keep in mind, this is the largest minority that it is possible to have in this Chamber; there are 100 Members in the Chamber, 100 Members have been sworn and the breakdown is 50/50, so the minority is as large a minority as the Senate could possibly have. A minority of Senators are being denied by the reconciliation process the right to debate at length and the right to freely amend. The people of the United States, who are represented by that minority in the Senate, are, in essence, being forced to relinquish the right of representation in the legislature. How much time remains?

Mr. BYRD. The pronunciation by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico is the correct one. I have just gotten into a habit for a long time of saying ``re-conciliation.'' I think it is reconciliation. I am liable to stay in the same old habit.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. They may choose not to offer such amendment.

Mr. BYRD. They both have that right.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if my dear friend will yield briefly, just that I might apologize to him for the questions having gone on and on and the answers and the joining by other Senators, which I think added to the importance of the question. I think we performed a service. I certainly thank the Senator most kindly.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very able majority leader for his courtesy in calling attention to the inquiry I had previously indicated I wanted to make, and for his listening to it. I am sure he will give some consideration to it. I hope he will. And I hope all Senators will be willing to consider the request to go over until next Tuesday or Wednesday so that we might have the benefit of having the information that is in the President's budget. I am sure it is not very far away. It is probably on the printing presses within three blocks of this Chamber right now. If they plan to have it up here next Monday, it is available somewhere right now. I thank the majority leader for entertaining my request.

Mr. BYRD. Absolutely. Moreover, that was a budget for 5 years. That was a 5-year plan in 1993. This is a 10-year plan. Additionally, the resolution was used in that instance to reduce deficits, not to increase them. Finally, my good friend from New Mexico speaks of that 1993 budget as a role model. Not one of the Senators on that side of the aisle voted for it. Not one Republican in the House voted for it. What did it do? It put the Nation on the course for reduction of the deficits and for the accumulation of huge projected surpluses. Whether they ever materialize or not is another question. But what are we so afraid of? Why is this Senate afraid to see the President's budget?

Mr. BYRD. In the case of that 1993 peekaboo budget, did the committee, in that instance, report out a bill? Did it mark up the bill?