Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. The Senator is preeminently correct.

Mr. BYRD. Oh, absolutely; no question about it; absolutely.

Mr. BYRD. The Senator will admit, will he not, that the Budget Committee did, in that instance, 1993, have a markup in the committee and then reported that measure out of the committee with a report? And I assume the minority was allowed to publish its views. Would the Senator respond? Was that not the case with that 1993 peekaboo budget?

Mr. BYRD. I wish the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, however, had had a markup in the committee, as was the case when that peekaboo budget was sent up here in 1993.

Mr. BYRD. That is a peekaboo budget.

Mr. BYRD. That is right.

Mr. BYRD. If I have the time, yes.

Mr. BYRD. I don't want to take a lot of time. Let me just say this: We can argue back and forth as to what has been done in the past. I think we have to deal with what is in the present. We have here ``A Blueprint for New Beginnings.'' My problem with this is that it is kind of a peekaboo budget. You see just a little of the budget. But what I see is disturbing. For example, with respect to the research in fossil fuel, that is going to be cut. That is important to the energy resources of this Nation, particularly at this time. Now we have the clean coal technology program, for which the President has said he supports a $2 billion increase. That is well and good. But the problem is, as I look through this peekaboo budget, I find that much of the money he is going to put into clean coal technology is going to come out of fossil fuel research. That is important to coal, oil, and gas. That is just one thing of which I got a little glimpse. I think we will find the word ``redirect'' in this blueprint a number of times. I noted in the Washington Post of Sunday, April 1, that the Community Policing Service Program, COPS, would be cut by 13 percent, from $1 billion to about $850 million. I noted also in the New York Times--I believe, of yesterday--well, I don't seem to have it at my fingertips, but some programs are going to be cut. I think Senators should know what programs are proposed to be cut in the President's budget before they vote on final passage of this concurrent resolution on the budget before us. I am going to take my seat soon, but for these reasons, which could be debated at considerable length, I hope it will be possible to have the President's budget before we take the final plunge on the concurrent resolution on the budget. It seems to me it isn't too much to ask that that final action--perhaps the final 10 hours, if it could be worked out that way--be put over until next Tuesday or Wednesday.

Mr. BYRD. And I feel sure the majority leader is concerned about this as much as I am because I have already heard him say some things today that would lead me to believe that. My question would be--and he might not want to answer it at this point--but when are we going to get to the reconciliation vote on this concurrent resolution on the budget? When are we going to get to it? When we reach that point, we need some time to debate it. I would like to speak at least 45 minutes or an hour on that subject. Our time is being eaten up. I am not complaining about that except to say we are not going to have enough time to debate the most important question that will come before us unless we get to that matter soon. Another question which I wish to propound to the distinguished majority leader, I think it is very important that the Senate have before it the President's budget before the Senate votes on final passage of the concurrent resolution on the budget. I think if we can see what is in the President's budget, we will see that some programs, that are very important to Senators on both sides of the aisle, are probably going to be reduced in order to make way for the tax cut. I think Senators should know these things before they vote on this resolution that is before the Senate. I will not proceed further to make that case. I think it is a solid case, and I think there is every reason why Senators ought to have the budget at their fingertips before they cast that final vote. That has been my hope all along. The President had earlier indicated, I believe, that he would submit his budget to the Congress on this past Monday, and then later changed his mind to say it would be sent up on the 9th, which will be next Monday. I must say, earlier I had thought, Mr. Leader, of using some dilatory tactics in order to put the Senate over to Wednesday. I watched the debate on the natural gas bill in 1977, at which time two Senators--Mr. Metzenbaum and Mr. Abourezk--kept this Senate from reaching a decision 13 days and 1 night and still had hundreds of amendments and just as many dilatory actions available as ever. I know it can be done. I know how to do it. But it was decided in the Democratic Caucus that we would not do that. We do, however, still need to see that budget. I think there is every reason the American people should know what is in the President's budget before their elected representatives in this body cast their votes in connection therewith. Consequently, I ask this question: Would it be possible--this will be a matter for both leaders, not just the majority leader, but mainly the majority leader--would it be possible to put this matter over until next Wednesday, which would allow Monday for the President to send his budget up to the Congress and then would allow the Senate Tuesday and Wednesday in which to amend, to debate, and to make a final decision on the concurrent resolution on the budget? In the meantime a decision could be made with respect to the reconciliation resolution as well. It might very well be that a time agreement could be worked out, and the majority leader has been interested in that. I have been interested in it. Mr. Gramm and Mr. Domenici have expressed some interest in it. Mr. Nickles has expressed interest, and others. I think there is every good reason why it might be wise to do that. A unanimous consent request hase been under consideration. The majority leader discussed this again with me briefly last night at the time of the reception the Senate was having in honor of the spouses of the Senators. Would it be possible to delay final passage of the budget resolution until next Wednesday? I know it would inconvenience some Senators. But what is more important? The inconvenience to the Senators, or wisdom and the proper judgment when it comes to casting our votes for those whom we represent? I don't think there is a Senator here who would disagree with my statement that, yes, there will be inconveniences, perhaps some trips would have to be canceled, but that is all in a day's work. We get paid for our work. We have a responsibility to our people. Perhaps there will be no more important vote that will be cast by the Senate than the vote on this concurrent budget resolution and the vote with respect to the reconciliation process. That ends my question.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for his making possible an inquiry at this point. As Senators know, I am, I think, the Senator who has had more of a part in writing the Budget Reform Act than any other Senator who today serves in the Senate. I believe, with all my heart, that the reconciliation instruction process was never meant to be used as a procedure for cutting taxes. It has been my belief, from the beginning, that the purpose of the reconciliation process is to reduce deficits. And the process has been useful in that regard over a period of several years. I am very concerned that the Senate is about to use the process in a way for which it was not intended. I think a point of order, if made, would nail in the precedent that it is quite all right to use the reconciliation process to cut taxes. So I do not want to do that. If, and when, that time comes, I prefer to just vote up or down and let the chips fall where they may. So I have a couple of questions I wish to ask of the distinguished majority leader. One would be in light of the fact that we only have, I believe, about 30 hours remaining.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order.

Mr. BYRD. But I wanted to ask the majority leader a question while he was on the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, would the distinguished Senator yield to me for 3 minutes?

Mr. BYRD. If it did, why doesn't the Senator, who admires that role model, wish to have a markup in the committee and report out a concurrent resolution on this budget?

Mr. BYRD. Yes, absolutely.

Mr. BYRD. I am glad to yield.

Mr. BYRD. There is a difference, but, with all due respect, that is no reason not to have a markup. Just because the people saw fit to make it 50/50 in this Senate, that is no reason to avoid having a markup in committee. We have a responsibility to the people who send us here to have a markup in the committee. The point I am trying to make is that we ought to see the President's budget. It would not be asking too much of all of us, I don't think, to hold over until next Tuesday or Wednesday to complete action on this concurrent resolution on the budget. Let us see the President's budget. While I have the floor--and then I will sit down--I have the New York Times of Wednesday, April 4. I will read the headline: ``Bush Budget on Health Care Would Cut Aid to Uninsured.'' That is one example of why I think the Senate ought to have the President's budget. We don't know what is in it.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I am waiting with bated breath.

Mr. BYRD. Very well.

Mr. BYRD. Does not the Senator believe that the administration's foremost priority is a $1.6 billion tax cut?

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I support the effort by Senators McCain and Feingold to try to rein in some of the rampant spending that takes place in political campaigns. Today I voted for S. 27, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001. While I voted for final passage of S. 27, I do not feel that it goes far enough. The only way that we will ever get control over the money in politics is if we put limits on campaign spending, and the only way to achieve that goal is to address the Constitutional hurdles raised by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, by equating free speech with campaign spending, the Supreme Court placed a substantial roadblock in the path to campaign finance reform. We will not have true campaign finance reform until Congress and the States approve a Constitutional Amendment which clearly articulates that Congress can regulate fundraising and expenditures for campaigns. That is why I supported the constitutional amendment offered by Senator Hollings. I understand that the sponsors of this bill worked to craft legislation that would maintain the support of a majority of Senators, and, at the same time, would also stand up to the certain Court challenges it will face. I hope that this bill will make some progress in limiting the power and influence of money in our elections, but I believe that we still have a long way to go.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?