Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. I congratulate the Senator on his very illuminating remarks. I heard his talk about the gross debt, which really doesn't get mentioned very often as far as I can tell, and his discussion about the publicly held debt. I think this is very useful knowledge. This is the people's money, as we hear. I take it that the interest we pay on the debt is also the people's money, am I correct?

Mr. BYRD. It can't be used to buy even a pencil. How much money are we talking about in interest on the debt? We are talking about the people's money. The interest that is being paid on the debt is the people's money, as well. That comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers. Does the Senator have information at his fingertips as to the amount of the people's money we pay in interest on the debt annually?

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. BYRD. What is the rate of interest that the people are paying on the debt? I know it varies. Generally speaking, is there a figure we can use?

Mr. BYRD. Is that the people's money?

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, will the distinguished Senator yield further?

Mr. BYRD. How much of this money, the people's money--the people of the United States--how much of that money that is being paid for interest on the debt is going into the pockets of foreign holders of these securities? What percent?

Mr. BYRD. Is it not sufficient to say that a considerable amount of this money, which the Senator and I would probably agree is something like 40 percent--40 percent of these securities are held by foreign countries----

Mr. BYRD. The Japanese are foremost; Great Britain is second.

Mr. BYRD. I believe China is fourth or fifth or sixth; China. This is the people's money, isn't it, that we are talking about? The Senator is trying to reduce that interest on the debt by reducing the debt. We are talking about the people's money. He is trying to save the people the people's money. And a lot of it is going overseas. The interest that is paid on the debt, 40 percent of it, is not of securities held by Americans but by peoples overseas. Is that what we are saying?

Mr. BYRD. That is a real tax cut, isn't it? The equivalent of a real tax cut?

Mr. BYRD. And that is a tax cut that is across the board, isn't it? It is across the board; it benefits everybody.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, will the distinguished Senator yield further for a question?

Mr. BYRD. Our time is short. We are about to use all of our hour. Let me ask the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee this question. First of all, I assume the Budget chairman's mark will include budget instructions. When does the ranking member expect to receive from the distinguished Budget Committee chairman information concerning the resolution that the chairman intends to send to the Senate without its being marked up by the Budget Committee?

Mr. BYRD. Yes. I hope so also. I ask the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee, inasmuch as the budget resolution will contain instructions, the distinguished ranking member asked this Senator to move to strike those instructions; am I correct?

Mr. BYRD. If the resolution were marked up in committee, I assume the same motion would be available there.

Mr. BYRD. I believe that the motion to strike even on the floor would require only a majority vote.

Mr. BYRD. Let me ask this question: The committee is required to report the Budget Committee resolution no later than April 1, which will fall on a Sunday. So it would be April 2. Does the Senator contemplate that on April 2 it is the plan, as having been announced I think by the majority leader, that the Senate would proceed to the consideration of that budget resolution on that day or does the ranking member contemplate that the committee chairman might give us an extra day by not reporting the matter to the Senate, or at least by helping us to get consent to delay that for a day so we can study the resolution?

Mr. BYRD. If the plan of the majority in the Senate is to complete action on the budget resolution by the end of next week, that would mean, would it not, that the Senate would have completed action on the budget prior to the submission of the budget by the President to the Senate, which I understand now is going to be on April 9, the first day of the 2-week Easter break? If that is the case, what are the disadvantages to Members of the Senate as they act on a Budget Committee resolution without any knowledge other than what we have seen in this blueprint, which I hold here in my hand, of the President's--this is the outline, ``A Blueprint For New Beginnings''--outline of his budget? We don't have any idea, of course, what the President is going to recommend in filling out this bare skeleton outline, what kind of a position--I realize it was 1993 when the Senate acted on a budget resolution prior to the submission of the budget by the President. That was a far different situation. What are some of the differences between the situation then and the situation now? Let me preface that question by saying that last week the very distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, for whom I have a very high regard, came to the floor and, in response to a statement I made on the floor, indicated that the budget resolution in 1993 was reported to the Senate and was acted upon by the Senate before the President of the United States had submitted his budget to the Senate. That is one of the things about which I and others have been complaining. That is what is going to happen now. The schedule, as I understand it, is that we are going to be acting on the budget resolution. It will be reported from the committee without a markup in committee, and, after the 50 hours have run their course, the Senate will act on the Budget Committee resolution. I complained about that. The distinguished Senator from North Dakota pointed to the fact that the Senate had acted on the budget resolution in 1993 prior to the submission to the Senate and to the House of the President's budget. But there were very important differences. One was that in 1993 the Budget Committee marked up its resolution in committee before that resolution was sent to the floor. That is a very important difference. The distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. Domenici, said last week that we should consider the 1993 action on the budget resolution, prior to the submission to Congress by the President of his budget, to be a role model. But I add, if that is going to be the role model, we should also have a markup prior to the committee reporting that budget resolution to the Senate, because the Budget Committee reported the resolution in 1993 to the Senate, did it not? If that process is going to be the role model, why not include that? I think it should be included. What does the ranking member have to say about that, and what are some of other differences that confronted the Senate at that time with what we are going to be facing here?

Mr. BYRD. That is correct.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. This is a 10-year plan that we are being told will be encompassed in the budget resolution of this year. Was that a 10-year plan in 1993?

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. BYRD. The Senate will be contemplating, in the consideration of the budget resolution this year, a massive tax cut. As one who had an important role in writing the Budget Reform Act of 1974, I had no inkling--young men dream dreams and old men have visions--I never had any dream or a vision at that point that we would ever use the Budget Committee resolution, that process, for increasing or for cutting taxes. The idea was to bring about a resolution that would contemplate income and outgo in such a way that we would balance the budgets. We would have control over spending, control over outgo, and manage the income and the outgo in such a way that we would balance the budget. We never contemplated using that process--which is a beartrap because of its limitations on time for debate and on amendments--we never contemplated it would be used in the manner that it is being used and has been used more recently. The idea was to manage our affairs in such a way that we would keep our budgets balanced. We would balance the budgets. That is not the case. The budget resolution, the budget process is going to be used now to bring about a huge tax cut. That is not going to balance the budget. That was not contemplated when we wrote that law. But is that not another major difference between the actions that were taken in 1993 with reference to the budget resolution and the actions that are being contemplated now?