Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, will the Senator yield to me, finally?

Mr. BYRD. Would the Senator take the few remaining minutes under my control and sum up the points that have been made here this morning as to the differences between what the Senate was confronted with in 1993 and what we are being confronted with today anent the budget resolution and the budget process? There are several items. Will the Senator sum them up? Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee. I assume that consumes all of the time on this side.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Hollings, for yielding to me. I thank him for being the author and chief sponsor of this amendment. I thank him for his steadfast and clear-sighted approach to a very serious and growing problem facing our Republic. I thank him for allowing me to join him in cosponsoring this amendment. Ralph Waldo Emerson, in an oration delivered on August 31, 1867, said: This time, like all times, is a very good one, if we but know what to do with it. As the Senate considers the proposed constitutional amendment offered by our distinguished colleague from South Carolina, Mr. Hollings, it is my fervent hope that each of us will take heed of Emerson's apt words. We have the opportunity to take an important step in the direction of restoring the people's faith and in our ability to rise above partisanship and really do something about our present sorry system of financing Federal campaigns. If 55 years ago, when I started out in politics, we had had the current system of funding campaigns, somebody else would be standing at this desk. It wouldn't be I. I came from the very bottom of the ladder. There were no lower rungs in my ladder. There weren't any bottom rungs in my ladder. I came out of a coal camp. What did I have? If I might, for a moment, tinker with grammar, ``I didn't have nothing,'' as they would say. ``I ain't got nothing.'' All I had was myself and my belief in our system. I believed in a system, then, in which a person who didn't have anything, a person who was poor, a person who came from lowly beginnings but who could pay his filing fee, could run for office. I graduated from high school in 1934 in the midst of the Depression. I married 64 years ago the month after next. I married a coal miner's daughter. We didn't have anything. We only had two rooms in which to live in the coal company house. I started out making $50 a month. When I married I was making the huge sum of $70 a month. All I had was a high school education. I didn't have a college education. That was all I had. The man who raised me, my uncle, was not a banker. He was not a big politician. He was not a former judge. He was not a former officeholder. He was a coal miner, a lowly coal miner. He was honest. What did I have? Who was I to run for office? Who was I to offer myself to the people with just a high school education. That was all. That coal miner was the only dad I ever knew so I felt good about being his son. I didn't have anything. There I was, a coal miner's son, starting to find my way up the ladder of a political career. Could I do it today? I would go to Senator Hollings and say: I would like to run for the House of Delegates in West Virginia. I would like to run for the House of Representatives in Washington. What advice do you have for me? He would say to me today, as he said to others: Who are you? What is your background? That is not so important. But have you got any money? How much money are you willing to spend on this? I would have been out, if it had depended upon money. I would have been out at the beginning. I would never have gotten to first base. The current system is rotten, it is putrid, it stinks. The people of this country ought really to know what this system is giving to them and what it is taking from them. This system corrupts political discourse. It makes us slaves, makes us beholden to the almighty dollar rather than be the servants of the people we all aspire to serve. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has given this kind of campaign system first amendment protection. In Buckley v. Valeo, the Court made it extraordinarily difficult for the public to have what it wants: reasonable regulations of campaign expenditures which do not either directly or indirectly limit the ideas that may be expressed in the public realm. I submit that such regulations will actually broaden the public debate on a number of issues by freeing it from the narrow confines dictated by special interest money. We may be able to fool ourselves, but the time is long past for all of us to stop trying to fool the American people. They are more than aware that both political parties--both political parties--abuse the current system and that both political parties fear to change that system. Each party wants to preserve its advantages under the system, but the insidious system of campaign fundraising will eventually undermine the very foundation of this Republic. What I am saying is, that this system of funding our political campaigns is going to undermine the Republic. For our own sakes and for the sake of the people, we must find a way to stop this political minuet. We must come to grips with the fact that the campaign finance system in its current form is simply, simply, simply unworthy of preservation. I have spoken on this floor many times before about the exponential increase in campaign expenditures since I first ran for the Senate in 1958. Jennings Randolph and I ran for the Senate in 1958. There was a situation in West Virginia in which the late Senator M.M. Neely died and left 2 years of his Senate tenure open, which meant we had two Senate seats in West Virginia to fill in the same election. Senator Randolph ran for the 2-year term, I ran for the 6-year term, and we decided to team up and run together. There were several other Democrats running for both seats. But we teamed up and we ran that campaign--two Senators--for $50,000. That is all we had, $50,000. We didn't have television in those days. Oh, there were a few black and white sets around. But we didn't have these expensive campaign consultants. We didn't know anything about these kinds of negative campaigns. We just went around from courthouse to courthouse and spoke in the courthouse yards. I played my fiddle --drew a good crowd. But we didn't have these expensive campaigns. Otherwise, we could not have run. I was running against an incumbent Republican Senator, Senator Chapman Revercomb. We could not have done it. That was in 1958. We had $50,000, two Senators. I recently heard one of the richest men in America say that political access is ``undervalued'' in the campaign finance market. Campaign contributions will continue to increase until a ``market valuation'' is achieved, thus causing the cost of a reasonably effective campaign to continue to skyrocket. We haven't hit the top yet, by any means. It already costs tens of millions of dollars to run an effective campaign for the Senate in many States. What do we tell a poor kid from the hollows? What do we tell a poor kid from the coal camps? Forget it. Yet, that person may have the capacity and the drive to be a good Senator. A campaign for the Senate will be beyond his or her personal means and beyond the means of friends and associates. We must act to put the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Presidency within the reach of anyone with the brains, with the spirit, with the spine, and with the desire to go for it. And the proposed constitutional amendment before us today is a necessary step on the way to accomplishing that goal. Yes, it amends the First Amendment. One of the great ironies of the current campaign financing system is that it puts more distance between candidates and the people they hope to represent. Campaigns of today are technologically sophisticated. They rely increasingly on mass media. The whole point of current campaigns has become raising enough money to pay to more people, more times, over the airwaves. There is no argument that there is an efficiency consideration here. People's lives today are complicated. They have to run from pillar to post, to work, to school, to the grocery store, to the dry cleaner, cook dinner, put the kids to bed, and so on and on and on, over and over again. Families do not have the time or the inclination to attend community functions as they used to years ago. Even if they did, there is this crazy ``boob tube'' in the home. I don't listen to it a great deal. I long ago learned that is almost a complete waste of time to listen. I so listen every Saturday night to that British show, ``Keeping Up Appearances.'' I recommend that anybody and everybody watch that show. You won't hear any profanity in it, you won't see any violence in it, and it is not a story about sex. So, listen to ``Keeping Up Appearances'' on Channel 26 and Channel 22, public television. May I say to my friend from South Carolina and my equally good friend from Connecticut, I have been in Washington 49 years. I have been to one movie, and I did not stay through that one. Yul Brynner was playing in it. It bored me to death, and I left about halfway through. But I have seen some good movies on Channel 26, Channel 22--public television. I like Masterpiece Theater. It gives us some good, clean, wholesome movies to watch. Otherwise, do not waste your time watching TV. I have had some recent campaign events in some of West Virginia's communities where people still come out to hear candidates, but in our Nation today, such events are the exception, not the rule. So to influence voters, we pay high-priced consultants, and many times, I say to my friend from South Carolina, we probably know a good bit more about politicking and what needs to be seen and said than they do, but they sure know how to spend your money; they sure know how to take your money. These TV people just rack it up. I must say that TV is the greatest medium that was ever invented, I suppose. At least it will hold its own with the printed media. But I think it is helping to ruin these political campaigns. To influence voters, we pay high-priced consultants to produce slick, high-priced ads and to buy high-priced television and radio time to air them. Our opponents do the same, which leads our expensive consultants to encourage us to tape more ads--tape more ads--and buy more advertising time. It is a vicious circle that requires candidates to spend more and more time raising money and less and less time listening to the people and working for the people, once they are elected, whom they wish to represent. I have been majority leader in this Senate, and I have been minority leader, and I can tell Senators that this money chase is a real headache for the leaders in this Senate. It used to be, when I was the leader, I was continually being importuned by colleagues--Senators on my side of the aisle--to not have votes on this afternoon, not have votes on tomorrow, not have votes on Fridays, not have votes on Mondays, not have votes on Tuesdays until after the weekly conference luncheon. When I first came to the Senate, we did not have weekly Democratic conferences. Mostly, the Republicans had conferences, but we did not necessarily have a conference every week. It was after I became leader that we started to have regular conferences every week. It was I, as the leader, who had the first so-called retreat with our Democratic colleagues. We went over to Canaan Valley in West Virginia, and we also went up to Shepherdstown on another occasion. We did not have any retreats prior to my being leader. We did not have all these campaign financing problems. We did not have to raise so much money for campaigns until, for the most part, I was leader for the second time in the 100th Congress. It was in the 100th Congress that I offered a cloture motion eight times--eight times--to try to have the Senate act on campaign financing legislation--eight times. That is the highest number of cloture motions ever offered by a leader in this Senate on any matter; eight times, and I failed eight times. I was never able to get more than a half dozen members of the Republican Party to vote for cloture on campaign financing legislation. The result of the campaign financing system we now have is that today there are fewer rallies, there is less knocking on doors, less face-to- face time with the voters, less handshaking by the candidate. No wonder the people think we are out of touch. We do not see the people. For the most part, we go to those meetings that are held by special interest groups. They are good people to see--I am not saying that. We do not generally see the general run of people. Those old-time rallies and meetings do not occur so much anymore. Through the creative use of film and audiotape, we have made ourselves intangible. While I am very reluctant to amend the Constitution, I am not opposed to amendments in all circumstances. The Constitution contains a provision, as we all know, for amendments, and it is there for a purpose. Whereas, as in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court creates a significant obstacle to democratic self-government, it is certainly appropriate for us to approve a constitutional amendment. Otherwise, I regard the prospects as slim for comprehensive reform legislation that would both free the Congress from the iron grip of the special interests and put Federal office within the reach of every able and willing American. By equating campaign expenditures with free speech, the Supreme Court has made it all but impossible for us to control the ever-spiraling money chase. Under current constitutional jurisprudence, any legislation intended to control the cancerous effects of money in politics may necessarily be complicated and convoluted. The complications we are forced to resort to, in turn, may create new opportunities for abuse. Some argue that money will find a way to control the process, regardless of what we do. I respond that a simple and straightforward limit on campaign expenditures is much more difficult to circumvent than the maze of regulations to which we have had to resort. I wonder, too, whether these opponents of campaign finance reform are willing to permit money to buy anything on the grounds that it is difficult to control. Even without a constitutional amendment, we can, of course, tinker around the edges, but we cannot enact comprehensive legislation that will get to the heart of the problem. I wish we could. But the fact is we cannot get the kind of legislation we really need unless we first adopt an amendment to the Constitution. I have come to that conclusion. We see it every year. The money chase gets tighter, takes more and more money, and the love of money is the root of all evil. We learned that at our mother's knee and from the Bible. The love of money is the root of all evil. Just look at what it has done in politics, and one will see what it has meant. Our campaign financing system clouds our judgments. Fear of losing advantage is what has driven both parties to be reluctant to enact meaningful expenditure reform. I understand this is the system we are in. As long as this is the system, if I am running, I do what the system allows me, and I do what the system requires. I try to raise money. It is the most demeaning thing I as a Senator have to experience. Demeaning. I don't like going around asking for money. I abhor it. That is the way it is. The fixation with maintaining advantage is blinding us to the dangers to our credibility. Credibility is a precious commodity. More important to a politician than--yes, more important--than money. When we lose our credibility, no amount of money will enable us to buy it back. People out there who are watching: Do you know what campaign financing does to your interests as we, the legislators, pass laws, vote on amendments? Do you, the people, know that you, not organized, do not wield the influence, man for man and woman for woman, that is wielded by the special interest groups? This is not to say that they don't have the best interests of the country in mind. They have the best interests of the country in mind as they see those best interests. We are beholden, we in this body, and in the other body, and at the White House, are beholden to the people who help us to win by giving us contributions. You people who are not organized come in second. When we lose our credibility, no amount of money will enable us to buy it back. Already, many of our citizens don't vote. They don't think their vote counts. They don't feel we are influenced by their votes, so they don't vote. Let us fear the further erosion of our Republic. I am sorry that it has come to this. I am sorry that it has come to the point that, if we are going to deal with this Frankenstein monster that is in our midst--this campaign financing system--we have to amend the Constitution of the United States. I am sorry for that. They say, well, this is the first time, this will be the first occasion in which we would amend the first amendment to the Constitution. What is worse? What is worse? Keeping the first amendment intact or saving our country, saving our Republic, from its eventual complete destruction because the people in whom the power and the sovereignty resides are no longer the main focus of the attention of legislators and Presidents? I think to continue down this road is to destroy this Republic and the things for which that flag stands. If there is only one way to save it, and that is to amend the first amendment to the Constitution, then let's amend it. It is sad. To one who started out in politics with nothing --I didn't have, as I say, a father who could lift me up, who could go to the banks in the city and say, this is my son, help him; who could go to the civic clubs and say, invite my son to speak, help him; who could look to the lawyers in the community and say, I'm a lawyer, I'm a judge, I want you to help my son--I didn't have that kind of father to lift me up and help me in politics. I could hardly put two nickels together. Now what do we see? We see a situation in which that coal miner's son could never come to the Senate. No coal miner's son could ever lift himself up by the ladder that has no rungs at the bottom and come to the Senate. That could not be one of his or her dreams. I compliment the distinguished Senator from South Carolina who is a leader in this effort. This is a good time, as Ralph Waldo Emerson said, if only we know what to do with it. Let us not squander an opportunity to begin to fix this thoroughly rotten campaign finance system once and for all. Let us not continue to disappointment the American people. Yes, I am ready to amend the first amendment to the Constitution. What good is it if we have a first amendment to the Constitution if we destroy the Republic in the meantime? I see this flawed campaign financing system as a real dagger at the heart of our constitutional Republic. What good is a Constitution without a Republic? As I see it, take your choice: Keep the first amendment, unamended, or continue down this path of destruction of the Republic and everything it stands for. Let us take a stand and support this proposed amendment to the Constitution. In Atlanta, there is a monument to the memory of the late Benjamin Hill. Inscribed on that monument are these words: Who saves his country saves himself, saves all things, and all things saved do bless him. Who lets his country die, lets all things die, dies himself ignobly, and all things, dying, curse him. I say to Senators, let us save our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate Budget Committee held its last hearing on the President's budget plan prior to the Senate consideration of the budget resolution. As a new member of the Budget Committee, I would like to take a moment to commend Chairman Domenici and ranking member Conrad for a series of thought-provoking hearings on the future challenges facing our Social Security and Medicare programs, on our efforts to improve the education of our children, and to address our Nation's infrastructure deficit and national security needs. During the hearing yesterday, I inquired of--we often say ``our good friend,'' my good friend Senator Domenici. When I say ``my good friend,'' I mean just that; my good friend, Senator Domenici--about the prospects for the Budget Committee marking up the budget resolution prior to the April 1 reporting deadline contained in the Budget Act. Let me say at the beginning of my remarks, again, I am a new member of the Budget Committee. Of course I was around 27 years ago when we created the Budget Committee, and I took a very considerable interest in the preparation of the Budget Act in 1974. I spent a great deal of time on it. So although I come as a new member of the committee, I am not wholly unaware of the fact that I have been around as long as the committee has and perhaps a little longer--longer than the Act itself. One thing I try to remember is not to take myself too seriously. Sometimes it is pretty hard to avoid taking one's self too seriously. I try studiously to avoid that. But I do take seriously the work of that committee. We have a great chairman. Senator Domenici is a very diligent Senator. The Bible says: ``Seest thou a man diligent in his business? He shall stand before kings.'' Senator Domenici is diligent in his business. I have no doubt that he has stood before kings in his tenure as a Senator. I admire him on top of all these things. I think he is a congenial person. I like him. It doesn't make any difference how this situation comes out--what the outcome of the budget action may or may not be. It isn't going to intervene in my admiration and my affection for Senator Domenici, the Senator from New Mexico. We happen on this question to be a little bit at loggerheads with respect to our viewpoints. But who am I to say I am all right and he is all wrong? I say the same thing with regard to my leader on this side, Mr. Conrad. He is the ranking member of the Budget committee. I am not. I am just one of the new members. But my interest comes from elsewhere than just the fact that I am a new member on that committee. I am not trying to rock the boat, or get out in front of the committee. I am here because I am a U.S. Senator. I love the Senate. I have been in the Senate more than half of my life. I respect its rules. I love its traditions, its folklore, its history. But I am exceedingly concerned about the way we are doing things in the Senate in these times. I am only here for a little while, as we all are. But while I am here, I want to uphold the traditions and the rules of the Senate, because men who were far greater than I am wrote this Constitution. On July 16, 1787, they reached a compromise, which is often referred to in high school as ``The Great Compromise.'' It was out of that Great Compromise that this institution, the Senate, came into being. It was that compromise of July 16, 1787, that made possible my coming here as one of the two Senators who represent the State of West Virginia. It wasn't West Virginia when those forebears wrote this Constitution that I hold in my hand. It wasn't a State of the Union at that time. My State, which I love and share in that love along with Senator Jay Rockefeller, was borne out of the crucible of the Civil War. It became a State, and is the only State to have been born during the great war between the States. But because those forebears, whose names were signed to this Constitution, arrived at that Great Compromise, we have this Senate. Otherwise, the Presiding Officer would not be here as a Senator from the State of Rhode Island. All the people who work here and our wonderful staff wouldn't be here. This ornate Chamber probably would not be here. There wouldn't be two Houses in the legislative branch. So once in a while we have to stop and think about these things. How did I come to be here? What do I mean by ``be here''? What is this institution? Why do we have a Senate? Why not just have a House of Representatives? The answers to those questions go back into the centuries. Why do we have a legislative branch? Is ours a Republic? Is ours a democracy? What is the difference? Look at Hamilton's essay denominated No. 10 among the Federalist Papers. Look at No. 10. Look at No. 14 and one will get a clear understanding of the difference between a pure democracy and a Republic. Ours is a Republic. What does that mean? That means that the people across the land participate in their government through elected representatives. Think of that. In a pure democracy, the people of my hometown of Sophia could very well have a pure democracy. There are only about 1,183 people in that town. They could all meet. They could make their own laws. They could execute their own laws. They could have a pure democracy. But this is a nation spread from sea to shining sea with 280 million people. They could not all gather in one place at one time and act for themselves. So they elect us. We are the directly elected representatives of the people. The President of the United States is not directly elected by the people. He is directly elected by the electors which are chosen in each State by the people. But we Senators represent and speak for the people. And every 2 years, or every 6 years, whichever it may be, Members of the other body and Members of this body have to go home and stand for reelection. So we represent the people. I represent, along with my colleague, Jay Rockefeller, 1.8 million people. But our votes--our votes--West Virginia's votes in this Senate are as important and are the very equal of the votes of the Senators from the great State of California. If it were a country by itself, California would probably be about No. 7 or No. 8 among all the countries of the world--a great State, a huge State, with a tremendous population that would dwarf the size of the population of my own mountain State of West Virginia. But because of this Constitution, this Senate is a forum of the States, and West Virginia has just as much voice as does California, or New York, or Texas, or Florida, or Illinois, or Pennsylvania--States whose populations greatly outnumber that of West Virginia. So this institution is the forum of the States. At the same time, it is made up of Members who are elected by, and who represent, the people of the United States. Now this is a long way of saying these things which are not new to any of the people who are listening. But once in a while we need to be reminded. Why do I take the floor today to talk about the budget? And what does all this that I have said got to do with the budget? What does it have to do with what we are doing in the Budget Committee? That is the problem. We do not pause and remember why we are here, and whom we represent here. We represent the people. We represent the States. I am not the ranking member of this Budget Committee. I am not the chairman of it. But I am a member of it. I did not seek to become a member until this year. All these years since the act has been on the law books of this country, I never sought to be on the Budget Committee. But I saw that the Budget Committee, more and more and more, was becoming the major wheel in the constitutional system of this country--more and more things are being decided in that committee--and, as one who helped to write the legislation, I must say that it was not intended to become that. The Budget Committee was not intended to have all the power it has today. It never was intended to be used as it is being used today. So I have become increasingly concerned about the fact that the Budget Committee of the Senate--this is no reflection on its members or anything of that nature, it is just a fact that what that Budget Committee does this year, will have a major impact on the work of all the other committees, and on the work of the Senate throughout this year. So that brings me now to what I want to say today. I was disappointed to learn that Senator Domenici was not planning to have a committee markup. Now, he and I had discussed this privately on a couple of occasions. But apparently he reached that decision and so indicated during the last session the committee had, which was yesterday. He indicated that, given the 11-11 split on the committee, it would not be productive--in his way of looking at things--to go through the markup process. And following the hearing yesterday, I came down to the floor to express my disappointment that the chairman was not planning a markup, and--no reflection on him, nothing personal in what I say--I spoke on the floor. He indicated to me, by written note earlier yesterday, that he would be responding to what I had to say. And everything is just fine between the chairman and myself. I have to remember that I am 83 years of age. I do not have a long life ahead of me, and one of these days I have to meet someone who is much more powerful than Senator Domenici or Senator Lott or President Bush or anybody else. I will have to give an accounting for my work here, for my stewardship in this life. So I want to be able to leave this Senate with the good will of every Senator. I hope I have that. I am sure I do as far as Senator Domenici is concerned. So he notified me that he would be speaking. Last evening I had to go somewhere. I do not often accept invitations to dinner. I like to have dinner with my wife, to whom I have been married almost 64 years, and with my little dog Billy when I can do so, so I do not accept many invitations. One could spend all of his or her time in this town as a Senator by running here and there and thither and yonder and thither and letting the work on his desk pile up. But I found out a long time ago that there was not much to be had, not much that was important that went on at these cocktail parties, and so on, around this town. I could speak quite at length on that subject, but I will try to avoid getting off on to that, except to say that I could not come up at that point to the floor and participate or listen to Senator Domenici and all he had to say. Therefore, this morning I said to Senator Domenici: I haven't seen the Record yet. I want to see what is in the Record. I understand you made a fine talk, and I heard just a little bit of it, but I couldn't come up. So I may have something to say today after I look at the Record. So he said: That's fine. And here I am. We had many excellent, knowledgeable witnesses at our hearings, and our members engaged in spirited, incisive, and deep, probing questioning. When the Senate takes up the budget resolution, I believe the Senate should have the benefit of the committee's views. Now, the Senate, in 1816, began to formulate the major committees. They have not always been around. There were committees in the very first week of the Senate's meetings. There were temporary committees, ad hoc committees, whatever, appointed to deal with this or that or something else. But in 1816, the major committees really began to take shape. Among those early committees, of course, were the committees that dealt with foreign affairs and the finances of the Government. It was not until 1867 that the Appropriations Committee came into being as a separate committee. The work of the Appropriations Committee was done by the Finance Committee. And in 1867, if I am not mistaken, the Appropriations Committee came into being. By virtue of my seniority on that committee, I, at length--after 30 years, I believe it was, on the committee--I became, lo and behold, the chairman. So I take these things pretty seriously, having been chairman of the Appropriations Committee. And knowing what impact the Budget Committee of the Senate is having and what some of its decisions are having on the operations of the Senate, I decided I wanted to be on that committee. So again I say, here I am. I also believe that when the Senate takes up the budget resolution, it should have the benefit of the committee's views. Why do we have committees? They are the little legislatures, you might say, in the institution here. The members of the committees have a very special understanding of the work over which the respective committee or committees have jurisdiction. The views of those committee members are very important. In many instances, I have been guided by my decisions on matters, on votes and so on, by what the members of the committee having jurisdiction over the subject had to say. They are the specialists. They give their time, their talents, dealing with that particular subject matter, whatever it may be. Members of the Senate need to know what the views are of the members of the committee with respect to the legislation before the Senate. As I say, I am not saying something that is teaching anybody anything, but it may be that some of our people out there who are watching through those electronic goggles up by the Presiding Officer's desk, it may be that what I am saying will mean a little something to those people, that they will have a better understanding of what we are talking about. They need to be informed. Woodrow Wilson said the informing function of the legislative branch is as important as the legislative function. We need to be informed. It is more difficult to keep informed on subject matters of today than it was when I came to the Congress 49 years ago this year. There are a lot more things about which to be informed. We didn't have a lot of the laws on the books then that we have today. We didn't have as many agencies in Government then as we have today. We didn't have the Interstate Highway System that we have today. We didn't have the Appalachian Regional Commission or the Appalachian regional highways then that we have today. We didn't have the Clean Air Act; we have it today. We didn't have the Clean Water Act then, but we have it today. We have much more today to be informed about than we had in those days. That is why I am concerned about what is happening with respect to the budget which will be coming up in the Congress shortly. That is a long way around to tell you, but you need to know that these are important matters that affect you, you the people, we the people. It is the impact on you. It isn't that I am a new member of the Budget Committee and I ought to have all this information and I am quibbling over this and quibbling over that. No, I am not quibbling at all. This is serious business. It is your business. I believe the public would greatly benefit by having a markup in the committee. Having been the appropriations chairman, let me say what a markup is. The chairman, with his staff, develops, based on the budget the President sends up to the Congress, based on the hearings that have been conducted in the Appropriations Committee, and draws up an appropriations bill. It may be different from the appropriations bill that came over from the House of Representatives. Not by the Constitution but by custom, appropriations bills generally originate in the House of Representatives, unlike tax bills, which, according to the Constitution, must originate in the House of Representatives. So I, as chairman, and my staff director, Mr. English, who has been the staff director on the Democratic side for a good many years, and others, sit down and look at this bill and say, this is it. Then I always made it a point to call Senator Hatfield, who then was a Member of the Senate from Oregon, who was the ranking member at that time. We said: This is the plan. We have this amount of money allocated, and here is the way it will be allocated. That is the markup. Then the whole committee sits down and looks at that. Republicans and Democrats alike sit down together and look at this bill. That is called marking up the bill. We may change it. The whole committee may not like an item. We may have to strike it, or they may want to add an item. In any event, that is the legislative process 101, as it pertains to appropriations. Yesterday I expressed my dismay also that the administration has delayed from April 3 to April 9 the delivery date for details of the President's budget. The Senate is being asked to consider a $2 trillion tax cut that is estimated to consume 80 percent of the non-Social Security, non-Medicare surplus over the next 10 years. Yet the details on over $20 billion of program cuts for just one fiscal year apparently will not be available to the Senate when it is scheduled to debate the budget resolution on the week of April 2. Last evening Senator Domenici sent me a letter, as I say, and came down to the floor to respond to my concerns. I thank him for responding quickly, but I am disappointed by his message. In his remarks he noted that in 1993, the first year of the Clinton administration, the details of the President's budget were sent to the Congress on April 8 and the Democratic leadership completed the budget resolution for President Clinton's budget prior to delivery of those details. Senator Domenici said that the schedule for consideration of the budget resolution this year is in accord with the schedule in 1993 and that the schedule for consideration of the budget resolution of 1993 should serve as a role model for how to proceed this year. Mr. President, Senator Domenici is absolutely correct in his description of the facts, but he missed my point. As I say, I have alerted Senator Domenici's office to the fact that I am going to say these things. I am not going to say anything to hurt his feelings or anything like that. He has been around here; he is a pro. He understands. He missed my point. We have a 50/50 Senate. The Republican leaders should not be setting up a process that rams the President's budget through the Senate. We should be debating the budget, and we should be trying to reach an agreement on a budget. I don't mean we should displace the business before the Senate right now to do that. But this thing is coming; it is a train that is coming right down the track. That Senate process should start in the Senate Budget Committee with a markup. As I say, I am not taking myself all that seriously as somebody trying to tell the Budget Committee how to do its work. That is not it. I am not looking at that. That is not it. I am concerned that the impact this process will have on the Senate, on its membership--the final outcome of this budget action--and on the country is a far- reaching impact. As Senator Domenici pointed out in his remarks last night, in 1993 the Senate Budget Committee had a markup--get that--the Senate Budget Committee had a markup on March 11 and debated and approved the budget resolution, which was filed on March 12. The markup was held in 1993, just as there has been a markup in every other year since the Budget Committee was established. Yet apparently the distinguished chairman, Senator Domenici, does not want to have a markup this year. He has very plainly, forthrightly, and honestly said so. He doesn't make any bones about it, and I admire him for that. In his remarks last evening, the chairman mentioned the first Clinton budget document, entitled ``A Vision of Change For America.'' Here it is--``A Vision of Change For America.'' It is dated February 17, 1993. This morning, after briefly reviewing that document, I find that several sections have applications to the issues we face today. That 1993 document noted--lend me your ears, friends, ``Romans''; lend me your ears. Here is what the 1993 document said: For more than a decade, the Federal Government has been living well beyond its means--spending more than it takes in, and borrowing the difference. The annual deficits have been huge. Deficit reduction is not an end in itself. It is a means to the end of higher productivity, rising living standards and the creation of high wage jobs. In short, it is about securing a better economic future for ourselves and, even more importantly, our children. Huge structural deficits are harmful for a simple reason: when the economy is not in recession, each dollar the Federal Government borrows to finance consumption spending absorbs private savings that would otherwise be used to increase productive capacity. Large, sustained budget deficits mean that we must either reduce our investment at home or borrow the money overseas. This 1993 document went on to say: The drain on our savings has caused anemic domestic investment, especially in comparison with most advanced industrial countries. It has retarded growth in productivity and living standards. Meanwhile, borrowing from the rest of the world to maintain investment at even today's depressed levels has increased interest payments to foreign leaders. In effect, we have signed over some of the fruits of today's productivity--enhancing investments to the children of Europe and Japan, rather than preserving them for our own [children]. ``A Vision of Change For America'' laid out a plan for addressing the deficits that were created by the excessive tax cuts of 1981. It was a 5-year plan, not a 10-year plan, and it put us on a course to eliminate the colossal deficits of the 1980s and early 1990s. Page 115 of that document included the following: The plan promises rising standards of living, productivity and national savings. It stimulates growth and provides insurance that the current slow recovery will be lasting and strong. There are not many predictions one can believe in around here, but that was one we all saw come to fruition. Continuing my quotation: It invests in education, training and health of our people. It encourages the private sector to modernize and acquire the tools and technology to compete in the global economy. And it confronts our deficit head on. That is what this book said in 1993. It confronts our deficits head on, with a serious, fair plan to bring it under control and generate economic growth. So that plan worked. It worked. Instead of the colossal deficits which confronted the Senate at that time, today we have--according to the projections which may or may not come true--colossal surpluses. How many on the Republican side voted for that plan? Zero. Not a single vote in either body--not one. Not one. My good friend from New Mexico says that ought to be a role model--that budget--that budget plan, as outlined in the book titled ``A Vision of Change For America.'' Not one. Not one. Not one voted for that. The first question that was ever asked, I believe, in the history of mankind was, Where art thou? God walked in the Garden of Eden, when the shades of the day were falling and when the cool of the evening was on the forehead of Paradise. God walked in the garden. He was looking for Adam and Eve. He said: Adam, where art thou? That was the first question: Adam, where art thou? In thinking about the votes that were cast on the plan, that marvelous plan which my good friend, Mr. Domenici, called to our attention on yesterday and which he said was a role model, one could have rightly asked from this side of the aisle: Where art thou? Where art thou? Not one of our friends over here on my right who belong to a great political party, the Republican Party--by the way, I get lots of votes from Republicans in West Virginia. I am proud of them. But not one, not one answered: Here am I. Not one. That was the role model, Mr. Domenici said. They did not follow that role model when it came to votes on that occasion. That is why I take the time of the Senate to review these passages, because we are being asked to take up a budget resolution on April 2 without the benefit of a Budget Committee markup and without the benefit of a detailed budget from the President. As has been pointed out, this will not be the first occasion when we did not have a detailed description of the President's budget, but there are significant differences in that time and our time. We are also told by the Republican leaders that the core of the President's budget, a $2 trillion tax cut, may be brought to the floor as a reconciliation bill for which debate is limited to, at most, 20 hours. Now get that. They say that these moneys are the people's money. They are your money. We are talking about a $2 trillion tax cut. That is the President's proposal, as I have read about it in the press--a $2 trillion tax cut. That is a lot of money. We are not used to counting money in sums of that size down in West Virginia. How much is $1 trillion? Have you ever stopped to think? We talk about it as though it were just a few dollars. I have three $1 bills in my hands. By the way, when I married my wife 64 years ago, on the next day after we married, I gave her my pocketbook. I had been working as a meat cutter in a coal company store. My salary was $70 a month--$70 a month. She was a coal miner's daughter, and I grew up in a coal miner's home. We never had anything as far as refrigerators or vacuum cleaners. As a matter of fact, some of those inventions did not come along very much in advance of the year we married. I said to my wife: Here's my wallet. We were walking down the railroad tracks. That is the only place we had. We did not have any fine streets, shaded avenues, boulevards beautiful in their makeup. We had to walk down the railroad tracks. I gave her my pocketbook, and I said--now this was 64 years ago. I gave her my pocketbook. I said: You keep the money. I will work and make it--I won't make much, but whatever I make, you will have. When I want a dollar or two, I will come to you and ask for it. And I have done that for 64 years. This morning she said: Do you need any money? I said: No, I have $3.75, and I am taking my lunch so I don't have to go down to the Senators' dining room and spend 30 or 40 minutes waiting on somebody to help me with food and then have to spend $8, $10, or $12 to pay for it. I just take my little lunch, and there is my $3 I have for the day. You can ask her; she will verify everything I have said. Why do I say that? We are talking about $2 trillion. How long would it take you to count $1 trillion at the rate of $1 per second? How long would it take you to count $1 trillion at the rate of $1 per second? Thirty-two thousand years. A trillion means a little more if I look at it in that way. What I am saying is that we are told by the Republican leaders that the core of the President's budget, a $2 trillion tax cut--that is your money, and they say we ought to give it back. But it is also your debt, it is also your schools that are falling down; the windows are broken, the plumbing out of shape; it is your schools; those crowded classrooms out there are your classrooms. It is your children. It is your parents who need health care, who need a prescription drug plan. Yes, it is your money, but in our scheme of things, we are elected by you to be the stewards of your money. It is your highways on which you travel. It is the safety of your highways that you have to depend upon when your wives take the children to the doctor or to the child care center, or you have to go to the hospital, or you have to go to the store, or you go to church, or you have to drive to work. It is your safety on your highways for which we are responsible. You cannot build the highways yourself. West Virginia cannot build a national system of highways, but the Federal system is what the people were talking about--those framers--when they wrote this Constitution--the Federal system. It is your money. It is a $2 trillion tax cut. What a whale of an amount of money. It may be brought to the floor, we hear, as a reconciliation bill for which debate is limited to, at most, 20 hours-- 20 hours of debate, that is all. Yet it is your money. It is this budget with its colossal $2 trillion tax cut that may return us to the deficit ditch that the 1993 plan helped us to claw our way out of after 12 years of huge deficits; that 1993 plan which my friend, the Senator from New Mexico, referred to yesterday as a model. That is the plan that helped us to scratch and crawl and dig our way out of that deficit ditch. It is a role model. Where were you? Where art thou? Where were you? the people might ask. The 1993 plan. Last week, all of the Democratic members of the Budget Committee wrote to Senator Domenici and urged him to schedule a markup. I joined with my colleagues and urged Chairman Domenici not to take the unprecedented step of failing to mark up a budget resolution. If we don't mark it up, it will send a dangerous message to the Senate about the prospects for working on a bipartisan basis in this evenly divided body. President Bush, upon several occasions during the campaign, talked about the bickering, the infighting, the bitter partisanship that was occurring in Washington. He said he wanted to stop it. He wanted to end it. He wanted to do something about it. He is right. And the people want to end it. That is why they sent 50 of us to sit on this side and 50 to sit on that side in this Senate. That is the only time that has ever happened--50-50. It has happened 37-37 upon an occasion, several decades ago, but never 50-50, which is a tie vote here. If there is ever a time when we ought to have partisanship, it isn't now. We need to work in a bipartisan manner. The President wants that. I have great respect for this President. I was inspired by his inaugural address. He didn't bow and scrape to the special interest groups. He referred to the Scriptures. Thank God we have a President who referred to the Scriptures in his inaugural speech. He talked about Good Samaritans in that speech. I will be very much opposed to his $1.6 trillion tax cut, which will amount to over $2 trillion. I will be very opposed to that tax cut. I may vote for a tax cut, but it won't be that one. That is not to say I am disrespectful of him. I just think he is wrong. On other occasions I may think he is right about a matter, but this, I think, is a colossal mistake. I think we are foolish, foolish, to talk of a $2 trillion tax cut based on projections of surpluses 10 years away, 9 years away, 8 years, whatever, which may never--and probably won't--materialize. That is taking a very important step, and it is going to impact on you, the people. So why shouldn't we have a debate? Why shouldn't we have a markup in this bill? We may report out a better measure than even the chairman has in mind. Why have we seen fit in our constitutional system to have committees? Why? If we are going to have committees, why don't we have markups on bills and let Republicans and Democrats hammer it out, hammer out the measure on the anvil of free debate? Why does any chairman want to say to the committee, I am not going to have a markup, period? Some people might think that is dictatorial, tyrannical, autocratic, arbitrary. We have had great hearings. We have had witnesses who have traveled here from all points of the compass. They have answered our questions. We have had splendid hearings--you people have attended the hearings--but we are not going to have a markup in this committee. Why? Because we are operating on a 50/50 basis. It is even-stephen in this committee. If I had a majority of one or two in the committee, yes, we would have a markup then, but we don't have a majority. The people have decided that. We don't have a majority. So whatever you say, I will listen, but we are not having a markup. Might as well not have meetings. A committee chairman may as well just say: We are not going to have any meetings. We will have a meeting in committee when I decide to and we won't have a meeting in committee when I decide we won't. That is the way it used to be. Do you believe that? It used to be that way in considerable measure. When I came to the House of Representatives 49 years ago, committee chairmen could simply bottle up legislation in their committees and not even have a meeting. I can remember a Member of the House whom I respected a great deal and admired; he was a former judge in the 16th District of Virginia. His name was Howard Smith. He represented the Eighth Congressional District of Virginia. Let me say: You know what, you know what. Howard Smith, this former judge, was chairman of the Rules Committee in the House. I have the book here, Congressional Directory, 1953, March. When matters came to his committee, he just would go on back down to the farm and tend to his farming and leave the legislation bottled up in his committee. I remember reading about it in the papers. The chairman didn't have a meeting. Where was he? He was down on his farm. So the chairmen sometimes just bottled up things in their committees. In effect, that is what is happening here. Markup of the Budget Resolution is being ``bottled up.'' Our cries and pleas and prayers are going to be of no avail because we are not going to have a markup in that committee. Well, why did I attend most of the hearings? So it is in a different form but it is the same old thing as when those chairmen used to say, we will have a hearing or we may not have a hearing, or we won't even have a meeting, and the whole session passed and there would be no meeting of the committee on many important matters. That is the way it used to be. So what happened? This is not National History Month but I am just repeating a little bit of history today. We have heard that history repeats itself. That is what we see in front of us. History is repeating itself. Here is what happened in the writing of the rules around here--I am not sure I ever read much concerning the House rules. I was there 6 years, but I didn't get so much embedded in the study of them. The rules today won't allow chairmen to do that. Let me read, as an example, from rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate. Here it is. I used to know the rules much better than I know them now. Rule 26, section 10(B)--I haven't read this lately. This is a different print. This is 1999. That was the last century, 1999. So I haven't read this one. But this is what I think is pertinent to our discussion. ``It shall be the duty.'' 10(B). It shall be the duty of the chairman of each committee to report or cause to be reported promptly to the Senate, any measure approved by his committee and to take or cause to be taken necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote. In any event, the report of any committee upon a measure which has been approved by a committee shall be filed within seven calendar days. And so on and so on. I don't think that is the pertinent part. I will ask the Parliamentarian to give me a copy of the rules and the pertinent provision which I am talking about; 26, paragraph 3. Here it is. Each standing committee--aha, here it is. Each standing committee (except the Committee on Appropriations) shall fix regular weekly, biweekly, or monthly meeting days for the transaction of business before the committee and additional meetings may be called by the chairman as he may deem necessary. If at least three members of any such committee desire that a special meeting of the committee be called by the chairman, those members may file in the offices of the committee their written request to the chairman for that special meeting. Immediately upon the filing of the request, the clerk of the committee shall notify the chairman of the filing of the request. If, within three calendar days after the filing of the request, the chairman does not call the requested special meeting, to be held within seven calendar days after the filing of the request, a majority of the members of the committee may file in the offices of the committee their written notice that a special meeting of the committee will be held, specifying the date and the hour of that special meeting. The committee shall meet on that day and hour. Immediately upon the filing of the notice, the clerk of the committee shall notify all members of the committee that such special meeting will be held and inform them of its date and hour. If the chairman of any such committee is not present at any regular, additional, or special meeting of the committee, the ranking member of the majority party on the committee who is present shall preside at that meeting. That provision applies to the Budget as to any other committee except the Appropriations Committee. So in the rules there is provision for members of a committee, if the majority of the members so wish, to insist upon and to require and to have a meeting of the committee. Now, there are two problems with this provision. One is that you have to have a majority. We have a 50/50 breakdown. In other words, in the committee we have 11-11. I haven't tested the waters to see if someone on the Republican side--with, I assume a majority, probably unanimous group of Senators on my side--would join to insist that we have a meeting of that committee, the Budget Committee, to mark up the bill. It might very well be that we would get a majority. That is the first problem. The second problem is as big or bigger. Once the committee meets at the request and insistence of a majority of the committee, if the chairman is not there, the ranking member--which means of the same party--would act as chairman. So far, so good. But the real fly in the ointment would come in the fact that that chairman can call the meeting to order and put the committee out immediately. He has fulfilled his-- the request of the majority of the committee. In other words, he doesn't have to sit there and have a long hearing or meeting. He can just call it to order and adjourn. So why do I call that to the attention of the Senate? Not as a possible--not to indicate that there is a possible avenue which would constitute a threat to the chairman. I do not do that at all. But just to remind Senators that it is there. When George Mallory, that great Britisher, was asked why he wanted to climb Mount Everest, he said ``because it's there.'' So, today, I have taken the time to point out to my colleagues, some of whom may have not read this in quite a while, myself included--that it is there. Why is it there? It is there because it needed to be there. Why did it need to be there? Because there were some chairmen in the Congress, both Houses, who just refused to have their committees meet. And if the civil rights bills or whatever were introduced, they went to the committee. That was the burying ground. They never came out of that door. So Congress said, and the people said, and the press said: We have had enough. We are going to require--we are going to put something in here by which a majority of the committee can be sure that that committee does meet. As I say, the chairman may gavel it in and gavel it out, but he has to do this before the people. Used to be these things did not have to be out in the sunlight, but you have to be in the sunshine now, so the people say. So if he wants to gavel the committee in and gavel it out, OK, he can do that. He is elected for 2 years. Probably--it is unlikely he will be expelled from the body for doing that, but there comes a time when he does have to stand before the bar of the people. If he wants to be high-handed, heavyhanded, or whatever, the people will make a judgment. So that is why we have in the rules a way to force a committee chairman to meet. We are not talking about that here, for Chairman Domenici; he is very excellent about having hearings and so on. But there is just a certain remnant of the evil that existed when chairmen could bottle up matters in their committees, not even have meetings. We have been having meetings, but we face a very serious matter of having soon to be confronted with a budget resolution which will not have been marked up in the committee, and which will have only details which will have only been provided by the chairman. I come to a close now just to say again that all I say is meant to be within the spirit of goodwill, but also to indicate my concern about what is happening in this Senate and the way it is happening. I thank the Chair and all Senators who have been waiting. Let me thank, again, my own chairman, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, for the excellent work he has done in that committee. I made it clear at the beginning, may I say to my ranking member, that I am not here posing as top man on my committee. I couldn't be, and I wouldn't want to be. The ranking member has done a very good job. But as a member of that committee, and as one who has been around here now for 49 years in this institution, I am afraid something is going on that gets to the root of this institution and will hamper the representation of the people by virtue of the fact that our hands, figuratively speaking, are going to be tied, and that we are, to an extent, being gagged to the point where it is going to be done the chairman's way. The way it is going to be done, he has been very forthright about and very frank about. It is just going to come to the Senate without the benefit of amendment. That in my opinion is not for the Senate or for the good of the Nation. So, I respectfully ask my chairman, Senator Domenici, let us follow your own advice, let us use the 1993 Reconciliation Act as a role model and have a markup. I thank all Senators for listening. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I thank him, not for what he said but I thank him for being a Senator who is independent in his thinking, who has the courage of his own convictions, and who is unafraid to state them. I thank him for his service not only to his State and the people who sent him here but also on behalf of the Senators from other States who respect that kind of integrity.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I just want to compliment the Senator from Michigan for the exemplary service she has rendered on the Budget Committee, and I thank her for her comments today. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Presiding Officer. I wanted to ask the distinguished majority leader if I might make some comments, few in number, with respect to the subject of the forthcoming action on the budget that had been mentioned. My leader on the Budget Committee is not here at the moment but I simply want to say on behalf of myself and other Members of the Budget Committee, particularly those on my side, we do really need to have a good debate on the budget. I will probably have a few additional comments later today, but for now let me just remind the Senate that according to reports, the Budget Committee will not report out a budget resolution. This will be the first time, I am told, in the history of this Budget Act that the Senate will not have the benefit of a markup in the Budget Committee. I am not saying at this point to criticize anybody, but this is something new. I am a new member of the Budget Committee so I am learning some things as we go along. I do have to make that point. The people of this country are going to be denied, as Senators will be denied, the opportunity to listen to and to engage in debate in the Budget Committee, with amendments being offered and acted upon in that committee before a budget resolution is sent to the floor. It probably won't be reported from committee, a resolution, but according to the law, it is due to be reported by April 1, April 1 being a Sunday, and we understand it is due to be reported, due to be put on the calendar without debate, without amendments in the committee, by April 2. Now, the second wrinkle in this horn is the Senate has not yet received the budget from the administration. We have received kind of a blue outline which, like the apostle Paul said, enables us to see through a glass darkly. We don't have a budget. That is not something that is unheard of, as I will say later today, and which was also emphasized yesterday by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, the very able chairman of the Budget Committee. I do have a few things, after I read the Record, that I want to say in that regard. I only want to say, Mr. Leader, whatever we can do to help the Senate to be able to examine this budget resolution when it is called up, have ample time to do it, and I want us to be able to act with some idea of what the administration is going to have in its budget. We had earlier understood that the budget would be up here on April 3. Now we are told it will be up here on April 9 which is, I believe, the first Monday or Tuesday in the recess. So we will get the budget in the recess. But by then, according to the schedule that we understand will be followed, the budget resolution will be called up in the Senate and acted upon. I will make a few additional remarks on this subject after I read the Record because my distinguished and beloved friend, Pete Domenici, chairman of the Budget Committee, made some comments yesterday, and I have no fault with that at all, but I do want to read those comments. Please understand we are being confronted very soon with a matter which is going to be very controversial, thorny, and heatedly debated at times, which is all right. But the Senate needs to be put on notice. The people need to be put on notice that this is coming. Coming events cast their shadows before them. This is an event that is casting its shadow. Unfortunately, we are not going to have an opportunity in the Budget Committee to make our wishes known. The distinguished Senator from Michigan is on the floor. She is on that committee--a very able new member. I am a new member--not so able, but a new member. But she is a very able new member and she will join with me in calling attention to this. Not much is being said about this right now, but it is out there, it is coming, and it is probably the most important subject that this Senate will discuss this year. It involves a huge tax cut. I was glad to see in the newspaper this morning that the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Domenici, is thinking of having--I don't know how accurate this is, how accurate the story is, but he is thinking in terms of having a rebate, which I think might be a very good approach. But he is also thinking of still having a 10-year approach. I haven't heard him say that. We will certainly be listening with great interest to what he has to say on this point. I thank both leaders for allowing me to take these few minutes because I don't think the time has been ill spent by my calling to the attention what lies ahead. In closing, let me thank Mr. McCain for his objections to stacked votes. That may be a thing we ought to do, not just with reference to this particular bill that is before the Senate, but we perhaps ought to object to stacked votes. I know how it would inconvenience Senators, but the people did not send me to this Senate for my convenience. I am here to serve them. And it is not in the best interests of the people that we stack votes, and for the very reasons that Mr. McCain said. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator will yield?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am a product of the West Virginia coal fields. I remember my heritage, and I am proud that it has served me well throughout my political career. I remember the legendary president of the United Mine Workers of America, John L. Lewis, who was a great student of Shakespeare, as I recall him in those days. And he once advised union coal miners of the adage: when ye be an anvil, lie very still, when ye be a hammer, strike with all thy will. Mr. President, I am not an anvil--not an anvil--which explains, in part, why I joined the Senate Budget Committee this year. First, I am very concerned about Congress approving permanent tax cuts based on highly uncertain surplus estimates, which threaten to put us back in the deficit ditch. Second, I strenuously oppose the use of the reconciliation process--now, Mr. President, that is the way I have pronounced that word for years. I was called to order a little earlier today because I did not pronounce it ``reconciliation,'' which is all right with me, just so it is understood what we are talking about--to ram a $2 trillion tax-cut package through the Senate. Such a misuse of the reconciliation process abuses the rights of every Senator to debate this significant legislation. That is an important thing. Third, in recent years, I have become increasingly concerned about the unrealistically low spending levels established by the annual budget resolutions for programs under the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee, on which I serve as the ranking member and which is chaired by the most able and distinguished Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, who recently won the award ``Alaskan of the Century.'' And I would say at this point, I think he is the Alaskan of the Century. He deserves that award. These unrealistically low funding levels in recent budget resolutions have forced the Appropriations Committee to resort to all manner of gimmicks and creative bookkeeping to ensure that we could adequately fund the 13 annual appropriations bills, despite not having sufficient resources to address the ongoing infrastructure needs of the Nation, much less begin to address the funding backlog in those funding needs in many critical areas. So as a member of the Budget Committee, my hope was that this year I would be able to assist in crafting a budget resolution that would more accurately determine the spending levels that will be necessary to produce the FY 2002 appropriations bills. I wanted to actively participate in that committee in a markup of the budgetary blueprint that will guide the Nation's fiscal policy, not only for FY 2002, but for the next decade. This year's budget resolution will address not only the discretionary funding needs to which I have alluded, but also will involve efforts to allow for perhaps a massive tax cut of $2 trillion or more, over the next 10 years. That is a big--$2 trillion is just something that is beyond my comprehension, and probably that of most Members of this body. I might say to the distinguished Senator who presently presides over the Senate that, much to his surprise, perhaps, it would take 32,000 years to count $1 trillion at the rate of $1 per second. At the rate of $1 per second, it would take 32,000 years to count $1 trillion. That is a little more money than we are used to counting in West Virginia. But when we talk about a $2 trillion tax cut, that means it would take 64,000 years to count $2 trillion at the rate of $1 per second. Perhaps that will give us some better idea of how much $1 trillion really is. This year's budget proposal will also be based on flimsy 10-year surplus projections, that, I assure you, are not worth the paper on which they are written. Marvel at how much confidence we put in projections of the surpluses over the next 10 years when we cannot really judge 24 hours ahead that the stock market is going to drop 436 points. It was for these reasons, Mr. President, that I was pleased to see that the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, and his very capable ally on the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, scheduled a series of highly informative hearings in order to enable the 22 members of the committee to have the views of an outstanding group of experts before it was time for those committee members to vote on this year's budget resolution. Committee members did benefit by actively participating in those hearings and by interacting with a vast array of expert witnesses, who addressed such important subjects as: the Nation's infrastructure needs; the need for prescription drug benefits for Medicare recipients; the need to reform Social Security and Medicare, and other health care issues, education needs; national security needs, including the need for a national missile defense system; the problems of our Nation's farmers; and questions as to how much of the national debt can be retired over the coming decade. We had an opportunity to have the views of such experts as Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan on such questions as to whether a tax cut should be enacted, and if so, how large. We had the Deputy Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Mr. Barry Anderson, testify on the CBO's projections of surpluses and the likelihood that their 10-year projections would come to pass. I know, that I gained a greater understanding through these hearings in virtually all of the aforementioned areas of national policy. Not only did my increased knowledge come from these expert witnesses, but also from the very incisive questioning of the witnesses by virtually every member of the Senate Budget Committee. Having heard these witnesses, Mr. President, and having had a chance to enter into a dialog with them regarding these great issues facing the Nation, I have become very concerned in recent weeks that the Budget Committee chairman might be entertaining the idea that there should be no committee markup of the budget resolution at all this year. I inquired of the very able chairman on two occasions during the committee's hearings as to whether the chairman intended to mark up the budget resolution. I am concerned at the prospect that the Senate will take up this year's very important budget resolution without having the benefit of the committee's views in the form of its marked-up resolution and an accompanying Budget Committee report. It is because of this concern that I joined my Democratic colleagues on the committee in signing a letter to our able committee chairman respectfully requesting a markup of the budget resolution before the April 1st statutory deadline. As pointed out in the letter, circumventing a committee markup of the budget resolution is unprecedented and has never been done before in the history of the Senate Budget Committee, as far as I have been able to determine. It ought not to be done this year, of all years. If we do not intend to mark up a budget resolution, then I ask the Senate, why did we go through the process of hearing the expert witnesses? Was this hearing process merely intended to be a charade to enable the leadership of the Senate to act as though it had fulfilled its responsibilities, while knowing all along that there was no intention of allowing any member of the committee an opportunity to participate in a committee markup? If that be true, it didn't really matter, then, in the end, perhaps, what the witnesses said or what the questions of the Senators on the committee revealed. Is none of this knowledge to be utilized during the forthcoming days of debate on the resolution? Why should we not have had a markup, a markup where Senators may offer their amendments to the chairman's recommendations and have those amendments debated and voted upon, either up or down? Having been chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate once upon a time, I know how that works. The chairman prepares, with his staff, the bill or resolution that is to be worked on by the committee, and that is what we call the chairman's mark, and, of course, it is always made available to the ranking member what the appropriations bill mark will be. Then laying it before the committee gives every member a chance to offer amendments thereto, have them voted up or down, and debate the bill. Apparently, there is some fear that such a markup of a budget resolution would result in a deadlock, that a tie vote might occur on adoption of the budget resolution. That concern should not in any way prevent the Budget Committee from marking up a budget resolution. If such an event occurs, if the committee were to be deadlocked on reporting this year's budget resolution, there would still be no impediment to having the leadership call up the budget resolution. In other words, it is provided for that such a resolution can be called up on April 1 and, if it is not reported from the committee by April 1, the committee is automatically discharged of the resolution. So the Senate could be assured that even if there were a tie vote in committee, the resolution could still be called up by the majority leader. The agreement that was entered into not so long ago by the majority leader and the Democratic leader and by the Senate as a whole provided that in the case of a tie vote in committee, the majority leader could proceed to call up the resolution. That is in accordance with the agreement, as I understood it, that we entered into earlier this year. In other words, the leadership would still have the ability to call up the Republican chairman's budget resolution. But the American people, as well as other Members of the Senate and their staffs, will have an opportunity to watch and listen to the debate, if we had a committee markup. This would be healthy for the budget process. It would greatly enhance the knowledge of those who might participate in such a markup, as well as those who might observe it. It does not bode well for the Senate or for this administration, for that matter, in my judgment, to begin this year's budget cycle on such a sour and unprecedented note. I repeat the request that we Democratic members of the committee have made in our earlier letter to the chairman of the Budget Committee, namely, that the committee convene at the earliest practicable time to mark up the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution, and that the committee meet its April 1 statutory deadline in doing so. I feel I must also address another concern that I have regarding this year's budget process. After having been told several weeks ago by various administration officials that the President's detailed budget would be received by the Senate on April 3, in time for Senators to take into account the details behind the document entitled ``A Blueprint for New Beginnings,'' we were advised just a few days ago--I believe on Monday of this week--that the Senate will not receive the detailed budget until April 9. It just so happens that April 9 falls on the Monday beginning a 2-week Easter recess, and also occurs 3 days after the Senate Republican leadership has expressed an intention of having completed Senate consideration of the budget resolution. In other words, we have learned just this past Monday that Senators will have no opportunity, none, to consider the details of the Bush administration's fiscal year 2002 budget until after the Senate has finished consideration of the budget resolution. This causes me grave concern, particularly as it relates to the levels of discretionary spending being proposed by the administration. We do not have the details of what the President intends to propose as spending levels for a myriad of Federal Government programs and activities that affect virtually every citizen of this Nation. In the document that we have received from the Bush administration entitled ``A Blueprint for New Beginnings,'' we find that table S-4 on page 188 contains the following items under the heading ``Offsets'': Non-repetition of earmarked funding $-4.3 billion; non-repetition of one-time funding, $-4.1 billion; and Program decreases $-12.1 billion. The figures again, to repeat them, $-4.3 billion, $-4.1 billion, and $-12.1 billion, minuses in each case, respectively. And following these three cuts in discretionary spending for fiscal year 2002 is a footnote which states: ``The final distribution of offsets has yet to be determined.'' So, Mr. President, we have no idea as to what the specific reductions will be for $20 billion in spending cuts that are proposed on page 188 of the President's ``blueprint'' for this year's budget. We do know that nondefense spending overall will have to be cut $5.9 billion below what the Congressional Budget Office says is necessary to maintain purchasing power for current service levels. We know the Agriculture Department will be cut by 8.6 percent. The Commerce Department will be cut by 16.6 percent. The Energy Department will be cut by 6.8 percent. The Justice Department will be cut by 8.8 percent. The Labor Department will be cut 7.4 percent. The Transportation Department will be cut by 15 percent. What we do not know--and what we cannot know until the President submits his complete budget on April 9--is what specific programs the administration proposes to cut, and by how much, in order to accommodate the President's $2 trillion tax cut plan. So we are operating in the dark; really, that is what it amounts to. Why should Senators be asked to take up and adopt a budget resolution calling for a $2 trillion tax cut without knowing the specific spending cuts that would be required? Why should we buy a pig in a poke? Why should we engage in a riverboat gamble, just like we did with the Reagan-Bush tax cut of 1981, which put us in the deficit ditch for 17 years? We ought not make that same mistake again. In recent weeks, I have seen Senators swept up in the political whirlwind, a vortex that has been blown in from Texas. Neither the Office of Management and Budget nor the Congressional Budget Office is able to accurately project surpluses at the end of the current fiscal year, let alone for 10 years. Yet the Senate will soon be considering a 10-year spending and tax cut plan. We are being asked to do so without the benefit of seeing the President's complete budget, or the benefit of having a committee markup. So I wonder if the inmates have not finally taken over the asylum. Earlier, I commented on how the budget process has deteriorated in recent years because of unrealistically tight spending caps that forced the Appropriations Committee to resort to all manner of measures to pass the 13 appropriations bills. Sometimes I wonder how Senator Ted Stevens has been able to do it. The budget process has truly taken another turn for the worse. It is a massive charade when Budget Committee members are not even allowed to mark up this year's budget resolution, or to have the benefit of the details behind the President's budget blueprint before acting on this vitally important fiscal plan for the Nation. The American people do not send us here to be anvils. They do not send us here to lie very still and simply accept whatever is put before us. The committee should be given the opportunity to hammer out an acceptable budget that will benefit all Americans. Such a budget could be hammered out upon the anvil of free and unlimited debate. I don't mind having a limitation, as far as that is concerned. I may be very opposed to such a radical tax cut, but I am not for killing it by filibuster. That would not be my desire at all. The committee members should be allowed to offer amendments and have those amendments be considered and voted upon. I studied for these hearings like a school boy preparing for an exam. I am new on the committee and I wanted to understand as much as I could about the budget and about the new President's proposals so that I could be a useful force--limited though I may be--at the committee markup. I have had my staff prepare amendments which I had hoped to offer. But, apparently, the hearings which many members so faithfully attended are going to amount to little more than a TV show with Senators on the committee serving as convenient props. Why have a Budget Committee at all if the committee is not going to be allowed to work its will on the budget resolution? Why ask questions? Why have testimony? Why take up the time of witnesses and members? Especially when the new budget embodies such radical tax cuts and deep spending cuts, the committee should be able to work its will. That is all I am asking. So I hope the distinguished Budget Committee chairman will think about this more over the weekend and reconsider his earlier announced intentions. Especially when the budget sets fiscal policy for the next 10 years, the committee should be able to work its will. Especially when the American economy has lately been behaving like a roller-coaster ride at the State fair, the committee should be able to work its will. The Budget Committee hearings must not be reduced to a ``Gong Show'' charade designed to make members feel good, but deny them any real vote. I hope the decision to avoid a markup will be revisited. I hope it will be revisited. The Senate deserves the full committee's judgment and nothing less. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, and I thank the distinguished Democratic whip, Mr. Reid, and all other Senators, for the opportunity to make these remarks. As I said earlier, I would not have come to the floor at this time were it not for the fact that I noted on the television screen that the Senate was in a prolonged quorum. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Democratic whip, Mr. Reid, for his courtesy. He is always very courteous and attentive to the needs and wishes of his colleagues. I also thank the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, for his characteristic courtesy as well. May I say I merely sought the floor because the Senate was in a quorum and had been in a quorum for quite a while; otherwise, I would not have come at this time. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order, if the time is being charged to both sides on the campaign finance legislation.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Up to this point, there has been none.

Mr. BYRD. I offered a motion to invoke cloture eight times during the 100th Congress.

Mr. BYRD. That is right. I thank the Senator, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. All right. Mr. President, when Cineas the Philosopher visited Rome in the year 280 B.C. as the envoy of Pyrrhus, the Greek general, and had witnessed the deliberations of the Roman Senate and had listened to Senators in debate, he reported that, ``Here, indeed, was no gathering of venal politicians, no haphazard council of mediocre minds.'' This was in 280 B.C. In 107 B.C., Jugurtha, that Numidian prince, was in Rome. When he was ordered by the Roman Senate to leave Italy and set out for home, after he had passed through the gates of Rome, it is said that he looked back several times in silence and finally exclaimed, ``Yonder is a city that is up for sale, and its days are numbered if it ever finds a buyer.'' What a change; what a change had come over that Senate in less than 200 years! I think we might also, with great sadness, reflect upon the report by Cineas when he referred to the Roman Senate after he had witnessed it--as I say, not as a ``gathering of venal politicians, not a haphazard council of mediocre minds,'' but in reality ``an assemblage of kings.'' What a Senate that was that he reported to Pyrrhus as being, in dignity and in statesmanship, as a ``council of kings!'' It is in even greater sadness that we noted Jugurtha's words: ``Yonder is a city up for sale, and its days are numbered if it ever finds a buyer.'' But that is what is happening in this land of ours and in this body of ours. When I came to the Senate, Jennings Randolph and I ran for two seats, and we won. He ran for the short term, the 2-year seat that had been created by the death of the late M.M. Neely, and I ran for the full term. At that time, I ran against Senator Chapman Revercomb, a fine member of the Republican Party, but Randolph and I ran on a combined war chest of $50,000: two Senators on a combined war chest of $50,000. We did not have television in those days, we did not have high-priced consultants, and our hands were not manacled by the shackles of money. Today what do we find? What does the average Senate seat cost--$6 million or $8 million? Both parties are enslaved to those who give. The special interests of the country are the people who are represented-- the special interests, for the most part. The great body of people out there are not organized, and they are not represented here. We are beholden to the special interests who give us--when we go around the country holding out a tip cup saying, ``Give me, give me, give me,'' they are the people who respond and they are the people for whom the doors are opened. They are the people for whom the telephone lines are opened when the calls come in. I offered an amendment on this floor one day, and I thought: I will at least get a half dozen votes. I got one--one vote. Those in this body on both sides who were slaves to the particular interest group on that occasion ran like turkeys to the fire escapes. I thought I would get half a dozen votes at least. I knew the amendment would not be adopted, but after hearing all the brave talk of some of the Senators on both sides, I thought: At least I will get his vote, I will get his vote, and I will get her vote. I got one vote, my own. That is what it has come to in this body. We are at the beck and call, we know the feel of the whiplash when the votes come, and we are owned by the special interest groups. That does not mean that every Senator does not have a free will. Senators exercise that free will about which Milton spoke in ``Paradise Lost''--freedom of the will. That does not mean that the conscience of every Senator here is bought, that his vote is bought. It does not mean that at all, but it means that in our day and time, it cannot be said of this Senate that it is not a gathering of venal politicians. In Jugurtha's words: ``Yonder is a city up for sale, and its days are numbered if it ever finds a buyer.'' Mr. President, as one who has been in this body now going on 43 years, I mourn the days of old when I came here. We still have good Senators. They are bright, they are dedicated, but the yoke, the Roman yoke that they have to go under to come here, is appalling--appalling. It is sad. I compliment those on both sides who are seeking to do something about it, who are trying hard to deal with reality here and in such a way that the people might still look upon this body with some confidence and respect. Yet, I do not think that they will be overly successful in the effort.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what are the rules guiding debate at this point?

Mr. BYRD. What a mess.

Mr. BYRD. Without the amendment being offered?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. In the midst of this very important discussion on a very serious subject, if we could take just a few minutes to call attention to the coming of spring. It used to be that Senators would take note of these things years ago when I first came here. They would talk about Flag Day, Independence Day, Easter, the Fourth of July--I already mentioned that--and the coming of spring, the coming of summer, the coming of fall, the coming of winter, and so on. Those things do not seem to be of great interest around here anymore. But as one who has been here a long time, I still like to hold on to the old ways. Percy Bysshe Shelley said: Oh, Wind, if Winter comes, can Spring be far behind? Well, spring is here. I was asked by my friend from Nevada, Senator Reid, if I might think of a poem that could be appropriate for this occasion. I have thought a little bit about it, and the words of William Wordsworth come to mind. I hope I can remember them. He said: I wander'd lonely as a cloud That floats on high o'er vales and hills, When all at once I saw a crowd, A host of golden daffodils; Beside the lake, beneath the trees, Fluttering and dancing in the breeze. Continuous as the stars that shine And twinkle on the Milky Way, They stretch'd in never-ending line Along the margin of a bay: Ten thousand saw I, at a glance, Tossing their heads in sprightly dance. The waves beside them danced; but they Out-did the sparkling waves in glee: A poet could not but be gay, In such a jocund company: I gazed--and gazed--but little thought What wealth the show to me had brought: For oft, when on my couch I lie In vacant or in pensive mood, They flash upon that inward eye Which is the bliss of solitude; And then my heart with pleasure fills, And dances with the daffodils. Mr. President, today is the first spring day of the third millennium. We have survived the great change of the calendar, and the world did not end. We endured the buffeting of a winter of uncertainty, with skyrocketing fuel bills--and we are still very much engaged in that matter--threats of nor'easters--I wonder why these television people always say ``nor'easters.'' They just are trying to join in the spirit of things, I suppose. But I still call them northeasters--threats of nor'easters and even earthquakes now behind us. The NASDAQ, the New York Stock Exchange, the Dow, the S&P 500--all have been on a roller coaster ride of short heights followed by heart- stopping plunges. The uncertainties of last year's Presidential election have become a comedic staple of dimpled, pregnant, and hanging chads, the punch lines obscuring the gravity of ensuring the stable transition of government power. But today, it is spring--it may not be the first spring day, but it is the first day of spring--and it is a good time to pause, and take a deep breath--ah--and savor the moment. The change of seasons is a reassuring constant in our lives. The slow swing of the celestial clock chimes in close harmony with our deepest nature. It is as deep and calm as our own mother's, keeping time with the lullabies she used to lull us to sleep with, as infants. Today, the peals ring in the spring. Across the country, warm days call us forth, out of our stale houses, away from our rumpled, dormant winter hibernations in front of yammering, yakking television sets. As we rake the drifts of dead leaves from the sheltered corners where they have gathered, we stir up the sweet perfume--ah, the sweet perfume--of the awakening earth. Under the cold brown coverlet of dirt, spring's life-force is beginning to stir. The dainty crocus sparkle amid the straw colored remains of last year's lush lawn. I was commenting to my wife Erma about those crocuses outside, just beside the front porch of our house. Gaudy daffodils, about which Wordsworth wrote, reward the early bumblebee. Young squirrels are chasing--and they like peanuts. I have several squirrels at my humble cottage in McLean, and each night I take a handful of peanuts and put them under a table there just outside the door that goes out into my backyard. Those squirrels, by the time I rise in the morning, by the time I have a chance to take my little dog Billy Byrd out for a walk, sneak away, taking those peanuts from underneath the table. Then I will, a little later, open the door, and there are two, three, four, five, or six squirrels, and I toss them out a handful of peanuts. Those young squirrels are chasing each other up and down and around tree trunks in a three-ring circus display of acrobatics. Talk about acrobatics, they can put on a show. Already, the first robins have returned, and birds are warbling their finest arias in between the labors of nest building. The turquoise skies of autumn faded to the pale aquamarine of winter, but now glow as vibrantly as a star sapphire. Again rejoicing Nature sees Her robe assume its vernal hues, Her leafy locks wave in the breeze, All freshly steep'd in morning dews. So wrote the poet Robert Burns. With all these signals, I do not need a calendar to tell me that the vernal equinox heralding the official arrival of spring is at hand. In the rejuvenating warmth of the spring sun, the dot.com die-off no longer looms as threateningly as the extinction of the dinosaurs. It is possible to view the stock market correction--I say to my dear friend from Connecticut, Senator Dodd--with equilibrium, if not with enthusiasm. We have made it through another winter, a winter of our discontent, to paraphrase Shakespeare. The great Bard also said--and truly--``Daffodils, that come before the swallow dares, and take the winds of March with beauty.'' With the daffodils, hope also blossoms. Mr. President, I hope for a spring of millennial proportions--a spring of renewed vigor and energy in this nation to tackle the challenges ahead. I hope for new growth in our economy. Over the past weeks, the Senate has been debating the budget and tax cuts. It has been a difficult task, made more so by the lack of detail provided by the administration. The size of the tax cut promise has been clear, but the spending plans to accompany it have been vague. The administration is asking us to trade our cow for a handful of magic beans but, unlike Jack in the fable, I am not so sure that this fairy tale will end well. It may be that the giant comes crashing down on us in the form of large future deficits. After all, these projected surpluses are based upon projections of economic growth that have not, and may not, materialize. Every good gardener knows, especially in springtime, that garden plans made in the glow of a winter's fireside do not always pan out when faced with the vagaries of late frosts, early droughts, or insect infestations. Indeed, one fierce storm can lay low all of one's efforts in a single blow. A wise gardener dreams big but takes care of the basics first. He builds rich soil, clears it, weeds it well, plants strong seedlings, and tends to them carefully. Patience and a long viewpoint are the watchwords. On the national economic level, that means paying down the debt and maintaining the economic infrastructure that is the soil for our current and future economic growth. Just as a garden needs hoses to carry water and flats in which to tend seedlings, so the nation needs transportation networks to carry commerce and schools in which to nurture and teach our children. Then as prosperity blossoms can some blooms be harvested in the form of targeted tax cuts, leaving most of the plant intact to set seeds and prepare for the coming winter. But one certainly does not pull up the entire plant at the first sign of fruit! That is short-sighted and imprudent. It leaves nothing to carry the family through the winter that will surely come. But now, Mr. President, it is springtime and everything feels possible. Let us rejoice--my dear friend, Senator McCain, and Senator Dodd, an equally dear and trusted friend--let us rejoice in the new growth and in the growing strength of the brightening sun. Let us take up with patience the gardener's hoe and weed the row before us. Our diligence and care now will bring us rewards later. Let us savor the moment and rejoice in the first day of spring. Who knows whether we shall see another, so let us rejoice in this one. I close with the words of the poet Robert Browning that have always captured for me the spirit of this time of year: The year's at the Spring, And the day's at the morn; Morning's at seven; The hillside's dew-pearled; The lark's on the wing; The snail's on the thorn: God's in his Heaven-- All's right with the world!

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend for his overly gracious comments.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my friend.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on February 28, 2001, President Bush sent to the Congress his fiscal year 2002 budget outline entitled, ``A Blueprint for New Beginnings.'' Sadly, this budget is a blueprint for putting tax cuts for the wealthy at the front of the line, above all of the needs of the American people. Now I say to my colleagues, caution, we have not yet seen the real budget. The President's budget will be sent up to the Hill in the early part of April. We have not seen it yet. So I would suggest to all of us that we go slowly until we see the fine print in the President's budget. What we have seen thus far is a mere blueprint entitled ``A Blueprint for New Beginnings.'' But I say again, this is a blueprint for putting tax cuts for the wealthy at the front of the line, above all other needs of the American people. The President's Budget allocates 80 percent, over $2 trillion of the $2.5 trillion non-Social Security, non-Medicare surplus, on tax cuts. Two trillion dollars. Does anyone know how long it would take to count $1 trillion at the rate of $1 per second? It would take 32,000 years--32,000 years--to count $1 trillion at the rate of $1 per second. The President's budget allocates 80 percent, over $2 trillion--that would take 64,000 years to count at the rate of $1 per second--of the $2.5 trillion non-Social Security/non-Medicare surplus on tax cuts. I believe the President is not on the same page--I say this respectfully about the President--with the American people. I keep hearing this said: ``Give the money back to the people. Give the people their money back.'' Well, we are going to give a few of the rich people in this country a lot of money back, if this tax cut is passed as proposed. Don't we also owe the people clean water? Don't we also owe the people modern highways, safe bridges, a reliable energy supply, and modern school buildings for their taxes? It is their money. Yes. It is also their school buildings, also their highways, their bridges, their debt, the public debt. Isn't it true that this country's infrastructure, its supply of clean water, its sewers, its transportation capabilities, its energy delivery systems are vitally important to a healthy economy? These things are vital to support thriving businesses. They enhance productivity. They provide jobs. They are basic to the quality of life for our people. A strong infrastructure is basic to a strong economy. We can't continue to expect the performance of an eight-cylinder economy if we refuse to clean the spark plugs and tune up the engine. Our Nation's infrastructure is fast becoming a Model T, riding on retread tires. Yet, this administration seems to believe that the old buggy can continue to keep rolling with no maintenance and no repairs. I submit that putting a few dollars back into the pockets of the rich--and I have nothing against a person being rich; I wish I could be rich; that was never one of my fondest dreams, never one of my goals in life to become rich--is no substitute for addressing crumbling schools, outdated highways, and dirty drinking water, and on and on and on. Yes, it is the people's money, but it is also the people's dirty drinking water. It is also the people's crumbling schools. These things are the first responsibility of Government, and they are what we owe the people for their taxes. They are things the people cannot provide for themselves. I was a Member of Congress when President Eisenhower advocated legislation establishing the Interstate Highway System. I voted for that. I have voted for the taxes to build it. These are things the people cannot provide for themselves. People cannot provide interstate highways, a national system of highways for themselves. By putting tax cuts at the head of the line, the President does not leave enough of the surpluses--although he may say otherwise; he may be advised otherwise, but it is not true--to adequately fund programs that meet the needs of the Nation. You people out there watching through those electronic eyes, I am talking about you. You are the taxpayers of the country. It is your children in the dilapidated schools. It is your children who are in the crowded classrooms. The President's budget proposes to increase discretionary spending by just 4 percent, barely enough to adjust for inflation. Much of this increase, however, is for defense programs. I don't complain about national defense. I have helped to build this country's defenses with my votes and with my taxes, too. While defense programs are increased $3.1 billion, which is 1 percent above baseline--and baseline is last year's appropriation plus inflation, so the President's budget provides for 1 percent above that, above last year's budget plus inflation and then add another 1 percent; that is for defense--while defense programs are increased $3.1 billion above baseline for fiscal year 2002, nondefense programs are cut $5.9 billion or 1.6 percent below baseline, baseline being last year's appropriation, plus inflation. The President's budget is not going to add plus inflation. He is going to cut below baseline for nondefense programs. Senators, wait until you see this President's budget. Wait until you can see the fine print. In revolutionary war terms, ``wait until you see the whites of their eyes.'' I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, wait until you see the fine print in this President's budget. When are we going to see it? It will be after April Fools' Day, sometime in early April. The Senate Budget Committee has estimated that domestic programs that are not Presidential initiatives--get that, domestic programs that are not Presidential initiatives--will be cut by 6.6 percent in fiscal year 2002. Most of these cuts are not yet specified in the budget for review. They are not in that blue outline about which I am talking. This is what we have to go on up to now, ``a Blueprint for New Beginnings.'' I have read this thing from cover to cover, as they say, but that is not it yet. That is not the fine print. This is just the bare skeleton. You can see through it, as Paul said, ``through a glass darkly.'' After 2002, discretionary spending grows with inflation, not population. This means we will be spending less on man, woman, and child in America. Despite the fact that the Census Bureau is predicting that the country's population will grow by 8.9 percent by 2010--that is not far away--the President's budget provides no resources--none--to deal with that growth. I have been around a long time. I can remember that when I graduated from high school, there were 130 million people in this country. When I was born, there were 100 million, in 1917. Today, there are 280 million. The population, we hear, will grow by 8.9 percent by 2010. The President's budget provides no resources--none--to deal with that growth. Nor does the budget include resources to respond to a recognized long-term infrastructure deficit in this country. Over the next 5 years, nondefense programs are cut $24.5 billion below baseline. So, Senators, before we get on board for this colossal tax cut for the wealthy, just back off a little bit, just hold on and say, whoa, let's wait and see the fine print. Let's see how that affects the people back home, the people who send you here. The President calls the surplus ``the people's money.'' Have you heard that expression? You are going to keep on hearing it a lot. And he is right, it is the people's money. And we are elected by the people to make the right choices, the disciplined choices, about the use of their money. The Wall Street Journal of March 8, 2001, contained the results of a recent poll that asked this question: If taxes are cut this year, would you prefer a large tax cut or a smaller tax cut and one of the following: I will read that again: If taxes are cut this year, would you prefer a large tax cut or a smaller tax cut and one of the following: It goes on to enunciate as ``one of the following'': A smaller tax cut and more education. So would you prefer a large tax cut or a smaller tax cut and more education funding? Which would you rather have: A large tax cut, the so-called $1.6 trillion tax cut the President is talking about; or would you prefer a smaller tax cut and more education funding? Well, 64 percent of adults responded, yes, they prefer a smaller tax cut and more education funding; 64 percent preferred that against 30 percent who preferred a large tax cut. Now the next bars in the graph indicate a response to this question: Would you prefer a large tax cut or a smaller tax cut and more Social Security funding? The chart shows that 65 percent of the respondents answered they would prefer a smaller tax cut and more Social Security funding. Only 29 percent preferred to have the large tax cut. Then the third category: Would you prefer a large tax cut--let's say the President's proposed tax cut of $1.6 trillion--although it is growing every day--or would you prefer a smaller tax cut and paying down the national debt? Well, the respondents answered that question, and 60 percent said they prefer to pay down the national debt; 32 percent preferred the large tax cut. So, again, I will say the President is not on the same page with the American people. We have had a series of hearings in the Senate Budget Committee that have exposed a number of important, unanswered questions about the President's budget. His tax cuts are based on highly uncertain 10-year surplus estimates. The Congressional Budget Office, which prepared those surplus estimates, projects that there is only a 10-percent chance their surplus estimates for 2006 will be correct. The CBO witness testified before the committee that the probability of the 10- year surplus estimates coming through shrinks even further by 2011. Yet the costs of the President's tax cut proposal explode in the outyears--meaning the years 2007 through 2011. Over 72 percent of the revenue losses from the tax cuts occur between fiscal years 2007 and 2011, and these cuts total at least $344 billion per year, beginning in fiscal year 2011. Let me say that again. If we take a microscope and look at these projections concerning surpluses and put them alongside the tax cut proposal, we find that the probability of the 10-year surplus estimate coming through shrinks. After having said there is only a 10-percent chance that that surplus estimate for 2006 will be correct, it goes on to say that the probability of the surplus estimate coming through shrinks even further by 2011. Yet, on the other side of the coin, the costs of the President's tax cut proposal explode in the outyears. They are backloaded, you see--the years 2007 through 2011. Over 72 percent of the revenue losses from the tax cuts occur between fiscal years 2007 and 2011, and these cuts total at least $344 billion per year beginning in fiscal year 2011. Let me ask you, the public out there, as I look through these electric eyes here: If we can't project 24 hours in advance that the stock market is going to drop 436 points--in 1 day, within 24 hours--if we can't project 24 hours ahead that we are going to have this big loss in the stock market of 436 points, how can we project 10 years out and say the surpluses will be this much, or that much, or some other amount? We are living in a fool's paradise when we gamble on such estimates. My good friend, Howard Baker, referred to the Reagan tax cut of 1981 as a riverboat gamble. That is what they were talking about. Apparently gambling is not out of style. This is another riverboat gamble. This administration's plan would sap the budget of the resources needed to solve the Social Security and Medicare crises that loom just over the horizon due to the impending retirement of the baby boom generation. The baby boom generation--it just started about the time I got into politics, about 1946. That was the beginning. So the baby boom generation will really be retiring about 10 years from now. Currently, 45 million people receive Social Security and that number is expected to grow to 60 million in the year 2015. Yet the Social Security trustees estimate that Social Security expenditures will exceed receipts in 2015. Currently, 40 million people receive Medicare, and the number is expected to grow to 46 million in 2010. Yet the Medicare trustees estimate that Medicare expenditures will exceed receipts in 2010. That is just 9 years away. Despite the 407-2 vote in the House last month and similar votes in the House and Senate last year to protect the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund, the budget does not even project the existing $526 billion Medicare surplus for Medicare, instead putting it into a fantasy reserve, an Alice in Wonderland reserve, a fantasy reserve, to be used for ``unspecified purposes.'' Now, does that cause you to remember anything about the Reagan tax cut in 1981 where they had a $44 billion magic asterisk--$44 billion magic asterisk. Those were ``unspecified'' cuts. Nobody knew what cuts. But really in the minds of the planners back then they had Social Security in mind, Social Security and Medicare. That is what they had in mind. But they didn't quite have the nerve to come out and say so. So they just put a little asterisk down at the bottom of the page. The ``magic asterisk'' it was called. We are seeing the same thing over again. History does repeat itself. The American people expect the President--here is what they expect the President to do--to put forward a serious, disciplined budget that addresses their long-term needs. That is what they expect. Yet the President is offering the people candy first, putting tax cuts in front of the hard work of fixing Social Security and Medicare. That is hard work. That is going to take some political capital, and politicians will have to expend some of that political capital when it comes to fixing Social Security and Medicare. But just hold on a moment, we will wait on that. Put the tax cuts first. We will give them the candy first. It is very disturbing that Congress is moving ahead on the tax cut in the absence of a complete budget. A few days ago, the House of Representatives passed the first of several bills that cut taxes. The first bill alone cuts taxes by almost $1 trillion; yet the House has not taken up a budget resolution. We do not even have a full budget, as I said earlier, from the President. Most of the details of the President's budget are not expected to be sent to Congress until after the debate on the budget resolution next month. The President is telling the American people, in essence, let's serve up the candy now and put off the tough questions on what programs will be cut until later. Instead of a menu designed to nourish the Nation with the vitamins needed for healthy growth, I can see only a sweet snack of tax candy. The President's tax cut proposal could put us back on the course toward deficits, returning us to the days when we had to spend the Social Security surplus for day-to-day Federal operations. By undermining fiscal discipline, this could return us to the days of high interest rates, making the average wage earner's mortgage, education, and automobile more expensive. We should not return to an era of deficits like the 1980s. We have been down the road of big tax cuts and promised surpluses, and we ended up where? In the ditch. When President Reagan presented his first budget to the Congress, he, too, proposed big tax cuts and future surpluses. There are not many in this town who remember that President Reagan's 5-year budget plan projected surpluses for fiscal year 1984, $1 billion; fiscal year 1985, $6 billion; and fiscal year 1986, $28 billion. Those were the projected surpluses. Congress passed a tax cut bill that reduced revenues by over $2 trillion from fiscal year 1981 to fiscal year 1991. Did the Reagan administration projections of surpluses come to pass? No. In fact, precisely the opposite occurred. The fiscal year 1984 deficit was not a surplus of $1 billion but a deficit of $185 billion. The fiscal year 1985 deficit was not a surplus of $6 billion, but a deficit of $212 billion. And the fiscal year 1986 deficit was not a surplus of $28 billion, which we were promised, but it was a deficit of $221 billion. That was an error, that was just a small error amounting to $653 billion over just 3 years. How much is $1 billion? $1 billion is a dollar for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. That is $1 billion. It doesn't sound like that much when it is jingling in your pocket, or you are making big promises to the taxpayer. But it is $1 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. We are talking about an error not of $1 billion but of $663 billion over 3 years. The President asked his Secretary of Defense to undertake a thorough review of the defense needs of the Nation. I am for that review. I support the President's proposal. As he stressed in his address to the joint session last month, he wanted a policy first, with a budget to follow. In fact, the President said, these are his words ``our defense vision will drive our defense budget. Not the other way around.'' It makes sense to me. I also think the President should have the same philosophy for our domestic needs. Our domestic vision should drive our domestic budget, not the other way around. If the defense review results in further proposed increases for defense, the budget is not clear on whether those increases will have to be absorbed within the 4- percent increase proposed in the budget. If that is the case, domestic programs, which are already $5.9 billion below baseline, will have to be cut even more. Already, this budget leaves infrastructure needs, education, science, technology, and many other domestic programs, behind. This budget continues to let the underpinnings of our economy slide into disrepair and neglect. No help is on the way in this budget blueprint. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, one-third of the nation's roads are in poor or mediocre condition, costing American drivers an estimated $5.8 billion and contributing to as many as 13,800 highway fatalities annually. As of 1998, 29 percent of the Nation's bridges were structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. It is estimated that it will cost $10.6 billion a year for 20 years to eliminate all bridge deficiencies. Capital spending on mass transit must increase 41 percent just to maintain the system in its present condition. Airport congestion delayed nearly 50,000 flights in one month alone last year. Seventy-five percent of our nation's school buildings are inadequate to meet the needs of schoolchildren. The average cost of capital investment needed is $3,800 per student. The nation's 54,000 drinking water systems face an annual shortfall of $11 billion needed to replace facilities that are nearing the end of their useful life and to comply with Federal water regulations. In 1955 I traveled around the world in an old Constellation. We traveled for 68 days, I believe it was. They call that a junket these days. We went to the Middle East and we saw people there carrying their water around in what appeared to be gasoline cans. We traveled around the world. I saw the Taj Mahal; I saw the pyramids of Egypt; I saw many beautiful sites in many lands. But the most beautiful site I saw on the whole trip was the little red lights flashing on the top of the Washington Monument on the night I returned. I was able to go to the house, turn the faucet, and get a drink of good, clean water. I had been in many countries where we couldn't drink the water--couldn't drink the water. So we take our blessings for granted--clean water. Yet there are places in this country where the water is not clean. There are places in the great cities of this country where the water is not clean. And some sewer systems are 100 years old or over 100 years old. Currently, there is a $12 billion annual shortfall in funding for infrastructure needs in this category. Give the people back their money? Yes. Remember, it is their dirty water, also; their sewer systems. Right here in the District of Columbia, take a look at the potholes. Read about what happens to the sewer system in this city. There are more than 2,100 unsafe dams in the United States. There were 61 reported dam failures in the past 2 years. Since 1990, actual capacity has increased only 7,000 megawatts per year, an annual shortfall of 30 percent. More than 10,000 megawatts of capacity must be added each year until 2008 to keep up with the 1.8 percent annual growth in demand. President Bush's budget does not respond to these needs. The Bush budget could leave billions of dollars of gas tax receipts sitting in the Highway Trust Fund rather than helping us develop our highways, bridges and mass transit systems for the 21st century. According to the Federal Highway Administration, less than half of the miles of roadway in rural America are considered to be in good or very good condition. Of the road miles in rural America, 56.5 percent are in fair to poor condition. The people's money? Yes. Whose highway? The people's highway. Conditions are even worse in urban America, where 64.6 percent of the road miles are considered to be in some level of disrepair, and only 35.4 percent of urban roadways are considered to be in good or very good condition. Violence pervades our schools. Our students score poorly when pitted against students from other countries. Seventy percent of our 4th graders have difficulty even reading. The people's money? Yes, it is the people's money. But we are talking about the people's children. While the President takes credit for proposing an 11.5 percent increase in education programs, the Education Secretary has testified that the actual increase is just 5.9 percent. The President's increase of 5.9 percent just doesn't make the grade. A study by the National Center for Education Statistics, in June, 2000, the ``Condition of America's Public School Facilities: 1999,'' estimated that the total cost of putting the nation's public schools in good repair is $127 billion. The people's money? Yes, it is the people's money. But it is the people's school buildings. A 1994 General Accounting Office study put the cost of school renovations at $112 billion. Of the schools surveyed in the more recent study, half reported at least one building feature, such as heating, plumbing, roofs, or sprinklers and fire alarms, in less than adequate condition, and nearly half reported at least one environmental factor, such as ventilation, security or indoor air quality, in unsatisfactory condition. The average age of a public school is 40 years; the functional age, that is, the age since the last major renovation, is 16 years. Yet the Bush budget proposes to eliminate the Federal program that is specifically designed for renovating schools. Our needs for clean water projects are growing. Wastewater treatment plants prevent pollutants from reaching America's rivers, lakes, and coastlines. They prevent water-borne disease, keep our waters safe for fishing and swimming, and preserve our natural resources like the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, and Colorado River. However, the President proposes only level funding for the national program and he proposes to eliminate about $350 million of projects that were earmarked by Congress last year. We have learned that just through this outline, this blue book, ``A Blueprint For New Beginnings.'' That is the large print, and not all the large print. Wait until we see the budget; just wait until we see the small print. Then I will make another speech, if it is the Good Lord's will, and I am still here. Energy programs are proposed for over $700 million in cuts this year, including steep cuts in programs designed to promote energy independence, such as energy efficiency and renewable programs and fossil fuel programs. The President's Budget proposes cuts below baseline of 2 percent for the National Science Foundation, 2 percent for NASA and 7 percent for the Department of Energy. In the March 9, 2001 New York Times, Dr. D. Allan Bromley stated that the major driver of our nation's economic success is scientific innovation. He stressed that many economists attribute much of America's 1990's boom to increased productivity stemming, in large part, from scientific research. He concluded that the cuts proposed in the budget are, ``a self-defeating policy''. Dr. Bromley was the science and technology adviser to President George H. W. Bush from 1989 to 1993. I could not agree with him more. What are we leaving to America's children? How much longer can we afford to ignore the infrastructure needs of this nation? If we hand them a worn out 19th century infrastructure which cannot support a vital economy, what do we tell them. We can tell them: We gave your parents a tax cut. That is what we can tell our children. I am not against tax cuts. I want to see us wipe out this marriage penalty that subsidizes the cohabitation of people who are not married. I want to wipe that out, or at least cut it. So I am for some tax cut. But if we leave our children with dirty water, antiquated schools, poor mass transit, rusting bridges, what do we tell them? We gave your parents a tax cut. Can't you be happy with that? If the projections are wrong, and we go back in debt, bequeathing our children nothing tangible except red ink and interest payments, will they really appreciate the government's generosity in giving their parents a tax cut? Instead, as I look at the President's budget priorities we haven't seen them up close; we just see them through a glass--and that is what a budget is, a statement of priorities--I see a plan that focuses on an enormous tax cut instead of supporting efforts to promote school safety. After the school shooting in California last week, one of the students commented that he believed that the presence of a police officer who is regularly on campus helped to save lives when the gunfire broke out. The ``COPS in Schools'' program has been a valuable resource for students, teachers and school administrators. It has helped to stop would-be violent acts at schools before they start. Yet the Bush administration's budget proposes to ``redirect''--. Remember that word ``redirect.'' I find that word in this so-called ``A Blueprint for New Beginnings.'' I find that word ``redirect'' in that blueprint more than once. It is an interesting word. See how it is used. I have strong concerns about the word redirect--to redirect $1.5 billion from Department of Justice grant programs like COPS. The President is not on the same page with the American people. Mr. President, we are a nation of dreamers. We dream of a better life for all of our people. We dream of a brighter future for all of our children. We are inspired by a challenge--we rise to it, we embrace its promise, we enjoy righting wrongs, breaking new ground, achieving the impossible. When our collective will is engaged, and we agree to put resources behind a challenge, the United States can be an awesome force for remarkable progress and for good in the world. We need leadership to fully galvanize our attention. Yet, when that combination of American determination and drive is motivated by a vision, great things can be achieved. Witness space exploration and putting a man on the moon; witness beating the old Soviet Union in the arms race; witness mapping the human genome for which the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Mr. Domenici, is to be given great credit. This is something that originated in the brain of a Member of this body to support this research. Witness the mapping of the human genome and all of the other mind- boggling advances in science and medicine over the last 50 years. But, where is the leadership and inspiration for this new millennium? I find none in the trumpeting of a tax cut, and this tax cut in particular. I see no call to make the world a better place for our children. I see no appeal to mount a massive effort to beat cancer or aids. I see no drive to make our children the best educated in the world. I hear no determination to make us energy independent. I hear nothing about a Moon shot to make our Nation energy independent. I hear nothing about a Moon shot to make our children the best educated children. I hear nothing about a Moon shot to conquer cancer. I was here when Sputnik burst forth from the headlines of the Nation's newspapers and the world's newspapers. I heard John F. Kennedy say, ``We are going to put a man on the Moon,'' and we did that. We put a man on the Moon and brought him back safely to Earth again. Yes. We made the world safer for democracy. We participated in two world wars. We had the dream of the Marshall Plan. We had the dream finally culminating in the breaking down and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall. We remember the Berlin airlift. President Harry Truman was determined to break that Soviet ring that had Berlin enclosed. We didn't back away from that challenge. The Interstate Highway System was another dream. We hear no determination to do great things today. The centerpiece of this administration is not a dream. It is not a great dream. It is not a great call for a Moon shot to beat back the ravages of cancer, tuberculosis, sugar diabetes, and the other diseases that confront our people. We hear only a call for huge tax cuts for the wealthy. I hear no appeal to American pride to repair our dilapidated system of transportation. Our roads, our bridges, our mass transit systems, our airports, our national parks should be the envy of the world. What has happened to our pride in American know how, American skills, American research, and America as a show place to inspire visitors to our shores with the tangible achievements of this great experiment in representative democracy? Are we to forgot our glory days? Are we to settle for smaller dreams, and more limited horizons. Is this what we are going to settle for? Do we tell our children that we didn't want to go for bigger things because we gave their parents a tax cut? I hear no call to greatness in this peddling of massive tax cuts. I hear only a veiled appeal to greed and to distrust of government. The President is not on the same page with the American people. The American people, according to these polls, are not asking for a refund. They are not asking for a refund. They want their government to lead. They want their government to inspire. They want their government to do the great things for the country, the very things they pay their taxes for. That is what they want. In short, they are not asking for their money back. They want their money's worth. And a king's ransom of a tax cut will be worth nothing to them if it shortchanges our Nation's children and downsizes our dreams. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I yield 1 minute to the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from California is very gracious, and she was welcome to whatever time I have been able to yield to her.