Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from California yield briefly?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I revere the Senator from New York. He came to the Senate in 1977. He went on the committee. What he has just said astonishes me--that he was asked to leave the room in this Republic-- ``a republic, Madam, if you can keep it.''

Mr. BYRD. So that the courts can also.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. I yield the Senator 4 minutes still. That still leaves me, I understand, 30 minutes or more.

Mr. BYRD. The Senator asked for 2 minutes. I will give him 4. Mr. President, let me say to the Senator, the Patients' Bill of Rights, absolutely, if there is an opportunity to pass that, if it takes twice, if it takes three times, if it takes six times, fine, I am for it. Minimum wage: I am one who used to work at less--less--than the minimum wage by far. If we pass it, yes. So we are not in disagreement on that. I think the Senator referenced, a little earlier, two times when I have felt that we are calling up an amendment just as a political amendment and doing it over and over and over again. That is different from what he is speaking of. I am not for that. I am not for taking the time on an amendment which has no opportunity, no future, no possibility of passing. But in these cases, it is obvious. And the way he has described these has produced such a vivid picture of need that I am very supportive of trying again. There are reasons why one might try again and win. And the Senator has just stated it with reference to the Patients' Bill of Rights. So I congratulate this Senator, who does so much for the Senate, who has so much to offer, who has such great talents, and who does not hide those talents in a napkin but produces fivefold or tenfold. I congratulate him and salute him. I thank him for what he has said on the Senate floor today. So I have yielded him 4 minutes. And I have taken how much?

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. OK. That is a reasonable request. I hope in the meantime, the distinguished Senator from Nevada, who is the distinguished minority whip, will be on the floor. I hope he will, and he will see to it that Senators will be recognized on time that was in the order for my control, if they are going to be recognized, and they not be recognized on that time unless they are speaking on this subject.

Mr. BYRD. On what the distinguished Senator is saying, the difference between a lynching and a fair trial is process. Mr. President, I have to be away from the Senate for about an hour and a half. I have to meet with my wife of 63 years, so I must leave the floor. I ask unanimous consent that no time be charged against my time, time that is under my control, unless that time is being used on the subject that is before the Senate. In other words, if no Senator is on the floor to speak on this subject, and he or she wishes to speak on some other subject, that he can get time but that it not be charged against the time on this matter. There are several Senators who wish to speak on this. But for the moment, I am going to take the liberty of yielding control of time--oh, the minority whip is here; he will take care of that matter. He will be in control of time. I make that request.

Mr. BYRD. Is the Senator asking a question?

Mr. BYRD. I yield an additional 15 minutes overall to the Senator from California. Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa said something here which is a truism--among other things--that there are many who look upon the rules and the precedence of the Senate as gobbledygook, as inside baseball. Now I daresay those same narrow-minded, uninformed people, whoever they are, would say the very same about this Constitution of the United States or this Declaration of Independence, both of which are in this little book which I hold in my hand. They would say the same thing about the Constitution of the United States, and those rules of the Senate are there by virtue of this Constitution. I urge them to read the Constitution again. I also urge them to read what Thomas Jefferson said, what Vice President Adlai Stevenson said, what Lyndon Johnson said, and what other great leaders who are now in the past said about the right to amend and the right to debate. I will say what Adlai Stevenson said: They know not what they do. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Would the distinguished Senator from California yield me time to respond to the distinguished Senator from Iowa?

Mr. BYRD. I want to clarify one thing. The distinguished Senator from California earlier, I think, indicated that she and I were in disagreement on this. We are not. In the Senate, there is no rule of germaneness except when cloture is invoked and except when rule XVI is invoked. But a rule XVI invocation can be waived only by a majority vote--not a two-thirds vote but by a majority. We have done that many times. When a Senator has raised the question of germaneness, I have from time to time voted with that question to make that germane. She and I really are not in disagreement. She has well stated, and so has the distinguished Senator from Iowa, the reasons why so many Senators are forced to offer legislative amendments on appropriations bills. It is because the legislative measures are not brought up in the Senate. So they have to resort to the only vehicle that is in front of them, that being an appropriations bill. Look at this calendar. This calendar is filled with bills, many of them which have never gone to the committee. Many of them have been put directly on the calendar through rule XIV, and they have never been before a committee. They went before a committee in the House, come from the House, and are put directly on the Senate calendar, or bills are offered by Senators, brought up, and through rule XIV are placed on the calendar. I counted the number of items on this calendar the other day that have been placed directly on the calendar for one reason or the other, one being rule XIV. I counted the number. I don't remember what it was. There are quite a wide number of amendments that are on the calendar that have never seen or experienced any debate in a Senate committee. We have 71 pages making up this calendar. Senators who want to offer amendments have to understand, there is nothing but appropriations bills to which to offer amendments.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator from California will yield.

Mr. BYRD. They are much worse, and they are growing worse and worse and worse every day and every election. It is a disgrace and it is demeaning. The most demeaning thing that I have had to do in my political career is to ask people for money. When I was majority leader in the 100th Congress, former Senator David Boren of Oklahoma and I introduced legislation to reform the campaign financing system. I am not one of the ``come lately boys'' in this regard. I, as majority leader then, and former Senator David Boren introduced that legislation. The other side of the aisle--I do not like to point to the other side of the aisle as so many Senators today, unfortunately, like to do--but the other side of the aisle--namely, the Republicans in the Senate in that instance--voted consistently eight times against cloture motions that I offered to bring the debate to a close. There were four or five Republicans who did break from the otherwise solid bloc and voted with the Democrats on that occasion to break the filibuster against the campaign financing bill. Go back to the Record. Read it. Senators might do well to go back to the Record and see who those Senators were who broke from the Republican bloc. A handful broke from the Republican bloc and voted to end the filibuster against that campaign financing bill. Eight times I offered cloture motions. No other majority leader has ever offered eight cloture motions on the same legislation in one Congress. And eight times I was defeated in my efforts to invoke cloture. Chapter 22, Verse 28 of the Book of Proverbs--we are talking about Solomon's sayings now for the most part--admonishes us: ``Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.'' We seem to be doing just the opposite. The Founding Fathers' grant to us of the right to amend and the right to unlimited debate has been, I believe, shifted off course, to the point that these two well-advised attributes of power are being voided, and for what reason? Could it be that the Senate Republican leadership fails to appreciate and fully understand the Senate, fails to understand American Constitutionalism, and fails to understand the purposes which the constitutional framers had in mind when they created the Senate. Or might we suppose that the senatorial powers that be are simply determined to be a Committee of Rules unto themselves and are determined to try to remold the Senate into a second House of Representatives? The fact cannot be ignored that 45 of the 100 Members of today's Senate came here from the House of Representatives. A political observer might also be surprised to find that 59 of today's 100 Senators came to the Senate subsequent to my final stint as majority leader. Noble are the words of Cicero when he tells us that ``It is the first and fundamental law of history that it neither dare to say anything that is false or fear to say anything that is true, nor give any just suspicion of favor or disaffection.'' I believe that no less a high standard must be invoked when considering the Senate of today and comparing it with the Senate of the past. Having spent more than half of my life in the Senate, I would consider myself derelict in my duty toward the Senate if I did not express my concerns over what I see happening to the Senate. Who suffers, whose rights are denied, whose interests are untended when a Senate minority is denied the right to amend and when a Senate minority is denied the right and opportunity to fully debate the issues that confront the Nation? Is it the individual Senators themselves? Is it I? Do I suffer? No. It is their constituents, it is my constituents who are being denied these opportunities and these rights. It is not Senator so-and-so who, in the final analysis, is being denied the full freedom of speech on this Senate floor or who is being shut out from offering an amendment--it is Senator so-and-so's constituents, the people who sent him or her to the Senate. If the Senate is intended to be a check against the impulsiveness and passions of the other body, is not the ability of the Senate to be such a check reduced in direct proportion to the denial to its Members of the opportunity to amend House measures? In accordance with the Constitution, revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives and, by custom, most appropriations bills likewise originate in the House, but under the guarantees of the Constitution, as those guarantees flowed from the Great Compromise of July 16, 1787, the Senate has the right to amend those revenue and appropriations bills. But if the opportunity for Senators to amend is reduced, or even denied, as is sometimes being done, the Senate as an equal body to that of the House of Representatives is being put to a disadvantage. The House can open the door to legislation on an appropriations bill, but if the Senate, if the 100 Senators are denied the opportunity to offer amendments, or are limited in the number of amendments which Senators may offer, the Senate is thereby denied the opportunity to go through that door with amendments of its own, through the door that the other body has opened, and is denied the potential for the achievement of truly good legislation in the final result, and that opportunity is accordingly lessened and the likelihood of legislative errors in the final product is increased. If the Senate is a forum of the States, in which the small States are equal to the large States, and if this ability of the small States to acquire equilibrium with the large States serves as an offset to the House of Representatives where the votes of the States are in proportion to population sizes, then when the Senate is denied the opportunity to work its will by the avoidance of votes on amendments, are the small States not the greater losers? My State, for one. The Senator from Alaska's State is one. If the framers saw the Senate as a powerful check against an overreaching executive at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, when free and unlimited debate is bridled and the right of Senators to offer amendments is hindered or denied, is not the Senate's power to check an overreaching President accordingly whittled down, especially in instances where such a check is most needed? I am gravely concerned that, if the practices of the recent past as they relate to enactment of massive, monstrous, omnibus appropriations bills are not reversed, Senators will be reduced to nothing more than legislative automatons. Senators will have given away their sole authority to debate and amend spending bills and other legislation. Much of that authority will have been handed over, by invitation of Congress itself, to the Chief Executive. The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and I, and other chairmen of appropriations subcommittees in this Senate are experiencing this right now. Only yesterday, in a conference on the Interior Appropriation bill, I called attention to the fact that when I came to Congress 48 years ago, the Members of the House and Senate in that day would have stood in utter astonishment, to see in that conference, on an appropriations bill, the agents of the President of the United States sitting there arguing with Senators and House Members and advancing the wishes of a President. There they sat in the House-Senate conference. And they tell the conferees what the President will or will not accept in the bill. If this is in the bill, he will veto it. If this is not in the bill, he will veto it, they say. So, appropriators of the House and the Senate, get ready. You have company. There are other appropriators in this Government other than the elected Members of the House and Senate. There are administration ex officio members of the Appropriations conference--believe it or not--who sit like Banquo's ghost at the table when the appropriations are being administered out. What a sad--what a sad--thing to behold. I said that in the meeting yesterday, as I have said it before in meetings. And I don't mean it to insult or to derogate the agents of the President. They are doing their job, and they are very capable people. I have to apologize to them when I say that. They are there through no fault of their own. And why are they there? The fault lies here. Because we dither and dither almost a full year through. We put off action on appropriations bills until the very last, when we are up against the prospect of adjournment sine die, when our backs are to the wall, and then the President of the United States has the upper hand. His threats of veto make us scatter and run. The result is that all of these bills--or many of them--are crammed into one giant monstrous measure, and that measure comes back to this House without Senators having an opportunity to amend it because it is a conference report. It is not amendable --not amendable. So it is our fault. It really is. And it has been happening in these recent years. So much of that authority will have been handed over, by invitation of Congress itself, in essence, to the Executive. For fiscal year 1999 an omnibus package was all wrapped together-- Senators will remember this--an omnibus package was all wrapped together and run off on copy machines--it totaled some 3,980 pages--and was presented to the House and Senate in the form of an unamendable conference report. Members were told to take it or leave it. If you do not take this agreement, we will have to stay here and start this process over. We will have to call Members back to Washington from the campaign trail, back to Washington from town meetings, and back to Washington from fundraisers. Senator, the gun is at your head, and it is loaded. You do not know what is in this package, Senator 3,980 pages put together by running the pages--3,980 pages--through copy machines. Not a single Senator, not one knew what was in that conference report, the details of it. No one Senator under God's heaven knew, really, everything that he was voting on. You do not know what is in this package, we are essentially told, but you either vote for it or we will stay here and start all over again. And in the final analysis, we will come up with about the same package. We know that these legislative provisions made up more than half of the total 3,980 pages. So what we did there, as we did in fiscal year 1997 and as we did again in fiscal year 2000 was put together several appropriations bills into an unamendable conference report, and Members were forced to vote on what was essentially a pig in a poke without knowing the details. Do the people of this country know that? Do they know this? Do they know what is happening? In 1932, in the midst of the Great Depression, a reporter from the Saturday Evening Post asked John Maynard Keynes, the great British economist, if he knew of anything that had ever occurred like that depression. Keynes answered: Yes, and it was called the Dark Ages, and it lasted 400 years. Well, I can say, as one who lived through that depression in a coal mining town in southern West Virginia and was brought up in the home of a coal miner, I can say that we are now entering the ``Dark Ages'' of the United States Senate. Now, when Keynes referred to the Dark Ages being equal to the depression or vice versa and I refer to the Dark Ages of the Senate, this is calamity howling on a cosmic scale perhaps, but on one point, the resemblence seems valid, that being, the people never fully understood and don't fully understand today the forces that brought these things into being. If the people knew that we had a 3,980-page conference report in which we, their elected representatives, didn't know what was in it, they would rise up and say: What in the world is going on here? It is our money that Senators are spending. You are blindfolded and you have wax in your ears. You don't even know what is in that bill. Is this the way we want the House and the Senate to operate? Is this what Senators had in mind when they ran for the United States Senate? If we continue this process, Senators will not be needed here at all. Oh, you can come to the Senate floor once in a while to make a speech or to introduce a bill or to vote on some matter, but at the end of the session, when the rubber hits the road and we get down to what is and what is not going to be enacted in all areas--appropriations, legislation, and tax measures--most Senators won't be needed. Most of us will not be in the room with the President's men. We won't be in the room. I have seen times when the minority, Democrats in the House and Senate, were not in the room. Who was in the room? The Republican majority, the Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate. They were in the room. Who else? Who was there to represent us Democrats? Who was there? The executive branch was there, its agents. We were left out. The Democratic Members of the House and Senate, not one, not one sat in that conference. I wasn't in it. I was the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. So most of us will not be in the room when the decisions are made. The President's agents will be there. They will carry great weight on all matters because we have to get the President's signature. Having squandered the whole year in meaningless posturing and bickering back and forth, we will have no alternative, none, but to buckle under to a President's every demand. And when that hideous process is mercifully finished, we will then call you, Senator, and let you know that we are now ready to vote on a massive conference report, up or down, without any amendments in order. Take it or leave it, Senator. Take it or leave it, Senator Daschle. You are the minority leader. You will be left out. Take it or leave it; here is the conference report. We are in danger of becoming an oligarchy disguised as a Republic. You may well spend all of your time campaigning or speechmaking or doing constituent services back home, you will have very little to say on legislation or appropriations or tax matters. There is sufficient blame to go around for this total collapse of the appropriations process. Our side feels muzzled. The majority leader has a very difficult job. I know. I have been in his shoes. He has to do the best he can to meet the demands of all Senators. Part of the solution has to be a greater willingness to work together on both sides of the aisle to ensure that ample opportunities are provided, early in the session, outside of the appropriations process to debate policy differences. We simply must force ourselves to work harder, beginning earlier in the session, to ensure that we do not continue to abuse the Constitution, abuse the Senate, and ultimately abuse the American people by following the procedure that has resulted in these omnibus packages in 3 of the last 4 years, and which, I fear, is about to be resorted to again this year. I do see some rays of hope because we have awakened the leadership. I must say, after our squawking and screaming and kicking, the administration this year is insisting that Democrats sit at the table when the crumbs are being parceled out. They insisted because the minority leader has insisted on it and because other voices in the Senate have been complaining. Cicero said: ``There is no fortress so strong that money cannot take it.'' The power of the purse is the most precious power that we have. It was given to the two Houses by the Constitution, the bedrock of our Government. It was put here--not down at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. I have tried to do my part to help Senators understand our constitutional role. We are the people's elected representatives and they have entrusted us with their vote; those people out there who are watching through the cameras have entrusted us with their vote. That trust must not be treated lightly. This is especially true when it comes to matters that involve appropriations. We are spending their money. Each of you who is watching through that electronic medium, we are spending your money. We are stewards of the people's hard-earned tax dollars. They expect, and they ought to demand, that we spend those dollars wisely, and that we scrutinize what we fund and why we fund it. The Senate is the upper House of a separate branch of Government, with institutional safeguards that protect the people's liberties. Which party commands the White House at a given time should make no difference as to how we conduct our duties. We are here to work with, but also to act as a check on the occupant of the White House, regardless of who that occupant is. And we are here to reflect the people's will. We are not performing the watchdog function when we invite the White House--literally invite the White House--behind closed doors and play five-card draw with the people's tax dollars. Mr. President, I fear for the future of this Senate. I think the people are very disenchanted with Congress and with politics in general. They are catching on to our partisan bickering and they don't like what they hear and see. The people are hungry for leadership. They ask us for solutions to their problems. They expect us to protect their interests and to watch over their hard-earned tax dollars. They entrust us with their franchise and they ask that we ponder issues and debate issues and use their proxy wisely. They ask that we protect their freedoms by holding fast to our institutional and constitutional responsibilities. Too often, we lose sight of the fact that partisan politics is not the purpose for which the people send us here. We square off like punch-drunk gladiators and preen and polish our media-slick messages in search of the holy grail of power or a headline. I am a politician; I can say that. We fail to educate the people and ourselves on issues of paramount and far-reaching importance for this generation and for the next generation. It is a shame and it is a waste because there is much talent in this Chamber, and there is much mischanneled energy. This Senate could be what the framers intended, but it would take a new commitment by each of us to our duties and to our oaths of office. And it would take a massive turning away from the petty little power wars so diligently waged each week and each month in these Halls. Our extreme tunnel vision has been duly noted by the American people, I assure Senators. The American people are a tolerant lot, but their patience is beginning to fray. And when their disappointment turns to dismay, and finally to disgust, we will have no one to blame but ourselves. Mr. President, I have more to say, but I see other Senators. If they wish to speak on this subject, I will be glad to yield them time. Does the distinguished Senator from California wish to speak?

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. There is no question about that, if one looks at the facts carefully. Having been majority leader and having been minority leader, I can testify as to the pressures that are brought on the majority and minority leaders by Senators who have to get out and run across this country, holding out a tin cup as it were, saying: Give me, give me, give me money. I have had to do that. In 1982, I had an incumbent in the other body from West Virginia who ran against me. I had to go all over this country. I had to go to California. I had to go to New York. I had to go to Alabama. I had to go to Texas. I was all over the country. But I didn't go during the Senate workdays, and in those days, the Senate worked. I had to go on Sundays, for the most part. (Mr. ALLARD assumed the Chair.)

Mr. BYRD. Not by the Senator's reasoning, but because it is the 20th century still, until midnight December 31 this year. Regardless of what the media says, regardless of what the politicians say, this year is still in the 20th century.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I will very shortly. It is far more important for the Senate to engage in thorough debate, and for Senators to have the opportunity to call up amendments, than it is for the Senate to be out of session on Mondays and Fridays. It seems to me that we should be more busily engaged in doing the people's business. Instead, it seems to me--and, of course, I am not infallible in my judgments--it seems to me that the Senate is more concerned about relieving Senators who are up for reelection--and I am one of them this year--relieving Senators who are up for reelection from the inconvenience of staying on the job and working early and late, than in fulfilling our responsibilities to our constituents. Some might conclude that it is more important for Senators to have Mondays and Fridays in which to raise money for a reelection campaign than it is for us to give to our constituents a full day's work for a full day's pay. Now I am glad to yield to my friend.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the item before the Senate, the question?

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

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I yield--how many minutes does the Senator wish?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have 38 minutes, do I not, remaining?

Mr. BYRD. I agree, in large measure, with everything the distinguished Senator is saying. I seriously doubt that a lawsuit--I seriously doubt if that would hold up. But anyhow, it is a good thought.