Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I gladly yield 20 minutes to the very distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer.

Mr. BYRD. I control the time from the beginning, 6 hours.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, to begin with, I should say that I intend to support the short-term continuing resolution. I think it is very important that we do so. But I have reserved this time for the purpose of expressing concerns about what is happening to the Senate and, in particular, what is happening to the appropriations process. Several of my colleagues will join me as we move through the morning and the afternoon. I shall do so without, of course, pointing my finger of criticism at any Senator, naming any Senator. I merely want to talk about what is happening to our Senate, its rules, its processes. And I intend to abide by the rules concerning debate. I say that at the start. Mr. President, section 7, article I, of the U.S. Constitution, states: ``All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.'' Let me quote again the last portion of section 7, article I: ``but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills,'' meaning the Senate may propose or concur with amendments on any bill, whether it is a revenue bill or otherwise. When I say ``bills,'' I include, of course, resolutions. Thus, Mr. President, the organic law of our Republic assures Senators--all Senators; Republicans and Democrats--the right to offer amendments, not only to bills for raising revenue, but also ``other bills.'' The requirement that revenue bills shall originate in the House of Representatives grew out of the Great Compromise, which was entered into on July 16, 1787. It was this Great Compromise that provided for equality of the States in the Upper House, with each State, large or small, having two votes. And, but for which, the Constitutional Convention would have ended in failure, and instead of a United States of America, which we have today, we would have had, in all likelihood, a ``Balkanized States of America'' from sea to shining sea--from the Atlantic to the Pacific--from the Canadian border to the Gulf of Mexico. The small States at the Constitutional Convention were adamant in their demands for equal status with the large States in the Upper House, regardless of size or population, so that the small State of Rhode Island, for example, had an equal vote in the Senate with the large State of New York which was larger and with a greater population. All States are equal in this body. When the large States yielded to the small States in this regard, the way was open and paved for eventual success in the attainment of the Constitution which was then sent to the States for ratification. As a part of that compromise, the large States demanded that revenue bills originate in the House of Representatives. Thus, the freedom to offer amendments in the Senate is assured by the Constitution of the United States. And what about the freedom to speak? What about the freedom to debate? Is that assured in the Senate? Yes. Section 6 of article I of the United States Constitution states: And for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place. So I cannot be questioned in any other place. James Madison, who was a Member of the other body could not be questioned in any other place. No Senator could be questioned in any other place. But what about the freedom to debate at length; in other words, what about a filibuster? Is there any limitation on debate in the Senate today? No, except when cloture is invoked, or when there are time limitations set by unanimous consent of all Senators. Debate could be limited under rule 10 of the 1778 rules of the Continental Congress, by the adoption of the previous question. Likewise, when the Senate adopted its 1789 rules under the new Constitution, debate could be limited by invoking the previous question. However, in its first revision of the Senate rules in 1806, the Senate dropped the motion for the previous question. As a matter of fact, Aaron Burr, when he left the Vice Presidency in 1805, recommended that the previous question be dropped. Until 1917, when the first cloture rule was adopted, there was no limitation on debate in the Senate, unlike the House of Representatives, where the previous question can still be moved even today. As we all know, of course, 60 votes are required in the Senate to invoke cloture and thus limit debate. The previous question not being included in the Senate rules, just what is the ``previous question''? Thomas Jefferson in his ``Manual'' explains it as follows: ``When any question is before the House, any member may move a previous question, `Whether that question (called the main question) shall now be put?' If it pass in the affirmative, then the main question is to be put immediately, and no man may speak anything further to it, either to add or alter . . . if the nays prevail, the main question shall not then be put.'' Hence, the use of the motion to put the previous question is an effective way to end debate and vote immediately on the main question. As the distinguished Presiding Officer knows--the Chair being occupied at the moment by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning--in the other body, the previous question can be used to end debate, if a majority of the Members there so desire. But that is not so in the Senate. It was so until 1806, but no more in the Senate. Of the various legislative branches throughout the world today, only 60 are bicameral in nature, and of these 60 bicameral legislatures around the world, only the Upper Houses of the U.S. and Italy are not subordinated to the Lower House. Senators should understand what a privilege it is to serve in the U.S. Senate. The U.S. Senate is the premiere Upper Chamber in the world, two of the main reasons being that in the U.S. Senate there exists the right of unlimited debate and the right to offer amendments. Another singular feature of the U.S. Senate is in the fact that it is the forum of the States. It is not just a forum; it is the forum of the States. The Senate, therefore, represents the ``Federal'' concept, while the House of Representatives, being based on population, represents the ``national'' concept in our constitutional system. In the very beginning, the Senate was seen as the bulwark of the State governments against despotic presidential power; it was the special defender of State sovereignty. It was meant to be and exists today as the special defender of State sovereignty. The Senate was also seen as a check against the ``radical'' tendencies which the House of Representatives might display. I have been a Member of this body now for 42 years, and the longer I serve, the more convinced I am of the efficacy of the Senate rules as protectors of the Senate's right to unlimited debate and the Senate's right to amend. The Senate is not a second House of Representatives, nor is it an adjunct to the House of Representatives. It is a far different body from the House of Representatives. And it is a far different body by virtue of the Constitution and by virtue of Senate rules and precedents. The Constitution and the Senate rules have made the Senate a far different body from the House of Representatives. Thomas Jefferson, in his Manual of Parliamentary Practice, emphasized the importance of adhering to the rules: Mr. Onslow, the ablest among the Speakers of the House of Commons, used to say, ``It was a maxim he had often heard when he was a young man, from old and experienced Members, that nothing tended more to throw power into the hands of the Administration, and those who acted with a majority of the House of Commons, than a neglect of, or departure from, the rules of proceedings; that these forms, as instituted by our ancestors, operated as a check and control on the actions of the majority, and that they were, in many instances, a shelter and protection to the minority, against the attempts of power.'' So far, the maxim is certainly true-- Continued Mr. Onslow, speaking of the British House of Commons-- and is founded in good sense, as it is always in the power of the majority, by their number, to stop any improper measure proposed on the part of their opponents-- The minority-- the only weapons by which the minority can defend themselves against similar attempts from those in power are the forms and rules of proceeding which have been adopted as they were found necessary, from time to time, and become the law of the House-- He was talking about the law of the House of Commons-- by a strict adherence to which the weaker party-- Meaning the minority-- can only be protected from those irregularities and abuses which these forms were intended to check, and which the wantonness of power is but too often apt to suggest to large and successful majorities. Now there you have it from the mother country, from the House of Commons. So when we speak of rules, Mr. Onslow laid it out very clearly as to the supreme importance of the rules as protectors of a minority. Jefferson went on to say: And whether these forms be in all cases the most rational or not is really not of so great importance. It is much more material that there should be a rule to go by than what that rule is; that there may be a uniformity of proceeding in business not subject to the caprice of the Speaker-- Jefferson is talking about the Speaker of the House of Commons, and he is also referring to the Speaker in the House of Representatives. --or capriciousness of the members. Once more, this is Jefferson talking: It is much more material that there should be a rule to go by than what that rule is; that there may be a uniformity of proceeding in business not subject to the caprice of the Speaker or capriciousness of the members. It is very material that order, decency, and regularity be preserved in a dignified public body. Nothing could be more true than Jefferson's observations which I have read in part. Now, Mr. President, my own experience with the Senate rules compels me to appreciate the wisdom that Vice President Adlai Stevenson expressed in his farewell address to the Senate on March 3, 1897. I believe his observation is as fitting today as it was at the end of the 19th century. Let me say that again. I believe his observation is as fitting today, as we close the 20th century, as it was at the end of the 19th century. Here is what he said: It must not be forgotten that the rules governing this body-- The Senate-- are founded deep in human experience; that they are the result of centuries of tireless effort in legislative halls, to conserve, to render stable and secure, the rights and liberties which have been achieved by conflict. By its rules, the Senate wisely fixes the limits to its own power. Of those who clamor against the Senate, and its methods of procedure, it may be truly said: ``They know not what they do.'' In this Chamber alone are preserved without restraint-- This is Adlai Stevenson talking here-- two essentials of wise legislation and of good government: the right of amendment and of debate. Great evils often result from hasty legislation; rarely from the delay which follows full discussion and deliberation. In my humble judgment, the historic Senate--preserving the unrestricted right of amendment and of debate, maintaining intact the time-honored parliamentary methods and amenities which unfailingly secure action after deliberation--possesses in our scheme of government a value which cannot be measured by words. How true. I hope that Senators will read again these words that were spoken by our ancestors concerning the importance of the rules and precedents, the importance of amendments, the right to amend, and the importance of the freedom to debate at length. I hope Senators will read this. We all know that the Senate is unique in its sharing of power with the President in the making of treaties, and in its confirmation powers with respect to nominations, as well as in its judicial function as the sole trier of impeachments brought by the House of Representatives. The Senate is also unique in the quality that exists between and among states of unequal territorial size and population. But we must not forget that the right of extended, and even unlimited debate, together with the unfettered right to offer amendments, are the main cornerstones of the Senate's uniqueness. The right of extended debate is also a primary reason that the United States Senate is the most powerful Upper Chamber in the world today. The occasional abuse of this right has a painful side effect, but it never has been--I am talking about the right to debate at length; I am talking about filibusters, if you please --never will be fatal to the overall public good in the long run. The word ``filibuster'' has an unfortunate connotation. But there have been many useful filibusters during the existence of this Republic. I have engaged in some of them. There has not been a real, honest to goodness old-type filibuster in this Senate in years and years. Without the right of unlimited debate, of course, there would be no filibusters, but there would also be no Senate, as we know it. The good outweighs the bad. Filibusters have proved to be a necessary evil, which must be tolerated lest the Senate lose its special strength and become a mere appendage of the House of Representatives. If this should happen, which God avert, the American Senate would cease to be ``that remarkable body'' about which William Ewart Gladstone spoke--``the most remarkable of all the inventions of modern politics.'' Without the potential for filibusters, that power to check a Senate majority or an imperial presidency would be destroyed. The right of unlimited debate is a power too sacred to be trifled with. Our English forebears knew it. They had been taught by sad experience the need for freedom of debate in their House of Commons. So they provided for freedom of debate in the English Bill of Rights in 1689. And our Bill of Rights, in many ways, has its roots deep in English parliamentary history. As Lyndon Baines Johnson said on March 9, 1949: ``. . . If I should have the opportunity to send into the countries behind the iron curtain one freedom and only one, I know what my choice would be. . . . I would send to those nations the right of unlimited debate in their legislative chambers. . . . If we now, in haste and irritation, shut off this freedom, we shall be cutting off the most vital safeguard which minorities possess against the tyranny of momentary majorities.'' I served with Lyndon Johnson in this Senate when he was the majority leader. We had some real filibusters in those days. I sat in that chair up there 22 hours on one occasion--22 hours in one sitting--almost a day and a night. So Lyndon Johnson was one who could speak with authority based on experience in that regard. Arguments against filibusters have largely centered around the principle that the majority should rule in a democratic society. The very existence of the Senate, however, embodies an equally valid tenet in American democracy: the principle that minorities have rights. I am not here today to advocate filibusters. I am talking about the freedom of debate--unlimited debate, if necessary. Furthermore, a majority of Senators, at a given time and on a particular issue, may not truly represent majority sentiment in the country. Senators from a few of the more populous states may, in fact, represent a majority in the nation while numbering a minority of votes in the Senate, where all the states are equal. Additionally, a minority opinion in the country may become the majority view, once the people are more fully informed about an issue through lengthy debate and scrutiny. A minority today may become the majority tomorrow. Take the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example. From the day that Senator Mike Mansfield, then the majority leader, submitted the motion to proceed to the civil rights bill to the day that the final vote was cast on that bill, 103 calendar days had passed--103 days on one bill, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That is almost as many days on one bill in 1964 as the Senate has been in session this whole year to date. Mr. President, the Framers of the Constitution thought of the Senate as the safeguard against hasty and unwise action by the House of Representatives in response to temporary whims and storms of passion that may sweep over the land. Delay, deliberation, and debate--though time consuming--may avoid mistakes that would be regretted in the long run. The Senate is the only forum in the government where the perfection of laws may be unhurried and where controversial decisions may be hammered out on the anvil of lengthy debate. The liberties of a free people will always be safe where a forum exists in which open and unlimited debate is allowed. It is not just for the convenience of Senators that there be a forum in which free and unlimited debate can be had. More importantly, the liberties of a free people will always be safe where a forum exists in which open and unlimited debate is allowed. That forum is here in this Chamber. The most important argument supporting extended debate in the Senate, and even the right to filibuster, is the system of checks and balances. The Senate operates as the balance wheel in that system, because it provides the greatest check of all against an all-powerful executive through the privilege that Senators have to discuss without hindrance what they please for as long as they please. Senators ought to reflect on these things. There is nothing like history and the experience of history that can teach the lessons that we can learn from the past. A minority can often use publicity to focus popular opinion upon matters that can embarrass the majority and the executive. Mr. President, we have reviewed briefly these facts about the U.S. Senate: (1) That it is a legislative body in which the smaller states, like the State of West Virginia, like the State of Kentucky, like the State of Rhode Island, the State of Wyoming, the State of Montana, regardless of territory or the size of population, are equal to the larger states in the union, with each state having two votes; (2) that it is a forum of the states and, from the beginning, was representative of the sovereignty of the individual states within the federal system; (3) that aside from its uniqueness with respect to treaties, nominations, and impeachment trials, the Senate is unique among the Upper Chambers of the world in that it is a forum in which amendments can be offered to bills and resolutions passed by the Lower House, and in which its members have a right to unlimited debate. The Senate has, therefore, been referred to as the greatest deliberative body in the world. Because of its members' rights to amend and to debate without limitation as to time, Woodrow Wilson referred to the Senate as the greatest Upper Chamber that exists. Because of its unique powers, the record is replete throughout the history of this republic with instances in which the Senate has demonstrated the wisdom of the Framers in making it the main balance wheel in our Constitutional system of separation of powers and checks and balances. It is a chamber in which bad legislation has been relegated to the dust bin, good legislation has originated, and the people of the country have been informed of the facts concerning the great issues of the day. Woodrow Wilson, himself, stated that the informing function of the legislative branch was as important if not more so than its legislative function. It has checked the impulsiveness, at times, of the other body, and it has also been a check against an overweening executive. In the course of the 212 years since its beginning in March 1789, the Senate has, by and large, fulfilled the expectations of its Framers and proved itself to be the brightest spark of genius that emanated from the anvil of debate and controversy at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia during that hot summer of 1787. However, over the last few years, however, I have viewed with increasing concern that the Senate is no longer fulfilling, as it once did, its raison d'etre, or purpose for being. More and more, the offering of amendments in the Senate is being discouraged and debate is being stifled. I can say that because I've been here. Quite often, when bills or resolutions are called up for debate, the cloture motion is immediately laid down in an effort to speed the action on the measure and preclude non germane amendments. Mike Mansfield, when he was leader, seldom did that. During the years that I was leader, I very seldom did that. The Republican leaders Baker and Dole seldom did that. Following my tenure as majority leader, that has been done increasingly. I am not attempting to say that Mike Mansfield or I were great leaders at all; I am not attempting to do that. But I am saying that through Johnson's tenure, for the most part, through Mansfield's tenure, through my tenure as majority leader and through the tenures of Howard Baker and Bob Dole, the Senate adhered to its rules and precedents; seldom did it do otherwise. Moreover, the parliamentary amendment tree is frequently filled as a way of precluding the minority from calling up amendments. I filled the parliamentary tree on a very few occasions. I, again, have to call attention to my own tenure as majority leader because through the tenures of Johnson and leaders before Johnson on both sides of the aisle, the rules of the Senate were virtually considered sacred. The minority is also frequently pressured to keep the number of amendments to a minimum or else the particular bill will not even be called up--or, if it is pending, the bill will be taken down unless amendments are kept to a minimum. That is happening in this Senate. Unlike the House of Representatives, there is no Rules Committee in the Senate that serves as a traffic cop over the legislation and that determines whether or not there will be any amendments and, if so, how many amendments will be allowed and who will call up such amendments. On occasion, the House Rules Committee will determine perhaps that one amendment will be called up by Mr. So-and-So. But not so with the Senate. We don't have a Rules Committee that serves as a traffic cop. Could there be a desire on the part of the Senate majority leadership to make the Senate operate as a second House of Representatives? Of the 100 Senators who constitute this body today, 45, at my last count, came from the House of Representatives--45 out of 100. At no time in my almost 42 years in the Senate have I ever entertained the notion that the Senate ought to be run like the House of Representatives, where amendments and unlimited debate are often looked upon as alien to the legislative process. What is the hurry? What is the hurry? There is ample time for the offering of amendments and for debating them at length, if the Senate will only put its shoulder to the wheel and work. We still have 7 days, just as there were in the beginning of creation. The calendar doesn't go that far back, but we still have 7 days a week. And we still have 24 hours a day, as was the case in Caesar's time. And the edict of God, as he drove Adam and Eve from the garden and laid down the law that by the sweat of his brow man would eat bread--that edict is still the case. We still have to eat bread and we still are supposed to earn our living through the sweat of our brow. Nothing has changed. We have plenty of time. And we get paid. I am one who gets paid for my work in the Senate. I don't like Sunday sessions, but we have had a few over the years. I am against Sunday sessions. But I am not against working on Saturdays. During that civil rights debate, which I was talking about a while ago, there were six Saturdays in which the Senate was in session. It is not an unheard of thing. 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 have many of the Mondays and Fridays left unused insofar as real floor action is concerned.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Has any time been charged against----

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, might the very distinguished and able Senator from New York have just 2 or 3 minutes to finish his statement?

Mr. BYRD. I yield 5 minutes--I yield all my remaining time to the Senator.

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

Mr. BYRD. Twelve minutes?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, let me comment on a couple of things that the distinguished Senator from Illinois just said. The Senator from Illinois served in the other body and he served on the Appropriations Committee. He comes to this body bringing great talent, one of the most talented Members that I have ever seen in this body. He brings great talent to this chamber. He can speak on any subject. He is similar to Mr. Dorgan, and can speak on any subject at the drop of a hat. He is very articulate, he is smart, and I am proud to have him as a fellow Member. Now, he mentioned a change that was made in basketball. I wish that they would make another change in basketball. When I talk about ``basketball'' that is a subject concerning which I know almost nothing. But I have watched a few basketball games. I can remember how they played them when I was in high school, which was a long time ago. But it really irritates me to see basketball players run down the court with that ball and jump up and hang on the hoop and just drop the ball through the basket. If I were 7 feet tall, I could drop the ball through the basket, even at age 83. If I were that tall, and I did not have to shoot from the floor to make that basket, I could do it, too. I wonder why they don't get back to the old way of requiring players to shoot from the floor. In the days when I was in high school, players had to shoot from the floor. They weren't 7-feet tall. A 6 foot 2 center in my high school was a tall boy. But, anyhow, so much for basketball. The distinguished Senator has talked about how we have plenty of time to do our work. The first year I came to the House of Representatives, in 1953, we adjourned sine die on August 3; 2 years later, we adjourned sine die on August 2; the next year, we adjourned sine die on July 27. We did our work. We did not have the breaks we have now. Easter? We might have been out Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. We didn't have the breaks then, but we passed the appropriations bills. We didn't do any short-circuiting, and the Appropriations Committees of both Houses acted on a much higher percentage of the total moneys that were spent by the Federal Government. I think there was a time when the Appropriations Committees passed on 90 percent of the moneys that the Federal Government spent. Today, we probably act on less than a third of the total moneys spent. So don't tell me that we can't get this work done. We used to do it. We can do it again. Now while I am talking about the Senator from Illinois being a new Member--relatively new in this body--he comes well equipped to this body. I have been calling attention to the fact that 59 percent--59 Senators--have come to the Senate since I walked away from the majority leader's job. I mentioned Lyndon Johnson as a majority leader; I mentioned Mike Mansfield as a majority leader; I mentioned Robert C. Byrd as a majority leader. I should not overlook the stellar performances of Howard Baker, a Republican majority leader; or Robert Dole, a Republican majority leader. We hewed the line when it came to the Senate rules and precedents. They honored those rules and precedents. We didn't have any shortcutting, any short-circuiting of appropriations bills, like going direct to conference and avoiding action on this floor. I want to mention those two Republican leaders because they were also in my time. Mr. President, 27 of the 50 States are especially fortunate this year. They have Senators on the Senate Appropriations Committee. These lucky 27 states, containing a total estimated 147,644,636 individuals as of July 1999, account for over half of our population of 272,171,813. However, 23 of these United States--and I have them listed on a chart here. I have them listed as the 25 have-nots--23 of these States are in a different situation. They have no direct representation on the Senate Appropriations Committee. Due to the rather unique situation in which we find ourselves this year, three appropriations bills--bills which fund roughly 100 agencies and departments of the Federal Government--may never be considered on the Senate floor. If that is the case, some 125 million Americans who happen to live in those 23 States will have no direct input regarding the decisions of the Senate committee that directly controls the discretionary budget of the United States. The countless decisions on funding and policies in those three bills will not have been presented on the Senate floor in a form that allows the elected Senators from those 23 States to debate and amend those 3 appropriations bills; namely, the FY2001 Commerce/ Justice/State, Treasury-Postal, and VA-HUD bills. This is not the fault of the Appropriations Committee. I cannot and I will not blame Senator Stevens, the very capable Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, whom I know wants to shepherd each bill through his committee to the floor, and through the conference committee process in the appropriate manner. His efforts have been hamstrung because of a budget process that sets an unrealistically low level of funding, a level of funding that could not possibly address in any adequate way the demands placed upon it by the administration or by the Senate, and because the Senate has not taken up many important pieces of authorization and policy legislation this year. I have nothing but praise for Senator Ted Stevens. I have seen many chairmen of the Appropriations Committee of the Senate. I have been on that Senate Appropriations Committee 42 years--longer, now, than any other Senator in history on that Appropriations Committee. I have seen many chairmen. I have never seen one better than Senator Ted Stevens. Additionally, cloture has been filed too quickly on many bills, in order to further limit amendment opportunities. Appropriations bills have, as a result, become an even stronger magnet for controversial amendments than usual. That always complicates the process. Further, the administration has not waited until the Senate has finished its business before issuing veiled or blatant veto threats in an attempt to influence the appropriations process. So, I am very sympathetic to the situation in which my good friend, Senator Stevens, now finds himself. Whatever the reasons, however, these 23 have-not states will be deprived of their right to debate and amend these bills through their elected Senators if we wrap these remaining bills into House/Senate conference reports without first taking them up on the Senate floor. They will get only a yea or nay vote on an entire appropriations conference report. There will be no chance to debate or amend the contents of those bills. The 15 million people in Florida--up or down votes, with no amendments. The 11 million people in Ohio--up or down votes on conference reports, with no amendments. The 479,000 people in Wyoming--up or down votes is all they will get, with no amendments. The same goes for the residents of Virginia, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Maine. Those citizens should also be upset. So should the residents of Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Tennessee. Those folks will have no input into hundreds of thousands of spending decisions. They will summarily be told to take that conference report without any amendments; take it; vote up or down, take it or leave it. I heard a Member of this Senate yesterday--I believe it was yesterday--decry the President's threat to veto an appropriations bill if something called the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act was not passed. That Senator said yesterday that a President who would make such threats was acting like a king. I agree. That threat was outrageous. If that threat was made, it was outrageous. It should not have been made. Further, I agree with that Senator's feeling about the piece of legislation which caused the White House threat. I voted against suspending the rule that would have made it possible to consider it. But when it comes to this President, or any President, Democrat or Republican acting like a king, let me say that we in this body are the ultimate check on that assumption of the scepter and crown that all Presidents would like to make. When we in the Congress invite the President's men to sit at the table--essentially that is what we do when we delay these appropriations bills until the very last and have to act upon them with our backs to the wall and facing an almost immediate sine die adjournment, we in effect invite the administration's people to sit at the table and be part of the decisions involving the power over the purse; yes, that power which is constitutionally reserved for the House and the Senate. When we do that and then deny the full Senate the right to debate and amend those spending bills, we are aiding and abetting that kingly demeanor. When we hand over a seat at the table to the White House and lock out the full Senate, not just these 23 States, but lock out the full Senate on spending bills, we are, in truth, giving a President much more power than the framers ever intended. We are charged in this body with staying the hand of an overreaching Executive. Instead, it sometimes seems as if we are polishing the chrome on the royal chariot and stacking it full of congressional prerogatives for a fast trip to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. This year, one appropriations bill providing funding for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State has been in limbo--limbo. I believe that Dante referred to limbo as the first circle of hell. Anyhow, this bill has been in limbo for more than 2 months in order to avoid controversial subjects coming up for debate and amendment. So that bill has been a sort of Wen Ho Lee of the Appropriations Committee. It has been in isolation--incommunicado, stowed away in limbo, out of sight, out of mind. But there it is on the calendar. It has been there for weeks. Controversial? Yes. Some amendments might be offered. But why not? That is the process. We should call it up and have those amendments and have a vote on them. Let's vote on them. I have cast 15,876 votes in 42 years in this Senate. That is an attendance record of 98.7 percent. That may sound like bragging, but Dizzy Dean said it was all right to brag if you have done it. So I have a 98.7 percent voting attendance. I have never dodged a controversial vote, and I am still here and running again. And if it is the Good Lord's will and the will of the people of West Virginia, I will be around here when the new Congress begins. I have cast controversial votes. What is wrong with that? That is why we come here. Two other appropriations bills--DC and VA-HUD--were not even marked up by the committee until the second full week of September. There was not enough money to make the VA-HUD bill even minimally acceptable. But having been marked up and reported from the committee, was it called up on the Senate floor for consideration? No, it was not. It was just wrapped in dark glasses and a low-slung hat, surrounded with security and rushed straight into conference as if it contained secrets for the eyes of the Appropriations Committee only. The plan apparently is to insert the entire VA-HUD bill into the conference agreement on another appropriations bill without bringing it before the Senate. I still am hopeful that a way can be found to bring up that bill, as well as the Treasury Postal and Commerce Justice bills to the Senate floor. I know that some of my colleagues may argue that every Senator has a chance to make his or her requests known to the chairman and ranking member of each appropriations subcommittee, and in that way get their issues addressed in the bill even if it does not see action on the Senate floor. I certainly know that is true. I receive thousands of requests each year to each subcommittee, as well as the requests made while those bills are in conference. However, if a Member's request is not addressed in a bill and that bill does not see debate on the floor, that Member has no opportunity to take his or her amendment to the full Senate and get a vote on it. He has no way to test the decisions of the committee to see if a majority of the full Senate will support his amendment. Additionally, when an appropriations bill is not debated by the full Senate, Senators who are not on the committee do not have the opportunity to strip objectionable items out of the bill. They do not have the ability to seek changes, perhaps very useful changes, to provisions in the bill that might hurt their States. They do not have a voice on the many policy decisions contained in appropriations bills. The Appropriations Committee staff is a good one. The Members and the clerks are fair, and they try to do a good job. For the most part, they succeed and succeed admirably, and I am very proud of them. But we are all human. Sometimes we do not always see the unintended consequences of this or that provision, or we simply make a drafting error that could hurt one or more States or groups of people. The fresh eyes and different perspectives of our fellow Senators who are not on the Appropriations Committee, however, have caught such errors in the past and will, I am sure, do so again. But when those Members only get to vote on a conference report that is unamendable, their judgment is eliminated. That is not a sensible way to legislate. I think it is a sloppy way to legislate. I know that my distinguished chairman, Senator Stevens, does not want to legislate in this manner. He is not afraid of any debate or any controversial amendments. Ted Stevens is not afraid of anything on God's green Earth that I know of. He has done a yeoman's job in trying to find sufficient funding within the budget system to move his bills, and I commend him for it. I sincerely hope that we can all come together to find a way to help my chairman. The full Senate must do its duty on appropriations bills this year. We owe that to the Nation. We owe it to this institution in which we all serve. Mr. President, the Senate is preparing to act on a short-term continuing resolution, which will give the Senate an additional week to take up and debate appropriations bills, if we so choose. We can get a lot done in 7 days if we all put our shoulders to the wheel to heave this bulky omnibus, or these bulky minibuses, out of the mud. The Senate is surely not on a par with the Creator. We cannot pull Heaven and Earth, and all the creatures under the Sun out of the void before we rest. But with His help and His blessings, we surely can complete work on the remaining appropriations bills before we adjourn. The Legislative Branch and Treasury/General Government appropriations conference report was defeated by the Senate on September 20. Some may have seen this as a defeat. But, in fact, that was no defeat. It was a victory for the institution of the Senate, for the Constitution and its framers, and for the Nation. I think the defeat of that conference report in large measure can be laid at the door of this strategy, which emanates from somewhere here, of avoiding floor debate on appropriations bills. I am glad that many of my colleagues objected to being asked to vote on a nondebatable conference report containing a bill--now, get this--containing a bill, in this instance the appropriations bill for the Department of the Treasury and for general Government purposes, that they have not had a chance to understand, to debate, to amend, or to influence. The Senate was designed to be a check on the House of Representatives. Moreover, the Senate was designed to even out the advantages that more populous States enjoy in the House, and to give small or rural States an even playing field in all matters, including appropriations. This vote on the legislative branch, Treasury, and general government minibus--minibus--appropriations bill is a setback, as far as time goes, but, I still believe that we can rally, and complete our work in a manner that will allow us to leave with our heads held high, rather than with our tail between our legs. We can finish our work. The people expect it. We ought to do it. In fact, in keeping with the rather screwball approach that we have been taking on appropriations matters this year, much of the conferencing on these bills has been taking place, even before the bills have been debated on the floor. Surely we can build on this base, and still allow the Senate to work its will on the more contentious elements of these bills. It is our job to resolve these problems. We get paid to do it. We get paid well to do it. It may be true that we could get higher pay somewhere else--as a basketball player or as a TV anchor person or in some other job--but we get paid well for the job we do. We are all familiar with these issues. We know the needs of our individual States. We need to have that debate about these issues, and we need to engage the brains of 100 members of this body to get the very best results. I would far rather--far rather--see this process take place, and send good bills to the President to sign or veto, than to see Senators simply abdicating our constitutional role in formulating the funding priorities for our Nation. The bad taste of recent years' goulash of appropriations, tax, and legislative vehicles all sloshed together in a single omnibus pot has not yet left my mouth. That is the easy way, but it is the wrong way. I didn't want a second or third helping, much less a fourth. It is loaded with empty calories, and full of carcinogens. Moreover, we are poisoning the institutional role of the U.S. Senate, rendering it weaker and weaker in influence and in usefulness. We are slowly eroding the Senate's ability to inform and to represent the people, and sacrificing its wisdom--the wisdom of the Senate--and its unique place in our Republic on the cold altar of ambition and expediency. All it takes is our will to see what we are doing and turn away from the course that we are on. I urge Senators to come together and do our work for our country. I thank all Senators who have spoken on this subject today. Mr. President, how many minutes do I have?

Mr. BYRD. How much time remains?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, earlier today I voted against suspending the rule to allow for the consideration of the Latino and Immigration Fairness Act as an amendment to the H-1B visa legislation. I opposed suspending the rules because the Latino and Immigration Fairness Act sends the wrong message to those persons who might consider illegally entering the United States. Under current law, a person who enters this country as a temporary alien or nonimmigrant must return to his native country after his temporary papers have expired if he wants to apply for permanent residency in the United States. This amendment would allow these nomimmigrants to pay a $1,000 fee to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in order to remain in the United States while they apply for permanent residency. Advocates of this provision argue that this fee would be a significant source of income for the INS. That may be so, but, at the same time, the amendment would allow for illegal immigrants to legally work in the United States while their residency application is pending, and send the message abroad that this is the preferred route to U.S. residence. Although it may be inconvenient for eligible aliens who are in the United States to have to apply for residency from outside of the United States, that is not a sufficient reason for giving them an advantage that is unavailable to other hopeful immigrants who are patiently waiting abroad for their opportunity to legally immigrate. Similarly, the Latino and Immigration Fairness Act would extend the registration time line for immigrants who are here illegally to apply for permanent residence if they entered the country prior to 1986. While this provision would allow immigrants of good moral conduct to apply for permanent residency, it also rewards immigrants who managed to stay in the United States illegally. What is worse is, that it sends the unfortunate message that is possible to gain permanent residency in the United States regardless of whether you are an alien who arrived here legally or illegally. I am opposed to Congress' sending these mixed signals to immigrants entering this country. The Immigration and Nationality Act, our primary law for regulating immigration into this country, sets out a very specific process by which nonimmigrants may apply for permanent residency in this country. The Latino and Immigration Fairness Act would effectively create short cuts around this process by allowing illegal immigrants to circumvent the normal rules. This is not the message I want to send abroad.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee for the District of Columbia, Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and Richard Durbin, for the very fine work they have done to bring forward the District of Columbia appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001. Even though this bill is neither the largest nor the most complex of the appropriations bills, it is not an easy bill to resolve. Senators Hutchison and Durbin are to be commended for working together and bringing this bill before the Senate. We have followed the regular order with this bill. The Senate has an opportunity to work its will on this measure. With the passage of this bill, we have brought all but three fiscal year 2001 appropriations bills to the Senate floor. I call upon my colleagues to finish the Senate's work on these final three measures. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich) appointed Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Inouye conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Except this: The Senator says we hope they can go to the President clean. I don't hope that.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. I have never denied that. The point is that the CRs were called up on the floor, they were debated, and they were amended freely. That is what I am talking about. The Senate had the opportunity to work its will even if those bills, two or three, were included in the CR. That is the point. The Senate was able to work its will on the CR and to offer amendments and debate and have votes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, let me respond to that. The Senator] speaks of cooperation from the other side. I note that 1, 2, 3, 5, 6--9 of these appropriations bills--10, 11--11 of them were reported from the Senate Appropriations Committee this year no later than July 21, reported and placed on the calendar--11 of them. Why weren't they called up in the Senate? The Appropriations Committee, on which the distinguished Senator from Idaho and I sit, the Appropriations Committee, under the excellent leadership of Senator Ted Stevens, reported those bills out; 11 of them, I believe--no later than--what date was that? No later than the 21st of July. Why weren't they called up? We had plenty of time. Why weren't they called up? May I say, in addition to that, the Senate certainly had the time to act on those bills. We were out of session on too many Fridays. We come in here on Monday, many Mondays, and we do not cast a vote, or we cast a vote at 5 o'clock, or we go out on Fridays, we don't have any session at all, or we go out by noon with perhaps one vote having been taken. The Senator and I could talk until we are each blue in the face, but it seems to me that someone needs to explain in a reasonable way as to why we don't act on Mondays and Fridays, act as we ought to as a legislative body--be in session. We are getting paid for the work. Why don't we act on these appropriations bills? When I was majority leader, I stood before my caucus in 207. I can remember saying it: ``We are not here to improve the quality of life for us Senators. Our constituents send us here to improve the quality of life for our constituents. I am interested in the quality of work.'' My own colleagues were doing some complaining. I said: We are going to be here, we are going to vote early on Mondays, and we are going to vote late on Fridays. You elected me leader. As long as you leave me in as leader, I am going to lead. Now, I said, we will take 1 week off every 4 weeks, and we can go home and talk to our constituents, see about their needs. So we will have 1 week off and 3 weeks in, but the 3 weeks that we are in, we are going to work early and we are going to work late. And we did that in the 100th Congress. If one looks over the records of the 100th Congress, one will find that Congress was one of the best Congresses, certainly, that I have seen in my time here in Washington. The productivity was good, we worked hard, there was good cooperation between Republicans and Democrats. We all worked, and appropriations bills didn't suffer. Appropriations bills were never sent to conference without prior action by this body. Every Senator in this body on both sides of the aisle was allowed to call up his amendment, to offer amendments, as many as he wanted to. Nobody was shut off. We just simply took the time. We stayed here and did the work. Nobody can say to me, well, we don't have the time to do these bills. Mr. President, we have squandered the time. We have squandered the time already. I used to have bed check votes on Monday mornings at 10 o'clock, bed check votes so that the Senators would be here at 10 o'clock. It didn't go over well with some of the Senators, even on my side. But one leads or he doesn't lead. When one leads, he sometimes runs into opposition from his own side of the aisle. I was not unused to that. But nobody can stand here and tell me that we have fully utilized our time and that we have to avoid bringing bills up in the Senate because Senators will offer amendments to them. I am ready to debate that anytime. I thank the distinguished Senator. I will yield again if he wishes.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. I am looking at the chart, ``Final Status of Appropriation Measures, First Session, 100th Congress.'' That would have been 1987. Every bill was reported. I think I am getting now to the question that the Senator asked. Some of the bills were reported but not taken up, but floor action shows that the Senate continued to act upon appropriations bills: Treasury-Postal Service was acted upon on the floor September 25; Transportation, October 29; military construction, October 27; legislative, September 30; Labor-HHS-Education, October 14; Interior, September 30; energy and water, November 18; Commerce-Justice, October 15. So they were all acted on. And, yes, the answer is, the Senate continued to act upon those bills even through the latter months of the year.

Mr. BYRD. That is part of the process. When I was majority leader of the Senate in 1977, 1978, 1979, and 1980 and, again, when I was majority leader of the Senate in 1987 and 1988, not once did I attempt to say to the leader on the other side of the aisle that I will not take this bill up if you are going to call up amendments, or if you call up 5 or 10 or whatever it is, I will not call it up; or having called it up, if Senators on the other side of the aisle persisted in calling up amendments, I didn't take the bill down. That is part of the process. That is where we differ. There are now Senators in this body who think that that is the way the Senate has always been. I would say to Senator Baker, or to Senator Dole, let's have our respective Cloakrooms find out how many amendments there are. And the Cloakrooms would call Senators. They would bring back a list of the Senators on the Republican side and a list of the Senators on the Democratic side who indicated they had amendments. I never said: Well, we ought to cut them down. I said: Let's list them. Sometimes there would be 65 amendments, sometimes 80, or whatever. I would say: Let's get unanimous consent that the amendments be limited to those on the list. I never attempted to keep Senators from calling up their amendments, or to insist the leader of the other side cut down his amendments before we would call up the bill. We listed the amendments. Then we sought to get unanimous consent. Usually we could because we worked well together. Once we had the finite list of amendments and got unanimous consent that that would be all of the amendments, we began to then work with each individual Senator--Mr. Dole and Mr. Baker, through their staff on that side, and myself on my side. Our staff attempted to get time limitations on those amendments. Many of the amendments just went away. Senators would do as I have done on several occasions: I had my name put on the list just for a ``germane'' amendment and just for self-protection. So that is the way it is. Many times, amendments fall off. I have to say that this new way of doing things here is not the way the Senate has always done it. There are 59 Senators today in this body--I believe I am correct--there are 59 Senators out of 100 Senators who never served in the Senate prior to my giving up the leadership at the end of 1988. Rules VII and VIII--there are two rules I just happened to think of that have never been utilized since I was majority leader. Never. And there are other rules that have never been utilized since I was majority leader. Fifty-nine Senators have come into the Senate not having seen the Senate operate as it did when Mr. Mansfield was here, when Lyndon Johnson was here, and when I was leader. What they see is a new way of operating in the Senate. Many of those Senators--I believe 48 of the Senators--here I am speaking from memory; I may have missed one or two--have come over from the other body. I am one of them. But there are 48, maybe 47 or 52, or thereabouts, of today's Senators who have come over to the Senate from the House. They have never seen the Senate operate under its rules, really, unless we call operating by unanimous consent operating by the rules--which would be accurate to say, up to a point. But 48 Senators have come over from the House and many of those Senators would like to make the Senate another House of Representatives. The Senate was not supposed to be an adjunct to the House. I have been in the other House. I have long studied the rules and the precedents and worked in the leadership in one capacity or another in this Senate. I served in the Democratic leadership 22 years here, as whip, as secretary of the conference, as majority leader, as minority leader, as majority leader again. I grieve over what is happening to the Senate. I say we need to get back to the old way of doing things because we are short circuiting the process. In so doing, we are depriving the people of the States of the representation that they are entitled to in this Senate. By that I mean that the people's Senators are not allowed to call up amendments, they are not allowed to debate at times. This way of operating would certainly, I think, bring sadness to the hearts of the framers because they intended for this Senate to be a check on the other body. They also intended for this Senate to be a check against an overreaching executive. But if Senators can't call up bills from the other body and debate them and amend them, then the Senate cannot adequately check the other body against the passions that may temporarily sweep over the country. The Senate cannot bring stability to the body politic and to the government that the framers intended. I am happy to yield again.

Mr. BYRD. We have had those experiences. That is not an unheard of experience.

Mr. BYRD. May I regain the floor for just a moment?

Mr. BYRD. This is accurate. During Senate consideration of the continuing resolution for fiscal year 1987, which contained full year funding for all 13 appropriations bills, more than 100 amendments were offered, debated, and disposed of.

Mr. BYRD. Well, my memory, which is not infallible, reminds me that the President of the United States asked for an omnibus bill that year. He didn't want separate bills. Mr. Reagan didn't want separate bills that year. He wanted an omnibus bill. I hope I am not mistaken in the year that we are discussing. But does the Senator not recall one year in which Mr. Reagan did not want--he wanted one bill because we were entering into some kind of an agreement amongst us; he wanted one bill to sign rather than several. So we accommodated him.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Yes. I yield.