Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. By October 1. The Record shows that in 4 years, all of the regular appropriations bills were approved by or on October 1. I can remember in 1977, I believe it was, that all of the appropriations bills were passed but the last one, which passed the Senate by just a few seconds before the hour of midnight at the close of the fiscal year. Obviously, it would not have been in time for the President to have signed the bill by the next day. But all bills did pass the Senate even though the last of the appropriations bills only made it by a few seconds or a few minutes. And in 1987, more than 100 amendments were offered, debated, and disposed of in the consideration of the continuing resolution. We took up amendments, we debated them, and disposed of them. That is what I am complaining about. I will have more to say about this in a few days. But I am complaining about the fact that appropriations bills are brought to the Senate floor, and in many instances Senators don't have the opportunity to offer amendments and have them debated. They don't have the opportunity to debate the bills fully. Secondly, I am complaining about sending appropriations bills directly to conference without the Senate's having an opportunity to debate those appropriations bills and to amend them prior to their going to conference. That short-circuits the legislative process. We represent the people who send us here. This is the only forum of the States. I represent a State, the distinguished Senator from Idaho represents a State, and represents it well. But it doesn't make any difference about the size of the State. Each State is equal in this body--meaning that small, rural States like West Virginia are equal to the large States of New York, California, Texas, and so on. But when the Senate is deprived of the opportunity to debate and to amend by virtue of appropriations bills being sent directly to conference, this means the people of my State, the people of the small States, the people of the rural States--the people of every State, as a matter of fact, represented in the Senate--are deprived of the opportunity to debate and are deprived of the opportunity to offer amendments through their Senators. This is what I am complaining about. I have tried to avoid personalities. I could do that. I don't like to do that. I am just stating a fact that we are being deprived, the Senator from Idaho is being deprived of debating and offering amendments. His people are being deprived. That is the important thing--his constituents are being deprived. I think we ought to quit that. I think we ought to stop it. I hope the distinguished Senator will stand with me in opposition to what I call the emasculation of the appropriations process when that is done.

Mr. BYRD. Therein lies the tale. The Senator uses the phrase ``in time for the President to sign them into law.''

Mr. BYRD. No, indeed. Never have I hoped that. I would like to have seen a time when Senators didn't want to call up amendments. Maybe I could have gone home earlier. But I have never thought that was a possibility. And I wouldn't hope they would go to the President clean because I think Senators ought to have the opportunity to clean up the bills, to improve them. Surely they are not perfect when they come over from the other body, and Senators ought to be at liberty to call up amendments and improve that legislation. That is the legislative process. Let's improve it. I thank my colleague.

Mr. BYRD. The Senator ought not disagree with me on saying that Senators ought to have an opportunity to call up amendments and that we don't necessarily wish to see clean bills sent to the President. I didn't want to see a clean trade bill sent to the President.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. I may have misheard the Senator. Yes. I yield.

Mr. BYRD. Exactly. I think that rule keeps down acerbities and ill will. I want to retain good will. So when I refer to the distinguished Senator, I don't want to point the finger at him by saying ``you.'' Now, Mr. President, I am not sure the Senator is entirely accurate in everything he has said. I didn't hear everything he said, but I have the impression that what he was saying was that we bundled bills together in times when I was majority leader, and so on. I am not sure that is even accurate. But let me say to the distinguished Senator that I haven't complained about bundling bills together. That is not my complaint at all. My complaint is in avoiding debate in the Senate and sending appropriation bills directly to conference. That is my problem because that avoids the open debate in the Senate, and Senators are deprived of the opportunity, thereby, to offer amendments. I don't mind bundling bills together in conference if they have passed the Senate. But if they haven't passed the Senate, I am very critical of sending those bills to the conference. I think the framers contemplated both Houses acting upon bills--and that is the way we have done it heretofore until the last few years; appropriation bills have passed the Senate; they have been amended and debated before they went to conference. That is my complaint. So I hope the Senator will not feel that I have been complaining about bills being joined in conference. I am not complaining about that. According to the CRS, all regular appropriation bills were approved by or on October 1 in 1977--the first year I became majority leader--in 1989, in 1995, and in 1997. So I have the record before me that shows that four times in those years--that is not a great record, but four times in those years all of the regular appropriations bills were approved by or on October 1. The distinguished Senator, if I understood him correctly, said only twice. Am I correct that only twice had all appropriations bills been approved on or before October 1?

Mr. BYRD. I think we are ships going past one another in the dark, the Senator and I, on this. I am for having full debate, having Senators offer their amendments. Whether or not bills sent to the President are clean, to me, I think, is not a matter of great import. I think the framers contemplated that each House, the House in the beginning on revenue bills and then the Senate on revenue bills by amendment and the House and Senate on other bills, sometimes one House would go first, sometimes the other House would go first except on revenue bills, by practice, appropriations bills. To me, in the legislative process, the people are getting their just rights, the people are getting what they are entitled to, and the Republic will flourish and the liberties of the people will endure if Senators have an opportunity to debate fully--disagree, agree, offer amendments, have them tabled, have them voted up or down. This Republic will be in a much safer position and in a much better condition if the Senate is allowed to be what the Senate was intended to be by the framers. I hope the Senator will join with me in protecting this Senate and in doing so will protect the liberties of the people. Protect the Senate. Forget about party once in a while. George Washington warned us against factions and about parties. I have never been such a great party man myself, and the Senator will not find me criticizing the ``other side'' very often, or the ``Republicans'' very often. I can do that and have been known to do it, but there are other things more important, and the Senate is one of the other things that is more important. We are talking about the Senate. We are talking about the cornerstone of the Republic. As long as we have freedom to debate in the Senate and freedom to amend, the people's liberties will be secured. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. And speak to another Senator in the second person.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we speak of another Senator in the second person?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am not sure that is accurate.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. It is the way I will always treat Senators. I will never speak ill of the Senator, never criticize the Senator, unless he is on the floor. I would like to be treated the same way.

Mr. BYRD. It is for the public domain, no question about that. But if my name is going to be used by any Senator, I would like to know in advance so that I may be on the floor to hear what he says about me so I may have the opportunity to respond when whatever is being said is said. That is the way I treat all other Senators; that is the only way I know to treat them.

Mr. BYRD. I hope so.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. I will never call the Senator's name in public without his being on the floor. I like to go face to face with anything I have to say about a Senator, and I would appreciate the same treatment.

Mr. BYRD. Whatever the Senator wants to call it, in my judgment, it is not fair.

Mr. BYRD. I am glad to yield.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I was sitting in my office when I heard the very distinguished Senator from Idaho speaking on the floor and using my name. He asked for cooperation, and, of course, we all want to cooperate. We want good will and we want cooperation. But one way to get cooperation from this Senator when his name is going to be used is to call this Senator before the Senator who wishes to call my name goes to the floor and let me know that I am going to be spoken of. I have been in the Senate 42 years, and I have never yet spoken of another Senator behind his back in any critical terms--never. I once had a jousting match with former Senator Weicker. He called my name on the floor a few times, and so I went to the floor and asked the Cloakroom to get in touch with Senator Weicker and have him come to the floor. I didn't want to speak about him otherwise, without his being on the floor. Frankly, I don't appreciate it. I like to be on the floor where I can defend myself.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. The Senator is precisely correct. The system is not operating as it was intended to operate. We are improvising it as we go along. We are changing it all the time. The Senate is changing. And I regret to say that. I simply want to thank the Senator for using the charts. They are very persuasive. They tell the story. They tell it concisely. I also thank the Senator for standing up for the Senate and the true system. The Appropriations Committee was created in 1867. So for 133 years we have had this system. The Appropriations Committee was very small in the beginning. I think it was made up of only five members. The system is being changed by Senators who have come here, most of them, from the other body. They don't know how the Senate is supposed to work. They never saw it operate under the rules. It is being run mostly by unanimous consent now, not by the rules. For example, we never have calendar Mondays here anymore. We ought to try that just once in a while to keep the system--the real system--alive. I thank the Senator for his timely comments.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, would the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am constrained to say, as I have said before, that the fault is not all on one side. And I have complained about this to my own caucus. Too many times, on this side of the aisle, we have called up the same old amendment over and over and over again. I have said this in my own caucus, and I have said this before to my colleagues. So we are at fault to an extent in that regard. That is not to say a Senator does not have the right to call up an amendment. He has the right to call up his amendment as many times as he wishes. But I see no point in beating a dead horse over and over and over. That is something I think we, on our own side, should talk about and try to avoid. Now, there are occasions when, for one reason or another, perhaps a Senator is absent or a supporter of a given amendment may be away for a funeral or something else, and the amendment may be called up, and it loses. Then I think there is real justification for calling up that amendment again on a future date. But there are times here when it seems to me my own side is only interested in sending a ``message.'' We want to send ``messages.'' This is alright up to a point. I have kind of grown tired of just sending ``messages.'' For example, nobody has supported campaign financing longer than I have in this Senate. As a matter of fact, I offered a campaign financing bill with former Senator David Boren in this Senate in the 100th Congress. Now, I offered cloture on that bill eight times. No other majority leader has ever offered cloture on the same bill eight times. But I was disappointed eight times because only four or five Members of the Republican Party ever joined the Democrats in supporting that campaign financing bill. So we tried and we tried again. I think we send too many ``messages'' on this side of the aisle. I can understand the majority leader, in trying to avoid this repetition of having to vote on the same old amendment--and they are political amendments--has attempted to bypass the Senate by not calling up bills. Many authorization bills--if one will take a look at this calendar, look at the bills on this calendar. If the Senator will look at the bills on this calendar, we have a calendar that is 71 pages in length. Some of those probably are authorization bills. They are not called up. So, Senators all too often only have appropriations bills to use as vehicles for amendments which they otherwise would call up if the authorization bills were on the calendar and were called up. The authorizing committees need to do their work. They need to get the bills out on the calendars. And then, when the bills are on the calendar, if they are not called up, Senators are going to resort to calling up amendments on appropriations bills. So there is enough fault and enough blame here to go around. But I think the greatest danger of all is for the Senate to be relegated to a position in which it cannot be effective in carrying out the intentions of the framers. And that can best be done by not calling up appropriations bills, sending them directly to conference, and preventing Senators from carrying out the wishes of their constituents, by not allowing Senators to debate and call up amendments. I thank the distinguished Senator. He has taken the floor on several occasions to mention this and to call our attention to it. I thank him. (Ms. COLLINS assumed the chair.)