Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I would be happy to Chair. I have done a little bit of that.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for the Senate to recess for those luncheons be temporarily extended for a half hour.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, has the order been entered as yet with reference to the conference luncheons today?

Mr. BYRD. I thank all Senators. I thank the Senator from Texas.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I propose the following unanimous consent request, if it is agreeable to the Senator from Texas, the Senator who is managing the bill, and Senator Harkin. I ask unanimous consent that after Mr. Gramm has completed his remarks, Mr. Dorgan be recognized, then Senator Grassley, and then I be recognized.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, usually, in this town, newspaper headlines are about politics. News stories feature articles about tax cuts, health care plans, and various partisan tactics. But, yesterday's headline in the Washington Post, reads ``Drought Is Worst Since Depression,'' and the story that follows warns of drought conditions that have gripped the Mid-Atlantic that are second only to the those seen during the bleak years of the Great Depression. We have begun to feel the pinch of this drought, with water usage limited in certain areas. With these restrictions, many people are inconvenienced by the loss of their home landscaping investments-- watching their grass, flowers, and shrubs slowly withering and turning brown. But, this drought is more than an inconvenience for those employed in one of America's hardest-working, most selfless professions. That is farming. Farming is hard luck even at best. I speak of the farmers throughout our region, including West Virginia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware, they are more than just inconvenienced. They are watching their very livelihoods slowly wither and turn to dust. In West Virginia, this drought has devastated--devastated--the lives of hundreds of family farmers, and I am deeply concerned about the fate of West Virginia's last 17,000 surviving small family farms. West Virginia farmers work hard on land most often held in the same family for generations. They farm an average of 194 acres in the rough mountain terrain, and they earn an average of just $25,000 annually. That is $25,000 annually for 365 days of never-ending labor. The distinguished occupant of the Chair, who hails from Wyoming, understands that farming is an every-day, every-week, every-month, 365- day operation every year with no time off. In farming there is no time off. That is $68.50 a day for days that begin at dawn and run past sunset in this scorching heat. Today, as the drought lingers on, West Virginia farmers, particularly cattle farmers, find themselves in critical financial circumstances. To address this crisis, I urge my colleagues to support the inclusion of a $200 million emergency relief program for cattle farmers in the Fiscal Year 2000 Agricultural Appropriations Bill which is before the Senate. My provision--if enacted--would provide Federal disaster payments to cattle farmers for losses incurred as a result of this year's heat and drought. Compensation would depend on the type and level of losses suffered, and would be available to cattle farmers in counties across the Nation which have received a Federal declaration of disaster for severe drought and heat conditions. My provision provides direct assistance to farmers who have dedicated their lives to feeding this Nation, and who suffer at the will of Mother Nature with no recourse. In West Virginia, my emergency drought aid for cattle farmers will literally decide the future fate of hundreds of small family farmers. The drought has sucked the life from the land, and is on the verge of draining the last resources from the pockets of the drought-stricken farmers. As of yesterday, Senator Rockefeller and I went to West Virginia and were there when the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Glickman, was there to witness some of the drought-stricken areas in the eastern panhandle. On that trip to West Virginia, Gus Douglas, the West Virginia commissioner of agriculture, told of being at a market where animals were being taken for sale. One farmer, who had worked his entire life breeding a herd of which he could be proud, was there with his animals. He was there to sell his cattle at this market. He was not there just with ten or twenty head of cattle. He was there with his entire herd. He knew that he did not have enough feed to make it through winter, so despite the fact that his animals would be poor prospects at auction, he had brought them all to be sold. They had already consumed the fodder that would otherwise sustain them through the coming winter months. This farmer was losing twice. First, he would make no profit on the cattle he would sell. Second, he could no longer afford to keep his herd. It was time to completely liquidate the herd. As the farmer unloaded his animals at the market, there were tears in his eyes. It was too late for this farmer, and if we do not act quickly to get an emergency assistance package passed, it will be too late for many, many more family farmers throughout the land. During our visit to West Virginia, Secretary Glickman declared all fifty-five West Virginia counties a federally designated disaster area. West Virginia is not alone, and my provision will help, if it is accepted, if it is adopted, will help cattle farmers in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and any other region that receives a natural disaster declaration for excessive heat and drought. During this visit with the Secretary, more than twenty farmers and their wives, gathered inside a barn on Mr. Terry Dunn's property in Jefferson County to share their personal stories about how the drought is impacting them and what kind of help they need. The overwhelming consensus was that programs that were designed to work at a time when our agriculture markets were strong, are not going to be enough to keep a new generation on the family farm. In spite of all types of adversity, family farmers have had the ingenuity to keep their farms working for generations. Surely they can be trusted to wisely use direct federal payments, and with this same time-tested ingenuity, keep their farms running. Farmers in West Virginia have wisely diversified their crops. In ordinary years, many farmers grow enough different kinds of crops to be able to feed their animals, their families, and still take produce to market for a good portion of the summer. But, the extraordinary times of this drought require that we act now to help West Virginia's farmers and other farmers in the non ``farm states'' who are currently experiencing difficulties as the result of extreme weather conditions. According to government statistics, West Virginia is experiencing some of the most severe water shortages in the nation. Crop losses in one county alone, Jefferson County, were estimated two weeks ago to be almost $8.7 million and they are above that now. In the Potomac Headwaters region of the state, conditions are much worse. Total damages in the state for crop losses are more than $100 million. This figure does not even include the value of grazing pasture lost and winter feed eaten during the summer, or losses incurred from selling livestock early, due to extreme weather conditions. Almost fifty percent of West Virginia's cropland is pasture, forty- six percent is harvested, and the remaining four percent is idle. The hay and corn that usually feed the cattle herds are gone. The ponds are shallow and foul, the springs are dried up, and the wells are dry. Although West Virginia farmers are willing to work day and night to keep up with the backbreaking work of farming, no amount of work will restock the dwindling stores of grain that are now being used to keep animals alive at the height of the summer growing season, when pastureland should be more than enough to satiate an animal's hunger. No amount of sweat can restore vigor to stunted crops that have gone too long without a soaking downpour of rain reaching the deepest roots. There is little that these farmers can do to fill their wells or farm ponds with water. I traveled to see the damage that the drought in West Virginia is causing for farmers. I heard for myself the stories they told. I saw for myself the impact this drought is having, and I saw on those tired, drawn faces the impact this drought is having on the bodies, the minds, and the souls of men and women who earn their bread by the sweat of their brow, in accordance with the edict that was issued by the Creator Himself when He drove Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. We visited a corn field on Terry Dunn's farm. The reddish soil was dust at my feet. The corn stalks that should have grown beyond my head by this time of the season were barely knee high. I wanted to see what kind of ears these stunted stalks were producing. The ear of corn that I reached down and selected snapped too easily from the stalk. This not yet shucked ear of corn was barely bigger than two rolls of quarters. I saw the conditions of the cattle and pastureland in West Virginia. I saw the dry, cracked fields; I saw the stunted corn stalks; and I heard the stories of farmers. It all amounts to a heart-breaking picture. I urge my colleagues to help all cattle farmers in areas declared as Federal disaster areas as a result of excessive heat or drought, and to support my provision in their behalf. My amendment will ensure direct relief to the cattle farmers in the Northeast affected by this natural disaster. It will serve to bolster other important aid for fruit and crop losses. The sweltering temperatures have taken their toll on farmers in the Mid-Atlantic region. Let us not turn the heat up further. Let us support the small family farmer in his or her hour of need. My amendment is a part of the Daschle-Harkin bill. I thank all Senators for listening. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the Chair's understanding as to how long I will speak and when the Senate will recess for the conference luncheons?

Mr. BYRD. After which the conference luncheons will occur.

Mr. BYRD. Yes. At which time those Senators on the list as presently drawn would be recognized in the order stated.

Mr. BYRD. The Senator is very gracious to offer that. I do not ask that. However, I wanted to have an understanding as to how we are proceeding. I believe I probably was on the floor ahead of most others other than the Senator. If the Senators are alternating, does the Senator from North Dakota wish to go next? All I want is a chance to speak at some point.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. The Chair is very gracious. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed at this point in lieu of Mr. Dorgan. The list of names of Senators, I think, that have been entered up to this point would be, as of this moment, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Byrd. And I have permission of Mr. Dorgan to substitute myself for his name at the moment, and let his name fall in place for my name under the present circumstance. So it would be Mr. Byrd, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Dorgan. I seek the help of the distinguished manager of the bill, Mr. Cochran, who is my friend. I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed at this point. Would it be the wish of the manager, then, that the Senate recess, and the others on the list be recognized following the conferences?

Mr. BYRD. Very well. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. If the Senator will allow me, I haven't forgotten my promise to the Senator. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the recognition of Mr. Dorgan, in order to comport with the understanding that there be alternative speakers, that a Republican Senator be recognized, and that he then be followed by Mr. Baucus. This will all occur after the conference luncheons.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will vote against this Republican tax cut plan. I cannot conceive of a more ill-advised fiscal plan for the Nation over the next 10 years than the Republican tax cut bill. I say this for a number of reasons. Having seen the National debt explode from less than $1 trillion on the day that President Reagan took office to over $5.6 trillion today, we should have learned that the supply-side economic theories of the Reagan-Bush years, which called for massive tax cuts together with a massive defense build-up, while at the same time balancing the federal budget, are pure, unadulterated hogwash. They didn't work then; they won't work now. Thankfully, due to a number of factors--for example, the fiscal policies of the Federal Reserve, and improvements in the productivity of the Nation's businesses--we have been able not only to stem the tide of red ink that ran into the triple-digit billion-dollar levels for each of the Reagan-Bush years but, if the latest projections of both the OMB and CBO pan out, we also can look forward to huge federal surpluses each year as far as the eye can see. That's good news, if those projections come true and if Congress is able to withstand another round of tax cut fever. The Congressional Budget Office projects surpluses over the next ten years (FY 2000-2009) totaling nearly $3 trillion. Of that amount, about $2 trillion would be surpluses in the Social Security Trust Fund, and the other $1 trillion ($996 billion to be exact) would be non-social security surpluses. However, a closer look at these non-social security surpluses projected by CBO over the next ten years, reveals that they rest on a very shaky foundation. The fact is, these non-social security surpluses which are projected to total $996 billion, are based in large part on huge cuts in investments and national priorities--such as national security, veterans' medical care, the FBI and other crime- fighting programs, the environment, agriculture, border patrol agents, health research, education, and many other critical programs. Of the $996 billion in non-social security surpluses projected by CBO for the next 10 years, $595 billion results from real and devastating cuts in these national priorities. As if that were not bad enough, the Republican tax cut plan calls for additional cuts of some $180 billion to these same programs. That makes a total of $775 billion in cuts in these national investments over the next 10 years. That is what is being proposed in the Republican tax cut bill now before the Senate. Furthermore, the Republican tax cuts of $792 billion would, if enacted, also result in increased interest on the Federal Debt over the next 10 years totaling $179 billion. In reality, then, the Republican tax cut bill eats up $971 billion of the $996 billion in projected non-social security surpluses over the next 10 years, leaving only $25 billion remaining. We should heed the advice of Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan in his testimony before Congressional Committees when he advised caution when considering what to do with these projected surpluses. In the first place, it is extremely unlikely that these projections will come true. The fact is that CBO's estimates of revenues over the past two decades have been off by an absolute average of $38 billion per year; their estimates on spending over that period have been off by $36 billion per year; and their deficit/surplus projections have been off by an absolute average of $54 billion per year over the past two decades. If these averages hold up over the next 10 years, the trillion-dollar non-social security surpluses could be slashed by $540 billion purely due to mis-estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. Further, as CBO states in virtually every report that they publish, cyclical disturbances such as recessions, changes in interest rates, inflation, etc., could have significant effects on their projected surpluses at any time during the projection period. Then, there is the question of emergency spending. As Senators are aware, under the Budget Enforcement Act, unforeseen emergencies, which cannot be predicted accurately and, therefore, are not budgeted, are allowed to be funded outside the spending caps that have been in place since 1990 and which will remain in place through FY2002. The fact is, emergency spending over the past decade (other than spending for Desert Storm/Desert Shield and the $21 billion in emergency spending in the FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act) has averaged $8 billion per year. In other words, but for those two instances, Congress has enacted spending outside of the budgetary caps for such things as disaster assistance to the nation's farmers, relief for victims of floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes, as well as assistance for victims of similar occurrences overseas. That type of assistance has averaged $8 billion per year since 1990. There is no indication that these natural disasters will suddenly cease. To the contrary, there is substantial evidence that they have become more frequent and more severe in the latter part of this Century. What does this mean? It means that it is highly likely that over the next decade, at least $80 billion in emergency spending will be needed. But, keep in mind that the $996 billion in non-social security surpluses projected by CBO, the large bulk of which results from real cuts in national priorities, does not allow for any emergency spending over the next 10 years. That being the case, wouldn't it be prudent to reduce the $996 billion projection by at least the $80 billion historical average per decade that we have seen in the past? After so doing, even if Congress and the Administration agreed to the $775 billion of cuts in purchasing power for national priorities that the Republican tax cut bill requires, there would not be sufficient surpluses remaining to cover this Republican tax cut plan without either reverting back into deficit spending, or repealing the tax cut, or dipping into the Social Security Trust Fund surpluses. Next, let's look at the question of whether Congress can, or should, stay within the existing spending caps for FY2000, much less the more difficult caps of FY2001 and FY2002. One need only pick up the morning newspaper on any one of the past several days to find an article or two discussing the progress, or lack thereof, that the Appropriations Committees are making in completing action on the FY2000 funding bills. Recently, it is reported, the House Appropriations Committee found that the VA-HUD Subcommittee could not stay within its allocations without declaring some $3 billion in funding for VA medical care, as well as $2.5 billion in FEMA funding, as ``emergency'' spending, which as I have explained earlier, does not count against the spending caps, but will, nonetheless, decrease the surplus. Additionally, some $4.5 billion has been declared emergency spending for the Decennial Census by the House Appropriations Committee. Those three items alone, if enacted as emergency spending, will cut the projected FY2000 surplus by $10 billion. Furthermore, as CBO points out on page 6 of their mid- Session Review, they have been directed by the Budget Committees to reduce their outlay projections in FY2000 by $10 billion for defense, $1 billion for transportation, and $3 billion for other non-defense programs. That knocks another $14 billion dent in CBO's non-social security surplus projections for FY2000. On that same page, CBO also points out that their non-social security surplus projections exclude some $3 billion per year in spending for the administrative expenses of the Social Security Administration. When all of these factors are taken into account, for FY2000, actions by Congress to date have already added emergency spending of some $10 billion; and have increased outlays by $14 billion. This $24 billion, together with the $3 billion in administrative expenses for the Social Security Administration, means that Congress is likely to not only spend all of the $14 billion FY2000 non-social security surplus projected by CBO, but, actually, to exceed it by at least $13 billion. In other words, it is highly likely that for FY2000 alone, Congress and the Administration will enact spending levels which will not only use up the entire $14 billion non- social security surplus projected for that year, but will also eat into the Social Security Trust Fund surpluses by at least $13 billion. So much for the Social Security Lock-box! Congress has already found the key that unlocks it. What about next year, when the spending caps are much tougher to stay within? Is one to believe that Congress will make the Draconian cuts in national priorities that would be called for to stay within the Republican tax plan? If not, further erosion of these projected surpluses will occur. Keep in mind that once tax cuts are enacted, those revenues are gone, and can only be retrieved by repealing the tax cuts. Does anyone think that Congress will do that in an Election Year? If not, then it is a foregone conclusion that the surplus projections for even the upcoming three fiscal years, to say nothing of the remaining seven years of the next decade, will be eaten away because they are based on virtually impossible, and extremely unsound, cuts in spending on national priorities. Keeping two sets of books, as the Republicans are attempting to do, won't fool the American people for very long. In closing, Mr. President, let me quote from the text of a recent statement by 50 of the Nation's most revered economists, including six Nobel laureates, concerning the tax cuts now before the Senate. The federal budget is projected to show substantial surpluses over the next 15 years. These surpluses offer an exceptional opportunity to pay down government debt and thereby strengthen Social Security and Medicare in order to prepare for the retirement of the baby boomers. . . . In contrast, a massive tax cut that encourages consumption would not be good economic policy. With the unemployment rate at its lowest point in a generation, now is the wrong time to stimulate the economy through tax cuts. Moreover, an ever growing tax cut would drain government resources just when the aging of the population starts to put substantial stress on Social Security and Medicare. Further, the projections assume substantial undesirable reductions in real spending for non-entitlement programs, including important public investments. Given the uncertainty of long-term budget projections, committing to a large tax cut would create significant risks to the budget and the economy. Mr. President, it could not be any clearer to any rational human being that this Republican tax cut plan is exactly the wrong fiscal blueprint for the Nation as we enter the next Millennium. As I have shown, it is highly unlikely that these forecasts will come true. Even if they do, some $80 billion in emergency spending for natural disasters has not been accounted for; another $30 billion in administrative costs of the Social Security Administration has not been accounted for; and the budget caps for FY2000 alone are likely to be exceeded by over $20 billion. Now is not the time to return to the failed economic policies that prevailed during the Reagan-Bush years. Rosy Scenario in all her splendor could not make their policies work. The same is true of the policies that would be undertaken if we were to enact this Republican tax cut.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today I voted against the Medicare Sense of the Senate amendment numbered 1467, offered by Senator Frist. For the benefit of my constituents in West Virginia, I offer a brief explanation for why I voted the way I did. I opposed Senator Frist's amendment because, in my judgment, it is based on a fiction. As we all know, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has projected a $996 billion non-Social Security surplus over the next ten years. The Frist amendment said that, even allowing for the $792 billion tax cut, there was still enough money left over to provide for the long-term solvency of the Medicare system. One need not be an economist, or even an expert in budget policy, to understand why that was just plain wrong. The Republican tax cut plan will cost $971 billion over the next ten years--$792 billion for the actual tax cut, plus $179 billion in additional interest payments on the debt. That leaves $25 billion of the non-Social Security surplus. From that amount, the Republicans have said we can provide for emergency expenditures for natural disasters and international conflicts, which averages $80 billion over ten years; fund current operations of government; and reserve enough money for Medicare. And, as I say, they would do all that without using the Social Security surplus. As anyone can plainly see, that is just not possible. In all good conscience, I could not vote for the Frist amendment.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, recently both the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office released their so-called ``Mid-Session Reviews'' on the state of the Federal budget. Both of these new forecasts project even better performance for the nation's economy in the coming ten years than they had predicted just a few months ago. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office projects unified budget surpluses totaling just under $3 trillion over the next ten years. Of the $3 trillion, approximately $2 trillion results from surpluses being paid into the Social Security trust fund. The remaining $1 trillion--or $996 billion to be exact--is what is called the ``on budget'' surplus. That is the non-Social Security trust fund surplus. The question before Congress is what do we do with this good news--our government is about to be awash in money, if these projections come true. Before we get too far along with our grandiose plans for massive tax cuts, a dose of reality is in order. Sometimes a dose of castor oil is in order. We may not like it so much, but it has to be taken. So a dose of reality is in order. These future budget surpluses are, of course, based on ``pie in the sky'' projections. But I don't think ``pie in the sky'' is quite right. The projections are so far out into the Stratosphere--more than a decade away--that we would need the Hubble Telescope to track them down. Mr. President, the fact is that they have not yet occurred, the money is not yet in hand--and may well never occur--for a number of reasons. First, one needs to keep in mind that budget projections for even 1 year are likely to be missed by a substantial margin over the normal 5- year period of congressional budgets. Estimates of deficits and surpluses have been off by billions of dollars. This year, for the first time, instead of 5-year budget projections, we have 10-year budget projections upon which all of the surpluses are being forecast, and upon which tax cut proposals by Democrats, Republicans and the administration are being based. Does anyone really believe that these 10-year projections will be any more accurate than the usual 5-year numbers? In looking at these incredible amounts of surpluses and tax cuts, I would think that one needs more of an astrologer than an economist to read the tea leaves and to come up with these figures. Mr. President, consider these facts: CBO's estimate of revenues over the period 1980 through 1998 was off by an absolute average of $38 billion per year. The estimates were off by an average of $38 billion per year during the period 1980 through 1998. That is a pretty fair piece of change! This isn't just chicken feed. Some years, the estimates were closer to the projection than other years, but, as I say, the average difference one way or the other, was $38 billion per year. Similarly, for outlays, the projections over the past two decades were off the mark by an absolute average of $36 billion per year. The resulting deficit projections by the Congressional Budget Office over the period 1980 through 1998 were off by an absolute average of $54 billion per year. Extend that figure over 10 years, and that is what we are doing now in this bill, and we can see that $540 billion of the $1 trillion projected surplus could melt away faster than last year's snowball. So what about these latest ``rosy'' forecasts of budgetary surpluses for the next 10 years? It is obvious that we need to be very careful when relying on such projections to make decisions about whether and if we can afford a tax cut. CBO officials would be the first to tell you that they have widely missed the mark in their budgetary forecasts, as would the folks at OMB. No one on the face of God's green Earth can predict accurately for even 1 year, much less for 5 or 10 years, what revenues will come into the Treasury, or what expenditures will go out of the Treasury. That is because no one knows what the unemployment rate will be next year, or the inflation rate, interest rates, whether there will be a recession or the duration or virility of such recession. In virtually every CBO report, the following cautionary footnote can be found: ``Cyclical disturbances could have a significant effect on the budget at any time during the projection period. A recession would temporarily push down taxable incomes, thus reducing federal revenues. A recession would also cause a boost in spending for unemployment insurance and other benefit programs. CBO estimates that a relatively mild recession (similar to the one in the early 1990s) that began this year could reduce the projected surplus by $55 billion in 2000.'' Mr. President, there is no reason to believe that CBO's current forecast of the budgetary picture over the next 10 years will be any more accurate than have been its previous forecasts over the past two decades. With that dose of reality in mind, let's now turn our attention to the Republican tax cut proposal now before the Senate. Earlier in my remarks, I noted that the Congressional Budget Office projects an on- budget surplus of $996 billion over the coming 10 years FY 2000-2009. The on-budget surplus calculations, it should be noted, are the monies not needed for Social Security or the Postal Service, and not otherwise spent. The Republican tax cut plan proposes to use virtually all of these projected on-budget surpluses for tax cuts of $792 billion and for paying the increased interest on the federal debt of $179 billion. This leaves only $25 billion in projected surpluses for the next 10 years. What happens if we enact cuts of $792 billion and the CBO projections turn out to be wrong? What happens if they turn out to be wrong, as they have always been? What will Congress do then? The money will by law be leaving the Treasury everyday in the form of tax cuts, but there may be an inadequate surplus to cover them. Will Congress repeal the tax cut? It is easy to vote for a tax cut. Will Congress repeal the tax cut? Will it be able to cut spending even further than the Republican budget--which I will say more about later--already calls for? Will it dip into the Social Security trust fund then? Or, will Congress find it easier to revert back into the bad old days of the 1980s and simply run up massive annual deficits? Those are the four choices we will have. All of them are unacceptable. We must not mislead the American people by promising them massive tax cuts which may well be based only on phantom surpluses which never materialize. Even if the surpluses do happen, this Republican tax plan could emasculate national security, public investments, and the operations of government. As this chart shows, these areas of the Federal budget could suffer real cuts each year, beginning in fiscal year 2000, drastically below what would be necessary to continue them at the levels provided in fiscal year 1999. In fact, over the whole 10-year period--over the 10-year period--the real reductions would total $775 billion. In other words, the bulk of the $792 billion Republican tax cut is likely, in reality, to be financed by cuts in critical domestic priorities--critical domestic priorities--such as education, health care, infrastructure, child care, the environment, agriculture-- that will affect you, the people of this country--old, young, white, black, male, female. They will affect you--you--because they will be financed by cuts in critical domestic priorities. Mr. President, to give the American people some sense of what I am talking about, let me focus on just three critical areas of the Federal budget that would be thus affected. First, however, let me point out that the cuts in these programs are based on the assumption that the Republicans will fund defense at the levels requested by President Clinton over the next 10 years. If that is so, and the tax cuts are also enacted, according to the Office of Management and Budget, an across-the-board cut of 38 percent--that is more than a third--in outlays will be required in the other public investments and operations of the Federal Government. For example, let us take a look at the VA medical care program. That gets close to home. We are already getting lots of mail, lots of telephone calls, e-mails, and so on, from veterans and their families. So let's take a look at the VA medical care program. What would happen to veterans' health care under the Republican tax cut plan if these cuts are administered in an across-the-board manner? The cuts will rise from $931 million in fiscal year 2000 to over $11.5 billion in fiscal year 2009. In total, the cumulative cuts to the VA medical program--as I say, we are already hearing a lot from veterans because they see these cuts coming--the cumulative cuts to the VA medical program for this 10-year period will be more than $53.5 billion below what it would take to continue current VA medical care services. I might add, as I say, some veterans are already feeling it, and this figure is woefully inadequate. What do those cuts mean in human terms? As we can see from this chart, OMB projects that 3,252,735 veterans--not talking about dollars now; we are talking about real people, veterans in particular--OMB projects that 3,252,735 veterans will seek treatment at VA medical facilities in fiscal year 2000. That is just over the horizon, fiscal year 2000. Under the Republican tax plan, though, 102,278 of these veterans are going to have to be turned away: Sorry, that program has been reduced, or that program has been cut out; we do not have room for you. As we can see, over the 10-year period the number of veterans to be turned away--sorry, sorry, we have to turn you away--will increase each year until fiscal year 2009, when, according to these figures, 1,430,985 veterans will be denied critical health care benefits. Is that how a grateful Nation treats its soldiers, sailors, and airmen? Now, let's look at national crime-fighting programs. Mr. President, the budget for the Federal Bureau of Investigation was approximately $3 billion in FY 1999. Paying for the Republican tax cuts would require reductions in the FBI budget below what would be needed to continue current services over each of the next 10 years. Those cuts get progressively worse until in FY 2009, the Republican tax cut would require a cut of almost $1.9 billion below the $4.3 billion that would be necessary just to maintain--just to maintain--the same level of service being provided by the FBI in 1999. Over this 10-year period, total cuts to the FBI's budget would equal almost $9 billion. That is $9 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. Nine billion dollars, that is a lot of money! Again, Mr. President, what does this translate to in services to the American people? Forget the dollars for a moment. As this chart shows, the FBI will need 10,687 agents in each of the next 10 years in order to just continue its current law enforcement efforts. But, that will not be possible if we enact the Republican tax cuts. Instead, we can look forward to progressively--progressively--deeper reductions in the number of FBI agents in each of the next 10 years. In FY 2009, rather than being able to employ 10,687 agents, the FBI will only be able to employ, 5,878. Is that what the American people want? And what does that do to our efforts to prevent another World Trade Center bombing? What does it do to our efforts to prevent another Oklahoma City bombing? What do cuts of that magnitude do to our programs to fight organized crime, or the insidious proliferation of child pornography on the Internet? Sadly, the picture is no better for the effort to patrol our Nation's borders. Progressively deeper budget cuts will have to be made over the next 10 years totaling more than $3.5 billion because of the massive Republican tax cuts. As a result, as we can see displayed in this next chart, the number of INS agents--Immigration and Naturalization Service agents--protecting the Nation's borders will decline from the needed level of 8,947 to only 4,921 in the year 2009. How does that help address the problem of illegal immigration? And that is a big, big, big problem. How do those kind of cuts help our drug interdiction efforts? What kind of message does that send to the Colombian drug lords? Mr. President, these are just three--just three--examples of the short-sheeting that will take place throughout the entire Federal Government because of the Republican tax plan. As if this weren't bad enough, the real kicker in the Republican tax cut plan is that not only does it cut taxes by almost a trillion dollars over the next 10 years but--get this--this tax cut package would explode in the following 10 years, costing roughly an additional $1.8 trillion, according to preliminary projections by the Treasury Department. Also, the Treasury Department points out that interest on the national debt in the second 10 years caused by the $1.8 trillion in lost revenues would be roughly $1.1 trillion higher. Let me say that again. The Treasury Department points out that interest on the national debt in the second 10 years caused by the $1.8 trillion in lost revenues would be roughly $1.1 trillion higher. That makes a total cost of the Republican tax cut plan in the years 2010 through 2019 of $2.9 trillion. The increased interest due on the national debt of $1.1 trillion caused by the Republican tax cut plan is greater than the total amount of their tax cut for the first ten years, which was $792 billion. These massive drains on the U.S. Treasury would take place at the very time when the baby-boom generation is retiring in huge numbers and placing a great strain on the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. This tax cut plan, in my view, represents the absolute omega of irresponsibility. It passes on to our children and grandchildren in the years 2010 through 2019 a $2.9 trillion drain on the U.S. Treasury. The Republican tax cut would have us spend $2.9 trillion over the decade 2010 through 2019 right now, regardless of whether that drain makes it impossible for the country to meet its Social Security and Medicare obligations for its senior citizens. Recently the Washington Post carried a political cartoon by Herblock on one of its pages, which I have here on this chart. As one can see, at the top of the cartoon appeared these words: ``Back for an indefinite run!'' Let me say that again: ``Back for an indefinite run!'' ``Rosy Scenario''--whoopee, we have heard of her, haven't we? ``Rosy Scenario--and her long line of stunning surplus sugarplums.'' The cartoon depicts Rosy--there she is, all ready for the show--in a costume with dancing girls and throwing dollar bills in the air. There is a song, ``Pennies from Heaven.'' But Mr. President, these are dollar bills! Holy Smoke! Rosy Scenario is throwing them all about us. In front of the theater in which she is appearing, what do we see? We see two eager customers about to buy their tickets for the show. One appears to be an elephant; one appears to be a donkey. They are both depicted in business attire. The ticket salesman seems to have a cynical smirk on his face, as though he knows something that the elephant and the donkey, who are waiting for their tickets, don't know. When I saw this cartoon, it brought back memories about Rosy. She first appeared on the scene in 1981 as a major player in the Reagan revolution. When President Reagan took office, that so-called revolution was based on supply-side economic ideology that called for massive tax cuts. That was before more than two-thirds of the Senators here today arrived--almost two-thirds, to be exact. Sixty-three Senators are here today who were not here when I was majority leader the third time, 1987 and 1988. But we are talking about 1981. Even more Senators were not here then. That so-called revolution was based on supply-side economic ideology that called, again, for massive tax cuts, a large buildup in defense spending, and balancing the Federal budget; all were going to be done. Those were the principal budgetary concepts the Reagan revolution put forth. There were many skeptics at the time as to whether those policies would actually work. I was one of those skeptics. The Senate majority leader, Howard Baker, called it a ``riverboat gamble.'' Nevertheless, in 1981 Congress did enact a huge tax cut, and it did increase defense spending. Entitlement spending also continued to grow. What was the result? The result was an era of the largest Federal deficits by far in history. Furthermore, ``Rosy Scenario'' worked her magic numbers in the budget under the direction of President Reagan's chief financial adviser, OMB Director David Stockman. As a result of those policies, rather than ridding the country of Federal deficits, the country saw for the first time in history triple-digit billion dollar deficits in each of Mr. Reagan's eight years in office. In fact, the national debt stood at $932 billion on January 20, 1981, the date President Reagan took office. Unfortunately, on the day that President Reagan left office on January 20, 1989, the national debt stood at $2,683,000,000,000. This chart depicts the major causes of increased Federal debt for fiscal years 1981 through 1991. It shows that the 1981 tax cut over that 10-year period, cost the Treasury $2.1 trillion. Those tax cuts were offset by a series of tax increases that became necessary during the Reagan years in an attempt to decrease Federal deficits. Those tax increases equaled $800 billion. Entitlement and defense spending each grew by $600 billion above inflation over this 10-year period. Interest on the climbing national debt increased by $500 billion. The S&L bailout cost $200 billion. And, domestic spending was cut over that 10- year period by $400 billion below inflation. That was a very unfortunate and difficult period in our national history. The folly of the Reagan Revolution's fiscal policies is set forth in great detail in the book entitled, ``The Triumph of Politics'' by David Stockman. As I previously pointed out, David Stockman was the principal architect of the Reagan budgets until he left the Administration in 1985. Perhaps the best summary of the conclusions reached by Mr. Stockman is found in the epilogue of the book found on pages 378-379. The fundamental reality of 1984 was not the advent of a new day, but a lapse into fiscal indiscipline on a scale never before experienced in peacetime. There is no basis in economic history or theory for believing that from this wobbly foundation a lasting era of prosperity can actually emerge. Will we never learn! Cicero said, ``To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child.'' That is the value of history. That is what we are talking about, history, and history is about to repeat itself. This can be a year of great opportunity for the Nation if Congress and the administration can work together on our budget priorities for the coming decade. I do not think Congress needs to choose an all-or- nothing course of action, but we do need to jettison the political pandering that is going on. This should not be an ``us versus them'' battle; it is not a ``big government versus little people'' battle. So what should Congress do? The same as any wise investor would do: 1, watch our investments carefully and manage them prudently. Manage the economy and watch out for inflation; 2, pay our debt. Pay down the national debt; 3, cover the necessities. Don't short change our Nation's core programs, such as education, health care and the like; 4, put aside what we need to put aside for a rainy day. Reserve the Social Security and Medicare surpluses exclusively for future costs of those programs; 5, take prosperity in measured doses. Ease up on taxes without pulling the rug out from under projected surpluses. After years of struggling to overcome a sluggish economy and mounting deficits, America is well-launched on an economic renaissance. I hope we in Congress can rise to the challenge and serve as wise stewards of this economic prosperity. I hope we can put aside our political posturing and act in the best interests of the American people and the American Nation. Before the Congress takes this folly of a plunge, perhaps it is a good time for a bit of a history lesson. It was more than 50 years ago when the Republican-controlled 80th Congress approved a massive $4 billion tax cut. That was a massive tax cut--$4 billion--in those days. President Harry Truman--one of my favorite Presidents--vetoed that tax cut, calling the Republicans ``bloodsuckers with offices on Wall Street.'' I am quoting Mr. Truman as saying that. It took three times, but the Republican majority overturned that veto. In his nomination speech before the Democratic National Convention, President Truman put forth an idea that we need to recall today. He said that ``everybody likes to have low taxes, but we must reduce the national debt in times of prosperity. And when tax relief can be given, it ought to go to those who need it most and not those who need it least, as this Republican rich man's tax bill did.'' Just as an aside, not only did Mr. Truman upset Mr. Dewey that year, but the Democrats regained control of the Congress. The American people know when the Congress is dealing with them squarely and wisely. They also know when the Congress is playing political games with their futures. I am reminded, in closing, of the lesson conveyed by Chaucer in ``The Pardoner's Tale.'' Three young men, searching to find and destroy Death, were directed to a tree under which they found bushels of gold coins. They immediately forgot all about their quest to find and murder Death, and they set to plotting how to get the gold safely home. They decided to wait until darkness fell, and they drew lots to see which of the three would be sent into town to buy food and wine for all of them. The youngest was chosen. While he was gone, the other two decided to kill him upon his return so as to keep more of the gold for themselves. In the meanwhile, the youngest, as he went into town, decided to poison the other two so as to keep it all for himself. When he returned to the tree, the two waiting men pounced upon him and killed him. And then they drank the poisoned wine and died. Let us heed the warning of ``The Pardoner's Tale'' and not allow the glitter of gold to blind us to the common good of the Nation. Congress has the ability, the wisdom, and the means to chart a wise budget course for our Nation's future. Let us hope that Congress can also muster the maturity to put aside election year rhetoric in favor of sound fiscal policy. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I speak today in support of the fiscal year 2000 Interior and Related Agencies appropriation bill. This is an important bill which provides for the management of our Nation's natural resources, funds research critical to our energy future, supports the well-being of our Indian populations, and protects the historical and cultural heritage of our country. I urge the Senate to move swiftly in its consideration of this appropriation bill. It has been my privilege to serve as the ranking member for this bill at the side of our very able chairman, the senior Senator from Washington. Senator Gorton has done an outstanding job in crafting the bill and balancing its many competing interests, a particularly daunting challenge this year in light of the spending caps within which the Appropriations Committee must operate. Even in the best of years, crafting the Interior bill is not an easy task. The Interior bill remains one of the most popular appropriation bills, funding a diverse set of very worthy programs and projects. The bill is full of thousands of relatively small, yet very meaningful details. Our chairman is a master of the complexities of the Interior bill. It is a pleasure to work on this appropriations bill with Senator Gorton at the helm. He has treated the Senators fairly and openly. This bill was put together in a bipartisan manner, and it reflects priorities identified by Senators, by the public, and by the agencies which are charged with carrying out the programs and projects funded in the bill. The breadth of the activities covered by the Interior bill is vast-- ranging from museums to parks to hospitals to resources to research-- with most of the funds being spent far away from the capital. This bill funds hundreds of national parks, wildlife refuges, national forests, and other land management units. This bill supports more than 400 Indian hospitals and clinics and thousands of Indian students. A wide variety of natural science and energy research and technology development are funded through this bill, providing immediate and far- reaching benefits to all parts of our Nation and to our society as a whole. This bill makes its presence known in every State--from the rocky coasts of Maine to the mountains of California, from the coral reefs of Florida to the far flung island territories of the Pacific, from the Aleutian Islands in Alaska to the Outer Banks of North Carolina. And the number of requests Senator Gorton and I have received from Senators for project funding in the Interior bill--more than 2,400 requests for specific items--reflects its broad impact. While it is impossible to include every request, Senator Gorton has done an admirable job of accommodating high-priority items within the allocation, an allocation that is $1.13 billion below the President's budget request and nearly $20 million below last year's enacted level of $13.94 billion in new discretionary spending authority. Highlights of this bill include: A total of $234 million for federal land acquisition, which is $178 million below the President's fiscal year 2000 request (with reprogrammings) and $94 million below the level of funding included in the fiscal year 1999 act for land acquisition. A continuing emphasis on operating and protecting our national parks. Park operation funds are increased by $70 million, including increases of $19 million for resource stewardship, $16 million for visitor services, and $20 million for park maintenance. A continuing focus on the operational needs of the other land management agencies. The bill contains an increase of $24 million for the operating accounts of the Bureau of Land Management, including a $9 million increase for range management. The bill also provides an increase of $22 million for the resource management account of the Fish and Wildlife Service, including an increase of $13 million for refuge operations and maintenance. The bill contains $159 million for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, allowing operation of the reserve without selling any of its oil. Fossil energy research and development is funded at $395 million (with use of transfers and prior year balances), which is an increase above both the enacted level (by $11 million) and the request level (by $27 million). Specific increases also are provided for select energy conservation programs in building research and standards, transportation technology and specific industries of the future activities. While this bill provides needed resources for protecting some of our nation's most valuable treasures, we still have a long way to go. The agencies funded through this bill are starting to make progress towards addressing their operational and maintenance issues, thanks to the leadership of the Congress. But we are by no means out of the woods. Many deplorable conditions remain; many important resource and research needs are unmet. We must continue our vigilance towards unnecessary new initiatives as well as unwise decreases, our support for the basic programs that provide the foundation of the Interior bill, and our careful stewardship of the resources and assets placed in our trust. Lastly, I extend a warm word of appreciation to the staff that have assisted the Chairman and myself in our work on this bill. They work as a team and serve both of us, as well as all Senators, in a very effective and dedicated manner. On the majority side, the staff members are Bruce Evans, Ginny James, Anne McInerney, Leif Fonnesbeck, Joseph Norrell, and Sean Marsan. On my staff, Kurt Dodd, Carole Geagley, and Liz Gelfer have worked on the Interior Bill this year. This team works under the tutelage of the staff directors of the full committee--Steve Cortese for the majority and Jim English for the minority. Mr. President, this is a good bill, and I urge the Senate to complete its action promptly. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I certainly don't want to appear to be trying to take anything away from the distinguished majority leader, who has accomplished many things. I compliment him, and I have done so many times. I have spoken behind his back as well as to his face that he has many attributes that I admire. But surely the distinguished majority leader didn't mean what he said when he said the Democrats were trying to dictate the scheduling. This Democrat doesn't do that, and the majority leader knows that. This Democrat has no such intention, and I don't think the Democrats here, who are in the minority, would attempt to try to dictate the schedule. The Democrats, as I observe them, are trying to stand up for their rights, and they certainly have the right to debate and the right to offer amendments. I have no interest in taking over the schedule here. But I do have an interest in the Senate. I think the Senate has gone downhill. I think it is too partisan, and I don't think the minority has been given the right to call up amendments. I have seen the distinguished majority leader call up a bill and immediately put a cloture motion on it. I have done that a few times, too, my friend, but I never made it a practice to do it day after day and time after time. You can search my record if you want to, but I also have a memory. I was majority leader here, as I say, before 63 of the current Senators, including the majority leader, got here. I am pretty well informed about what has gone on before. I am not here to attack the majority leader today. I admire him. I count him as my friend. As far as I am concerned, he will remain that way. But I think the Senate is being hurt. I don't want the Senate to be hurt. I think the American people want their work done. I had the same problem that the Senator is talking about. I called our Democratic Senators one day into my office, and I said: Now, I'll tell you what I am going to do. We are going to have a week's or ten- day break every 4 weeks here. We are going to go home and talk to our people. I got a big hand of applause. Then I said: Now, the other side of that coin is, we are going to be here 5 days a week, and we are going to work 5 days a week. And we are going to have votes 5 days a week, on Mondays as well as on Fridays. I first offered the carrot, and then I offered the stick, and it worked. I am the one--I am the culprit--who started this business of having breaks every 4 or 5 weeks. But I also kept the Senate here. Not everybody on this side of the aisle liked me for it. As I said, it is not the quality of life around here that counts to me; as long as I am the majority leader, it is the quality of work that counts. I have been through all of that. We got the work done. Senators were able to call up their amendments. They were able to get votes on them. Look at the Record of the 100th Congress. You will see a good record.

Mr. BYRD. Yes. The distinguished Senator has the floor.

Mr. BYRD. I did.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. The Senator has asked me a question. He said: If you were here and Senators on the other side of the aisle said that----

Mr. BYRD. I thought you said----

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. We have just witnessed what is wrong with this Senate. I have been yielded 25 minutes. We don't have time today to properly discuss one of the most fundamental questions that ever comes before this Senate: fundamental freedom of speech; freedom of debate; freedom to offer amendments. I am limited to 25 minutes. Yes, I agreed to this 6-hour rule, but you can see how it is playing out. Most of the 3 hours allotted to the minority are being played out over here. Nobody is talking on the other side. Perhaps one, two, or three Senators will. I think the distinguished Senator who now presides over the Senate made some remarks earlier. But the point of it is, the minority will have said about all it has time to say under this agreement, and then its time will have run out. As a consequence, the majority will be able to speak during the latter hours or moments, and there won't be much time for real debate. Mr. President, I am in my 41st year in this body. I was in the other body for 6 years. I saw the actions of the other body. When I came to the Senate, I wanted to come to the Senate. I wanted to come to a forum in which one could speak as long as his feet would hold him, as long as he could stand, and the floor could not be taken away from him by the Chair, a majority leader, or anybody else. He could speak for as long as he wished. For all these years, I have talked about this institution, about its importance in the constitutional system, about the fact that it is the only forum of the States, the only forum in this Government, where small States such as West Virginia have the same powers, the same prerogatives, the same rights, along with the same responsibilities as the States that are great in territory and in population, such as California, Texas, Florida, New York, and others. I wanted to be in this forum. William Ewart Gladstone referred to the Senate of the United States, as ``that remarkable body, the most remarkable of all the inventions of modern politics.'' But it is getting to where this Senate is not so remarkable. There are things unique about the Senate that were meant to be unique, that were made unique by virtue of the framers of the Constitution. Among those, of course, is the responsibility to approve the resolutions of ratification of treaties, to approve nominations, and to act as a court in the trial of impeachments. But aside from those several unique things, the two things in particular that make this body the most unique of any upper body in the world, the most unique Senate that has ever existed--and there have been many senates--is the fact that this Senate has the right to amend bills, and Senators have the right to speak and to debate at length. The right to debate and the right to amend: The right to amend is mentioned in that provision of the Constitution that says revenue bills shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate shall have the right to amend as in all other bills. So there it is. The Senate has the right to amend, and Senators have the right to debate at length. Now, I have been majority leader. I have been elected to the majority leadership three times--twice during the Carter years and once during the 100th Congress. When I came to the Senate, Lyndon Johnson was majority leader; then there was Mike Mansfield; I was the next majority leader; Howard Baker then became majority leader followed by Bob Dole, and then, in the 100th Congress, I was majority leader again, George Mitchell followed me as majority leader and then Bob Dole became the Majority Leader a second time. Mr. Lott is now the majority leader. So I have seen several majority leaders operate in this Senate. Mr. President, I think the Senate is losing its uniqueness in that we are being deprived, in considerable measure, of the right to debate, the right to debate at length. If I come up here and want a few minutes to speak about the departing of some deceased friend, or some other matter--it may not be one of the great moments in history--I can't come up here and speak as I used to be able to. I can't get the floor. And when I get the floor, I am limited. I don't like that. I can understand the importance of having time limitations, and we do enter into time limitations. We have always done that, when there is a unanimous consent agreement limiting time, or the Senate is operating under a cloture motion. Otherwise, there is no limitation on debate and there is no germaneness of amendments under the Senate rules, except under rule XVI, when appropriation matters are before the Senate and also when cloture is invoked. Otherwise, we have freedom of debate. Woodrow Wilson said that the information function of the legislative branch is as important as the legislative function. It is through debate that we inform the American people. It is through debate that we better inform ourselves. I was in a meeting with the British over the weekend, the British- American Group. We met in West Virginia at the Greenbrier. Senator Reid was there. Senators on both sides of the aisle were there, including the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici. We didn't win or lose. We each came away being better informed by the other side. We didn't agree with the British point of view on certain issues and they didn't agree with ours, but we all came away better informed. We had a better understanding of what their viewpoint was and the reasons for it, and, hopefully, they have a better viewpoint of our reasoning. But here in the Senate, it has become dog-eat-dog. It has become very partisan--very partisan. Politics is very important, and political party is important. But some things are more important than political party. One of those things is the right to debate and the right to amend. It isn't for the benefit of the Democratic Party that I want the right to amend. It is not for the benefit of the Democratic Party that I want the right to debate. It is for the benefit of the American people. That is why the Senate is here. There were no political parties when this Senate was first created. But it seems that, anymore, the idea is that the majority is always to have its way while the minority is to be shut out and, in some ways, gagged. That approach does not benefit the people of America. I say these things with misgivings because I have many friends on the other side of the aisle. I think that the Senators in the leadership on that side of the aisle are friends of mine. But we are talking about the Senate here today and not the party. I don't come to the Senate floor today emphasizing party. I am here today because I am seeing the right of the minority to engage in free debate and to offer amendments shut off in some instances. There is a complaint here that too many amendments are offered on this side of the aisle to bills. This side of the aisle, as does that side of the aisle, has a right to offer whatever amendments they wish to offer. When I was majority leader, I never said to the minority leader: Now, you are going to be limited. You have too many amendments. We are not going to take the bill up; or, we will let you have 5 amendments, or no more than 10. What are your amendments? I never said that. I said to Members on both sides of the aisle: Let us know what your amendments are. Let the people at the front table here know what your amendments are on both sides. Call the Cloakrooms. Let's find out what amendments there are yet outstanding. There might have been 40. There might have been 55. There might have been 75. But I didn't go back and say: We are going to pull this bill down if you do not cut your amendments down to 10. Never did I say that. Never did I say you can only call up five, or so, amendments. How many do you have? Then we got the list. Then I said: Now, let's try to get a unanimous consent to limit the amendments to this number--whatever it was, be it 50 or 60 or whatever. Let's try to get an agreement to limit the amendments to this list. So when we put that word out, other amendments came out of the wall-- another half a dozen and another dozen. They just kept coming. But finally we had a list of amendments. We agreed that those then would be all. Then we would go to the individual Members on the list and say: Are you willing to enter into a time agreement on your amendment? Sometimes some of the amendments would peel off and we wouldn't end up with all that many amendments, or Members would be agreeable to a time limit. But never did I attempt to muzzle the minority. I took the position, let the minority call up their amendments. We can move to table them. Or, in many instances, they insisted on an up- or-down vote, and we gave them an up-or-down vote. We could defeat the amendment, in many instances. But in some instances their amendments carried, which was all right. That is what the legislative process is all about. The majority is not always right as we have often seen throughout the course of history. Many times the minority throughout history has been right. We are not serving the good interests of the American people when we muzzle the ox. The Bible says: ``Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn.'' The Senate is the ox. It is the central pillar of this Republic. This isn't a democracy; it is a Republic. The Senate is the central pillar. The Senate is where we can debate at length and offer amendments. As long as there is a Senate and men and women can debate to their hearts' content and offer amendments, the people's liberties will be secure. But once the Senate is muzzled, the people's liberties are in danger. The majority is virtually all powerful here. They have the votes, which is all right, but they must recognize that the minority has rights. That is why the Senate is like it is. That is what it was meant to be--a bastion for protection of the minority. Many times when I was leader I insisted on the rights of the minority on that side of the aisle. I said that there may come a time when we Democrats would be in the minority. I say that to the majority today. You have been in the minority. There may come a time when you will again be in the minority. We must be respectful of the constitutional rights of Senators who represent the States and the people. We must be respectful of those rights. If it takes longer--if it takes longer than three days or a week to do the work--then let's do the work. That is why we are sent here. But we should not forget the reason for the Senate's being. I came from the House of Representatives. I never wanted this body to become another House of Representatives. The Senate is unique in that respect, and we must not give away the uniqueness of this body. This is not a second House of Representatives. We ought to understand that. The Constitution made the Senate different from the other body, and we ought to do our utmost to keep this as an institution where debate is unlimited and where Senators have the right to offer non-germane amendments. I don't enter into these bickerings and these discussions very often. I am no longer in the elected leadership. Senators do not hear me saying these things often. But I have always been interested in the Senate as an institution. If the Senate is not the institution that it was meant to be, whose fault is it? The people who make up the Senate-- it is our fault. I wanted to speak out on this. I am not interested in who wins on every political battle that is fought here. I am not interested from a party standpoint always. Party isn't all that important to me. But I am interested in the Senate. I want it to remain the institution that it was meant to be. I wish we would get away from the idea that we ought to make this a more efficient institution. The Senate was not meant to be efficient. The institution was meant to be a debating forum where ideas would be expressed, and through the medium of debate the right consensus would be hammered out on the anvil. I hear it said: Well, if there are too many amendments, the bill will be taken down. I would suggest that if we want to stop so many legislative amendments from being offered to appropriations bills, then let's call up some of the legislative bills. Let's call up authorization bills. When I was the majority leader, there were times we had to authorize legislation on appropriations bills because the authorizing committees sometimes did not do their work. For example, there were years when we had to reauthorize State Department legislation on appropriations bills, because the authorizing committee simply did not do its work. But if bills reported from legislative committees are not called up in the Senate, Senators who are interested in amendments to such legislation do not have the opportunity to offer their amendments. Consequently, when appropriations bills are called up, Senators will offer legislation on appropriations bills, because it is their only opportunity. They have no other opportunity, no other legislative vehicle on which to call their amendments up, so they are forced to offer their legislative amendments to appropriations bills. That is why we have the problem with appropriations bills that we are having. Another problem we are having when we go to conference with the other body is that major legislation that has not been before either body is added in conference. We talk about the upper House and the lower House. There is a Third House. The conference committee has become a Third House, where hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions of dollars and major legislation are added in conference and come back to each body in a conference report. We have no opportunity to amend that conference report. Authorizing measures are added in conference that have not been before either body. They are stuck in, in conference--in the ``Third House,'' as I want to name it. Another flaw in that operation is that it gives the executive branch too much power, in some instances all power, because, as we saw last year when it got down to the conferences on the final appropriations bills, eight appropriations bills were wrapped into the conference report, one I believe a supplemental, and tax legislation all in that conference report. These items had not been properly taken up before either body. And, as a result, who sat in? Who made the decisions in conference? The decisions in conference for the more important legislation were made by the Speaker of the House, the majority leader of the Senate-- both of whom were Republican--and the President's agents. Who represented the Democrats in the conference? The executive branch. We Senate and House Democrats weren't represented in those higher echelons. We were left out. The Democratic minority in the House and Senate was not represented in the conference. It was the Republican leadership of both Houses and the President of the United States, through his OMB Director. That is not the way it is supposed to be. That galls me, to think that in appropriations matters of that kind the executive branch calls the shots in many instances and we House and Senate Democrats are not even represented. The Democrats in the Senate, the Democrats in the House, are left out. That is not the way it ought to be. But that is the result of our delaying action on separate appropriations bills. Then they are all put into an omnibus bill. At the end, we vote on that bill without knowing what is in it. How many hundreds of millions, how many billions of dollars may have been added in conference? And we vote on the conference report when we really do not know what is in it. That galls me. I think we ought to reinstitute rule XXVIII. I voted to uphold the Chair when rule XVI was changed here, and when the Senate overruled the Chair, I voted to uphold the Chair. I favor the reinstitution of rule XVI. But because of the muzzling of the minority, because the minority is not allowed to offer as many amendments as we need to offer, I am going to uphold the Chair's position today.