Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. I am not going to vote to go back to rule XVI. I want to go back. I do not like the vote I am going to cast. But how else am I going to protest? I think the minority should have the opportunity to offer its amendments, and not jerk a bill down just because amendments are coming in from the minority side. Another thing: There is no rule of, as I say, germaneness or relevancy in the Senate. When we call up bills, except for the two instances which I referred to there, cloture and on appropriations bills under rule XVI, there is no rule of relevancy to say: Cut down your amendments; we will give you 5 amendments or 10 amendments and they have to be relevant. Who said they have to be relevant? The rules of the Senate don't say they have to be relevant. But if an appropriation bill is the only vehicle you are ever going to have on which to try to take a shot at something that is not relevant, you have to take it. And the minority is being robbed of that opportunity. The minority is being placed under the gag rule. It is being laid down here: You will do it our way or we will jerk the bill down. You have to do it our way. You have to limit your amendments to 5 or 6 or 8 or 10-- no more. That is not in this Senate rule book. That is not in this Constitution. And it is not in the best interests of the American people that the Senate is being run that way. Personally, I have a very high regard for the leadership on the other side, for the individuals themselves. I have a high regard for Senators on the other side of the aisle. Some of the finest Senators I know sit on that side of the aisle. Some of the most knowledgeable Senators I know are on that side of the aisle. Some of the smartest Senators are on that side of the aisle. But, Mr. President, I am talking about the Senate as an institution, and I do not want and I do not intend to see us run over continually and denied the opportunity to offer amendments, and to debate, without a shot being fired. I stacked the legislative tree very few times when I was leader. But very few times did I resort to that. My rule was one of the basic reasons for the Senate to let the minority have their rights, because as long as the minority have their rights in this forum, the people's liberties will not be taken from them. I want the minority to be given their rights. Mr. President, I am going to close with the words of Aaron Burr, who spoke to the Senate in 1805, on March 5, after presiding over the Senate for 4 years. He said: This House is a sanctuary; a citadel of law, of order, and of liberty; and it is here--it is here, in this exalted refuge; here, if anywhere, will resistance be made to the storms of political phrensy and the silent arts of corruption; and if the Constitution be destined ever to perish by the sacrilegious hands of the demagogue or the usurper, which God avert, its expiring agonies will be witnessed on this floor. Mr. President, I think we are seeing something akin to its expiring agonies because the Senate is not being allowed to fulfill its purposes for being. It is not being allowed to work its will. The people are being denied. It is not just the Democrats at this moment who are being denied, it is the people who are being denied the right of the minority in this Senate to speak their wills, to offer their amendments, to fully debate the legislation that is in the interests of the people. In the interest of the people, I urge the leadership, I implore the leadership to stop thinking so much, as apparently it does, in terms of who will win today--``we have to win on this one.'' Let's think of the people. Protect the rights of the minority, allow full freedom to debate and amend, and the people's rights and the people's liberties will be secured.

Mr. BYRD. Would the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. The answer to that is, call up authorization bills. Let Members on this side offer their nongermane amendments to them. Then come to the appropriations bills, and the Senators on this side will have already had their chance. Call the legislative bills up. Why not have those bills called up? What are we afraid of? The numbers are on that side of the aisle. As I said to the distinguished majority leader on one occasion: You have the numbers; you have the votes. Why not let the Democrats call up their amendments? You can beat them. You can reject them. You can table them. But if you do not have the votes to defeat them, perhaps that amendment is in the best interest of the country. And the Senate will have worked its will. May I close by saying this--and I thank you for giving me this privilege--reference has been made to the time when I was majority leader, very graciously by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, because he stated it was not done during my tenure of leadership while he has been here. But over one-third of the Senate today--over one- third of today's Senators--were not here when I was majority leader of the Senate. I walked away from that position at the end of 1988 and became chairman of the Appropriations Committee in January 1989. More than one-third of the Senators were not here when I was majority leader. Even the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Lott, was not in this body when I was majority leader. But when I was majority leader, I say again, I attempted to protect the rights of the minority because I saw that as one of the reasons for the Senate's being. I thank both Senators. Both Senators have been very kind to me and very courteous. I think very highly of them both. I respect their viewpoints.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. This leader did so on occasion. But this leader did not do it all the time, nor did this leader fill the tree all the time. I filled the tree a few times, very few times, but not all the time. I do not call up many amendments here. I am not one of those whom the distinguished majority leader has in mind when he talks about Senators calling up many amendments.

Mr. BYRD. I did. But as I explained this morning, it is the only way Senators, in many instances--the majority leader has mentioned the juvenile justice bill and he has mentioned----

Mr. BYRD. Yes, the Patients' Bill of Rights. Those are bills that he allowed the Senate to work its will on. The product that came out at the end was a product of the will of the Senate.

Mr. BYRD. If I might finish my sentence, the majority leader has the floor, but I hope he lets me respond to the point he is making. We majority leaders like to finish our points, you know.

Mr. BYRD. Will the distinguished Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, having been majority leader in the 95th and the 96th and again in the 100th Congress, I want to assure the distinguished majority leader that I have experienced all of his troubles, all of his problems. And this business of having to deal with a filibuster on a motion to proceed is nothing new around here. That has been the case for decades. So the distinguished majority leader is not experiencing something that I did not experience or that other leaders did not experience. The motion to proceed to the civil rights bill of 1964 was debated 2 weeks. That was just the motion to proceed. And the bill itself was before the Senate 77 days. It was actually debated 57 days, including 6 Saturdays. All in all, including the time that it took to get up the motion to proceed, and the time to deal with the bill itself, and then including, I believe it was, 9 days following cloture before the vote on passage occurred on the bill, it took 103 days--103 calendar days-- to deal with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I was the only non-Southern Democrat--the only non-Southern Democrat--to vote against that bill. And I was against cloture on it. Other than Senator Hayden and Senator Bible, I was the only non- Southern Democrat to vote against cloture. So I have been through all these travails and trials that the majority leader has experienced. And I empathize with him and sympathize with him, because I have been there, too. But it is nothing new to be confronted with a possible filibuster on a motion to proceed. I had to deal with that many times.

Mr. BYRD. I do not do that often. But Senators do have the right to offer amendments. The distinguished majority leader has his problems. I know them. I know them well. I sympathize with him and want to work with him and want to help him. I call attention to the fact that there are 63 Senators in this body who never served in this body when I was majority leader--63. I said this morning that more than a third, but it was actually almost two- thirds of the Members of this body were not here when I was majority leader. I was glad to hear the Senator quote Shakespeare. Let me quote from Shakespeare also: 'Tis in my memory lock'd And you yourself shall keep the key of it. So, Mr. President, I certainly will always want to cooperate with the distinguished leader when I can. I have to say I think there is too much partisanship in this Senate, on both sides, far more partisanship in the Senate than there was when I came here. I would urge again that the distinguished Majority Leader let Democrats call up amendments and that he call up legislative bills, and thereby give Senators a chance to call up their amendments so that they will not have to resort to offering them on appropriations bills.

Mr. BYRD. Absolutely.

Mr. BYRD. Absolutely.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope the Senator will proceed.

Mr. BYRD. Which bill was that?

Mr. BYRD. Will the majority leader yield?

Mr. BYRD. The majority leader was not on the floor earlier when I said that as the majority leader, I resorted to filling the tree a few times. So what the distinguished majority leader said doesn't reveal anything that is new and doesn't really reveal anything that I haven't myself already said today. I did that. I may have been the first one to fill up the tree in my service in the Senate--I am not sure--but I did do that on a few occasions, but only on a very few occasions. I didn't make it a practice. I also compliment the majority leader, and have done so on several occasions, for his judicious and very fair handling of the impeachment trial. I think the Senate did itself honor and did well by virtue of the fact that both leaders put the welfare of the Senate and the welfare of the country ahead of political party. I complimented the majority leader at that time, and I do again. He demonstrated real statesmanship on that occasion. Let me just say, again, what I said earlier this morning about political party. It is important to me, but I have never felt that political party is the most important thing. The Senate is more important than any political party. Many things are more important than political party. I have said that. But during my tenure as the majority leader, I always tried to protect the rights of the minority. Many times I made a point of it. I tried to protect the rights of the minority because that is a great part of what this forum is all about, protection of minority rights. I can also say that Senator Stevens and I did work together to come up with some proposals that would have improved our situation, I think. We came up with a resolution containing several rules changes, with the understanding of the distinguished majority leader and with his full knowledge. I wanted it to be called up and debated and acted upon, but it is still in the Rules Committee. Nothing has ever been done about it. Our concern, going back to rule XVI, is this: Under the earlier operation of Rule XVI, a point of order could be made against legislation on an appropriations bill. If the question of germaneness was raised, the matter was submitted to the Senate for an immediate vote. The Senate voted on it. If the Senate decided on that vote that the House had already opened the door to legislation on an appropriations bill, the Senate certainly had a right to respond by further amendment. The problem now is, we are calling up appropriations bills that come out of the Senate Appropriations Committee. They are Senate appropriations bills. No point of order can be made that they constitute legislation on appropriations bills. There is no question of germaneness. If we go back to rule XVI, unless we take up the House appropriations bills, we cannot make the point of germaneness against a Senate appropriations bill. That is our problem. Senators right now, myself included, who voted to uphold the Chair on that occasion and stay with rule XVI, are concerned about going back to it now because we are normally acting on Senate appropriations bills, not House Appropriations bills. I have to applaud Senator Stevens. He is one of the best Appropriations Committee chairmen I have served with, and he seeks to take advantage of the time and get something done. We have Senate hearings and we mark up regular appropriations bills and then we act on them on the floor. When the House bill comes over to the Senate we substitute the text of the Senate bill in lieu of the House bill. That is all well and good. It saves time. But it does away with the opportunity to raise the question of germaneness. The question of germaneness cannot be raised unless we bring the House Appropriations bill up and the House has previously opened the door to legislation. I hate to vote against going back to rule XVI; I would like to go back to it.

Mr. BYRD. I have always been a majority leader willing to hear the other man respond. He mentioned two or three bills, and those are good examples of the work the Senate can do when it is given the opportunity to offer amendments and take time on the bill. I hope that we do more of that. My reason for voting, as I will later today, against going back to that rule is two or threefold. One is, the majority who had the votes then overturned the rule. The majority, which has the votes now, will reinstitute it. In the future, I am wondering if the situation will arise when it will be to the majority's benefit again and it will use its vote to overturn the rule again. But the reason I will vote against it today is because Senators on this side, according to my observations--and I don't make much of a big to-do often here--but Senators on this side of the aisle are simply not given the right to act on legislative bills much of the time, so they have no other resort but the appropriations bills. Therefore, I think I have to vote against reinstituting the rule.

Mr. BYRD. The majority leader is preeminently correct. He is talking about bills that can be brought up in which both sides have had an opportunity to give and take and offer amendments, so the country benefits.

Mr. BYRD. If I wanted to point to a list, I could point to a list of bills on this calendar that is very long that haven't been taken up.

Mr. BYRD. But if it is an important bill, what is wrong with taking 3 weeks?

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator allow me once more?

Mr. BYRD. The Senator cannot quote one time today, or before today, in which I said anything that would or could be properly interpreted as impugning his honor. I would not do that. If he can cite one time, I will apologize for it right now.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the leader.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, farmers across America are experiencing hard times. This year, the difficulties of farmers in the northeast and central-Atlantic regions of America have been made worse by a serious lack of rainfall for many, many weeks. West Virginia's farmers have been especially hard hit by the drought of 1999. No significant rainfall has drenched the scorched earth in my State since May 15. On May 28 the Governor of West Virginia declared an Agricultural State of Emergency for West Virginia. At that time, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's State Emergency Board for West Virginia concurred with that decision. Now farmers await a decision by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that would permit much needed federal emergency assistance funds to be dispensed. We know that here in Washington, in northern Virginia, in the Maryland suburbs, and on the farms nearby, the ground is dry. We can look out our windows and see that where there was once soft green grass growing, there is now a crispy, lifeless carpet of beige. Where there is no grass, cracked, dusty earth remains. I know that my tomato plants have needed extra watering to keep them growing up their stakes, but these are merely part of my backyard small garden that I sow for pleasure. My life will not drastically change if I fail to bring in a tomato crop. That is not true for those whose livelihood depends upon it. Close your eyes and take a moment to imagine this: you have been looking to the sky for two months praying that the clouds will release a downpour, but no drops fall. Your corn plants that should be up to your shoulder by the fourth of July in a normal season, remain below your knees. They are short stems shriveling slowly on acres and acres of parched land. You have moved your herd to your last pasture. In a short period of time the animals have grazed it over so thoroughly that nothing remains but unpalatable dried-out grass stubble. Your pastures have been grazed over so thoroughly that you are now, during the middle of the summer, when lengthy pasture grasses should blow in the gentle summer breeze, and naturally produced resources should be plentiful, feeding your animals with purchased hay and grain as though it were the desolate season of winter. Even though they are being fed enough to gain weight, the extreme heat is causing them so much stress that they are losing weight. It is impossible to keep them cool and comfortable. The pond on your farm that you use as a source of water for your animals is slowly, slowly becoming a puddle. The stream that runs through the far end of your property first became a muddy trickle, but now is becoming dusty and cracked. When you turn on the tap, try to flush your commode, or bathe, no water flows. You instead must travel every day to a truck parked in the middle of your town to get a couple of gallons of water for you and your family to drink. Even if it rains today or tomorrow, you begin to wonder if it will make any difference to you. You have fallen on hard times before as an Appalachian farmer. Times are often lean in that region. Now, in desperation, you begin to think about what you could do if you were not a family farmer. This is a very real situation for the farmers in West Virginia and in many areas of the country. The most serious impact of the drought on farmers is having to purchase feed for their animals. Under normal conditions, there are regions in West Virginia where farmers can grow two or three cuttings of hay in a year. They use this hay to feed their animals. Last year's cuttings were thin, and this year's have been even thinner, with farmers barely being able to make one cutting! So, as I mentioned earlier, the farmers have begun to purchase feed. This does not bode well for the winter, either, as farmers will have to rely on purchasing expensive hay and grain brought in from outside the drought areas, or face the prospect of selling off their underweight stock for little or no profit or at a loss. Farmers will not be able to afford to keep feeding their animals in this way. West Virginia's farmers fear that they may lose their farms--not just lose their crop, lose their farms--if they must wait until next spring to receive U.S. Department of Agriculture assistance, which is how long it would take for the funds we appropriate to reach them if appropriations are completed on time, as I hope they will be. West Virginia farmers need Federal assistance now. And the same can be said for Maryland farmers and Virginia farmers and others. Nearly $2.9 million in Federal emergency aid for energy assistance was released through the Department of Housing and Urban Development Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program on Monday, July 12. Hopefully our farmers who have been having a difficult time keeping their animals cool will be allowed a portion of these funds. However, this is a tiny drop of water in a very empty State bucket where it is estimated that the drought has caused $50 million in damages. Regulations allow farmers to become eligible for emergency assistance when they have suffered at least a 30-percent loss of normal production in a single enterprise. In West Virginia, which is not a large State and certainly not a large farming State, according to the most recent statistics available, which were calculated in the middle of June, in all but 3 counties 40 to 50 percent of grass hay production has been lost for this year. It has been lost. In 17 West Virginia counties, 35 percent of corn production has already been lost--already been lost; 40 percent of tobacco has been lost; 50 percent of pasture--50 percent of pasture has been lost. A dozen other counties have experienced at least a 10- to 20-percent loss of corn, tobacco, and tobacco crops; a 30- to 50-percent loss of pasture; and a 20- to 40-percent loss of their truck crops, such as apples and peaches, grown for table consumption. Twenty- three other counties have lost 10- to 30-percent of their alfalfa hay, 40- to 50-percent of their pasture, 10- to 30-percent of their corn, and 25- to 30-percent of other grains. So I remind those listening and those who are watching through the electronic cameras that these statistics are from the middle of June. Now, weeks later, after a continued period of scorching temperatures, and arid conditions, it is expected that a statistical report that will be generated later this week will show significant losses occurring in every one of the 55 counties of the great State of West Virginia. The Federal Government has established mechanisms that are intended to aid Americans in times of crisis. However, when these mechanisms are slow to work, difficulties have a tendency to grow, and greater assistance becomes necessary. As we have often heard, ``One stitch, in time, saves nine.'' In the case of farmers, if nothing is done, and the farmer is forced to abandon the land that he has worked, it is likely that this land will not be reclaimed next year or the year after as a family farm. A farm is not a machine that can be shut down temporarily until someone is ready to work on it again or conditions make it profitable. Farming is, by its very nature, a cyclical industry that every now and then needs the support of the Federal Government. America can never afford to not help its farmers. Now is the time to help farmers and I speak particularly of West Virginia farmers, of course. If we fail to help them now, they will not be able to survive. Farmers are losing out on every side of their industry. Prices have been, and continue to be, low, the weather is slowing or eliminating crop production, crop insurance payback is so low that it may not even cover costs, and springs and farm ponds are drying up. There are no resources left from which to draw. Farmers have always been an essential part of the fabric that makes America great. ``God made the country but man made the town.'' And from the country is where America gets much or most of its sustenance--not just America but also the world, many nations in the world. We cannot forget these farmers. We cannot forget them now like a child forgets a once-treasured security blanket that has become worn and he has now outgrown. Therefore, I am urging that West Virginia be granted Federal disaster area status so that farmers will receive immediate Federal assistance that will enable them to continue to work their land and raise their animals. I have talked with the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Glickman, and he has indicated that as soon as he is supplied with the sufficient data from the State, adequate and careful and prompt consideration will be given. But I have to say that time waits for no one and the clock waits for no one and the farmers' problems cannot wait. We must have help. We need it and the sooner the better. Mr. President, I thank the Senate and I yield the floor.