[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 40 (Friday, March 23, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2807-S2812]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            NO BUDGET MARKUP

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate Budget Committee held 
its last hearing on the President's budget plan prior to the Senate 
consideration of the budget resolution. As a new member of the Budget 
Committee, I would like to take a moment to commend Chairman Domenici 
and ranking member Conrad for a series of thought-provoking hearings on 
the future challenges facing our Social Security and Medicare programs, 
on our efforts to improve the education of our children, and to address 
our Nation's infrastructure deficit and national security needs.
  During the hearing yesterday, I inquired of--we often say ``our good 
friend,'' my good friend Senator Domenici. When I say ``my good 
friend,'' I mean just that; my good friend, Senator Domenici--about the 
prospects for the Budget Committee marking up the budget resolution 
prior to the April 1 reporting deadline contained in the Budget Act.
  Let me say at the beginning of my remarks, again, I am a new member 
of the Budget Committee. Of course I was around 27 years ago when we 
created the Budget Committee, and I took a very considerable interest 
in the preparation of the Budget Act in 1974. I spent a great deal of 
time on it. So although I come as a new member of the committee, I am 
not wholly unaware of the fact that I have been around as long as the 
committee has and perhaps a little longer--longer than the Act itself.
  One thing I try to remember is not to take myself too seriously. 
Sometimes it is pretty hard to avoid taking one's self too seriously. I 
try studiously to avoid that.
  But I do take seriously the work of that committee. We have a great 
chairman. Senator Domenici is a very diligent Senator.
  The Bible says: ``Seest thou a man diligent in his business? He shall 
stand before kings.''
  Senator Domenici is diligent in his business. I have no doubt that he 
has stood before kings in his tenure as a Senator.
  I admire him on top of all these things. I think he is a congenial 
person. I like him. It doesn't make any difference how this situation 
comes out--what the outcome of the budget action may or may not be. It 
isn't going to intervene in my admiration and my affection for Senator 
Domenici,

[[Page S2808]]

the Senator from New Mexico. We happen on this question to be a little 
bit at loggerheads with respect to our viewpoints. But who am I to say 
I am all right and he is all wrong?
  I say the same thing with regard to my leader on this side, Mr. 
Conrad. He is the ranking member of the Budget committee. I am not. I 
am just one of the new members. But my interest comes from elsewhere 
than just the fact that I am a new member on that committee.
  I am not trying to rock the boat, or get out in front of the 
committee. I am here because I am a U.S. Senator. I love the Senate. I 
have been in the Senate more than half of my life. I respect its rules. 
I love its traditions, its folklore, its history. But I am exceedingly 
concerned about the way we are doing things in the Senate in these 
times.
  I am only here for a little while, as we all are. But while I am 
here, I want to uphold the traditions and the rules of the Senate, 
because men who were far greater than I am wrote this Constitution. On 
July 16, 1787, they reached a compromise, which is often referred to in 
high school as ``The Great Compromise.'' It was out of that Great 
Compromise that this institution, the Senate, came into being. It was 
that compromise of July 16, 1787, that made possible my coming here as 
one of the two Senators who represent the State of West Virginia. It 
wasn't West Virginia when those forebears wrote this Constitution that 
I hold in my hand. It wasn't a State of the Union at that time. My 
State, which I love and share in that love along with Senator Jay 
Rockefeller, was borne out of the crucible of the Civil War. It became 
a State, and is the only State to have been born during the great war 
between the States.
  But because those forebears, whose names were signed to this 
Constitution, arrived at that Great Compromise, we have this Senate. 
Otherwise, the Presiding Officer would not be here as a Senator from 
the State of Rhode Island. All the people who work here and our 
wonderful staff wouldn't be here. This ornate Chamber probably would 
not be here. There wouldn't be two Houses in the legislative branch.
  So once in a while we have to stop and think about these things.
  How did I come to be here? What do I mean by ``be here''? What is 
this institution? Why do we have a Senate? Why not just have a House of 
Representatives?

  The answers to those questions go back into the centuries.
  Why do we have a legislative branch?
  Is ours a Republic? Is ours a democracy? What is the difference?
  Look at Hamilton's essay denominated No. 10 among the Federalist 
Papers. Look at No. 10. Look at No. 14 and one will get a clear 
understanding of the difference between a pure democracy and a 
Republic. Ours is a Republic.
  What does that mean? That means that the people across the land 
participate in their government through elected representatives.
  Think of that. In a pure democracy, the people of my hometown of 
Sophia could very well have a pure democracy. There are only about 
1,183 people in that town. They could all meet. They could make their 
own laws. They could execute their own laws. They could have a pure 
democracy.
  But this is a nation spread from sea to shining sea with 280 million 
people. They could not all gather in one place at one time and act for 
themselves. So they elect us. We are the directly elected 
representatives of the people.
  The President of the United States is not directly elected by the 
people. He is directly elected by the electors which are chosen in each 
State by the people. But we Senators represent and speak for the 
people. And every 2 years, or every 6 years, whichever it may be, 
Members of the other body and Members of this body have to go home and 
stand for reelection.
  So we represent the people. I represent, along with my colleague, Jay 
Rockefeller, 1.8 million people. But our votes--our votes--West 
Virginia's votes in this Senate are as important and are the very equal 
of the votes of the Senators from the great State of California. If it 
were a country by itself, California would probably be about No. 7 or 
No. 8 among all the countries of the world--a great State, a huge 
State, with a tremendous population that would dwarf the size of the 
population of my own mountain State of West Virginia.
  But because of this Constitution, this Senate is a forum of the 
States, and West Virginia has just as much voice as does California, or 
New York, or Texas, or Florida, or Illinois, or Pennsylvania--States 
whose populations greatly outnumber that of West Virginia. So this 
institution is the forum of the States. At the same time, it is made up 
of Members who are elected by, and who represent, the people of the 
United States.
  Now this is a long way of saying these things which are not new to 
any of the people who are listening. But once in a while we need to be 
reminded.
  Why do I take the floor today to talk about the budget? And what does 
all this that I have said got to do with the budget? What does it have 
to do with what we are doing in the Budget Committee? That is the 
problem. We do not pause and remember why we are here, and whom we 
represent here. We represent the people. We represent the States.
  I am not the ranking member of this Budget Committee. I am not the 
chairman of it. But I am a member of it. I did not seek to become a 
member until this year. All these years since the act has been on the 
law books of this country, I never sought to be on the Budget 
Committee. But I saw that the Budget Committee, more and more and more, 
was becoming the major wheel in the constitutional system of this 
country--more and more things are being decided in that committee--and, 
as one who helped to write the legislation, I must say that it was not 
intended to become that. The Budget Committee was not intended to have 
all the power it has today. It never was intended to be used as it is 
being used today.

  So I have become increasingly concerned about the fact that the 
Budget Committee of the Senate--this is no reflection on its members or 
anything of that nature, it is just a fact that what that Budget 
Committee does this year, will have a major impact on the work of all 
the other committees, and on the work of the Senate throughout this 
year.
  So that brings me now to what I want to say today.
  I was disappointed to learn that Senator Domenici was not planning to 
have a committee markup. Now, he and I had discussed this privately on 
a couple of occasions. But apparently he reached that decision and so 
indicated during the last session the committee had, which was 
yesterday. He indicated that, given the 11-11 split on the committee, 
it would not be productive--in his way of looking at things--to go 
through the markup process. And following the hearing yesterday, I came 
down to the floor to express my disappointment that the chairman was 
not planning a markup, and--no reflection on him, nothing personal in 
what I say--I spoke on the floor. He indicated to me, by written note 
earlier yesterday, that he would be responding to what I had to say.
  And everything is just fine between the chairman and myself. I have 
to remember that I am 83 years of age. I do not have a long life ahead 
of me, and one of these days I have to meet someone who is much more 
powerful than Senator Domenici or Senator Lott or President Bush or 
anybody else. I will have to give an accounting for my work here, for 
my stewardship in this life. So I want to be able to leave this Senate 
with the good will of every Senator. I hope I have that. I am sure I do 
as far as Senator Domenici is concerned.
  So he notified me that he would be speaking. Last evening I had to go 
somewhere. I do not often accept invitations to dinner. I like to have 
dinner with my wife, to whom I have been married almost 64 years, and 
with my little dog Billy when I can do so, so I do not accept many 
invitations.
  One could spend all of his or her time in this town as a Senator by 
running here and there and thither and yonder and thither and letting 
the work on his desk pile up. But I found out a long time ago that 
there was not much to be had, not much that was important that went on 
at these cocktail parties, and so on, around this town. I could speak 
quite at length on that subject, but I will try to avoid getting off on 
to that, except to say that I could not come up at that point to the 
floor and participate or listen to Senator Domenici and all he had to 
say.

[[Page S2809]]

  Therefore, this morning I said to Senator Domenici: I haven't seen 
the Record yet. I want to see what is in the Record. I understand you 
made a fine talk, and I heard just a little bit of it, but I couldn't 
come up. So I may have something to say today after I look at the 
Record.
  So he said: That's fine.
  And here I am.
  We had many excellent, knowledgeable witnesses at our hearings, and 
our members engaged in spirited, incisive, and deep, probing 
questioning. When the Senate takes up the budget resolution, I believe 
the Senate should have the benefit of the committee's views.

  Now, the Senate, in 1816, began to formulate the major committees. 
They have not always been around. There were committees in the very 
first week of the Senate's meetings. There were temporary committees, 
ad hoc committees, whatever, appointed to deal with this or that or 
something else. But in 1816, the major committees really began to take 
shape. Among those early committees, of course, were the committees 
that dealt with foreign affairs and the finances of the Government. It 
was not until 1867 that the Appropriations Committee came into being as 
a separate committee. The work of the Appropriations Committee was done 
by the Finance Committee. And in 1867, if I am not mistaken, the 
Appropriations Committee came into being.
  By virtue of my seniority on that committee, I, at length--after 30 
years, I believe it was, on the committee--I became, lo and behold, the 
chairman. So I take these things pretty seriously, having been chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee. And knowing what impact the Budget 
Committee of the Senate is having and what some of its decisions are 
having on the operations of the Senate, I decided I wanted to be on 
that committee. So again I say, here I am.
  I also believe that when the Senate takes up the budget resolution, 
it should have the benefit of the committee's views.
  Why do we have committees? They are the little legislatures, you 
might say, in the institution here. The members of the committees have 
a very special understanding of the work over which the respective 
committee or committees have jurisdiction. The views of those committee 
members are very important. In many instances, I have been guided by my 
decisions on matters, on votes and so on, by what the members of the 
committee having jurisdiction over the subject had to say. They are the 
specialists. They give their time, their talents, dealing with that 
particular subject matter, whatever it may be.
  Members of the Senate need to know what the views are of the members 
of the committee with respect to the legislation before the Senate.
  As I say, I am not saying something that is teaching anybody 
anything, but it may be that some of our people out there who are 
watching through those electronic goggles up by the Presiding Officer's 
desk, it may be that what I am saying will mean a little something to 
those people, that they will have a better understanding of what we are 
talking about. They need to be informed. Woodrow Wilson said the 
informing function of the legislative branch is as important as the 
legislative function. We need to be informed.
  It is more difficult to keep informed on subject matters of today 
than it was when I came to the Congress 49 years ago this year. There 
are a lot more things about which to be informed. We didn't have a lot 
of the laws on the books then that we have today. We didn't have as 
many agencies in Government then as we have today. We didn't have the 
Interstate Highway System that we have today. We didn't have the 
Appalachian Regional Commission or the Appalachian regional highways 
then that we have today. We didn't have the Clean Air Act; we have it 
today. We didn't have the Clean Water Act then, but we have it today. 
We have much more today to be informed about than we had in those days. 
That is why I am concerned about what is happening with respect to the 
budget which will be coming up in the Congress shortly.

  That is a long way around to tell you, but you need to know that 
these are important matters that affect you, you the people, we the 
people. It is the impact on you. It isn't that I am a new member of the 
Budget Committee and I ought to have all this information and I am 
quibbling over this and quibbling over that. No, I am not quibbling at 
all. This is serious business. It is your business.
  I believe the public would greatly benefit by having a markup in the 
committee. Having been the appropriations chairman, let me say what a 
markup is. The chairman, with his staff, develops, based on the budget 
the President sends up to the Congress, based on the hearings that have 
been conducted in the Appropriations Committee, and draws up an 
appropriations bill. It may be different from the appropriations bill 
that came over from the House of Representatives. Not by the 
Constitution but by custom, appropriations bills generally originate in 
the House of Representatives, unlike tax bills, which, according to the 
Constitution, must originate in the House of Representatives.
  So I, as chairman, and my staff director, Mr. English, who has been 
the staff director on the Democratic side for a good many years, and 
others, sit down and look at this bill and say, this is it. Then I 
always made it a point to call Senator Hatfield, who then was a Member 
of the Senate from Oregon, who was the ranking member at that time. We 
said: This is the plan. We have this amount of money allocated, and 
here is the way it will be allocated.
  That is the markup. Then the whole committee sits down and looks at 
that. Republicans and Democrats alike sit down together and look at 
this bill. That is called marking up the bill. We may change it. The 
whole committee may not like an item. We may have to strike it, or they 
may want to add an item. In any event, that is the legislative process 
101, as it pertains to appropriations.
  Yesterday I expressed my dismay also that the administration has 
delayed from April 3 to April 9 the delivery date for details of the 
President's budget. The Senate is being asked to consider a $2 trillion 
tax cut that is estimated to consume 80 percent of the non-Social 
Security, non-Medicare surplus over the next 10 years. Yet the details 
on over $20 billion of program cuts for just one fiscal year apparently 
will not be available to the Senate when it is scheduled to debate the 
budget resolution on the week of April 2.
  Last evening Senator Domenici sent me a letter, as I say, and came 
down to the floor to respond to my concerns. I thank him for responding 
quickly, but I am disappointed by his message. In his remarks he noted 
that in 1993, the first year of the Clinton administration, the details 
of the President's budget were sent to the Congress on April 8 and the 
Democratic leadership completed the budget resolution for President 
Clinton's budget prior to delivery of those details.
  Senator Domenici said that the schedule for consideration of the 
budget resolution this year is in accord with the schedule in 1993 and 
that the schedule for consideration of the budget resolution of 1993 
should serve as a role model for how to proceed this year.
  Mr. President, Senator Domenici is absolutely correct in his 
description of the facts, but he missed my point. As I say, I have 
alerted Senator Domenici's office to the fact that I am going to say 
these things. I am not going to say anything to hurt his feelings or 
anything like that. He has been around here; he is a pro. He 
understands. He missed my point.
  We have a 50/50 Senate. The Republican leaders should not be setting 
up a process that rams the President's budget through the Senate. We 
should be debating the budget, and we should be trying to reach an 
agreement on a budget. I don't mean we should displace the business 
before the Senate right now to do that. But this thing is coming; it is 
a train that is coming right down the track. That Senate process should 
start in the Senate Budget Committee with a markup.
  As I say, I am not taking myself all that seriously as somebody 
trying to tell the Budget Committee how to do its work. That is not it. 
I am not looking at that. That is not it. I am concerned that the 
impact this process will have on the Senate, on its membership--the 
final outcome of this budget action--and on the country is a far-
reaching impact.

[[Page S2810]]

  As Senator Domenici pointed out in his remarks last night, in 1993 
the Senate Budget Committee had a markup--get that--the Senate Budget 
Committee had a markup on March 11 and debated and approved the budget 
resolution, which was filed on March 12. The markup was held in 1993, 
just as there has been a markup in every other year since the Budget 
Committee was established. Yet apparently the distinguished chairman, 
Senator Domenici, does not want to have a markup this year. He has very 
plainly, forthrightly, and honestly said so. He doesn't make any bones 
about it, and I admire him for that.
  In his remarks last evening, the chairman mentioned the first Clinton 
budget document, entitled ``A Vision of Change For America.'' Here it 
is--``A Vision of Change For America.'' It is dated February 17, 1993. 
This morning, after briefly reviewing that document, I find that 
several sections have applications to the issues we face today. That 
1993 document noted--lend me your ears, friends, ``Romans''; lend me 
your ears. Here is what the 1993 document said:

       For more than a decade, the Federal Government has been 
     living well beyond its means--spending more than it takes in, 
     and borrowing the difference. The annual deficits have been 
     huge.
       Deficit reduction is not an end in itself. It is a means to 
     the end of higher productivity, rising living standards and 
     the creation of high wage jobs. In short, it is about 
     securing a better economic future for ourselves and, even 
     more importantly, our children. Huge structural deficits are 
     harmful for a simple reason: when the economy is not in 
     recession, each dollar the Federal Government borrows to 
     finance consumption spending absorbs private savings that 
     would otherwise be used to increase productive capacity. 
     Large, sustained budget deficits mean that we must either 
     reduce our investment at home or borrow the money overseas.
  This 1993 document went on to say:

       The drain on our savings has caused anemic domestic 
     investment, especially in comparison with most advanced 
     industrial countries. It has retarded growth in productivity 
     and living standards. Meanwhile, borrowing from the rest of 
     the world to maintain investment at even today's depressed 
     levels has increased interest payments to foreign leaders. In 
     effect, we have signed over some of the fruits of today's 
     productivity--enhancing investments to the children of 
     Europe and Japan, rather than preserving them for our own 
     [children].

  ``A Vision of Change For America'' laid out a plan for addressing the 
deficits that were created by the excessive tax cuts of 1981. It was a 
5-year plan, not a 10-year plan, and it put us on a course to eliminate 
the colossal deficits of the 1980s and early 1990s. Page 115 of that 
document included the following:

       The plan promises rising standards of living, productivity 
     and national savings. It stimulates growth and provides 
     insurance that the current slow recovery will be lasting and 
     strong.

  There are not many predictions one can believe in around here, but 
that was one we all saw come to fruition.
  Continuing my quotation:

       It invests in education, training and health of our people. 
     It encourages the private sector to modernize and acquire the 
     tools and technology to compete in the global economy. And it 
     confronts our deficit head on.

  That is what this book said in 1993.

       It confronts our deficits head on, with a serious, fair 
     plan to bring it under control and generate economic growth.

  So that plan worked. It worked. Instead of the colossal deficits 
which confronted the Senate at that time, today we have--according to 
the projections which may or may not come true--colossal surpluses. How 
many on the Republican side voted for that plan? Zero. Not a single 
vote in either body--not one. Not one. My good friend from New Mexico 
says that ought to be a role model--that budget--that budget plan, as 
outlined in the book titled ``A Vision of Change For America.'' Not 
one. Not one. Not one voted for that.
  The first question that was ever asked, I believe, in the history of 
mankind was, Where art thou? God walked in the Garden of Eden, when the 
shades of the day were falling and when the cool of the evening was on 
the forehead of Paradise. God walked in the garden. He was looking for 
Adam and Eve. He said: Adam, where art thou? That was the first 
question: Adam, where art thou?
  In thinking about the votes that were cast on the plan, that 
marvelous plan which my good friend, Mr. Domenici, called to our 
attention on yesterday and which he said was a role model, one could 
have rightly asked from this side of the aisle: Where art thou? Where 
art thou? Not one of our friends over here on my right who belong to a 
great political party, the Republican Party--by the way, I get lots of 
votes from Republicans in West Virginia. I am proud of them. But not 
one, not one answered: Here am I. Not one.
  That was the role model, Mr. Domenici said. They did not follow that 
role model when it came to votes on that occasion.
  That is why I take the time of the Senate to review these passages, 
because we are being asked to take up a budget resolution on April 2 
without the benefit of a Budget Committee markup and without the 
benefit of a detailed budget from the President.
  As has been pointed out, this will not be the first occasion when we 
did not have a detailed description of the President's budget, but 
there are significant differences in that time and our time.
  We are also told by the Republican leaders that the core of the 
President's budget, a $2 trillion tax cut, may be brought to the floor 
as a reconciliation bill for which debate is limited to, at most, 20 
hours. Now get that. They say that these moneys are the people's money. 
They are your money. We are talking about a $2 trillion tax cut. That 
is the President's proposal, as I have read about it in the press--a $2 
trillion tax cut. That is a lot of money. We are not used to counting 
money in sums of that size down in West Virginia.

  How much is $1 trillion? Have you ever stopped to think? We talk 
about it as though it were just a few dollars. I have three $1 bills in 
my hands.
  By the way, when I married my wife 64 years ago, on the next day 
after we married, I gave her my pocketbook. I had been working as a 
meat cutter in a coal company store. My salary was $70 a month--$70 a 
month. She was a coal miner's daughter, and I grew up in a coal miner's 
home. We never had anything as far as refrigerators or vacuum cleaners. 
As a matter of fact, some of those inventions did not come along very 
much in advance of the year we married.
  I said to my wife: Here's my wallet. We were walking down the 
railroad tracks. That is the only place we had. We did not have any 
fine streets, shaded avenues, boulevards beautiful in their makeup. We 
had to walk down the railroad tracks.
  I gave her my pocketbook, and I said--now this was 64 years ago. I 
gave her my pocketbook. I said: You keep the money. I will work and 
make it--I won't make much, but whatever I make, you will have. When I 
want a dollar or two, I will come to you and ask for it. And I have 
done that for 64 years.
  This morning she said: Do you need any money?
  I said: No, I have $3.75, and I am taking my lunch so I don't have to 
go down to the Senators' dining room and spend 30 or 40 minutes waiting 
on somebody to help me with food and then have to spend $8, $10, or $12 
to pay for it. I just take my little lunch, and there is my $3 I have 
for the day. You can ask her; she will verify everything I have said.
  Why do I say that? We are talking about $2 trillion. How long would 
it take you to count $1 trillion at the rate of $1 per second? How long 
would it take you to count $1 trillion at the rate of $1 per second? 
Thirty-two thousand years. A trillion means a little more if I look at 
it in that way.
  What I am saying is that we are told by the Republican leaders that 
the core of the President's budget, a $2 trillion tax cut--that is your 
money, and they say we ought to give it back. But it is also your debt, 
it is also your schools that are falling down; the windows are broken, 
the plumbing out of shape; it is your schools; those crowded classrooms 
out there are your classrooms. It is your children. It is your parents 
who need health care, who need a prescription drug plan. Yes, it is 
your money, but in our scheme of things, we are elected by you to be 
the stewards of your money.
  It is your highways on which you travel. It is the safety of your 
highways that you have to depend upon when your wives take the children 
to the doctor or to the child care center, or you have to go to the 
hospital, or

[[Page S2811]]

you have to go to the store, or you go to church, or you have to drive 
to work. It is your safety on your highways for which we are 
responsible. You cannot build the highways yourself. West Virginia 
cannot build a national system of highways, but the Federal system is 
what the people were talking about--those framers--when they wrote this 
Constitution--the Federal system.
  It is your money. It is a $2 trillion tax cut. What a whale of an 
amount of money. It may be brought to the floor, we hear, as a 
reconciliation bill for which debate is limited to, at most, 20 hours--
20 hours of debate, that is all. Yet it is your money. It is this 
budget with its colossal $2 trillion tax cut that may return us to the 
deficit ditch that the 1993 plan helped us to claw our way out of after 
12 years of huge deficits; that 1993 plan which my friend, the Senator 
from New Mexico, referred to yesterday as a model. That is the plan 
that helped us to scratch and crawl and dig our way out of that deficit 
ditch. It is a role model. Where were you? Where art thou? Where were 
you? the people might ask. The 1993 plan.
  Last week, all of the Democratic members of the Budget Committee 
wrote to Senator Domenici and urged him to schedule a markup.
  I joined with my colleagues and urged Chairman Domenici not to take 
the unprecedented step of failing to mark up a budget resolution. If we 
don't mark it up, it will send a dangerous message to the Senate about 
the prospects for working on a bipartisan basis in this evenly divided 
body.
  President Bush, upon several occasions during the campaign, talked 
about the bickering, the infighting, the bitter partisanship that was 
occurring in Washington. He said he wanted to stop it. He wanted to end 
it. He wanted to do something about it. He is right. And the people 
want to end it. That is why they sent 50 of us to sit on this side and 
50 to sit on that side in this Senate. That is the only time that has 
ever happened--50-50. It has happened 37-37 upon an occasion, several 
decades ago, but never 50-50, which is a tie vote here.
  If there is ever a time when we ought to have partisanship, it isn't 
now. We need to work in a bipartisan manner. The President wants that. 
I have great respect for this President. I was inspired by his 
inaugural address. He didn't bow and scrape to the special interest 
groups. He referred to the Scriptures. Thank God we have a President 
who referred to the Scriptures in his inaugural speech. He talked about 
Good Samaritans in that speech.
  I will be very much opposed to his $1.6 trillion tax cut, which will 
amount to over $2 trillion. I will be very opposed to that tax cut. I 
may vote for a tax cut, but it won't be that one. That is not to say I 
am disrespectful of him. I just think he is wrong. On other occasions I 
may think he is right about a matter, but this, I think, is a colossal 
mistake.
  I think we are foolish, foolish, to talk of a $2 trillion tax cut 
based on projections of surpluses 10 years away, 9 years away, 8 years, 
whatever, which may never--and probably won't--materialize.
  That is taking a very important step, and it is going to impact on 
you, the people. So why shouldn't we have a debate? Why shouldn't we 
have a markup in this bill? We may report out a better measure than 
even the chairman has in mind.
  Why have we seen fit in our constitutional system to have committees? 
Why? If we are going to have committees, why don't we have markups on 
bills and let Republicans and Democrats hammer it out, hammer out the 
measure on the anvil of free debate? Why does any chairman want to say 
to the committee, I am not going to have a markup, period?
  Some people might think that is dictatorial, tyrannical, autocratic, 
arbitrary. We have had great hearings. We have had witnesses who have 
traveled here from all points of the compass. They have answered our 
questions. We have had splendid hearings--you people have attended the 
hearings--but we are not going to have a markup in this committee.
  Why? Because we are operating on a 50/50 basis. It is even-stephen in 
this committee. If I had a majority of one or two in the committee, 
yes, we would have a markup then, but we don't have a majority. The 
people have decided that. We don't have a majority. So whatever you 
say, I will listen, but we are not having a markup. Might as well not 
have meetings. A committee chairman may as well just say: We are not 
going to have any meetings. We will have a meeting in committee when I 
decide to and we won't have a meeting in committee when I decide we 
won't.
  That is the way it used to be. Do you believe that? It used to be 
that way in considerable measure.
  When I came to the House of Representatives 49 years ago, committee 
chairmen could simply bottle up legislation in their committees and not 
even have a meeting. I can remember a Member of the House whom I 
respected a great deal and admired; he was a former judge in the 16th 
District of Virginia. His name was Howard Smith. He represented the 
Eighth Congressional District of Virginia.

  Let me say: You know what, you know what. Howard Smith, this former 
judge, was chairman of the Rules Committee in the House. I have the 
book here, Congressional Directory, 1953, March. When matters came to 
his committee, he just would go on back down to the farm and tend to 
his farming and leave the legislation bottled up in his committee.
  I remember reading about it in the papers. The chairman didn't have a 
meeting. Where was he? He was down on his farm. So the chairmen 
sometimes just bottled up things in their committees.
  In effect, that is what is happening here. Markup of the Budget 
Resolution is being ``bottled up.'' Our cries and pleas and prayers are 
going to be of no avail because we are not going to have a markup in 
that committee. Well, why did I attend most of the hearings?
  So it is in a different form but it is the same old thing as when 
those chairmen used to say, we will have a hearing or we may not have a 
hearing, or we won't even have a meeting, and the whole session passed 
and there would be no meeting of the committee on many important 
matters. That is the way it used to be.
  So what happened? This is not National History Month but I am just 
repeating a little bit of history today. We have heard that history 
repeats itself. That is what we see in front of us. History is 
repeating itself.
  Here is what happened in the writing of the rules around here--I am 
not sure I ever read much concerning the House rules. I was there 6 
years, but I didn't get so much embedded in the study of them. The 
rules today won't allow chairmen to do that.
  Let me read, as an example, from rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of 
the Senate. Here it is. I used to know the rules much better than I 
know them now.

  Rule 26, section 10(B)--I haven't read this lately. This is a 
different print. This is 1999. That was the last century, 1999. So I 
haven't read this one. But this is what I think is pertinent to our 
discussion. ``It shall be the duty.'' 10(B).

       It shall be the duty of the chairman of each committee to 
     report or cause to be reported promptly to the Senate, any 
     measure approved by his committee and to take or cause to be 
     taken necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote. In any 
     event, the report of any committee upon a measure which has 
     been approved by a committee shall be filed within seven 
     calendar days.

  And so on and so on. I don't think that is the pertinent part.
  I will ask the Parliamentarian to give me a copy of the rules and the 
pertinent provision which I am talking about; 26, paragraph 3. Here it 
is. Each standing committee--aha, here it is.

       Each standing committee (except the Committee on 
     Appropriations) shall fix regular weekly, biweekly, or 
     monthly meeting days for the transaction of business before 
     the committee and additional meetings may be called by the 
     chairman as he may deem necessary. If at least three members 
     of any such committee desire that a special meeting of the 
     committee be called by the chairman, those members may file 
     in the offices of the committee their written request to the 
     chairman for that special meeting. Immediately upon the 
     filing of the request, the clerk of the committee shall 
     notify the chairman of the filing of the request. If, within 
     three calendar days after the filing of the request, the 
     chairman does not call the requested special meeting, to be 
     held within seven calendar days after the filing of the 
     request, a majority of the members of the committee may file 
     in the offices of the committee their written notice that a 
     special meeting of the committee will be held, specifying the 
     date and the hour of that special

[[Page S2812]]

     meeting. The committee shall meet on that day and hour. 
     Immediately upon the filing of the notice, the clerk of the 
     committee shall notify all members of the committee that such 
     special meeting will be held and inform them of its date and 
     hour. If the chairman of any such committee is not present at 
     any regular, additional, or special meeting of the committee, 
     the ranking member of the majority party on the committee who 
     is present shall preside at that meeting.

  That provision applies to the Budget as to any other committee except 
the Appropriations Committee. So in the rules there is provision for 
members of a committee, if the majority of the members so wish, to 
insist upon and to require and to have a meeting of the committee.
  Now, there are two problems with this provision. One is that you have 
to have a majority. We have a 50/50 breakdown. In other words, in the 
committee we have 11-11. I haven't tested the waters to see if someone 
on the Republican side--with, I assume a majority, probably unanimous 
group of Senators on my side--would join to insist that we have a 
meeting of that committee, the Budget Committee, to mark up the bill. 
It might very well be that we would get a majority. That is the first 
problem.
  The second problem is as big or bigger. Once the committee meets at 
the request and insistence of a majority of the committee, if the 
chairman is not there, the ranking member--which means of the same 
party--would act as chairman. So far, so good. But the real fly in the 
ointment would come in the fact that that chairman can call the meeting 
to order and put the committee out immediately. He has fulfilled his--
the request of the majority of the committee. In other words, he 
doesn't have to sit there and have a long hearing or meeting. He can 
just call it to order and adjourn.

  So why do I call that to the attention of the Senate? Not as a 
possible--not to indicate that there is a possible avenue which would 
constitute a threat to the chairman. I do not do that at all. But just 
to remind Senators that it is there.
  When George Mallory, that great Britisher, was asked why he wanted to 
climb Mount Everest, he said ``because it's there.'' So, today, I have 
taken the time to point out to my colleagues, some of whom may have not 
read this in quite a while, myself included--that it is there.
  Why is it there? It is there because it needed to be there. Why did 
it need to be there? Because there were some chairmen in the Congress, 
both Houses, who just refused to have their committees meet. And if the 
civil rights bills or whatever were introduced, they went to the 
committee. That was the burying ground. They never came out of that 
door.
  So Congress said, and the people said, and the press said: We have 
had enough. We are going to require--we are going to put something in 
here by which a majority of the committee can be sure that that 
committee does meet. As I say, the chairman may gavel it in and gavel 
it out, but he has to do this before the people. Used to be these 
things did not have to be out in the sunlight, but you have to be in 
the sunshine now, so the people say. So if he wants to gavel the 
committee in and gavel it out, OK, he can do that. He is elected for 2 
years. Probably--it is unlikely he will be expelled from the body for 
doing that, but there comes a time when he does have to stand before 
the bar of the people. If he wants to be high-handed, heavyhanded, or 
whatever, the people will make a judgment.
  So that is why we have in the rules a way to force a committee 
chairman to meet. We are not talking about that here, for Chairman 
Domenici; he is very excellent about having hearings and so on. But 
there is just a certain remnant of the evil that existed when chairmen 
could bottle up matters in their committees, not even have meetings.
  We have been having meetings, but we face a very serious matter of 
having soon to be confronted with a budget resolution which will not 
have been marked up in the committee, and which will have only details 
which will have only been provided by the chairman.
  I come to a close now just to say again that all I say is meant to be 
within the spirit of goodwill, but also to indicate my concern about 
what is happening in this Senate and the way it is happening.
  I thank the Chair and all Senators who have been waiting.
  Let me thank, again, my own chairman, the ranking member of the 
Budget Committee, for the excellent work he has done in that committee.
  I made it clear at the beginning, may I say to my ranking member, 
that I am not here posing as top man on my committee. I couldn't be, 
and I wouldn't want to be. The ranking member has done a very good job.
  But as a member of that committee, and as one who has been around 
here now for 49 years in this institution, I am afraid something is 
going on that gets to the root of this institution and will hamper the 
representation of the people by virtue of the fact that our hands, 
figuratively speaking, are going to be tied, and that we are, to an 
extent, being gagged to the point where it is going to be done the 
chairman's way. The way it is going to be done, he has been very 
forthright about and very frank about. It is just going to come to the 
Senate without the benefit of amendment. That in my opinion is not for 
the Senate or for the good of the Nation. So, I respectfully ask my 
chairman, Senator Domenici, let us follow your own advice, let us use 
the 1993 Reconciliation Act as a role model and have a markup.
  I thank all Senators for listening. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The distinguished Senator from 
Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from West 
Virginia for making us aware of the situation which we are coming into. 
I speak as a committee chairman who is deeply concerned about the 
process and how we are going to be meaningful in our participation to 
handle some of the very serious issues of this country. I thank him 
very much for his help.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I thank him, not 
for what he said but I thank him for being a Senator who is independent 
in his thinking, who has the courage of his own convictions, and who is 
unafraid to state them. I thank him for his service not only to his 
State and the people who sent him here but also on behalf of the 
Senators from other States who respect that kind of integrity.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator.

                          ____________________