[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5155-5162]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                         THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate will debate, beginning next week, 
legislation that will be remembered by Americans for decades to come.
  The budget resolution that the Senate will debate will set the Nation 
on a course that will change, that will affect, and that will impact 
upon people's lives for a generation or more.
  How long is a generation? One might think in terms, in speaking of a 
generation, of 25, 30 years. We are at a unique moment--hear me--we are 
at a unique moment in the history of this Nation when we must decide 
what is the most appropriate way to allocate a projected surplus when 
we know that just over the horizon we are facing the staggering costs 
of the retirement of the baby boom generation.
  What do we mean in terms of the calendar when we speak of the baby 
boom generation? I started out in politics in 1946. The baby boom 
generation began then and there, for the most part, in 1946. That was a 
good starting point. Ten years from now, when 53 million Americans are 
expecting Social Security--hear me--10 years from now, when 53 million 
Americans will be expecting Social Security to be there for them in 
their retirement, they will remember--they will remember--whether we 
voted for a budget resolution that failed to address the long-term 
financing crisis that faces the Social Security program. They will 
remember, and so will we.
  Ten years from now, when 43 million Americans--hear me, again--10 
years from now, when 43 million Americans are expecting to rely on the 
Medicare program for their health care, they will remember whether we 
voted for a budget resolution that failed to address the long-term 
problem--they will remember whether we failed to address the long-term 
problem--the financing crisis that faces the Medicare program. Forty-
three million Americans will remember us, whether we addressed the 
financing crisis that faces the Medicare program.
  Ten years from now our elderly citizens will remember if we, in our 
day in time, voted for a resolution that failed to provide a fair 
prescription drug benefit.
  Ten years from now our children--our children--will remember if we 
voted for a budget resolution that resulted in a nation with a failed 
infrastructure--broken roads, dilapidated bridges, polluted water, 
water that is not safe to drink. They will remember if we voted for a 
budget resolution that forced them to go to crumbling schools. What 
will we say, when they say: Where were you?
  When God walked through the Garden of Eden--in the cool of the day, 
when the shadows were falling, when the rays from the Sun were dying 
out in the west--Adam was hiding. God said, ``Adam, Adam, where art 
thou?''
  Ten years from today, the people of America will look at today's 
legislators, on both sides of the aisle--they will look at the mighty 
men and women who were given the awesome honor and the profound duty to 
serve this country in this hour--and they will say to us: Where were 
you? Where were you? You were there at a time when you could have acted 
to preserve this system, this Social Security system, Medicare, our 
infrastructure, our Nation's schools, its forests, its parks. You were 
there. You had the chance. You had the duty. Where were you?
  This is a critical debate. I have been through lots of them. This is 
as critical a debate, you mind me--hear me, listen to me--this is as 
critical a debate as you will ever participate in or witness or hear or 
see in your lifetime, this debate that is coming up on the resolution 
next week. And yet as we approach this critical debate, we are being 
asked to do so without a detailed President's budget, without a markup 
in the Senate Budget Committee, and based on highly, highly 
questionable 10-year surplus projections--projections. Guesswork--that 
is what it is, these projections.
  When Alexander was being importuned by the Chaldeans upon his return 
from India not to enter the city of Babylon, Alexander said: ``He is 
the best prophet who can guess right.''
  That is what we have here. He is the best prophet who can guess 
right. And who knows? Who knows? When one looks at these 10-year 
projections that tell us there will be these huge surpluses, $5.6 
trillion--that is the projection for 10 years--it isn't worth the paper 
it is written on. What is the weather tomorrow? What is the weather 
this coming weekend? What is the weather the middle of next week? They 
can't tell us. With all of our marvelous techniques, they can't tell 
us. What will the stock market do on Monday? They can't tell us. They 
didn't know in advance that it was going to drop 436 points in one day.
  Yet we are told that we have massive surpluses down the road and, on 
that basis, on the basis of those projections, we are going to have a 
$1.6 trillion tax cut. And it is growing. All in all, it is already 
well over $2 trillion, and still growing. Some are saying we ought to 
have a bigger one based on these projections.
  We are operating without a detailed President's budget, without a 
markup in the Senate committee, and based on these highly questionable 
10-year surplus projections. We do not have a detailed proposal from 
the President of the United States on how to address the Social 
Security crisis. We do not have a detailed explanation from the 
President on how to fix the Medicare program. We do not know the 
details of his proposed budget cuts that are supposed to help pay for 
his proposed $2 trillion tax cut. We don't have it.
  Yet we are not only being importuned but we are virtually being 
forced to take up this budget resolution next week with a beartrap 
restriction on time that militates against the Senate's working its 
will. We are being forced into this situation, and we can't even see 
through a glass darkly, as the Apostle Paul said. We are flying blind. 
You know the old saying: It is your money.
  I hear a lot of talk about bipartisanship. I think that is what the 
people want--bipartisanship. Let us hope we can give it to them. But 
they want something else, too. They want us to do our work, and they 
want us to do our work well. That is what they are paying us to do. 
That is why they gave every Senator here the votes that placed upon our 
shoulders the toga of senatorial honor. With that honor goes the duty.
  They want us to do our work. They want us to do it well. They want us 
to represent their views and their interests well. Doing that--
representing their views and their interests well--should be a 
bipartisan concern, a concern of every Member of this body regardless 
of party.
  It is our sworn duty, especially now, now when we are debating a 
budget that will set the course of this Nation for the next decade. And 
the ramifications of this budget will go far beyond the next decade. We 
owe our people our very best judgment.
  How can we exercise that judgment, if we don't know the details of 
the

[[Page 5156]]

President's budget? How can any of us go back to our people at home and 
claim that we knew what we were doing on this critical matter--a budget 
that will largely set our course for the next 10 years and beyond--when 
we only had just a little, teeny-weeny glimpse of the picture on which 
to base our judgments and to base our votes? Conscience should pain us 
very deeply if we dare make that claim.
  The Members of this Senate do not at this time--not one Senator in 
this body--know the details of the President's budget. Yet we are 
beginning to consider the budget in 2 days--Saturday, Sunday, Monday. 
Members have no committee report from the Budget Committee--none. 
Having no committee report, Members therefore have no majority views. 
Members have no minority views. We don't have any committee report. We 
are denied a committee markup of a resolution.
  On that point, let me say, I have been told--I want to make this 
clear--I have been told by one of my colleagues in the Senate--it may 
be a Republican, it may be a Democrat; I am on good speaking terms with 
both sides--I was told that one of our Republican colleagues told this 
colleague, whom I am now quoting, that the reason the Budget Committee 
did not vote on a budget resolution was that Robert Byrd in some way 
had precluded it or prevented it.
  Do you see what is going on here? There is an effort apparently to 
demonize Robert Byrd, along with some other Senators. But I am the 
demon, understand, according to that rumor, and that is all it is. 
Apparently, the reason we don't have a measure that has been reported 
out of the Budget Committee, called a markup, is that Robert Byrd 
somehow prevented it.
  I am waiting on any member of that Budget Committee to come to the 
floor and say that to me, right here and before other Senators. That is 
the kind of old wives' tale, the kind of rumor, that has no basis 
whatsoever. Yet it is being used to create fiction here in the minds of 
the Republicans that the reason we don't have that markup is because of 
Senator Byrd. It is what he did in the committee. He prevented it. He 
prevented it. Senator Byrd prevented it.
  There isn't a scintilla of truth in that. I have seen that happen 
before. I have been a victim of demonizing before in the Senate.
  I am the one who asked the question at the last meeting, ``Is this 
the last meeting of the committee? If it is, why don't we have a 
markup?''
  Well, Members have no committee report, Members have no majority 
views, and Members have no minority views because we have no committee 
report. We are flying as blind as if we were flying in a blizzard with 
our eyes sewn shut. It should be of no comfort at all to the American 
people, who are watching through those electronic eyes above the 
Presiding Officer's chair, that the blindness is completely bipartisan.
  Now that is truly bipartisan. The blindness is completely bipartisan. 
No Member of this Senate, regardless of party, has a complete picture 
of what is contained in this 10-year budget. Further exacerbating our 
common difficulties here is that there is no clear mandate for the 
President's budget.
  I respect this President. I have an admiration for this President. I 
like what he said in his inaugural speech. I like the fact that he 
referred to the Scripture, to the Good Samaritan. I like the fact that 
when I sat down with him at dinner in the White House last week, at his 
invitation--he was kind enough to invite me, my colleague Ted, the 
chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, and our 
wives to dinner at the White House. I like the fact that he said grace. 
He asked God's blessing upon the food. In many circles in this town and 
across this land, the word ``God,'' except in a profane use, is taboo. 
Don't mention God. On TV, I noticed the other day a Member of the other 
body swore in a witness and said, ``Do you solemnly swear that the 
testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth.'' I said to my wife, ``Why did that Member not 
also say `so help you God' ''?
  So you can use God's name all you want to in profanity. That is the 
``in'' thing, but don't use it otherwise. But this President used God's 
name. He had us all bow our heads. He didn't call on me and he didn't 
call on Senator Stevens. He, himself, thanked God for the food.
  So what I am saying is, I have a great respect for this President, 
but this President has no clear mandate for this budget. Look at the 
Senate. It is 50/50; half the people on one side, half on the other. So 
there is no clear mandate for this President's budget. The election was 
a virtual dead heat. Who would know that better than the distinguished 
Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, who is on this floor. The election 
was a virtual dead heat. The Senate is split 50/50. We have no clear 
direction from the people on what they think of this budget plan. They 
don't know about it.
  I say to Senators, as they said in the days of the revolution, ``Keep 
your powder dry. Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes.'' I 
think we ought to wait to see what is in this budget before we buy into 
it. Let's wait and see before we have this concurrent resolution on the 
budget before this Senate.
  We have no clear direction from the people on what they think of this 
budget plan because they don't know what is in it. All they know is 
what they heard in a campaign that maybe started up in the snows of 
winter in New Hampshire. Maybe that is where this idea came from, the 
$1.6 trillion, or whatever it is. Maybe it is where some of the other 
things came from. But we have no clear direction from the people today 
on what they think of this budget plan because they have not seen it, 
and neither have any of our colleagues on the right or on the left, on 
the Republican side, on the Democratic side. We are all like the blind 
leading the blind, in which case we all fall into the ditch.
  Such a situation underscores every Senator's responsibility to 
understand the details before he casts his vote in the name of the 
people he or she represents.
  (Ms. STABENOW assumed the chair.)
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, what I am saying is nonpartisan. I am 
saying on behalf of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle, 
who are in the majority, in a 50/50 Senate: You have a right to know 
the details of the President's budget. And I say that to my colleagues 
on the Democratic side: You have a right to know. And I say to the 
people out yonder in the hills, in the mountains, on the Plains, on the 
stormy deep: You have a right to know what is in that budget. And we 
won't know because, apparently, the die is cast and the concurrent 
resolution on the budget will be called up next week under the 
restrictions of the Budget Act.
  So here we have it. It is the product of hearings and the product of 
the chairman's work--the chairman and his staff. And I have a very high 
respect for the chairman. He has been kind enough, upon occasion, to 
come to my office and talk with me about matters. There is a bond 
between us. It will not be broken, but what we are going to be voting 
on next week, the concurrent budget resolution--will be the handiwork, 
for the most part, at this moment, of the chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee.
  The House has passed a concurrent resolution on the budget. I have 
not seen it. It may very well be that the leader will call that up. 
That will be the basic measure on which we begin to work our will.
  There are reconciliation instructions in that measure. If there were 
reconciliation instructions in the Senate measure that had come out of 
the Budget Committee, I would like, under the circumstances, to move to 
strike those instructions. There may not be any reconciliation 
instructions in the Senate Budget chairman's proposal which may be 
offered as a substitute for the House resolution. Then perhaps there 
will be an alternative by the ranking member of the Senate Budget 
Committee.
  Who knows how this will work itself out? But let us say just for the 
moment

[[Page 5157]]

that when the product leaves the Senate, it leaves without 
reconciliation instructions. It still has to go to conference, and 
there Senate conferees will be faced with the reconciliation 
instructions of the House. They will be in conference.
  I know my colleague from Florida wants to speak or wants me to yield. 
Let me say before I yield, Senators simply do not know. It is a stacked 
deck. We do not know what the cards are in that deck. We do not know on 
what we will be voting. I say wait and see what is in that President's 
budget before you make up your mind to support, for example, a massive 
tax cut of $1.6 or $2 trillion, which is what it will amount to 
certainly by the time the other matters are taken into consideration. 
Wait until you see. Do not jump, do not leap, do not start across that 
railroad crossing. The red lights are flashing. Do not start across it. 
Do not launch out into that unknown. Do not sign up. Do not sign up 
here. Let us wait and see what is in the President's budget. I think 
you are in for some surprises.
  A short time ago, we received an outline of the President's budget. I 
have it right here--this so-called blueprint: ``A Blueprint for New 
Beginnings.'' Now that is just a little peek, a little peek; let's see 
what this does; a little peek, just a little peek. We get to see just a 
little peek of what will be in the President's budget. Yet, we are 
expected to sign on at this juncture and say: Sign me up; I am for 
that; I will be for that; I am for a $1.6 trillion tax cut, or whatever 
it may be. Sign me up.
  How are you going to pay for it? Out of what domestic programs is the 
cost going to come? You cannot count on those. It is really a laughing 
matter, to count on those projected surpluses out there.
  What are some of the programs that are going to help pay for that tax 
cut? I am going to sign up for tax cuts; put me down; put my name down; 
I am going to sign up for that.
  What are you prepared to give for that tax cut? Look at your children 
out there in those crowded classrooms. Look at the broken windows in 
the schools. Look at the broken plumbing in the schools. Look at our 
housing developments where the people live. Look at our parks and our 
forests. What about Medicare? What are we going to do about Medicare? 
What are we going to do about Social Security? What about our highways? 
What about our airports? What about safety in the air? What about 
safety in drinking the water in this country that comes out of the 
faucet? Are you willing to suffer huge cuts in those programs? What 
about energy? We are facing an energy crisis in this country. What are 
you willing to give there? And I can go on and on and on.
  Why do we want to get on board something blindfolded--blindfolded? So 
I say wait and see, wait and see. We should have the budget before us. 
We are the people's elected representatives. We have no king in this 
country. People decided that over 200 years ago. The people's 
representatives--you, the Presiding Officer, you, the Senator, my 
friends on the Republican side--they are as entitled to know what is in 
this budget as we, the Democrats, are. Their duties are as deep, their 
responsibilities are as demanding as are ours.
  So I am making a bipartisan, or nonpartisan, speech this afternoon, 
and I am saying: Let us have the President's budget. No one can tell me 
that, this late in the game, the executive branch cannot share with us 
the budget details. Why won't they share the budget details with us? 
They can do it. Why don't our friends on the Republican side tell the 
people in the Republican administration: Share with us; we have as much 
a responsibility as the Democrats have to know where we are going; 
share with us; what is in this budget?
  Even if I had to wait on the document itself, why shouldn't the 
administration at this point in time be willing, and why should not 
Members on both sides feel the need for, the desire for, the necessity 
for the details that are in that budget? They are available somewhere. 
Surely they are not going to fall from the skies on the first day after 
recess. They are around. Why can't we have them before we vote?
  I thank the distinguished Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson. He is on 
the floor. He has been sitting here and listening, and he is now 
standing. I am prepared to yield the floor or I can yield to him, 
whichever he desires.
  I ask unanimous consent, Madam President, that I be allowed to yield 
to the Senator for a statement if he wishes or for questions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I thought it might be 
instructive in the course of this debate if the distinguished Senator 
from West Virginia might explain the gravity of the situation contained 
within the budget resolution having to do with reconciliation 
instructions; how several months from now it would bring back to this 
body a tax bill that would be able to be debated only under very 
confined circumstances, throwing out the history, the tradition, and 
the rules of the Senate which have caused it to be recognized as the 
greatest deliberative body in the world.
  Would the Senator please explain for purposes of this debate the 
threat to the institution that is known as the greatest deliberative 
body in the world?
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the very distinguished Senator. 
William Ewart Gladstone, who was Prime Minister of England four times 
referred to the U.S. Senate as ``that remarkable body, the most 
remarkable of all the inventions of modern politics.''
  Why did he do that? Because this Senate is so unique there is nothing 
else in the world like it. There has never been anything in the world 
like it. It is the forum of the States, and as a result of the Great 
Compromise of 1787, July 16, the States are equal in the Senate. The 
States are equal. Every State is equal to every other state when it 
comes to voting.
  Here, if anywhere, the people's representatives may debate freely and 
may amend at length.
  From 1806 until 1917, there was no limitation on debate in this body. 
Since 1917, of course, debate can be limited in this body by the 
invocation of the cloture rule. Other than that, the only way, as the 
Supreme Court has said, we can have debate limited in this Senate is if 
we limit it ourselves; if we agree by unanimous consent agreement that 
we will limit debate, then it will be limited.
  Now comes the Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. From that 
day to this we have had, by virtue of that act, a Congressional Budget 
Office, we have had congressional Budget Committees in the two Houses, 
and we have agreed by that act to bind our hands and to restrict 
ourselves in regard to debate and to amendments on concurrent budget 
resolutions, reconciliation bills, and conference reports thereon.
  The purpose of that act was to set up a framework of fiscal 
discipline which would allow us to oversee the whole budget, its 
revenues, its expenditures, and certain other elements of the fiscal 
equation, and exercise discipline and reduce the deficits.
  Prior to that time, we passed 13 appropriations bills. Each little 
subcommittee, being a little legislature of its own, adopted its 
appropriation bill without knowledge of what the other dozen 
subcommittees were including in the appropriation bills they were 
reporting out. We had no control over the global fiscal situation, but 
the Budget Reform Act enabled us to unify the actions of all of these 
subcommittees and to have better control of the overall fiscal picture 
and to exercise fiscal discipline.
  It came with a price, as I say. It came with very severe restrictions 
on debate time and on amendments.
  Now, to answer the distinguished Senator's specific question, in the 
concurrent resolution on the budget we will lay out the blueprint for 
the year, and the impact will be for many years into the beyond. In 
that blueprint, there will likely be reconciliation instructions. The 
Concurrent Resolution on the budget, which will be coming up next week, 
has a time limitation of 50 hours: 2 hours on amendments in the

[[Page 5158]]

first degree; 1 hour each on debatable motions, or appeals or 
amendments in the second degree.
  But this measure will say to the Finance Committee in the Senate, or 
the Ways and Means Committee in the House, to report a bill providing 
up to x amount of money for tax cut purposes. It may say up to $1.6 
trillion. It will instruct that Finance Committee here or the Ways and 
Means Committee in the House to bring back a reconciliation measure 
with x amount for tax cuts.
  The Finance Committee eventually will bring back its tax bill. That 
is where the vote will come on cutting the taxes--not here. This 
concurrent resolution on the budget will never become law. It will 
never even get to the President's desk. He will never sign it. That 
Finance Committee will report back a tax bill. That is the 
reconciliation bill about which the Senator is asking. On that measure, 
there will be 20 hours of debate--20 hours, half to the majority and 
half to the minority. That means we on our side of the aisle will have 
10 hours, my Republican friends on the other side of the aisle will 
have 10 hours.
  Under the act, the majority party can yield all of its time back if 
it wishes at any point. Let's say just for the purpose of having an 
understanding, the majority party could yield all of its time back, 
yield its 10 hours back; that would leave 10 hours on our side--the 
minority.
  Suppose then, the minority wishes to offer an amendment, which under 
the act is 2 hours. Guess what? The majority, let's say, has already 
yielded all its time back on the resolution. Guess what? The majority 
gets half the time on the amendment that we, the minority, offer on our 
side. So, in effect, the majority could, in a certain scenario, end up 
with 5 of the minority's remaining 10 hours.
  Let's go a bit further. The majority could move to cut remaining time 
on the measure to 2 hours or to 1 hour or to 30 minutes or to zero 
minutes. It is not a debatable motion, and it carries by a majority 
vote.
  If we were to follow the thesis that might makes right, a party could 
make us go to a vote without any time left for debate. It is a 
beartrap. It is a gag rule. Who is being gagged? The people, our 
constituents, because their elected representatives are being gagged.
  Enough said, in response to the question.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, will the Senator further 
yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield.
  I ask unanimous consent, Madam President, I retain the floor and I 
may yield to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  He started telling us the story about one of the great Prime 
Ministers of England, Gladstone--four times Prime Minister--who made 
reference to the Senate as a great deliberative body. The scenario the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia has just outlined is a 
description that could occur on this floor, in the greatest 
deliberative body in the world, that would foreclose debate, would stop 
amendments, would ram down the throats of Senators a piece of 
legislation that would have far-reaching economic and fiscal 
consequences for this Nation, without the opportunity for debate and 
amendment.
  As we contemplate this prospect happening as a result of our passing 
this budget resolution next week, will the Senator further contemplate 
and reflect upon the history of the Founding Fathers in crafting this 
Constitution in the protection of the minority and how those rights of 
the minority might be trampled next week?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I want to yield the floor soon. There are 
other Senators here, including the Senator from Florida, who want to 
speak. I do not want to maintain the floor.
  Let me answer the Senator like this. One of the reasons for the 
Senate's being is for the protection of the minority. The minority can 
be right. With respect to the upcoming Budget Resolution, the minority 
is being gagged by the events that are bringing us up to the point of 
action on the concurrent resolution on the budget. And a part of that 
gagging, if I may use the word this way--a part of that gagging is that 
we are being forced to act on the President's budget without seeing the 
President's budget. That is a kind of gagging, as I see it. Senators 
are not going to be able to speak on what is truly in the President's 
budget.
  It is a fast-track operation that takes away the rights of the 
minority. In this instance, it is also going to take away the rights of 
the majority Senators. They won't see the budget either.
  Let me leave it at that for the moment. I hope I will have another 
opportunity one day to speak on this. But let me close by saying this. 
The Senator from Florida, the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, the 
Senator from Delaware here--these Senators, and the Senators on the 
other side of the aisle, come here wanting to work for the people, 
wanting to be a part of a productive process, and wanting to fulfill 
their commitments to the people who send them here. That is what they 
want to do.
  They must understand, however, that they cannot do that and achieve 
the full potential if the minority--and in this instance it is also the 
majority, meaning both sides, Republican and Democrats--are forced to 
debate a matter which is a revolving target. We can't see it: It is 
here--no. It is here--no. It is there. It is here. It is there. We 
can't see it. It is a budget we shall have to read in the dark.
  A Senator cannot fulfill his high ideals. He comes here with the 
highest, most noble purpose. ``I do not want to be a part of the 
bickering. I want to be a part of making things happen. I want to serve 
my people. It is time to get on with the business of the people. I 
don't want to be a part of this bitter partisanship.''
  But how can you do what you want to do if you have this resolution 
crammed down your gullet because of a time constriction here that is 
going to be enforced and because you don't know what is in that budget? 
Believe me, if you did know what is in that budget, it might change 
your mind on many things in that budget, one of which could be a $1.6 
trillion tax cut.
  It may not change your mind. Senators shouldn't have to vote in the 
dark. Senators shouldn't have to wear blinders in making this decision. 
This decision isn't just for you, or for me, or for my children today. 
It is not just for my grandchildren today, not just for my great-
granddaughter, Caroline. It is beyond all these, because we will be 
laying down a baseline here. We are going to be laying down a baseline. 
We are going to be making decisions here without knowing what we are 
really voting on really, and that decision is going to affect our 
children and their children.
  We know it is going out there 10 years, but that is not the whole 
picture. It is a fateful decision that we are embarking upon, and we 
are being forced to make these judgments sight unseen in many 
instances--a pig in a poke.
  That is not right. That is wrong. That is not just. That is an 
injustice to our people.
  Madam President, I am going to yield the floor. I thank the Senators 
who are here on this nice afternoon. We have finished our voting for 
the day but these Senators are still working.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
I may proceed for such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I want to add to the comments 
of the very distinguished Senator who has taught us freshmen Senators 
so much in the few short days that we have been here.
  If I may dare to expound upon the lesson that he has already taught 
us today by just underscoring the fact of this wonderful experiment we 
sometimes call a democracy is really a republic. The rights of the 
minority were

[[Page 5159]]

one of the most cherished rights to be protected under the 
Constitution. That is why a body such as this was developed, crafted, 
and created by those political geniuses who, at a moment in history, 
happened to come together and create this government.
  For the protection of the rights of the minority, they clearly 
intended that whenever a piece of legislation would come in front of 
this body--which would be so important that it would have an economic 
consequence over years and years--that it ought to have the right of 
debate for more than 10 hours.
  You heard the Senator describe how this tax bill may come back to 
this body and only have 10 hours of debate. And through the process of 
amendment it could have even less than 10 hours of debate.
  No one ever contemplated that a $1.6 trillion tax bill--which all the 
economists are starting to tell us is really a $2.5 trillion tax cut, 
and maybe even more--would ever be discussed, debated and amended in 
less than 10 hours.
  That is a travesty; and, that is what the American people need to 
understand is about to happen, if we don't clean up this budget 
resolution next week.
  I echo the sentiments already expressed by the distinguished Senator 
from West Virginia that we should have, as a priority--and I can tell 
you my people in Florida have clearly indicated to me in no uncertain 
terms that their No. 1 priority is to pay down the national debt, out 
of this surplus, if it continues to exist, and if the projections are 
right. One projection is $5.6 trillion. But recently that was lowered 
to $4.5 trillion. With the economy seemingly going in a downward trend, 
who knows what that projection of the surplus is going to be?
  It is incumbent upon us, as we all have agreed, that we enact a 
substantial tax cut. It is incumbent upon us to make reasoned 
judgments, with fiscal restraint, on how we can pay down the national 
debt; enact a tax cut; and, provide for certain other priorities in 
this nation that my people have also told me that they want very much:
  A prescription drug benefit that will modernize Medicare;
  A substantial investment in education, so we can bring down class 
size; so we can pay teachers more; and, so we can have safer schools 
and have those schools be accountable.
  My people have also instructed me about their concern for the 
environment. They want investment there. They clearly are concerned 
about health care; and, they want investment there. They are concerned 
about providing for the common defense. They want an additional 
investment there--to pay our young men and women in the armed services 
adequate wages to keep the quality we need in the defense of this 
country, instead of losing it to the private sector.
  I have mentioned a few things. All of those are high priorities for 
the people of this nation, and I know they are high priorities for the 
people of Florida.
  They sent me up here to exercise judgment about how to pay down the 
national debt, and how within the resources we have, to enact a 
substantial tax cut, take care of those other needs, and to be fiscally 
disciplined in the process of exercising that judgment--so we don't run 
ourselves into the economic ditch like we did in the 1980s, when we 
were deficit financing.
  I will conclude. I have been through this before because I was one of 
the people who voted for the 1981 tax cut. It was an excessively large 
tax cut. It was well intended, but it was overdone. It was overdone so 
much so that we had to undo it--not once, but three times--in the 
decade of the 1980s, while I was in the House of Representatives.
  As a result of that, and a lack of fiscal restraint by the Congress, 
the annual deficit spending--that is spending more than you have coming 
in in tax revenue--in the late 1970s went from approximately $22 
billion to close to $300 billion by the end of the decade--that's 
spending $300 billion more in that one year than we had in tax revenue. 
You see what the result was in the economy in the 1980s. You see how 
painful it was to have to turn that around.
  Thus, it is our responsibility in the government of the United States 
to wisely spend the surplus. And I can tell you, this one Member of the 
Senate wants to be able to exercise his judgment for the people who 
sent me here to be as fiscally disciplined and fiscally restrained as I 
can--so we don't go back into that economic ditch.
  I am grateful, beyond measure, to the Senator from West Virginia for 
the history lessons he has provided for us, for the perspective he has 
provided for us, for the knowledge he has provided about what can 
happen to the economy of this Nation. It is my intention, with every 
ounce of energy I have, to continue to speak out on the issue of fiscal 
discipline.
  There is a very crucial vote that is coming up next week on how we 
dispose of this budget resolution, and how we dispose of the 
reconciliation instructions, which will ultimately determine how we 
handle the tax bill when it comes back to the Senate for debate.
  Again, let me say, in closing, what a tremendous privilege it is for 
me to be a part of this deliberative body. I want to be a good Senator. 
I want to be a Senator who reaches across the aisle to forge bipartisan 
consensus. And that opportunity is either going to be there or not, in 
great measure, next week. I hope it is going to be a bipartisan 
consensus.
  Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. CLINTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business with Senators 
permitted to speak for 10 minutes each.
  The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield to me?
  Mrs. CLINTON. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
distinguished Senator from New York speak out of order and that she may 
speak for up to 20 minutes.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object if the Senator chooses to speak for 20 minutes, but I would 
like to get in the queue, if I might. Since the distinguished Senator 
from West Virginia has been speaking now or has had the floor at least 
for over an hour, I would like, after the Senator from New York has 
concluded--for however long she takes--to have the right to speak or be 
yielded time for up to 1 hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak out 
and join the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and the 
distinguished Senator from Florida to express our concerns about the 
upcoming budget debate.
  First, I thank Senator Byrd for his extraordinary commitment to this 
institution, which is really unprecedented in history and is such a 
blessing for not only the institution and those who have been 
privileged to serve with him but for our country. And I heed his words 
seriously because he has taken the long view about what is in the best 
interests of a deliberative body, of this Senate, of a nation, that 
should rely upon the careful, thoughtful analysis of the issues that 
come before us and the people we represent.
  I am personally grateful to him for the time he has taken as my good 
friend, the distinguished Senator from Florida, referred to, to help 
mentor us freshmen Senators, to give us the guidance we need to be able 
to do the best possible job for the people who sent us here. And it is 
such an honor to stand on the floor of this Senate, a place I have long 
revered, on behalf of New Yorkers.
  But I come today with somewhat of a heavy heart because I believe in 
the principles and values this Senate represents. I want to see them 
fulfilled. I

[[Page 5160]]

want to be a part of perpetuating them into our future.
  I find myself, as a new Member, struck by how difficult it will be to 
discharge my responsibilities in the upcoming week without having seen 
the budget, without having the opportunity to debate its priorities, 
and even more than its priorities, the values which it seeks to 
implement. I do not know that the people I represent, or the people any 
of us represent, will get the benefit of our best judgment, that the 
decisions we make will be grounded in our careful, thoughtful analysis.
  There will certainly be differences among us. That is what makes this 
a great deliberative body and makes our country so great. We come with 
different experiences. We come with different viewpoints. I come as the 
daughter of a small businessman who did not believe in mortgages, did 
not have a house until he could pay for it with cash, did not believe 
in credit, and who believed it was his responsibility to always make 
sure our family's books were balanced.
  I come with the belief that we had to go to extraordinary efforts to 
make sure our economy enjoyed these last 8 years of prosperity and 
progress and that we could not have done so had we not reversed the 
decade of deficits and debt that really did undermine America's 
capacity at home and abroad.
  So when we talk about the important debate in which we will engage 
next week, I think it is the most important debate in which I may 
engage in my entire term as Senator. It is certainly one of the most 
important debates for our country, and everyone who is following it, to 
understand what is at stake.
  This debate will set our priorities as a nation for the foreseeable 
future and could determine whether or not we have surpluses, whether or 
not we will be prepared for the impending retirement of the baby 
boomers that starts in just 11 years. It is a debate that will 
certainly be about numbers, deficit projections, surplus projections, 
and spending.
  But I think underlying it is a debate about who we are as a people. 
It is not only about our prosperity, not only about our Federal 
budget--it is certainly about that--it is about who we are as 
Americans.
  I come to this body determined to represent the people of my State 
and our country, as all of us do. But will we be able to do that? We 
are going to be deciding, in the votes we cast--starting with 
procedural votes--whether or not our seniors will have prescription 
drug benefits. We are going to be deciding whether or not our children 
will have the teachers they need and the schools they deserve to have. 
We are going to be deciding whether we have the sewer systems and the 
clean drinking water that every American deserves and should be able to 
count on. We are going to be deciding whether or not we do have the 
resources to maintain America's strength around the world, whether we 
will combat terrorism, whether we will stand firm with our allies. We 
are going to be determining whether we make the investments in research 
and development that will make us a stronger, richer, smarter nation in 
the decades ahead.
  I am deeply concerned that we enter this debate without the benefit 
of the administration's budget.
  I am privileged to serve on the Budget Committee under the 
extraordinary leadership of the Senator from North Dakota and my 
colleagues, the Senators from West Virginia and Florida. We sat through 
fascinating hearings. We listened as our defense priorities were 
discussed, as our education priorities were discussed, as our health 
care priorities were discussed. We listened to experts from all across 
the spectrum of economic opinion and analysis. I found it an 
extraordinarily enlightening experience. But we are not going to get a 
chance to debate with our colleagues what it is we as a committee 
should be deciding to recommend to this body with respect to the budget 
we will be debating. So we are flying blind. We are looking through a 
glass darkly. We are in the dark.
  Will this budget have the investments we need to protect child care 
and child abuse programs? The early information is it will not; that we 
will be turning our backs on working parents, cutting tens of millions 
of dollars from child care. Will we protect our most vulnerable 
children, those who are abused? The information we have, without a 
budget but kind of leaking out of the administration, suggests that we 
are going to be asked to cut child abuse prevention programs.
  We also are being told that we are going to be asked in this budget 
to cut training programs for the pediatricians who take care of the 
sickest of our children in our children's hospitals. These are very 
difficult issues in any circumstance, but not to have the chance to be 
able to analyze what is being proposed is troubling to me. Will this 
budget ensure our children will grow up in a safe environment with 
clean water and clean air, with access to quality, affordable health 
care? Will it adequately protect our food supply? Every day we see a 
new article in the paper about what is happening with our food supply 
in Europe, in the United States, around the world. Will we be able to 
protect ourselves so we have the kind of reliable food supply that 
Americans deserve?
  What are we doing in this time of surplus to ensure a safety net for 
all Americans, young and old? The prescription drug benefit that we 
hear about from the administration would leave over 25 million of our 
seniors without prescription drugs. I don't want to choose between some 
of our seniors and others in New York, those who may be just a penny 
over the limit that they, therefore, won't get the prescription drugs 
they need. I want to make sure that everyone on Medicare--and that is 
what most Americans want--has access to those prescription drugs.
  To pay for the tax cut, the administration includes the Medicare 
surpluses. Those are resources that should be ensuring the solvency of 
Medicare for all Americans, totally in a reserve that is set off, never 
to be used for any other obligations. I believe other obligations that 
we have should be paid for in the context of a balanced budget and not 
put Medicare at risk.
  The administration has correctly committed to doubling the number of 
people served through community health centers. I support that. It is a 
worthy goal. But then on the other hand, I understand they are doing it 
by completely eliminating the community access program that ensures 
that community health providers work together to create an 
infrastructure for care so no patient falls through the cracks. New 
York is filled with wonderful religiously based hospitals, privately 
based hospitals that are part of this infrastructure of care that would 
be left out completely. We also have the finest teaching hospitals in 
the world. There are no resources that will continue to make sure that 
they are the finest in the world. New York trains 50 percent of all the 
doctors in America. What are the plans for making sure that continues 
and that our teaching hospitals are given the resources they need?
  We are also hearing that the administration's budget will provide 
more security guards for our Nation's schools. That, too, is a worthy 
goal. In fact, I was heart broken to hear today of yet another school 
shooting in another school in another part of our country. That is an 
issue we must address. If security guards would help, I will support 
that. But I am troubled and my heart goes out to the families who are 
suffering these terrible tragedies in school shootings.
  I will do whatever I can on all fronts to try to deal with that 
problem. But I understand from the President's budget that they are 
shifting funds from the very successful COPS Program that has really 
helped us drive down the crime rate in order to pay for the security 
guards at the schools. We are robbing Peter to pay Paul. Why would we 
take resources away from the COPS Program, where so many brave men and 
women put on the uniform and walk those streets, that has become so 
effective in driving crime out of neighborhoods? Why would we take 
money away from our police officers and put it in our security guards 
at schools, if we need to do both? I argue strenuously we do.

[[Page 5161]]

  Are we being confronted with such a Hobson's choice because of a 
genuine shortage of resources or are we making these choices and 
cutting needed investments simply to allow for an enormously expensive 
tax cut that leaves millions of Americans out, leaves millions of 
America's working families again behind where they need to be in order 
to make the decisions that are best for their families because we are 
favoring others?
  The kinds of priorities I speak of today, for which I have fought for 
so many years, going back to the days when we tried to bring fiscal 
responsibility to our budget, when we tried to lower the crime rate, 
when we tried to improve health care and education and protect the 
environment, are bipartisan priorities. These are genuinely American 
priorities. Child care, child abuse prevention, police on our streets, 
we don't stop and ask: Are you for it or against that based on party? 
We say: Isn't this something we should do together in America?
  Madam President, I hope we will come together once again, Republicans 
and Democrats, Americans, to fashion a budget that pays down the debt, 
which is still the best tax cut we can give the vast majority of 
Americans. That is what puts money in your pocket when you have to have 
a mortgage, when you do have a credit card, when you do have a car 
payment. Let's keep those interest rates down.
  We have learned from the last 8 years that the best way to do that is 
to be fiscally responsible and pay down our debt.
  We need to provide sensible tax relief. Everybody in this Chamber is 
for that--sensible, affordable, fiscally responsible tax relief that 
says to every American, we are going to make it possible for everybody 
to share in these surpluses. We are not going to favor one group over 
another. That is the kind of tax relief I would be proud to be part of 
and for which I will speak out.
  Finally, we need a budget that invests in our Nation's most pressing 
needs, not just what we see right before us. The fact that we should 
continue to lower class size in the early grades, that we should 
continue to modernize our schools, those are needs I see every day. I 
go in and out of schools. I talk with teachers and parents and 
students. I know how much better our education system can be if we have 
both increased accountability and increased investments. I know we have 
needs that are staring us right in the face that we may be turning our 
back on if we are not careful.
  I also want to be looking to the horizon, looking around the corner. 
It is not just enough to take care of today. We have to be thinking 
about next year and the next 10 years and the next 25 and 50 years, if 
we are to fulfill our obligations as stewards for our people. That 
means we cannot turn our backs on the demands of Social Security and 
Medicare.
  As a member of the so-called baby boomer generation, I do not want to 
be part of a generation that is not responsible. The World War II 
generation is often rightly called the greatest generation. I am proud 
of the service of my father. I am proud of the service of all who came 
before. But they also understood the investment that needed to be made. 
It was in those years after that war when we started investing in our 
Nation's schools, started building the Interstate Highway System, 
started making the investment that we, frankly, have been living on for 
the last 50 years in this country. How on Earth can we keep faith with 
those who came before us, let alone our children and grandchildren and 
great grandchildren, if we don't have the same level of responsibility?
  I think we have a rendezvous with responsibility, and it is now. If 
we turn our backs on that responsibility, we are going to have a great 
price to pay. Maybe the bill won't become due until 5 years, 10 years, 
maybe 15 or 25 years. But like my colleagues who have spoken, I want to 
be able to say to the young children I meet that we tried to be 
responsible, we tried to do the right thing that will make us a 
stronger, richer, smarter nation.
  The American people--and I certainly know that people in New York who 
sent me--send us here to Washington to work together across party 
lines, to make the tough choices necessary to move our country forward. 
That is exactly what I want to do. It is not necessarily going to mean 
that Democrats will support all Republican proposals, or vice versa. 
But what it does mean is that we will reason together and work together 
to do what is right for our Nation. I hope when that process begins 
next week we will have a chance to really sit down and look at the 
President's budget, have a good, honest, open debate, as we just had 
these last few weeks about another very important matter before this 
body, and that we will honestly say what the priorities are we are 
setting, the values we stand for, the vision we have for America.
  I believe there won't be a more important issue that I will face. I 
want to make my decisions in a deliberative, thoughtful manner. I want 
to look for ways I can work with my friends across the aisle, as well 
as my colleagues on this side, because I want to be sure that at the 
end of the day we have done the right thing for the children of 
America. If we are not going to leave any child behind, then let's make 
sure we know what we are voting on that will affect every child.
  If we can make that determination to work together, I am confident we 
can come up with a bipartisan, sensible policy that leads to a budget 
we can support. In the absence of that, it will be very difficult to do 
so, and I hope that certainly the people of New York and America 
understand we are trying to stand firmly in favor of a process that may 
sound arcane and difficult from time to time to understand but which 
goes back, as Senator Byrd so rightly points out, to people who were 
very thoughtful about how to design a process that protected the rights 
of everybody. It is not just about that, as important as that is; it is 
fundamentally about the choices we will make for the children and 
families of America.
  I know that people of good faith will find a way to come to a 
resolution about how we proceed next week. I am looking forward to 
that. But I do have to say that, in the absence of such an agreement, I 
for one will have to be asking the hard questions the people of New 
York sent me here to ask about what specifically will be done to affect 
the hopes and aspirations and needs and interests of the people I 
represent.
  So I will be guided by three principles:
  Will this budget pay down the debt to continue us on a path of fiscal 
responsibility that protects Social Security and Medicare?
  Will we be in a position to recognize that the investments we need to 
make are important investments that are not going to disappear 
overnight?
  And, at the end of the day, will we have made decisions that will 
protect America's long-term interests at home and abroad?

       Madam President, I hope I will be able to answer 
     affirmatively every one of those questions.

  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, will the distinguished Senator from 
Arizona yield me just a couple of minutes?
  Mr. KYL. Certainly.
  Mr. BYRD. Without the time being charged to the Senator from Arizona.
  Madam President, I merely want to take this moment to thank both of 
the Senators on my side of the aisle who have spoken this afternoon--
the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, and the distinguished Senator 
from New York, Mrs. Clinton--in support of the need for having the 
President's budget in the Senate before the Senate debates and amends 
the concurrent resolution on the budget.
  They have spoken from their hearts. I have sat and listened to every 
word, and I am personally grateful for the insights they brought here, 
their dedication, their perception of the necessity for our having the 
President's budget, or at least knowing what is in the budget before 
the Senate proceeds to it.
  Let me also thank them for their desire to work with other Senators 
on both sides of the aisle, their desire for

[[Page 5162]]

bipartisanship, their desire to work with our Republican leadership and 
our Republican Senators. Both of these Senators who have spoken have 
manifested that very clearly, stated it clearly, and it comes from 
their heart because they came here to do the work of the people, and 
they know that the work of the people and of the Nation and our 
children cries out for bipartisanship, cries out for us working 
together to meet the needs of this country.
  That is what they are here for. That is what they are here to do. I 
thank them for such a clear enunciation of the need to serve our people 
and, in so serving, the need to have before us all of the facts and 
details that we can so we can exercise judgment on both sides of the 
aisle. I thank them from the bottom of my heart.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Arizona is recognized.

                          ____________________