[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7736-7738]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   INTERNET TAX NONDISCRIMINATION ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume consideration of S. 
150.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Another Week, Another Cloture Vote

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, our country is facing record budget and 
trade deficits. We are in a war of our President's choosing that is 
not, to put it mildly, going as well as had been expected. Millions of 
Americans are without health care and millions more worry about the 
security of their jobs.
  These are troubled times and many issues clamor for the attention of 
the Senate. Yet what is the response of the Senate, the world's 
greatest deliberative body? Are we debating strategies to quell the 
violence in Iraq and bring our soldiers home? No. Are we considering 
plans to shore up Social Security and Medicare? No. Is the Senate 
deliberating on how to make America's workforce more competitive? No. 
Is the Senate grappling with reauthorizing welfare reform or the 
highway bill? No.
  This great deliberative body which was forged by the Founding Fathers 
in the Great Compromise of July 16, 1787, has become a factory that 
manufactures sound-bite votes that make great fodder for 30-second 
political ads but which do very little to address the many challenges 
facing this country. If this continues, I fear that the Senate will be 
little more than an insignificant arm of the political parties, and we 
may as well lower the flag that flies over this Capitol and wave the 
white flag of surrender in its place.
  Have we lost the will to legislate? Is the current leadership afraid 
to allow the Senate to work its will? The Republican leadership seems 
to feel that their slim majority gives them a blank check to impose 
their exclusive agenda. Let me be clear. It does not. The Senate, by 
its very existence, embodies a core tenet in American democracy; 
namely, the principle that the minority--the minority, the Democrats as 
of now, the minority--has rights. The Republican leadership is fast 
making the committee process a thing of the past. Furthermore, the 
leadership has done everything in its power to prevent Democratic 
Senators from getting votes on their amendments.
  The United States is faced with a trade deficit that has mushroomed 
to an all-time high for the third year in a row. Adding to that 
unfortunate situation, in August 2002, the World Trade Organization 
authorized the European Union to impose up to $4 billion in trade 
sanctions against the United States if provisions of the Tax Code were 
not repealed. How about that?
  The distinguish Republican leader brought up the Foreign Sales 
Corporation legislation to address this situation only after the 
sanctions were in place. After votes on only two amendments, the 
majority wanted to shut down the amendment process--shut it down. Many 
reasons were given, but the truth is that they did not want to vote on 
an amendment dealing with overtime rules for American workers. Yes, the 
American workers. While American companies are losing their competitive 
edge, the ``my way or the highway'' approach of the leadership has 
delayed a final resolution on this bill.
  In the past, cloture was a rarely used procedural tool. When I came 
to this Senate, it was rarely used--only once in a while. Not so today. 
Cloture is routinely filed in an attempt to limit nongermane 
amendments. Instead of the phrase, ``another day, another dollar,'' the 
Senate operates in an atmosphere of ``another week, another cloture 
vote.''
  Last November, we had three cloture votes in one day. What great 
hopes the leadership must have had for the first two votes to schedule 
three in a row. How can such a move be seen as anything more than 
political scorekeeping?
  This Senate has spent an extraordinary amount of time and energy and 
effort on President Bush's judicial nominees. In fact, last November 
the Senate set aside the VA-HUD appropriations bill to hold an 
overnight marathon stunt--something to watch indeed, something to 
watch. What a sham. The majority actually set aside substantive 
legislation to conduct a circus--a circus--on the floor of the Senate.
  The VA-HUD appropriations bill was never completed. Instead, it was 
rolled into the Omnibus appropriations bill, as has become the 
unfortunate custom in recent years. We have had 17 cloture votes on 6 
controversial and problematic nominees. The response of the Republican 
leadership and the administration has not been to address the 
fundamental underlying concerns raised by various Senators. Oh, no, no 
negotiation. Instead, they choose the course of holding cloture vote 
after cloture vote and then bash Democratic Senators as obstructionist. 
And just for good measure, the President, who has had 96 percent of his 
judges confirmed, moved two of these divisive nominees on to the bench 
in recess appointments.
  Now, I do not pretend that the conflict over judicial nominees began 
in this Senate or with the President, but I will state that this Senate 
leadership and this President have worked in concert to further 
politicize the process by which we select members of the judiciary.
  And it is not just with judicial nominees that the Republican 
leadership is doing the White House's bidding. The Republican 
leadership is controlled by this White House--controlled by this White 
House. Rather than have a legislative branch which crafts a bill and 
then sends it to the President to sign or veto, this Republican 
leadership in the Senate and in the House has allowed this President to 
control both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
  During the conference on the Omnibus appropriations bill, the 
Republican majority allowed this White House to assert itself and put 
in provisions that had been rejected by one or both Houses. 
Specifically, the provision to allow increased concentration of media 
ownership had been rejected by both the House and the Senate. However, 
it was included in the bill at the behest of the White House. Shameful. 
Yes, shameful.
  The House and the Senate were both on record as opposing overtime 
regulations proposed by the Bush administration. Nevertheless, at the 
urging of the Bush White House, language to block implementation of 
these regulations was dropped from the conference report--dropped from 
the conference report.
  Another example of allowing the Bush White House to dictate the 
legislation produced by the Congress is the highway bill. Here is a 
bill that is important to every State and every person in the Union. 
Every Senator's State will benefit from this bill. The transportation 
bills passed the House and the Senate by wide bipartisan majorities, 
majorities that could easily override a veto. Yet we are stalled 
because the Bush White House is demanding that the cost of the highway 
bill be significantly lower than what was passed by both Houses of 
Congress.
  This White House, under the Bush administration, has threatened a 
veto if the cost of the bill is over its chosen number. What is meant 
by ``its''? Under the White House's chosen number. Big daddy down at 
the White House, big daddy.
  And what is the reaction of the Senate leadership to such an 
outrageous, outrageous, outrageous demand? Did the Senate stand its 
ground? No. The White House offers a disapproving nod and the Senate 
leaders scurry like mice, taking the offensive proposal off the table.
  It was not always like this. There was a time when the Senate was an 
independent body, not the errand boy of the White House. It was not 
always like that. It was not always that the executive branch 
effectively dictated

[[Page 7737]]

what provisions the Congress included in conference reports. No, this 
is not how the Senate is supposed to work.
  The Senate is like a broken bone today. Left untreated, we risk that 
this body will be permanently weakened, never again able to do the work 
and bear the load for which it was designed.
  I say that we must set the Senate back on course and allow it to knit 
back together. The current path is reckless, unsustainable, and unwise.
  The record of this Senate is abysmal. Time after time, on issues such 
as medical malpractice, asbestos reform, and many others, the 
Republican leadership has abandoned the committee process of the Senate 
to bring partisan, divisive bills to the floor to make a political 
statement and to score political points with supporters.
  One might dismiss the polarization of this body as a product of the 
Senate being so closely divided. But this leadership has allowed 
external forces--most notably pressure from the White House--to seep 
into the dealings of the Senate.
  Is the leadership unaware that the Constitution has separate articles 
for the legislative and the executive branches? This is the 
Constitution. I hold it in my hand. It has separate titles for the 
executive and the legislative branches, does it not, Mr. McCain, my 
friend from Arizona? Separate titles. What branch does it mention 
first? Not the executive branch. No, not the executive branch. No, it 
mentions first the people's branch and then the executive branch and 
then the judicial branch.
  What has become of civility in this branch? That is a great question. 
One could spend a day talking about that. What has become of civility, 
old-fashioned civility? What has become of comity? What has become of 
comity in this branch? It used to be unheard of for Senate leaders to 
seek an active role against each other in campaigns. That time has 
apparently gone. Has honor gone, too? Who cares about honor when a 
Senate seat might be gained? When did party labels become more 
important than honor and the power of ideas?
  Gone are the days in which there was genuine debate. Gone are the 
days when Senators listened to the give and take of the discussion to 
learn about an issue. And sadly, many of the votes that we take have a 
predetermined outcome. Yet they are brought to the floor--and this goes 
for both sides of the aisle--to try to get Senators on record as voting 
for and against such-and-such.
  Bills are brought to the floor. Amendments are offered to create a 
public record that can be touted or attacked come campaign season. In 
all this sound bite and fury, the losers are the people, the people out 
there who are watching through those electronic lenses. They are the 
losers. The losers are the people whom we represent, the people who 
send us to this body to act in their best interests, not to squabble 
and point fingers like petulant children.
  That is where all of these shenanigans play out, in front of the 
American people--people who need affordable health care or help putting 
their children through college, people who are afraid that their jobs 
will be sent overseas or that they will lose the pay and the benefits 
they have worked hard to secure, people on Medicare, people on Social 
Security, people who worry about whether Medicare and Social Security 
will be there when it is time for them to retire, people who have sent 
their sons and daughters to fight in the hot sands of the Middle East 
halfway around the world and who are afraid that their sons and 
daughters may not come home.
  I have served in this Chamber for more than four decades. Times have 
changed. The world has changed. But our responsibilities and our 
duties, may I say to the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith--
who always is so nice to his colleagues, always has a smile. I like 
him. He is always a gentleman. What better can be said about one? Our 
responsibilities and our duties as Senators have not changed, may I say 
to my friend, Mr. Smith.
  Long after the campaign of this November or the campaigns of many 
Novembers to come, each Senator in this body will look back at the 
content of his or her career and judge whether they made our country a 
better place. The people send us here to do a job. They do not send us 
here to play with their lives or their children's lives or to score 
political points.
  It is difficult in this world of instant gratification to think 
beyond the moment, to think beyond the immediate, but we should all 
pause for a moment and reflect on the Senate.
  The Senate is an institution that relies on precedent. What kind of 
precedent is being set here?
  In my many years in this body, I have spent approximately two-thirds 
of my time in the majority and one-third in the minority. The majority 
is better, by the way. I would say to the Republican leadership that it 
is unlikely that they will always be in the majority. There will come a 
time when they may appreciate once again the rights afforded to the 
minority. We all need to spend a little time thinking about how it may 
feel once again to be in the other guy's shoes, and about what our 
silly, silly, little selfish games are doing to the soul of this 
Senate.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am going to yield to the Senator from 
Arkansas, and I hope to speak after him.
  Briefly, I wonder if the Senator from West Virginia would permit me 
to thank him for his kind words. I have heard Senator Byrd many times 
speak about his mother. In hearing his speech today, from a statesman 
such as he, he is uniquely qualified to remind us Senators as to our 
institutional responsibility and the importance of remembering 
civility.
  I remember when my mother used to say: ``Gordy, the best way to ruin 
a good story is to hear the other side.'' I have remembered so much 
else that she taught me while she was alive about treating others as I 
would like to be treated. I appreciate Senator Byrd's civility on every 
occasion on which I have ever dealt with him. We don't vote much the 
same, but I will tell you, we both care about coal miners, we both care 
about timbermen, or lumbermen, we care about people who love the land. 
In all of my dealings with him, he has always been civil and set that 
example.
  For that, I publicly express my appreciation and thank you, sir, for 
your kind words.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon, as I have already 
indicated, is a gentleman. I think--in fact I know--that if all 
Senators accorded to their fellow Senators and fellow men and women the 
graciousness that he accords us, not only the Senate but the Nation 
would be a better place in which to live. I like him. I like him for 
what he is, for what he appears to be. As I said earlier, he is a 
gentleman.
  There seems to be, as I have found, something bigger and better than 
a political party. His political party does not seem to be the end-all, 
not the beginning of everything. He seems to be something even bigger 
and better than his political party. I appreciate that, I commend him 
for that, and I wish in many ways that I could be the man that he is. I 
remember those lines, ``You are a better man than I am, Gunga Din.'' 
The Senator from Oregon sets a fine example. I thank him for that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I notice that today we have a number of 
schoolchildren watching the proceedings. It is always great to have 
people here watching in on us and watching what we do and hopefully 
keeping us accountable. I hope they realize and appreciate the 
greatness of the Senator from West Virginia and his wisdom and counsel. 
I hope they also will recall the teaching in the Bible about respecting 
your elders. I can say that there is no Senator in this body that we, 
the body, have more respect for than the Senator from West Virginia. So 
we thank him for those comments.

[[Page 7738]]



                          ____________________