[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 45 (Friday, March 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3776-S3780]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                          BALANCING THE BUDGET

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I suggest to both of my good friends, 
the Senator from Idaho and the Senator from Illinois, why do we not 
just quit talking about the balanced budget amendment and get on with 
balancing the budget?
  The President has proposed an $83 billion tax cut. Let us vote it 
down. The Republicans, in their so-called Contract With America, have 
urged that we have something like a $200 billion tax cut. Let us also 
vote that down. Let us get out here and say that we are against any tax 
cuts at this time.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. No, I am not ready to yield just yet.
  Let us say we are against tax cuts; just vote them both down. This is 
no time to talk about tax cuts while balancing the budget.
  We are all concerned about budget deficits. We are concerned about 
passing this huge debt on to our children and grandchildren. Let us do 
something about it. Let us do it now.
  We have heard the advertisement on TV, ``Do it here. Do it now.'' Let 
us vote down both proposals for tax cuts.
  Why do we not consider a tax increase? Let us increase taxes. Surely, 
we could sit down and, working together, could come up with a 
reasonable tax increase that would be calculated and directed toward 
reducing the deficits.
  We have operated on a national credit card now for 14 years. During 
the 12 years of the Reagan and Bush administrations, we were on a 
national credit card binge: Enjoy today, pay later. Let our children 
and grandchildren pay for our profligacy. Live for today.
  One can only cry so much over spilt milk, and it does not do any good 
after awhile. So why do we not just get on with balancing the budget? 
Let us help this President. Let us help him to balance the budget. 
First of all, vote his $83-billion tax cut down.
  I have been somewhat critical of the tax cut that the President has 
advocated. I try to be constructive about it. But I think we also ought 
to be critical of the more-than-$200-billion tax cut 
[[Page S3777]] that is being advocated by our Republican friends. That 
is not going to balance the budget.
  ``Oh,'' they say, ``we will offset our tax cut. We can find $189 
billion to offset it.'' Let us take a look at what they are going to 
offset, first, Mr. President. And then, whatever can be offset, 
whatever can be reasonably offset, let us apply that to the deficit.
  Now, the Senator asked me to yield.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for 
yielding.
  The Senator asked a question, and the question was: Why not pass a 
tax increase? I suggest to the Senator from West Virginia that we 
passed, under the Clinton budget in 1993, what has been characterized 
as the largest single tax increase in our Nation's history.
  All too often, we go back and say what a great job the administration 
did and we have these wonderful reductions in the deficit. I suggest to 
the Senator from West Virginia that a lot of people out there are 
learning that that kind of talk is not being very honest.
  There was an article in Reader's Digest, I believe it was last 
December, the name of which was ``Budget Baloney.'' In that article, 
they said, to let you know how they do things in Washington, a guy who 
has $5,000 who wants a $10,000 car, all he does is say, ``Well, I 
really wanted a $15,000 car, but I settled on a $10,000 car. So I 
reduced the deficit by $5,000.''
  We played games for so long that I think we have an awareness and an 
understanding by the public out there that they did not have in years 
past.
  I can recall one of your very good friends that you served with, 
Senator Carl Curtis of Nebraska, way back in 1972 was trying so hard to 
convince the American people that we could not continue on this road of 
increased deficits. Our deficit in 1972 was $15 billion. I remember 
this so well, because they tried to get the people of America to 
understand how significant the debt was, and they stacked up $1,000 
bills until they were the height of the Empire State Building to try to 
impress upon people how significant the debt was. The debt at that 
time, in 1972, was $240 billion.
  The first question you asked was, you know, why do we not do 
something about it if we want to reduce the deficit? That is a very 
legitimate question.
  But I think that we, in the two bodies here in Congress, have 
demonstrated over the past 40 years that we are incapable of doing it 
without having some type of discipline there that we are forced to 
adhere to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his contribution.
  Here we go again, saying that we need some kind of discipline to 
force us to act.
  I do not know when we are going to stop breaking the mirror in the 
Alice in Wonderland story.
  The Senator says we passed--we passed in 1993--the greatest tax 
increase. No, ``we'' did not pass it. Not a Senator on that side of the 
aisle voted for that tax increase. Not a Senator. Not a House Member on 
the Republican side of the aisle voted for that tax increase. Moreover, 
not one Republican on the Senator's side of the aisle or in the House 
on the Republican side voted for that same 1993 legislation, which, 
overall, reduced the budget deficits by somewhere between $450 billion 
to $500 billion. And it really has done better than that. The deficit 
has decreased 3 consecutive years in a row.
  The Senator does not want to vote for a tax increase, but the 
Senator's party is advocating a tax cut of over $200 billion.
  Now, who can possibly stand with a straight face and say, ``Let's cut 
the deficit,'' and, at the same time, come in here day after day and 
talk about the President and how he has failed to cut the deficit, how 
the President has failed to exemplify leadership, who could do that 
with a straight face, and then turn around and say, ``Let's cut 
taxes''?
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Not yet. I will yield in a moment.
  The Senator's party is the party that is out here advocating cutting 
taxes louder than anybody else.
  I think it is folly to cut taxes in this climate. It is folly, 
whether it is my President advocating it, or whether it is the so-
called Contract With America. It is silly.
  I cannot look my grandchildren in the eye and say ``Well, I am for 
cutting taxes. I would rather have you live with the problems that we 
leave.'' I cannot say that to my grandchildren. ``I would rather have 
you live with the problems that we have created in our time. I prefer 
that you increase taxes in your day and time.''
  Do not talk to me about cutting taxes. I think that is a bad message.
  But we say, ``Cut taxes.'' What utter folly! Now, the Senator's party 
is advocating cutting taxes. I do not see how they can do that with a 
straight face and come here on this floor, day after day after day and 
moan and groan and gnash their teeth over the fact that the balanced 
budget to the Constitution has been voted down. Now they say that that 
is the cause of the drop in the dollar. That is the cause of this, 
that, everything else.
  But yet, not a word do they say--not a word--about the $200-plus 
billion tax cut that is being advocated by the so-called Contract With 
America.
  Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I will yield in a moment, Mr. President.
  Furthermore, I say to my friend from Oklahoma, who says we have 
played games, we are playing games. Yes, I was here when we played 
games during the Reagan administration. Read David Stockman's book, and 
he will tell the Senator from Oklahoma who played the games down in the 
Oval Office. He will tell the Senator who played the games in the 
Reagan administration with hidden asterisks.
  I urge all Senators to read David Stockman's book. As a matter of 
fact, I may bring a portion of it to the floor after a while and read 
it. It is enlightening. Yes, I was here when the Reagan administration 
blew into town. And in all of the 39 previous administrations--182 
years of administrations under various political parties--the Nation 
had accumulated a total debt of less than $1 trillion.
  I saw Mr. Reagan get on television with that chart, pointing to that 
stack of what he called, would represent a stack of $1,000 bills, 
``Have a stack four inches thick and you will be a millionaire.'' He 
said it would take a stack of $1,000 bills 63 miles high to be 
representative of the debt that had been accumulated in all the 
administrations going back to the year 1789.
  He never appeared on television with that chart again, Senator. Know 
why? Because during his administrations the debt reached to a total of 
over $3 trillion, and then, during the Bush administration, it reached 
$4 trillion. So, to represent that debt on the chart, with $1,000 bills 
stacked into the stratosphere and beyond, would probably require a 
stack of bills that would reach 252 miles into the sky, or some such.
  I saw the debt triple. I saw it quadruple. Further, may I say to the 
distinguished Senator, I went down to see Mr. Reagan. I urged him not 
to press for his triple tax cut in 1981. He proposed a 3-year tax cut--
the first year 5 percent, the next year 10 percent, and the third year, 
10 percent--all in one passage. I urged him to at least leave off the 
third year until we could evaluate the economy, the deficit, what was 
happening to the dollar, interest rates, unemployment. At least, leave 
off the third year and wait 2 years, and then if he felt compelled to 
go for the third year, then try it. Why go for a 3-year tax cut all at 
once? He never could tell me why, never. He looked at his little card, 
the notes on the card, but he never could answer that question.
  So now we have the aftermath of the Reagan tax cuts of 1981. I voted 
for his tax cuts. I have always regretted it. My constituents back home 
said ``Give the man a chance. Give this new President a chance.'' I 
gave him a chance. I have regretted it ever since. There is blame 
enough to go around, Senator.
  The Senator from Oklahoma has talked about the last 40 years. Do not 
go back that far. Just go back to the fiscal year 1981 budget. Start 
there. Start there and see then what happened.
  I yield.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I agree with two-thirds of what my 
colleague from West Virginia has to say, and he knows I differ on the 
balanced budget amendment.
  I do believe, however, in the immediate choices that we face, one is 
a tax 
[[Page S3778]] cut. I think it makes absolutely no sense. When I was in 
the House I voted against the Reagan tax cut and I voted against the 
Democratic tax cut. We were in a bidding war, we are in a bidding war 
again. I am going to vote against the Republican vote, and I am going 
to vote against the Democratic tax cut. I do not think they make any 
sense at all.
  In terms of tax increases, I think the political reality is we can 
only pass them if they are for designated purposes. The American 
public--if we need it for balancing the budget, it is very 
interesting--53 percent of the American public says they are for 
balancing the budget, even if it means they have to sacrifice. I think 
they are willing to face that.
  In 1990, if I may be immodest, I faced reelection. One of the things 
my opponent, a very distinguished woman who served in the House, Lynn 
Martin, used against me, is that I said I think we need increases in 
Federal taxes to balance the budget.
  I can remember reading in Roll Call that I was destined to defeat. I 
ended up getting the biggest plurality of any contested Senator of 
either political party running for reelection that year. I think people 
want to be told the truth.
  The reality is on tax increases--if we take the 18 Western 
industrialized countries as a percentage of our income--we pay a lower 
percentage than any of the other countries. We have the lowest tax on 
gasoline of any country outside of Saudi Arabia. We have the lowest tax 
on cigarettes. We do not have a value-added tax that many countries 
have. But I think the reality is we have to tie any kind of revenue 
increase with something concrete, like a health program. Or like 
getting rid of the deficit.
  As my colleague who is presiding, Senator Craig, knows, I have said 
all along that I think we have to combine cuts in spending to achieve a 
balanced budget with increases in revenue. I think that is the reality.
  I do believe--and here I differ with my colleague from West 
Virginia--I do believe the only way we are really going to get a 
balanced budget is with constitutional restraint. I respect the fact 
that he and I differ on that question. I thank him for yielding.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. We do not have to wait. We do not have 
to wait for a constitutional amendment.
  Mr. SIMON. I agree.
  Mr. BYRD. Putting that aside entirely, I have many reasons for 
opposing the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I am not 
against amending the Constitution. I have voted for five amendments to 
the Constitution since I have been in the Senate. Enough of that.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. The framers saw a need for amendments at some point in 
time, so they provided a way to do that in the Constitution itself. But 
I am opposed to amending the Constitution to write fiscal theory into 
it, fiscal policy. I am also opposed to destroying our constitutional 
system of mixed powers and checks and balances by a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget.
  I respect those who differ with me, but why do we keep on talking 
about a constitutional amendment? We Senators have as much power as 
Senators in the year 2002 will have. Why wait?
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. I will in a moment. Why wait? Why not do it now? Instead, 
we continue to hear those who are up here every day pining over the 
loss of the balanced budget amendment, still bewailing the loss of the 
constitutional amendment that they say would give us discipline, that 
would put a little iron in our backbone; that great constitutional 
amendment, still crying over it, weeping, bemoaning the days of the 
past when the Senate voted down that monstrosity--killed it.
  I hope that Senators will stop whining and weeping and bemoaning that 
vote. Let us get on with balancing this budget that they want so much 
to do. Let us get on with doing something for our children and 
grandchildren, which the Senators say they want so much to do. And, 
first of all, may I say to my friends on the other side, stop talking 
about Mr. Clinton until you yourselves are willing to vote for a 
deficit reduction package that he helped us to work out. You did not 
demonstrate your willingness to do that.
  The Senator from Oklahoma was not here at that time, of course. But 
Republican Senators did not demonstrate a willingness in 1993 to 
exercise a little discipline, a little steel in the backbone. They used 
the excuse, and still use it, that it increased taxes.
  I say, let them haul down the banner, haul down their own party 
banner of a tax cut. It is silly--silly--whether you use the old math 
or the new math. How in the world can anyone with a straight face get 
up here day after day and complain about a balanced budget 
constitutional amendment that was rejected and, at the same time, 
support a so-called Contract With America that would advocate a $200-
billion-plus tax cut? That is what the Republican leadership is doing, 
advocating over $200 billion in tax cuts to the middle class.
  If we really mean business about reducing the deficit, that will 
bring more relief to the middle class and every other class in this 
country and to our children and to our children's children, let us get 
on with balancing the budget, and not rule out the raising of taxes. 
That is a tool that could be used to balance the budget and to decrease 
the deficit. I am not on the Finance Committee or the Ways and Means 
Committee, but I certainly am open to suggestions as to how we might 
enact a tax increase that would be calculated and directed toward 
reduction of the deficit. There are many people in this country who can 
afford such a tax. Do not put the tax option off the table. At least 
leave it on the table as something to consider.
  Yes, I yield.
  Mr. INHOFE. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia has asked 
the question a couple of times that I previously answered, and that 
question is, What are we doing? I think, I say to the Senator, that if 
we have demonstrated that we have been incapable of doing it, that we 
are incapable of facing up to that insatiable appetite for spending 
money that future generations will have to pay back, year after year 
after year, then that should be evidence enough the discipline, the 
word you do not seem to like, is necessary.
  Mr. BYRD. Oh, I like the word discipline. I like it. I like the word 
discipline. I have no problem with the word discipline. Let us 
discipline ourselves now. Let us not wait until we garble and scar the 
Constitution waiting on some magic discipline that that might give us. 
Let us exercise discipline now.
  Mr. INHOFE. Let me repeat to the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield.
  Mr. INHOFE. We have demonstrated we are incapable of doing it----
  Mr. BYRD. No, we are not incapable.
  Mr. INHOFE. Year after year after year.
  Mr. BYRD. No, no.
  Mr. INHOFE. Some 48 States--in 1941 in Oklahoma, we were incapable of 
doing it. We passed a balanced budget amendment and it worked.
  I want to address one other thing that you mentioned and----
  Mr. BYRD. On that point--Mr. President, I have the floor--on that 
point about the States, the States do not balance their budgets in the 
sense that we are talking about balancing the Federal budget. The 
States have operating budgets. The States have capital budgets, and the 
Senator knows that. And to use that old canard is to fool the American 
people. The American people know that the States do not balance their 
budgets. The States borrow money, the States are in debt, the States 
are going more and more into debt every year.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield on that?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. INHOFE. They borrow money, but the difference is the States pay 
the money back.
  Mr. BYRD. Oh----
  Mr. INHOFE. The cities pay it back. I served in the State 
legislature.
  Mr. BYRD. So did I.
  Mr. INHOFE. I served as mayor of a major city, the city of Tulsa, and 
we have those constraints beyond which we cannot spend. It has worked 
very effectively. I did not get to the point I wanted to.
  Mr. BYRD. On that point, let us stay with that point. I was majority 
leader when the Governors and the mayors of the country came to 
Washington with 
[[Page S3779]] their hats in their hands and their hands out.
  Mr. INHOFE. No, not this mayor. I was a mayor when you were majority 
leader.
  Mr. BYRD. I did not say anything about the Senator. I was saying I 
was majority leader once. I was majority leader twice, and I saw the 
Governors of the States and mayors. I talked with them on the 
telephone. They called me on the telephone. They wanted this help; they 
wanted this aid; they wanted that aid; they wanted this appropriation 
increased. Do not talk to me about the great job the mayors and 
Governors have done throughout this country in balancing their budgets 
without help from the Federal Government.
  Now, that is not to say that mayors and Governors have not taken 
strong actions to try to curtail expenditures. I do not say that at 
all. But do not come here trying to tell this Senator that the States 
balance their budgets. They do not do it, and they get a lot of help 
from the Federal Government. I know. I have met them right there, back 
there in my office and right over here in that office when I was 
leader. Do not tell me that stuff.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield further?
  Mr. BYRD. I know different. Yes, I yield.
  Mr. INHOFE. I wanted to address this subject of the tax increase that 
you seem to be advocating at this time. There is a great 
misunderstanding about tax increases. When you look at what our problem 
is today, I offer a very friendly alternative to your philosophy, and 
that is, our problems are not that we are taxed too little, we are 
spending too much.
  When you talk about a tax reduction that has been offered, you are 
also talking about spending reductions that are going to be offered at 
the same time.
  I would like to suggest also that perhaps you share the philosophy of 
the chief financial adviser to the President, Laura Tyson, when she 
said that there is no relationship between the level of taxation and 
economic activity, and herein is the problem that we are having in 
communicating within this body and with the administration.
  You are talking about the tax cuts during the eighties, during the 
Reagan years and the Bush years, keeping in mind just a few of those 
years did we have even control of one of the Houses, so it took both 
Houses to do it.
  In 1980, the total revenues----
  Mr. BYRD. We did not have control of the White House.
  Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator will read the Constitution which he has in 
his pocket there and very available to him----
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. INHOFE. I am sure that he will see that it is the constitutional 
responsibility of Congress to develop the budget, to pass the budget on 
to the President.
  In 1980, the total revenues that were derived from the income taxes 
amounted to $244 billion. In 1990, 10 years later, the total revenues 
that were derived were $466 billion. In that interim period, in the 
1980's came the largest marginal tax reductions, as the Senator has 
already mentioned, that we probably have had in any 10-year period in 
this Nation's history.
  The maximum rate then went down from 70 percent to 28 percent. We had 
some help as far as capital gains taxes are concerned. And yet during 
that time we actually increased the revenue from those sources.
  The fact is that for each 1-percent increase in economic activity we 
increase revenues by $24 billion. And if we can increase economic 
activity, we can increase revenues. What has been suggested by many of 
the conservative think tanks using the CBO's projections is that we can 
balance the budget without cutting any programs. We can balance the 
budget without reducing any programs. The 2-percent-growth concept 
which we have already talked about, the Senator and I have, on the 
floor of this body, is one that would actually bring the budget into 
balance in approximately 8 years and not reduce one Government program; 
without a tax increase.
  Mr. BYRD. I say to the Senator, the Congress has cut the Presidents' 
deficits. Since 1945, over that period of 50 years, Congress has 
appropriated something like $200 billion less than the accumulated 
budgets that have been requested by the various Presidents who have 
occupied the White House during those years. Congress has a good 
record.
  Mr. INHOFE. I will grant the Senator that on occasion Presidents have 
left their philosophy feeling they could not get a budget passed and 
have gone to Congress such as was the case with President Bush at the 
famous meeting out at Andrews Air Force Base where he decided to go 
ahead and agree to a tax increase.
  I think now in retrospect, and I think he believes the same thing, 
that was a mistake.
  Before I catch a plane, I have one other area the Senator mentioned I 
feel compelled to address which is the issue of grandchildren.
  The Senator might remember here a few weeks ago--it seems as if we 
have been addressing this subject now for quite a few weeks--I had 
occasion to give a talk over here for about an hour and 10 minutes with 
the picture of two beautiful children behind me, and those two children 
were my grandchildren.
  If we are to look at this in a compassionate way, I think that should 
be the driving force for our actions today because virtually everyone 
who has made any kind of a prediction, CBO included, has said that if 
we do not change from the way we have been doing business for the last 
10 years and the last 40 years, if you project that forward, someone 
who is born today such as my two grandchildren, who are less than 2 
years old, will have to pay 82 percent of their lifetime income in 
taxes.
  Now, the distinguished Senator advocates increases in taxes. I 
believe, and I believe the people who voted in the election on November 
8 believe, that we can do it without increasing taxes but cutting the 
size of Government.
  I used two charts here in the Chamber to show that those individuals 
who were opposing the balanced budget amendment were also the same ones 
who historically on the record are the biggest taxers and spenders in 
Congress, in both Houses. And also I showed on a chart that those 
individuals who lost the election, the 66 House Members that are not 
here after the November 8 election, and the eight Senators who either 
retired or are not here for one reason or another, all of them had a 
National Taxpayers Union rating of D or F. That is the universally 
accepted rating for those people who tax and spend. And all of them had 
voted for the 1993 stimulus bill, which was the largest spending 
increase, and the 1993 tax increase, which was the largest tax 
increase.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I saw those lovely pictures of the Senator's 
grandchildren, and we all love our grandchildren. I have been loving my 
grandchildren for almost 30 years now. But if we really want to do 
something for those grandchildren, those two lovely grandchildren whose 
pictures the Senator so proudly and prominently displayed on the floor, 
let us get on with the business of reducing the deficits now. We do not 
have to have any constitutional amendment to balance the budget. We 
have the tools in our own hands now. If we really want to help those 
grandchildren, let us get on with balancing the budget. Let us speak 
out against tax cuts for the middle class, whether they are being 
advocated by Mr. Clinton or by the so-called Contract With America.
  Now is not the time for a tax cut. And let us not remove possible tax 
increases from the table when it comes to consideration. There must be 
some heads in this Chamber who have the expertise, who serve on the tax 
writing committees, who could devise a tax increase that would be 
calculated to reduce the deficit, which could be directed solely to the 
reduction of the deficit.
  I know it is not easy to vote for a tax increase. I have been in 
political bodies--I am in my 49th year of serving in various and sundry 
legislative bodies. It is not easy to vote for tax increases. It is 
always easy to vote for tax cuts. But I think we have to forget the 
easy road now and at least consider increasing some taxes. We do have 
to continue to cut spending. I carry no brief for protecting all 
spending. There is some 
[[Page S3780]] spending we have to do as a Government of a great 
people. We have to invest in our people's future.
  Mr. INHOFE. One last comment before I leave.
  Mr. BYRD. Not yet. I will yield to the Senator. I am conscious of the 
fact that he needs to catch a plane. But let me finish what I was about 
to say.
  There is not only a Federal fiscal deficit but there is also an 
investment deficit. I was at the 1990 summit with Mr. Bush and with the 
Republican leadership and with the Democratic leadership in both ends 
of the Capitol. I said at the summit, we have an investment deficit. We 
need to build up our infrastructure, both human and physical. Any 
business or company that does not improve its plant and equipment and 
keep its employees trained to the new mode of manufacturing or 
production of things is going to go under. Business has to invest. Our 
country needs to invest. And spending moneys for infrastructure is 
wise. We just cannot cut everything.
  During the Reagan years, and up to now, we have continued to cut 
domestic discretionary spending. It has been cut to the bone. I say to 
the Senator, we will have cut over the next 5 years--in the 1993 
deficit reduction package, we cut Government spending. We cut domestic 
discretionary spending. And we put the level of spending on a 5-year 
downward glide. We froze it, meaning that we would not take into 
account inflation from year to year.
  Not only that, but the amendment that was offered in the Finance 
Committee by Mr. Exon and Mr. Grassley further cut $26 billion below a 
freeze. That $26 billion was reduced to a $13 billion cut in conference 
with the other body. So we are operating below a freeze in 
discretionary spending.
  That is not to say we cannot cut more. But we cannot take defense off 
the table and say we will not touch it and still balance the budget and 
have a tax cut. All of these goodies--if you have a tax cut at the same 
time--we cannot do it.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield.
  Mr. INHOFE. One more comment. It was not my intention to use so much 
of the Senator's time.
  I can only say, I am going to catch a plane. I am going back to 
Oklahoma where real people are, where the people spoke loudly and 
clearly in the November 8 election when they said: We want to downsize 
the scope of Government; we do not want to have Government involved in 
our lives to the degree that Government now is involved.
  You and I probably will disagree philosophically with the role of 
Government. But the bottom line is, and I say it one last time, we have 
demonstrated we cannot do it, that either we cannot or will not do it.
  I have not given up. I would like to serve notice to everyone in this 
Chamber, I believe we will get that one additional vote because the 
people are now identifying what is going on in this country and they 
are going to be heard.
  I have the utmost respect for the Senator from West Virginia, but I 
suggest if you take a trip back to West Virginia, you will hear the 
same thing there.
  Thank you.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on that point, may I say to my friend, he 
does not need to instruct me about going to West Virginia. When he says 
he is going to Oklahoma where ``real people are,'' he does not have to 
travel that far. West Virginia is within an hour and a half's drive. 
West Virginians are ``real people.'' The people of Oklahoma are real 
people. The people of West Virginia are real people.
  May I say to the Senator, I came here when I was a little wet behind 
the ears, too. For me to say to another Senator that he ought to go 
back to his own State and see what the people say--that is a little 
bit--that is stretching one's credibility a little bit.
  Mr. INHOFE. I would say I appreciate the compliment, to the Senator 
from West Virginia, because this is the first time since I have reached 
the age of 60 I have been called wet behind the ears.
  Mr. BYRD. Of course, a person who is 77, who has been in this body 37 
years, can remember when he, this Senator from West Virginia, came here 
when he, too, was wet behind the ears. But I have never said to a 
Senator: You ought to go back to your own State and see what the people 
think. Leave me and my fellow West Virginians to ourselves.
  Does anybody else want me to yield? I yield to the--I will either 
yield the floor or yield to the lady.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I was just going to ask the Senator 
from West Virginia--I would like to make a statement totally off this 
subject in morning business talk. But I certainly do not want to 
interrupt the Senator if he is in the middle of continuing his speech 
on the amendment. I was really asking for a clarification of his 
ability to yield me some time, but I do not want to interrupt.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia yields the 
floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West 
Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

                          ____________________