Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak out of order without a limitation on time. I do not expect to speak at great length.

Mr. BYRD

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 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 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 trillion 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.

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 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. BYRD. Yes, I yield. I ask unanimous consent, Madam President, I retain the floor and I may yield to the Senator.

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. BYRD. Will the Senator yield to me?

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.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, will the distinguished Senator from Arizona yield me just a couple of minutes?

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 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.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am struck with amazement, if I might say. I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding. But when he charges the Democratic leadership with having spent all these days trying to get a solid vote against this resolution, I ask the question: What on Earth has the Republican leadership been doing this past week? I am sorry that this discussion is taking a very partisan turn. I say that with all due respect to the very distinguished Senator. I didn't come here to speak in politically partisan terms. I have been talking about the need for both sides of the aisle to have the President's budget in front of us before we vote. May I say to the distinguished Senator, I don't determine my vote on what the leadership on this side says or what the leadership on that side says. So let me debunk his mind with respect to that. Let me get to the earlier point of the distinguished Senator when he spoke of the ``Vision of Change,'' when he was reacting to my comments regarding ``A Blueprint for New Beginnings,'' this outline of what the Bush administration is proposing. It is a mere outline. The distinguished Senator from Arizona reminded the Senate that in 1993 the Senate operated on the basis of this document entitled ``A Vision of Change for America.'' The difference, may I say to my friend, and he probably already knows this, the difference in 1993 and now is that this document in 1993 contained more detail than does this document on which we are going to have to base our judgment, apparently, in the forthcoming debate next week. Furthermore, in that instance, the Budget Committee had a markup and reported to the Senate a concurrent resolution on the budget. That is not the case here. The Budget Committee of the Senate has not had any markup this year. In 1993 the Budget Committee had a markup. It sent to the Senate a document, a resolution, that came out of that committee and was the result of that committee's deliberations, both Democrats and Republicans. Further, in that instance, CBO had enough information to provide an analysis of Clinton's 1993 budget. We need a CBO analysis for this budget. We don't have it here. We had it then. We had a markup by the Budget Committee that year; we were denied a markup in the Budget Committee this year. We were denied that opportunity. We had a CBO analysis in 1993; in this instance we don't have. Furthermore, in that instance we were following the true purposes of the Budget Reform Act in that we were seeking to reduce the deficits; in this case we are going to increase the deficits in all likelihood if we enact a huge tax cut purely on the basis of projected surpluses. And finally, in that instance, not a single Republican in the Senate, not a single Republican in the House of Representatives, voted for the budget. So, if my friends on the Republican side are going to hold this document up and say, look what we did back then, the Senate went ahead and acted on the basis of that document. That is the role model, I assume they are saying. Look at what you did, you Democrats; you did it without the President's budget in 1993. But they fail to remind listeners that not a single Republican voted for that document, and that that document is the basis for the surge of surpluses that we now enjoy. The budget in 1993 took us out of the deficit ditch and made possible the surpluses of today, and yet not a single Republican in either House voted for that document. And here we are today, the Republicans are extolling the 1993 budget.

Mr. BYRD. The Senator has. I wanted to help set the record straight.

Mr. BYRD. I am waiting.

Mr. BYRD. I am not blaming either side.

Mr. BYRD. I was one of--I don't remember the precise number, but I was one Senator who voted for that budget in 1993, and not a single Republican voted for it in the Senate or in the House. Yet, it was that budget that put this country on the course of having surpluses rather than deficits. Now, did the Senator want me to ask a question or answer a question?

Mr. BYRD. Yes. Yes, I voted for that budget.

Mr. BYRD. I answered the question, didn't I?

Mr. BYRD. Wait. Let's just wait. I like your smile, but I don't like the interruption of Cicero's quotation. But the Senator is being very liberal to me in letting me speak on his time. Cicero said: Let us not go over the old ground. Let us, rather, prepare for what is to come. The Senator wants me to ask him a question? I will ask that question.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I was thinking of Cicero's statement when he said, ``Let us not go over the old ground.''

Mr. BYRD. I will be glad to ask a question.

Mr. BYRD. May I say I came here hoping I could speak out for the rights of both sides of the aisle; the rights of Republican Senators, the rights of Democrats; the rights of the majority, the rights of the minority, to have before us the President's budget, which we need in order to exercise a reasoned judgment. That is what I came here for. I am not interested in bickering, arguing about partisanship. I will be just as happy if we concentrate on the need for the President's budget for the edification of both sides. I want to stand up for our rights, for the Senator's rights--the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, what we are seeing here is not a very illuminating discussion between two Senators. This is precisely what the President, I think, had in mind when he said he would like to see an end to the quibbling and to the bickering and the partisanship in Washington. I came to the floor today suggesting that the Senate would be much better off if we had the President's budget in front of us before we vote. Then I said even if we can't have the President's budget, surely the administration has the details, the information it can submit to the Senate. Let us see what is in it. I did not come here with any intent to engage in quibbling, or partisanship.

Mr. BYRD. I am not blaming either side.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad.