Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the distinguished leader yield to me for a couple of observations? I believe both the ranking member and I have agreed on sense-of-the-Senate resolutions that are nongermane, both of us will object to them, which I believe means that they are going to fall. I think that is the rule now if they are not germane. We will make a point of order, which means they will fall. There are a lot of sense-of-the-Senate proposals. But I would like to yield to my ranking member of the committee for his observations on those kinds of amendments that are pending.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am glad to do that. Mr. President, to all of those on the other side who have spoken eloquently about the Senate rules and the fact that we ought to have free and open debate, I want to say one more time that the time for those arguments was 27 years ago. When this bill, the Budget Impoundment Act, was adopted, it essentially permitted reconciliation instructions. And if they were given by majority vote of the Senate and the House, then a committee had to adopt laws consistent with it. If that was too early, we have adopted 15 tax bills under this Budget Act--10 were tax increases; 5 were tax decreases. If 27 years ago was too long ago to raise the objection, we had 15 different budget resolutions that came to the floor that had taxes in them. Some might have objected. But the truth is, the strongest arguments have been made on this particular reconciliation instruction. I believe it is because some don't want to let the President have a chance to have his taxes voted on--plain, pure, and simple. I think that is going to fail tonight. He is going to get his chance. I think eventually his tax plan will get taken care of in the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee. Those members will pass the bill out of their committee and it will come to the floor under this Budget Act, which is now 27 years old. I yield the floor. Whatever time I have remaining, I yield to the majority leader. However, he doesn't need my time.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. I yield.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I note the presence on the floor of Senator Clinton. I want to say if I referred to the distinguished Senator in the first person an hour or so ago, I apologize.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, Senator Sessions from Alabama.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield whatever the Senator needs.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 25 minutes to Senator Grassley.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am very glad to answer. I totally disagree. I do not think that was the initial purpose. The Budget Act simply allows us to use reconciliation to carry out the fiscal policies outlined in the budget. Now if Congress wanted to run deficits with policies it enacted, they could decide to do so with the laws it passed and that were outlined in its budget. In other words, if Congress wants to run surpluses, it could do so under the act. Also under the Act, it could also reduce them. So that is my interpretation. And I want to finish my remarks. Now, Mr. President, I note the presence of Senator Grassley who I really want to speak on taxes. But I do want to say, underlying a very large quantity of the arguments here tonight is inherently an anti- give-the-people-back-their-money attitude--to wit, tax cuts. The truth is, there are some who just do not want to have tax cuts. I understand that. I do understand that very clearly. There are Senators who would rather spend the money than give it back. I am not saying every Senator--some Senators. Frankly, I do not believe those feelings ought to enter this debate. But if a Senator wants to have those feelings, then he ought to be right on this debate because it does not have anything to do with those feelings. It has to do with the Budget Act--a Budget Act that, I repeat, changed the rules of the Senate for so long as we apply that Budget Act. I want to repeat, we have used that act for small and large tax increases. How do you think the Senators on the Republican side feel who want to do tax cuts? I am standing up here telling them it is somebody's interpretation that you can surely increase taxes with reconciliation, I say to Senator Grassley, chairman of the committee, but you cannot decrease taxes. You cannot reduce taxes. I believe you would have to have a strong, absolute determination in this act that that was the case, or the Senator from Iowa would claim it was discriminatory against whom? The taxpayers, the average person. You can surely get them for increases, but you cannot give them a decrease, right? At least not under this act, if you are going to interpret it as some choose to interpret it tonight. So I know this is a historic argument. And I don't know if I appreciated its historical significance when we started tonight, but I have been reminded of it. So if there was any lesser thought on my part, I am right there. It is an historic argument, except that it isn't a very new argument. It isn't a very new use of reconciliation that is being argued tonight; it is a very old use of reconciliation. With that, how much time does the Senator desire? I ask Senator Grassley.

Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, I believe if you are going to make a speech, it ought to be charged to their time.

Mr. DOMENICI. It does, I say to the Senator. I am glad to answer a question. It qualifies. You do not have to make that statement. You are qualified.

Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, sir.

Mr. DOMENICI. I will be happy to.

Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, I am not one who is fearful of questions, but I really want you to know I very much would like to answer a few more thoughts because I paid very close attention, and I don't think the Senator from Maryland, in all deference, was even here when I listened to most of this distinguished Senator's remarks. I would like to finish my remarks.

Mr. DOMENICI. I do not think there is any question. That is my interpretation. I thank you for it. I do not think there is any doubt whatsoever.

Mr. DOMENICI. No question about it, I say to the Senator. As a matter of fact, you might know that the Senator from New Mexico, in preparing the budget resolution, had that in mind. And it was so clear to me that I put the reconciliation in the budget bill because it seemed to me we already decided that--the Chair had already decided it. And unbeknownst to me, even though that is what you read, and that is what it says, and that is what I think it says, we had to go around and do what we are doing tonight, even with that interpretation because there was a parliamentary understanding that was somewhat different from that. So that is the case. I think you are right. But I think you should understand that we asked for that ruling, and we would have been involved in not getting a debate on the budget resolution. It would have been freely debatable if we had tried that.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Maybe the Senator from West Virginia would like to answer that. I am not asking now. I was trying to follow the admonition not to say ``he'' but ``the Senator from West Virginia.'' I try very hard. I slip sometimes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, let me say, I think they are. But I believe implicit in the Senator's argument is that he does not think so. But maybe he should answer that.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to yield for a question.

Mr. DOMENICI. I understand. I will try to do that. I want to talk a minute about Leader Baker's role in determining all of this, if you will permit me for a moment. First, let me put Senator Baker's comments in context. Maybe it would be best to do this. Senator Baker's comments were made, to the recollection of the Senator from New Mexico, with reference to a Commerce Committee bill. The Commerce Committee was then under the chairmanship of Robert Packwood. Senator Packwood took a little, tiny instruction that told that committee to change a fee--something that you are charging. He wrote a whole reauthorization of the telecom bill with a little, tiny instruction for a few hundred thousand dollars. Senator Baker said: You shouldn't do that. That was the beginning of the Byrd rule. That was the beginning of a rule which said amendments have to be fiscally related and germane. We are very pleased that the distinguished Senator from West Virginia did that. We are very pleased that rule governs even today. But it doesn't govern with reference to a tax reconciliation bill because, as a matter of fact, we have done that 15 times since the adoption of this bill. Let me tell you a little bit about the origins of reconciliation. I remember very vividly because we were in the minority. The other side was in the majority by quite a healthy margin. The chairman of the Budget Committee was Senator Ed Muskie when the first reconciliation was used. The other side of the aisle was getting close to election time. There was a concern about a deficit. So a reconciliation instruction was used--$8 billion for all intents and purposes, something we almost round off these days. Guess what one of the committees was that was reconciled in that instance to raise a few dollars. I know it sounds not right, but it is right. The Agriculture Committee was reconciled to change the School Lunch Program costs to impose an extra 5 cents on the school lunches across America. How do I know that? Because this man right here, the chief of staff on the majority side, was then at the Department of Agriculture. He was asked to enforce that after it was passed. I believe the reason he is with the Senate is because they made him the scapegoat over there for passing the measure that was reconciled by the Congress to them.

Mr. DOMENICI. I don't believe so. I was here for the whole speech. You can speak on your own time.

Mr. DOMENICI. I haven't had much time. Let me finish. Am I doing something wrong that you would like to correct me on?

Mr. DOMENICI. From our side of the aisle I want to say Senator Grassley is here ready to speak. I understood there were a couple of other Senators, including Senator Gregg, who wanted to speak. I cannot assure you as soon as you walk on the floor that you will be able to speak because time is back and forth and Senator Byrd was entitled to speak. In a few moments I will yield to my colleague. I understand he has some very responsive remarks. I want to hear them myself. Let me say to Senator Byrd, I have heard often--and perhaps I should say oftentimes--from you of your humble beginnings. I do not in any way want to suggest that I had humble beginnings. I am not sure my humble beginnings are relevant. I am sure yours are. But just so we will know, my father came all the way from Italy, when he was 14, to the city of Albuquerque. He never learned how to write English. He could not read well, but he could speak three languages. He did all right with a small grocery business. He took care of five children; it looks like all of them went to college; it looks like he left enough for his wife, to take care of her; and that is all he worried about. But I, too, have been challenged by a President. You were challenged by one. I will explain about that challenge in just a moment. I was challenged by Ronald Reagan. You weren't on the Budget Committee then. I wish you would have been. We were marking up after an Easter recess, having asked the President's Defense Secretary to negotiate with us for 2 months on two different occasions. This Senator from humble beginnings, son of the Italian immigrants, was called by the President, called out from a committee meeting to an office, and he said: Adjourn the meeting. I need to discuss things with you. Let me tell you that we marked up the bill that afternoon. We finished because I had my job to do and he had his job to do. We gave him more defense money. He ended up getting more when Congress was finished, which is interesting, too. Let me suggest to the President, and to those who are quite impressed tonight by the remarks given by the senior Senator from West Virginia-- and I remind everyone that he has had 43 years to learn about this Senate; I have only had 28. I feel very strongly about the Senate, just as he does, except I don't have any history to quote. That is just because I am not a history person, be it ancient, modern. Whatever the history, I am just not very good at it. But I can tell you that Senator Byrd's argument tonight is 27 years too late. In fact, he should have made that argument before we adopted the Senate Budget and Impoundment Act. He helped write it. I didn't help write it. I voted for it. But my recollection is that not a single Senator voted against it. Let me tell you that Senator Byrd should have made an argument then. This bill was filled with all the risks he talks about to change forever what the Senate stands for. If that wasn't the case, Senator Byrd should have objected and should have come and given this speech the 15 times that we have used reconciliation--10 times to raise taxes and 5 times to reduce taxes. He did object to one of those. He lost on a reduction of taxes. But that is when the argument tonight, ever so eloquent, should have been made. For those enraptured about the qualities of the Senate as discussed tonight, let me remind everyone that we changed them. We changed them under the authorship of the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia who argued tonight about what a serious impact of a negative type this reconciliation instruction is going to impose on the Senate. I remind everyone. I see the tax-writing staff is here. Some of them have been through all of these. They can probably come over here and help me. They didn't like it when they were told to do a tax increase. That is probably what they liked the least. We did it. You know what happened on those instructions? The Senate did not have a chance to filibuster them. On not a single one of them did they have a chance to filibuster. Why? Because this act prevailed. Let me remind you that they did not have a chance to filibuster them or amend them significantly, whether they increased taxes or diminished taxes. On the argument that this Budget Act is not policy neutral, which the distinguished Senator from West Virginia challenges, let me just say I was part of the whole thing. I think it remains neutral. The only thing it permits us to do of a multiyear nature is to look forward to what will certain policies do in the future. That is what it permits us to do. It doesn't say in this Budget Act that you can do that only if you are reducing deficits. It just doesn't say it. The Senator interprets it that way. I don't interpret it that way. Let me also talk a minute with the Senate about the event. You know the event, when President Clinton almost got us to vote on a health care plan. I don't say any of this in a contentious manner toward any Senator. But I have already heard two Democratic Senators submit to the Senate, including my friend from West Virginia, that we were responsible for us not considering the plan, which is sometimes called the Hillary Clinton Health Care Plan. They were responsible for its failure--President Clinton's big health care plan. Let me tell you. The truth is, 3 years before we considered that, my good friend had prevailed in the Senate with a statute--not a ruling, a statute--that created the Byrd budget rule carrying his distinguished name. We did it around here for 3 years before that. And we finally said: You are right. Let's pass the Byrd rule. Guess what the Byrd rule would have done if they would have brought President Clinton's health care bill to the floor. Any Senator could have raised a point of order under that rule, the Byrd rule. Any Senator would have gotten a ruling from the Chair that it was subject to a point of order. Guess what next. It would require 60 votes to pass. So let's be honest and realistic. Senator Byrd has been part of helping fix this up for a number of years, but he has never been able to fix it up to deny its efficacy as changing forever the rules of the Senate so long as this Budget Act exists. Having said that, I want to comment on something else.