Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. I failed to mention that we have a whole series of votes on amendment, I might say to Senator Reid, that might occur tonight after the 6:30 commencement of the vote on the Domenici reconciliation amendment. I hope Senators do not run off after this next vote. I think there could be 3 hours' worth of votes tonight just on what we have already agreed to do.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am happy to hear the Senator's intention, but I do not know what the intention is on our side. We are going to do our very best to be fair. We had to sit through a very lengthy discussion that I thought was very powerful. We would like a little bit of time to make our rebuttal. I am suggesting you can go another 4 minutes if that is all right with you all.

Mr. DOMENICI. I understand the distinguished Senator wanted to speak for 4 minutes. I am delighted to have him do that, if it is all right with Senator Conrad.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe the budget resolution before the Senate today is like other budget resolutions. And I have been a party to every single one. If somebody wants to write the history of what has happened that is most significant to the Senate in the past 25 years, they can start off with this bill. This has caused the most significant changes that the Senate has had imposed upon it by virtue of a reconciliation instruction that has, on some occasions, reduced spending. On other occasions, it has increased taxes. On other occasions--and if we get around to the details I will list them for everyone--we have used it to cut taxes or reduce taxes. Those who will write the history of the past 25 years will probably say that no other document has caused more changes in the tax laws up and down, in the changing of entitlements up and down, without full debate and without the right to amend, than this document over this 25 years. I was thinking I would come to the floor and tell the Senate every reconciliation bill of which I have been a part. But the list is too long. It is very long. There have been many. You can tell if you read statutes of the U.S. Congress and you find something that says Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1976 or 1981, almost without exception they are the creature of a reconciliation instruction done on the floor of both Houses ultimately to their respective committees. Frankly, I don't see any difference between what we have done in the past and what we have done here. As a matter of fact, there was an occasion in 1996 when the other side of the aisle challenged a proposal in a budget resolution to reduce taxes. They actually raised the point of order that it wasn't right, it wasn't permitted under this act. The Parliamentarian agreed that it was. We had a vote where the other side challenged that and sought to appeal the ruling of the Chair. The Chair was sustained. The Chair was sustained by a partisan vote. We had the majority by three then. We had 53 Senators then. The Senate decided you could use reconciliation to reduce taxes, as they were in 1976. I might suggest they were done again in 1997 and 1999 and no challenge was made to them. In two instances we did it, and the President vetoed the bills anyway. So you don't find an omnibus reconciliation tax bill for those years. But one did pass the Congress, both Houses. All I have sought in the budget resolution and all I seek here is to use the same process we have been using since this Budget Act was adopted. It had many experts, but in order to become what it has become, because it still works, it had to have some knowledgeable input when it was written. What did they need to do? They needed to make sure that nothing stood in the way of getting a budget resolution, No. 1, including that rules of the Senate could not stand in the way of the budget resolution. It had a limited amount of time. And it had to get passed. Then they didn't want reconciliation to be held up. In particular, section 310 of the act, on page 25 of the act, states: Inclusion of reconciliation directives in a concurrent resolution on the budget--a concurrent resolution on the budget for any fiscal year to the extent necessary to effectuate the provisions and requirements of such a resolution. That is precisely what we are trying to do with our request that this procedure be made available. Frankly, some have asked: Senator Domenici, how can you keep on doing these year after year? I don't know. I think it is because the reconciliation process provides an opportunity to get something done. If there wasn't something significant happening because we stood here on the floor and produced a budget resolution, I say to my good friend Senator Byrd, I don't think I would have been staying on the Budget Committee, doing budget resolutions, if we just admonished committees and then they didn't have to do it. In fact, I stayed on because we had to tell committees what the parameters were and they did it. We always told them, if they didn't do it, something might happen. They misconstrued us sometimes, and they thought we would write their law. We didn't know what would happen. The leadership would have to find a way to enforce it if the committees didn't. The point is it has been exciting because we have done 12, 14, maybe 15 reconciliation bills that have literally caused change that would not have happened. Senator Graham you didn't like some of the changes. Some of the changes I didn't like. To tell you the truth, I didn't like many of them. But I don't believe we should deny ourselves an opportunity for this new President to have us use a reconciliation instruction bound and borne by this Budget Act which changes the rules of the Senate for as long as this law exists. I didn't think we should say: We have used it, but you can't use it now. We thought our President's proposals for 4 percent growth in the expenditures of government in the ordinary and regular appropriation process and a $1.6 trillion tax cut over 10 years out of a surplus of $5.6 trillion seemed to be more than justified by the new President's proposals for sound fiscal policy and, indeed, for sound tax policy for our people. With that as my introductory remarks and my concern, I offer today an instruction, an instruction that we would ask the Senate to vote on soon, sometime this evening, that essentially says we can use the process called reconciliation to accomplish the tax consequences of this budget resolution in its final form, whatever that is. I am quite sure that I have not made this interesting for those out there listening; it is pretty hard to make this interesting. But neither do I hope that I appear anything but serious. A little while ago one of my good friends asked me to smile. I smiled in response, so big that I couldn't talk. Then I said I have to either quit smiling or I can't talk anymore. In any event, it is serious. I think we should all try very hard to make the average person listening to this understand it is important to their business. The public's business is really affected by the rules and the rights of Senators. But they are also affected by the rules and rights created by this Budget Impoundment Act of 1975. I did not help write it. I voted for it. I think it passed overwhelmingly. I don't know if there were even any negative votes for it. I remember Senators such as Chuck Percy from Government Operations playing a part in it, coming to the floor, saying it was the biggest change we will ever effect. It took me 5 or 6 years to understand it really was a big change. All we want to do now on our budget is make sure the changes permitted by this law be carried over to this President's tax proposals so we can get a start, as he would say, toward letting the people of this country get back some of their money and also to create a kind of tax policy that will be good for the future. I am going to read this. I will not go into any detail. I would say reconciliation has been used by the Senate--with reference, Senator Gramm, to tax law changes--not 1 time, not 5 times, 15 times--one-five times it has been used--10 times to increase taxes and all became law, 5 times to cut taxes, 2 became law, 2 were vetoed, and 1 did not find its way beyond the Halls of Congress. It was what was seen to be a rather useless chore, to send it down to be vetoed. But the Congress did it. So I repeat, over 25 years no wonder the Senator from New Mexico wanted to stay on this. We were changing things dramatically, 15 times--10 to increase taxes, all of which happened; 5 to cut taxes, all of which happened. With that history I very much appreciate Senator Byrd wanting this matter to be thoroughly discussed. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gramm for his succinct summary of where we are and what we are about. The reason this is a serious debate is because it did not take me 28 years being a Senator to learn--in fact, probably in the early years, I learned from my opponent who has been in the Senate 43 years--there are some things very special about the Senate that everybody should know. It has a couple of qualities that are rather incredible for parliamentary bodies. One of those is freedom to debate. Sometimes people call that the right to filibuster. Filibuster does not sound so good, so of late we call it freedom to debate. That really means if you want to delay things or if you want to get your way or you want to make some changes your colleagues do not want to make in the Senate, you can get the floor and can talk as long as you can talk and nobody can stop you until you stop yourself. It even means more than that. Essentially, it is the right to debate as long as you want and as long as you can. The second quality that makes this a very different institution is the right to offer amendments. It takes some people a while to know what that really means. I can recall during the Vietnam war there was a Senator from the west coast who used to sit at one of the desks in the back. I am going to be as plain and honest about it as I can. Come 8 o'clock at night, it was 5 o'clock in the Senator's State. At about that time in the afternoon, regardless of what we were debating, that Senator would try to get the floor and try to offer either an amendment or resolution regarding the Vietnam war because he was becoming known as an anti-Vietnam war Senator. Of course, at 8 o'clock in the Senate, it was 5 o'clock in the State on the west coast. If one does that every 5 or 6 days, you get to be known as the anti-Vietnam Senator. A Senator can also offer that to any kind of bill. It can be offered to an appropriations bill. It can be offered to an authorizing bill unless there is an agreement to the contrary. It is a Senator's right. Those are the two qualities that are most significant about the Senate. I learned them rather quickly. I do not think I appreciated them in terms of the institution for maybe about 10 years. I soon found, once I became a member of the Budget Committee --in fact, through a quirk of things, I got on very early and I did not choose to ever get off because I could see myself moving up, never thinking I would ever be chairman. I could see myself moving up and being ranking member. All of a sudden, the Republicans took over the Senate, and I got a call from Senator Baker who said: Hi, Mr. Chairman, you are chairing the Budget Committee. If I was not in that position, I was in the position of lead Republican. I found out very quickly those two qualities--the right to filibuster or debate as long as you want and the right to amend --were changed by a law that changed the rules of the Senate. I am holding it up. This is the law. It was adopted 25 years ago. It changed, for as long as this law is operative, the rules of the Senate because if you have a reconciliation instruction under this Budget Act, which changes the rules of the Senate, that reconciliation instruction no longer carries with it on the floor of the Senate those two cherished privileges. It has a limited debate because this law says the debate is limited. It says only 50 hours of debate on a resolution and only 20 hours of debate on a bill that comes forward from this document and a resolution called reconciliation. Guess what else it did. You do not have a right to amend a bill that is a creature of a reconciliation instruction which is a creature of this law. You don't have that right. Laws on amendments are very narrowly construed. I know my good friend, Senator Byrd, is going to attempt to draw a distinction between what we are doing in this budget resolution because we have a surplus and what we did other times--either by increasing the taxes, as we did for President Clinton in a reconciliation instruction, which meant 20 hours of debate and, for all intents and purposes, no amendments. We were in the minority, and every single Democrat voted to give the Finance Committee that authority, and then every Democrat voted to pass the bill that was the creature of that reconciliation-- split exactly down party lines. But taxes were increased under the process created by this act, in derogation of the normal rules of the Senate. I happened to have been here through almost every reconciliation, and my friend from West Virginia frequently calls it ``re-conciliation,'' and we have agreed that both pronunciations are correct.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, since Senator Gramm wants to speak in the way that addresses a matter brought up with reference to tax cuts earlier, I will yield on our side 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Texas.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as I understand it, we have 3 hours to debate this reconciliation instruction, one-half hour for the distinguished Senator Byrd, or his designee, and one-half hour for the Senator from New Mexico, or his designee; is that right?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, somehow I feel that we are not yet finished, that we have a long way to go. I think I am right. Nonetheless, we ought to stop over and pat ourselves on the back this afternoon because we didn't really have this afternoon all planned out with any unanimous consent agreements. We had 2 hours. I think we have made the best of it. I think from that side four different amendments have been considered with various Senators speaking, and we have had time for others to give speeches on matters of importance. We have taken some on our side. They are all subject to amendment, unless we accept them. We have looked at them to see if we can dispose of them. I thank Senator Conrad and his staff because we got a long way today toward accommodating Senators who felt very strongly that they had to give a speech along with their amendment. Nobody is limited in the future, but the vote-arama will take a very long time. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI. I would have modified my suggestion, and would have said, Will the Senator try a bungee jump? You wouldn't have to jump for real. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I close by saying I don't want to ask another question, obviously, because your answer was one that I didn't expect. But I want to remind you that you made a deal with me once. You said as soon as we balance the budget--you and I--wouldn't you jump off of some building?

Mr. DOMENICI. I am in fact smiling. My face is in such a big smile that I can't hardly talk. So just give me a moment. I don't want you to answer this. But if I consider your amendment, would you consider my budget?

Mr. DOMENICI. I am certainly going to explore this with the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI. You just increase the 60 that we have.

Mr. DOMENICI. I read the amendment. Let me see if I am correct. You don't do anything to the rest of the budget and the proposed tax cut.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, may I ask a question of the Senator?

Mr. DOMENICI. Would the Senator like to speak a little longer on this amendment in case somebody is interested?

Mr. DOMENICI. Had the Senator used all his time? How much time did he use?

Mr. DOMENICI. If the Senator will modify the amendment so the money is taken out of the contingency fund instead of the tax cut it will be passed. Otherwise, we will have to wait and see what we can do. I will take a minute in response to the Senators who spoke for a tax number considerably lower than the President's. I heard the number was $1.25 trillion. I heard both of the Senators on the other side, led by Senator Breaux, say we ought to have a bipartisan approach. The President came to town and they are quite sure this is what he would like because it is bipartisan. I remind everybody what I am willing to do as chairman of the Budget Committee, to make sure the Senate understands--each and every Senator and those who report for them--we are asking for the President's proposal. I have heard him now more than 10 times clarify this. They ask him: What about $1.25 trillion, Mr. President? What about $1.4 trillion, Mr. President? Of course he is good-natured; he listens and he says: I think that is too low. I think that is too low. They ask for a higher amount because some want more than 1.6, and he says that is too high and 1.6 is just about right. Those who are suggesting they are doing what the President is seeking when they are asking for $1.25 trillion instead of $1.6 trillion, that is their proposal. That is not the President's proposal. It may be they will prevail and we won't get the President's proposal. I want everybody to know that is my brief response to the two or three speeches made on the other side of the aisle, led by the distinguished senior Senator from Louisiana, the junior Senator from Nebraska, and the senior Senator from New Jersey. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. While we are waiting, I yield myself 1 minute off the conglomeration of amendments. We won't exceed our time on those. I take a minute to respond to the distinguished Senator from California who talked about our President and his environmental record. I want to make sure everybody out there in the hinterlands knows that the Senate had an opportunity to vote on whether it would ever enforce the so-called Kyoto accord. Not one single Senator voted that we would, indeed, enforce that accord. The vote was either 99-0 or 98-0, indicating forthrightly that the treaty would never see the light of day because the Senate said it wouldn't. I believe we ought to be square with this President and be honest with the people. How can he be blamed for doing damage to the environment when the Senate clearly said, with not a single dissenting vote, that we would not enforce it? If we wouldn't enforce it, it would never be effective. It would have no efficacy on the environment of the world or America. When our President announced that, somebody should have put a little scorecard up there that said: The President agrees with the Senate, which voted 98-0 that it would not enforce that accord. On arsenic, which the Senator from California addressed, there are Democratic mayors across this land who have written to the Senator from New Mexico. I don't know very many who supported the old arsenic regulation because it was nonscientific and was not based on any real science. It wasn't only this President. Democratic mayors and councilmen joined by Republicans across the land said: Don't make us spend all this money when there is no benefit to the public health. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator withhold?