[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 15 (Friday, February 15, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S891-S894]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE BYRD RULE
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Thursday a week ago yesterday, the Secretary
of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill, appeared before the Senate Budget
Committee, at which time he and I had a discussion of the Senate rules,
and particularly the ``Byrd Rule.'' I ask unanimous consent that the
discussion to which I refer be printed in the Record. It speaks for
itself.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
On page 51 of the first volume of the President's Budget, I
noted the picture of Gulliver being tied down by the
Lilliputians. Here it is. The caption beneath it reads:
``Many departments are tied up in a morass of Lilliputian
do's and don't's.
This is not the first time that the administration has
invoked the word ``Lilliputian'' when referring to the
priorities of Congress. It makes me wonder if the
administration may not be requiring the members of the
Cabinet to read Jonathan Swift's masterpiece of satire.
Last year, before the National Association for Business
Economics, Mr. Secretary, you used the word ``Lilliputian''
in referring to the application of the Byrd rule on
reconsideration bills. You were quoted as saying: ``the rules
that have been created by just ordinary people are in some
ways more and more like the Lilliputians tying us to the
ground. I do not know why we have to live by these rules;
after all, so far as I can tell, God did not send them.''
Inasmuch as you have invoked the name of the Creator, I
would say that God works in mysterious ways his wonders to
perform. This is not my quotation, but he does. He believes
in rules, too. He gave them to Moses on Mount Sinai--the Ten
Commandments. They hang in my office. Those are rules. I feel
that God had his hand upon the destiny of this country when
those illustrious men gathered in Philadelphia to create the
Constitution of the United States.
I do not know whether or not you have read Catherine
Drinker Bowen's book, but she says that at no other time
could these men have written this Constitution, which has
proved to be the earliest written Constitution in the world
and the most successful one. She says that 5 years earlier,
the people and their representatives who were at the
Convention would not have experienced enough of the
disadvantages or the shortcomings that they needed to have
experienced to have written this Constitution. She says that
were it 5 years later, the people would have been turned off
by the excesses of the French Revolution and the carnage by
the guillotine.
So the clock struck just at the right time. As far as I was
concerned, that was God's hand, if you want to invoke God's
name; that was God's hand at work.
You said ``The rules that have been created by just
ordinary people''--the rules, Mr. Secretary, of the Senate
have only had seven revisions in the more than 200 years of
the Senate's history. Their roots go back into the House of
Commons in Great Britain. Their roots go back to the
Continental Congress. Their roots go back to the
Confederation.
We are using rules of which the first 20 were written
within the first 10 days of the Constitutional Convention's
meeting. Those are rules.
Let us compare what Thomas Jefferson says about rules. Let
us compare it with what you say. You said, ``The rules that
have been created by just ordinary people are in some ways
more and more like the Lilliputians tying us''--now, who is
``us''--``tying us to the ground. I do not know why we have
to live with these rules; after all, so far as I can tell,
God did not send them.''
Well, Mr. Secretary, I say with all due respect--and I have
great regard for you--that you seem to have gotten off the
track. You probably should have had a good study course in
American history before you came here--I am not talking about
the kind of history that comes up with cartoons like this.
Many of the so-called history books of our present time are
full of colorful cartoons just like this. They do not teach
real history.
[[Page S892]]
I read Muzzey back in 1927, 1928, 1929, 1932, David Seville
Muzzey. That was history. There were pictures. Now, you say,
``The rules that have been created by just ordinary
people''--these were not ordinary people, the men who signed
the Constitution. They provided for the rules of the Senate.
The Congress and certainly this Senate is not ordinary, and
it is certainly not Lilliputian. We are Senators. I have been
before the people at the bar of judgment 29 times in these 50
years, counting this year, that I have served in Congress--29
times. I have taken the oath to support and defend this
Constitution 16 times.
I am not asking you to answer this question--but how many
times have you been before the bar of judgment of the people?
In what elections did you run in order to represent the
people? You were appointed. We were elected by the people,
directly by the people--not like the President, indirectly,
by electors who were elected by the people--we were directly
elected.
Chairman Conrad. Senator, if I could say, I grant 7 minutes
and my first round of questioning to the Senator so he can
continue in his statement.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I will not
dwell upon this any longer except to say that we are
Senators, and you have been in this town one year. I have
been in this town 50 years. I have seen many Secretaries of
the Treasury. And I just want to tell you that we Senators
are here to look after the interests of the people of our
States. They are not well-to-do people--not all of them--in
my State. They are not CEOs of multi-billion-dollar
corporations. They cannot just pick up the phone and call a
Cabinet Secretary.
In time of need--in drought, in floods, in famines, when a
bridge is near collapse, when safe drinking water is not
available, when health care services are endangered--they
come to us. The people come to us. Yes, they are ordinary
people. They are coal miners, they are farmers, they are
schoolteachers, they are ministers, they are lawyers, they
are bankers.
This cartoon on page 51 and comments throughout this budget
suggest that this administration believes that so-called
experts at bureaucratic agencies should determine the
priorities of this Nation--not the Congress, not the people
they represent. That suggests that the problems of the people
are too little to deserve the attention of the
administration.
Here is what the paragraph says by Dr. Gulliver: ``. . . it
is critical that the government operate effectively and spend
every taxpayer dollar wisely. Unfortunately, Federal managers
are greatly limited in how they can use financial handling
and other resources to manage programs. Federal managers lack
much of the discretion given to their private sector
counterparts to get the job done.''
We have seen what discretion given to private sector
counterparts has done. We saw that in Enron.
This budget, wrapped in the American Flag, says:
``Government is ineffective under these conditions. During
wartime, turf protection cannot dictate the national
interest. The Congress should remove barriers and give the
administration the tools to do the job that must be done.''
You say the Federal managers are greatly limited in how
they can use financial resources. That is a good thing. These
people, the so-called Federal managers, are not elected by
the people, and we are talking about the taxpayers' dollars--
the taxpayers' dollars. That is why there are rules. That is
why we have rules.
So you say ``Federal managers lack much of the discretion
given to their private sector counterparts.'' Yes, because
they are dealing with tax dollars, the American people's
dollars.
My question would be does this kind of nonsense belong in a
budget document. Now, to be fair, if we are going to do that,
let us have a little more fun. Why not refer to the territory
that was called Brobdingnag. Swift also wrote about that. Dr.
Gulliver visited Brobdingnag, where there were not pygmies,
but giants as tall as church spires, and with respect to one
step of those giants, that step covers 10 yards.
I would refer to this since we are in the business of using
Swift's satire. This budget is a Brobdingnagian budget, a
Brobdingnagian budget. Not bad.
If we want to continue this, we can do it after the
meeting. I have been very generously given time at this
point.
I just want to remind you, Mr. Secretary, that a lot of us
were here before you came, and with all respect to you, you
are not Alexander Hamilton.
I have a question. Steel company representatives and steel
workers have worked through numerous hurdles and made a
number of concessions to reach consensus on a plan to
renovate the U.S. steel industry. They have let the
administration know that in order for this plan to work, the
President needs to conclude the Section 201 of investigation
of steel importation at the earliest possible date, with a
remedy of nothing less than a 40 percent tariff on steel
imports.
In addition, the steep companies and workers have asked for
the administration's help in removing barriers to steel
industry consolidation in the United States and in relieving
the costs to the maximum extent possible of health care and
pension benefits to retirees.
Steel industry representatives from my own State have
expressed optimism that this administration is working
positively with them to advance such a multifaceted solution.
In light of this very critical time for the steel industry
and this window of just a few weeks that could mean a turning
point to a revitalization of bankruptcy and collapse of an
industry that ties under our national security, this
administration submits a budget that cuts the steel loan
guarantee program by $96 million.
I find it hard to share in the optimism, and I will just
ask one question at this time, and I will have further
questions that I will submit.
What can you tell this committee specifically about this
administration's intentions with regard to helping the steel
industry with tariffs, reorganization, and legacy costs?
Secretary O'Neill. Well, Senator, what I said to the
National Association of Business Economists, I stand by,
because what I had in my mind and what I deeply believe is
this--that where we have rules made by men that restrict the
realization of human potential, they should be changed.
We had rules that said, ``Colored, do not enter here.''
That was a manmade rule. And there are lots of those
same kinds of rules that limit the realization of human
potential, and I have dedicated my life to doing what I
can to get rid of rules that so limit human potential, and
I am not going to stop.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, I have been around for a long
time, and I try to live with the rules. You were specifically
talking about the Byrd rule.
Secretary O'Neill. I was talking about all rules that limit
human potential and the realization of human potential, and
referring to something different is fine if you wish to do
so, but I would also like to say, because there was an
inference in your remarks that somehow I was born on home
plate and thought I hit a home run--Senator, I started my
life in a house without water or electricity. So I do not
cede to you the high moral ground of not knowing what life
was like in the ditch.
Secretary Byrd. Well, Mr. Secretary, I lived in a house
without electricity, too, no running water, no telephone, and
with a wooden outhouse.
Secretary O'Neill. I had the same.
Senator Byrd. I started out in life without any rungs in
the bottom of the ladder. I am talking with you about your
comments concerning the Byrd rule and the people who wrote
these rules. I am not talking about putting a halter or a
break on anybody's self-incentive or anybody's initiative. I
have had that experience, and I can stand toe-to-toe with
you. I have not walked in any corporate board rooms. I have
not had the churning of millions of dollars into trust
accounts.
I lived in a coal miner's home. I married a coal miner's
daughter. So I hope we do not start down this road, talking
about our backgrounds and how far back we came from. I am
citing to you what you said in response to a question about
the Byrd rule. The Byrd rule has saved millions and millions
and millions of dollars for this Government, and we ought to
live up to it.
Perhaps you ought to study the Byrd rule a little bit if
you have not to the point that you can explain it. And just
remember, the rule that I am talking about, those ordinary
people--you are talking about Senators. They are ordinary
people, and they are not going to let you get away with it.
We are not going to let you get away with it.
So if you want to answer my question on steel.
Secretary O'Neill. All right. As you know because you have
been in some of the meetings that we have been having on the
subject of steel, we began last year to see if it was
possible to create a basis for the world to adjust the
arguably 30 percent overcapacity that the world today has in
steel, and through the President's efforts and administration
work, we succeeded in getting the OECD to provide a structure
for calling together the principal producers of steel in the
world to try to get them to stipulate the need for capacity
reductions, especially of capacity that is exporting its
goods around the world with Government subsidies and
undercutting the ability of almost any steel company in the
world to make enough money to cover the cost of its capital,
as a piece of a concerted, connected set of ideas about how
we should proceed in this area.
Subsequent to beginning that work, the President filed a
201, and he has until March 6, I believe, to make a final
decision of what level, if any, and kinds of combinations of
tariffs and impositions he should put on imports in the
United States to make sure that the world is fair in the way
that we provide a basis for our own steel industry to make a
living. There are day-by-day conversations going on to this
issue of what tariffs or barriers or provisions should be
imposed on the rest of the world, and as I say, the work will
be done by the appointed date of March 6.
Senator Byrd. I hope the President will act and act
immediately and act forcefully. He was in West Virginia and
told the steel workers that he would help them. The Vice
President certainly was in West Virginia and told the steel
workers he would help them. West Virginia went for Mr. Bush,
else you would not be sitting there today if my State had
gone for Mr. Gore.
So the steel workers are hoping and praying that the
President will act and act immediately to help them in this
regard.
[[Page S893]]
Thank you very much.
Chairman Conrad. Senator Smith.
Senator Smith. Mr. Secretary, I was looking at your resume,
and I believe you started your professional employment as a
civil servant for the Office of Management and Budget. Is
that correct?
Secretary O'Neill. In fact I started at the Veterans
Administration as a computer systems analyst in 1961 and
completed my previous Government service at the office of
Management and Budget as deputy director in 1977.
Senator Smith. And you have served in the administrations
of Gerald Ford, is that correct----
Secretary O'Neill. That is right.
Senator Smith [continuing]. And President----
Secretary O'Neill. Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford.
Senator Byrd. Would the Senator yield to me?
Senator Smith. I would be happy to yield, Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. Since we are talking about how many
administrations we have been in----
Senator Smith. You can beat us all, I am sure.
Senator Byrd. I have served with--not under--11 Presidents.
Senator Smith. Well, I have great respect for Senator Byrd.
I feel badly, though, if you feel demeaned appearing before
this committee in any personal way, because I just want to
say again for the record as I did in my opening statement
that you did not need this job, but you are doing a fine job,
and I believe you have served in many administrations, and
you left a very lucrative position because you wanted to make
the world a better place. And I think that needs to be said
again. So I----
Senator Byrd. Would the Senator yield?
Senator Smith. I would be happy to yield to Senator Byrd
any time.
Senator Byrd. May I just add a little footnote along that
line?
Senator Smith. Of course.
Senator Byrd. I do not need to serve here, either. I
believe I could retire and get more money in retirement than
I earn as a Senator. I am talking about my retirement from
the years I have served in Government.
Senator Smith. I understand that.
I thank you, Secretary O'Neill, for your service to your
country, and I thank Senator Byrd for his service to our
country as well.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, with reference to the word ``Lilliputians'',
that seems to be the prevailing way that officials in the Bush
Administration view members of Congress. Several members of the Bush
Cabinet have publicly used that term when speaking about the
inconvenience of having to work with the people's representatives and
the laws and rules that Congress writes.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spoke to the National Defense
University on January 31, 2002. Referring to Congressional earmarks in
the defense appropriation bills, he said: ``The Congress has, for
whatever reason, decided that they want to put literally thousands of
earmarks on the legislation--that you can't do this, you can't do that,
you can't do this, you can't do that. Well, your flexibility is just--
it's like Gulliver with a whole bunch of Lilliputian threads over them:
no one thread keeps Gulliver down, but in the aggregate he can't get
up.''
OMB Director Mitchell E. Daniels testified before the Senate Budget
Committee in July 2001 on the economic and budget outlook. Referring to
Congressional earmarks, the OMB Director said: ``I would point out that
Congress has got to help here. We struggle with earmarks in the federal
budget, and . . . its very hard . . . when you are hogtied by a million
lilliputian orders to do this, that, or the other, which maybe does not
fit the strategy.''
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill spoke to the National Association for
Business Economics in March 2001 regarding the Administration's desire
to see a permanent tax cut enacted. A question was raised regarding the
Byrd rule. Under current law, if the Senate passes a ten-year budget
resolution, a tax cut reconciliation bill would have to sunset after
ten years in order to be in compliance with the Byrd rule.
In response, the Treasury Secretary said: ``There is a very
interesting thing that the rules that have been created by just
ordinary people--are in some ways more and more like the Lilliputians
tying us to the ground. . . . I don't know why we have to live by these
rules, after all, they were only made by other people, and so far as I
can tell, God didn't send them. . . . And, so, it's OK for us to
entertain a different kind of an idea, and that . . . we don't have to
live by rules that were made in a different time for a different
purpose and a different set of circumstances.''
The last quote in particular addressed an arcane and little
understood rule whose author put it into place in 1985. Its purpose was
to stop rampant abuses of Reconciliation Bills, which were originally
intended to lock in deficit reduction measures.
Because of tight time limitations--20 hours--a nondebateable motion
to reduce the time and only a majority vote needed to reduce it, and no
opportunity to debate a motion to proceed, reconciliation is a supergag
rule, one that makes cloture look like a mere speck by comparison.
Reconciliation bills have frequently been grossly misused to ram
costly spending measures through the Senate and to prevent thorough
debate of controversial measures. The Administration chose a
reconciliation bill for its controversial tax cuts last year, in order
to take advantage of the ``fast track'' nature of reconciliation bills.
However, in 1985, the Senate unanimously adopted the Byrd Rule. One
part of the Byrd Rule is a budgetary restriction which prohibits
reconciliation bills from either reducing revenues or increasing
spending in a year beyond the last year covered by the budget
resolution. Last year's budget resolution covered 10 years. Therefore
all revenue losses in that reconciliation bill had to sunset in 10
years. The administration wanted the benefits of reconciliation, but
now they complain about the restrictions of that same process.
The Byrd Rule has been quite effective when it has been enforced. I
daresay that the Byrd rule has prevented billions of dollars' worth of
questionable spending. I know that the Byrd Rule has brought
controversial measures out into the sunlight of public debate by
preventing such measures from being wrapped in a reconciliation bill
and hustled in protective armor through the Senate.
For instance, on October 13, 1989, I commended Senators Mitchell, the
then Majority Leader, and Senator Sasser, the then Chairman of the
Budget Committee, on their tough enforcement of the Byrd Rule in the
Reconciliation process of that year, whereby some 300 provisions which
violated the Byrd Rule were stricken from the bill. May I add that
reconciliation abuses are not only abuses promulgated by members of
Congress. The administration's fingerprints are often on Byrd Rule
violations as well. I vividly recall when President Clinton wanted to
insert his entire healthcare reform package into a reconciliation bill,
costing billions, changing hundreds of laws, and shielding a very
controversial proposal from the sunlight of debate. When I said that I
would raise a Byrd Rule point of order, the idea was dropped. The Byrd
Rule is totally nonpartisan. It has saved billions of tax dollars and
prevented much legislative mischief by both parties. Although its
author's name is Robert C. Byrd, the Byrd Rule has helped curtail
federal spending enormously.
It is well to remember that it is rules and laws that keep the
powerful in check and the people in control. Yet, this year's budget
document, ordinarily a relatively straightforward presentation of an
Administration's views on the budget, is rife with political commentary
about congressional earmarks, and even a cartoon--as I have already
pointed out--depicting Gulliver tied down by the Lilliputians along
with accompanying text that reflects an attitude of arrogance and
disdain for the role of the Congress. It is a far cry from President
George W. Bush's stated intention to change the tone in Washington.
Partisanship and distrust are all that is accomplished by such an
approach, and there is certainly enough of both to go around already.
Members of Congress are often convenient targets for disdain by
Administration officials who do not have to stand for election and who
often have independent wealth or lucrative careers to return to after
their stint in public service is over. Congressional earmarks are easy
to malign, but earmarks, such as the one which first funded the human
genome project, are rarely discussed. Congressional earmarks have done
much good. Of course some have turned out to be poor investments, but
they are not the horrific evil that many suggest, and in reality their
impact on the budget is usually quite small. What those who serve
[[Page S894]]
in Presidential Cabinets tend to forget is that the people did not
elect them to anything. They are appointed, and they serve at the
President's pleasure. And it is worthwhile here to note that even the
President that these officials serve is not directly elected. Only
members of Congress are directly elected by the people in federal
elections, and it is to members of Congress that the people come for
assistance or to express their heartfelt views. Not many ordinary
citizens have the wealth or influence to call up a Cabinet secretary or
get an appointment with the President. Members of Congress are the
people's elected spokesmen and women, and when we are viewed as
``Lilliputians'' by members of a President's cabinet, I suspect that
the good people who elected us to serve are viewed in much the same
manner. Tolerance of the arrogance of people in high places has worn
very thin in this country. The people have had enough of Enron egos,
and all-knowing, all-powerful bureaucrats, and the people well
understand the need for serious curbs on power. Some sage once observed
that the difference between a lynching and a fair trial is procedure.
How true that is.
Mr. President, those who dislike the rules and laws that reign them
in make the best argument I can think of for the wisdom of the Framers
in separating the powers of government. And while Swift's Gulliver's
Travels, and his tale of Lilliput may be required reading for the Bush
Cabinet, I think that they may have actually missed the point of that
famous satire. The point is this. No matter how big you think you are,
the little people in this country can call you to heel. Because of the
unique system of government we are blessed with, the people, in the
final analysis, wield the power. And it is up to the Congress--the
people's branch--to continue to write the rules that help to keep
Presidents, bureaucrats, and wayward corporate executives in check. So,
for my part I say, long live the Lilliputians! May they ever reign.
____________________