[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.

                          ____________________