WERE IN FACT OPPOSED INTERESTS INTERESTS, THAT WE WERE NOT ALL
           SUBJECT TO THE QUEEN AND HAPPILY UNDER HER RULE -- OR HIS, AS
           THE KING -- AND THERE WAS A HARMONY IN THE REALM. OUR FOUNDERS
           THOUGHT NO SUCH THING. THEY DID NOT DEPEND ON VIRTUE. THEY
           DEPENDED ON SELF-INTEREST AND EQUALLY OPPOSED A MODE OF
           NEGOTIATION TO RESOLVE MATTERS MATTERS. WE HAD A SERIES OF

           AUTHORIZING COMMITTEES AND THEY HAD JURISDICTION OVER PRINCIPLE
           AREAS OF GOVERNMENT SERVICE. THERE WERE FOUR -- WELL, THE
           PRINCIPAL COMMITTEES OF THIS KIND WERE FOREIGN RELATIONS,
           DEFENSE/ARMED SERVICES, AND THEN INTERIOR, COMMERCE, LABOR AND
           PUBLIC WELFARE, AS IT THEN WAS, ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS,

           HAVING PREVIOUSLY BEEN JUST PUBLIC WORKS. THEIR JURISDICTIONS
           CHANGED, AS NEW ISSUES CAME ALONG. PUSH WORKS BECAME
           ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS UNDER THE TUTELAGE OF SENATOR
           MUSKIE OF MAINE, WHO BROUGHT THE ISSUE OF ENVIRONMENT TO OUR
           BODY. THEY WOULD MAKE LAWS WHICH, MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, REQUIRED
           SPEND CLURESE. AND -- WHICH MORE OFTEN NONE THAT THE, REQUIRED
           SPEND DHURESE. AND THAT EXPENDITURE WOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE

           APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE IN TERMS OF THE THRAUS HAD BEEN PASSED
           BY THE AUTHORIZING COMMITTEES. THERE WAS PARALLEL OF THE
           FINANCE COMMITTEE WHICH IN THE EARLIEST YEARS FROM 1816, AI I
           BELIEVE, WAS PRINCIPALLY CONSIDERING RAISING THE REVENUE OF THE
           FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE RECALLLY YEARS UP UNTIL THE GIVENG
           THIS CENTURY. THOSE WERE TARIFFS. THAT'S WHY THE TARIFF
           LEGISLATIONS -- THE TEAR OF OF ABOMINATIONS AND THINGS LIKE

           THAT -- ARE SO PROMINENT IN AMERICAN 19TH CENTURY HISTORY. WE
           MOVED TO THE INCOME TAX AS OUR PRINCIPAL SOURCE OF REVENUE.
           TAIFERS ARE STILL NOT INSIGNIFICANT -- TARIFFS ARE STILL NOT
           INSIGNIFICANT. AND THE FINANCE COMMITTEE OF THE WHICH I AM A
           MEMBER AND WAS FOR A PERIOD CHAIRMAN AND AM NOW RANKING MEMBER,
           WE LOOKED AFTER THE REVENUES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THEN
           SOCIAL SECURITY CAME ALONG ALONG. IT WAS A TAX. WHETHER IT
           OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN A TAX, SIR, IS AN ISSUE YOU COULD DEBATE,

           BUT 50 YEARS AGO -- OH, 54-55 -- AT A GARDEN PARTY HERE IN
           WASHINGTON, FRANCIS PERKINS, THE SECRETARY OF LABOR WHO WAS
           RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING SOCIAL SECURITY PLAN, SAID TO A
           CHIEF JUSTICE -- TO A JUDGE OF THE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
           COURT, WHO KINDLY ASKED HER ABOUT HER WORK, SAID SHE HAD THIS
           GREAT PLAN BUT SHE WAS CONCERNED BECAUSE THE GREAT JUSTICES
           ALWAYS SAID IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WHATEVER THE NEW DEAL WAS

           THEN GOING THROUGH THAT PERIOD. THE JUSTICE ASKED HER TO TELL
           HIM MORE. SHE DID AND HE LEANED DOWN AND WHISPERED "THE TAXINGS
           -- THE TAXING POWER, MY DEAR. ALL YOU NEED IS THE TAXING
           POWER." SO IN THAT FAMOUS PHOTOGRAPH OF PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT
           SIGNING THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, THE PERSON TO HIS RIGHT IS THE
           CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS OF THE HOUSE OF

           REPRESENTATIVES, A GENTLEMAN FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
           ENORMOUS IN HIS IMPACT. SO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE HAS TAKEN OVER
           THESE OTHER AREAS AGS WELL. BUT STILL OUR BASIC TASK IS TO
           RAISE REVENUE; THAT THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE WILL SPEND IN
           ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS PASSED BY THE AUTHORIZING COMMITTEES.
           A WORKABLE SYSTEM. RATIONALE -- RATIONAL, UNDERSTANDABLE,

           COMPREE HENABLE AND FUNCTIONING. THEN IN 1974 CAME THE BUDGET
           ACT, THE CREATION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, THE
           CREATION OF THE BUDGET RESOLUTION. IN PART, THIS WAS A REACTION
           TO EVENTS IN THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION, POLITICAL AND
           CONTEMPORARY. BUT JUST AS IMPORTANT, IF I MAY BE ALLOWED A
           CERTAIN EXCURSION INTO POLITICAL SCIENCE, IF THAT'S A TERM,

           IT'S A PATTERN THAT ONE OBSERVES IN GOVERNMENTS THE WOURLD
           OVER, AND YOU CAN SEE IN OURS. THE PROPOSITION, SIR, IS THAT
           ORGANIZATIONS IN CONFLICT BECOME LIKE ONE ANOTHER. A GERMAN
           SOCIOLOGIST AT THE END OF THE 19TH CENTURY NOTED THAT EVEN
           PERSIANS FINALLY DETERMINED IT WAS BETTER TO HAVE GREEKS FIGHT

           GREEKS. AND YOU CAN TRACE THESE PATTERNS OF IMITATION AND
           COMPETITION THROUGH OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. IN 1904, THEREABOUTS,
           THEODORE ROOSEVELT BUILT THE WEST WING OF THE WHITE HOUSE. HE
           NOW HAD AN OFFICE. HE AN OFFICE WITH A DESK. AND HE COULD
           INVITE REPORTERS IN TO TELL THEM ABOUT THINGS. AND SLID AN
           OFFICE THAT HAD NOT BEEN THAT EMINENT -- CERTAINLY NOT COMPARED

           TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES -- TOOK ON A
           QUALITY PREVIOUSLY UNNOTICED. RIGHT AWAY THE HOUSE BUILT THE
           CANNON OFFICE BUILDING NAMED FOR THEIR SPEAKER, JOE CANNON. WE
           BUILT WHAT IS NOW THE RUSSELL BUILDING. FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT
           BUILT THE EAST WING OF THE WHITE HOUSE. THEY BUILT LONG WORTH,
           WE BUILT DIRKSEN. IN THE MEANTIME, THE SUPREME COURT WHICH HAD
           WORKED HAPPILY DOWN THE HALL FOR A CENTURY AND A HALF -- OR,
           WELL, FROM THE TIME WE MOVED INTO THIS NEW QUARTERS IN 1859, AI

           I BELIEVE, THEY CAME UP WITH THE BASEMENT, LIVED HAPPILY DOWN
           THERE, THEY SAID, WHY DON'T WE HAVE A BUILDING?
           AND THEY PRODUCE ADD BUILDING WHICH EVENTUALLY CAME ACROSS THE
           PARK HERE. THIS PATTERN GOES ON AND ON. PRESIDENTS TRAVEL
           ABROAD NOW. WE TRAVEL ABROAD. THERE ARE MORE JUDGES IN THE
           EXECUTIVE BRANCH THAN THERE ARE IN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH AND SUCH

           LIKE. AND IN 1921 OR IT COULD BE 1922, WARREN HARDING CREATED
           THE BUREAU OF THE BUDGET. SUDDENLY THERE WAS A CONSOLIDATION OF
           PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY. DEPARTMENTS USED TO SEND THEIR BUDGETS
           TO THE CONGRESS ON THEIR OWN. THE PRESIDENT WOULD KNOW ABOUT
           THEM, OF COURSE. BUT THERE WAS NO UNIFIED PRESIDENTIAL
           EXECUTIVE BUDGET. THAT MADE FOR A REAL SHIFT OF AUTHORITY
           TOWARD THE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT. WELL, IT TOOK ALMOST HALF A

           CENTURY -- PERHAPS A CENTURY -- BUT THEN WE GOT OUR BUREAU OF
           THE BUDGET -- CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE. AND WE STARTED
           HAVING OUR -- AND THIS SUDDENLY INTRUDES ON THE AUTHORITY OF
           THE AUTHORIZING COMMITTEES. EACH YEAR THEY WOULD BE GIVEN A
           NOTICE HOW MUCH MONEY THEY COULD SPEND, WHICH WAS -- COULD BE
           TOLERABLE, OF COURSE, BUT IT WAS SOMEBODY ELSE TELLING THEM
           WHAT PREVIOUSLY THEY DECIDED ON THEIR OWN. AND IN THIS CONTEXT,

           THERE WAS A CENTRALIZATION OF AUTHORITY IN THE SENATE WHICH DID
           NOT SERVE IT WELL. THEN CAME THE DECISION TO OVERTURN RULE 16.
           AND, CIRCUMSTANCE OUR GOVERNMENT BECAME INCOMPREHENSIBLE. I
           CANNOT THINK THE NUMBER OF DAYS -- HOURS, I HAVE STOOD ON THIS
           FLOOR -- SOMETIMES THERE AT THE DESK AS CHAIRMAN OF THE FINANCE

           COMMITTEE OR RANKING MEMBER, SOMETIMES BACK HERE -- LOOKING AT
           THE FINAL PRODUCT OF SOME MASSIVE, MYSTERIOUS, INPENETRABLE
           CONFERENCE THAT WENT ON SOMEWHERE IN THIS BUILDING, DOWNTOWN,
           ELSEWHERE THAT WOULD BRING TO OUR DESKS AT THE END OF THE
           CONGRESS 1,500-PAGE BILLS THAT DID EVERYTHING -- COMBINDGEZE

           THE APPROPRIATIONS WITH THE -- COMBINED APPROPRIATIONS WITH THE
           LEGISLATION, WITH THIS, WITH THAT. NOBODY KNEW -- NOT ONE
           MEMBER OF THIS BODY COULD ATTEST TO HAVING READ THE BILL.
           PROBABLY NO ONE PERSON. OBVIOUSLY SOME PERSONS HAD READ SOME
           PARTS. BUT THAT'S NOT A DEMOCRATIC PROCEDURE. THAT'S NOT A WISE

           PROCEDURE. AND IT CAME ABOUT THROUGH A COMBINATION OF THE
           BUDGET COMMITTEE AND THIS BREAKING AWAY OF OUR
           LONG-ESTABLISHED, UNRESTRAINT ON OURSELVES THAT THERE ARE 13
           APPROPRIATIONS BILLS, EACH MUST PASS, AND, THEREFORE, IF
           SOMEHOW YOU COULD GET A MEASURE ON AN APPROPRIATIONS BILL, IT
           WOULD BECOME LAW, EVEN IF IT MIGHT NOT MAKE IT THROUGH THE
           AUTHORIZING COMMITTEES. WELL, YES. BUT WHAT LAW?
           WHOSE LAW?
           WHO KNEW?

           COMMITTEES HAVEN'T BEEN UP THERE FOR TWO CENTURIES WITHOUT
           ACQUIRING SOME EXPERIENCE IN THEIR MATTERS. AND HERE, SIR, WE
           ARE -- WE'RE HEADING FOR THE SAME THING, BECAUSE THE RULE WAS
           OVERTURNED OVERTURNED, APPROPRIATIONS BILLS DON'T GET PASSED
           ANY LONGER. IT'S NOW WE HAVE TWO WEEKS LEFT IN JULY AND AUGUST
           -- MR. PRESIDENT, IS MY TIME EXPIRED IN MAY I ASK FOR FIVE
           ADDITIONAL MINUTES?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR REQUESTS -- REID REEVERD THE
           SENATOR HAS FIVE ADDITIONAL MINUTES.
           

           MR. MOYNIHAN: WE'RE HEADING FOR THIS SITUATION. THERE'S EVEN
           TALK THAT THE TAX BILLS WHICH WE'LL BRING TO THE FLOOR TOMORROW
           OR WEDNESDAY, NEED NOT BE RESOLVED IN THIS PERIOD OF TIME. THEY
           CAN LAY OVER UNTIL SEPTEMBER. WELL, THAT MEANS THEY'LL LAY OVER
           UNTIL THE LAST DAY OF THE CONGRESS, THE LAST MOMENT OF THE
           SESSION. AND, IN THE MEANTIME, WE CAN EXPECT -- OH, HALF THE
           APPROPRIATIONS BILLS TO HAVE PASSED. I WONDER IF I MIGHT

           ADDRESS A QUESTION TO MY FRIEND FROM NEVADA. IF THE SENATOR
           FROM NEVADA -- IF I MIGHT INTERRUPT -- HOW MANY APPROPRIATIONS
           BILLS HAVE PASSED THIS YEAR?
           WOULD HE HAPPEN TO KNOW?
           THERE'S NO REASON TO KNOW, BUT --
           

           MR. REID: I SAY TO MY FRIEND FROM NEW YORK, SURPRISINGLY, WE
           HAVE, IN SPITE OF THE LEGISLATING ON APPROPRIATIONS BILLS, WE
           PASSED I THINK SEVEN APPROPRIATIONS BILLS AT THIS STAGE. MR.
           MOYNIHAN: SEVEN?
           
           

           MR. REID: GIVE OR TAKE A BILL OR TWO. BUT, FOR EXAMPLE, WE WERE
           ABLE ON THURSDAY TO PASS THE COMMERCE-STATE-JUSTICE, WHICH HAD
           HUNDREDS OF AMENDMENTS FILED -- HUNDREDS OF AMENDMENTS ISLAND
           -- AND IT WAS POLE THROUGH THE COOPERATION OF THE MEMBERSHIP
           THAT WE WERE ABLE TO GET THOSE --
           

           MR. MOYNIHAN: AS WE BEGIN TO COME TO OUR SENSES THAT HAS
           BROUGHT US TO THIS POINT, WE PASSED SEVEN -- I DON'T THINK
           WE'LL PASS 13. I THINK THAT OUR TAX LEGISLATION WILL -- HAS
           EVERY PROSPECT OF BEING AN ABOMINATION. THE UNITED STATES
           SENATE CANNOT PASS LEGISLATION WHICH IT HAS NEVER READ AND DOES
           NOT UNDERSTAND. THAT IS WHAT HAS BEEN THE CONSEQUENCE OF THIS

           NEW SITUATION. IN ADDITION TO WHICH THE DISTINGUISHED MINORITY
           LEADER IS PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FINE INITIATIVE OF THE
           MAJORITY LEADER THAT SAYS, NO MORE WRITING LEGISLATION IN
           CONFERENCE COMMITTEES. THAT IS AGAINST ALL OF OUR RULES BUT HAS
           CREPT INTO OUR PRACTICES. AGAIN, THAT THE AUTHORIZING

           COMMITTEES ARE GRADUALLY BEING MARGIN AL ICED AND HAVE -- ARE
           GRADUALLY BEING MARGINALIZED AND ARE CENTRALIZED --
           

           MR. REID: WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FORD A SGHE
           

           MR. MOYNIHAN: I WOULD.
           

           MR. REID: THE SENATOR HAS GRAPHICALLY ILLUSTRATE WHAT HAD
           HAPPENS UNDER OUR PRESENT SITUATION. LAST FALL YOU'LL RECALL,
           BEING MORE SPECIFIC THE HUGE DOCUMENT WE WERE ASKED TO VOTE ON.
           WHILE A FEW PEOPLE HERE NEGOTIATED THIS BILL FOR ALL OF US. AND
           IT WAS WELL OVER 1,000 PAGES, AND IT WAS SOMETHING THAT YOU OR
           I DIDN'T READ OR ANYONE ELSE READ; ISN'T THAT TRUE?
           
           

           MR. MOYNIHAN: I STOOD HERE SAYING, I HAVEN'T READ T I KNOW NO
           ONE HAS HO HAS READ T
{END: 1999/07/26 TIME: 11-30 , Mon.  106TH SENATE, FIRST SESSION}