Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003-Conference Report

MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG, IMPROVEMENT, AND MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2003-CONFERENCE REPORT

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator in charge left the floor and said I could allocate some time to myself. I will not use much. I note the presence on the floor of the chairman of the Budget Committee. He wants to speak. Clearly, I want to speak for no more than 7 minutes. I ask that I be advised when I have spoken for 5 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be advised.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Budget and Impoundment Control Act will be 30 years old soon-30 years in existence. Many pundits never thought it would survive even 1 year. As a freshman Senator, I worked along with my colleagues to help bring about the act, and then I was honored by this body to serve as chairman for many years.

Let me say that the drafters of the Budget Act knew it was a bold and daring piece of legislation, setting up a whole new way of considering legislation in the Congress. As a matter of fact, I am not sure they even knew how bold it would be. It, indeed, in many respects, changed the way the Senate does business-some for the better, some not so much for the better.

There is one provision that is called reconciliation-a strange word-and people wonder what it means. Let me just tell you, without trying to take much time, that our distinguished leader had an opportunity to move this bill under what is called a reconciliation bill. Do you know what that would have done, Mr. President? That would have limited debate, and it would have made the bill almost not amendable and, indeed, besides that, there would be no points of order. He chose, as the bill progressed through, to do otherwise.

So let me repeat. The drafters recognized the need to provide waivers of points of order in this bill. The waivers are just as important as the points of order. They are not there just because points of order might cause so much damage that you need to waive them. They are there because points of order can be a range of things, and the points of order can be waived because the Budget Act says you can waive them, unless in fact they are important to fiscal responsibility or, in some way, violate the soundness of a Budget Act.

So let's be clear. The budget resolution before us, which we adopted back in the spring under the leadership of Senator Nickles, authorized spending over the next decade of $400 billion for reform of the Medicare Program with prescription drugs. Let me repeat. The fiscal dimensions are $400 billion. You would think if you are going to make a point of order about this bill being out of line budgetwise, somebody would be here saying it spends more than $400 billion, it breaks the budget, would you not?

Most logically, any Senator who says there is a point of order against this bill would say, well, we didn't think it spent more than was prescribed in the Budget Act. They are right, it didn't.

As a matter of fact, using technical rules of evaluation, it spent less than allowed. It spent $395 billion. You would almost think it should get an accolade instead of a point of order. It should get a bow, a ribbon instead of a point of order. It spent less than the Budget Act, and yet a Budget Act point of order is being raised against it. Let me explain.

I know that members of the committee and the leader himself tried their very best to keep this bill under $400 billion, and they succeeded. But you had to provide 10 years of estimates, the sum total of which could not exceed $400 billion. Are you with me, Mr. President? They had to produce a bill with 10 years of estimates, the sum total of which did not exceed $400 billion. The sum total of this bill is less than the Budget Committee gave them to spend. So it didn't break the budget.

One of the years-1 of the 10 years-they could not make the estimate for that year fit the estimate of the 10 years.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. I will complete in 2 minutes.

The committee could not make this proposal fit in each piece of the 10 years. In other words, if you look along and keep adding up the years, it is $395 billion. But the committee also made some estimates by the year, and one of those years is $4 billion high-got it, $4 billion in an estimating bonanza of $400 billion.

First of all, everybody knows they are estimates, the best you can do. I have had to rely upon them and got accused that I shouldn't have relied upon them when I was the budget chairman, but we did. So there is one year that is $4 billion off in the estimating of 10 years. But every other year is within, which is truly remarkable, and the sum total is $395 billion.

Mr. President, I say to fellow Senators, the truth is the Budget Act point of order should not be used for a frivolous matter-$4 billion off in 1 year with a $400 billion bill. It should not be used to cure technical matters-$4 billion in a 10-year bill of $400 billion. I am sure my friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee, will talk about some of the other technical issues regarding programs. But the biggest issue is fiscal soundness.

We have from time to time in a Budget Act authorized $300 billion for a program over 10 years, and I can tell you, many times a committee came back with a bill that was $300 billion, but for each of the 10 years it didn't fit the number.

This Senator, as chairman of the Budget Committee, wouldn't have dared to get up and say the bill should fail on a point of order because it violates the budget and, thus, the Budget Act should be used to kill it because they had done a great job and had met the total, but you can't, in estimating, make every year hit it right, right on the head.

I submit that a point of order should not be used. The leader's waiver of that provision should be sustained because we are using the Budget Act to try to kill a Medicare bill that is fiscally as sound as, if you are just talking about fiscal soundness, not substance-the points of order are not substance; they have to do with dollars-if you are just off 1 year out of 10 but not on the total of 10, you should not invoke the point of order. It should be waived as requested by the majority leader.

I thank the Senate for the 7 minutes. I yield the floor.