On the recordApril 6, 2000
Absolutely, except they are not markedly different, but they are different. There is only one Bush plan, as far as the Senator from New Mexico knows. It is December 1, 1999. I have a copy of it in front of me. What has been offered in the Senate is not the Bush plan. Nonetheless, I don't want to argue that exclusively. I can let everybody know that it isn't the Bush plan. I think what is more important is that soon-to-be-President Bush is entitled to put a budget and a tax plan together, and he is entitled to use his best economic advisers. Let me suggest something. I honestly believe that if George W. Bush were the President instead of Bill Clinton being the President, there would be a couple of huge changes this year that would make it a lot easier to achieve the Bush tax plan. First of all, we would not have a President recommending that domestic spending grow at 14 percent a year. That is what we are fighting with here--not with a President who is trying to have small Government so he could give some relief to the taxpayers. We are arguing with a President who has the largest increase in discretionary spending since the Jimmy Carter years. That is a lot, when you can beat one of those years with inflation in double digits. This year it is 14 percent. That is what he is asking for. We have to compete with that in our budgets. We can't just do what a Republican President, who isn't elected yet, would recommend as to how we spend money.
Said by
Pete Domenici
Source
govinfo.gov