[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 64 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5277-S5278]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             FRESHMAN FOCUS

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as you know, over the last several weeks, 
the Senate freshmen have taken time on various occasions to come to the 
floor to talk about the agenda that we believe was prescribed during 
the last election, the agenda that the 11 of us, as new Republican 
Senators, would like to see pursued in the Senate.
  Our plan was to talk in morning business about that this morning. As 
you know, the order has been changed, and we respect that. But until 
such time as the majority leader and the minority leader are able to 
pull up the bill, we would like to proceed to talk about some of the 
things that we think are most important.
  We call this the freshman focus, and we think we do bring to this 
body something of a unique point of view in that each of us, of course, 
just came off an election, each of us campaigned for a very long time 
in our States, each of us talked to many people, and each of us 
believes that there was a message in the election and that the 
responsibility of responsive Government is to respond to that election 
and to the voice of the voters as we see it.
  So, Mr. President, we, I think, have going on here a great debate. It 
may not take the form of great debate in terms of its physical 
approach, but the great debate is between the way we see things 
happening, the way we see ourselves as a society and as a country 
entering into the new millennium, entering into the year 2000 in a 
relatively short 5 or 6 years and what shape we see ourselves in as a 
nation going into that new millennium.
  The great debate is whether or not we want to go into that new 
century continuing as we are financially, continuing as we are with the 
huge debt that we have, continuing as we are with deficits of $250 
billion in that foreseeable future or, in fact, whether we want to seek 
to make some changes so that we go into that millennium, so that we go 
into that new century, with a nation that is financially and fiscally 
responsible, and now is the time we have to do that.
  That is the great debate, the great debate that has been going on in 
the House, the great debate that is going on here, the great debate 
that will take place over the next year in terms of the budget. 
Basically, the debate is overspending.
  We all have charts. Unfortunately, I am not armed with a chart this 
morning. The chart would show, however, that spending has gone up in 
this kind of fashion, spending has gone up in the neighborhood of 5 
percent a year for many years and is designed to continue to go up at 5 
percent a year for the foreseeable future. The President's budget this 
year has a 5.5-percent increase in spending.
  So we talk a lot about the deficit, the deficit which is a result, of 
course, of the difference between revenues and outlays, but really is 
the result of spending. If there was a message that I think was 
universally discernible in November, it was that Government is too big 
and that Government spends too much. Most people agree with that.
  If we are to have a reasonable debate, there needs to be a couple of 
things agreed to, a couple of things have to be stipulated. One struck 
me some time back in our church in Cheyenne that we attend, and the 
message that the pastor had was that every day each of us has a 
responsibility to make this a better place to live.
  Whether a person is a Senator, whether a person is a carpenter, 
whether a person is a rancher, we each, where we are, have a 
responsibility to make this a better place to live.
  We do it in our own ways. We each have something different to 
contribute. 
[[Page S5278]] But, Mr. President, we have, in addition to the 
citizenship responsibility, we have the responsibility of being 
trustees for this country, being trustees for the spending 
responsibilities of the United States--an awesome responsibility it 
seems to me, one that goes far beyond simply spending, goes far beyond 
arithmetic, goes far beyond accounting. It goes into the character of a 
nation.
  Whether or not we are able to pay for the things we want, whether we 
are willing to have a cost-benefit ratio and decide for ourselves if it 
is worth paying for, we pay for it. It is irresponsible to continue to 
put it on the credit card for our kids. Our credit card is maxed out.
  Within the next month or 2 months, we will be asked to raise the debt 
limit-- $5 trillion. Talk about charts that impressed me a little some 
time ago, in 1970, the budget of this country was about $204 billion, 
in that category. Twenty-five years later, the interest payment on the 
debt is more than the entire cost of the Federal Government in 1970--
not very long ago.
  So the question in the great debate is how do we go into the 21st 
century? How do we go into the new millennium? That is what the 
freshmen are focusing on.
  There is a great deal more to the debate on this question today of 
rescissions, this question today of whether we can find $15 billion to 
take out of spending, $15 billion that will not go on the debt. There 
is more to it than just this spending issue. It has a good deal to do 
with national character.
  So that is what it is about. That is what the freshmen are seeking to 
do. Unfortunately, the opposition, rather than taking a look at where 
are we, where do we need to go, what changes do we have to make, what 
changes did voters ask for, are saying, ``Oh, no, we cannot change. We 
want to continue with the programs we have had. We want to continue 
with the war on poverty''--which has failed. The war on poverty was 
started 30 years ago, and there are more people in poverty now than 
there were then.
  We have the greatest opportunity now than we have had for a very long 
time, a great opportunity to take a look at where we are going. I 
suggested there needs to be a stipulation in this great debate, and 
that stipulation also has to be not only do we have a responsibility to 
make it a better place to live, but also that people who want to make 
changes have as much compassion and as much caring as do those who do 
not. The idea that people wanting to make a change and wanting to take 
a look at where we are going signifies that we want to throw everyone 
out on the street and there is no caring and that it is simply a 
mathematical thing is absolutely wrong. I am beginning to hear it. I 
hear it almost hourly from the opposition--the reason for not making a 
change is because it is not compassionate.
  Let me suggest if we want to take a look at the long range, we want 
to take a look at your kids, my kids and our grandkids, we need to have 
a little compassion about that. We need to have a little compassion 
about what kind of a financial position and responsibility for our 
Government will we have in the year 2000 unless we make some changes.
  Of course they are difficult. Of course they are difficult changes. 
We must make them. Americans voted for change in 1994.
  We have the greatest opportunity we have had for a very long time to 
take a look at programs and say are they fulfilling the objective? Is 
that the best way to deliver services to people who need them? To take 
a look at welfare and say, the purpose of welfare is to help people who 
need help and to help them back into the workplace. A hand up, not a 
handout.
  That is what we ought to be looking for, and to measure those 
programs and see if, indeed, they are successful, or is there a better 
way to do it. Do we need 165 programs designed to go from school to 
work? Of course not. We need to put them together and look at duplicity 
and look at repetition and see if there is a more efficient way to do 
it. That is what this debate is about.
  Frankly, we are having a hard time keeping that debate in the arena 
of finding better ways to help people help themselves. That is what it 
is for.
  Mr. President, I hope as we go through it, there will be a 
stipulation that we are setting out to find a better way, a better way 
to help people who need help; a better way to provide incentives for 
everyone to work and take care of themselves; a better way for the 
business sector to invest, to create jobs, so that we can help 
ourselves; a better way to eliminate bureaucracy and duplicity so that 
we can deliver services.
  That is what it is about. That is the responsibility that we have.
  Mr. President, I thank you, and I want to yield to my good friend 
from Pennsylvania, who certainly is one of the leaders in this effort 
to find better ways so that we have a society of self-improvement 
rather than dependence.
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may proceed as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________