[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 3, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S20-S21]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      REFLECTION ON THE PAST YEAR

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to reflect a little bit on the past 
year but, more importantly, to reflect on it as it pertains to what we 
do in the coming year. I am sorry this year has ended in the conflict 
over the balanced budget. That has been one of the principal items of 
this entire year. We have worked on it almost all year. We worked on it 
in terms of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. It failed 
by one vote. We worked on it then through the appropriations process 
into a reconciliation balanced budget bill, which changed a great many 
things. A balanced budget is much more than, of course, simply 
arithmetic or numbers. It is a fundamental change in the direction this 
Government takes.
  So I am sorry that we ended up with this conflict, and I am sorry 
that Federal employees have become sort of trapped in it. I hope that 
that changes soon. I hope more than anything that we are able to 
complete the work that we started on the balanced budget.
  I have been in this body now just for 1 year, and I came, as I think 
most of us came, in 1994, with a message from home that the Federal 
Government is too big, it costs too much, and the Federal Government is 
generally too intrusive in our lives. I believe that, and I think most 
people believe that.
  One of the measurements of good government is the responsiveness, I 
think, to the voters, and to what people at home have suggested. So 
this year, then, in terms of those kinds of things, it has been a 
little frustrating. It has been frustrating in that we have come up to 
a balanced budget amendment, which I thought was necessary, but we 
could not quite get there.

  We have done a great deal on welfare reform. We passed it in this 
body with a good vote, and now there has been some change in terms of 
accepting that reform. Then there is regulatory reform. Almost 
everybody recognizes that the regulatory system results in 
overregulation and results in regulation that is not efficient, and 
that the cost benefits often need to be measured there.
  On the other hand, it has been a very fulfilling year, it seems to 
me. I came to Congress in 1989 when Dick Cheney went over to Defense, 
and I spent 5 years in the House. During that time, it seems to me, 
there was very little real consideration of change, little discussion 
of fundamental change in the way this Government behaves and operates. 
Instead, we sort of dealt with the policies that had been there for a 
very long time. There was a good deal--and continues to be--of 
protection of the Great Society kind of programs, the little tinkering 
around the edges when they came up for renewal. If they did not work 
right, if the results were not what we hoped they would be, whenever 
there was measurement of results--which, frankly, is not often enough 
--then the chances are that we put more money into the program. We 
continued to increase spending over this period of time, and the effort 
was basically to see how much increase there was going to be. If we did 


[[Page S21]]
not like the product, we would put more money in it. Welfare is one of 
the best examples. Of course, more people are in poverty now than when 
the welfare program started over 30 years ago. The program needs to be 
changed.
  I understand resistance to change. Change is much more difficult than 
maintaining the status quo. I think that is part of what is happening 
here. Some are simply concerned about the uncertainty of change. Nobody 
knows exactly what will happen. Others, of course, have real 
philosophical differences. There are people in this body and in this 
country who believe more Government is better, who believe that the 
answer to questions that exist with respect to jobs and the economy and 
services is more Federal Government. I do not happen to share that 
view. Frankly, the majority does not believe that.
  But this has been, I think, a very encouraging year, a very exciting 
year, because we have reformed and reframed the debate. Instead of 
extending all the programs and talking about tinkering around the 
edges, we have begun to look at the merits of the programs and ask, 
``Is this a program that needs to be carried out by the Federal 
Government, or is it one that could be better carried out by the State 
government? Is it accomplishing the purpose for which it was 
established?'' We are beginning to measure some results, which is kind 
of an unusual process in the Federal Government. So we have changed the 
way we look at things. I think that is very helpful.

  The debate now has been about holding down spending, not about how 
much you are going to raise it, but whether we can hold down the rate 
of spending some. That is a difficult thing to talk about because what 
do you hear on the floor and in the media? ``They are going to cut 
Medicare. There will be no more benefits out of Medicare.''
  We know that is not true. We know that Medicare, under the proposal, 
continues to grow at 7.2 percent annually, as opposed to 10 percent, 
and the spending per beneficiary goes from $4,700 to over $7,000. But 
we hear it is going to be cut, that we are going to ruin it, 
exterminate it, because that is the easier conversation. But we have 
talked about that and we changed that conversation.
  Instead of talking about more and more intrusion into State and local 
government, we are talking about block grants, about the 10th 
amendment, which says clearly that those things not set forth in the 
Constitution to be done by the Federal Government should be left to the 
States and the people. It is pretty clear and simple.
  I happen to come from a small State. Some of our needs are quite 
different than they are in New York. Greybull's welfare problems are 
different than they are in Pittsburgh. We need to be able to manage it. 
Instead of talking about how that should grow on the Federal level, we 
are talking about block grants. We have changed the discussion, and 
that is healthy.
  We are talking about balancing the budget. We have not seriously done 
that for 30 years. Sure, somebody mentions it occasionally. The 
President has agreed to it. I will have to admit there have not been 
results from that yet, but I think that perhaps there will be. To 
balance the budget in 7 years with CBO numbers is a promise that we 
have. That is a change.
  So, Mr. President, we have not accomplished all that we would like, I 
am certain. On the other hand, I have to tell you that I am encouraged 
that we have changed the direction of this body and I think we have 
changed the framing of the discussion; the purposes have changed. We 
are going in a different direction. We have not accomplished as much as 
we would have liked, but we will.
  In this coming year, it is very important to continue what has begun. 
Mr. President, I wish you and my colleagues well as we enter into a new 
year, representing the people of America. We are, after all, the board 
of directors, the trustees here. We are responsible to respond to our 
people. We are responsible to respond to what the voters said. We are 
responsible to make some decisions, by the way, instead of negotiating 
for 2 months. I am pretty exasperated with that process, as I know 
everybody is.
  In any event, it is a new year, a good year, and I look forward to 
some fundamental changes in this country, as I think most people do.

                          ____________________