[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 23, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7888-S7889]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  TWO IMPORTANT ISSUES FACING CONGRESS

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I intend between now and 11 to be joined 
by several of my colleagues to talk about, I think, two of the issues 
the Senator from Georgia has talked about. One of them that is most 
important for us, tax relief--I appreciate his comments. The other 
currently is the hearings that are being held with respect to the 
illegal contributions for campaigns. These, I think, at least at the 
moment, are two of the most important issues that face the Congress, 
two of the most important issues, obviously, that face the American 
people.


                               Tax Relief

  First, in terms of tax relief, which has been talked about, it just 
seems to me that we have the opportunity for the first time in 16 years 
to have meaningful tax relief for Americans who are the ones who pay 
the taxes that support the Government. That is fairly simple. That is a 
fairly simple concept. And I wish, frankly, we could make it a little 
more simple. Obviously, in this place whenever there are issues, the 
technique is to make them as difficult as possible, to make them as 
detailed as possible, to make them kind of hard to identify. This one 
really isn't very hard to identify. The issue here is between having 
more Government and more revenue and more spending as opposed to the 
idea of seeking to reduce the size of Government, to reduce the 
spending, to reduce the burden on the taxpayers. And those things do go 
together.
  We talk a lot, importantly, about the idea of balancing the budget. 
But I think we have to keep in mind you can balance the budget in a 
couple of ways. One of them is to have the highest tax increase in the 
history of the world and continue to grow in spending. The other is to 
seek to reduce spending, to seek to involve the States, to seek to 
return more government to local government and, therefore, reduce the 
size of government and the demands on taxpayers. Frankly, I think that 
is what we have tried to do in the last couple of years. I am very 
proud of the record of the Congress in the last 2 or 3 years, simply 
because we have changed the debate 180 degrees.
  Three years ago we were talking about not how to reduce spending, not 
how to balance the budget, but simply, what new programs do we need? 
What do we need to do to continue spending? We were talking, then, 
about increasing taxes and did, in fact, increase

[[Page S7889]]

taxes--the largest that has ever been done. Now we are talking about 
how do you reduce the size of Government. There is no debate about 
balancing the budget. It is just, how do you do it? When do you do it? 
That is a complete turnaround. That is a complete change. We are 
talking, now, more about how do you block-grant to the States so they 
can make the decisions as to how best spend the money that goes there. 
Surely, the concept of the closer to the people served that government 
is, the more effective it will be, is correct--is correct.
  So I am very delighted that we have turned that thing around. Even 
though we continue to hassle, even though there will continue, always, 
to be debate about it, because, frankly, there is a legitimate 
difference of point of view. There are those who believe more 
Government is better. That is a legitimate point of view. It is not one 
that I subscribe to and I think, fortunately, not one that is 
subscribed to by the majority of the Members of Congress, but it is a 
legitimate viewpoint and it will continue to be argued--and it should 
be.


                     Illegal Campaign Contributions

  The other thing, it seems to me, that is very important currently is 
the debate that goes on about illegal campaign contributions. Here 
again, it seems to me when you are out in Wyoming and you are listening 
to the TV or you listen to radio, you kind of get the notion that the 
whole thing is about campaign finance reform. In the broad sense, it 
is. But the fact is, there is a difference between reforming campaign 
finances on the one hand and talking about illegal contributions on the 
other. Those are two different things.
  I think the Congress has a responsibility to have oversight hearings. 
The Congress has a responsibility to look into allegations of illegal 
contributions, and that is what the Thompson committee is primarily 
assigned to do. There is a difficulty in doing it, as we have seen take 
place here.
  The idea of having the Justice Department involved makes it more 
difficult. Their unwillingness to give immunity to witnesses to testify 
so you can arrive at the facts has been a completely difficult issue. 
And I understand. One reason for the idea of the Congress doing this 
oversight is that, obviously, agencies have allegiance to the people 
who have appointed them and they become very edgy when you get into 
this whole wilderness of allegations of wrongdoing on the part 
of people who are affiliated to the people you work for. I understand 
that. That is the reason for having Congress do it. That is the reason 
for having independent counsels do it. As the Senator from Kentucky a 
few moments ago mentioned, it is clear there is a reluctance on the 
part of Justice to get into what they perceive to be a political kind 
of activity.

  That is their task. The way they do it is to appoint an independent 
counsel. For some reason, the Attorney General has refused to do that. 
So what we are talking about, then, is having a hearing in which the 
truth about those allegations can be determined. I think that is, 
indeed, a responsibility of the Congress. It is something that we ought 
to be responsible to the American people to do, and I am delighted that 
it is happening. I only wish that it were less inhibited. I wish there 
were less constraints being imposed by the minority in this particular 
committee, less constraints being imposed by the Justice Department. We 
ought to know what the truth is, in these instances.
  I happen to be chairman of the subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific 
rim. Yesterday, we had a hearing for the nomination of the Assistant 
Secretary for the Asia-Pacific area, which we need very much, and a 
very learned person has been nominated whom I am sure we will support. 
But just to give you some idea of the involvement there, with regard to 
this investigation, of course the activities with respect to China 
influencing elections, foreign policy, has been talked about. President 
Clinton has said:

       [I]t would be a very serious matter for the United States 
     if any country were to attempt to funnel funds into one of 
     our political parties for any reason whatsoever.

  Likewise, the Secretary of State said that, if true, the allegations 
that China had launched a major effort to illegally influence United 
States elections ``would be quite serious.''
  I asked that question yesterday of the Secretary: Do you agree? And, 
of course, he said yes. The follow-up question, then, was both 
Republican and Democrat members of the Governmental Affairs Committee 
agree that there was Chinese involvement and a plan to move money into 
congressional elections.
  So I asked, I think quite legitimately, what is the plan, then? How 
does this affect our foreign policy with respect to China? And the 
answer was, well, we just don't know whether these are true. We don't 
know whether that's there. We haven't made any accommodation, which 
only leads me to believe that it is even more important for this 
committee to arrive at what the facts really are. If these allegations 
are true, what will it do to our policy? It ought to have some impact 
on policy, certainly. But, yet, the response from the administration 
is, well, we just don't know.
  We don't know either, but we ought to find out. And that is what the 
system is about. That is what the hearings are about. That is why there 
is such concern about the obstacles placed in the way of the committee 
by the Justice Department, by the Attorney General, by the 
administration--frankly, by our friends on the other side of the aisle, 
as to how we come to those decisions.
  So, I think we are involved in a very serious issue here. It is 
serious because it has to do with process. It has to do with the 
obligations of the Congress to determine if, in fact, in this case, 
there were illegal activities carried on. That's our job.
  Mr. President, I now am joined on the floor by the Senator from 
Arizona. I am very pleased to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming for 
obtaining time this morning to speak on this important issue.

                          ____________________