[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 38 (Monday, March 30, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2731-S2733]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           SPENDING AND TAXES

  Mr. THOMAS. I will take some time, and I think I will be joined by at 
least one Member, to talk just a little bit about spending and taxes in 
general.
  We are coming into a time, of course, this week, and I suspect now 
for a number of weeks, when the focus of this Congress will be budgets, 
on appropriations, on spending, as it should be. I want to talk a 
little bit about at least my perception of some of the broader 
objectives that go into debate that extends beyond mathematics, that 
extends beyond the dollars--actually measures these dollars, about how 
spending really impacts on the philosophy of government, how spending 
impacts upon the priorities that we have here in the Congress, how 
spending impacts upon our whole philosophy of whether or not we want to 
increasingly have a larger Federal Government delving into all 
activities of our lives, or whether, in fact, there is a limited role 
for the Federal Government as opposed to State and local governments, 
and if so, then what does our decision reflecting spending have to do 
with that.
  It does seem to me that one of the real issues that we have is the 
extent and the role of the Federal Government's involvement in all the 
activities in our country. Many would argue, and I argue, that the 
Constitution clearly defines that there is a limited role for the 
Federal Government. As a matter of fact, I think it says in the 10th 
amendment that those things not precisely and clearly described in the 
Constitution are left to the States and to the people. I take that part 
of the Constitution very seriously.
  As we talk about problems that arise throughout the country, some of 
them are appropriate to take care of in the Federal Government, some 
are not. We find on almost everything we talk about, not always 
recognized, not always defined, but I think if you look through the 
things we talk about, it is the basic first decision that probably 
should be talked about.
  We talk a lot about balancing the budget. We balanced the budget last 
year for the first time in, what, 25 years. That was when income 
reached expenditures for the first time in 25 years. That is an 
excellent start. I think it is something this Congress ought to be 
particularly proud of. It is an excellent start.
  But you can balance the budget at almost any level if you continue to 
increase revenues, increase taxes, increase the burden of taxes on the 
American people. You can increase revenues and spending can go on and 
still be balanced, and it gets away from the

[[Page S2732]]

philosophy of having a smaller Federal Government. So the choices that 
we make and the choices that we take are very often directed by 
spending.
  I think we find ourselves in an interesting situation, talking about 
surpluses. First of all, there is no surplus at this point even though 
there is an expectation of one. So we find ourselves in great debates 
over spending a surplus that has not yet appeared. Further, almost an 
indication that if there is a surplus, by gosh, we have to find some 
way to spend it. Now, that really doesn't necessarily need to be the 
case. We could apply it to the debt. We have a little debt, remember--
$5.7 trillion I believe it is--a debt that we could be paying. When we 
don't, pages like those sitting here before the Senate will be paying 
for it. We put it on the credit card and the credit card is maxed out. 
There are places to do something with surpluses besides spending them.

  The Senator from Massachusetts last Friday arose with four or five 
problems he talked about: We need school repair. Of course we need 
school repair. We need more teachers. I suspect we need more teachers. 
Nobody would argue with the idea there ought to be improvements in 
education. There ought to be more money spent in education, but there 
is a philosophy and there is a question as to where that money should 
come from. Schools have basically been under the control of the States 
and local school districts and local governments. As a matter of fact, 
out of all the billions of dollars we spend in education, only about 7 
percent is contributed by the Federal Government. That is almost all in 
special education. Each time there is a problem defined, it doesn't 
automatically mean that the best solution is to take Federal money and 
spend it, and spend it along with the Federal regulations that 
inevitably go with it.
  Mr. President, I think as we go through this next several weeks of 
debates and discussions about budgets and about appropriations some of 
the first decisions we make ought to be philosophical decisions as to 
what is the role of the Federal Government, what is the role of the 
Federal Government with regard to the taxes?

  I don't know about the rest of you, but I spent at least part of this 
lovely weekend doing some things that weren't that much fun, and that 
was doing my income taxes. I didn't complete it, by the way. I got to 
that page with 59 questions on capital gains, and I gave up for the 
weekend. There is some philosophy as to what we do about that, what the 
level of taxation ought to be, and we ought to be dealing with that. 
There are lots of things that we are talking about. We are talking 
about highway funding. A great debate is going on in the House. We have 
generally completed our debate here.
  We intend to spend more money on highways. Why? Because there is a 
need, but because there are the Federal taxes where we raise the money 
for highways. There was quite a large TV story the other night--on ABC, 
I think--about pork-barrel highway spending. They failed to mention 
during the whole 10 minutes that the dollars that came from there all 
came from the taxes you and I pay on a gallon of gas--the Federal tax 
that is raised for highways. There was no mention of that. I was a 
little distressed.
  So I would like to think, Mr. President, that as we go forward here, 
we give some thought to the appropriateness of programs, whether they 
should be at the Federal level, whether they should be at the State 
level, and how much government we want at the Federal level and 
centralized government and the things that ought to be there that are 
more properly done at the local level, more properly done at the State 
level. I have a bill that I think is very important which carries out 
the idea of contracting in the private sector. We have had, almost for 
50 years, a policy of taking those activities within Government that 
are commercial in nature and giving the private sector an opportunity 
to bid and to contract those. We have not done it. There has been a 
policy, but it has not been implemented. In doing that, we would keep 
more activities in the private sector, we would have a smaller 
centralized Government, and, indeed, save money.
  These are the kinds of philosophical issues that seem to me to be 
important as we move forward to try to determine what size of 
Government we think we ought to have and is necessary at the central 
level--to talk about the level of taxation and the variants of taxation 
among the American people. These are very important issues. Also, we 
talk about being responsible, in terms of the $5 trillion debt, and 
being responsible in terms of balancing the budget, being responsible 
in terms of having Medicare and Social Security that will continue, 
which is essentially and fundamentally based on sound economics. These 
are the things we talk about. I know the politics of it is different. 
Increasingly, our politics and our governance are driven by the media, 
by polling. It has almost become a sideshow of political activities 
rather than really talking about governance, which is what politics is 
all about.
  Mr. President, I have been joined on the floor by my friend, the 
Senator from Montana, and I would like to yield to him as much time as 
he might use to talk some about taxation and some of the areas of 
taxation that are of concern to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from Wyoming.
  Mr. President, the 45th parallel up there is the only thing that 
keeps us apart, and we get arguments over that. Nonetheless, we get 
along pretty well as neighbors. A lot of what I am going to talk about 
today is what we have in common. Our agriculture is similar, and a few 
other things that one might not recognize at first. Montana and Wyoming 
are watershed states, Wyoming is the only State in the country where 
the water runs from it from all four directions. There may be a reason 
for that, maybe not.
  My colleague talked about dealing with a $5 trillion national debt. I 
would take that another step forward and remind the American people and 
my colleagues who make decisions based on history that we have almost 
double that number in a little fund, an unfunded liability, when we 
talk about Social Security. So in our dealings with doing something 
about the national debt, we are in essence dealing with the problem 
that we have in Social Security.
  I thank my friend from Wyoming for allowing me to edge in on his time 
here.
  Mr. President, I have another subject on which I want to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Burns pertaining to the introduction of S. 1879 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, let me close by saying I hope that, as we 
go into this all-important time of budgets and spending, we really take 
a long look at how it impacts where we are going in the future and how 
it impacts the size and composition of Government. I hope it is not 
just driven by polls. I hope we don't find ourselves trying to get some 
political advantage by standing up when there is a problem somewhere 
and declaring that it is the Federal Government's obligation to fix 
everything by spending Federal money. I hope we don't live by sound 
bites indicating that these are the political things that people want, 
but, rather, talk really about how it impacts our future and our kids' 
future and our debt. I hope we don't contribute to the cynicism of 
Government by making it show business and sales promotion.
  Politics is the way we govern ourselves. Politics is how we take to 
our precincts the decisions of what kind of government we are going to 
have, what our spending matters will be, what our taxes will be, and 
what our debts will be. I think this administration has perfected the 
idea of using sales promotion and sound bites. I think polling has 
become sort of the direction for the White House and for this 
administration.
  Taking all the issues that people care about--of course they care. 
Who doesn't care about child care? Who doesn't care about education? 
Who doesn't care about school buildings? Who doesn't care about 
insurance for everyone? Social Security? Those are issues that everyone 
embraces. The question is how do you best deal with it?
  The White House tends to talk about the issue and declare their 
interest in

[[Page S2733]]

the issue with no plans to resolve it. It is sort of triangulation. If 
somebody in the Congress finds some sort of a resolution to it, then 
the White House claims success. If it fails to happen, then the White 
House criticizes Congress but never has a plan of its own. I hope we 
move away from that. I hope we really address the legitimate question.
  There are those who support more government, more Federal Government, 
a larger Government, and more taxes. It is a belief--and an honest 
belief, I think sometimes--that that is the best way to govern, that 
the best way is to take the money from people, bring it here, and then 
spread it out as they see fit. They believe that. I happen not to share 
that notion. I happen to share the notion that the better government 
and the stronger government is closer to the people who are governed; 
that in fact a smaller central government and a more efficient central 
government is better and leaves the ability to govern closer to the 
people.
  Mr. President, I hope those are some of the issues and some of the 
really basic fundamental things that we include as we talk about 
budgets and as we talk about spending.
  I thank you for the time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________