[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 23 (Monday, March 6, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1167-S1169]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         THE REPUBLICAN AGENDA

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, there are lots of things we can talk about 
and, indeed, should talk about. The Senator from Alaska talked about 
the problem of fuel, the problem of petroleum costs. That is a very 
real issue for us, of course, and one we need to deal with. We talk 
about the marriage tax penalty. There are all kinds of things we must 
talk about.
  There are some basic issues--and I have talked about them before--
that I believe strongly in, issues that clearly are the responsibility 
of this body and the responsibility of the Federal Government to deal 
with. Frankly, sometimes it is very difficult to do that.
  Unfortunately, I suspect that Presidential election years make it 
even harder than usual to do some of the things that clearly need to be 
done. One of the reasons, of course, is that there is a great tendency 
to talk about the things that can be used as campaign issues as opposed 
to seeking solutions. Unfortunately, that does happen.
  The majority party, this side of the aisle, does have an agenda. I 
think we have a strong agenda that reflects, at least in my State, the 
majority of voters. I have been back home in my State every weekend 
this year. We talk about those issues all the time.
  I am hopeful we can focus on those issues. I know sometimes it is 
difficult to get those issues on the floor. It is difficult to get them 
out and to find some sort of solution. I believe we have a 
responsibility to do that. I think we have a responsibility to do that 
as the majority party.
  There are times, of course, when, if we could pass something, the 
President would veto it. That is his choice. Let him veto it. I think 
it is our responsibility to bring those issues forward and to resolve 
them in a way that best fits our philosophy of what we think is good 
for this country.
  Certainly, there are a number of things that are very high on the 
agenda, such as the budget, such as the spending level and for what, in 
fact, the taxes are spent. Social Security, I am sure, is an issue that 
almost everyone is concerned about. Frankly, the younger you are, the 
more concerned about it you ought to be.
  Another issue is doing something about the debt that we still have, a 
substantial debt that we have incurred over the last number of years 
and now, apparently, are expecting somebody else to pay. Another issue 
is tax relief.
  These are the things we really ought to focus on; and I wish we 
would.
  We talk about the budget. It seems to me, there is probably nothing 
more important, in terms of gauging where we go with the Federal 
Government, than the budget, because the budget, after all, is sort of 
the limitation as to where we go. The limitation is the thing that 
causes us to have to establish spending priorities. Of course, if you 
had an endless amount of money, you would not need to have priorities; 
you would just spend money. I do not think many people would want to do 
that; certainly, most taxpayers would not.
  In the budget we have to find an amount. I think one of the things we 
are dedicated to, as Republicans, and, hopefully, all of us in the 
Senate this year, is to complete the budget and, subsequently, the 
appropriations, at the time set forth in the law and the time set forth 
in our operation here.
  Last year, for example, we waited too long. We were here at the very 
end of the session trying to complete the budget. Of course, there is 
always controversy at the end of the session. There are always 
decisions to be made when you are at the end of the session.
  It is even more difficult at the end of a session because the 
administration--particularly with this President--has used the end of 
the session as a very effective leveraging tool for the President to 
get what he wants; otherwise, he threatens to shut down the Government. 
Even though the President shut the Government down in the last 
experience, the Congress got the blame for doing that.
  We need to get this thing done. We need to get it done before the 
first of September, and certainly before the end of September which is 
the end of the fiscal year.
  We need to set the amounts so that they somewhat control growth. If 
you believe, as many of us do, that there ought to be some limitation 
to the size of the Federal Government, it ought to be constitutionally 
limited to those things that the Constitution provides. If you believe 
that most of the governing ought to take place at the local level, 
closer to the people, in the States and in the counties, then there 
ought to be some limit in growth.
  Last year, unfortunately--and I voted against the bill--we ended up 
with something like 7\1/2\ or 8 percent growth in the budget--too much, 
I think. That is too much. Hopefully, we can hold it this year to no 
more than the growth due to inflation.

  Of course, there are new programs that have to be funded. But there 
also ought to be a termination to some of

[[Page S1168]]

the programs that are there. It is very difficult to do that.
  Last year, we had sort of fancy footwork which allowed us to spend 
more than it really seemed as if we were spending. But now, finally, of 
course, it comes out that we spent more.
  In fairness, we also did some good things last year. For the second 
time in about 25 years we balanced the budget in operational dollars. 
For the second time in about 40 years, we did not spend Social Security 
money for the operations of Government. That is good. That is very 
good. Those are two things we ought to continue to do.
  One of the other things that ought to happen--there is a good 
opportunity this year--is to have a biennial budget so that, as is the 
case with most States, we can deal with the budget every other year, 
which then gives us a year to have oversight. One of the most important 
things that Congress ought to have is oversight of the agencies, 
oversight of the regulations, so that we can ensure that what we have 
done, what we have passed, what we have put into law, is, indeed, 
working; in fact, as the money is being spent, the accountability is 
there, and so on. We could do that. Hopefully we will be able to do 
that.
  It seems to me, the budget is key to managing the Government and is 
something we ought to be doing. Of course, the spending ought to be 
within the budget. We spend something like $1.7 trillion in our 
budget--almost an incomprehensible amount of money. Last year I think 
$586 billion of that was in discretionary spending. The rest of it was 
already set.
  This year we are dealing with the question of, if it was $586 billion 
last time, how much do we spend? Do we spend $600 billion? Do we spend 
$630 billion?
  It is hard. I think it is more difficult when you have the idea of a 
surplus than it is when you have the idea of a deficit. When you have a 
surplus, everybody has ideas as to where we ought to spend all that 
extra money. But it isn't extra money. It belongs to the taxpayers. 
When we have done those things we think are essential for good 
Government, then the surplus money ought to be used in other ways.
  It is my belief, and the belief of many, that we ought to limit the 
size of Government, we ought to limit the number of things we fund, and 
we need to have better Government. Certainly, we can do that. We can do 
that in our appropriations.
  Social Security. Almost everyone talks about Social Security. Almost 
everyone would agree that Social Security is one of the most important 
issues that we face. Social Security, of course, is not a retirement 
program. It is a supplement, but it is very important. When I talk, 
particularly to young people, most of them say: I will never see any 
benefits. They are probably right. Unless there are some changes, the 
program will not sustain itself.

  We have seen so many demographic changes. It started out at a time 
when almost 20 people were working for every one who was drawing 
benefits. Now it is about three. It will soon be two. Of course, it 
will be almost impossible then to provide those kinds of benefits over 
time. What do we do? We have to make some changes, pretty clearly.
  There are several options. One is to increase taxes. Social Security 
taxes are the highest taxes many people pay, about 12.5 percent of 
their earnings when we take into account what the employer pays--a very 
high percentage. So that is not a very popular option. We could reduce 
benefits. Benefits are not especially high now. That is not really a 
very attractive option either. So the third option is to increase the 
return on the money that is in the Social Security trust fund. There 
are billions of dollars there, of course. Under the law they can only 
be invested in Government securities. So they bring a relatively small 
return. And up until now, they haven't even done that because they have 
been replacing debt for other purposes.
  We have a plan that ought to be considered and put into place. The 
administration keeps talking about saving Social Security but doesn't 
have any plan to do so. I think there is a plan out there. There is a 
bill of which I am a cosponsor, along with others, that would, in fact, 
set up individual accounts and would take at least a portion, whatever 
portion we could decide upon, and that account would belong to you or 
to me. It would be there to be invested in your behalf. It could be 
invested in equities; it could be invested in bonds. The return would 
be substantially higher than it is now. Over a period of 40, 50 years, 
that would bring a really good return and fund the program.
  Furthermore, if one was unfortunate enough not to use the program, 
passed away before they had the chance to get the benefits, it would 
belong to them. It would be part of their estate. I think that is a 
reasonable way to do it, one we ought to fully consider.
  The other issue with which we need to deal, with regard to the budget 
and money, is the debt. We still have a substantial amount of debt. 
Part of it is privately held and part is held by Social Security 
dollars; part of it is publicly held. We talk all the time about 
reducing the debt. We did, indeed, last year put the Social Security 
money over there and replace publicly held debt. The fact is, when that 
is to be used for benefits, the taxpayers at that time will still have 
to bail out that money so it can be used in the trust funds.
  What we would like to do is, assuming we have paid what is 
substantially needed for programs, set aside Social Security money. If 
there is still some surplus there, I think we ought to dedicate a 
portion of that to paying off the debt and do it in a systematic way, 
not just say, well, we will pay it off when we get some money, 
whatever, but, in fact, say, we are going to set aside enough money 
each year, as you would on a mortgage on your home, and say, in 15 
years we will pay off this $3 trillion of debt or whatever it happens 
to be, publicly owned debt. Each year the payment on that will be in 
the budget. It will be there. It will automatically be spent for that 
purpose. And over a period of time we would do away with that debt that 
is owned by the public and earns a substantial amount of interest. I 
think a couple of years ago we paid about $380 billion a year on 
interest out of this budget of ours to do that. I think that is one of 
the things we clearly could do.

  Finally, of course, assuming there is still some left, we could, as 
the Senator from Alabama has said, do something about returning these 
excesses to the taxpayers who paid them in in the first place and 
certainly deserve to have them. Obviously, there are different ideas 
about how that is done, whether it is marriage penalty, estate tax, 
whether it is an across-the-board tax. The fact is, that money should 
go back to the people who paid it in. It is really bad policy to keep 
extra money in Washington because it will be spent. Once we have met 
our obligations, hopefully that can be returned.
  These are the things that are clearly before us. There are many other 
items, of course, but these are the ones we have to do. These are the 
ones the American people want us to do. These are the ones people in 
Wyoming talk about when I am there.
  I have to mention one other area they talk about that is a not in 
this category, but it has to do with management of public lands. It has 
to do with the so-called land legacy this administration has been 
working on for some time. Apparently the President, wanting to leave 
some kind of a Teddy Roosevelt legacy, wants to change the legacy he 
has before he leaves in several months, to have it be some sort of a 
setting aside of public resources for singular uses. That doesn't mean 
a lot to people who live in States where Federal lands are not a big 
issue. My State of Wyoming is 50 percent owned by the Federal 
Government; Nevada is 85 percent owned by the Federal Government, and 
it varies in between.
  The things that happen in those States economically and other ways 
are affected greatly by the management of those lands. We have seen a 
number of designs to set aside lands for uses different than have been 
in the law. The law now provides there will be wilderness set aside, 
or, indeed, that they be set aside for multiple use, which means for 
recreation, for hunting, for scenery, for grazing, for minerals, for 
all kinds of things under the multiple use concept.
  When that is not available, then the economies of our States suffer 
greatly, as do the long-term upkeep and availability and accessibility 
of those lands

[[Page S1169]]

for Americans. I happen to be chair of the National Park Subcommittee. 
The purpose of a park is to maintain resources and to provide an 
opportunity for its owners, the American people, to enjoy it. Now we 
find ourselves faced with a number of things being proposed that would 
limit access, limit the enjoyment of these lands: 40-million acres 
roadless in the national parks, for example, which has never been fully 
explained as to what it means. The Antiquities Act is being used to set 
aside lands only by action of the President. The Congress is not 
involved. BLM has set out a roadless plan without details; nobody knows 
exactly what that means. Does it mean you are not accessible to it, 
that there are no roads to get to it? Forest regulation--instead of 
having multiple uses, one of the concepts of the plan goes totally to 
ecology. No one knows exactly what that means.
  We have proposals from the administration to put billions of dollars, 
over a $1 billion each year, directly to purchase more Federal land. In 
the West, we think there is a substantial amount now.

  We have a lot of things to do. I am confident we will get to them. I 
hope we do. I think we should. There is a philosophy, of course, that 
is different among Members of the Senate as to the role of the Federal 
Government, as to the size of the Federal Government, as to whether or 
not in an area of education, for example, there is flexibility to send 
the money, if you are going to support education, to the States and let 
them decide how it is used, or do you have the Federal Government 
bureaucracy in Washington tell people how it should be used. Frankly, 
whether it is schools or whether it is health care, whether it is 
highways, whatever, the needs in Wyoming are quite different than they 
are in New York and Pennsylvania. The school district in Meeteetse, WY 
has different needs than Pittsburgh. We ought to be able to recognize 
that and allow local people to be able to do that.
  That is one of the big differences we have on this floor. The 
minority whip this morning talked about coming together to do things, a 
perfectly great idea. But as long as there is opposition to those 
concepts of letting States and counties participate, then it is very 
difficult to do that.
  I am hopeful we will look forward. I am sure we will; that is the 
system. This is a great system. There are weaknesses and complaints, of 
course. But after all, this is the best system in the world. It is up 
to us to make it work.
  I suggest the absence of quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as the Senator from Arizona, I 
ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________