[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 39 (Monday, April 3, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2031-S2032]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is my understanding our focus this week 
will be on the budget, as it should be. One of the things, of course, 
that is very necessary is to address the budget each year, and one of 
the things we haven't done that we should do, and are doing this year, 
is to address the budget early so we don't find ourselves at the end of 
the session being sort of at the mercy of the President, who can kind 
of put the leverage on us to do what he wants us to do or else suspend 
Government operations and, of course, blame the Congress, which has 
happened before.
  In any event, when we are talking about budgets, it is easy to get 
off into the detail. That is what we will have to do. My friend from 
Nevada talked about the plans for spending, and that we will have the 
budget come up, and that we have fortunately, for the third time in 40 
years, some extra money--a surplus--in the operating budget. So many, 
particularly on the other side of the aisle, are searching for ways to 
spend the money, which is fine. But it seems to me that the responsible 
approach we ought to take and the approach I believe most Americans 
want us to take is to evaluate where we are with respect to Government, 
what the role of the Federal Government is in these various policies, 
and to make a determination as to what expenditures ought to be made 
that are consistent with what we believe to be the legitimate role of 
the Federal Government.
  We need to talk about an analysis of that because what happens for 
the rest of the year is pretty much guided by what you do in terms of 
the budget--unless, of course, you simply ignore the budget later on. I 
hope that is not the case. So we ought to be talking in the areas that 
will be under consideration. What is the role of the Federal Government 
with respect to the private sector? What is the role of the Federal 
Government with respect to local and State government? What role should 
be played there? It seems to me that that is basically where we ought 
to begin having made that decision, of course, which won't be unanimous 
because there is a good deal of philosophical difference as to where we 
ought to go.
  There are those who believe the more money you can spend on behalf of 
the people by the Federal Government, the better off you are. There are 
those of us who don't agree with that. Some believe the role of the 
Federal Government should be limited, that we ought to do the things 
that encourage people to do things, give them the ability to do things 
for themselves, and leave many decisions with the people in local and 
State governments. I agree with that.
  We ought to be doing something specifically for Social Security. The 
President has been talking for several years about ``let's save Social 
Security.'' But he doesn't have a program at all to do that. Just to 
say ``let's save Social Security'' isn't the proper approach. Indeed, 
we have ideas on this side of the aisle as to what we ought to do. 
Clearly, there are three options as to what you do to make sure the 
young people now paying in from their first paycheck 12.5 percent will 
be able to have benefits when the time comes to do that. One is to 
raise taxes. Very few people are for that. Another, of course, is to 
reduce benefits. Very few are for that. The third option is to take 
that account and make it a personal account for the person who has paid 
in the money, and allow, on their behalf, for this money to be invested 
in the private sector in equities or bonds or stocks so that the return 
on that trust fund will be much higher than it is now and the benefits 
will be there.

  We talk about paying down the debt. It is a great idea. We have done 
very little of that over time. We have a $5 trillion debt. This 
generation and preceding generations have spent it, and we are going to 
leave it up to others to pay for it. We have paid down the debt some 
with respect to taking Social Security money and putting it over there 
in place of publicly held debt, which is a positive thing to do; the 
costs are less. Really, to pay it down, we ought to be taking some of 
the surplus out of the general fund and putting it over there. Frankly, 
we don't do that unless we have a plan to do it--something like a 
mortgage in which we say over 15

[[Page S2032]]

years, or whatever, we are going to pay that off. Then we can take so 
much every year to do that, and we are dedicated to doing it. That is 
not the approach taken by the administration.
  There is great concern about tax reduction. I certainly believe we 
ought to take care of adequate spending, protecting Social Security, 
paying down the debt, but then what is wrong with tax reduction? That 
is where the money came from. Just because there is more money coming 
in as a result of a stronger economy doesn't mean we necessarily have 
an obligation to spend it, which is what the other side often says we 
ought to do. Much of the tax reduction is just a fairness issue. For 
instance, the marriage tax. Why is it that two people who are making a 
certain amount of money as two single persons get married and they have 
to pay more taxes on the same amount of earnings? That is very unfair. 
Part of what we talk about in tax reduction is a matter of fairness. 
Part of it is also incentives to do other things.
  So we will be talking about the Republican budget that will be coming 
before this Congress, in which we safeguard Social Security, shield 
Medicare, pay down the national debt, and at the same time work on the 
fairness issue. We will be protecting that surplus by not spending it, 
which is unique, only happening in the last several years. It 
strengthens Medicare by increasing--as we did last year and again this 
year--some of the reductions that were made in the balanced budget 
amendment. We will reduce the national debt, hopefully, by using 
operational funds to do that, as well as Social Security dollars. We 
will provide tax fairness for families. We need to do that. We need to 
balance the budget again, as we have for about the third time in 40 
years. So that is a very good thing.
  This budget, over time, reduces the debt by $177 billion, wipes it 
out over 13 years--if we stay with this budget. That is the kind of 
commitment we ought to make. We talked about tax reduction. Think about 
what it is. This budget would provide about $150 billion in 5 years in 
tax relief to American families--over $13 billion next year alone in 
the form of marriage penalty relief which, again, is a fairness tax. In 
the form of educational assistance now, is reducing taxes a bad thing 
if we are going to--increase the health care deductibility? I don't 
believe so. We are seeking to provide more coverage for people--without 
making a total government program out of it--by giving some kind of tax 
relief to do that.
  I think this is going to be a very important debate and an important 
discussion. I understand there will be differences of view. That is 
what this body is all about, talking about different philosophies. 
There will be different philosophies, such as saying the more spending 
we have, the better government is and the better off everyone is. That 
is a point of view. I don't happen to share it. I think there ought to 
be limitations on the size and role of government. We ought to be 
building opportunity instead of doing those sorts of things.
  I think we have a great opportunity to do some of the things we have 
talked about for years; that is, to reduce the debt, to secure Social 
Security, and to provide some incentives for people to do things for 
themselves.
  We have the opportunity, and we will be doing it this week. I think 
we ought to take into account not only the dollars that are there, and 
not only the specific expenditures, but how we envision the role of 
government over time. How does that fit into the idea of freedom and 
opportunity for all? What is the role of a government in that?
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________