[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 72 (Monday, June 12, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4944-S4946]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    DECIDING THE SENATE'S PRIORITIES

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Ohio. I certainly 
could not agree more that when we have--as we do and will--a surplus, 
we need to decide where our priorities are in terms of spending those 
dollars. I can tell you, if they are just left here, they will be 
spent. If our priorities do lie in funding what our programs are, in 
ensuring that Social Security maintains itself, and that Medicare is 
there, and when we want to ensure that we keep a balanced budget and 
start to pay down our debt, then we have to commit ourselves to do 
those things. I think it is an excellent idea for those dollars, so 
that they won't be spent for something else. I also think we ought to 
pay down the debt, and we hopefully will have some opportunity to get 
some tax relief. It is tougher, interestingly enough, when you have a 
surplus to make sure that the money is used as beneficially as when you 
are dealing with a deficit. That is what I wanted to talk about this 
morning.
  That is how we might make Government more efficient. You know, we 
talk about that a lot. Most of us talk about less Federal Government 
and how do we make sure the dollars are spent as efficiently as they 
can be and, hopefully, how we can arrive at a situation where those 
people who earn the dollars can keep more of them. That ought to be 
part of our goal.

  I think there are some things that this Congress ought to consider, 
and they seem very important to me--ways in which we intend to ensure 
that the Government is more efficient, that the Federal Government 
indeed is limited in size, and that we make certain the Federal 
Government does those things that are defined in the Constitution and 
not those other things that are not and should be left to the States 
and the people. That is what the Constitution says. That is what most 
of us want.
  Particularly, I suppose, when you come from a State such as mine, 
Wyoming, where we have a relatively low population, where we have a lot 
of open space and not too many folks, then the way you have programs 
function is different than it is in Connecticut and different than it 
is in Pittsburgh. So you really need that flexibility and you need to 
be doing as much governance as can be done, in my opinion, as close to 
people as possible so that it fits. That is what we ought to be talking 
about--less bureaucracy and more responsiveness, and doing what we need 
to do. This budget process that we are going through now is quite 
important, not only with respect to spending the money, but we really 
define for ourselves what we think the priorities are in terms of the 
needs of the American people, and what the role of the Federal 
Government is to help satisfy those needs. It is difficult.
  I think it is fair to say that governments have less discipline than 
the private sector. There is really nothing to force the Government to 
have to behave in different ways, which is true in the private sector. 
I come from a business background. I tell you, you have

[[Page S4945]]

to make changes from time to time because the economy makes it 
imperative that you do that, or you go broke. You are forced to change. 
That is not so with the Government. There is no competition there, so 
you are not forced to do things. I am not totally critical of the 
Government, by any means. I am only saying that there is a difference 
between how you run the Government and how you run the private sector. 
I believe there are a number of factors in the private sector that 
would help make the Federal Government much more effective. You have to 
force change. Change doesn't come about easily in a bureaucracy. 
Governments tend to go on as they have in the past. They tend to say 
that is what we have done before and what we will continue to do. It is 
resistant to change. So seldom are they forced to reorganize. Agencies 
are insulated, to some extent, by the Congress. If we don't do some 
things to bring about change, then change doesn't come about. I think 
it is our responsibility to do some of those things.
  There are a number of ideas that I believe will help strengthen the 
system--ideas that are adapted from the private sector, to a large 
extent. They have to be initiated by the Congress, and there has to be 
a system in which the Congress exercises its responsibility for 
oversight to make sure that does not happen. There has to be a way that 
things are audited, that things are reviewed to see if, in fact, we are 
accomplishing the things that are set out to do.
  The first would be, of course, to establish goals.
  I have recently been involved in electric deregulation. We have had 
great battles over it. I am not sure what is going to happen or whether 
it will be done this year. We are seeking, however, to make some 
changes in the electric generating and distribution system. It has been 
a regulated utility for years. We want to see if we can't do it a 
little better in other ways.
  Do you know what else we should do, in my opinion? We haven't really 
defined what we want. We get all wrapped up in what is going on. We are 
going to do this, or that, or this, when we haven't really clearly 
defined what we want the end result to be.
  It seems to me it would be very productive if this Congress--maybe 
when we start to deal with campaign finance--knew what it wanted in the 
end. I think we could do that. If you are not certain where you are 
going--remember the old story of Alice in Wonderland. She fell through 
the hole and talked to all of the different people, and didn't get any 
advice. Finally, she saw the Cheshire cat up in the tree, and she was 
right at the junction of the road. She said: Cat, which road should I 
take? The cat said: Where do you want to go? She said: I don't know. 
The cat said: Then it doesn't make any difference what road you take.
  That is kind of where we are sometimes. If we don't know what we want 
to accomplish, then how do we get there?
  I think instead of emphasizing the process, which we often do, we 
then need to measure results. That is really what it ought to be about. 
That is where you have the flexibility by saying you worry so much 
about how you get there but you measure the results at the end. There 
are things we can do.
  Congress needs to first define where we are going, define how we get 
there, and then measure the results; give some flexibility so that 
things can be done differently in different places. The health care 
system delivery is much different in Wyoming from what it is in 
California. You have to have some flexibility to do that.
  Congressional oversight is something that, unfortunately, we probably 
don't do as much as we should. That is what committee meetings are for. 
That is what audits are for. When you pass a law and say here is where 
we want to go, then you have to say: How are we getting there? We don't 
do that well.
  The Republicans and the majority party have been putting emphasis on 
oversight. I think that is a great thing to do. That is why I like 
biennial appropriations--so you don't have to spend 2 years doing 
appropriations. We ought to do them every other year, and spend the 
interim year seeing if the money we are spending is doing the things we 
intended.
  The Constitution divides the responsibilities in the Federal 
Government for a reason; that is, so that no one segment of Government 
controls everything. We have an executive branch; we have a legislative 
branch; we have a judicial branch. It is for good reason: To divide and 
strengthen the responsibilities and power so there is balance.
  We, frankly, find that particularly this administration, as their 
time expires, is moving far beyond what the legislature has authorized 
and doing many things by regulation without talking at all with the 
Congress or, indeed, to the people. I think we have to really make sure 
that what the law intends is carried out.
  Congress passed a bill in 1998, which I authored, which defines the 
various activities of Congress: Listing those activities that are 
inherently governmental, listing those that are not, and listing those 
that could better be done by contract in the private sector. We passed 
that bill. We have had some progress. There has been a listing, 
generally.

  By the way, the Defense Department, in my opinion, does a better job 
of contracting than any other agency. That ought to be the role of an 
agency, to strengthen their ability to manage contracts, but to let 
those contracts go out to the private sector and people who do that 
professionally and more efficiently all of the time. I think that is 
something we really ought to be able to do.
  We also need, of course, to find a way to terminate programs.
  I mentioned in the beginning that Government tends to perpetuate 
itself. It seems to go on. I understand that. There ought to be a way 
to have some kind of sunset mechanism. After a period of time, 
hopefully, a job is finished. Not in every case, but in some cases the 
work is completed, and the mission is accomplished. Then we ought to do 
away with that agency or activity that was developed for a particular 
job. Unfortunately, in the political system, as you start a program of 
that kind, it builds its own constituency and seems never to go away. 
But we need to have a way to do that. I think the sunset idea is an 
interesting one.
  We have been talking about these for some time.
  I am really delighted to see in the news today what Gov. George Bush 
suggested. One is opening positions to commercial activities, and 
another one is result oriented and talking about doing the very things 
we are talking about here. If we could have an administration that 
agrees with Congress to move that way, we could do it.
  I close by saying I introduced last week the Congressional Regulatory 
Review Reform Act of 2000. In 1993, a bill was passed that said 
regulations needed to be sent back to Congress for some kind of 
oversight. We found increasingly, particularly in this administration, 
that there was an effort and an agenda to move regulation by Executive 
orders that could not get through the legislative process--to sort of 
go around it. Unfortunately, Congress has allowed this to happen and 
has delegated much of its legislative responsibility to the bureaucracy 
in terms of the regulations that are written to implement the law.
  Clearly, Congress can't go into huge detail, nor should it. But the 
important thing is that the regulations designed to implement the law 
need to carry out the intent.
  In my subcommittee last week we had a meeting on national parks. We 
have a very good national park bill that was passed in 1998. Now we are 
implementing that bill. We are having discussions as to how we ensure 
the regulations that are developed in fact bring about the change 
intended in the legislation and that regulations don't simply keep it 
as it was.
  The system we passed in 1996 has not worked as well as it should. 
Over 12,000 nonmajor rules and 186 major rules have been submitted to 
Congress--major rules being ones that have more than $100 million in 
impact on the private sector. Out of 12,000, only 7 resolutions of 
disapproval have been introduced pertaining to 5 bills. None has passed 
either House. So it isn't working as it should.
  We are trying to make some changes and say, rather than just going to 
the Office of Management and Budget, it ought to go to GAO, which is 
the general auditing organization. Then it should come to Congress so 
Congress

[[Page S4946]]

has an opportunity to take a look at it. If indeed it doesn't reflect 
the intent, Congress should have a chance to change it.
  Those are some of the things that I think would help implement the 
things we are doing. It would help to have a smaller and more efficient 
Government. It would help us, Mr. President, as you pointed out, to set 
aside some of the dollars that ought to be used to pay down the debt 
and go back to the taxpayers. I think we have a great opportunity to do 
that. I hope we focus on that.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, 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. STEVENS. 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.

                          ____________________