[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 97 (Monday, July 24, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7464-S7466]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          GOALS FOR THE FUTURE

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to take some time today to talk 
about some of the things we are doing, some of the goals I hope we 
have, and the position we find ourselves in now as we come down to the 
last week prior to the August recess.
  When we come back from the August recess, we will have, I suppose, 
about 20 working days to finish this 2-year session of Congress, the 
106th session. We will have a great deal to do. As we go forward, as we 
take a look at the day-to-day tasks and activities that we have before 
us, I hope always that we look at where we want to go and what the 
goals are.
  Sometimes I feel as if we get wrapped up in the day-to-day operations 
and the day-to-day problems and we lose sight

[[Page S7465]]

of where it is we want to be. But overall, as a Member of the Senate, 
or as an American citizen who is interested in Government, and as a 
voter, it seems to me that we ought to look at where we want to be over 
a period of time. Many things are involved, of course, in that. I think 
we have to take a look at where we are with respect to the 
Constitution. Most of us believe this Constitution has given us the 
greatest country in the world. This Constitution has given us more 
freedom, more opportunity, and more privileges than anywhere else in 
the world. Are we continuing to support that Constitution? Where will 
we be in 50 years? Where will we be in 10 years?
  With regard to the role of the Federal Government, where do we want 
to be? What is our goal in terms of the future? What is the role of the 
Federal Government with regard to individual freedoms? What is the role 
of the Federal Government with respect to local government--the States 
and counties? Do we want a Federal Government that dominates all the 
things that we do? I don't believe so. So as we do each of these steps, 
it seems to me that it is appropriate to try to evaluate a little what 
we are doing and how that contributes to where we want to go. I know it 
is difficult. I think it is a challenge for each of us as we go about 
what we are doing.

  I am, frankly, proud of what we have been able to do in this session. 
I am pleased about the direction the majority in the Senate has taken 
with regard to many of the issues; with regard to the balanced budget; 
with regard to Social Security; with regard to spending as it reflects 
Social Security and the changes that we have made to stabilize Social 
Security, making it strong; what we have done in terms of education; 
where we are in terms of the military and the security of this country, 
which is probably the No. 1 responsibility of the Federal Government.
  So I think we ought to look at where we are. We are close now to 
finishing up. We have a number of things to do. But our determination, 
I believe, should be to stay within the budget we established. We have 
a budget program in which early this year we established spending 
limitations that we wanted to live within. It is difficult to do that. 
Everyone has a good idea as to where we can spend money. There are 
thousands of opportunities to spend money.
  Frankly, when you have a surplus, spending becomes easier; it becomes 
something that everybody sort of gets into doing. We a have balanced 
budget. We maintain Social Security without spending Social Security 
dollars. We have been working on strengthening Medicare and 
pharmaceuticals, and we must continue to do that. We need to set up the 
technique for paying down the debt that we ought to pay. We have an 
obligation to pay that so our children don't have to. We are dedicated 
to returning the surplus back to the taxpayers, the people who have 
paid in the dollars. The surplus, indeed, should go back to them.
  So it seems to me that we have a principle in our party, in this 
majority of the Senate, and in the Senate generally, for fiscal 
responsibility, for preserving Social Security, tax relief, and 
education. I am very proud of what we have done.
  With regard to balancing the budget, actually in the last several 
years--it is the first time since the Eisenhower administration in 1957 
that we balanced the budget with funds outside of Social Security. As 
the money comes in, of course, it comes in a unified budget. Social 
Security money has been borrowed and spent on programs other than 
Social Security. In 1995, when the Republicans took control of 
Congress, for the first time in 42 years, we began to balance the 
budget. I am pretty proud of that. I hope that we continue to be.
  In terms of Social Security, of course, the first obligation is to 
set aside those dollars so that they are not spent on something else. 
Under our system, all that we can do with Social Security dollars is to 
put them into the trust fund, a Federal investment, which yields a 
relatively low return. We are seeking to take a portion of the Social 
Security funds now and let that account belong to the individual, so 
that when young people take their first job and have 12.5 percent of 
their earnings set aside, a portion of that can be in an account that 
belongs to them, which can be invested in the private sector at their 
direction, which can return a much higher yield so that over time there 
will be benefits for young people, probably leaving the ones 55 and 
older not doing anything at all and making sure they stay as they are.

  Young people years from now will not have a return unless they do 
something different. We could increase taxes. Nobody is much interested 
in that. We could reduce benefits. That is not an answer. But we can 
increase the return on the trust funds. We are doing that.
  We are funding education at a higher level than before, at a higher 
level than the administration requested. But probably more important is 
the effort made to return the decisions made with regard to elementary 
and secondary education back to the schools--closer to the school 
districts and closer to the school boards, rather than having those 
decisions being made in Washington. I can tell you that the needs in 
Pine Bluffs, WY, are much different from those in Pittsburgh.
  You have to have some flexibility. We have the Ed-Flex bill so that 
those kinds of decisions can be made. I am pretty proud of that. I am 
very pleased with that. As the leader said, Senator Coverdell was the 
leader in doing those kinds of things.
  As for strengthening the military, we are finding ourselves, of 
course, at a time when we don't have the cold war, where the 
inclination is for the emphasis to be off the military. This is not a 
simple world. We find ourselves at times needing a strong defense. We 
have a voluntary military, which we should have. But you have to make 
it relatively attractive for people to go into the military and stay 
there. You bring people into the military and train them to be pilots 
and mechanics; then they leave. We have done something there. We have 
increased the appropriations. We have increased, hopefully, the pay. Of 
course, if you are going to have an up-to-date military, there has to 
be science moving forward in new weaponry. We have to have new weapons. 
It is most difficult to do that.
  This weekend I visited the Warren Air Force Base in Cheyenne, WY, one 
of the major bases. It is really one of the stable portions of our 
defense. We have to support that, of course.
  Health care, naturally, is one of the things that is most important. 
We have moved to improve some of the payments that were made. We made 
some reductions in the balanced budget amendment in 1996. However, the 
administration has made those even larger than was intended. We have to 
go back and reclaim some of those payments--particularly for outpatient 
care and hospitals.
  These are the things the majority party has worked toward and 
continues to work on.
  We find ourselves now in the appropriations process. There are 13 
appropriations bills to be passed. Hopefully, we will get 11 of them 
passed by the time this week is over. But it is very difficult. We have 
to challenge the administration. If they don't get their way--if they 
don't get the money they want in a particular appropriations--they are 
going to veto it. The President has threatened to shut down the 
Government, as he did before, and blame the Congress, of course. We 
have to keep that from happening. Nobody wants to shut down the Federal 
Government. We have different points of view. We have a different 
philosophy.
  That is what this is all about. We debate those philosophies. Some 
people think government ought to be involved in all of life's 
activities. Others think there is no end to the amount of abuses that 
can take place. Others believe there ought to be some limit on the 
rules of the Federal Government. After we strengthen Medicare and pay 
down the debt, we ought to return additional money to those people who 
have made the payments.

  With regard to paying down the debt, I am hopeful we can consider the 
proposition of a plan to do that. Again, our goal is to pay off the 
national debt of $6 trillion. It seems to me we ought to do it in an 
organized way--do it a little as a mortgage where you decide every year 
you are going to pay off some on the debt--and move toward doing that. 
If you keep saying, we will pay it down one of these days, it never 
happens. The interest on that debt becomes one of the largest items in 
the budget. We can fix that if we are willing to do it.

[[Page S7466]]

  I am very proud of what we have accomplished in this Congress. I 
think we have established a philosophy and a direction of providing 
adequate programs for controlling the size and growth of expenditures 
of the Federal Government; doing those things that are necessary, yet 
moving many decisions back closer to the people and the local 
governments; taking care of the obligations we have, such as paying 
down the debt and returning those dollars.
  One of the real controversies, of course, is going to be the tax 
relief that passed the Senate. The tax relief is in two areas that seem 
to be particularly appropriate--the marriage penalty tax, where two 
people who are working for x amount of dollars get married, continue to 
make the same amount of dollars, and then pay more taxes. It is a 
fairness issue. There is something wrong with that. We have changed 
that. The President has threatened to veto it.
  The other one that needs to be changed, in my opinion--and the 
Presiding Officer has been a leader in this--is the death tax, the 
estate tax, the idea that when someone dies, up to 50 percent of their 
earnings throughout their life can be taken by the Federal Government.
  The alternative, of course, is to not let death be a trigger for 
taxes but, rather, let those moneys be passed on to whomever they wish 
to pass them on to, and whenever things are disposed of and sold, there 
is a capital gains tax, of course, on the growth that has taken place. 
It seems to me that is a fairness issue.
  That is where we are. Those are some of the exciting things that I 
think are happening, and things that fit in, I believe, with the goals 
most of us have in terms of moving forward with this Federal 
Government.
  We now have a fairly short time to continue doing what has to be 
done. Appropriations have to be done. We need to continue with our tax 
reductions and continue with strengthening education. We need to 
continue in health care. We are on the road to doing that. I am very 
pleased with how we are doing it.
  I yield the floor. 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. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________