[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 125 (Tuesday, October 10, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10135-S10137]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I wanted to go back to the remarks of the 
Senator from North Dakota as he talked about some of the issues that 
all of us are concerned about, issues such as pharmaceuticals--how we 
make that work; issues such as Medicare--which needs, after these 
years, some real, examination, some changes so over time we can ensure 
provision of health services to all who are beneficiaries. No one 
argues with that.
  He also mentioned the Patients' Bill of Rights, which is interesting. 
I do not know of anyone in the Senate or the other body who is not for 
some form of the bill of rights. The unfortunate part is that there are 
some defining issues within that subject, defining issues that mean a 
lot in terms of where it goes in the future. The Senator failed to 
mention that. This is sort of the technique of those who favor more 
government. That is to simply talk about the title without talking 
about what is involved.
  We have had in the Senate for a good long time--the Presiding Officer 
has participated--in a conference report, language designed to bring 
out a Patients' Bill of Rights that we could pass. Frankly, the Senator 
from North Dakota and others have opposed that.
  One of the questions that is very important is whether or not it is 
going to be a bill of rights for patients or whether it is going to be 
a bill of rights for tort lawyers. If you have to go to court whenever 
there is a controversy, that is, of course, not what we seek to do.
  So I want to make the point that you can talk in general terms about 
many issues. Everyone embraces those issues. But when you talk about 
the kinds of things that are important, within those issues, to 
implement them in a manner in keeping with the philosophy that you have 
over time, then that becomes quite a different matter. Of course, that 
is why we find ourselves at some loggerheads from time to time.

[[Page S10136]]

  I have spoken before, and will again, about the amount of effort we 
have seen from the other side of the aisle to put obstacles in front of 
these issues and to, really, be more interested in making an issue 
rather than a solution. I am sorry for that. We are, of course, down 
now to the end, and we need to do something.
  Let me talk for a moment or two about some of the things I think we 
face, not only in this body right now but that we will face in the 
future, we will face in this election. We need to make decisions as to 
where we are going. The key to those decisions in my view, regardless 
almost of what the decisions are--whether they are business decisions, 
whether they are personal decisions, whether they are political 
decisions--is to get some idea of what we want the result to be and 
where we are going to go over a period of time, and then measure 
whether or not what we are doing in the interim leads us to the 
accomplishment of those goals. It seems to me that is one of the most 
important things we can do.
  So we are going to find ourselves, I think--I half hope, maybe--with 
some different philosophies from this past year, and we are going to 
have to choose.
  I just returned from my State. I am going to get back, I hope, pretty 
soon and spend some time in schools with a voting program to get kids 
involved in politics, involved in elections; to talk about the issues 
and begin to get some feel about what it means to have a government of 
the people and by the people and for the people. I am excited about 
that because there are differences in philosophy.
  Sometimes we find it difficult to define them, as we have these 
debates, as we will have tomorrow night. It is true; politicians have a 
little affinity for making things a little bit blurred. But it is up to 
us, then, as voters, to really separate those things and decide where 
we want to go; do we want more Federal Government in our lives or do we 
want less? It is up to us to define what we think the role of the 
Federal Government is and how it impacts us as citizens. What is the 
role of local and State governments? What is the role, then, really of 
individuals? That is what it is all about: individual freedom--
opportunities for success.
  We talk about taxes. Do we want more taxes and more Government? Do we 
want less Government so people can keep more of the money they earn? 
The real issue, of course, is Federal control down into communities, 
down into counties, down into schools. Or, indeed, do we want county 
commissioners and school boards and State legislators to make decisions 
that fit the decisions made by the people who have to live with them. 
There is a great deal of difference between the needs we have for the 
delivery of services in Philadelphia and in Greybull, WY. So those are 
the kinds of things that are taken into account.
  We have talked about a surplus. There are reports of a surplus, 
certainly. I might say, it is more difficult to control the size of 
Government when you have a surplus than it is when you do not because, 
regardless of what the issues are, why, where we have a surplus we 
ought to spend the money. The other side of that, of course, is if we 
have a surplus there are certain priority things we ought to do but 
maybe we ought to put some of those surpluses back with the people who 
own them. They will be very important there.

  We have different plans to deal with them. One of the plans that is 
out there takes about half of those surpluses and puts them into Social 
Security. One of the real issues before us is young people who are in 
their first jobs and pay 12.5 percent of their income, along with their 
employer, into the Social Security fund. In 40 years, are they going to 
have any benefits accruing to them? Not unless we make some changes.
  The options are just to continue what we are doing and take more tax 
money to put into it, or to make some changes--for instance, to give 
some opportunities, based on the choice of the recipient, to put some 
of that money into the private sector, to get the return on that 
investment up from 2.5 to 3 percent, up to 4 percent or 5 percent or 6 
percent, which certainly would make it more likely that those benefits 
are going to be there when their benefits are earned and ready to serve 
them.
  When the Senator from North Dakota talked about tax cuts for the top 
1 percent, that is not what is being proposed. Indeed, regarding the 
proposal that is out there that has caused all the 1 percent talk, the 
people who make the 1 percent, who make the most money in this country, 
will have a higher proportion of taxes on them than they have had 
before. Those taxes are for everyone who pays taxes. I think that is an 
excellent way to do that, to have marginal cuts and double the tax 
credits. Let's get rid of the estate tax. That doesn't do away with tax 
on the value, by the way, because that will be taxed when that asset is 
sold with the capital gains tax. But why should death cause you to have 
to sell the farm to pay the taxes? It should not.
  These are some of the decisions that are out there to be made. 
Certainly they are important ones. I will not argue about what is 
right. We hear a lot of this: Let's do the right thing.
  That depends on about whom you are speaking, what the right thing is, 
of course. So there are choices we have to make, legitimate choices. I 
hope all of us have a chance in this election to sort those out for 
ourselves and be able to do something with them.
  Medicare is another one. I mentioned that before. You know, what we 
have is a Medicare program that, unless it is changed, cannot continue 
either.
  There is something on which all of us can agree: We want to continue. 
If that is the goal, what do we have to do in the interim to ensure 
that happens?
  One of the things we have to do is give people some choices. The way 
it is now, when you are 62, 63, 65, you have to take what is there, and 
that is the only choice.
  There are people who have supplementary policies. My mother has a 
supplementary policy that provides pharmaceuticals. She is perfectly 
happy with that and wants to continue with that. There are people who 
do not have supplementary policies. They cannot afford them. They ought 
to have pharmaceutical coverage, and there ought to be choices in the 
way that is done. That is very possible. People ought to be able to 
choose. The alternative to what we suggested has no choice.
  Education: It has been a very long time since we have been able to do 
something quite different on elementary and secondary education. We 
talked about it. We have had 5 weeks of discussion in this Congress on 
education. Again, everyone is for education. I do not know anyone who 
does not want to make education more effective, who does not want to 
make it better for everyone. What holds it up is who makes the 
decisions.
  This administration has insisted on those dollars that go from the 
Federal Government to the States, regardless of what the needs are in a 
particular school district, that they either be for 100,000 more 
teachers or they be for buildings. Both of those are legitimate needs, 
but there are school districts that do not need more teachers and the 
school buildings are in pretty good shape. What they need is high-tech 
equipment, for example, and they should have an opportunity to spend 
that money as their needs dictate. That is the debate.
  Sometimes it is a little hard to cut through: ``Those guys are 
against education.'' That is not so. These are the choices and these 
are the choices of how we get around to resolving the problems. I hope 
we will soon.
  There are always going to be differences of view. That is why we 
vote. The problem is we have not been able to bring those things to the 
floor, and every time we bring up education, someone brings up one of 
the issues on which we have already voted three or four times--gun 
control, minimum wage, whatever--to make sure that what we are focusing 
on does not happen.
  Here we are now 1 week past our dedicated time to adjourn. Frankly, I 
am one who thinks that if we have business to do here, we ought to be 
here until we get it done. That is our job. We ought to get the bills 
out here, vote on them, move them on up. If the President wants to veto 
them, if he wants to try to use leverage to threaten and shut down the 
Government, let him do that, but he is the one who is going to shut 
down the Government. That is where we are.

[[Page S10137]]

  It is an interesting time, an important time. I am confident we will 
move more quickly to resolve these items this week than perhaps we have 
over the last couple of weeks.

                          ____________________