[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 132 (Thursday, October 19, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10745-S10746]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
106TH CONGRESS
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think the focus today, as we move toward
the appropriations bills, is education. It has been a focus during this
whole Congress. I saw some figures that we spent a total, in the 106th
Congress, of 5 weeks talking about education. That is indicative, I
believe, of the importance all citizens place on education. I don't
think anyone would say education isn't a very high priority for
everyone.
The question is, How is the role of the Federal Government best
created? In my view, one of the important things is to have some
assistance from the Federal Government, to have some financial
assistance. We also are in a system where people move about and are
educated in one place and work in another place. There has to be some
continuity or accountability that each of us is educated enough to be
able to be successful.
One of the most important issues is who makes the decisions with
regard to individual school systems. I think the Republicans, working
on this side of the aisle, have had a very strong agenda for education,
returning control to the parents for sending dollars to the classroom,
dollars to States and local school boards so they can make the
decisions that are necessary to be made in that particular school, give
families greater educational choice, support exceptional teachers, and
focus on basic academics, stressing accountability.
I have always thought, as a member of the Wyoming legislature, we
cannot have a good school system without the dollars. Dollars alone do
not necessarily result in a good school system. There has to be some
accountability as well.
Of course, on the Federal level, the needs in Chugwater, WY, are
quite different from those in Pittsburgh. Many
[[Page S10746]]
things are that way. There needs to be flexibility; in one particular
school, perhaps what is most needed is to build a new school or replace
the old school; in another school, what is needed is computers, teacher
training, or more academic materials. ``One size fits all'' does not
work. Frankly, that has been the underlying difficulty in this entire
debate.
The President of the United States will be here this afternoon
pushing for his plan so bureaucrats in Washington can decide and
dictate what the Federal dollars are spent for. On the other side of
that argument, we have given more dollars to the budget than even the
President asked for. We are saying those ought to offer flexibility so
local people can decide the best use for the dollars, yet with
accountability for the taxpayers' dollars.
The Democratic approach has been a series of mandates: 100,000
federally funded teachers, federally funded school construction,
federally funded afterschool. All those are fine if that is the
priority in your particular school district. However, we are not in the
business of having a bureaucracy in Washington make those decisions.
There have been difficulties moving forward:
The Taxpayer Relief Act, vetoed by the President, over $500 million
in family tax relief--families could have used that money at any level
to have supported schools;
Passing the Ed-Flex bill, with Federal requirements being waived if
they are interfering with what they seek to do.
These are the items we are debating with regard to education.
We are, hopefully, near the end of this session. We will wind up next
week. We have accomplished quite a number of things. Some people talk
about a do-nothing Congress, which absolutely is not the case. The
Republicans have balanced the budget, pushed forward and obtained the
balanced budget in 1998, the first time since 1969 we have had a
balanced budget. We saw that because of some restraints on spending,
because of the flourishing economy bringing in more dollars.
Nevertheless, it is the first time we have had enough dollars to
balance the budget outside of Social Security dollars. We have changed
the deficits to surpluses and lowered interest rates, paid down the
debt $360 billion over the past 3 years.
In addition to that, of course, at the same time, Republicans have
lowered the tax burden over the next 5 years. The tax cuts will provide
the average household with almost $2,000 in tax relief. We enacted the
$500 child tax credit that keeps $70 billion in the checking accounts
for 25 million families. These are important things. We created the
individual retirement accounts with IRAs to help families save more
money, help people prepare for their own retirement, so that Social
Security is a supplement, as it was designed to be.
The Republicans have stopped the raid on the Social Security trust
fund and set aside Social Security funds so that they will be spent on
Social Security and not borrowed and spent for other programs. We need
to ensure that continues to be the case.
Welfare has been reformed and has helped Americans go back to work.
In 1995, there were 13 million Americans on welfare. In 1996, there was
reform, helping more than 6 million of those, nearly half, to be now
employed--to be able to sustain themselves. That is really the purpose
of Government programs. It is not to have a continuing source of relief
but to provide an opportunity to help people help themselves, which not
only is a good issue governmentally but, of course, individually it is
something that is so important.
We strengthened the military. More needs to be done. We find
ourselves in the situation where we have had more military deployments
out of this country over the past 6 or 8 years than we have ever had in
the past. We find ourselves, of course, in sort of a semipeaceful time
but with a voluntary military, so we have to be able to compete
somewhat with the private sector in pay so people will join. It is not
only in the recruiting, of course, but the maintenance of people who
have been trained so they will stay in the military. We have done that.
We need to do more, of course.
We need to change the military. Our needs are different than they
were 20 years ago. We are not going to see ourselves having to send 12
divisions with tanks somewhere. We are going to see ourselves with
smaller, more flexible combat units moved quickly to a place with
enough support to stay there for some time.
These are some of the things that continue to be important. I hope we
continue to focus on them. Our job now, of course, is to get out about
three or five more appropriations bills and fund those programs. I am a
little discouraged at the amount of spending we have had this time.
Much of that has come from pressure from that side of the aisle and the
White House. They will not agree to appropriations bills unless they
have all the things in them the President wants. He is entitled to do
that. But this is one of the three units of Government, a separate
unit. We ought to do those things we think are right and the President
can do what he thinks is right. But I hope we do not get ourselves into
a position where the President is deciding what we in the Congress do.
That is not the system. We ought not be doing it that way.
I look forward to us moving forward, completing our work, and coming
back with a new Congress, able to take a look at where we are going. I
hope each of us, as Americans, gives some thought to where we would
like to be, where we would like to see these various programs go--
regardless of which you are looking at; whether you are looking at
education; whether you are looking at reregulation of electricity;
whether you are looking at the military. One of the difficulties is we
move forward many times and make decisions that impact those issues
without having a very clear-cut image of where we want to go. It is a
little like Alice in Wonderland where she was wandering around and no
one was able to tell her anything. She finally saw the Cheshire cat.
There was a fork in the road and she said, ``Which one should I take?''
The cat said, ``Where are you going?'' ``I don't know,'' Alice replied.
The cat said, ``Then it doesn't make any difference which road you
take.''
That is true. So we need to come with an idea of what our goal or
mission is, where we want to end up over a period of time in education,
and what are the steps we can best take to ensure that happens.
Regarding Social Security, where do we want to be in 20 years or 30
years? These people who are paying in 12.5 percent of their salaries
into Social Security, are they going to have benefits 40 years from now
when they are entitled to them? Not unless we make some changes.
The choices are fairly clear. You can raise taxes; people are not
excited about that. You can cut benefits; that is probably not a good
idea. One of the alternatives we are pursuing, and there may be others,
is to take a portion of the Social Security dollars that have been paid
in over time by younger people to make that decision for themselves--
take a portion of that and have it invested on their behalf in their
accounts in the private sector so the return, instead of being 2.5
percent, could be 5 percent or 6 percent.
People say: Well, look at the market now. Look at the market over
time. The market over each 10-year period has grown fairly
substantially.
So these are some of the things I hope we consider. I hope we
consider them promptly so we are out next week.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, are we in morning business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business.
Mr. KENNEDY. Is there a time limitation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 31 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
____________________