[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 76 (Tuesday, June 11, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5323-S5325]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

  Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, we always have different kinds of things 
to talk about and issues that are before us. That is our job, of 
course, to deal with the issues. There is no end to the number of 
issues that come here. We focus on them, as we should. In addition to 
that, however, it seems to me that it is appropriate from time to time 
that we focus a little bit on the appropriate role of the Federal 
Government.
  What is the appropriate role of Government spending? I understand the 
pressures that come from wanting to do something about every problem, 
partly because we do want to do something about every problem, and 
partly because of the politics of it. Now we find ourselves getting 
more and more into the kind of setting, a kind of culture, if you 
please, where, as the Federal Government continues to grow, every issue 
that arises--at whatever the level--the first request is let us get

[[Page S5324]]

the Federal Government involved; let us get some money from the Federal 
Government; let us get some programs from the Federal Government. So 
continuously we get larger.
  If you walk down the street and ask in general terms if you think the 
Federal Government ought to be larger, if you think it ought to be less 
large, if the issues ought to be considered more close to the people 
where they have more input at the State and local level, the answer is 
yes.
  I believe we need to stand back from time to time and take a look at 
what we are doing in terms of the future, and maybe try to get some 
vision of where we want to be in the next 10 years or 15 years.
  What do we want our society to look like in terms of government? Do 
we want a national government for everyone? I don't think so. That is 
not what we are. This is the United States of America. We are a 
federation of States. The Federal Government's role is fairly well 
defined in the Constitution, and those things not there are to be left 
to the States. But we move the other way.
  I am not anti-Federal Government. I think there is obviously a very 
serious role for the Federal Government. One of them we are exercising 
now is defense. That, obviously, is a Federal role, and one that we 
should and are pursuing.
  But take a look at all the things we are in. Take a look at all of 
the little things in the supplemental budget which we passed last week, 
and tell me that those are Federal responsibilities--all of those 
little items in there that we are funding. I am sorry, they are clearly 
not.
  It seems to me that we have to take a look at the concept. I think 
some of the things we are looking at now are very important. One of 
them is Medicare. Obviously, Medicare is a Federal program. But we need 
to take a look at it and see where it is going over time to be other 
than just patching here or patching there or putting a little more 
money in there, and then come to the Chamber and complain about not 
having enough money. But we never seem to look at where we might be.
  I am a little frustrated at the feeding frenzy at the public trough 
of the Federal Government that we have been engaged in over the past 
several decades. As a matter of fact, I think that is going to be more 
difficult as we go forward.
  First of all, of course, we need to debate and pass a responsible 
bipartisan budget resolution. To most people, the budget means you have 
a budget which hopefully you can stay within. If you can't, you can't. 
It means more than that here. A budget, of course, is some limitation 
on what you are spending. That is what your plan is, and that is what 
you are doing. But, in addition to that, there are some restraints that 
can be used here on the floor of the Senate.

  If an appropriations or spending bill goes beyond the budget that we 
have established, then it becomes more difficult. You have to have more 
votes to pass it.
  It is a very important thing. Here we are without one, I think, for 
the first time in 27 years. Certainly, we need one. We need to take a 
long look at some of these appropriations bills that are coming up. We 
need to do that very soon. We will be talking about hundreds of 
billions of dollars in expenditures.
  Of course, we should be helping to strengthen education. What is the 
role of the Federal Government in education? Now it contributes about 7 
percent to elementary secondary education--most of it in special 
education. But we continue to look there for more and more money. There 
are all kinds of recommendations to do that.
  I think one of the interesting ones that I run into--and the 
Presiding Officer does as well--in terms of the Finance Committee is 
taxes, tax changes, tax credits--tax this and tax that. Every day 
something comes up that someone wants to give a tax credit for some 
certain kind of behavior. Then the next day we come to the Chamber and 
say the tax system is too complicated. It is complicated because every 
day we use it more to affect behavior than we do for raising money. 
There is just no end to it. Let us give a tax credit to do this or give 
a tax credit to do that or we will give a tax credit to help build 
small communities or give a tax credit for charitable giving or 
whatever, all of which on their face are nice ideas. But if you step 
back and say what the role of the Federal Government is in that, then I 
think maybe you would have to take a closer look at what is really 
happening. It is one that I believe is very important.
  There is constitutional direction, as I mentioned. Some people 
interpret that in different ways. But, nevertheless, it does indicate 
that there is a limit to what the Federal Government should do. I don't 
know. I suppose different States have different things. A good deal of 
Wyoming belongs to the Federal Government. So one of the things I hear 
the most is there is too much Government regulation--Federal 
regulations that impact everybody--probably more than anything else.

  The Senator from California was talking about environmental 
restrictions. That is all I hear--an excessive amount of non-use 
restrictions on public property--and the idea that you don't have 
access to the Federal lands that belong to the people. The access, 
obviously, ought to be limited so that you preserve the environment. 
But the idea that you have to have roadless areas so you cannot access 
the property, the idea you cannot go to Yellowstone Park in a snow 
machine, even though the snow machine can probably be made cleaner than 
an automobile--these kinds of things are constantly there. At the same 
time, we want the Federal Government to get bigger, with more 
regulations. It is quite a frustrating thing. I know it is difficult, 
but we need to take a look at really where we want to be.
  Last summer in Wyoming, I had a series of meetings, two in almost 
every county; we called it Vision 20/20. We asked people to share with 
us what they saw in the future for their families, their town, their 
county, and their State. It was interesting. Of course, it was 
different in different parts of the State, but several things were 
pretty unanimous. It would be fun to have this body sit down for a day 
and say: What do you see as the role of the Federal Government? What do 
you see the Senate doing in terms of spending, in terms of programs 15 
years from now? Do we want to continue to spend the way we have over 
the last several years? If so, what would be the totals?
  A couple years ago, we tried pretty much to have some limitations and 
held the general budget to about 3 percent, which was basically 
inflation. This year, notwithstanding terrorism and the necessary 
emergency spending, it is probably 8 percent--probably more than that, 
close to a 10-percent increase in Government spending.
  Of course, we will hear from our friends on the other side of the 
aisle that the problem is because of tax reductions. I don't agree with 
that. Tax reductions are necessary when you have a slow economy, to get 
things going. Tax reductions help us plan to see the kind of Federal 
Government we really want--perhaps one with a smaller role--and 
identifying those things that are clearly the role and responsibility 
of the Federal Government; perhaps reducing Federal taxes so locals can 
have more taxes, to do with it what they want.
  One of the things I think most of us, I suppose from every State, 
work on more than anything else is what a bill or a proposal means in 
terms of our States. For instance, health care. I come from a rural 
State. Health care delivery in Wyoming is quite different than it is in 
New York City, so a Federal program that is designed for metropolitan 
areas doesn't fit at all. There has to be enough flexibility. The same 
is true with education and most everything else we do. But we don't 
always give that flexibility. So we find ourselves with programs 
designed to go nationwide which don't fit nationwide. Yet because we 
constantly have these Federal programs going, it is most difficult.
  I mentioned to you that we are always saying we need to simplify 
taxes. Yet we use them to affect behavior more than almost anything. 
The size of the Government continues to grow. We worked very hard last 
year to get the bill passed that required agencies to look at their 
activities, and those that are not totally governmental could be put 
out into the private sector for private contracting. I think it is an 
excellent idea to try to keep the Government as small as possible. Some 
of our

[[Page S5325]]

folks are opposed to that idea; they want more and more Government and 
more and more Government employees. Those things that are not certified 
Government things ought to be dealt with in the private sector.

  So I know these are general comments and you don't have an answer for 
all these issues, but there is a frustration that builds as you go 
through everything we look at every day, and more and more bills being 
talked about.
  As an example, we are going to have hearings this afternoon on the 
Park Subcommittee, which I used to chair. I love parks. But there need 
to be some criteria as to what a national park should be. Failing 
having criteria, what they say in every community that has an area they 
would like to develop and set aside is, let's get the Federal 
Government to take it over and let it be some kind of a Federal park. 
It is not a Federal park just by its definition. But I understand when 
we are working for something in our States--some call it pork, and some 
call it other things, but it doesn't matter--we don't look at the broad 
picture, we just look at that. It is difficult.
  So I am hopeful we can take a long look at what we are doing and, as 
opposed to simply dedicating ourselves to an election in 2002--to which 
I think you will find many of these things are very related--let's take 
a little longer look at where we are going to be. That is really our 
job for the future. These young pages sitting here, where are they 
going to be 20 years from now? We have some responsibility to look at 
that. I think it is a very strong responsibility.
  So I hope we can put our emphasis a little more on our responsibility 
as the Federal Government, how we can best do that, what it means in 
the future, how we can help build the strength of local and State 
governments so that it will be close to the people and the people can 
indeed have a real role in what is being managed in their area.
  Madam President, 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________