[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21994-21995]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                      APPROPRIATIONS AND OVERSIGHT

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for 
sharing the results of the hearing he had this morning. It is one of 
the real serious issues before the Senate, as is the case with the 
Senator from Oklahoma when he talks about the military problems in 
Puerto Rico. We have a lot of things with which to deal.
  Most importantly, of course, is finishing our appropriations work. 
The end of the fiscal year occurs within 2 weeks. We will have at that 
time all the appropriations bills to the President. We intend to do 
that. It is difficult, of course, to go through the appropriations 
process and stay within those boundaries we have given ourselves, to 
stay within the boundaries of the caps, to stay within the boundaries 
of available funds and, maybe most important, to stay within spending 
limits without reaching into Social Security funds, which I think 
everyone is committed not to do.
  There is a great difference of philosophy about how we do this. It 
seems to me we need to continue to think. There are those who 
legitimately want to see more government, more Federal Government, more 
involvement, more programs, and others who believe there ought to be a 
limited Federal Government--that, indeed, the role of the Federal 
Government is limited.
  I had the opportunity yesterday to celebrate with four junior highs 
in my hometown of Casper, WY, the 212th anniversary of the signing of 
the Constitution. These were 9th graders. It was great fun. Some of 
them had on Uncle Sam suits in red, white, and blue. They all signed 
their own copy of the Constitution. One of the issues talked about by 
these 9th graders was the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment says the 
Federal Government's duties are spelled out in the Constitution. If 
they are not, they are left to the States or the people. It was 
interesting to talk about that. These young people who read that say: 
What are some of the things that our Government is doing? Of course, 
there is a legitimate debate about that.
  Each year, as we come into the appropriations process, it seems to me 
we miss an opportunity to have evaluated where we want to go, what we 
legitimately want to do, and then fund it. Unfortunately, we get into 
the funding proposition before we have decided what it is we want to 
do; maybe more importantly, before we have had the opportunity to 
measure the effectiveness of what is in place.
  That is one of the reasons many Members are seeking to have a 
biennial budget--so that the appropriations process only takes place 
every other year. In that case, agencies have a longer time to know 
what their budget is.
  The key is that the Congress has oversight responsibility. Indeed, it 
should be looking at the expenditures; it should be looking at programs 
and setting priorities; it should be decided how effective they are and 
what the expenditures have been.
  We had a little example this morning. About a year ago, three Members 
asked the GAO to do an examination of the cost of Presidential travel. 
They came in with their primary report yesterday. Even though there are 
a great many trips to be made, this President has made more trips than 
any other President in recent history. We asked that three trips be 
examined--a trip to Chile, a trip to China, and a trip to Africa--to 
see what it cost taxpayers.
  The trip to Chile. Chile is not too far. There were a couple of 
stops. It cost $10.5 million; 592 people traveled with the President, 
109 from the White House. That was the least expensive trip.
  The trip to China last year was almost $19 million; 510 people 
traveled, 123 from the White House.
  These are the type of things at which we need to look. I think it is 
perfectly legitimate for the President to travel. Is it legitimate to 
have these costs?
  Africa. There was contact with six countries. It cost nearly $43 
million to visit Africa. Mr. President, 1,300 people traveled with the 
President, 205 from the White House.
  These are the kind of expenses we should evaluate. These are the 
things at which we ought to look. These are the areas we ought to say: 
Yes, there ought to be trips, but $43 million for a trip to Africa is a 
bit expensive and a little extensive.
  That is what the oversight is all about. I think we need to be sure 
we evaluate those things. We need to see if programs now in place, 
programs that are now being funded, are still as necessary as they were 
when they began, or do they need to be changed. There is a constituency 
that builds up around programs. Any change is resisted. That is not how 
to run any other business. We have to take a look to see if it is still 
effective, see what the mission is, see if that mission is being 
carried out, see if the dollars could be spent more efficiently 
somewhere else. That is what the budget process is about.
  Now we are faced with having put together a budget some time back, 
about 3 or 4 years ago, and finding ourselves being pushed hard to 
break through the budget caps put in place at that time, largely 
through emergency spending. It is legitimate when we have emergencies 
such as we have had this year with weather.
  We are committed not to go into Social Security money. The President 
has

[[Page 21995]]

been saying for 4 years: Save Social Security. But he doesn't have a 
plan. We have a plan to save Social Security. We are going to do our 
work towards implementing that plan so the dollars that come in have a 
place to go so they, indeed, are kept for Social Security.
  I think the key is the idea of individual accounts, which is what we 
propose to do. People under a certain age would have an individual 
account crediting a portion of the money they paid into Social 
Security. It would be their account, their money, invested in the 
private sector to return a much higher yield, to ensure that benefits 
are available. In that way, the money would not be spent for other 
things, as has been in the past.
  It also deals with the fact that such changes have taken place. I 
mentioned we have to look at programs from time to time. When Social 
Security began, I think there were 150 people working for every 
beneficiary. It came down to 30. Now there are about three workers for 
every beneficiary and headed towards two. The choices in that program 
have become simple: We have to raise taxes, and most people don't want 
to do that; reduce benefits, and most people don't want to do that; or 
we can increase the return on revenue, increase the return on the money 
that is in the account--in this case, your individual account.
  These are the kinds of things that seem to me to be part of the 
appropriations process, part of the budgeting process. That is what we 
are facing. It will be difficult to complete that task, but we are 
dedicated to doing it.
  As I indicated, there is a legitimate difference of philosophy. I 
understand that. We see some of it every day. There are those who 
believe more spending, more government is better. There are those who 
believe in the 10th amendment, that more government ought to be closer 
to the people; that States and communities, and in the case of schools, 
school districts, have the best opportunity to make the decisions that 
affect their children. I believe in that strongly. I think most on this 
side of the aisle do.
  There was a long discussion about education today. Education is 
important to all Members. I think also there was an interesting set of 
polling done which indicated that for the most part, people do want to 
make the decisions at the local level, to make the decisions where the 
kids are, to make the decisions where the families are.
  There is quite a difference between what needs to be done in 
Jugwater, WY, or Philadelphia. So the one-size-fits-all kind of program 
does not fit. We want to have the flexibility to make the changes that 
are necessary to do that.
  Unfortunately, our bills will go to the President. The President has, 
of course, vowed to veto the tax relief bill that we have sent. I do 
not believe there will be much opportunity to negotiate the basis for 
that. That is too bad. As we project, there will be excesses. We think 
they ought to go back to the taxpayers. In fact, the President wants to 
spend more money, indeed, increase some taxes--for instance, 55 cents 
on cigarettes that would be there to offset more spending.
  So these are the kinds of things with which we must deal. We must do 
that soon. I believe we are headed in the right direction to have the 
budget that does reflect our needs, that does deal with patients' 
health care. We passed a bill. We will do that and we will move forward 
and complete our work by the end of September.
  Mr. President, I think we have taken nearly all of our time. I yield 
the remainder of our time and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________