[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 25591-25593]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                   COMPLETING THE WORK OF THE SENATE

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor this morning 
and talk a little bit about where we are in the Senate, at least in my 
view, and where we are going. We are, of course, nearing the end of 
this session. Nobody knows precisely or exactly when we will be out of 
here, but it won't be long. We have to take a strong look, in my view, 
at what we have to do, and the things that are necessary to do. There 
are, of course, certain things that are required.
  At this time of year, Congress maybe hasn't finished its annual 
ritual, but the fact is we have done a great deal. I am pleased with 
that. But we must, of course, finish the appropriations. The continuing 
resolution expires this week, but hopefully we will have the 
appropriations to the President. We will see what happens from there.
  In addition to that, of course, I am very hopeful that at least one 
other issue will be undertaken, and that is to do something about the 
balanced budget amendment and the Medicare restrictions that are in 
place.
  You might recall that Congress asked for some reduction in the cost 
of Medicare over a period of time to ensure a firming up in the fact 
that these dollars are being used as they should be. Unfortunately, the 
administration has reduced that spending almost twice what was 
anticipated and, therefore, I think it will be necessary for us to go 
back and do some things for all of Medicare and particularly, I might 
say, for rural areas and small hospitals in areas such as in Wyoming.
  I think we have allowed ourselves to become a little bit off track. 
We have gotten involved in lengthy discussions of issues that are 
probably not particularly timely nor, indeed, perhaps even particularly 
appropriate, issues that did not need to be or were not ready to be 
discussed and debated this year and could well have been put off until 
another year. But, nevertheless, they have been discussed, and we are, 
in fact, still involved in some of those--the nuclear test ban treaty 
of course, being one of them. Now we are on campaign finance.
  There have been extended debates brought about by the insistence of 
Members on the floor. We have also had a number of filibusters and 
threatened filibusters from the other side of the aisle in order to 
control what was occurring on the floor.
  I haven't been here as long as have many Members of the Senate, but I 
can tell you I don't think that in the time I have been here I have 
seen such a contentious and combative situation. It is the most 
controversial session I believe--perhaps the most uncooperative--in 
terms of coming to terms with the things we need to do.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, of course, 
have brought issues to the floor, and we have had a number of 
filibusters and threatened filibusters. I guess the most interesting 
was the latest nuclear test ban treaty debate in which there was an 
insistence that we come on the floor with it, and then there was a cry 
of

[[Page 25592]]

foul when it came up. That was a somewhat interesting and difficult 
issue.
  We have had Members forcing issues to the floor that have had little 
or no support, but yet under the rules of the Senate they are entitled 
to be discussed and discussed for a length of time. In fact, we have 
had the feeling we are becoming too oriented toward accomplishing 
things. But, again, that is one point of view.
  It seems to me we find the President now in the most political 
posture that I recall a President being in, criticizing the Senate for 
doing the things that we have a constitutional responsibility to do--
treaties. We have the advise and consent responsibility on all 
treaties. That is in the Constitution. The same is true regarding 
nominees. That is our responsibility. I believe we have the right to do 
the things that we believe are right without being criticized.
  At every opportunity, the President is calling everything a political 
vote. I find that paradoxical. There were allegations of racial voting 
on nominees for the Judiciary. I for one--and I know many others--did 
not even know the race of the person being voted upon.
  The White House, trying to use many of these votes to breathe some 
life into a lame-duck President, makes it very difficult. We still have 
a responsibility. We have things to do. We have things to complete. We 
find ourselves in a confrontation, with the President threatening to 
disapprove appropriations. He has that right, as well. However, we 
ought to come together. We ought to talk about it. We ought to decide 
what we are going to do. We know we will fund the Government. We know 
we will go forward. I don't think anyone genuinely wants to shut down 
the Government. However, we are faced with that possibility. It worked 
out so well politically for the President a couple of years ago; he 
shut down the Government and we got the blame. I hope we don't use that 
technique again.
  It is a fairly simple thing. It is very difficult, but we have a 
commitment to have a certain amount of spending--about $592 billion 
worth of spending--outside the mandatory appropriations. We have to 
make agreements to stay within that commitment. We are dedicated to the 
idea of not spending more than that because we have to go into Social 
Security. As difficult as it may be, that is the goal. That is the 
bottom line. We simply have to make the adjustments that are necessary 
to do that. I think that is reasonable and certainly not impossible.
  Aside from that, it seems to me we have had a good year. We started 
this year as the majority party saying we were committed to ensuring a 
sound Social Security retirement system. We said we were here to help 
improve educational opportunities for our children, to expand economic 
opportunities for all Americans, to provide a strengthening of our 
national security to protect our freedoms. Those were the four things 
we set about to do. I believe the leadership and the Members have 
called for that.
  Despite all the talk and concern about education in the 
appropriations, the Republican proposal has $537 million more than the 
President requested. We have passed a bill that increases flexibility 
and opportunity for the States, the local school boards, and the 
parents to make the necessary decisions in their school districts. The 
school districts in Basin, WY, have different needs than in 
Philadelphia, PA. To the extent the Federal Government has a role--
which represents, by the way, about 7 percent of total educational 
spending; not a huge amount --that money should be able to be spent the 
way the people wish to spend it. They, after all, are responsible for 
the education of their children.
  In our tax bill, which the President vetoed, there were several 
educational propositions, educational savings accounts, and student 
loan programs available, as well. Of course, the President vetoed those 
bills. We have done a great deal in education. I think it is something 
of which we should be proud.
  Everyone talks about Social Security. It is one of our most important 
issues. Everyone who has worked for a wage or worked in their own 
business has paid into Social Security. Our commitment is to have 
Social Security available not only for those who are now beneficiaries 
but, indeed, for those young people who have just begun to work. There 
has been a great deal of discussion. The President talked about saving 
Social Security, but, frankly, has put nothing forward.
  We have done a couple of things. One is to have a Social Security 
lockbox to ensure we will not spend the Social Security money, and that 
will be a test of this budget. The other is to propose that we have the 
kind of Social Security program so at least a portion of those funds 
can be put into an individual account that belongs to the person who 
has been putting in the money. It can be invested directly in equities 
in the private sector to increase the return. I am pleased with that.
  We have increased military spending by about $17 billion. It has gone 
down over the last several years despite the fact that the world is not 
safe.
  Tax relief: We spent a great deal of time working on opportunities 
for all Americans to save some of the money they pay to taxes through 
marriage penalties, through estate tax reduction, capital gains 
reduction, and general reductions in rates. The President vetoed that 
because he wants to spend more money.
  In health care, we have a Patients' Bill of Rights that I think is 
excellent. We also have committed ourselves to do something on the 
balanced budget.
  These are the things on which we have made a great deal of progress. 
In addition, we recently had the test ban on nuclear testing. In a 
press conference last week, the President tried to deflect criticism 
about the lack of leadership he provided and the fact that not even a 
majority of this Senate supported it on a final vote by blaming it all 
on partisan politics, accusing the Republicans of making the world a 
more dangerous place.
  Acting against the national interest? Nonsense. Let me give some 
canards. Neither the United States nor the Senate have changed their 
views on nuclear testing. I am chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and 
Japan. We are not going to start testing; we have not changed our 
position. We have no plan to test. Our policies in that regard are 
exactly the same as they were before the vote. All we were saying in 
the vote was, this is not the treaty at this time, with these 
shortcomings.
  The President tried to blame the Republicans for being in a partisan 
mode. The President should look at his own party. Democrats demanded we 
have a vote on this treaty or they would filibuster all action on the 
Senate floor. On September 18, the Senator from North Dakota said:

       I intend to plant myself on the floor like a potted plant 
     and object. I intend to object to other routine business of 
     the Senate until the majority leader brings this treaty to 
     the floor for debate and vote. I don't run this place, but 
     those who do should know this is going to be a rough place to 
     run if you do not decide to bring this issue to a vote.

  We brought it to a vote and apparently they got exactly what they 
demanded--a debate and vote. Before the President blames the 
Republicans, he ought to take a look at the Congressional Record. The 
vote was not a vote against national security. In an attempt to 
frighten people, the President accused those who opposed it of 
threatening the national security, that no thinking person could 
possibly oppose it.
  Let me list for the Senate some of the people whom the President 
dismissed: Henry Kissinger, six former Secretaries of Defense, four 
former CIA Chiefs, former Federal weapons lab Directors, two former 
Chiefs of Staff, the President's own head of Strategic Command at the 
time the treaty was negotiated, three former National Security 
Advisers. It goes on and on.
  This idea of isolationism is ridiculous. The idea of maintaining the 
U.S. military strength is not. That, in the view of many, gives the 
best opportunity for security.
  Now we are involved, of course, in this question of campaign finance. 
It is a legitimate issue, a good issue. We have been into it before. We 
passed bills in the 1970s. We passed bills in the 1980s. It has not 
changed an awful lot. Some people suggest it has been blown completely 
out of hand. I suggest it is

[[Page 25593]]

probably not true. The expenditures in the average congressional 
district have gone up about 3.6 percent a year since 1986. That is 
hardly runaway. It amounts to about $1 per voter in most congressional 
districts.
  But I believe--and, for myself, I think there is some consensus in 
the Senate--it is an important issue. I have said, and I continue to 
say, I support some changes. I would like to see more disclosure. It 
seems to me that is the most important thing. If there is going to be 
money--and, indeed, there has to be money--if people are to understand 
the issues and have a chance to speak out, to have the freedom of 
speech, to have the opportunity to participate, it has to be open. But 
I think there should be disclosure. There should be disclosure right up 
until the end of the election, and we can do that. We should enforce 
the laws already on the books, as is the case with many other matters 
of enforcement. I think we have to protect the constitutional rights of 
individuals to participate.
  I would support some limit on soft money. I do not know how, 
constitutionally, that would be accepted by the Supreme Court. 
Nevertheless, I would set some limit and support that. But I would not 
support doing away with it. I would not support eliminating it. I would 
not support the bill as it is proposed now.
  We can contribute to the integrity of the process and help return 
more confidence to it. I have thought about this a lot. People who 
support Members, or people who are running, do so because of what they 
believe. They do not change their beliefs because they received some 
support. As you look around for whom you are going to support in the 
election, you support the person whose beliefs are similar to yours. I 
support things in my State--I suppose some people call them special 
interests--because they are important to my State. Those are the 
industries at which most people in my State work. Those are the kinds 
of industries that we need to have a vibrant economy. Of course I 
support those, not because of some contribution.
  In summary, I wish we were in a little different situation in our 
relationship on both sides of this aisle and in our relationship with 
the White House, so we could really look at some issues, come out with 
what seems best to us as a group, and move forward.
  On the other hand, I am very pleased with many of the things we have 
done. I can tell you, most people in my State, when we talk about doing 
all these things, have a limit in their minds as to what the Congress 
ought to be doing, what is the role of the Federal Government. It is 
not up to the Congress to solve every problem. On the contrary, we are 
better off to push more and more of that government closer to the 
people, where they can make the decisions, not the one-size-fits-all 
kind of thing some people here would like to have.
  We are ready to move on and finish up. I look forward to it. I hope 
we can conclude our work and do the best things for the country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The distinguished Senator from 
Iowa is recognized.

                          ____________________