[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 774-775]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                         THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to comment a 
little. I suppose I might have a different view than what we heard in 
the last 35 minutes, about what a wonderful budget we have and that we 
can now return to the era of big government. Not everyone is happy 
about that, as we might have heard over the last few minutes.
  As we look realistically at these things, we have to look at a time 
that has been prosperous. It started in 1991, in fact. We moved 
forward. We have a surplus projected, largely because of the strong 
economy, of course. Also, it is a result, frankly, of a majority in 
this Congress that, since 1994, has held down spending. That is a 
little difficult for my friends to accept, of course, but we have now 
an opportunity to take a look at a relatively prosperous time. 
Certainly, we want to continue that. We want to take a look at the 
things that ought to be done for the people of the United States, using 
their tax money. We ought to take a look at how we strengthen education 
and return the opportunities to make the decisions about education to 
the local level rather than doing what the President wants to do, and 
that is to decide in Washington what each school district ought to 
have.
  We have quite a different philosophy on how we approach this, and 
that is reasonable. That is why we are here, to represent different 
views. The things we heard this morning would all represent the idea of 
more Government, more Government spending, more decisions made in 
Washington. That is a legitimate point of view. It is a point of view 
of many in the minority. It is not the point of view of most of us in 
the majority. So that is what we will be up to, over the next several 
months and, indeed, this year: deciding as best we can how to come 
together on these decisions.
  It was not long ago, you will recall, when President Clinton 
suggested in his State of the Union Address that the era of big 
government was over. That seems now not to be the issue at all. In 
fact, apparently the era of big government has returned. If this budget 
is put into place, that is exactly what we will see. Many think that is 
the greatest way to go. I think that is legitimate. So that is what the 
debates will be about.
  We have before us suggestions of substantial amounts of surplus. This 
is the first time in 25 years the budget has been balanced. That is 
largely because of some controls on spending. We have been increasing 
spending over the last couple of years, I think amply, but still in the 
level of about 3 percent. Prior to that time, in the early 1980s and 
the early 1990s, we were expanding as high as 12 percent. That has been 
reduced some, and that is part of it. Certainly the President's tax 
increase, back in 1994-1995, had some effect.
  Also, the tax reduction brought on by the Republicans helped 
stimulate the economy. We will have a lot of basic things about which 
to talk.
  This is a huge budget, $1.8 trillion. What is that, 1,800 billion 
dollars? We will have to talk about each of the areas in which that 
spending will take place.
  Basically, there are some philosophical things. If we think about 
where we are going with our Government and the decisions we will be 
making in elections--that is what politics is about, to set the 
direction of Government, and we will be doing that.
  We start with some basic things. We start with putting priorities on 
the role of the Federal Government and then funding those priorities. 
Again, not everyone will agree, but that needs to be done, it seems to 
me. There is no end to the way we can spend money. There are many 
programs on which we can spend it. I believe we can start by saying to 
ourselves: What are the legitimate functions of the Federal Government? 
What should the taxpayers' money be used for, and what are the 
priorities?
  When we come to some agreement on that and, in fact, have begun to 
fund those priorities adequately--I just

[[Page 775]]

came from a breakfast with the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Having 
been in the Marine Corps, I was happy to be there. The defense of this 
country is one of the real priorities, and certainly we need to fund 
the military adequately. We need to fund education. We need to fund 
health care. There are a number of things, perhaps, at which we ought 
to take a long look.
  The President has proposed 43, I believe--in the neighborhood of 40--
new programs. There is a surplus, he says, so let's spend the money. 
Fine, but let's take a look at the priorities and see, with respect to 
local governments, if this is where it ought to be done.
  Social Security: I do not think there is anyone who does not agree 
that Social Security is an issue that is a high priority. As I said 
yesterday, these young people who are starting to pay into that program 
will pay the largest percentage of their income for a longer time than 
they will pay in any other tax. Are they going to have benefits at the 
end of 40 or 50 years? The answer should be, yes, they will. To do 
that, we have to make some changes.
  There are no proposals in this budget to make any significant changes 
in Social Security, other than to take something out of the general 
fund, which is not a long-range proposal. We have some ideas how we can 
do that.
  The other thing we have to recognize, even though certainly it is a 
step in the right direction, is the idea of reducing the deficit with 
Social Security funds. We have to take a long look at that. It is a 
good idea, and we should put that Social Security money there as 
opposed to spending it in the general budget, but the fact is that we 
are replacing publicly held debt with some other debt that has to be 
repaid by the taxpayers when that Social Security is drawn out. It is 
less expensive as well, so it is a good idea, and it does get it out of 
the grasp of the Congress.
  What we ought to be doing, if we are serious about the debt, is 
instead of spending more, we ought to be saying: Let's take a certain 
amount of that money out of the operating funds, decide over a period 
of time we are going to pay off this debt, and do it as one does with a 
home mortgage--we are going to pay so much every year for 15 years; not 
Social Security money, but regular operating money.
  That Social Security money also needs to be taken out of our grasp, 
and we are hoping we can do that by having individual accounts where 
Social Security money belongs to the older person who paid into it, 
where those dollars, as a way of ensuring there will be benefits, can 
be invested in equities or bonds and will produce a higher return. It 
will also belong to the person. If they are unfortunate enough not to 
live to get all the benefits, it will go into their estate.
  These are the things we ought to be talking about, not spending $400 
billion on new programs, not going through a State of the Union Message 
in which there is $4 billion a minute proposed. That is, I believe, a 
reckless budget, and I do not think that budget is going to move in 
this Congress without a considerable amount of change.
  There are, hopefully, some things on which we want to agree with the 
President. He wants to talk about strengthening the military. We ought 
to do that. We ought to do something to encourage recruiting, to 
encourage retention, and to provide what is necessary to carry out the 
missions of the military. We certainly should do that.
  We want to do some more things for schools based on the idea that it 
be given to the districts, that they can make the decisions as to how 
that is done, so we can strengthen education.
  We ought to be doing something about Medicare prescriptions. We have 
a program that can be done that keeps it in the private sector 
generally and allows those who have supplemental programs to continue 
to have them, perhaps supplement them with a tax reduction but not to 
do an overall health program, as the President tried before. That is 
not what we want to do.
  It is interesting that, of course, we have this great surge of 
enthusiasm over the idea of spending all the money we possibly can, but 
we ought to be thinking about taking a minimum amount of money from the 
taxpayers of this country to run the Government. It has to be paid. 
Everybody understands that. But when we do have things like surpluses 
over time--certainly we do not want to be reckless--but to call every 
tax reduction reckless is distressing. That money belongs to the people 
who paid into it.
  If we do not have something to limit these kinds of surpluses, the 
very thing will happen the President is talking about now, and that is, 
we will find a way to spend it. What we are looking for is a way to 
adequately finance the Government, to deal with those things that are 
high priorities for America, to do something about the national debt, 
to secure Social Security, and then return this money to where it came 
from so that it is not here, so it has an opportunity to be in the 
communities, to be in the towns, to be in the States, and to strengthen 
this economy. That is what keeps the economy going is people having 
money to invest and create jobs and these are the directions most 
important to us.
  I wanted to let everyone know there are certainly more directions we 
will take. There are different ideas, all legitimate, as to where we 
should go. I hope as we proceed, we have an idea of where we want to 
end up.
  I was reading ``Alice in Wonderland'' the other night. Remember when 
Alice fell down and she did not quite know where she was going. She ran 
into various people. She talked to the rabbit who did not have any 
ideas, except to promote himself, and the mushroom, who was very 
unpleasant, and the queen who was going to cut off everybody's head. 
Finally, she came to a juncture in the road, and there was the Cheshire 
Cat sitting in a tree. She said: Mr. Cat, what road should I take?
  He said: Where do you want to go?
  Alice said: I don't know.
  The cat said: It doesn't make any difference then, you take whatever 
road you choose.
  We need to know where we want to be when we look at this budget, what 
it has to do with principles of government, the principles of smaller 
government, the principles of adequate government, and then try to 
avoid the idea that there are some bucks out there. So let's try to 
find a way to spend them.
  I suspect that is what we will hear a great deal about in this 
session. Unfortunately, I believe we will hear more about issues that 
can be used politically than we will about trying to solve problems. 
There are some we have identified and with which we agree. We need to 
come together and find some solutions to those particular issues. The 
country will be much better off.
  I thank the Chair for the time, and 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. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________