[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15969-15970]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                  DICK CHENEY AND NATIONAL GOVERNANCE

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I wanted to take a minute today to react 
to the news that has been all over, of course, in the last few days 
about the selection of a Wyoming person to be on the ticket with 
Governor Bush. We are very excited, of course, and very proud of Dick 
Cheney. We think he is certainly a great addition to anyone's ticket 
for national governance. We think he is a great choice.
  Mr. Cheney, of course, was most recently Secretary of Defense. He 
moved to Secretary of Defense from serving Wyoming for nearly 10 years 
in the Congress, in the House. I was fortunate enough to be able to 
replace Dick Cheney in the House, representing Wyoming, so I, of 
course, have followed his career closely. No one was more excited than 
I was when he left to go to Defense. In any event, not only that but of 
course he had worked in the White House. He had worked there as an 
administrative person, finally worked his way up to be Chief of Staff 
for President Ford.
  So really there is no one who has had a broader and better experience 
in National Government than Dick Cheney. Perhaps even more important 
than that, this is a person who is a real person. I am sure all of us 
get a little exasperated from time to time in politics, where it seems 
almost everything is spinning the issue, particularly in election 
times. You hear things. Someone asks a question and the question is 
never answered because they spin off into something that is entirely 
different to be advantageous to themselves. Not Dick Cheney. Dick 
Cheney is a guy who is real. He is a guy just like the rest of us. He 
grew up in Caspar, WY; went to school there. So all of us, including 
the Presiding Officer here, from Wyoming, are very proud of Dick Cheney 
and very pleased that he will be a part of this campaign, hopefully of 
governance in this country.
  Finally, for a couple of seconds I would like to say how disappointed 
I am that we are not moving forward, doing the business of the people 
of this country. We are down to where there are 4 days left this week, 
less than that, actually--a week when we had hoped to do, probably, 
three appropriations bills. We go out, then, in August for recess, come 
back in September, probably have less than 20 working days to 
accomplish the business of this country.
  Whether you like it or not, one of the major features of the 
Government is the appropriations process. It is determining what money 
is spent for, what programs are given priorities. Of course, that is 
what the appropriations process is all about. We are talking about $1.8 
trillion, almost $700 billion of that being in appropriated funds. So 
our responsibility is to do that. Now we find ourselves being held up 
from going forward. I understand there are differences of opinion. That 
is what this is all about. There are supposed to be differences of 
opinion. But there is also a way to deal with those without holding up 
the progress of the entire Congress and ignoring the things we are 
designed to do, often simply to make an issue.
  We find ourselves, unfortunately, in Presidential years more 
interested in creating issues than we are in creating solutions. I 
think that is too bad. Obviously, issues are important. Obviously, 
differences of view are important. Obviously, there is generally a 
considerable amount of difference between the views on the other side 
of the aisle, the minority, and the majority. The minority, of course, 
is generally for spending more money, having more Government. They see 
the role of the Federal Government expanded greatly, where most of us 
on this side are more interested in holding down the size of 
government, moving government closer to the people and the States and 
in the counties and that sort of activity.
  It is discouraging when they use that leverage of basically shutting 
down the things we must do. Unfortunately, there is a history of that. 
In 1998, in the second session, the minority held up the education 
savings account, the protection of private property rights,

[[Page 15970]]

product liability reform, NATO expansion, the Human Cloning Prohibition 
Act, funding for the Treasury Department--all in the effort to use that 
leverage.
  Last year, of course, we had the obstruction of the Social Security 
lockbox--six times. We would go back to the same six times to make an 
issue out of it. Ed-Flex, the idea of giving more flexibility to 
education and letting people on the ground, in the States and on the 
school boards, have more determination as to what was done there, and 
bankruptcy reform--still in limbo.
  We had delay in such critical issues as the elementary-secondary 
education bill. That is something that ought to be moved. Marriage 
penalty tax relief--it took a very long time. You can make decisions on 
things, but to try to change it by avoiding moving forward is a very 
destructive kind of operation. That is where we find ourselves right 
now, unfortunately.
  The Ed-Flex bill, as I said, had to have five votes before we could 
break that. The lockbox legislation to protect Social Security, we went 
over and over that.
  Much of it is the idea somehow if we can put everything off until 
after the first of the year, there will perhaps be another opportunity 
to do something different.
  I think it is time for us to adjourn. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am wondering, the Senate reconvenes at 2 
o'clock by previous order today, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At the hour of 2:15.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I shall not ask to extend morning 
business. But I ask consent I be recognized at 2:15 for 20 minutes of 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________