[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18210-18211]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           LEGISLATIVE AGENDA

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to take a couple of minutes to talk 
a little bit about where we are, where we are going, and what we face 
this week and the few remaining weeks we have before us. There will be 
some more Senators to come over to the floor shortly to talk about some 
of the issues we have before us, particularly debt reduction, which we 
are committed to undertake this week, and I think is one of the most 
important things we can do. We will be talking, of course, about many 
of the things that are left to discuss.
  We have done a number of things in this Congress, of course, and we 
have a number of things yet to do, particularly appropriations. Those 
appropriations need to be finished by the end of the fiscal year which 
is the end of September. So we have a very short time to handle these 
things. We have worked at it for a good long time. We seem to have had 
a repetition of obstructions to moving forward.
  I hope we are now in a position to go ahead and fund those programs 
that have been authorized, that are out there for the American people, 
and that we do not find ourselves using this time to begin to insert 
into these bills all kinds of things that have already been discussed 
and that are intended more to create an issue than they are to find a 
solution.
  There have been, of course, a number of very important things done 
this year; we need to recognize that. I guess people have different 
ideas about how many things and what kinds of things. There is a great 
difference in the view of the direction this Government should take and 
what is the role of the Federal Government, whether the Government 
ought to tells us what to do or whether, in fact, the Government's role 
is to establish a framework in which we make our own decisions at the 
local level, as opposed to being dictated to by the Washington 
bureaucracy.
  These are some of the big issues. We passed the marriage tax relief 
bill here in the Congress. That would have been largely a resolution to 
an issue of fairness, where two single persons, each earning X amount 
of dollars and paying X in taxes, when they get married, making the 
same dollars, pay a larger amount of taxes. Unfair? Of course. 
Unfortunately, that bill was vetoed by the President, so we will have 
to take it up at another time. I do not think it will be taken up this 
year. Obviously, the White House is determined they will not permit tax 
relief of this kind.
  We passed the elimination of the death tax. That is very important. 
Some indicated it was only for the very wealthy. Of course that is not 
true. We have very many people in my State of Wyoming in the 
agriculture business, small businesses, families that have put 
together--sometimes over generations--a business. That business then 
has to be disposed of because they have to pay 52 percent taxes. That, 
of course, was also vetoed by the President.
  We did get some tax relief. Very important was elimination of the 
Social Security earnings test, which eliminates the tax on earnings by 
seniors 65 to 69. Previous to that, seniors in that category lost a 
dollar in Social Security benefits for every $3 earned. Again, I think 
it is largely a fairness proposition and we are pleased that did 
happen.
  The digital signatures bill, of course, is very important as we move 
into a new era in the business activities of our Nation. The digital 
signatures bill makes it easy for people to have legal protection in 
contracts of that kind.
  On national security, the Iran Nonproliferation Act was very 
important for free trade. It dealt with free trade in the sub Sahara, 
Africa, and the Caribbean. It is important those things continue to be 
done. I come from a State where agriculture is very important. Nearly 
40 percent of our agricultural products are sold for export. We find 
ourselves dealing with unilateral sanctions, which often limit what we 
can sell to those people. Then they go somewhere else for it. We made 
some progress in that area, certainly. I hope we will make some more.
  We have done a good deal of work on affordable education; education 
savings accounts. We made available $500-$2,000 in tax relief for 
education. We need to get that forwarded.

[[Page 18211]]

  Also, with health care, we passed a Patients' Bill of Rights that 
says you can appeal, but the first appeal goes to a medical 
professional and not to lawyers. I think that is the better way to go. 
The opposition, of course, has seen to it that it ultimately not pass, 
but it has passed here.
  We passed bankruptcy reform which provided that if persons were able 
to repay at least a portion of their debt, that was an appropriate 
thing to do.
  So we have made a substantial amount of progress. We have, I think, 
many issues we need to discuss that are terribly important. This is a 
place for decisions on the direction we take, which is what elections 
are about, and the direction that you and I as voters and as citizens 
believe the country ought to move. There are legitimate differences. 
That is really what we deal with. Unfortunately, many times we do not 
get down to what those real differences are but get tied up in other 
things.
  On education, for example, I do not think there is a Senator in this 
place who doesn't believe education is one of the most important issues 
before us. Almost everyone in the country thinks that. The question is 
not that. The question is, What kind of educational support do we 
expect from the Federal Government? The amount the Government 
contributes from the Federal level is about 7 percent, but it is 
substantial. It deals with certain things such as special education. 
The real issue has not been that. The real issue is whether the Federal 
bureaucracy should tell the school districts what they ought to do with 
that Federal money or whether, indeed, we send it there and say they 
may have unique problems and need to spend their money for different 
things. The needs in Pinedale, WY, are different than they are in 
Pittsburgh, PA. We believe that. That has been the difference. I think 
it is a fundamental difference in government.
  Social Security--no one would object to the notion we ought to 
strengthen Social Security. I think everyone would agree with the idea 
we want Social Security dollars to be safely entrenched. But there are 
some differences as to how we do that. There is a proposition on the 
floor that I support--I think it is excellent--that would give a choice 
to younger people. People over 55 or whatever probably would stay the 
same, but younger people would have an opportunity to invest or have 
invested in their behalf a portion of those Social Security dollars in 
the private sector, in equities. They could choose whether it be in 
stocks or whether it be in bonds or whether it be in combination. The 
point being, if we do not do something about Social Security by the 
time young people who are now beginning to pay in become eligible for 
benefits, there will not be any, the demographics have changed so much.
  We started out with over 20 people working for every 1 drawing 
benefits. Now we have 3 people working for every 1 who draws benefits; 
it will soon be 2. We have to do something different than what we have 
been doing in the past. Obviously, you can raise taxes if you choose. 
That is not a popular idea. You can lower benefits, again not a popular 
idea. A third alternative is you can increase the return on those 
dollars that you have paid in and are in the trust account, and that is 
the difference.
  There is not agreement on that so we have to choose which way we want 
to go.
  I mentioned the Patients' Bill of Rights. Do you want someone in the 
medical community making a decision instead of your insurance company 
or do you want to go to court? You get to court, of course, long after 
the medical decision should have been made.
  We ought to be doing something to pay down the debt. We talk about 
paying down the debt, but we do not seem to do much on that. There is a 
proposition that I think is great, and that is to set aside, as one 
would with a house mortgage, money and say we are going to pay down so 
much of this $5 trillion every year and it becomes part of the budget. 
It makes a lot of sense to me. We find opposition to that because 
people want to spend the money, and if there is a surplus, they think 
Government ought to grow and get into many other areas. That is a 
philosophical difference of opinion.
  Tax reduction is much the same. When we have a surplus, it seems to 
me if after having funded the programs that have been authorized, after 
having done something to strengthen Medicare and having done something 
to begin to pay down the debt and strengthen Social Security, there is 
still surplus left, let that go. If we leave it here, it will be spent. 
It ought to go back to the people who paid in those dollars.
  Again, it is a different view than those who generally on the other 
side of the aisle want more Government, more expenditures, and do not 
agree with that idea. Those are legitimate differences. We have to make 
a decision, and we have to move forward. We haven't much time to do 
many of those things.
  Some of the questions before us are more parochial, more applicable 
to different parts of the country. I come from a State where 50 percent 
of the land belongs to the Federal Government, so the management of 
Federal lands and Federal resources have a great impact on our lives 
and on our economy.
  Everyone wants to preserve our resources. They want to take care of 
the natural resources. Certainly I do. I am chairman of the Parks 
Subcommittee. There is nothing I care more about than preserving those 
resources. At the same time, if we are going to do that, we need to 
have an opportunity for the owners to have access and to enjoy these 
resources. We also need to have multiple use so we can have hunting, 
hiking, grazing, and mineral production.
  Those are the kinds of issues with which we need to deal. The 
question is, How deeply do we want the Federal Government involved in 
making all the decisions in our lives? It is a legitimate difference.
  We are ready to move forward now. Out of 13 appropriations bills, we 
have completed 2. We have 11 to go. We will be putting together 
probably one or two bills at a time. I hope we do not come to the end 
with a huge omnibus package. That is not good governance. I hope we can 
avoid that.
  If, for example, we are considering the Interior appropriations bill, 
I hope we can get away from talking about the Patients' Bill of Rights 
or minimum wage. Those issues are great issues. We have already dealt 
with them. We have already voted on them. I think simply to bring them 
up as a blockage to moving forward with what we have to do is a mistake 
in governance. I hope we do not do that.
  I expect the chairman of the Budget Committee to come to the floor 
shortly and talk a little more about the budget, about the surplus, 
about the prospects of what we are going to do with those dollars; 
whether we can, indeed, take 90 percent of this surplus and put it into 
debt reduction and still have about $27 billion or $28 billion to deal 
with those issues that need to be strengthened, such as Medicare and 
Social Security.
  We have an opportunity to do those things. I am hopeful that each of 
us as citizens and voters of this country will take a look at how we 
see the future role of the Federal Government.
  We need to deal, obviously, with the military. Defense continues to 
be a most important item. Most people will agree we have not 
financially supported the military to the extent it needs to be 
supported for them to carry out the mission we have assigned. We have 
made some progress. We have put more money into the military over the 
last several years, more than the administration has asked for, in 
fact. We need to continue to do that so we can have a safe United 
States.
  I hope we can move forward. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss a 
little bit of my view of where we ought to go.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized.

                          ____________________