[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 23876-23877]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



               COMPLETING THE WORK OF THE 106TH CONGRESS

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I, too, am anxious that we complete the 
work we have before us. We still have three important appropriations 
bills to put together. I hope we can deal with respect to the issues 
and move away from some of what has happened, where we have sought, in 
some cases, to make an issue more than to reach a solution.
  In fairness to the Congress and to our associates, since Labor Day 
there has been a substantial amount of progress made. I will review 
some of it to assure you that we have been doing some very helpful and 
useful work.
  For example, repeal of the telephone excise tax: This was a tax that 
was implemented during the Spanish-American War on telephones. I 
suspect it had exhausted itself by this time and finally was repealed.
  The Safe Drug Reimportation Act, which, of course, is a part of a 
solution to pharmaceutical costs: In the case of Canada, for example, 
pharmaceuticals that are exported there are under price controls by the 
Government and therefore are less expensive than they are in the United 
States. This authorizes those drugs to be reimported and hopefully to 
be resold at a price less than what we have had in the United States. 
One of the issues is to ensure that those drugs are indeed bona fide 
and are indeed safe and will be the kinds of drugs that we would 
receive absent the reimportation.
  Permanent normal trade relations with China: An interesting issue, 
one that is sometimes thought to be a big gift for China. The fact is, 
in terms of our trade with China, the restrictions they have had 
against our goods have been much greater than the restrictions we have 
had against theirs; in agriculture, for example, a 40-percent tariff on 
beef.
  If this is implemented, we will have a reduction in the barriers for 
us to be shipping goods to China. We have had a good deal of discussion 
in some campaigns about trade and whether or not the effects of trade 
are valuable to the United States. Of course, about 40 percent of 
agricultural products are sold overseas. Obviously, those markets are 
very important to us, but we need to ensure that it is done as fairly 
as can be and that we are treated well in this exchange. That, of 
course, is the reason for organizations such as WTO.
  Legislation on H-1B visas was passed which allows for more high-tech 
people to enter this country to take jobs we are not able to fill. I 
think one of the very important things that goes with that is it 
emphasizes and funds some additional training for students in this 
country so that rather than hiring foreign people to fill these jobs, 
we will also be training people here to be hired for those jobs. I 
think that is terribly important.
  We have done some things with the Children's Health Act; for 
instance, the Cancer Prevention Treatment Act, which is one bill that 
is particularly important to me. My wife is very involved in the Race 
For A Cure and doing things as to breast cancer.
  The Rural Schools and Communities Health Determination Act is one 
that I think is very important. The real issue we have had on education 
in this Chamber has not been the amount of money the Federal Government 
spends but, rather, how it can be spent, and one of the obstacles has 
been that this administration has insisted that as the Federal money 
goes out, there are certain things tied to it that are required to be 
done. We on this side of the aisle have said, yes, we want to 
strengthen education, but we believe local educators, school boards, 
and State school departments should have the authority to make those 
kinds of decisions. Certainly, the needs in Wyoming are different from 
those in New York. So we certainly needed to do that, and we have 
indeed done that.
  The Violence Against Women Act was an act we passed again so that it 
stays in effect, which is one of the most important aspects. We have 
done some things with the Water Resource Development Act, which is 
still in play but has been passed through this Congress. It has water 
development projects in it, the emphasis being on the Everglades. A 
good deal of authorization money is made available to the Everglades, 
which is one of our very important ecological activities.
  NASA authorization and DOD authorization are continued, and we have 
done the Interior appropriations, which took into account some of the 
discussion involved with the CARA Act, but it didn't make it in defined 
spending--not with 15 years of mandatory spending, but it did provide 
additional funds for activities such as stateside parks and maintenance 
of Federal parks.
  It was kind of disappointing to me when we received the budget from 
the administration. I happen to be chairman of the Parks Subcommittee. 
Despite our acknowledgment of the need for infrastructure for parks, 
the budget provided more money for acquisition of new parks than for 
the maintenance of the parks we have now. So we need to make sure we 
deal with those issues.
  We have had energy and water and Treasury-Postal.
  My point is that we have done a great deal this year. Of course, 
there are always many more things to do. The issues that probably have 
dominated more time than anything are the issues that most people are 
concerned about, such as education. We talked about education for 5 
weeks here this year. I have already indicated the different view. I 
was disappointed, frankly, in the way that progressed. We could have 
resolved that long ago. But the difference in view was on who has 
control of the spending, and it really was held up more as an issue for 
this election. That is too bad. I think we have a substantial amount of 
that taking place.
  Social Security: It is interesting that Social Security now becomes 
one of the prime issues in the election--and indeed it should be. It is 
something that is extremely important to most everyone, of course. The 
proposal out there would ensure that those receiving benefits now would 
continue to receive them and those close to receiving benefits would 
have no change. But when you take a long look at Social Security, it is 
clear that unless something is done over time, then young people, such 
as these pages, who will pay taxes in their first paycheck, probably 
will not be able to line up for benefits. A change must be made.
  It is interesting that that is one of the Presidential issues talked 
about the most. But during the past 8 years, really nothing has been 
done about it by this administration. That is interesting. The options, 
of course, are to do nothing or to try to make changes. One of the 
changes could be to increase taxes. That is not a very popular 
proposal. Reducing benefits is equally unpopular.
  We can take a portion of those dollars and let them be in the account 
of people for themselves, let them invest it in the private sector and 
raise the return from about 2 percent to whatever it would be in the 
market, which would be substantially more than 2 percent. It is too bad 
that hasn't been changed. We have talked about keeping all the money 
there, and we are determined to do that. I think we have had five or 
six votes on a lockbox. All of that has been turned down because it 
seemed to be more important at that point to make an issue rather than 
find a solution.
  We have had a good deal of discussion over a Patients' Bill of 
Rights, of course. We have had it before a conference committee. The 
Presiding Officer is a leader in that, and he has worked very hard to 
find a solution. But really, it turns on a relatively singular issue, 
and that is, where do you go with your appeal? Some would like

[[Page 23877]]

to go directly to court. Others of us would like to see in the interim 
a professional medical person be able to make those choices, and make 
them quickly, rather than the trial lawyers. So that has been a 
difficult issue.
  Tax relief is something that, of course, is very important to all 
people. I find a lot of folks in Wyoming who are very interested in the 
repeal of the estate tax because we have lots of farms, ranches, and 
small businesses which people have spent their lives developing. The 
estate tax comes along and pretty well wipes out the profits they have 
made on efforts that have already been taxed. We passed that measure 
and the marriage penalty repeal. The marriage penalty clearly needed to 
be repealed. It provided that two people, singly, on the same salary, 
paid less taxes than they would if they were married. That isn't right. 
These, of course, were both vetoed by the President. So we didn't solve 
those issues. They are still there to be considered.
  So I think in many ways we have had a very successful session. The 
amount of activity by the Congress is not always the measurement of 
success. I am one who believes there ought to be a limited role in the 
Federal Government and that that role is reasonably well defined, of 
course, in the Constitution. This is a United States of America. The 
implication, and I believe the better purpose, was for a limited role 
of the Federal Government. Obviously, there are things that are very 
appropriate--not only appropriate, but necessary--for the Federal 
Government to do.
  On the other hand, I find as I move around in my State more and more 
people are saying, wait a minute, there are a lot of things here the 
Federal Government is involved in that it need not be involved. This 
economy that we have, which has been good to us over the last 12, 13 
years, is a result of people being able to do things for themselves in 
the private sector, being able to have more of their own money to 
invest, using their initiative to compete.
  So I think we ought to really examine in each of our minds what we 
think the role of the Federal Government ought to be and where we want 
to be over a period of time with respect to the division of power among 
the Federal Government, State governments, local governments and, most 
of all, of individuals. And then, as we move forward through all these 
programs, we ought to measure those things against that goal and see 
if, indeed, they are the kinds of things that contribute to the 
attainment of the way we see it.
  Are there different views about that? Of course. There are people who 
believe the Federal Government should be involved in many things, and 
we have seen over the last decade sort of a turn to the Federal 
Government on most every issue that arises. We have found that the 
Federal Government is not the best place to resolve many things.
  I don't mean to be in opposition to better government; certainly the 
role of defense; no one else can do that; interstate types of things we 
have to do; research we have to do. But there is a measure of balance 
that we should have.
  I am hopeful as we complete this year and move into another cycle 
after this year that we can take time to really evaluate where we want 
to go and where we want to be when it is over.
  I look forward to a very productive week. I, too, hope we are able to 
put together our packages and over the period of the next 3 days come 
to some conclusions. I hope we can basically try to stay within the 
spending limits that we have set for ourselves. The fact that we have a 
surplus seems to be an incentive to spend more money for whatever is 
there. And obviously we have to take a look at all kinds of issues. But 
we ought to really take a look at that surplus. Where does it belong? 
It seems to me that the surplus very clearly needs to be set aside. The 
money that goes to Social Security ought to be left in Social Security.
  I think we have to certainly fund adequately those things that we 
determine are legitimate activities of the Federal Government. I think 
then we ought to really address ourselves to paying down the debt. I 
hope we will take a look at paying down the debt the way all of us take 
a look at home mortgages, and say we have--whatever it is--$3 trillion 
of publicly held debt that we want to pay off. Let's set it up to pay 
it off in 15 years. It takes so much every year, and that is part of 
budgeting. If we just say we will pay it off whenever we get a good 
opportunity, it never happens. I hope we can continue that effort.
  Finally, there is, hopefully, money left from that surplus. That 
ought to go back to the people who paid it. We ought not to be asking 
taxpayers to pay in more money than really is necessary to perform the 
functions of government. It ought to be spent in the private sector so 
we can continue this fairly prosperous society.
  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. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________