[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9299-9302]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                     CONGRESSIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I wanted to talk a little bit about the 
things we have accomplished in this last session of the Congress, the 
first year, which is over. We are into the second year of this 106th 
Congress.
  We are having a little problem moving along, of course, and we are 
trying to find a way to avoid holding up progress after the filing of 
unrelated amendments that have turned out to be filibusters. I hope we 
can get around that and move forward with the 13 appropriations bills 
we have.
  We ought to recognize this has been a productive session. We have 
done a great deal. But there are a number of things I think are of 
particular importance to the American people. One, obviously, is to do 
something with the Social Security retirement system. We have done a 
great deal with that over the last year. Although there still needs to 
be some systematic changes made to the program, we can ensure that the 
program will be there over time.
  We have made a very significant movement by providing that the 12\1/
2\ percent of our earnings paid into Social Security by everyone who 
works in this country is, in fact, used for Social Security. 
Historically, over a very long time, those dollars have been used for 
many non-Social Security programs. Because of this Republican Congress, 
because of the lockbox idea, we have put that money aside. It is not 
being spent for other items. That is very significant.
  I hope we can proceed and look at alternatives to ensure that the 
young people who are now just beginning to pay into the program will 
have a program of benefits when the time comes for them to be eligible 
for the benefits. Frankly, the program has changed in terms of the 
profile of people. When we began, there were some 20 people working for 
every one drawing benefits. Now it is less than 3 and will be down to 
2.
  Obviously, things have to be changed. There are some options: We can 
raise taxes. I don't know of anyone excited about that. We can reduce 
benefits. The same is true with that. Or, indeed, we can take a portion 
of those dollars and make them individual accounts for each person--2 
percent out of the 12 percent is what we are talking about--and let 
that money be invested in their behalf, invested in equities, let it be 
invested in bonds, let it be invested in a combination of their choice, 
for their retirement, or as part of their estate if they are not 
fortunate enough to live.
  The issue most talked about is education. Only about 7 percent of the 
finances of education in this country, elementary and secondary, are 
provided by the Federal Government. There is a great deal of discussion 
about how that is allocated and how it is made available. The big 
debate, and the reason we haven't gone further with elementary and 
secondary reauthorization, is there is a difference of view.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle believe if the Federal 
Government is providing the money, it ought to also provide the rules 
as to how it is used. We think that is not the most effective way to 
use the money.
  I come from Wyoming. We have some very small towns in our relatively 
small State. In Chugwater, WY, where I attended a graduation ceremony 
this week, with 12 graduates from high school, they have different 
needs than Pittsburgh, PA.
  We need to have the flexibility. We say let's help make education 
stronger, but let the local people decide how that is done. We have 
been working on that.

[[Page 9300]]

  Another area is economic opportunities for all Americans. We have 
done that in terms of tax relief. Unfortunately, the bill that was 
passed in this Congress was vetoed by the President, denying relief for 
hard-working Americans. However, we were successful in passing a 
Republican bill that eliminated the penalty on earnings in excess of 
Social Security income. Instead of having to pay taxes on $1 out of $3, 
we have removed that, to encourage people to continue to work and earn 
money.
  Another is national security. I suspect there is nothing more 
important. There is no more logical role for the Federal Government 
than defense. No one else can do that. Over the last several years, 
this administration has not adequately funded defense. Now we have to 
do that, particularly since we have a volunteer service. There has to 
be some attraction to that. There has to be an attraction to get men 
and women to go into the service and, maybe even more difficult, once 
they are trained to doing things, to work as pilots or mechanics or 
whatever, to keep them there. That is very difficult. So we have made 
some progress in that area.
  I think there are a lot of things that have been done. I mentioned 
Social Security and taking care of the surplus. I think that is a real 
plus for this Congress, that we have a budget surplus. For the first 
time in probably 40 years, we have a budget surplus. We are not 
spending Social Security money. Indeed, this time there will be, 
hopefully, more money than is necessary to conduct the business of the 
Federal Government.
  Of course, several things can happen with that money. One, we can 
make sure we start to pay down the debt. I mean pay down the debt with 
real dollars, not simply putting in Social Security dollars there as 
well. We stopped the raid on the Social Security fund and began to make 
some reduction in the debt that we have. The interest on that debt has 
been almost the second largest item in the Federal budget for a very 
long time. We can change that. Of course, if that is done, and done 
properly, we can move on to some tax relief, which I think is something 
we ought to do.
  I mentioned our efforts on elementary and secondary education. We 
also were able to take the first step in passing the Ed-Flex program 
which, again, provides more opportunities for local people to use those 
Federal dollars as they need them. Some schools need capital 
construction, some need computers, some need more teachers or smaller 
classrooms, but each school district has a little different need. We 
want to make sure they have an opportunity to make that decision. We 
also need to ensure the money is not spent by the bureaucracy in 
Washington but in fact finds its way to the schools on the local level.
  Overall tax relief is still something we need to do. We have done a 
great deal on that so far and can do substantially more.
  I mentioned what we did on Social Security, and we need to go 
further.
  On national defense, the Senator just before me was talking about 
missile defense. Certainly, we need to continue to explore that. We 
need to continue to have a strong military. In my view, that is our 
best chance for peace in the world--to continue to have a strong 
military.
  I had the good fortune a couple of weeks ago to visit the Space 
Command in Colorado Springs. I am impressed with what they are doing to 
find a way to have a missile defense program that will allow us a 
deterrent so we can move forward with other kinds of things. We were 
successful, and I believe we acted properly, not ratifying the 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty so we could continue to test our weapons 
and make sure they are as they should be.
  We have made some real progress in trade. The African trade bill is 
out there. It was signed into law in May. We can do something with 
that. Yesterday, the Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China was 
passed by the House and will be over here now. I happen to be the 
chairman of the subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific rim. I do believe 
certainly we have to verify the things happening in that area of the 
world, but there is good evidence we can make more progress bringing 
about change by being involved as opposed to isolating and seeking to 
stay away from that. So certainly there is a great deal to be gained 
there.
  We have made some progress in high tech. The Y2K bill was an 
important piece of legislation, and the Satellite Television 
Improvement Act, particularly for rural States where people do not have 
access to cable. It has not yet been completed, but we have made some 
real movement on that. We hope to have that completed so people all 
across the country can have the same opportunities, both in satellites 
and TV, and also, of course, in infrastructure for high-tech broadband 
coverage. We are moving forward on the opportunity to do that. We must 
move in that direction.
  Health care is an area on which we have to move forward. This Senate 
has passed a Patients' Bill of Rights that would provide for patients 
in HMOs to have some immediate referral, so if there is a question 
about the procedures, rather than having to go to court or having 
someone in an office far away decide what you can do, you have an 
appeal to a physician as to what that ought to be. Unfortunately, that 
bill is still in conference, but we think it will be out very soon.
  One of the things we have done in this Congress that was particularly 
important was the Welfare Reform Act--of 1996, actually. This 
Republican Congress passed that. We have helped people find jobs, 
helped people move into opportunity instead of dependency. That is 
something I think has been very useful to all Americans.
  We have a ways to go, of course. We constantly have things to do 
here, as we should. On the other hand, we have also moved forward and 
made a good deal of progress in this Congress. We have an opportunity 
to do more. As I mentioned, unfortunately, we have come to kind of a 
slowdown here, using the techniques, using the process to force issues. 
What it really does is slow down everything we do.
  There is clearly an opportunity for differences of view; that is what 
this place is for, to talk about differences, to disagree, if you 
please, as to the role of Government and what ought to be done. But the 
idea of using irrelevant issues to hold up progress on the things we 
all know we have to do--and I am particularly talking about the 
appropriations bills that obviously have to be passed. Frankly, we are 
anxious to get them done early so we do not run into the same problems 
we had several years ago where we could not get it done and had to put 
it all in one package at the end. The President then used that as 
leverage on the Congress. He threatened and, indeed, did shut down the 
Government to be able to force things through this Congress that the 
Congress did not want to do. We should not let ourselves get into that 
position again, certainly not this year.
  Mr. President, I am expecting other Senators to come for this time 
period. In the meantime, 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. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to follow my colleague's remarks with 
some thoughts of my own concerning the appearance that the Senate is 
not getting anything done these days, and talk a little bit about the 
reasons why. Anybody watching the Senate proceedings over the course of 
the last couple of weeks would probably wonder what we were 
accomplishing and would have some reason to criticize the Senate for 
not getting a lot of business done.
  What is the reason for that? I think it is very important, and that 
is why I wanted to come to the Senate floor to talk about it because I 
am becoming very frustrated at the tactics of many people on the other 
side of the aisle,

[[Page 9301]]

the Democratic minority, in attempting to preclude the Senate from 
doing its business, the people's business.
  We have important legislative initiatives that the majority leader 
has tried to bring before the Senate repeatedly, and repeatedly he has 
been thwarted by the minority which seems intent on bringing the Senate 
to an absolute stop, to a standstill, to prevent it from doing any 
business unless the majority accedes to the minority's request that 
they be permitted to offer amendments which are nongermane, irrelevant, 
to the subject matter of the Senate.
  When people reflect on the organizations to which they belong and 
their understanding of things as basic as Robert's Rules of Order, they 
appreciate that almost any organization has to have certain rules under 
which to live.
  In the House of Representatives, as the Presiding Officer is well 
aware, both of us having come from the House of Representatives, there 
are pretty strict sets of rules to apply. There are 435 people in the 
House, and if they all did what they wanted to do, they would never get 
anything done. We pretty much have to talk about things that are 
germane and relevant to the pending business, and if we do not, someone 
can make an objection that this is out of order, and everybody knows 
under Robert's Rules, one can say: Mr. Chairman, that's out of order; 
that's not relevant to the subject we are supposed to be discussing.
  In the Senate, the rules are much more liberal. Members generally 
work together on things and do not enforce the rules as strictly as 
they are enforced in the House. Nevertheless, the Senate has 
essentially always had rules respecting germaneness and relevancy, and 
until very recently, we could make an objection that a proposed 
amendment, for example, on an appropriations bill was not germane or 
was irrelevant, and in order to continue to debate that amendment, the 
proponent would have to get 60 Senators to agree to do that, to 
overrule the ruling of the Chair that the amendment is not germane or 
irrelevant.
  I know this is all somewhat procedure and it may make some eyes glaze 
over, but it is an important foundation for my point. We decided if we 
were going to do the business of the people, we had to ensure we could 
get on with it and not have a lot of riders on these appropriations 
bills and, therefore, we would begin enforcing rule XVI, which says if 
a Senator is going to debate something, it needs to be relevant or 
germane to these bills. That is the basic issue that has members of the 
minority upset.
  How dare you gag us, they say. Gag them? Nobody is being gagged. We 
are simply going to enforce the rules that say if you are going to 
propose an amendment, it needs to be relevant or germane. Everybody in 
the country understands that--the organizations to which they belong. 
Why wouldn't the minority want that? Because they want to accomplish 
two objectives apparently: One is to prevent the majority from 
accomplishing anything this year so they can call us a do-nothing 
Congress; in other words, create a self-fulfilling prophecy. By 
preventing us from doing anything, they will criticize the majority 
leader for not doing anything.
  The other objective apparently is to be able to debate their agenda, 
things such as gun control and the minimum wage, maybe prescription 
drugs, and so on, on their timetable. So whatever bill we bring up, 
they try to attach to it an irrelevant or nongermane amendment 
relating, for example, to gun control.
  We have had lots of gun control debates. I remember 2 weeks last year 
when the majority leader finally said: OK, we will have the debate; it 
will be on the juvenile justice bill. We voted on lots of amendments, 
including some the minority really liked. We had that debate; we had 
those votes; but that was not enough. It appears we have to talk about 
these things all of the time because that is what is going to be 
politically popular in this fall's elections.
  That is wrong. To tie up the people's business, to tie up the Senate 
for political gain is wrong. If any of the members of the minority are 
engaging in this procedure for that purpose, they clearly ought not to.
  We have accomplished a lot this year, notwithstanding these tactics. 
I note things such as repeal of the Social Security earnings test, 
something Republicans wanted to do for a long time, and the Presiding 
Officer and I have been working on for a long time; the budget 
resolution, which maintains a balanced budget--we got that done; bills 
such as the African-Caribbean free trade bill; financial services 
modernization; the FAA reauthorization--a lot of different pieces of 
legislation that are good, that help maintain a part of our economy or 
ensure we are going to have a balanced budget, for example.
  There are many other pieces of legislation we want to pass. We want 
to pass the marriage tax penalty relief bill to do away with the 
marriage penalty in the IRS Code. The minority will not let us bring it 
for a vote. They say they are for it, but they are not going to let us 
vote on it.
  It is the same thing with the reauthorization of the education bill. 
This is a bill that needs to be reauthorized because it deals with all 
of the rules under which the Federal money goes to the States to 
support primary and secondary education. The minority will not let us 
vote on it.
  Appropriations bills: We have to pass 13 appropriations bills to keep 
the Government running. People get mighty upset when the Government 
cannot continue to operate. Who is stopping us from acting on these 
appropriations bills? The Democrats in the Senate will not let the 
majority bring these appropriations bills up, except one. We can bring 
up the legislative branch appropriations bill, the bill that provides 
the money to run the Congress. They will let us bring that one up but 
none of the others.
  We have a very important agricultural supplemental appropriations 
bill to help out farmers in this country. Democrats will not let us 
bring it up. When I say they will not let us bring it up, people say 
how can they stop you? Under the rules of the Senate, one Member can 
object to any piece of legislation being brought up for its 
consideration or being voted on, and in order to override that person's 
objection, you have to get 60 Members of this body to agree to override 
that and proceed to a vote or proceed to consideration of a bill. That 
is called invoking cloture.
  There are 55 Republicans and there are 45 Democrats. On these 
procedural matters, the Democratic Members tend to vote in a block, the 
net result of which is we can never get 60 votes to proceed with 
business. Because of the party loyalty and the partisanship that has 
gotten involved in our legislative agenda, we are not able to move 
matters forward because there is an objection to proceeding. That is 
why I say members of the minority preclude us from moving forward and 
doing the people's business.
  We wanted to pass a very important amendment to me, and I note to the 
Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, who is on the floor now--the 
crime victims' rights constitutional amendment. Frankly, parliamentary 
tactics were used and threatened to make it clear that we would be 
debating that bill for weeks, something that obviously we did not have 
time to do if we were going to do the other important business of the 
Senate. Senator Feinstein and I had to pull that bill down.
  Since I am being critical of Members of the Democratic minority, let 
me say that there have been some Members, such as Senator Feinstein, 
who have worked very closely with me and others to try to move some of 
these important bills forward.
  We all get caught up in our own partisan battles here. That is to be 
expected. It is a political year, after all. It seems to me we can and 
ought to agree there are some things so important that we ought to get 
together as Democrats and Republicans and move the legislation forward.
  One of them clearly is the education bill. Another is the repeal of 
the marriage tax penalty. Another is the appropriations bills. For the 
life of me, I

[[Page 9302]]

do not see why there have to be objections to bringing forward 
appropriations bills, and I do not subscribe to the notion that it is 
wrong for us to bring those bills forward if members of the minority 
cannot seek amendments which are nongermane or irrelevant.
  We all know what Robert's Rules provide. Those are not the rules of 
the Senate, but we all understand why we have to have rules such as 
that, and that is to keep the process moving along so that we can do 
the important business we have to do.
  I am very frustrated today, Mr. President. It is obvious because I do 
not ordinarily come to the floor, and I do not like to criticize in a 
partisan way. But people have to understand today or tomorrow we are 
probably going to begin the Memorial Day recess, which means there will 
be another 12 or 13 days of nonaction in the Senate, the net result of 
which will be we are way behind getting our business done, especially 
the appropriations bills to run the Government.
  The danger is that there are not very many opportunities for us to 
get these bills done before the Senate has to adjourn for an election 
this year, and we will end up, instead of focusing on each of the 
appropriations bills, in turn having to put it all into one giant 
appropriations bill.
  What happens when we do that? Every Member comes back to the Senate 
months later and says: I didn't know they put that in the bill. Nobody 
has a chance to read these giant omnibus bills. So we vote on bills we 
haven't even had an opportunity to read. Staff gets all kinds of things 
inserted. People on the inside get all kinds of things inserted in the 
legislation. We find out weeks later about the mistakes we have made. 
It is impossible to have a good, informed vote on a bill.
  The other danger, of course, is that it is easier; that instead of 
resolving disputes and prioritizing spending, by offsetting this 
spending with this savings--for example, in those last days to put 
together these giant omnibus appropriations bill--you don't make those 
hard decisions; you just add more money. So you resolve the dispute by 
saying: we are taking care of you, and we are taking care of you. And 
pretty soon we have busted the budget. Most importantly, we may make 
the mistake of spending Social Security surplus money.
  This past year, we did not spend a dime of Social Security surplus 
money. The previous year, we saved most of that Social Security surplus 
from being spent. Republicans, this year, are committed not to spending 
any of the Social Security surplus. But, unfortunately, I will make 
this prediction: If we get into this giant omnibus appropriations 
process at the end because we could not do our business during the 
weeks we have now to do that business, we are going to end up spending 
Social Security surplus money. I will never vote for such a bill. I 
think, therefore, we ought to be very careful about getting ourselves 
into that box.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this issue. I 
hope people with goodwill can work it out, so when we come back from 
our recess, we can begin to get the people's business done and get it 
done on time. It is important for the future of this country.

                          ____________________