[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 988-989]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       CHALLENGES BEFORE CONGRESS

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is again time, as we begin this session 
of Congress, when challenges are before us--the opportunity to work on 
programs, some of which we worked on before and did not complete, some 
of which need to be worked on and haven't; such things as energy 
policy, of course, which we have worked on for some time. We are 
becoming more and more dependent as time goes by and as our consumption 
increases and our production does not.
  The highway bill we talked about for a good long time. It is most 
important for our economy, for our jobs, for our transportation, and we 
haven't been able to handle it in the last couple of years; to move 
into something such as the class action activity that we are committed 
to so that we are not moving the liability claims around to different 
States to find a jurisdiction that is most favorable; and to do 
something about tax simplification. We always talk about that. The Tax 
Code is that thick, and yet we continue to have it.
  We have a real opportunity to do a number of things, and I hope we 
are able to do that. I hope we are able to have an honest debate and 
discussion. We did have different points of view, obviously, but I hope 
we move towards finding solutions to coming together better than 
perhaps we have in the past.
  In addition--I guess this is really what I would like to comment 
about briefly today--I think we also have an opportunity and a 
responsibility to take a look at some of the existing programs, many of 
which have been in place far too long a time; indeed, maybe they should 
be. On the other hand, I think from time to time we need to have some 
kind of a system where we go back and take a look at older programs and 
see, as time changes, if those programs are still efficient, necessary, 
and as opportune as they were in the beginning.
  We have new programs all the time, and we tend not to take a look at 
some of the ones that are in place to see indeed if they are still 
needed, to see if they do the job as well as they have been, and to see 
if they are as efficient as they can be.
  I have in my desk a notebook that is nearly that thick with all the 
programs the Federal Government has in place. There are actually 
thousands of programs that are in place. Some are major and some are 
not, but nevertheless they are there. We are talking about balancing 
the budget and so on. Some of that ought to reflect the expenditures 
which have been going on for a long time, and still continue to go on.
  Of course, when you have a program out there, the nature of it is 
that people get involved and it develops its own constituency which 
makes it difficult to change from time to time. I hope we can do some 
reevaluations of the ones that we have. We have some programs that 
obviously need to be changed.
  The Senator from South Dakota was talking about Social Security. 
Obviously, it needs to be changed. He argues about whether it is a 
crisis, but the fact is, for one thing all the money that is in the so-
called trust fund is not in the trust fund at all. There are IOUs in 
there that have to be repaid. In order to go beyond the 20-, 13-, or 
18-year program that we talk about in order get to the 45-year program, 
that money has to be in place.
  There are some ideas about doing that. Of course, a number of things 
could be done. Payments could be attached to the benefits' costs rather 
than to inflation, and a number of things. They will all be considered, 
of course.
  There seems to be a lot of reaction to the so-called personal 
accounts. I think one thing that has to be considered by everyone who 
is interested, No. 1, people who are 55 or so are not affected at all 
and will continue to go on as they have. Furthermore, those who 
aren't--the younger people--it is a choice they will make. Those are 
some of the things that need to be looked at to go forward.
  I am personally very much in favor of encouraging people to have 
savings benefits of their own. After all, Social Security was designed 
to be a retirement supplement. In order to make it work really well, we 
have to have a program that is cost effective.
  Medicare and Medicaid are in real financial difficulty--not only some 
of the Government programs themselves as they go forward but, because 
the impact of the cost of health care is not always fully paid by 
Medicaid and Medicare, the costs are shifted to people who have private 
insurance. That the entire cost is going up, the entire program--a 
great health care program in this country--becomes limited in access 
because of the costs. We have to do something about that.
  As I mentioned, we have literally thousands of programs that are in 
place. I am not suggesting they are not useful. I am suggesting, 
however, that there needs to be some kind of a process. It is my 
understanding that OMB is talking about something that has some kind of 
a commission which would review the programs from time to time. I think 
that is a great idea. I don't know whether those programs are the ones 
we ought to have, and whether the Congress ought to appoint a 
commission, but there ought to be a way of evaluating, No. 1, how 
appropriate it is to continue those programs the same as we did 10 or 
20 years ago, and whether those programs are being as effectively 
operated as they could be.
  Sometimes when we talk about efficiency, we get a lot of feedback 
from

[[Page 989]]

people. But why shouldn't there be more efficient Government programs? 
We ought to ensure that, indeed, they are.
  I think that is something we ought to take a look at to see if we 
can't have some kind of evaluation. I know it could be very time 
consuming. On the other hand, I think we could find ways to take a look 
periodically at the programs.
  I wish we had some kind of a criteria for what kinds of programs are 
appropriate for the Federal Government. Particularly with programs that 
have some political clout for a Member, we find ourselves bringing it 
up and going with it. Some things you would really have a hard time 
saying they are an appropriate function of the Federal Government. 
There are so many things that could be done much better by State and 
local governments or by the private sector, but if it has some 
political appeal, we want to hop in there and do that.
  I don't know exactly what it would be, but it would seem to me it 
would make sense if we had some criteria to say these are the kinds of 
conditions that would justify Federal involvement, not only because of 
the cost but most of us would like to see some control.
  We talk about deficits, but we never seem to talk about holding down 
the activities and the size of the Federal Government. I know these are 
easy things to talk about but difficult things to resolve.
  I guess the President is suggesting that as we go about our work we 
hopefully will keep in mind a couple of thoughts. One is periodic 
evaluation of programs to make sure they are, in fact, efficient, 
effective, and still necessary. The other is that we take a look at 
some of the various prospects which are brought up.
  For example, I chair a subcommittee which deals with national 
historic sites. We have a long list of national historic sites. Some of 
them, quite frankly, you would have a hard time justifying in terms of 
any national significance. There are very likely to be some things 
which are good for the main street of someone's hometown. Of course, we 
all want to do that. But there needs to be some criteria so it fits 
into this program.
  These are some of the things I hope we can take a look at and make 
the Federal involvement a little less widespread and make sure what we 
are doing is done efficiently.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I look forward to working with my good 
friend and colleague from my neighboring State of Wyoming.
  There are common grounds on issues that he has raised. I certainly 
agree that we need to always be on the alert for ways to find 
efficiencies in our Federal budget. However, I think we also need to 
keep in mind the reality that the domestic discretionary share of the 
Federal budget is now about 16 percent of that budget.
  As we look at ways to get our Federal budget back into equilibrium, 
one of the best solutions I believe would be to return to the budget 
rules which existed throughout the 1990s--the so-called budget rules 
which require a Congress any time it attempts to raise the spending 
above a certain baseline or cut taxes simultaneously to explain how it 
is going to be paid for so that the end result is budget neutrality, 
allowing the Government to grow its way out of budget deficits. That is 
the reason we had three consecutive years of budget surpluses in the 
1990s. I believe we need to return to that kind of budget discipline. 
Regrettably, the administration opposes that discipline. But I believe, 
given the massive size of today's budget deficit, we need to create 
that structure once again.
  It concerns me when people allude to the Social Security trust fund 
as though it were some fictitious entity. The Federal Government 
borrows the money currently out of surplus dollars that come in through 
Social Security taxes--FICA taxes--and then issues to the trust fund a 
Treasury bond. It is no different than all the other borrowing the 
Federal Government does. The Federal Government has never in our entire 
Nation's history reneged on its bonded indebtedness. We would never 
dream of doing that and destroying our creditworthiness 
internationally. It would be, I believe, an immoral act to do so.
  The only reason there could be a long-term crisis in Social Security 
is if this administration and future administrations determine not to 
pay back its bonded indebtedness to the Social Security trust fund. It 
would be an unprecedented step. We need to make sure that is a step 
that is not taken. One of the best ways of doing that is to get our 
overall Federal budget back into equilibrium.

                          ____________________