Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Elaine Lan Chao, of Kentucky, to be Secretary of Labor, notwithstanding the consent of January 24, 2001, that the time of the nomination be yielded back, and the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume the pending business.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and the preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the resolution shall be placed in the appropriate place as if read, with the above occuring with no intervening action.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration of S. Res. 14, introduced earlier today by Senators Cleland and Miller.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 11 a.m. tomorrow. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Thompson nomination for approximately 30 minutes. A vote has been scheduled to occur on the nomination at 11:30 by previous consent. Senators should be aware that the Senate may also consider other nominations during tomorrow's session of the Senate.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. If there be no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Further, I ask consent at 11 a.m. the Senate resume consideration of the Thompson nomination and Senators Grassley, Baucus, and Kennedy be in control of 10 minutes each prior to the vote on the nomination.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 10 a.m. on Wednesday, January 24. I further ask consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 11 a.m. with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Durbin or his designee, 10 o'clock to 10:30; Senator Murkowski, 10:30 to 10:50; Senator Collins, 10:50 to 11 o'clock.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is a good day to begin a new session. It is a good day to begin, of course, the new year with many challenges before Members. I think all Members have enjoyed the last several days with many folks visiting from home, particularly from Wyoming, because of the new Vice President. We had a great turnout. We were very pleased and are all very proud of our new Vice President. We have a great deal to do, as is always the case. I think particularly this year we are faced with seeking to accomplish many things. We talked about many of them last year but did not in every case succeed in getting them finished, so we are back at it again. Hopefully, we will see some new directions; we will see some new directions from the White House certainly. I was pleased with the President's talk on Inauguration Day and his defining the goals that he has set forth. Certainly during the next couple of weeks we will see a great deal more defining of that. Our first obligation, obviously, is to finish the nominations so this administration can be in place. We will see some new directions, and hopefully they will be the kinds of things upon which we can agree. I believe we will see more emphasis in the private sector, trying to encourage and cause things to happen that need to be done for the country in terms of individuals doing them, in terms of local governments doing them, as well as the contribution of the Federal Government. I think we will be inclined to move toward reduction in taxes. I certainly hope so. We have the highest tax rates now being paid of anytime since World War II. This is a time, of course, when there are lots of things we need to do. One of them is paying off the debt; another is certainly to be able to fund and finance those things that we want to strengthen, such as education, such as health care. On the other hand, the fact that we have a very healthy economy which has produced a surplus doesn't mean we necessarily need to grow the role of the Federal Government. On the contrary, I think each time we do something in the Federal Government, we ought to analyze the extent to which we are able to do that at the State or local level, or that it is more efficient to do it here simply because we have more money. That does not mean we need to increase the role of government. We will allow States and local governments to have more of a role in the decisionmaking process. We have talked about it already in education, certainly strength in education. We will look for more flexibility so local schools can use the dollars as they need them. There is a great deal of difference, often, in the needs between Wheatland, WY, and Philadelphia. We should have the flexibility to use those dollars locally as is appropriate. We will certainly be seeking to balance resource development. I live in a State that is 50 percent owned by the Federal Government. We are very heavy in resources--oil, gas, coal. We are the largest producer of coal in the United States. We need to be able to increase our efforts in the area of energy, at the same time protecting the environment. We can do that. We have to increase the opportunity for access to things such as Yellowstone Park and at the same time keep the principle of the parks there, to protect the resource. We can do those things with some more flexibility, I believe. Obviously, we need to strengthen the military. We have had a time, a peaceful time, with a tendency to not emphasize the military as much as I think we should. Our best opportunity for peace in the future is to have a strong military and to keep it that way, to have national preparedness. Certainly we need to do that. We need more emphasis on opportunity for everyone to do well in this country. Opportunity is what we need to seek. We need to strengthen the economy. Hopefully in some of our tax activities we can leave more dollars in the private sector, to be invested to create jobs. These are the things I think will be paramount for us. Will there be differences in view? Of course. I hope we have moved to a situation where we will be less partisan in our approaches, where we recognize there finally has to be a solution. But will we agree on everything? Of course not. We have different ideas. We represent different areas of the country. But in large we represent the United States and we need to understand that there are things we need to accomplish. I think there will be agreement on general topics such as education, health care, and military. At the same time, of course, there will be disagreements on the details of how those things are implemented--but that is OK. That is the system. We all have different views. We all have different reasons to be putting forward our views. They are legitimate. And the system does work. I suspect we will certainly be looking at education, we will be looking at strengthening the military, we will be looking at Social Security to ensure young people paying into their first job will have the opportunity to reap benefits 40 years from now. I think that is our obligation. Energy has been a problem for some time, but it was not recognized, of course, until we started having blackouts in California and started having increases in gasoline and natural gas prices. Now, it is a problem that more people recognize as a problem. I hope in our tax relief efforts we also have some tax simplification so we do not have to go through all these things with every little tax reduction being oriented at affecting behavior. That really is not the purpose of taxes. Taxes are to raise the amount of revenues necessary to conduct the Government, not necessarily to direct everyone's behavior. Education is a legitimate concern. The first responsibility, of course, for education is that of the States and local governments. We want to keep it that way. The Federal Government's contribution is about 7 percent of the total expenditures. So we need to assist and to make sure there are opportunities available for all children everywhere, but we need to have local control and we need to have flexibility. And, of course, we need accountability, not only for the Federal Government's contribution but to all taxpayers to ensure those dollars are being used to produce the kind of product each of us wants. Sometimes we find ourselves with an excessive amount of paperwork. I hear about it quite often since my wife is a special education teacher and spends a good deal of her time on paperwork, which detracts a little from her other work. I believe a powerful military is our best hope for the future. We need modern equipment. We also need to reorganize the military. As times change, things are different than they were 50 years ago. Of course when you have no draft in place, it is voluntarily, we need to make it attractive, not only for people to come but hopefully for people to stay. What we have now is people come to the military, they are trained to fly airplanes or be mechanics or whatever but then leave to go to more attractive places in the private sector. We will need to go to that. I think one of the alternatives is to allow young people to have individual accounts that can be invested in the private sector to create a much higher return to ensure there will be benefits. I understand that is not something everybody agrees to. Certainly we all agree we should be setting aside those dollars that come in for Social Security for Social Security and not spend them on other things. So I am sure we can do a great deal there. In energy, we have gone a long time without a real energy policy, a policy that will direct where the resources go, how we encourage production of domestic resources and not allow ourselves to become a total captive of OPEC and foreign nations. That is not only oil and gas, but we have various ways of producing energy, of course, hydro, wind, and nuclear--things that can be used. With a policy of that kind, certainly we can do some things. We are also now looking at some short-term problems. California has a real problem. Regardless of how they got there, they have one, and there is some peeling off of that in other places. So hopefully we will have a longer term policy in addition to that and certainly be able to do something on the short term. So I think we have a great opportunity as always to serve this country. That is why we are here. I hope we can agree upon the role of the Federal Government and how we strengthen that and how we finance that and how we will be able to leave people's money in their hands. How we do that will turn a lot on how we work together here and work with the administration during these next at least 2 years. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to take just a few minutes to comment on one of our friends who is leaving the Senate. We all, of course, feel strongly about the changes that take place in this body and the people with whom we work closely, and even those with whom we do not work closely, and certainly appreciate all the things they have done while they have been here. Frankly, it is always a sad thing to have people with whom you work leave. Of course, all Members have an impact in this body. All Members leave an imprint here and certainly in the areas they represent. Each of us has different ideas. That is the basis for our system. We bring those ideas here and seek to implement them, to the extent we can, by working with others to cause them to be implemented. We have disagreements, as we properly should have, and then we come to some decisions. So I want to comment for a moment about my good friend Rod Grams who has well represented the State of Minnesota in the Senate for 6 years during the same period I have been here. He served in the House prior to that, during the same time I was there. I think Rod has been one of the real good guys in terms of his dedication to doing the things he thought were best for the country, things he believed were best for the people of Minnesota. He has been a great legislator and an important friend to many of us. As I mentioned, Rod Grams was elected to the House in 1992. He served there for one term and then was elected to the Senate in 1994. I certainly have benefited from our association ever since. Rod is a proud conservative. Rod is one who is dedicated to the notion that there ought to be budget relief. He is dedicated to the notion that there ought to be Social Security reform. He is a champion of the $500-per-child tax credit and is the author of many successful tax measures. I think he has made a real contribution to the direction we have taken. Above all, however, I think that idea of having a philosophy, believing in some things that are good, and working for those things, but working for them in a way where others can also work on them with you, is really the greatest contribution any of us can make. I feel sure this institution will be poorer in the future because he is not here. But he will continue to contribute to our country. One of his legacies has been his determination; one of his legacies has been getting results. That is really what it is all about--to cause things to happen, to have legitimate debates and concerns about important issues. I think Rod will be sorely missed in the Senate, not only as a friend but as a driven legislator who has been a critical party to this idea of less government and more personal freedoms, which is a very important thing to most everyone. He will continue, of course, to make contributions to our country. Prior to coming here, he worked in the media through TV and newspapers. I suspect we will hear much more from him. I will not go on further, but I simply want to say I wish Rod great luck in whatever he does. I thank him for what he has done here. I just wanted to at least briefly recognize the contributions that have been made by Senator Rod Grams to this institution and to this country. I thank the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in a period for morning business until 10:30 a.m. It is expected the House will vote this morning on a continuing resolution that funds the Government through Monday, December 11. The Senate will have a voice vote on the resolution as soon as it is received from the House. Therefore, no votes will occur during today's session of the Senate. On Monday, an additional CR will be necessary. However, it is hoped that a vote will not be needed on that resolution on Monday. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is a privilege for me to join the Secretary of Defense in recognizing General Peter Schoomaker, a man whose lifetime of service commemorates the very spirit on which our great country was founded. General Schoomaker's distinguished military career will draw to a close on October 27, 2000, when he steps down from his position as Commander in Chief of the United States Special Operations Command. General Schoomaker has always demonstrated a commitment to excellence and service. Since being commissioned as a second lieutenant in 1969, upon graduation from the University of Wyoming, his commitment to serve has provided him with the foundation of a lifetime of success. He has served at all levels in conventional and special operations and participated in numerous contingency operations, ranging from Desert One in Iran through Uphold Democracy in Haiti. He currently shoulders the responsibility for all special operations of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, both active and reserve. Clearly, General Schoomaker has been a pivotal and talented player on the national security stage, but his measure as a man goes beyond the profession at which he excels. General Schoomaker's quest for excellence began early when he was a defensive lineman for the University of Wyoming football team which won the 1967 Sugar Bowl. These memories rank high on his list of notable achievements, primarily because of the teamwork it took to succeed. Fostering a spirit of teamwork continues to be the guiding force in General Schoomaker's leadership philosophy, and his enduring legacy for the service epitomizes the concepts he learned long ago on the gridiron. Mr. President, the people of Wyoming have been blessed with a long list of servicemen and women who are willing to put the needs of other in front of their own. Today, I have the opportunity to celebrate an adopted son of my home state, General Peter Schoomaker, a man who embodies the qualities of determination, self-sacrifice, and leadership.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, if I could clarify, it is no big deal. What we had was the morning business time divided between Republicans and Democrats. The leader's time took some of that, so we didn't have enough. We ought to share equally what remains. Whatever that division is, it ought to be divided between the two of us.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 5 p.m. today. As a reminder, the Senate is expected to take action on the conference report to accompany the foreign operations appropriations bill as soon as it becomes available. However, votes are not expected to occur during today's session of the Senate. Votes will occur tomorrow and, as usual, Senators will be notified as those votes are scheduled. It is the leadership's intention to complete all business by the end of the week. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House to accompany S. 964.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to the amendment of the House.

Mr. THOMAS

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 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.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think the focus today, as we move toward the appropriations bills, is education. It has been a focus during this whole Congress. I saw some figures that we spent a total, in the 106th Congress, of 5 weeks talking about education. That is indicative, I believe, of the importance all citizens place on education. I don't think anyone would say education isn't a very high priority for everyone. The question is, How is the role of the Federal Government best created? In my view, one of the important things is to have some assistance from the Federal Government, to have some financial assistance. We also are in a system where people move about and are educated in one place and work in another place. There has to be some continuity or accountability that each of us is educated enough to be able to be successful. One of the most important issues is who makes the decisions with regard to individual school systems. I think the Republicans, working on this side of the aisle, have had a very strong agenda for education, returning control to the parents for sending dollars to the classroom, dollars to States and local school boards so they can make the decisions that are necessary to be made in that particular school, give families greater educational choice, support exceptional teachers, and focus on basic academics, stressing accountability. I have always thought, as a member of the Wyoming legislature, we cannot have a good school system without the dollars. Dollars alone do not necessarily result in a good school system. There has to be some accountability as well. Of course, on the Federal level, the needs in Chugwater, WY, are quite different from those in Pittsburgh. Many things are that way. There needs to be flexibility; in one particular school, perhaps what is most needed is to build a new school or replace the old school; in another school, what is needed is computers, teacher training, or more academic materials. ``One size fits all'' does not work. Frankly, that has been the underlying difficulty in this entire debate. The President of the United States will be here this afternoon pushing for his plan so bureaucrats in Washington can decide and dictate what the Federal dollars are spent for. On the other side of that argument, we have given more dollars to the budget than even the President asked for. We are saying those ought to offer flexibility so local people can decide the best use for the dollars, yet with accountability for the taxpayers' dollars. The Democratic approach has been a series of mandates: 100,000 federally funded teachers, federally funded school construction, federally funded afterschool. All those are fine if that is the priority in your particular school district. However, we are not in the business of having a bureaucracy in Washington make those decisions. There have been difficulties moving forward: The Taxpayer Relief Act, vetoed by the President, over $500 million in family tax relief--families could have used that money at any level to have supported schools; Passing the Ed-Flex bill, with Federal requirements being waived if they are interfering with what they seek to do. These are the items we are debating with regard to education. We are, hopefully, near the end of this session. We will wind up next week. We have accomplished quite a number of things. Some people talk about a do-nothing Congress, which absolutely is not the case. The Republicans have balanced the budget, pushed forward and obtained the balanced budget in 1998, the first time since 1969 we have had a balanced budget. We saw that because of some restraints on spending, because of the flourishing economy bringing in more dollars. Nevertheless, it is the first time we have had enough dollars to balance the budget outside of Social Security dollars. We have changed the deficits to surpluses and lowered interest rates, paid down the debt $360 billion over the past 3 years. In addition to that, of course, at the same time, Republicans have lowered the tax burden over the next 5 years. The tax cuts will provide the average household with almost $2,000 in tax relief. We enacted the $500 child tax credit that keeps $70 billion in the checking accounts for 25 million families. These are important things. We created the individual retirement accounts with IRAs to help families save more money, help people prepare for their own retirement, so that Social Security is a supplement, as it was designed to be. The Republicans have stopped the raid on the Social Security trust fund and set aside Social Security funds so that they will be spent on Social Security and not borrowed and spent for other programs. We need to ensure that continues to be the case. Welfare has been reformed and has helped Americans go back to work. In 1995, there were 13 million Americans on welfare. In 1996, there was reform, helping more than 6 million of those, nearly half, to be now employed--to be able to sustain themselves. That is really the purpose of Government programs. It is not to have a continuing source of relief but to provide an opportunity to help people help themselves, which not only is a good issue governmentally but, of course, individually it is something that is so important. We strengthened the military. More needs to be done. We find ourselves in the situation where we have had more military deployments out of this country over the past 6 or 8 years than we have ever had in the past. We find ourselves, of course, in sort of a semipeaceful time but with a voluntary military, so we have to be able to compete somewhat with the private sector in pay so people will join. It is not only in the recruiting, of course, but the maintenance of people who have been trained so they will stay in the military. We have done that. We need to do more, of course. We need to change the military. Our needs are different than they were 20 years ago. We are not going to see ourselves having to send 12 divisions with tanks somewhere. We are going to see ourselves with smaller, more flexible combat units moved quickly to a place with enough support to stay there for some time. These are some of the things that continue to be important. I hope we continue to focus on them. Our job now, of course, is to get out about three or five more appropriations bills and fund those programs. I am a little discouraged at the amount of spending we have had this time. Much of that has come from pressure from that side of the aisle and the White House. They will not agree to appropriations bills unless they have all the things in them the President wants. He is entitled to do that. But this is one of the three units of Government, a separate unit. We ought to do those things we think are right and the President can do what he thinks is right. But I hope we do not get ourselves into a position where the President is deciding what we in the Congress do. That is not the system. We ought not be doing it that way. I look forward to us moving forward, completing our work, and coming back with a new Congress, able to take a look at where we are going. I hope each of us, as Americans, gives some thought to where we would like to be, where we would like to see these various programs go-- regardless of which you are looking at; whether you are looking at education; whether you are looking at reregulation of electricity; whether you are looking at the military. One of the difficulties is we move forward many times and make decisions that impact those issues without having a very clear-cut image of where we want to go. It is a little like Alice in Wonderland where she was wandering around and no one was able to tell her anything. She finally saw the Cheshire cat. There was a fork in the road and she said, ``Which one should I take?'' The cat said, ``Where are you going?'' ``I don't know,'' Alice replied. The cat said, ``Then it doesn't make any difference which road you take.'' That is true. So we need to come with an idea of what our goal or mission is, where we want to end up over a period of time in education, and what are the steps we can best take to ensure that happens. Regarding Social Security, where do we want to be in 20 years or 30 years? These people who are paying in 12.5 percent of their salaries into Social Security, are they going to have benefits 40 years from now when they are entitled to them? Not unless we make some changes. The choices are fairly clear. You can raise taxes; people are not excited about that. You can cut benefits; that is probably not a good idea. One of the alternatives we are pursuing, and there may be others, is to take a portion of the Social Security dollars that have been paid in over time by younger people to make that decision for themselves-- take a portion of that and have it invested on their behalf in their accounts in the private sector so the return, instead of being 2.5 percent, could be 5 percent or 6 percent. People say: Well, look at the market now. Look at the market over time. The market over each 10-year period has grown fairly substantially. So these are some of the things I hope we consider. I hope we consider them promptly so we are out next week. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following treaties on today's Executive Calendar. They will consist of Nos. 20 through 53. I further ask unanimous consent that the treaties be considered as having passed through their various parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of the resolutions of ratification; all committee provisos, reservations, understandings, declarations be considered and agreed to; that any statements be printed in the Congressional Record as if read; further, that when the resolutions of ratification are voted upon, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be notified of the Senate's action, and that following the disposition of the treaties, the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Presiding Officer, the Senator from West Virginia, and the clerk. By the way, just for information, these treaties were all approved by the Foreign Relations Committee on October 4 and 5.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.