Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the balanced budget amendment. We will have talked about it tomorrow for 30 days. We talked about the pros and cons. We have debated and discussed it. Actually, I suspect it is fair to say that most everything that can be said has been said. I suppose the thing that has not happened is not everybody said it yet, and that seems to be why we go on as we do. It is not a new topic. It is not as if this issue just came up. It has been talked about for years. As a matter of fact, it has been voted on in the last several years. Mr. President, you and I came from the House. We talked about it last year. We voted on it last year. It was voted on here. So it is not a new topic. Interestingly enough, everyone who rises says, yes, I want to balance the budget; of course, we need to balance the budget. But we have been 26 years and have not balanced the budget. They rise and say, well, but we do not need an artificial discipline to do that; we just simply need to do it. It is true. We have not done it. We have not done it for 26 years. Many who oppose it have been here for a very long time, and I am not critical of that. But it has not happened. Many who oppose it have been in very important positions dealing with the budget. They have not balanced it. And you can argue about the reasons why. You can argue that it is difficult to have an amendment in the Constitution. But the fact is if you want to change the way things happen you things the same way you have been doing them for 26 years and expect some kind of different result. I think the people of this country expect the decision. I am delighted that we are coming to a decision tomorrow. I think we have been too long. I respect the notion that the Senate is here to deliberate, to take longer, I suspect, than the House typically takes. Nevertheless, there comes a time when the question needs to be brought to a decision, and that is what voting is for and we are going to do that. I have a hunch that many of the things we have talked about have really been sort of a reason, a justification for voting no when in fact the big difference is a philosophical difference. It seems to me there is a great deal more involved here. As important as the financial aspect is, as important as the morality of being fiscally responsible is, there is also a broader question. That question is what kind of a Federal Government do you see us having? What do you see as the role of the Federal Government? Do you see it as an ever-increasing bureaucracy that grows continuously year after year? If you take a look at a chart--I did not bring a chart--of spending, spending has continued to go up. Last year and even this year, in this budget, in my hometown paper it said administration cuts. It leads you to believe there is less spending than the year before. Not so. Spending has gone up. Spending is going up 5.5 percent. Spending has gone up every year. Spending will go up under the budgets that are being talked about in the House. So spending continues to go up. There is a philosophical difference, however, as to whether you see the Government as ever growing or whether you see it as being limited, whether there ought to be a transfer or movement toward emphasizing State and local governments more, the private sector more, more personal responsibility, or do we continue to do more and more in the Federal Government. That is part of what we are talking about here--not only the money but also the role of the Federal Government. We have heard a great deal just today about how there are exceptions, there are times when things need to be done, and that is, indeed, true. It also in the budget amendment allows for exceptions. It allows for changes. It does take a majority, or a supermajority to do it. But there is no reason why it cannot be done if it is justifiable and, indeed, it can be. People and the legislatures of this country I think deserve an opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment, if it goes there, and it should. We have talked about the Founding Fathers having not put it into the Constitution, but I recall Thomas Jefferson said if there was one change he could make, it would be to limit overspending. I had the honor the other day to read George Washington's Farewell Address again, and he spoke to it. Let me quote. As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering, also, that timely disbursements, to prepare for danger, frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it. And then he said: Avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions, in time of peace, to discharge the debts. . . . We have not done that. And that is what this is all about. This provides the discipline to make the tough decisions that we have to make. So there are reasons to do it. It is morally and fiscally responsible. Ask anyone should we balance the budget, should we spend more than we take in on a consistent, 26-year basis? The answer is no, of course not. Ask anyone, should we have to balance the budget? The answer is yes, of course, we should. We hear it every day: I am for a balanced budget. We do not do it. There is no reason to expect that we will unless we change the process. Is the current situation out of control? Of course, it is. Do the States do it? Of course, they do. I come from a legislature in which the Constitution provides for a balanced budget. We do it. We live with it. It works. And we can deal with it. So, tomorrow we vote, and I am delighted for that. I think it will be a very important vote. I think it will be a crucial vote. I think it is a vote that helps not only to shape the future in terms of spending but to shape the future in terms of the kind of Government and the extensiveness of Government that we have. If there was one thing that was clear from this November's election, at least the people whom I represent said we have too much Government and it costs too much. We have too much Government and it costs too much. That is what this vote is about, doing something about that. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. The President does not raise taxes.

Mr. THOMAS. I understand. This is the basis of what we are talking about. Of course, the Senator says leave it as it is. Others say we need to change it. That is what it is, whether we change or whether we do not. Many people think that there needs to be a change. Many people think the performance is such that there needs to be a change. And I respect greatly the Senator's wisdom and knowledge. But that is the issue. And the Senator does not want it is all about.

Mr. THOMAS. By a supermajority vote.

Mr. THOMAS. That is why this provision is there to waive.

Mr. THOMAS. I understand that.

Mr. THOMAS. Yes.

Mr. THOMAS. Where does the President get the money, if the majority of the Congress does not agree?

Mr. THOMAS. It should be required.

Mr. THOMAS. That is what I am suggesting; that is, that is the role of Congress, and I think it is a legitimate role and one that is not unusual, one that I have perceived has been done for a number of years.

Mr. THOMAS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. THOMAS. Senator, I am not as familiar as you are with the process, but it seems to me that now there has to be approval, there has to be approval annually for the budget, there has to be approval for the President's move in terms of military activities.

Mr. THOMAS. I understand.

Mr. THOMAS. I have a little more confidence in the Members of this body than to ignore an issue of that kind. It just seems to me that the evidence is that we need to do something different than we have been doing. I constantly hear we cannot change things. But the record is, we have to if we want different results.

Mr. THOMAS. I think there is a system in which the President can move. But the President then comes to the Congress for either a declaration or for the money, or he, as he is doing now, comes for a supplemental budget. The Congress has to be involved to make this decision.

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, sir.

Mr. THOMAS. I have, I guess--and I do not suggest I know the answers--but I have a good deal of confidence. What does it say? It says, ``* * * this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious militarily threat * * *'' I have a hunch that most of us, a supermajority of us, would respond to that.

Mr. THOMAS. Nor was I. confounded by the Congress each year approving this. I do not think that is an unusual kind of thing. Do you not think the Congress represents the people----

Mr. THOMAS. There was in Desert Storm, as you will recall.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a joint hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation and the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands of the House Committee on Resources. The hearing will take place Tuesday, March 7, 1995, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony from officials of the General Accounting Office regarding their ongoing study on the health of the National Park System. For further information, please call Jim O'Toole at (202) 224-5161.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is well known that Federal regulations stifle economic growth. The cost of complying with Federal regulations alone is estimated to be between $300 and $500 billion per year--$4,000 to $6,000 for every working man and woman in America. The private sector spends 6.6 billion hours year complying with Federal paperwork requirements. The number of pages in the Federal Register last year was 45 percent higher than the number in 1986--without the Clinton health care bill going anywhere. These excessive and misguided mandates impose enormous economic costs that limit economic growth and job creation. Small and medium-sized businesses--which are the businesses in my State of Wyoming--are disproportionately hurt by overregulation because they have fewer resources to allocate for compliance. Mr. President, the 1994 elections were about change. The American people want less government in their lives. They don't want OSHA inspectors breathing down their necks, they don't want to pay for unnecessary EPA mandated facilities and they don't want Washington bureaucrats telling them how to live their lives. That is why I am introducing the Regulatory Reform Commissions Act. This measure is designed to look back, review, and reduce existing regulations. My legislation would establish three bipartisan Regulatory Review Commissions, one for each selected Federal department or agency. Initially, I have selected the Departments of Interior, Labor, and the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. Over a 2-year period, the commissions will examine all regulations within the selected Federal department or agency and determine if the regulations are justified and report all appropriate changes to Congress, the department, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget [OMB]. The commissions will examine the department's or agency's rules based on the following criteria: Whether the regulations are within the scope of authority of the statutes under which the regulations were issued; whether the regulations are consistent with the original intent of Congress; whether the regulations are based on cost/benefit analysis; and whether the regulations are subject to judicial review. There have been several different proposals, which I support, to prevent new onerous regulations. This legislation is a perfect fit with those efforts, because it reviews the rules already on the books. I urge my colleagues to join me in the effort against overregulation.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to be one of the first to speak about some things that happened 50 years ago which were a part of our freedom and a part of our history. So I am pleased to do that. Mr. President, on this date 50 years ago, one of the most powerful armadas ever assembled in American military history prepared to depart Saipan in the Mariana Islands. Their destination was a tiny, 8-square- mile piece of volcanic sand and rock in the Western Pacific--Iwo Jima. The importance of capturing Iwo Jima was its strategic location, almost midway between Japan and the recently captured Mariana Islands. Since the summer of 1944, the Japanese home range American B-29 bombers, operating from Saipan and Tinian. Iwo Jima, with its three air-fields, would be a vital fighter escort station if captured. In addition, it would serve as a sanctuary for crippled bombers returning from their strikes on Japan. No American planner contemplating the assault and seizure of this island suggested that taking Iwo Jima would be an easy task. To meet the challenge, Fleet Adm. Chester W. Nimitz assembled a veteran Navy- Marine Corps team, which included the largest force of U.S. marines ever committed to a single battle--a force which eventually totaled more than 80,000 men--a majority of whom were veterans of earlier Pacific battles. These troops were arguably the most proficient amphibious force the world had yet seen. On February 13, 1945, this formidable armada of American firepower and might prepared to embark on a mission that would move America one giant step closer to final victory. I think it is appropriate that we remember those men and women who gave so much to ensure that we could continue to have freedom and peace in this country. Mr. President, if I may, since there seems to be no one else asking for time, I would like to comment a little on the balanced budget amendment.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise, as I have in the past, to support the balanced budget amendment. I believe strongly that it is the right thing to do. I believe strongly that it is the only way that we are going to be able to achieve some kind of financial balance in our Government, to achieve some kind of responsibility for not spending more than we take in. So I rise to share my impressions of what has gone on here for the past 2 weeks, and apparently at least for another week. I am new to the Senate. I am very pleased and proud, of course, to be here to represent the people of Wyoming. But I am, I must say, a little bit disappointed in the lack of progress that we have made. It seems to me that, in some instances, we have not really had an in- depth debate of issues, but rather a sort of a slowing of the process, talking about what seems, at least to me, to be peripheral issues often as the method of establishing a rationale for voting ``no'' on an issue that those who argue against have no intention of voting for at all. It is fairly easy to examine the status of the record of performance that leads to this issue coming before the Senate which leads to a consideration of the balanced budget amendment. Certainly, history does that. You cannot change history. You can interpret it, I suppose, and spin it. But the fact is that we have not balanced the budget, this Congress has not balanced the budget for some 26 years. Only four or five times out of 50 years has the budget been balanced. That is not a good record, but it is indeed a record. Some talk a lot about the efforts that have been made over the last 3 years to do something about the deficit. And, indeed, there has been something done and it has been good. Starting with the last budget of President Bush and on through the next 2 years, there have been some reductions. The fact is, however, that the reductions now are not there. They are not in this budget. They are not proposed for the next year's budget and, indeed, beyond the year 2000, there would not be a reduction in the deficit, but the national debt would continue to grow. It is also true that much of the reduction was a one-time readjustment in terms of spending on savings and loans, in terms of spending on Medicaid, and what the reduction was, a direct result of what this Congress did, was an increase in taxes. So I am certainly pleased that this deficit has been reduced, but I am not pleased with the fact that it is now scheduled to go up, unless we do something different. The cost of the imbalance, the cost of these years of not balancing the budget, are extremely high. We have now approximately a $260 billion line item in this year's budget to pay interest on the debt. If it were not for the interest on the debt, this year's budget would be balanced. But there is an interest of $260 billion, probably the third largest line item in the budget and continuing to go up. Spending has gone up every year. When we read about the budget, we often read in our hometown paper that the President makes the cuts. Of course, there are some cuts, but the fact is the total spending continues to go up; this year, 5.5 percent over last year. So we continue to have larger Government, spending goes up. Fortunately, revenues go up as well. But we have not been able to bring the two together. We have not been able to be responsible, both morally and fiscally, with this budget. Clearly, we need to do something different. You cannot continue to do the same thing you have been doing over the years and expect there to be a different result. What is the opposition? Some say, ``Don't change the Constitution. The Founders did not draft it that way and we should not change it.'' Of course, changing the Constitution is not something we take lightly. The process does not allow for it to be taken lightly. It requires a two-thirds majority of both Houses of this Congress. It requires that it be ratified by the State legislatures and in fact be ratified by the people. The Founders did not include it. However, Thomas Jefferson said that if he had had the opportunity to make one change, it would have been limiting the amount of debt that the Federal Government could undertake. The Founders also did not have a $20,000 per person debt to deal with, which we do now. Each of us in this country has a $20,000 debt, in terms of the national debt. The Founders did not have a huge Federal Government to deal with. The Founders, I believe it is fair to say, thought that this would be a federation of States in which the basic spending responsibility, the basic decisionmaking responsibility for most things in this Government, would be done by the States. They did not envision the kind of Federal Government that we have now. Some say judges will make the decisions on the budget. I do not think there is a basis for that. Forty-eight States have balanced budgets in their legislatures. My own State of Wyoming has a balanced budget in the constitution that says they shall not borrow more than 1 percent of the value of the revenues. Judges do not do our budget. The legislature knows that they have to bring spending within revenues. And they do it. Some say it will not work because the States have capital budgets. They do not all have capital budgets. Furthermore, even if you do have a capital budget, like you and I might have and have loans on our homes to pay, we still have to balance between our revenue, our budget, and our debt service. And we do not do that in the Federal Government. So these arguments really are to define, I think, a philosophy. And there is a basic difference. There is a basic difference in philosophy and it is a legitimate difference. There are those who believe that Government should be big, it should spend more, it should be involved in more activity. Some of us, including myself, believe that it should be smaller; that it should be limited. Those who seek larger Government would naturally oppose the balanced budget amendment. Those of us who think there should be some control, that Government is too big, that Government is too expensive, believe that a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is the tool that we need to make it work. So, Mr. President, I hope that we do move forward. It seems to me that we came here to undertake this task of resolving this question, regardless of the outcome. It seems to me that we do have a responsibility to vote. We have a responsibility to make the decisions. It is not an easy one. People see it differently. There is a legitimate difference of view. But the idea of just continuing to string it out, I think, is not beneficial for us and is not beneficial for the country. We have to bite the bullet and do it, and I think the time is now. the Constitution. I yield the floor. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs I intend to share with my colleagues my views on a specific area within the jurisdiction of the subcommittee every Monday. Today I rise to briefly address the current status of relations between the United States and North Korea [DPRK]. Since the division of the Korean Peninsula, we have not maintained diplomatic relations with the DPRK. While South Korea has prospered and grown into one of the strongest economic engines in Asia, the DPRK has become increasingly isolated, paranoid, and violent. If any country has come to epitomize a rogue regime, it is North Korea. In the 1960's the DPRK seized the U.S.S. Pueblo and its crew, and staged a violent attack on the residence of the South Korean President. In the 1970's Pyongyang perpetrated several acts of violence along the Demilitarized Zone, including the unprovoked ax murder of an American solder within the DMZ in 1977. In the 1980's the North orchestrated a bombing attack on the South Korean cabinet during a state visit to Burma, and in 1987 was responsible for blowing up a South Korean airliner with the loss of all aboard. The DPRK has constructed numerous tunnels under the DMZ into South Korea territory to facilitate invasion, some of which have been discovered and some of which, undoubtedtly, have not. Finally, as noted in a story last week in the Washington Times, the Russian intelligence agencies have implicated the North Korean Government in a plan to distribute some 8 tons of heroin in Russia. And these are just the incidents we know about; I do not doubt but that this is, as the Korean would say, subak keot halkki--just ``licking the outside of the watermelon.'' Despite this, since 1988 the United States has begun a process of establishing a limited relationship with North Korea in an effort to draw that country out of its self-imposed isolation. The United States political counselor at our Embassy in Beijing has met dozens of times with his North Korean counterpart to discuss increased North-South dialog and a variety of other issues. However, since the early 1990's the DPRK's suspected nuclear weapons program has overshadowed all other issues. Although a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, DPRK-ROK joint declaration on denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, North Korea is suspected of violating--and in some cases in known to have violated-- all three. In late 1992, the IAEA discovered evidence that the DPRK has reprocessed more plutonium that it had disclosed. This worrisome because it may indicate that North Korea is reprocessing nuclear material for the purpose of developing military nuclear capabilities. North Korea rejected a subsequent demand by the IAEA that it be allowed to inspect several nuclear sites to confirm or disprove its suspicions, and announced on March 12, 1993, its intention to withdraw from the NPT. The administration responded by initiating direct negotiations with the DPRK on the nuclear issue. Two meetings were held--one in New York in June 1993, and in Geneva in July of that year--at which time North Korea suspended its withdrawal from the NPT and agreed to negotiate with the IAEA and the ROK. The two governments also agreed to discuss the conversion of the North's nuclear reactors to light-water reactors--a reactor from which it is more difficult to manufacture weapons-grade nuclear material. However, the DPRK continued to reject IAEA inspection of its facilities, and reneged on its promise to resume talks with the ROK. After several weeks of continued negotiations, in February 1994 the North eventually accepted the IAEA's suggested inspections. The administration agreed to suspend U.S.-ROK military training exercises for 1994 and begin a new round of talks in March as a quid pro quo for the North's agreement to implement the inspections and begin high-level negotiations with the ROK. True to form, Pyongyang prevented the IAEA from completing the inspections and disavowed any obligation to begin talks with the ROK. As a result, the United States began discussions with members of the U.N. Security Council with an eye toward imposing sanctions on North Korea in order to encourage the DPRK to comply with its agreement. The North backed down, and completed the March inspection in May. But before the United States could restart comprehensive negotiations, the North precipitated a new crisis in late May by removing some 8,000 spent fuel rods from its 5 Mw(e) Yongbyon reactor. The rods contained spent uranium from which plutonium could be separated out through reprocessing. The DPRK allowed IAEA inspectors to be present, but prevented them from sampling any of the rods--a process that would have allowed the agency to determine whether prior to 1992 North Korea had removed enough fuel rods from the reactor to produce weapons-grade plutonium. Revisiting what had become a familiar scenario, the United States called North Korea's bluff and announced that it would again seek U.N. sanctions against that country, and circulated a draft resolution among the members of the Security Council. When the DPRK learned that the People's Republic of China would not veto the resolution, it quickly resumed negotiations. Over the ensuing months, the parties worked out a final agreement which was signed in Geneva on October 21, 1994. I will not go into any great detail about the specifics of the agreed framework as they were recently discussed at length in two hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Although in the end I saw little alternative but to support the administration's deal, I will say that certain portions of it made me somewhat uncomfortable. Principal among those is the requirement that the United States supply North Korea with 500,000 tons of heavy oil annually until the first light-water reactor called for under the agreement is up and running. We agreed to supply the DPRK with this, and the two light-water reactors, in return for North Korea halting the development of its nuclear program. I was not convinced at that time, nor am I now, that we got the best end of the deal. North Korea is receiving a shot in the arm that will go a long way toward forestalling what will certainly be North Korea's economic implosion. We, on the other hand, only received an intangible promise on the DPRK's part that I do not believe we have the means adequately to verify. Moreover, it was my view at that time that we had been too quick to reward a tantrum by a spoiled child, since such a move almost invariably results in another tantrum. In the last week, I believe we have seen my views validated. During talks in Berlin last week the North Koreans demanded another $500 million to $1 billion as part of the bargain to which they had already agreed. In addition, they refuse to allow South Korea to supply the reactors as the United States has agreed. Considering their negotiating style, and the speed with which we have seemingly met their demands, this should not have come as any great surprise to anyone. I believe that the administration will see this move for what it is, simply a ploy of brinksmanship, and dismiss it clearly and directly. But should that not be the case, let me be very clear on my position for the North Koreans, who appear to be confused as to our resolve in this area. I will not support than is called for in the agreed framework without substantial concessions from the DPRK; nor will I accept any diminution of the central role that has been set out for the ROK. South Korea is making a huge contribution to implementing the agreement, and it is their national interest that is clearly most at stake. To accede to any demands by the DPRK in this regard is to assist it in its ongoing attempts to increase the United States-DPRK relationship at the expense of any North-South dialog. Mr. President, I trust that the administration will resist this latest round of inane demands, and refrain from allowing the DPRK to use this issue to turn us into a cash cow. My subcommittee will be watching this area closely to ensure that it does so. I intend to hold a regular series of hearings to afford the administration the opportunity to keep us up to date on developments in this area.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, late yesterday afternoon the Office of the United States Trade Representative received a letter from Wu Yi, the PRC Minister of Trade, stating that the Chinese were prepared to resume talks in Beijing next week on the issue of infringements on American intellectual property rights. As I noted on the floor of the Senate yesterday, since 1992 the PRC has failed to live up to its obligations under the memorandum of understanding on intellectual property rights. Factories throughout China, especially in the southern and eastern provinces, continue to mass-produce pirated versions of American computer software, compact discs, CD-ROM's, and video and audio cassettes mostly for sale abroad. The USTR estimates that the sale of these pirated items has cost U.S. businesses more than $1 billion. Efforts by the USTR to bring the PRC into compliance with the MOU have failed, resulting in the proposed sanctions announced by the administration on Saturday. Madam President, I am very pleased that the Chinese Government has agreed to resume negotiations over this vitally important issue. A strong and equitable relationship between our two countries is of the utmost importance, and I know that no one relished the prospect of a protracted trade dispute. I hope that the PRC will use this opportunity to constructively address our grievances, and move toward adopting stronger measures to curb economic piracy.