Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent that I be given 5 minutes as if in morning business.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. I will be brief so the Senate can move on.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues this morning, there will be a period for morning business until the hour of 10 o'clock. Following morning business, the Senate will begin consideration of S. 942, the small business regulatory relief bill, under the consent agreement reached yesterday. When the Senate concludes the debate on the small business bill, it will resume consideration of the continuing resolution. Senators should be reminded that any votes ordered on the small business regulatory relief bill or the continuing resolution will occur during Tuesday's session of the Senate. No rollcall votes will occur today or on Monday. However, Senators should be prepared to debate their amendments on these days in order to complete action on the continuing resolution appropriations bill on Tuesday, as is required under the consent agreement.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I wish to indicate how disappointed I was last evening that we were unable to take up the resolution on Taiwan and the Taiwan Straits. We had prepared a sense-of-the-Congress resolution early in the week, had distributed it and talked to many. It was agreed to by the administration. It was also sponsored by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and the ranking member. In any event, the upshot was that its introduction was objected to on the minority side, I think largely by the staff, and therefore we did not do it. We do intend, however, to come back and do that next week. Mr. President, as all of my colleagues know, over the last 8 months the People's Republic of China has held an increasing number of missile tests and military exercises. Last year, starting in July, there were 21 to 26 missile tests; in July and August, troop movements in provinces bordering Taiwan. The purpose of these tests has obviously been to intimidate the Taiwanese. They have been accompanied by denunciations of President Li. They have been timed to coincide, of course, with the election that takes place there. Now, unfortunately, the People's Republic of China has escalated the situation with these new tests, tests that are the closest ever to the main island and purposely, of course, timed to affect the election which will take place later this month. They have also been close to Taiwan's two ports, and that has been very worrisome. These are reckless, I think, and greatly disturbing to most people in this country. We have a strong interest in the peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question. That interest of ours is central to the three communiques and the People's Republic of China joint communiques that we have entered into over the years, as well as the Taiwan Relations Act, which is to provide stability in that part of the world and which provides for a one-China policy and which provides for a peaceful movement toward that one-China policy. I firmly believe we need to reexamine our relationship with China. I think we have to narrow the number of issues in which we become involved and not seek to run their country. But when we do have agreements, then we have to make sure that they are adhered to by both the Chinese and ourselves. Our relationship currently is filled with items that have not been consistent with these agreements--the intellectual property agreements, the nuclear proliferation in Pakistan and Iraq. So, Mr. President, it is necessary that we do state our position; that we do insist on a peaceful direction and resolution of this issue; that we do clarify our one-China policy; that we do congratulate the Taiwanese in their movement toward democracy and open markets and urge that same open market approach take place in China. So I commend the Taiwanese, their government, for reacting calmly to these provocations. They, I think, have shown considerable restraint, and I congratulate them on their long march toward democracy. I hope that continues during the election next week. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I have to say to the Senator that I am not certain. This was designed with the assistance and involvement of the administration to support some of the things they are doing, certainly to rededicate ourselves to the commitments that we have made through the Taiwan agreements. In any event, I am sure we will make another effort. I am very disappointed we were not able to bring that forward.

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, that is correct, it was from the other side of the aisle.

Mr. THOMAS. Yes. Let me say that is our intention, and I do believe really that the Members of this body do want to make a statement. I think this statement generally reflects what we are for, and we will make every effort to bring it up at the earliest possible time.

Mr. THOMAS. I certainly agree with that analysis and suggest to the Senator that we did involve ourselves very deeply in this and had bipartisan support, administration support. I think it still would be the desire of this body to have a statement, and we intend to bring it up in another way. I thank my friend very much.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I simply rise to express some disappointment in the fact that we have had an amendment with respect to China and Taiwan that we intended to offer. It has been approved by the administration and the ranking minority member of Foreign Relations supports it. Yet, the other side of the aisle has objected to its submission. I am very sorry about that. It would seem to me that this body would want to speak out on the China effort. However, through their staff and through their workings, they have kept us from doing that. We will have to bring it up in another fashion. This was submitted by Mr. Helms, Mr. Dole, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Pell, Mr. Simon, Mr. Mack, Mr. Grams, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Brown, Mr. Lugar, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Roth, and Mr. Ford. I simply want to say we will have to find another way, but I should think this body would want to speak out on the current situation in China or Taiwan.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may submit an amendment.

Mr. THOMAS. Then, I guess I cannot do it. I ask the Presiding Officer what the arrangement is going to be now. We have a limited amount of amendments that can be proposed?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have it considered.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, if none of my colleagues are asking for time, I wish to discuss the amendment.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. I rise in support of the Hutchison amendment. We have worked very hard now for almost a year and a half having hearings going on in the country, and clearly all of us want to have endangered species protection. But very clearly, it needs to be changed, and it needs to be upgraded. We need to learn from the experience of the past 20 years. This is the way to do it. If we do not have passage of the Hutchison amendment, then we will not get to making the changes that need to be made. I fully support the Hutchison amendment.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge today one of my State's--Wyoming's--unsung heroes, Senator Henry Schwartz, who served our great State from 1936 to 1942. Senator Schwartz did much for Wyoming. But today I would like to focus on his efforts during the 76th session of Congress when he had amended the National Defense Act to establish a school specifically for the training of black pilots. While military opportunities for minorities increased after the Civil War--like the establishment of the famed Buffalo Soldiers who fought and died for our country on the western frontier--there were very few, if any, opportunities available in the Air Force, at that time, the Air Corps. To challenge that trend, in 1939 representatives of the African- American community asked Congress to consider allowing blacks to be military pilots. The matter had been given little consideration until Senator Schwartz submitted an amendment to the National Defense Act which established a training school specifically for African Americans. The amendment passed with a vote of 77 to 8, and history was made. With the help of the Senator from Wyoming, legends like Benjamin O. Davis, Jr., America's first black Air Force general and commander of the 99th Pursuit Squadron--also known as The Tuskegee Airmen--was given a chance to serve this country. Past and future aviators, from astronauts to fighter pilots, will continue to rise in the defense of America because of Henry Schwartz's work. So today I rise to acknowledge the work of Senator Henry Schwartz and sincerely thank him. His genuine belief in affording all Americans the opportunity to achieve is his legacy to this Nation. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, you will be relieved to know I will not take 30 minutes. I have shared it with my friend from Minnesota. Mr. President, the freshman focus has been in here now for a couple of days, talking about the economy and talking about ways that we can strengthen American families, strengthen the economy, strengthen wages, strengthen jobs. The interesting part of it is that is what we have been talking about here for the last year. That is what we have been talking about when we talk about balancing the budget, when we talk about regulatory reform, when we talk about tax relief. Unfortunately, I think in our communications too often the perception is that we are talking about those things because they are what is in our mind--tax relief and balancing the budget. We really ought to be talking about the benefits of those things. That is why we are doing it. We are balancing the budget for a result, and one of the results, of course, is the fiscal and moral responsibility to pay for what we are using and not to put onto our children and grandchildren a $5 trillion debt, $260-billion-a-year interest payment, a lifetime interest payment for a youngster born today of $180,000. We really ought to be talking about that. Our friends on the other side of the aisle stood up yesterday and said, ``We want to start talking about the economy. We want to start the conversation.'' Excuse me? That is what we have been talking about for a year. That is the very thing that the Democrats have blocked all year long--a balanced budget, help to create jobs, tax reform, so that people will invest money in the economy and create jobs so families have more money in their pockets to spend. That is what we are talking about, jobs and wages and an economy that grows. Unfortunately, we have not always had the information. The President, I think, maybe this year, has said our economy has been the healthiest it has been in three decades. I am sorry, Mr. President, but maybe you need to look at some of the information that comes from your agencies. Employment data: Unemployment rose from 5.6 to 5.8 in January. The healthiest economy in 30 years? Not for workers. Increases in workers' wages and benefits are the lowest in 14 years. After accounting for inflation, the rise in wages is an abysmal 0.3 percent. At least part of it is the fact that the economy has grown more slowly in the last 4 years than it has grown in the previous 15. This year's growth was 1.8, I believe. The last quarter was .9 when we were more accustomed to 3.5, or 4.5 growth. Why is that? There is a great argument about why that is, of course. The Senator from New Mexico yesterday talked about a program in which the Government would decide which are class A corporations. We would have more regulation and seek to have the Government more involved. That is a point of view, and not one that I agree with. On the contrary, it seems to me that what we need to do to spark the economy is to have tax relief so that there is more money in the private sector to invest in job creation and to do something about regulatory reform. I come from a background of small business, and I have some idea of how costly it is to meet the requirements of the regulations. Nobody is saying do away with all regulations, but we are saying that there are ways to do it that are less expensive, that are more efficient, and that will encourage small business. I do not know how many people have heard of small businesses who say, ``I am not going to fight it anymore. It is not worth it. I have put in all of this effort and really take home very little.'' So, Mr. President, that is what it is about, and we have an opportunity to do that. We have an opportunity--starting last year. And, frankly, we have had opposition from the White House. We have had opposition from the minority Democrats. They do not want regulatory reform. That is available. We can do that. Balance the budget--we are still in the process of that. What is so magic about balancing the budget, for Heaven's sake? We have not done it for 30 years. Everyone else has done it. You have to do it in your family. You have to do it in your business. It is a constitutional requirement in Wyoming. The legislature is meeting now. When they came, they knew. ``Here is the revenue we have, and here is the expenditure that we are allowed to make.'' They do not do as we have done in the Congress for 30 years and say, ``Here is the revenue. Here is the expenditure. Put it on the kids' credit cards.'' That is what we need to do in order to do something about the economy, Mr. President. I hope that we will do that.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we reserved the last half-hour for three Members. If the Senator can take a little less than 15, we would appreciate it.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we had reserved 30 minutes this morning for our freshman focus to talk about some of those things that are of great importance to American families, to talk about the economy, to talk about jobs, to talk about increasing wages and returns to American families. I would like to start with three areas that I think are important, even though it is not directly involved. One has to do with how we get facts out, so that we can make decisions based on facts. Another is just to comment a little on the broader question of whether we want more Government in our lives, more Government in business, or whether we want to release the private sector to be able to create jobs and, finally, to talk a little bit about the facts as related to the idea put forth by the President that ``this is the best economy in 30 years.'' The facts do not substantiate that. First, let me say that it is almost a paradox, it seems to me, where we have the technical ability in this country for everyone who is interested in the world, for that matter, to know precisely what is going on every day and to know it at the time it goes on. Compare that, for example, to the ability to know what happened in your Government 50 years ago or 100 years ago when people in Wyoming did not know what the Congress had done for 3 weeks or a month--maybe they did not care. But now we have the facilities to do that. We know that if Gorbachev stands up on a tank somewhere, we see it the instant it happens. We have the ability to know that. Yet, we find ourselves, I think, in a time where most people are less able to sort out the information and bring it down to facts than we have had for a very long time. What is happening, of course, is that the political arena is filled with spinning and posturing and seeking to make things look different than they are. I understand that, and it is not the unique province of anyone. But I am not sure that we can really sustain a Government of the people and by the people and for the people, unless the people have some facts. Part of that is our responsibility, of course. We have to sort through the stuff and come out with facts. But I have to tell you, Mr. President, that I guess I have never seen a time like there is now, where you hear something in the media, you hear something from the White House, or you hear something from this place and say, gee, I wonder if that is the case. Second, let me talk a little bit about the idea of increasing the economy and the growth. I think there is not a person in here who would not be for that. I think it is interesting, and it just happens that my friend from New Mexico just spoke a few moments ago about his perception about how to do it. It clearly defines the greater debate that goes on in this country and that goes on in the U.S. Senate--that is, do you seek to get more and more Government involved? Do you have a tax arrangement where you tell people what they can do and encourage them to do it and get more regulation? Or do you, in fact, seek to release the private sector so that the economy can grow? Could you agree with the notion that the role of Government generally is to provide an environment in which the private sector can prosper? That is the great debate that goes on. The Senator talked about bringing this debate back in. Let me remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that that has been the debate for a year. We have been talking about balancing the budget. Why? So you can reduce interest rates and increase the economy. We have talked about regulatory reform. Why? So that businesses can prosper and you can create jobs--good jobs, so that there is some growth in take home pay. That has been the debate. Unfortunately, my friends have objected to everything that we have tried to do. They objected to regulatory reform, and the White House threatened to veto it. They objected to a balanced budget amendment, and they threatened to veto it at the White House. Tax relief and capital gains, so that people can invest, so you can do something with your farm when you sell it and pass it on to your kids and create a stronger economy. So the option will be--and that is fine, it is a legitimate discussion. Do you want more Government, or do you want to release the business sector so it can create these kinds of things? Third, let me talk very briefly about the economy and the differences in views on that. The President has indicated in his State of the Union and at other times that this is the best economy in 30 years. Well, let us take a look at it. During 1995, the economy grew at 1.4-percent annual growth rate. In the previous decade, it grew at about 3.5 percent. In the last quarter of last year, it was .9-percent growth rate. The economy has been weaker every year than it was the last year of the previous administration. It is not a matter of blaming. That is just fact. The growth recovery in terms of jobs. We have talked about 8 million jobs. If you break it down into hours and part-time jobs, it comes out to be less than half of that. For the same period in the 1980's, it created 8 million jobs. So this has not been a time of growth, a time of economic prosperity; particularly, it has not been for families. The stock market is doing pretty good. That is fine. Those are corporate profits. But the problem is, I think, you find when you have to pay your stockholders, of course, in order to get the money to operate, you have a cost of regulation that is exorbitant and going higher, and you are squeezed in the end. But who gets squeezed? The workers. Furthermore, you do not have a growth rate that is traditionally where we have been, and you do not have competition for jobs. Salaries do not go up because competition causes salaries to go up. We have to be honest about where we are. The fact is, it is not the best time in 30 years. It is not even as good a time as we had 5 years ago. More importantly, what do we do about it to get families into a position where salaries reflect a growing economy, or where families can have more of their own money to spend on their own kids' education and spend it as they choose? That is what it is all about. That is what this debate is about. That is what a balanced budget is about--to be financially and fiscally responsible, and also to reduce the interest rates so that the economy will grow. That is what tax relief is about--middle class tax relief, which the President promised when he ran. He has never delivered. That is what $500 per child is about, so it goes to families. That is what regulatory relief is about. It is not a matter of regulation and specifics. It is a matter of being able to grow an economy where there are jobs and prosperity. That is what our agenda is about, Mr. President. The final argument, of course, will be that basic argument of do you follow the suggestion that says it is the Government's task to regulate these, and let us get more government, more regulation and more involved? Or do we release this dynamic private sector to create jobs. Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today as the chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs to submit Senate Concurrent Resolution 43, expressing the sense of the Congress regarding proposed missile tests in the Taiwan Straits. Yesterday, the People's Republic of China announced that it would conduct a series of missile tests from March 8 through March 15, 1996, off the coast of Taiwan. While the Chinese have conducted other tests within close proximity to Taiwan in the past 8 months, these are especially provocative. The People's Republic of China has announced that it will conduct these tests within between 25 and 35 miles of the Taiwan port cities of Kaohsiung and Keelung. The effect will be that, for a week, a wide corridor of ocean both immediately north and south of Taiwan will be unsafe for commercial traffic. Thus, the People's Republic of China has knowingly created what is in effect a blockade of these two ports--through which flows more than 70 percent of Taiwan's ship-borne trade--for the duration of the tests. In addition, the tests come just a week before Taiwan's first fully democratic Presidential elections on March 23. Clearly, the tests are part of the People's Republic of China's ongoing attempts to intimidate Taiwan and influence the upcoming elections. It is both the proximity to Taiwan and the timing that make these tests especially troubling to me, and the signal they send. When we normalized relations with the People's Republic of China in 1978 and 1979, we did so on the expectation that the future of Taiwan would be settled solely by peaceful means. That expectation underlies the three United States-People's Republic of China joint communiques, and is codified in the Taiwan Relations Act, the statute that governs our relationship with Taiwan. However, these tests and accompanying statements made at the highest levels of the Chinese Government in my mind call into serious question the People's Republic of China's commitment to settle the Taiwan issue by peaceful means. As such, they are of grave concern to me and, I believe, to the United States. I hope that the People's Republic of China would move to diffuse the escalating problems in the straits and refrain from further provocations. At the same time, I hope that the Taiwan Government would do its part to reduce tensions. Both sides need to sit down with each other, and discuss the issue in a considered and rational manner, without threats and without the need to continually draw the United States into what is a matter solely for the Chinese on both sides of the straits--and Mr. President, I emphasize both sides--to decide. It is not an issue for the People's Republic of China to decide unilaterally at the barrel of a gun. Mr. President, the resolution is fairly self explanatory. Mr. President, in closing, let me note that I am pleased to be joined by Senator Helms, the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senators Murkowski and Simon, two longstanding leaders on the issue of Taiwan in the Senate, and Senator Mack, in submitting this legislation today; I thank them for their support. I hope the rest of our colleagues will join us so that we can move this resolution quickly through the Senate and on the House.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I was interested in our colleague's remarks. Certainly he talks about a very important issue. There are a number of things we need to consider. One of them, of course, is what we continue to do to make business more and more expensive in this country making it more and more difficult for us to compete.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the chairman, and I certainly want to congratulate you and your committee for continuing to seek to find the answers. That is what this is all about. I certainly hope we continue to do that.

Mr. THOMAS. As I understand it, the proposal that has been brought forth is to conclude the special committee's work in the middle of April and the possibility of examining either Governor Tucker or the McDougals, then, would not be possible, is that correct?