Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, December 15, 1995, at 2:00 p.m.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think we all are grateful and thankful for the eloquent remembrance by the Senator from West Virginia. I am sorry that I did not have the opportunity to know Dr. Halverson and was not a participant in the prayer breakfasts. I attended his service this week. The Senator from West Virginia certainly does him great honor, and we appreciate it. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation before us. I have listened with some interest to the latest discussion here, particularly to the Senator from Maryland decrying the decision of the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee to withhold action on several items prior to this, that have been before this committee. I am fairly new at this thing, my first year on this committee. I have, however, paid some attention to it, with years in the House watching. And I guess I am a little surprised at the conversation. I recall others talking about this idea of holding hostages. It seems to me that the other side of the aisle, apparently at the insistence of the President, has made a conscious effort to avoid moving forward with this State Department authorization bill that they promised to filibuster to death. Time and time again we have read internal memos from the administration declaring their intent to stall the bill at any cost. I think my colleagues will recall the phrases they have used--obfuscate, derail, delay. I certainly would have liked to have seen some of the Ambassadors in their posts. We have them before my subcommittee. I was anxious that they go forward, partly because I thought they were very excellent candidates, partly because I think we ought to have someone there. Of the 18 nominations, the majority were designated to serve in countries within the jurisdiction of my subcommittee, Eastern Asia and Pacific Affairs. Indonesia, the People's Republic of China, and APEC were without representation. But as important as these posts are, Mr. President, passing a State Department authorization was and is more important. Yet, the Senate was denied the opportunity to vote one way or another on the issue because it was held hostage by the Democrats. I guess I was a little surprised at this last discussion that has been going on. Hostage takers, Mr. President? What about the senior Senator from Massachusetts who took over 2 hours to speak about the minimum wage debate during the course of considering this bill in an effort to stall it. What about the White House that refused to meet with the chairman to discuss a compromise position? What about the officials at AID who, rather than rationally discussing the bill and offering their alternatives, instead waged guerrilla warfare against any compromise? These are the hostage takers, Mr. President, not the senior Senator from North Carolina. The American people, who deserve a bureaucracy that is cost conscious and responsive to the times and streamlined, were held hostage. I remind my Democrat friends that it is probably not useful to cast blame on who is holding whom hostage. As I mentioned, I am fairly new to this thing, but I have to observe that it appears many who are not new are very, very resistant to change, to even considering change in the way we have been doing things. When you take a look at the results of some of the things we have done in terms of reorganization of the State Department, in terms of the operation of some of these units, we obviously need to make some changes. If you do not make some changes, there is no reason to expect different results. So, Mr. President, I am very much in favor of this bill. I am very much in favor of the efforts that are being made here to assign some responsibility, to assign more accountability, to make this State Department just like the rest of the departments --more responsive, more efficient, more effective. For the first time in almost everything we do here in the Federal Government, we are having an opportunity to analyze what they are doing and make some evaluations in terms of how these things are working in terms of some oversight. That is part of the job of this Congress. But too often we get built in to what happened because it is what happened 10 or 15 years ago; it has always been that way, so we cannot change it. You know we cannot change it; just put some more money in, that probably will do it. That has been the notion. That is what is unique and exciting and different about this Congress. We are having an opportunity to do some evaluating, to set some priorities, to make some changes, to cause things to be changed, to expect different results from what is happening. So, Mr. President, I strongly support this bill. I hope Members of this Senate will vote affirmatively and we can move out of this hostage-taking mode that we have been in. You can assign the hostages to whomever you choose. I assign mine to the other side of the aisle in holding this bill hostage. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, on Monday the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee introduced Senate Joint Resolution 43 relative to two recent moves by the central government in the People's Republic of China which are of great concern to me as the chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs: the formal charging and trial yesterday of Chinese human rights activist Wei Jingsheng, and the selection by the central authorities in Beijing of a new Panchen Lama. I am an original cosponsor of that legislation, and rise today to express my full support for it. Wei Jingsheng is known as the father of the PRC's modern democracy movement, and has spent a good deal of his adult life in prison as a result of his beliefs. Wei was first arrested in the spring of 1979 for allegedly ``providing foreigners with confidential military information and engaging in activities which pose a threat to state security and designed to overthrow state power;'' the fact that the ``secrets'' had been previously published in a widely-circulated government journal was apparently seen as immaterial. His true offense was participating in the ``Democracy Wall Movement'' by penning a work entitled ``Diwu Xiandaihua--The Fifth Modernization.'' That piece argued that the Communist Party's ``Four Modernizations'' program--to modernize industry, agriculture, science/technology, and the armed forces--would be incomplete without a ``fifth modernization:'' democracy. In addition, he had circulated an article warning that Deng Xiaoping was developing Mao-like dictatorial tendencies. For this, he was sentenced to a loss of political rights for 3 years and 15 years in prison of which he served 14\1/2\ years. As part of its bid to host the 2000 Olympics, the PRC released a number of political prisoners in a quid pro quo attempt to influence the choice of the selection committee. As a result, Wei was paroled in September 1993 but was kept under constant surveillance since that time. Upon his release he resumed his prodemocracy activities, writing articles and speaking with foreign journalists and government officials in support of democracy in China. On April 1, 1994, just a few weeks after he had met with Assistant Secretary of State John Shattuck to discuss human rights in the PRC, Wei vanished. While it was known at the time that he had been arrested, no warrant had been issued for his arrest; no formal charges were instituted against him; members of his family were never notified of his arrest or subsequent whereabouts, and the authorities would not even confirm he was being held. Inquires as to his status from organizations and leaders outside of China were rebuffed. On November 21, of this year, 20 months after first being arrested and held without charge, the Xinhua News Agency announced that Wei was being formally charged with ``activities to overthrow the government.'' Although the exact nature of his ``crimes'' was left nebulous, the charge carries the death penalty in the PRC. The PRC, which seems to have learned a thing or two about public relations over the years, conveniently timed the announcement to occur after the completion of the recent APEC meetings in Osaka, Japan, and after the announcement of the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize for which Wei had been nominated; both events would have provided an uncomfortable forum for international criticism of the charges. Instead, they have until the next meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva next March to try and convict Wei and the hope that any international uproar will die down. A Xinhua report this last Sunday noted that Wei's trial would begin today (late yesterday, Beijing time) in the Beijing Intermediate People's Court. As of 48 hours before the trial was scheduled to begin, Wei's attorney--Zhang Sishi--had still not received written notice of the charges against his client, nor had he been allowed to meet with him. Although it has been announced that the trial will be--somewhat uncharacteristically--``open,'' that means only that some of Wei's family members may be allowed to attend along with other individuals picked by the government. Late yesterday, after a 6-hour trial, Wei was sentenced to a 14 year term of imprisonment. I am deeply concerned with the use of the Chinese criminal code to silence those who peacefully advocate democratization and who exercise their rights to free speech. I am equally worried by the response, or should I say lack of response, from the Clinton administration. Candidate Clinton was long on talk about Republicans ``coddling dictators,'' and how he would make human rights the foundation of his foreign policy. But as we have seen with so many other issues, he apparently did not mean what he said; as far as I can tell, that foundation is cracked. The Clinton administration has been slowly ceding ground on this issue with the Chinese since he took office. Instead of high-level reactions to the Wei arrest and trial, I have seen only low-level, lukewarm, noncommittal expressions of concern from Foggy Bottom. In 1986, in a speech urging his fellow party leaders to take a hard- line on domestic critics of the government, Deng Xiaoping used Wei as an example: Didn't we arrest Wei Jingsheng? We arrested him and have not let him go, yet China's image has not suffered. Whether Wei's predicament is to be a bargaining tool for the March U.N. meeting, or signals a shift towards the conservatives in the party hierarchy, President Clinton's lack of response at this time can only embolden China, and place at risk the freedom of others in the democracy movement such as student leader Wang Dan, activist Li Guotao, trade unionist Liu Nianchun, academician Yuan Hongbing and religious activist Xiao Biguang. All have disappeared in the last 2 years. Turning to the issue of the Panchen Lama, it is a central belief in Tibetan Buddhism that certain deities take human form in the bodies of important lamas to lead believers toward enlightenment. It is believed that the souls of these lamas are reborn shortly after their deaths into the bodies of newborn infants in order to continue their task on earth. Known generically as tulku, the two most important of these lamas are the Dalai Lama, the temporal and spiritual head of Tibet, and the Panchen Lama. The Panchen Lama is believed to be a reincarnation of the Buddha Amitabha, the Buddha of Infinite Light. Because he wields the highest temporal as well as spiritual authority, the Dalai Lama is considered preeminent to the Panchen in the lamaist hierarchy. Since the occupation of Tibet beginning in the late 1940's, the Chinese have sought to coopt the Panchen Lama in an attempt to counter the role and authority of the Dalai Lama. When the Chinese invaded Tibet and overthrew the legitimate government, the Dalai Lama fled to northern India where he established a Tibetan government-in-exile. The 10th Panchen Lama remained behind however, effectively becoming over the years the Vidkun Quisling of Tibet, assisting the Chinese in the ``peaceful liberation'' of Tibet. As reported in the November 11 edition of Xzang Ribao: In March 1959, Tibet's upper-level reactionary clique launched a counter-revolutionary armed revolt in a vain attempt to undermine the motherland's unification. Great Master Panchen [the Panchen Lama] immediately cabled Chairman Mao and Premier Zhou [Enlai] to express his support for the State Council's order to dissolve the Tibetan local government and to quell the rebellion. At a rally held by people of all circles of Xigaze [Shigatse], he urged all monks, ordinary people, and patriotic people of Tibet to clearly distinguish right from wrong and good from evil, to draw a clear line between them and the reactionary clique, and, under the party's leadership, to unite in resolutely assisting the People's Liberation Army to quell the rebellion. Since September 1987, a small number of separatist elements have created disturbances and made troubles in Lhasa, but the Great Master Panchen always maintained a firm stand, held high the banner of patriotism, and unequivocally and resolutely upheld the motherland's unification and national unity. He became a member of the Chinese-installed Communist government, and regularly called on Tibetans to submit to the new order. In frequent statements he praised the new Communist government, and over the years gave legitimacy to the Chinese occupation. Although he apparently had a change of heart at the beginning of the Cultural Revolution, for which he was jailed for nearly a decade, after his rehabilitation in 1978 he continued to refuse to back calls for Tibetan independence. Since the death of the Panchen Lama in January 1989, observers have expected a clash between the Tibetans and the Chinese over the choice of the lama's reincarnation. The reason is simple: this conflict is not simply some arcane religious tussle, but is part of the ongoing collision of interests over who really rules Tibet. For the first time, the Chinese were presented with the opportunity of hand-picking and shaping in their own political image from his youth a traditional leader of the Tibetan people. With the prospect of grooming a credible and more compliant alternative leader for the Tibetan people, few believed that the Chinese would acquiesce to the rightful authority of the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhist hierarchy in the choice. Soon after the Panchen's death, negotiations took place between the central government and the group charged with searching for his reincarnation, the monks of Tashilhunpo-- ``Mass of Glory''--Monastery in Shigatse, the traditional seat of the Panchen Lama. The compromise reached provided that the monks would look for the reincarnate lama only in China and Tibet, thus precluding a candidate being found among the Dalai Lama's Tibetan supporters in exile in India. In return, the monks were promised that they could use traditional procedures to select the reborn lama. A committee of monks from the Tashilhunpo began to search for the reincarnate lama by consulting religious oracles and searching for omens in the reflective waters of a lake high in the Himalayas. The committee then visited children in villages around the country who were reported to have certain physical and mental indications of being reincarnate. The committee spent more than 5 years examining various candidates. As they finalized their choice, to the chagrin of the authorities in Beijing word was leaked from the search committee to the Dalai Lama of the identity of the candidates. This allowed the Dalai Lama, who the Chinese for the first time had excluded from his traditional role in the process, to act preemptively and announce on May 14 that the search committee had found the reincarnation of the Panchen Lama in the person of 6-year-old Gedhum Chokyi Nyima in the Tibetan village of Nagchu, Lhari District, north of Lhasa. Their loss of control over the process infuriated the Chinese, who denounced the proclamation in predictably Communist rhetoric. The government press labelled the Dalai Lama's action ``splittist'' and ``illegal and invalid,'' and condemned him for ``his vicious intention of disrupting Tibet's stability and undermining China's national unity through religious means.'' Having been beaten to the punch by the Dalai Lama, the Chinese government attempted to regain the initiative. The Dalai Lama's candidate disappeared, and is said by authoritative sources to be held under house arrest in Beijing with his parents. Moreover, the Chinese launched an unprecedented media campaign to discredit the Dalai Lama and his choice, and to justify their brazen interference in the selection process. The complete irony of a secular atheist Communist government completely usurping such a purely religious issue as the choice of a reincarnated soul should be lost on no one. The Chinese have spent years attempting to destroy Tibetan Buddhism as a remnant of the ``feudal, oppressive past,'' and as a competitor to Communism; it is, after all, a central tenant of Marxist-Leninist thought that religion is the opiate of the masses. Thousands of Buddhist monks and nuns have been arrested and imprisoned since the annexation of Tibet; thousands of monasteries and temples have been destroyed, and countless works of religious devotion such as statues have been melted down or shipped out of the country. Yet the government in Beijing has devoted a significant amount of press and other resources to the reincarnation question. The cover and many of the articles in a recent issue of the Beijing Review were devoted to it; countless articles have appeared in official party newspapers such as Renmin Ribao. For example, for over a week the front page of the party daily in Tibet, Xzang Ribao, carried a lengthy and detailed series called ``Questions and Answers Regarding the Reincarnated Child of the 10th Panchen.'' The attacks have extended to the Dalai Lama himself. For example, a four-part series on Lhasa Tibet People's Radio Network broadcast over a period of 4 days vilified His Holiness and exposed his so-called ``crimes.'' He has suffered similar attacks from Gyatsen Norbu, the Chairman of the Tibet Autonomous Regional People's Government, the Communist-controlled Executive Council of the Buddhist Association of China, and Pagbalha Geleg Namgyai, Chairman of the Tibet Autonomous Region Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. The official media have also done everything to slander and tarnish the Dalai Lama's choice for Panchen, including accusing the boy's parents of having bad reputations among their neighbors, and the boy of killing a dog by drowning it--an thoroughly un-Buddhist act. The amount of coverage the issue has received in the communist media has reached the point of overkill, even for the Chinese press, and has risen to the level that it indicates that the government in Beijing believes that if they repeat something enough it will eventually become the truth. I am reminded of the line from Act III of Shakespeare's ``Hamlet'', which I paraphrase: ``The government doth protest too much, methinks.'' Coincident with the increase of official propaganda, the Chinese continued to try to regain control of the process. In September the Chinese ousted Chadrel Rinpoche--the head abbot of the Tashilhunpo Monastery and head of the search committee--and replaced him with their own candidate, Sengchen Lobsang Gyatsen. Chadrel Rinpoche is believed to be in detention with several other noncompliant monks from the monastery. Three new names for finalists --Gyaltsen Norbu of Nagchu, Tsering Wangdu of Nagchu, and Ngawang Namdrol of Lhasa--were then identified by the Chinese government, which announced that the finalist would be chosen by drawing lots from a golden urn, a procedure used once in 1792 by a Qing dynasty emperor. Chinese television showed State President Jiang Zemin meeting with the monks remaining on the committee, urging them to complete their work as soon as possible in order to ``ensure stable development in Tibet.'' On November 6, the Chinese government convened a meeting of senior lamas at the Jingxi Guest House in Beijing to finalize the selection process. On November 10, Li Ruihuan, a member of the Standing Committee of the Central Political Bureau and Chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Consultative Conference, addressed the meeting and gave it its marching orders. At the end of November, the Chinese chose 6-year-old Gyaltsen Norbu as the 11th Panchen Lama; he was enthroned in Lhasa on December 8. In its haste to put the official imprimatur on the child, the Chinese brushed aside the several years of monastic training usually afforded a candidate before his enthronement. Senior monks were required to attend the ceremony at Lhasa's Jokhang Cathedral, and those supportive of the Dalai Lama and feigning illness in order to avoid attendance were warned on the consequences of such action. State Councilor Li Tieying oversaw the ceremony, delivering a message from Jiang Zemin for the boy to ``safeguard the motherland and work in the interests of the people.'' In reply, the boy reportedly responded by ``express[ing] his gratitude to the central government, President Jiang Zemin, Premier Li Peng, and representatives of the State Council * * * and saying that he loves the motherland [China] and the Tibetan religion.'' The blatant interference in a purely religious Tibetan affair is of great concern. Without getting bogged down in a detailed and somewhat esoteric discussion of the historical precedents, let me just outline some of the objections to the Chinese position. First, it completely ignores the Dalai Lama's centuries-old right to participate actively in the choice of the Panchen Lama. By eschewing the Dalai Lama's traditional role, the Chinese are completely flouting the historical precedent they claim they are upholding. The confirmation of either the Dalai or Panchen Lama is not complete until mutually recognized by the other. Chinese scholars, whom the government is so fond of quoting, have previously reiterated this requirement. For example, Ya Hanzhang, in his Biographies of the Tibetan Leaders Panchen Erdeni, wrote: By Tibetan tradition a reincarnation of the Panchen could not be religiously legal without the Dalai's recognition, and the same was the case with the Dalai. Thus, the exclusion of the Dalai Lama renders the validity of Beijing's choice void ab initio. Second, for the first time in history it puts the Chinese government in the place of the Dalai Lama. In the past, Beijing's role was one limited to nominal approval of the selection already made by the Tibetans. There existed a unique relationship between the high lamas of Tibet and the Chinese imperial court; it was called ``priest-patron.'' The Chinese emperors looked to the lamas as spiritual advisers. In return for that advice, the Chinese offered gifts to the high lamas and military protection to the region. Therefore, any involvement by the Chinese in the choice of a Dalai or Panchen Lama during the Qing dynasty, under Emperors such as Kangxi and Qianlong, stemmed not from a desire to dictate the outcome from Beijing but because those Emperors were fervent followers of Tibetan Buddhism. Mr. President, I can already predict with certainty the Chinese reaction to this joint resolution. The Foreign Ministry is sure to declare both issues solely within the purview of China's internal affairs which are, ipso facto, none of the rest of the world's business. In fact, in response to world criticism of the Wei arrest Shen Guofang, the Ministry spokesperson, has already stated: The case of Wei Jingsheng is not a human rights affair. On the contrary, it is those people and organizations who try to interfere in China's judicial procedures that have actually violated international standards by interfering in China's internal affairs. Rather than rehash this old human rights/internal affairs song and dance, then, let me take a new approach an give the PRC another reason why these issues are important to us and should, consequently, be important to them. The Chinese have made a great deal of noise lately about being allowed to assume their rightful place among important powers on the world stage, and have complained vociferously that the West is unfairly trying to prevent them from that place. I and several of my colleagues have tried to make it clear to Beijing that there is not some organized plot attempting to keep them from doing so. Rather, what we have emphasized to them is that a place at that particular table is not a right free for the taking, but a privilege which comes with it a panoply of responsibilities. Foremost among those is to adhere to international norms of conduct and to treaty and similar legal commitments. If the PRC does not live up to its present commitments, then they can be sure that the rest of the world is going to be hesitant to enter into any others with it; and the problem is, they are not. Beijing says that it is fully living up to all its obligations. However, as the Chinese are fond of saying, words are fine but only if followed up by deeds. An examination of their deeds, unfortunately, shows that these do not match their words. In the case of Wei Jingsheng, the maximum amount of time a criminal suspect can be detained without charge is twelve months; yet he was held for over twenty. China is a signatory to the universal Declaration of Human Rights, yet the handling of Wei's case clearly violates Article III of that document. Finally, the language of the Xinhua announcement of the charges against Wei noted that his actions ``were in violation of the criminal law and constituted crimes;'' an article in the December 11 Beijing Review notes that his actions leading to this arrest ``[were] in violation of the Criminal Law and constitute crimes.'' This, and the fact that his trial took only 6 hours, seems to me to indicate that his guilt had been determined long before his trial began. This presupposition of guilt also runs counter in international standards of justice. As for the Panchen issue, the PRC's constitution guarantees freedom of religion and freedom from being discriminated against on the basis of religious belief. Yet thousands of Tibetans have been persecuted for their religious faith over the years. Moreover, Beijing's manipulation of the selection of the Panchen Lama is clear meddling in a purely religious issue for political gain, and violates the religious rights of believing Tibetans. Similarly, as Senator Feinstein mentioned yesterday in a meeting of the full Foreign Relations Committee, she has been repeatedly assured over the years by officials in the highest levels of the Chinese Government that Tibet ``is entitled to manage its own cultural and religious affairs.'' The actions regarding the Panchen Lama would seem to contradict that assertion. Time and time again China calls into question its commitment to the rule of law and to international norms, whether it be in regards to agreements on intellectual property, the enforcement of international arbitration awards, or the proliferation of nuclear or other weapons. The cases of Wei Jingsheng and the Panchen Lama are just two more unfortunate examples. If as a result the rest of the world is a bit reticent to enter into other agreements with the PRC--for example, the WTO agreement--for fear that the Chinese will continue to say one thing but do another, then before it points the finger of accusation at us for denying it its ``rightful place'' in the world, it should realize that it has no one to blame but itself. I urge my colleagues to support Senate Joint Resolution 43, and thank the distinguished Chairman and ranking member of the Committee for their leadership on these important issues.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this morning until 10:40 a.m. there will be a period for closing debate on Senate Joint Resolution 31. At 10:40 a.m. the Senate will recess until 2:15 p.m. today. At 10:40 a.m. the Senate will proceed to the House Chamber to hear an address by Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres to a joint meeting of the Congress which starts at 11 a.m. When the Senate reconvenes at 2:15 p.m., following 2 minutes of debate, the Senate will begin as many as five consecutive votes on amendments on Senate Joint Resolution 31. The first vote will be 15 minutes, the subsequent votes will be 10 minutes each, with 2 minutes of explanation in between each vote. Following disposition of Senate Joint Resolution 31, it is the hope of the majority leader to turn to the consideration of the Bosnia legislation. In that the majority leader hopes to complete action on that matter by 12 noon on Wednesday, debate may go into the evening today if necessary. Therefore, votes are possible today on the Bosnia legislation.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I rise to speak on the issue that is before the Senate, that has been before the Senate for some time, and our decision with respect to our role in Bosnia. This has been going on, of course, for a very long time, nearly 4 years, so we have had a great deal of opportunity to think about it, consider what our role should be, also what great opportunities and, of course, to watch what is happening, watch the tragedy that has, indeed, taken place. So we hear a great deal of conversation about our role in keeping peace, our role in helping to provide freedom, our role in stopping the fighting. Everyone agrees. So the question is not whether you agree with being active in that effort, but how do you best do it? The question is, how do we deal with the crisis that has been there? The question is, what is our role in this particular incident? What is our role, then, as a matter of policy, in other places where there are similar problems? What is our policy with respect to civil wars? Our policy with respect to ethnic disturbances? Is it going to be our policy to participate in each of these, where we have troops now in the Golan Heights, where we have troops in Algeria, where we have troops around the world, keeping the peace--or, in fact, creating peace? Where do we not have a policy of that kind? We asked that question to the administration. ``Well, this is separate. We will make each decision separately.'' I do not think that is the way it works. Mr. President, the first concern I have had for some time is with the process that has taken place here. The process has been one that has, either by design or by accident, co-opted the Congress almost entirely. It started 2 years ago. The President said, I think almost offhandedly, ``We will put 25,000 troops in to help the United Nations pull out if need be.'' There was no particular reason for 25. It could have been 10. It could have been 40. But 25 it was. So nothing happened, much, with that. And the United Nations continued, through their dual-key arrangement, not to be particularly effective; not effective at all, as a matter of fact. So the Congress acted finally. The Congress acted, and said we want to raise the arms embargo so we can provide an opportunity for the Moslems to defend themselves and create more of an even field. So we did that. There was no support from the administration for doing that. However, it did cause, I think, the administration to move. So, then they said to NATO, let us bring in some aircraft strikes. We did that. It did not affect a great deal but it did tend to even the playing field. The Serbs had much of an advantage in heavy weapons. So the Moslems and Croats got together, which tended also to make the playing field more even, which is really the basic reason the Serbs came to the table. So we said to the administration, What is our policy with regard to this? ``Well, we cannot talk about it now because we are going to have a peace conference and we do not want to get ahead of that.'' OK. Did that. Then there was a peace conference and for whatever sticktoitiveness there is, that one came out, initialed peace conference in Dayton. We said, after the conference, What is our position? What are we committed to? What can we do? How do we participate as Congress? You cannot really participate because we have a peace conference and we do not really want to talk about it. Then the President goes off to Europe, agrees to do the things he has agreed to do, and of course they welcome it with open arms. Why would they not? We are willing to do the heavy lifting. So, then the next thing we know, the troops are there. Now, the big movement of troops has not taken place, but American troops are there now. So we had a hearing, not long ago, in the Foreign Affairs Committee, and the Secretary of State was there, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I asked, ``What, in your opinion, is the role of Congress in this matter of foreign policy and in this matter of troops to Bosnia?'' Frankly, I did not get an answer. Finally, the Secretary of State said, ``Well, to provide the money.'' I think there is a larger role than that. You can debate the Presidential power, Commander in Chief, debate the money--but there is a role in terms of having support for what we are doing and including the Congress; not coming up and telling them what we have already decided to do, but, rather, have a real role. I was in Bosnia about 6 weeks ago, along with several of my associates here. And we spent a day in Stuttgart with the Supreme Allied Commander. This was 6 weeks ago. I can tell you, in terms of the administration, that decision was already made. It was already made, what we were going to do. We asked. ``We are impressed with what you are doing, general, in terms of training and preparation, but are there alternatives?'' There were no alternatives. I do not believe that. There are, in fact, alternatives. So, that is where we are. I happen to oppose the idea of sending troops on the ground to Bosnia. The real, basic question has never been satisfactorily answered, as far as I am concerned. Let me divert, to say I respect the opinions of everyone who is involved here as being their basic gut-felt feeling about it. But the real question, what is our national interest, has never really been answered. What is our position? What is our policy? What will we do in instances similar to this? Is this what we are going to do hence? So, until that question is answered, really, all the stuff about how you withdraw, how you are in harm's way, how you enter, how you get out, how many troops, are not really relevant if you have not established the idea that it is in our national interest to be there. So, I think that question has never been resolved. There are many arguments. One is to stop the genocide. Of course we want to do that. As a matter of fact, it was my strong feeling when we were in Sarajevo, when we were in Croatia, that folks are anxious to stop. They are tired of fighting. You can imagine that. You can imagine that. And if there is real dedication to the peace agreement, it is hard to imagine that we need 80,000 or 90,000 troops on the ground from other places to cause this to happen. Is this the only alternative? I do not think so. They continue to say nothing would happen if the U.S. does not take leadership. We were also in Brussels, in Belgium, with NATO, and all 16 of the Ambassadors from the NATO countries stood up and said, ``Gosh, we just do not think we can do it without the Americans providing the majority--a third of the troops, the basic payments, the heavy lifting to get there.'' Of course they could do it. Of course we can continue to participate in NATO. This was not really the mission of NATO originally. NATO is sort of looking for a mission and they are excited about the opportunity, generally, of doing this. We hear that Bosnia is the heart of Europe and the conflict may spread. It could, of course. Four years--4 years, during the height of the fighting, it has not spread. Bosnia is hardly the heart of Europe. Bosnia is the edge of Europe and, as a matter of fact, the strife that has taken place there has taken place, historically, because someone else has come there. So, Mr. President, this is a tough issue. We are going to have a chance, finally, to vote on it, as belated as that may be. And, as my friend from Oklahoma said, there will be a number of alternatives and we will have to make that tough choice. But it is my belief we can continue to involve ourselves in the diplomacy. I congratulate those who have done that diplomacy. We can continue to provide support. We can continue to provide airlift. We can continue the work in NATO. We do not necessarily have to have 30,000 troops on the ground there. It is a very tough area. This idea that you go in and separate them--this morning I sat in for a little time on the civilian aspect of it. What do you do when you are there? There are refugees, thousands of refugees, who will not be in the sector that they live in. And their property is gone. How do you return that? How do you get a Croatian back into the Moslem area to reclaim his home? They say we are not going to do that. So this morning they are saying we will have to do the policing; we will have to train them on policing; we will have to arm the Moslems. There is really a great deal more to this than separating those two areas and separating the zone, and we are obviously going to end up doing it. The price now talked about is $1.5 billion, plus another $600 million for nation building. If you would like to bet, it will be at least twice that. Of course it will. Of course it will. So we ought to really talk about the incremental costs and what that is. But more importantly, Mr. President, and I conclude, what is our role? What is our role in the world? How do we do this in terms of troops on the ground throughout the world? What is the division of understanding here as to what the role of the Congress is? I think most of us are very close to the people we represent. I can tell you that in our response in Wyoming, I think we have had two calls out of hundreds that favor the administration's position, which does not make it right or wrong, but it is an indication of how people feel. So, Mr. President, I hope we come to the snubbing post, and decide what our role is. In my view, that role is not 30,000 troops on the ground. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I think all of us are very concerned about where we go from here, concerned about the President's veto of the first balanced budget proposal that could have succeeded in 30 years. The President cannot continue to veto the will of the American people who list as their top priority balancing the budget. You say why, why is that a top priority? Not simply because it is good government, not because it is financial and fiscal responsibility, but because they understand, and Wyoming families understand, as do others, that every day the Government fails to balance the budget, more money is taken from their families' futures. Families are thinking down the road, fortunately. They care about the world their children will inherit and the fact that we are ready to move into a new century, and they ask themselves what kind of a Government will we pass on to our children and our grandchildren? Will it be the one with the credit card maxed out? That is where we are now. So these families think about what is coming in the future. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration thinks about the next election. Had the President come to the snubbing post and done the right thing, Wyoming families would have saved money. They would have saved $2,404 per year--these figures were done up by the Heritage Foundation on a State-by-State basis--$2,400 per year on lower mortgage payments, over $300 a year due on State and local interest payments, $500 per year on lower interest payments for student loans. These are for average families in Wyoming. The State and local governments in Wyoming--we want to transfer some of that responsibility--would have saved $57 million over 7 years on lower interest rates brought about by balancing the budget. So the issue of balancing the budget is the most critical one. We have to balance the budget because of the impact it has on families and the benefits that come from it. The deficit is robbing our families' bank accounts. It must be budgeted. And anything else is the wrong thing to do. The Clinton administration has done less than the responsible thing. I think we have to start talking about that and not let them get by with going to the media and saying, ``We're protecting [[Page S 18119]] this and we're protecting that. We can't do this.'' We have to balance the budget. And this administration has done what I think is the most selfish thing, and that is to play the political game at the expense of American families. The President has not done anything to bring about real change. In 1993, we had the largest tax increase the world has ever known. But spending continued to go up, and we have not balanced the budget. He has proposed two budgets this year, neither of them balanced. Neither of them got any votes in this Senate. He now proposes to bring up another one today. We will see. But he is going to do it without CBO numbers, without real numbers. Now, people say, what is CBO? What is OMB? What is the difference? I can tell you what the difference is. CBO is real numbers. You can balance the budget, if you fool with the projections, without really balancing the budget. Raise the projections out here 7 years from now when you are no longer President and it is painless to do it in the meantime. It is also phony. We cannot do that. We see this leadership in this administration trying to patch the walls of a crumbling welfare state. Talking about the Great Society, we spent $5 trillion in these welfare programs and they have not worked. You cannot expect different results if you continue to do the same thing. You need real welfare reform. We need to guard and protect Medicare. And we need to think about what kind of country we want as we go into the 21st century. The balanced budget is the way to proceed. Mr. President, there are a number of principles that need to be followed. First of all, if we are going to have a balanced budget, we have to start with honest numbers. Certainly, you can argue about the projections, but you have to start with real numbers and be willing to make the changes that are necessary to make that balance. You have to reduce Washington spending, which is as important as balancing the budget. You could balance it, I suppose, by raising taxes. But we need to bring down spending. We have to ensure Medicare solvency. We have to make some changes to do that. We have to have real welfare reform. Welfare reform without results is not what we want. We have to change that. We have to put some more power in the people in the States and move government closer to the people, and we must do it now. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an issue that all of us are concerned about and all of us are thinking about, and that is the President's policy to put United States troops on the ground in Bosnia. First, let me make it clear that I am opposed to that idea. I had an opportunity about 5 weeks ago to go to Sarajevo along with some other of my associates here. We went to Stuttgart in [[Page S 18058]] Germany and visited for a day with the supreme commander there. I was impressed by the preparation, by the way, of our military, as always. I am sure they will be able to carry out whatever mission is assigned to them. We spent some time in Croatia talking particularly to the Defense Minister there in terms of the Croatians' activities and their concerns. We spent a portion of our time in Sarajevo where we visited with the President of Bosnia, had a chance to talk with the U.N. commander there, and also spent some time coming back through Brussels in Belgium, and spent some time with the NATO commander and all 16 of the Ambassadors that were there. Certainly, I am not an expert in the field, having been there just a few days, but I have to tell you that you do get a sense, you do get a sense from being there as to what the feelings are, a sense that, as you would imagine, those people are tired of fighting and looking for some resolution. You get a feeling, also, however, that there is not a willingness to give up some of the positions that people have taken and will maintain, antagonistic positions and conflicts that are very long lasting and have been there for hundreds of years. So, Mr. President, I came back having not changed my opinion. I do think we need to continue to be involved. I think we have had an excellent representation there in terms of the negotiation. I congratulate the negotiators. We met yesterday with Secretary Holbrooke. But I was no more convinced of the responsibility to have 20,000 or 30,000 troops on the ground there and of our chances of coming away in the period of time, as described by the President, of 1 year, or that the solution is any better than it was before. Let me say, however, that we are going to have differences of view here. I hope we have an extended discussion of the issue here on the floor. I think everyone who comes forward will honestly have their views--and I do not impugn anyone's motives as to why they are where they are. Let me comment on a number of things that have concerned me. One is the process and the process of involving American citizens, through their Congress, through their elected representatives, in this decision. And I have to tell you that it is my observation that the Congress has essentially been co-opted in this decision. It started some 2 years ago when the President, for whatever the reason, indicated that he would place 25,000 troops in Bosnia, at that time mostly to remove the U.N. forces if that was necessary. So that was the first indication why it was 25,000. Why it was not 20,000, why it was not 40,000, why it was not 10,000, I am not sure. No one has ever been able to tell us that. So, then not much happened, and the Congress then passed resolutions saying we ought to lift the arms embargo on the Moslems. However, that was not pushed by the administration. That was not something that the administration worked hard to encourage. But shortly thereafter, I think it did cause some action. Shortly thereafter, the United States then moved to get NATO to do some airstrikes, which tended to bring together then the Croatians and the Moslems to a federation that sort of equalized, began to equalize the forces there, and so we saw a change, I think prompted, at least partially, by the action of this Congress to recommend that we lift the arms embargo. So then we saw some effort to come to a peace agreement. When I was there, there was just recently installed a cease-fire. I think it was the 31st cease-fire, however. Nevertheless, it was an effort to do that. Then we moved toward the peace agreement and a meeting in Dayton, OH, or wherever, to do that. So the administration said, gosh, we cannot really talk to you about what is in the wind here because we are having a peace conference and it would disrupt the peace conference. We had a number of hearings, and we did not get too much information, because they said we cannot do that. So then, for whatever commitment there is to it, there was a peace agreement initialed in Ohio. I am glad there was and I congratulate those who helped bring it about. No one is certain what it means and how much commitment there is to it. Then we are told by the administration, ``Well, we have a peace arrangement now. We can't really talk to you much because we can't change that.'' The next thing we knew, the President was in Europe on a peace mission talking to a number of countries, including NATO and European countries, saying, ``We are willing to bring these troops in.'' Of course, it was received with a great deal of enthusiasm. Who would not? If we agreed to do most of the heavy lifting, you would imagine that. So then following that comes the commitment for troops, and some preliminary troops are there now. Mr. President--and I asked this question of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense in a hearing last week--what is the role of Congress? I did not get an answer, other than provide the money. I do not think that is appropriate. I do not want to get into the great discussions of the constitutionality of the President's authority. There is disagreement about that. I do not happen to think the President has unlimited authority because he is named Commander in Chief in the Constitution. Nevertheless, there must be a role here for the Congress. I think it has been handled very poorly, frankly, in terms of some involvement and commitment. It seems to me--and I am sorry for this--it seems to me the administration is more in the posture of defending their decision and winning the argument than really talking about the substance of why we should, in fact, be in Bosnia. We can talk about details, and that is what we hear, all the details of how we are going to train, how we are going to move, all these things, but the real issue is not the details, as important as they may be. The real issue is, why are we there and what is the rationale and reason and the vital American interests for us to be there. We hear some saying, ``Well, we're going to put troops in harm's way.'' Of course, no one wants to put troops in harm's way. On the other hand, that is what troops are for. The question is not are they in harm's way, the question is, is there a good reason and rationale for them being in harm's way? We hear, ``If they don't go, there will not be any peace.'' I am not sure that is true. Until these warring parties are prepared, genuinely, to have peace, I suspect there will not be peace. We are told, and I think sincerely, that we are there to keep peace, not to make peace. There is a little different term this time, it is called enforce peace, which is a bit hard to define. But when we asked the question, what do we do when there is an organized military resistance to the U.S. forces that are there, NATO forces, the answer was, ``Well, we're not there to fight a war, we're not there to fight, we are there to keep and enforce the peace.'' We were led to believe we probably would withdraw. So, Mr. President, it is awfully hard to know. Some say, ``Well, we have to have leadership, we're isolationists.'' I do not believe for 1 second that anyone can think of this country, the things we are involved in both in security and trade, that would cause anyone to suggest this country is isolationist. That is ridiculous. Some say, ``Well, NATO will dissolve without us.'' I do not believe that. NATO was designed, of course, to bring together the North Atlantic nations to resist the Soviet Union, and they still have a mission, certainly. Although I must tell you, having been there, I think there is some search for a mission going on. NATO will continue to exist; NATO has a legitimate purpose. I do not know whether its purpose is to quell civil wars within Europe. So, Mr. President, we are in a sticky wicket here, and I guess the stickiest thing--and I, frankly, did not get a chance to ask the Secretary yesterday--is, what is our policy in the future, what is our position going to be with regard to our role in civil disturbances, our role in civil wars, our role in ethnic disturbances throughout the world, and there have been a number and there will continue to be. Is our role to place troops and keep the peace, enforce the peace? I do not know the answer. But we will have to make a decision with respect to policy, so that we know where we are, what people can expect from us. We want to be a leader in the world; we will be, we [[Page S 18059]] should be, we are the superpower. People should have, however, a reason to anticipate that our position will be based on policy. Mr. President, I think we find ourselves in a very difficult position, one in which honest people can disagree. I happen to believe it is a mistake for us to put U.S. troops on the ground there, a mistake in terms of policy, a mistake in terms of alternatives. There are alternatives. It is not that or nothing. We can continue to be involved with diplomacy. We can continue to support NATO. We can give other kinds of support there. It is a question of what happens when we leave. What do we do to ensure that having spent whatever it is--I suspect even though the administration says $1.5 billion, maybe plus $600 million in nation building, a little over $2 billion, I would be willing to bet you that is not right. We spent nearly that much in Haiti, and this place will be three times as expensive. So the question is, what is the basis, what is the rationale for that kind of commitment? I hope we have an opportunity to discuss it soon. I had hoped we would this week. Apparently, it will be next week. We ought to keep in mind the mass troop movement has not taken place. We have some folks in there, some troops in there early to prepare, but the troops are not there. We still need to make a decision. We still need to say to the President, if that is what we believe, that we think this is the wrong decision. No one here, however, will resist supporting troops once they are there. We are not talking about that at this point; we are talking about the decision to be there. It is a tough one. We should face up to it, come to the snubbing post and make decisions. I am sorry we have not made them before now. We shall. It is our responsibility. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor to talk about a friend, to talk about a man whom I respect as a friend, whom I respect as a public servant, a man--to quote a phrase he uses--``who is a friend to his friends,'' Alan Simpson. As you all know, Al Simpson indicated in Cody, WY, last Saturday that he would not seek another term in the U.S. Senate and would end his career at 18 years. Alan Simpson is a special guy, a unique U.S. Senator. There are none other like him. He can be outspoken, very candid, very frank, and very kind. This Cody boy is an outstanding Senator and my lifelong friend, a good and gracious man. I know that so many of you have known him well and also call him a friend. We are lucky in that way. Both he and Ann have given grace and style in their personal relationships as well as in their political life. All of us in Wyoming have been very proud of his representation in the Senate and his and Ann's representation as Wyomingites in the Nation's Capital. I have had the privilege to serve as a part of a team with Al on the Wyoming delegation for 5 years, when I was in the House and he and Malcolm Wallop were here. This one very special year, Alan Simpson and I have had the opportunity to serve together. There will be more accolades, tributes, and reactions, of course, to their decision. Many are surprised, certainly, and many are saddened by Al Simpson's decision not to run. I defend it because I know it was truly their decision and they are at peace with it and look forward to life beyond these Chambers, as we all know there is. I am sure that life will be centered in Cody, WY. I know that Al could have done anything he chose to. People in Wyoming [[Page S 17998]] adore him, respect him, and he could have won the race easily. I have a selfish reaction to this. I wanted him to run again. We in Wyoming have a unique relationship in this delegation--all Republicans, and we are all friends. I think it is especially unique that Al and I grew up in the same little town, Cody, WY--which was about 6,000--across the alley from one another. We played sports together, grew up together. I can tell a few scandalous stories, but Al has told most of them already. Few men in Washington have the gift of skill and the gift of humor that Al Simpson has. He has always been that way. I can recall when I was just a kid, Milward Simpson was probably the most famous man in our little town. I can remember being so astonished that he could stand up and extemporaneously speak, and it would just flow. So now we are here serving the Wyoming people in the Senate, and here Alan Simpson is my political mentor, our senior Senator and, very selfishly, I wanted him to run again, to continue his excellent representation and clear leadership. Many of you will have your own testimony to Al Simpson during the coming year. But I can tell you from one who has known the Simpson family, I know Milward and Lorna Simpson would have been very proud of Al, both in the way he has served and will serve throughout 1996, but also as proud as only a father and a mother can be in the way he has come to and announced his decision. He announced it with courage, with class, and with a positive view for the future--the qualities that define Al and Ann Simpson. He has 1 more year to go. No one should make a mistake or forget about that. He will do many things in that year. He will achieve much. So I will, at the end of that year, miss my good friend and mentor. All of us, I think, will miss his good western advice, little bits of western wisdom, such as ``don't squat with your spurs on'' and other little bits like that. So I say to my friend, hats off to a true trail boss, good luck, and I hope you do as well as you have done in the past, my friend, Al Simpson.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I was struck by your quotation on the necessity to maintain the alliance. I was, as you pointed out, in Bosnia about a month ago. Seven of us went to Sarajevo. We also met in Brussels with the NATO group, and all 16 of the Ambassadors were there, as a matter of fact. Each of them stood up in order and almost as if by pushing a button said, ``Why, we just can't do this without the leadership of the United States.'' The President is now in Europe. I guess I would say, what would you expect Europeans to do with him there? Of course, they will applaud the United States taking the burden, paying the major part of the bill and the major part of having troops on the ground. I think it is a very thoughtful way of promoting this idea. We were also struck about this very same question. Here are our U.S. soldiers. They are going in there, according to the plan, to be peacekeepers. So then what happens if you are attacked by an armed group and you respond? The notion is, and I think properly, that you can respond to defend yourself. We asked the general of the European group what happens if there is an organized effort. ``Well, then we leave, because we are not there to fight the war.'' It is very indecisive in terms of what they do. And I agree with the Senator that certainly you can say that the goal is well defined but, in fact, it has not been well defined.

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

Mr. THOMAS. This has been an interesting process. Certainly everyone subscribes to the notion that the President has some authorities--in the case of emergencies and in the case of war. But it seems to me that the Congress also has some responsibilities as representatives of the people. It seems to me what has happened is when we get into these situations, like in Bosnia--it has been going on now for 3 years--and then there comes, ``Well, we're going to have a peace agreement, so we can't talk to you about it until we get a peace agreement. We don't want you to get involved here until there's a peace agreement.'' Then when there is a peace agreement, the answer is, ``Well, we've already got a peace agreement, so there's nothing for you to do.'' Does it strike the Senator that we are essentially being left out of any decisions, those of us who represent our States?

Mr. THOMAS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Certainly.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma asks a difficult question. I do not know, nor am I in on the negotiations. If there is bona fide negotiations, both sides need to put their proposals on the table and find some common ground and there can be some adjustment. I think the key feature to the Republican proposal to balancing the budget is to have a spending limit. Within that spending limit, there are choices, priorities of how you do that. The key is to be able to have projections out into the future using CBO numbers with the contribution of the OMB and whoever else has knowledge, to have that projection and use the same numbers so that you are not using smoke and mirrors. Most anybody can balance the budget if they find some numbers that show revenues increasing out all the time and then it does not materialize. We have done some of that before. On the contrary, we ought to use the more conservative number so if we are wrong, we will err to have more surplus rather than less and add that to the reduction of the deficit and keep spending down. So the Senator from Oklahoma is exactly right. If there is going to be bona fide negotiation, you need to come to the table with some ideas. And we are dedicated to doing that. So I hope that we do. Let me yield the floor so that my friend from Oklahoma may proceed.

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President. I do not intend to take the hour. We did set aside some time, however, and I hope to be joined later by some of my colleagues from the freshman class who have sought to come to the floor from time to time to talk a bit about what, in our view at least, our collective view, we are seeking to do during this session of Congress. What we have sought to do, of course, along with the other Senators in this body, throughout this year, is to make some substantial changes. I think those of us who have just come this year perhaps feel more strongly about making changes, more strongly because we are not as wedded to the operations that have gone on here for 30 years as some may be. I think we are probably more sensitive to voters, having just come fairly recently off an election, an election in which most agree that people said we have too much Government, it costs too much, we need to be as fiscally and financially responsible as a country as you and I expect to be as individuals in our families and our homes and our businesses. So we feel very strongly about that. Balancing the budget has been and continues to be the prime issue, I think, for a number of reasons, not only because of the arithmetic, not only because for 30 years this Congress has not balanced the budget. We have spent more than we have taken in for a very long time. In order to do that, we have maxed out our credit card. We have charged it to our children and to our grandchildren and continue on at that rate, continue on to add to the debt to where we now have a $5 trillion debt, which is more money than most of us can imagine. Maybe even more directly, we have an interest payment every year we must make of $260 billion, probably next year the largest single line item in the budget, one that, of course, cannot be adjusted or changed. If it continues to grow at the rate it has, it will absorb more and more of the available funds. So, balancing the budget is something that we have not paid a lot of attention to, collectively, over the years. The deficit sort of happened. Nobody felt much pain, and we continued to do that. It is financially irresponsible. As we look to moving into a new century we must ask ourselves, I think, what kind of a Government, what kind of a country do we pass on? One that is continuing to grow a $5 trillion debt, adding on every day? Or do we, in fact, want to make some changes that will bring about different results? In addition to that, however, balancing the budget has some other fundamental changes. It has to do with spending. I suppose you can balance the budget by raising income, raising taxes, raising revenue, which of course was what the President did in 1993. It was the largest tax increase the world has ever known. It did, to some extent, reduce the deficit. I guess you can do that. The real issue, however, is what do you want to do about spending? If, in fact, the message was that Government is too big and spends too much, then in addition to balancing the budget, you also have to balance it on the basis of holding spending, or at least reducing the increase in spending, which has an impact on Government. If you have too much Government, if you have too much regulation, if Government is too intrusive in your life-- as many people believe it is, as I believe it is--then balancing the budget and the level of spending have something to do with that. I have a hunch that one of the rules of nature or science or whatever is that government grows to the extent possible by available funds and available debt. Until you do something about that, it continues to grow. So this has been the pivotal issue and continues to be. We have done a number of things this year with respect to it. One of the early ones was to seek to have a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I support that idea. Some do not. Some say you do not need to do it. You do not need to tamper with the Constitution. You just do it. The evidence is that does not work very well. We have been saying that for a long time. It has not happened. It has not happened. Others say we just have to get at it. I am for a balanced budget amendment, but that proposal died by one vote here in the Senate. I believe it is necessary, frankly, to have a constitutional amendment to provide some discipline. Public bodies are awfully hard to discipline. Everyone comes from a constituency. Everyone has a constituency that needs a new bridge or new road or whatever. So it is very difficult to have the discipline to say no to some things, to live within a budget. The constitutional restraints help do that. I come from a State that requires a balanced budget in the State constitution. And no one thinks a lot about it. We know that you cannot spend more than is available, more than you take in. So you have to make adjustments. I think it is a great idea. One of the problems with spending in this country is that we are over here talking about the benefits of spending but we do not then relate it to the cost of paying for it. One of the simplest and most direct cost-benefit ratios comes from the local school district. You say to the constituents that we need a new junior high, and it is going to cost you $220 a year on your property tax. So you say to yourself, OK, is it worth $220 a year? Then you go vote, and you decide based on what the benefits are of the school based on what it is going to cost. We are too far removed from that on the Federal level. So spending is over here. You pay for it over here, and the two never come together in terms of a cost-benefit ratio. That is not good for government. So we did not get a balanced budget amendment. So then we set about to balance the budget over a period of 7 years by doing it through appropriations, and beginning to decrease the growth of spending in appropriations. And we have worked on that all year and have not yet finished, as a matter of fact. I introduced yesterday a bill that would provide for a biennial budget, thinking we would be much better off if we had a 2-year budget so that at some time, when we would get through doing appropriations, we would have time to do other things like health care, and environmental issues, and have oversight of the spending that we have approved. At any rate, that is another matter. We are still working on it. It is not finished. We still have out of the 13 appropriations bills I think 7 that are not completed. That is what brought us, of course, to the shutdown of the Government several weeks ago and to the controversy over that which allows for the potential of another one on the 14th or 15th of December when this continuing resolution runs out. Some folks in the media have said, ``Oh, my gosh. That is just an adolescent food fight going on in Washington. These guys ought to grow up.'' It is not that, Mr. President. It is a very fundamental controversy over the direction of this Government--whether you are going to continue to spend more and more, or whether you are going to reduce the level of spending and come to a balanced budget. That is what it is about. You will recall in the last one the confrontation between the Republicans and the Democrats and the administration, which turned out to be a continuing agreement that said, yes, we will have a balanced budget. We will participate in putting together a balanced budget. We will commit to a balanced budget. We will commit to a balanced budget in 7 years, and we will commit to a balanced budget that is based on real numbers, in this case the Congressional Budget Office numbers. However, there were some other words added--some words that are a little less easy to define, such as we are going to protect Medicare, we are going to protect Medicaid, we are going to protect farmers, and we are going to protect the environment. I do not know what that means. I suppose protection of those things can be interpreted to mean many things. So that is where we are. In addition, of course, to the appropriations comes a balanced budget bill which makes the changes in programs necessary to over 7 years balance the budget. The toughest ones are entitlements. Congress really has very little to do with the amount of money spent on entitlements. You set up an entitlement. If you qualify, you get paid. Welfare is one. So if you really want to do something about the rate of growth, you finally have to do something about entitlements. That is what this is about--and welfare, to make block grants to the States so that they can, indeed, find growth that fits. My State of Wyoming has different needs than Pennsylvania or New York. So the block grants would allow for States to have the flexibility to put together programs that do work. Medicare--to change Medicare so that it does not go broke in the year 2002, and, if we do not change it, it will. The question is not whether you do something. The question is what do you do if you want to continue to have health care for the elderly. So what has happened is that I think some have taken the position that we need to make the changes needed, that you are going to have different results, and you have to do some things differently. Others have said, ``Well, I really do not want to do that. We can talk about balancing the budget, but I am not sure I am for that today.'' Everyone who stands up starts by saying, ``I am for a balanced budget'' and then goes on for another 30 minutes announcing why he cannot, and becoming a defender of those programs which are kind of scare tactics. Some have called it mediscare, and somehow you are going to do away with the benefits. It is not true, of course. We reduce the growth rate from 10.5, to 6.5. We reduce the amounts available per beneficiary that will grow $4,700 to $6,700 over this 7-year period. So they say, ``Gosh. This is radical stuff. And you are tearing it all apart.'' Let me see how radical you think some of this is. Mandatory Medicare spending will increase each and every year from $178 billion in 1995 to $289 billion in the year 2002. That is a 62- percent increase. That is radical reduction? Overall mandatory spending--overall mandatory spending would increase in each and every year from $739 billion in 1995 to $1.93 trillion in 2002, a 48-percent increase. Overall, Federal outlay--listen to this--will increase every year from $1.518 trillion in 1995, what we spend now, to $1.856 trillion in 2002, a 22-percent increase in total spending. But if you listen to some of the Members of this body, if you listen to the media, draconian cuts are taking place. And we are going to do something about it. Here is what the minority leader said: So, if we cannot get the Republicans to come off those extreme positions, then I think we are advantaged in not reaching an agreement. Mr. President, reaching an agreement is I believe our responsibility. I believe it is the thing that we have to do. I forgot to mention, of course, that what is going on here is the President has submitted two budgets, and neither of them balance. Neither of them were accepted. Neither of them have gotten any votes in this Senate. So we have to say, Is there a real effort made to do this? I hope so. I hope so. Collectively, for this country we need to make a move to balance the budget. We have the best chance we have ever had. We are on the way to doing that. We can do it in 7 years. We can do it with real numbers. We can do it, and provide the benefits that need to be provided. We simply need to have the will. Frankly, we need to have the will to come to the snubbing post, and say, ``Here is what we need to do.'' Now the notion is that it is all pain. Let me tell you it is not. A balanced budget will bring a good deal of stability to this country that will help the markets, that will reduce interest rates so that on your home, as some have suggested, it could be up to $2,000 a year in savings in interest on a long-term date.

Mr. THOMAS

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. (The remarks of Mr. Thomas pertaining to the introduction of S. 1434 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Good. I would like to do that. Mr. President, I want to speak in behalf of this bill. I think it is one that is very important to all of us, certainly important to my State. I congratulate Senator Kempthorne and Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus for the hard work and long time that has gone into it. This is an important bill. It has been very long in coming. Last year in the House we worked on this bill. I think it reflects a good deal of thoughtful consideration. Therefore, I believe it deserves the support of Members of this Senate. It has been an inclusive process in which many people with many interests have been involved. It is important that be the case. We are talking here about a program that affects us all over the country, a country in which the effects are quite different. Certainly some of the small towns in Wyoming have different problems than Pittsburgh or Los Angeles, and one of the efforts we have to make is to make it flexible enough to reflect that. I think this bill does that. Overregulation, certainly, has been on the minds of most people. It is much on the minds of the people I talk to in Wyoming. People are weary of the top- down kinds of regulations, that one-size-fits-all sort of thing. It is difficult to deal with that. I think this bill attempts to do that and does so in a very effective way. The Safe Drinking Water Act, as it has been, has been an example of the old approach, regulating substances that do not even occur in drinking water and do not pose a risk in particular areas. I always think of the efforts we made in Pinedale, WY, which has a water supply. There is a very deep lake that is close. Even though the testing would show that water was of excellent quality, they were, at least ostensibly, required to invest a great deal of their taxpayers' money to do some things that probably were not necessary. So people have asked for change and a new direction. The principle guiding this change is common sense. That is what I think we seek to do here, and the sponsors of the bill have done so, I think, successfully. It injects much-needed common sense into the regulatory process while doing a better job at protecting public health. The current mandate that 25 contaminants be regulated every 3 years regardless of whether there is a risk is repealed. The risk assessment is inserted into the process. States' roles are increased. Water systems are able to focus their efforts and their resources monitoring contaminants that actually occur in the systems. And that is good. In a word, the bill shatters the status quo. I again thank the sponsors for their attention to a State like Wyoming, which is different--small towns, different sources. So we have worked closely with Senators Kempthorne and Chafee to ensure that our communities did have the opportunity to take advantage of the funding mechanisms and the regulatory relief that this bill provides. I thank them for that. In addition, the small systems, as defined in this bill as those serving under 10,000, will be given special consideration when seeking ways to comply with the regulations. The bill is not perfect, of course, and there has been a great deal of effort going on each day, and some things needed to be changed. But overall the bill is an excellent one, and is an effort that will reduce the cost to local communities, municipalities but allowing them to protect effectively. So I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I hope the other body will act quickly, and the President will support our efforts. This bill is needed and we ought to move forward, and I urge that. Mr. President, thank you. I yield the floor. Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that creates a biennial budgeting cycle. It seems to me it is particularly appropriate to do that now. We have spent almost this entire year dealing with the budget. Surely it has been an unusual budget year in that we are attempting to make some changes, fundamental changes, in direction. But it is not otherwise unusual. As a matter of fact, since 1977, there have been 55 continuing resolutions, which would indicate we need to change the budgeting process. I am joined in this effort by a number of Senators originally and hope to have more: Senator Dole, Senator Domenici, Senator Simpson, Senator Kassebaum, Senator Faircloth, Senator Thompson and Senator Cochran. There are a lot of things we ought to be doing. We ought to be dealing with health care. We have not finished that problem. We ought to be dealing with regulatory reform. Most everyone agrees with that. Telecommunications, where we can deregulate and move forward with the things that will create jobs and move us forward. Personally, I believe we ought to be doing something with rangeland reform. Some of us live in States where 50 to 80 percent of the surface belongs to the Federal Government and is managed by the Federal Government. We need to change some of those things. Foreign policy--we need to be involved more in foreign policy. I think we find ourselves drifting into situations where we need to make policy in certain places and the administration says, gosh, we do not want to do that until we get an agreement, and then, after we have an agreement, it is too late to talk about it. So, essentially, the Congress is outside of foreign policy. That is wrong. We ought to be talking about endangered species, and a number of things that need to be done. [[Page S 17777]] Instead, Mr. President, as you know, we spend almost all our time deciding on how we are going to fund the Government. Most States--the Presiding Officer, I think, in his State of Missouri, served as Governor--have biennial budgets. There are a couple of advantages to that, certainly. One of them is that it gives a little longer time for agencies to plan. Rather than every year, they have more tenure in their budgeting. They can plan longer. More important, I think, it allows the Congress, then, to have some time to do the other things, one of which is oversight of the budget. I suspect that the budget debate will not be over in this session of Congress until next year. I suspect in less than 2 months we will be moving into another budget debate which consumes all of our time. I already mentioned that since 1977 we have had 55 continuing resolutions. We have had too many repetitive votes. We are back on the same thing over and over and over again without any new issue. So there has not been, and continues not to be, enough time for vigorous oversight. I suspect one of the principal functions of the legislative body ought to be oversight of the budgets that they have approved to ensure that they are, indeed, being spent as they were designed to be spent and to discover how they can be spent more efficiently and more effectively. That is one of the things we have had very little time to do. The provisions of this bill are rather simple. By the way, this is not a new idea. This has been introduced a number of times, been considered and supported by many Members of this body. It creates a 2- year authorization of appropriation and budget resolutions so that you set it out in a block and say here we are. It is not much more difficult to do it for 2 years than 1. You simply have a block of 2 years in which to do a budget. It is not difficult at all. All budgetary activities would take place during the first session of Congress. So in the second session you would have a chance to go back and provide some oversight to what is being done with the money that has been appropriated. Oversight in nonbudgetary matters would be taken up in the second session of Congress. There would be an opportunity to do the kinds of policy things that the Congress is designed to do in addition to spending all of our time funding the Government. Benefits, of course, would promote timely action on the budget, and would eliminate some of the redundancy. We need to do that. It would provide more time for effective oversight in the off years, and it would help so that we can reduce the size of Government. It would also reduce the number of times where there is potential for the kinds of congressional-Presidential conflicts that arise so often as in the process now that arises. If would allow the budget to be adopted in the first year of the President's term, and in the first year of the sessions of Congress so that new Congresses can implement their budget, and then have a year for oversight. It would encourage longer-term planning in the agencies. I think that is one of the keys to reducing the cost of Government. There have been very many programs, of course, that need to be analyzed, and that have to have applied to them priorities. Things need to be done much better--things that could be transferred to local governments, and closer to the people. Those things all are often a result of oversight. There is a good deal of support for this proposition, as there has been in the past--Citizens Against Government Waste, the Hudson Institute, Concord Coalition, Cato Institute, Committee for Responsible Federal Budgeting--a 20-year history of legislative bipartisan support in this Congress supported by Presidents Bush and Reagan over the years. Mr. President, this is obviously not a cure-all. Budgets are difficult. The allocation of money to activities is not easy, and it is terribly important. But I submit to you that it can be done as well in 2-year blocks, and the results will be much better. The results will be much better for the operations of Congress. The results will be much better for the operations of Government.