Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has been scheduled for Tuesday, July 18, 1995, at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to examine first amendment activities, including sales of message-bearing merchandise, on public lands managed by the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service. The hearing will be held in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Those wishing to testify or who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please contact Kelly Johnson or Jo Meuse at (202) 224-6730.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 343, the Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act, which will be before us today and, I suspect, for the remainder of the week. I think that this is one of the most exciting opportunities that we have had this year. This is one of the opportunities for this Congress and this Senate, this Government, to take a look at some of the things that have been going on for 30 years, 40 years, without much examination, which have simply grown and have continued to become more expensive and larger, without a real examination of whether or not what is being done is the most effective way to do it, or whether or not it could be done in a less costly way. I think it is an exciting opportunity. I have just returned, as have most of our associates, from a week in my home State of Wyoming. We did a series of town meetings and met with the rangeland users and met with the sugar beet growers and the chamber of commerce and the Rotary. As has been the case for some time, the issue most often mentioned is overregulation and the cost of overregulation. So I am excited about the opportunity to do something about that. I suspect that we will run into the same kinds of discussions that we have when we talk about doing something about welfare reform--that somehow those of us who want some change in what we have been doing are less compassionate than those who want the status quo; that somehow those of us who want to take a look at and change the way regulation is imposed are less caring about the environment and about clean water and clean air than those who support the status quo. That is simply not true. I suspect that we will hear from the opposition on this bill that somehow this bill will remove all of the regulatory requirements that exist. Not so. We will hear that somehow the regulations that are in place to protect us for various kinds of water and air problems will be eliminated or superseded. That is simply not so. Many people can imagine what the last election was about. But I think we have talked about it a great deal. There were at least three things that I think were most important to the people of Wyoming. One was that the Federal Government is too big, that it costs too much, and that we are overregulating. I think those are genuine responses that people feel very strongly about. So, Mr. President, here is our opportunity to do something about that. Clearly, the regulatory system is broken. What is being proposed does not do away with regulations. It simply says there is a better way to do it. As our leader just indicated, overregulation is a hidden tax that is passed on to consumers. It is not absorbed by businesses. It is not a business issue, even though much of it affects business. The costs are passed on to you and to me. Furthermore, the regulations are not confined to business. It goes much beyond that, into small towns, cities, the universities, and other areas. Unfortunately, regulations have been applied generally. In our Wyoming Legislature, I am proud that we have a situation where the statute is passed by the legislature, the agency that is affected drafts and creates the regulation, and it comes back to the legislature for some overview to see, No. 1, if it is within the spirit of the statute; No. 2, to see if it is indeed cost beneficial, that what it is set to accomplish is worth the cost of accomplishment. We do not even have here an analysis of what the cost will be. The cost of regulation, as the leader indicated, is more than personal tax revenues. Some estimate it between $650 billion and $800 billion. Now, this bill will not eliminate all of that cost, of course, because there is a need for regulation, and there is a cost with regulation. The point is that we are looking for a way to apply that regulation in as efficient and effective a manner as can be and do something that has not been done for a long time, and that in the application of the regulation, to use some common sense in terms of what it costs with respect to what the benefits are, and to take a look at risk-benefits ratios to see if what will be accomplished is worth the cost and the effort of the application. Furthermore, it gives us an opportunity to go back to some regulations that have existed and look at them. Let me give an example. In Buffalo, WY, there are 3,500 people. The EPA said we need to enforce the Safe Drinking Water Act. Fine. They are willing to do that. They are willing to put in a filtering system that costs $3 million for a town of 3,500 and made a good-faith effort to comply. One year later, EPA responded and said they would send a compliance schedule. Buffalo never received the schedule. Then when Buffalo proceeded as they had set forth in their schedule, EPA claimed that Buffalo never let them know what was going on. After that was worked out, EPA accepted, in writing, the town of Buffalo's plan. The following year, EPA again claimed the city did not let them know what was going on and referred the case to the Department of Justice for prosecution. When asked what happened, EPA said, ``We changed our mind.'' The bottom line, the city of Buffalo wanted to comply with the Federal mandate, but the Federal overregulation and bureaucracy prevented that. The University of Wyoming. We had several contacts from the University of Wyoming asking for a list of issues they were most concerned about. Do you know what was at the top of the list? Overregulation. Not grants, not money--overregulation. This is the university. This is not a business. This is the university, where a good amount of their resources were there to educate young people. We have the same problem in health regulations, in the disposal of health care waste, which goes far beyond the clean air. It will cause some of the small hospitals in Wyoming to be closed. [[Page S 9600]] Overregulation is particularly difficult for the rural areas of the West, where in our case more than half of the State belongs to the Federal Government. The things we do in our way of life, in our economy, our job creation, is always regulated more than most anywhere else in the country. We are very, very, concerned. Let me give one example. There are leases, of course, for livestock grazing on Bureau of Land Management lands and on lands of the Forest Service. The leases are renewed regularly. This year, it was decided there had to be a NEPA study--that is supposed to be confined to areas of national concern--for every renewal of a grazing lease. The irrigators have to spend $100,000 this year to do a NEPA review on their conservation land. The cost of this is paid by you and by me. Regulatory reform needs to have principles. This bill has them. It has cost-benefit analysis. I think that is a proper and reasonable thing. You and I do that. We make decisions for ourself and our family. We have a cost-benefit analysis, even though it may be informal. A risk assessment--it could be that the last few percentage points are too expensive to be reasonable and common sense. We need a look-back provision so we can go back and take a look at the regulations that now exist. There needs to be a sunset provision so that burdensome laws and burdensome regulations can be dropped or renewed. There needs to be a judicial review. S. 343 incorporates these principles. I think we have a great opportunity to make better use of the resources that we have, Mr. President, to provide greater protection for human health and safety in the environment at a lower cost and to hold regulators accountable for their decisions. What is wrong with that? I think that is a good idea, to hold the Congress accountable for the kinds of regulations, to limit the size of Government, so that we can create jobs that help consumers improve competitiveness overseas. We should take advantage of this opportunity. This week will be the time to do it, to be realistic, to apply common sense, to reduce the cost and the burden of regulation. I am delighted that we will have a chance this year, this week, Mr. President, to do that. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise again on what I think is a momentous day in which, for the first time in many years, this Congress is going to agree to balance the budget. I think clearly that message has been delivered by the voters in the country; more specifically, in the last election in November. When I say clearly, the people said the Federal Government is too large, it costs too much, that it continues to grow, and it continues to be more predominant. So, Mr. President, I think this is the delivery on some of the promises that have been made, made by this party, made to some extent by this Congress. But I am very proud of this budget that has been brought forward by the majority party. So it seems to me that we have delivered on the promise to balance the budget for the first time in over a generation. The Congress will pass a blueprint to bring a balanced budget in the year 2002. It means a dropping of interest rates of up to 2 percent, the creation of 6 million jobs in 10 years, increasing per capita incomes, and over 7 years the Federal Government will spend $12 trillion instead of $13 trillion. Spending will increase at a rate of 3 percent instead of 5 percent. I think the majority party is, and those who support this budget proposal are, delivering by not using smoke and mirrors. I think it is fair to say that, over the years, there has been an awfully lot of smoke and mirrors on financial matters, saying things that feel good somewhere out in the future. Somehow those future years never come. But this budget resolution relies on the estimates of the Congressional Budget Office which President Clinton in 1993 insisted be used as a yardstick. So I think we are delivering on the idea of no smoke and mirrors, delivering on the idea that the figures can be counted on. I believe supporters of this [[Page S 9362]] resolution are delivering on their promises to cut taxes. As you will recall, this administration hardly waited to unpack its bags before raising taxes $251 billion in 1993. One of the steps involved in this proposition, however, is to give American families a tax refund, $245 billion that will relieve the burden on families, that will allow potentially for the per child tax credit for families, capital gains reduction, marriage penalty relief, American dream savings, new IRA's, senior citizens tax relief, and progrowth economic tax incentives. But a very important aspect of it is that, in order for those tax reductions to be made available, there has to be a certification by the Congressional Budget Office that the growth reductions will yield a dividend to do this, that will yield a dividend to allow for tax reductions. Supporters of this resolution are delivering on their promise to downsize Government. It started right here in the Congress. It started this year--reduce some of the expenditures of the legislative branch. Foreign aid is being reduced, overall discretionary spending is down by $190 billion, and the Commerce Department phased out. Supporters will be delivering on their promise to strengthen the Nation's defense. The conference report restores more than $33 billion of President Clinton's $150 billion defense cut over the next 7 years, defense being certainly a priority issue, a priority function of the Federal Government. Supporters of this budget are delivering on their promise to preserve and protect and strengthen Medicare. We have been over this. Clearly, if nothing is done, Medicare is bankrupt; without a reserve fund in 2 years, bankrupt in 7 years. Nobody wants to see that happen. But you have to make some change. We organize the delivery of services and reduce that level of spending from 10 percent a year to 7 percent a year. Spending will increase on a per capita basis from $4,800 a year now at the end of 7 years to $6,400 a year, which includes growth in the numbers. Supporters of this resolution are delivering on their promise to improve Medicaid. Bureaucracy is eliminated in favor of allowing States to decide. I can tell you that there is a lot of difference in the kind of delivery program that is necessary in Ten Sleep, WY, than in Philadelphia. There needs to be that kind of flexibility to do it. The Federal Medicaid spending will grow, however, from $89 billion this year to $124 billion. We heard all of this talk about cuts. That is the kind of growth. Supporters of this resolution will keep their promise to protect Social Security. During the debate on the balanced budget amendment, you will recall that the opposition continued to say they were going to balance the budget on the back of Social Security. That is not true. Social Security is not a part of this balanced budget. Also, the supporters of this resolution keep their promise in reforming welfare. This conference report contemplates a savings of nearly $100 billion in welfare, again by moving these kinds of decisions to the States. So, Mr. President, I think it is not only a remarkable day in terms of the fact that for the first time in many years we will agree to balance the budget, but I think maybe more importantly in a republic, in a democracy, it is vital that you and I as voters are given information that is valid, are given information that is true, information that we can depend on. So I think the supporters of this budget conference report have delivered on these promises, and I am very pleased and very proud to be a supporter of this conference report. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I rise today to voice my concern over a disturbing trend which I see making itself manifest in certain government and other circles in the People's Republic of China: the growing view that the sole driving force in the United States' policy towards China is a desire on our part to weaken China and prevent its emergence as a player on the world stage. I have seen this view--in some cases bordering on the paranoid--reflected in statements from the Foreign Ministry, articles in the official and semi-official Chinese media such as a June 12 story by Wang Guang in Renmin Ribao entitled ``Where Is the United States Taking Sino-American Relations?'', and in talks with some Chinese government representatives. This viewpoint worries me primarily because it is wrong, but it also concerns me because of the underlying thinking which it reflects. If the Chinese are sincere in their beliefs, then this view reflects a complete misunderstanding of us and how we as a country operate. On the other hand, if the view is being disseminated by conservative party factions as part of a xenophobic campaign designed to bolster their credentials during the present struggle to replace Deng Xiaoping, then it demonstrates a willingness on their part to baselessly poison our relationship for domestic political gain. Finally, it is not outside the realm of possibility that certain factions in the government are manufacturing the entire thing in an effort to place the United States on the defensive and wring a unilateral concession or two out of us; they have done it before with other countries. Under any scenario, the result is disturbing. I believe that Beijing's new view is well summed up in the Renmin Ribao article: Over the past few years, only after going through setbacks and difficulties has the United States improved and developed relations with China. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, one view prevailed in the United States, which maintained that ``China was a counterweight to the Soviet Union" during the Cold War and that it was ``no longer important'' to set store by relations with China in the wake of the Cold War. In September 1993, Washington came to understand that ``China is a crucially important country and that China's importance [[Page S 9473]] has been neglected in the preceding few years.'' The United States then modified its China policy. After that, while pursuing its ``total contact'' policy, the United States continued to put pressure on China over a series of issues. In May 1994, Washington realized that the United States' pressures was hardly effective for ``a country with a population of 1.2 billion people,'' that ``China is a very large and very important country,'' that ``its economy has the fastest growth rate in the world,'' that its international status and role are important, and that the United States needs to maintain and develop relations with China. The United States then separated the so-called human rights question from China's MFN trading status. Only since then have Sino- American relations developed vigorously. During this time, however, another tendency in United States-China policy grew. Following China's economic development, Americans are vigorously advocating the ``China threat theory.'' On 17 April, the Los Angeles Times carried an article saying `` United States officials ``are beginning to pay close attention to China and view it as a possible long-term rival and threat to United States interests in the Asia-Pacific region.'' U.S. officials have repeatedly denied that the United States will isolate and contain China. However, what is notable is that, while briefing the House of Representatives International Relations Committee on 9 February, a U.S. State Department official in charge of East Asian and Pacific Affairs said: China ``does not pose a direct threat to us. But what is obvious is that as we look over the next decades, China will become increasingly strong. Therefore, we are pursuing several policies so as to curb this potential threat through all possible means. Mr. President, let me try to dispel this conspiracy theory. First of all, the basic flaw in the Chinese position is that it assumes a monolithic China policy on our part; but anyone who actually thinks there could be such a thing is sorely misinformed. With a liberal Democrat President drifting aimlessly through the sea of foreign policy and a conservative and assertive Republican Congress feeling the need to fill the void, the probability of there being a grand unitary U.S.- China plan is about zero. The thought of the amount of accommodations that would be necessary to achieve such a goal almost boggles the mind. The second flaw in such a position is that the disparate events which the Chinese draw together to form their conspiracy theory are just that--disparate events each with its own, mostly unrelated, causes. For example, the PRC views stronger U.S. interests in Taiwan, Tibet and Hong Kong as a concerted effort on our part to, as a Library of Congress senior analyst recently put it, ``keep [them] preoccupied with tasks of protecting China's sovereignty and territorial integrity and less able to exert influence elsewhere.'' The PRC also sees confirmation of this view in a recent spurt in the growth of our interest in these areas. The Chinese, however, completely miss both the real sources of our interest and the reason for the perceived acceleration therein. Principle among these three is the Taiwan issue; or, as Beijing is fond of calling it, the ``Taiwan card.'' With the recent decision to admit President Lee Teng-hui to the United States for a private visit, the PRC is convinced that we have embarked on a new path to upgrade our relationship with Taiwan at their expense. The PRC, however, must remember to view the decision within the overall context of our relationship with Taiwan. We have been close friends with Taiwan for over 40 years, a considerably longer period of time than with the PRC. Taiwan is a fellow democracy in an area not known for its commitment to democratic ideals, and is one of our strongest trading partners. There are also strong cultural ties between us; for example, many of Taiwan's leaders, President Lee included, have attended university in this country. Yet for years we have officially relegated Taiwan to less than second-class status among our friends, principally out of fear of offending mainland sensibilities. This treatment has included prohibiting its President from visiting our shores, even for a private visit, a position which has long been viewed by Congress and the American people as completely inequitable. As I have previously noted on several occasions, the only persons to whom we regularly deny entry to this country are terrorists and criminals. It was strongly felt in Congress, and the country as a whole, that to add President Lee to that list was a gratuitous insult to our friends. With the coming of a Republican-controlled Congress, the desire to remove that insult found a voice which, finally and rather sensibly, the administration heeded. The PRC should remember, then, to view the decision in these simple terms--not as a major policy shift, not as a rejection of the Three Communiques, not as a desire to create--in their parlance--``two Chinas'' or ``one China one Taiwan,'' and not as a part of some hidden agenda. It was, rather, a gesture of equity to a friend. Furthermore, the reason for the sudden acceleration in this process is not because of some deliberate plan, but for a more simple reason. Republicans have traditionally been stronger supporters of Taiwan than Democrats, and in November of last year took control of both Houses of Congress for the first time in decades. As a result, we finally found ourselves in a position to be able to effectuate our policies . . . thus the sudden spurt of activity. Our interest in Tibet is also one unrelated to some sinister desire to preoccupy Beijing; rather, it is based on our desire to see that the Tibetan people are not physically or culturally extinguished. Since Tibet was forcibly incorporated into China by the PLA, the Beijing Government has committed acts in that country which shock the conscience. Thousands of irreplaceable Buddhist temples have been gutted and destroyed, many hundreds of Tibetans have been arrested and killed, Han Chinese have been encouraged to relocate to Tibet in a clear effort to make the Tibetan people a minority in their own land, Tibetan culture has been sinocized . . . the list goes on. There is enough there to spark our interest, without us having to manufacture an issue to keep the Chinese busy. And as with Taiwan, Republican control of Congress is likely behind the increased interest. Senator Helms, the present chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations, has long been a strong and vocal champion of the Tibetan people, and is now in a position to be able to effectuate some of his desired policy changes. Similarly, our preoccupation with Hong Kong is not the third leg of some organized scheme. Rather, while our interest in Taiwan stems from our long friendship and our interest in Tibet stems from concern about human rights, as I have also noted on previous occasions our Hong Kong concerns are predominantly economic. Since I have already spoken at length about this issue both on the floor and in my subcommittee, suffice it to say here that we have a substantial economic stake in the continued viability of Hong Kong as a international financial center after its reversion to Chinese sovereignty after 1997. While issues involving that transfer are primarily bilateral ones between China and the United Kingdom, where decisions made by the two parties may effect our legitimate concerns we have a legitimate interest in speaking out about them. The explanation for why our interest there has grown recently is quite simple: 1997 is getting closer and closer, and the two parties are making more and more decisions about the colony's fate with each passing day. These, then, are the reasons for our strong interest in Taiwan, Tibet and Hong Kong, and for any recent increase in that interest. Each has its own set of distinct causes, and are not part of some unified plot to keep the Chinese sufficiently busy at home so as to prevent their emergence abroad. The Chinese have also begun to see an evil intent in the attention we have been paying to their trade and other economic practices. Over the last year we have pressed China to observe its commitments to a series of multilateral and bilateral obligations in areas such as intellectual property rights, arbitration, the WTO, and so forth. The Chinese have begun to see these moves as part of an attempt to keep them economically less powerful and influential than they would otherwise grow to be. Such a conclusion stretches the bounds of reason, though, and completely overlooks the underlying basis for our actions. China has insisted that it be treated as a player on the world economic stage. Well, Mr. President, along with the benefits such a role brings come certain responsibilities. Unfortunately, the PRC has made it [[Page S 9474]] clear through its actions that it intends to live up to those responsibilities only when it feels like it. Therein lies the problem. Intellectual property rights became an issue not as some manufactured attempt to weaken China's economic expansion but because the Chinese were allowing, even encouraging in some cases, widescale piracy in contravention of a series of international and bilateral agreements. Chinese companies were, in effect, stealing from us to the tune of several billion dollars a year. Is it any wonder, then, that we showed an interest in the topic? As for its entry into the WTO, China's position on accession can best be likened to wanting to have its cake and eat it too. It wants to have the benefits of that international agreement, but will not live up to others it has signed such as the Convention on Arbitration. It wants to be treated as a developed country where such treatment suits its needs, but as a developing country in other areas. For example, although the Chinese Minister of Chemical Industry Gu Xiulian has proudly noted that China's soda ash production has ``leapt to the front row in the world'' and is one of the top three chemicals produced in China--a statement one would logically assume is concomitant with developed status--it has instead demanded developing status for this chemical industry. This would allow it to continue to leave in place artificially high tariffs imposed against United States imports of soda ash. China cannot have it both ways, and our calling them on this and similar attempts is simply a matter of equity and nothing more. It is of some interest to note at this juncture that if we were involved in some overall scheme to hinder China's economy, the President would hardly have recommended renewing that country's MFN status as he did this month. And, as I strongly suspect it will, Congress would have hardly gone along with that renewal. There are other areas where the PRC appears to see the conspiracy at work: the restriction on sales to that country of United States technology with possible military applications, calls for greater access to Chinese markets, statements of concern about the possibility of regional conflict in the Spratly Island group, et cetera; but I will not belabor my point lest our Chinese friends decide that I protest too much. Let me just state that while the paranoid can manufacture a conspiracy out of any given set of facts, regardless of how unrelated they may be, I hope that the Chinese will reflect on the issues as I have briefly outlined them and see that there is no unified plan to get them. It is unfortunate that Sino-American relations have taken a downturn over the past few weeks, and that there might be some who view that downturn as evidence of the so-called conspiracy in United States/China policy. I can assure our Chinese friends that such a downturn was not desired, and should not be allowed to linger. Having said that, let me also state emphatically that it will not behoove some isolated circles in the PRC to exacerbate or overreact to the present situation for ulterior reasons; I have seen some disturbing signs that there may be a growing tendency on the Chinese side for some to do just that. It may be thought that by placing the United States on the defensive, United States officials-- ``anxious to restore meaningful dialogue with China presumably would be expected to `prove' their intentions with some gestures designed to show the Chinese that their conspiratorial view of U.S. policy is no longer correct.'' As proof of our goodwill, the Chinese side might suggest a series of unilateral gestures on the part of the United States. This is not just hypothesizing on my part; I have already seen a few examples of it. For instance, a June 27 KYODO news agency broadcast reported that Zhou Shijian, deputy head of the Research Institute of International Trade at MOFTEC--the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation--had said in an interview that the United States should take three steps to sooth the PRC's rancor over the President Lee visit: send a special envoy to Beijing to apologize, support PRC membership in the WTO, and lift restrictions on technology transfers to China. Mr. President, let me note first that I--and I believe most other Members of Congress--would strongly oppose any move by the administration to make any unilateral concessions of this magnitude under this type of circumstance; it would set a very distasteful precedent. Moreover, Mr. Zhou could not have picked a less likely three areas in which to expect gratuitous action on our part. Let me explain. First, while we regret the effect of President Lee's visit on the United States-China relationship, and regret that it has upset the Chinese side, sending an envoy to apologize presupposes that the decision to admit Lee was wrong. It was not; and given the votes calling for Lee's visit in both the House and the Senate, I think one would be hardpressed to find more than three of the 535 Members who would agree that was. Second, we have made clear that our support for the PRC's accession to the WTO is dependent on China's adherence to the provisions of other multilateral economic agreements to which it is a party such as international IPR and arbitration conventions. While the PRC has made strides in the IPR field, its compliance in others has been less than satisfactory. For example, although a signatory to the international arbitration convention, the Chinese have steadfastly refused to honor a $6 million award against a Shanghai firm in favor of a United States company named Revpower. Until China lives up to commitments such as this one, I and many others do not believe that our support should be forthcoming, especially on a unilateral basis. Finally, we come to restrictions on technology transfers. These restrictions were put into place after the Tienanmen massacre, and are designed to keep technology with military applications out of the hands of the PLA. Although there had been some discussion here of loosening the restrictions, that possibility has pretty much evaporated in light of credible information that the Chinese have been involved in transfers of technological and military hardware to rogue countries such as Iran. Given the very real possibility that were we to resume some transfers China might simply transship our materials to these countries, I do not think that the Chinese will see a change in that position anytime soon. Mr. President, let me close by reiterating that there is no grand design to keep China from occupying its proper place in the world. And, as for the present souring in the relationship, I hope that, like the ripples in a pond after a stone is thrown into it, the ripples in the relationship will continue to grow smaller until things are once again smooth.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as has been our custom recently, the freshman class would like to take some time this morning to talk about topics that are of primary interest. This morning we want to talk about the budget. This is an exciting day. We will pass the budget balanced for the first time in 30 years. Mr. President, let me yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, let me comment just briefly before I yield to my friend from Pennsylvania. This is, I think, a day to which we have been looking forward. All 11 freshmen who came to the Senate this year supported the balanced budget amendment. All 11 freshmen will support this balanced budget resolution. I think it is indicative of the fact that we were on the campaign trail, probably more than anyone else, because we were seeking our first election to the Senate. I think we found among all the issues that the idea of a responsibility in budgeting, the idea of responsibility in spending, was the issue that most people cared about. Through all these years, we have put it on the charge card. The old charge card is maxed out, and most people know that. So we have a chance, and we will pass a balanced budget today for the first time in many, many years. Now, I think it is honest and fair to say that passing this budget resolution is the easiest part. After this, of course, given these parameters, we have to go in and determine where the cuts are specifically. Where the additions will be, specifically. How the money is apportioned, and what the priorities are. That, of course, will be the difficult part. The nature of it, obviously, is that each Member in our own program says we want to balance the budget but not on my program. We want to balance the budget, but we ought to take it away somewhere else. Members would be amazed at the number of folks who say, ``We need a little more money because it will save money in the long run.'' Probably true. Nevertheless, next year's budget is what we are talking about when we have to do something with it. It does demonstrate on the part of this Congress and on the part of the House, and I am proud of, some discipline, some concern for the future. We had 50 4-H youngsters from Wyoming in yesterday, talking about what is going on, about their future. Talked about the fact that if we do not do something by the time the 4-H'ers are at their high-earning capacity in middle-age they will be paying 80 percent of their income in taxes. It is not a question of whether we change but how we do it. It is difficult. Everyone said in the balanced budget amendment, I am for a balanced budget amendment--but. But. We have a dozen reasons we cannot do it this way or why we cannot do it in another way. We will hear that, of course, all through this debate, ``I want to balance the budget, but we cannot do it on the backs of the farmers, but we cannot do it on the backs of these people.'' We have to find a way, and we will find a way. I am delighted the President has finally come around to a balanced budget. Even though he does it in a different way, the principle is there and, finally, some commitment to balancing the budget. He said in his letter, which I was a little disappointed in where he threatens to veto, ``We share the goal of balancing the Federal budget,'' he says, ``but we must do it in the right way.'' The right way is his right way, of course. Each of us has a right way. So it will be difficult, and I understand that. I understand it is a great debate. There are bona fide differences in views, how people think the Government should function. There are those who have a notion that spending more is better; that the Government's job is to collect more taxes and spend it out in the right way. That is a legitimate point of view. I do not happen to share it. I think the real thrust in this country is that the Federal Government is too big and costs too much; that is the general notion. But the other view--it is shared by a number of people in this Congress--is a legitimate one. So it is a great debate. And, of course, people sometimes say, ``Why can't you guys get together and pass something?'' There are differences of view about it. So it will not be easy, and there will be endless posturing going on defending this little group and defending that group. But through it all, in honesty, there are different sets of priorities. People push those priorities in good faith. Let me make just a couple of points that I think are important. One is, defense will be one of the areas of great concern. Let me just say I do not know the number, I do not know where it ought to be. But certainly defense, among all the other functions of the Federal Government, is one that is a legitimate one. The Federal Government is the only unit that can carry out defense. This is not a peaceful world. How much you spend, sure, we can debate that. Should we have a strong defense establishment? Of course. The other one, which I think is interesting in terms of principle, is Medicare. Medicare part A is financed by withholding in Social Security. So there is a fund that comes in, spending comes out. That fund is going to go broke, according to the trustees, in 7 years. There is no question about that. The real issue is, do you take general tax revenues and prop up the fund or do you cause the fund to be self- sustaining, as it should be? Even in part B, where a portion of it is paid for by the recipient, the question is do you fund those things out of general tax revenues with no control over the spending? Or do you seek to fix the program as it is by reducing the spending from 10 percent a year to 7 percent a year? Mr. President, we have a great opportunity to do some things that need to be done, some things of principle that must be done. We have that exciting opportunity today, and then to move within that budget resolution to the appropriations for the remainder of the year. I yield at this time to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. One question. This is sort of unclear. We had the President, of course, and his advisers saying it was not prudent to set a time. That is when we had 7 years and he had no budget. Now he has a time and Mrs. Tyson says that is exactly what we should do, even though she decried it before.

Mr. THOMAS. If the Senator would yield. Let me first say how much I appreciate and congratulate the Senator on his continuing efforts to get some real understanding. I think some time ago the freshman class, those elected to the body in November, came here more dedicated to more serious work to balance the budget than about any other issue. One of the most difficult things for all of us, particularly people listening and voters, is what are the real facts? I mean, we start out and everybody wants to balance the budget. ``Well, we do not need an amendment,'' they say. ``We will do it.'' Then we come down to do it. But we cannot do it on the backs of these. You cannot do it here. I guess my question is: It is sort of interesting that most of the President's budget is backloaded, and it happens after the year 2000. Now, that is 6 years from now. That is the rest of this Presidential term and one other term. Is there any significance to the fact that most of the pain comes after the year 2000?

Mr. THOMAS. It is interesting that Mark Phillips from the Concord Coalition says: Funny thing about these elusive outyears, they never seem to arrive. Is it not also true that the tax reductions, the tax cuts the President has go into effect much earlier than do the spending cuts?

Mr. THOMAS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. THOMAS. The Senator mentioned something about de Tocqueville. Earlier in his book he said, as he looked at the new democracy and he looked at the new system of people governing themselves, which at that time was a new experiment, he said that the strength of this country was people doing for themselves and helping each other on a local community basis. That is very true. Now we move more and more--and the budget has to do with the direction we take in Government, certainly. When we decide to have less Government which is less costly, we do that as a philosophy, and most everybody subscribes to that. This is the labor that goes with it to cause that to happen. You know, it is all tied together, and we cannot be responsible morally and fiscally, unless we do something about this imbalance that has gone on for 25 years.

Mr. THOMAS. Does Senator Santorum have a de Tocqueville quote, also?

Mr. THOMAS. The Senator has made a great point. One of the exciting things, it seems to me, about this Congress is that we have for the first time in many years an opportunity to take a look at Government programs that have been in place for 30 or 40 years, such as the War on Poverty--which has failed. There are more people in poverty now than when it began. So we are not talking about taking away the safety net. We are not talking about doing away with the assistance to people who need assistance. In welfare we want to help those, but help them back into the workplace. And that is exciting, to have for the first time a chance to say, Is there a better way to provide this assistance? Is there a more efficient way to do something, rather than just continuing to fund failed programs? I think that is the exciting thing we are doing.

Mr. THOMAS. If the Senator will yield, it seems to me there are a couple of reasons why we are becoming more aware--tangible reasons. We have had a debt and deficit for a long time and we all kind of brushed it off and put it on the credit card. But now we are going to have to raise the debt limit $5 trillion this year and probably another one before this administration is out. Second, interest payments become probably the largest single line item in the budget next year--probably more than defense. So that becomes real. It takes money out of people's pockets and from other things. Finally, there is the example, it seems to me, of Medicare. It is not a question of whether you do something; it is a question of whether you have reform, or you will be into reserves in 2 years and broke in 7 years. So we have played with this as an abstract thing over the years, I believe, and now all of us are beginning to believe it is not abstract. It is very real and it is there. I just think it is so important that we deal with facts. There is some pain involved. But to try and act as if there is none, that just will not handle the problem.

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator. I have to say, again, I cannot think of anything more important to this country and more important to all of us than having a legitimate debate about facts with regard to balancing the budget, and the idea that somehow we can politically balance the budget and the pain comes in 10 years and we doctor the figures so that it looks good simply does not deal with the problem that is a real national problem to you and to me and to our kids and our grandkids. So I appreciate very much the efforts that the Senator has made to seek to get these facts out.

Mr. THOMAS. We are. I thank the Senator for his comments. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS. That is the interesting and not well understood point. Two years ago--when the President talks [[Page S 8846]] about deficit reduction, the fact is there was no cut in spending. The fact is the spending still continues at 5 percent and the cuts, the deficit reductions were bookkeeping things and raising taxes. We still continued. So we are talking not about cutting overall spending. We are talking about reducing the growth. I thank the Senator.

Mr. THOMAS. The Senator is right. Mrs. Tyson, on February 6, said that their deficit path is a sound deficit path, both for the economy in the near term and forcasting the economy, something she said they were dealing with, that they have it under control. This was in February, and then this body rejected that budget 99 to zip. She said more recently that we have to balance the budget, we want to get a balanced budget and to do it in a time certain that makes some sense. My question is, though, under the best analysis--it is confusing-- will this 10-year budget that has been sent down by the President balance in 10 years?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to make a brief comment today about a recent development in Cambodia which I believe does not bode well for the emergent democracy in that country. Last Monday, June 19, the Cambodian National Assembly expelled the representative of northern Siem Reap khet and an outspoken critic of corruption in his country's government, former Finance Minister Sam Rainsy. The move was to be officially announced today. Cambodia held its first democratic elections in May 1993, under the guidance of the U.N. Transitional Authority. The fragile multiparty coalition that emerged, less a result of electoral processes than power politics and accommodations among the different factions, has depended for its survival mainly on the expedient relationship between the co- prime ministers: Prince Norodom Ranariddh of the Royalist National United Front for an Independent Neutral Peaceful and Cooperative Cambodia [FUNCINPEC] and Hun Sen of the Cambodian People's Party [CPP]. Since 1993, outside observers have often characterized the growth of democracy there as two steps forward, one step back. Mr. President, the expulsion of Rainsy is just one such step backward. Rainsy was a founding member of FUNCINPEC, and was appointed the party's second representative to the Supreme National Council--the preelection transitional governing body. As the first Finance Minister in the newly established government, Sam Rainsy won praise for successfully balancing the country's first budget. Unfortunately for him, he was also a critic of the country's pervasive and entrenched political corruption which brought him into conflict with members of his own, as well as other parties. He complained publicly that Cambodia's banking system was riddled with corruption and that most private banks were simply fronts for money laundering. His decision to contract with a French company--Total--to promote efficiency in the country's kickback-racked oil distribution system brought him into a jurisdictional dispute with the CPP-headed Commerce Ministry, and made enemies of some powerful and politically influential distributors. Similarly, his decision to take on Thai Boon Rong Co. over the latter's attempts to extract payments from vendors in the Olympic Marketplace made him few high placed friends. Rainsy's continuing allegations became sufficiently embarrassing to the powers-that-be that he was fired from the Cabinet in October last year. Although fired from the Cabinet, Rainsy became even more vocal in his criticisms. For example, he led an attempt in the assembly to review a series of nontransparent contracts between the government and several influential private contractors, but was rebuffed. Still apparently uncomfortable with Rainsy's position, Prince Ranariddh --in a move that many analysts saw as a power play, a flexing of his political muscle as leader of FUNCINPEC--lobbied to have Rainsy ousted from the party as well. He was successful, and Rainsy was expelled in May. Things did not stop there, though. Ranariddh then sought to have Rainsy expelled from Parliament on the grounds that he was elected as a member of a specific party and that, having decided to leave that party, should not be allowed to keep his seat. At one point, he even threatened to resign if Rainsy was not expelled. Rainsy waged an international campaign to retain his seat, arguing that he was elected by the voters of Siem Reap to represent them and not the party. He was not successful, however. Rainsy was expelled by a 9 to 3 vote by a permanent committee of the assembly headed by assembly Chairman Chea Sim, his deputy, and several standing committee chairmen. I view this move with great concern. Mr. President, this situation would be analogous to a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives deciding to vote against the party line or change her party affiliation--a move with which we are not unfamiliar--and consequently being unseated and replaced by the House leadership. The move was made without a vote of the assembly, or recourse to the Member's constituency; in fact, that the vote would be on the committee agenda was secret from its members until they had gathered to vote on unrelated legislation. Moreover, yesterday a report in the Hong Kong press indicated that at least two of the deputies whom purportedly signed the expulsion petition--Prince Norodom Sirivut and another MP who preferred to remain anonymous--have said they did no such thing. This is not how representative government works. The point behind the expulsion is clear: internal discontent with the leader of the government will not be tolerated. The move is sure to have a chilling effect on other MP's who do not toe the exact party line such as Ieng Muli, the present Information Minister and member of the Buddhist Liberal Democratic Party. It also signals a severe blow to what many saw as the only opposition voice to the government outside the Khmer Rouge. I fear that it signals the transformation of the National Assembly from an open deliberative body into one that simply serves to rubber-stamp the decisions of the leadership. As one MP put it, if the No. 2 man in the country's largest party can be brought down, regardless of the wishes of his constituents, solely for the reason of expressing his personal and political opinions, then who is safe? Mr. President, I realize that my disapproval will likely mean little to the forces allied against Sam Rainsy. But they should know that I and other Members are watching them closely, and with each increasing threat they pose to democracy there they make one less friend here, and make much less likely the coming forth of support--economic or otherwise--for their country.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster, Jr., as Surgeon General. The issue is not one of abortion. I believe the President of the United States has the authority to nominate whomever he pleases to represent his position. However, the position of Surgeon General is unique in that it requires pulling Americans together as this nation's doctor. Unfortunately, Dr. Foster's credibility to represent the public health concerns of this country was severely damaged during the nomination process. I am deeply concerned about Dr. Foster's conflicting statements with the findings by the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources and with the White House. Our Nation's ``family doctor'' needs to be consistent and must speak with credibility so all will listen. This time of exploration into the background of Dr. Foster has caused me to evaluate the role of the Office itself. It seems to me when this country is making priorities in the budget, it does not appear that the Office of Surgeon General is particularly integral to the overall mission the Federal Government faces. The Secretary of Health and Human Services has a budget of $726.5 billion. Surely, the Secretary can take over the role of the Surgeon General and save the taxpayers substantial money. The Office was created back in 1870 in order to direct the Marine Hospital Service. The primary purpose was to provide health care services to sailors. It is clear to me that the Office has outlived its intended service. Mr. President, many issues that Surgeon Generals in the past have trumpeted, like the risk of smoking and fetal alcohol syndrome, are crucial to health of our country. No one wants to silence that discussion. Those public health concerns can and should continue to be a priority, but as part of the role of our Secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services, or even in certain circumstances the President himself.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Smith amendment, which will repeal the penalties levied against States that have not passed both a mandatory seatbelt and helmet law. The issue is not the merits of helmet laws or seatbelt laws. The issue is where should these issues be discussed and decided. The message of the last election was that we need a smaller, less intrusive Federal Government. The Federal Government tries to do too much and has taken over so many functions that ought to be State and local decisions. The vote on the Smith amendment is a clear test as to whether or not the U.S. Senate got that message. For too long an activist Congress has used the threat of loss of highway trust fund money to force States to adopt whatever the Federal agenda of the moment is. I think that is a rotten way to do business. First, that approach assumes the money collected through Federal gas taxes somehow belongs to the Federal Government. This money comes from the States--it comes from highway users in the States. To collect the money from these folks and then turn around and hang it over their heads until they do whatever we say is outrageous. Second, the people who support this approach think State governments are incapable of making informed, responsible decisions about the safety of their citizens. I do not know how you can defend the idea that folks in Washington are somehow blessed with the divine wisdom to always know best. State officials are just as responsible, and in most cases are in a better position to make informed decisions than folks in Washington. I will let others argue the merits of helmet use. There are strong feelings on both sides of that issue. What I will argue is that debate ought to happen at the State level, and the Federal attempt has clearly failed. Section 153 was enacted as part of the ISTEA bill of 1991. Since enaction of section 153, only 1 State has adopted a mandatory helmet law; 25 States have yet to adopt mandatory helmet laws, and are in violation of section 153. This year alone, $48 million will be diverted away from road and bridge construction. Next year that figure will increase to $97 million. In Wyoming, just over $1 million was moved from highway construction to safety education programs this year. Next year we will see over $2 million shifted away. I do not know how we can spend $2 million on safety education programs in my State. That comes to just over $4 for every man, woman, and child in Wyoming to be spent on safety programs while we have millions in unmet infrastructure needs. It does not make sense, and a full half of the States have said enough. They have decided it is more important to preserve the ability to make their own decisions than to bow to Federal blackmail. That is a choice States should not have to make. I strongly support this amendment and urge its adoption.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent that we extend morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

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