Craig Thomas

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to take an opportunity as we wait to go on the highway bill to talk a bit more about the budget. It seems to me there will be nothing this year that we will deal with more important than the budget. One aspect of it, of course, is the ``why'' of balancing the budget. Certainly I do not think anyone would suggest that continuing to spend more than we take in is a responsible fiscal or moral position. This Congress has not balanced the budget for 25 years. When there is discussion of a balanced budget amendment, we always hear people say: I am for a balanced budget; I sure want a balanced budget, but we do not need an amendment; all we have to do is do it. Well, we have a chance to come to the snubbing post this time and figure out if we can do it. And we have before us from the Senate as well as the House potential outlines that do balance the budget. Not only is balancing the budget important, Mr. President, but I think also, of course, the budget and spending and taxes help to shape the form of Government. I think they respond to what I believe was a very clear statement of the voters in 1994 that Government is too big and spends too much. And certainly the test of good Government is whether or not the Government responds when voters have sent that sort of a message. So nothing will be more important than the budget discussions this year and the result of those deliberations. I am pleased to welcome the President of the United States to the budget debate. I am disappointed that it took this long for him to participate in it. He sort of falls into the follow-the-leader type of concept. I am disappointed that the budget recommended by the administration does not, in fact, balance the budget, even though it is extended to a period of 10 years. I am also disappointed that it appears to yield to the political notion of endloading, where almost all of the pain is somewhere in the future, somewhere 10 years from now, which puts balancing the budget at great risk. It's likely that in the next 10 years there will be another budget and all the benefits will come early and the price we have to pay for it as taxpayers will not show up until later and the budget ends up never being balanced. So, Mr. President, I am glad we are launched. I am glad the President of the United States has come into the discussion. However, the Congress has already done most of the heavy lifting by passing a balanced budget weeks ago. I am very proud of what the Senate did. I am not on the Budget Committee, but I think Senator Domenici and others came face up to the task, and their cuts start soon; they start to do what has to be done without putting it off the way the President does-- the political way of tough talk, the political way of giving the benefits and doing the tax adjustments early on and letting the hard work, the heavy lifting go until later, make it until even after the turn of the century, which is only 5 years from now, maybe until after the next Presidential election, not this one in 1996 but the next one in the year 2000. Most of the heavy lifting in the President's budget comes after that--coincidence, I am sure. We are told that the President's budget cuts discretionary programs except defense and education by $200 billion in 7 years. What we are not told is in the last 3 years the discretionary budget is cut by $178 billion, so basically almost all of the cuts come in the last 3 years, not in the early years. We are told there are no cuts in defense, but after the year 2005, there are an additional $65 billion in defense cuts. Most of the discussion this year has been that this is not a peaceful world, and it is not a time to continue to reduce defense expenditures. In addition, what was not said in the President's budget was in the last 3 years Medicare is cut by $167 billion, more than all of the proposed cuts in the first 7 years. So I think it is fair to say that this budget proposal is endloaded. Even the Washington Post, which is not exactly a pillar of conservatism, indicates that given more time, it is always easier to do the budget reduction. A full 85 percent of the President's promised reductions would occur in the next century. I would argue that chances are pretty good before we come to actually paying for the changes we ask for, there will be other changes. In the next 7 years, as a matter of fact, the promises made in the President's budget for cuts are slightly smaller than the budget he submitted in February. So Martha Phillips, who is the executive director of the Concord Coalition, said, ``It is a funny thing about those elusive outyears; they never seem to arrive.'' I think one of the difficulties, Mr. President, in recent years-- perhaps always, but it seems particularly ironic now--is that in an era in which we have the greatest, quickest communications system the world has ever known, it is very, very difficult to get facts to you and me as voters in Casper, WY; that the information is usually put forth by advocates on either side and spun whichever way they choose to spin it to where it is extremely difficult for people to really get a handle on what is happening. I noticed in just the last couple of months that the folks who come to our office who belong to nationwide organizations usually get a briefing. Frankly, when they come to the office and explain their point of view from the basis of the briefing, you hardly recognize it from what you have seen in the budget. What we need more than anything, of course, is really straight talk, some real facts. The idea that we are going to balance the budget with no pain is an illusion. Of course, there is going to be some pain. Of course, there are going to be some changes. The idea that we accomplished great things in 1993, for example, when most of the deficit reduction came from bookkeeping changes. We changed what was anticipated in losses in the RTC. We changed what was anticipated in losses in Medicaid. About 18 percent of the change was a policy change, and that was a tax increase. [[Page S 8599]] Spending in 1993, when we talk about the deficit reduction, went up and continues to go up at 5 percent. When you are talking about $1.5 trillion, 5 percent of that is a very large amount of money. But I am encouraged now that the President has endorsed the idea of balancing the budget that we should get there as quickly as possible. It is a little hard to imagine that in a $7 trillion economy that a $60 billion change in Government spending is going to hurt our prosperity. I think George Will said that it was very hard to figure out how that can discombobulate a $7 trillion economy. So we should move boldly. We have the chance to move boldly. We have the chance to do the things that we talked about for a very long time, that almost everyone talks about on the campaign trail--balance the budget, reduce Government, reduce spending. But when we get here, there are arguments about who does it, where it ought to be, and we end up not doing the things that you and I know need to be done. We can balance the budget. Very likely we will find 6.1 million more jobs, we will lower interest rates on student loans, and on mortgages. Mr. President, I think that we are going to hold the administration's feet to the fire. His track record does not indicate a great deal of confidence. His actions do not match the rhetoric that we have been hearing. The President promised a 5-year balanced budget plan as a candidate, then rejected a 7-year budget plan, and now proposes a 10- year budget plan. The budget deficit reduction in 1993 he talks so much about was a matter of increasing taxes. So we have a history of more taxes, more spending--spending has never been reduced--and more Government. As a matter of fact, in the 1993 deficit reduction bill, domestic discretionary spending actually accelerated rather than decreased. In addition, this administration last year made an effort to have the Government take over health care. We have to do something about Medicare. Americans rejected the idea of a Federal Health Care Program. We have now an opportunity to save Medicare. If we do not do something, according to the trustees--some of whom are Cabinet members--in 2 years we will be into the reserves and in 5 more years it will be broke. So it is not a question of whether we do something, it is a question of what we do and how we do it. If we want to have Medicare, if we want to have health care for the elderly, we have to change the program. Yet the administration only keeps Medicare solvent for 3 more years, until 2005. So I certainly hope that the President of the United States joining the debate will cause us to move toward a balanced budget. I am decidedly pleased he has moved away from the February budget proposal which was rejected 99 to zip in this body. We need to use the Congressional Budget Office's [CBO] numbers. The President suggested 2 years ago that those were the better numbers. Now we find he chooses to use other numbers which actually reduce the need by about $200 billion per year, and according to most people's accounting, would come up at the end of the 10 years still hundreds of billions in arrears. We have the best chance in memory to take a real bona fide look at doing something about overspending, about doing something with the size of Government, and we can do it this year, Mr. President. So I welcome the President's entry, his recognition that we do need to balance the budget, and some of the ideas that he has, but I suggest to you we have to be honest and fair about it. We cannot wait until the next century to have the pain come. We have to start now and do the things that most people agree need to be done. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we have morning business for not to exceed 5 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk and ask that it be referred appropriately. I am pleased to say that Senators Simpson, Craig, and Campbell are joining me to sponsor the Yellowstone National Park 125th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act. Yellowstone National Park, of course, is largely in my State of Wyoming. It is, I think, the crown jewel of the National Park System. It is the first national park having had its 100th anniversary sometime back. It consists of about 3,400 square miles, the largest national park. We believe that we are joined by most to think it is the crown jewel of the Park System. We have had--and we continue to have, Mr. President--substantial financial strain on our national parks, some of it due to the expansion of the authorization of parks far beyond our ability to pay for them. We have this expansion continuing to go on with a debt of about $4 billion in authorized expenditures which have not been able to have been appropriated. There is increased wear and tear on 500 miles of roads in Yellowstone Park, 1,000 miles of trails, and countless public facilities. And, frankly, there is a need for $600 to $700 million to do the kind of maintenance that is necessary over a period of time. That will be very difficult to extract from the budget. The bill that we offer is one that would authorize and provide for the minting and issue of 500,000 $1 silver coins for Yellowstone's 125th anniversary in 1997. For the taxpayers, this is a budget-neutral proposition. It does not cost the taxpayers anything. The surcharges from the sale of the coins will be split evenly, 50 percent going directly to Yellowstone Park and 50 percent to the Park Service for distribution among other parks. The sale of the coins could potentially raise $2.5 million for Yellowstone's needs. Mr. President, chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in this commonsense approach to provide the needed resources for Yellowstone Park and properly honor our oldest national park.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I would like to take a minute to commend the Jackson Hole ski area in my State of Wyoming. Recently this ski area received the prestigious Golden Eagle Award, sponsored by the Skiing Co. which is part of Times Mirror Magazines and publisher of Ski, Skiing, and TransWorld Snowboarding magazines. The Golden Eagle Award was established by the Skiing Co. and Times Mirror to recognize exceptional environmental excellence in ski area management by North American ski areas. It was presented at the annual meeting of the National Ski Areas Association in Palm Springs, CA, last month. The Jackson Hole Ski Corp. won the top award for overall environmental excellence. The resort was commended by a panel of judges for downsizing its mountain master plan by a third, in order to provide a better ski experience [[Page S8297]] while adhering to environmental values. It was also recognized for its vehicle maintenance shop management program, for a sensitive revegetation plan, an aggressive recycling program, and for establishing a land trust to preserve the resort's scenic and natural character. Three years ago, at a series of training seminars, employees of Jackson Hole Ski Corp. chose ``Respect for the Environment'' as their highest corporate value. Jim Gill, vice president of the area, believes that economic growth and environmental protection can complement each other, because most resort guests consider themselves environmentalists who enjoy the outdoors and appreciate its natural beauty. According to Francis Pandolfi, president and CEO of Times Mirror Magazines and who presented the award, Our judges called Jackson Hole's initiative very broad- based and far-reaching--from its downsizing of the mountain to its outreach programs, its educational accomplishments and the preservation of the area's character through its land trust. The area has done superb environmental work on virtually every front. In addition to Jackson Hole, five other ski areas won Silver Eagle Awards for environmental excellence in the following categories: Snowbird, UT, for water conservation and wastewater management; Heavenly, CA, for fish and wildlife habitat protection; Sierra-at-Tahoe, CA, for environmental education; Winter Park, CO, for community outreach; and Beaver Creek, CO, for area design. Madam President, too often we only hear from critics about how ski areas destroy the wilderness. Skiing is a wonderful sport which millions of people from around the world enjoy, and the Golden Eagle Award program confirms what we all know; that it can coexist with environmental protection of the highest degree. Industry surveys show that skiers are very environmentally aware and involved, and that any perception of skiing as being antienvironmental exists only in the minds of a few. These success stories not only educate the American public about what a good job many ski areas are doing to conserve and protect the environment, but they also serve as excellent examples for other ski areas to emulate. Congratulations to Jackson Hole Ski Corp. and to all the other winners.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I would like to speak this morning on two issues concerning the People's Republic of China; specifically, Hong Kong and our embassy in Beijing. First, Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten contacted me last Friday to inform me that his government and the government of the People's Republic of China had finally reached an agreement on establishing the Court of Final Appeal [CFA]. He was kind enough to send me a copy of the agreement, as well as a copy of his statement to the Hong Kong Legislative Council. As my colleagues know, the establishment of the CFA has been one of the major sticking points in the negotiations over the transition of Hong Kong from British to Chinese sovereignty in 1997. Hong Kong presently operates under a British legal system based on statute and common law, and the judiciary is a separate, independent branch of government. These legal traditions provide substantial and effective protections against arbitrary arrest or detention, and ensure the right to a fair and public trial. Aside from the legal protections individuals enjoy under this system, Hong Kong's transparent and predictable legal system and regulatory scheme has been a major draw to businesses. They know ahead of time what statutes govern their actions, and that their contracts will be enforced. The continuance of these laws after 1997 will be a key factor in the territory's ability to maintain its promised high degree of local autonomy and its attraction to business. Final trial court decisions in Hong Kong are now appealable to the Supreme Court, and then to the Privy Council in London. There is a well-founded concern that, upon retrocession, the protections offered by the present legal and appellate systems might disappear to be replaced by a more ``indigenous'' system where the courts are instruments of the Party, contracts are honored only as long as they are useful, and final decisions are handed down from Beijing according to the whims of the leadership. In an attempt to ally these fears, in the Joint Declaration and subsequent [[Page S8303]] discussions the People's Republic of China and United Kingdom agreed to establish a local CFA before 1997 to replace the Privy Council. Protracted negotiations between the parties, however, failed to produce a mutually agreeable plan for the Court's implementation. With 1997 looming and fears about the consequences of the lack of a court at the time of retrocession, the Hong Kong Government unilaterally prepared a draft bill for introduction in the Legco. Beijing refused to endorse the draft, and both sides spent time pointing the finger at the other, while it languished. In March, in response to statements by Governor Patten that the Legco might unilaterally establish the CFA without waiting for Chinese approval, the People's Republic of China stated that it would dismantle any court established without its OK. This left the Hong Kong Government with the Hobson's choice: either leave it to China to decide when and how the court would be established after 1997, or go ahead with the draft bill and create a serious dispute with the People's Republic of China that would have damaged investor and citizen confidence and left doubts about whether China would eventually just dismantle it. On June 1, however, the two sides began a new round of spirited negotiations which led to the June 9 agreement. The basic gist of the agreement is that the Hong Kong Government will procede to introduce its draft bill in the Legco, and that preparations for the Court should be made on the basis of the resulting legislation and completed in time for the Court to begin operating on July 1, 1997. It will not, however, begin operating before that date. Governor Patten noted on Friday that: What is vital is that we know now what kind of court will be in place on 1 July 1997. That is what the Hong Kong community and US and other foreign businessmen have been calling for and I believe that the Chinese have come to realise that it is vital to the maintenance of confidence in Hong Kong. There will be dissentient voices, of course, but I believe that the majority of the Hong Kong community and international investors will welcome the agreement, and that the Legislative Council will accept it. The bottom line is that, although it is not ideal, this agreement does more to strengthen the rule of law after 1997 than any alternative course of action, and for that reason I am convinced that it is the right way forward. While I find myself in some agreement with Governor Patten, as an outside observer I have four concerns with the agreement: the timing, jurisdiction, finality, and judicial independence issues. First, I regret that the Court will not begin to function until the day jurisdiction is transferred in 1997. If the Chinese had agreed to allow the Court to begin functioning as soon as enabling legislation could be passed, then the two sides would have had more than a year in which to see how the court operates and to work out through a consensus any kinks or shortcomings that became apparent. As it stands now, the Court will be jumpstarted cold in 2 years on July 1 without a ``test run.'' My second concern involves the Court's jurisdiction. In the preliminary talks about the Court, the Chinese side was rather adamant that the jurisdiction of the CFA would not extend to acts of state. What Beijing sought to forestall by this provision was the spectre of a judicial branch based on English common law declaring void some tennet of the central government vital to the continuation of the Communist system. Unfortunately, the new agreement adopts the definition of ``act of state'' set out in Article 19 of the Basic Law, which has been seen by some as vague and thus capable of an overly expansive interpretation. The worry is that after 1997 the Chinese will simply qualify politically uncomfortable cases as touching on ``acts of state'' and therefore remove them from judicial review. Third, the provisions regarding judicial appointments raise some concerns. Under the Joint Declaration, judges appointed to the CFA were to be confirmed by the Legco. Moreover, the Court would be allowed to invite judges from other English common law jurisdictions to sit on the Court. These two provisions have fallen somewhat by the wayside under the new agreement. Now, it appears that the confirmation provision by the Legco has been removed. In addition, the parties adopted the limitation of foreign judges to one set out in what are known as the secret documents. Both of these are violative of the Joint Declaration. Finally, the parties appear to have largely glossed over what is known as the finality issue. The idea behind the CFA is that the Hong Kong citizens will have the final say about judicial decisions that effect them, and not some party cadre in Beijing. The reason is easily illustrated by a simple analogy: Wyoming citizens would not want decisions of their State supreme court on State laws to be subject to review by a bureaucrat in Washington. Yet, the finality of CFA decisions is still somewhat up in the air. Having made these observations, Madam President, as I have pointed out before decisions such as these are principally a bilateral issue between the People's Republic of China and the United Kingdom. If both sides have agreed to the new provisions, who are we to gainsay their decision? This is one area where, I believe, overly active moves on our part would for once justify the usual Chinese observation that we were meddling in their internal affairs. I would just hope, though, that the parties would note our concerns and perhaps work with each other to remove some of the remaining ambiguities and departures from the Joint Declaration. Madam President, I would also like to address another topic concerning the People's Republic of China today. It has come to my attention that our representative in the People's Republic of China, Ambassador J. Stapleton Roy, will be permanently leaving his present post next week to return to Washington and then move on to our Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia. Yet, inexplicably, the Clinton administration has failed to even name a replacement, let alone forward his or her name to the Senate for confirmation, and has simply decided to leave the post vacant for an undeterminant period of time. Madam President, I am amazed and dismayed that the Clinton administration has decided to take such an ill-advised step--whatever the impetus. Leaving a post vacant in a small, relatively non-strategic country is one thing; but to do so in the world's most populous country, a country that is emerging as the economic engine that will drive Asia into the 21st century, is quite another. This is especially true at this time when our bilateral relationship is somewhat less than perfect. The Chinese are extremely displeased with our decision this month to admit President Lee Teng-hui of Taiwan, and have stated that the decision has seriously soured their view of our relationship. While they have cancelled and postponed several meetings as a sign of their displeasure, I am sure that we have not seen seen the full extent of their reaction. More importantly, the Chinese Government is itself in a state of flux. The move to replace the ailing Deng Xiaoping is, contrary to the beliefs of some, well under way. Jiang Zemin and his Shanghai compatriots are already moving to consolidate their positions, and other factions have begun their jockeying in turn. Under these circumstances, each and every move we make in relation to our Chinese friends--large, small, overt, or subtle--takes on a special importance. To allow our Ambassador to depart from Beijing at this time and leave our embassy floating without anyone at the helm seems to me to be the height of misjudgment. I hope that President Clinton will forward the name of Ambassador Roy's intended replacement in the very near future so we can get the nomination process rolling and fill this vitally important position.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, let me move quickly into what I thought might be appropriate. I, of course, spent my time at home during the Memorial Day recess, and I returned again to Wyoming this weekend. I would just like to comment very briefly on my impression of what we are doing here, after having been here nearly 6 months, and the impression that I received from those at home. First of all, let me say that I think there is an anxiousness in the electorate for the Congress to move forward. I wish, for example, and I want to just observe things as they occurred in 6 months from some previous experiences in the House. It seems to me we have a difficulty in setting priorities. It is too bad. There are some things surely most Members would agree are more important than others. It would seem we really do not have a set of priorities. I wish we could do that. Priorities on issues are fairly well-defined in the country, not certainly so well-defined here. It seems to me we ought to be able to manage time better than we do. Time, after all, is the resource that we have here, and certainly we consume too much doing many things. Time becomes sort of a political strategy, not particularly useful in debate, but rather being used to posture ourselves one way or the other. [[Page S8200]] The balanced budget debate, for example, and certainly the issues, were exhausted relatively early, but the decisions did not come until the Members were exhausted. Perhaps that is the way it works. It does not seem like a good use of time. I suspect there is a great deal of posturing for the media. I have a hunch, and of course I was not here before the activities of the floor were shown on TV, but I suspect the conversations were somewhat shorter than they are now. It is difficult, and this is an irony, I do not know what we do about it. We have a better opportunity to communicate much more quickly than we have had in the history. Captain O'Grady shows up, and everyone knows about it 10 minutes afterward. That is wonderful, and that is the kind of communication we have. Yet we still seem to communicate in sound bites, where people really do not know the facts. That is too bad. I happened to see the Chief of Staff of the White House on ``Meet the Press'' the other day. It is almost as if a robot pushed a button and the same thing came forward time after time. I think it is exciting that we have an opportunity. I think there are issues out there. People are still concerned about taxes and spending. They think this Government is too big and costs too much. I think people sincerely want a balanced budget although there will be some pain. I think people are willing to undertake that pain, to be responsible in a financial area. I think regulatory relief is something that almost everyone would agree with. Most anyone would say we are overregulated in this country and we need to move more quickly to do something about that. Real tort reform. We have played with that some. It is not true yet, but it is real tort reform on the edges. We need to do something. Our folks say we need to do something about that. Welfare reform, I understand, will come next. I am pleased for that. It is something that surely needs to happen. Health care has moved off of the highest level of visibility, but it does not mean we do not have to do something. It does not mean that health care does not need some restructuring. We ought to have a chance to do that. States rights. Everyone understands that, if we can move Government a little closer to people, we will have better decisions, Mr. President. Those are, I believe, clearly the agenda of people in this country. I think the agenda of this body and the agenda of the Congress ought to more properly reflect that. I am a little discouraged. We have lots of efforts to block what is going on simply for the purpose of blocking. I am discouraged we do not have more leadership from the White House in terms of issues we are working on. I am encouraged, on the other hand, that there is a willingness to change. There is a willingness to move forward, particularly, I think, on the part of new Members. I think there is a willingness to make fundamental changes in the way the Government works and, for the first time in a very long time, to analyze some of the programs and say, is there a better way? Can we do it? Indeed, does it need to be done by the Federal Government? Mr. President, that is a quick, personal analysis of where we are. Obviously, it is thrilling and exciting to be here. I think this session has new opportunities to look at things. I urge that we do set a priority. I urge we do move forward with full debate, but not skidding our feet and trying to stop things from happening. People expect more of Government than that. I think the real measure of good Government is responding to what the voters have said. Mr. President, I look forward to the next 6 months. I hope it is at least as productive, and hopefully more productive, than the past. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I expect to use 5 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, if I had to come up with a title for the short statement I would like to make this morning, I would call it something along the lines of: ``Look which pot is calling the kettle black.'' Anyone even fleetingly familiar with the People's Republic of China will recognize the Beijing Government's frequent admonitions to us about ``interfering in China's internal affairs.'' We express concern about the PRC's deplorable treatment of hundreds of prodemocracy students at Tiananmen Square in 1989, and we are told not to interfere in China's internal affairs. We worry about how Chinese policies may affect our economic interests in Hong Kong, and we are told not to interfere in China's internal affairs. Myriad statements made just this month by the Foreign Ministry, the State-controlled press, party and government cadres are replete with these references. For example, the PRC's Xinhua domestic service on May 11 carried the following statement in reaction to the Senate vote urging the administration to admit Taiwan's President Lee to this country for a private visit: ``The U.S. Senate, in passing the resolution in disregard of the solemn position of the Chinese side, has constituted a gross interference in China's internal affairs.'' When our government last week protested the recent arrests of several members of China's prodemocracy movement for no apparent reason other than the approach of the June 4 anniversary of Tiananmen, the reaction of the Foreign Ministry's spokesman Shen Guofang was this: ``A very evil shortcoming of the U.S. Government is that it always criticizes the internal affairs of other countries * * *. It would be advisable for the U.S. Government to mind its own affairs.'' When the State Department urged the parties to the Spratly Island dispute to come to a peaceful solution thereto because of the serious effect any regional conflict might have on world trade, we were reminded that the PRC is opposed to ``other countries' interference in the matter. It is clear to me, though, that our Chinese friends are in no position to lecture this country on the topic of meddling; they are better at it than most. For example, in regards to the visit of President Lee, which individuals we admit to this country for private visits pursuant to our immigration laws is purely an internal affair of the United States in which China has no business meddling; yet the PRC has raised a furor over the decision and has sought to impose its will on us by dictating our internal policies to us. Similarly, the Chinese Foreign Ministry derided the administration's recent decision to impose a trade embargo on Iran because of the latter's penchant for sponsoring terrorism; yet that decision is inarguably a bilateral issue between us and Iran in which China has no license to interfere. Related examples of China seeking to inject itself into the purely internal affairs of other countries are legion. For instance, China consistently denounces the government of Israel in that country's various dealings with its Arab neighbors; yet these issues are strictly bilateral ones between Israel and the country concerned and China has no place in concerning itself with them. The PRC has a long history of condemning the government of the Republic of Korea in its dealings with North Korea, but China has no business meddling in such a uniquely bilateral relationship. Vice-Premier and PRC Foreign Minister Qian Qichen recently quoted a saying from the Confucian Analects: ``What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.'' Yet, every day the PRC comments on issues which clearly, unambiguously do not concern it. So, Mr. President, the next time the PRC feels the urge to trot out the rather hackneyed phrase about us ``interfering in their internal affairs'' they should pause and remember a variation of another famous saying: ``Governments that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.''

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment offered by my colleagues--Senators McCain, Packwood, Craig, and others--to clarify the public interest standard in the bill. This public interest test will certainly cause unnecessary delays in the deregulation of the telecommunications industry. The public interest is a vague and subjective standard. A deregulatory bill, as this bill is supposed to be, should establish clear and objective criteria to open the industry to competition. This bill does not. Instead it dictates that a few folks at the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] will decide when true competition begins on the information superhighway. The FCC's regulatory track record is horrendous. In addition, allowing the FCC to interpret what is in the public interest introduces a perverse incentive for FCC officials to slow down deregulation. Increased competition decreases the agency's workload and diminishes its need for existence. At a time when we are downsizing Government, we ought not to be expanding the role of the FCC. The bottomline is that FCC officials cannot create competition with bureaucratic entry tests. By delaying true competition, this bill hurts consumers. According to several studies, this delay could result in billions in lost economic output and millions of new jobs. With such severe economic costs, it makes little sense to delay competition with this public interest standard. Quick deregulation will ensure that all companies face the most ruthless regulator of all--the American consumer. This amendment puts all parties on equal footing--the Bells can offer long distance services when long distance companies can offer local telephone service--no sooner, no later. Mr. President, the bottomline is that competition is in the public interest. It expands consumer options, lowers prices, creates new jobs and increases our international competitiveness. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this proconsumer amendment.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, June 7, 1995, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing will be to examine the historical evolution of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, how it is being applied now in several situations, and what options are available to improve Federal decisionmaking consistent with the objectives of that statute. For further information concerning the hearing, please contact James P. Beirne, senior counsel to the committee, at (202) 224-2564. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the legislation introduced by Senator Domenici, the Livestock Grazing Act. This bill is a reasonable proposal that will allow livestock producers in the West to continue to operate on public lands and will protect the public range for multiple-use purposes. Today, western livestock producers are encountering many challenges. In addition to struggling because of low market prices for many products and fighting losses from predators, livestock producers in the West are now faced with regulations proposed by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt that will put them out of business. Secretary Babbitt's so-called ``Rangeland Reform '94'' proposal to reform public land grazing practices is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to end livestock grazing on these areas. The people of Wyoming and the West rely on having access to public lands for their livelihood. Over the last 100 years, this process has worked well. Westerners were able to use these lands for multiple uses such as grazing, oil and gas exploration, and recreation and in turn provided the rest of the Nation with high quality food products and other commodities. Unfortunately, the Department of the Interior has now taken a number of actions that will destroy the concept of multiple use of public lands and will cost jobs and harm local economies across Wyoming and the West. The Livestock Grazing Act is designed to reverse this disturbing trend. This legislation will provide western livestock producers with a lifeline to survive the Clinton administration's efforts to destroy their way of life. The measure is a reasonable attempt to solve the long-standing dispute over grazing fees on public lands and many other issues which have caused great discontent in Congress and across the country. [[Page S7503]] Let me focus on a few provisions in the bill which are particularly important to the people of my State. First, the legislation establishes a grazing fee formula that will be tied to market values. This is a fair and equitable approach to resolving the fee formula dispute and will end the unfair comparison between private and public fee rates on Federal lands. Second, the legislation will provide permittees with the assurance that they will be allowed to graze a certain number of livestock on their allotment. For over 50 years, BLM grazing permittees have known they had a priority position for a specific number of Federal animal unit months [AUM's] on their allotments. These so-called preference levels are attached to the private lands of the lessee and influence the value of the privately owned base property. Preference levels are particularly important to folks in my State where there is a large amount of checkerboard land, which is commingled Federal and private property. Unfortunately, Secretary Babbitt's ``Rangeland Reform '94'' proposal attempts to radically revised the concept of grazing preference by giving Federal agents the authority to determine the appropriate number of AUM's attached to a lease. The Secretary wants to set AUM's for permittees on an arbitrary basis at the whim of the local Federal officials. This would cause instability throughout western livestock communities and threaten the economic value of western family ranches. The Livestock Grazing Act would stop the Secretary's misguided efforts by codifying the concept of grazing preference and giving western ranchers the surety they need to continue operating on Federal lands. Mr. President, these are just two examples of the important actions taken by Senator Domenici in this bill that support western livestock producers. The time has come for Congress to assert itself regarding the issue of grazing on public lands in the West and stop Secretary Babbitt's unending assault on western communities and our western way of life. Although the Clinton administration and Secretary Babbitt would like folks to believe ranchers in the West are simply welfare cowboys, nothing could be further from the truth. These people are not taking advantage of the Government, but simply trying to make a reasonable living and raise their families. I strongly support the Livestock Grazing Act and hope that we can take quick action on this measure in order to allow western livestock producers to continue their important work.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Let me say in closing, Mr. President, that I am pleased the State Department has finally issued a definitive U.S. position on the Spratlys, with which I heartily agree. I believe that the Foreign Relations Committee will take up Senate Resolution 97--a sense-of-the- Senate resolution on the islands which I sponsored--in the near future and move it to the floor soon thereafter.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, while the dispute surrounding the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea has seemingly disappeared from our domestic press, I would like my colleagues to know that-- unfortunately--it has not been resolved. On the contrary, the frequency and tenor of the hostile rhetoric and minor tiffs between the concerned parties have increased since I last spoke about the issue on the floor on March 30 of this year. This is reflected in the Asian media, and I would like to share here a small representative sampling of those reports from just the last 2 weeks with my colleagues to keep them abreast of the most recent developments. I ask unanimous consent. That several editorials be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, if my time has expired, I will yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. President, as we go forward with this debate, each day starts in about the same way: We should balance the budget but we should not do it on the backs of--fill in the blank. Every day it is a different one. Do not balance it on the backs--fill in the blank. For example, let me talk just a minute about the earned income tax credit. Under the Republican proposal, the budget proposal that we are talking about, the EITC is not cut. It is a slowing in the rate of growth. The EITC proposal contained in the budget plan simply reins in the explosion in Federal Government spending in this program. Under the Senate budget plan, the cost of EITC will increase from $28 billion in 1996 to $32 billion in the year 2002. Under the current law, EITC costs would go to $36 billion in 2002, not exactly the flat leveling off the Senator had mentioned a moment ago. In general, the EITC is one of the fastest growing programs in the Federal Government. The 1994 cost was $21.8 billion, eclipsing the Federal cost of Aid to Families with Dependent Children, AFDC, and the program is fully indexed to inflation. Unfortunately, errors and fraud are rampant. In 1988, the IRS found that 42 percent of the EITC recipients received too large a credit and 32 percent were not able to show they were entitled to any credit at all. Something does need to be done about it. Given the generosity of the program, it is not surprising the number of recipients has grown from 6 million in 1975 to 18 million today, and that growth continues. Another way to increase the number of people eligible for the EITC is to raise the qualifying amount. For families with one child, the qualifying amount will rise from in 1995 $24,396 to $30,000; families with two children will rise from $26,000 to $33,000 to qualify in this particular program. So, Mr. President, certainly it is hard to call this a cut when it goes up at this rate. The baseline, if we leave it, will increase 48 percent between now and the year 2000, from $20 billion to $30.8 billion. Instead, under the chairman's mark, it grows at 31 percent from $20.8 billion to $27.2 billion. Also, it is interesting to point out that the chairman's mark accepts the proposal of President Clinton's to deny EITC to undocumented workers and targets EITC to working poor with children. Mr. President, we will go forward again today with our budget proposal, and we will cite, as we have in the past, the difference of philosophy in terms of approaching this business of cutting spending. And that is legitimate, to have a different view. It is appropriate to have a different view. The Republicans want to transform Government to make it more efficient, more responsible, less expensive. On the other hand, the other side of the aisle supports the status quo: No plan to balance the budget, no options to save Medicare, no welfare reform proposal. So, Mr. President, we will see a difference of opinion, and that is good. That gives us a choice, whether we want more Government and more spending or whether we want less Government and less spending. We should take a look, I suppose, at the track record as to how we got here, raising taxes and expanding Federal Government. In 1993, of course, we had the largest tax increase in history, $259 billion. President Clinton talks about only raising taxes on the rich. Let me tell you that gas taxes increased in my State of Wyoming, where we have more miles to drive than any other State other than Alaska, it was not a tax increase on the rich, it was a tax increase on those least able to pay for it. The increase in Social Security taxes was another change that hurt more than just the rich. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes he yielded himself have expired.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I believe the plan is to move forward with the amendment by Senator Bradley.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am glad to join my colleagues this evening in continuing this discussion. By noon tomorrow, we will have had 50 hours of talking about the budget. I guess after 50 hours, your eyes kind of glaze over. But the fact is that there is nothing more important that we will talk about during this Congress. It becomes difficult to find something new to say about the issue after 50 hours. But maybe that is not important. Maybe the important thing is to stress those things that are necessary, those things that are important, those choices that we do have. It has been 10 days since the Republicans presented a balanced budget plan, which America has been waiting for. In that time, the deficit has increased another $4.9 billion. It added $19 for every American. The Republicans are working to end Government's relentless borrowing. The Republican plan would balance the budget by the year 2002 by slowing the growth in the Federal spending from 5 percent to 3 percent. It protects Social Security, saves Medicare from bankruptcy, maintains a Social Security safety net, reduces the size of the Federal Government, and moves power out of Washington and back closer to the people. Republicans want to transform Government to make it more efficient and more responsive and less expensive. Democrats, meanwhile, are standing up for the status quo. They have offered no plan to balance the budget. Mr. President, this debate has been characterized by almost everyone who has risen, has stood up and said, ``I want to balance the budget but we cannot cut''--blank--and fill in the blank. Medicare, earned- income tax credit, defense, education, whatever. So we always say we want to balance the budget--but for a million reasons we cannot do it. I am confident that we shall for the first time in 25 years balance the budget--tomorrow. Starting on the path to balance the budget. It is awfully hard. These are large figures, talking about $5 trillion. Who knows what $5 trillion is. I read something the other day that sort of personalizes this. I thought it was interesting. Someone asked, how do we identify the Federal budget with something that is closer to a personal budget? This is what the answer was, and I thought it was interesting: Suppose you have an income of $125,000 coming not from work but from contributions of all your friends and relatives who work. You are not satisfied with what $125,000 can buy this year, so you prepare for yourself a budget of $146,000 and charge the $20,300 difference to your credit card on which you already carry an unpaid balance of $452,248, boosting that to $472,548 on which you pay interest daily. Multiply that by 10 million and that is what our Government did in fiscal year 1994. This is clearly the most important element of debate for this year. Not just because of the dollars, as important as they may be, but because we have an opportunity to examine and to change and to look at the role of Government, look at those things that should logically and legitimately be done by the Federal Government, do something about those that should be done in private sector. To take a look at the size of Government. Clearly, voters said last year, Government is too large and costs too much. So we have a chance to do that. We have a chance to make major changes, the first really major changes in 25 years. To do that, and I believe very strongly and we have done some of this, we have to make some procedural changes. We cannot simply continue to do what we have been doing and expect to get different results. We have to do things like line-item veto, which we worked on. Have to do something about unfunded mandates. I think we should do something about term limits. I think we should have had a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and we will go back to do that. We did not accomplish that. We failed by one vote in this Chamber. Now we have the opportunity to do what many opponents of the balanced budget amendment said, and that is we do not need an amendment, we just belly up to the bar and do it. That is what we have an opportunity to do. The record is not good. Sure, we can do it and we will do it. We have not done it for 25 years. We will raise the debt limit to $5 trillion this summer. The administration budget has $250 billion in deficits out as far as we can see. The size of Government is growing. So for the first time we have an opportunity to do something different. Clearly, there are different philosophies about Government. There are different philosophies about what the size should be. That is fine. That is the way it should be. That is what elections are for, so people can make a decision between two choices. There are those in this body and other bodies and in this country who say the Government should be larger, the Government should do more. In fact, the Government does a better job of spending dollars than families do and businesses do. That is, I suppose, a legitimate view. It is not my view. So we do have differences and there are differences. The Republicans would like to have a smaller Government that costs less, that is more lean, and efficient. Democrats, on the other hand, have moved toward more Government and more spending. Republicans want to transform Government, something that is more efficient, to deliver services more efficiently. Welfare is an excellent example. Nobody wants to eliminate welfare. We want to be able to help people who need help, but to help them back into the work sector. We want a Government that is more responsive, that is more customer oriented. One that is less expensive. The administration, on the other hand, and our friends on the other side of the aisle, support the status quo. There is no plan to balance the budget. The President, as was suggested yesterday, is AWOL, absent without leadership, on finding a way to balance the budget. No options on how to save Medicare despite the fact that the trustees have said in no uncertainty that if we do not do something, in 2 years we will be dealing with the reserves, and 7 years Medicare will be broke. No welfare reform proposal. We have an opportunity to do something. The administration's track record, of course, over the past several years has been to raise taxes and expand the Federal Government. The 1993 budget, the largest tax increase in history, nearly $260 billion. We hear it was just on the highest percent--not so. Gas tax--my State has probably the largest per capita gas tax increase of all because of the miles we travel. Mr. President, we do have a chance to do something. If spending remains at the same level for the Government programs in order to balance the budget by the year 2002, we would have to raise taxes by $935 billion, $7,400 for every American taxpayer. That is the choice. We either level off growing or we raise taxes. [[Page S7240]] We have a vision of keeping our promises to make Government smaller, to reject the status quo, balance the budget by the year 2002, protect Social Security, save and improve Medicare, and return power to the communities and to our families and the States. Mr. President, I am pleased we are moving in this direction. I feel confident there will be a positive vote tomorrow, to make these kinds of changes. I thank my colleagues for continuing to point out the choices that we have before the Senate. I urge my colleagues to support this budget plan. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this morning the time for the two leaders has been reserved and the Senate will immediately resume consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 13, the concurrent budget resolution. Rollcall votes are expected throughout the day on or in relation to amendments to the budget. The Senate will not recess during the afternoon today for policy luncheons, but will continue in session debating the budget.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Yes.

Mr. THOMAS. Three minutes, if I may.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, I do wish to speak on the pending amendment.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today as the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs to inform my colleagues that, as predicted in the press over the weekend, the administration will announce this afternoon that it has agreed to issue a visa to President Lee Teng-hui of the Republic of China on Taiwan for a private visit to his alma mater. I am very pleased that the administration has finally decided to take this step. The feeling in Congress on this issue has been very strong, as evidenced by the near unanimous votes in the last 2 weeks on the resolution calling on the State Department to allow the visit. I'm equally pleased that we have avoided an escalating squabble with the State Department over the visit. If this action had been taken earlier, when it should have been, we could have avoided a great deal of acrimony and conflicting signals. I believe that the decision to admit President Lee brings our policies on admission of, let us say, controversial public figures more into uniformity, and it removes a gross and unnecessary slight to one of our close friends in Asia. Mr. President, in closing I would like to make something clear to our friends in the People's Republic of China. Although I understand the depth of their feelings on this issue, I do not believe that this simple move has to adversely affect our important relationship. Admitting President Lee Teng-hui for a private, I repeat, private visit should not be seen for more than it is--an internal decision to admit a private citizen for a limited private purpose--and I am sure that President Lee will closely adhere to the parameters of the visit in order to avoid any unnecessary complications. There are no hidden signals here, no nebulous meanings, no new policy currents. This is not, nor should the People's Republic of China interpret it to be, our repudiation of their one-China policy.