Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it has been an interesting experience today to listen to the debate about balancing the budget. It is a little bit surprising, as a matter of fact, I suppose, that there is a great deal of debate about balancing the budget. It is legitimate to have differences of view as to exactly how that is done, but the fact is that we have to do something to be fiscally and financially responsible. I am encouraged, frankly, by the chance to do something. For the first time in three decades we have a chance to balance the budget. And I suppose, when we think about that, my goodness, that is irresponsible. How can that be? But it is a fact. We have gone all this time with no balanced budget. So I am encouraged by the opportunity. I am encouraged by the fact that voters said to us clearly a few months ago that Government is too big and it costs too much and it is time you do something about that. And I think a measure of good Government is the responsiveness we have to doing something about it. So I am encouraged by the fact that we have this opportunity. I know there are differences. There are some here who really believe that balancing the budget is not important, that it is just a matter of dollars, it does not really matter. Let me suggest to you that I think it is terribly important for some very concrete reasons, such as the fact that it takes money out of the economy to finance this deficit, maybe more to the point that the interest on the debt will soon be the largest single line item in the budget, larger than the total budget was just a couple of decades ago. It is important. There are those that believe that more spending through the Government is a better way to do it; that, in fact, Government spends money better than you and I do in our families. That is a legitimate view, I suppose. There are those who think we are better off with more Government and more spending. I do not happen to agree with that, nor do most of us on this side agree with that. We believe that we have to balance the budget, that it is the responsible thing to do, and we have an opportunity to do it. I hear everybody who stands up starts out by saying, ``We have to balance the budget. I know we are going to balance the budget, I want to balance the budget,'' and then goes on to point out the reasons why it cannot be done. We heard the same thing about the balanced budget amendment. ``Well, I wanted to balance the budget but we do not need to do this, we can do it by just making the hard decisions.'' Well, now is the time to make some hard decisions. What we have is each time we come up with another amendment, we hear arguments that you cannot do it. It is time to make the tough decisions. I suspect this is the kind of conversation that has gone on for decades here, and that is why we have not done it, and that has been the history of what we have to do. We clearly have to do something about Medicare. It is not an option unless you simply do not want to have a program to provide health care for the elderly. Do nothing, as is the proposal from that side, and the program goes into reserves in 2 years, goes broke in 7 years, no question about that. Or, in fact, we can take the approach that has been taken and say, ``Let's raise taxes.'' In order to balance the budget without doing something about spending, we would have to raise taxes by $950 billion in 7 years. How is that as an option? I do not think many people would choose it. And yet we cannot seem to say, ``Yes, we can make cuts, not draconian cuts but to reduce the spending from 5 percent a year to 3.'' That is hardly asking too much, and voters are asking that of us. So, Mr. President, it is interesting as we go forward that we always hear, ``Well, we have to balance the budget, I want to balance the budget, but we cannot do that to balance the budget, we can't do this to balance the budget.'' What can we do to balance the budget? There is no plan on that side. The President has no plan. So despite that, Mr. President, I am very optimistic that we will for the first time in my legislative experience, for the first time I guess in my political experience, have a genuine, legitimate, bona fide effort to balance the budget to cause the Government to be a little smaller, a little less expensive. Give us the opportunity to choose some options, to look at programs and make sure that they are efficient and effective and, in fact, that they are legitimate, that they need to be done, and we can do that. We can do that. No one argues with that concept. Unfortunately, it does not happen. We find a million excuses why we cannot do that, why we cannot cut it here, why we cannot slow growth. Why we really should not take a look at why the program cannot be changed, to be more efficient, the delivery of programs cannot be done more efficiently. I do go away from the last 3 or 4 days of this debate, again optimistic that we will do something that has not been done for a very long time, and that is lay before the American people a plan to balance the budget in 7 years, and we can do it. The committee has laid out a plan. Of course, it is not perfect. Does it take some pain? Of course it takes some pain. It always takes some pain to recoup when you find yourself in this kind of a financial problem--$5 trillion in debt, taxes at the rate of about $21,000 per household, to pay the interest on the debt costs $5,000 for each household each year. That is where we are, Mr. President. So we do not really have a choice as to whether we do something. The fact is we need to do it. We have to do it. We can have legitimate debate about options but not a legitimate debate about just saying, ``No, no, can't do it,'' and that is what we hear. Mr. President, I thank you for the time. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the opportunity to talk some about the budget considerations that we will have this week. We have had a good deal of discussion about it prior to now, both in the discussion of a balanced budget amendment and more specifically on the budget resolution that is before this Congress. We have talked, of course, in great detail and should and will continue to do that. Mr. President, I think it is also useful perhaps to take a moment during the course of this discussion and go back to the real basic issue, and that is the question of whether or not it is morally and fiscally responsible for this Congress and this country to operate under a balanced budget, whether or not we can continue to go forward with endless budgets that are $200, $250 billion in arrears. So, Mr. President, I would just like to talk a minute about the basic issue. Americans, it seems to me, quite clearly voted in 1994 for change. They voted for many changes. I think they voted with the notion that this Federal Government is too large and costs too much. I do not think there is any question about that. I think they also voted in terms of change for a balanced budget. We have not had a balanced budget for a whole generation, 25 years at least. So I think people say, why should the Government not be fiscally responsible as we are expected to be in our families or in our businesses? Americans voted for change in 1994 and they want us to be fiscally responsible. Some say, ``Well, the deficit does not matter, it is just a small percentage of the total.'' It does matter. It does matter to each of us. It matters to us currently. It matters to us in terms of the cost of interest which will soon be the largest single line item in the budget, interest on a budget that will soon be expanded to $5 trillion, and each of us each day must pay the interest on that debt. It matters because it takes dollars out of the economy to finance this debt, dollars that could otherwise be spent for investments in business and [[Page S7028]] in jobs to strengthen the economy. So it does matter. It matters to us in that what we do now has great impact on our children and on our grandchildren and who is going to pay the bill. Our credit card is maxed out and we are passing it on to somebody else to pay for the things that we want now. Those are the large questions that are there. We can have a smaller, less expensive Government, and to me that is the most exciting part. Of course, the dollars are the issue, the budget is the issue, but the exciting part is we have an opportunity for the first time in many years to really take a look at how Government functions, what functions the Government is involved in, how we might better provide those services in a more economic, more efficient way, and I do not think anyone would argue with the fact that most of the services could be delivered more efficiently. We have an opportunity for the first time in a long time to move Government closer to people, to move it closer to the States where you and I as citizens have more input into the decisions made, where the programs that are designed to be used over the country are applied differently in Cheyenne, WY, or in Greybull, WY, than in Pittsburgh and they should be and we need to have the flexibility to do that. For the first time, we have a chance to do that. For the first time, frankly, in my memory--I came from the House where one party had been in charge for 40 years and there were not many opportunities to evaluate programs and to change programs. If a program was not working, the solution was to put more money in there, put more money in the program, that will fix it. Of course, it does not fix it. You have to go in and see if there are some other kind of changes. For the first time in a very long time we have an opportunity to do that. That is all part of this budget issue. So it is time to keep our promises. I am talking about a basic concept, and it is tough. It is tough. No one suggests balancing the budget is an easy matter, no one suggests it is not going to cause pain. No one suggests that all of us are going to have to make some sacrifice or, indeed, some change, and change is not easy. But that is what it is all about. I hope we do not forget the bottom line, and that is the real goal is to become financially and fiscally responsible, and that is what we are seeking to do. The goal is to change Government so that, indeed, we can continue to carry out those functions that are proper for the Federal Government, but carry them out in a manner that is efficient and effective and, indeed, goes to providing services. The problem, of course, is runaway spending. Spending is much easier than reducing spending. It is great fun to spend. In our State in the late seventies and early eighties, we had a great economic boon with the oil industry and the mineral industry. Being in the Wyoming Legislature was great fun. When we had a problem, we just gave them more money, tons of money. That has changed, of course. I went in the legislature in the mid-eighties. It was not nearly as much fun. I was on the Appropriations Committee and instead of saying, ``Oh, yes, we can fix your problem, here is more dough, we can do that,'' we had to say, ``I am sorry, we have to set some priorities and we do not have bucks for everything that everybody would like to have.'' But we did well and continue to do well and continue to have to set those priorities and decide what we think are the most important things that Government should do. I think that is even more important at the Federal level. It is awfully easy to move away from those things that most people would agree are fundamental to the Federal Government and move into things that more properly belong somewhere else. So the question will be, as we hear it in just a few years, where will we be as we go into the next century, the new millennium? Will we have increasing debt out as far as we can go? Or will we be able to say to ourselves in 5 or 7 years that, yes, it was tough, but we were able to change the course of the Federal Government and the spending patterns to where we are moving or have attained a balanced budget? Will we be able to say we are doing what most people seem to think is reasonable, that is, not to spend more than we take in. You do that on your allowance, with your earnings, and in your family. Of course, there are times you borrow and you repay. Of course, there are times for special things. But, overall, you have to keep your spending where your income is. If we do not do something, the projected deficits will be in the neighborhood of $275 billion--more than they are now--out as far as we can see. Is that what we want to happen? By the year 2000, if we do not do something, we will have a $7 trillion debt. So we need to do it. We need to stand up now and we need to say come to the snubbing post and make some decisions. There are always reasons not to act. You have heard over the last few days, and listen to the next 3 days, the litany will be that we are all for a balanced budget. Yes, I want to balance the budget. But we will go through 10 or 12 reasons why you cannot do it this way or that way. The political reason, of course, is to be able to stand up and say that I am for that thing everybody is for--in this case, balancing the budget--but then have a number of reasons to justify voting no. And that is what you will hear all week. Now is the time to stand up and say, yes, the basic issue is that we have to become fiscally responsible. How do we do it? Sure, there is a legitimate argument as to how you do it, a legitimate set of priorities for argumentation, and I understand that. But the fact is that you have to do it. It is one of those things that is morally and fiscally responsible to do. We are not asking for draconian changes. We are asking that instead of increasing spending at 5.5 percent over time, to increase spending at 3.2 percent over time. Only in Washington would that be considered a cut. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration and the other side of the aisle do not address the problem. They simply say, yes, we want to balance the budget. We do not like what you are doing, but they do not have a solution. So we need to move forward and commit ourselves to the notion that we can balance the budget--and we can. We can do that over a period of time, and we can do that in 7 years, as proposed--a 7-year glidepath to balancing the budget and fixing things like Medicare. There is not really a question as to whether we have to do something with Medicare. The point is, you do something or it goes broke. In 2 years, it begins to pull out of reserves, and in 7 years it is broke. The basic question there is, do we want to continue a program like Medicare to have health care for the elderly? Of course, we do. But in order to do that, you have to make some changes. Medicare has grown at a rate of 10 percent a year. We are suggesting that, as in the case of the other medical programs of delivery, we can make it more efficient. This weekend, I met in Cheyenne with the TriCare group. It is health care for active duty military or retired military and their dependents. They are changing TriCare, their program, which includes managed care; they are changing the way they have delivered the system. We have done that in the private sector. For the first time, health care costs have stabilized and in some cases have gone down--everywhere except Medicare and Medicaid. We can do that not by taking away benefits but by changing the delivery system and continuing to grow at 7.1 percent instead of 10 percent. Some will say there is growth in numbers. Keep in mind that this projected spending goes from now $4,600 per capita in Medicare, approximately, to $6,400 per capita. That takes into account the growth. So we are talking about fixing something that each of you wants to continue to go forward with. So, Mr. President, first of all, I congratulate the chairman of the Budget Committee for his very tough work and leadership in bringing forth a proposal. Is it perfect? Of course not. Does it get us there? Yes. Does it solve the basic issue of balancing the budget? Yes. We have to keep our eye on the ball and say what is most important to us over time, to be fiscally responsible or to argue about the details? We can argue about details but we should not. I hope we are committed to changing the course of this Government, that we are going to make the changes that the voters asked for and bring forward to which will put us on a glidepath in 7 years to financial and fiscal responsibility. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, the time to be charged to the Republican side.

Mr. THOMAS. Ten minutes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, our freshman focus group continues today and will continue on through the next week. [[Page S6840]] I rise today to express my surprise and my disappointment at the position the administration has taken, and, indeed, the other side of the aisle, with regard to the budget, with regard to Medicare, line- item veto, unfunded mandates, the rescission package, and the balanced budget amendment. In fact, on every issue that has come up since the beginning of this Congress, we have had the same approach, we have had the same reaction. And that position is to resist--``obfuscate'' has been used; that is a new word to me, but I think it means ``don't do anything''--and oppose with no alternative; to simply say no with no sign of leadership as to what an alternative solution would be to those issues. It is surprising, Mr. President, and disappointing to me that the President 2 years ago made a great issue out of change. He was going to bring to this place change, new Democrats, a reinvention of Government, a more user friendly Government, reduce the size. Great rhetoric. Except when it comes to doing it, when it comes to the tough part--and it is tough to change; it is tough to make changes in systems that have been there; it is tough to make changes in programs that have built up about them a constituency. And so it is tough. Talk is easy, but it is not easy to make the change. It is not easy to come to the snubbing post and really have to do it. Instead, it is really easy to revert to the old system, and that is more Government and more spending and more programs. That is the easier way to go. It is one that makes it less politically volatile and one that we do. Never mind that the programs have not solved the problems. Never mind that nearly everyone I think in this country believes that Government is too big and too intrusive and too expensive, a Government with nearly 3.5 million employees, thousands of programs, and literally hundreds of agencies and advisory groups. And, of course, even the administration argues for cuts. Secretary Shalala recently announced a major revision. I think it involves 2,700 jobs--2,700 out of 62,000. That is hardly a major revision. But now, we do have a chance, Mr. President, to do something significant. We do have an opportunity for the first time in a very long time to make some significant changes, not only to reduce the cost. The budget argument is not just about dollars, although that is particularly important and significant. The real discussion and the real debate and the real opportunity is to take a look at Government and to examine now what the role of Government will be, to examine where we want to be in terms of the Government in the year 2000, when we move into a new millennia, what kind of a new century that we want to prepare for our children and our grandchildren if we do not do something by then. If we do not make changes by then, this Government will be able to afford only the entitlement programs and interest. We will have this year, in a couple of months, a vote to raise the debt limit to $5 trillion. And before the next 2 years is over, before the first Clinton administration is over, we will be having $6 trillion in debt. Some say, ``Well, that doesn't matter, particularly. Debt does not matter.'' Debt does matter, as a matter of fact. Debt takes money out of the economy; money could be invested for other things. Maybe more to the point, the cost of interest will be soon the largest single line item in the budget. This year nearly $260 billion for interest alone. So it is significant. It seems to me the measure of good Government is to be able to look at programs and see if, in fact, they are doing the job, to measure the output, to measure the results. Unfortunately, I think it is fair to say that Government over the years in a nonpartisan way, when problems are not resolved by a program, we say, ``Well, this needs more money.'' And that may or may not be the case. The fact is it is more likely that what happens is that you need to change the program, you need to change the application of the funds. And to suggest that results will be different if you continue to do the same thing is kind of a fantasy. It gives us an opportunity to look at duplication. And there is great duplication. There is redundancy. There are 160 programs that have to do with moving from education to work. Now, everybody wants to do that. That is a great idea, and we should do it. It is a significant effort. But we do not need that many programs. They continue to add on. There is a list of them. It is sort of interesting. I think it was in the newspaper 2 days ago. Actually literally hundreds of basically advisory committees no one has ever heard of in the world. Quite frankly, if they disappeared, none of us would know the difference. So we need to do some of those things. Despite the first opportunity in 40 years, what is the strategy? I am afraid the strategy of the opposition is to object, to resist, to criticize, to filibuster. Let me say that filibuster is not the old classic filibuster where you stand on the floor for 72 hours and fall over from exhaustion. What filibuster is is hundreds of amendments that pile up so that we do not go anywhere, so that nothing happens, and that is what is happening around here. And that is too bad. Every issue this entire year has been handled that way. We do have to do something about that. Medicare is an excellent example. I do not think anyone can doubt that you have to do something about Medicare. It is not a brandnew idea. We have known it is coming. Medicare was started in the sixties. I believe there was one point where 19 million people were involved in the beginning. Now that is doubled. The first year in Medicare, I think, was a $1.2 billion expenditure. This year it is a $165 billion expenditure and going up at a rate of 10 percent a year, one that we cannot maintain. The trustees, which include three members of the Cabinet, have just given a report saying that unless we do something, in 2 or 3 years the program will be calling on the reserves and in 7 years it will be broke. We cannot let that happen. So we have to make some changes. The proposal that is being made is to reduce the percentage of growth from 10 percent a year to 7 percent a year. That is still a pretty good growth. That is the growth of health care in the private sector plus inflation. Some say, ``Well, there are more people.'' The fact is it increases the per capita spending which takes into account new participants. It increases the per capita spending from about $4,800 a year to $6,400 a year, and yet this will be attacked as a cut. What is the alternative? The alternative is Medicare goes broke. We can fix it. We can fix it, but we have to change, and we can do that. Mr. President, the opportunities are great. We are now dealing with a budget that continues to grow and, under the administration's plan, the deficit continues as it is as far as one can see. The package grows. The total package over $1.5 trillion a year grows at 5.5 percent a year. We are suggesting that we reduce that growth to about 3.5 percent a year. Hardly a cut. So we have a great opportunity, and I think the point is that voters said to us in 1994, and voters have said to us before, we have too much Government, that Government costs too much, that Government is not user friendly as it should be, we have overregulation. And that is true. I do not say those things particularly as criticisms, but just as a recognition of where we are, but with the happy thought that we can change that, and that, of course, is what is so remarkable about our democracy, what is so remarkable about our Government. Let me tell you that even though the request for change on the part of voters, on the part of citizens, on the part of you and me is not a new idea. It has been done for years. In the 1800's and every generation there was substantial change in Government. Now it becomes more difficult. Government is larger, there is more bureaucracy, there is more lobbying, there are more people who are constituents of programs, and it becomes much more difficult, but not impossible at all. As a matter of fact, I can tell you having been home, and going home every other week, I find my people, the people I represent in Wyoming, want some change. They know there is going to be some change, there is going to be some pain as there always is when you make your budget fit in your business [[Page S6841]] or in your family. And that is where we are. I think it is an exciting opportunity. We need to take a look at our objectives. Our objectives are to make Government more responsive, to take those areas, such as welfare, where we are committed to helping people who need help and fix the program so that we help them help themselves, and that is the way it ought to be. So we are there. We need to take the bull by the tail and look the problem in the eye. The objective is to have a solution. We can find it, taking a look at the role of Government, better ways of doing it, less Government in our lives, in responsible financial condition. We can do it, and I think it is a great opportunity. We will be talking about it this week. I think it is a watershed opportunity. We will make some big decisions this week over where we will be when the century changes in 7 years. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to address comments made in the last few weeks by two officials of the Government of the People's Republic of China regarding the United States and Hong Kong. First, as reported by Hong Kong radio and Nanhua Zaobao, Mr. Lu Ping, the Director of the PRC's Office of Hong Kong and Macau Affairs, told a delegation of American businessmen in Beijing that he believes there is a lack of understanding in the United States regarding Beijing's attitude towards Hong Kong. Second, Foreign Minister Qian is quoted in the April 24 issue of Beijing Review as stating that the United States has no interest in Hong Kong sufficient to justify the attention we pay to the area. I am dismayed that they have reached this conclusion for two reasons. First, because I believe that the United States is all too cognizant of Beijing's attitude towards the colony and has tried to make that cognizance known; and second, because it demonstrates to me that Beijing does not really understand what our concerns are. At the outset, let me state that I do agree in part with Minister Qian. Before the scheduled revision in 1997, Hong Kong affairs are a matter of concern primarily to Great Britain and the PRC; after 1997, they become a matter of concern primarily to Beijing. It is not our intent to instruct either London or Beijing on how best to accomplish that reversion, or on what role Hong Kong should play as a reclaimed part of greater China after 1997. This does not mean however, that I agree with what appears to be Minister Qian's correlative argument: that other countries therefore have absolutely no role whatsoever to play before or after 1997. As I previously noted in a statement about Hong Kong on the floor on April 3, the United States is keenly following developments in Hong Kong. This interest has two principle sources. First, we have a tremendous stake in the future economic and political stability of Hong Kong after reversion. Second, how the PRC handles this transition has far-reaching implications for our bilateral relations--and in some of China's multilateral relations which include us--in other important arenas. Let me address these in turn. Our economic ties to the present Colony of Hong Kong are substantial. Hong Kong is our 13th largest trading partner--7th in terms of agricultural trade. In 1994, two-way merchandise trade topped $21 billion; U.S. exports accounted for over $11 billion. There are more than 1,000 United States firms with a presence in Hong Kong, of which about 370 have their regional headquarters there. At the beginning of 1994, United States direct investment in Hong Kong on a historical cost basis was approximately $10.5 billion. This strong economic tie is facilitated--in fact, made possible--by Hong Kong's friendly business climate, a stable government, an independent judiciary firmly rooted in the rule of law and a vibrantly free press. It is clearly a tie we have a very strong motive for this point of view that we take an active interest in Hong Kong affairs now, and will most likely continue to take in the post-1997 world. How faithfully the PRC adheres to the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law is of importance to us because of the impact such adherence--or lack thereof--might have no these specific areas, and, in turn, on our economic stake. These are the logical steps that our Chinese friends do not seem to follow. I think their failure is best illustrated by an article in the May 8 edition of the Hong Kong Chinese-language newspaper Wen Wei Po--a newspaper with close connections to the PRC. In commenting on a speech by the United States Consul General in Hong Kong, the newspaper reported: In his speech, Mr. Mueller said that the United States not only has tens of thousands of citizens, over 1,000 companies, and tens of billions of dollars of investments in Hong Kong, but also exports billions of dollars' worth of products to Hong Kong. These facts, he noted, show that maintaining and developing economic and trade relations with Hong Kong is conductive to safeguarding the common interests of Hong Kong and the United States, this being indeed the point Mr. Mueller was trying to make. What is strange is that Mr. Mueller suddenly shifted from economic topics to topics such as democracy, the legal system, and human rights in Hong Kong * * * . (emphasis added). So, let me explain simply how desiring to safeguard our economic interests triggers a concomitant interest in those topics. If the PRC cannot or does not firmly establish and safeguard a local independent judiciary in Hong Kong after 1997, then businesses will become skittish, pull out of the area, and the economy will suffer. If the civil and human rights presently available to Hong Kong citizens are not safeguarded, and are instead limited to reflect those presently available to citizens on the mainland where the government is not known for its sterling democratic reputation, then businesses will become skittish, pull out of the area, and the economy will suffer. If the present orderly and stable bureaucracy is replaced by one such as that currently in vogue in provinces like Guangdong where family or party connections and a large amount of renminbi are more important than the rule of law, then businesses will become skittish, pull out of the area, and the economy will suffer. We understand very well the PRC's verbal pronouncements that everything is fine and will remain so after 1997. But as I pointed out after the visit here of Lu Ping, to be credible and calming those pronouncements need to be backed-up with substantive actions. So far, in some areas, that has not been the case, and it this lack of substantive assurances that concerns us. Let me illustrate. A free press is one of the elements essential to Hong Kong's future as a center of international trade and finance. China has spoken about maintaining freedom of the press, but we have seen growing signs of a move to chill the colony's traditionally raucous press--a press which has been quite even-handed at denouncing Beijing and London, but has denounced Beijing nonetheless. There have been declarations that the PRC will not allow Hong Kong to become a ``nest of subversives''--which in the PRC's lexicon could well include free-minded members of the media. The PRC's Ministry of Public Security recently confirmed that it has been gathering information on Hong Kong citizens who are ``against the Chinese government.'' The PRC also tried in secret Hong Kong reporter Xi Yang and sentenced him to 12 years in prison for ``stealing state financial secrets''--a term which could include such simple figures as production levels of consumer goods, provincial GDP's, etc. Finally, there were the not-so-coincidental hostile actions taken by the PRC against the Beijing commercial establishments of Hong Kong publisher Jimmy Lai after Lai published an open letter critical of Li Peng. A continuation of the present common law, independent judiciary is another element of Hong Kong's continuing economic success after 1997. Businesses feel secure if they know that any commercial dispute in which they may be involved will be determined using settled points of law adjudicated by jurists beyond the influence of local politics or influence. The PRC has promised a continuation of this system, but again their actions speak louder to us. Beijing has failed to endorse the Hong Kong Government's draft legislation designed to implement the Court of Final Appeal; failure to do so soon may leave the Hong Kong SAR without such a court for the critical period just after 1997. Moreover, China's past commitment to the rule of law has been very spotty at best. Although a signatory to the International Convention on Arbitration, the PRC has blatantly violated that accord by allowing a Shanghai firm to refuse to pay an arbitral award against it in favor of a U.S. concern named Revpower. China is a signatory to several agreements concerning intellectual property rights, but their compliance until lately was almost nonexistent. The terms of contracts in general in China appear to be binding on the foreign firm, and fungible as far as the Government is concerned--witness the recent unilateral breaking of McDonald's lease for a site on Tiananmen Square with which my colleagues are no doubt familiar. Aside from our specific interest in these specific issues and the ramifications they will have for Hong Kong's future, how the PRC handles this transition also has implications in other non-Hong Kong specific arenas. How well the PRC keeps to their word will, I think, demonstrate their dependability as they seek to accede to the WTO and other similar organizations. Moreover, it will serve as an indicator as to whether the Chinese are serious about their own commitments to foreign investors, and will be a signal to those considering future investment. Mr. President, on May 25 the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, which I chair, will hold a hearing on this topic entitled ``Hong Kong: Problems and Prospects for 1997.'' I look forward to hearing from several Hong Kong specialists about the present state of the transition, where the problem areas are, and what they think the prospects are for the continuation of the colony's present economic prosperity after 1997. In closing, let me reiterate that we are not seeking to meddle in Great Britain and China's purely bilateral affairs. But, where the actions of either party might effect the business climate in Hong Kong--and thus international investment--I believe that we have a legitimate reason for showing interest, and the parties can be sure that we will. This is our message to Beijing.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I have a couple of questions that refer to both aspects of the bill. First, the power marketing agency. It is my understanding that there is a uniqueness to this power marketing agency; for example, the Western Area Power Administration that is in the West, in that instance, it serves a number of States and different municipalities in a great many uses. It also does not have the generating facility but simply the distribution facility. So it is my understanding that in this bill the Alaska Power Authority is substantially different in composition, is that correct?

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

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator. With respect to the oil export portion, I recall the hearings that we had in the Energy Committee. I ask the Senator if it is not true that we had substantial testimony, not only from Members of Congress from the California delegation, but also representatives of the private sector that dealt with this whole business of seeking to develop and encourage the domestic oil market, as is the case in Wyoming. We have been very much affected by that. There have been nearly half a million jobs lost in the domestic oil industry over the past 10 years. We now have, of course, the highest imports that we have had for a very long time--the highest ever, I believe. And the testimony, as I recall, was that the opportunity to export some of the oil from Alaska would strengthen the domestic oil industry, which would result, I think, in more jobs not only in Alaska but perhaps in other parts of the country as well. There was testimony about the assistance to the oil production aspect to the California economy, as well, of course, as providing an opportunity to strengthen the domestic industry as a matter of national security. That seemed to me to be the tenor of the testimony. I ask the Senator if that is the impression that he had?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this morning the leader time has been reserved. The Senate will immediately resume consideration of S. 534, the solid waste disposal bill. Senators should be aware that rollcall votes will occur this morning at 10 o'clock on invoking cloture on the substitute amendment to the solid waste bill. As a reminder, Senators will have until 10 o'clock this morning to file any second-degree amendments to the substitute. Further amendments are expected to the bill, therefore, additional rollcall votes are anticipated throughout today's session of the Senate. The majority leader has indicated that the Senate may also be asked to turn to consideration of H.R. 483, the Medicare select bill.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am very anxious that we proceed with the bill before us. In the meantime, I would like to just for a moment or two continue on our freshman focus on the idea of moving forward with these issues that are before the Senate and the House and that do need to be resolved soon, and to emphasize the opportunity that we have to solve them. Specifically, of course, to the budget and more specifically Medicare. We have talked about Medicare for a good deal of time over the past, but now we come to a time when there is no choice as to whether we have to make a decision or whether we do not. We have before us a report from the trustees, of course, which indicates that unless we do something the fund will be broke in probably 3 years. So it is not a matter of not doing something. It is a matter of what do we do. I am disappointed, I must say, that the administration has taken the position that we are just going to wait; we are just going to see what happens; we therefore we are not going to do anything. That is not a strong leadership position. That is not a position that the administration should take. Nevertheless, the issue has to be dealt with. We propose to deal with it. The budget will suggest that in terms of part A the remedy might be found in the area of reducing growth--not cuts, not draconian cuts but, rather, reducing the growth from 10 percent to 7 percent, 8 percent, and that we can do this by changing some of the processes. I think that this is the important thing that we have to talk about; that there ought to be some choices for seniors; that we ought to have some opportunities to use managed care; that there ought to be some incentives for people to find better ways of receiving services. But the idea that we can simply sit back and continue to do what it is--the suggestion was made yesterday, if we can do something with the budget, we simply ought to take more money and put it into the program without changing. Mr. President, that is not a useful solution. We have to find some ways to make the program work better. It seems to me that that is the great opportunity that we have had in this Congress for the first time in a number of years, to examine programs; not to do away with programs, but to find ways to deliver services more efficiently, to find ways, better ways, to deliver services to people who are eligible for those services. That is the challenge that we have. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee. Mr. THOMPSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I rise this morning as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to discuss the content of a recent interoffice electronic memo from Sally Shelton, the Assistant Administrator for the Bureau of Global Programs, Bill Support and Research at the Agency for International Development [AID] regarding congressional plans to merge AID into the State Department and to cut the somewhat bloated foreign assistance budget. For the benefit of my colleagues who may not have seen the memo, dated May 3, let me quote it here: The Administrator spoke to InterAction yesterday * * *. The Administrator would prefer that InterAction stay out of the merger issue and there is indeed no consensus on their Board as to what position to take. But some want to be involved-- the Administrator reminded us of Dean Acheson's comment ``Don't just do something, sit there!'' Tony Lake is addressing InterAction tomorrow--he is pushing the phrase ``backdoor isolationist'' to tar the anti-150 account Congressmen with * * *. Shalikashvili and Wm. Perry had a good mtg with the Speaker on the 150 account * * * though the news from the Senate is not so good * * * Sen. Domenici is pushing for bigger cuts than had been anticipated earlier. Jill Buckly reports that the Senate For. Rels. Comm. staff was relatively uncooperative in discussions yesterday and somewhat surprisingly the HIRC [House International Relations Committee] staff was cooperative. The strategy is ``delay, postpone, obfuscate, derail''--if we derail, we can kill the merger. Larry Byrne met with Sen. Robb and got his support on the merger though Robb is not committed, yet, to defend the 150 account budget levels. Official word is we don't care if there is a State authorization bill this year. Larry B. announces that we are 62 percent through this fiscal year and we have 38 percent of the dollar volume of procurement actions completed; we need to do $1.9 billion in the next 5 months * * *. There are large pockets of money in the field and about $570 million in Global and ENI each. So let's get moving * * *. Jim Bond called Larry Byrne * * * then yelled at him about our obligation rate, said it imperils our ability to argue we need more money * * *. Madam President, I am incensed by this memo and by the mind-set it manifests at AID. It seems clear to me that instead of looking for ways to work with Members of Congress to streamline its operations, cut waste and bloating, and accept the same kind of downsizing that the American people expect of every other agency of the Federal Government, AID has taken on as its first priority saving its own skin. There is nothing back-door isolationist about a desire to down-size AID and get rid of functions it carries out which are duplicative of those carried out by other agencies; it's a move that Secretary of State Christopher himself supported until recently overruled by the Vice President. At a time when we don't have enough money to take care of our own citizens and are consequently forced to rethink the funding levels in our domestic budget, to argue that we can't make similarly difficult cuts in our foreign aid budget is both disingenuous and unrealistic. While I am certainly not in favor of a full-scale gutting of foreign aid, there is no bureaucracy in this Government that in my estimation couldn't stand a healthy cut in its budget--AID among them. For those who might doubt that assertion, the following information is instructive. AID has requested $16 million in aid to Jordan so that it could ``attract more tourists to come to Jordan, enjoy their experience, and recommend Jordan to others.'' AID wants to pay $528,000 to Vietnamese contractors who were not paid as a result of the Vietnam War, while at the same time hundreds of American contractors remain unpaid. AID has proposed giving the AFL-CIO $5 million to make home improvement loans to Sandanista labor union members in Nicaragua. AID has proposed giving $900,000 to the lobbying firm TransAfrica to develop linkages with South Africa. The grant would enable TransAfrica to buy a TV, VCR, camcorder and computers for its Washington, DC, lobbying office. These proposals are just some of the highly questionable ways in which AID allocates its funds. While speaking about funding, let me note that I am outraged by the suggestion in the memo that as the fiscal year draws to a close and AID has only ``38 percent of the dollar volume of procurement actions completed,'' that employees would be encouraged to get out there and spend, spend, spend so that their ability to argue we need more money is not imperiled. Statements such as that are a perfect example of bureaucratic thinking run amok, and illustrate to me precisely why their budget is in need of some substantial trimming. Madam President, policy statements coming from AID which note that they intend to work to delay and derail the legitimate work of this Congress for their own selfish needs strike me--and, I am sure, other Members--as blatantly improper. As a result of this memo, you can be sure that I will view anything AID has to say on reorganization or budget matters in the next few weeks with a very jaundiced eye, to put it very mildly.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise this morning as the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs to join in the sentiments expressed by my colleague, Senator Murkowski, on Taiwan, and in particular on the visit of President Lee. I need not repeat in detail for the Senate Taiwan's many accomplishments, either economic or political; these have often been discussed on the Senate floor. It is sufficient to note that this country is our fifth largest trading partner, and imports over 17 billion dollars worth of U.S. products annually. More importantly, though, Taiwan is a model emerging democracy in a region of the world not particularly noted for its long democratic tradition. The Taiwanese Government has ended martial law, removed restrictions on freedom of the press, legalized the opposition parties, and instituted electoral reforms which last December resulted in free elections. Taiwan is one of our staunchest friends; I think every Member of this body recognizes that, and accords Taiwan a special place among our allies. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the administration apparently does not share our views. Rather, the administration goes out of its way to shun the Republic of China on Taiwan almost as though it were a pariah state like Libya or Iran. Sadly, the administration's shoddy treatment of Taiwan is based not on that country's faults or misdeeds, but on the dictates of another country: the People's Republic of China. It is because the People's Republic of China continues to claim that it is the sole legitimate Government of Taiwan, and because of the administration's almost slavish desire to avoid upsetting that view, that the State Department regularly kowtows to Beijing and maltreats the Government of Taiwan. The administration refuses to allow the President of Taiwan to enter this country, even for a private visit. A private visit, Mr. President. President Lee is a graduate of Cornell University, where he earned his Ph.D. He has expressed an interest in attending a class reunion at his alma mater this June, and a United States-Taiwan Economic Council Conference. Yet the administration has made clear that it will not permit him entry. Mr. President, the only people that this country systematically excludes from entry to its shores are felons, war criminals, terrorists, and individuals with dangerous communicable diseases. How is it possible that the administration can see fit to add the President of Asia's oldest republic to this list? We have allowed representatives of the PLO and Sinn Fein to enter the country, yet we exclude a visit by an upstanding private citizen? Mr. President, I think we have made clear to Beijing--I know I have tried to--the great importance to us of our strong relationship with that country. This relationship should, in my opinion, transcend squabbles over diplomatic minutiae. I will always seek to avoid any move that the Government of the People's Republic of China reasonably could find objectionable. I believe that countries like ours should try hard to accommodate each others' needs and concerns, in order to further strengthen our relationship. However, I believe that the People's Republic of China needs to recognize the reality of this situation. Both Taiwan and the People's Republic of China are strong, economically vibrant entities. Both share a common heritage and common culture, yet have chosen political systems that are mutually exclusive. And despite these differences, the United States has a strong and important relationship with both. work out their differences among themselves, without resort to or interference by outside forces. While I am sure that a solution will come eventually, it is liable to take a number of years. In the meantime, it does no good to continually place the United States in the unproductive position of having to walk a tightrope between the two, of continually having to choose sides. Mr. President, our Taiwanese friends have been very understanding about our relationship with the People's Republic of China. I would hope that our friends in Beijing would be equally respectful of our relationship with Taipei. I fully support the concurrent resolution.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to use our time this morning as a followup on the freshman focus that we have been carrying on for several weeks and attempt to continue. Some of my colleagues will join later in the morning and then again on Thursday. As you know, the freshman class has made an effort to talk about the issues that are before the American people, that are before this Congress, and to focus on solving these problems, to focus on the notion that we need to find solutions--solutions that will help us to deliver services more efficiently, will help us to reduce the cost of Government, and will help us to be more effective in dealing with the problems of this country and, at the same time, reduce the size of Government. So we are interested in exercising the first opportunity that we have had for a number of years to really analyze programs that have been in effect, in many cases, for 30 to 40 years. Frankly, the effort that has been made during that time was simply to add more money to the same program. I think most now would agree that it is time to analyze the effect, the impact, and the product of those programs. And we have, for the first time, a chance to do that. We have a chance to change some of the efforts that have not succeeded--and there are some--so they are done in a different way. We hope our efforts will help us move forward in the Senate and in the Congress, to solving problems rather than to obstruct or just set down political issues for elections. Today we want to talk about two issues that are very compelling which are before us and, frankly, issues that we have no alternative other than to solve. One is the budget; the other is Medicare. Our purpose this week is to talk largely about Medicare. It is clearly related to the budget and, as a result, the two must be talked about together. government is the art of being honest.'' I think that is what we are faced with. This matter of Medicare and the budget is not a problem of the Congress, not a problem of those who are trustees; it is a problem for all of us who are citizens of this country, not only for the benefits that it provides, but each of us who must also pay. We need to be honest with one another as to where we are. The idea of covering up problems because it is politically expedient, or the idea that you can shift problems to somebody else because it is an uncomfortable political position simply does not hold. We have to be honest, face the problems, and talk about them. There are clearly some problems in this area of finance. Let me talk just a minute about the chart. We are into charts around here and it is not a bad idea. It does demonstrate where we are. This particular chart talks about the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund. It talks about the fact that if we do nothing, it will be bankrupt in 7 years. The chart shows the end-of-year trust fund balances up to 1995, and then projects the balances for the years up to 2004. This is not just a chart that is put together for these kinds of purposes. This is a chart that is a result of the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustee report that was released just a couple of weeks ago. The trustees being at least three or four members from the Cabinet and some public members. They have indicated this fund will be bankrupt in the year 2002 unless we do something. The balance in the health care insurance trust fund was $133 billion in 1994 and will rise to $136 billion in 1995. In 1996, however, the annual deficits starts to erode the balance of $136 billion and will be broke in 2002. So that is the problem. It is a solvable problem. But it is not one that we can brush under the door, one that we can ignore, or one to make political issues of. It is one that we must indeed solve. The next chart shows the impact this spending has on the gross domestic product. The blue being Medicare part A; and the yellow part is Medicare part B. Part A is the hospital portion that is funded by payroll taxes. Part B is that portion that is funded by general funds and beneficiary premiums. You can see how it grows. Here is 1970 and, more currently, in 1995; here we are in the year 2020, as a percentage of gross domestic product. This current period is just below 3 percent, doubling in this period of time. So we clearly have an issue we have to deal with. The alternative is for the program to go broke. The alternative is not to have the services and that, of course, is not acceptable. Unfortunately, the current administration's position is to ignore the problem. It is to say, gee, it is up to the majority to do something about that. I think that is too bad. I think it is going to have to be something that we do collectively, but we can do something about it. Why are we where we are? Because this program has grown at a rate of about 10 percent per year, and it continues to do so, as opposed to the private sector health care which has been growing at a more moderate rate of about 5 percent a year. This year, it was 4.4 percent and it is on its way down. Yet the Medicare Program continues to go up. Now, some say--and I go back to the political thing--``You Republicans simply want to cut Medicare so you can give tax cuts.'' That is not true. That is not where we are. The issue is to fix Medicare so that we can continue to have it over a period of time. There simply is not enough money to leave it as it is and just simply fund it without changing it. That is not an alternative. All the money that we have would be in this program. So the alternative is to find some ways to reduce this growth. What we are talking about doing--and I think you will see generally in the budget, which is not out yet--you will see an effort to reduce it from the 10.5 percent growth to a growth of maybe 7 percent. We will see in the newspapers that they slashed Medicare, cut Medicare. But what we have done is sought to reduce the growth of Medicare, and then we will find some ways to do it more efficiently. There are ways to do that, to give some options. For example, for those elderly who choose to continue as is, that will be an option. For those who would like to move toward some kind of medical savings account, perhaps that will be an option and that would be a choice, and it will be a reduction in the cost of delivering the same medicine. The point is that we need to be honest with ourselves in terms of what we are doing. This is not a political kind of football or struggle to see who gets political advantage. The real issue is how do you continue to provide services to people who need services and do it in a way that you can, over time, pay for it. That is the issue. Of course, it is part of the budget, because the budget is how much money we can put out to run Government and what kind of benefits we can have. As for Medicare part B, I suspect there will be an effort to maintain the contributions that are now there--approximately 31 percent instead of 25 percent of the premium that is required to finance it. We have been moving up at 31 percent. We can go back, but if we hold it at 31 percent, the program will continue to be preserved. So there are alternatives. They are not draconian. This is where we are on Medicare. I think it is an excellent example of our opportunity in this Congress to find some solutions to share with Americans--all of us--the responsibility of making collective decisions, to meet the responsibility of continuing to have programs where there is need, and to do it in a responsible financial way. Mr. President, I hope that we can go forward with the bona fide discussion of Medicare and a bona fide discussion of balancing the budget. I do not think anybody will suggest that it is going to be painless. It is not painless in your family when you find you have to cut back on the growth of expenditures. It is not painless in your business when you discover that it is necessary to make some changes in order to make it work. But it is very possible. It is very possible. It can be done by continuing to provide those essential services, doing them in a more efficient way, and we can collectively do that. I am pleased that my associates from the freshman class will be on the floor, talking about this issue and other issues, urging Members to take advantage of the opportunity and, indeed, the request, if not demand, from voters for change. There has been a demand for change. There will be change. This is our opportunity to do that. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the mandatory live quorum be waived for the purpose of this morning's cloture vote.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this morning the time for the two leaders has been reserved and there will now be a period for the transaction of morning business not to extend beyond the hour of 10:30 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each. At the hour of 10:30 a.m., the Senate will begin the first of two stacked rollcall votes. The first vote is on the confirmation of John Deutch, to be Director of the CIA. The second vote is on the motion to invoke cloture on the Coverdell-Dole amendment. Senators should also be aware that they have until 10:15 a.m. to file first- and second-degree amendments to the Coverdell-Dole amendment. The Senate will recess today between the hours of 12:30 p.m. and 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy luncheons.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this morning the leader time has been reserved and there will be a period for morning business until the hour of 11:30, with Senators permitted to speak up to 5 minutes each; at 11:30 today, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 956, the product liability bill. Under the provisions of the agreement reached last night, there will be a series of four consecutive rollcall votes beginning at 12:15 today. The fourth vote in the series will be on invoking cloture on the Gorton substitute amendment; therefore, Senators should be aware that second-degree amendments to the Gorton substitute must be filed 1 hour prior to that vote; further rollcall votes can be expected throughout today's session of the Senate.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Members will be relieved to know that there will be others joining me during this 30 minutes, other Members from our freshman group, to continue our discussion about the agenda for the Senate, the agenda for the Republicans, and of course the agenda for this country. We feel very strongly, of course, that this is a great opportunity to move forward on the issues that were the issues talked about and voted on by Americans in the 1994 November election. This is the greatest opportunity that we have had for a number of years to evaluate programs that have been in place, rather than continuing to simply put more money into programs when the results have not been what we expected. Now is an opportunity to take a look at the programs and see, in fact, if there can be changes made, to see if in fact, there are programs that do not need to be continued, that could better consolidations that can be made so that we can do away with repetition and redundancy in programs. There is no question but that those exist. Mr. President, we are excited by the opportunity. There are 11 Members who are in our first year in the U.S. Senate and are very proud and pleased to be there. More than that, I think we are excited at the chance to participate in change that has been needed for some time, participate in the change that voters sent Members here to accomplish this year, with the message clearly that there is too much Government and that it costs too much. They sent Members here with a message that there are better ways of delivering services. We are not inclined to do away with programs and leave people without the assistance that properly comes from Government, but rather to find ways to help people help themselves back into a productive society. That is what it is all about. I am very pleased, Mr. President, to be joined by the president of our freshman class, the Senator from Oklahoma. November Revolution

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, I do.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to continue our dialog that we, the freshmen, have had seeking to talk about the agenda, to talk about the opportunities that we have for the first time in 40 years to have a real opportunity to take a look at the programs that have been in place, programs that have simply been added to over a period of time, programs, obviously that had merit in the beginning, have some merit yet. But we have an opportunity to look at them, to look at ways to make them more effective and more efficient. We have an opportunity to respond to voters who, I think, in November said we want change, we need to make a change in Government. I think one of the measures of good Government is whether or not Government is responsive to the kinds of messages that we receive from voters. We want to take an opportunity to make Government programs work better. I think, unfortunately, there sometimes is a perception when you talk about change that those who want change simply want to toss out the programs and do nothing. That is not the case. The case is how do we do a better job of providing services to people? How do we be more effective? Welfare is an excellent example. No one is talking about throwing women and children and welfare fathers out on the street. What we are talking about is helping people to help themselves, find a way to be more efficient and to put people back into the workplace. That is what we are talking about. So we are talking about bringing the Government closer to the people--block grants to the States, moving more responsibilities to the States--so people can participate more in their Government. I do not think there is any question but what the voters in November said we want less Government and it should be less costly, that Government is too big and Government is too expensive. So, Mr. President, that is the kind of agenda that the 11 of us who are new to this body would like to pursue. Those are the kinds of things that we believe All of us have had a 2-week recess. I was in Wyoming for that entire 2 weeks and, I must tell you, I come back reinforced and rededicated to the idea that we need change. I heard from nearly everyone there: ``We are pleased with what has begun in Washington. We are pleased with the ideas.'' Certainly not everybody agrees with every detail. But the fact is that at least in my experience, people want us to move forward. To do that we are going to have to continue to make clear, I think, the perception of what we are seeking to do. And the opposition, those who are opposed to change, and obviously the direction and the agenda of the administration is to say to people who are asking for change, all they want to do is do away with programs. Their notion is going to be to create fear--fear of change--and we are going to have to do something about that. I think there are great debates, there are differences in view, clearly, of how people see the world, and there is a great deal of difference right here in this body among the Members. Some believe, genuinely and legitimately, that more Government is better, that we ought to have more money to spend, that the Government does a better job of spending money than do the taxpayers. On the other hand, most of us do not agree with that notion and want to make it smaller. There is a legitimate debate and there is a great debate. So we have an agenda, and in order to do that, Mr. President, we are going to have to move through that agenda. I respect the purpose of the Senate in terms of its ability to go into depth and it is a deliberative body, and that should be the case. But it should not be an obstructionist body. It should not be a body that simply ties up this great debate, but rather it ought to be out there and we ought to have an agenda and we ought to move forward. There are a number of things, certainly, that we clearly ought to talk about. We are talking about one of them now, and that is tort reform, something that needs to be done. We need also to talk about welfare reform. That is a legitimate thing we ought to do. We ought to take another look at crime. Clearly, health care needs some revision. We need to have regulatory reform. We need to balance the budget. These are the agenda items that we have a responsibility, Mr. President, to undertake. I think if those of us who were elected this year have any message, the message is let us move forward with these issues, let us talk about these issues. We are willing to accept the results, of course. But we are not willing to accept the idea that we do not have an agenda, that we are not going to deal with the questions that the American people have asked, that we are simply going to take up all our time in obstructionist kinds of activities, that the rapid response team is always going to be opposed to change. So that is where we are, Mr. President. I think we have the greatest opportunity, and I thought that last month. And I have to tell you, having spent 2 weeks in Wyoming, that notion, in my view, is simply reinforced that people do want us to go forward. Mr. President, I am not sure of the agenda. But the freshmen had a certain amount of time. I yield to my associate from Pennsylvania.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Thomas pertaining to the introduction of S. 738 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I would like to share with my colleagues some developments concerning Taiwan which arose over the April recess. As my friends are well aware, the State Department has for several years now prohibited the President of the Republic of China on Taiwan, Dr. Lee Teng-hui, from entering the United States. This prohibition extends not only to visits in his capacity as President, but to any visit even as a private citizen. The official rationale for this is that such a visit would offend the sensitivities of the Government of the People's Republic of China, which lays claim to Taiwan as a renegade province. This stance is troublesome to me and many other Senators for several reasons. First, Taiwan has been our close friend and ally for several decades, and is presently our fifth largest trading partner. It is a moldel emerging democracy in an area not particularly known for strong democratic traditions. Regardless of these facts, however, we reward the Government of Taiwan by denying its elected officials even the most basic right to visit our country. The State Department policy has previously even been raised to the another country, the ability to disembark from his aircraft during a stop-over in Hawaii. Second, as I have previously noted on the floor, the only people to whom the United States regularly denies entry are terrorists, convicted felons, and people with certain serious communicable diseases. The Secretary of State has admitted Yasser Arafat, whom we denounced for years as a terrorist thug; he has admitted Terry Adams, the leader of the IRA's political arm Sinn Fein--a group responsible for terrorist attacks throughout the United Kingdom. Few of us in the senate can fathom how the State Department can possible exclude President Lee--the democratically elected leader of a friendly country--when it has admitted these gentlemen, and instead add him to a list of pariahs. Third, the refusal to admit President Lee comes at the express behest of the Government of the People's Republic of China. In the almost slavish lengths to which the State Department has gone to honor that demand, it has done nothing but strengthen the perception on Capitol Hill that it is rushing to kowtow to Beijing. State has countered that the People's Republic of China has threatened grave ramifications if Lee were to be admitted--since the People's Republic of China claims Taiwan to be a province--and admitting President Lee would be tantamount to a country admitting Gov. Pete Wilson as the head of government of a sovereign independent California, thereby threatening the authority of the central government. Yet their own actions severely undercut the Department's position. The Secretary has repeatedly admitted his Holiness the Dalai Lama to the United States. The Dalai Lama purports--rightly in my view--to represent the legitimate Government of Tibet. Chinese troops occupied Tibet in the 1950's, displaced the Government and absorbed Tibet as a province--the Xizang Zizhiqu or Xizang Autonomous Region. Despite Beijing's warnings to the contrary--warnings similar to those on Taiwan--we have admitted the Dalai Lama. We have done this despite the fact that, like President Lee, the Dalai Lama claims to represent a country which the People's Republic of China considers to be a province. Why, then, the inconsistency in the State Department's position? Fourth, attempts by the People's Republic of China to dictate our immigration policy to us strike many as presumptuous. To put it in terms which the Government in Beijing can understand: Who we admit to this country under our immigration laws is strictly an internal affair of the United States. Mr. President, the People's Republic of China is continually telling us to butt out of issues they consider to be their internal affairs--human rights abuses, for example; they would do well to listen to their own advice. Congress has made it abundantly clear that it disapproves of the administration's position on this issue. Votes urging the Secretary to allow the visit have passed overwhelmingly in both Houses in past years. This year, Senate Concurrent Resolution 9 and its House counterpart both enjoy wide, bipartisan support. I expect that they will both come to a vote within the next week and pass with few, if any, detractors. There have been some signs--albeit exceedingly subtle--that the administration may be considering some reworking of its past positions. In New York City on the 17th of this month, on the occasion of the visit of the People's Republic of China's Foreign Minister Qian, a senior State Department official made certain statements which may provide a small glimmer of hope that the administration may be coming around. Mr. President, you will note from the amount of qualifying words that I have just used that I consider the likelihood of them coming around to be rather slim. That would be unfortunate, because I think that it would reflect an underestimation of the depth of the feeling in the Congress on this issue. Just so there is no mistaking what I believe the reaction of the Senate will be to a continued denial of a private visit by President Lee--even in the face of the two resolutions--let me point out the following for our friends in the administration. I have prepared legislation to require the Secretary to admit President Lee this year for a private visit, which already has seven original cosponsors. At least two other Senators I know of are poised to introduce similar legislation. Should the Secretary fail to accommodate a private visit by President Lee in the very near future, the three of us are prepared to act. I will ensure that any such legislation moves quickly through my subcommittee, and on to the floor. Mr. President, it is unfortunate that this simple issue has had to come to this. If the parties had simply, we could have put this behind us and gotten on with the more serious issues that concern us. The obstinance of the State Department, and the People's Republic of China, only serves to harden Members' attitudes and to turn their attention toward other, more controversial, areas such as Taiwan's participation in the United Nations and WTO. We would all do well to remember the proverbial observation that the grass that bends with the wind survives the storm, while the branch that remains stiff and obstinate does not.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that would reform the Federal helium program and the helium refining and marketing aspirations of the U.S. Bureau of Mines. Mr. President, we are in the process, I think happily, to be reforming Government, to be changing some of the things that have gone on for a very long time, which is a tendency of the Federal Government. Things that started for good reason and with meritorious purpose, as time goes by, often change. I think everyone admits it becomes very difficult that despite the changing conditions, programs seem to continue. I understand that. They start with a purpose. Often the remnants of that purpose at least remains, and of course, there is always a constituency built around that activity; in this case, an economic one. I understand that as well. However, the more important thing is that we do have a chance to change, indeed, a responsibility to change. If there is anything, it seems to me, that this Congress is about, what this election was about in November, it is to really finally make some of the alterations in Government that need to be made, try to deal with some of the things that do not contribute to the well-being of this country and contribute to the well-being of this Government so that those resources being used in that manner can be shifted and changed to something more useful, to do something that is appropriate for this Government to be doing. I think the Federal helium program, Mr. President, is one of those activities. This helium recovery program began in 1925. At that time, helium conservation was deemed to be a matter of national security. At that time, I think, people saw the future of defense, the future of aviation, as being lighter-than-air--machinery of that kind, and there was no private helium industry that existed. Today, on the contrary, the private sector has a thriving helium industry that produces 90 percent of the world's helium demand and supplies it. There are 11 privately owned plants throughout the country, modern plants, as opposed to the Government plant, which is some 50 years old. A private company can deliver helium cheaper, better, and more efficiently than the Federal Government. Unfortunately, the Federal Government continues to process helium in a burdensome and outdated fashion. The program was designed for the 1920's and certainly is failing in the 1990's. Not only has the program been inefficient, but it has cost millions of dollars each year. Beginning in 1960, the Federal Government contracted with private companies to supply helium to the Bureau of Mines. To finance these purchases, the Bureau borrowed $252 million from the Treasury. Although it was planned that future sales would cover the costs of this loan, this has not occurred. The agency has paid back the loan, and it continues to accumulate. Today the Bureau of Mines owes the Treasury roughly $1.3 billion on the loan. The legislation that I am introducing, along with several cosponsors, including the chairman of the committee and the chairman of the subcommittee, would end the Federal helium program within 1 year. Then, importantly, it would phase out the sale of the Federal crude helium reserve. I think it is very important that we do phase it out over a period of time so that this private-sector industry that has developed will not be demolished by simply dumping all this surplus supply on the market. It would end the program and the Federal Government's direct competition with the private sector. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will save American taxpayers approximately $7 million annually, between $26 and $36 million over 5 years. The measure would allow the Bureau of Mines to contract with the private sector for services to purchase and distribute crude helium. There is some requirement in the Government for it. NASA is a customer, as well as the Department of Energy. It would be provided by the private sector. Most importantly, this legislation phases out the sale of the official helium stockpile over several years and requires that all of these reserves be disposed of by the year 2015. This would allow the helium fields to be probably close to depleted, the ones that currently are there. It would ensure that when the stockpile is sold, the return to the Treasury would be at a level that makes this a valuable asset. If it were dumped immediately, it would not be valuable. The taxpayers would lose a considerable amount of asset value. Mr. President, we are faced, of course, with some most difficult times on the budget. We are faced with seeking to balance this budget over 6 or 7 years. I think it is an imperative that we do that. We are faced, as well, with programs that we do want to continue to provide services. We do want to help people who are in need. We do want to help them get back into the workplace. We do want Medicare to continue to provide those benefits. Frankly, if we do not do something, none of those things will happen. it is not a question of whether we make some changes; it is a question of what changes we make and how soon we can make them. Somehow, there has been kind of a presumption developed by our friends on the other side and by the administration that these programs are simply designed to take away benefits and that we should not do that, we ought to continue doing what we have been doing. Let me say that that is not one of the choices. If we continue to do what we have been doing with the revenue we have, by the year 2010 we will be able to afford only the entitlements and interest on the debt. None of the other discretionary spending will be able to be provided. We have talked about this in the past, Mr. President. There was considerable discussion last year when I was in the House Interior Committee. I think there is general acceptance to the notion, but we did not get it done. Now it is time to take action to shut down the Federal helium program, and I hope the Senate will take swift action on this bill so that we can begin to end this wasteful and inefficient and unnecessary Federal program.