Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this request has been agreed to by both the minority and the majority leaders. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the consideration of the conference report to accompany conference report be agreed to; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, let me say this morning that the time for the two leaders has been reserved, and the Senate will immediately resume consideration of H.R. 1158, the supplemental appropriations and rescissions bill. It is the hope of the majority leader that a unanimous-consent agreement can be reached that will enable the Senate to complete action on the supplemental appropriations bill today. If an agreement cannot be reached, Senators are to be reminded that a cloture vote on the Hatfield substitute is scheduled for 2 p.m. today. Members should be aware that rollcall votes could occur throughout the day. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as you know, over the last several weeks, the Senate freshmen have taken time on various occasions to come to the floor to talk about the agenda that we believe was prescribed during the last election, the agenda that the 11 of us, as new Republican Senators, would like to see pursued in the Senate. Our plan was to talk in morning business about that this morning. As you know, the order has been changed, and we respect that. But until such time as the majority leader and the minority leader are able to pull up the bill, we would like to proceed to talk about some of the things that we think are most important. We call this the freshman focus, and we think we do bring to this body something of a unique point of view in that each of us, of course, just came off an election, each of us campaigned for a very long time in our States, each of us talked to many people, and each of us believes that there was a message in the election and that the responsibility of responsive Government is to respond to that election and to the voice of the voters as we see it. So, Mr. President, we, I think, have going on here a great debate. It may not take the form of great debate in terms of its physical approach, but the great debate is between the way we see things happening, the way we see ourselves as a society and as a country entering into the new millennium, entering into the year 2000 in a relatively short 5 or 6 years and what shape we see ourselves in as a nation going into that new millennium. The great debate is whether or not we want to go into that new century continuing as we are financially, continuing as we are with the huge debt that we have, continuing as we are with deficits of $250 billion in that foreseeable future or, in fact, whether we want to seek to make some changes so that we go into that millennium, so that we go into that new century, with a nation that is financially and fiscally responsible, and now is the time we have to do that. That is the great debate, the great debate that has been going on in the House, the great debate that is going on here, the great debate that will take place over the next year in terms of the budget. Basically, the debate is overspending. We all have charts. Unfortunately, I am not armed with a chart this morning. The chart would show, however, that spending has gone up in this kind of fashion, spending has gone up in the neighborhood of 5 percent a year for many years and is designed to continue to go up at 5 percent a year for the foreseeable future. The President's budget this year has a 5.5-percent increase in spending. So we talk a lot about the deficit, the deficit which is a result, of course, of the difference between revenues and outlays, but really is the result of spending. If there was a message that I think was universally discernible in November, it was that Government is too big and that Government spends too much. Most people agree with that. If we are to have a reasonable debate, there needs to be a couple of things agreed to, a couple of things have to be stipulated. One struck me some time back in our church in Cheyenne that we attend, and the message that the pastor had was that every day each of us has a responsibility to make this a better place to live. Whether a person is a Senator, whether a person is a carpenter, whether a person is a rancher, we each, where we are, have a responsibility to make this a better place to live. We do it in our own ways. We each have something different to contribute. citizenship responsibility, we have the responsibility of being trustees for this country, being trustees for the spending responsibilities of the United States--an awesome responsibility it seems to me, one that goes far beyond simply spending, goes far beyond arithmetic, goes far beyond accounting. It goes into the character of a nation. Whether or not we are able to pay for the things we want, whether we are willing to have a cost-benefit ratio and decide for ourselves if it is worth paying for, we pay for it. It is irresponsible to continue to put it on the credit card for our kids. Our credit card is maxed out. Within the next month or 2 months, we will be asked to raise the debt limit-- $5 trillion. Talk about charts that impressed me a little some time ago, in 1970, the budget of this country was about $204 billion, in that category. Twenty-five years later, the interest payment on the debt is more than the entire cost of the Federal Government in 1970-- not very long ago. So the question in the great debate is how do we go into the 21st century? How do we go into the new millennium? That is what the freshmen are focusing on. There is a great deal more to the debate on this question today of rescissions, this question today of whether we can find $15 billion to take out of spending, $15 billion that will not go on the debt. There is more to it than just this spending issue. It has a good deal to do with national character. So that is what it is about. That is what the freshmen are seeking to do. Unfortunately, the opposition, rather than taking a look at where are we, where do we need to go, what changes do we have to make, what changes did voters ask for, are saying, ``Oh, no, we cannot change. We want to continue with the programs we have had. We want to continue with the war on poverty''--which has failed. The war on poverty was started 30 years ago, and there are more people in poverty now than there were then. We have the greatest opportunity now than we have had for a very long time, a great opportunity to take a look at where we are going. I suggested there needs to be a stipulation in this great debate, and that stipulation also has to be not only do we have a responsibility to make it a better place to live, but also that people who want to make changes have as much compassion and as much caring as do those who do not. The idea that people wanting to make a change and wanting to take a look at where we are going signifies that we want to throw everyone out on the street and there is no caring and that it is simply a mathematical thing is absolutely wrong. I am beginning to hear it. I hear it almost hourly from the opposition--the reason for not making a change is because it is not compassionate. Let me suggest if we want to take a look at the long range, we want to take a look at your kids, my kids and our grandkids, we need to have a little compassion about that. We need to have a little compassion about what kind of a financial position and responsibility for our Government will we have in the year 2000 unless we make some changes. Of course they are difficult. Of course they are difficult changes. We must make them. Americans voted for change in 1994. We have the greatest opportunity we have had for a very long time to take a look at programs and say are they fulfilling the objective? Is that the best way to deliver services to people who need them? To take a look at welfare and say, the purpose of welfare is to help people who need help and to help them back into the workplace. A hand up, not a handout. That is what we ought to be looking for, and to measure those programs and see if, indeed, they are successful, or is there a better way to do it. Do we need 165 programs designed to go from school to work? Of course not. We need to put them together and look at duplicity and look at repetition and see if there is a more efficient way to do it. That is what this debate is about. Frankly, we are having a hard time keeping that debate in the arena of finding better ways to help people help themselves. That is what it is for. Mr. President, I hope as we go through it, there will be a stipulation that we are setting out to find a better way, a better way to help people who need help; a better way to provide incentives for everyone to work and take care of themselves; a better way for the business sector to invest, to create jobs, so that we can help ourselves; a better way to eliminate bureaucracy and duplicity so that we can deliver services. That is what it is about. That is the responsibility that we have. Mr. President, I thank you, and I want to yield to my good friend from Pennsylvania, who certainly is one of the leaders in this effort to find better ways so that we have a society of self-improvement rather than dependence. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield time to the chairman of our freshman group, the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this morning, the time for the two leaders has been reserved and there will be a period for morning business until the hour of 10:30, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each. At 10:30, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1158, the supplemental appropriations bill and the pending amendments thereto. Rollcall votes are, therefore, expected throughout the day today. Also, the Senate will stand in recess from 12:30 to 2:15 for the weekly policy luncheons to meet.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, let me say that the 30 minutes has been reserved for Members of the freshman class to take some time, and that will be divided among several of us. We want to talk a little bit this morning about the future--the future for America, the future for Americans, and the future as it pertains to spending and spending limitations in this Government. More specifically, where will we be in the year 2000 if we continue to do as we have done over the past number of years? Where will we be at the beginning of the next millennium unless we make some changes in the direction that we are going? The question before us, I think, as Americans and American taxpayers and American citizens, is, unless we make some changes, unless we set some priorities for ourselves now and do something about spending, will we have any options at the year 2000? Will we be able to set priorities for ourselves or, in fact, will our priorities be set by the bond market? Will our priorities be set simply by the financial condition of this country? So that is what we want to talk about. There is nothing that can be more important to us than how we enter the new millennium with opportunities for people to be successful, with opportunities for people to earn a living for their families, and to have the American dream as we dreamed it in the past. And that is what we are talking about. We are talking about spending and what has happened to spending over the last number of years and, frankly, the momentum to continue spending as it has been. And if that does continue, then by the year 2000, we will not have options. All of our money will be spent for Social Security, for interest on the debt, for defense. One indication of where we have been is that the interest on the debt as part of our budget has soared from $14 billion a year 25 years ago-- in 1970, $14 billion--to now $234 billion; on interest alone, $234 billion, which is more than the Government spent in 1970. So this, it seems to me, is what we need to be prepared for. We need to take a look at where we are and where we are going. And we have a great opportunity to do that. Unfortunately, the administration is resisting change and is seeking to extend the programs that we have had over the last 25 years, the last 30 years, seeking to extend and fund programs like the welfare program, which has been a failure. The poverty program than there were when we began. So the choice is basically to continue what we have been doing and resist change or to take the opportunity to take a look at the things we are doing and really examine them. It seems to me it is an exciting opportunity in this Congress. It is an exciting opportunity for the House and the Senate to examine programs and say, ``Here's what we have been doing. How does it work? How does it impact the people that need it?'' To take a look at it and say, ``Are there better ways to deliver services?" No one is talking about discontinuing services. Nobody is talking about hungry children. The people who are for change, I submit, have equally as much compassion for people in need as those who resist change. We have a great opportunity to see: Is there a better way for us to deliver services? What we really ought to do is measure what we have been doing against the principles that we all agree on, and that is that welfare programs and Social Security programs ought to be designed to help get people off welfare, to help people get back into the marketplace, to get back into an opportunity for self-esteem and self-sustenance, to reduce the dependency that has developed in this country and give people the opportunity to have jobs and be in the workplace; to provide incentives not only for people to work and to take care of themselves and their families, but incentives for business to invest to provide those jobs. Now is a great opportunity for us to change some of the measurements of success, the measurement of welfare, not how many people you cover. The measurement of welfare is how many people you help to get off of welfare. And that is what we are talking about here. It is unfortunate, I think, that the White House has apparently determined their approach to the next election by fear tactics of saying each time we take a look at changing some program, that somehow everyone is going to be thrown out in the cold. That is not true. That is not true. We are looking for better ways to deliver services. I think it would be a shame, Mr. President, to pass up the opportunity that we have now. Americans voted for change in 1994, not for reckless change, but for fundamental change. They voted for fiscal responsibility. Let me show you this chart, just as an example of what we are doing. Everyone has to have a chart here. We do not want to be without a chart. In any event, this shows spending and revenues over time from 1974 to 1980 to the year 2000. Look at the difference. All of this will be taken up in three categories and there will not be an opportunity for educational grants, there will not be an opportunity for training for work because there will not be money for that. Now we can make the changes. Now we can make changes to do it and that is what it is all about, Mr. President. That is why we are on the floor this morning. I want to share this time with a number of Senators who have worked very hard in this area. The Senator from Arizona worked in the House and has been the author of a number of bills to make some fundamental changes to move us in what I believe to be the right direction. I yield to the Senator from Arizona for 6 minutes. Consequences of Lack of Fiscal Discipline

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota brings that message from the recent election as well. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota. the deficit lockbox

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this morning the leader time has been reserved. There will now be a period for the transaction of morning business not to extend beyond the hour of 12 noon, with Senators permitted to speak up to 5 minutes each. At 12 noon today, following ascertaining a quorum, a cloture vote will occur on the conference report to accompany H.R. 831, the Self- Employed Health Insurance Act. Additional rollcall votes are expected throughout the day today. Also, as a reminder to all Senators, Members should be in their seats at 2:15 tomorrow for the official photograph of the 104th Congress. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President. Schedule

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, the week before last I had the pleasure of cohosting a breakfast with Congressman Gilman for Lu Ping. Mr. Lu is the head of the People's Republic of China's Office of Hong Kong and Macau Affairs, as well as a body known as the Preliminary Working Committee. In other words, he is the Chinese official in charge of overseeing the transition of Hong Kong from a dependent territory of the United Kingdom to a special administrative region under the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China in the summer of 1997. Mr. Lu and his group were, in effect, on a public relations tour of the United States to convince policymakers here--as well as an audience back home--that Hong Kong will continue to thrive as a bastion of capitalism after 1997. Mr. Lu did his job well. He spoke eloquently and reassuringly, painting a rosy picture for the colony's future without sounding phony or unrealistic. While I greatly appreciated the opportunity to meet with Mr. Lu and hear his views, I have a concern with his pronouncements which I would like to share with my colleagues. Despite his polished presentation it seemed to me that his views diverged little, if at all, from the official party line. Certainly, this was not entirely unexpected. Members of the PRC bureaucracy are not often given to flights of independence of thought or opinion. While he certainly seemed genuine and straight-forward, I could not shake the feeling that his statements were simply a glossy version of what we have been hearing from Beijing on this topic for some time. He spoke at length about how Hong Kong's present status would be protected, but said nothing substantive about the mechanics of that protection. As a writer for the Nanhua Zaobao, South China Morning Post, so accurately put it: [D]espite having an excellent ambassador in the eloquent English-speaking Mr. Lu, and in spite of the articulate back- up of sharp minds like those of Rita Fan and Simon Lee, the fact remained that they had--to American earns at least--very little to say. The style was good, but the U.S. needs a lot more meat in its sandwiches. Moreover, while painting a picture of a bright fairy-tale scene full of sunshine and singing birds, Mr. Lu neglected to peer at the troll under the bridge: The increasing threats made to the rule of law in Hong Kong. In 1984, the People's Republic of China and Great Britain finalized a document known as the Joint Declaration. The declaration set forth PRC guarantees for Hong Kong's continued autonomy after 1997, an elected local legislature, and the continuation of its common-law legal system. Unfortunately, since that time Beijing has acted in such a way so as to call its commitment to these basic principles into question. In 1990, the National People's Congress enacted what is known as the Basic Law, the statutes that will govern Hong Kong after 1997. In contravention of the Joint Declaration, it--inter alia--subordinates the colony's legislative council to an executive appointed by Beijing, and assigns a power of judicial interpretation not to the local courts but to the Standing Committee of the People's Congress. In 1993, a senior official of the PRC's judicial branch intimated that the People's Republic of China will replace Hong Kong's common-law system with one more closely resembling China's where the civil law is merely an extension of the party. Finally, and most ominously in my opinion, the People's Republic of China has called into doubt its commitment to establish a Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong. Presently, final judicial decisions are appealable to the Privy Council in London. Of course, that cannot continue to be the case after reversion, and one of the principle concerns of the residents of the colony is that, after 1997, local legal decisions continue to be appealable to a court with interests not inimicable to the common law and judicial independence from extralegal influences. Without a local final appeals court, they worry--rightly in my opinion--that the final arbiter of the law in Hong Kong will be a party cadre in Beijing. So, the Joint Declaration provided for the establishment of a Court of Final Appeal [CFR]. Since that time, however, there has and Hong Kong, over the form of the court; and, for a variety of reasons I will not expound upon here, the future of the CFR is much in question. While it is probably not fair to lay 100 percent of the blame for the imbroglio over the CFA on China, that country, I believe, bears a lion's share. Mr. President, the continuation of the rule of law in Hong Kong after 1997 is synonymous with its ability to remain a thriving center of finance and democracy at the doorstep of the Communist behemoth to the north. The rule of law ensures that business can be conducted in a fair and secure way, that contracts are binding, and that there is a predictable and impartial means of settling disputes and appeals. Just what kind of problems the absence of the rule of law creates in China is easily illustrated. McDonald's had a contract with the Peoples Republic of China for a restaurant on Tiananmen Square. It operated there for several years, until the Chinese Government decided that it wanted to give the choice location to someone else. Consequently, despite contractual provisions to the contrary, the Chinese kicked McDonald's out of their location. Another company, Revpower, Ltd., entered into a contract with the Government-owned Shanghai Far-East Aero-Technology Import and Export Corp. After a dispute between the two was settled by arbitration, an arbitral award in the amount of $6.6 million was made against the Shanghai firm. Despite its contractual promise, however, the Chinese firm refused to abide by the results of the arbitration. Revpower subsequently sought the assistance of the Shanghai Intermediate People's Court in enforcing the award, but the court has failed to act or even acknowledge the existence of the suit. One can see why the absence of the rule of law would make businesses skittish. Mr. President, I come to the floor today as the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs to let the people of Hong Kong--as well as the government in Beijing--know that the United States take great interest in the future of Hong Kong. We will be keenly watching to be sure that the parties live up to the letter and spirit of the Joint Declaration, especially any developments regarding the CFR and the rule of law. The People Republic of China should know that we will use how it treats Hong Kong as a strong indicator on how it will be expected to act in other areas such as the WTO or similar body, for example. If the PRC fails in the former, then I will be hard-pressed to support its accession to the latter. The world is watching, Mr. President; let us hope that we will like what we see.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I would like to take this opportunity to call my colleagues' attention to an issue that, while somewhat obscure, has the potential to escalate into a dangerous regional conflict with serious repercussions for the United States: competing jurisdictional claims to the Spratly Islands. The Spratlys comprise 21 islands and atolls, 50 submerged land spits, and 28 partly submerged rock groups and reefs. Totaling less than 5 square kilometers in area, these islets are spread out over 340,000 square miles in the southern third of the South China Sea, one of the world's largest marginal seas. The largest island, Itu Aba, is only four-tenths of a square mile in area; Spratly Island, after which the group is named, measures only 0.15 square miles. Portions of the area are claimed by most of the sea's littoral states; the People's Republic of China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, and Brunei. All, with the exception of Brunei, maintain a military presence on the islands. Their interest is based on more than mere fishing rights or territorial aggrandizement. It is thought--although not yet known conclusively--that the islands overlie vast reserves of oil and natural gas. The South China Sea in general is one of the most productive offshore petroleum areas in the world; since 1950, 29 oil fields and 4 gas fields have been developed there. This makes possession of the Spratlys quite attractive to the area's developing economies. What many view as China's increasingly hegemonistic interest in the area seems to be the principal cause of tension among the claimants. As we all well know, China is clearly the emerging power in Asia. As the PRC has initiated limited free-market reforms and its economy expands, it has been able to devote more resources away from purely domestic concerns and to assert itself--flex its muscle--more often in regional affairs. The PRC's growing visibility is unnerving to many of its neighbors. This is due in large measure to the fact that because the PRC's greater presence is increasingly exhibited in a buildup of its military forces, it has increased the opportunity for armed conflicts with those neighbors. The PRC--and consequently the Republic of China on Taiwan--and Vietnam both assert the oldest claims to the area. The PRC contends that it has a long history of presence in the area, including: a purported naval discovery in the Western Han Dynasty around the year 111 B.C., a 1292 Yuan Dynasty visitation by the Java-bound fleet of Kublai Khan, and a Ming Dynasty survey of the islands by Cheng He, who is said to have visited the islands seven times between the years 1405 and 1433. While there is some evidence of intermittent visitation of some of the Spratlys and surrounding waters by Chinese fishermen, records are sparse, incomplete, conflicting, and in the opinion of many scholars do not necessarily demonstrate a pattern of routine occupation, administration, or assertion of sovereign control sufficient to establish on airtight claim. For example, an official report by the Chinese Government issued in 1928 set forth that country's southernmost delineation of its territory as the Parcel Islands and makes no mention of the Spratlys. Vietnam's claim is based on historical arguments premised on events from before, during, and after occupation by its former colonial overlord, France. Recent Vietnamese pronouncements claim that its involvement with the Spratlys can be traced back to 1650-53, although I have not yet seen a credible substantiation of that assertion. A further contact is claimed during the reign of Emperor Gialong in 1816, and an inaccurate Vietnamese map dated 1838 identifies the Spratlys under the name Van Ly Truong Sa as a part of Vietnamese territory. Interest in the islands appears to have lapsed over the early- and mid- French occupation period, although the French Government sent a naval expedition to the islands in 1933 and laid claim to seven groups of islets. These conflicting Chinese and Vietnamese claims have in the not- distant past resulted in verbal, and sometimes military, clashes. In 1974, for example, the PRC occupied the South Vietnamese-claimed Parcel Islands--the Xisha Qundao--about 350 miles north of the Spratlys. The Vietnamese forces lost and withdrew from the islands. A few days later, though, 120 South Vietnamese soldiers landed on one of the Spratlys; the PRC responded with a protest and a warning against any such future action. In March 1988, the PLA-N sank three Vietnamese naval transports in the Spratlys, killing 72 Vietnamese soldiers. Beginning in the late 1970's, a growing economic dimension began to appear in the Sino-Vietnamese dynamic. When the PRC began open-door economic reforms in 1978, the development of an offshore petroleum industry was at the forefront. The PRC opened its continental shelf from the Bohai to Beibu Gulfs in 1979, and announced a series of Sino- foreign seismic survey agreements. Vietnam, in response, protested the surveys as brazen violations ``of the territorial integrity of Vietnam This verbal sparring over the competing claims continued until the early 1990's, when the two countries began to swipe at each other using oil concessions as their weapon. On May 8, 1992, the PRC's China National Offshore Oil Co. granted an oil concession to Crestone Energy Co., a small American firm, for a 25,155 km\2\ area near the Vanguard Bank (the Wanan Tan) which crossed over into Vietnamese-claimed areas. Consequently, Vietnam granted a concession to Mobil Corp. which encroached on Chinese claims, and in September 1992, Petrovietnam signed a contract with Nopec, a Norwegian company, to do seismic surveys. These competing claims threatened to precipitate another armed conflict last year when Vietnam began drilling in a concession that China had previously granted to a United States company. Chinese ships blocked the drilling rig, but the matter was defused short of a martial clash and has become an ongoing topic of negotiation between the two. The PRC did not help calm matters when, in February 1992, the National People's Congress passed legislation--the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone-- laying sole claim to the entire South China Sea and mentioning the Spratlys by name in article 2. The move to turn the South China Sea into a Chinese lake is especially worrisome to many countries--even those outside the region. The reason: the islands sit astride shipping lanes through which passes approximately 25 percent of the worlds trade goods, including almost 70 percent of Japan's oil supplies. The Sino-Vietnamese imbroglios are not the only point of bilateral friction in the Spratlys; the most recent flare-ups involved the Philippines. The Filipino claim is based on geographic contiguity, historical rights, and an assertion that the other countries involved in the area have previously abandoned their rights to the islands. In 1947, a Filipino businessman named Tomas Cloma discovered a group of unoccupied islands in the Spratly chain which he named Kalayaan. The Philippines' Government remained somewhat noncommittal about the claim; in 1955, the government set baselines around the Philippine archipelago and made no mention of Kalayaan. However, when in 1971 an ROK artillery battery on Itu Aba fired on a Filipino fishing boat, in its official protest the Philippines stated that it had legal title to the island group as a result of Cloma's occupation and because the islands were within the archipelagic territory of the Philippines. In 1974, Cloma transferred Kalayaan to his Government, and in 1978 President Marcos officially declared the islands to be part of the Philippines. Also in that year, the Philippines' claims became more choate when it discovered oil and gas resources beneath the seabed. Since then, Sino-Filipino competition for the islands has increased. Recently, China asserted claims to Jackson Atoll and Half Moon Reef-- which are claimed by the Philippines--contending that ``they are part of China's Nanasha [Spratly] Islands and have always have been Chinese territory.'' Intelligence reports indicate that the PRC has placed perimeter markers on both. Similarly, China has laid claim to the appropriately named Mischief (Panganiban) Reef. It was recently revealed that the PRC has built a series of structures on the reef. The reef submerges at high tide, and the four concrete buildings are build on pilings. I have seen pictures of them supplied by the Philippine Government. The problem with this Chinese move is that the reef lies well within the Philippines' 200-mile exclusive economic zone; it is only 135 nautical miles from Palawan, one of the Philippines' principal islands. By contrast, it is more than 620 miles from the Chinese coast. In addition, the PRC has dispatched several naval vessels to the immediate area of the reef--two Yukan-class supply vessels and a Dazhi-class submarine-support ship. The presence of the latter begs the question as to whether there are not also Chinese submarines operating nearby. The PRC claims that the outpost in only meant to serve as a shelter for Chinese fishermen. However, the addition of several parabolic antennae to the structures, the presence of the navy ships, and the PRC's demonstrated keen interest in the islands, seem to militate against the veracity of such a statement. Moreover, in a move tinged with jurisdictional overtones, the Chinese arrested several Filipino fishermen in the vicinity of the reef and held them for several days. The Government of the Philippines has indicated that as a result of the PRC's actions, it has felt pressured into increasing its military presence in the islands. Just this last weekend, in apparent retaliation for the Chinese arrests, the Philippine navy seized four Chinese fishing vessels in the region of Alicia Annie which is in the Filipino Claim area. Similarly, the Vietnamese are reported by Japan's Kyodo News Agency to have increased their military presence in the area by 50 percent as a counter to the Chinese buildup. Clearly, the growing militarization of the region can only increase the probability that another skirmish will break out. The region's countries have not sat idly by while this problem has escalated. In July 1992, the members of ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nation's issued what has been called the Manila Declaration on the south China Sea. The document--also acknowledged by Vietnam and the PRC--called on the parties to the dispute to exercise restraint and settle the issue without resort to military force. ASEAN's nonclaimants--Singapore, Indonesia, and Thailand--were urged to appoint an ``eminent persons group'' to build support for a complete freeze on economic and military activity in disputed areas. The declaration also called on the United States to actively back the initiative, and to support Indonesia's efforts to transform its informal South China Sea workshops into an official negotiating forum under the auspices of either the ASEAN regional forum or the U.N. Security Council. Talks would be based on accepting the Chinese position of deferring claims to sovereignty and jointly developing any available resources. The response of the United States to this entire issue has been, in my view, less than adequate. The strongest statements that I have seen from the administration so far are a lukewarm statement on February 14 of this year from a State Department spokeswoman, and a series of statements by Adm. Richard Macke, head of the U.S. Pacific Command. Most recently the admiral stated, ``It is well known that we do not support any territorial claims with regard to [the] Spratlys. We certainly encourage dialogue between the nations involved to solve the differences that exist over the Spratlys. Again, we support no individual claim * * *.'' I generally agree with Admiral Macke. As long as the claimants do nothing to interfere with the rights of the world community to free passage through the South China Sea, it is my position that the United States should not presently take sides among the claimants. Rather, we should support the Manila Declaration and a rational, negotiated settlement to the problem. In addition, while we should make clear to the claimants that we are willing to make ourselves available to them to facilitate the provisions of the declaration, we should avoid unnecessary intrusion into what is a regional affair best settled by the parties involved. In addition, pending any talks or resolution of the conflict, I believe we need to make clear to the parties that any move seeking to disturb the present status quo is unacceptable. It makes no sense to try to get the parties to sit down and negotiate an end to the problem if, at the same time, they continue their jockeying for military and territorial advantage. Although I find myself generally in agreement with the U.S. position, I am not sure that the administration has been as forceful and unequivocal as it should be in getting our viewpoint across to the claimants. While I understand from certain sources that our position is being made clear to each of the claimant states through our respective embassies, I would like to see a more public vociferous pronouncement of our stand. Mr. President, I have seen some indications from the State Department that it is presently In the interim, however, I rise today--on behalf of myself and the distinguished ranking minority member of the subcommittee, Senator Robb--to submit Senate Resolution 97, expressing the sense of the Senate with respect to peace and stability in the South China Sea. This resolution reaffirms the Senate's support of the view that the United States takes no sides in the dispute. Moreover, it calls for a cessation of hostilities in the region, as well as a strict adherence to the provisions of the Manila declaration. Finally, it calls on the claimants to observe the January 1995 status quo ante pending any negotiations or resolution of the dispute. Mr. President, I hope that this resolution will prod the administration into action, and will make the views of the Senate clear to the claimant nations. I look forward to its swift adoption.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise very briefly to support the position of the appropriators here and oppose the amendment. I do it on the basis the Senator from Washington pointed out, and that is some of these projects have been under way or are in the midst of getting under way. The one I have particular interest in is the environmental simulator that is designed to study the aspects of hazardous materials moving through soil. And it does it in a very abbreviated way. It is something that pertains to what we are seeking in this country. And so, Mr. President, I rise briefly to oppose the amendment. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Dakota. He has joined with many of us to deal with this issue. It is one of these issues that has a timeliness problem. What we really have, as the Senator has pointed out, is during the past several months there has been some kind of court ruling that requires an individual NEPA investigation for every grazing permit. There are about 4,500 grazing permits from the Forest Service. About 700 of them will expire this year, the end of 1995. And, under the new regulation, driven by the court procedure, these NEPA requirements would have to be completed before these grazing permits can be extended. The Forest Service has said there is no way they can do that within that length of time. The result would be that ranches that depend upon grazing permits for their summer grass for cattle and sheep would simply be out of business. This does not change the requirement, it simply provides for some time. It says basically that permits cannot be refused because of the lack of the NEPA regulation. In other words, it says until the NEPA regulation is finished the permits can be renewed. That is really what it is all about. By the way, there is plenty of protection. It is not a matter of protection. There are now NEPA requirements on the forest plain, at the forest level. It is already there. In fact you can make an argument it is not needed. We are not making that argument. We are simply making the argument that the process of NEPA can continue but that there is not enough time to do it without injuring people who have a business of grazing on public lands. This would simply extend the time for that to happen. It is timely and needs to be done so people can plan for next year, can plan to turn their cattle out, can have loans and continue their business as they always have. Mr. President, I urge the amendment. Let us put it in the bill so we can take away this threat to the economy of the West. I thank the Senator from South Dakota. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think it is exciting; I think it is exciting that Senators like the Senator from Tennessee and others are willing to take a look at this program. It has been a long time since we have said: Does this program work? What are the results? How do we measure the results? What is the measurement of success? Instead of that, over the years, we have simply said: We have a program. It is not working. Let us put some more money in to make it bigger. Now we have an exciting opportunity, and that opportunity is to evaluate it, to change it, to find better systems, to look for duplications, and to eliminate some of the things that do not work. One of our colleagues who has had an opportunity to work with this very closely at the local level as Lieutenant Governor is the Senator from Ohio. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my freshman colleagues to discuss some of the solutions and some of the facts, the interest, that go into the Nation's welfare system. Before the debate on welfare reform can proceed, however, it seems to me that we have to make some stipulations. We have to begin with the basic premise, the premise that everyone in this Chamber is compassionate about helping over 26 million people climb out of poverty. That is not the question. I think if we are really seeking some solutions to our welfare problems, some solutions to help Americans advance themselves, we have to get away from this idea of saying that this group--because they have a different view--wants to throw everybody out in the cold. I think we do all start with that notion that every day, each person has a responsibility to make this a better place to live. With that premise, we wanted to talk some about the fundamental question of how we proceed, and what is the role of the Federal Government; how can we make changes that will cause some changes in the results of the welfare program? Mr. President, let me first recognize the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we got started a little late. We would like to have about 15 more minutes, if there is no objection.

Mr. THOMAS. The Senator from Arizona, I think, has made one of the key points in this whole discussion, and that is this is a compassionate society. All of us are committed to the concept that we help people help themselves. Unfortunately, almost everyone agrees that the war on poverty has failed, and that we have more of a problem now than we did when it began. That is what this is about--how do we have a better system of helping the people help themselves. One of the persons who has worked very hard and very diligently, and I think is most knowledgeable in this area, is the Senator from Pennsylvania, who last year in the House was basically the author and principal architect of the proposal put together by the Ways and Means Committee that would accomplish some of those things. I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. THOMAS. The Senator from Pennsylvania has obviously given a great deal of thought to this. I think it is interesting that almost everyone in this country, including President Clinton, says welfare is broken and needs to be fixed. Yet, when you begin to look at it and take the opportunity to seek to find a better way to deliver services, then we run into all of this criticism and, as the Senator says, untruths about what is really happening. But I think there is a real opportunity this time to do something. One of the reasons is that there are people in this body who are new here and who are bringing to the body a brandnew idea, some of it having come from the campaign, some of it having come from living regular lives. And one of those is the Senator from Tennessee. I would like to yield time to him. Mr. THOMPSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Thomas pertaining to the introduction of S. 629 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to call my colleagues' attention to the visit to the United States this week of New Zealand's Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. James Bolger. This is the first visit of a sitting Prime Minister to our country in over a decade. New Zealand and the United States have had traditionally close relations based largely on shared cultural ties to Great Britain and security concerns in the South Pacific. We have been close allies in both world wars, and New Zealand has participated with us and Australia in the regional ANZUS security alliance. We both participate in such economic organizations as APEC [Asia Pacific Economic Corporation], PECC [Pacific Economic Cooperation Council], and the PBEC [Pacific Basin Economic Committee]. But the relationship has not been without its tensions. The primary focus of United States-New Zealand relations over the last 10 years has revolved around port visits nuclear by armed and powered United States Navy ships. In the mid-1980's, New Zealand enacted legislation declaring the country a nuclear-free zone. As a result, United States nuclear powered or armed Navy ships were banned from New Zealand ports. Since it is not U.S. policy to identify which ships are or are not nuclear--some 40 percent are--the effect was to prohibit any port calls by our Navy. Washington retaliated by formally abrogating our defense treaty relationship with New Zealand, ceasing to share intelligence information, and cutting off all high-level ties between governments. Mr. President, while this issue is one of importance in our bilateral relationship and thus should not be swept under the rug, I choose not to dwell on it today for several reasons. First, it is not the only facet to our relationship. The rift has narrowed somewhat over the years; and in spite of it, we have continued to work side-by-side with New Zealand on other security issues. New Zealand has been an active participant in a series of peacekeeping missions, and fought with American troops in the gulf. More recently, New Zealand was the first country to make a monetary contribution to KEDO in furtherance of the agreed framework with North Korea. In addition, New Zealand has made important and impressive economic strides over the past decade which deserve our attention. In the 1950's, New Zealand was one of the world's five wealthiest countries; but by the late 1970's, it had fallen to near 20th. The reason appears to have been the country's economic policies which bordered on almost Socialist central-market control. New Zealand had one of the the Government heavily regulated most industries, and nationalized others. It subsidized exports, while at the same time shutting internal market access to protect its domestic industries. Finally, the Government ran high deficits, instituted wage and price controls, and promulgated tight limits on both interest rates and international flows of capital. Between the 1960's and 1970's, the marginal tax rate facing the typical family rose from 23 to 35 percent--the top rate was 66 percent. Inflation was high, averaging more than 10 percent. In 1978, for the first time ever, the unemployment rate passed 1 percent. By 1983, it topped 5 percent. In 1984, the Government began to institute a series of economic reforms. It scrapped controls on wages, prices, and interest rates. It also phased out almost all subsidies and incentives for farming, and began charging market price for its energy supplies. Taxes were reduced--the maximum tax was halved to 33 percent. More importantly, the Government opened the economy to the outside world. In 1985, it abolished limits on foreign ownership of banks and other industries. Eventually, New Zealand privatized a great deal of its public enterprises, including telecommunications, computer services rail, airways, and so forth. This has been a boon for U.S. business. For example, Wisconsin Central Railroads purchased a large interest in the formally nationalized New Zealand Railways. Cyberstar, another Wisconsin firm, recently concluded a contract to lay fiber-optic cable in the Nelson area. Ameritech and Bell Atlantic each have a 24.82 percent interest in Telecom New Zealand, the largest company in the country by stock market capitalization. Other U.S. firms which have made substantial investments in the country are Bell South, MCI, and Time Warner, The Government announced the phaseout of export incentives, export credits, and import quotas. It also moved to end limits on who would bid for import licenses and how many such licenses each individual could hold. In addition, New Zealand allowed people to borrow from, and lend to, foreigners without Government control and ended exchange controls. Finally, the Government embarked on a downsizing in the ranks of Government employees. The Government work force has been cut by almost 53 percent in all sectors, resulting in a substantial savings to the budget. This of it, Mr. President; if only we could emulate this feat. The subsequent turnaround in the economy has been quite dramatic. The following 1994 figures are illustrative of the results: [In percent] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ New United Category Zealand States Japan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Inflation.............................. 2.8 2.7 0.7 GDP.................................... 6.2 3.8 0.2 Budget Surplus (percent GDP)........... +2.6 -1.8 -1.8 Gov't Debt (percent GDP)............... 50.7 64.7 83.4 Unemployment........................... 7.8 5.4 2.9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. President, the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, which I chair, will hold a hearing on these accomplishments on Wednesday. I look forward to hearing from the American firms is scheduled to testify, and learning more about the economic changes the last decade has wrought. In the same vein, I look forward to meeting with Prime Minister Bolger tomorrow when he visits the Senate. I believe that there are some important lessons for us to learn from New Zealand's turn-around. I, for one, will be paying close attention to what he has to tell us.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that is of very significant importance to the farmers and ranchers in my State of Wyoming and throughout the West. Let me preface by saying that Wyoming is more than 50 percent owned by the Federal Government. That includes BLM lands and includes forest lands and park lands, of course. So the decisions made by public land managers is very important to us. Recent decisions by the court have indicated that the U.S. Forest Service and perhaps the BLM, as well, must now complete environmental impact statements on environmental assessments on all term grazing permits that expire on December 31 of this year. As most of you know, much of the land in these western States is intermingled private land, Federal land, State land. So that in order to put together an economic unit of livestock, there is private land, generally, with the water, and winter feeding, and summer grazing is quite often on Federal land. And these ranchers graze there with a permit based on animal unit months and they are 10-year permits generally. Under this new environmental assessment, the review must be done under NEPA regulations. This is in addition to the environmental assessments that are already made on the forest plan. Each 10 years, each forest goes through a plan. They talk about grazing, they talk about mining, they talk about oil and gas, and other uses of these various lands. The problem now is that, in addition to that already done evaluation on grazing, the courts at least have implied that there has to be this new environmental assessment on each of these grazing leases. There are approximately 4,500 Forest Service grazing leases that expire at the end of this year. There are nearly 200 of those in Wyoming. The problem is twofold. The first part of the problem, which I think has to do with what we are talking about here, is that we already have a mechanism for taking a look at the impact of grazing on forests. We do this in a very extensive process every 10 years, and it can be amended and renewed at any time. Furthermore, those rangers and BLM employees who supervise this, any time that there is damage to grazing lands, they have the authority to do something about it. So it is redundant. It is an expense that we do not need to have. The second problem is that, assuming that it did go forward, there is no way that these can all be done prior to the end of 1995, when these grazing permits expire, and we are faced with the proposition of not having the opportunity to put these animals on public lands, and eventually the impact would be that farmers and ranchers would very likely go out of business. So, Mr. President, this bill simply says that the NEPA requirements that carried out. I think it is very consistent with what we are doing here on regulations. It is very consistent with saving a very important economic industries in the West. I urge my fellow Senators to take a look at this bill, particularly those of us from the West, and I urge the support of those who come from outside of the West for the enactment of this important bill. Because of recent court cases, it has been determined that the U.S. Forest Service must now complete an environmental assessment [EA] or full-blown environment impact statement [EIS] on all term-grazing permits that expire on December 31 of this year, in order to comply with National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] guidelines. This is in addition to the environmental analysis that is already required under NEPA for individual forest plans, which considers grazing, timber sales, mining, oil and gas permits and other actions on Forest Service System lands. This is a redundant process, and since the Forest Service has decided that livestock grazing is a continuation of an existing use for which environmental concerns have been addressed in forest plans, creates an enormous workload burden for the agency. What is worse, is the fact that no grazing permit will be reissued without the proper environmental evaluations. Forest Service officials will have to scramble to complete all of the work that will be required, and the chances of some permits being altered or dropped altogether are high. This creates a great deal of uncertainty for folks who depend on these permits for grazing livestock as their livelihood. The bill that I am introducing today corrects this problem by stating that no action needs to be taken under NEPA for renewal of a grazing permit on national Forest Service lands, which was not already addressed in the forest plan. Nationwide, approximately 4,500 Forest Service grazing permits expire at the end of this year--and within the next 3 years--1995-97--a large majority of grazing permits will expire throughout the country. In my State of Wyoming, 191 Forest Service grazing permits expire at the end of this year. I have heard from many ranchers who are extremely concerned about this process, and are worried they will not be able to graze their livestock if NEPA compliance is not completed in a timely fashion. While farmers and ranchers continue to become more productive and more efficient, they are continually faced with increased paperwork and Federal intrusion into their lives. Likewise, even though President Clinton requested an increase of $25 million for the Forest Service's fiscal year 1996 budget to help complete NEPA requirements, no permit holder is safe from losing their grazing privileges. Mr. President, it is critical for Congress to address this issue and prevent the economic problems that will occur if some relief is not given. With issues such as grazing fees and rangeland reform resurfacing again, it is important to stop this heavy-handed directive, which will put many small- and medium-sized ranchers out of business, and potentially destroy the practice of multiple use on Forest Service lands. I am proud to sponsor this piece of legislation because farming and ranching are valuable assets to Wyoming and the rest of the Western United States. Besides addressing the short-term crisis that exists with the number of grazing permits set to expire this year, the initiative also addresses the long-term effects for permits expiring in the years to come. I believe we have an excellent opportunity to work with the Forest Service and ranchers alike, on a bipartisan basis, to change this unnecessary burden and restore hope to America's farm and ranch families. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and look forward to working with them in the coming months. Mr. President, I yield the floor.