Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to talk a little bit about the self-employment health insurance tax credit that was passed last Friday. This was the right thing to do. This was something that we needed to do and need to continue so that it will be retroactive for this tax year. But I want to make the point that we have not finished yet. Last Friday was simply a reinstatement of what we have had in the past. But we need to go further. Last Friday's bill reinstates the 25-percent tax deduction for premiums on health care insurance for 1994 and increases the deduction to 30 percent for tax years beginning in 1995 and thereafter. This is a very important issue, a very important item to Americans, and a very important item to health care. There are 12 million self- employed business men and women across this country, 19,000 of whom reside in Wyoming. These business men and women can now proceed with the filing of their 1994 tax returns knowing that a portion grim enough, of course, with Uncle Sam digging deeper and deeper into the pockets of the American people. At least Congress can make it a deduction that is retroactive and finally make it permanent. That is the least that can be done because self-employed business owners, owners who put their families and hard-earned savings on the line in pursuit of the American dream, are treated unfairly and are treated without equity. The Tax Code says people who strive to be their own boss are only permitted to deduct a small percentage of health insurance with after- tax dollars. However, if you are a large corporation, you are permitted to deduct 100 percent with before-tax dollars. After-tax dollars is a critical item because it makes basic medical care twice as expensive as if it were provided by the employer. Taxes must be paid first on what a self-employed person makes, and then health insurance can be bought with what is left over. If last year's health care debate was really about expanding health care coverage, then Congress should take the opportunity to promote tax fairness among businesses large and small whether it is one employee or several hundred. There are 2.8 million uninsured self-employed proprietors in this country who could quickly purchase coverage if it was made affordable. Providing 100 percent health insurance tax deduction is at issue. The result of that would be coverage for another one-third of the population, not through Government takeover, not through price controls or employer mandates, but through a means of fairness in the Tax Code. Last Friday's action on health care should not be the final action. This body should continue to pursue changes in our national health care infrastructure to supplement the self-employed health insurance tax credit. Vital changes such as portability, prohibiting the use of preexisting conditions, and the pooling of small businesses must also be included. The result will be the elimination of job lock and exorbitant premiums for Americans. Malpractice liability reform and regulatory reform for health care providers must be included as we move forward on the list of health care costs that are ever increasing. This includes tax regulations as well as future regulations because we should be footing the bill for the unfunded mandates and will continue to do that. With the constraints facing us, Congress needs to move forward with health care reform, not in the form that we talked about last year, but to do those incremental things that we can do to make health care more affordable and more acceptable to Americans throughout the country. This is a move in the right direction to provide fairness and to provide equity. Last Friday was the beginning. I urge my colleagues to move forward with health care. It is not going to resolve everything, but there have been advances made in the private sector for the first time in 15 years and the cost to employers has gone down some. On the other hand, of course, Medicare and Medicaid continue to go up at an unacceptable rate. We have to do something about that. So, Mr. President, I am pleased with the action of last Friday in this body. I look forward to continued reform in health care. I remain committed to working for that reform.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I now yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, thank you very much for the time for this group to express its support of this issue. It seems to me that we have an opportunity to make some decisions here. We are here as trustees for the American people, as trustees who have a responsibility to be financially responsible, fiscally responsible, and morally responsible for spending. The easier thing to do is to continue as we have. Now is the chance, however, to change. To borrow from Robert Frost who said, ``Two roads diverged in the woods all the difference.'' This may be the road less traveled by, but it will indeed make all the difference. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, under the order, the freshmen have an hour reserved this morning to talk about the line-item veto. I am happy to join in that. The first to present views will be the president of the class, the Senator from Oklahoma. I yield him as much time as he may consume.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, let me simply say I endorse this notion of accountability. If there is anything that is necessary in this Government and something that this bill will help to do, it is accountability. I yield now to the Senator from Pennsylvania for as much time as he may consume.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, let me first thank the Senator from Arizona and say that I have observed him in his work in the House. He has been a real supporter of change with the line-item veto and with the balanced budget amendment, and has been a leader in the House, and continues to be that. I now yield for 4 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would just like to say briefly, I think it is significant that the freshmen have joined together in the Senate to come to speak again on this issue. Most have indicated our support. I think this is a demonstration of those who are newly elected who are taking a look, first, at what the voters said in November; and second, are not encumbered by the debates that have gone on here before, but rather are interested in making some changes in process so that there can be changes in results. I now yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I think it is interesting and important that the newer Members of the Senate have come here today to talk about the line-item veto. They have talked about accountability, accountability in Government. Nothing can be more important than that. They have talked about change, change based on issues, not change based on partisan political things. They talked as well about responsibility of the President to take a look at these items as they are returned from Congress. They talked about the fact that families do this every day. Families have to set priorities. Families have to go through their budget and say here are some things that are less important than others, we cannot afford them all, and we have to line-item veto. They have talked about business as usual, which I guess is a reasonable thing and predictable thing for new Members of the Senate to talk about because they have not been a part of business as usual. Indeed, they came here--having talked about these issues at home, having talked about them talked about items that appear in large budgets that are passed because they are in large budgets, that would not pass on their own merits, that would not even be considered if they were to stand alone. So I think it is important that this point of view be stressed. I think it is important this group of Senators who come with a little different view of the world, perhaps, in terms of not having been here, express their views in these particular areas. We have the Senator from Michigan, who will be here shortly. This is one of the items that does speak to change, one of the items that we have been considering and we are hopeful there will be passage of this week. We are hopeful that some accommodation will be made. Let me talk a little bit, however, about the broader context, it seems to me, that line-item veto fits into. We have talked about it for a week. I suspect we will talk about it for much of this week. It has been talked about last year. It has been talked about in previous years. It is not a new item, not a new issue. We have talked about the details. Maybe it is useful to talk a little bit about how it fits into a broader context, and to understand that it does have something to do with the overall role of Government, the overall size of Government, the overall impact of Government on people's lives. There is a legitimate difference. There is a legitimate reason to have debates about the things that go on here. There are those who believe more Government is better; that the Government should be expanded; that there should be more spending; that the Government should have more programs. There is another point of view, the one that I share, the one that I think was the message of this November's election. That is the Federal Government is too big and that it costs too much and that it is overly intrusive into all aspects of our lives. That is a legitimate debate. In fact, that is the core of much of the debate that goes on here, what you perceive to be the role of Government and what, indeed, then, goes with that. If you see more Government, then there are going to be more regulations. If you see more Government there are going to be more taxes, or more debt, or both. But, in fact, if you see the role of Government as one of a referee, one whose primary responsibility is defense, and ensuring fairness, ensuring opportunity, then you see the Government as somewhat smaller, as something less intrusive. And that is really the underlying debate in much of what we talk about, the role of Government--and, of course, who pays for it. That has been true in the procedural issues that we have talked about, the issues that have to do with changing the process, with changing the structure of the way decisions are made. Frankly, if you expect to have a different result you are going to have to do something different. If you want to continue to do everything in the same way as you have in the past, then the expectation is the results are going to be the same. If we continue to use the same process there is no reason to expect that the debt or the deficit is going to be smaller. We will be voting this summer on a new debt limit. That new debt limit will be $5 trillion or more--$5 trillion debt. Each of us as citizens shares in that debt. The interest payment on that debt will soon be the second largest item, line item in the Federal budget. This year I think it is somewhere in the neighborhood of $260 to $265 billion interest on the debt. So the procedural things we have talked about have to do with changing the results. The balanced budget amendment is a procedural change, one that in my view needs to be made. Line-item veto, another of those--not to balance the budget, it will not balance the budget--but it changes the character of budget considerations; it changes how you look; it changes some of the responsibilities. We have to change budgeting, change it so we start from a base that is the same as last year's spending, not a baseline that goes up. That is what has caused much of the discussion around the country, that everything is being cut. The fact is it is not being cut. There was a group in my office yesterday talking about an educational program, about the cuts. The fact is the cut is 25 percent of the increase. It is not a cut. But based on budgeting it seems to be a cut. So we continue to spend more with the sort of notion that we have had a cut, and indeed we have not had a cut at all, we have had an increase. These are the kinds of changes that do need to be made. Line-item veto needs to be there because things are done differently. Someone the other day on the floor showed an early--150 years ago--bill on appropriations: On one page. On the other hand, we looked at one that is 2\1/2\ pounds now. My favorite story, of course, is always the Lawrence Welk Museum that is in the highway bill. In the House we had no opportunity to talk about the Lawrence Welk Museum. We did not want to vote against the highway bill. The Lawrence Welk Museum would have never gotten any attention at all had it had to stand on its own merit, but it was there and line-item veto is what that is all about. So we do have big bills. We have big deficits. And the fact of the matter is it is difficult. All of us have a certain parochial interest. That is the way it is. I represent Wyoming. The President represents Vermont. We all have a parochial interest, and should. So we are for things that are for our State. It is very difficult to be against somebody else's proposal, because you want their help. That is a fact of life. It is a fact of life. So we do need a line-item veto. And there are pork-barrel activities. So, Mr. President, it begins to be increasingly important that we do take a look at these structural changes. The argument that we do not need to change things, we can just change them because they should be changed--the evidence does not support that. How many years has it been since we balanced the budget--25? Maybe five times in 50 years? So that does not work. Now is the time to make that tough decision. And we have an opportunity here to do that. We have an opportunity to pass a bill that has had support in this Chamber, more than enough to pass it, and now is the time. Mr. President, I now yield to the Senator from Arizona for as much time as he may consume.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I now yield to the Senator from Ohio for 10 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this morning, the leader time has been reserved and the Senate will immediately resume consideration of S. 4, the line-item veto bill. In accordance with the consent agreement reached last night, the cloture vote on the majority leader's substitute amendment to S. 4 will occur at 6 p.m. this evening. All Senators should be aware that there are several pending amendments to the substitute. Therefore, rollcall votes may occur throughout the day today. Also, the majority leader has indicated that a late night session can be expected in order to complete action on the line-item veto bill this week.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I rise today to address a disturbing article in last Thursday's Washington Post. According to the Post, last Wednesday the mayor of Nagasaki, Motoshima Hitoshi, likened the two 1945 bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the Holocaust. He said, and I quote, ``I think that the atomic bombings were one of the two greatest crimes against humanity in the 20th century, along with the Holocaust.'' He was joined in these sentiments by Hiraoka Takashi, the mayor of Hiroshima. Mr. President, I am incensed by this comparison, and by what appears to me to be a growing revisionist tendency among some circles in Japan aimed at sanitizing its role as the aggressor and transforming it into the innocent victim of the atomic bomb. History is replete with instances which provide ample justification for the course the United States took to end years of war. For the benefit of these two gentlemen, let me note some of those facts. On December 7, 1941, without notice or declaration of war, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, HI. I do not need to describe for my colleagues the carnage and death that followed. From that point, Japan engaged us in a protracted and costly war that ranged over the Pacific rim for more than 4 years and cost thousands and thousands of lives. Treatment of Allied prisoners of war was unconscionable. For Americans fighting in the Pacific theater, the likehood of dying in combat was about 5 percent. For American POW's in German prison camps, it was 4 percent. But for those in Japanese prison camps the number ran to 33 percent. Executions, tortures, the Bataan Death March, the record is replete with atrocities for which the victims have yet--50 years later--to receive an apology. It is somewhat ironic that also in the same edition of the Post is a lengthy article entitled, ``Still Waiting for an Apology: Historian Gavan Daws, Calling on Japan on War Crimes.'' I would commend it to Messrs. Hiraoka and Motoshima; they might learn a thing or two from it. A special unit of the Imperial Army, called Unit 731, conducted research in germ warfare with an aim at introducing plague, anthrax, and other fatal diseases into the United States. As the theater of war moved closer to the home islands, the United States and its Allies were reduced to fighting their way toward Japan on an island-by-island basis. The battles were costly--both in lives, time, and materiel. Just this week we remembered the 50th anniversary of the taking of Iwo Jima. In that battle, some 20,000 Japanese fought to the death--many committing seppuku rather than surrender. that this would be the course of the remainder of the war. Several Allied surrender ultimatums were rejected offhand by the Japanese. Thus, as the war drew to a close in Europe, we were clearly faced with a choice in Asia; do something to bring a quick end to our losses and suffering, or continue a painfully long, drawn-out, costly conflict. President Truman chose the only alternative a nation's leader would, and the bombs fell. Yet, some in Japan can overlook all that came before the bombs. Some can reduce Japan from the vigorous aggressor to the passive victim. Mr. Hiraoka seems to be of that ilk. For example, he emphasized that several early multinational conventions prohibited deliberate attacks on civilians, then proceeded to list those nations which did not live up to that ideal during the war era: German attacks on London, the United States firebombing of Tokyo, the British-led firebombing of Dresden. Yet, conspicuously absent from his list is the country behind the first such indiscriminate bombing: Japan. On December 1, 1937, the Imperial Army Headquarters in Tokyo ordered an attack on Nanjing, China. The planes came and laid waste to the city and its population; estimates of the civilian losses range from 100,000 to 200,000. The attack lives on in the minds of many Chinese as one of the most infamous events of the 20th century. Mr. President, the present strong relationship between the United States and Japan is of the utmost importance to us. I personally enjoy my nascent relationship with Kuriyama Takakazu, Japan's Ambassador here in Washington. But statements like those made by these two mayors cannot go unanswered; for to fail to rebut such revisionism is simply to lend credence to it.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I have risen over the past week several times to voice my support for a line-item veto. It seems to me it is one of the things that we need to change procedurally. We need a change procedurally to make a change in this country. This morning, however, I listened with great interest to one of our friends on the other side of the aisle who said these things that we are dealing with in the Senate over the last 2 months have been quick fixes, that we have been dealing with items that are simply short-term gimmicks. I simply cannot let that go by without some response. It seems to me that very clearly over the past number of years the product from this Government, the product from this Congress, the product from this Senate, has not been what almost anyone would want. And in November the voters said we want some change. If you are going to have change in the outcome, if you are going to have change in the product, you have to change the way you do things. That is what these past several months have been about. That is what the election was about, it seems to me, in November. It was about things like a balanced budget amendment and putting some discipline into the process so that the Congress could, in fact, balance income with outgo. It was about term limits, so that there could be some end to the amount of services that are carried on from one particular district when no one else in any other district can do anything about that. It was about a line-item veto where we seek to get some of the unnecessary pork-barrel kinds of things out of the huge budget that are presented to the President. These are not gimmicks. These are changes in process. These are changes that cause things to happen that cause a different result. The line-item veto is simply a reasonable response, it seems to me, to the idea that bills become so voluminous, so broad and so changed that there needs to be some way to reach into them and take out those things that are not relevant, that are not appropriate, that would not stand at all on their own merit. And there are a great many of those, particularly here in the Senate where the rules allow for amendments that are not necessarily consistent with the bill. In the House there are rules that are stricter, but here they are not. I understand that. I respect that. But it allows for things to be hidden in the highway bill that have nothing to do with highways, that would not stand for 5 minutes on their own merit. So we need a process to change that. That is what the line-item veto is all about. It is not a gimmick. It is not a short-term fix. In fact, it is a proven way of doing it. It is done in more than 40 States, and has been done for years, and successfully, in my State of Wyoming. Is the balanced budget amendment a short-term gimmick? Give me a break. It is not a short-term gimmick at all. What it is is a response to 25 years without a balanced budget; 50 years with something like five balanced budgets. It is a response to performance. It is a response to the question of, Do you think it is financially and morally responsible to balance the budget, to not spend more than you take in? That is a pretty reasonable question. The answer is almost invariably yes, that is immoral; yes, that is irresponsible; yes, we do need to change it. We have not changed it. There is no sign of changing it unless there is some discipline. Some discipline applies to the process. That is what the balanced budget is about. Are term limits short-term gimmicks? I do not think so. This place is built on seniority. It is built on how long you have been here. That is fine. The problem is, people say, ``Well, you have an election every 2 years. You have an election every 4 years. You can change that.'' People in Wyoming cannot do anything about it, nor in Colorado or Massachusetts or somewhere else. So you have an extraordinary amount of authority lying in someone who happens to be there for 40 years and is not going to be exchanged by his people at home because of that authority. Term limits make some sense. These are not short-term gimmicks. Unfortunately, we have seen over the last month the sort of rapid response team of those who are opposed to change. Every time there is an idea that we ought to change something, suddenly there is this great aroused response that, no, we cannot do that because it is a short-term gimmick. Mr. President, the real test, it seems to me, of responsive government, the real test of good government, is if there is indeed a response in Government from the requests and demands of voters. That is not a new concept contrary to something that should happen in democracy. It is something that has happened in this country for years. In the 1800's, even up to the 1930's, in every generation, there was a response from voters and a change in government--as there should be. In the beginning, however, in the 1930's when Government became larger and a greater part of our lives, the change becomes more difficult. As I remember the numbers of President Roosevelt in the 1930's, there was something like 75,000 people who worked for the Federal Government. Now there is something like 3 million. So there is great resistance to change in the bureaucracy. There is probably even a higher percentage of resistance to change by the number of lawyers in Washington. That is great resistance to change. In addition, of course, as Government gets larger, it develops a sort of a dependency on Government and voters become more resistant to really take a look at the notion of what the Federal Government ought to be. What should we expect from the Federal Government? The message, I believe, was clearly we have too much Government and it costs too much. It is not easy to change that. It is a painful experience to change that. It is much easier to continue to do what we have been doing. Lots of good people come to Washington who are uneasy about the future, who really do not have strong feelings about change, but it is easier to go forward the way it is. Change is not easy. But that is what we are asked to do. That is what is necessary to do. The White House liaison people were by this morning, and I was delighted to meet with them. I asked them if the White House was for a line-item veto. ``Yes, sir. The President is very much for line-item veto. He has made that clear.'' That ought to have some impact. I hope that is communicated wholly to our friends on the other side of the aisle. So, clearly, we need to change the way we do things if we are going to expect the change in the results. Things we have been doing--the procedural things--are not nearly as much Republicans versus Democrats as those who are willing to make some changes and those who are for the status quo. We simply cannot continue to do that. This is a time when we need change. And for those who resist it, I say, come on, get over it; we have to make changes, do some things right. We have to balance the budget, we have to have line-item veto to do something about pork barrel. We can do it. We simply have to come to the post and get after it. Now is the time. Thank you.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to address these issues. When we are in prolonged debate, one could say everything has been said. We go on because everyone has not yet said it. Nevertheless, this is an issue that is very important, and we do need to have a process in which the issue will be brought fairly to the Senate for the Senate to act upon. Let me talk just a little bit in more general terms. The gentleman from Indiana has spelled out very eloquently and very completely the detail of a line-item veto. It is not a new issue. It has been talked about for years. It was talked about, as a matter of fact, in developing the Constitution. Many constitutional scholars from time to time have argued that there is no need for a line-item veto; that, in fact, the language of the Constitution provides that. Unfortunately, the Court has never agreed to that idea even though it clearly does give the President the opportunity to return bills to the Congress. So it is not a new issue. Neither is it a new issue in terms of having been tried. It is done in many States. It is done in my State of Wyoming, and done very successfully, I might add. From time to time, the legislature overrides the Governor's veto. More often, I suppose, they do not. I suspect that that is an indication that that element of the bill should not have prevailed. We are really here to talk about change: change in procedure and change in structure, structure in the operation of Congress, that will result in changes in the product of Congress. I think the most compelling truism is that if we as citizens have not been happy with the performance of Congress over time we cannot expect any different results if we continue to do the same thing. If there was one clear message that came, certainly, from this past election, it was that people wanted change, wanted structural change, wanted procedural change. Now we have an opportunity in this Congress for the first time in a very long time, an opportunity to rethink some things, an opportunity to look at new ideas, an opportunity to actually do some of the things that have been talked about for a very long time. There is reason to do that. We have had a history in recent years of continuing to simply do the same thing, and the Congress would appropriate more money to show that, if we had more money, we could cause it to happen. The fact is, that many of the programs have failed, are failing. Welfare--welfare is not doing the thing that it is designed to do. Welfare is designed to provide help for the needy, to help them get back into the marketplace. It is not doing that. How many years have we had a war on poverty? And the fact is that poverty is more prominent now than it was when we started the war. These programs are failing. Financial responsibility--certainly one cannot look at the size of Government, one cannot look at the deficit and suggest that the effort for financial responsibility has been successful. It has not. Pork barrel? Of course, we have pork barrel. So we need structural changes, and this is one of them. There were several and they are talked about often because I think they are very important and should, indeed, be talked about: Balanced budget amendment, the proper thing to do. And really, there are a lot of details one can go through but you really start with the basic question. In that instance, the question is, Is it morally right, is it fiscally right to balance the budget, to not spend more in outlays than you take in, in revenues? And the answer is almost unanimously yes, of course, it is right. Then you deal with the issue of how do you accomplish it, how do you get there. Unfunded mandates--something that has been needed for a very long time--has finally been accomplished, not as thoroughly as some would like, but, nevertheless, accomplished, and very important. If we are to begin to downsize Government and to begin to shift some of the responsibilities to States, there needs to be the protection against unfunded mandates. Accountability, it is almost unbelievable that the Congress had a bill saying Congress has to live under the same laws as everybody else. I cannot believe that has not always been true, but it has not. Line-item veto is a structural change that needs to take place. It is not going to balance the budget, of course, but what it is going to do is to change the way we look at budgeting. It is going to give the President--by the way, he is really the only political person that has a broad enough base to reach into bills and veto things that should not be there. I guess my greatest example is in the House, when we had a highway bill, a highway bill that everybody wanted to pass, of course, everybody wanted it so we could go forward with the highway program, and in it was the Lawrence Welk Museum, half a million dollars for the Lawrence Welk Museum. Never would it have passed on its own merits. Had it been an individual bill, it never would have passed, but we had no way to reach in and get it. I told that story, by the way, in a speech I made in North Dakota. That was the wrong place to do it. They were sort of excited about having that. In any event, we should have a way to deal with those, and that is what this is all about. So, Mr. President, there will be a great deal of discussion, and there should be. There will be a great deal of talk about details and alternatives, and there should be. There can be alternatives, but the fact is there is a principle involved here, and the principle is to change the structure so that we can have a line-item veto to help balance the approach to financing and to budgets. I rise in strong support for passage of a line-item veto. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today as chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on East Asia and Pacific Affairs to join in the sentiments of my colleagues on Taiwan, and particularly 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. If this were not such a serious matter, it would almost be amusing, the lengths to which the administration goes to avoid any perceived official entanglements. Representatives of the Taiwan Government are prohibited from physically entering the State Department or the Pentagon buildings. Any United States Government employee who goes to work to represent United States interests in Taiwan and who also works for the State Department must first resign from the State Department before being allowed to go. One has to carefully choose what one calls the island's government to avoid slighting Beijing: Is it the Republic of China, is it the Republic of China on Taiwan, Taiwan, or the Republic of Taiwan? Finally, the last humiliation to which we subject our ally brings us here this morning. This 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 it clear it will not permit him entry. The only people that this country systematically excludes from entry to its shores are felons or criminals, terrorists, and individuals with dangerous communicable diseases. How is it possible that this administration can see fit to add the President of Asia's oldest republic to the list? We have allowed representatives of the PLO and the Sinn Fein to enter this country, yet we exclude a visit by an upstanding private citizen? I think we have made it clear to Beijing--I know I have tried to--of the great importance to us of our strong relationship with that country. This relationship should in my opinion transcend squabbles over diplomatic minutia. 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 other's needs and concerns in order to further strengthen our relationships. However, I believe that the People's Republic of China needs to recognize the reality of the situation. Both Taiwan and the People's Republic of China are strong, economically vibrant entities. Both share a common heritage and a common culture and yet have chosen political systems that are mutually exclusive. Despite these differences, the United States has a strong and important relationship with them both, and we need to continue those relationships. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I come to the floor during this morning business to talk about several things, to sort of reflect a little bit on the 2 months that we have been here, a little over 2 months. First of all, of course, it is a great honor to be a part of this body and to represent the State of Wyoming in the U.S. Senate. We have to observe that we have dealt with a limited number of items while we have been here. Many of us are filled with some kinds of mixed emotions, recognizing and respecting the deliberative nature of the Senate and, at the same time, having some frustration with the slowness of the deliberations and the lack of movement on some of the issues that we consider to be very important. As an American, of course, I believe that we want our institutions to be thoughtful and to fully explore issues, but also in a timely way to decide and to move on. That is what deliberation is all about. There is, I believe, an agenda in this country. Everyone can read the past election as they choose, but it seems pretty certain that a number of things were on the minds of American voters. One of them is that most people believe we have too much government, that it costs too much, that we need to have in our lives less government, less cost, and less regulation. Of course, you can talk about the details of how do you do that, but, nevertheless, it is an agenda. These were issues that were defined in the last election and they are issues that need to be dealt with by this Congress and by this Senate. One of the measures of good government, I believe, is the responsiveness that its institutions have to the people as they vote. We have, as a result of the election, I think, the best opportunity that has been before us for 40 years to take a look at some of the things we do. Over the last number of years, about all the opportunities available were to add to programs that we had, put more money in programs that we had. Now we have a chance and we have a Congress that is willing to think through programs again and see if, in fact, they are delivering as they were designed to deliver. In order to make this a useful discussion, of course, there has to be a stipulation that those who are interested in looking to change are just as caring and just as concerned about people as those who are opposed to change. And I think that is a fair and honest stipulation. The question is what we are doing in seeing if there is a better way to provide services for the needy. Is there a better way to determine who those services should go to? Is there a more efficient way of delivering those services? That I think is what the change is about. We need to have this institution to be the kind of institution that will take a look at these things and then move forward and decide. We really do not need a rapid response team that is opposed to change. And the controversy--many of the issues are not between Republicans and Democrats--the controversy lies between those who would like to see some things done differently and those who basically do not want change. There is a legitimate difference of view. There is a legitimate argument between those who think more government, more spending is better for the country, and those like myself, who do not agree, who think that, indeed, we can do it with less government, turning more responsibility to people, turning more of an opportunity for families to spend their own money, stimulating the economy. We are now, today and in the next couple of days, debating the Kassebaum amendment with respect to replacement of strikers, an issue that we went through in the House and in the Senate last year in great detail. So I rise in strong support of that amendment. I think it is the will of the Congress. We have been through that. We have been through some 60 years of experience. Frankly, it has worked pretty well and there has been very little deviation from that in terms of hiring replacements. Someone on the floor the other day said, ``Is this the agenda of the new majority, to make it tougher for working people, to make it tougher for single mothers to have jobs?'' Of course not. That is an absurd idea. I think the idea of the new majority is to find a balance between labor and management, to find a way in which there is an environment where business can grow and jobs can be created, where the Federal Government is not an advocate for either of the parties in these kinds of controversies. I think that is what the Kassebaum amendment is all about. Madam President, I thank you for the time. It is difficult to know how we should proceed. But there is a great deal before the Senate. We have a great many things to decide. In fact, we Once they have been totally explored, we look forward to making a decision and not to obstruct a decision. I look forward very much to the continuing efforts on the part of this body to respond to voters, responding to the people in this country in making decisions on major items, in the first opportunity in many years we have had to explore finding ways to do things in a better way. I think the war on poverty is a good example. It has been going on for what--30 years? Twenty years? The fact of the matter is we are less well off now than we were then in terms of the things that the war on poverty was designed to resolve. It makes it pretty clear, if you want different results, you have to start doing things differently. you cannot expect different results by continuing to do the same thing. So I look forward to the continued discussion. I look forward to dealing with the issues that the House has dealt with. However the majority here decides to deal with them is fine; I just suggest we come to grips with them, that we move forward, that we do not lose the momentum of an election, that we do not lose the interest and the interest of the American people in taking a look at questions like a balanced budget amendment, like line-item veto, like term limits, like accountability. All of those are issues that really deserve our best attention and final decision. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs I come to the floor of the Senate this afternoon to briefly respond to certain statements made yesterday by representatives of the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea regarding the agreed framework between our two countries governing the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's nuclear program. North Korea has, for the second time in a month, again threatened to scuttle the agreement by making ludicrous take-it-or-leave-it demands. This time, it refuses to accept delivery from the Republic of Korea of two light-water reactors called for under the framework. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea's Foreign Ministry issued a statement in Switzerland stating that if the United States does not agree to another country furnishing the reactors, ``because of the United States' attitude in insisting on supplying the South Korea type, we will be forced to take an appropriate position.'' The statement continued, ``Even if that brings about the breakdown of the framework agreement * * * we will have nothing to lose but fear.'' Mr. President, I--and, I am sure, my colleagues--grow weary of the continual 11th hour posturing and brinkmanship which seems to be the mainstay of the North's negotiating strategy. In a speech in the Senate on February 13, 1995, I made clear my position: I will not support the provision by the United States of one scintilla more than is called for in the Agreed Framework without substantial concessions from the DPRK; nor will I accept any diminution of the central role that has been set out for the ROK. South Korea is making a huge contribution to implementing the agreement, and it is their national interest that is most at stake. To accede to any demands by the DPRK in this regard is to assist it in its ongoing attempts to undermine US-ROK relationship. This apparently bears repeating to drive it home to the North. If the Democratic People's Republic of Korea thinks that we will capitulate on the reactor issue, it is seriously mistaken. To put it into words that the Government in Pyongyang cannot mistake, its wish for reactors manufactured elsewhere is like a hungry man looking at ``keurim eui teok i da,'' rice cakes in a picture. The North Koreans need to know, clearly and unequivocally, that on this point the Congress and administration are in complete and unwavering agreement; there is no acceptable alternative. We will stand by our position, stand by our principles, and most importantly stand by our important ally South Korea. If Pyongyang chooses to abandon the agreement, then so be it, we will quickly find ourselves back at the U.N. Security Council where the Democratic People's Republic of Korea will find itself the subject of tough economic sanctions. Mr. President, next week at my behest the members of the Foreign Relations Committee will meet with Ambassador Galucci. I look forward to that meeting both as an opportunity to hear first hand about these latest developments, and as a chance to reiterate my position for the administration.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, the No- Net-Loss of Private Lands Act. Mr. President, this is a bill that I think is a commonsense approach that would begin to slow and halt the Federal Government's continual land acquisition in the public land States. This is an issue that is peculiar to the West; peculiar to public land States. As you know, as the original States grew at the Mississippi River and beyond, as the States came into the Union, they acquired all the lands that lay within their States. They even went into private ownership, or in fact belonged to the State. Those kinds of things that were of public interest, such as parks and forests and others, were withdrawn later by the Government for a particular use. I certainly support that idea. In the West, however, it was handled differently. There was a period of time for homestead, and much of the public land was taken up. But there were incentives to take it up. However, the West is peculiar. The arid States are peculiar in that the lands pretty much rely on the water. They rely on the feed for livestock. homestead time was over. These were simply lands that were there when all the private ownership was done. So they were managed by the Federal Government. And in fact, the organic act of the land management agencies indicated that they would be held prior to pending disposal. The fact is, to make a long story short, there was no disposal, and that they are now permanently managed by the Federal Government. The Federal Government continues in addition to that to acquire substantial amounts of land throughout the Nation in every State. I think people are saying it is time to slow or stop the growth of the Federal Government in its land ownership and to limit its ever- increasing impact on our lives. In my State of Wyoming, approximately 50 percent of the surface belongs to the Federal Government, and more, as a matter of fact, in the subsurface in the State. But when half of your State belongs to the Federal Government and is managed by Federal land managers, then your economic future depends a great deal upon how the management takes place and what happens in those lands. Other Western States have an even higher percentage of Federal ownership. For example, in Idaho it is 61 percent; Utah, 63 percent; and, in Nevada, nearly 85 percent of that State is owned and managed by the Federal Government. Unfortunately, particularly, in recent years, as the economies begin to grow, the Federal Government has not always been a good neighbor to the people of the West. The Federal land management agencies continue to make it more difficult, and continue to lock up vast amounts of land in the West. We are not talking here in multiple use of parks or wilderness. We are talking about lands that have been set aside for multiple use and the Federal Government--and particularly this administration--has made it increasingly difficult to use these lands as multiple use for timber harvest, for grazing, and for mining. All these uses, many of which are compatible ones with another, play a very important part, of course, in our economy. So there has indeed and continues to be a ``war in the West.'' Just yesterday we had some hearings to talk about domestic energy. One of the issues that certainly is a part of that is the difficulty of access to public lands for exploration and production of minerals. It has been almost a deathblow to the domestic oil industry in the West. Recently, the General Accounting Office released a report detailing the growth of the amount of lands and found that over the last 3 decades the Federal land ownership has increased dramatically. In the fiscal year 1994 alone, the Federal land management agencies acquired an additional 203,000 acres of land in the United States. These increases, of course, were a result of expansion to the forests or wildlife refuges or national parks. I have no objection to that. As a matter of fact, when there is a reason to acquire lands for a public purpose that is determined through the process, I have no problem with it. The purpose of this bill is to say that in States where more than 25 percent of the surface is owned by the Federal Government and when additional lands are acquired, there should be lands of equal value disposed; a fairly simple concept, and I think a fairly fair concept. It is particularly, of course, appropriate only for the West, only with those States with more than 25 percent. It seems to me it is a fairness issue. It puts the West in sort of the same position as the rest of the States. It is an equity issue. It certainly is an issue of economics for us. So I am very pleased to introduce this bill. I have a number of cosponsors. I urge my colleagues to take a look at this bill and see if they think there is fairness causing the Federal Government through trades or sales to dispose of lands of equal value to additional lands that are acquired. It is time for the Federal Government to take a look at itself. Of course, that is what this whole Congress has been about; making some fundamental changes in Government in terms of the size of Government, in terms of the cost of the Government, and in terms of shifting those things--that can be managed better in the private sector or by the States--back to the private sector and to the States. This bill is consistent with that view.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Thomas pertaining to the introduction of S. 518 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am proud to rise today to urge the passage of House Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I am profoundly convinced that the future of our Government, indeed the future of our country, depends upon reaching a measure of financial responsibility. I am equally convinced that failure to pass this amendment will result in continued deficit spending and added burdens of debt and interest payments. As Members of this body, we are honored to be trustees in the area of public policy for those who we represent, for the people of the United States. The financial stewardship of this Congress has not met the test of fiscal and moral responsibility. I am persuaded that the people of Wyoming demand that Congress respond to their voice in November. They called for smaller Government, less expensive Government. The test of good Government is the responsiveness of that Government to the will of the people. We have that opportunity today.