[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 46 (Monday, March 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3826-S3827]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        RESPONDING TO THE PEOPLE

  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 
[[Page S3827]] should be deciding them. That is what votes are about. 
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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
proceed as if in morning business for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair.
  

                          ____________________