S6848 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

among teens, are wrong; they are a prescription for disastrous outcomes for

both the mother and the child—both

will undoubtedly be seriously disadvantaged for the remainder of their lives.

We must preach—and I do mean

preach—that marriage is the proper social unit in which to have and raise a

child. We must, each of us, discourage

illegitimacy as harmful to the parents,

the child and society at large. And we

must do it now. This is not an issue we

can push to the back burner. We are in

a serious crisis now, and every single

indicator points to it getting worse

each and every year into the foreseeable future.

These are some of the threshold issues that I believe must be addressed in

whatever reform package reaches the

Senate floor. When the debate begins, I

hope it will not become another missed

opportunity. I hope we will work on

the reform together. I hope we will do

it right, with firmness but fairness.

And I hope it will produce the desired

results. Our efforts will impact all of

our lives in one way or another. But it

will affect more directly the lives of

our children and their children.

WELCOMING HER MAJESTY QUEEN

SIRIKIT OF THAILAND

fMr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, this

month the United States is privileged

to welcome Her Majesty Queen Sirikit

of Thailand. She is here as an honored

guest. On May 25 Queen Sirikit will be

awarded the degree of Doctor of Humane Letters by the Johns Hopkins

University. On Tuesday, May 16, Queen

Sirikit became the first woman ever to

receive the prestigious Lindbergh

Award. In the words of the Charles A.

and Anne Morrow Lindbergh Foundation, Her Majesty was honored for her

‘‘educational and humanitarian efforts,

her conservation and wildlife preservation work, and programs which are

maintaining the Thai heritage and culture.’’

The description does not begin to do

justice to Queen Sirikit’s 45-year effort

to care for the people of her country, to

improve their health and living standards, and to preserve their environmental and cultural heritage. She has

given generously of her time and energy to traditional humanitarian

causes. She has served as honorary

president of the Council of Social Welfare of Thailand, an organization of 150

public and private social work agencies. In her capacity as president of the

Thai Red Cross, a position she has held

since 1956, she established shelters for

refugees from the war in Cambodia.

But her particular genius, and I do not

use that word lightly, the accomplishment for which the queen has been

honored by the United Nations and for

which she was awarded the first International Humanitarian Award by the

Friends of the Capital Children’s Museum in 1992, has been in finding ways

to preserve traditional Thai culture

and ecology while simultaneously

making life easier for impoverished

farmers and hill tribes.

Her deep concern for the welfare of

the Thai people is matched by her

knowledge of their needs. Her husband,

His Majesty King Shumibol Adulyadej,

has made it his admirable policy to

‘‘visit the people’’, spending more than

half of each year traveling around

Thailand, often to remote areas accessible only by helicopter or jeep. Accompanying him on his trips, the queen

witnessed at first hand the hardships of

rural life, the damage to forests, wildlife and water supplies caused by primitive farming practices and the threat

posed by modernization to traditional

Thai arts and crafts. It was her inspiration to, in effect, capitalize culture, to

train farm families in producing handicrafts which could be sold to bring in

regular income. Since 1978, Queen

Sirikit’s SUPPORT Foundation has

trained 30,000 such families in crafts

ranging from ceramics to silk-weaving

to bamboo basketry.

In 1982, the Queen initiated the Forest-Loves-Water project, to demonstrate that SUPPORT handicrafts

projects could encourage reforestation.

At Ban Mae Tam village, the rich teak

forests once threatened by illegal logging are being replaced. Villagers able

to earn a living from cottage industries

do not need to rely on tree-cutting or

slash-and-burn farming for subsistence.

Under her gentle leadership, through

encouragement and practical training,

solutions are being found to pressing

environmental problems.

Queen Sirikit’s likeness is on the

Cares Medal awarded by the Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations. This is an honor reserved for

women who by their lives and their

work have helped to lift the status of

women. It is a beautiful medal, reflecting the beauty of spirit of its model, a

woman whose motto has always been

‘‘To give without discrimination.’’ It is

always a pleasure to welcome Her Majesty to the United States, and to tell

her how much we admire her efforts on

behalf of the Thai people.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, this

GEORGIA AND LARRY TALSMA

fweek I have been fortunate to visit

with two citizens from Springfield,

SD—Georgia and Larry Talsma. Georgia and Larry made their first trip ever

to Washington, DC, by car. The

Talsmas are the quintessential hardworking South Dakota ranch family.

They and their ancestors have worked

the land for five generations. They

know the importance of proper stewardship of the land, because without

this respect there would be nothing for

the next generation.

The Talsmas came to Washington to

tell their story of how the Federal Government is intruding on their land and

threatening to take over their private

property. Amazing as this may sound,

Mr. President, it is true.

In 1991, Congress passed legislation to

designate the 39-mile segment of the

Missouri River from the headwaters of

Lewis and Clark Lake to the Ft. Randall Dam as a recreational river to be

administered by the National Park

Service. Today, however, the process to

achieve this designation has raised

great controversy. In fact, the local

citizens along this segment of the Missouri River now question the need for

the designation. I agree with those

South Dakotans, including the

Talsmas.

During the first public meeting on

the designation, pamphlets were handed out describing how the Park Service

acquires private property. Mr. President, most, if not all, of the South Dakotans in attendance were not even

aware of the river designation, let

alone the possibility of the Federal

Government condemning their land

and buying it out from under them.

Their concerns and fears were fed by

representatives of the National Park

Service who stated that if they, the

Park Service, cannot own this land,

then they will control it.

This morning I asked the Director of

the National Park Service to come to

my office and listen to the Talsmas. At

that meeting I told the Director that I

intended to introduce legislation to

undo the designation in South Dakota.

This is an effort the Talsmas and other

South Dakotans strongly support.

I also asked the Director to listen to

the Talsmas and see what steps could

be taken by the Park Service to address the needs of South Dakotans.

While Director Kennedy informed the

Talsmas that the Park Service did not

want to buy or control their land or

claim eminent domain, the Talsmas

correctly pointed out that the ‘‘Devil is

in the details.’’

The Talsmas informed the Director

they were being told just the opposite

at the public meetings and that is why

they felt they had to come to Washington to get their message across. Their

primary concern is not for themselves,

but for their children and future generations of South Dakotans who depend on the land for their survival.

I am pleased to report that due to the

efforts of the Talsmas, something good

came out of the meeting. First, the

Park Service agreed to push back the

deadline for a preferred alternative to

no earlier than August 1, 1995. Just a

few days ago the Talsmas were told

they had only 5 days to review and

comment on the preferred alternatives.

This extreme time limit simply is not

fair. I told the Director that South Dakotans needed the time to tell their

story and have input into the decisionmaking process. Director Kennedy

agreed.

Director Kennedy also assured the

Talsmas there would be at least a 60-

day comment period on any preferred

alternative. If more time is needed, Director Kennedy said he would be willing to provide such time.

Director Kennedy also told me his office would provide legislative language
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6849

to me that would assure local control

over the river. I look forward to reviewing the language and if appropriate will push for its immediate approval by the Congress.

Mr. President, I will continue to

work with Georgia and Larry Talsma

and other South Dakota landowners to

see that their property and their rights

are fully protected, and are not overrun by the Federal Government.

Federal policy is moving ever closer

toward infringement of individual private property rights. One of America’s

founding principles is the right of citizens to own private property. These

rights must be closely guarded.

Mr. President, I am proud South Dakota has citizens such as Georgia and

Larry Talsma. Their determination,

and hard work actually moved Washington to action. They had to take

time off their ranching chores and

drive all the way to Washington to

move a bureaucratic mountain. I am

please they achieved progress.

I am proud of the Talsmas and what

they have accomplished. They are to be

commended. Their battle is not over

yet, but Mr. President, their action is

proof that this is a government of and

for the people.

Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, what is

the status at the present time? Are we

under a time limitation?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. We remain in morning business until 12

o’clock. Statements, unless under a

previous order, are limited to 5 minutes each.

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent to proceed in morning business for

not to exceed 10 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

A HISTORIC DEBATE ON THE

BUDGET RESOLUTION

fMr. GORTON. Mr. President, in less

than an hour, the Senate will begin a

truly historic debate on a budget resolution reported by the Senate Budget

Committee. It is a budget resolution

which, for the first time, perhaps, since

the Budget Act was passed a quarter of

a century ago, seriously proposes to

put this Nation on the road to a balanced Federal budget.

Mr. President, lip service has been

promised to that goal by many of those

who voted against a constitutional

amendment to require a balanced budget, as well as by those who voted for

that budget. Most of the former group,

however, now find something wrong

with this proposal, just as they have

with any preceding attempts to balance the budget. In theory, they are in

favor of reaching that goal, but in

practice they have never actually seen

the way in which it ought to be

reached.

Perhaps the best evidence of this

proposition, Mr. President, is that

while the minority party in this body

is almost—I say almost, not quite—

without exception opposed to the budget resolution that is before us, that

same minority party in the House of

Representatives is putting up as an alternative essentially the Senate budget

resolution and praising it as much superior to the one that will actually

pass the House of Representatives. I

think they do that with full confidence

that the proposal will not pass, that

the alternative will not pass in the

House, and it is therefore safe for them

to praise it and, in some cases, to vote

in favor of it.

This balanced budget here in the Senate, together with the one in the

House, will have tremendous positive

impacts on the American people. It will

result in a significantly greater increase in family income all across this

country because of lower interest rates

and greater job opportunities. And

those positive impacts will vastly overshadow any temporary negative impacts of the loss of various Federal subsidies.

Before we begin that formal debate, I

want to make a few remarks about the

downpayment on a balanced budget,

the rescissions bill, which is about to

go to the President of the United

States and which the President announced yesterday that he intended to

veto.

This rescissions bill—this cancellation of some of the spending proposed

by the last Congress—amounts to

about 1 percent of the current year’s

budget. Yet, to reduce spending this

year by 1 percent seems much too drastic a step for this administration to be

willing to take. This bill started as a

request by the President to spend more

money, some for the Department of Defense, essentially to cover the costs of

various, dubious peacekeeping missions

around the world which was passed as

part of a separate bill, and others to

spend money on various natural disasters which the President improvidently

had refused to include in the budget

passed less than a year ago, in spite of

the fact that these disasters are always

with us, together with a few modest reductions in a handful of programs.

The House of Representatives took

the bit in its teeth and came up with a

cancellation of something more than

$17 billion in current spending, about 1

percent of the total budget, as I have

already said. The President protested

that as being too much and in the

wrong places. This body, as the Presiding Officer knows, passed a somewhat

more modest rescissions bill, still close

to $15 billion or so, with a different mix

of canceled or reduced programs. And

about that Senate rescissions bill the

President said:

The bill passed 99 to 0 in the Senate and I

will sign the Senate bill if the House and

Senate will send it to me. That is how we

should be doing the business of America.

In the 4 weeks since then, Mr. President, the House and the Senate have

met together in a conference committee to settle the differences between

these two proposals, in the time-honored fashion under our rules. What was

unprecedented during the course of this

attempt to work out differences was

the almost total absence of people representing the White House or the administration.

Unlike the situation during the Bush

administration, the Reagan administration, and previous administrations

when I was not here, there was no guidance from the White House at all. No

statement that, ‘‘Here is our bottom

line.’’ No attempt to work out differences the way previous administrations did. Silence, except around the

margins, until the day after the conference committee finished its work

and submitted it to the two bodies.

Then the President decided that it

ended up reducing a handful of programs and job training and education

by so great an amount of money that

he had to veto it.

I totaled up all of the items that I

think could come under that veto

threat and they amount to less than $1

billion of the $17 billions.

Mr. President, I repeat, no statements of this sort, no bottom lines,

were sent to the members of the conference committee while it was working out this situation.

Yesterday, the President threatened

to veto the bill. He also said that he

still wanted to save money but too

much money was being spent in this

bill on courthouses and on highway

projects. Curiously enough, Mr. President, all of these projects which the

President now describes as pork were

included in last year’s appropriations

bill that he signed and praised last

year.

Of course, if his veto stands and no

other rescissions bill is passed, all will

be built. His veto does not cancel a single one of them. Not a single one of

them was criticized at the time which

they were originally appropriated for

and passed last year.

One other curiosity, Mr. President,

included in the Senate bill which the

White House said would be approved,

was certain timber language drafted by

this Senator for the relief of timber

communities not just in the Pacific

Northwest but all across the country.

That proposal simply authorized the

administration to do what it said it

wanted to do, to carry out the provisions of what is known as option 9, its

own option in the Pacific Northwest,

and to salvage burned and dead and

dying timber in national forests all

across the country, destroyed either by

insects or by forest fires and rapidly

becoming kindling for new forest fires.

Nothing in the Senate provisions required the administration to do more

than it wished to do, but it did enable

them to do what they claimed they

wanted to do without the interference

of outside lawsuits.

Not only was that apparently all

right, as a result of the Presidential

speech that I just read, it was expressly