June 7, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5683

Congress that would produce greater

deficit reduction than H.R. 1158, cutting even more in fiscal year 1995

spending than is included in H.R. 1158.

But the spending reductions would

come out of unnecessary projects and

other spending, not investments in

working families.

My position on this legislation has

been made clear throughout the legislative process. The Administration

strongly and consistently opposed the

House version of the bill because it

would have unnecessarily cut valuable,

proven programs that educate our children, invest in our future, and protect

the health and safety of the American

people. We worked closely with the bipartisan leadership of the Senate to

improve the bill, and I indicated my

approval of those improvements. Regrettably, the conference went well beyond the spending reductions contained in the bipartisan compromise

despite my Administration’s consistent

urging to adhere to the Senate bipartisan leadership amendment.

In addition, I continue to object to

language that would override existing

environmental laws in an effort to increase timber salvage. Increasing timber salvage and improving forest

health are goals that my Administration shares with the Congress. Over the

last 6 months, my Administration has

put in motion administrative reforms

that are speeding salvage timber sales

in full compliance with existing environmental laws. It is not appropriate

to use this legislation to overturn environmental laws. Therefore, I urge the

Congress to delete this language and,

separately, to work with my Administration on an initiative to increase

timber salvage and improve forest

health.

My Administration has provided the

Congress with changes that would enable me to sign revised legislation. I

urge the Congress to approve a bill

that contains the supplemental funding

included in H.R. 1158—for disaster relief activities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, for the

Federal response to the bombing in

Oklahoma City, for increased

antiterrorism efforts, and for providing

debt relief to Jordan in order to contribute to further progress toward a

Middle East peace settlement—along

with my Administration’s alternative

restorations and offsets.

I will sign legislation that provides

these needed supplemental appropriations and that reduces the deficit by at

least as much as this bill. However, the

legislation must reflect the priorities

of the American people. H.R. 1158, as

passed, clearly does not.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON.

THE WHITE HOUSE, June 7, 1995.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The objections of the President will be spread

at large upon the journal, and the veto

message and the bill will be printed as

a House document.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that the message of

the President, together with the accompanying bill, be referred to the

Committee on Appropriations.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman from Louisiana?

Mr. OBEY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to

object, but I would simply use this reservation to ask the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana what the intention of the committee would be with

respect to the disposition of the president’s veto message.

Do we intend to take this up for a

vote or, if you do not, do you intend

that there would be a new bill? If so,

what do you think the timing would be

and what would be your intention with

respect to trying to work out a compromise accommodation?

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman

from Louisiana.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am

making this unanimous consent request to refer the veto message of the

president on H.R. 1158 to the Committee on Appropriations so that, basically, we can terminate discussion on

this bill and get it behind us.

Frankly, sending the bill to the committee, it will help us clear the air so

we can see if there might be a way we

can reach an agreement on a different

approach that will satisfy the president. There is no point in proceeding

further on H.R. 1158. I do not believe

that the votes are present to override

the veto. I am disappointed that we

have reached this point because I believe it is a good bill. Frankly, I wish

the president had signed it. I think he

would have been better served had he

does so. But he has decided to veto it.

Now, we need to spend our time productively on fiscal year 1996 appropriations bills, not by continuing to argue

about the merits and faults of this bill.

So I would hope that the gentleman

would not object and that we can send

this message to committee, and we can

go ahead and confer with the representatives of the White House in hopes that

we might come up with an alternative

agreement.

Mr. OBEY. Continuing my reservation of objection, Mr. Speaker, I would

simply say that I do not necessarily

share the gentleman’s judgment about

the wisdom of the president’s veto. I

think under the circumstances it was

correct. But I do hope that we will be

able to get together and work out a rational compromise so that we can proceed to the regular appropriations

process without too much delay intervening.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if

the gentleman will continue to yield,

the gentleman has summarized my own

feelings in that the sooner we get to a

final settlement of this matter, the

better. Every day that goes by, the

American taxpayer loses some $25 million in savings. That is one estimate

that I have seen. The fact is that the

bureaucracy continues to spend money.

And if we are going to reap anything

near the $9.2 billion in savings that

this bill gave us, we need to reach a

conclusion, reach an agreement with

the White House as expeditiously as

possible.

b 2045

But we would expect that the leadership of both sides of the aisle in the

House would work with both sides of

the aisle on the other side of this Congress and work in turn with the White

House and develop a new bill, hopefully

within the next few days.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the

gentleman. I would simply say that I

hope that next time around, we can

find reductions that do not in fact attack programs for seniors and children

in order to provide tax increases for

very high income people that we cannot afford under these circumstances.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. The gentleman’s

characterization of the bill is not my

own. I would only say that when one

attempts to downside Government, nobody is going to be completely satisfied, but of course the purpose in referring this message to committee and

then developing another bill is to come

up with a compromise which is satisfactory to a majority of the House, a

majority of the Senate, and one that

will gain the President’s signature, and

doing all that will take compromise.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I hope in

any bill that can be produced, we can

protect the Brewster amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr.

WALKER). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?

There was no objection.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask

GENERAL LEAVE

funanimous consent that all Members

may have 5 legislative days within

which to revise and extend their remarks on the veto message of the

President to H.R. 1158, and that I might

include tabular and extraneous material.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman from Louisiana?

There was no objection.

(Mrs. SEASTRAND asked and was

CLEANER WATER

fgiven permission to address the House

for 1 minute, to revise and extend her

remarks, and to include extraneous

matter.)

Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, last

week the Santa Maria Times, a local

newspaper in my district on the central

coast of California, let the Sun shine

on some of the arguments big government groups and the Clinton administration had made against our clean
H 5684 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 7, 1995

water bill, which will give local communities more flexibility to solve their

water problems. I quote:

When courting small business and voters

frustrated by government, the Clinton administration decries ‘‘regulatory overkill,’’

yet whenever anyone proposes actually loosening any particular Federal dictate, the Administration balks. Thus, the rewrite of the

Clean Water Act passed 240 to 185 by the

House of Representatives, with votes from 45

Democrats. It has inspired the President’s

most demagogic rhetoric in weeks.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Santa

Maria Times editorial, which continues

to point out that groups such as the

National Governors Association, which

the President once headed, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the Association

of Metropolitan Sewer Agencies, all endorse this legislation. Let us finish

with the hard rhetoric and continue

with clean water for our local communities.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the

RECORD the article of June 1, 1995, in

the Santa Maria Times:

[From the Santa Maria Times, June 1, 1995]

DIRTY FIGHT, CLEAN WATER

When courting small business and voters

frustrated by government, the Clinton administration decries ‘‘regulatory overkill.’’

Its touted blueprint for ‘‘reinventing government’’ prescribes a periodic weeding out of

cumulative, obsolete, inconsistent and unnecessary regulations.

Yet whenever anyone proposes actually

loosening any particular federal diktat, the

administration balks. Thus, the rewrite of

the Clean Water Act passed 240–185 by the

House of Representatives recently (with

votes from 45 Democrats) has inspired the

president’s most demagogic rhetoric in

weeks.

At a propaganda event staged in Washington, D.C.’s Rock Creek Park, Bill Clinton

caricatured the bill as written by ‘‘the lobbyists who represent the polluters.’’ The bill’s

effect, he said, would be to put ‘‘poisons’’ in

the water our children drink.

It is hard—make that impossible—to believe that the National Governors Association (which Clinton once headed), the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference

of Mayors and the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies all would knowingly

endorse legislation so blatantly contrary to

the public good. The bill the president vows

to veto must have flaws but it cannot be the

piece of unconscionable recklessness that

the president so irresponsibly described.

Who are these polluters, for example? They

are city dwellers, mall shoppers, users of

roads and parking lots, and farmers. The

major outstanding water issue is known as

‘‘nonpoint’’ pollution, the dirt that ends up

in sewers and streams not because some profit-hungry corporation dumps it there but because rain water washes it off fields and

parking lots and city streets.

Those striving to provide citizens safe

drinking water and fishable and swimmable

rivers and lakes are local governments.

These are the same counties and municipalities that are stretched thin meeting increased demands for neglected children’s

services and economic development, road

and bridge repair, police, courts and prisons.

Nothing is gained by pretending that resources are infinite for any of these priorities, even clean water.

Admirably, the House bill nearly doubles

the federal revolving loan fund to help local

authorities pay for sewage treatment. Its

major thrust is to give states more flexibility in regulating storm water and other runoff from the landscape. It does not alter

standards for the purity of water people

drink.

Whether this bill has found the optimal

definition for wetlands we are not prepared

to say. That and the other issues will be

tackled anew by the Senate. They will be

tackled it appears, without constructive

input from a president busy with scare tactics as his re-election campaign nears.

H.R. 1561: NO MORE BUSINESS AS

USUAL IN FOREIGN POLICY

f(Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1

minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, one of the

most important bills to come before

this Congress is the American Overseas

Interests Act of 1995, H.R. 1561.

For the first time in nearly half a

century, it will provide focus on American foreign policy instead of the fragmentation which is provided by a separate United States Agency for International Development, the United

States Information Service—including

cultural affairs, and the United States

Agency for Arms Control and Disarmament. At last, these agencies will

clearly be directly responsible to the

Secretary of State of the United

States, the President’s first Cabinet officer, the person who needs to advise

the President on various aspects of foreign affairs.

This legislation will save over $3 billion in the next 2 years. It will provide

focus not only in organization. It will

eliminate 23 assistant secretaries. It

will provide less money and more direction. This legislation is long overdue and much-needed.

Vote for the American Overseas Interests Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am including a summary of the key features of H.R. 1561,

as follows:

The American Overseas Interests Act, the

first Republican foreign policy bill in over 40

years, changes ‘‘business as usual’’ five ways:

1. Three Major Agencies Killed.—AID, USIA,

ACDA folded into State Department, eliminating hundreds of jobs, including 23 at the

level of Assistant Secretary or higher.

2. Cuts Spending.—Cuts nearly $1 billion

from FY95 appropriated levels in FY96, over

$2 billion in FY97. Cuts more than $21 billion

from International Affairs spending below

the FY95 baseline over seven year ‘‘glide

path’’ to balanced budget. With Brownback

Amendment, bill fully meets Budget Resolution.

3. Kills Dozens of Lower-Priority Programs.—

Housing Guarantee Program, PL–480 Title III

food aid program, U.S. funding for over a

dozen international agencies. Development

assistance, though important, is cut by $750

million in FY96 and $998 million in FY97.

4. Focuses on Vital U.S. Interests.—Funds

antiterrorism assistance, Russian disarmament-related programs, NATO expansion

aid, antinarcotics assistance, aid to Israel

and Egypt (Camp David Accords).

5. Punishes Adversaries.—Cuts off aid to

countries that provide weapons to terrorist

states, give aid to Cuba, or vote against us in

the U.N.

SPECIAL ORDERS

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs.

MORELLA). Under the Speaker’s announced policy of May 12, 1995, and

under a previous order of the House,

the following Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.

previous order of the House, the genThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

ftleman from Illinois [Mr. LIPINSKI] is

recognized for 5 minutes.

[Mr. LIPINSKI addressed the House.

His remarks will appear hereafter in

previous order of the House, the genthe Extensions of Remarks.]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

ftleman from Florida [Mr. GOSS] is recognized for 5 minutes.

[Mr. GOSS addressed the House. His

remarks will appear hereafter in the

Extensions of Remarks.]

previous order of the House, the genThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

ftleman from New York [Mr. OWENS] is

recognized for 5 minutes.

[Mr. OWENS addressed the House.

His remarks will appear hereafter in

the Extensions of Remarks.]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

TERM LIMITS

fprevious order of the House, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. SMITH] is

recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam

Speaker, I would like to comment

today about the Supreme Court decision limiting the powers of the States

to prohibit those States from enacting

term limits.

Madam Speaker, the majority opinion in U.S. Term Limits versus Thornton, as Justice Thomas points out in

dissent, reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the 10th amendment’s

reservation of powers to State governments and the people. While the 5 to 4

decision may be a setback for term

limits, it is only a temporary one. The

closeness of the vote, and the strength

of the dissent’s argument, means that

less harm was done to the term limit

movement than is generally believed.

The fundamental issue in Thorton is

not term limits, but the power of

States and citizens to add to the three

qualifications that are spelled out in

article I for Members of Congress: age,

citizenry, and residence. While the majority makes a cogent and correct argument that the Constitution bars

Congress from setting additional qualifications, it fails to demonstrate that

the States are barred from adding

qualifications. The thrust of the majority’s argument is that allowing States

to set additional qualifications could

lead to abuses of the electoral process.

The majority said the Founders would

have opposed such abuses, and therefore must have meant to bar the states