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