June 8, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5695

Today, as we are considering the Overseas Interests Act that recognizes that

we have won the cold war, we will answer that question.

The bill we are considering today reduces, diminishes, lessens, curtails,

lowers and yes, cuts foreign aid. It concentrates on cutting aid to countries

that do not support us in the United

Nations. It punishes the countries that

supply weapons to terrorist states. It

refocuses our efforts on the countries

that do support American interests

overseas.

The new majority in this Congress

are serious about cutting spending and

eliminating agencies in this bill. We

save the taxpayers $21 billion over 7

years. That is a cut. We eliminate

three major agencies in the first major

restructuring of our foreign affairs operation in 50 years. That is a cut.

When is a spending cut a cut? It is

today, when we debate and continue

discussion on the Overseas Interests

Act.

TWO WEEKS’ DEBATE ON MONEY

FOR FOREIGN AID, BUT NO

fFUNDING TO SOLVE AMERICAN

PROBLEMS

(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was

given permission to address the House

for 1 minute and to revise and extend

his remarks.)

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, let us

see if I can understand this. There are

25,000 murders a year. We have a Tax

Code that is literally killing us. The

IRS keeps ripping us off. We have parents without children, Social Security

being raided, Medicare almost broke, a

record number of school dropouts,

workers losing their pensions, losing

their health insurance benefits, workers losing their jobs, massive budget

deficits, huge trade deficits, and, Mr.

Speaker, the Congress of the United

States has been debating foreign aid

for 2 solid weeks.

Beam me up, Mr. Speaker. Is it any

wonder why America is so angry with

their Government? While we debate

foreign aid and more money for overseas, America is going to hell in a

handbasket. Think about it.

CONCERN FOR THE REPUTATION

OF THE HOUSE RAISED BY UNfRESOLVED QUESTIONS ON

SPEAKER’S BOOK DEAL

(Mr. THOMPSON asked and was

given permission to address the House

for 1 minute and to revise and extend

his remarks.)

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise

today out of concern for the reputation

of this institution. It is devastating

when the Speaker of the House of Representatives does not stand by his

words. NEWT GINGRICH announced earlier this year that he would not sign

his book deal with Rupert Murdoch

until the Ethics Committee had approved the contract. The jury is still

out. And what has the Speaker done?

He has ignored the Ethics Committee

and signed the contract anyway.

Maybe the Speaker knows something

that we do not know. Is it because

every single Republican on the Ethics

Committee has a conflict of interest in

the Speaker’s case? Is it likely that

they cannot be credible as judge and

jury?

Mr. Speaker, how can NEWT GINGRICH

make such an outrageous claim, that if

the Ethics Committee has not finished

its deliberations, then he will assume

that no rules have been broken. The

Ethics Committee clearly said to the

Speaker not to make such an absurd

assumption. Once again, the Speaker

has demonstrated that he will not

allow the Rules or the Ethics Committee to stand in the way of his multimillion-dollar book deal. Is this the

same person who led the call for an investigation of the former Speaker of

the House, Jim Wright? I ask today,

out of fairness to the American people,

appoint an outside counsel. What’s

good for the goose is also good for the

gander.

TIME FOR THE ETHICS COMMITTEE TO THROW OUT RIDICULOUS

fCHARGES

(Mr. LINDER asked and was given

permission to address the House for 1

minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the gentleman who spoke

just before me brought up, because of

an opportunity to respond to what the

Ethics Committee is not willing to do.

The fact of the matter is the Speaker

did submit a contract for its review.

The only role that the Ethics Committee has in this is to determine whether

the contract is too generous. In fact,

any Member can write a book in this

House without having approval, but if

the contract is too generous, such as

Speaker Wright’s, where he got 55 percent royalties, it becomes a gift.

The same contract that the Speaker

submitted before two times and was approved in 3 weeks was submitted this

time. It is not being approved by the

Ethics Committee because the Democrats refuse to approve the very same

contract that AL GORE got approved,

that the gentleman from Michigan,

DAVID BONIOR, got approved.

As a matter of fact, one of the ethics

charges is that he used an 800 number

on the floor of the House. So did 11 others. Do we discharge that complaint, or

do we file complaints against the 11

others? One of the charges is that a

cable channel carried his course. Every

one of the Members plays on the cable

channels for free. Do we level charges

against each of them? It is time for the

Ethics Committee to throw out these

ridiculous, frivolous charges.

PRESIDENT CLINTON COMMENDED

FOR VETOING RESCISSIONS BILL

(Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana asked and

was given permission to address the

House for 1 minute and to revise and

extend his remarks.)

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commend President

Clinton for his leadership in vetoing

the mean-spirited rescission bill that

passed this body. It is unbelievable

that our President has to use his first

veto on a bill to stand up for our children and our future. Investing in our

children with programs like Goals 2000,

Safe and Drug Free Schools,

AmeriCorps, and School to Work Programs promote the betterment of our

country.

Drastically reducing funds which go

toward educating our children sends a

bad signal to the rest of the world, telling them, we do not want to be competitive in the next century, we do not

want to train our children to be the

best that they can be, we do not want

drug education in our schools. We need

to stop this nonsense of cutting $16 billion in domestic aid that affect our

children at home and turning around

to authorize $16 billion for foreign aid

for people abroad. Again, I commend

President Clinton for vetoing this illadvised rescissions bill.

THE PRESIDENT’S VETO OF THE

TAX SAVINGS BILL

f(Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given

permission to address the House for 1

minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, featuring interactive dialog with John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard

Nixon, ‘‘Forrest Gump’’ proved that to

star in a movie, one not only does not

have to be an actor, but through modern technology, you do not have to be

alive anymore, either.

Yesterday, by vetoing the $16 billion

tax savings bill, the Clinton administration proved a similar phenomenon:

That is, even a dead presidency can

continue to enhance its reputation as a

big spending friend of bureaucracy long

after its political life has expired. That

is right. Without asking anybody, Mr.

President just went ahead and vetoed.

For a short while, he will be the hero

of the big spenders in Washington and

the bureaucracy, but the American

people will demand: If not these cuts,

which cuts; if not this rescission, which

rescission; if not these programs, which

programs?

If you want relevancy, Mr. President,

join the debate. Show us where you

want to save the taxpayers’ dollars.

f1020

MEDICARE

(Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ asked and was

given permission to address the House

for 1 minute.)