May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 1129

knowing, and not wanting to know, the exact

number of nuclear weapons in the country’s

arsenal. ‘‘ Mr. President, you should know,’’

said Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace.

But Truman kept his distance, leaving nuclear arms production to the military and

Atomic Energy Commission.

Once again, it is Clinton who has stepped

up to plate and explained the extent of the

mess: It will take, the administration announced, 70 years and between $230 and $350

billion to clean up the toxic waste produced

by the production of nuclear arms.

You do not have to stop at our shores to

come to the conclusion that Clinton has thus

far outshone Truman. The great foreign policy decisions attributed to Truman, remember, did not come until later in his term. In

the spring of 1947, the country was reeling

from the succession of communist victories.

Every Eastern European country had fallen

to communism except Czechoslovakia, which

would not be far behind. China’s fall to communism was imminent. And with the reckless use of its veto in the United Nations, the

Soviet Union was halting American efforts

to shape the post-war world. The United

States, it seemed, was on the ropes.

Meanwhile, Clinton’s foreign policy,

though ridiculed mercilessly by Republicans,

has been, on the whole, refreshingly successful. The passage of NAFTA and GATT were

hard-fought and significant victories. Other

successes have been jawdroppers. Answer me

this: If you were told two years ago that Israel would sign peace agreements with the

PLO and Jordan; that Haiti would have a

democratically elected president; that there

would be a cease-fire in Northern Ireland;

and that the third-largest nuclear power in

the world would voluntarily disarm its nuclear capability, what would you say? That’s

what I thought.

All four developments, to varying extents,

can be credited to a foreign policy team that

has been derided as hopelessly incompetent.

The success has even impressed Owen Harries, editor of the conservative National Interest. ‘‘The charge against the Clinton Administration has been that it is all show and

no substance,’’ Harries wrote in The New Republic. ‘‘But the opposite may be nearer the

mark.... [S]ome sensible decisions have been

made and some dangers avoided. It could

have been a lot worse if the advice given by

many of the people now criticizing Clinton

had been followed.’’

Take Ukraine, a newborn Soviet successor

state with a government considerably less

than stable, which suddenly found itself

holding the third-largest arsenal of nuclear

weapons in the world. Clinton, Gore, and

Secretary of State Warren Christopher pressured and cajoled the country to abandon its

hopes of becoming a nuclear power. Under

this constant pressure. Ukraine agreed last

November to dismantle its 1,800 nuclear warheads. Kazakhstan and Belarus, with considerably smaller nuclear forces, followed suit,

giving the world three less nuclear nightmares to worry about.

In the Middle East, the first praise for

peace accords certainly goes to the major

players: Israel, the PLO, and Jordan. But the

Clinton Administration deftly walked a very

fine line: Israel would never have agreed to

the deal without a strong friend in Washington, while the Palestinians and Jordanians

would have balked if they felt the administration was one-sided or unfair to their concerns. It is a testament to the trust won

from both sides that the peace treaty was

signed on the White House lawn.

Most pundits felt that democracy in Haiti

was a pipe dream. Bush hemmed and hawed

as the military junta settled in and terrorized the Haitian people; thousands fled to the

United States. But Clinton’s policy, despite

messy appearances, has led to the bloodless

overthrow of a military dictatorship and the

restoration of that country’s first democratically elected president.

And in an effort to bring an end to the decades-long fighting in Northern Ireland, Clinton has stood up to England (our ‘‘special relationship’’ notwithstanding) to force it to

deal with its troubles in Northern Ireland.

When in 1993 Clinton agreed to grant a visa

to Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams to visit the

United States for the first time, British legislators openly insulted the President, saying that America had betrayed its trust. But

over British objections, Clinton has allowed

Adams to return twice more to meet with

the administration and continue the push for

peace. Eight months into the cease-fire,

Clinton’s persistence has paid off in lives.

True, there is no ‘‘Clinton Doctrine’’ by

which to measure every foreign policy question that comes down the pike. It would no

doubt make things easier if there were. But

simple doctrines work in simple worlds.

Presidents from Truman to Reagan could

vow to fight communism wherever it reared

its head. Whether or not they met their

promise, they at least had the pose.

Clinton, then, is being penalized because

there is no mortal threat to the country. The

vast majority of armed conflicts in the world

today are either civil wars or ethnic conflicts. No simple formula applies. The process has at times seemed messy, but in a subtle and deft fashion, Clinton has loosened

diplomatic knots of Gordian complexity.

Truman went on, of course, to make some

the shrewdest and politically courageous decisions of the century: the Marshall Plan in

the summer of 1947; the desegregation of the

military in 1948; and the Berlin Airlift that

same year, which, without provoking war

with the Soviet Union, broke the blockade of

West Berlin. While pundits hang the lameduck tag on Clinton, they ignore that if Clinton maintains this pace, and continues to

better Truman domestically and abroad,

Americans could see an enormously successful presidency.

Similarly, the predictions that Clinton has

no chance in 1996 miss a crucial point. Like

Truman, Clinton has an uncanny ability to

project an empathy with the American people. Truman was profoundly unpopular at

this point in his first term. In November of

1946, his approval ratings stood at 32 percent.

But in 1948, voters compared the warmth and

humility of Truman to the arrogance of

Thomas Dewey and chose the man they felt

cared most about their problems. By this

standard, Bill Clinton will never suffer from

comparison to a man like, for example, Phil

Gramm. Clinton could still pull off that

Trumanesque comeback, and those who wish

to make parallels between the Man from

Independence and the Man from Hope will

have one more comparison to draw.

CLEAN WATER ACT AMENDMENTS

fHON. FRANK RIGGS OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, May 24, 1995

Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased

that the House approved amendment No. 66

to H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments of

1995, without objection. Under its terms, municipal wastewater reuse facilities that utilize

advanced treatment will be added to the existing section 404(f) activities not requiring permits. By facilitating the regulatory process for

those cities that have treated wastewater to a

high degree, the effect of the amendment will

be to encourage the use of properly treated

wastewater to restore degraded wetlands and

create new wetlands.

In specifying municipal wastewater treatment facilities in the amendment, I was not implying that other, nonmunicipal wastewater

reuse activities that utilize advanced treatment

for similar purposes now require a permit

under the act if exempted by other provisions.

My amendment does not affect those other

provisions of the Clean Water Act. Thus

wastewater reuse facilities which have long

been exempt, such as those operated successfully by the forest products industry, would

continue to be exempt from the permit process.

HONORING ESSAY WINNERS

fHON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, May 24, 1995

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, one of the

pleasures of serving in this body is the opportunity we occasionally get to recognize truly

outstanding and talented citizens of this country. Today, I am especially pleased to recognize the winners of the fifth annual drug avoidance essay contest.

The first place winners are Tracey Barnes of

PS 93, Gloria Milan of PS 380, Jessica Schumer of PS 230, Aisha Matthew of PS 138,

Danielle Moseley of PS 244, Shameka Jackson-Barrington of PS 214, Michael Falanga of

PS 205, Alexis Legister of PS 139 Annex,

Bryan Small of PS 327, Jennifer Fringo of PS

86K. I am also pleased to acknowledge the

runners up: Radiance Salem of PS 11, Latoya

Sanabria of PS 257, Iasia Holloway of PS

124, Grace Berry of PS 221, Lauren Stambler

of PS 114, Jamece Grey of PS 149, Meghan

O’Brien of PS 127, Michael Albala of PS 206,

Stacy Adams of PS 298, Joseph Williams of

PS 75K, Glenfield Browne of PS 305,

Charnise Sutton of PS 297, Enas Ahmed of

PS 131, Blas Brown of PS 167, Tristan Brathwaite of PS 268, Giselle Cabon of PS 158,

Lyndsay Adesso of PS 204, Jason Wilk of PS

312, Candice McMeans of PS 73, Juan

Arcena of PS 384K.

Reading over the essays I cannot help but

think of how wise these young students are.

They know the terrible cost of drugs on individuals, families, cities and our country. These

essays challenge us to do better by out children; they deserve to grow up in a safe, drugfree environment. I know my colleagues in the

House of Representatives will join me both in

congratulating the winners and runners up of

the drug-free essay contest, and in wishing

them the best of luck in the future.

RESCISSION BILL VETO THREAT

fHON. RON PACKARD OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, May 24, 1995

Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, despite his

rhetoric, the President obviously cares nothing

about balancing the budget. He leaves a conspicuous open seat at the budget cutting