[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5682-H5683]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


     EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL DISASTER 
ASSISTANCE AND RESCISSIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE 
          PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 104-83)

  The Speaker pro tempore laid before the House the following veto 
message from the President of the United States:

To the House of Representatives:
  I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 1158, a bill 
providing for emergency supplemental appropriations and rescissions for 
fiscal year 1995.
  This disagreement is about priorities, not deficit reduction. In 
fact, I want to increase the deficit reduction in this bill.
  H.R. 1158 slashes needed investments for education, national service, 
and the environment, in order to avoid cutting wasteful projects and 
other unnecessary expenditures. There are billions of dollars in pork--
unnecessary highway demonstration projects, courthouses, and other 
Federal buildings--that could have been cut instead of these critical 
investments. Indeed, the Senate bill made such cuts in order to 
maintain productive investments, but the House-Senate conference 
rejected those cuts.
  For example, H.R. 1158 would deprive 15,000 young adults of the 
opportunity to serve their communities as AmeriCorps members.
  It would deprive 2,000 schools in 47 States of funds to train 
teachers and devise comprehensive reforms to boost academic standards.
  It would reduce or eliminate antiviolence and drug prevention 
programs serving nearly 20 million students.
   It would prevent the creation and expansion of hundreds of community 
development banks and financial institutions that would spur job growth 
and leverage billions of dollars of capital in distressed communities 
across the country.
  And it would seriously hamper the ability of States to maintain clean 
drinking water, thus jeopardizing the health of residents.
  In the end, the Congress chose courthouses over education, pork 
barrel highway projects over national service, Government travel over 
clean water.
  At my instruction, the Administration has provided alternatives to 
the [[Page H5683]] 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.
                              {time}  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.

                          ____________________