[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 203 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18793-S18795]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 VETO PROTECTS OVERTURNING LEGISLATION

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have listened to the statement of my 
friend from Mississippi, and I appreciate his rhetoric and his ability 
to state his position. I think of the expression oft used in summations 
before the jury, taken in a light most favorable in favor of the 
opponent. One has to take his statement in the light most favorable to 
the opponent. The fact of the matter is that the President is right to 
veto a number of the pieces of legislation before him, not because of a 
question of 

[[Page S18794]]
spending, but because of a question of legislation being overturned, 
legislation that was put together by bipartisan majorities over the 
years.
  I use one example. In EPA, one of the bills, basically what the so-
called Republican Contract With America has done is cut out the 
enforcement arm of EPA. They know that they cannot stand up here and 
pass legislation to repeal our clean water laws. They cannot pass 
legislation to repeal our clean air laws. Those were laws put together 
by a majority of Republicans and Democrats working together over the 
years.
  So what do they do? Instead of repealing them, which they cannot do, 
they simply say we will not enforce them. What they are saying is, ``Go 
ahead and pollute; we don't give a hoot.'' They have changed the whole 
idea around. What they are saying, it is the same thing as if they said 
we will not do away with the law against burglary, but we will not 
allow you to put any locks on your doors; we will not let you put any 
guards at your warehouses; we will have no police officers patrol the 
streets; and we will not answer a call when somebody sees a moving van 
in the back of your warehouse at 3 o'clock in the morning unloading the 
warehouse. We will say we have not done away with the laws of burglary, 
we will just not enforce them.
  Back just a few years ago, the Cuyahoga River was on fire because of 
pollution. That does not occur today. What they are saying, however, is 
we will not enforce those laws because some of our largest contributors 
do not like them. We will not enforce the laws that keep the Cuyahoga 
River or the Winooski River in Vermont, to keep them clean.
  We talk about our children. Our children deserve clean water. Our 
children deserve clean air. It is certainly going to keep down our 
health costs. We should not, in the guise of budgetary things, do away 
with this.
  It makes me think, for example, of some of the same--in this new 
breed, especially in the House, new breed of Republicans, when they 
spoke of patriotism and honor and flag and everything else, but they 
passed quickly and quietly in the dark of the night a tax bill which 
said that if you are one of these billionaires who is willing to stand 
up and renounce your country, renounce the United States of America, 
renounce the greatest democracy on Earth, we will give you one hell of 
a tax break.
  Now, Mr. President, it is those things. Somebody once said the Devil 
is in the details. The Devil is at work in the details of some of these 
bills. These bills should be talking about our spending priorities. 
Everybody on this side of the aisle, and I suspect everybody on that 
side of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, agree that we want to 
balance the budget in as short a time as possible. But, in doing it, 
let us not repeal laws that the vast majority of Americans, Republicans 
or Democrats, agree on. Let us not repeal our commitment to good 
education for our children. Let us not repeal our commitment to clean 
air and clean water under the guise of this. And let us not give away 
these special tax breaks which say if you stand up and renounce your 
country we are going to give you a special tax break. That is 
ridiculous.

  We see an example, one person took advantage of this to move down to 
Belize, because he always liked Belize. However, he said, he gave them 
some money so they would establish a consulate in his home town in 
Florida, with the idea he could then still live in Florida and not have 
to go to Belize, but he would get this multibillion-dollar tax break. 
Fortunately, the State Department stopped that.
  What I suggest is it is time to go back to basics on this. I see 
people talking across each other. I have said over and over again--I 
said this this summer--we are not going to pass a Gingrich budget, we 
are not going to pass a Dole budget, a Daschle budget, a Leahy budget 
or a Clinton budget. But working together we might pass one. It is 
going to require the Speaker of the House to stand up to his new 
freshman class and tell them that we certainly value the experience 
they have gained in 11 months in office but that there are a lot of 
others in Government, too, in both parties, who also have experience. 
Some have even more than 11 months.
  It is time to get together. I suggest to them, they may want to look 
at the dictionary. This is a dictionary and I will read what it says 
about negotiating. It says to negotiate means:

       To arrange for or bring about through conference, 
     discussion and compromise.

  If they do not understand the word ``compromise,'' I have that here, 
too. Compromise means:

       A settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent 
     reached by mutual concessions.

  Compromise and negotiation does not mean that one side simply says we 
will walk away from the table unless you agree to everything before we 
even start our negotiation. Unfortunately that happened last week.
  The President of the United States is not going to be ordered by a 
group of freshman House Republicans--is not going to be ordered to just 
come in here and give up everything that he believes in and everything 
he was elected for. The President of the United States, as well as the 
Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate, have said they will 
sit down and they are willing to negotiate on every single item. But 
they are not willing to give away all their points before the 
negotiation even starts.
  When I was in private practice of law I negotiated many, many a case. 
You come in, each with all your positions intact. Then when you sit 
down you start dealing out and saying I can give up on this but you can 
give up on that. There is an art of compromise involved.
  I have served here, twice in the majority, twice in the minority. I 
have been chairman or ranking member of significant committees and 
subcommittees. I have gone through a number of committees of 
conference. Of course you start out with differences. But you sit down. 
You do not walk away from the table. You sit down to work them out. 
Most recently in the foreign operations bill we started out with 193 
differences with the other body. We negotiated agreements on 192. We 
have been held up on one, which has become more a difference of 
polemics and not of substance; of symbols and not substance; of 
rhetoric and not reality.

  What have we come to? This is not the way to run the Government. This 
is not what people want to see. They want to see our Government run, 
they want to see our tax dollars well spent, they want to see the 
budget deficit come down. They would like to see us stop acting like 
children. They would like to see us get together as men and women 
elected to run this great country. It is the greatest democracy on 
Earth. It is the largest economy on Earth, the most powerful nation on 
Earth, one with worldwide responsibilities as well as responsibilities 
to our people. Let us come back and make it work.
  The President has helped in the way he can, over the weekend, on 
LIHEAP, emergency heating aid to those in the northern parts of our 
country like my own State of Vermont, where it is extremely cold. But 
these are little things. What we need to do is bring together the big 
things that make it possible so the President does not have to. Why 
emergency help on something we had all agreed should be done under the 
regular routine? Let us come together, let us come together on the big 
issues of Medicare and Medicaid, on nutrition, on education, on 
defense. We can do it. But we are going to do it only when we learn, 
when we go back to the dictionary and say compromise is a ``settlement 
of differences * * * by consent reached by mutual concessions.'' 
Concessions by Republicans, concessions by Democrats; concessions by 
the Congress, concessions by the President. It can be done. It is not 
going to be done if we want to make rhetorical debating points. It can 
be done if we really believe in upholding our oath of office and 
helping this country.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call roll.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  
[[Page S18795]]


                    TRIBUTE TO DR. RICHARD HALVERSON

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the life of Dr. 
Richard Halverson. To many in this body, he was a spiritual leader. To 
others, he was a counselor. To me, he was both of those and he was also 
a friend.
  I got to know Dick Halverson when he responded to my pleas for help 
with the Missouri Prayer Breakfast. Despite his hectic schedule, he 
helped and encouraged me in developing the Missouri Governor's Student 
Leadership Conference on Faith and Values in Leadership. His display of 
kindness and love was remarkable. Even more remarkable, however, was 
that this was not remarkable--it was just the way Dick was.
  Dick's legacy will be a lasting one. Words written during his life 
endure and will serve as inspirational challenges not only to us, but 
to those yet to be born. A family nurtured by this father, husband, and 
grandfather will bear a continuing witness to his love. And the 
countless lives that he touched and influenced and saved help make this 
world a better place and heaven a more crowded place.
  What is the measure of man's life? Richard Halverson knew the answer. 
A man's life is measured by how much he loves God and how deeply he 
cares for those that God has put around him. Dick's life was a full 
one--measured great by any standard of earthly success--counted great 
by the one opinion that counts. For Dick lived life and lived it 
abundantly, knowing what was important and what was not. I will miss 
Dick, but I will also rejoice at all God did through him.

                          ____________________