S6358 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 9, 1995

When trends like these threaten the

American Dream, and these trends are

being felt, Mr. President, I was troubled by a Gallup-CBS polls taken recently that showed that 8 out of every

10 Americans believe it will be harder

for the next generation to achieve the

American Dream—8 out of every 10.

When these trends threaten the American Dream of home ownership, we

must be clear in our policies here in

Washington, that we will continue to

work to promote an environment of security and opportunity.

Mr. D’AMATO. Mr. President, I am

pleased to join my distinguished colleague from Delaware, Senator ROTH,

in submitting a resolution to prevent

further restriction of the Federal income tax deduction for home mortgage

interest. To further limit or eliminate

the deductibility of mortgage interest

for homeowners—the majority of which

are middle-income Americans—would

be to restrict their ability to buy into

the American dream.

It is no secret that homeownership is

a fundamental American ideal. Cutting

or wiping out this deduction, which has

been available to Americans since 1913,

will simply put the possibility of homeownership out of reach for many Americans. The mortgage interest deduction

is one of a number of tax benefits that

serves a good social purpose. It is not

an unintended loophole but, rather, a

provision created to foster investment

by the private sector. The home mortgage interest deduction has served as

one of the cornerstones of our national

housing policy, making us one of the

best housed countries in the world and

creating safe and secure neighborhoods.

Further restrictions could also have

a disastrous effect on the American

housing industry, especially if interest

rates continue to rise. People simply

will not be able to buy homes, which

would have a devastating impact on

the economy, particularly the banking,

lending and construction industries.

Higher unemployment rates would result and local governments would suffer, as shrinking homeownership

would, in turn, mean a dwindling tax

base.

Mr. President, the National Association of Home Builders estimates that

eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction would reduce the value of

an average American home by about 20

percent. For all intents and purposes

this would have the effect of a heavy

tax increase. For the sake of the economy and middle-income Americans we

cannot erode the American dream:

homeownership.

SENATE RESOLUTION 118—CONCERNING UNITED STATES-JAPAN

fTRADE RELATIONS

Mr. BYRD (for himself, Mr. DOLE, Mr.

DASCHLE, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. REID, Mr.

ASHCROFT, Mr. WARNER, Mr. LEVIN, Mr.

HOLLINGS, Mr. PRESSLER, Mr. DORGAN,

Mr. SARBANES, Mr. SPECTER, Mr.

BROWN, and Mr. D’AMATO) submitted

the following resolution; which was

considered and agreed to:

S. RES. 118

Whereas, the United States and Japan have

a long and important relationship which

serves as an anchor of peace and stability in

the Pacific region;

Whereas, tension exists in an otherwise

normal and friendly relationship between the

United States and Japan because of persistent and large trade deficits which are the result of practices and regulations which have

substantially blocked legitimate access of

American automotive products to the Japanese market;

Whereas, the current account trade deficit

with Japan in 1994 reached an historic high

level of $66 billion, of which $37 billion, or 56

percent, is attributed to imbalances in automotive sector, and of which $12.8 billion is

attributable to auto parts flows;

Whereas, in July, 1993, the Administration

reached a broad accord with the Government

of Japan, which established automotive

trade as one of 5 priority areas for negotiations, to seek market-opening arrangements

based on objective criteria and which would

result in objective progress;

Whereas, a healthy American automobile

industry is of central importance to the

American economy, and to the capability of

the United States to fulfill its commitments

to remain as an engaged, deployed, Pacific

power;

Whereas, after 18 months of negotiations

with the Japanese, beginning in September

1993, the U.S. Trade Representative concluded that no progress had been achieved,

leaving the auto parts market in Japan ‘‘virtually closed’’;

Whereas, in October, 1994, the United

States initiated an investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 into the Japanese auto parts market, which could result

in the imposition of trade sanctions on a variety of Japanese imports into the United

States unless measurable progress is made in

penetrating the Japanese auto parts market;

Whereas, the latest round of U.S.-Japan

negotiations on automotive trade, in Whistler, Canada, collapsed in failure on May 5,

1995, and the U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Kantor, stated the ‘‘government of

Japan has refused to address our most fundamental concerns in all areas’’ of automotive trade, and that ‘‘discrimination

against foreign manufacturers of autos and

auto parts continues.’’

Whereas, President Clinton stated, on May

5, 1995, that the U.S. is ‘‘committed to taking

strong action’’ regarding Japanese imports

into the U.S. if no agreement is reached.

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the Sense of the Senate

that—

(1) The Senate regrets that negotiations

between the United States and Japan for

sharp reductions in the trade imbalances in

automotive sales and parts, through elimination of restrictive Japanese market-closing practices and regulations, have collapsed;

(2) If negotiations under Section 301 of the

Trade Act of 1974 fail to open the Japanese

auto parts market, the United States Senate

strongly supports the decision by the President to impose sanctions on Japanese products in accordance with Section 301.

SENATE RESOLUTION 119—AUTHORIZING REPRESENTATION BY

fLEGAL COUNSEL

Mr. GORTON (for Mr. DOLE, for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the

following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

S. RES. 119

Whereas, in the case of United States v.

George C. Matthews, Case No. 95–CR–11, pending in the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Wisconsin, a subpoena for testimony has been issued to Darin

Schroeder, an employee of the Senate on the

staff of Senator Feingold;

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of

the United States and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under

the control or in the possession of the Senate

may, by the judicial process, be taken from

such control or possession but by permission

of the Senate;

Whereas, when it appears that evidence

under the control or in the possession of the

Senate may promote the administration of

justice, the Senate will take such action as

will promote the ends of justice consistently

with the privileges of the Senate;

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and

704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government Act of

1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2) (1994),

the Senate may direct its counsel to represent committees, Members, officers and

employees of the Senate with respect to subpoenas or orders issued to them in their official capacity: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That Darin Schroeder and any

other employees in Senator Feingold’s office

from whom testimony may be necessary are

authorized to testify and to produce records

in the case of United States v. George C. Matthews, except concerning matters for which a

privilege should be asserted.

SEC. 2. That the Senate Legal Counsel is

directed to represent Darin Schroeder and

any other employee in connection with the

testimony authorized under section 1.

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED

f

COMMONSENSE PRODUCT

LIABILITY REFORM ACT

BYRD (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT

NO. 730

(Ordered to lie on the table.)

Mr. BYRD (for himself, Mr. DOLE, Mr.

BAUCUS, Mr. REID, Mr. LEVIN, and Mr.

ASHCROFT) submitted an amendment

intended to be proposed by them to

amendment No. 690, proposed by Mr.

COVERDELL to amendment No. 596, proposed by Mr. GORTON to the bill (H.R.

956) to establish legal standards and

procedures for product liability litigation, and for other purposes; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert

Inasmuch as, the United States and Japan

have a long and important relationship

which serves as an anchor of peace and stability in the Pacific region;

Inasmuch as, tension exists in an otherwise normal and friendly relationship between the United States and Japan because

of persistent and large trade deficits which

are the result of practices and regulations

which have substantially blocked legitimate

access of American products to the Japanese

market;

Inasmuch as, the current account trade

deficit with Japan in 1994 reached an historic

high level of $66 billion, of which $37 billion,

or 56 percent, is attributed to imbalances in

automotive sector, and of which $12.8 billion

is attributable to auto parts flows;