S6770 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 17, 1995

Ambassador Kantor and the President, I know, are embarked on a nervous time, and I know it is very controversial. But I would say, whether it

is a Republican or a Democratic administration, this country needs to

stand up for its economic interests. It

needs to stand up for jobs and opportunity here. I think President Clinton,

in calling the Japanese on these trade

policies, is beginning to do that on behalf of this country.

I do not want a trade war. A trade

war will not benefit anyone. It will

hurt the world. But by the same token,

we cannot have a post-Second World

War trade strategy which is essentially

only a foreign policy by which we pay

and everyone else wins. That is a strategy that continues to weaken our

country. We ought to say our borders

are open but yours must be, too. We believe in reciprocal trade policies. We

believe in open trade and free trade,

yes, but we, most importantly, insist

on fair trade. It is long past the time

when our country needs to stand for

that. I am pleased that President Clinton is taking some action to confront

the Japanese and now next it will be a

number of other countries that treat us

in exactly the same way.

Mr. President, with that, I yield the

floor.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, PresiVETO OF THE RESCISSION BILL

fdent Clinton announced today that he

is going to veto the rescission package.

President Clinton is going to veto our

effort to reduce Government spending

by $16 billion. President Clinton, who

continues to talk about deficits, is

going to veto a bill that cuts more

spending than any rescission bill in the

history of this country.

Why is he going to do that? He is

going to do it because he is committed

politically to the special interest

groups who stand to lose from our putting the Federal Government on a

budget like everybody else. I think Bill

Clinton should start representing the

public interest and not the special interests that support the Democratic

Party.

I think it is outrageous, when we are

running a $175 billion deficit, when the

deficit is heading toward $350 billion,

and the President, to defend things the

way they are in Washington, DC, is

going to veto a bill that cuts 16 billion

dollars’ worth of Government spending.

The President should sign the rescission bill. He should join our effort to

put the Federal Government on a budget like everybody else. Ultimately, we

have to make a decision. Are we going

to change the Government in order to

bring back the American dream, put

the Federal Government on a budget,

let families keep more of what they

earn, or are we going to continue to

support business as usual in Washington, DC?

When Bill Clinton vetoes a $16 billion

cut in Government spending to protect

a few pet programs, he is putting the

political interests of his administration and his party in front of the interests of the people of America. I do not

think the American people are going to

like it; I think they are going to react

negatively to it; and I think they

should.

President Clinton can stop us on the

rescission bill. He can get Democrats

to vote and sustain his veto. I think it

is important that we pass the bill, that

we challenge him, and that we try to

override this outrageous veto. But for

next year, beginning in October, we are

going to be writing the appropriations

bills, and so the President is not going

to have the ability to veto bills unless

he wants to shut down Federal departments.

I think we are fast coming to the moment of truth. Are we serious about

dealing with Government spending?

Are we serious about putting the Government on a budget like everybody

else? Or are we committed to the same

old special interest groups that have

dominated American Government for

40 years?

By vetoing an effort to reduce Government spending to protect special interest programs, President Clinton is

saying he is willing to protect business

as usual in Washington. I think this is

something that we have to fight because I think we are down to the basic

principle on which the American people cast their votes in 1994, and I think

they expect us to stand up, speak out,

and fight for putting the Federal Government on a budget like everybody

else.

I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I wonder

SPECIAL INTERESTS

fif my friend from Texas would answer a

question if I were to propose a question?

Mr. GRAMM. I might. I would like to

hear it first.

Mr. PRYOR. Yes.

I read in the Washington Post this

morning about the $5 million Republican fundraiser that was held last

evening. I want to congratulate the

Senator from Texas for putting this

enormous fundraiser together. It may

have been the largest of its kind in history.

I wonder if the Senator from Texas

would be so kind as to answer this

question of the Senator from Arkansas:

Were there any special interests represented at this fundraiser?

Mr. GRAMM. Let me first respond by

saying, I appreciate your generosity in

suggesting that I might have put on

such a grand fundraiser. In fact, I am

no longer chairman of the Republican

Senatorial Committee. I did attend. We

had a lot of people there from all over

America.

Mr. PRYOR. Were there any special

interests there at the fundraiser?

Mr. GRAMM. Clearly, many of them

were there. They came to the event.

Each individual group represents a special interest.

But let me tell you the difference.

What we told them we were going to do

there is put the Federal Government

on a budget. We were not promising to

give anything away last night. We were

promising to stand up for the vital interests of this Nation and, remarkably—maybe it is not true in your

party, but in my party when you stand

up and fight for America, there are

people that are for you.

I am proud of the fact, as my colleague, I am sure, knows, that in the

last election cycle, when I was chairman, the average contribution to the

Democratic Senatorial Committee was

10 times as large as the average contribution to the Republican Senatorial

Committee because we have grassroots

support.

And, given the President’s veto,

given the President’s veto of our effort

to control spending, I can see why we

have grassroots support and the Democratic Party does not.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I appreciate my friend from Texas and neighbor trying to answer that question.

I am going to ask him another question.

Were there grassroots supporters

there at this $5 million fundraiser last

evening?

Mr. GRAMM. They were from all

over America. In fact, I saw a lot of

them from Arkansas.

Mr. PRYOR. That is right.

And how much was each ticket for

the fundraiser, if I might ask?

Mr. GRAMM. It varied, depending on

whether it was individual money or

whether it was——

Mr. PRYOR. Whether it was grassroots or special interest, is that the

case?

Mr. GRAMM. No. It varied on whether it came out of your checking account or out of the checking account of

your company or your organization.

You hold similar events every year,

but, because the American people no

longer support your agenda, your attendance is falling off. Ours is rising.

But I do not feel sorry for you.

Mr. PRYOR. Oh, no, do not feel sorry

for us yet. You know, we still have a

few kicks left in the dog here.

But I would just like to ask my

friend from Texas, the special interests

you referred to that support President

Clinton, would you please be so kind as

to enumerate those special interests?

Mr. GRAMM. I certainly would.

The Legal Services Corp., the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the

broad-based coalition of people who are

riding in the wagon as opposed to the

people who are pulling the wagon in

America.

Our objective is to try to put the

Government on a budget, so we can let

working people keep more of what they

earn, so that we can have decisions

made not by Washington but by American families.
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6771

See, we have this idea that Democrats rejected about 40 years ago, and

that is families can do a better job of

spending their own money than you do

for them.

Now that sounds alien in Washington, DC, but in Little Rock, AR, people

are beginning to think maybe that is

the way we ought to do things.

Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator from Arkansas would yield to me?

Mr. PRYOR. I do not have the floor,

actually.

Mr. GRAMM. I have to go to a hearing on Legal Services, to let them

know the bad news.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Chair would say, the hour of 10:30 having arrived, morning business was to

close.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, seeing no

other Senators desiring recognition, I

ask unanimous consent that the Senator from North Dakota be allowed to

proceed for 3 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was

curious about the question asked by

my colleague from Arkansas.

Our colleague, Senator GRAMM from

Texas, said that at this fundraiser they

were not giving anybody anything. I

assume he forgot, probably, that in the

vote in the House of Representatives

on the Contract With America, just to

name one little piece of that, they

eliminated the alternative minimum

tax for corporations.

You remember those stories in the

old days about a big corporation that

earned $3 billion in earned income, net

profit, and paid zero in Federal income

tax. Well, the Federal Government said

they wanted to correct that, so they

set up what was called an alternative

minimum tax, so you could never zero

it out, talking about the real big corporations now.

Well, in the House of Representatives, in the tax bill under the contract, they zero it out and they say,

‘‘No more alternative minimum tax.

You big companies, you make $5 billion, it is all right if you pay zero in

taxes.’’ But at same time they do that,

they say, ‘‘But we can give those companies’’—incidentally, about 2,000 companies—‘‘the equivalent of $2 million

each in tax breaks. We can afford to do

that, but we cannot afford to provide

student aid, as we used to, so we will

have to ask kids who are going to go to

college who do not have any money to

pay for it, we will make if harder for

kids to go to college because we cannot

afford investing in kids who go to college, as we used to, but we do have the

money to provide the equivalent of a $2

million tax break for each of 2,000 corporations by saying to those corporations, You no longer have to worry

about a little thing called the alternative minimum tax. You can zero it

out, if you like.’’

I am guessing the Senator from

Texas just forgot about that.

And there are a dozen more like it,

little old things that I am sure folks

would show up to show their appreciation for, but they are the kinds of

things that represent priorities—the

priorities that say we really believe in

the big interests here, we really think

the big interests need a lot more help

because if we rain on big interests

somehow it will all seep down to the

little folks that are trying to send

their kids to college. That is what I

think has been forgotten in this equation and this discussion between the

Senator from Texas and the Senator

from Arkansas.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

CONCLUSION OF MORNING

fBUSINESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning

business is closed.

Under a previous order, the Senate

will now proceed to the consideration

of a resolution to be submitted the

Senator from New York [Mr. D’AMATO].

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I suggest

the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk proceeded to call the

roll.

Mr. D’AMATO. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for

the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. D’AMATO. Mr. President, I have

a resolution which I will shortly be

sending to the desk. May I ask, what is

the pending business?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

pending business is the resolution to be

considered by the Senator from New

York.

Mr. D’AMATO. I believe we have

agreed that there will be no more than

2 hours.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is

correct, from the time you bring it up.

Mr. D’AMATO. Will the time start to

run as of now?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is

when the Senator submits the resoluESTABLISHING A SPECIAL COMtion to the desk.

MITTEE TO INVESTIGATE WHITEfWATER DEVELOPMENT CORP.

AND OTHER MATTERS

Mr. D’AMATO. Mr. President, I send

the resolution to the desk on behalf of

myself and Senator DOLE—and I know

others would like to join—and I ask for

its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report.

The bill clerk read as follows:

A resolution (S. Res. 120) establishing a

special committee administered by the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to conduct an investigation involving

Whitewater Development Corp., Madison

Guaranty Savings & Loan Association, Capital Management Services, Inc., the Arkansas Development Finance authority, and

other related matters.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection to the immediate consideration of the resolution?

There being no objection, the Senate

proceeded to consider the resolution.

Mr. D’AMATO. Mr. President,

Whitewater is a very serious matter.

Some questions raised by Whitewater

go to the very heart of our democratic

system of government. We must determine whether the public trust has been

abused. We must ascertain whether

purely private interests have been

placed above the public trust. The

American people have a right to know

the full facts about Whitewater and related matters.

After the Banking Committee’s hearings last year, many important questions still remain. The American people have a right and a need to know the

answers to these questions.

Congress has the responsibility to

serve as the public’s watchdog. We

would be derelict in our duties if we did

not pursue these Whitewater questions.

The Senate must proceed in an evenhanded, impartial, and thorough manner. We have a constitutional responsibility to resolve these issues.

Mr. President, we now bring before

the Senate a resolution that authorizes

a special committee administered by

the Banking Committee to continue

the Whitewater inquiry that was started but not completed during the last

Congress.

I thank my distinguished colleague,

Senator SARBANES, for his hard work

and cooperation in the preparation of

this resolution. We have jointly prepared a resolution that is balanced and

fair and that will allow the special

committee to search for the truth. I

am confident that Senator SARBANES

and I will continue the Banking Committee’s bipartisan approach to the

Whitewater matter.

Mr. President, our pursuit of these

questions must be and will be fair,

straightforward, and responsible. The

American people expect and deserve a

thorough inquiry committed to the

pursuit of truth. That is the American

way.

Last summer, the Banking Committee met these vigorous requirements.

Our examination of the Whitewater

matter was impartial, balanced, and

thorough. That is our goal in this Congress. I am confident that we will meet

these goals.

During last summer’s hearings, many

facts were uncovered. We learned that

certain top administration officials

were not fully candid and forthcoming

with the Congress. That is an undisputed fact. The public has a right to

expect more from those in positions of

trust. We also learned that senior

Treasury Department and Clinton

White House officials mishandled confidential law enforcement information

concerning Madison Guaranty. That is

another undisputed fact. Madison is

now defunct; it is a defunct S&L at the

heart of the Whitewater matter. The

failure of this Arkansas S&L eventually cost American taxpayers more

than $47 million.

Mr. President, the American people

have a right to know the answers to