May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6769

They would just cut the dollars. More

and more people are growing old in this

country. Some months—most months,

in fact—we have 200,000 Americans in 1

month become eligible for Medicare.

Why? Because America is growing

older.

So as more and more people become

eligible for Medicare, to cut the funding without worrying about how an elderly person gets health care is hardly

a priority I think which stands the test

of good sense. And if you say to a country that faces real challenges in its future that the way to face them is to

make it harder for a kid to go to college and cut back on money for student

aid, then you are not in my judgment

investing in our future.

Why do that? We do that at least in

part because some want to give a big

tax cut to the most affluent in America. Again, I do not quarrel with the

goal. I think the goal of balancing the

budget is a goal we must march toward

and meet. That is our challenge, and

that is our test. I think there is substantial room to quarrel about the priorities at this point. There is a right

way to do this and a wrong way to do

it. And the right way to do it is to understand that the economic engine in

this country is the working family.

You do not help the working family in

this country by doing the kinds of

things that they are talking about in

this budget. That is the wrong way.

I would say that maybe 50 or 60 percent of the budget recommendations

brought out by the Budget Committee

make a lot of sense, and I would sign

up immediately for them. I support a

lot of those proposals. A lot of them

are good. I give Senator DOMENICI and

other members of the Budget Committee great credit for some of those provisions, and I will support them in a

minute and vote for them. But I am

just saying that in the Contract With

America in the House and also in the

Senate, there are some provisions that

reflect in a traditional way the difference in priorities.

We believe in education. Let us invest in education and not withdraw the

help for those who want to learn, those

who want to produce, and those who

want to go on to become citizens who

will help build this country. Let us not

withdraw health care assistance from

the elderly and the poor who need it.

Let us not increase taxes for the lowincome working families, which is also

a part of this budget proposal. But

there are many other areas where we

can cut, and cut significantly, and cut

much more than is now proposed by

the Senate Budget Committee recommendation.

So I hope when we get this to the

floor, I hope you will not hear one word

from any Member of the Senate who

quarrels about the goal. We must balance the budget by 2002. It is doable. It

is doable without the greatest of effort

by Members of the Senate. But it ought

to be done right away, investing in the

right things still for this country, even

as we cut those things we no longer

need, those things that waste money

and those things that are extravagant.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want

TRADE WITH JAPAN

fto turn to one other very brief subject,

and that is the issue of trade with

Japan.

I intend to provide a discussion tomorrow at some greater length about

our trade situation. But I noticed that

the Trade Representative has announced potential sanctions in the future against Japanese trade with the

United States if Japan does not open

its market further to United States

goods.

The fact is the trade situation in this

country is serious. We talk a lot about

the Federal budget deficit, but we have

another deficit that is serious and

troublesome. We have a trade deficit

that is the most significant trade deficit in this country’s history. The merchandise trade deficit last year was

$166 billion, and I have a chart that

shows our trade picture in this country. I would like to hold it up.

This chart shows with whom we have

trade deficits and those with whom we

have trade surpluses. We have almost

no surpluses, and those countries with

whom we have a surplus, it is a very,

very minuscule surplus, but you will

see what is happening with respect to

deficits.

All of our major trading partners are

countries with which we now have a

trade deficit, and that now includes

Mexico, for all those who said we were

going to have all these new jobs and

bountiful trade with Mexico. What a

bunch of nonsense that was. We have

turned a trade surplus with Mexico

into a very significant trade deficit.

Most experts suggest the deficit with

Mexico will turn out to be anywhere

from $12 to $16 billion. It was the last

remaining major trading partner we

had with which we have had a surplus,

and we have turned that into a deficit,

unfortunately, with NAFTA and the

subsequent devaluation of the peso,

and so on.

But you will see in this line a growing, escalating trade deficit with Japan

even as the dollar was weakened

against the yen, even when you would

expect the trade circumstances to

move in the other direction. Our trade

deficit with Japan is unsustainable,

and it is not fair. The Japanese expect

their products to come into the American market unimpeded, and they do.

We have a wide selection of brand

names from Japan in virtually every

area of consumer products. So they access our marketplace. And what happens when we try to access theirs? We

find impediment after impediment

after impediment, and we cannot get

American goods in any significant

quantity into the Japanese marketplace.

I have a very small chart I would like

to show on auto parts and on cars and

trucks, and I hope that this can be

picked up. But this shows the percentage of auto parts by country, and I

wish to show you the import share. The

United Kingdom has 60 percent—60 percent of the auto parts in the United

Kingdom are imports; 32 percent in the

United States; 49 percent in France; 16

percent in Italy; 2.4 percent of the auto

parts in Japan are imported—2.4 percent. All the rest are produced in

Japan.

Now, is that an accident? No, it is

not, because they keep auto parts out

of Japan. You cannot get them in.

They can move them to the United

States, but we cannot move them to

Japan.

How about cars and trucks? Mr.

President, 4 percent of the cars and

trucks sold in Japan are imports. And

you look at the rest of the countries: 35

percent in Italy; 54 percent in the United Kingdom; 30 percent of the cars and

trucks sold in the United States are

imports; 4 percent of the cars and

trucks sold in Japan are imports.

Now, is that because no one has figured out a way to sell in Japan? No. It

is because Japan keeps them out.

Japan has a one-way trade strategy

that says we want Japanese producers

to be able to sell in your markets, but

when your producers want to sell in

Japan, we want to keep them out.

This President, to his credit, has

begun to stand up to other countries,

including Japan, saying we are sick

and tired of one-way trade relations.

When we have these trade deficits, it

means lost jobs in America—lost jobs,

lost income, lost opportunity, and lost

hope. The President is saying we expect and demand reciprocal trade policies. Japan, we want you to open your

markets.

We are not saying we want to shut off

access to Japanese goods in the United

States. That is not the point. The United States has demonstrated for many,

many years that we want our consumers to have the widest possible choice

of goods, including goods from around

the world. But it is long past the time

when our country should accept a trade

relationship that is unfair to our people, unfair to our country, unfair to our

wage earners.

This President is saying to Japan, we

are going to hold up a mirror. We treat

you well. Our borders are open to you.

You move your goods here in increasing quantities. We expect your borders

to be open to us. We expect American

producers and the product of American

workers to have access to the consumers in Japan. And he is the first President for some long while to have the

nerve to stand up and to have the nerve

to confront the Japanese on these issues.

It is not just the Japanese. We also

have to confront the Chinese, whose $30

billion trade surplus with the United

States is growing at an alarming rate.

We must be able to penetrate those

markets and have fairness in the world

and world trade.
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.