[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 40 (Thursday, April 14, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: April 14, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
THE PAYMENT OF BACK TAXES
Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me.
Madam President, a few moments ago, on the floor of the U.S. Senate,
in fact it was about 1 hour ago, I believe, now--the distinguished
junior Senator from New York, Senator D'Amato, spoke on the floor
relative to the coming tax deadline, April 15, which is tomorrow at
midnight.
Because I was not in the Chamber where I could listen to the entirety
of his statement, as the Senator from New York was leaving the Chamber,
I requested of the Senator if he would be so kind as to give me a copy
of his speech. He did.
On page 2 of the Senator's speech, Madam President, I would like to
quote from his statement.
Well, now that the President has raised everyone else's
taxes, we discovered that he had not paid all of his own.
Worse yet, President Clinton's health care plan will be the
single-largest tax increase in the history of the world.
It seems like the President never met a tax he did not like
except his own.
Mr. President, I believe I am speaking for the millions of
hardworking American taxpayers when I say that we expect our
President to pay his full and fair share of taxes, and to pay
them on time.
End of the quote of the Senator from New York, Senator D'Amato.
Well, Madam President, guess what? Apparently our friend from New
York had forgotten the fact that President Nixon had to pay $280,000 of
back income taxes after he became President when his deductions were
challenged by the Internal Revenue Service. I did not hear the Senator
from New York make reference to President Nixon having to pay $285,000
in back taxes.
Nor did I hear the distinguished Senator from New York or anyone else
on that side of the aisle or this side of the aisle complain when Vice
President Bush, as Vice President, Madam President, had to fork up
$198,000 in back taxes because of a change in the interpretation of his
legal residence. I did not hear the Senator from New York complaining
about Vice President Bush.
I did not see him take the floor of the U.S. Senate and complain that
we have to pay our taxes on time and that millions of Americans are
upset about this. Nor, Madam President, did I hear the distinguished
Senator from New York--I wish he were in the Chamber now; maybe he
could be asked to come over and talk about some of this--I do not
recall the distinguished Senator from New York criticizing President
Reagan, who had to pay $20,000 in back taxes because of gifts to his
wife.
Madam President, where was the Senator from New York when these back
taxes were paid? Where was his outcry? And do you not think it might
have been a little worthy of comment, about President Clinton's taxes,
that he and Mrs. Clinton on their own, voluntarily, without any
encouragement whatsoever from the Internal Revenue Service, reached
back, like every other American has the right to do if they think they
may have committed an error, and wrote a check to the Internal Revenue
Service for the amount so owed to the U.S. Government?
This is what the President and Mrs. Clinton did after they
reconstructed their very complicated tax forms of many--several years
ago. And, once again, every American citizen, from the lowest to the
highest, has that right, Madam President, under the law of this land.
Finally, I might state that with regard to President Clinton's and
Mrs. Clinton's payment of back taxes, the IRS had not discovered that.
The statute of limitations had run. There could be no criminal
sanctions against the President and the First Lady. It was all over.
But they did it because they found an error, and they did it because
they think it is right.
I am just very hopeful, as we continue in this ongoing debate--I hate
it has to happen on the floor of the U.S. Senate, almost on a daily
basis--as we talk about the so-called Whitewater issue and other issues
that the Senator from New York is constantly bringing to our attention,
I hope all of us will continue to be a little more objective and that
when we talk about back taxes being paid voluntarily by this President
and his wife, that they will also remind the American people that, yes,
President Nixon had to pay $280,000, Vice President Bush had to pay
$198,000, and that former President Reagan had to pay $20,000 in back
taxes.
So, once again, this is only one attempt to set the record straight
and to get the facts before the American people and to put them in some
perspective.
Madam President, I yield the floor. I understand my good friend from
Washington State is present and ready to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I would like to address my colleagues
for a few minutes about an old subject that is about to undergo a new
beginning. I am referring to the forest management crisis in the
Pacific Northwest. Many of you have been hearing about this issue for a
long time. Some of you are probably tired of hearing about it. You are
all quite aware that it has defied resolution over the past 5 years.
Today could be the end of the conflict. I make that statement with
very cautious optimism. This is the day the Clinton administration
forest plan for the spotted owl forests of the Pacific Northwest goes
to court for final judicial review.
It has been a long process. Since the President convened his forest
conference in Portland, OR, 1 year ago, the plan has been through every
conceivably legal, regulatory, and bureaucratic twist and turn. Let me
give you a sampling:
Upon completion of the forest conference, the President created the
Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, charged with creating
options for ecologically sound land management, based on the highest
legal integrity, and capable of providing a long-term, sustainable
timber supply for businesses and communities.
At the same time, he set up a task force to work with us in Congress
to create the Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative, a 5-year, $1.3
billion economic development and diversification plan.
July 2, 1993, President Clinton announced the completion of FEMAT's
work, and the selection of option 9 as the preferred alternative.
Option 9 was subjected to an environmental impact statement that
included a 3-month public comment period that generated over 100,000
public comments.
Then came 5 months of agency review. On February 23 of this year, a
final EIS was published. This was followed by an additional 30-day
comment period.
During this time, a multidisciplinary EIS team coordinated review in
Portland. Within the team there were no less than 17 task forces
established to work with State and local officials, tribes, and
stakeholder groups of every kind.
The Office of Forestry and Economic Development was established to
coordinate agencies, oversee implementation of the economic strategy,
and give the White House strong presence in the region.
Most of these actions were carried out pursuant to court order. Two
extensions were requested and granted. Today, the record of decision
embodying the plan has been completed for Federal court to review.
It has taken a little over a year, untold thousands of documents,
innumerable meetings, heated discussions, and lot of Rolaids. But that
is a small amount of work to repair a problem that has festered nearly
a decade. I believe all of us in the Northwest owe a debt of gratitude
to the administration for investing an extraordinary amount of time and
energy in resolving what is essentially a thorny regional conflict.
We need to see the Clinton forest plan for what it represents: the
best attempt yet to balance competing needs and make the law work. It
is an honest effort to bring forest management out of the courts, and
put it back into the hands of the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land
Management, and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
I have said it before and I will say again: It is my strong feeling
that this plan is not perfect; I am particularly concerned about its
short-term economic implications. There are people on all sides who
take issue with this plan. But I want to remind my colleagues, and the
citizens of the Pacific Northwest, how little progress was made on this
issue before the President began working on this issue last spring.
Parties are lining up on all sides and preparing their lawsuits. Some
lawsuits have already been filed. But I would caution everyone against
hasty action.
Let me be very clear about this: Our region suffered because of legal
and political gridlock. A return to conflict will not heal our wounds.
Given the extraordinary effort dedicated to this plan, I hope everyone
involved will give it a chance to work.
If there are environmentalists out there, or workers, or forest
products companies, I urge you to find solutions through the
implementation phase. The plan is a fluid document. It is subject to
the National Forest Management Act, the National Environmental Policy
Act, and everything these two important laws represent. You all have
recourse to seek assistance in the forest planning process, if you only
give the agencies a chance to put it in place.
Equally important now is the need for the Federal agencies to work
together to implement this plan. In the past, we saw agencies at odds
with one another, working actively to disrupt each other. The Pacific
Northwest cannot tolerate such behavior in the future. I am impressed
by what I have heard from the agencies to date, but the proof will be
in seeing results.
The road ahead is rough. But we have a plan--if all goes well--that
will afford the agencies an opportunity to restore public confidence;
that will ensure the responsible stewardship of our resources; that
will bring some certainty to businesses and communities; that will give
a solid sense that there is a bright future for Northwest culture.
Beyond this plan we will have to address the 4-D rule under the
Endangered Species Act. This rule is critically important to private
land owners in my State--large and small. This rule has been held in
abeyance, awaiting approval of the Federal forest plan. Frankly, the
flexible 4-D rule is contingent on finishing a management plan for the
Federal forests. Once that is done, I am committed to working out a 4-D
rule as well.
Let us give Option 9 a chance to work. As I said before, we have a
tremendous opportunity to make this a new beginning for an old issue
that has divided my region--and this Nation--for too long.
____________________