[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.

                          ____________________