[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]

 
                   WHITEWATER, WHITEWATER, WHITEWATER

  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, a short while ago, the Senator from 
New York delivered a sharp attack on President Clinton here on the 
Senate floor. I wish now to respond to that attack, and I advised the 
Senator from New York that I would do so at the earliest opportunity.
  The Senator's attack appears to have been provoked by a cartoon which 
appeared in newspapers across the country yesterday and today. That 
cartoon is called ``Doonesbury'', and it apparently included comments 
referring to the Senator from New York and the Whitewater issue.
  I have not seen the cartoon, and I know nothing about it. If the 
Senator is offended by a reference to him in a cartoon, that is his 
business, and it is nothing over which I have any control, nor do I 
have any concern. But I am distressed that a comment about the Senator 
in a cartoon would cause him then to launch such a sharp attack on 
President Clinton, especially an attack which included statements which 
I believe to be incorrect.
  He stated, and I quote, ``The President has sought to tax everything 
that moves and some things that don't.''
  We have become so accustomed in American political life to hear and 
accept false statements that we have become numb to them, and it has 
become an unfortunate part of the American political process that 
people make false statements apparently to make a political point.
  That is obviously a false statement. It is untrue. The speaker surely 
knew it to be untrue when he made the statement. And yet it was made 
apparently to make a political point, apparently to embarrass the 
President, apparently to cause political damage to the President. But I 
would say to my colleagues, words have meaning and words have 
consequences. And if we are to use words in making political attacks, 
at the very least we should make an effort to have those words bear 
some semblance of truthfulness.
  A further statement: ``The President has raised everyone else's 
taxes.'' Those are the exact words of the statement. ``The President 
has raised everyone else's taxes.''
  Madam President, that statement is not true. It is a false statement. 
Surely, the speaker knew it to be false. But again it is plainly 
intended to make a political point, to cause embarrassment and 
political damage to the President.
  Are we not confident enough of the merit of our argument to restrict 
our arguments to the facts? Or do we need to embellish those arguments 
with statements that are obviously false and obviously untrue.
  I think it is a debasing of the political debate in our society that 
so much is said that everyone knows to be false, the person saying it 
and the person hearing it all knowing it to be false and yet accept it 
as somehow a normal part of political debate in our society.
  The President has not raised everyone else's taxes. Let me go back, 
if I might, in time, to discuss last year's economic bill which is what 
this statement must be based upon and its current relationship to the 
so-called Whitewater issue.
  Last summer, in this Chamber, we had a long, difficult and 
controversial debate. It was over President Clinton's economic plan. It 
was the largest deficit reduction plan presented in our Nation's 
history, the largest deficit reduction plan approved in our Nation's 
history. Some will argue about the accuracy of that later statement 
depending upon the changing value of the dollar. And so I should make 
it clear that it was either the largest or by a very small amount the 
second largest, depending upon which value of the dollar applied at 
which time. It included spending cuts and tax increases.
  Now, opponents of the President's plan including the Senator from New 
York and every other Republican Member of the Senate voted against the 
President's economic plan. And during that debate they stood here on 
the Senate floor and in press conferences and in statements outside the 
Senate Chamber and said in effect that the President's economic plan 
was the wrong plan for the country and that, if it passed, interest 
rates would go up, unemployment would go up, the deficit would go up, 
and economic growth would go down.
  Well, we passed that plan, and every single Republican Member of the 
Senate voted against it. What has happened in the months since then? 
About the opposite of what they predicted. Interest rates have gone 
down, although they are now starting to rise again as a consequence of 
recent actions taken by the Federal Reserve Board. Unemployment has 
come down. And the deficit has come way down. Economic growth is up. 
Indeed, economic growth was so rapid in the last quarter of last year 
that the Federal Reserve Board took action to increase interest rates 
to restrain the rate of growth so as not to ignite a new round of 
inflation.
  So what do our colleagues have to talk about? The real need in this 
country is for economic growth and the creation of jobs, and more jobs 
were created in America in the first year of President Clinton's term 
than in all the previous 4 years. So those who had advocated the 
economic policies of the previous administrations, those who had 
opposed President Clinton's plan now face the reality that the economy 
is doing reasonably well--not in every part of the country, not in my 
region, not in California, not in others, but overall the figures look 
good and the future looks good.
  So for them Whitewater represents an opportunity to distract the 
attention of the American people away from the state of the economy. 
Every single American who follows the news knows the Republican program 
on Whitewater, but I ask is there a single American who knows the 
Republican program for economic growth and creating jobs in America? 
And I think the answer must be not one because there is not any such 
plan.
  Whitewater, Whitewater, White- water, that is the Republican program 
in the spring of 1994.
  We have a responsibility on Whitewater, and we are going to meet it 
in a responsible and appropriate way. We are going to meet Congress's 
oversight responsibilities at a time and under a circumstance that does 
not undermine the special counsel's investigation, and that meets our 
responsibilities. It will include hearings at an appropriate time under 
an appropriate structure.
  I have had meetings with the distinguished Republican leader on the 
subject, and those will continue.
  But we are not going to let the Republican obsession with Whitewater 
prevent this Congress from dealing with health care. We are not going 
to let the Republican obsession with Whitewater prevent this Congress 
from dealing with crime. We are not going to let the Republican 
obsession with Whitewater prevent this Congress from dealing with 
welfare reform and all of the other important bills that we must deal 
with as a Congress. That is our job. We are sent here by the American 
people to deal with the problems that exist in their daily lives.
  I think the attitude of most Americans was well summed up last week 
when, during the Easter recess, I was walking down the street in 
Portland, ME, and I came to an intersection. As I waited for the light 
to change, a fellow driving a pickup truck pulled up to the light, 
rolled down the window, and yelled out to me, ``Senator, why don't you 
guys do something about health care and forget about this Whitewater 
stuff?''
  I think that is the way the American people feel. I think they 
realize that what is going on here has been purely partisan politics by 
our colleagues in a transparent effort to embarrass President Clinton, 
to politically damage President Clinton, and to keep the Congress from 
meeting its responsibility, its primary responsibility, in the areas of 
health care, welfare, crime, and so many other important issues.
  Madam President, we are not going to be sidetracked. We can do both 
and do them responsibly. That is what we are going to do. And I do not 
think we should let this kind of attack on President Clinton go without 
response, or detract us from doing our duty. And our duty is clear. The 
American people want us to act on the problems that affect their daily 
lives. And that is health care reform; that is welfare reform; that is 
controlling crime in this country; and dealing with the many other 
important issues we must confront.
  So I encourage my colleagues, when we debate these, let us try to 
keep the debate within the bounds of fact. Let us try to keep our 
debate with some fidelity to truth and reality. There are honest 
differences of opinion here. There are honest differences of 
philosophy; they ought not be the subject of meaningful debate. I hope 
we will do that.
  But I do not think we ought to let this kind of statement about the 
President go without responding. And I do not intend to permit such 
comments to go without response.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  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. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________