[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 206 (Thursday, December 21, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H15555-H15557]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              COMMENTARY ON BOOKS AND MOVIES IS IMPORTANT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, before I get into my subject, let me just 
comment briefly on what my colleague just stated in respect to the 
balanced-budget negotiations. He mentioned, the last thing he 
mentioned, were the tax cuts, and you know I have looked at the tax 
cuts, the $500-per-child tax credits, and I do not think that is a 
strange tax cut, and that is, by far, the biggest amount of money that 
is manifest in the Republican package. That says that you get $500 
credit per child.
  Now that means, if you are a person who is a working person who only 
pays today $1,500 in tax liability, you have three children, at $500 
apiece your tax 

[[Page H15556]]
liability is erased. A person who has a $50,000 tax liability, an 
upper-income person, and you have three children, your children count 
just as much as anybody else's, and you get $1,500 off your $50,000 
liability, and you still pay $48,500 in taxes, and I just do not 
understand why that--I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. VENTO. I appreciate it.
  I would suggest that there are two factors here that are inherent in 
this bill that weigh in against workers, low-income workers 
specifically. First are the changes prospectively in the earned income 
tax credit, which is reduced in the plans that have come from the House 
and Senate out of conference, and second of all is that, if you do not 
pay a Federal income tax, then you are not entitled to any type of 
credit, and of course I am talking about income tax because those same 
individuals of course pay Social Security taxes on a regular basis, so 
those children that are about a third of the children in this country 
come from families that are affected, where they would not get the 
benefit because--the fact that their wages--of the parent are so low 
that the child is denied the benefit.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, let me just answer my friend.
  That is a long--what the gentleman has just described is a far cry 
from saying this is a tax cut for the rich. I do not consider a person 
who makes, who has only a $1,500-per-year tax liability, as being a 
wealthy individual, and yet that person, if that person has three 
children, he get to multiply that by $500 per child, and that totally 
eliminates his tax liability. That takes it from $1,500 to zero. Now 
that is hardly a tax break for the Rockefellers.
  So the gentleman was arguing in favor of having a balanced 
discussion, using not pejorative terms in trying to find a middle 
ground somewhere, and I would suggest that there is a lot of merit to a 
child-based credit--you know the tax credit we started with that we had 
in 1948, if you adjust it for inflation, is much lower in real dollars 
than it was back in the 1940's.
  I think the gentleman----
  Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman would yield, I would acknowledge that, 
but I think that, if you look at the broad array of taxes here over a 
7-year or even a 10-year period, you find that the majority of these 
taxes do go to those that have investment income and to corporations. 
You know, they way we get to some of these adjustments is first looking 
at the individuals and not treating the corporations----
  Mr. HUNTER. Reclaiming my time, I just take my time back for a 
second. The difference that I have seen in the amount of money of 
income that is derived or the amount of money that is attributed to the 
child-based tax cut is roughly, if the last figures I looked at were 
correct, was about five times as much the amount of income that is 
considered to be given up, if you will, by the capital gains tax cut.
  Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman would yield back----
  Mr. HUNTER. Child-based tax cut is by far the big----
  Mr. VENTO. I think the issue here gets to be how long you run that, 
so first of all the Senate--the example you use, usually use a 5-year 
time frame. This is a 7-year program, but, if you run it to 10 years. 
You find that about three-quarters of the tax benefits in this go to 
investors, some, of course, small capital-gains beneficiaries, but a 
lot of it to corporations. You know in this measure that you have, Some 
of it will take the corporate tax down to zero.

  Mr. HUNTER. I appreciate the gentleman's commentary. I would be happy 
to discuss this with him further but, Mr. Speaker, I would like----
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank my friend.
  Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that sometimes it is important to comment on 
books and movies because those books and movies reflect history, 
presume to reflect history, and that history is drawn upon by leaders 
in government when we make further decisions, and one movie that is 
currently playing in this country is called ``Nixon.'' It is a movie by 
Oliver Stone, and I think that commentary is always an important thing, 
and it is important to have a commentary that is delivered by an honest 
broker.
  There is no more honest broker in this area and no person more 
qualified to comment on the movie ``Nixon'' than Herbert Klein, who 
first met Nixon in 1946 when he was first running for Congress, and 
ultimately became the Communications Director of the White House in 
1969, and was the director until 1973, and I would offer for the Record 
this article in the San Diego Union entitled ``Truth Subjected to 
Oliver's Twist'' in which Mr. Klein tries hard to find a grain in truth 
in the movie ``Nixon,'' but finds it very difficult to achieve.
  So I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that this article by Herbert Klein be 
put in the Record.
  The article referred to is as follows:

           [From the San Diego Union-Tribune, Dec. 19, 1995]

                   Truth Subjected to Oliver's Twist

                         (By Herbert G. Klein)

       The Richard Nixon portrayed by Oliver Stone in the new 
     movie ``Nixon'' comes nowhere close to the realities in the 
     complex life of the late former president.
       In its article on the highly publicized new film (which 
     opens tomorrow), Newsweek saw Stone as having discovered 
     ``complexity, ambiguity and even a measure of restraint.''
       For those who knew Nixon well, that description of this 
     picture is difficult to comprehend. Stone has created few 
     movies that were not controversial, and ``Nixon''--like 
     ``JFK''--is sure to create controversy.
       For ``Nixon,'' Stone recruited outstanding actors, 
     including Sir Anthony Hopkins (who plays the president) and 
     Joan Allen (the first lady). But given the script, which 
     jumps without warning from fact to fiction, acting alone 
     falls far short of reality.
       I watched the movie at a private screening last week at 
     Mann's Hazard Center, where I was alone to analyze my 
     feelings as I recalled the highs and lows, the wins and 
     losses, that I had experienced with Richard Nixon.
       The film appropriately showed the warts of the president 
     and then went beyond. The happier, high points were largely 
     ignored.
       It gave me a bewildered feeling to watch actors who never 
     have known the sill-living people nor the issues they 
     portray, and who miss true characterization.
       This is a movie mainly tuned to Watergate and parts of 
     Vietnam, but it is interspersed with scenes of Nixon's 
     childhood and, finally, his disgraced departure from power.
       Even the early family moments are inaccurate, particularly 
     when they portray Nixon's brother as a renegade who died 
     after suffering from tuberculosis for 10 years.
       Scenes featuring Nixon's mother, Hannah (played by Mary 
     Steenburgen), depict her as an ``angel'' who had tremendous 
     impact on her son Richard. That was true. The scenes brought 
     back memories to me of her Quaker funeral. Such memories 
     included the Rev. Billy Graham, who later presided over the 
     funerals of both Pat and Dick Nixon.
       The early family depictions surprised me. I didn't expect 
     to see shots of the happy days with kings, presidents and 
     prime ministers in the state dining room, or other shots of 
     congressmen crowding around the president for pictures of 
     bill signings on major issues, such as school desegregation.
       I did expect less Watergate and more of the international 
     events that shaped Nixon's policies and that are a part of 
     history.
       Fortunately, I never met the Watergate burglars or its 
     masterminds, G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt, but most of 
     the reallife persons portrayed in the film were men and women 
     with whom I worked closely sometime during the time I knew 
     Dick and Pat Nixon, from 1946 until he died in April of 1994.
       Even with that background, I had difficulty determining 
     which actor was which Nixon deputy or which parts of the 
     movie were based on fact and which were part of a 
     screenwriter's imagination.


                            rubinek as klein

       The greatest surprise for me came when I discovered Saul 
     Rubinek playing Herb Klein in scenes from the 1960 and 1962 
     elections. I didn't recognize myself or my role until someone 
     on the screen called out, ``Herb.'' Among other things, 
     Rubinek appears to be short, dumpy, wears suspenders, swears 
     frequently and smokes cigarettes. I'm not Beau Brummel, but 
     none of those things applies to me.
       In a more important way, the actor playing me on the screen 
     was arguing a point that was directly opposite my point of 
     view.
       The debate was over whether Nixon should take legal action 
     to protest the results of the close 1960 election against 
     John Kennedy. In the movie, I am arguing with Nixon's early 
     campaign manager, Murray Chotiner, on the night of the 
     election.
       In fact, the historic question was not seriously considered 
     by Nixon until days after the election, when we were in Key 
     Biscayne, Fla., and my position--along with that of Chotiner 
     and (the late longtime Nixon confidant) of Bob Finch--was 
     that Nixon should not contest the election because such 
     action could endanger national stability.
       Nixon listened to both sides and decided not to challenge 
     the results, and in a historic scene not portrayed in the 
     movie, he and John Kennedy met in a Key Biscayne villa a week 
     after the election. Nixon rejected an offer to serve in the 
     Kennedy Cabinet, declaring himself to be the leader of the 
     ``loyal 

[[Page H15557]]
     opposition.'' The two men agreed to try to unite a divided country, 
     while recognizing their differences.
       No one ever asked me or any other persons portrayed in the 
     movie what the facts were.


                          coffee his beverage

       The Nixon on Stone's screen drinks almost constantly and 
     comes off as an evil, angry buffoon who believes that his 
     problems center on not being understood by anyone including 
     his wife.
       Nixon was not a teetotaler, but coffee was his beverage 
     during the day, and I can recall only a half-dozen times in 
     almost 50 years when I saw him bordering on too much to drink 
     during the evening.
       Stone touches on Nixon's feelings toward the Kennedys, and 
     at one point Nixon is seen staring at a picture of President 
     Kennedy and asking: ``When they look at you they see what 
     they want to be. When they look at me, they see what they 
     are.''
       That probably portrays Nixon's true feelings. He disparged 
     ``Eastern intellectuals'' and yet he knew that, in truth, he 
     was an ``intellectual'' who liked to feel he was outside the 
     Eastern elite community. Some of those he admired most were 
     eliteist. He resented the fact that the Kennedys ``got away 
     with everything'' and that the news media and Congress looked 
     for faults where he could be criticized. At one time, (chief 
     domestic-policy adviser) John Ehrlichman Persuaded Nixon to 
     set up a Camelot-like ``royal guard'' for the White House. 
     That lasted only a few days.
       The most dramatic parts of the film come in conversations 
     between Dick and Pat Nixon. Those obviously are fabrications 
     since no one witnessed them. Allen plays Pat Nixon's role 
     well and shows her to be family-oriented, warm and 
     intelligent. The Pat Nixon I knew also was a strong and 
     caring ``first lady.'' The film wrongly portrays her as a 
     chain smoker. She smoked occasionally in private.
       Nixon used to say everyone loves Pat. He was right.
       During the scenes between the president and his wife, Nixon 
     refers to her with the nickname ``Buddy.'' I had never heard 
     that, Nixon's daughter, Tricia Cox, whose White House wedding 
     is portrayed tastefully, told me she never heard her father 
     use the name Buddy, but she does recall that Buddy was a 
     childhood nickname for her mother.
       Julie Nixon Eisenhower also is shown pleading with her 
     father not to quit. That was a plea Julie made, but the 
     passion of the real Julie was far greater than that of the 
     actress (Annabeth Gish) who portrays her.


                            stone obsession

       As I watched the film unfold, the most surprising 
     innuendoes concerned Castro, the Bay of Pigs and a mysterious 
     attempt by Stone to insinuate that there was some type of 
     plot involving Nixon, Howard Hunt, the CIA, J. Edgar Hoover, 
     the Mafia and the Kennedy assassination.
       Over the years, I have heard discredited theories involving 
     the CIA or the FBI, Kennedy and the Mafia and attempts to 
     assassinate Castro. Stone seems to attach these long 
     repudiated stories to Nixon as if the former president had 
     some part in the death of John Kennedy. That, of course, is 
     pure Stone obsession on Kennedy assassination plots.
       The vagaries of the Cuban-plot theories did stir within me 
     memories of some of the most tense moments of the Nixon 
     campaign against Kennedy in 1960.
       Just prior to the fourth and final debate between the two 
     candidates, both men addressed an American Legion convention 
     in Miami, Kennedy got major applause with comments about 
     organizing a force to attack Castro. Nixon knew that such 
     Cuban refugee troops were being trained secretly by the CIA 
     under President Eisenhower's direction. Nixon felt that for 
     him to take this hard line, as had Kennedy would break the 
     code of secrecy he held as vice president. He, therefore, was 
     made to look weak with a suggestion urging a blockade.
       The encounter made Nixon so angry that it was difficult to 
     prepare him for the all-important final debate. He had me 
     call CIA Director Allen Dulles to see if Dulles had told 
     Kennedy about the secret training exercise. Dulles denied 
     this, but Nixon did not believe him. This exercise later 
     became the Bay of Pigs.
       In the final days of the 1960 campaign, Nixon was forced 
     during the debate to take a weaker position than he believed 
     in, and Kennedy scored points.
       None of this was in the movie, but I recall taking 
     reporters to Club 21 for a drink, hoping that would distract 
     them from what was going on.
       I became angry during the movie when Nixon was portrayed in 
     sinister fashion as ready to bomb civilians in Hanoi, North 
     Vietnam. Stone goes to the trouble of showing Nixon turning 
     back a steak that was so raw that blood covered his plate. 
     This bloody scene was supposed to be symbolic, but it almost 
     made me sick.
       The fact is that Hanoi was bombed, and nearby Haiphong was 
     mined, a bold move that forced the North Vietnamese to agree 
     to a cease-fire. I recalled that Henery Kissinger and I were 
     in Hanoi immediately afterward, and I saw with my own eyes 
     that Hanoi civilians were spared, but military targets such 
     as bridges and airfields were hit with precision. This was 
     not in the movie.
       Among those who will resent this film most will be Henry 
     Kissinger. Only recently, he was unfairly depicted as being 
     evil in Turner Broadcasting's TV movie, ``Kissinger and 
     Nixon.'' In the Stone movie, Kissinger appears to be a 
     devious fat, sycophant who was almost ousted from the White 
     House staff by (White House chief of staff) Bob Haldeman and 
     aide Chuck Colson.
       One of Kissinger's happiest moments was when he won the 
     Nobel Peace Prize in 1973. The disparaging movies may provide 
     Kissinger with some new low points in life.
       When, in ``Nixon,'' I saw the Kissinger character having 
     lunch or dinner with reporters at Washington's Sans Souci 
     restaurant, I recalled dining in the same cafe and often 
     wondering what Kissinger was leaking. This did become a White 
     House controversy, and he may have wondered the same thing 
     about me.
       But the movie's implication that Kissinger was about to 
     lose his job was the opposite of truth. The film reminded me 
     of times when I was in Haldeman's office or on an airplane 
     and heard Kissinger--then the frustrated national security 
     adviser--seek to displace Secretary of State Bill Rogers. No 
     one effectively threatened Kissinger.
       For me, the saddest moments of the movie came near the end, 
     when Nixon finally begins to comprehend that he has lost the 
     battle, that he is about to be forced from office. I had left 
     the staff a year earlier.
       Stone is more sympathetic in these scenes and allows Nixon 
     to ask why no one remembers what he did in ending the war, in 
     opening relations with China and what he did in the SALT 
     treaty agreements with the Soviet Union.
       I left the theater wondering why the movie was made and 
     seeking quiet where I could again sort out fact and fiction.
       I also pondered the coincidence that within less than two 
     years after Nixon's death, we suddenly see a flurry of shows 
     reviving the Vietnam War and Watergate--TNT's ``Kissinger and 
     Nixon,'' Stone's ``Nixon'' and a forthcoming History Channel 
     program titled `` `The Real Richard Nixon' 3\1/2\ documentary 
     hours of Tricky Dick.''
       The A&E Channel also has scheduled a two-hour presentation 
     of Nixon on ``Biography,'' to air in january. Its producers 
     say it is a true documentary.

                          ____________________