David Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I see no other Senator seeking recognition. I yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, this month I was extremely gratified when President Clinton unveiled his approach to simplify the pension rules. Many of the provisions in this legislation are also in this particular Pension Simplification Act of 1995 that I am introducing today and am joined with by my colleagues, Senators Hatch, Breaux, and Leahy. I wish to thank our colleagues for helping us in this matter. I commend the President for focusing on this very important cause affecting small businesses throughout our country. I believe that by working together with our Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle and with our President, all of us together this year can enact this legislation into law. Should we do this, small businesses across America would be extremely grateful. It is important that this legislation have support from both sides, Mr. President, and I am happy to have Senator Hatch, my fellow member of the Finance Committee, as a lead cosponsor on this bill. I wish to thank him for joining us, and I look forward to working with him on this very important legislation. Mr. President, these new pension simplification provisions affecting small business have already been strongly endorsed by three important small business organizations: The National Federation of Independent Business, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Small Business Council of America. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of these letters of endorsement from these very distinguished organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Pension Simplification Act of 1995. This very important legislation is designed to simplify the tax laws governing our Nation's private retirement system. This legislation is the result of the efforts of many, and these efforts date back to March of 1990 when I first held hearings in the Finance subcommittee on private retirement plans. Later, in the summer of 1990, I introduced the Employee Benefits Simplification Act, S. 2901. As a matter of history, many experts, including pension planners for small and large businesses, logged countless hours to help me develop this legislation, and many organizations pushed to get this legislation enacted into law. In the 102d Congress, I reintroduced this legislation as the Employee Benefits Simplification and Expansion Act of 1991. In early 1992, this legislation was included in the Tax Fairness and Economic Growth Act of 1992, which was H.R. 4210, and which was passed by the Congress, but it was vetoed by President Bush for reasons not associated with this particular piece of the overall tax bill. During the summer of 1992, portions of the simplification effort were passed as part of the 1992 Unemployment Compensation Act. This legislation was then designed to liberalize the rollover rules which allow the worker the ability to take his pension benefits with him or her when they change jobs. Later that year, the remainder of the simplification bill was included as part of the Revenue Act of 1992, which was H.R. 11, also passed by Congress, also vetoed by President Bush for reasons not related to the substance of this legislation. Since that time, there has been no tax bill which could include the as-yet-unpassed provisions of the simplification effort. Today, Mr. President, I am very happy to be joined by Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, Senator Breaux of Louisiana, and Senator Leahy of Vermont in introducing this legislation as the Pension Simplification Act of 1995. This bill includes many of the provisions passed two times by Congress in 1992, but it also includes some very new and important provisions, which evidences our continuing effort to simplify the very complex and arcane pension rules. To some, this in itself is an extremely arcane issue, but to small businesses across our great country it is a critical part of doing business. And it is that part of business which provides for savings and retirement funds ultimately for millions of employees. This act is the next significant step toward reducing the costs associated with providing pension benefits. The legislation achieves this result by eliminating many of the complexities and the inconsistencies in the private pension system which will in turn promote the establishment of new pension plans by both large and small companies. While this legislation affects both small and large businesses, who provide retirement plans for their workers, new provisions in this bill specifically target complex and costly rules affecting small business, and there is very good reason for this action in this legislation. In 1993, 83 percent of the companies with 100 or more employees offered some type of retirement plan. In contrast, in businesses with fewer than 25 employees, only 19 percent of those firms had an employer-provided pension plan available to them, and only 15 percent of these employees even participated in those plans. The major factor contributing to this dismal statistic is the sky- high per-participant cost of establishing and maintaining a pension plan for small business. The Pension Simplification Act alleviates the high-cost barriers for small business by creating a tax credit which can be applied toward the start-up costs of providing a new plan for employers with 50 or fewer employees. Of course, this is geared toward and focused on small business. Next, the legislation slashes extensive annual nondiscrimination testing requirements for firms where no employee is highly compensated. These provisions, Mr. President, combined with the broad simplification provisions for all plans, will significantly reduce the costs of starting up and maintaining a retirement plan. Thus, this bill we are introducing today encourages private retirement savings for our Nation's small business worker. Mr. President, rather than continuing a discussion of the many detailed provisions of the Pension Simplification Act of 1995, I ask unanimous consent that a 5-page summary of the legislation and a copy of the Pension Simplification Act of 1995 be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, finally, in the coming days, I will be asking our colleagues to look closely at the Pension Simplification Act and join me in cosponsoring this effort. It is a bipartisan effort. The bottom line is that it will increase retirement savings for workers in our country, especially those who work in small firms which, of course, is so critical to America's future.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank the distinguished manager. I do not know whether this debate is more about politics or more about abortion or exactly what it is about. But I do not truly believe this debate is about Dr. Henry Foster. There are two Henry Fosters: The one that is depicted and portrayed by his opposition; and there is the real Henry Foster, a man of deep compassion and certainly a man of great ability. There have been a lot of articles written, a lot of stories on TV and radio and in newspapers, about who is winning in this Foster fight; whether it is one of the candidates for the Republican nomination for President or the other candidate. Mr. President, I can say the loser in this fight, if we do not get 60 votes today, will be the American people. It will be the American people who are going to be the great loser if we do not confirm this man. He has stated time and time and time again his position on abortion is very, very simple: That they should be safe, that they should be legal, and that they should be rare. That is his position on abortion. I urge my colleagues to vote for this splendid man as our next Surgeon General of the United States. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to support the nomination of Henry W. Foster Jr., M.D. to one of the most important health care posts in our Government, Surgeon General. As you know, the Surgeon General is the national spokesperson to promote good health activities and to alert the nation regarding things that are harmful or potentially harmful. In May, Dr. Foster convinced the Labor and Human Resources Committee that he was the right man for the job. Today, I am here to explain to my colleagues why I know Dr. Foster is the right person for that job. To reiterate, soon after I set out to learn more about our nominee for Surgeon General, I realized that there are actually two Dr. Henry Fosters. One is the Dr. Foster created by inside-the-beltway groups using diversionary tactics to derail the nomination of a respected physician. The other is the Dr. Foster who grew up in Pine Bluff, AR, attended University of Arkansas as the only African-American in his class, served his country as a medical officer in the Air Force, and set up a practice in Tennessee where he trained hundreds of the nation's finest medical practitioners. Mr. President, I am here to tell you that I am convinced that this second Dr. Foster is the real Dr. Foster. For those who doubt this and want to see something tangible, I urge you to visit Nashville to see his accomplishments, such as the doctors he trained, the day care centers he created, and the individuals, young and old, he has delivered into this world over his many years of practice. I would be remiss if I did not mention one of Dr. Foster's greatest accomplishments, his I Have a Future Program, a pioneering effort to reduce the number of teen pregnancies by improving teens' self-esteem. As you may know, President George Bush named Dr. Foster's program as one of American's Thousand Points of Light in 1991. President Bush's own Secretary of HHS, Dr. Louis Sullivan, has lauded Dr. Foster's nomination. Let me also talk about what Dr. Foster's peers say about him. The American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the National Medical Association, the American College of Preventive Medicine, are just some of the professional organizations that have come out in support of Dr. Foster. Mr. President, in addition to letters from his peers, I have also gotten letters from other groups. One organization, the Council for Health and Human Service Ministries of the United Church of Christ wrote: We are people of faith, committed to promoting and maintaining optimum health of all people. We believe that the professional credentials and experiences of Dr. Foster are impressive and provide sufficient evidence of his ability to be the nation's spokesperson on matter of public health policies and practices. In sum, Mr. President, let me make these points about Dr. Foster: He is a practicing physician, a scholar and academic administrator of national stature, and a community leader. Dr. Foster is a skilled communicator who emphasizes consensus- building over confrontation. Dr. Foster has bipartisan support. Dr. Foster is one of the nation's leading experts on, and advocates for, maternal and child health, and has developed and directed teen pregnancy and drug-abuse prevention programs that bolster self-esteem and encourage personal responsibility. Mr. President, let us look at the Dr. Foster from Tennessee, the man who has done so much for people who others have ignored. Let us follow the Labor and Human Resource Committee's lead and confirm Dr. Foster's nomination.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the importance of establishing a Kid's Appreciation Day to pay tribute to the children of this Nation. The question that is on the lips of children is ``If there's a Mother's Day and a Father's Day, why isn't there a Kid's Day?'' This is met with the standard response ``Because every day is Kid's Day.'' Well, Mr. President, nothing could be further from the truth. The children today deal with problems that were unfathomable when we were growing up. When I was young, one of my biggest worries was making it home to dinner on time. In many places today, kids worry more about dodging bullets, drug dealers, and whether they will live to see adulthood. Some children rarely see their parents who must hold two jobs in order to put food on the table. There is nothing as valuable on this Earth than our children. We are handing these children the impossible task of dealing with problems that we have failed to solve. I know that having a Kid's Day won't solve these problems. But it would show our chidren that we appreciate them. I know the children of Arkansas want to be appreciated. A fine young lady named Vivian Rose has taken it upon herself to lead the children of my State toward this goal. She has presented this idea to Gov. Jim Guy Tucker who gives it his full support. I praise both of them for their efforts and commend them on their leadership in Kid's Appreciation Day. Children are our most valuable asset and deserve to be valued on a special day. A Kid's Day would not only show our appreciation and gratitude but would instill in them a sense of comfort that they would hold dear. It would make children feel important and wanted instead of neglected. This holiday would give kids a chance to spend time with their parents. Time that they don't normally have. There could be free admission for museums and amusement parks. Local parks and swimming pools could be open to the public. It would be a day for parents to let their kids know that they care about them and this would help our children overcome the obstacles that they face to become the future leaders of tomorrow. Mr. President, nations around the globe have Kid's Days. In fact, I'm told that the Kiwanis Club also sponsors a Kid's Day. They have parades, games, races, and give awards to celebrate children. I strongly recommend that we follow the lead of the Kiwanis Club, Governor Tucker, and Vivian Rose by making Kid's Day a reality nationwide. Children that feel wanted and appreciated are a strong defense against the violence these kids encounter in their neighborhoods. It is our responsibility as adults and role models to guide them toward the correct path of purpose. This holiday would place a smile on the faces of our kids and would put comfort in our hearts knowing that they are facing the world with added strength and resilience. Mr. President, Kid's Appreciation Day is a noble cause and I urge you to join me and my State in its support.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Church Retirement Benefits Simplification Act of 1995, legislation which I also introduced and held hearings on in the 101st, 102d, and 103d Congresses. This act provides much needed clarification of the rules that apply to church retirement and welfare benefit plans and brings consistency to those rules. In addition, the act resolves significant problems churches face in administering their retirement and welfare benefit programs under current law. In developing this important legislation, we have worked closely with leaders of the pension boards of 30 mainline Protestant and Jewish denominations and a Catholic religious order. The employee benefit programs of these mainline denominations and order are among the oldest programs in our country. Several date from the 1700's, and their median age is in excess of 50 years. These programs provide retirement and welfare benefits for several hundred thousand clergy and lay workers employed by thousands of churches and church ministry organizations serving the spiritual needs of literally millions of members. Church retirement benefits programs began in recognition of a denomination's mission to care for its church workers in their advanced years. Several church retirement and welfare benefit programs were initially formed to provide relief and benefits for retired, disabled, or impoverished ministers and families as particular cases of need were identified. As time passed, church denomination began to provide for the retirement needs of their ministers and lay workers on a current and [[Page S7698]] systematic basis. Today, church retirement and welfare benefit programs provide benefits for ministers and lay workers employed in all forms of pastoral, healing, teaching, and preaching ministries and missions, including, among others, local churches, seminaries, old-age homes, orphanages, mission societies, hospitals, universities, church camps and day care centers. Mr. President, the goal of the act is to clarify the rules that apply to church employee benefit plans. Under current law, these rules are generally lengthy and complex and are, for the most part, designed for for-profit, commercial employers. Most denominations are composed of thousands of work units, each having only a few employees, and the budgets of these work units are marginal at best. These organizations rely almost completely on contributions from the offering plate to support their missions, including the salaries and retirement and welfare benefits of their ministers and lay workers. Unlike for-profit business entities, churches cannot pass operating costs on to customers by raising prices. Churches are also much more loosely structured than most for-profit business organizations, and many denominations cannot impose requirements on their constituent parts. For example, hierarchically organized denominations may be able to control the provision of employee benefits to ministers and lay workers, while in congregational denominations, such control is typically more difficult. In addition, churches are tax-exempt and, unlike for-profit business organizations, have no need for tax deductions. Churches and church ministry organizations therefore lack the incentive of for-profit employers to maximize either the amount of the employer's tax deduction or the amount of income which the highly compensated employees who control a for-profit business can shelter from current taxation through plan contributions and tax-free fringe or welfare benefits. Mr. President, retirement and employee benefit tax laws do not always take the difference between churches and for-profit employers into account, with the result that churches have had to divert a significant amount of time and resources from their religious mission and ministries in attempting to identify and comply with rules that in many instances are unworkable or simply not needed for church employee benefit plans. If the act becomes law, the reduction in administrative burdens and consequent savings in related costs now imposed on churches and church ministry organizations will outweigh any possible gain from an employee benefits policy perspective. Unlike the for-profit sector where cost savings result in a better bottom line for shareholders, savings in the church sector will find their way into missions and ministries that help people who need help. A 1993 study by Independent Sector, a national membership organization composed of over 600 tax-exempt organizations and corporate philanthropy departments, indicated that approximately half the funds contributed to churches is used in service to others. Religious congregations are the primary voluntary service providers for neighborhoods. Ninety-two percent of religious congregations have one or more programs in human services. Three-fifths of religious congregations offer family counseling, and more than one-third--almost 40 percent--give means or shelter to the poor. Some 74 percent donate for international relief or missionary activity, and almost 90 percent sponsor hospices, health programs, hospitals, or provide for the disabled, retarded, or people in crises. The Independent Sector study indicated that in 1991 religious congregations made $6.6 billion in direct grants to other groups and gave $15.9 billion for education, human services and health programs. These figures are well beyond the giving of all U.S. foundations and corporations combined. It is my view that the Congress should do everything possible to ensure that churches can continue to maximize their contributions toward these important missions and ministries, rather than paying for costs of complying with rules that are unworkable or not needed for church employee benefit plans. The cornerstone of the act is a recodification of the rules applicable to church retirement plans so that all of such rules in the Internal Revenue Code are identified, simplified, and separated from the rules that apply to for-profit employers. Retirement plan issues unique to churches will thus not be inadvertently affected when Congress is considering future Code changes which are applicable to for-profit employers but not appropriate for churches. The act would also ensure that church retirement plans, whether described in the new proposed section 401A--applicable only to those church section 401(a) plans that affirmatively decide to be subject to it--or section 403(b), are subject to the same coverage and related rules. In 1986, Congress determined that the section 403(b) plans of churches and so-called qualified church controlled organizations should not be subjected to coverage and related rules. The act would extend this same relief to church section 401(a) plans and would also eliminate the troublesome qualified church controlled organization approach in favor of a provision that only subjects church-related hospitals and universities to applicable coverage and related rules. The act, consistent with the law that now applies to church section 401(a) plans, would also clarify that the coverage rules that will apply to the section 403(b) programs of church-related hospitals and universities are those that were applicable prior to the enactment of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The act also would resolve a number of other problems many church pension boards face under current law. For example, under present law there is a question as to whether self-employed ministers and chaplains who work for nonchurch employers are able to participate in their denomination's retirement and welfare benefit programs. The act would make it clear that such ministers may participate in such programs. The act would also: Make it clear that the portion of a retired minister's pension which is treated as parsonage allowance is not subject to Self Employment Contribution Act, or SECA, taxes; For the first time, subject church plans to definite, objective vesting schedules; Solve several church employer aggregation problems; Provide relief that will result in better retirement income for foreign missionaries; Simplify the required distribution rules that apply to church retirement plans; Eliminate an unworkable requirement under the so-called section 403(b) catch-up contribution rules; and Make relief granted under section 457 consistent with coverage relief proposed for church retirement and welfare benefit plans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of Senator Bingaman's amendment to protect funding for the important investments compete in the evolving global economy. Mr. President, as the cold war passes into our memories, a new type of global challenge to the health and welfare of America has emerged. It is an economic war that American businessmen and women are fighting in the US marketplace and in global markets against foreign competitors support and encouraged by their governments. As Commerce Secretary Ron Brown recently said, the budget before us today is tantamount to unilateral disarmament of the United States. It is the business equivalent of shutting down the Pentagon to save money in the middle of a world war. Mr. President, don't believe me or Secretary Brown. Believe the words of the customers, the American businesses on the front line of global competition. This morning's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette had a strong story in which businessmen were asked what they thought about the idea of eliminating trade and technology efforts at the Commerce Department. I ask that ``Cutting out Commerce Finds Few Fans in Trade'' be placed in the Record following my statement and urge my colleagues to read it. The Vice Chairman of the Arkansas District Export Council, Dave Eldridge, said ``For a person who has been an international businessman for 30 years, I can tell you that (closing the Commerce Department) would be a serious mistake.'' As businesspeople in Arkansas point out, at stake is no less than the future economic health of our Nation and our standing and power in the international community. At stake are American jobs threatened by tariffs or other restrictions on US products in foreign markets. At stake are American businesses, large and small, that must beat foreign competitors to the market with new and better products, cut costs and improve quality through better manufacturing technologies, and position themselves in the emerging overseas that will generate huge new consuming publics in the future. To help American businesses compete, the US Government has made modest but effective investments in export promotion, trade law enforcement, technology and research. All of these investments are under attack in this budget. trade Mr. President, one of the great success stories in our work to support US businesses overseas is the International Trade Administration (ITA) at the Commerce Department. During the first 2 years of the Clinton administration, ITA advocacy of US business has boosted US exports by $23.6 billion, thereby creating over 300,000 American jobs. Taxpayers invested roughly $500 million in the ITA and received a return of $23 billion in exports. That would pass anyone's cost-benefit test. ITA has helped to open foreign markets for American business and to enforce US trade laws that protect us against unfair competition. This budget resolution apparently would dissolve the ITA. Again, Mr. President, that is unilateral disarmament. technology Helping American businesses stay at the cutting edge of new technologies is vital to long term competitiveness and that is exactly what the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, is in the business of doing. According to studies, 25 percent of America's economic growth since the end of World War II can be attributed to technology advances. NIST's primary mission is to bolster US competitiveness by advancing civilian technology by investing in long term, high-risk research and development. This formula for technology advancement is working. NIST leverages scarce resources, cost sharing, and risk sharing with industry and other government entities. It is maximizing returns to American businesses and minimizing costs to taxpayers. Another technology program that has proven itself is the Technology Reinvestment Project (TRP). TRP has worked to integrate our military and civilian technology sectors in a way that will strengthen our economy and military. TRP is another useful example of how partnerships between government and industry are useful in pooling Federal and non- Federal resources toward a common goal. Mr. President, quite simply, we can not afford to cut TRP. For years the US military relied on its own separate technology sector and the American taxpayers were forced to pay the huge bills. If we want our military to deploy the most technologically advanced equipment at the lowest cost possible, we must tap into civilian markets more often. By doing so, everyone wins--the US military, the American taxpayer, businesses and our economy. These technology advancement efforts are under attack in this budget. Their demise would effectively mortgage our future competitiveness and economic health to buy short term budget savings. manufacturing To help small and medium sized manufacturers put new technologies to work in global competition, this administration has opened 25 new manufacturing centers. These centers bring proven technology to our nation's 370,000 small and medium-sized manufacturers. The Centers have received rave reviews from their customers. Again, this successful investment in future jobs and economic growth is also under attack in this budget. In nations around the world, investments in technology and trade development are top budget priorities. Japan, Germany and others will be glad to hear that this budget resolution strips the United States of its most effective weapons for global economic competition. Mr. President, it is vitally important that we maintain funding for our investments in research, technology, and export promotion. The U.S. should be investing more in making our workers and our firms more competitive around the globe so that we can win the battle for markets and profits, as well as higher wages for our workers. The U.S. can no longer prevail in international economic competition based solely on its vast supply of capital and natural resources, or its large educated work force. The economic battles of today and tomorrow will be won by the firms that can employ the latest technology and the latest information to be the first to market, the highest quality competitor, and the most competitive in pricing. These battles will be won by firms that work in concert with their government to break down foreign trade barriers and open new channels into the mature and the emerging markets of the world. This amendment preserves the essential functions of trade promotion, technology, and research activities. This funding is critical to our nation's competitiveness. It is critical to the creation of quality jobs in the future. And it is critical to the survival of many American businesses and industries. I urge its adoption. The article referred to follows: Cutting Out Commerce Finds Few Fans In Trade (By Randy Tardy) Arkansas international trade officials reacted strongly to a Republican budget-cutting move Tuesday to abolish the U.S. Department of Commerce and transfer its functions to other agencies of government. A bill introduced in the House would terminate six Commerce Department programs, including the Economic Development Administration, the Minority Business Development Agency and the Technology Administration, which promotes public-private cooperation in new technology. The department's export-promoting International Trade Administration would have its functions moved to other agencies, including the State Department, which handled export trade policies until 1980. ``For a person who has been an international businessman for 30 years, I can tell you that would be a serious mistake,'' said Dave Eldridge, vice chairman of the Arkansas District Export Council and director of economic development for Arkansas Power & Light Co. Eldridge served as moderator Tuesday for the 1995 World Trade Conference on European markets featuring a trio of Commerce Department officers representing four European countries. ``If the United States is going to maintain its ability to compete effectively in the world market, then we are going to need a strong advocacy in Washington and throughout the world,'' said Hartsell Wingfield, president of TCBY International, the Little Rock-based frozen yogurt franchiser with operations in 30 countries. That advocate is not Congress; ``it is the strong, effective Commercial Service'' sector of the Commerce Department's International [[Page S7360]] Trade Administration, Wingfield told the conference luncheon in the Excelsior Hotel. ``If we take a hands-off approach to international trade from a political perspective,'' he said, ``we will lose our edge as an international exporter, because other countries are not taking a hands-off approach.'' Joseph O'Brien, an international trade consultant and president of the Arkansas World Trade Club, agreed. ``I've had personal experience on behalf of Arkansas clients with the Commercial Service guys stationed in Paris and Madrid and Mexico City and Guatemala City,'' he said, ``and in every case, they were enthusiastic and they tried hard. They really made a big difference.'' Putting the Commerce Department's international trade role under the State Department would mean a different set of priorities, O'Brien added. ``We really do need to export more in this country, and this is the one way for small companies to get help overseas. The big boys don't need it; the smaller ones do.'' Meanwhile, global trade competition is getting keener, and some of the best potential European markets for Arkansas exports may be in the least-known countries, the Commerce Department's senior commercial officers told the world trade conference. ``Italy is one of the least-known markets in the U.S.; it's a marketplace people don't look at often,'' said Keith Bovetti, minister counselor with the department's Commercial Service in Italy. The country's ``close to a $1 trillion gross domestic product has the fifth leading economy in the world, and major privatization is going on there,'' he said, ``but there are no shortcuts to being there on the spot to do business.'' Spain and Portugal are also lesser-known economies, said minister counselor Emilio Iodice, who is assigned to the two countries. ``Spain is not just a land of bullfighters and flamenco dancers,'' he said, ``it has a stable government and the highest growth rate in Europe for the last 12 years.'' Spain in 1994 had $6 billion in U.S. investment and, while that's sizable, foreign investment there was greater, he said. Portugal, with one-fourth Spain's population, ``is a new country, economically,'' Iodice said, noting increased investments in foreign goods and services to help the country become more competitive globally.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I do not have the floor, actually.

Mr. PRYOR. Were there any special interests there at the fundraiser?

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. PRYOR. Mr. President, I wonder if my friend from Texas would answer a question if I were to propose a question?

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, seeing no other Senators desiring recognition, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from North Dakota be allowed to proceed for 3 minutes.

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. PRYOR. Whether it was grassroots or special interest, is that the case?

Mr. PRYOR. That is right. And how much was each ticket for the fundraiser, if I might ask?

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. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, we have come to a point in this debate when we are about to vote on this particular resolution. If I might, I would like to talk for a few moments about the public's right to know, as the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee from New York has made reference to. He says the public has a right to know what happened in the Whitewater matter. The public has a right to know who did what, when, and whatever. I can assure you that the Senator from Arkansas does not disagree. But I think also the public has a right to know something else. I think the public has a right to know in this case exactly how much money of the taxpayers' dollars we are spending in the so-called Whitewater matter. I think the public has a right to know that with this resolution, if it passes and if the funding goes through--and we all assume it will--the Senate alone will have spent, up through January or maybe February of next year, in the Whitewater matter $1.350 million of Senate money to investigate this matter. I do not have available the amount of money the House of Representatives has spent and will spend in the future. And we do not know exactly how much the cost of the independent counsel will be. But here are some figures I might throw out for the Record at this time. To the best of our knowledge, Mr. [[Page S6781]] President, thus far, as of August 31. 1994, the independent counsel, Mr. Starr and Mr. Fiske, combined, spent $1.879 million. Projected funding for the independent counsel for the 1995 fiscal year is $6.3 million, which is a subtotal of $8.129 million, and a total, adding all the figures up, Mr. President, for both the Senate and the independent counsel to investigate so-called Whitewater, comes to almost $10 million in taxpayers' dollars. Mr. President, I think there is something else the public has a right to know. I think the public has a right to know that this White House, this President, this First Lady, this administration, has never one time been accused of lack of cooperation. In fact, our President has pointed out, as one of our colleagues has already mentioned, that to be candid and truthful in this matter is going to be the quickest and best way to get to the bottom of it. In the first round of hearings last summer, the committee heard from 30 witnesses generating 2,600 pages of testimony, deposing 38 witnesses, generating 7,000 pages of testimony. The administration has produced thousands of pages of documents for committee review. This administration has complied with every document request. They have answered every question posed to it. The administration is ready and willing to cooperate on this second round of hearings and it bears emphasis, I think, that after the long days of hearings and pages of documents reviewed, that the Banking Committee concluded at the end of this hearing, in phase 1, that there had been no violation of a criminal statute and no violation of an ethical standard. Mr. President, I think, too, it needs to be added that at no time during any of these investigations or any of these hearings, whether it be in Little Rock or Washington, the Banking Committee or the special counsel, wherever, to the best of our knowledge, not one witness, not one person has taken the fifth amendment. I think that this speaks loudly and clearly about this administration's position, wanting to get on with the important business of our country. Mr. President, let me compliment our friend, Senator Sarbanes, for working out what I think--and going forward with--is a fairly reasonable proposal in trying to attack this problem and to set up these hearings. I think that there are some things, however, that I must state that I do not feel are fair. I do not feel that it is fair for one of the members of the committee, as he did earlier in this debate, to come to the floor and say what should have been within the scope of this hearing and then start talking about those particular issues as if to condemn them, even though they are not in the scope of these particular hearings. Mr. President, I think for a Senator to come to the floor who is a member of the Banking Committee and to make a statement like he knows for a fact, or he has knowledge that Kenneth Starr, the special counsel, is now going to reinvestigate the death of Vince Foster, I think the public has a right to know how that particular Senator from North Carolina has knowledge of this so-called fact, Mr. President. I think the Senator from North Carolina needs to explain how he knows Mr. Kenneth Starr is now looking or relooking at the death of Vincent Foster. Mr. President, we hope that these hearings will be fair. We hope they will be soon. We hope that they will be done in a very efficient manner. I am just hoping above all, Mr. President, that in this hearing, these issues are not going to be bogged down in the political morass that we have seen some other hearings conclude with. I would like to say, also, Mr. President, that I think for us to go back to the 1990 Governor's campaign, I think is stretching it a bit. I do not know what that has to do with Whitewater. I think some of my colleagues would like to see us investigate Bill Clinton when he was the attorney general of Arkansas. Maybe we would like to go back to look at his campaign of 1974 when he ran for the U.S. Congress and was defeated. There might be some who have no limits on how far back in time we should go. I hope we can keep our eye on the ball. I am hoping, Mr. President, that we can keep our eye focused on the issue of Whitewater and the particular mission under which carefully this resolution has basically pointed out would be the scope of this particular hearing. I am also concerned that one of our colleagues has referred to the ``the miserable job of Mr. Fiske.'' Those remarks were made earlier on this floor. Of course, they refer to Mr. Fiske, who was allegedly fired from this investigation as special counsel because he was not finding out enough, bringing forward enough, to satisfy some of our colleagues. Mr. President, I will conclude once again, as I have done other times on this floor, by quoting a note that Vince Foster wrote. It is his last note. It was his last sentence in this note, when he said ``Here''--reference to Washington--``ruining people is considered sport.'' Those were the words written by the late Vincent Foster. I am hoping, Mr. President, that when this investigation begins, every person involved with that investigation, from top to bottom, will realize these are human beings; they have families; they have hopes and desires; they have beliefs; and they have reputations. Hopefully, we will not treat lightly those reputations, and hopefully we will make certain that the character and the nature of these hearings seek fairness and justice. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me 2 minutes. I had not planned to speak again. But the distinguished chairman of the committee made reference to three or four individuals who have either pled guilty or have been indicted, et cetera. I would like to talk about some of those. Neil Ainley worked with a bank in Perryville about 50 miles from Little Rock. He pled guilty to four counts, but not one of those counts related to Whitewater; not even close to Whitewater. One was his so- called failure to file with the Internal Revenue Service a withdrawal of cash for the 1990 Clinton campaign; nothing whatsoever to do with Whitewater. The second individual the distinguished chairman mentioned is Chris Wade. If I am not mistaken, Chris Wade was a real estate broker I believe in Mountain Home near the Whitewater development area. Chris Wade, subsequent to these many years of dealing with the lots at Whitewater, filed bankruptcy; not related to Whitewater in any way. But in the bankruptcy filing he failed to disclose either an asset or a debt. I do not know all the facts but this matter is unrelated, totally unrelated to Whitewater; no relationship whatsoever to the President and Mrs. Clinton. But yet [[Page S6784]] the prosecution has now had him plead guilty. The third person referred to was Webb Hubbell. We know that case. Webb Hubbell has pled guilty. It is a sad day. He is a good friend. But it was nothing that related to Whitewater Development Corp., absolutely nothing that related to Madison Guaranty, nothing whatsoever. Web Hubbell pled guilty to overbilling his clients; nothing to do with the RTC, nothing to do with Whitewater; totally irrelevant. If we continue spreading this dragnet out further, if we go after every person that has ever had contact with Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton or James McDougal or whatever, if they have ever made a phone call to them, if they have ever borrowed money or given them a campaign contribution, Lord only knows how long this investigation is going to go. It will go beyond the year 2000. I just hope that our colleagues on the Banking Committee will realize that we must focus this investigation as it relates to Whitewater and to its original mission. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator, ranking member, and the distinguished chairman for yielding me this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, on March 16, 1995, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission conducted a hearing to explore the Federal Government's response to the economic trauma of military base closings. This hearing on so-called post-closure matters was extremely useful in assessing the challenges facing communities that will lose a base this year, and I applaud the Commission's able Chairman, former U.S. Senator Alan Dixon, for his leadership in this regard. At the request of Chairman Dixon, I am submitting into the Congressional Record various documents outlining the positions of several community organizations concerning recommended improvements to the process of closing and redeveloping military bases. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that information supplied by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Installation Developers, the National Association of Counties, and others, along with a copy of my statement at the March 16 hearing, be printed in the Record.