PBS NewsHour - 1996-02-22

Channel: malgent

Transcript

Language: English (original, YouTube automatic captions)

[0:06] Good evening, I'm Jim Lara. On the

[0:08] NewsHour tonight, the renomination of

[0:10] Alan Greenspan plus two as seen by two

[0:14] economists. A debate over some of the

[0:16] economic nerves Pat Buchanan has

[0:18] touched. The testimony of top White

[0:20] House aid Harold Ikis before the Senate

[0:22] Whitewater Committee. And the

[0:24] all-American skin game, David Gurgen

[0:26] talks with author Stanley Crouch. It all

[0:29] follows our summary of the news this

[0:31] Thursday. Major funding for the NewsHour

[0:33] with Jim Lera has been provided by the

[0:35] Archer Daniels Midland Company, ADM,

[0:38] Supermarket to the World,

[0:41] and by New York Life, yet another

[0:44] example of New York Life's wise

[0:46] investment philosophy,

[0:50] and by the Corporation for Public

[0:52] Broadcasting, and by the annual

[0:54] financial support from viewers like you.

[0:58] President Clinton today renominated Alan

[1:00] Greenspan as chairman of the Federal

[1:02] Reserve Board. Mr. Clinton also named

[1:05] his budget director Alice Rivlin to be

[1:07] vice chairman of the Fed and economist

[1:09] Lawrence Meyer of Washington University

[1:11] in St. Louis to a vacant seat on the

[1:13] board. At a White House ceremony, the

[1:15] president introduced the new nominees

[1:18] and offered high praise for Greenspan.

[1:21] He brings his years of experience as a

[1:23] prominent economist and I might add a

[1:26] leading Republican

[1:27] and a career capped by eight years of

[1:30] service as the chairman of the Federal

[1:32] Reserve. During his tenure, he has

[1:35] inspired confidence and for good reason.

[1:38] He has worked with our administration to

[1:40] safeguard the stability of global

[1:42] financial markets, recognizing that

[1:44] today even temporary difficulties in one

[1:46] corner of the globe can have

[1:48] far-reaching effects in another. and

[1:50] more importantly,

[1:52] his decisions have helped us to work

[1:54] toward a period of sustained economic

[1:57] growth.

[1:59] >> All three nominations are subject to

[2:00] confirmation by the Republican

[2:02] controlled Senate. We'll have more on

[2:04] this story right after the news summary.

[2:06] The US Navy temporarily grounded its

[2:09] F-14 fighter jets after another one

[2:11] crashed today in the Persian Gulf. The

[2:13] two crewmen were rescued. They had only

[2:16] minor injuries, but this is the third

[2:17] F-14 crash in less than a month from a

[2:20] San Diego based squadron. Pentagon

[2:22] spokesman Kenneth Bacon explained what

[2:24] the Navy calls a standown order. We do

[2:28] not know what has caused these three

[2:31] crashes this year with the F-14s.

[2:35] The goal of the standown is to make

[2:37] everybody

[2:40] take some time out to look at everything

[2:43] in connection with flying F-14s,

[2:45] training, maintenance, equipment, etc.

[2:49] to see if we can find any common

[2:51] threads.

[2:53] And if we knew what the problem was, as

[2:57] you do know during a grounding, we would

[2:59] take the specific action required to

[3:01] correct it. The Navy does not know. and

[3:04] it wants to find out.

[3:06] >> There are 337 F-14s in the US fleet with

[3:10] a few exceptions. They will not fly

[3:12] during the next 3 days while Navy

[3:14] engineering and safety experts review

[3:16] the recent crashes. On Whitewater today,

[3:19] Senate Committee Chairman Alon Stamato

[3:21] criticized White House staff for

[3:22] delaying the handover of documents to

[3:25] his committee. A new batch of documents

[3:27] sought since October was turned over

[3:29] Tuesday night. These concerned meetings

[3:31] by White House staff in 1994 on how to

[3:34] handle the Whitewater affair. Today,

[3:36] President Clinton's deputy chief of

[3:38] staff Harold Ikis answered questions

[3:40] about them. We'll have excerpts from his

[3:42] testimony later in the program. At

[3:44] another Senate hearing today, CIA

[3:46] Director John Deutsch said he would use

[3:48] American journalists as intelligence

[3:50] agents only under very special

[3:52] circumstances. He said so in appearance

[3:54] before the Senate Intelligence

[3:56] Committee. Chairman Arlland Spectre

[3:58] asked Deutsch about such a policy.

[4:00] >> Our general rule is we do not use

[4:03] American journalists. We do not use

[4:05] American news organizations. That is our

[4:08] general policy. It is only in very rare

[4:12] circumstances that we would consider

[4:14] exceptions when there are particular

[4:18] situations which involve risk to

[4:20] American lives or particular questions

[4:23] of absolute access on matters of

[4:26] important or critical national security

[4:29] matters. We would not do it as a matter

[4:32] of policy in general to gain foreign

[4:34] intelligence. Deutsch said he

[4:36] sympathized with journalists who fear

[4:37] the integrity of their profession will

[4:39] be called into question. The shuttle

[4:42] Colombia was launched into space today

[4:43] from Cape Canaveral, Florida. Its seven

[4:46] member crew is off on a 14-day mission.

[4:48] They will deploy and retrieve an Italian

[4:51] satellite tethered to the shuttle by a

[4:54] 12m long cord. Scientists will try to

[4:57] generate electricity as the ball-shaped

[4:59] satellite and tether are pulled through

[5:01] space. An attempt to conduct the same

[5:03] experiment 1992 failed when the cord

[5:06] would not extend its full length. In

[5:08] Moscow today, the director of the

[5:10] International Monetary Fund agreed to

[5:12] lend Russia $10.2 billion. Payments

[5:15] would start in mid-spring. In exchange,

[5:17] the Russian government committed to a

[5:19] program of rigorous economic reforms. In

[5:22] Bosnia today, Bosnian President It

[5:25] Begovich was hospitalized in Sievo with

[5:27] heart problems. A senior aid said his

[5:30] condition was not life-threatening, but

[5:32] Bosnia's collective presidency convened

[5:34] an emergency session to decide who would

[5:36] temporarily assume his duties. Elsewhere

[5:39] in the capital, Serbs continued their

[5:41] exodus before the city comes under joint

[5:43] Muslim Crowat control next month. Last

[5:46] night, departing residents set fires in

[5:48] a Serb suburb. Several homes, a

[5:50] supermarket, and a factory were

[5:52] destroyed. A State Department spokesman

[5:54] said today, "The United States has

[5:56] settled a lawsuit with Iran over the

[5:58] downing of an airplane in the Persian

[6:00] Gulf. An American warship accidentally

[6:02] shot down the Iranian passenger jet in

[6:05] 1988. All 290 people on board were

[6:08] killed. The US will pay an average of

[6:10] $300,000 directly to each victim's

[6:13] family. No money will go to the Iranian

[6:16] government. Back in this country,

[6:17] firefighters worked to contain a large

[6:19] grass fire near Fort Worth, Texas. Other

[6:22] fires spread across the state fanned by

[6:24] high temperatures and drought. Governor

[6:26] George Bush asked for a federal disaster

[6:29] declaration for the entire state. The

[6:31] largest fire was has burned more than

[6:33] 25,000 acres in and around the town of

[6:36] Poolville. Dozens of homes were

[6:38] destroyed. At least 18 people were

[6:41] injured. And that's it for the news

[6:43] summary tonight. Now it's on to the

[6:44] Federal Reserve nominations, a debate

[6:47] about Pat Buchanan's economics, the

[6:49] Senate Whitewater hearings, and a David

[6:52] Gurgen dialogue.

[7:02] President Clinton's renomination of

[7:04] Chairman Alan Greenspan and two others

[7:06] to the Federal Reserve Board is where we

[7:08] began tonight. Elizabeth Farnsworth has

[7:11] the story.

[7:12] Besides Alan Greenspan, who was

[7:14] nominated to a third term, the president

[7:16] also nominated his budget director Alice

[7:18] Rivlin as the vice chair of the board.

[7:21] And he nominated economist Lawrence

[7:23] Meyer of Washington University at St.

[7:25] Louis to the board. To discuss the

[7:27] nominations and what they mean for the

[7:28] economy, we have in Boston Alan Sinai,

[7:31] the chief global economist for Lehman

[7:33] Brothers. We are also joined from

[7:35] Austin, Texas by James Galbreth, an

[7:37] economics professor at the University of

[7:39] Texas at Austin. Welcome to both of you.

[7:42] Mr. Sinai, do you think the renomination

[7:45] of Alan Greenspan was the right thing to

[7:47] do?

[7:48] >> Oh, absolutely. There's no doubt about

[7:50] that. Greenspan has done a uh terrific

[7:53] job, very fine job, and he is respected

[7:57] worldwide as well as domestically. Uh

[7:59] there should there never was any

[8:01] question he'd be reappointed, I think.

[8:02] >> And James Gabrias, do you agree?

[8:04] >> Well, the president made three

[8:06] appointments to the Federal Reserve

[8:07] Board today. I have a very very high

[8:09] regard for Alice Rivlin. Lawrence Meyer

[8:11] I know by reputation but I think in the

[8:14] case of Alan Greenspan he would have

[8:16] done better the president would have

[8:18] done better uh to name someone who was

[8:20] more committed to a higher rate of

[8:23] economic growth reduction of

[8:25] unemployment and uh I think that it's

[8:29] unfortunate that he didn't take that

[8:30] opportunity.

[8:30] >> The president is committed to those

[8:32] things. Why do you think he didn't take

[8:33] that opportunity? Well, I can't speak

[8:35] for the president's reasoning, but I do

[8:37] think that if you look back at Chairman

[8:39] Greenspan's record, it is one of

[8:42] systematically overestimating

[8:45] uh the risk of inflation in this

[8:47] economy. Uh raising interest rates when

[8:49] it was not necessary to do so,

[8:51] particularly in a period uh beginning in

[8:54] early 1994 and going on up to the middle

[8:56] of last year. uh doing a great deal of

[8:59] damage to the prospects for growth uh

[9:02] and uh to uh the general welfare

[9:05] particularly of middle class Americans.

[9:07] And I think that we're in a period now

[9:09] in which people really are looking uh to

[9:11] our national leadership to address those

[9:13] concerns. Uh and I'm afraid that uh with

[9:16] Alan Greenspan's reappoint uh we're

[9:18] seeing that they will not be as

[9:20] addressed as effectively as they might

[9:21] be.

[9:21] >> Okay. I'll come back to that debate in a

[9:23] minute. We want to talk about that. But

[9:24] first, what about the other two

[9:26] appointments? You mentioned it. Um, what

[9:28] you thought about the Mr. Galbreth? What

[9:30] do you think, Mr. Sinai, of the the

[9:32] appointment of Alice Rivlin and Lawrence

[9:34] Meyer? Well,

[9:34] >> what do you think they'll bring? What

[9:36] might they change?

[9:36] >> Well, first of all, they're excellent

[9:38] appointments. Uh, the professional

[9:41] qualifications and experience of both

[9:43] are impeccable. I do think they will be

[9:46] more on the progrowth mode that

[9:48] President Clinton is looking for and

[9:51] will tilt the Federal Reserve more in

[9:53] the direction of a higher propensity for

[9:57] more growth with lower interest rates uh

[10:00] and and perhaps address some of the

[10:04] criticisms that Mr. Gailra is uh leving

[10:07] against Mr. Greenspan.

[10:08] >> And before we get into the criticisms,

[10:10] Mr. Dr. Galbreth, do you have anything

[10:12] else to say about the two new

[10:14] appointments?

[10:14] >> Uh, no. I I I think they're both uh I

[10:18] know Alice Rivlin quite well and I think

[10:19] she's a fine appointment. As I say, I

[10:21] know Mr. Meyer by reputation. I I I

[10:23] agree with with Alan Sinai that that

[10:25] that these appointments will move the

[10:27] Federal Reserve in the right direction.

[10:28] I just move it would hope it hoped it

[10:30] would be moved further and more quickly.

[10:33] Now, you have begun to lay out the

[10:34] debate that has been in the papers and

[10:38] in lots of different places in recent

[10:40] weeks about what the Fed should be

[10:42] doing. Could you do this? You've started

[10:44] it in a way that the non-economist,

[10:47] which most of us, we're not mostly

[10:49] economists in the audience, can

[10:51] understand. The president has said he

[10:52] wants more of a debate inside the Fed

[10:55] about progrowth policies. The idea is

[10:58] that the Fed has been too restrictive in

[10:59] its monetary policy, or at least that's

[11:01] one view. Could you describe that

[11:03] argument and then we'll go to Mr. Sinai

[11:05] and talk to him about it too?

[11:06] >> Well, Federal Reserve policy is the

[11:08] single most powerful force acting on our

[11:11] economy. It determines uh helps

[11:14] determine whether the stock market goes

[11:16] up or down. It helps determine whether

[11:17] growth and employment go up or down. uh

[11:20] and in recent years I believe that the

[11:22] Federal Reserve has been much too

[11:25] worried about the threat of inflation

[11:28] when in fact no such threat really

[11:31] existed and the Federal Reserve itself

[11:33] had no evidence that any such threat

[11:35] existed. So we would see a reaction

[11:38] against a phantom threat of inflation by

[11:40] raising interest rates and slowing the

[11:42] economy. At the same time on the other

[11:44] side uh we've seen very little response

[11:47] to the fact that we still have uh in the

[11:50] order of 7 million unemployed 5 and a

[11:52] half 5.8% unemployment that we have uh a

[11:55] growth rate which is right now slowing

[11:57] down. Uh I can't predict the future but

[12:00] I think that the uh we're in a a a

[12:03] situation which could become dangerous

[12:05] later on this year. Uh and I think that

[12:07] the Federal Reserve should have been

[12:10] more worried about slow growth and

[12:12] unemployment, less worried about

[12:14] essentially non-existent threat of

[12:15] inflation. They've been conducting a

[12:17] policy which has been biased against

[12:19] growth. Uh and that's uh it seems to me

[12:22] is a mistake.

[12:23] >> Mr. Sai, what do you think about that?

[12:25] Well, I think uh Professor Gailraith

[12:27] really misses the uh the nub of the the

[12:30] contribution of the Greenspan Fed, which

[12:31] is so revolutionary and and why I give

[12:34] chairman Greenspan some of the highest

[12:36] marks in history. It is the

[12:38] forward-looking and preemptive approach

[12:40] of a central bank in dealing with what

[12:43] ultimately drives our economy into

[12:45] recession, too much inflation. And the

[12:47] lags in that process are such that the

[12:49] central bank if it does it right has to

[12:52] act in advance of the obvious uh

[12:56] presence of the problem in order to

[12:57] prevent the problem from occurring. It's

[12:59] like taking preventive medicine and this

[13:01] was very different. This was in 1994 a

[13:04] very very tough period of rising

[13:06] interest rates with a lot of trouble for

[13:08] all of us including myself firms all

[13:11] around the world. This was one of the

[13:13] reasons, this is one of the reasons,

[13:14] perhaps the primary one, why today we

[13:17] are entering the sixth year of this

[13:19] business expansion without a threat of

[13:21] accelerating inflation and why we now

[13:24] can legitimately debate the issue and

[13:26] move toward somewhat more progrowth uh

[13:29] actions without worrying about

[13:31] accelerating inflation. fighting and

[13:33] preventing inflation from picking up

[13:35] when the economy was getting close to

[13:37] full employment in 1994 and at an

[13:39] unsustainable growth rate had to be done

[13:42] to get to where we are today. So we can

[13:44] go ahead now and fashion more progrowth

[13:47] policies which by the way I favor. We

[13:49] can grow faster without in we can grow

[13:53] faster in an inflation safe way now

[13:56] because of these preemptive actions that

[13:58] professor Gilbra obviously doesn't

[14:00] understand.

[14:01] >> Mr.

[14:02] respond on that. I'm a very close

[14:05] student of what the Federal Reserve says

[14:08] >> uh officially to Congress. Uh and in

[14:10] 1994 when they

[14:13] >> raised interest rates, they did not say

[14:15] that they were facing a threat of higher

[14:17] inflation. In fact, Chairman Greenspan

[14:19] himself explicitly said the contrary. He

[14:22] said that inflation was under control,

[14:24] that inflation expectations were coming

[14:26] down as a result of the deficit

[14:29] reduction policies that had been put

[14:31] into effect in 1993. So when pressed in

[14:35] 1994

[14:37] as to why he was raising interest rates,

[14:39] he did not make the anti-inflationary

[14:42] argument that Mr. Sinai attributes to

[14:45] him in retrospect.

[14:46] >> Mr. Gabriath, let me interrupt you. I

[14:47] just I want to bring this up to we have

[14:49] very few minutes left and I want to

[14:50] bring this right up to the president

[14:52] present. This relates very much to the

[14:54] current fears that people have about the

[14:56] economy, the Fed's policy. Can you

[14:58] explain that please? I mean what the

[15:00] debate is about right now, whether or

[15:01] not uh people's incomes are rising

[15:03] rapidly, people being laid off.

[15:05] >> That's right. We have not seen rising

[15:07] wages in this country for well on 20

[15:11] years. We have not seen an improvement

[15:13] in living standards. We have tremendous

[15:16] in anti-inflationary forces that affect

[15:19] our economy now that did not affect it

[15:22] 10 and 15 years ago. They come from

[15:24] foreign trade. They come from the low

[15:26] cost of imports. They come from uh

[15:29] competition in the labor market. We are

[15:31] much less prone to inflation now than we

[15:35] used to be. So while Mr. Sinai says the

[15:37] Federal Reserve has looked to the

[15:38] future, I say it has missed the boat on

[15:40] the present. it has uh is fighting the

[15:44] last war and it is not giving the

[15:46] American public the opportunity to have

[15:48] a higher standard of life that many

[15:50] people want and I think they deserve and

[15:51] that the economy can safely produce.

[15:53] That's the problem with the current

[15:55] policy.

[15:55] >> Mr. Sina, what about that argument that

[15:57] current technological changes and other

[15:59] factors have made it possible to have

[16:02] growth without inflation and that the

[16:03] Fed hasn't recognized this? I think the

[16:05] Fed is looking at that, has been looking

[16:07] at that. Any central bank anywhere has

[16:12] to uh worry very much about keeping

[16:15] down.

[16:18] >> Yeah, I'm going to

[16:19] >> I think though, you know, I I watch the

[16:21] Federal Reserve read every comment. I do

[16:23] that for a living in 1994 every day,

[16:26] every minute of the day. And I must say

[16:28] that he hasn't read the record

[16:29] correctly. And if you read the

[16:31] statements of ex- vice chairman Blinder

[16:33] as well as chairman Greenspan, it's very

[16:35] clear that they were preemptively uh

[16:37] attacking inflation before it showed up

[16:40] in the hope of sustaining the business

[16:41] expansion. That is almost a universally

[16:43] held opinion by students of what the

[16:45] Federal Reserve did at that time. He

[16:47] simply is wrong. He's not at all in

[16:49] touch with the record. And the second

[16:50] thing is his comment about wages.

[16:53] There's only one statistic average

[16:55] hourly earnings that shows the kind of

[16:57] behavior that uh he is attributing it.

[16:59] There's no doubt American workers are

[17:01] squeezed. It's been a tough time. We uh

[17:03] have grown slowly on average. Inflation

[17:06] is lower as a result. The unemployment

[17:07] rate isn't that high actually. It's many

[17:10] people think it is essentially at full

[17:11] employment. I don't but many people do.

[17:14] Uh but uh the American workers are

[17:17] feeling squeezed because they're working

[17:18] very hard to make a living and that we

[17:21] do have to address as a nation and take

[17:23] care of over the next four years.

[17:24] >> Well, Alan Sinai and James Gabber, thank

[17:26] you very much.

[17:27] >> Thank you.

[17:30] Still to come on the NewsHour tonight,

[17:32] Buchanan's economics, the Senate

[17:35] Whitewater hearings, and a David Gurgen

[17:38] dialogue.

[17:49] Now, a look at some of the economic

[17:51] nerves the Buchanan campaign has

[17:53] touched. Our economics correspondent

[17:55] Paul Salman of WGBH Boston is in charge.

[17:59] Among the key points in Pat Buchanan's

[18:01] economic platform is the support of

[18:03] protectionism and a rejection of free

[18:05] trade and such recent agreements as the

[18:07] GAT, the general agreement on tariffs

[18:09] and trade and NAFTA, the North American

[18:12] Free Trade Agreement.

[18:15] Republican President George Bush heavily

[18:17] promoted NAFTA and in the summer of 1992

[18:20] announced the completion of

[18:21] negotiations. This historic trade

[18:23] agreement will further open markets in

[18:25] Mexico, Canada, and the United States.

[18:29] And it'll create jobs and generate

[18:31] economic growth in all three countries.

[18:34] Open markets in Mexico, and Canada mean

[18:37] more American jobs.

[18:38] >> Less than a year later, it was a

[18:40] Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who

[18:42] lobbyed Congress hard for NAFTA's

[18:44] passage. The Democratic president echoed

[18:47] what had become a postworld war II

[18:49] consensus, emphasizing the bipartisan

[18:51] nature of the support for free trade.

[18:54] >> Why are we so willing to say no to

[18:57] partisan politics and yes to NAFTA?

[19:02] I think it is because we know as all of

[19:04] these have said in different ways

[19:08] that NAFTA reflects this moment's

[19:10] expression of all the lessons we have

[19:13] learned in the 20th century. Though many

[19:16] rank and file Democrats, especially in

[19:17] the labor movement, opposed the free

[19:19] trade push, Clinton persisted and with

[19:22] support from a Republican Congress, got

[19:24] America to sign the latest version of

[19:26] the global free trade agreement known as

[19:28] the GAT. Among other things, it created

[19:31] a new World Trade Organization.

[19:33] >> We have moved one step closer toward

[19:35] gaining broad bipartisan support for

[19:37] GAT. I'm pleased to announce that an

[19:41] understanding has been reached with

[19:42] Senator Doe to reaffirm our United

[19:45] States sovereignty and to make sure that

[19:47] the reaffirmation will be protected in

[19:49] the GAP process. That means that the WTO

[19:52] will be accountable and fair and will

[19:54] meet our expectations. Meanwhile, and

[19:57] ever since, throughout America, economic

[19:59] insecurity has, if anything, grown as

[20:02] trade barriers have shrunk. And that

[20:04] seems to have provided the opening for

[20:05] what's being called buconomics. Pat

[20:08] Buchanan's economic program with its

[20:10] rejection of free trade. It is the cause

[20:13] of a brand new bold conservatism in

[20:16] American politics. a conservatism.

[20:20] THE CONSERVATISM THAT LOOKS OUT for the

[20:22] men and women of THIS COUNTRY WHOSE JOBS

[20:24] HAVE BEEN SACRIFICED on the ALTARS OF

[20:27] TRADE DEALS DONE FOR THE BENEFIT OF

[20:28] TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS WHO HAVE NO

[20:31] LOYALTY TO OUR COUNTRY AND NO LOYALTY TO

[20:33] ANYBODY.

[20:35] >> OKAY. Now joining us to discuss the

[20:36] economic anx that Pat Buchanan has

[20:38] tapped are his four experts. Our four

[20:41] experts, sorry, Jeffrey Garton, the dean

[20:43] of the Yale School of Management. He

[20:44] served in the Clinton administration as

[20:46] the under secretary of commerce for

[20:47] international trade. Carla Hills was the

[20:50] US trade representative for the Bush

[20:51] administration. Alan Tomlson is a

[20:54] research fellow with the United States

[20:55] Business and Industrial Council

[20:57] Educational Foundation and The Lee

[20:59] specializes in international trade at

[21:02] the Economic Policy Institute and

[21:03] welcome to you all. Now, Mr. Tonelson,

[21:06] what's the argument in favor of Pat

[21:08] Buchanan's economic position? The

[21:10] argument in favor is that we

[21:13] unfortunately live in a world economy

[21:16] that is a lawless jungle where power,

[21:20] national power, remains the key to

[21:22] national success. As everybody on this

[21:25] panel knows, most of the rest of the

[21:27] world's governments are engaged in a

[21:29] staggering variety of practices whose

[21:32] purpose is to steal jobs, to steal

[21:34] income, to steal technology, to steal

[21:38] living standards from from highly

[21:41] competitive American producers. And the

[21:43] choice that we face is basically between

[21:46] the business as usual style free trade

[21:48] policies that have been followed by the

[21:50] last two administrations. In fact, going

[21:53] back further than that, with disastrous

[21:55] results, $1.5 trillion dollars of

[21:58] cumulative trade trade deficits since

[22:01] 1980, staggering job loss and

[22:04] responding. And what Mr. Buchanan is

[22:07] tapping into is the common sense feeling

[22:11] out there among the American public that

[22:13] a much more vigorous, but also a much

[22:15] more intelligent response is needed by

[22:17] Washington.

[22:18] >> And you agree with that?

[22:19] >> I agree with the general thrust of it.

[22:21] Absolutely.

[22:22] >> Carly Hills, you're a longtime

[22:23] Republican. Uh we saw you in one of

[22:25] those clips actually. Uh what's the

[22:26] essence of your argument against what

[22:30] Pat Buchanan and Mr. Tomlson are talking

[22:32] about?

[22:32] >> We live in a global economy and that is

[22:35] where we're creating the jobs. The best

[22:36] and the highest paying jobs are

[22:38] connected with international. About 12

[22:41] million Americans owe their jobs to

[22:43] their international trade. We are a

[22:45] country of five uh% of the world's

[22:47] population and we produce a quarter of

[22:49] its output. uh more than 50% of our

[22:53] wheat, computers, aircraft, cotton are

[22:55] sold abroad. We can't consume it all. We

[22:58] need open markets and we need the rule

[23:00] of law that the trade agreements give

[23:02] us. And if you look carefully at the

[23:04] trade agreements, they have worked,

[23:06] including the North American Free Trade

[23:08] Agreement that you mentioned. Even with

[23:10] Mexico's trouble, our exports are up

[23:12] 15%.

[23:14] And that is a very different outcome

[23:16] from the 82 debt crisis when Mexico

[23:20] raised its tariff and cut our exports to

[23:23] it by half. This time our exports have

[23:26] maintained their status.

[23:28] >> Well, we'll get to the evidence in a

[23:29] minute, maybe argue about it, but

[23:30] basically your argument is no choice. We

[23:32] have no choice. It's a world economy.

[23:33] That's it.

[23:34] >> Absolutely.

[23:35] >> Jeffrey Garden, you were a member of the

[23:36] Clinton administration, as we've said,

[23:37] and you were also you are a professor of

[23:39] international trade at Yale. Uh what are

[23:41] the traditional economic arguments for

[23:43] free trade against protectionism that we

[23:44] haven't yet heard from Miss Hills?

[23:47] >> Well, in in an ideal world, um trade

[23:51] would bring growth. It would bring uh

[23:54] more choice for consumers. Uh it would

[23:56] keep prices down because of the

[23:58] competition. Uh and it would create a

[24:01] lot of jobs. And I think for the most

[24:02] part all of that is happening. I'm

[24:05] somewhere between the first two people

[24:06] because I think that uh uh Mr. Buchanan

[24:10] uh is tapping into some very legitimate

[24:12] anxieties. On the other hand, I think

[24:15] that the policies he's advocating would

[24:17] be totally disastrous.

[24:18] >> Okay. Well, you certainly don't think

[24:19] it's an ideal world, do you, Ms. Lee? Um

[24:22] and you're generally considered to be on

[24:24] the left. You opposed to NAFTA. Um what

[24:27] do you think Pat Buchanan's

[24:29] saying here? Do you think he's got a

[24:31] point? I guess that's the question. I

[24:32] think he clearly has a point that our

[24:34] current trade policies aren't working to

[24:36] do what they're supposed to do, the most

[24:37] basic objective, which is to raise the

[24:39] living standards of the majority of

[24:40] Americans. And instead, what they're

[24:42] doing is costing us good jobs, putting

[24:43] downward pressure on wages for working

[24:45] Americans, and also limiting our our

[24:48] ability to make national policy in a way

[24:50] that um that in a democratic process.

[24:54] And NAFTA, I think, if you look at uh

[24:56] the results, has been a total fiasco. It

[24:58] didn't deliver the jobs for US workers.

[25:00] It didn't deliver democracy or

[25:02] prosperity or stability to Mexico. It

[25:04] was a bad development policy and an even

[25:05] worse jobs policy.

[25:06] >> Okay. I don't want I I you want to

[25:08] quickly take on Mexico? Yeah.

[25:09] >> Well, I just want to say that I think uh

[25:11] NAFTA was the right decision at the

[25:13] time. I think that the verdict over time

[25:16] will be that it is an excellent treaty

[25:18] that we are much better off without it

[25:20] over a decade than we would have been um

[25:23] uh with it than we would have been if

[25:25] there had been no treaty.

[25:26] >> Okay. So, so I think we probably aren't

[25:28] going to slug out Mexico here or come to

[25:30] any conclusion about it. But let's let's

[25:31] get to some of the specifics here. Carla

[25:33] Hills, what's your reaction to Pat

[25:34] Buchanan's suggestion that basically we

[25:36] should get out of NAFTA and the GAP?

[25:38] >> He'd be cutting off the best source of

[25:41] economic growth that we have because if

[25:43] you just look at the labor department

[25:45] study that was recently completed, it

[25:46] shows that the fastest growing sector of

[25:49] our economy is in international and it

[25:52] is the highest paying jobs. So that's

[25:54] the the area that we want to encourage

[25:57] so that we do raise the standard of

[26:00] living for our people.

[26:01] >> Okay. So it would kill growth. Now Mr.

[26:02] Thompson, what do you think?

[26:04] >> Our trade policy is manifestally not

[26:06] contributing to higher living standards.

[26:07] Quite the opposite. It is impossible

[26:10] impossible for a trade policy that's

[26:12] racking up record merchandise trade

[26:14] deficits year after year to be

[26:16] contributing to economic growth. And in

[26:18] fact and and to higher living standards

[26:20] for most Americans. And in fact, the

[26:22] living standards for the great majority

[26:25] of citizens of this country have been

[26:26] going down for the last 20 years, not

[26:28] up. I don't see how in the world you can

[26:30] say trade policy has been a job creating

[26:32] a living standard boosting success.

[26:33] >> Mr. Garden here for a second.

[26:35] >> In 1990,

[26:37] uh about 8 million American jobs were

[26:39] associated with exports. By the end of

[26:41] this decade, it will be 16 to 18 million

[26:45] jobs. But Jeff imports exist too and

[26:47] they're much higher and they've been

[26:48] much higher for

[26:49] >> but you cannot associate imports with

[26:51] lack of jobs. I think one of the

[26:53] problems here is that trade is not the

[26:56] entire paniply of economic policies.

[26:59] What trade has done has been beneficial

[27:01] but there are a lot of other things that

[27:03] have to be done such as a progrowth

[27:05] policy.

[27:05] >> So you say we're having trouble but it's

[27:07] not trade's fault. That's the basic

[27:08] >> I would agree with that. I would further

[27:10] say that you cannot take the statement

[27:12] that uh trade deficits are connected to

[27:15] unemployment because if you look at the

[27:18] trade deficits that were in existence in

[27:21] uh the uh uh after 1987

[27:25] in fact we had we crept up in uh we cut

[27:28] the deficit by 50% in the 5 years before

[27:31] 1987 and our unemployment plummeted from

[27:35] 10% to 6% and after 1987 as our trade

[27:40] deficit went down, in fact our jobs uh

[27:44] did not uh increased.

[27:46] >> But the point is what's happened to the

[27:48] quality of those jobs and that's really

[27:49] where you see the increase to dramatic

[27:51] increase in inequality in wages for

[27:53] Americans that some of the good jobs

[27:55] that we had good bluecollar jobs um have

[27:57] have been uh displaced uh in the

[28:02] manufacturing sector and we've seen both

[28:04] a stagnation of the average wage and

[28:06] then an increase in the inequality

[28:07] wages. So those new jobs are not good

[28:09] jobs. What we're doing is displacing

[28:10] manufacturing workers into the service

[28:12] sector where productivity growth is

[28:13] lower and in fact that has uh slowed.

[28:17] >> That's why I said living standards, not

[28:18] jobs.

[28:19] >> So you guys were just a second. You guys

[28:20] think that trade is the culprit. You

[28:22] guys think the trade isn't the culprit.

[28:23] Everybody agrees there's a problem

[28:25] entirely. It's not helping.

[28:26] >> It's not helping. Well, but you were

[28:28] blaming it, weren't you?

[28:29] >> It probably helping.

[28:30] >> Probably hurting.

[28:31] >> I don't think anyone would say trade is

[28:32] the only problem in the US economy. And

[28:34] that's the important problem. It is a

[28:35] contributing problem. And I think most

[28:36] economists actually agree with that now

[28:38] that trade has contributed. No, that

[28:40] that is true that I mean even someone

[28:41] like Paul Krugman who is a free trader

[28:44] has said that trade is responsible for

[28:46] about 10% of the increase in inequality

[28:48] since 198.

[28:50] >> There's a huge debate. There's a huge

[28:51] debate about that and we could we could

[28:53] argue that point alone all night long.

[28:55] Uh Mr. Garton, what about Buchanan's

[28:58] proposal? I want to get back to the

[28:59] specifics here. Buchanan has a proposal

[29:01] to slap a 10% tariff on Japanese goods

[29:04] and I've seen estimates of 20 to 40%

[29:07] tariff on China because we have such a

[29:09] negative balance of trade with them. Uh

[29:10] what would happen if those policies went

[29:13] into effect?

[29:14] >> Well, let's just set aside the fact that

[29:15] it's totally unworkable because

[29:17] selective tariffs would only mean those

[29:19] products would come in from some other

[29:20] country being trans shipped.

[29:23] >> Trans ship mean you they send it to

[29:24] Thailand and then it would come in.

[29:26] >> But let's just talk about the tariffs.

[29:28] That's a great way to raise prices for

[29:30] everybody in the United States. That's a

[29:32] great way to increase inflation. That's

[29:34] a great way to restrict the choice that

[29:36] consumers have. This is going, this is

[29:39] gunboat economics. This is going right

[29:40] back to the 19th century. It makes

[29:42] absolutely no sense. I'm not denying

[29:45] that there are problems and that they're

[29:47] real anxieties, but Buchanan's approach,

[29:51] his his proposed remedies um are are uh

[29:56] disastrous. But missiles, even you

[29:57] supported or threatened Japan with

[30:00] retaliation. I mean, we have used

[30:02] techniques like this in the past, have

[30:03] we not? When we thought there was unfair

[30:05] competition.

[30:05] >> The aim is to get the market open and

[30:07] there are all kinds of ways to negotiate

[30:09] market opening because that is what

[30:11] creates greater opportunity and in the

[30:13] long run economic growth. I don't say

[30:16] trade is a panacea, but trade is

[30:19] creating more and better paying jobs

[30:22] than uh in the overall economy. And so

[30:25] that is a sector we want to nurture.

[30:27] >> Do do you support uh these tariffs, Miss

[30:30] Lee, or tariffs like 10% on Japanese

[30:32] goods, 20 40% on China?

[30:34] >> I I don't think it makes sense to do it

[30:36] by by country necessarily, but I think

[30:38] possibly a a temporary tariff uh in a

[30:40] certain industry where we're having

[30:42] trade problems would not be out of line,

[30:44] but it's a temporary solution. It's not

[30:45] the whole solution. I think the main

[30:47] thing that we need to do is to change

[30:48] the whole set of rules governing trade

[30:50] and investment. We need to put the

[30:51] interests of workers and protecting the

[30:53] environment right at the top of our

[30:54] trade negotiating agenda, not at the

[30:56] bottom where it's been in the past.

[30:57] >> Okay, that leads us into this whole

[30:59] issue of insecurity. We heard about it

[31:00] earlier in the discussion about the Fed.

[31:01] So, let's talk for a moment what's

[31:03] behind about what's behind all this.

[31:05] Carla Hills, don't have really good

[31:08] reason to feel insecure about their

[31:10] economic future here in America.

[31:11] >> Absolutely. There are a number of

[31:14] well-known corporations who had lifetime

[31:16] employment who have laid off not 50

[31:18] workers but thousands of workers and it

[31:21] is really created enormous anxiety. But

[31:24] the solution is not to cut off trade

[31:26] which creates good jobs uh but uh the

[31:30] solution is to have regulatory and tax

[31:32] reform that encourage job creation. What

[31:34] government can do is to create a climate

[31:37] so that business develops. If you look

[31:39] at uh smaller businesses, those with

[31:41] under 500 employees, uh they've created

[31:45] eight million jobs in the last half

[31:46] decade. That's

[31:47] >> most of them don't export.

[31:49] >> That is not that is absolutely

[31:51] incorrect.

[31:52] >> Incorrect.

[31:52] >> I I I don't know the answer. So I can't

[31:54] I can't adjudicate. But are let's stay

[31:56] with insecurity for a second. Mr.

[31:58] Donaldson, uh everybody's insecure,

[32:01] right? I mean you agree with Hills on

[32:04] this point. the people who are doing

[32:05] well at the top of the ladder are

[32:07] feeling very secure. Why shouldn't they?

[32:09] >> Fair enough. Okay. And Miss Lee,

[32:12] >> absolutely. The economic insecurity is

[32:13] real and it's affecting the bottom

[32:15] probably 75% of the American workforce.

[32:18] >> And you blame trade, not the only

[32:20] culprit, but trade significantly. What

[32:21] do you blame for the economic

[32:22] insecurity? Assuming you assuming you

[32:24] agree too that we have plenty of it.

[32:26] >> We have plenty of it. I think that the

[32:29] American economy is going through a very

[32:31] dramatic transition. New industries are

[32:33] popping up. Everyone has to be much more

[32:36] competitive and I think this is creating

[32:38] a new kind of workforce and during that

[32:40] transition a lot of people are going to

[32:43] be out of work or fear that they're

[32:44] going to be out of work.

[32:46] >> I think there are things that can be

[32:47] done.

[32:47] >> Okay. So, so talk about some talk about

[32:49] them specifically if you wouldn't mind

[32:50] with regard to trade. I mean

[32:52] >> well no that's the problem. You see

[32:53] that's the problem is that if you want

[32:56] to if you ask me what should we do in

[32:58] trade it would be more of it. It would

[33:00] be promote exports even more

[33:02] aggressively than we do

[33:03] >> because because that is the one of the

[33:06] single biggest forces for growth in the

[33:08] in the economy and one of the single

[33:11] biggest job creators. Let me come to the

[33:13] other things. As long as you just talk

[33:14] about trade,

[33:16] >> you've got it in such a narrow channel

[33:17] that there really isn't an issue as far

[33:19] as I'm concerned.

[33:20] >> There isn't an issue for you. You mean?

[33:21] >> Well, there's there there aren't very

[33:23] many choices because the Buchanan type

[33:25] choices would just backfire on everyone.

[33:28] But there is there are some things for

[33:29] example I do subscribe to the theory

[33:32] that we should have uh policies that

[33:35] produce faster growth. I think we are in

[33:38] a new world economy. I think the danger

[33:39] of inflation is much less than it was

[33:41] before and I'd like to see the United

[33:43] States in conjunction with the other

[33:45] major countries stimulate more economic

[33:47] growth

[33:48] >> and maybe we saw that if Rice Rivlin is

[33:50] going to the Fed there's a possibility

[33:51] that that would happen

[33:52] >> and I think secondly there are huge

[33:53] opportunities in the area of training

[33:56] and retraining the American workforce

[33:58] and incidentally I don't think that's a

[34:00] government responsibility I think the

[34:02] government can play some role but here

[34:04] is an area where American business

[34:06] really should step up to the plate Okay.

[34:08] Well, let's talk about to somebody who

[34:10] disagrees with you about this. Miss Lee,

[34:11] do you really think that trade policy

[34:13] can make a difference? That is, it can

[34:15] lower economic anxiety in this country.

[34:17] >> I think it could. I think the right kind

[34:18] of trade policy that for one thing, you

[34:21] know, when we're running chronic trade

[34:23] deficits year after year, growing trade

[34:25] deficits, I think it's hard to say that

[34:26] we're generating a lot of great new

[34:28] jobs. I It's true that export jobs are

[34:30] good jobs, but import competing jobs are

[34:32] also good jobs because they're also

[34:33] manufacturing jobs um for the for the

[34:36] most part. But I think that for one

[34:38] thing that uh if we're not protecting

[34:41] labor and environmental standards in our

[34:43] trade policy, what we're doing is we're

[34:44] sending the wrong incentives both to US

[34:46] companies and to our trading partners.

[34:47] What we're doing is we're rewarding the

[34:48] worst kind of behavior instead of the

[34:50] best kind of behavior. We we reward the

[34:52] companies and the countries that uh deny

[34:55] workers the right to organize unions

[34:57] that hire children that trash the

[34:59] environment. And instead, if we if we

[35:01] built those those rules, labor and

[35:03] environmental standards, minimum labor

[35:04] and environmental standards into our

[35:06] trade policies, we would reward the

[35:07] company countries and companies that

[35:09] performed best, not worse.

[35:10] >> Do you expect Pat Buchanan will do that?

[35:13] >> Uh I don't know. Uh

[35:15] >> Pat Buchanan is not I mean what you say

[35:18] is I I subscribe to 100%. But I believe

[35:21] that's really at the margin of the kinds

[35:23] of problems that we have. Of course, we

[35:25] should have more rules on the

[35:27] environment and and labor standards. But

[35:29] when we talk about the size of the

[35:31] trade, you know, um at the beginning of

[35:33] this decade, about 12% of the American

[35:35] economy was involved in trade. By the

[35:38] end of the decade, it's going to be 25

[35:39] to 30%. This is an economy that is such

[35:43] a international force that uh we can't

[35:46] turn back the clock. The issue is how do

[35:48] we deal with the effects? And precisely

[35:51] because of that, precisely because as

[35:53] Ambassador Hill said, we're in a global

[35:55] economy to stay. We need to use

[35:57] international economic policy, including

[35:59] trade policy to ensure that that global

[36:02] economy unfolds in ways favorable to

[36:04] American values and to American

[36:06] interests. If we lack the national

[36:08] power, if we strip ourselves of it,

[36:10] we'll never do it.

[36:11] >> Do you think we can? Do you really think

[36:12] that we would be able using trade policy

[36:14] to lessen the anxiety and and help the

[36:18] solve the problems you guys are talking

[36:20] that everybody agrees to?

[36:20] >> Using international economic policy

[36:22] which includes policy on foreign

[36:24] investment on promoting te technology

[36:26] development. There's a wide variety of

[36:28] policy tools not simply tariffs and

[36:30] quotas. It's not building walls. It is

[36:32] enabling the United States to have the

[36:34] economic strength we need to compete

[36:35] successfully.

[36:36] >> But Pat Buchanan is talking about

[36:38] building walls. At least not talking

[36:39] about building walls. No, he's talking

[36:41] about

[36:41] >> he's both talking about literally

[36:43] building a wall, I thought, between

[36:44] Mexico and the US.

[36:45] >> As you pointed out, the Clinton and Bush

[36:47] administrations both threatened other

[36:49] countries with severe tariffs in order

[36:51] to open markets. I don't understand what

[36:53] it is that Pat Buchanan's proposing

[36:55] that's so dramatically different from

[36:56] that opposing the pull up of the North

[36:58] American Free Trade Agreement,

[37:00] >> which is a fantastic idea. Failure.

[37:02] >> We got to go. Thank you all very much.

[37:04] We'll continue some other time.

[37:17] Now, today's hearings before the Senate

[37:19] Whitewater Committee. Call me Homeman

[37:21] reports.

[37:23] The Senate Whitewater Committee received

[37:25] more than 100 pages of documents from

[37:27] the White House Tuesday night. Documents

[37:29] it had subpoenaed months ago. This

[37:31] morning, committee chairman Alfons

[37:33] Stamato opened the hearings, making it

[37:35] clear he was not at all pleased with the

[37:37] cooperation shown by the Clinton

[37:39] administration. I find it u unacceptable

[37:44] to have a pattern

[37:48] which I can only describe

[37:54] as un unacceptable

[37:58] where the White House and its chief aids

[38:04] continue a pattern

[38:08] that is certainly contempt. uous

[38:12] of

[38:15] good procedure

[38:18] that borders on

[38:22] deliberate withholding of information or

[38:26] at the very least total and ineffectual

[38:31] efforts to attempt to be cooperative. It

[38:35] is one or the other. The newly arrived

[38:37] documents are notes belonging to Deputy

[38:39] White House Chief of Staff Harold Ikis,

[38:42] the committee's lone witness today. Icks

[38:44] took the notes during a 1994 meeting of

[38:46] a White House response team formed to

[38:49] handle press inquiries about President

[38:51] and Mrs. Clinton's Whitewater Land

[38:53] Investment in Arkansas and its

[38:55] connection to the failure of Madison

[38:56] Guarantee Savings and Loan of Little

[38:59] Rock.

[38:59] >> There was no attempt whatsoever to hide

[39:02] anything to keep anything back from this

[39:04] committee. I think if you look at the

[39:07] substance of those documents, there's

[39:09] nothing of critical importance in there.

[39:11] Obviously, this committee has a right to

[39:13] have those documents. I made a mistake

[39:15] and I apologize to the committee for

[39:17] that. Uh but the fact of the matter is

[39:19] this White House has made every attempt

[39:23] exceeding exceeded by no White House in

[39:25] the history of the republic to cooperate

[39:28] with this committee, with House

[39:29] committees, with independent

[39:31] prosecutors. We have turned over 14 some

[39:33] thousand pages of documents, I'm told,

[39:35] to this committee alone. Uh we've turned

[39:38] over 50 to 60,000 documents in total to

[39:41] various committees in the independent

[39:42] council. We are not hiding anything.

[39:45] >> But the hearing was filled with heated

[39:47] exchanges as Republican counsel Michael

[39:49] Chertoff pressed about the Clinton's

[39:52] interest in investigations related to

[39:54] Whitewater. Did you have discussions

[39:56] with the president concerning the

[39:59] question of uh the possible exposure

[40:03] that the president and Mrs. Clinton

[40:05] might have with respect to an RTC

[40:08] investigation of the Rose Law Firm?

[40:10] >> Well, are you reading from testimony

[40:12] that I've given, Mr. Cherto? If so, I'd

[40:13] like to see it.

[40:14] >> I'm asking you a question, Mr.

[40:16] >> Are you reading from testimony, Mr.

[40:17] Cherto? Because if you are

[40:18] >> Mr. Mr. You don't ask the questions

[40:22] here.

[40:23] >> All right. We asked questions. It would

[40:25] appear fairly obvious that Mr. Churoff

[40:28] had to ask the question two or three

[40:30] times to get a response as it related to

[40:33] whether or not you communicated with the

[40:36] president with respect to white water.

[40:38] Then he excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Now,

[40:42] wait a minute, Mr. Dicks. You may be

[40:43] deputy chief of the White House and you

[40:45] give orders there, but we're going to

[40:47] try to be fair. We will be fair, but try

[40:50] to be responsive. Now, I'm going to ask

[40:51] >> I'm trying to do that, Mr. Chairman. I

[40:53] think I've testified

[40:55] before at least twice, if not three

[40:57] times, Mr. Choff, that I did have

[41:00] conversations. I wouldn't say they were

[41:02] about exposure, and I do not recall at

[41:05] what time I had those conversations,

[41:07] when I had those conversations, where I

[41:10] had those conversations, or whom was

[41:12] present.

[41:12] >> Democratic Council Richard Beniste tried

[41:15] to diffuse the matter by asking to

[41:17] review his notes taken during a meeting

[41:20] of the Whitewater response team. Now I

[41:22] think the important thing is to see what

[41:24] is in the notes. Uh look at that

[41:27] carefully and get your best recollection

[41:29] about those events.

[41:30] >> Well, one one issue that was being

[41:33] discussed at that time was the release

[41:35] of documents. Um and as you recall,

[41:38] there had been a subpoena that had been

[41:40] uh uh negotiated between Mr. Kendall and

[41:43] the Department of Justice in late

[41:45] December of the preceding year. Uh and I

[41:48] think the notes say here release of

[41:50] documents the on the advice of council

[41:52] and totally probably should read total

[41:54] but totally cooperation and I take that

[41:58] to mean that there was a uh that the

[42:01] discussion there was that there should

[42:02] be complete and total cooperation as had

[42:04] been promised by the president with

[42:06] respect to the release of documents. we

[42:08] should spend. Um I think it I think as I

[42:13] read my handwriting it should be we

[42:15] should speak. Uh and the question there

[42:18] is who should speak and in what terms? A

[42:21] lot of people at the White House were

[42:23] talking about Whitewater at that time.

[42:24] Some were informed, some were

[42:25] misinformed. Uh quite frankly, we were

[42:28] getting hammered by the press uh because

[42:31] misinformation

[42:32] uh not wittingly but inadvertently was

[42:35] coming out of the White House. And one

[42:37] thing we wanted to do was to uh limit

[42:40] the number of people who were speaking

[42:42] about whitewater so that and when I use

[42:44] white water I use that in a broad

[42:45] generic sense so that accurate

[42:47] information would be coming out from the

[42:49] white house.

[42:50] >> But Utah Republican Orin Hatch wanted to

[42:52] know just what the Clinton's concerns

[42:54] were over the possible appointment of a

[42:56] special prosecutor to investigate

[42:58] Whitewater.

[42:59] >> During this January 4th meeting, did

[43:01] Mrs. Clinton expressed concerns during

[43:03] that meeting that an independent council

[43:06] should not be appointed.

[43:07] >> As I recall, her concerns were number

[43:09] one that they meaning she and her

[43:12] husband had done nothing wrong. Number

[43:14] two, there was no predicate for the

[43:16] appointment of a uh independent or

[43:19] special counsel. and she was concerned

[43:21] about the fact that if mere allegations

[43:24] were sufficient, uh, then you'd have

[43:26] special counsels being appointed anytime

[43:28] somebody raised an allegation without

[43:30] laying the requisite predicate.

[43:33] >> Democrat Christopher Dodd of Connecticut

[43:35] concluded none of the released documents

[43:37] point to any wrongdoing by anyone at the

[43:40] White House.

[43:40] >> Is there anything that you've seen in

[43:42] these documents that contradicts

[43:45] uh earlier statements or earlier

[43:47] evidence that this committee has

[43:48] received? Not to my knowledge.

[43:50] >> You saw them. You and Holy cow boy, this

[43:52] is really going to hurt us.

[43:53] >> No, not to my knowledge. I mean,

[43:55] obviously people can put different

[43:56] interpretations and different glosses on

[43:58] words, but to my knowledge and in my

[44:00] from my viewpoint, uh, the answer is no,

[44:02] Senator.

[44:04] >> Well, I know we we play gotcha up here a

[44:05] lot with witnesses to try and snare

[44:07] people, but I think we need to get to

[44:08] the to say to the bottom line.

[44:10] Nevertheless, committee chairman Alfons

[44:12] Stamato said the delays in getting

[44:14] documents from the White House leave him

[44:16] no choice but to ask the Senate to

[44:18] extend the committee's hearings beyond

[44:20] their scheduled expiration next week.

[44:32] Finally tonight, a Gurgen dialogue.

[44:34] David Gurgen, editor at large of US News

[44:36] and World Report, engages Stanley

[44:38] Crouch, a contributing editor of The New

[44:40] Republic, author of The All-American

[44:43] Skin Game or The Decoy of Race.

[44:46] >> In your new book, you make an unbridled

[44:48] assault on what you call the politics of

[44:50] blame, which you also call the

[44:52] afroentric hustle. Could you tell us

[44:54] what you mean by that?

[44:55] >> Well, I was and what I'm saying in there

[44:57] is that I think that this is not a a

[45:01] this is not a serious discipline. First,

[45:03] it's a fraudulent discipline and it

[45:05] exists because

[45:06] >> the athosentric discipline,

[45:08] >> right? It's a fraudulent discipline and

[45:09] it's based on some some idea that you

[45:13] can make people feel better about

[45:15] themselves if you give them a glorious

[45:17] history. And so it doesn't matter with

[45:19] these people whether the scholarship is

[45:21] is is on or off because they're

[45:24] functioning in a in university system

[45:27] that has for the last 25 years uh

[45:30] subsidized miseducation of purportedly

[45:33] alienated groups whether those groups

[45:35] are racial groups or sexual groups etc.

[45:39] So that you know you can get a job

[45:40] essentially teaching kids that they're

[45:41] alienated from everybody else in the

[45:43] United States. It's not that the educ

[45:45] the the education is necessarily the

[45:46] history may necessarily may not

[45:47] necessarily be wrong but it encouraged

[45:49] them to think of themselves as

[45:51] African-Americans as opposed to just

[45:53] Americans

[45:53] >> as African-Americans as

[45:56] uh Indians uh you know women who have

[46:00] been uh who are uh uh the mules of men

[46:05] and and so on and so on. And none of

[46:07] which is to say that when that that that

[46:10] the United States is not always

[46:12] attempting to to purify its democratic

[46:15] proposition,

[46:16] >> but but you but but it's not in the

[46:19] interest of the society or the

[46:20] particular group for people to be fed

[46:22] distortions, exaggerations,

[46:25] uh Marxist derived simplifications,

[46:28] tribal visions, those kinds of things.

[46:30] Those things get in the way.

[46:32] >> Yeah. But they would argue, look, we did

[46:34] have some of our history which we should

[46:36] not be denying. We don't deny us our

[46:38] pride. After all, we were trampled down

[46:40] by slavery and then by tra pre prejudice

[46:42] after the civil war. There have been

[46:44] honest, you know, reasons why we need to

[46:46] reassert ourselves. And so if we want to

[46:48] take on this vision of ourselves, aren't

[46:50] you they would argue, haven't you sold

[46:52] out? In effect,

[46:53] >> well, my argument is this. How many

[46:55] people know where in Europe Thomas

[46:57] Edison's family comes from? Mhm.

[46:59] >> And there's a reason why

[47:01] >> if you come up with the electric light

[47:02] that's enough,

[47:03] >> right? I understand.

[47:04] >> And so I don't really think I mean, you

[47:06] know, the Wright brothers are probably

[47:07] their their German name is probably

[47:09] right.

[47:10] >> Right.

[47:10] >> But most people don't know about that.

[47:12] Most people don't even know they were

[47:13] bicycle mechanics because Kittyhawk

[47:15] looms so powerfully over the 20th

[47:18] century. And with all of the

[47:19] extraordinary accomplishments that that

[47:21] that afroamericans have made in this

[47:24] society and having fought the French and

[47:26] Indian wars, the revolutionary war, the

[47:28] war of 1812, helped to win the west,

[47:31] fought the civil war where just were

[47:32] were a decisive factor in the in the

[47:34] union forces in the civil war. Uh where

[47:37] in the cavalry

[47:39] on and on and on, helped to start

[47:40] programs that that foresaw what we got

[47:42] from the international red cross etc.

[47:45] Built, you know, colleges and all of

[47:47] this stuff. invented musics, dances,

[47:50] affected the national humor and all of

[47:51] that. With all of that to have to worry

[47:54] about identifying in some abstract way

[47:57] with a foreign continent to me is kind

[47:59] of silly.

[47:59] >> But it's also it's not just that. It is

[48:01] it is the politics of blame. It is to

[48:02] say we are the victims. We have been

[48:04] victimized and therefore whatever

[48:06] happens in our society, we don't have to

[48:07] work hard because we can say essentially

[48:09] laid it off on victim victimology. Well,

[48:12] I would say that people I I would say

[48:13] that the people who promote that in a

[48:16] number of these university positions,

[48:17] that's what they're thinking about. But

[48:20] I would suggest that very that uh

[48:22] >> many of the the the black Americans who

[48:25] have been successful band leaders,

[48:26] realtors, newspaper men, um uh beginners

[48:31] of magazines, founders of institutions,

[48:33] etc. They wouldn't at all deny that

[48:35] there were difficulties,

[48:36] >> right? But they also would would not

[48:38] deny the the the success that they had

[48:41] in this difficulty.

[48:42] >> You hold out Florida&M

[48:44] uh Mrs. Moy the dean there as an example

[48:47] of the way it should way a school is a

[48:49] predominantly black school business

[48:51] school which have been extraordinarily

[48:52] successful. The way it it should

[48:54] approach the questions of advancing uh

[48:56] people of who are black.

[48:58] >> Yeah. Well, what she did was she found

[49:00] out what the business world wanted.

[49:02] >> Yeah.

[49:02] >> She said what what do you want out of

[49:04] business majors? and she spent 12 15

[49:06] years really developing that. For one

[49:08] thing, she discovered that it was good

[49:11] to have business majors who actually

[49:12] could write readable English sentences.

[49:14] >> So that put them ahead of most of the

[49:16] white business majors who graduated,

[49:17] right? They actually can write, you

[49:19] know, English that other people can

[49:21] read. And so she she she very she

[49:24] systematically worked at coming up to

[49:26] that standard. And now Proctor and

[49:27] Gamble and a number of people see

[49:30] Florida&M and and that business school

[49:31] is in the top four or five in the United

[49:33] States

[49:34] >> because she built it like that. And she

[49:36] didn't she um as Albert Murray has

[49:39] pointed out often that if people would

[49:41] just

[49:42] >> approach these kids the same way

[49:45] athletes are approached by coaches,

[49:47] right? When coaches get athletes, they

[49:49] try to make them into champions. That's

[49:51] their fundamental ambition.

[49:53] >> And I think that and and intention. And

[49:56] I think that that's what what uh Moy

[49:58] did.

[49:58] >> Let me come back to the kind of models

[50:01] and people who who you would hold out as

[50:04] models for uh young blacks that they

[50:07] should look to people who've risen above

[50:08] question of race and have become as as

[50:11] seen as individuals who who become

[50:13] individuals who who have who've gained

[50:15] greatness and and tell me what you what

[50:17] it is about them that you think we

[50:18] should hold we should look to. Frederick

[50:20] Douglas. Well, I think Frederick Douglas

[50:22] was a great Well, you know, Frederick

[50:24] Douglas is one of Nelson Mandela's

[50:25] models and um I mean, he had a he he had

[50:30] a he had a he had a human vision that

[50:32] transcended race. I think that um that's

[50:36] the greatness of of a writer like Ralph

[50:38] Ellison

[50:38] >> is that he saw as Constance Ro points

[50:41] out in her work

[50:43] >> uh that that Americans are part Yankee,

[50:45] part Negro, part Indian, part frontman

[50:49] that we're all that there's this mix

[50:52] that we that that we that that makes us

[50:54] Americans. Alvin Murray calls it a

[50:57] matter culture.

[50:59] >> Everybody in the world, right? No matter

[51:02] what we say about each other, everybody

[51:04] knows an American when they meet him.

[51:06] You know, if I change my name towami

[51:08] something or other and put on fenty

[51:09] cloth and this and that and jump on a

[51:10] plane and go to Ghana, within 5 minutes,

[51:12] the denance are going to go, "Ah, an

[51:14] American." If the if the most

[51:16] negrohating redneck guy in Boston

[51:20] decides that he's got to go to Dublin to

[51:22] get away from these right? As

[51:24] soon as he gets off the plane, the Irish

[51:25] people are going to say, "Ah, an

[51:27] American." If you put Gotti and Rudolph

[51:30] Giuliani on a plane across each other

[51:33] where they snared each other all the way

[51:34] to Sicily, as soon as the two of them

[51:36] got off in Sicily, the Sicilians would

[51:38] say to Americans. Now, the point I'm

[51:40] making is that there's something in all

[51:43] of us as Americans for all of our

[51:45] variations that everybody recognizes.

[51:47] And what I'm most interested in in my

[51:50] work and in all American skinny gate is

[51:51] to try to focus as much as possible on

[51:55] the human connections that we have and

[51:57] the extraordinary achievements that

[51:59] we've made against what I call the decoy

[52:01] race.

[52:01] >> Now you've talked about Frederick

[52:02] Douglas and Ralph Ellis and Charlie

[52:04] Parker. You're a jazz critic and you

[52:06] also talk about Charlie Parker a lot in

[52:07] your book and you've written about it.

[52:08] >> Yeah. Well, Charlie Parker, I'm working

[52:10] on a biography of him right now. Well,

[52:11] he he had a lot of problems, but he he

[52:14] became an extraordinary virtuoso of

[52:16] balto saxophone. Man, in in an

[52:19] interview, uh, a guy was saying, he

[52:22] said, "Wow, Charlie, you have such

[52:24] extraordinary technique."

[52:26] >> And Parker said, "Well, you know, I

[52:28] don't really think it's all that

[52:29] extraordinary because I used to practice

[52:30] 12 to 15 hours every day." In fact, they

[52:33] told my mother I'd have to move if I

[52:34] didn't stop playing. He said, "It wasn't

[52:36] done with mirrors. Not this time.

[52:42] you've come down and talking about about

[52:45] race and you know Martin Luther King

[52:46] said don't judge people by the color of

[52:49] their skin but by the content of their

[52:50] characters. You you had an interesting

[52:52] you came you said it all boils down to

[52:54] an old

[52:55] >> southern adage.

[52:57] >> Oh the one about don't worry about the

[52:59] uh the color of the don't worry about

[53:01] the color of the cow but whether or not

[53:03] the milk is sour

[53:04] >> or sweet or sour.

[53:05] >> Right. Right.

[53:06] >> That's that's the essence of it for you.

[53:08] >> That's it. But you remain after all is

[53:11] said and done, you have a phrase that it

[53:13] appears continually through this book, a

[53:15] tragic optimist.

[53:17] >> Right. Well, you see, I think that

[53:18] that's the I think that's the central

[53:20] vision in the in the Constitution and in

[53:23] our sense of government. That is is that

[53:25] we recognize like doctors must, right,

[53:28] >> that you are constantly going to have to

[53:30] deal with what I consider the the the

[53:33] four fundamental things that dog all

[53:35] societies. that is uh folly,

[53:39] corruption, mediocrity and incompetence.

[53:42] And it doesn't matter what society

[53:44] you're in. And those are the things that

[53:45] that those things form the tragic fate

[53:48] of humanity. But we have had so many

[53:51] victories on so many different levels in

[53:53] terms of our motion towards purifying

[53:56] our democracy towards realizing in our

[53:59] society the grandest ideas of the of the

[54:02] enlightenment expanding them in fact in

[54:05] such a remarkable way that every society

[54:07] in the world that comes to freedom ends

[54:10] up imitating the United States

[54:12] >> and it and you know it ends up imitating

[54:14] America's documents because those are

[54:16] the richest vision those documents form

[54:18] the richest this vision of how human

[54:20] beings can can can compromise and argue

[54:23] and battle their way towards fairness.

[54:25] >> So your argument is get beyond the skin

[54:27] game,

[54:27] >> right?

[54:27] >> Give that up,

[54:28] >> right?

[54:29] >> It's it's fraudulent,

[54:30] >> right?

[54:31] >> And move on to this higher aspiration,

[54:33] >> right? Address your humanity that's

[54:35] always there whether you like it or not.

[54:37] >> Thank you.

[54:38] >> Thank you.

[54:45] Again, the major stories of this

[54:47] Thursday. President Clinton renominated

[54:49] Alan Greenspan as chairman of the

[54:51] Federal Reserve Board. Budget director

[54:53] Alice Rivlin and economist Lawrence

[54:55] Meyer were also nominated to the Fed.

[54:58] And the Navy ordered a temporary

[55:00] suspension of all flights of F-14

[55:02] fighter jets after another one crashed

[55:04] in the Persian Gulf. We'll see you

[55:06] tomorrow night with Shields and Chigo

[55:07] and our regional commentators among

[55:09] other things. I'm Jima. Thank you and

[55:11] good night.

[55:14] Major funding for the NewsHour with Jim

[55:17] Ler has been provided by the Archer

[55:18] Daniels Midland Company, ADM,

[55:21] Supermarket to the World,

[55:24] and by New York Life, yet another

[55:27] example of New York Life's wise

[55:29] investment philosophy,

[55:33] and by the Corporation for Public

[55:35] Broadcasting, and by the annual

[55:37] financial support from viewers like you.

[55:56] Beekeeping in controversy over sports

[55:58] climbing in caves are part of the next

[56:00] Oregon Field Guide tonight at 8:30 here

[56:02] on the television stations of OPB.

[56:22] Video cassettes of the NewsHour with Jim

[56:25] Ler are available from PBS video. Call 1

[56:28] 800 328 PBS1.

[56:36] This is PBS.

[56:46] Funding for the NewsHour with Jim Lair

[56:48] has been provided by the professional

[56:50] contractors of the NECA and Union

[56:53] Electricians of IBW Local 48. Working

[56:56] together to realize your vision for the

[56:58] future and by Activate Cellular Sales.

[57:01] It's simple. Available at major malls

[57:03] throughout the Northwest.

[57:21] You're probably not aware that Neville

[57:24] Grimshaw was found dead this morning.

[57:26] >> Next on Mystery, a recent murder with a

[57:29] 50year-old clue.

[57:30] >> Apparently, he was writing about you.

[57:32] Only now he's dead. He says Peyton

[57:34] wasn't a prisoner in a concentration

[57:36] camp at all.

[57:37] >> Inspector Morse on Mystery.

[57:40] We've been investigating the wrong

[57:42] attempted murder all along

[57:44] >> on OPB.