[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 6, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1544-S1545]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE STATE OF THE ECONOMY

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we had reserved 30 minutes this morning 
for our freshman focus to talk about some of those things that are of 
great importance to American families, to talk about the economy, to 
talk about jobs, to talk about increasing wages and returns to American 
families.
  I would like to start with three areas that I think are important, 
even though it is not directly involved. One has to do with how we get 
facts out, so that we can make decisions based on facts. Another is 
just to comment a little on the broader question of whether we want 
more Government in our lives, more Government in business, or whether 
we want to release the private sector to be able to create jobs and, 
finally, to talk a little bit about the facts as related to the idea 
put forth by the President that ``this is the best economy in 30 
years.'' The facts do not substantiate that.
  First, let me say that it is almost a paradox, it seems to me, where 
we have the technical ability in this country for everyone who is 
interested in the world, for that matter, to know precisely what is 
going on every day and to know it at the time it goes on. Compare that, 
for example, to the ability to know what happened in your Government 50 
years ago or 100 years ago when people in Wyoming did not know what the 
Congress had done for 3 weeks or a month--maybe they did not care. But 
now we have the facilities to do that. We know that if Gorbachev stands 
up on a tank somewhere, we see it the instant it happens. We have the 
ability to know that. Yet, we find ourselves, I think, in a time where 
most people are less able to sort out the information and bring it down 
to facts than we have had for a very long time.
  What is happening, of course, is that the political arena is filled 
with spinning and posturing and seeking to make things look different 
than they are. I understand that, and it is not the unique province of 
anyone. But I am not sure that we can really sustain a Government of 
the people and by the people and for the people, unless the people have 
some facts. Part of that is our responsibility, of course. We have to 
sort through the stuff and come out with facts. But I have to tell you, 
Mr. President, that I guess I have never seen a time like there is now, 
where you hear something in the media, you hear something from the 
White House, or you hear something from this place and say, gee, I 
wonder if that is the case.
  Second, let me talk a little bit about the idea of increasing the 
economy and the growth. I think there is not a person in here who would 
not be for that. I think it is interesting, and it just happens that my 
friend from New Mexico just spoke a few moments ago about his 
perception about how to do it. It clearly defines the greater debate 
that goes on in this country and that goes on in the U.S. Senate--that 
is, do you seek to get more and more Government involved? Do you have a 
tax arrangement where you tell people what they can do and encourage 
them to do it and get more regulation? Or do you, in fact, seek to 
release the private sector so that the economy can grow? Could you 
agree with the notion that the role of Government generally is to 
provide an environment in which the private sector can prosper? That is 
the great debate that goes on.

  The Senator talked about bringing this debate back in. Let me remind 
my friends on the other side of the aisle that that has been the debate 
for a year. We have been talking about balancing the budget. Why? So 
you can reduce interest rates and increase the economy. We have talked 
about regulatory reform. Why? So that businesses can prosper and you 
can create jobs--good jobs, so that there is some growth in take home 
pay. That has been the debate.
  Unfortunately, my friends have objected to everything that we have 
tried to do. They objected to regulatory reform, and the White House 
threatened to veto it. They objected to a balanced budget amendment, 
and they threatened to veto it at the White House. Tax relief and 
capital gains, so that people can invest, so you can do something with 
your farm when you sell it and pass it on to your kids and create a 
stronger economy. So the option will be--and that is fine, it is a 
legitimate discussion. Do you want more Government, or do you want to 
release the business sector so it can create these kinds of things?
  Third, let me talk very briefly about the economy and the differences 
in views on that. The President has indicated in his State of the Union 
and at other times that this is the best economy in 30 years. Well, let 
us take a look at it. During 1995, the economy grew at 1.4-percent 
annual growth rate. In the previous decade, it grew at about 3.5 
percent. In the last quarter of last year, it was .9-percent growth 
rate.
  The economy has been weaker every year than it was the last year of 
the previous administration. It is not a matter of blaming. That is 
just fact. The growth recovery in terms of jobs. We have talked about 8 
million jobs. If you break it down into hours and part-time jobs, it 
comes out to be less than half of that. For the same period in the 
1980's, it created 8 million jobs.

  So this has not been a time of growth, a time of economic prosperity; 
particularly, it has not been for families. The stock market is doing 
pretty good. That is fine. Those are corporate profits. But the problem 
is, I think, you find when you have to pay your stockholders, of 
course, in order to get the money to operate, you have a cost of 
regulation that is exorbitant and going higher, and you are squeezed in 
the end. But who gets squeezed? The workers. Furthermore, you do not 
have a growth rate that is traditionally where we have been, and you do 
not have competition for jobs. Salaries do not go up because 
competition causes salaries to go up.
  We have to be honest about where we are. The fact is, it is not the 
best time in 30 years. It is not even as good a time as we had 5 years 
ago. More importantly, what do we do about it to get families into a 
position where salaries reflect a growing economy, or where families 
can have more of their own money to spend on their own kids'

[[Page S1545]]

education and spend it as they choose? That is what it is all about. 
That is what this debate is about. That is what a balanced budget is 
about--to be financially and fiscally responsible, and also to reduce 
the interest rates so that the economy will grow.
  That is what tax relief is about--middle class tax relief, which the 
President promised when he ran. He has never delivered. That is what 
$500 per child is about, so it goes to families. That is what 
regulatory relief is about. It is not a matter of regulation and 
specifics. It is a matter of being able to grow an economy where there 
are jobs and prosperity. That is what our agenda is about, Mr. 
President.
  The final argument, of course, will be that basic argument of do you 
follow the suggestion that says it is the Government's task to regulate 
these, and let us get more government, more regulation and more 
involved? Or do we release this dynamic private sector to create jobs.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.

                          ____________________