[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 116 (Thursday, August 1, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9347-S9352]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              THE ECONOMY

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to say to Senators who want to 
speak on the welfare bill, clearly we do not have to use our whole hour 
in rebuttal of the Democrats. If there are a few Senators who want to 
come down and engage in that, fine. If not, we will move to Senators 
like Senator Smith, who wants to speak on the subject matter before us.
  Mr. President, to me it is very interesting that, on a bill dealing 
with welfare and the most fundamental reform of social policy in 60 
years, that Democrats want to change the subject. They want to talk 
about the economy, so let us talk about the economy for awhile.
  We are all heartened today to hear that the economy grew by 4.2 
percent in the second quarter. The administration has certainly taken 
an opportunity to champion today's growth. Let me say, however, that 
before we get too exhilarated about today's announcement, I think we 
should look at some of the less rosy economic facts that the 
administration is not talking about. These are the major reasons why 
Americans feel insecure about their future.
  To start with, we have had the weakest recovery of this century 
during the early 1990's, with growth averaging only 2.5 percent. In 
contrast, the 1980's recovery recorded average yearly growth of 4.1 
percent over the same time period. I guarantee, that while this appears 
to be a small difference, it is enormous. It is enormous. The reason 
why growth has been comparatively weak is that President Clinton has 
had the second weakest productivity growth of any President in the last 
50 years, second only to President Carter. Let me repeat, the second-
lowest productivity growth in 50 years.
  What that means is that, clearly, those who worry about inflation and 
are fearful of too much growth find some reason to be worried when they 
find that productivity increases have been so meager during this 
administration. Without productivity increases, a increase in 
noninflationary, trend growth is virtually impossible in today's 
demographic environment.
  In keeping with weak productivity growth, there has been virtually no 
gain in real wages, virtually no gain in real wages. Real average 
hourly earnings in 1992 were $7.42. Today, they are $7.43, a very big 
gain of 1 cent. No wonder Americans are worried. No wonder we are 
finding anxiety about the future. No wonder they are saying that we do 
not think we are on the right path, because they see taxes going up and 
average real wages being stagnant. Clearly, the gain in real average 
hourly earnings, from 1992's $7.42 to today's $7.43, is nothing. With 
this backdrop, you can see how today's impressive headline growth 
doesn't mean anything to ordinary citizens, since the benefits of 
growth are not filtering back to them. They just continue to work hard 
and wonder why they are not getting ahead.
  Wage stagnancy can be seen in another, equally troubling way as well. 
Family income is stagnating. Despite the ongoing economic recovery, 
average annual growth in real median family income has been only 0.2 
percent under President Clinton. Under Ronald Reagan, the growth in 
real family income was four times as fast.

  Low productivity, stagnant real wages, and lackluster family income 
growth strike a louder chord with the American people than does today's 
announcement. They are wondering what is happening to their economy as 
it applies to their paycheck and their families, and they are not 
impressed with announcements that say things are getting better and 
that this growth is phenomenal, when they are feeling the reality of 
what I just described: virtually no gain in real wages and stagnating 
family incomes.
  Another point is being missed, and it is very relevant--rising tax 
burdens. This is one of the main reasons for poor productivity growth, 
no gain in real wages, stagnating family incomes. In 1992, the ratio of 
Federal tax revenues to GDP was 18.4 percent; by 1995, this had climbed 
to 19.3 percent.
  That means that the portion of GDP going to taxes, went up almost 1 
percent. Those who think the tax increases of the last 3 years are good 
because of who they impact and who they do not, still have to answer 
the questions: What happened to productivity growth? What happened to 
real wages, that is real average hourly wages? What happened to family 
incomes? By diverting resources from the private sector toward the less 
efficient public sector, there are fewer funds available for household 
saving and investment. This leads to lower productivity, lower wages 
and lower standards of living for the average citizen.
  Let's go on to yet another item that ought to temper the enthusiasm 
about the announcement of a 4.2 percent GDP growth in the last quarter: 
the lowest personal savings rate in 50 years. As mentioned above, we 
believe that the Clinton tax hikes have played a large role in this 
dubious milestone. Everybody believes that for America to increase its 
productivity, to get the wages up, to get the family incomes up that we 
must increase our savings so that American business, large and small, 
have resources to grow with. And yet, we have the lowest personal 
savings rate in 50 years. This is unsurprising when much of what is 
saved is taxed away and, thus, personal savings are reduced.
  Let's look at another one of President Clinton's economic legacies. 
We now have the worst income inequality in 50 years. So for those who 
think they solved the problem of income inequality--the highs and the 
lows--by raising taxes and saying we are only raising taxes on the 
higher brackets, they are in for a great surprise. It does not generate 
more equality between the low earners and the high earners in America. 
Inequality got worse with the tax increase, the largest in American 
history, that apparently prides itself in saying it didn't tax 
moderate-income people, it only taxed the high brackets.
  What is the purpose of it? The purpose of it, if we have one, is to 
lower the deficit and make us grow more and perhaps bridge the 
inequality gap by letting the wage-earner part of this go up, none of 
which happened. The idea is to use a constructive strategy of boosting 
growth for the lower and middle income families and not use a 
destructive strategy of socking it to the rich. I'll say it again, the 
latter strategy just doesn't fix the grave problem of inequality.
  Let's also look at soaring trade deficits--this is something not even 
mentioned these days. It goes right along with the bad news that is 
being kind of overshadowed by one fact: That for one quarter, the gross 
domestic product went up some 4.2 percent.
  The Clinton trade deficit is three times as large as under President 
Bush, despite postwar lows in the dollar versus the German mark and the 
Japanese yen that should have created smaller trade deficits. Instead, 
we got larger deficits. However, given meager levels of U.S. saving, 
this worsening external position should not surprise us.
  A byproduct of accumulated trade and current deficits is soaring 
foreign indebtedness. In 1995, foreigners owned $815 billion more of 
our securities than we owned of theirs. This is a 40-percent increase 
since 1994. This is not a fear today, but over the long run, we are 
placing our future in the hands of foreign banks. It is even more of a 
worry when we realize that foreign debt service is a net loss to U.S. 
incomes and constitutes a steady mortgaging away of our children's 
future living standards.
  Lastly, I want to turn to jobs. The administration has been 
particularly proud of their job growth figures. However, the breakdown 
of these jobs is far less encouraging than they suggest. Do you realize 
that 10 percent of the jobs created under Clinton have been temporary 
jobs. These are not good jobs.

[[Page S9348]]

Studies have shown that temporary workers are paid as much as 34 
percent below their occupational counterparts. This is a way to get 
lower wages, not higher. I even more troubled when I see the type of 
jobs that these temporary positions are displacing. Since 1995, 252,000 
well-paying manufacturing jobs have been lost. This is why real average 
hourly earnings have been so stagnant under President Clinton. At day's 
end, I have a hard time understanding why the administration is so 
pleased with generating jobs that do not generate rising wages.
  So those who came to the floor bragging about the performance of this 
economy did not seek to share with the American people the facts about 
this economy that cause most Americans to say we are not moving in the 
right direction. You can give all the song and dance about what it 
means to have an increase in the gross domestic product in the second 
quarter, but if the American people are feeling what I have just 
described--stagnation in real wages; family income extremely stagnant 
and very, very low; increase in general taxes; lowest personal savings 
rate in 50 years--than this growth means nothing to them. It's time to 
be honest with the American people about these underlying weaknesses in 
the economy--if we won't admit to them, how can we set out legislation 
to improve them.
  I submit that the tax increases imposed under President Clinton, for 
all they can talk about the increases in revenues, I submit that that 
is most responsible for all of these negatives that I have stated here. 
I have begun to believe that it is imperative that we understand we 
cannot have increased productivity, real wage gains, family income, 
average family income going up if we have higher tax rates. We must 
have lower tax rates if we expect that to occur. We cannot lose sight 
of things we must be doing. But what I have just been describing seems 
to me, having been briefed by many economists, to be the absolute crux 
of why there is such lack of stability and such anxiety among Americans 
because of stagnation in their pocketbooks, in their checkbooks.
  I will yield the floor to any Senator who wants to speak on this 
subject. I yield as much time as Senator Mack desires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida, [Mr. Mack], is 
recognized for such time as he desires.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to Senator Mack, we have five or 
six Senators who want to speak along with us. We have assigned 10 
minutes. Is that satisfactory?
  Mr. MACK. That will be wonderful.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator for yielding 
me this time.
  I do believe that the issue we are discussing is an important one, 
even though I must admit many folks, when you start talking about 
economics and the statistics related to that, have a tendency for their 
eyes to glaze over. But we are really talking about the engine that 
provides the hope and opportunity for the future. The engine of growth 
is what will allow for the formation of new businesses and the creation 
of new jobs in America. So the subject is an extremely important one. I 
appreciate the opportunity to address it.
  Earlier today, a report came out on the growth rate of the economy. 
That growth rate for the second quarter of the year was stated at 4.2 
percent, which is good growth, and I think we ought to be pleased with 
what has happened.
  But what the administration is trying to create, or why they are so 
extremely excited about this growth number, really kind of belies the 
other things that they have been saying. Let me try to put that in 
perspective.
  Earlier this year the President, during his State of the Union 
Message to a joint session of the Congress, said that this economy is 
the strongest economy in three decades. Well, if it is the strongest 
economy in three decades, then there is no reason to be excited about 
4.2 percent growth. We should have been expecting that kind of growth 
each quarter, quarter after each quarter. But that is simply not the 
case.
  In fact, I think the numbers will show that for the four previous 
quarters the economic growth was less than 2 percent. That is nothing 
to get excited about. In fact, the effect on the American families is 
significant. I will get back to that point in a few minutes.
  I want to try to put into context what has happened to the economy, 
picking up on the point of 4.2 percent growth. There is a lot of 
excitement down at the White House about that. But if we look at the 
rate of growth that the economy has experienced since President Clinton 
took office, it is 2.4 percent, and that is including this new quarter, 
2.4 percent. Keep that figure in mind. I will continue to mention that 
number.
  I will first compare it to the growth the economy was experiencing 
the year before President Clinton became President. The growth rate of 
the economy at that time was 3.7 percent. For the last 3\1/2\ years the 
growth rate in the economy has been 2.4 percent under President 
Clinton.
  You might say that is not a fair reflection to just pick one year and 
compare the growth in the economy to that one year. Well, let us take 
the 10 preceding years, the 10 years prior to President Clinton taking 
office. The growth in the economy was 3.2 percent.
  President Clinton wants us to believe that he has created the 
strongest economy in three decades. I believe he is now using the words 
the ``strongest economy in a generation.'' I remind you again, the 
growth under President Clinton is 2.4 percent.
  Again, somebody might say that that period of time is not a fair 
reflection of what has happened over a period of time. So I will just 
again focus in on the last five expansions. If you take the last five 
periods of growth that the country has experienced, we know that that 
growth averaged 4.4 percent. Compare that again to the growth of the 
Clinton years of 2.4 percent.
  To go back even further, since World War II the country's growth rate 
has averaged 3.3 percent. The President of the United States during his 
joint session speech told the American people that this is the 
strongest economy in 3 decades.
  But, Mr. President, I really do not have to worry about those numbers 
in really trying to get that message out because I have listened to the 
American people. I have listened to the people in my State. I have 
listened to the families who are struggling, who are working harder 
today and have less to show for it. We all hear it. We hear it in the 
sense of the anxiety that they express. We hear it in the fears they 
have about the future. We hear it in their concern about their 
children, what their opportunity will be as their children grow up.
  There is a lot of insecurity in America today. I am not sure that a 
lot of Americans have at this point been able to articulate what that 
is. But they know that there is something wrong. They know that they 
have not reaped the benefits of the ``strongest economy in three 
decades.'' All my point there is to say that President Clinton may be 
saying one thing about the economy, but the people in this country 
understand that this is just not right. He is not accurate.

  I have one additional chart, which is the first time I have seen 
this. It is the first time I have used it. It is a chart that has gone 
back to 1870--not 1970--1870. We have charted out every single 
expansionary period in the U.S. economy since 1870.
  We have added the growth during the Clinton years. That is this last 
bar. As we look from now all the way back to 1870, this chart indicates 
that this is not the fastest growing economy, not the strongest economy 
in three decades. It shows it as being the weakest economy in over 100 
years. Let me say that again. This is the weakest economy in over 100 
years.
  So, Mr. President, I am making the point that while we should be 
pleased that we have experienced some growth in the economy in this 
last quarter, people should put it in context. There could be some 
reason for excitement if there was a sense that the number that we 
heard this morning would continue into the third quarter and into the 
fourth quarter and into the next year.
  But that is not what economists are telling us. They are telling us 
that the second half of this year is in fact going to be weak. It is 
going to be somewhere

[[Page S9349]]

in the 2 to 2.5 percent growth range. That is not coming from just one 
economist. This is coming from a number of different groups of 
economists. The so-called blue chip forecasts are in the 2.5 percent 
range. Wall Street Journal, somewhere in the 2 to 2.5 percent range. 
CBO forecasted I believe about 2.5 percent growth through the balance 
of this year.
  So while there is excitement, I am telling you, Mr. President, this 
is a short-lived excitement. We are going to hear a lot about it from 
the Clinton administration. But I suggest that the people in this 
country understand from their own experiences that this economy is not 
providing them with the opportunities that they hope for themselves and 
for their children.
  I will use one additional graph here. It compares real median 
household income for the period of time from 1983 to 1992. Real median 
household income, $33,119. The Clinton average, 1993, 1994, $32,153, 
almost $1,000 less. And, yes, these are figures that have taken 
inflation into consideration. On average $1,000 less.
  We have also calculated out, for example, what would have happened if 
the growth rate in the economy had been, say, similar to the 10 years 
prior to President Clinton taking office. How would that have affected 
the average family in America? And do you know what the number is? It 
is $260 a month in loss of income because we are growing at this rate 
versus this rate.
  That is why the American people are concerned about the future. That 
is why they are worried about their opportunities. You cannot, Mr. 
President, layer on American business and American families a whole new 
layer of more Government, higher taxes, more spending, more Washington 
intrusions, more Washington involvement. You cannot layer all of that 
additional Washington interference and not expect the economy to slow 
down.
  So in conclusion, I say, Mr. President, that the economic policies of 
the Clinton administration are robbing America of its economic 
potential. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I want to thank Senator Mack, not only for what he said 
today, but his constant vigilance with regard to what is really 
important for the average family.

  I think it is pretty clear, would you not agree, that whatever the 
good news that is being announced on that side of the aisle, that it is 
the working people and the average families in America that are asking: 
If that is true, how come nothing is happening to my paycheck? How come 
nothing is happening to my family income, which is in stagnation? Those 
are the issues causing the anxiety out there. Am I correct in that?
  Mr. MACK. I say to the Senator, I think you are absolutely correct. 
If you will give me just a moment to tell one little story.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Please.
  Mr. MACK. I think it reflects on the feelings of lots of Americans. I 
think about the family where both the husband and wife work and get up 
way before dawn, and in our large cities in America, commuting for a 
long period of time to get to work, working all day, both of them, 
getting back home after dark. The only time that they have off, the 
weekends, if things go right. And they see all of their resources being 
taxed by every level of government.
  Mr. DOMENICI. You got it.
  Mr. MACK. For programs and services they believe have failed and do 
not work. And they are tired of it. And they are not feeling what one 
would expect would be the results of the fastest growing economy in 3 
decades.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Before the Senator arrived we spoke of stagnant family 
income. That is what is causing the anxiety.
  Real median family income was virtually motionless from 1992 to 1994. 
That is the last year for which we have data available. Under President 
Clinton, it has risen only two-tenths of a percent per year on average. 
Family income is below the level that it was in 1991 under President 
Bush. During the Reagan tenure, yearly family income growth was four 
times as fast. That might account for a poll back then saying people 
thought we were on the right track and a poll today saying they think 
we are on the wrong track.
  Does that seem to be a correct analysis?
  Mr. MACK. Absolutely. What concerns me is that most people do not 
know or have not been told that during the Reagan years, in which we 
tried to reduce the size and scope of Government to reduce the tax 
burden, providing incentives for business creation and capital 
incentive, that during those years family incomes went up. They went up 
consistently.
  I can remember our former colleague, Senator Wirth, teaming up with 
now-Vice President Gore, coming to the floor and talking about this 
tragedy that has occurred in America from roughly 1973 to 1992, just 
talking about from one point to the next point, how incomes had gone 
down, but refused to tell people that during the Reagan years, those 7 
years of growth, that American families were better off and American 
workers were better off.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Bennett, I believe, was next, and we have 
reserved 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah, Senator Bennett, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. President. I do not want to repeat some 
of the arguments that have been made, but I want to talk about one 
aspect of the numbers that have been discussed today so glowingly 
described by the President.
  They look upon the last quarter and say, ``Isn't this magnificent? We 
are growing at over 4 percent a year.'' And I agree that a quarter in 
that atmosphere is a wonderful thing.
  What were they saying just two quarters ago when they were growing at 
0.3 percent a year? One quarter does not control what happens in a 
year. It can be a seasonable circumstance. It can respond to any one of 
the series of one-time events. You need to look at things over time.
  I would like to look at one number over time that we have been 
hearing about in the Clinton administration crowing about the 
tremendous economic performance, and that is taxes. We all know that 
President Clinton made raising taxes the centerpiece of his economic 
program. He promised when he ran in 1992 that he would cut taxes. But 
he said when he got into office: I have suddenly discovered that things 
are far worse than I ever recognized, much worse than I realized. I not 
only cannot deliver on my promise to cut tax rates, I must give you 
increased tax rates, or the economy is going to be destroyed. So we had 
increased tax rates in the United States. He is now saying: Well, you 
see, because I had the wisdom and the courage to raise tax rates, we 
are getting all this tremendous revenue, and now I am responsible for 
the fact the deficit is coming down.
  I point out a few things. If we go back to the last year in which the 
Reagan tax structure was in place, which was 1989, taxes from 
individuals were producing revenue to the Government at the rate of 8.6 
percent of our gross domestic product. Then President Bush broke his 
tax pledge, and we had the tax increase in rates from President Bush. 
Then Mr. Clinton broke his tax pledge, and we had the increase in 
rates. What happened to revenue? Revenue as a percentage of gross 
domestic product went down, Mr. President--not up, down--from 8.6, 
where it had been in 1989, down to 8 percent. It started to come back 
up in 1995. It was 8.4--still not as good as we had during the Reagan 
years, but coming back a little.

  How is it possible, people say to me, that when you raise rates you 
see revenue go down? Stop and think about what happens in the real 
world all the time. I use the example of Ford Motor. They introduced 
what they thought was a marvelous new car, the Ford Taurus. They 
thought there would be so much demand for it they could raise rates. 
They call them ``prices,'' but since we are talking about Government we 
will use ``rates.'' They will raise the rates on the new car. It hit 
the marketplace. The marketplace reacted by not buying Tauruses. What 
did Ford do? They lowered the rates and increased their sales and 
thereby increased the revenue that they were getting from the sale of 
the introduction of that new model.
  Around here we do not understand that principle. But every 
businessman in the United States understands it and uses it every day. 
You raise your

[[Page S9350]]

prices, you lower your prices, depending on what the market tells you. 
Here we just feed the numbers into the computer, and whatever the 
computer tells us, we say that is automatically the way it is going to 
be.
  So President Bush, and then President Clinton, raised tax rates only 
to see revenue as a percentage of the economy go down, and even now in 
this wonderful report the President gives us, the tax revenue has not 
yet gotten back to the level that it was prior to the time when they 
told us that increased taxes were good for us.
  Mr. President, I do not believe that increased tax rates are good for 
us. I think what we should focus on in the Government is tax revenue, 
how much money we get in from the economy in order to pay our bills and 
deal with the deficit. I recommend we go back to the revenue levels 
that we were getting in the days of the Ronald Reagan circumstance when 
we were getting 8.6 percent of the gross domestic product coming from 
individual taxpayers, rather than the anemic 8 percent we hit in the 
Clinton administration.
  Referring to the charts quoted by my friend from Florida, Senator 
Mack, the increase has been the lowest of any expansion we have had. 
Just think, Mr. President, what we would have in terms of revenue for 
the Government and relief from the budget deficit if we had had a 
historic rate of growth in this expansion and 8.6 percent of that 
coming in in the form of revenue. We would be better off than the 
Clintons are claiming we are today.
  Do not get carried away with a single order or with rhetoric in an 
election year. Keep our understanding on the historic pattern that 
tells us the best way to see growth in our economy is when we have tax 
rates that allow Americans to earn more and then to keep more so they 
can do more in their own lives, instead of having Government make all 
of the decisions. I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  First, let me address the good news. Yes, the good news that we 
received this morning from the Commerce Department is that the GDP for 
the second quarter of this year is a strong 4.2 percent. This is up 
from the anemic growth rate of 0.3 percent in the last quarter 1995, 
and the first quarter 1996 growth rate of 2 percent.
  However, Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues that the average 
growth rate since 1990 is a weak 1.9 percent. This is, in my opinion, 
unacceptable.
  Let me refer my colleagues to a Business Week cover story in their 
July 8, 1996, edition. The cover reads ``Economic Growth--Don't be 
fooled by today's strong statistics. And don't be suckered by the 
political rhetoric. America needs faster growth.''
  While the Business Week feature story goes on to outline their 
proposals for stronger growth, they highlight critical issues that we 
must address; namely, increasing savings and investment, balancing the 
budget, and reforming the Tax Code. Mr. President, it is the 
Republicans in Congress who have addressed these issues and will 
continue to fight for real tax reform in the coming years.
  Also, a few weeks ago the Office of Management and Budget's new 
estimates of the deficit for fiscal year 1996 is $117 billion, down 
from the $211 billion target that Bill Clinton called for in his 
budget. The deficit is down because a Republican Congress forced the 
President to control spending. Despite five Presidential vetoes--
remember those vetoes--congressional Republicans successfully managed 
to rescind nearly $40 billion in domestic discretionary spending from 
this administration's top-heavy budget.

  This represents a good start, but it is only a start. Had Bill 
Clinton not been so wild with the veto pen--had he not vetoed the 
balanced budget amendment--we'd be even farther down the road. The 
deficit reduction we're celebrating is for the short term.
  Long-term trends show increasing deficits. They show an upward trend, 
and Congress--along with the President--have a responsibility to 
reverse deficit growth.
  Toward this end, our objective must go beyond controlling the 
spending side of the equation. Excessive taxation is as dangerous to 
the welfare of American families as is excessive spending, perhaps even 
more so.
  These dangerous trends must be reversed. We are moving in the right 
direction to control Federal spending, now we must also push for tax 
reform to strengthen the economy.
  Make no mistake about my feelings on this debate. I'm on record as a 
proponent of meaningful tax cuts, and this will be the direction I 
intend to move.
  Holding the line on spending and stimulating optimal economic growth 
through responsible tax reform are the only ways that we will 
effectively find the resources and means necessary to meet the 
challenges and the enjoy the opportunities the future has to offer.
  Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Kyl.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware for making 
this time available to talk about this important matter this afternoon. 
I was reminded of the fabler, Stephen Leacock, who wrote the story 
about the fleas riding on the back of a chariot. They looked back and 
said, ``My, what a fine cloud of dust we have made.'' It seems to me 
that Bill Clinton's crowing about the latest GDP figures is analogous. 
If it were not for the Republican Congress, as Senator Roth just 
pointed out, ensuring that the budget deficit went down to the extent 
it did, we would not have these GDP figures that begin to show some 
promise. As Senator Roth pointed out, if the President had not vetoed 
the balanced budget we sent up, the figures would be even better. So I 
don't think this is the time for the President to be crowing.
  There is another point here, too, Mr. President. We should be very 
leery of these preliminary statistics. It has been pointed out that the 
first-quarter GDP figures this year were actually overrated by 21 
percent. The correct number was 2.2 percent growth. But they were 
originally estimated at 2.8 percent. So we need to be a little cautious 
about bragging too much about the figures before they are verified.
  Third, as has been pointed out before in this debate, the overall 
economic performance during the Clinton administration is very poor. It 
is an annual growth rate of 2.3 percent, compared, for example, with 
3.7 percent growth the year before the President took office. If you 
take the entire decade before he took office, it was 3.2 percent. So 
the President has very little to crow about with respect to the overall 
performance of the economy.
  There is a final and most important point here, though, that I think 
needs to be addressed. The Senator from Utah, Senator Bennett, made the 
point a moment ago. It has to do with the plight of the average 
American. We can quote these GDP statistics all we want. But what about 
the average American family? How does all of this affect them? The fact 
of the matter is that the average American family is not doing so good. 
The news there is not good. Households have lost, not gained, $2,100 in 
take-home pay during the 1990's. That is a 5-percent decline. If you 
look at the 1980's, families increased their income by 11 percent, or 
$4,100. That was the increase in median family income during the 
1980's, mostly the Reagan decade, but the first part of the Bush 
administration as well.
  If you look at the Clinton decade, the 1990's, median household 
income has actually dropped $2,100. So it is fine for the GDP to be 
finally showing some strength, but in terms of the average American 
family, it has not yet translated into a benefit to them.
  In the 1990's, by the way, it is the rich who have been gaining, to 
the extent that there is any gain, and not the middle- and lower-income 
workers. Consumer debt has hit an all-time high of just over $1 
trillion--a 44-percent increase during the Clinton years.
  Personal bankruptcies were at an all-time high last year. Why is 
this? Because of the Clinton crunch, Mr. President, and the 
historically high tax rates. Americans today are paying the highest 
percentage of taxes in the peacetime history of the Nation--38.2 
percent. I think it bears repeating that this is the highest percentage 
of their income that Americans have paid in taxes during peacetime in 
this country's history.
  That is the Clinton crunch. That is why the GDP statistics, as good 
as they may be, are not being translated into benefit for the average 
American

[[Page S9351]]

family. The stagnation of wages and incomes and the economic anxiety 
people feel is the result of three things--the weak performance of the 
economy under President Clinton, high taxes, and the burdensome 
regulation of the Clinton administration. These are what have hindered 
people's ability to get ahead.

  Just a month ago, on July 4, we celebrated Independence Day in this 
country. I would note that July 3 is also ``independence day'' for the 
people in this country, because, until July 3, Americans literally had 
been working for the Government. In other words, if they had applied 
all of their income to taxes, it would not have been until July 3 that 
they would have fulfilled all of their tax obligations. From then on, 
they began working for themselves.
  So it is really the Clinton crunch that has caused so many problems 
for American families. Until we can (a) get the economy moving again, 
and (b) reduce this burden of regulation and taxation on the American 
people, these generalized statistics are not going to translate into 
any real benefit for the average American family.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I yield Senator Abraham 5 minutes.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I, too, would like to put into 
perspective the statements made earlier today on the other side of the 
aisle relating to the economy. While it may be true that in this one 
quarter, growth statistics are up; the fact is, for this Presidency, as 
was clearly documented by the Senator from Florida earlier, growth has 
been anemic, 2.3 percent, the lowest economic growth for any recovery 
in this country, literally, in this century.
  What is also important, as was pointed out, is the fact that the 
median family income of America's working families has stayed stagnant. 
What has not stayed stagnant is the rate of taxes paid by those average 
families. That has been going up, as the Senator just indicated, to an 
all-time record high of over 20 percent. That is why American families 
are feeling a squeeze. They are working harder, their incomes are not 
going up, but their Federal taxes are going up. We need to address 
that, Mr. President.
  Now, earlier today, we heard from the other side of the aisle several 
critics of letting Americans keep more of what they earn. Tax cuts were 
criticized. It is not surprising that it came from the other side of 
the aisle; it is the other side of this aisle that voted in 1993 for 
the largest tax increase in the history of this country.
  Let us talk about the kind of tax cuts that can help America's 
families, like those we saw in the 1960's under a Democratic Presidency 
and in the 1980's under a Republican Presidency. Those tax cuts 
stimulated economic growth and created millions of jobs for working 
Americans. Those tax cuts also stimulated the chance for this economy 
to grow, and grow at record rates.
  In the 1980's we saw economic growth that greatly eclipsed what we 
are seeing this year. It is interesting. Notwithstanding the criticism 
that was leveled earlier at those tax cuts, and notwithstanding the 
myths that have been created about those tax cuts, the truth is those 
tax cuts did stimulate far greater revenue to the Federal Government 
from taxpaying Americans, because the economy did grow, and it grew at 
record levels, especially during the 1980's.
  It is interesting also as to who paid those increased taxes. It was 
people at the highest ends of the income spectrum who, freed from the 
high-tax burdens, decided to invest and risk their dollars in creating 
new jobs and economic growth. That is what we had. We had economic 
growth. We had more jobs, and we had higher tax revenues to the Federal 
Government.
  Interestingly, in the 1990's when tax rates were raised, upper income 
groups are paying less and lower and middle-income groups are paying 
more because the upper income groups have found ways to shelter their 
income to avoid taxation. In the 1980's they did not do it. They used 
their moneys to create jobs and opportunity, and paid more taxes.
  The other myth that I think needs to be exploded here today is the 
myth that somehow cutting taxes created the deficits that we had in the 
1980's. The fact is, revenues increased during the 1980's after the tax 
cuts by approximately 56 percent. What increased faster was Federal 
spending in virtually every dimension by almost 70 percent. That 
differential, Mr. President, is the reason we saw deficits increase--
deficits increase--under a Democratic-controlled House of 
Representatives.
  So, Mr. President, let us put this in perspective. Under this 
Presidency, median family income has remained stagnant while taxes have 
gone up. Under this Presidency, the growth rate has been the most 
anemic in any recovery of the Nation's history over the past century. 
That is not a track record of great accomplishment no matter how much 
it is sugar-coated.
  What we need to do is to give the working families of this country a 
chance to really keep up with the needs that they have by being allowed 
to keep more of what they earn, and a chance for the people who create 
jobs and opportunity to have the incentives to invest, to risk and to 
create entrepreneurial activity that will give us the jobs we need for 
the balance of this century and the next.
  Thank you very much.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Georgia, Mr. Coverdell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has 5 minutes.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, as everyone has said here this morning, 
we have had a trail of good news from the other side on the economy. I 
go back to a quote:

       We have the most solid American economy in a generation.

  That was President Clinton's remark on July 6 of 1996. But perhaps of 
equal standing, perhaps even more, are these quotes. I have heard so 
much on this side of the aisle about what the real status of the 
economy is, but I have been taken with the remarks on the economy from 
the other side of the aisle:

       We have an anemic rate of economic growth.

  I repeat:

       We have an anemic rate of economic growth.

  Senator Byron Dorgan on June 20, 1996, in the Congressional Record. 
Or how about this one:

       When I go home, I hear a lot of anxiety from farmers, small 
     business people and families just trying to make a living 
     wage. In fact, wages have stagnated. For many middle class 
     working families, every year it seems harder and harder to 
     make ends meet.

  Mr. President, that is the statement of Senator Tom Daschle, the 
minority leader, and that statement was made on June 20, 1996.
  Here is another:

       Even though some Clinton administration economic advisers 
     have begun to highlight certain positive economic news, it is 
     still true that for many, especially low and moderate income 
     working people, the economic recovery is spotty, partial and 
     has failed to increase their real take home pay.

  That is Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, May 2, 1996.
  Here is another one:

       We all know that the American people are anxious about 
     their economic future. They are worried about the security of 
     their jobs and their ability to take care of their families.

  That is Senator Joe Lieberman, the colleague of Senator Dodd, who is 
on the floor. That was a statement made on May 17, 1996.
  Daschle, Wellstone, Lieberman, Dorgan, all contemporary statements 
reflecting anxiousness and anxiety among the average working families 
in America, and they are right. In a recent article in the Washington 
Times, we read that last month 63 percent of the American people said 
the country was on the wrong track compared with only 24 percent who 
thought it was on the right track. It says:

       A lot of people say their income is not keeping them ahead 
     of the cost of living. Only 10 to 15 percent say they are 
     doing better.

  So the remarks by Dorgan, Daschle, Lieberman, and Wellstone are right 
on the mark. The middle class, the average working family does not feel 
very good today. Why would that be? I can tell you one reason, Mr. 
President. It is because their checking account has $2,000 to $3,000 
less since President Clinton came to office than they had in that 
account before he came to office.
  I might add, that is about a 7 percent reduction in their disposable 
income. The average Georgia family today has to forfeit over half its 
wages to one

[[Page S9352]]

government or another now, over half. If Thomas Jefferson were here 
today, he would roll into his grave that it would ever come to the 
point that over half a family's income is being consumed by the 
Federal, State, or local government. And here we are, with this 
administration having taken another $2,000 to $3,000 out of a family 
who only has about $25,000 of disposable income. That is like a 10 
percent reduction in their disposable income in just 36 months. So it 
does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why there is so much 
anxiety in the working family. They have less to work with. The median 
household income has declined from $33,119 to $32,000.
  Job lock: Anemic economic growth has frozen many workers into jobs 
they would like to leave for better employment, but they are afraid 
those jobs will not be there if they try to go someplace else.
  Or how about credit cards? The delinquent payments on credit cards, 
which is a real consumer-connected device across our country, are the 
worst they have ever been in 50 years. Why? Because we have, by Federal 
policy, pushed the average family to the wall. And the policies of this 
administration have created the anemic economy, just as Senator Daschle 
has alluded to. Those policies have reduced the disposable income in 
that family's checking account and they have made middle America very 
worried.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, but for the strength, determination and 
leadership of the Republicans in the Congress--and I am referring to 
this and past Congresses--we would not today have a better budget 
situation or have an article like the one which was printed in the Wall 
Street Journal this morning.
  But for the economic wisdom of the Federal Reserve and the steady 
guiding hand of its chairman, Alan Greenspan, we would not today have 
the economic footing that we need to be closer to a balanced budget 
than we have been in recent years.
  There are two facts of economic life. One is that Republicans have 
been more steadfast and committed to balancing the budget than has the 
President. I remind my colleagues of the vetoes he issued on our 
attempts to balance the budget last year. But for our steadfastness and 
commitment to this goal, but for Republican leadership, this President 
would be no where near to working on a balanced budget.
  The second is a fact that this Senator addressed during Chairman 
Greenspan's confirmation. The Federal Reserve has played, and continues 
to play, a crucial role in stabilizing the economy and maintaining 
investor confidence in the face of big spending Congresses. This 
confidence has lead to increased participation by some Americans in the 
stock market. This increased capital investment is what has led to new 
jobs, and expansion.
  The President has raised taxes, though. The Clinton tax increases 
have taken away from all Americans' ability to take care of their 
families. The Clinton tax increases have decreased the amount of money 
which mothers and fathers have to buy necessities for their children. 
This is wrong.
  Several of my colleagues have very accurately described the reality 
of the so-called Clinton economic growth rate. I wish to associate 
myself with their remarks. The charts which they have shown the Senate 
depict an economy which is not growing as fast as past economic 
expansions. In fact one of the charts show that this is the weakest 
economy in 100 years.
  Another of the charts clearly shows what has happened to real medium 
household income. It has decreased. As the Senator from Florida pointed 
out, real medium household income in the years between 1983-1992 was 
$33,119. During the Clinton years of 1993-1994 real median household 
income dropped to $32,153.
  No wonder American workers are concerned about their future. This 
drop in income hurts hard working Americans.
  Let us continue to reform Government programs, as we are with this 
welfare reform legislation. And let us continue our efforts in Congress 
to balance the budget. This is true economic stimulation. This will 
lead to real economic growth. This will put more money into the pockets 
of Americans.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Excuse me, I thought I had 10 minutes on welfare.
  Mr. D'AMATO. We are running a little behind. We would appreciate it 
if you could keep it--
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me just reschedule time to talk about 
welfare.
  Mr. D'AMATO. If the Senator would like to be yielded 10 minutes, why 
don't we start, instead of just talking about it.
  Mr. GRAMM. All right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, it is an incredible paradox that while 
today we celebrate one of the most dramatic legislative victories 
certainly in this Congress and in the last decade, we are here 
responding to our Democratic colleagues who came over to give us a 
lesson in perverted economics this morning. They tell us how things are 
great because they had the courage to raise taxes, and if only we had 
raised taxes more and spent more, things would even be better. I 
personally do not believe the American people are going to adopt that 
brand of economics.
  I would simply like to say that if we had not raised taxes in 1993, 
but rather had cut spending and adopted the balanced budget amendment 
to the Constitution, the economy would be stronger, and we would not be 
having an economic recovery, which happens to be one of the weakest 
economic recoveries in any postwar period.

                          ____________________