Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 136 (Friday, September 27, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 136 (Friday, September 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11497-S11503]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

THE U.S. ECONOMY--ON THE RIGHT TRACK

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, yesterday we received more good news on
the performance of the U.S. economy. Yesterday, the Census Bureau
reported outstanding news with respect to increases in personal income
and reductions in the levels of poverty in our country. I believe a
significant part of the reason for the excellent economic performance
is the Clinton economic plan that was passed in 1993. I believe that
plan has contributed by reducing the deficit, reducing the deficit 4
years in a row. That took pressure off interest rates, and that fueled
an economic resurgence in this country.
I think when we evaluate the performance of the last three Presidents
on the question of deficit reduction, the record is remarkably clear.
Back in 1981, President Reagan came into office and inherited a
deficit of $79 billion. The deficit promptly skyrocketed under the
theory of supply-side economics--the notion that we could dramatically
cut taxes while increasing defense spending and somehow it would all
add up.
Unfortunately, it did not add up. In fact, the deficit exploded. The
deficit went up to over $200 billion a year and stayed at that level
through much of the Reagan administration, although there was some
improvement in the final years of that administration.
Then we saw President Bush come into office. He inherited a deficit
of about $153 billion, and then the deficit truly went out of control.
Each and every year the deficit rose, until in the final year of the
Bush administration, we had a budget deficit of $290 billion. That was
the budget deficit.
Perhaps it would be helpful to explain the difference between
deficits and debt, because I often find that people are confused by the
two. Deficits are the annual difference between what we raise in
revenue and what we spend. It is the annual difference. Debt, of
course, is the accumulation of all of the deficits.
Under President Clinton, unlike President Bush where the deficit went
up every year, in the Clinton years, the deficit has declined each and
every year. In fact, we went from a unified deficit of $290 billion----
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. REID. It is true, is it not, I say to the Senator from North
Dakota, that 4 years in a row of declining deficits, the last time that
happened was in the 1840's--that is 1840's--prior to the Civil War; is
that true?
Mr. CONRAD. That is correct. The first time that we have seen the
deficit decline 4 years in a row under one President was back in the
1840's.
Mr. REID. I also ask the Senator from North Dakota, in looking at the
chart as I came into the Chamber, it appears to me that the deficit is
only one-third of what it was at the height of the Reagan deficits.
Mr. CONRAD. If you measure the deficit against the size of our
national income, which is probably the best measure of the deficit,
that is true. In fact, the deficit measured against the size of the
economy is the lowest it has been since 1974. In fact, we now have the
lowest deficit of any of the major industrialized countries in the
world. Again, I think that is the central reason we have seen this
economic resurgence.
Mr. REID. Can I ask one final question? And that is, I think the
Senator from North Dakota would agree that even though the last 4 years
have been remarkable in driving down the annual deficit, I think we
would all acknowledge we are working toward a zero deficit; is that
true?
Mr. CONRAD. I think that is the goal that many of us share. I hope
that would be what we could accomplish, to have a balanced budget in
this country. It is critically important that we do that, because we
face the demographic time bomb of the baby-boom generation. In very
short order, the retirement of the baby boomers is going to double the
number of people eligible for our major programs, from 24 billion to 48
billion. That is why we have to keep the pressure on to keep the
deficit down.

I will conclude the point with respect to the Clinton
administration's performance. In 1992 President Clinton promised he
would cut the deficit in half. He has done much better than that. In
fact, the deficit is down about 60 percent during the Clinton years.
Interestingly enough, the Federal Reserve Chairman, not known as a
strong supporter of the Clinton administration--in fact, originally
appointed by a Republican President--said that the deficit reduction in
President Clinton's 1993 economic plan was ``an unquestioned factor in
contributing to the improvement in economic activity that occurred
thereafter.''
This is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve in February of this year
indicating that the Clinton plan was the central reason we have seen
that dramatic improvement in the deficit during the Clinton years.
Not only do we see an outstanding story with respect to deficit
reduction, this chart shows what has happened to real business fixed
investment in billions of 1992 dollars. This chart goes back to 1985.
You can see, ever since Bill Clinton has been in office, we have seen a
dramatic improvement in business fixed investment. In fact, this is the
best record for increases in business investment for any President
since World War II.

[[Page S11498]]

The good news doesn't stop there, because we also see the misery
index at its lowest level since 1968. The misery index is a combined
measure of the unemployment rate and the level of inflation. The misery
index is now at the lowest level it has been in 28 years.
Again, the good news doesn't stop there. We remember when President
Clinton was seeking the office of President. He said that he would have
as a goal the creation of 8 million jobs in the first 4 years of his
administration. He has exceeded that. He has delivered on his promise.
We have more than 10 million new jobs. In fact, we have now reached
10.5 million new jobs.
And unemployment is down, down sharply, under President Clinton. In
December of 1992, the level of unemployment in this country was 7.3
percent. This chart shows in June of 1996, it was down to 5.3 percent.
It has gotten even better since then. The level of unemployment was
down to 5.1 percent in August 1996.
We have also experienced strong economic growth under President
Clinton. In fact, this chart compares private-sector growth under
President Clinton as compared to President Bush. Under President Bush,
the private sector grew at a rate of 1.3 percent during his 4 years.
Under President Clinton, this chart shows 3.1 percent. With the latest
update, private-sector growth in this country is up to 3.2 percent
during the Clinton years. In fact, this is the highest rate of growth
of any of the last three Presidents--private sector economic growth,
the best of any of the last three Presidents.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield.
Mr. REID. You have talked about the private growth in our economy.
Will the Senator agree that we have a smaller Federal work force now
than we had during the years of President John F. Kennedy? Federal jobs
have been cut back significantly; is that not true?
Mr. CONRAD. It is true. The Federal work force is at its smallest
level since the 1960's, during the administration of President Kennedy.
I might also point out, and I think this is interesting, that Federal
spending--this President is accused of being a big spender--Federal
spending measured against our national income has gone down each and
every year of the Clinton administration. Interesting.
During the Bush administration, Federal spending went up. Under
President Clinton, Federal spending has declined each and every year as
measured against our national income.
I might just conclude that yesterday we got more good news. We got
the Census Bureau report showing that incomes are going up; poverty is
coming down. Median household income showed its largest increase in a
decade. We had the largest decline in income inequality in 27 years. We
saw the biggest drop in poverty in 27 years; 1.6 million fewer people
in poverty. We saw the poverty rate for the elderly drop to its lowest
rate ever, lowest rate ever for elderly poverty, and the biggest drop
in child poverty in 20 years.
It seems to me that part of any Presidential campaign ought to be the
record. The record, with respect to the economy, of this administration
is crystal clear: The deficit is down, unemployment is down, poverty is
down, incomes are up, jobs are up, business investment is up. That is
an outstanding record. I hope people will have a chance to learn this
record between now and the election. I think if they do, this President
will be reelected with a resounding vote. I am happy to yield the
floor.
Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Let me yield myself such time as I may consume of the
hour that has been set aside.
Mr. REID. Would the Senator from North Dakota, prior to the senior
Senator from North Dakota leaving the floor, allow me to just ask a
couple questions of the senior Senator from North Dakota?
Mr. DORGAN. I would be happy to.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend, the senior Senator from North Dakota,
that you have made an interesting and I think a compelling case how
things have improved during the past 4 years, from lower Federal
employment, to higher private-sector employment, millions of new jobs,
10 million new jobs created, the lowest poverty levels in 27 years. You
have gone through that, and I think made, as I indicated, a compelling
case.
But I would like to ask the Senator a question. Do you realize in the
State of Nevada--this is not on the overall economy of this country--
but in the State of Nevada, which is a State sparsely populated but
growing, the most rapidly growing State in the Union, do you realize
that the unemployment rate in Nevada has declined from almost 7.5
percent when President Clinton took office now to about 5 percent? Were
you aware of that?
Mr. CONRAD. I was not aware of that. But I was aware of national
figures that showed the unemployment rate declining from 7.3 percent
nationally to 5.1 percent today, the lowest level of unemployment we
have had in this country in 7 years. I think that is another indicator
that the Clinton economic plan, which passed in this Chamber by a
single vote, is a plan that is clearly working.
Mr. REID. I would also ask the Senator--in fact, you have made an
interesting and, again, a very dynamic case for what has happened with
private-sector growth during these last 4 years nationally. But let me
ask you if you know that in Nevada, there are 2\1/2\ times as many new
private-sector jobs per year than during the previous 4 years? That is
a tremendous increase.
Mr. CONRAD. That is a remarkable accomplishment. I think any
objective observer who looks at the economic indicators can only
conclude that this economic plan has been remarkable in its success. In
fact, last year, for the first time in many years, the United States
was judged to be the most competitive economy in the world. That
designation has been given to the United States again this year. It is
the first time in a very long time we saw the United States replace
Japan as the most competitive nation in the world. So again, I think
the evidence is clear and powerful and compelling that this President's
economic plan is working and working well.
Mr. REID. I will just ask one last question before the floor is taken
by the junior Senator from North Dakota. In Nevada, we have had new
business incorporations increase by 14 percent--that is big for any
State--but 14 percent during the 4-year period of time. This is in the
State of Nevada, not nationally, but the State of Nevada.

Mr. CONRAD. Again, it follows the trend we are seeing nationally.
President Clinton has the best record in terms of an increase in
business investment, the rate of increase, of any President since World
War II. You see the stock market at an all-time high. Virtually every
indicator shows clearly that this economic plan has been a tremendous
success.
I might just say that when we passed that plan, we took a lot of heat
for it. I remember our friends across the aisle said that this plan
would crater the economy. They said that if we passed this plan, it
would increase unemployment, it would reduce economic growth, it would
increase the deficit. They were wrong. They were wrong on every single
count. The fact is, those of us who voted for that plan, it was
controversial and we took a lot of political heat for passing it, that
plan has proved itself and proved itself remarkably well.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, on the last point, the Senator talks about
what the reaction was to the plan in 1993 that required some amount of
fortitude to vote for because it was not popular. The political thing
would have been to vote ``no.'' And half this Chamber did. It passed by
one vote. Speaker Gingrich said at the time, ``This will lead to a
recession,'' August 6. ``Pass this, it will lead to a recession.'' What
has happened? Well, the deficit is down, unemployment is down,
inflation is down, jobs are up, economic growth is up.
I will just discuss a bit some of the things that you have talked
about. I thought I would just tell a story, if I might, that happened
to a friend of mine the other day that describes context. You always
have to put things in context, because what happens in politics is,
someone comes to the floor of the Senate--and it has been done a lot
lately--and they will take one little piece that you are able to find,
and

[[Page S11499]]

they will hold it up to the light and say, ``Look at this. Isn't this
ugly? Isn't this awful? Look at this awful bad news.'' That is the way
this system works.
Of course, bad news travels faster than good news. The old saying:
``Bad news travels halfway around the world before good news gets its
shoes on.'' So people do this. Let me talk about context.
A friend of mine has a precocious 3-year-old. She went to the video
store, because they were going to be home for the weekend and they
thought they would get a couple movies. They went to the video store
and bought a little cartoon for the 3-year-old to watch and then a
couple of movies for her and her husband to watch for the weekend.
She told me this story. After they went to the video store and got
these three movies, they stopped at the grocery store, and this
precocious 3-year-old of hers, as they are walking past the checkout
counter in the grocery store, the little boy said, ``Well, Mommy got us
some movies for the weekend.'' The cashier said, ``Really?'' He said,
``Yes. She got a cartoon movie for me and two adult movies for them.''
What happened is the little boy was explaining on the way to the
grocery store, ``Gee, I get to watch three movies,'' and the mother
said, ``No. We bought one for you, and the other ones are for myself
and your father.'' ``Why can't I watch them?'' ``They are for adults.''
Then he tells the cashier, ``Mommy got two adult movies.'' Well, he was
technically accurate, but contextually, in the context of this
discussion she told me, she was trying to look for a cash register to
crawl under.
That is what happens with respect to all of this discussion. It loses
context when you take just a part of it and hold it up.
The Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Nevada talked
about where we are and where we are heading. The question is, it seems
to me, not so much in isolation but in the context of the broader
economic question, are we headed in the right direction or are we
headed in the wrong direction? Are we moving forward or are we moving
backward?
Let us just not listen to Senator Conrad. He wears a blue suit,
serves in the Senate, and talks, and Senator Reid wears a blue suit and
serves in the Senate and talks, and I am talking. So people say,
``Well, you're politicians on the floor of the Senate. All you do is
talk about these things.'' Let us not listen to us.

Let us listen to money magazine. Here is what they say:

The majority of Americans are better off on most pocketbook
issues after 3\1/2\ years under [President] Clinton, who's
presided over the kind of economic progress any Republican
President would be proud to post.

Barron's:

In short, Clinton's economic record is remarkable. . . .
Clinton also rightfully boasted that, ``our economy is the
healthiest that it has been in 30 years.''

Business Week:

[I]nflation is low, growth is good, and the dollar is
strengthening. America is in its best economic shape in 20
years.

Reuters:

Clinton has run up an enviable record in the past 4 years,
cutting the budget deficit each year, and making good on a
campaign promise to cut the deficit in half.

That is not us. Money magazine, Barron's, Reuters, Business Week are
telling this story. It is the story that Senator Conrad just told with
charts--steady economic growth, deficits down, way down, and inflation
down, way down, 5 years in a row, unemployment down to 5.1 percent.
This is a remarkable economic story.
Are things perfect in our country? No. Are we finally heading in the
right direction? Are we seeing higher deficits? No, we are seeing much
lower deficits. Are we seeing unemployment grow? No, we are seeing
unemployment diminish, more people are working. That is movement in the
right direction.
This economic news in our country is news that most of us ought to
view as remarkable news, that ought to be a source of strength to the
American people.
Senator Conrad just touched in the last part of his presentation on
some things that just came out yesterday, and we were at a meeting with
the President last evening, in fact, a meeting with the President
yesterday at noon, the three of us were there, and then a gathering
with the President last evening again where he talked about the new
Census Bureau information.
I would like to share it with people because it is important. Typical
household income up $898 in 1995, the largest increase in a decade.
Typical African American family's income is up $3,000 since 1992. The
median income of African-American families has increased from $22,900
to $25,900, the largest decline in income inequality in 27 years. We
have had a problem with income inequality, the poor getter poorer and
the rich getting richer, the largest decline in that inequality in 27
years. The number of people in poverty fell by 1.6 million, the largest
drop in 27 years. The poverty rolls are not growing, they are
shrinking. The poverty rate fell to 13.8 percent, the biggest drop in
over a decade. The African-American poverty rate dropped to its lowest
level in history. The elderly poverty rate dropped to 10.5 percent, the
lowest level ever. The biggest drop in children living in poverty in 20
years. The largest drop in poverty rate of female-headed households in
30 years. This is from the census data about what is happening in the
American economy.
The point I want to conclude with is that we put this country on
course with a plan that was not popular and we paid a price for that. I
understand that. It was not popular at the time. It turns out to have
put this country on solid footing to move toward greater economic
strength, more jobs, more economic growth, less unemployment, less
inflation. It was the right thing to do and America is heading in the
right direction.
While there might be some who are complainers in America, we have a
designated corps of complainers in our country who never want to do
anything for the first time, have never found anything they are pleased
about. They might want to find small areas where they would say, ``Gee,
this is not right. This is not working.'' While they have complained it
will not work and it is not right, we have set it right and are making
it work and are moving this country in the right direction. That is the
story of the economic numbers.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. REID. There are two Senators from North Dakota on the floor and
they, of course, attended the meeting yesterday where the President
came and talked to us. There was no press, not a single press person in
the room, and I listened very closely as did my colleagues.
The thing I will never forget, I am confident I am not telling tales
out of school, is when the President showed us this, he said, ``Last
night, late at the White House, I was given this, and I sat there alone
looking at one page and almost cried,'' because he has also, as you
recall, gone through literal hell, people criticizing his economic
plan. The President of the United States, alone in the White House,
said when he saw this he became so emotional he almost cried because
this is good news.

Would the Senator agree this is good news? This is the glass being
half full, not half empty. We all recognize, as I indicated to the
Senator from North Dakota earlier in this discussion, we can do better.
We can do better. But the glass is half full. It is not half empty.
The American people deserve to hear this good news. Would the Senator
agree?
Mr. DORGAN. I absolutely agree. As I said earlier, good news does not
travel very far, very well, or very quickly. There is an industry that
is interested in seizing and entertaining people on bad news. Part of
that industry is in American politics, because they understand that
negatives far more easily motivate people than do positives. I
understand even though today we could have people come to the floor and
hold up a bunch of negatives and say, ``Is this not awful,'' we do not
have a situation that is perfect in this country. Circumstances exist
where the American people govern this country in a representative
government. We make decisions, at times, decisions that the American
people probably do not want us to make, but we do it in what we think
is in the best interests of this country.
This President is a mortal President. I like him. I vote with him
when I

[[Page S11500]]

think he is right. Yesterday I voted against him. I thought he was
wrong on something. He is not a perfect President. None of us is
perfect. This President has attempted to be a leader. When he took
office in 1993 he proposed a plan that says this is a tough plan, and
it is tough medicine, but let us, together, try and eliminate this
Federal budget deficit. I would like you to vote for a plan that does
it. Part of the medicine will be, yes, some increases in taxes,
although most of the tax increases went to the very highest income
people in this country, and especially some spending cuts in areas
where we were spending too much money, and it was a package that we
voted for, and I was pleased to vote for it. It was the right thing to
do. We did not get even one vote from that side of the aisle. You would
expect somebody to make a mistake occasionally and vote wrong. Not one
would vote with us. We won by one vote, one single vote in the House
and the Senate.
We put in place an economic plan that was the right thing to do. The
result? More employment, less unemployment; more economic growth, lower
inflation and lower deficits. That is a country that is moving in the
right direction.
I am happy to yield the floor and allow the Senator from Nevada to
take some time at this point.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to spend a little bit of time
reviewing the good news that we received yesterday. The good news, I
repeat, typical household income went up last year almost $900. In
1995, the median household income increased 2.7 percent. This is
tremendous. It is now up to $34,076, the largest 1-year increase since
1986. Typical family income is up over $1,600 since the President's
economic plan has passed. Median family income has increased, up to
over $40,000 a year in 1995. That is an increase of over $1,600, as I
indicated, since his plan passed in 1993, when the Vice President of
the United States had to come in and cast the deciding vote because it
was on a 50-50 tie with Senators.

Under President Bill Clinton, the typical Afro-American family in
America's income is up over $3,000. The median income is up to almost
$26,000. This is a $3,047 increase compared to when President Clinton
took office.
Mr. President, 27 years--we have had the largest decline in income
inequality in 27 years. In 1995, household income inequality fell as
every income group from the most well off to the poorest experienced a
real increase in their income for the second straight year. One measure
of inequality, something called the Gini coefficient, which is
something economists use but is deemed to be the most reliable judge of
inequality, dropped more in 1995 than any year since 1968.
People in poverty. Mr. President, enough people are off poverty to
fill the States of North Dakota and the State of Wyoming and then have
people left over--1.6 million people are off poverty. This is
significant. This is even though the population is growing. We are
still maintaining this drop. It is the largest 1-year decline since
1968.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. REID. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. DORGAN. That would be the equivalent of five Wyoming's, as I
calculate?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, 1.6 million--I think Wyoming is about
600,000, so it is about 2\1/2\ to 3\1/2\ Wyomings.
Mr. DORGAN. I thought Wyoming had a smaller population than that, but
it is sufficient to say you could take a number of the States in the
northern Great Plains that are not heavily populated and you can
compare the kind of progress we have made in a number of these areas by
referring to those States.
It is remarkable when you take a look at income data provided by the
Census Bureau, no one would have predicted this kind of economy would
produce that in this 3\1/2\-year period.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend, the reason I mention States is these
are real human beings, real people that go to work every day,
hopefully, if that is possible, if they have a job. But these people
get up every morning and go to bed every night--real human beings, 1.6
million of them are off poverty. That says a lot, I think.
The poverty rate fell to 13.8 percent, the biggest drop in over a
decade. In 1995, the poverty rate dropped from 14.5 percent to 13.8
percent. That is the largest 1-year fall in the poverty rate since
1984. Since President Bill Clinton's economic plan was signed into law,
the poverty rate declined from 15.1 percent to 13.8 percent, the
biggest 2-year drop in the poverty rate in 23 years.
The Afro-American poverty rate dropped to its lowest level in
history. I repeat: The Afro-American poverty rate dropped to its lowest
level in history. In 1995, the rate declined from 30.6 percent to 29.3
percent. That is the first time it dropped below 30 percent and is the
lowest level since data was first collected in 1959.
The elderly poverty rate dropped to its lowest figure ever --ever--to
10.5 percent. Of people over the age of 65, only 10.5 of them are in
poverty. That is tremendous. By far, that is the best of any country in
the world. In 1966, 28.5 percent of American elderly lived in poverty.
That was before Medicare came into being. Medicare has kept a lot of
people off the poverty rolls. In 1995, the elderly poverty rate
declined to 10.5 percent. That is a new record low for elderly
poverty--ever--not in the last decade or two, but ever. Not only do we
have seniors poverty rate declining, but child poverty has dropped to
its lowest level in 20 years, also. So seniors and children are doing
better. We are doing better by them.
Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I am happy to.
Mr. CONRAD. You mentioned that the poverty rate for the elderly was
at a level of 28 percent, or more than 28 percent in 1966.
Mr. REID. Almost 29 percent.
Mr. CONRAD. Almost 29 percent was the rate of poverty for the
elderly; 29 percent of the elderly lived in poverty as recently as
1966. What did it drop to?
Mr. REID. It dropped to 10.5 percent.
Mr. CONRAD. To 10.5 percent. You know, sometimes we say, well, the
Government doesn't do anything that has much value. But here is a case
where the portion of our elderly population that lived in poverty has
been reduced from 29 percent of the elderly to 10.5 percent. That is a
dramatic improvement in the lives of real people. I think that is
something people can be proud of. I think Bill Clinton and his economic
plan, which has led to an economic resurgence in this country, ought to
get some of the credit. This President deserves some of the credit.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. REID. Yes.
Mr. DORGAN. I heard a Senator come to the floor of the Senate a while
ago and say, ``For this President to claim credit for the good news
about the economy is like a rooster claiming credit for the sunshine.''
There are some here who are unwilling to give this President credit for
anything.
I read this, a few moments ago, in Money magazine, who understands.
Barron's, Business Week, and Reuters give the President credit. Do you
think this President would not have been given the blame for an economy
that was faltering and failing?
Let me read, if I might, a comment by the Chairman of the Federal
Reserve, Alan Greenspan. He said:

The deficit reduction in President Clinton's 1993 economic
plan was an unquestioned factor in contributing to the
improvement in economic activity that occurred thereafter.

That is language from an economist. It could be clearer, I suppose.
But he said ``unquestioned factor.'' The President's plan is an
``unquestioned factor'' in contributing to the improvement in economic
activity that occurred thereafter.

Paul Volcker, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, said:

The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton
administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit
for that. I think we are seeing some benefits.

The Philadelphia Inquirer, in a series they did, said:

What the GOP won't admit is that the President also helped
the economy grow. Clintonomics showed enough fiscal
discipline that it helped produce the lower interest rates,
which, in turn, spurred economic growth.

I still hear people, who are Members of the Senate, come to the floor
and say, ``Well, the only people who care about the Federal deficit are
we conservatives, we Republicans.''

[[Page S11501]]

The people who care about the Federal deficit are the people who
stood up and owned up to a vote in 1993 and said, ``I will cast an
unpopular vote in order to reduce this Federal deficit and get interest
rates down and put this country back on track.'' Some of our colleagues
who did that are not here. They lost their seats as a result of that.
But the fact that we did that in 1993, according to all of these
sources--don't just listen to me, but to these sources--the fact that
we did that created the circumstances that allowed the American economy
to grow and produce the kind of news we heard yesterday. Once again,
this President is providing leadership in the right direction, and this
country is moving ahead and in the right direction, rather than
languishing or moving backward. That is the point I wanted to make
today.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator read that quote from Barron's and from
Money magazine again?
Mr. DORGAN. The Money magazine article was in August, last month. It
says the following----
Mr. REID. And things have gotten even better since then.
Mr. DORGAN. Yes.
It says this:

The majority of Americans are better off on most pocketbook
issues after 3\1/2\ years under President Clinton, who has
presided over the kind of economic progress any Republican
President would be proud to post.

Barron's magazine said:

In short, Clinton's economic record is remarkable. Clinton
also rightfully boasted that our economy is the healthiest it
has been in 30 years.

Finally, Business Week--and these are not publications that would
normally be supportive of a Democratic President--Business Week said:

Inflation is low, growth is good, and the dollar is
strengthening. America is in its best economic shape in 20
years.

So if one doesn't want to listen to us because they say, ``Well,
obviously you are partisan on that,'' these publications are not
partisan voices who evaluate this economy and say that America is
finally on the right track. It is growing, moving ahead, reducing
poverty, increasing employment, reducing inflation, reducing interest
rates. That is good for this country.
The point today is, again, in an era of so much bad news and in a
society which entertains people with other people's dysfunctional
behavior and bad news, it is time to trumpet a little bit that we are
finally moving in the right direction--deficits down, unemployment
down, employment up, inflation down. It is finally important for us to
say that we have turned the corner, and America is moving ahead.
Mr. CONRAD. If the Senator will yield, I just want to comment on the
question of who gets credit and who gets blame.
The blame game is very popular, especially just before an election.
Some are holding this President responsible for anything that has
happened anywhere in the country during his time as President, even if
it relates to things for which the President has very little influence
or control.
The national economy is one place where the President does have
significant influence and control. I just say to my colleague, the
Senator from Nevada, that facts are stubborn things. President Reagan
said that: ``Facts are stubborn things.'' My colleague from North
Dakota says there are others that are not partisan voices who are
confirming that this President's economic plan is working.
I would say that even those of us who are partisans can report facts
and report them accurately. I would be prepared to debate any of my
colleagues at any time and any place on the question of the facts
presented here. Every single one of these facts is verifiable by
anybody who cares to check. These numbers indicate clearly this
President's economic plan has worked. The deficit is down each and
every year of the Clinton administration, and down dramatically.
The head of the Federal Reserve says to us that it is unquestioned
that the President's economic plan contributed to this improvement.
This improvement has radiated through this economy, improving incomes.
The Senator from Nevada reports the biggest increase in personal income
in a decade; the biggest reduction in poverty in 27 years.
All I can say to my friends across the aisle is if they had a
President with this economic record they would be running a campaign of
``It's morning in America.'' They ran that campaign when the debt and
the deficits were skyrocketing. Now we have a case where not only is
the economy improving, income is improving, investment is improving,
unemployment is being reduced, inflation is being reduced, and the
deficit is declining--but this President has done it without writing
the hot checks adding to the deficit--adding to the debt. That was
being done during the 1980s.
So this is even a more remarkable accomplishment--to have this
economy showing this resurgence and this strength even while President
Clinton is bringing the deficit down each and every year--bringing the
deficit down 60 percent. It took a vote that occurred here in 1993 on
the Clinton economic plan, and it passed by one vote.
Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator will yield?
Mr. REID. I am happy to yield to the Senator in one second. But think
how much better the economy would be if we were not having to pay the
interest on the debt that accumulated during principally the Reagan and
Bush years. I mean we would have no deficit.
Will the Senator acknowledge that?
Mr. CONRAD. The Senator is absolutely right. It is very interesting.
If we didn't have to pay the interest on the debt that was accumulated
during the Reagan and Bush years, just those years, we would have a
balanced unified budget today. That is a fact.
Mr. REID. I say also the document about which we speak today is not
something that was prepared by the Democratic National Committee, or
the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. This came from the Census
Bureau. These are facts. And as the Senator from North Dakota has
indicated, facts don't lie. These are the facts.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a moment? If we go back 6, 7,
or 8 years--6 years, for example--and think of where we were, deficits
at record highs and increasing each year. There were the junk bonds,
failed savings and loans; the derision with almost a financial casino
in the country with the taxpayers paying the bill from S&L's that go
belly up, junk bonds that were nonperforming, people going to prison,
the placing of junk bonds under circumstances that were not legal. Do
you remember when we were, 6 or 7 years ago, deep in debt, and getting
deeper?
The point we are making now is that this country has turned around.
It didn't happen just by accident. It happened because a set of Federal
policies were put in place that said here is what we should do: We
should turn the corner, and move in this direction--cut spending. This
President proposed that; cut spending.
We have 250,000 roughly fewer Federal employees on the public payroll
today than when this President took office. A quarter of a million
Federal workers, who were working when this President took over from a
Republican President, are no longer working for the Federal Government.
It is the smallest Federal Government in decades in real numbers.

Mr. REID. Since John Kennedy.
Mr. DORGAN. Since John Kennedy was President.
I want to add one more bit of context to this. It is not my intention
to come to the floor--nor is it the intention of Senator Conrad, or
Senator Reid, or others who will join us--and say that we on the
Democratic side of the aisle, or this President, President Clinton, are
infallible, that we have not made mistakes, that we are solely
responsible for everything that is good. That is not my point. It is
not my point.
But my point is when others come to the floor and continue to kick
and flail away at every tiny little thing they can find wrong, hold it
up, and say, ``Isn't this ugly,'' and entertain us for hours with this
today because, ``Gee, this is awful.'' Let us put in context where this
country is headed, and who had the courage and the plan to move it in
that direction. This President deserves some credit for that. I can
name names. I will not do it. But I could just for fun go down a list
of people here and what they said in 1993. They said this President is
going to lead us into a recession; this plan will not work; this plan
will bankrupt America; this plan will lead to slower growth; this

[[Page S11502]]

plan will lead to less employment; this plan is in the wrong direction.
It turns out that every single one of those people were dead wrong--not
just wrong but dead wrong.
This economic plan put this country on the right path so that
deficits came way down, interest rates came down, unemployment came
down, new jobs went up, and inflation came down. They were wrong. This
plan worked.
I mean, I have people in my hometown who are the kind of people who
oppose everything for the first time. We all know people like that;
just sit around and play pinochle and complain. No matter what somebody
proposes. It is wrong; it will not work; and it can't work. This
country was not built by complainers. While they were playing cards and
complaining other people were out building, and doing.
This President came to office with a mission. He said here is a plan.
And this plan he said, I think, will restore vitality to the American
economy, and move us in the right direction. And it was surprising that
some people found that the Democratic President provided leadership in
a way that cut Federal spending, cut Federal programs, reduced the
deficit, and put the country back on track, but he did.
I think the purpose of this discussion today is to put that in full
context so that we can talk about something that ought to be good news
for everyone--Republicans and Democrats--that every American ought to
believe that it is better for us, no matter who gets credit if our
country is moving in the right direction, because internationally we
now must compete with tough, shrewd international competitors in a game
where there are winners and losers, and the losers suffer the British
degree of slow economic decline and the winners experience new jobs,
hope, and opportunity. That is why it is so important to have this
economic strength and why it is important that we are finally back on
track with an economy that is stronger.
Mr. REID. I want to finish with two thoughts:
One, we had the lowest drop in elderly poverty. We talked about that;
the biggest drop in child poverty; and, the largest drop in the poverty
rate of households in 30 years.
There are statistics that relate to the State of Nevada. Bank lending
increased by $10.5 billion. Home building increased by 25 percent per
year during the years of President Clinton. Almost 5\1/2\ times as much
new manufacturing jobs were created; 261,000 workers are protected by
family and medical leave. We have new police officers, and that is
going up. A lot of good things have happened.
What I say to my two colleagues on the floor today and the Presiding
Officer is to build just briefly on what the Senator from North Dakota
just said. I think with the Presidential election winding down and 5 or
6 weeks until it is over, I hope that, if we gain nothing else from our
experiences during these past 2 years, we should recognize how much
better things would be if we had a Congress that was willing to work,
where you had a conference and where both parties were in on the
conference; where instead of having the majority run roughshod over the
minority you had people working together for the good of the country.

As it has happened in years gone by in this great body and the one
down the Hall in the Capitol, I hope, if we learn nothing more, it is
time that we develop and urge a thirst for bipartisanship here because
of what has happened in spite of the polarization that is taking place
here in Congress. Think about how much better it would have been had we
worked together on these issues.
I yield to my friend.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I was going to make another point. When I
got up this morning I went to get the Washington Post. Right on the
front page is the reporting of what we are talking about here today.
The headline on the front page of the Washington Post is, ``Household
Income Climbs.''
The subheadline is, ``Census Bureau Also Reports Poverty Rate Drop.''
So if anybody is watching this and wondering if this is an accurate
recitation of what the Census Bureau is reporting, you can just turn to
your local newspaper and you will find these news reports all across
America.
``Median household income rose 2.7 percent * * * after being adjusted
for inflation.''
Inflation is running about 3 percent. So incomes actually went up
about 6 percent last year--biggest increase in a decade. Over the same
period, the Washington Post reports the poverty rate declined from 14.5
to 13.8 percent. The number of people in poverty fell by 1.6 million.
That is the statistic the Senator from Nevada was using--the largest
decrease in 27 years. The largest decrease in poverty in America in 27
years. That is the statistic both the Senator from North Dakota and the
Senator from Nevada were using. If we need evidence this plan is
working, here it is right here in this morning's newspaper.
Let me just conclude:

The benefits of economic growth were spread widely through
the economy--in nearly all occupations, all education levels
and all income categories.

That is the kind of economic results you would like to have, and this
economic plan is delivering those results. We ought to stay the course.
We ought to stick with this plan. Absolutely the worst thing we could
do is take a riverboat gamble and go back to the old days of supply-
side economics in which somehow, as Senator Dole said last year, you
cut taxes and you are supposed to get a big, big revenue increase. As
Senator Dole said last summer--he said, you know, we tried that in the
eighties. That was the idea that Newt and the House Republicans had. We
said everything would be all right. Well, it wasn't.
That was Senator Dole speaking just last summer, and only when he
found himself 20 points behind in the polls did he decide a different
policy would make sense. And if anybody is wondering whether his plan
adds up, I just give you two numbers. We are projected to spend $11.3
trillion over the next 6 years. Our income is projected to be $9.9
trillion. Those two do not match up. You cannot spend $11.3 trillion
and have income of $9.9 trillion and add up.
Mr. DORGAN. Is that under the Dole plan?
Mr. CONRAD. That means you are going to add to the debt.
Mr. DORGAN. I ask the Senator a question. Is that the projected
income under the Dole plan?
Mr. CONRAD. That is the projected income under current law, that we
would spend $11.3 trillion, we would have income of $9.9 trillion. And
what does Senator Dole say? The first thing he wants to do is cut the
income by $550 billion. Now you have a $2 trillion gap between spending
and income. That is how you raise the debt. That is how you raise
deficits. That is how you put this economy right back in the ditch.
If we are going to go back to a policy of debts, deficit and decline,
that is the path to take.
I might just say Senator Dole says cut the income $550 billion. That
would create a $2 trillion gap between our spending and our income. You
would then think, well, he is going to propose $2 trillion of spending
cuts to make up for it. Oh, no. He is not even close. He has about $700
billion of specific spending cuts that he has recommended, and if you
look at the spending cuts what you find is he is saying we ought to cut
just one category of Federal spending about 30 percent. And the
category he has chosen is what Senator Reid from Nevada knows well--
domestic spending. He wants to cut it 30 percent, I say to the Senator.
Mr. REID. Education.
Mr. CONRAD. Law enforcement.
Mr. REID. Environment.
Mr. CONRAD. Environmental cleanup, roads, bridges, airports. He wants
to cut those 30 percent. In fact, by the sixth year, he would cut them
40 percent.

If anybody in this country thinks the way we should build for the
future is to cut, in the sixth year of Senator Dole's plan, education
40 percent, cut law enforcement 40 percent, cut the construction of
roads, bridges and airports 40 percent, sign up to the Dole plan
because that is precisely what he is recommending to the American
people. That would be a disaster for the economic future of this
country. And even with those cuts he is nowhere close to adding up.
Instead, we are going to get a huge increase in the debt. That will
increase interest rates. That will slow the economy. That will put our
economy in the ditch. That is a policy of

[[Page S11503]]

debt, deficits and decline, and we ought to avoid it at all cost.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. REID. I would be happy to yield, indicating that one of the
things we have not talked about here today with the Clinton plan is
something that we recognized very clearly in Nevada. As a result of the
Clinton economic plan, in Nevada nine times more Nevada families
received a tax cut than an increase. It happened all over the United
States. In addition to that, businesses got tax breaks in the Clinton
plan of 1993. We fail to talk about it. In the little State of Nevada,
almost 7,000 small businesses got a tax break when we passed the
deficit reduction plan.
Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield just on that point?
Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. CONRAD. I asked my staff to find out in North Dakota what
happened because we continually are told these are the big taxers and
the big spenders. I have reported what happened to spending. Every year
under the Clinton administration spending as a share of our national
income has gone down--each and every year.
Big spending? I do not think so. This President has reduced spending
measured against our national income. And on the tax side, in my State
of North Dakota, as a result of the 1993 plan, 29,000 people got a tax
cut because of the expansion of the earned-income tax credit that was
included in the Clinton plan; about 1,400 people got an income tax rate
increase. And who were they? They were couples earning over $180,000 a
year and individuals earning over $140,000 a year. So 20 times as many
people got a tax reduction as got a tax increase.
Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield, one of the concerns I have
about the proposal now for a substantial across-the-board tax cut
offered by Senator Dole is that it is so at odds with what is required
of leadership at this point. I said on the floor yesterday, and I will
say it again, I admire Senator Dole. I think the service he has given
to this country is something most Americans should be thankful for and
grateful for. He has been a good public servant.
I said yesterday I would not trade one Senator Dole and his
experience for all 73 House Republican freshmen who boasted they had no
experience and came here and proved it quickly.
I admire Senator Dole, but the fact is a test of leadership in our
country is are you willing to do what is necessary for this country?
Are you willing to propose what is necessary? President Clinton came in
1993 and made a proposal that was not popular. He knew and we knew
people are not going to belly up to this one and say, well, sign me up;
please let me have some of that--spending cuts and tax increases.
We knew that was not going to be politically popular. We knew it was
going to be hard to do. It turned out to be extraordinarily hard to do.
It turned out it passed in this Chamber by a tie-breaking vote being
cast by the Vice President. So it turned out to be enormously
difficult. Why? Because it was not popular. It was tough medicine. It
was needed to put the country back on course. That is the test of
leadership.
Mr. REID. And it was very partisan.
Mr. DORGAN. It turned out to be very partisan, regrettably. I wish it
would have been a bipartisan effort to say, if we have to do some heavy
lifting, let us all lift. But that was not the case. In any event, what
has happened now is that Senator Dole, who has always stood here in
this Chamber and said I do not agree with those who say let us have a
big across-the-board tax cut and the deficits, the heck with the
deficits, let us not care what happens as a result of it, he has always
been one who stood in the well of the Senate and said these things do
not make any sense. This does not make any sense. Now he has been
convinced apparently to propose an across-the-board tax cut which will
substantially reduce the revenue and substantially increase deficits.
And do not trust me on that. Trust the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan
organization or nonpartisan organization run jointly by a former
Republican Senator and Democratic Senator who say this is going to
vastly inflate the Federal deficit.
It seems to me, given the economic story we have talked about today,
the question is, do we want to move in that direction again: swollen
deficits, slower growth, more unemployment? Or do we want to continue
with the plan that has worked for our country?
Mr. REID. I would say to my friend, in closing, we have heard a
discussion here this afternoon about the economy and how the glass is
half full rather than half empty. I have heard on the Senate floor,
over the past month or so, the same type of discussion as it relates to
crime in America; that is, ``the glass is half empty, it is not half
full,'' when we should recognize that the violent crime rate has
dropped for adults. We are making progress with the approximately
40,000 new police officers throughout America. We are making great
progress. We should talk about the positive effect of how crime is
being attacked in this country rather than continually dwelling on the
negative.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Georgia controls
the next hour.

____________________