[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.

                          ____________________