Connie Mack

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I say to the Senator, I think you are absolutely correct. If you will give me just a moment to tell one little story.

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator for yielding me this time. I do believe that the issue we are discussing is an important one, even though I must admit many folks, when you start talking about economics and the statistics related to that, have a tendency for their eyes to glaze over. But we are really talking about the engine that provides the hope and opportunity for the future. The engine of growth is what will allow for the formation of new businesses and the creation of new jobs in America. So the subject is an extremely important one. I appreciate the opportunity to address it. Earlier today, a report came out on the growth rate of the economy. That growth rate for the second quarter of the year was stated at 4.2 percent, which is good growth, and I think we ought to be pleased with what has happened. But what the administration is trying to create, or why they are so extremely excited about this growth number, really kind of belies the other things that they have been saying. Let me try to put that in perspective. Earlier this year the President, during his State of the Union Message to a joint session of the Congress, said that this economy is the strongest economy in three decades. Well, if it is the strongest economy in three decades, then there is no reason to be excited about 4.2 percent growth. We should have been expecting that kind of growth each quarter, quarter after each quarter. But that is simply not the case. In fact, I think the numbers will show that for the four previous quarters the economic growth was less than 2 percent. That is nothing to get excited about. In fact, the effect on the American families is significant. I will get back to that point in a few minutes. I want to try to put into context what has happened to the economy, picking up on the point of 4.2 percent growth. There is a lot of excitement down at the White House about that. But if we look at the rate of growth that the economy has experienced since President Clinton took office, it is 2.4 percent, and that is including this new quarter, 2.4 percent. Keep that figure in mind. I will continue to mention that number. I will first compare it to the growth the economy was experiencing the year before President Clinton became President. The growth rate of the economy at that time was 3.7 percent. For the last 3\1/2\ years the growth rate in the economy has been 2.4 percent under President Clinton. You might say that is not a fair reflection to just pick one year and compare the growth in the economy to that one year. Well, let us take the 10 preceding years, the 10 years prior to President Clinton taking office. The growth in the economy was 3.2 percent. President Clinton wants us to believe that he has created the strongest economy in three decades. I believe he is now using the words the ``strongest economy in a generation.'' I remind you again, the growth under President Clinton is 2.4 percent. Again, somebody might say that that period of time is not a fair reflection of what has happened over a period of time. So I will just again focus in on the last five expansions. If you take the last five periods of growth that the country has experienced, we know that that growth averaged 4.4 percent. Compare that again to the growth of the Clinton years of 2.4 percent. To go back even further, since World War II the country's growth rate has averaged 3.3 percent. The President of the United States during his joint session speech told the American people that this is the strongest economy in 3 decades. But, Mr. President, I really do not have to worry about those numbers in really trying to get that message out because I have listened to the American people. I have listened to the people in my State. I have listened to the families who are struggling, who are working harder today and have less to show for it. We all hear it. We hear it in the sense of the anxiety that they express. We hear it in the fears they have about the future. We hear it in their concern about their children, what their opportunity will be as their children grow up. There is a lot of insecurity in America today. I am not sure that a lot of Americans have at this point been able to articulate what that is. But they know that there is something wrong. They know that they have not reaped the benefits of the ``strongest economy in three decades.'' All my point there is to say that President Clinton may be saying one thing about the economy, but the people in this country understand that this is just not right. He is not accurate. I have one additional chart, which is the first time I have seen this. It is the first time I have used it. It is a chart that has gone back to 1870--not 1970--1870. We have charted out every single expansionary period in the U.S. economy since 1870. We have added the growth during the Clinton years. That is this last bar. As we look from now all the way back to 1870, this chart indicates that this is not the fastest growing economy, not the strongest economy in three decades. It shows it as being the weakest economy in over 100 years. Let me say that again. This is the weakest economy in over 100 years. So, Mr. President, I am making the point that while we should be pleased that we have experienced some growth in the economy in this last quarter, people should put it in context. There could be some reason for excitement if there was a sense that the number that we heard this morning would continue into the third quarter and into the fourth quarter and into the next year. But that is not what economists are telling us. They are telling us that the second half of this year is in fact going to be weak. It is going to be somewhere in the 2 to 2.5 percent growth range. That is not coming from just one economist. This is coming from a number of different groups of economists. The so-called blue chip forecasts are in the 2.5 percent range. Wall Street Journal, somewhere in the 2 to 2.5 percent range. CBO forecasted I believe about 2.5 percent growth through the balance of this year. So while there is excitement, I am telling you, Mr. President, this is a short-lived excitement. We are going to hear a lot about it from the Clinton administration. But I suggest that the people in this country understand from their own experiences that this economy is not providing them with the opportunities that they hope for themselves and for their children. I will use one additional graph here. It compares real median household income for the period of time from 1983 to 1992. Real median household income, $33,119. The Clinton average, 1993, 1994, $32,153, almost $1,000 less. And, yes, these are figures that have taken inflation into consideration. On average $1,000 less. We have also calculated out, for example, what would have happened if the growth rate in the economy had been, say, similar to the 10 years prior to President Clinton taking office. How would that have affected the average family in America? And do you know what the number is? It is $260 a month in loss of income because we are growing at this rate versus this rate. That is why the American people are concerned about the future. That is why they are worried about their opportunities. You cannot, Mr. President, layer on American business and American families a whole new layer of more Government, higher taxes, more spending, more Washington intrusions, more Washington involvement. You cannot layer all of that additional Washington interference and not expect the economy to slow down. So in conclusion, I say, Mr. President, that the economic policies of the Clinton administration are robbing America of its economic potential. I yield the floor.

Mr. MACK. I think it reflects on the feelings of lots of Americans. I think about the family where both the husband and wife work and get up way before dawn, and in our large cities in America, commuting for a long period of time to get to work, working all day, both of them, getting back home after dark. The only time that they have off, the weekends, if things go right. And they see all of their resources being taxed by every level of government.

Mr. MACK. For programs and services they believe have failed and do not work. And they are tired of it. And they are not feeling what one would expect would be the results of the fastest growing economy in 3 decades.

Mr. MACK. Absolutely. What concerns me is that most people do not know or have not been told that during the Reagan years, in which we tried to reduce the size and scope of Government to reduce the tax burden, providing incentives for business creation and capital incentive, that during those years family incomes went up. They went up consistently. I can remember our former colleague, Senator Wirth, teaming up with now-Vice President Gore, coming to the floor and talking about this tragedy that has occurred in America from roughly 1973 to 1992, just talking about from one point to the next point, how incomes had gone down, but refused to tell people that during the Reagan years, those 7 years of growth, that American families were better off and American workers were better off.

Mr. MACK. That will be wonderful.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am here today to oppose the amendment being offered even though my State, Florida, would marginally benefit from its passage. This amendment is said to correct a bureaucratic error--a mistake which resulted in many donee States receiving for 1 year less than what they thought they were entitled to under the law. Well, it is extremely hard for me to be sympathetic to this argument. I know a good number of States--donor States--who, for the last 5 years, feel they got far less than that amount to which they were entitled. They would call the formulas enacted in law during ISTEA a mistake. I believe the amendment now being considered appropriately highlights the problems that result from a muddled, inefficient, and overly bureaucratic Federal highway program. So, not only is it my intention to oppose this amendment tonight, but it is my intention to be a leader in the fight next year to move our Nations' transportation program away from the Federal highway program that exists today. It is high time to harness the ingenuity of State officials and local governments, the entrepreneurialism of private industry, and the strength of the financial markets to enhance the Nation's transportation infrastructure. It is time to recognize that the national interest may be best served by allowing States to assume the primary role in transportation uninhibited by Federal mandates, the redistribution of States gas tax dollars. I look forward to working with my colleagues next year to return the primary role in transportation to our States. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I would first like to thank the Chairman for his leadership and the fine work of his subcommittee in keeping the highways, railways and airways of this Nation safe and effective in meeting the transportation needs of our citizens.

Mr. MACK. I believe you are aware, Mr. Chairman, of the situation confronting the Gainesville-Alachua Regional Airport in their effort to obtain a radar upgrade and the installation of a DBRITE system. Gainesville was one of four airports specified by Congress in the reports accompanying the fiscal year 1988 and fiscal year 1990 Transportation appropriation bills to receive radar upgrades. To date, all but Gainesville have received radar upgrades. I find it very frustrating that the FAA has not fully implemented the direction in these reports. At the time the FAA requested the DBRITE system, they considered it a crucial safety factor for air traffic utilizing the Ocala, Gainesville, and north Florida region. Now, as a contract tower with 35 percent less manpower, this system appears even more essential. The DBRITE system would provide local controllers with real time pictures of all air traffic in the North Central Region, complementing the capacities and coverage of Jacksonsville Airport. I noted this year's Transportation Appropriations Committee Report contains language encouraging the FAA to honor prior commitments. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, as it has now been almost 8 years since Congress allocated funds for Gainesville's DBRITE system, I would expect the FAA to take heed of this language and provide this much needed system to Gainesville-Alachua Regional Airport.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, as an additional matter, I would like to bring to the chairman's attention another problem confronting the Gainesville-Alachua Regional Airport Authority and the surrounding areas and communities in finalizing their eligible FAA noise grant funding. I have been informed that as a result of judicial inverse condemnation proceedings, the city was forced to acquire certain properties and relocate former owners and occupants from certain sites covered by Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility. This action required significant financial commitments from the local authorities, the city of Gainesville, and the Regional Airport Authority which these parties were apparently led to believe would be eligible for reimbursement through the AIP Noise Grant Program. Would you not concur, Mr. Chairman, that this matter warrants FAA consideration?

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Chairman in a brief colloquy on critical issues affecting the Gainesville-Alachua Regional Airport and the State of Florida.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I understand the amendment has been cleared by both sides of the aisle, including the authorizing committee chair and ranking member. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Ford and Senator Frist be added as cosponsors to the Chafee amendment and that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. MACK. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MACK. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MACK. I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on passage of H.R. 3754, the legislative branch appropriations bill, occur at 3 p.m. today.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its amendments to the bill, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes thereon, and that the Chair appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. MACK. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I understand that there is a pending amendment before the Senate, which is the Chafee amendment.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I say to the Senator, this is an appropriate time to offer an amendment that has been listed in the unanimous-consent request.

Mr. MACK. I object.

Mr. MACK. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, at the hour of 10 a.m. on Tuesday, the Senate will begin a series of rollcall votes with respect to the energy and water appropriations bill and the legislative branch appropriations bill. Senators should be on notice that all votes in the voting sequence, after the first vote, will be limited to 10 minutes in length. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess between the hours of 12:30 p.m. and 2:15 p.m. in order for the weekly party caucuses to meet.