May 5, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6195

growth being so high that it has increased interest rates seven times to

bring economic growth rates down.’’

They would give a scenario that suggests to you: What are we thinking of?

America is in great shape. But, of

course, the real test of whether our

country’s economy is in good shape is

whether our citizens are able to find

work at decent wages. You can have a

bull market on Wall Street, you can

have economic growth at 5 or 6 percent, and you can have unemployment

at 2 percent, but if you have falling

wages and lost opportunity, people in

this country are not going to be convinced this economic strategy works

for them or their families or for the future of this country.

We have a great deal of which to be

proud and to celebrate about our economy in this country, about where we

have been, about what we have done

over 50 years, all over this world. We

have helped; we have invested; we have

nurtured; we have protected; we have

been a part of what has built an enormously important private sector opportunity internationally that has expanded opportunity for many years.

What has happened in the last 25 of

these 50 years is that we have become

victims of a system that helps others

and hurts us. That is what is at the

root of the political disaffection in our

country, I am convinced.

I noticed yesterday in the Wall

Street Journal something that relates

to what we are talking about today.

Economic expansion, great opportunity, good times, bull market on

Wall Street, and here is what the Wall

Street Journal of Thursday, May 4,

says in its feature story:

Amid record profits companies continue to

lay off employees.

This is the reality for the American

families.

Last week, Mobil Corporation posted soaring first quarter earnings. This week it announced plans to eliminate 4,700 jobs. While

corporate profits were surging to record levels last year, the number of job cuts approached those seen at the height of the recession.

Corporate profits rose 11 percent in

1994, after a 13-percent rise in 1993, according to DRI/McGraw-Hill, a Lexington, MA, economic consultant. Meanwhile, corporate America cut 516,069

jobs in 1994, according to an

outplacement firm, Challenger, Gray &

Christmas in Chicago. That is far more

than in the recession year of 1990 when

316,047 jobs were cut.

Let me restate that because I think

it is important. In 1990, when we were

in a recession, corporate America

eliminated 316,000 jobs. Last year, when

corporate profits were at a record level,

we saw 516,000 jobs cut, eliminated,

lost. Those are lost opportunities for

America’s workers.

Again, quoting from the same story:

For employees, the latest layoffs, coming

amid good times and fat profits, seem mean

and arbitrary. It’s the seemingly relentlessness of the job losses that aggravates most.

Workers see this as a long-term trend that

has little relationship to how their company

is performing. Nobody feels very secure.

The article is a long article, and I

commend people to read it. But it describes at its roots what is happening

in our country today—record profits,

fat opportunities for corporations. But,

of course, corporations, the large corporations, are internationalists now.

They are not American citizens who

get up and say the Pledge of Allegiance

and sing the ‘‘Star Spangled Banner.’’

It does not mean they are un-American. It just means they are searching

for international profits. That is their

interest; that is their responsibility to

their stockholders. And if they can

produce in Indonesia and sell in Pittsburgh and move the jobs from Pittsburgh to Indonesia, that is precisely

what they will do, and it is precisely

what they have done.

If their actions mean they will substantially increase America’s trade

deficit, then that is what they will do,

because their interest is not in our

trade deficit. Their interest is in their

profit for their stockholders.

We must, Mr. President, begin to discuss these issues, these economic issues, international and national economic issues, in the context of what

works for our country, what is best for

America, what produces jobs and good

income and opportunity for our country.

We must start thinking in those

terms. We must change our thinking.

Virtually every discussion you have

about our economic policies in this

town is a debate filled with myths. I

hope in the next couple of weeks, in

further presentations on these issues,

to strip away some of those myths and

try to talk about the economic realities. The economic reality is most

American families sitting down to have

their evening meal understand they are

working harder, longer hours, but making less money.

Why? Because of a whole range of

reasons dealing with national and

international economic strategy and

issues that we largely do not debate on

the floor of the Senate. Without a new

debate, one viewpoint persists: Our current economic strategy is good for

America, and this globalization of

trade is just fine; works just great. We

have economic growth and that is all

that really matters.

Well, all of the positive Government

reports and news stories mean nothing

to American families if they do not

mean opportunity and do not mean decent jobs and do not mean decent incomes. And that is the dilemma.

We are, and this year have been,

talking about the budget deficit in our

Federal budget. It is a real dilemma

and we must deal with it because it,

too, is dangerous for this country. It

injures our economic future.

But it is no more dangerous than

this—the largest trade deficit in history. Or than this—in the 50th month

of an economic expansion, to find that

the numbers for last month show that

we lost 28,000 additional manufacturing

jobs. That is serious. When you lose the

kind of manufacturing jobs we have

lost in this country, you lose real opportunity. You lose the kind of economic propellant that moves families

up the economic ladder, that moves

families into the middle class. It was

manufacturing jobs that did that, not

minimum-wage service jobs. This is the

dilemma we face today.

Now, I am going to bring some charts

to the floor that talk about specifics,

talk about international finance, talk

about trade policy, talk about our

trade with Japan, our trade policy with

China, our trade policy with Mexico,

and how that relates to what I am discussing here.

But, most importantly, when I do

that, I want to see if we cannot finally

begin, all of us, to strip away the myth

and talk about what kind of strategy

in the end will boost this country’s fortune. Not necessarily what will boost

all the aggregate numbers about economic growth, but, in fact, boost this

country’s fortune in the number of

good jobs with good incomes that it

creates for American families who

want to work.

PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN DECENCY

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

A CLEAR VIOLATION OF BASIC

fMr. DOLE. Mr. President, on Wednesday, the Capital of Croatia, was subjected to a vicious attack by militant

Serb separatists. This was the second

day in a row that Zagreb was attacked

by rockets armed with cluster bombs.

The attack occurred at noon, when civilians were out having lunch. The

principal targets were the children’s

hospital and the national theater

where a ballet company was rehearsing. Several people were killed and dozens were wounded, bringing the total

number of casualties to about 200 people.

There are those who say that the

Croatian Government provoked the attack, by conducting a military operation that returned a 200-square-mile

area back to Croatian control. That argument misses the point. Nothing, I repeat, nothing, justifies an attack on innocent civilians—on children in this

case. The U.S. Ambassador was right

when he condemned these attacks at a

clear violation of basic principles of

human decency.

I am aware that it is U.N. practice to

shift the blame and muddy the waters

in their pursuit of neutrality between

aggressors and victims. But, to do so—

whether in this case, or in the case of

attacks on civilians in Bosnia—is reprehensible.

Furthermore, if the United Nations

were doing its job in Croatia—if the

United Nations had implemented its

mandate to demilitarize the sectors of

Croatia under their control thereby

clearing the way for reintegration of
S6196 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 5, 1995

these occupied territories—the Croatian Government may not have taken

the action it did on Monday. Let us not

forget, the occupied areas are part of

the territory of Croatia. So while the

international community should urge

the Croatian Government and its forces

to fully respect the human and civil

rights of the population in the areas

they have retaken, it should not urge

Croatia to give up control of reclaimed

territory.

NATIONAL SMALL BUSINESS

fWEEK—1995

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise

today to recognize some very special

businesses in my home State of South

Dakota during National Small Business Week. Through work on the Senate Committee on Small Business for

17 of my 21 years in Congress, I know

small businesses have not always enjoyed the recognition and attention

they deserve. For too long, America’s

entrepreneurs have been taken for

granted. These dynamic men and

women play a critical role in this Nation’s economy. During the last major

recession, small businesses created 4.1

million jobs, while large firms reduced

employment by 500,000 jobs. Without

the spirit, drive, and determination of

small businesses, our economy would

not have been able to break out of the

economic stagnancy of the early 1990’s.

Clearly, this sector of our economy is

finally getting the respect it is due.

Wile credit availability has improved

significantly and now appears stable,

we must continue to monitor this situation. Without adequate financing, entrepreneurs will not be able to get out

of the gate. Likewise, I am encouraged

by recent efforts in Congress to decrease the burdens of Federal regulations and paperwork. And while the

Senate still is deliberating S. 565, the

Product Liability Fairness Act of 1995,

I hope we will be able to protect small

manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits

by enacting sensible tort reforms.

Though we have worked to level the

playing field for small businesses,

small firms now face unique problems.

America and the world are in the

throws of an information technology

revolution. The ability of an enterprise

to use high-technology tools very well

may dictate whether the business survives. We must ensure established and

fledgling small businesses are able to

be players in the technological arena.

We must ensure small firms wishing to

provide high-technology goods and

services have access to credit and capital. Because the very nature of capital

assets tends to be less tangible, small

firms may have difficulty securing the

traditional forms of collateral lenders

often seek. Is it possible to put a value

on the time, effort, and knowledge of a

software developer? I do not know.

However, from my position as chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I

hope to identify solutions to these potential roadblocks.

Mr. President, I would be remiss if I

also did not raise some of the unique

challenges rural small businesses face.

South Dakota’s 1995 Small Business

Person of the Year has defied conventional wisdom that says a successful

manufacturing business must be located in an urban area. In 1982, Randy

Boyd returned to his native Geddes,

SD, where he joined his father in a gunsmith and gun repair business. By 1986,

their operation hired three employees

to assist in the manufacturing of gunstocks for shotguns and big game rifles. Since then, their venture has expanded to 25 full time, 10 part-time,

and 10 contract employees. Boyd’s Gunstock Industries, Inc., currently is one

of the country’s leading gunstock manufacturers.

I commend Randy Boyd for the well

deserved honor of being named South

Dakota Small Business Person of the

Year. He is an inspiration to other entrepreneurs with a dream and a willingness to work hard to see that

dreams take shape.

During my visit with Randy this

week, I learned he would like to expand

Boyds’ Gunstock even further. Unfortunately, he has encountered a limitation many burgeoning small businesses

face in rural States like South Dakota.

Randy wants very badly to keep his operation in the small city of Geddes. In

order to overcome the community’s

limited work force, Randy has aggressively pursued workers from surrounding communities. Though such efforts

have been successful for Randy in the

past, he is discovering that the city of

Geddes lacks affordable housing for

these new employees. Indeed, it would

be a tremendous loss for the community if this opportunity is lost.

I will be working with Randy and the

community of Geddes to try to resolve

a problem that has become all too common for communities across my State.

Private investments in real estate

must be both appealing and lucrative.

As I said during my visit with Randy,

I will promote tax incentives that, in

turn, will promote economic growth. It

is important that we continue to cultivate a climate that will stimulate

small business growth. We must reward

and encourage entrepreneurs such as

Randy Boyd to continue their efforts.

I again congratulate Randy for his

success and the success of Boyds’ Gunstock. I also would like to recognize

some of my State’s other businesses

leaders. I congratulate: Arlin W. Anderson of the South Dakota American

Legion, Veteran Small Business Advocate of the Year; William F. Carlson of

Tower Systems, Inc., Small Business

Exporter; John E. Brewer of Rushmore

State Bank, Financial Services Advocate; Eileen Lunderman of the

Sincangu Enterprise Center, Minority

Small Business Advocate; Brenda Wade

Schmidt of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, Media Advocate, and Jan

Steensland of Eyes on You magazine,

Women in Business Advocate.

Each of these individuals has played

a very important role in making small

businesses the driving force behind

South Dakota’s vibrant economy. I am

proud of their generous efforts. They

have contributed tremendously to their

neighbors and friends. It is the duty of

Congress and the Federal Government

to allow them to continue making such

important contributions. Often this

can best be achieved staying out of

their way.

Again, Mr. President, I salute South

Dakota’s 1995 National Small Business

Week Award winners and thank them

for their efforts.

WAS CONGRESS IRRESPONSIBLE?

THE VOTERS HAVE SAID YES

fMr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the

close of business yesterday, Thursday,

May 4, the Federal debt stood at

$4,854,832,235,127.63. On a per capita

basis, every man, woman, and child in

America owes $18,429.03 as his or her

share of that debt.

Mr. DORGAN. I make a point of

order that a quorum is not present.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I

ask unanimous consent that the order

for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. JEFFORDS). Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I

rise to speak for a short period of time

about several key pieces of reform legislation. I ask unanimous consent I be

allowed to speak as in morning business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

POLITICAL REFORM LEGISLATION

LONG PAST DUE

fMr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I

rise to express my deep concern—and

even some indignation—that several

key pieces of reform legislation continue to be bottled up in the Congress,

including the gift ban, the lobbying reform bill, and tough, sweeping campaign finance reforms. I am more convinced than ever that one of the key issues, maybe the root issue of American

politics, is the way in which we now

have to finance campaigns. And the

sooner we move toward a system where

we are able to get a lot of the bigger

money out of politics and have a level

playing field for incumbents and challengers and figure out how to do this in

a sane way, the sooner we will have a

much better political system.

The lobbying disclosure bill, a key

piece of legislation that Senator LEVIN

has taken important leadership on, is

really simple and straightforward. But

just to summarize, what this legislation says is that those who are actually