[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 65 (Tuesday, May 11, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5176-S5179]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, a recent poll within the last couple of
days had a fact I found truly extraordinary which I want to talk about.
It says a very large percentage--maybe even a majority--of the people
of America believe we are still in a recession. I find that
extraordinary because the evidence in every area is highly to the
contrary. The economy, if you will, is firing on all cylinders. Let me
repeat some of the statistics I have given here before.
In the first quarter of this year, the economy grew at a 4.2 percent
annual rate. Added to the growth in the 2 previous quarters, this means
it has grown over 5 percent in the last 3 quarters, which is the best
performance in 20 years.
Some say, Where are the jobs? We may have gross domestic product
growth, but we don't have any jobs, so we are still in a recession.
How can we say that in view of the facts which are overwhelming?
Within the last 8 months, we have increased 1.1 million jobs according
to the payroll survey, and 1.3 million jobs according to the household
survey. Every indication is the jobs are coming back, and they are
coming back very strongly.
In a recession, you have layoffs. When you have layoffs, you have
people who apply for unemployment compensation. Those are jobless
claims. The level of jobless claims is at its lowest level in 20 years.
How can we be in a recession when the jobless claim level is so up? How
can people come to this conclusion?
We have a constant drumbeat in the media about how terrible things
are.
I have inquired why certain media figures continue to ignore the
actual figures, the facts. I am told with a shrug by some of the
leaders in the media, it is all about ratings. They get better ratings
on television programs if they rant about American jobs going overseas
and about the economy being in terrible shape. If they scare people,
for some reason, people seem to stay tuned in and they get higher
ratings and a bigger audience.
We have a responsibility in this Chamber not to scare people. We have
a responsibility to tell the truth. The truth about the economy is that
it is doing well.
Let me review some charts I have presented before to reemphasize the
facts, not to make any new argument. Apparently, the arguments made
before are being ignored. So let's make it again until people
understand the facts. Here is the historical perspective of economic
growth. On the chart, the green line above the line represents quarters
of activity. Naturally, there are four quarters for each year. The red
lines below the line represent quarters when the economy shrank. By
definition, a recession is when there are two successive quarters in
red.
If we look back over history--and this goes back into the years of
Jimmy Carter's Presidency--we see a lot of red in this period. There
was a recession at the end of Jimmy Carter's Presidency and then
another recession in the first years of Ronald Reagan's Presidency--the
dreaded double dip that people talk about. We go into recession, we get
[[Page S5177]]
some recovery, and we are right back into recession. That was one of
the most difficult economic periods of our history. We survived it, we
came through it, and we had a period following it of tremendous
economic growth.
During this period we added to the size of the U.S. economy the
equivalent of Germany. If we were talking companies, it would be as if
the United States, a corporation, acquired Germany; all of it, and all
of its profit and economic activity. We grew enough to add the total of
Germany to the American economy in this period.
We cannot repeal the business cycle. Inevitably, no matter how well
managers try to manage their affairs, something will happen, things
will taper off, and we will have a correction. That is what recessions
are; recessions are corrections of the excesses that preceded them.
Plus, there can always be a recession from an external problem such as
the oil shock that hit in the early 1970s. September 11 is something
that could cause a recession and other factors. One can never
anticipate that the upward trend will continue without a correction
somewhere along the way. That hit in the middle of the Presidency of
the first President Bush. By comparison to the earlier recession, it
was mild. But it was not mild for people who lost their jobs. It was
not mild for people who lost their homes or who had difficulties. But
otherwise, by comparison, the amount of red below the line was nowhere
near the amount of red that preceded it in a decade.
When we recovered from that recession--and the recovery began in the
Presidency of the first President Bush--we began another period of
prosperity. Overall, it was probably not as big as the prosperity that
preceded it, but why quibble about small amounts. It was a period of
good prosperity. We heard in the 2000 election it was the greatest
economy in history. In fact, the red had shown up in the third quarter
of 2000. The signal that this period of prosperity was over, that
another recession was on its way, was already given before the election
took place. The signal was correct.
After the election, we slipped into a recession that occurred in the
last three quarters of 2001. However, we came out of it in the fourth
quarter of 2001, and we have been in recovery ever since.
It is amazing to me that polls show that Americans think we are in a
recession, when we are in this green period. This green demonstrates
that we are going to do at least as well, if not better, than we did in
this period--maybe even as well as we did in this period following this
recession. This recession, by historic comparison, has been the
shortest and the mildest that we have ever had in America.
For political reasons, it is being talked up as a disaster. I have
heard in the Senate statements that this is the worst economy in 50
years. I have heard in the Senate that unemployment is the worst it has
been since the days of Herbert Hoover. That is almost laughable.
Unemployment in the Great Depression went over 25 percent. Unemployment
in this recession and recovery topped out at 6.3.
Let's put that in historic perspective for a minute. Let me show what
the unemployment rate has been in previous recessions. Here is the
dreaded double dip we were talking about. Unemployment hit 10.8
percent, still less than half of what it was in the Great Depression,
but it was tremendously difficult. I remember how difficult that was.
Then it came down. We got the next recession, and unemployment peaked
at 7.8 percent. Now, the peak of unemployment occurred during the
recovery, not during the recession. The shaded period on the chart is
the period of recession. Here it peaks as the recession ended, and here
it peaked during the recovery. Now we came down and we had this
recession once again; unemployment peaked during the recovery, but it
peaked at 6.3 percent. If you put 6.3 percent across the chart and
compare it to where it was in the previous recession, you say: Not bad,
not bad at all.
But we are being told, again, this is the worst economy in 50 years
because, where are the jobs? Now it is coming down. It is down to 5.6
percent. As I say, the jobs are coming back at the rate of a million in
the last 8 months. So project the next 8 months, there is another
million jobs. If they come back faster, they come back at the same
level as they have been coming, we will have another million jobs in
less than 8 months. I don't know what will happen, but I am pretty
confident this will continue to come down.
The question is, Why does it take so long for the unemployment rate
to come down once the recession is over? The answer is very clear. The
business man or woman wants to be absolutely sure his or her business
is, in fact, in recovery before he or she goes out and starts to hire.
They are delaying hiring permanent workers until they are sure the
recovery is in place. They use temporary workers. They use overtime on
their existing workers until they are absolutely sure the recovery is
in place. Then they start a permanent hiring. That has happened and the
statistics are there and the facts are overwhelming. We are in
recovery; the recovery is strong. It is robust; it has traction.
I can only assume it is for political reasons that people stand in
the Senate and say: No, no, no, we are in the worst economy in 50
years. That simply is not true. It cannot be sustained.
As I listened to the rest of the rhetoric--and I will not repeat all
of the statistics I have used in previous speeches because I want to
talk about the philosophical basis, but let me make this point. There
are those who believe the economy is a sum-zero game. By that I mean
they believe that in order for one person to win, the other person must
lose an equal amount.
Now, marbles is a sum-zero game. If we play marbles, and you win
three, that means I will lose three; and we add your plus three to my
minus three and we get zero. But in the economy, just because Adam gets
a job, does not mean Benjamin has to lose his. In the economy, just
because Charles gets rich, does not mean that Daniel had to be made
poor. In the economy, it is possible for both to grow simultaneously.
In the economy, just because jobs are growing in India does not mean
they are shrinking in America. They can be growing both places. Indeed,
that is what is going on.
I see my colleague from Texas wants to speak, and I will be happy to
yield the floor and give her such time as she needs. But I want to
leave with this one point, once again: In economic analysis, understand
that the economy is not static. It is not an either/or. It is not a
sum-zero game, a plus and a minus. The economy is constantly fluid.
People are moving up and down the income ladder all the time.
We hear statistics about all the people at the bottom and how rich
the people are at the top. If I may, in my own case, in my lifetime, I
have been at the bottom and I have been at the top and I have gone back
to the bottom and struggled back to the top. Statistically, there is no
way to reflect that fact. Statistically, they look how rich the people
at the top are getting, and look how poor the people at the bottom are,
as if they are going to stay there all their lives.
This economy is strong. This recovery is real. No amount of political
rhetoric to the contrary can change those facts.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, but I plan to address
this overall question of the fact that the economy is not a sum-zero
game at some length in the future.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our
side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 15 minutes.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I will yield 7\1/2\ minutes
to the Senator from Mississippi. Before I do that, though, I do want to
thank the Senator from Utah, the distinguished chairman of the Joint
Economic Committee. He has been looking at the economy every month and
really looking at that progress. I think you can see from his remarks
that the trend is up on all fronts. All of us knew when the recovery
was coming, it would not be a true recovery unless it had jobs with it.
Now we are seeing the jobs coming online following the outstanding
performance of the stock market, and now consumer confidence is up.
[[Page S5178]]
I think the distinguished Senator from Utah was on this trend for a
long time before others were focusing on it. We certainly appreciate
his leadership.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I join the Senator from Texas in thanking
the Senator from Utah for the leadership and information he has been
providing about what is happening with the economy, and helping us to
understand all the data. As chairman of the Joint Economic Committee,
he has been the most aggressive chairman I have seen in recent years.
He is doing a fantastic job.
I would describe this economic recovery we are going through now as
the ``just say it ain't so recovery.'' When I listen to many of the
speeches around Washington--and even out across the country in some
areas--I sometimes get the feeling some people think that if you just
keep saying the economy is not good, maybe it won't be. Only in
Washington do you have that sort of perverse thinking, that too much
good news about the economy is either not true or it is unhelpful.
Many people try to look at the stock market to assess whether the
economy is doing well. Well, in the long term this may be true, but at
some points in time, I think it is a reverse indicator of what is going
on in the economy. Sometimes, bad news in the stock market is really
good news. We saw that just yesterday. Because the economy is growing,
because jobs are being created, because orders are going up, because
manufacturing is going up, the stock market said: Wait a minute now.
Maybe the economy is beginning to get a little too hot, and maybe the
Federal Reserve System is going to have to raise the historically low
interest rates a little bit. Oh, this must be bad news, so let's sell
now.
So when the stock market reacts like that, you can bet good things
are happening in the economy. The list of good economic news is very
long and is growing.
I think a lot of credit should go to the Federal Reserve Chairman,
Alan Greenspan. He has been careful in his language. Low interest rates
have been fantastic for automobile sales and housing starts. The
American dream is now available to more Americans than at any time in
the history of this country. Americans have access to a variety of
choices in homes. More and more people are owning their own home. Of
course, a lot of the credit for this should go to the availability of
quality housing, a good area of the economy. Home building is done by a
lot of really good people who are very capable. But you have to
acknowledge that low interest rates have really helped the housing
sector.
I think credit should also go to the President for his leadership,
and to the Congress. The President knew when he was sworn in that
January in 2001, that we were already in a recession. We were already
in one, it did not start then. The President came to the Congress and
said: We have to do some things to encourage the economy to grow. One
of the best ways to do that is to carefully cut taxes. We needed tax
cuts that put money in the pockets of working Americans, and incentives
for business and industry to create jobs. The Congress heard the
President and passed tax cut legislation. We did it in 2001, 2002, and
2003.
Now, Mr. President, we are getting the benefit--the tremendous
benefit--of those tax cuts because they boosted the economy when we
needed it most. Just look at the numbers. If you have doubts about what
is happening in the economy, look at the numbers published by the
experts, not as cited by a Member of Congress.
For instance, with respect to jobs, the administration announced on
May 7 that 288,000 net new jobs were created in April; and 308,000 were
created the month before--over a half million jobs in 2 months. Since
last August, an estimated 1.1 million jobs have been created. I think
it is probably more like 1.3 million jobs when you take into account
the Household Survey. But either way, that is a significant increase.
The national unemployment rate has edged down to 5.6 percent. I
remember years ago, when I first came to Washington--I admit that was a
long time ago, 30 or so years ago--6-percent unemployment was
considered ``full employment.'' Well, my attitude is, any unemployment
is unacceptably high. But it is now down to 5.6 percent, falling .7
percentage points, from a peak of 6.3 percent in June of 2003. I
believe it is going to continue to go in that direction, partly because
manufacturing employment increased 21,000 jobs in April. The February
and March job numbers were also corrected upward. So, manufacturing
employment has risen for 3 consecutive months.
One of the most interesting statistics I have come across is that we
have more Americans employed now than at any time in history. More
Americans are working today than at any time in history. Is it enough?
No. We want more, and we want better paying jobs with greater
opportunities. But still, you have to say, the fact that more Americans
are working than ever before is a very impressive statistic.
Weekly unemployment claims have fallen to their lowest level since
the year 2000. The economy grew at a strong annual pace of 4.2 percent
during the first quarter of 2004. I think, when the assessment is done,
it will be adjusted upward to 4.5 percent. That is very strong growth.
Most of the countries of the world would be delighted to have even half
of that kind of growth.
Household spending continues to be strong. Retail sales are up.
Consumer confidence is at the highest level in 3 months, and rising. In
March, new housing construction surged to levels near those of December
2003, when we had the highest levels in almost 20 years. American
companies are, across the board, reporting historic levels of growth.
Productivity levels are up.
So the administration's policies have been working, and we are making
great progress. Every economic statistic now is moving in a positive
direction. Now, we also need to pay attention to making sure inflation
does not creep in, while keeping interest rates as low as possible.
The downturn in the economy, our response to 9/11, the war in
Afghanistan and Iraq, and additional expenditures for homeland security
have contributed to deficits, but even that projection has fallen. Last
year, we were told that the current fiscal year deficit would be more
than $500 billion. Now it looks like it will be down to $417 billion. I
think it may end up below that because the economy is growing. This is
good news, but we have to continue to address the budget deficit
problem. I think we are going to have to make some tough choices in the
next couple of years to get the deficit back down to where it can be
eliminated. I think deficits do matter. They will affect interest rates
over a period of years if we ignore them.
One other thing. You might say, well, all right, that is good, but
what have you done for me lately? What are you going to do to add to
the growth we are trying to achieve? The Senate is doing it today.
After fits and starts, four different attempts, we are going to get an
international tax bill today. Hallelujah, a bill; an important bill,
finally, after 3 years of ignoring the problem of increasing European
tariffs on American exports.
Mr. President, this bill will create jobs and address the problem of
the WTO ruling. It includes incentives for manufacturing jobs and
manufacturing tax credits, and incentives to grow the energy sector of
the economy. This is a jobs growth bill. I am glad we are going to get
it done. I commend all of those Senators who were involved, including
Finance Committee Chairman Grassley and his ranking member, Senator
Baucus from Montana.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me pick up where the Senator from
Mississippi left off. What he has been saying about the economy and the
figures out there is certainly accurate. The gloom and doom story we
have heard over the last 6 months has all of a sudden gone quiet. The
reason for that is the very reason the Senator from Mississippi spoke
of: the tax incentives we put into place, the investments that are
beginning to work, and unprecedented levels of hiring and job creation
are underway.
There is something I come to speak about that is of growing concern
to me, and I think to thousands of American consumers, if not millions,
and the impact it could have on a growing economy, and that is energy
and the cost of energy.
[[Page S5179]]
Yesterday, I came to the floor to speak on that issue. The senior
Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, came later to say I was unnecessarily,
righteously indignant about the Energy bill. You are darn right I am
righteous and sometimes indignant when the American consumer is paying
$2 per gallon at the pump--and some more than that--and they should not
have to be. But they are, and the reason is because the Senate has not
acted. No, passing the Energy bill tomorrow is not going to bring the
price of gas down at the pump. But if you are in a hole and it is
getting deeper and you are still digging, you ought to stop digging.
But we have not stopped digging. We have not put policy in place that
would begin to fill in the hole that will get us into production and
that won't be a major risk to this economy in pulling this growth down
because the American consumer is going to have to rejuxtapose some of
their budgets. If they are paying $400 or $500 a year more for gas at
the pump, let alone the cost of electricity and home heating fuel, they
are going to be spending less in the market, and that is just the
consumer.
I get righteously indignant when the farmer in Idaho--or in Nevada
for that matter--goes to the bank and gives his budget or her budget
for the year, and they have not factored in a 30- or 40-percent cost of
energy because diesel fuel went through the roof. The bill--if we pass
it tomorrow--won't make a difference. The bill will encourage
production of domestic oil. It will encourage the development of more
natural gas. It will encourage and incentivize the building of
necessary infrastructure, such as the Alaskan natural gas pipeline. It
will encourage the use of renewable fuels such as ethanol. It will
encourage more renewable energy. It will strengthen the future of the
nuclear energy option. It will promote clean coal technology. It will
promote hydrogen as a new technology for surface transportation. It
will promote energy efficiency. It will increase the R&D on a variety
of technologies. It will establish mandatory reliable rules for our
electricity grid. It will promote investment and expansion of
electricity.
No, it is going to take a while for this country to get back into
production. But we have not placed the tools in the tool box to allow
us to get back into production. So we have become increasingly reliant
on foreign sources for our energy. On March 22 of this year, you were
paying $1.74 at the pump. On April 4, you were paying $1.78. In May,
you paid $1.84, and now you are paying $1.94--in some instances nearly
$2, and in other States more than $2.
Some are suggesting that we ought to quit filling the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve, that we ought to cut that off. That would not make a
difference in the price of oil at this moment because we have lost the
capacity to produce. We have to reinvest if we are going to gain that
capacity.
Yes, the Saudis are being a bit duplicitous. They said here is our
baseline and what we want, and we only need to make $28 on our barrel
to fund our country's needs. They are making well over $30 today.
Finally, just yesterday, the Saudi oil minister said the OPEC producers
ought to increase the official output ceiling. Well, that statement
alone knocked the price of crude oil off $1 and, slowly but surely,
that will be felt back at the pumps again. What that echoes is that we
are not seeing the price of energy improve in our country or
determining the future of energy. The Saudi oil minister, by his
statement alone, is making that decision and fixing the price, or
impacting the price at the pump.
Why do we need a national energy policy? Here is another reason. From
1981 to 2003, we lost a huge chunk of our oil refining capacity. In
1981, we had 324 refineries. Today we have 149 refineries, and they are
operating at between 92 percent to 94 percent capacity. The Clean Air
Act, the cost of retrofitting, the regulations, and the ability to
finance simply took us out of the market and brought down those
refineries.
My time is up. The reality is this Senate ought to vote on a national
energy bill, and it ought to vote now so we quit digging the hole
deeper. Put the tools in the tool box and get this country back into
production. And you are darn right I am righteous about it because I
don't think our consumers ought to have to pay the bill.
____________________