[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 92 (Wednesday, July 7, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7691-S7697]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 ISSUES IMPORTANT TO AMERICAN FAMILIES

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there is a lot of talk across this country 
about the important issues in this Presidential campaign. Some people 
are going to try to define those issues on the floor of the House and 
Senate in the weeks ahead, but the issues in this campaign will not be 
defined in Washington, not on Capitol Hill. Those issues will be 
defined in homes across America where families will decide what is 
important, and they will listen to the candidates for Congress--the 
House and Senate--and those who are running for President and Vice 
President. They will listen to hear whether those candidates are 
responding to their real concerns.
  There will be an effort here to manufacture issues to try to divert 
American families from their real concerns. In just a short time, I 
suspect we will have this rush of proposed constitutional amendments 
coming to the floor of the Senate. It is suggested one will be on the 
issue of marriage and one on the flag. Quite honestly, it is very 
apparent why they are being brought to the floor. I personally think we 
should pass one law--and do it quickly--which says no one can propose a 
constitutional amendment in a Presidential election year, certainly not 
within 6 months of an election. Such proposals are automatically 
suspect and clearly political.
  In this case, the Republican leadership is going to bring 
constitutional amendments to the floor in the hopes that they can 
divert the attention of American families from the issues they care 
about to some new set of issues. Why would the Republican leadership 
want the American people to look at issues other than those they take 
personally? Because, frankly, they do not have many answers to the 
questions most families ask.
  The families in Illinois and across America with whom I talk are 
working families concerned about their inability to keep up with costs.
  Not surprising, take a look at this chart as an illustration. What 
has happened to real earnings over the past year in America? For 
families, average weekly earnings have gone down, but for corporate 
profits, they have gone up dramatically. There is a disconnect. We want 
business to be successful. Of course, we do. Successful business means 
more people working and more good jobs in America. But what is wrong 
with this picture? Why did corporate profits go up so dramatically and 
yet working families fell behind so much? The obvious reason is because 
there are elements in the budget of most families that are not being 
addressed in Washington.

[[Page S7692]]

  What is causing this middle-class squeeze across America that is 
basically denying families their weekly earnings? Why won't the 
Republican leadership in the Senate and the House address the middle-
class squeeze? Why won't we address issues with which people are 
concerned? Let's be more specific about what that squeeze consists of.
  Look at this chart which shows real growth during President Bush's 
administration. Average weekly earnings have gone up 1 percent since 
President George W. Bush has come to office--1 percent. What about 
college tuition costs? They have gone up 28 percent; gas prices, 28 
percent. And here is one, this is the killer for business, labor, and 
families: family health care premiums.
  One can say to oneself: What in the world can Congress do about these 
issues that are raising the cost of living for working families? The 
answer is, ``plenty.'' What have we done? Nothing, absolutely nothing.
  What we have done, unfortunately, is to ignore the real issues facing 
families. We have ignored the issues they are coping with on a regular 
basis. College tuition costs: My colleague, Senator Schumer of New 
York, when we were discussing tax cuts, said the most important tax 
cuts for working families and for our future include the deductibility 
of college education expenses.
  Well, that is obvious. What do I hope for for my kids, for the kids 
of my colleagues, and for all who are following this debate? A chance 
for a good education. What stands in the way? Well, certainly their own 
achievement--they have to do a good job in school to be eligible to go 
to college--but then the cost. My colleagues know what I am talking 
about. How many college graduates today face college tuition costs 
which are absolutely crippling?
  Senator Schumer and others said if we are going to talk about tax 
cuts to help working families, why do we not allow them to deduct the 
cost of college education expenses? We offered that amendment. It was 
defeated by the Republicans. They said, no, the tax cuts should go to 
the highest income individuals and they will decide what to do with 
that extra income and they will ultimately help working families.
  Gasoline prices----
  Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will yield in just one moment.
  Gasoline prices are another illustration. These prices have gone up 
dramatically in the State of California and in the State of Illinois. 
What has this administration done about it? Nothing. A cost to 
business, a cost to families, a cost out of the bottom line of the 
paycheck people bring home, and this administration refuses to confront 
OPEC about fair gasoline prices.
  Why do family health care premiums continue to be the No. 1 issue 
across America, ignored by the Bush administration, ignored by the 
Republican leaders in this Congress? Because the leaders in this 
Congress and the Republican Party refuse to confront the health care 
insurance industries, the pharmaceutical companies, and those that are 
driving up the cost of health care. Those special interest groups are 
sacred cows in this town, and because the Republican leadership will 
not confront them, American families are being victimized by them.
  These are the issues that families care about. They are the ones we 
are going to bring to this Presidential campaign, and they are the ones 
the Republican leadership wants to ignore. They want us to rush off and 
debate at length constitutional amendments that, frankly, are going 
nowhere.
  I am happy to yield to my colleague from California for a question.
  Mrs. BOXER. I came to thank the Senator for bringing out that chart, 
if he would keep it up there for a minute, and for making this point to 
our colleagues and anyone else who might be listening. It is one thing 
for us to critique the administration and say they are not addressing 
the real issues. When I go home, people say this administration cares 
about everybody else in the world; there is money for everybody else in 
the world; we are going to help everybody else; we are going to help 
the people of Iraq. Fine, but they are going to have universal health 
care and we are not? They are going to have their classrooms built and 
we are not? And it goes on.
  So what I believe our people want us to address is what is happening 
to them, and what my friend has done in a most eloquent way, as he 
always does, is to point out this middle-class squeeze that is hitting 
our people.
  These are the problems I care about. I say to my friend, we have a 
bill about reforming class action. I have taken a look at some class 
action lawsuits, and I have realized that is one tool to help middle-
class families who may be harmed by products that are not safe. So I do 
not know why they are running off to do that and they are ignoring all 
of these other things.
  I guess my question to my friend is, As we debate the Presidential 
election and we have a point of view that this administration is 
ignoring this middle-class squeeze, do we not find that happening right 
here with the Republicans who are in charge of this Senate? Are they 
not ignoring this middle-class squeeze? The best way to prove the point 
is what they bring up before the Senate. Are they bringing up anything 
to deal with college tuition and giving tax breaks to those folks who 
so desperately need it? Are they doing anything at all to help with gas 
prices, health care premiums, or prescription drugs, or are we going to 
face, after this class action debate, these constitutional amendments 
my friend referred to that I have to say in all honesty and frankness I 
have never had one person in California come up to me and say: Senator, 
the most important thing facing us is gay marriage. That is just 
ruining my life. Take that up. Ban it because that is what I think 
about night and day. No. They tell me they are worried about paying 
college tuition; they are worried about filling up their gas tank; they 
are worried about not being able to afford prescription drugs.
  So my question to my friend is, Could we not do more to implore this 
leadership to take up some of the issues that are really affecting the 
people we all represent?
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from California for her question. The 
answer is clear to all of us. This Congress, under the Republican 
leadership and this administration, has decided that the special 
interest groups are more important than these issues that are facing 
working families. They have decided that giving tax cuts to the 
wealthiest people in America is more important than giving working 
families the deductibility of college education expenses. They have 
decided that giving breaks to oil companies is more important than 
confronting those oil companies and OPEC to bring down gasoline prices. 
They have decided that the pharmaceutical companies and the health 
insurance companies in America are more important, their bottom line 
profits are more important than the cost of health insurance to 
businesses, to labor union members, and to families across America. 
They have caved in time and time again to special interest groups, and 
they refuse to listen to the real concerns of America.
  That is why Americans are saying, by a margin of almost 2 to 1, that 
we are headed in the wrong direction as a nation. They want leadership 
in Washington that responds to the real issues, the family room issues, 
the kitchen table issues families face every single day. This 
administration has refused to do it. Frankly, this Congress has refused 
to do it. They want to divert attention. They want to have the old 
sleight of hand. Let us talk about constitutional amendments. Let us 
not talk about things that deal with the real issues facing families.
  I am happy to yield to the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Illinois yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield for a question to the Senator from 
Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I say through the Chair to my distinguished friend from 
Illinois, also the two constitutional issues, gay marriage and flag 
burning, no matter how strong someone may feel about each of those, 
would the Senator acknowledge they have no chance whatsoever of 
passing, so we are not only taking up issues that may be secondary to 
the vast majority of the American people, but also they have no chance 
of passing? All they are doing is bringing these up to try to satisfy a 
small number of people in this country to divert attention from the 
real pocketbook

[[Page S7693]]

issues the American people deal with every day. Would the Senator 
acknowledge that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). The Democratic 
time has expired.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Democratic time has expired, the 
Chair has not properly advised the minority. I yielded 25 minutes this 
morning to Senators Lincoln and Senator Harkin, leaving 5 minutes. So 
where has the 5 minutes gone?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Harkin asked for an additional 5 
minutes.
  Mr. REID. I am sorry. I should never step off the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Which completes the Democratic time.
  Mr. REID. No problem. I should never step off the floor.
  I ask unanimous consent that each side have an additional 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to my colleague from the State of Nevada, he is 
going to find out in the rollcall votes, in the ultimate vote, that 
these constitutional amendments are not going to pass. This is a 
political grandstand. Frankly, we should pass a law that says a 
constitutional amendment cannot be proposed within 6 months of a 
Presidential election. That is what this is all about. It really 
demeans this great Constitution we have sworn to uphold that we are 
playing games by bringing issues like the gay marriage amendment to the 
floor of the Senate without even a markup in the Judiciary Committee.
  Why? Frankly, it should not be done. Maybe one or two times in the 
recent history of this body have we brought an amendment to the Senate 
floor without a markup in the Judiciary Committee--I think Senator 
Hollings, through unanimous consent, discharged a proposed 
constitutional amendment from committee. So they are not taking it 
seriously. It is just a record vote to put Members on the spot and to 
try to gas up the special interest groups that feel strongly on this 
issue. That really does not address the issues working families care 
about.
  If this Senate is going to be relevant to the people we represent, we 
ought to speak to the issues they care about. Whether the people are 
coming to this gallery or watching the proceedings by television, they 
know what working families care about. It is the cost of health 
insurance. It is the fact that one may have a dollar an hour more in 
their contract this year and do not have a penny more in take-home pay 
because health insurance has gone up. It is the cost of sending your 
kids to college. Your child works hard and has good grades, gets into a 
great college, and look at the cost: I'm sorry, you can't go to school; 
we can't come up with $20,000 a year.

  It is the cost of gasoline which is killing small businesses and 
families alike.
  These are issues we ought to be talking about and these are issues 
this Republican leadership consistently ignores.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. It is also the cost of prescription drugs, I 
add to my colleague from Illinois. I will tell you of the riveting 
experience I had last week as I was doing townhall meetings in my State 
of Florida, where a senior citizen, a lady, broke down crying in the 
middle of a jam-packed townhall meeting as we were talking about the 
issues of the day such as Iraq. She said: I cannot afford a roof over 
my head and the cost of prescription drugs. She said: I don't have any 
choice; I have to provide a home. That means I cannot buy prescription 
drugs.
  Yet what did we do in this Senate? The Senator from Illinois and I 
did not vote for the prescription drug bill because it said Medicare 
could not negotiate by using bulk purchases, negotiating the price of 
drugs down as does the Veterans' Administration.
  It is inexcusable. It is unexplainable, except that it rewards 
special interest politics to the neglect of senior citizens and allows 
those prescription drug prices to stay as high as they are so seniors 
cannot afford them.
  Would the Senator reflect on that experience I had in my townhall 
meeting?
  Mr. DURBIN. I would say to the Senator from Florida, he will hear the 
same response in Illinois, in California, in Nevada, in South Carolina. 
People can't afford prescription drugs. They can't afford college 
tuition. They can't deal with health insurance costs. They can't deal 
with these rising gas prices.
  Here is the problem. We need to create a special interest group 
called Working Families in America. Wouldn't it be great if they had a 
lobby here? Wouldn't it be great if we walked out in that hallway and 
men in three-piece suits and Gucci loafers were representing working 
families in America? There are plenty out there for the drug companies, 
plenty out there for the health insurance companies. But this Senate 
and this Congress only responds to special interest groups and those 
are groups such as the pharmaceutical companies that have record 
profits at the expense of consumers across America.
  When are we ever going to address issues that real families care 
about? If we are not here to address those issues, then, frankly, we 
ought to just close up shop and go home, and I don't think we should. I 
think we have a responsibility to stay here and work and make certain 
that we deal with the issues real families care about instead of all 
these special interest groups that come in.
  Now they want to get rid of class actions. They have said class 
actions, that is a dirty phrase. We should not say that in America 
because the people who go to court and sue on behalf of a large group 
of people have no business doing it. They are frivolous lawsuits. They 
are unproductive.
  Then take a look at those class action lawsuits. Those end up being 
lawsuits by consumers across America who may have just lost $100 
personally, but when aggregated turn out to be a large group of people 
who have created a great profit for a company that didn't deserve it.
  Those are ways that Americans speak to the issues that concern them. 
Those are opportunities which the Republican majority wants to silence.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic time has expired. The Senator 
from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it has been interesting to hear some of our 
Democratic colleagues this morning make the charge that the Republican 
leadership is somehow diverting attention from the real problems of the 
day by scheduling a vote on an issue which, when I was back home this 
last weekend, was certainly on the minds of a lot of my constituents, 
and that is this question of whether judges in America are going to 
redefine what they have always understood to be their definition of 
marriage.
  To take 1 day, or perhaps as much as 3 days, to debate that issue and 
get that issue resolved in the Senate does not seem to me to be too 
much to ask, in terms of conducting our business.
  With respect to the claim that it is diverting us from attention to 
the economic issues that are of most concern to Americans, I have two 
responses. First, Americans seem to be concerned about more than one 
thing. They are concerned about raising their families; they are 
concerned about a good home for their children; they are concerned 
about a good economic future for their children. All of these are 
wrapped up in the totality of the things that were expressed to me over 
this Fourth of July break.
  I don't think it is either fair or accurate to say there is only one 
thing Americans are concerned about and that is their economic future. 
But to the extent that is an issue and it becomes an issue in the 
Presidential campaign this year, I think some facts are worth pointing 
out.
  I realize that sometimes facts get in the way of arguments. One of 
the main arguments of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle is 
that this is a bad economy. The Democratic Presidential candidate has 
talked about the Depression and the worst economy since--I don't know, 
Hoover, I guess. But the facts belie that claim. So perhaps this 
morning we should take a little time to discuss some facts, some actual 
statistics, some reality about the economy and not just the economy in 
general but the economy as it affects the average American.

  On the question of jobs, one of the criticisms has been--originally 
the idea was there was no economic recovery. Then the economic recovery 
became undeniable. Then the claim was

[[Page S7694]]

it is a recovery in every sense except the creation of jobs. Then for 
several months in a row we began creating record numbers of jobs. Then 
the argument became: But they are not really good jobs.
  There are some people you can never please, of course. In an election 
year, the party that is on the ``out'' has to criticize the party that 
is on the ``in.'' It is just that it is becoming harder and harder to 
criticize the Republicans because the economy has rebounded so well, 
largely because of policies that have been pursued by the Bush 
administration.
  Let's examine the specific claim about employment and about wages and 
about what kinds of jobs Americans have and how the economic recovery 
is positively impacting the average American. Look at the June 
employment figures, which are the latest numbers we have. They 
demonstrate several things.
  First, the quality of new jobs is rising. Nearly 80 percent of the 
new jobs created in June were in industry categories that pay an 
average hourly rate in excess of the overall average hourly rate in the 
private sector. So these new jobs in manufacturing pay a higher wage 
than the average. The inflation-adjusted average hourly earnings have 
increased 2.224 percent during the first 3.5 years of the Bush 
administration, compared with only a .13-percent increase during the 
same period of the first Clinton administration.
  People say, What about disposable income? Not just wages but 
disposable income. Per capita aftertax disposable income, adjusted for 
inflation, has increased 7.1 percent, since President Bush took office, 
well above the 5.2-percent increase during the same period of the first 
Clinton administration.
  It doesn't much matter how you look at it, statistics in every 
respect are superior to the Clinton administration statistics. They 
represent economic growth. They represent real return in terms of wages 
and inflation-adjusted wages for the average American as well as the 
American working in manufacturing.
  Since the start of the Bush administration, full-time employment has 
averaged 82.56 percent, nearly a full percentage point higher than 
full-time employment during the same period of the first Clinton 
administration. So, again, no matter what comparison you make, 
Americans individually are better off today. It is not just a matter of 
the economy performing better, but they are individually better off 
today in terms of employment, in terms of jobs, in terms of earnings.
  In the past year, the number of full-time positions has increased by 
nearly 1.3 million. I mention that because some make the argument that 
some of these are called ``McJobs''--a play on McDonald's--that they 
are just hamburger-flipping kinds of jobs. No. We are talking about 
full-time positions. And I talked about manufacturing jobs earlier.
  More than 81 percent of part-time workers in June indicate they have 
chosen part-time employment for noneconomic reasons. The point is that 
while full-time jobs are increasing, those who are working part time 
are primarily working part time according to their own testimony for 
reasons that do not have anything to do with economics.
  I also mention the fact that temporary jobs in June represented only 
2.225 percent of all payroll jobs in the private sector.
  I make all of these points not to suggest that we can't do better. In 
fact, the President has said we will not rest until everybody who wants 
to work can find a job.
  When you look at some of the counties in Arizona, for example, in 
Pima and Maricopa Counties where the employment rate is 4.1, 4.2, or 
4.3 percent, something in that order, and when you look at an area 
where there is a substantial amount of illegal immigration with the 
people working in sectors that Americans have not wanted generally to 
work, you can see this is the closest thing to full-time employment we 
could possibly have in this country.
  Let me give some more statistical data because part of the problem in 
the debate has been claims by one side and facts on the other side. I 
know that sometimes people's eyes glaze over when they hear too many 
numbers, but the reality is that numbers tell the story here. They are 
like pieces of a puzzle. They are reality. When you put them together, 
what they represent is not just a strong economy but an economy that is 
helping individual families provide more income and more security for 
their work situation.
  The employment data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
earlier this month demonstrate this strong job growth. In June, nonfarm 
payroll employment increased by 112,000 net new jobs. So far this year, 
nearly 1.3 million net new payroll jobs have been created, and over 1.5 
new payroll jobs since last August. According to the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics' current population survey, which is the household survey, 
the unemployment rate remains steady at 5.6 percent, which is well 
below the peak of 6.3 percent in June of 2003. In other words, more 
Americans are working than at any time in the country's history--139 
million individuals. I think that is a record we can be proud of.
  I make this point: There is a certain sense in which talking down the 
economy creates a psychology in the market and becomes a self-
fulfilling prophecy. I notice there has been criticism in the past by 
Members on the other side when Republicans have, during the Clinton 
administration, noted certain problems with the economy. They said 
don't talk down the economy, that it will have an effect itself on 
confidence in the market and confidence among consumers.
  This is what disturbs me about some of the rhetoric from the other 
side. Every measurement of the economy is improving and every 
measurement with respect to individuals within the economy is improving 
substantially and is better than the comparable times during the 
Clinton administration, yet you hear people constantly talking it down. 
There is a point at which this itself can have a negative impact.

  I would like to quote from a Wall Street Journal commentary that sort 
of describes this phenomenon I am talking about. Here is the Wall 
Street Journal:

       Here's a quick primer on how to track an economic recovery. 
     When the media fret that the U.S. is heading for a decade of 
     stagnation like Japan, that means profits and investment are 
     picking up. When you hear that profits have risen but we're 
     stuck in a ``jobless recovery,'' businesses have started 
     hiring. And finally when a cry goes up that American workers 
     can find only low-paying menial jobs, that's the tip-off that 
     the economy is booming.
       Congratulations, America. The return of ``McJobs'' rhetoric 
     signifies that an expansion is in full swing.

  Of course, the Journal goes on to detail a lot of the statistical 
information I have been talking about.
  By focusing on the quality of the jobs that are being created, the 
pessimists are once again counting on the public to overlook the facts 
we have been talking about here. As I have indicated, the facts 
demonstrate that the U.S. economy is not only producing a steady stream 
of jobs, but the new positions are well paying and they are industrial 
jobs. So whether you are talking quality or quantity, it is very hard 
to deny that this economic recovery is helping all Americans.
  One of the concerns has been about manufacturing. There is no 
question that there are shifts occurring all around the world to an 
information technology kind of economy, and a lot of the old industrial 
base of this country has been affected by that. But there are also some 
statistics that I believe give hope with respect to manufacturing in 
this country, which is still the No. 1 country for manufacturing in the 
world.
  In June, nearly 80 percent of the new jobs were created in major 
industry categories which pay an average hourly rate in excess of the 
overall average hourly rate in the private sector of $15.65. In June, 
39,000 new professional and business services jobs were created in an 
industry with an average wage of $17.38 per hour--11 percent more than 
the overall average hourly wage; 19,200 new transportation and 
warehousing jobs were created in an industry with an average wage of 
$16.50--7 percent above the overall average. In contrast, because some 
speak about the leisure or hospitality industry where wages are less, 
the average wage there is $8.86. That only accounted for 6 percent of 
the new jobs created.
  Again, for those who say there are new jobs being created but they 
are in

[[Page S7695]]

the lower paying categories and not in the industrial categories, the 
statistics simply belie that. They say that is not true.
  The point is, very broadly speaking, the employment figures in June 
are consistent with an upward trend of well-paying industries creating 
valuable jobs, and this has been occurring for more than a year.
  In June, the average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory 
workers increased at an annualized rate of 1.2 percent, the sixth 
consecutive monthly increase. Importantly, the growth in hourly 
earnings was broad based, with wages increasing in 9 out of the 11 
major industry sectors and unchanged in 3 sectors since June.
  Since the beginning of the Bush administration, real average hourly 
earnings--that means adjusted for inflation --have increased by 2.224 
percent compared to the Clinton administration. In the first Clinton 
administration, real average hourly earnings grew by only 1.3 percent. 
Moreover, in the 2\1/2\ years following the 1990-1991 recession, real 
average hourly earnings fell .66 percent. So the current increase 
demonstrates that earnings are outpacing inflation to the benefit of 
American workers and their families--again, in sharp contrast to the 
Clinton years.

  Finally, using the broader measure of ``compensation,'' which 
includes both wages and benefits, the earnings picture improves even 
more. Between the first quarter of 2001 and the first quarter of this 
year, compensation paid to workers in the private industry has 
increased a total of 12.18 percent. Specifically, wages have grown by 
9.44 percent, and employment benefits, including health and pension 
benefits, have increased by 18.98.
  No matter how you look at this, individual employees are doing better 
in terms of the kind of jobs they have, what those jobs are paying both 
in terms of compensation and in terms of money, as well as compensation 
in terms of other benefits. There is no way to look at the economic 
growth and its impact on individual families and workers without seeing 
the good news. As I said, the only explanation I have for pessimistic 
talk is the reality of politics.
  If you are going to try to replace somebody in an office, you have to 
complain about something. In this case, however, I think those who are 
complaining about the economy and are somehow suggesting that President 
Bush and the Republican administration have not done enough to improve 
the economy for working families basically have not been looking at the 
facts. The facts have demonstrated quite clearly that this economic 
recovery is helping a very broad spectrum of people in this country, 
from industrial jobs to all other kind of jobs.
  Disposable income is another measure by which you can determine 
whether families are better off--dollars left after taxes. Here is 
where the Bush administration has really made big strides because of 
the tax cuts we passed, which some on the other side of the aisle would 
take away.
  In the first 12 quarters, the Bush administration's per capita 
aftertax income increased by 12.5 percent, in large measure as a result 
of the individual tax rate reductions we enacted in 2001 and 2003 that 
were part of the Bush tax reduction programs which he signed into law 
and is asking us to make permanent. With that kind of improvement in 
per capita income--this is disposable income, dollars left over after 
you pay the taxes that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
ought to be joining in making the tax cuts permanent and not that the 
tax cuts should be eliminated--per capita aftertax disposable income in 
real, meaning inflation-adjusted, terms has increased 7.1 percent since 
President Bush took office. That is a significant improvement over the 
5.2-percent increase during the same period in the first Clinton 
administration.
  In a courtroom, I would say I rest my case. By every conceivable 
measure of how Americans have been affected by this economy and the 
economic growth spurred by the position of the President and the action 
of the Republican House and Senate in support of the administration, by 
every measure, Americans' lives have improved. We ought to count that 
as good news, whether we are Democrats or Republicans, regardless of 
what economic strata we are in. It represents the best in this country, 
the opportunity we all have, the kind of idea that President Kennedy, 
all the way through President Reagan, talked about.
  When the economy is improving, everyone in this country is better 
off, and we should be grateful. We should understand the causes. We 
should support those legislative policies that represent those causes 
and not denigrate an economy which is helping the American public.
  It is time to be a little bit more optimistic about our future. This 
is a great country. It is a great country because of the people who 
create the jobs and who do the work. We should give them a lot more 
credit than some people on the other side of the aisle have, credit for 
helping this country to become everything it can become for the benefit 
of American families.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sixteen minutes.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I will talk about good economic news, the 
optimism that my friend and colleague from Arizona has discussed. I 
have always been a believer in looking at the cup half full rather than 
half empty. This cup is pretty full right now and is filling every day. 
It tastes good to drink from it. There is good news out there and we 
need to talk about that.
  We used to have an expression that politics ends at the water's edge. 
We did not allow debates between candidates to confuse the way foreign 
policy was conducted abroad. There is something akin to that with the 
economy. Certainly the issue of jobs and economic growth are 
appropriate for political discussion. No doubt about that. I worry when 
it reaches a point that the volume and nature of the debate is actually 
hurting the economy.
  Maybe we have gone too far. So much of our economic activity is based 
on the way we perceive the direction of the economy. Perception does 
have some impact on reality. Those who try to shape the negative 
perception for political ends should reflect a little more on that. It 
is the political season, the Presidential race is coming up, but the 
volume of negative statements in absolute denial of what is happening 
with this economy is a little disconcerting.
  I am concerned about those who are tempted to believe good economic 
news is bad political news, and bad economic news is good political 
news. We should be better than that. It reminds me of the Lutheran 
Church in Minnesota that got their first female pastor. Some of the 
older guys in the congregation were skeptical. They thought she would 
not be able to preach. After her first sermon, they were very 
impressed.
  Then they said, Well, she will not work very hard. But after she 
balanced the congregation's books, organized the church picnic, and got 
the Sunday school on track, they were impressed.
  Then they thought, Well, she will not relate to guys like us. Then 
she asked if she could go fishing with them. They did not like the 
idea, but they could not say no. After a couple of hours on the water, 
the pastor said: Guys, I need a restroom. A little annoyed, they 
started pulling up their line. She said: That's okay, and stepped out 
of the boat and walked on water to the shore. And one of the guys said: 
Figures, she can't even swim.
  For those who continue to be skeptical about the progress of this 
economy, I am beginning to think they would be discouraged even if it 
walked on water. I read an estimate that the economy will grow at a 
rate of 4.8 percent this year. That sounds good. It would be the 
highest growth in two decades. This is an economy that is carrying on 
its back a war on terror, the aftermath of September 11, the corporate 
scandals, the uncertainties of a Presidential campaign. The economy is 
not just walking on water, it is running.
  Economic growth is at a 20-year high. Work and productivity rose by 
almost 4 percent last quarter and remains above its historic average as 
businesses continue to utilize technology in a more efficient manner. 
We are increasing productivity at the same time. We are growing jobs. 
The manufacturing sector on balance has grown since the beginning of 
the year as factories have

[[Page S7696]]

boosted employment to meet strong consumer demand.

  Why do we have strong consumer demand? Because we cut taxes, because 
we put more money in the pockets of moms and dads. And when moms and 
dads spend that money on a good or service, the person producing that 
good or service has a job.
  That makes it more likely, more profitable, easier for small business 
folks to reinvest in their business. By cutting capital gains, 
providing bonus depreciation, you increase expensing, opportunities and 
options for small business. They invest in the business and they grow 
jobs. The manufacturing employment index is pointing to an expansion in 
hiring.
  The National Association of Business Economics, at its quarterly 
survey on business conditions, shows that 41 percent of the respondents 
expect their companies to increase employment over the next 6 months, 
up from 34 percent 3 months earlier.
  Consumer and producer confidence remains solid. In fact, consumer 
confidence got a huge boost last week, reaching a 5-month high. 
Consumers are optimistic. The politicians who benefit, unfortunately, 
seem to think they benefit from bad news. They are the pessimists.
  The reality is, this economy is moving forward. The consumers 
understand that. Unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the 
aisle seem to find it difficult to accept that, difficult to admit 
that, difficult to recognize that there is consumer and producer 
confidence today. That is good for the economy. That helps grow jobs. 
The housing market is strong. The national home-ownership rate in sales 
of new homes are at a record high.
  My friend from Arizona talked about per capita, aftertax disposable 
income; in other words, the amount of money people get to spend 
themselves after they pay taxes. It has increased 7.1 percent. This is 
higher than it was after the first 4 years of the Clinton 
administration during this boom period that folks talk about. Last 
month, 112,000 jobs were added to the economy. In the past 4 months, 
payrolls have grown by almost 1.1 million, a pace of more than 3 
million jobs annually.
  It is fascinating that although the amount of jobs increased last 
month by 112,000, the pessimists will say that is less than what was 
projected, as if that is a negative. Over 1.1 million jobs in the past 
4 months. I remind the pessimists that in every year of the job boom of 
the late 1990s, it included at least 1 month where payroll growth fell 
below 150,000 and in a few instances it went even negative. This is the 
ebb and flow of the economy. Everyone can forecast but no one can 
guarantee economic growth.
  The trends are clear, the movement is clear. It is like you have a 
chance to do a little fishing over the break. You kind of watch that 
stream and it is moving in a direction. The economy is moving in the 
right direction.
  There was an article printed in USA Today a couple weeks ago by 
former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, author of ``Reason: Why Liberals 
Win the Battle for America.'' He wrote this at the request of the Kerry 
campaign. What is the title? ``Gloom Is Reality for Citizens.'' Senator 
Kerry talks about misery indexes. Robert Reich, ``Gloom Is Reality for 
Citizens.''
  That is not the reality of what is happening in the economy today. 
Part of this discussion Reich talks about is saying, well, we have a 
lot of jobs. They recognize there is an increase--1.1 million jobs--but 
they talk about the quality of jobs. They talk about wages that are 
stagnant.
  If you look at, again, the facts--look at the facts, the facts, 
ma'am, the facts--three-quarters of the new jobs created in May were in 
industry categories that pay an hourly average rate in excess of the 
overall average hourly rate in the private sector. Inflation-adjusted 
hourly earnings have increased 2.3 percent during the first 3\1/2\ 
years of the Bush administration, compared with only a 0.13-percent 
increase during the same period of the first Clinton administration.
  I mentioned before that the aftertax disposable income is way above 
what it was during the Clinton administration.
  Then the pessimists say: Well, these aren't full-time jobs. They are 
a lot of part-time jobs, but ``jobs'' they call it. Again, as I said 
before, three-quarters of the new jobs created in May were in industry 
categories that pay an hourly average rate in excess of the overall 
average hourly rate in the private sector.
  Since the start of the Bush administration, full-time employment has 
averaged 82.57 percent, nearly a full percentage point higher than 
full-time employment during the period of the first Clinton 
administration. In the past year, the number of part-time positions has 
declined about 240,000, while full-time positions have increased by 
more than a million.
  More than 80 percent of part-time workers in May indicated they have 
chosen part-time employment for noneconomic reasons. Some people choose 
to work part time. But, again, the number of full-time jobs is 
increasing at an all-time high. The number of unemployed is decreasing.
  In Minnesota, a few months ago, the drop in the rate of unemployment 
went from 4.8 percent to 4.1 percent in 1 month. That .7 percent drop 
was the largest monthly drop since we began keeping records in over 20 
years. That is significant. Does that mean there are people out of 
work? Absolutely. As long as one American is out of work, then we have 
to do something about it.
  That is why, by the way, we have to pass the class action bill. It is 
being filibustered. That is why we have to pass an energy bill. It is 
being filibustered. That is why we have to get a highway bill through 
this Congress. We have to get some things done, but we are moving in 
the right direction.
  And again, in Minnesota--back at home--the President's tax relief led 
to the creation of 7,200 new jobs in May. Over the months of April and 
May, Minnesota gained almost 20,000 new jobs, leading to the highest 2-
month gain in the last 5 years.
  Both the construction and manufacturing sectors in Minnesota continue 
to improve. Construction employment grew by 2,200 in May, building on 
April's 2,800 new jobs, and 1,600 new manufacturing jobs were created 
in May, while 7,400 manufacturing jobs have been created in the last 10 
months.
  The employment outlook for the third quarter for Minnesota employers 
is the strongest in more than 25 years; 30 percent of Minnesota 
employers expect to hire more employees.

  There is an article in today's Minneapolis Star Tribune talking 
about: ``Analysts expect excellent economy.'' I will read from the 
article:

       The economy appears headed for a banner year despite a 
     springtime spike in energy prices and a recent increase in 
     interest rates.
       In fact, many analysts are forecasting that the economy, as 
     measured by the gross domestic product, will grow by 4.6 
     percent or better this year, the fastest in two decades.
       There were strong 4.5 percent growth rates in 1997 and 
     1999, when Bill Clinton was president and the country was in 
     the midst of a record 10-year expansion.
       But if this year's growth ends up a bit faster than that, 
     it will be the best since the economy roared ahead at 7.2 
     percent in 1984, a year when another Republican President--
     Ronald Reagan--was running for re-election.

  A survey of top economists showed further optimism:

       Ninety-one percent said they expected the economy to grow 
     at an annual rate of anywhere from 2 to 5 percent in the 
     second half of this year . . .
       Forty-one percent said they expected stepped-up hiring in 
     the next six months . . .
       ``By almost any measure--output, employment, profit 
     margins, capital spending--this economy is strong,'' said 
     Duncan Meldrum, the association's president and the chief 
     economist for Air Products and Chemicals Inc.

  The reality is the economy is moving forward. More needs to be done. 
I do hope we get class action passed here. A report by the National 
Association of Manufacturers found that domestically imposed costs, 
including tort litigation, reduced America's manufacturing cost 
competitiveness by 22 percent in the world market. There is no doubt 
about it, our legal system puts American jobs at a competitive 
disadvantage with foreign firms. Money it has spent fighting frivolous 
lawsuits should be spent back in the business growing jobs and growing 
the economy.
  So instead of making speeches downplaying the positive economic 
numbers, instead of casting about with doom and gloom, instead of 
writing articles about gloom being reality for Americans, instead of 
talking about misery indexes, let's celebrate what we have. Let's 
commit to keep moving forward. Let's get the class action bill passed. 
Let's get the Energy bill

[[Page S7697]]

passed. Let's get the highway bill through. And let's keep doing the 
things we are doing. Let's make permanent the Bush tax cuts that 
increase particularly the low and middle class, the per-child tax 
credit, get rid of the marriage penalty, make sure we make permanent 
the expansion of the 10-percent bracket, do those things that put money 
in the pockets of moms and dads so when moms and dads spend that money, 
the economy grows.
  If we do that, if we keep moving forward and we get some stuff done, 
and put the politicking aside, we put the election-year politics aside, 
and we put the doom and gloom and negativity aside, this country can be 
all that it is and all we know it to be: the greatest country in the 
world, the economically strongest country in the world.
  But we have to keep moving in the right direction. We are committed 
to doing that. Let's stop the pessimism. Let's stop the gloom and doom. 
We have a job to do, and I hope we can work it in a bipartisan way, to 
finish the work we need to do.

  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, how much time, if any, remains in morning 
business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute 45 seconds.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if my distinguished friend, the chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee, would yield that back on behalf of the 
Republicans, we could get to the bill.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield it back.
  Excuse me, let me withhold that.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________