[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 104 (Tuesday, September 7, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H6744-H6751]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE STATE OF OUR ECONOMY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. King of Iowa). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my Republican 
colleague's remarks, and I do have a great deal of respect for the 
gentleman, but I have to take issue, I should say, with some of the 
comments he made.
  First of all, as much as he discussed about how the situation has 
improved in Iraq, and I am not sure that that is the case, but he did 
talk about how the U.S. has spent so much money on Iraq, in 
reconstruction in Iraq, and hospitals, schools, other activities, the 
bottom line is that much of that money I think would have been better 
spent here.
  When I was home during the district work period, I think most people 
know that the Congress was in recess from the end of July during the 
time of the Democratic convention until last week during the Republican 
convention, and I heard constantly in my district office at the forums 
that I held, at the open houses at my offices, about the problems that 
Americans were facing, people who had lost their jobs, people who had 
tried to find another job and found another job that paid less or did 
not provide the same benefits, people who had lost their health 
insurance; and I really do not believe that the situation the gentleman 
described about the economy is at all rosy.
  The economy is not doing well. The average person is really feeling 
squeezed because what is happening is they work harder, and, as the 
gentleman mentioned, productivity is up, but wages are not keeping up 
with it, and Americans find themselves working harder, earning less 
money, and facing increased costs for gas, schools to send their kids 
to college, and health insurance.

                              {time}  2200

  They are really not very optimistic about the future of the economy, 
because the situation seems to be getting worse over the last 4 years.
  So this evening I wanted to really pose, and I see some of my 
colleagues are here, so I would like to start with some of them, but I 
would really like to pose the question about whether or not over the 
last 4 years Americans' lives have improved or gotten worse. I think 
for most people, the answer is definitely that they have gotten worse.
  When you ask people are they better off today than they were 4 years 
ago when President Bush began his Presidency, the answer is no, they 
are not better off. I realize that my Republican colleagues spend a lot 
of time talking about how the situation has improved in Iraq; but, 
frankly, I think in many ways the money that has been spent in Iraq for 
reconstruction, for sewers, for hospitals, for education, has been 
spent at the expense of what could be done here, because as we know, 
many Americans really face increased costs and the inability to access 
health insurance, the inability to send their kids to the college of 
their choice, the inability in many cases even to be able to find an 
apartment or to pay for the gas so they can go to work.
  I know that I do not want to always be pessimistic, I like to think 
optimistically, but the picture that the Republicans paint and the 
picture painted at the Republican convention last week about a rosy 
America and things getting better and jobs being more available, these 
things just simply are not true. The economy is not doing well. The job 
situation is not good. Most importantly, Americans feel increasingly 
that they work harder and that they have to pay more and that they get 
less.

[[Page H6745]]

  I have some of my colleagues here tonight. I see the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is here. I know she also waited through the 
last hour listening to our Republican speaker. I would like to yield to 
her at this time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman for yielding. I am very pleased to join him and to also be 
joined as part of this Special Order by the gentlewoman from Chicago, 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  I think the wait is important, because as we return from the work 
recess, and I am glad the gentleman mentioned a number of constituents 
that he encountered, all of us have, whether they have been in our own 
respective districts or States, but around the Nation, I think we are 
at a precipice, we are at a crisis, we are at a no-return point.
  What saddens me is that we have a collective body of the executive 
and the majority in Congress that refuses to deal with the issues that 
we have heard from our constituents. Might I say to you that I did not 
see an R on these constituents or a D or an I, meaning Independent, or 
a non-voter or someone who is nonpartisan or bipartisan. I saw average 
Americans pleading with Members of Congress to get the job done.
  Might I just share with you what our colleagues are going to be 
spending their time on as we look toward the November election. Rather 
than spending intense time on getting a serious appropriations bill, 
because, as you well know, we are told that we may have to return for a 
lame duck session, and the only reason is because we are going to take 
up a lot of time, not on the serious issues, but on the frivolous 
issues that will just create the kind of political and social 
divisiveness that the Republicans want to see happening.
  For example, I am told that the other body is going to take up the 
flag-burning amendment. As I understand it, Flag Day was 2 or 3 months 
ago. All of us understand that there are differences of opinion; but, 
more importantly, I do not know the last time that a flag in the United 
States has been burned over the last 20 years. So we are going to be 
dealing with that debate and question.
  I understand they are going to be talking about abortion, taxes, 
reforming the legal system, and, of course, amending the Constitution. 
None of those deal with the issues that are hurting Americans today, 
Americans who are trying to send their children to college, those of us 
who have seen young people graduate from high school and their parents, 
middle-class parents, not having the resources, the Pell grants, the 
various scholarships that are necessary, because they happen to be in 
the middle-class squeeze. Many of them, in fact, are part of those 3 
million who have lost jobs under the Republican Congress and Republican 
administration. In fact, this administration has already lost almost 2 
million jobs; more than 5 million Americans have lost their health 
care, and jobs are still being shipped overseas.
  So I would just like to briefly focus on health care and focus on 
security. I serve on the Select Committee on Homeland Security and 
spent a number of days in the month of August in hearings here in 
Washington, had the privilege of joining my colleagues, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), at 
the border looking at crisis issues dealing with the necessary 
resources that our Border Patrol needs.
  By the way, our Border Patrol said they do not want the military 
there, as many of the Republicans have tried to do over and over again, 
but they do want increased resources to secure the homeland by 
safeguarding the border.
  But let me just simply say in the course of looking at America's 
needs, in addition to the loss of 2 to 3 million jobs and no 
replacement of such, the last month we saw only 144,000 jobs, way below 
the necessary job creation in order to catch up with the 3 million jobs 
lost.
  While I was home in the district, I had a teacher that used to be, I 
believe, either a Teamster or steel worker, I think he was a Teamster, 
and he was indicating that he educated himself through his union work. 
He cannot get health insurance for his children through the State of 
Texas. He is a teacher teaching our children, but he cannot afford the 
kind of quality health insurance; he cannot pay for it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I have to say, when I 
had the open houses, and at my typical open house I will have 100 
people show up at one of my offices, that was the biggest concern. 
People had lost their health insurance, were not able to get it on the 
job anymore.
  Again, the problem that I see is that this Bush administration talks 
about how they are going to improve access to health insurance, how 
they are going to improve access to college, No Child Left Behind. But 
when you talk to the people, the reality is things are getting worse on 
every one of these fronts. We saw statistics 2 weeks ago, a report came 
out, that said we started out with 40 million uninsured 4 years ago. 
Now it is 45 million. Just an example.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. If the gentleman will yield further, it is 
continuing to grow. I know we as a body, as a Congress, have increased 
our access to the Web or access to the Internet. It would be 
interesting as we debate these issues in Special Orders, would it not 
be interesting to have people sign on to the Web: ``I agree with this 
issue,'' ``I disagree.''
  I would venture to say you would get 40 to 45 million hits on this 
question of health care and the uninsured, because it involves working 
people. That is what I think our colleagues, and that is why I am so 
concerned and so much wanting to respond to your question, are we 
better off today than we were 4 years ago, because the question is, we 
should be going forward.
  What does going forward mean? It means we cannot talk about 44 
million that did not have the insurance 4 years ago, and we are now 4 
years later and we have done nothing as a Congress to stem the tide, or 
the Republican administration, to stem the tide of this travesty.
  As I look at other issues that are impacting Americans, the other one 
that comes in at a very high level is, how would you say it, the 
dismantling of the pension systems of Americans around the country, 
whether it is a public pension system, a private pension system. Of 
course, Enron happens to be the poster child for that. But every single 
day Americans are finding out that their pensions are being decreased, 
diminished, or eliminated.
  We have sought not to do something about that. We decided to give 1 
percent of the richest Americans millions of dollars in tax cuts, but 
yet we have refused to come and deal with the bread and butter issues 
that Americans are concerned about.
  I am concerned that Americans have to deal with these bread and 
butter issues. I am concerned that our mothers and fathers, whom we 
claim to be the Greatest Generation, tomorrow will have to pay a 17 
percent increase in their premium on their Medicare. I have yet to call 
home to my mom to be able to sort of say it softly, because I know what 
that will mean to someone like her that is on a fixed income. She is 
only symbolic of the millions of senior citizens on fixed income.
  I hesitate to think, a $2 billion check going to Florida, and by the 
way, not much money got to New York after 9-11 as quickly as it got to 
Florida, and I want it to go to Florida. I will be voting unanimously 
on it, I think it was passed unanimously tonight. But there are senior 
citizens who are not only suffering from Charley and Frances, but now 
they are getting hit from Washington, D.C. with a 17 percent increase 
in their premium.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I just wanted to say if 
you listen to the President during his acceptance speech at the 
convention, he said that he was going to do all these things for 
seniors. Of course, he trumpeted the so-called prescription drug 
benefit that kicks in in 2 years, in 2006, which I think is a sham.
  But when asked about this 17 percent increase in premiums for 
Medicare part B, he said, oh, that is because health care costs have 
gone up. But what he neglected to mention was the biggest factor in 
this increase is the fact that with that prescription drug so-called 
benefit, which you and I realize is really not going to be a benefit in 
2 years, so much money has gone to the insurers that that is resulting 
in the part B increase in premium going up 17 percent. There is a link 
between the two.

[[Page H6746]]

  So, once again, they say we are going to help the seniors, and the 
reality is that their health care costs are going up tremendously. We 
have not had an increase like that in part B in anybody's memory. I do 
not know if there has ever been that much of an increase. A lot of it 
is linked to this sham Medicare prescription drug benefit because so 
much money is going to the insurers and not actually coming back to the 
seniors, not to mention it does not even go into effect for a couple of 
years.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield 
further, I see my colleagues here. Let me try to at least bring a few 
points out, and then yield back to the gentleman, because I know that 
everyone in their communities are finding this out.
  Let me add not only to the pharmaceuticals, but the HMOs are taking a 
large chunk of these dollars as well, and the services, look, when you 
see doctors, they are complaining about the complexity of the Medicare 
system, the dismantling of the Medicaid system almost, where they 
cannot utilize that. So the victims in this are the medical 
professionals, nurses, nurse practitioners, doctors, hospitals and the 
actual consumer of the product and the other guys who stand alongside.
  By the way, we all come from communities where we know that there is 
a lot of good work that pharmaceuticals can do. My problem is that the 
bad part of the business has been enhanced by this Republican agenda, 
that is, the 3-hour vote we had on Medicare, versus the good part, 
because pharmaceuticals do some good work. But the question is the 
benefit has not gone to the consumers. It has actually gone, in fact, 
to these folk that are putting money in their pocket.
  What else has happened? On the front page of the Houston Chronicle 
today, and I think the article is all over the country, millions of 
dollars are being cut from research labs and research universities in 
America. The highest percentage of research dollars started in 1999 
under President Clinton, and it continued that momentum. Now, under 
this administration, there are research professors that do not even 
know whether they will be employed. The very same researchers who found 
the human genome and other kinds of outstanding opportunities that we 
had in research, can you believe it, they are going to be shut down 
because we are cutting their research money.
  Let me quickly just go to this question of homeland security because 
I think it is enormously important to point out tragically that the war 
in Iraq and the Afghan war, many of us understand that there is a need 
to finish what unfortunately was started in the wrong way.
  But the problem is, as evidenced by the tragedy of seven Marines 
being killed in the last 24 hours, August being the highest number of 
casualties among our soldiers over the past couple of months, no 
enunciated exit strategy.
  Now, let me make it very clear because our candidate, Senator Kerry, 
has received a beating because he has been honest, because he indicated 
that he voted against the $87 billion, not out of flip-flop, but 
because the $87 billion was not getting the job done and it was 
destroying the domestic agenda.
  But the real question is what kind of exit strategy, with honor, does 
this administration, this Republican Congress, have? They absolutely 
have none. How do they mix that, Afghanistan's security and Iraq's 
security, with the idea of homeland security? I did not hear one word, 
much of discussion, of homeland security in the 4 or 5 days of that 
convention.
  But let me just point out for you what is happening with homeland 
security in this country. A task force headed by former Senator Warren 
Rudman found that the United States remains dangerously ill prepared to 
handle a catastrophic attack on American soil. This is not a partisan 
report, but is cited by the 9/11 Commission.
  It specifically said the Bush budgets would leave a $98.4 billion 
funding gap for first responders over the next 5 years, a finding the 
Rand Corporation essentially seconded.
  I do not believe any of these have Democratic credentials or are part 
of any sort of partisan activity.
  This year the President is proposing to slash more than $600 million, 
14 percent, from first responder funding. Similarly, the Bush 
administration has allocated less than $500 million for port security, 
even though the Coast Guard estimates that $7.5 billion is needed in 
the next decade. This is the homeland security of this Congress and the 
homeland security of this administration. The majority leader said that 
the 9/11 Commission report is going to be high on the agenda. Maybe it 
is going to be high on the agenda, but they do not want to do one 
single thing that the 9/11 Commission has suggested, including the fact 
that this so-called intelligence director, I believe, and I have 
legislation on this, should be a cabinet-level position. I think that 
is crucial in the work that we are trying to do.
  I believe that we have come back and there is no agenda in this 
Congress; and, frankly, I think it is important for the American people 
if they can sign on to a Web site and say stop fooling around with 
frivolous issues, divisive issues, and issues that do not provide the 
bread and butter questions that Americans are asking, get to work.

                              {time}  2215

  I hope that the Democrats will be able to say to the Republicans in 
this House, we need to work on behalf of the American people, not the 
November 2nd election of which they are trying to establish an agenda 
for and, as a result, the American people are suffering. I am delighted 
to join the gentleman and I hope that we will continue to work so that 
the American people can see that there are those who believe that their 
jobs are to improve their quality of life.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman. I know I 
started out asking the question, are you better off than you were 4 
years ago, and I was primarily focusing on it from an economic point of 
view. But as the gentlewoman points out, from a security point of view 
as well, we can easily say that in the aftermath of 9-11, we can say 
that the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission and the idea of making 
the homeland more secure, we can really not make the case that that has 
happened either under this administration, so I think that is a good 
point that the gentlewoman makes.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey 
for leading us in these Special Orders so that we can talk truth to the 
American people.
  The fact of the matter is that a large majority of Americans do think 
that the country is going in the wrong direction. They do not think 
they are better off today. In listening to some of our colleagues on 
the Republican side, it sounds like they think that the American people 
just do not get it; that if they would just look at their charts and 
really understand the truth, they would understand that things are 
really better.
  But the fact of the matter is that it is the Republicans who do not 
get it, or are not listening to the people who are telling them that 
no, in fact, maybe they do not even read the newspapers, except the 
articles they like to read, because the headlines, I think it was 
during the convention, in fact, that were saying that, in fact, a 
million more people now are without any health insurance in the United 
States of America, that more Americans have fallen into poverty in the 
United States of America. The fact that there is the kind of poverty 
that we have here in the richest country in the world is a disgrace in 
and of itself, or that there are people without health care.
  We are facing health care issues in my family, and one of my loved 
ones was just in the emergency room, got a bill for one night in the 
emergency room, $16,500. Now, fortunately, she has health insurance. 
What if she did not? She would have a bill for $16,500. You find me an 
American family that can easily absorb that kind of thing.
  Mr. Speaker, we know that college tuition is up. We know that wages 
for average workers are down. We know that there are problems in after-
school programs all over. We know that property taxes are going up, 
often wiping out any possible tax benefit that they may have had on 
their income tax, if any. We know that seniors are going to

[[Page H6747]]

be paying more for Medicare. Maybe they got a measly check for a refund 
on their income tax, more than eaten up by the increase that they are 
facing in their prescription drugs and then their Medicare premiums. So 
they better check it out. The American people understand the country is 
going in the wrong direction and the economy is not good.
  But I bring my colleagues good news. I have found the people who are 
benefiting. My husband has a pilot's license, so he gets all kinds of 
mail and he got this in the mail, a beautiful picture of a private jet. 
And it says on the front, ``Bank with it. Land the ultimate tax benefit 
with a Cirrus high-performance aircraft.'' You look on the back and it 
says, ``Deduct up to 79 percent. Your defining moment is now. Better 
get moving. Take delivery of the internationally acclaimed Cirrus 
aircraft before December 31st, 2004, and you will be able to take off 
with more than you think. Interested, aren't you? For only $220,000, 
you can purchase a Cirrus srV.'' That is the low-end Cirrus plane. And, 
it says, ``You must act quickly to take advantage of this incredible 
tax advantage. Delivery slots are limited for the remainder of 2004,'' 
and then they cite the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Act of 2003. ``If you 
ever needed an incentive to fly, this is it,'' they say.

  The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Act of 2003, this new law makes the 
purchase of a new aircraft financially more attractive than ever, by 
providing increased incentives for new aircraft purchases delivered 
before December 31, 2004. This law allows bonus depreciation up to 50 
percent off the purchase price of the new aircraft, and then it talks 
about additional write-offs.
  Anyway, so get out your checkbook; $220,000 for a Cirrus srV. Your 
total first-year deduction, first-year deduction, $172,800, or 79 
percent.
  So do not tell me that there are not people benefiting from this tax 
cut. We got another ad that my husband cut out from Flying Magazine 
which he subscribes to that shows the man with his jacket flung over 
his shoulder coming out of this airplane. I guess this is the guy who 
has benefited or can benefit from the tax cuts.
  Now, you explain to people who do not have a job, have been looking 
for a job, who cannot afford that $16,500 bill in the emergency room of 
a hospital, who cannot send their child to college, who does not have 
any health benefits from the new job that he or she got because there 
are not any benefits, why this is so doggone important. ``Bank with it. 
Land the ultimate tax benefit with a Cirrus high-performance 
aircraft.''
  These are the people, this is the priority of this administration, 
while the rest of us, of our I guess not very smart constituents who 
have not figured out how great the economy is and are struggling every 
night at their kitchen table to figure out just how to make ends meet 
and have a decent life for their family. You better believe that for 
most Americans, this means nothing. This is a slap in the face to them.
  We can do better as a country. If they think the country is in the 
wrong direction, it is. It is topsy-turvy, when we are not looking at 
those people who want an after-school program for their child, or want 
to be able to send their kid to college, that we are going to be able 
to provide a 79 percent tax break to somebody buying a private jet.
  I thank the gentleman for letting me talk about this tonight.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, 
because we need to point to personal examples to show how the policies 
of this administration are impacting real people, and I think that that 
is really one of the best. I am sure that is one of those tax loopholes 
that was put into the jobs bill, or whatever that bill was called, the 
tax bill of the Committee on Ways and Means at the request of the small 
aircraft companies, and it is just incredible.
  I want to yield to the gentleman from Maine, but first, one of the 
people that came into my office when I had an open house one day, and I 
said it was mostly about health care and the loss of health insurance, 
was a guy from Edison, New Jersey, which is my largest town, and he 
worked for the Frigadaire plant, which made refrigerators, air 
conditioners, that kind of thing, and the plant closed this year and 
there were 1,500 jobs, they all went to China. And he came to my office 
because under the Job Retraining Act or something that Republicans, 
whenever they pass these trade bills, they say oh, do not worry, 
because we are going to provide all kinds of retraining. And as my 
colleagues know, President Bush has cut all of the retraining money, so 
whatever was promised out there when you lost your job that you are 
going to get retrained, most of that has disappeared. In New Jersey, it 
has pretty much dried up, the Federal dollars.
  So he came in and he actually found a job which paid a little less 
and did not have quite the benefits of the one he lost, but still was a 
pretty good job. In order to get it, he had to go through some training 
program that was supposedly funded by the Federal Government. When he 
showed up at the training program, they told him that the money had 
been cut, there was not any more money. So he actually lost the job. It 
was an opportunity to find a job that paid a reasonable amount, and he 
lost the job because the training money was not there.
  Every promise that we get from this administration, whether it is 
prescription drugs, or expanded health care, or more opportunities for 
college, or retraining, if you lose your job, it just all ends up being 
not true. I mean I do not know how to say it. I do not want to say it 
is a lie, but it is just not true. The funding is not there, the 
programs are not there. It is just a lot of hype, and that is what we 
are getting and continue to get from this administration. But I want to 
thank the gentlewoman for providing a really good example. Thanks.

  I yield to the gentleman from Maine, one of our champions on the 
health care issue.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
holding this Special Order on whether or not Americans are better off 
than they were 4 years ago. I particularly want to thank the 
gentlewoman from Illinois, because I thought that was a great example 
of how the very wealthiest among us can benefit enormously from the 
administration's tax cuts, and yet the rest of the people are basically 
left high and dry. That is why 50 percent of the American people have 
not noticed any benefit at all from the Bush tax cuts.
  But that is a very good example, because it is possible, as we all 
know in politics, to repeat something over and over again, even if it 
is not true, and persuade a certain number of people that it is. I give 
my colleagues this example. I was coming down from Maine on the plane 
today and talking to the fellow on the plane and we got talking about 
these tax cuts which most people know are weighted for the wealthiest 
people in this country. And he said, Well, but don't these small 
businessmen and women, aren't they the ones who create most of the 
jobs? And you realize what the administration has been able to do. They 
have been able to hoodwink a certain percentage of the American people 
into believing that the very, very wealthiest people in this country 
are the small businessmen and women. Well, small businessmen and women 
in my State are not making $1 million a year. Maybe a few are, and I 
hope we will have more of them. But the cold, hard truth is, a lot of 
them are struggling to get by. They are really struggling with the 
rapid rise in their health care costs, but it simply is not true that 
the Bush tax cuts go to the small business community in general.
  But what the administration has done and what the Republicans in 
Congress have done is marvelous. They have described as a small 
businessman the typical person who is worth a half a billion dollars, a 
half a billion dollars, and just because he or she has some investment 
somewhere in some small business, they are described as a small 
businessman. That is what they have done to distort the truth.
  If you stand back and go to the question that you posed earlier, are 
most Americans better off today than they were 4 years ago? That is an 
appropriate question to ask. Because though elections are about the 
future, the record of the incumbent is really something that needs to 
be examined. The President and the congressional Republicans are 
saying, stay the course. We are back on track. The economy is

[[Page H6748]]

doing well. Well, when the election hits, we will still be down a 
million private sector jobs over 4 years. This is not a 12-month 
problem, an 18-month problem, it is a 4-year problem. We have lost over 
a million private sector jobs during the Bush administration. No 
President since Herbert Hoover, 80 years ago, no President has had that 
poor of a record on job creation.
  So let us think about this problem generally. Do we want to know how 
the economy is doing? Let us talk about jobs. We are down a million in 
the last 4 years; wages, median incomes in terms of real dollars 
adjusted for inflation are down; and health care. And what has happened 
in health care? Two things. The cost of health care, the premiums that 
people are paying, particularly in the small business community, are 
going up and going up rapidly. In my State of Maine, small businessmen 
and women will tell me, their premiums are going up 20, 30 percent a 
year, year after year after year. So that is one problem. The second 
problem is, we have seen an increase of 5 million people during George 
Bush's first term, 5 million people who no longer have any health 
insurance at all. Stay the course? Support the President? We are on the 
right track? It makes no sense.
  The cold, hard truth reflected in these numbers is that this 
administration has paid attention to the stock market and to people 
earning $1 million or more a year, tried to provide them the benefit 
and tried to hoodwink the rest of the American public into believing, 
if only we take care of the very wealthy and we give them tax breaks, 
then all of the benefits will trickle down and jobs will be created.

                              {time}  2230

  Well, the proof is in the pudding. If that strategy made sense, then 
the 2001 tax cut and the 2003 tax cut should have produced, according 
to the President's estimates, according to his Council of Economic 
Advisors, 7 million new jobs. And instead we are down 1 million, more 
than 1 million.
  So all one has to do is see what they promised and look at the 
results. This is not a strategy that worked in the 1980s; it is not a 
strategy that is working today.
  One other factor that ought to be thrown in, we have something over 1 
million, 1.2 million, I am not sure of the exact number, people who 
have now fallen below the poverty line in the last 4 years. And we have 
detected what Alan Greenspan calls a softening in the economy already. 
For job creation, this year is worse than any single year during the 
Clinton administration. This is worse than any single year in the 
Clinton administration, and this is the year of recovery.
  So it is pretty clear when you look at the numbers, when you look at 
the record, this administration has an abysmal record. And for most 
Americans, staying the course with this administration and the 
Republicans in Congress would be a foolhardy undertaking. And that is 
why I am so pleased that my colleague has held this Special Order 
tonight, because we have a lot to say and the numbers, frankly, speak 
for themselves.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. One of the things, 
before me there was a Republican who spoke, and somebody that I admire 
a great deal, but he cited the reasons why the Republicans feel the 
economy is getting better. And some of them I thought were so off base. 
The one that was the most off base was he talked about how productivity 
had increased over the last 4 years. And that is true. But the problem 
is it has not benefited the worker.
  In other words, when I was home in New Jersey, not only did I hear 
from people about how they had lost their job or they had lost their 
health insurance, but I also heard, I found another job, I have a job, 
but I have to work harder and I am not getting paid as much. And that 
is the other reality, which is that, yes, productivity is going up, 
people are working harder, but they are not benefiting from it. Their 
real wages have decreased significantly over the last 4 years, and they 
do not have the pension benefits, and they do not have the health 
insurance benefits.
  And my colleague, again, some of the things that the Republican 
colleague said I agreed with. He talked about character and how 
important it was for people to have good character and a sense of 
responsibility. And I think that is all true, but we are talking about 
people who are willing to work, in many cases work harder by his own 
acknowledgement than they did 4 years ago, but they should benefit from 
that. They should not be faced with less income in real dollars or the 
inability to pay for health insurance.
  It is one thing to talk about character. I think Americans have a lot 
of character in the sense of responsibility, but they just find 
themselves working two jobs and in some cases three jobs and not 
bringing home the same amount of money in real terms that they were 4 
years ago. That is the tragedy of it. It really is.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have 
been reading this book called ``The Two-Income Trap. Why Middle Class 
Parents Are Going Broke'' by Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Warren Tyagi. 
There are trends going on in our economy, have been for some time, that 
are making life very, very hard for middle-income Americans. One is the 
explosion in the cost of housing. Absolute explosion. If you want to 
buy a house on a safe street in a place where there are good schools, 
you have to pay much, much more money than you did 4 years ago, 10 
years ago, 20 years ago.
  Second is the cost of education. Whether one is talking about 
preschool or college, the fact is that education costs a lot more than 
it used to, and yet it is more critical than ever before.
  And the third is the cost of health care. The cost of health care is 
going up in a way that is just putting middle-income families right on 
the financial edge. And this is a world that the congressional 
leadership here, the Republican leadership and the administration just 
do not understand. And the reason I say that is because they never talk 
about it; they never talk about it.
  And their economic policy is not directed at these people; it is 
directed to making sure that the wealthiest people in the country get 
very large tax cuts. Hopefully, the theory was, I remember when the 
2003 tax cut was being debated last year, the theory was if we could 
gin up the stock market, then that will lift up the whole economy. 
Well, Main Street is more important than Wall Street. It comes down to 
ordinary people earning enough to be able to buy the goods that 
American manufacturers and American service providers have to offer.
  And what we are seeing with outsourcing, with the squeeze and 
downward pressure on wages, more productivity as you say, but less 
hours worked and lower wages, now, this is really a very, very serious 
economic policy.
  That is why I think that it is time for a change in direction in 
leadership.
  Now, the administration will say anything. And what they always say 
if one criticizes their economic policies or any other policies they 
say you are being a pessimist. You are being a pessimist. So if one 
points out the truth, he is criticized for being pessimistic.
  Frankly, John Kerry has the right answer: we can do better. I mean, 
this country can do a lot better for the Republicans in Congress and 
the administration to be satisfied with net negative job growth over 4 
years, with a decline in the median income wage level, with a dramatic 
explosion in the number of Americans who do not have health insurance, 
and rapidly rising premiums for those who do not. That is a record of 
failure. And why any American would vote for those who have espoused 
that kind of record of failure is really beyond me.
  We need to have this debate to make sure that people understand that 
what they are saying about their economic policies is, frankly, not 
true, not grounded in sound economics, but is grounded, as it has been 
in the past, in wishful thinking. That if they help the very 
wealthiest, somehow the rest of us will benefit. We have had 4 years of 
it. It has not worked. It is time for a change.

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to mention one other thing. I was 
so glad my colleague mentioned about the housing market, because one of 
the other things that the Republican Member who preceded us talked 
about as to why things were better was he talked about low interest 
rates and linked

[[Page H6749]]

that to homeownership. Of course, I am not advocating higher interest 
rates. I think that low interest rates are a good thing, although they 
have actually gone up a little bit in the last couple of months. But my 
colleague pointed out how often times, and this is certainly true where 
I am in my district in New Jersey, that people simply cannot afford the 
homeownership, even with the lower interest rates.
  And what I find is happening where I am in New Jersey, I live along 
the coast, so the housing market has gotten so ridiculous in terms of 
the price of a home or even an apartment or a condo or co-op, that what 
is happening is any new construction is being purchased by people who 
have a lot of money for investment. So the people who need a new home 
are not able to afford it, but the people that are buying the homes are 
investors, or a condo or co-op unit, who then seek to rent it out or 
something.
  And I am not saying this is always the case, but my colleague is 
right about the prices for homes. It is just completely out of reach. 
What is happening is that the people who live in my hometown of Long 
Branch, but it is not just Long Branch, are traditionally losing their 
homes and have to leave. And I do not know where they are going, 
certainly going to leave the district because they simply cannot afford 
the high prices.
  So even though low interest rates help many times, they help the 
wealthier person who will buy a second or third home rather than the 
younger person who is trying to buy something because they cannot 
afford the prices. It is absolutely true.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, if I could continue that thought, one of the 
points that Elizabeth Warren makes in this book, ``The Two-Income Trap. 
Why Middle-class Parents Are Going Broke,'' is that often it takes two 
incomes in order to be able to buy a home. But once you have bought the 
home and you have signed the mortgage, that is a fixed expense. You 
cannot get out of it. It is not discretionary income. It is not like 
cutting back on food, skipping going out to a restaurant once in a 
while. These expenses have become the most important expenses.
  And the reason why middle-income families today have less 
discretionary income than middle-income families 20 years ago is 
because their money is all tied up in fixed expenses. It may be a car 
payment; it often is a house payment. One has got to have health 
insurance. Those costs are there.
  And we need a President and we need a Congress that will focus on the 
real world, not some dream world which does not take account of what is 
going on in the lives of middle-income Americans.
  I thank the gentleman again for holding this Special Order.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for coming. He is 
always out there in front on all the health care issues and certainly 
tonight was no different in that respect.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to go back to this issue that I mentioned a 
couple times this evening about how people are working harder but not 
sharing in the gains. And I particularly mention this because I guess 2 
days ago was Labor Day and my Republican colleague tonight talked about 
productivity and increased productivity, that that was such a positive 
value in the economy.
  There was an article in the New York Times that was actually on Labor 
Day this past Monday, that was essentially trying to highlight this 
issue of increased productivity, or Americans working harder but not 
sharing in the gains. It was an op-ed piece by Bob Herbert that was 
entitled ``An Economy That Turns American Values Upside Down.'' Why 
Americans are ``working harder but not sharing in the gains.''
  I thought that that was so relevant because it kind of goes back to 
the whole issue of the middle-class squeeze that many of my Democrat 
colleagues were talking about tonight. I just wanted to reference 
certain sections of this article by Bob Herbert because I thought it 
was so much on point.
  He begins by saying that the Labor Department reported last week that 
144,000 payroll jobs were created in August. And he wants to put that, 
of course, in perspective: ``The number was below market forecasts. It 
was also below the number of jobs needed to accommodate the growth in 
the unemployment age population. In short, this was not good news. It 
is only by the diminished job creation standards that have prevailed 
since the last recession that any positive spin could be put on last 
month's performance.''
  President Bush has been out there talking about how great it was that 
these 144,000 jobs were created in August. And what Bob Herbert is 
saying is that this is a spin that has been put on it when the reality 
is that over the last 4 years we have lost so many jobs.
  He says, and I quote again, ``After almost 3 years of recovery, our 
job market is still too weak to broadly distribute the benefits of the 
growing economy. Unemployment is essentially unchanged, job growth is 
stalled, and real wages have started to fall behind inflation. 
Prolonged weakness in the labor market has left the Nation with over 1 
million fewer jobs than when the recession began.''
  Of course, when President Bush first took office, this is the worst 
position in terms of recouping lost jobs in any business cycle since 
the 1920s. Essentially we have to go back to Herbert Hoover in order to 
see a situation where so many jobs have been lost.
  Then Herbert goes on to say what is happening is nothing less than a 
deterioration in this standard of living in the United States. And this 
is what I really wanted to talk about is that regardless of the number 
of jobs, the bottom line is that the standard of living is going down 
because people have to work harder and make less money.
  He says, ``Despite the statistical growth in the economy, the 
continued slack in the labor market has resulted in a decline in real 
wages for anxious American workers and a marked deterioration in job 
quality.''
  From 2000 through 2003, there was a $1,500 loss in median household 
income, or basically a 3.4 percent decrease. We have a 3.4 percent loss 
in real income juxtaposed with a jump in productivity. ``This is the 
part of the story that spotlights the unfairness at the heart of the 
current economic setup in the U.S. While workers have been remarkably 
productive in recent years, they have not participated in the benefits 
of their own increased productivity. That does not sound much like the 
American way.
  ``Today's workers have lost power in many different ways through the 
slack labor market, government policies that favor corporate interests, 
the weakening of unions, the growth of lower-paying service industries, 
global trade capital mobility, the declining real value of the minimum 
wage, immigration and so on.
  ``The end result of all this is a trait of American families 
struggling just to hang on rather than to get ahead. The benefits of 
productivity gains in economic growth are flowing to profits, not 
worker compensation. The fat cats are getting fatter while workers, at 
least for the time being, are watching the curtain come down on the 
heralded American dream.''

                              {time}  2245

  I mean, I understand what my Republican colleague said earlier when 
he was trying to paint a rosy picture of the economy getting better. I 
do not even think that is true, but the bottom line is, regardless of 
any growth in the economy, it is not benefiting the average worker. 
That is why when we go home, myself and my Democratic colleagues, and 
we hear from our constituents, they are very pessimistic about the 
future because they realize that even if they have a job, that they are 
working harder and not making any more money in real terms and the 
prices for everything continue to go up.
  Mr. Speaker, in the time that I have left, I just wanted to be 
critical, because I do not know how else to put it, of the President 
and the Republican convention and the way they portrayed the sort of 
rosy picture about America.
  If you think about it, 24 years ago when Ronald Reagan was running 
for President, he asked American people the same question that I asked 
tonight, and that is, are you better off today than you were 4 years 
ago, but last week at the Republican national convention, every speaker 
that came to the podium simply ignored that question. President Bush 
refused to highlight any meaningful domestic accomplishments in his 
acceptance speech at the Republican convention.

[[Page H6750]]

  My question, Mr. Speaker, is why are Republicans so afraid to ask the 
American people if they are better off than they were 4 years ago, and 
I think that the reason is because both the President, as well as the 
congressional Republicans, are smart enough to realize that if they ask 
the American people that question the answer for the most part would be 
a resounding, no, we are not better off. This is what my Democratic 
colleagues were saying this evening.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, President Bush's leadership on the economy has 
been lacking since the very early days of his administration, and I 
just want to get into some of these statistics about the job losses 
because I think they are so important.
  As I said, last Friday the Department of Labor announced that 144,000 
jobs were created during the month of August. That number is more than 
100,000 jobs fewer than the 250,000 jobs the Bush administration 
estimated would be created each month this year. Over the last three 
months, the administration has not come close to hitting any of these 
estimates.
  President Bush will certainly now be the first President since the 
Great Depression, since Herbert Hoover, to have lost jobs on his watch. 
Unless the economy creates 900,000 over the next few months, which is 
not possible really, the President will not have created one net job 
over the last 4 years, and if we contrast that with the economic record 
of President Clinton, before President Bush, Clinton created more than 
20 million net jobs during his 8 years in office.
  It is no wonder that the Republicans do not want to talk about their 
economic record and did not talk about it last week at the Republican 
National Convention.
  Last year when the President was touting another round of his tax 
cuts, which I think clearly benefited the elite and more than the 
average American, the White House predicted that the cuts would create 
2.1 million jobs in the 7 months after the passage of that tax cut 
bill. But what actually happened during that period? Only 296,000 jobs 
were created, 1.8 million short of the President's prediction. There is 
no indication that the tax cuts are helping the economy or that they 
are helping create jobs, none whatsoever.
  The economic reports were so bad that President Bush's advisers 
refused to endorse the President's own Economic Report in which the 
administration predicted 2.6 million jobs would be created this year, 
and I think it is a good thing that the administration backed away from 
those estimates because there is no way its policies can create 2.6 
million jobs this year.
  One of my Democratic colleagues tonight talked about outsourcing, and 
I think that is an important factor in the issue of job loss under this 
administration. One of the major reasons for the current job recession 
is the increased exporting of high-paying, white and blue collar jobs 
overseas.
  I mentioned an example with the gentleman who came to my office who 
lost his job with Frigidaire, an air conditioning plant in Edison, that 
basically moved to Brazil, and we lost 1,500 jobs in my district. 
Earlier this year, the Ford plant in my district closed, leaving more 
than 900 New Jersey employees without jobs.
  We do not even hear President Bush talking about the outsourcing 
issue or the fact that jobs from New Jersey and other States are being 
shipped overseas. Earlier this year, we learned the Bush administration 
views the movement of American factory jobs and white collar work to 
other countries as a positive transformation that will, in the end, 
enrich our economy. This is the whole free-trade theme, if you will, or 
spin that the President puts on the whole issue of jobs going overseas, 
but I mean, the bottom line is our economy can continue to grow; but if 
it does not grow by creating jobs here and the jobs are created 
overseas, that seems like that is okay with President Bush but it is 
not okay with me. It is certainly not okay with my constituents.
  If you listen to what the congressional Democrats and Senator John 
Kerry have been saying, we support abolishing tax breaks for companies 
who ship jobs overseas, and I do not know what to say. I do not know 
how you force the President to address this issue of outsourcing. He 
simply does not want to do it because I do not think he thinks that it 
is really a bad thing, and so he is not going to address it.
  The other thing I wanted to talk about, and I talked about briefly 
when I mentioned this Bob Herbert article, about how the jobs that are 
being created, they pay substantially lower than the jobs that they 
replace. If you can, imagine losing your job and then searching and 
searching for another comparable job, only to realize that you are 
going to have to take a big pay cut. Well, that is what constituents 
who came to my office during the August break told me that was 
happening to them.
  The new jobs being created are paying more than $9,000 less than the 
old jobs that they replaced on the average in the United States. 
Families are being squeezed by falling incomes and rising costs. 
According to a Census report released last month, the typical family's 
income has fallen more than $1,500 under George Bush, and essentially 
what you are seeing is Americans are worse off today because of the 
President's economic policies.

  Now, this is not true if you are wealthy. If you are a wealthy 
individual, you are doing fine, but it is the middle class that is 
essentially struggling, and instead of coming up with proposals that 
will help the middle class, the President chooses tax breaks for 
companies that ship jobs overseas. Overall, you end up with a 1.6 
million job loss.
  I talked tonight about how on many fronts we hear from the President 
or from the congressional Republicans that they are going to address 
some of these problems and that they are going to deal with some of the 
problems of the middle class squeeze. Of course, if you listened to 
President Bush's acceptance speech at the Republican Convention, he 
certainly puts a spin to suggest that somehow he is going to address 
health care costs, he is going to address the high cost of education, 
he is going to address the need for job training when someone loses 
their job.
  But if you look at the actual record, and this happens to be true on 
so many domestic policy issues, you find that, in reality, what the 
Bush administration says is not what they actually do, and I just 
wanted to give a couple of examples that relate back to some of the 
issues that my colleagues mentioned tonight, and then I will conclude, 
Mr. Speaker.
  I mentioned the whole job training issue, about how the President 
promised that there was going to be money for job training when people 
lost their jobs. In a second term, this was again in the President's 
acceptance speech last week at the Republican Convention, the President 
pledged to ``double the number of people served by our principal job 
training program.''
  I talked about the guy who worked for Frigidaire in my district who 
was not able to get the job training that he was promised and ended up 
not being able to get another job when he lost his job at Frigidaire. 
In his 2005 budget, that is, the budget that we are now working on, the 
President proposed to cut job training and vocational education by 10 
percent. That is $556 million from what Congress pledged to those 
programs in 2002. So the President says in his acceptance speech at the 
Republican Convention that if he is re-elected he is going to double 
the number of people served by principal job training programs, but his 
current budget proposal would actually cut job training by 10 percent. 
Absolutely inconsistent.
  He talked in his acceptance speech about increased funding for 
community colleges because we know that a lot of people who are middle 
class send their kids to community college because they cannot afford a 
4-year college, not to mention private 4-year college.
  Last year, the Bush administration proposed cutting the largest 
direct aid initiative to community colleges, the Perkins Program for 
technical vocational training, from $1.3 billion to about $1 billion. 
So here he is again, the President is saying in his acceptance speech 
at the Republican Convention, increased funding for community colleges. 
In reality, his budget that was proposed for the next fiscal year cuts 
money for community colleges.
  The biggest program that middle class people rely on in terms of 
direct

[[Page H6751]]

funding for college education is the Pell grant proposal. In his speech 
he pledged to expand Pell grants for low and middle income families, 
but for the last 3 years, Bush has proposed freezing or cutting Pell 
grants, and that despite pledging in 2002 to raise Pell grants to a 
$1,500 limit, the maximum Pell grant is currently $4,050.
  So, again, I can mention the health care issues, I could mention 
Medicare prescription drugs, education, job training. In every one of 
these areas, every one of these domestic what I would call priority 
areas, if you listened to the President's speech last week, he said we 
are going to address this and we are going to help the average 
American, but in reality, the policies for the last 3 or 4 years have 
done exactly the opposite.
  Finally, I just want to say, if you listened to the President's 
speech last week at the Republican Convention, he renewed his calls to 
make his tax cuts permanent. This morning again I listened to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) talk about how over the next few weeks 
we are going to extend the tax cuts.
  The reality is that the only people that are going to benefit from 
these policies are high-income households. Estimates based on data from 
the Urban Institute, the Brookings Institution, a tax policy center, 
show that if the tax cuts are made permanent that the top one percent 
of households will gain an average of $58,200 a year. By contrast, 
people in the middle of the income spectrum will secure just a 2.5 
percent increase in the after-tax income, with average tax cuts of 
$655, a little more than 1/90th of what those in the top 1 percent 
would receive.
  So, again, these tax policies have failed. They have not turned 
around the economy. The economy is not improving by any standard. The 
only people that are benefiting from the tax policies and the 
Republican economic policies are essentially the very wealthy, the 
people that are in the top 1 percent income bracket.
  I started out this evening, Mr. Speaker, by asking the question, are 
you better off than you were 4 years ago. Clearly, the answer is no.

                          ____________________