[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10273-10275]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for 
her statement relative to education. I believe the theme, the question 
she has led off with, is one we will be returning to over and over 
again.
  I know how much the Presiding Officer respects Ronald Reagan and how 
much he looks back on his Presidency and even candidacy as defining 
moments in the history of our Nation. President Reagan, despite my 
differences with him politically, had a way of saying things very 
directly. He was one of the best communicators we have ever had in the 
White House. He could, in a few words, convey a message so directly and 
so simply.
  This statement of candidate Reagan is one that is a hallmark now of 
American politics. Not a campaign goes by that someone doesn't say:

       Well, as Ronald Reagan once said, ``Are you better off than 
     you were 4 years ago?''

  It is a very simple question. It is a question that must be asked 
each time the American people face an important election, and this may 
be one of the most important in history.
  What we hear back from the American people when we ask this question 
is a resounding no. They say in overwhelming numbers, America is going 
in the wrong direction. We need a new direction in this country. We 
need a strong leadership that not only protects America but also 
creates opportunity in America. You have heard repeatedly from my 
colleague from Michigan how this has a direct impact when it comes to 
the health care costs of families; how it has a direct impact--the 
Senator from Washington made this point--when it comes to educational 
costs. I think honestly what they have said is demonstrated by a few 
charts I have here.
  This is one that I think tells the whole story about the last 4 years 
of the Bush administration. During this period of time, average weekly 
earnings for families have gone up 1 percent. President Bush can point 
to the fact that over 4 years, average income for Americans has barely 
increased. But what has happened to the expenses faced by Americans in 
the same period of time? The cost of gasoline, up 25 percent. My 
friend, Senator Wyden of Oregon, will address that, as he has time and 
again on the floor of the Senate in the next part of this morning 
business time.
  Look at the cost of college tuition. It has gone up 28 percent in the 
4 years President Bush has been in office; the cost of family health 
care premiums; some 36 percent.
  Now we will take a closer look at the family health care premiums as 
an illustration. When the President took office, the average health 
care premium paid on an annual basis was $6,348. Now look at the 
number: $9,068. The President can send out a check for $100, $200, or 
$300 and say to middle America: Here is your tax cut; go out and go 
crazy. Then take a look at this and say: Wait a minute, that tax cut 
just disappeared. More and more workers and families are paying more 
and more for health care premiums.
  Take a look at this chart. Who really is better off? The average 
weekly earnings show no increase over the same period of time.
  Look at the HMO profits. The profits of the health insurance 
companies have gone up 50 percent in terms of growth. The CEO 
compensation for the people who run the HMOs and other corporations is 
up 61 percent.
  Working families, struggling to get by, have seen little or no 
increase in

[[Page 10274]]

their income, while those who are profiting from HMOs and from other 
corporations are doing quite well, thank you.
  I remember when Warren Buffett came to say hello to us. He is one of 
my favorites. His annual report is a must-read for anyone who follows 
common sense in American business. Warren Buffett, the second 
wealthiest man in America, said to some Senators: Many people say our 
policies are class warfare in America today. He said: I have news for 
you, my class is winning.
  He is right, because, quite honestly, the disparity of income in 
America is worse than it has ever been. This President, with his tax 
cuts and his policies, has made it worse.
  So 4 years later we go back to the same basic Ronald Reagan question: 
Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago? The answer, quite 
honestly, for most working Americans, is a resounding no.
  Let me address two particular issues that hit most families. I talked 
about the increase in college tuition costs. You do not need to remind 
families that if their son or daughter is lucky enough to get into a 
good school, they will probably be in a position 4 or 5 years later 
where they are deeply in debt. I have seen it in my family and many 
others have seen it in theirs. Young people starting out not only have 
a challenge of finding a good job and a career opportunity but are 
challenged by what to do with this mountain of debt.
  There was a time when the Federal Government helped. There was a time 
when we had scholarships and loans and grants to help students along so 
they would not end up more deeply in debt when they graduate from 
college than many of us were when we bought our first home many years 
ago.
  Over the course of higher education and its cost, we see the gap 
between the haves and the have-nots is increasing. Over the course of 
their career, the difference in income between an 18-year-old high 
school graduate and a 24-year-old college graduate is now more than a 
million, so it is certainly worth going to school, but college tuition 
is out of reach for too many American students.
  According to the College Board, the 13-percent inflation-adjusted 
real increase in tuition at public colleges last year was the highest 
in 30 years. In my State, it is going up. With the weak economy, with 
the limited resources coming from Washington, with the struggle that 
many States are having with this recession, which continues to linger, 
fewer and fewer dollars go into State treasuries and fewer and fewer 
dollars go from those treasuries to colleges and universities, so they 
raise tuition.
  We are in a recession, losing jobs. Real income is going down and the 
cost of education is going up. That is a fact. Private school tuition 
has gone up even higher. Federal assistance has fallen far behind.
  In the 1970s, the maximum Pell grant for low-income and working-class 
families covered about 40 percent of the average cost of going to 
school. In the 1970s, Pell grants and others helped cover 40 percent. 
Today, it covers 15 percent. So even the most deserving students from 
low-income families find the Federal programs are a shadow of what they 
used to be. They do not provide them the help they need. That means 
that 48 percent of low-income high school graduates who qualify for 
college do not go to a 4-year school because they simply do not have 
the money.
  From 1987 to 1999, completion rates on college prep courses for the 
Nation's poorest students grew by 20 percent. So it means more students 
are ready for school; they just cannot afford to go to school.
  When you look at what we have done on a Federal level time and again, 
this administration has not provided the helping hand to college 
students and their families. This President proposed to freeze Pell 
grants at $4,050 a year for the third year in a row, even though we 
know the cost of education continues to go up in a double-digit pace. 
His budget calls for a $823 million increase that merely holds the line 
on existing grant award levels. He proposes to freeze campus-based aid, 
cut Perkins loans, and eliminate the LEAP grants. In total, 78,000 
students in America will lose grants because of the Bush budget 
policies, meaning the cost of education is higher and the helping hand 
from the Federal Government is not going to be there.
  Are those families better off today than they were 4 years ago? Is 
the Bush policy, the budget policy on financing and education, for 
struggling students, from lower income families, better than it was 4 
years ago? By almost every measure, the answer is a resounding no.
  We need to get our priorities straight in this country. If we are 
going to have an American century in the 21st century, as we did in the 
20th century, we better focus on students and education. We better make 
sure that deserving students who want to realize the American dream, 
many of them the first in their family to be able to go to college, 
have that chance. They cannot have a chance when the college education 
has been priced at a level where they cannot afford it, or even worse, 
graduating with heavy debt. Many of these students cannot pursue the 
career choice they really want.
  How many students graduate wanting to be teachers, good teachers in 
grade schools and high schools, will be able to realize that dream if 
they face a mountain of debt? Starting off as a high school or grade 
school teacher at $30,000 a year, with a pretty limited take home pay, 
is almost impossible if you have to pay back a mountain of student 
loans in the process. So they try other things that might make more 
money and we lose the teacher we need to inspire the next generation.
  So when the President makes a decision on budgets to cut back in 
helping students pay for a college education, it has a ripple effect 
all the way down the line in terms of new jobs and opportunity, in 
terms of tomorrow's teachers and nurses, in terms of those who we need 
to make America the strong nation it needs to be.
  Let me also address an issue which is hitting Americans in the 
pocketbook. Take a look at what has happened to the price of gasoline 
between when President Bush took office and what it is today. A gallon 
was $1.47 in 2001 when President Bush came to office. Now it is up to 
an average of $2.01.
  Now look at what is happening with the oil companies that are selling 
the gasoline. It has been a pretty good year for the oil companies. If 
you think you are getting pinched at the pump, take a look at what is 
happening here: For British Petroleum, a 165-percent profit increase; 
Chevron Texaco, 294 percent; ConcoPhilips--what has happened here--only 
a 44-percent profit increase. They are falling behind; Exxon Mobil, 125 
percent.
  Take a look at gas prices in the city of Chicago, which I am proud to 
represent. They are well over $2 a gallon in downtown Chicago. In 
California, I understand they are bumping up against $3 a gallon.
  So you ask yourself: What can we do?
  First--and Senator Wyden will spend some time on this issue--why are 
we filling this Strategic Petroleum Reserve at a faster clip now than 
ever when the price of petroleum that we are putting into it is at 
record levels? The second question I need to ask, obviously, is, When 
is this President going to confront these oil companies about their 
record profits at the expense of families and businesses? The third and 
obvious question is, Candidate Bush, candidate George W. Bush, said if 
he ever faced this, he would get on the phone to OPEC and tell them to 
stop squeezing American consumers and families and businesses. I guess 
the telephone line is dead between the White House and Riyadh. He is 
not calling Saudi Arabia to tell them they have to release more oil to 
the United States. The President as candidate said he would do it. The 
President as President refuses to do it. Why? Haven't we done enough 
for the Middle Eastern nations and the OPEC countries, putting hundreds 
of thousands of American lives at risk for stability and security in 
the Middle East? And the President will not pick up the phone to say to 
them, for goodness' sake, you

[[Page 10275]]

put our economy at risk when you hold back oil. And that is exactly 
what they are doing. We need Presidential leadership.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). The Senator from Oregon.

                          ____________________