[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4121-4122]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          THE NATIONAL ECONOMY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dent). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) for their fine work focusing on the very 
important health care needs that exist and the challenges that the 
American people have in obtaining quality health care.
  I want to take just a few minutes to talk about an issue which was 
very critical and important in last fall's campaign, and I want to talk 
about some of the wild inaccuracies that came to the forefront during 
that campaign. That is, the claims that were made about the U.S. 
economy. Our supposedly Depression-like economy that was not producing 
any new jobs was the most prevalent issue that came to the fore during 
last fall's campaign. We all heard it over and over and over again, the 
charge that President Bush was the first President since Herbert Hoover 
to preside over a net job loss. It became something of a mantra for our 
friends on the other side of the aisle throughout the campaign, the 
first President since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net job loss.
  Now that the frenzy of the campaign season is behind us, I hope that 
we can take a calm and very rational look at the actual facts. The 
basis for the Herbert Hoover comparison, Mr. Speaker, was the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics payroll job survey, a fitting association since it is 
a Depression-era survey. That payroll job survey was established at the 
time of the Depression, and it was based on a Depression-era economy.

[[Page 4122]]

  But let us assume for one moment that the payroll survey presents a 
complete and accurate picture of job creation in our economy. What does 
that picture look like over the past 4 years? It shows a period of job 
loss that followed a stock market bubble bursting, an economic 
recession, horrible, horrible terrorist attacks, and a series of major 
corporate scandals. Following this period of losses came a recovery 
that was sluggish at first, and then picked up rapidly, eventually 
creating 2.2 million jobs in calendar year 2004. And the net job 
losses? The Herbert Hoover workforce? It never ever happened. Despite 
the series of massive blows to our economy in the early part of this 
decade, despite an ongoing war on terror, despite sluggish growth in 
many of our biggest trading partner nations, President Bush presided 
over 4 years of net job creation, 119,000 jobs to be exact. But those 
119,000 payroll jobs are only a small slice of the overwhelmingly 
positive news about our economy.
  This Depression-era job survey is a little out of its league in our 
very fast-paced 21st century economy. While it counts payroll jobs in 
long-established businesses, it misses many of the types of jobs that 
are increasingly common in an economy based on innovation and 
entrepreneurship. Today's independent contractors, consultants, small 
business owners and LLC partners account for one-third of new job 
creation. But they are not reflected in that payroll number, that 
Depression-era structure that is used for counting payroll jobs.
  By contrast, the Bureau of Labor Statistics' survey of households 
goes directly to individuals. All types of workers, regardless of how 
they are employed or how their jobs were created, are covered by the 
household survey. Consequently, the picture it portrays of our economy 
over the past 4 years is far more complete than what the payroll survey 
conveys. By surveying the entire workforce, it demonstrates that 
President Bush presided over the creation of 2.5 million new jobs in 
his first term. Again, he did this throughout incredibly tumultuous and 
difficult times.
  The household survey figure of 2.5 million new jobs is much more in 
line with other economic indicators that highlight just how absurd that 
Herbert Hoover claim actually is. In 2004, gross domestic product 
growth, the broadest measure of economic health, grew by 4.4 percent, 
the fastest pace since the bubble burst in 1999. Fourth quarter GDP 
growth was recently revised significantly upward, from 3.1 percent to 
3.8 percent, based on news that exports were even stronger than had 
originally been thought. Business investment has also been revised 
upward, from 14.9 to a very robust 18 percent. And for the first time 
since 1994, non-high-tech business investment outpaced high tech 
investment, demonstrating that our economic vitality is widespread.
  Mr. Speaker, the President may have inherited very difficult economic 
circumstances, but thanks to his pro-growth policies, particularly his 
trade agenda and the 2003 tax cuts which were embraced by this 
Congress, 2005 is looking like a much better year than 2001. After 4 
years of the Bush economy, unemployment is low. Stocks are rising as 
the Dow marches towards that 11,000 mark. Inflation is in check while 
interest rates have remained low, and family wealth is at an all-time 
high.
  Mr. Speaker, does it even need to be said that this is not a Herbert 
Hoover economy? Does one of the strongest economies in the developed 
world really have to defend itself against Great Depression Era 
comparisons? I believe that the facts speak for themselves. The George 
W. Bush economy has proven to be strong, vital and resilient. I am 
looking forward to 4 more years of prosperity and new opportunity for 
all Americans.

                          ____________________