[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8552-8553]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         THE ECONOMY AND SYRIA

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, during the week we were back in our 
home States getting acquainted with our constituents, there was more 
good news on the economy. I had expected to spend my 10 minutes here 
talking about the economy. I will do that briefly, but I intend to move 
to another issue which came out during the week of recess which I think 
deserves comment.
  The news came out about the number of new jobs created in the month 
of March and a revision upward of the number of new jobs created in 
February. Without going through the details, I will summarize what this 
news really means with respect to the recovery as a whole.
  Ever since the economy started its recovery after the recession that 
began in mid-2000, we have created, now, more than 150,000 new jobs 
every month; every month, 150,000 new jobs over a period of more than 
40 months. That sounds impressive, but let's go behind the figures and 
look at what is really happening in the economy to understand how 
impressive it should be.
  Oversimplifying but taking a number that describes what is happening, 
every month approximately 900,000 Americans lose their jobs. Their 
company goes out of business, the company cuts back, things change, 
they retire and the job is not replaced--whatever it may be, every 
month roughly 900,000 jobs disappear.
  In order for us to be able to say accurately that we have created 
more than 150,000 new jobs every month, that means the number of new 
jobs created every month is not 150,000, it is 1,050,000, to produce a 
net of 150,000. To produce 1,050,000 new jobs every month for over 41 
months--which is the record of this economy and this recovery--is 
pretty extraordinary. Frankly, it is unusual. We take it for granted in 
America because it happens in our dynamic economy almost automatically. 
If you go to other economies in the world, you find that this does not 
happen. Unemployment is high, is stagnant, is continual.
  I was in Europe a month or so ago, and picking up an international 
paper, it said: The German economy is coming back. Unemployment is now 
down. And then there was another headline that said: The American 
economy is fairly stagnant; unemployment is stable.
  We found, during the break, unemployment hit 4.4 percent. It is as 
low as it was at the end of the last economic boom. The Germans were 
excited that their unemployment record was now out of double digits, 
getting down into the 9, maybe even 8 percent level. That is exciting 
for them.
  The American economy is doing well and does not get the credit it 
deserves. Perhaps it is the political atmosphere in which we operate, 
but we keep hearing this described as the Rodney Dangerfield recovery.
  It is strong. It is powerful. It is creating new jobs. But if you 
listen to some, it is in a state of constant disaster. The figures that 
came out during the break made it clear: The economy is not in a state 
of constant disaster; the economy is still strong.
  However, there was something else that came out during the break 
which I think deserves some comment. I turn for my text in this matter 
to a source that is not usually thought of as being particularly 
friendly to Republicans. I am talking about the Washington Post 
editorial page.
  I was a little stunned, out in Utah dealing with my constituents and 
getting reacquainted with some real people who have different kinds of 
priorities than those we normally have here in Washington, to read 
about Speaker Pelosi's venture into the Middle East. I picked up, via 
the Internet, an e-mail, a copy of the editorial that ran in the 
Washington Post.
  I think it deserves some review. It is entitled: ``Pratfall in 
Damascus,'' and the subhead is: ``Nancy Pelosi's foolish shuttle 
diplomacy.'' The opening paragraph begins this way: House Speaker  
Nancy Pelosi offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why 
Members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the Secretary of 
State when traveling abroad.
  I have traveled abroad, Madam President, as have you. I went abroad 
when Bill Clinton was the President of the United States, and I 
traveled with Phil Gramm of Texas. I do not think anybody has ever 
accused Phil Gramm of Texas of being particularly fond of Bill Clinton. 
Every country we went to where Senator Gramm was leading the 
delegation, the first place we went was to the Embassy. Senator Gramm 
said over and over again to these ambassadors, every one of whom had 
been appointed by President Clinton: We are here to help you, Mr. 
Ambassador, or Madam Ambassador. Tell us what we can do in this country 
where you are representing the United States that can be of value to 
you. How can a congressional delegation of varying sizes--usually 
fairly large--be supportive of the work you are doing in this country?
  Then when we met with leaders of the country, whether it would be the 
chief of government or the chief of state, sometimes both, or lower 
level officials, we always had in mind what we could say and do to 
support the Clinton State Department's position as represented by the 
Clinton Ambassador.
  I have traveled with the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid. We have 
gone to various places in Europe and in South America. In every 
instance, Senator Reid went out of his way to make contact with the 
U.S. Ambassador appointed by President Bush, and to make sure our 
delegation was properly briefed by that ambassador to make sure we did 
not do something stupid out of our ignorance while we were in that 
particular country.
  I contrast that behavior by Republicans traveling abroad, behavior by 
Democrats traveling abroad, with the kind of behavior we saw from 
Speaker Pelosi. I go back to the Washington Post editorial. I must read 
in its entirety the final paragraph, because it lays it out far better 
than I can.
  The paragraph refers to a statement by Nancy Pelosi:

       We came in friendship, hope and determined that the road to 
     Damascus is a road to peace.

  Then the editorial says, and I quote:

       Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any 
     diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. 
     Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority 
     at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. 
     charges that he orchestrated the murder of the former 
     Lebanese prime minister. The really striking development here 
     is the attempt by a Democratic Congressional leader to 
     substitute her own foreign policy for that of the sitting 
     Republican President. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed 
     legislation through the House of Representatives that would 
     strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander-in-chief to 
     manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to 
     introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts 
     with that of the President.
       We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military 
     strategy and regional diplomacy, but Ms. Pelosi's attempt to 
     establish a shadow Presidency is not only counterproductive, 
     it is foolish.

  That happened while we were on break. There are some who hope it 
disappears in memory, and in the words of George Orwell, that it goes 
down the memory hole and never gets called up again.
  I was going to talk entirely about the economy, but I think this is 
something, now that we are back in session, that we should take time to 
talk about. I hope with this kind of scolding from the Washington 
Post--I understand there were other newspapers also that took the same 
position, newspapers that are not favorable to Republicans generally--I 
would hope the Speaker would realize she has made a rookie mistake and 
that she will not do it again.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.

[[Page 8553]]



                          ____________________