The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“THE ECONOMY AND SYRIA” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the Senate section on pages S4234-S4235 on April 10, 2007.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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.
____________________
