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.
“JOBS IMPACT” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Labor was published in the Senate section on pages S2188-S2189 on April 12, 2010.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
JOBS IMPACT
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, last week I traveled around my State of Arizona to large towns and small, and I heard from many of my constituents. Arizonians have very serious concerns about what is happening here in Washington. They are worried about the direction in which our country has moved and about the kind of Nation their kids and their grandkids will inherit. They are unhappy about the tremendous levels of spending and debt and about how new taxes and regulations threaten jobs and our economy. It is not an overstatement to say that people are outraged about what they perceive as irresponsible behavior in Washington. Many are frustrated because they feel as if they have lost control of their government. Today, I wish to focus on three specific concerns I heard, and they all relate to how taxes and regulations are impacting jobs in my home State.
First is the health spending bill. If anyone thinks the American people will have forgotten about this in a few months, I can assure you they will not have. They are overwhelmingly opposed to this law, and they are frustrated that it was passed despite widespread opposition. They are upset about the high cost, the new taxes, the massive regulations, and the manner in which it was passed.
Arizona's employers and the unemployed workers are both affected by the new taxes and mandates in the bill that will prevent hiring. How? Well, many small business owners in Arizona are wondering how they are supposed to hire new employees when they are about to be slapped with a new payroll tax. Of course, a payroll tax is a direct tax on hiring.
Arizona employers with more than 50 workers face a second problem: they will face steep fines if they do not comply with the new mandate that they provide health insurance to all of their employees. It is another disincentive to create a job or even to retain current employees.
The refrain I heard from employers and other Arizonians over and over again is: You have to repeal this bill. And I agree.
The second concern I heard a lot about was unemployment insurance and its impact on jobs. I will discuss in just a moment the concern the employers have about their share of the expense of unemployment insurance. But first of all, let me address comments just made by my colleague from Illinois, who suggested that Republicans wanted to leave people who are unemployed out in the lurch, that we did not support extending unemployment benefits. That, of course, is not true. I voted for every extension of benefits, as have the majority of my colleagues. The question is, Who should pay for the extension? My colleague suggests that it is not a question of who but whether it should be paid for. It is said over and over again: The question is whether it should be paid for. Well, it is not a matter of whether. It will have to be paid for. That is to say, we are borrowing the money. We have to pay that money back. It is a question of whether we pay for it or we simply say: Put it on the tab for our kids and our grandkids to pay for it.
So the question is, to extend unemployment benefits again to folks alongside us, who have the misfortune of having lost their job, until they can get another job, who is going to pay to extend their unemployment benefits? It seems to me that is an obligation of this generation.
My kids and grandkids are going to have plenty to worry about in their generations. They will probably face the prospect of some unemployment, too, and they are probably going to have to extend unemployment benefits, and somebody will have to pay for that. The question is, Who? Are we going to make them pay not only for what happens on their watch but also what happened on our watch that we were not able to pay for?
That is the question: Are we able to? To extend these benefits for the period of time we were taking about just before the recess was $9.5 billion. And I don't think one could contend that somewhere in the Federal budget we can't find $9.5 billion over the course of the year which could be used to pay for these benefits. If they are a top priority, then that is what should be used to pay for the benefits. It is a 30-day period of time.
Interestingly, during the debate before the Easter recess, we actually had an agreement for about 45 minutes in this Chamber where Republicans and Democrats alike agreed that to ensure there would not be a hiatus where benefits would not be extended--and by the way, the physicians would be reimbursed for the care they provide to Medicare patients--we agreed on a set of revenue measures that would pay for a week of these benefits so that there would be no period of time that there would be a hiatus, that they would not be paid for. But someone from the other side had to call the Speaker of the House to make sure that was OK with the House of Representatives.
I am told it was the Speaker who said: No, we will not pay for the extension of benefits. We will not do that.
It is not a question of whether we are for extending unemployment benefits. It is not a question of whether they have to be paid for. It is a question of who pays for them. For my money, if we can't find $9.5 billion somewhere in this government and say it is a higher priority to extend unemployment benefits and pay for it than whatever that money is used for, then we are not doing our jobs.
My colleague from Illinois suggested that Republicans were responsible for taking us to war and not paying for it. That needs to be responded to. This body voted to go to war. This body supports the troops who are fighting. I assume this body wants to pay them and to buy them the appropriate equipment and that is a top priority of our government. Under the Constitution, the first obligation of government is to protect its citizens. That is the No. 1 priority. We have to spend that money. There are other priorities, but there comes a point when we have to begin setting priorities and say to go to war, we have to do that. That has to be paid for. To do this and this and this, that has to be paid for. But at a certain point in time, we are entitled to ask: Now that we have run out of money, do we want to keep spending or do we find a way for this generation to pay for that spending? That is what we are talking about with the extension of unemployment benefits.
Of course, they need to be extended. We will support that. The question will be, will my colleagues on the other side of the aisle support finding the funds to offset the cost.
This is not without cost. The Coalition of Arizona Business Organizations reinforced the point in a recent letter to my office. They pointed out: The Arizona Department of Economic Security estimates that my State will have to borrow $300 to $400 million from the U.S. Department of Labor between 2010 and 2013 to keep the unemployment fund solvent so they can continue to make payments to beneficiaries.
To make matters more difficult, Arizona employers have already been hit with an average increase of 50 percent in unemployment insurance taxes. This increase has occurred at the very time that businesses are trying to recover. Of course, it can delay economic recovery, and more hiring for businesses the more they have to pay. The message I got from small businesses was, if you want them to start hiring, Congress needs to waive the Federal Unemployment Tax Act penalties, also known as FUTA.
This is a tax that currently averages $56 per employee. But if Arizona were to fail to repay the money the State has borrowed from the Federal Government, it could rise as high as $308 per employee. Obviously, that does not portend more hiring, and it is not what employers need.
The third and final concern relates to lending. Senator McCain and I met with representatives of some of Arizona's smaller banks, community banks. They are being crushed because regulators have been forcing them to raise more capital than they are required to hold, and that undermines economic recovery because they then have less money to lend.
In addition, regulatory guidelines, especially on commercial real estate lending, are hindering new loans as well as the refinancing of existing loans, and existing regulations are discouraging banks from working with borrowers to avoid foreclosure. These banks are being forced to increase capital in an environment in which capital is very scarce for community banks. A more sensible course would be having banks retain more capital when times are good and easing up on those requirements when times are bad.
The effect of the bank regulators' actions is not just denial of loans to those who should not get them--and there are some who should not be refinanced--but even to more creditworthy individuals and businesses. As a result, businesses can't invest and grow, which is what they need to do to create jobs and improve the economy.
The bottom line is a lot of things Washington is doing have hurt small businesses, the engines of job creation. Americans are not happy about this. Jobs should be our No. 1 priority. Congress has the tools to create a better environment for job creation. I am not talking about labeling every spending bill that comes up as a jobs bill. It means listening to what job creators are saying, not punishing them with a tidal wave of new taxes and regulations.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
