[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5252-5253]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              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

[[Page 5253]]

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.

                          ____________________