[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17811-17812]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          UNEMPLOYMENT CRISIS

  Mr. REED. I rise to underscore a crucial challenge facing our Nation. 
There are 14 million Americans who are looking for work. Six million 
have been unemployed for more than 6 months, and the average length of 
unemployment is 40 weeks, the longest average in more than 60 years. 
These are dire circumstances. They must be changed, and we know how to 
do it. We know how to address our immediate unemployment crisis.
  We must enact policies that will put Americans back to work and 
strengthen our economy. Congress can start by passing the American Jobs 
Act. The American Jobs Act is a blueprint for boosting our economy. It 
contains policies that most Americans, and virtually all economists, 
agree government should do in order to help our economy grow.
  It would provide relief to the middle class. It would help small 
businesses grow and hire. It would invest in our Nation's bridges and 
roads and schools, help stabilize our housing market and provide aid to 
States so teachers and first responders can stay on the job.
  Congress must also renew basic policies such as Federal unemployment 
compensation programs that have been a lifeline to the unemployed, 
their families, businesses and to States and economies throughout this 
Nation. If we do not extend unemployment benefits by the end of the 
year, 2 million Americans will lose their benefits by February 2012. 
This would be disastrous for them and for the local businesses that 
depend upon these people being able to still go out and get a cup of 
coffee or go out and buy the essentials of life. It would be disastrous 
for States that, again, depend on that type of economic activity in our 
national economy.
  This is why I joined several of my colleagues to introduce the 
Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2011. If Federal 
support for unemployment benefits is not extended, the economy could 
lose $72 billion in economic activity, endangering up to 560,000 jobs 
nationwide--in my State the estimate is 2,300 jobs would be lost--
simply because we will again shrink demand as people who are relying on 
just getting by with an unemployment check no longer even have that--
those few dollars--to get by.
  These proposals should be nonpartisan and in the past they have 
indeed garnered both Democratic and Republican support. Unfortunately, 
in the midst of the deepest and longest unemployment crisis our Nation 
has faced since the Great Depression, too many of our Republican 
colleagues have chosen simply to delay and to deny the reality of 
millions of Americans who are looking for work, underemployed, 
struggling to get by day to day.
  In January 2008, before the economic crisis took hold, the 
unemployment rate was 5 percent. It ultimately peaked at 10.1 percent 
nationally in October of 2009. This massive, sudden drop in employment 
was precipitated by one of the worst financial crises we have ever seen 
in the history of the country. This crisis was caused by excessive risk 
taking by financial institutions, lax regulations and, in the minds of 
so many Americans, out and out greed.
  Since that 10.1-percent high of unemployment in October of 2009, the 
unemployment rate has trended downward, but not fast enough. The 
national unemployment rate has hovered around 9 percent since January 
of this year. The fact remains that the economy is generating more jobs 
than it was under the policies of President Bush, particularly in the 
last year of his administration, but it is still not generating enough 
jobs. As we saw with the most recent unemployment report, businesses 
are hiring despite some strong headwinds, particularly the economic 
dangers from Europe. In October, the economy added 80,000 jobs and the 
unemployment rate came down from 9.1 percent to 9 percent. That is the 
right direction, but not the right speed, not the right momentum, not 
the right response to this crisis. The economy still has 6.6 million 
fewer jobs than at the beginning of the 2007 recession, and the rate of 
job growth is, as I said, simply too slow. Adding 80,000 jobs keeps us 
a bit afloat, but it doesn't allow us to have the momentum to move the 
economy forward, which we need.
  If we continue to see sluggish job growth with an average 125,000 
payroll jobs added per month--and that is the pace this year--it will 
take us an additional 52 months--not weeks--52 months to get back to 
the prerecession levels of payroll employment. If we pick up job 
growth--say to 200,000 jobs per month, which is, again, exceeding the 
current pace, but not the kind of spectacular pace we need--it still 
will take an additional 33 months to get back to pre-Bush recession 
levels in employment. This persistently high unemployment rate and 
anemic growth have correctly been described as a national crisis.
  But more important than the findings of economists and those who are 
studying the policy effects of this is the damage that this crisis is 
inflicting upon the families and communities of America. Combined with 
the fact that middle-class families have not seen a real increase in 
their family income in 10 years, and now they have seen this high 
unemployment, this is a double whammy. At the same time, some 
essentials such as food and fuel have become more expensive. We cannot 
overstate the difficulty that so many families are seeing: 10 years, 
effectively, without any real growth in their income, increased prices 
in essentials, and a job market that is weak, at best, although 
slightly improved.
  That is why what we have to do here is literally get Americans back 
to work, to give them not only the resources but the confidence that 
the days ahead will be much better. This crisis requires the full 
attention of Congress, as well as action, not just discussion. We 
cannot afford further inaction. We cannot again indulge in a period of 
time where we were borrowing to pay for two major conflicts.
  I note my predecessor from Alabama talking about the military budget. 
Since 2001, we have fought two major conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan 
and we have not raised the revenue to support those efforts. We have 
put them on the backs of future generations of Americans and on the 
backs of Americans today who are facing this job crisis. We have to 
work, to put people to work, to end this problem.
  Unfortunately, I fear that, as I have said before, many of my 
Republican colleagues are simply engaged in delay, which might be 
politically expedient, but it is not helping the families of America.
  Economists who are studying this economy, both national and 
international, have been emphatic that we have to put policies in place 
to get people back to work. Many of these policies are encapsulated in 
the American Jobs Act, which has been repeatedly rejected by my 
colleagues on the other side. They voted down two parts of the bill we 
pulled out, one being the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work 
Act that would have created or protected 400,000 education jobs, kept 
thousands of police and firefighters on the job, and helped local 
communities as they are struggling to keep afloat.
  They also rejected the Rebuild America Jobs Act, which would have 
made an immediate investment of $50 billion in our highways, transit 
systems, railways, and aviation infrastructure. Frankly, I don't know 
any American in any part of this country who does not get the idea that 
we have to begin and continue to reinvest in our infrastructure. Every 
American can point to a bridge that is failing. They can point to 
congestion on the highways. They can point to projects that are so 
necessary not only for the long-term activity of the country but for 
the immediate employment of our citizens.
  The rejection of these efforts is based on one simple fact: that we 
are asking the wealthiest Americans to pay for these initiatives. No 
longer are we

[[Page 17812]]

going to put it on the back of future generations as we have with a 
decade of foreign conflicts and other programs such as the Medicare 
Part D expansion. We are trying to be fiscally responsible not only to 
propose ways to put people to work but also to pay for those measures 
now. That is what my colleagues object to. They seem to be more 
concerned about that 1 percent that is talked about than the rest of 
Americans who need work--not just directly, but their communities need 
the work so they can prosper along with the Nation.
  All of this delay has been accompanied by their proposals, but their 
proposals always seem to rely upon austerity: We will have to cut more 
and more and more. But I don't think this single-minded focus on 
austerity is going to lead to the kind of growth we need. In fact, 
there are many analysts and economists who argue that the austerity 
measures being suggested are counterproductive to growing the economy; 
that, in fact, they lead to higher unemployment and lower wages.
  For example, a recent IMF study talking about the consequences of 
pursuing an agenda focused on austerity found that an austerity program 
that curbs the deficit by 1 percent of GDP reduces real income by about 
.6 percent and raises unemployment by .5 percent. So the notion that we 
can simply cut our way to employment growth is not substantiated by 
fair-minded analysis.
  For example, again, Gus Faucher of Moody Analytics examined the most 
recent proposal offered by my colleagues Senators McCain and Paul and 
said that the Republican proposal wouldn't address the causes of the 
current weakness in the short term and in fact it would be harmful.
  The Congressional Budget Office looked at a broad range of policies 
from both parties and concluded that reducing taxes on business income 
and repatriation of foreign income are the most ineffective and 
inefficient tools for growing jobs. These two measures seem to lead the 
list of the proposals on the other side of the aisle. Also, the idea of 
providing more tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy to create 
jobs is not supported by the record. Bush-era tax breaks for the 
wealthiest resulted in mediocre growth for our economy and declining 
wages for the middle class over the period of 2001 to 2008, 2009.
  Instead of bringing forth or supporting issues that will actually put 
Americans to work, my colleagues on the other side want to reframe the 
issue. They want to talk about burdensome regulations, and this 
argument doesn't stand up, either.
  Mr. President, let me conclude by making a point which I think is 
very important, because this notion of simply striking away all the 
regulations and we will have this miraculous growth in employment is 
not substantiated by careful analysis.
  Since 2007, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has tracked reasons behind 
mass layoffs. Among the reasons an employer can cite for layoffs is 
``government regulation.'' The data shows that government regulation 
accounted for a minuscule .2 percent of layoffs. These are the managers 
and leaders of these companies checking the box as to what is causing 
them to lay off people. Instead, employers cite a lack of demand as a 
reason for 39 percent of the layoffs in 2008 to 2010. Indeed, if 
regulations are driving unemployment, one would expect to see job 
losses and high unemployment rates in sectors of the economy where 
regulation has increased, such as the financial services sector. 
However, in the financial services sector, the unemployment rate is 
much lower than the national average. In fact, it is at 5.8 percent. 
Meanwhile, domestic financial firms have posted extraordinary record 
profits in the first two quarters of 2011. So this notion that 
eliminating regulations is going to miraculously solve our problems is 
not substantiated by the evidence we are collecting.
  What we need to do is put people back to work. The programs in the 
American Jobs Act will do that. I hope that will be recognized and 
accepted so we can move quickly to pass it.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 
for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________