[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 8968-8969]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REVITALIZATION ACT OF 2011

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am going to talk about the basic underlying 
bill we are debating, not the amendment my colleagues have just been 
talking about. As a way of framing the discussion about this bill, I 
will cite some statistics that I think will help us understand the 
nature of the problem our country faces right now and why, in my 
opinion, this particular legislation does not solve that problem.
  According to official statistics, the unemployment rate in the U.S. 
has risen from 6.8 percent when President Obama was elected in November 
of 2008 to 9.1 percent in May of 2011. Between the end of 2008 and the 
year 2010, America experienced a net job loss in the nonfarm sector of 
almost 7 million jobs. So just since the end of 2008 through 2010, 7 
million jobs lost. In that same time, the unemployment rate peaked at 
10.1 percent--that was in October of 2009. It averaged 9.3 percent 
during 2009, 9.6 percent during 2010, and the 5-month average for 2011 
so far is 9.1 percent, where we are right now.
  We are not making progress. In short, since President Obama's 
stimulus was enacted, unemployment has averaged more than 9 percent a 
year, and that is up from 6.8 percent when he took office. This is not 
progress.
  The May unemployment figures show that the U.S. economy added only 
54,000 jobs--far fewer than the 150,000 needed just to keep pace with 
population growth, let alone to help dig us out of the recession. So we 
only had about one-third of the jobs created that we need just to stay 
even. We are getting deeper in the hole. In fact, the number of 
unemployed totals now almost 14 million Americans, and the long-term 
unemployed increased to 6.2 million.
  Real growth in our economy, the GDP growth from the end of the 
recession in mid-2009 has been only about half as strong as it was 
during each of the previous nine recessions since World War II. So 
unlike previous times, we are not recovering as fast as we recovered 
from those earlier recessions.
  On the TV program ``Meet the Press'' this weekend, the host, David 
Gregory, asked the chair of the Democratic National Committee, 
Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz:

       Why should Americans trust Democratic governance right now 
     on the economy, and particularly the president's?

  Amazingly, the head of the Democratic National Committee answered:

       Because we were able to, under President Obama's 
     leadership, turn this economy around.

  Well, the economy has not turned around. The unemployment statistics 
I just cited demonstrate that it is getting worse.
  Most observers recognize that the steps the President took to try to 
revive the economy have not worked. I think it is time we admit that 
our massive debt and deficit, which were exacerbated by the 2009 
stimulus spending bill, have hurt our economy. It has made things 
worse.
  Republicans are not recommending reductions in government spending 
just for the sake of austerity. We are pushing for the government to 
get its fiscal house in order so that the job creators in the private 
sector will have the confidence to begin hiring and expanding their 
operations. Right now, uncertain of their future tax liability, worried 
about the general fiscal path of this country and the increasing 
regulatory burdens imposed upon them, job creators are sitting on the 
sidelines. We need to cut government spending to keep our tax burden 
low, approve pending free-trade agreements, and make a serious effort 
to reduce red tape so our economy can begin growing again. In other 
words, we need to realize that the government does not create private 
sector jobs. What we can do in Washington is to create the environment 
where the private sector is free to grow and create jobs.
  This bill we are talking about right now, the Economic Development 
Revitalization Act of 2011, is touted by some of its proponents as 
being a job creator. The bill is not a jobs bill. Calling it that 
doesn't make it so. The bill has 21 sections. The truth is, many of 
these provisions would have zero effect on facilitating the creation of 
American jobs. For example, section 16 moves the State of Montana from 
the Denver office to the Seattle office. That doesn't create any jobs. 
Most of the provisions of the bill don't have anything to do with 
creating jobs. There are only four that even mildly could be called 
related to job creation.
  The central component is a reauthorization of the bill's amount of 
spending, and it would reauthorize it at $500 million a year--$\1/2\ 
billion a year. Remember that almost half of that has to be borrowed. 
We don't have the money to spend $\1/2\ billion a year, so we will have 
to go out and borrow the money from someone in order to be able to 
spend it.
  Given the fiscal constraints facing our Nation today, we can't afford 
that. Ironically, even the White House is not shy about admitting the 
fact that this EDA bill is too expensive. Specifically, the President's 
budget for 2012 requested only $324.9 million for EDA, not $500 
million. Additionally, the administration's Statement of Administration 
Policy declared:

       The bill would authorize spending levels higher than those 
     requested by the President's budget, and the administration 
     believes that the need for smart investments that help 
     America win the future must be balanced with the need to 
     control spending and reduce the deficit.

  Well, this is one thing on which I agree with the administration. 
This bill would spend too much money. Hopefully, we will get a chance 
to vote on amendments, including one by the ranking Republican on the 
committee, Mr. Inhofe, to reduce this level to a more reasonable and 
realistic one.
  The rest of the bill includes provisions, as I noted, that are of 
little importance. Section 11, for example, creates a $5 million-per-
year grant program related to renewable energy and brownfields sites. 
Section 12 relates to energy and water efficiency and decreasing 
foreign oil competition. These are part of a green jobs fad and are not 
really going to provide significant job creation for our country. If we 
really want to decrease the consumption of foreign oil, of course, and 
create U.S. jobs, we should develop more of our own resources. I 
mentioned another meaningless provision--just moving one State from the 
jurisdiction of the Denver office to the Seattle office.
  Again, these are things that are not going to produce jobs in our 
country. So it seems to me, rather than spending time on bills such as 
this EDA bill, which will not actually create jobs, we should actually 
be focusing on the big cliff we are heading for and begin preparing for 
the debt ceiling debate. This is where we can insist on a very large 
down payment of reduced spending, reform entitlements, and put a 
straitjacket on future congressional budgets--all of which will give 
businesses and markets greater certainty about our fiscal future. As a 
start, we should

[[Page 8969]]

have a thorough debate and a vote on a constitutional balanced budget 
amendment, which would get us on the right path to a sound fiscal 
future.
  In the long run, the only way for our economy to create jobs is for 
the government to spend, borrow, and tax less, thus freeing America's 
enterprises to do what they do best. I suggest we not wait any longer. 
It is time to begin this debate. Let's have a vote on a constitutional 
amendment, find ways to reduce spending, ensure we do not increase 
taxes, and create the climate in which America's businesses can get 
back to work and put their fellow Americans back to work.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________