[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12994-12996]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            NO POLITICS ZONE

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Ohio for 
highlighting what has to be our focal point as we return to the Senate, 
and that is the unemployment picture across America and the desperate 
situation many families are facing. As I visited

[[Page 12995]]

my home State of Illinois, I found what the Senator did in Ohio, that 
many people have been desperately trying to find jobs for a long time 
and it is becoming increasingly difficult. The longer it goes on, the 
more difficult it becomes. It turns out the national statistics, which 
I read over the weekend, suggest that it is primarily males who are out 
of work--not exclusively, but 60 percent males, 40 percent females--and 
more and more not in minority populations. They are having a difficult 
time. I am glad the Senator from Ohio focused on getting us back on 
track as we should be on this issue.
  I read with interest when Republican Leader McConnell wrote an 
opinion article in the Washington Post yesterday. One line in that 
article struck me particularly and I wish to read it. Senator McConnell 
said, ``Job creation should be a no-politics zone.''
  I would like that to become our slogan for the month of September. I 
hope both parties will live by it. If we do, I think we can achieve 
some things and surprise the American people who have just about given 
up on us. Take a look at the numbers across the board. They say 12 or 
13 percent of the American people think favorably of Congress. As I 
said on the ``Jon Stewart Daily Show,'' I don't think we have that many 
relatives so I question the number. I think it has reached the point 
that most people do not have a positive view of what we are doing here, 
and we need to change it. The only people who can change it are those 
of us who serve in this Chamber.
  Unfortunately, the Republican leader came to the floor of the Senate 
today and said a little different thing, which I hope I am not 
overreading, but he said:

       Mr. President, there is a much simpler reason for opposing 
     your economic proposals that has nothing whatsoever to do 
     with politics, and it's this: They don't work.

  I think that could be read to suggest that whatever the President has 
to say, he is going to run into opposition. I hope the joint session of 
Congress is productive. I spoke to the President this afternoon. He 
called a number of Members. He didn't give me any inside story on what 
he is about to say, but my guess is he is going to make proposals and 
then say to the Republicans: Now come up with your proposals and let's 
sit down together and work them out between us. That is the right way 
to do it in a divided government and that is the way we should approach 
it.
  I recall when President George W. Bush in 2008 felt we needed an 
economic stimulus. At that time unemployment was 4.8 percent. Senator 
McConnell supported an economic stimulus by President George W. Bush 
when our unemployment rate was 4.8 percent. He actually said on the 
floor today that, ``Businesses actually don't want shots in the arm or 
quick fixes.'' But when he was supporting President Bush's economic 
stimulus in 2008, it was called ``a booster shot for our economy.'' I 
think sometimes that kind of booster shot can make a difference.
  I think there are two vital elements in our economy that challenge 
us. I don't know how much we can change them or how quickly we change 
them. As I visited in my home State with community bankers who actually 
loan mortgages in their communities, time and again they said to me the 
biggest single problem is we don't know where the bottom is. We don't 
know where fair market value is on real estate so as a result it is 
very tough to close a deal and very tough to get agencies such as 
Fannie and Freddie to go along with it because of disputes over 
appraisals.
  The second issue was one highlighted this morning in today's Chicago 
Sun-Times and that is the spending and saving habits of the American 
family, and they are changing pretty substantially. The rate of savings 
is up from 1 percent to 5 percent. People have decided putting some 
money in the bank is not a bad idea and they are borrowing less on 
their credit cards and other things and making fewer purchases. That is 
the right thing for a family to do in an uncertain economy. It is not 
the best thing for an economic recession. In fact, just the opposite is 
true. But you can understand, people were burned in 2007; burned again 
in the stock market a few weeks ago. They don't want to see it happen 
again and they don't want to be victimized by it, so those two things 
haunt us.
  More than anything, I hope in the month of September this does not 
become a month of confrontation on the floor of the Senate and the 
House. The American people are fed up with it. If we have a 
confrontation over extending the Federal Aviation Administration or 
extending the Federal highway bill, they will rightly be angry that we 
are back to our old tricks of staring one another down and not 
accomplishing what needs to be done for this Nation and this economy.
  I urge my colleagues, I hope I can join in this, to look for what the 
Republican leader called job creation as a ``no-politics zone'' in the 
weeks ahead.
  In August, the American economy added zero net new jobs. That was 
painful. The private sector added just 17,000 jobs. Unemployment is at 
9.1 percent. Fourteen million Americans are unemployed and millions 
more are underemployed. GDP growth was just 1 percent in the second 
quarter of this year.
  Year-over-year real GDP growth is now at 1.5 percent. Since 1948, 
every time the four-quarter change in GDP has fallen below 2 percent, 
the economy has entered a recession. These figures are stunning and 
worrying. Now is not the time for us to shrink from our 
responsibilities on a bipartisan basis. The President is going to lay 
out a job creation proposal this week. He will offer a plan that should 
have broad bipartisan support, as these initiatives have had in the 
past when suggested by other Presidents. I hope this President will 
call for investments in America, in physical, human, and intellectual 
capital to provide the seed money for long-term growth. Among other 
things, that means investing in our infrastructure.
  Mr. President, you know what is going on in China today. We have seen 
it. The infrastructure construction in China is mind boggling. They are 
preparing for the 21st century. America is not, and we need to change 
that. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates our country's 
infrastructure needs at least $1 trillion. Our infrastructure is 
rapidly aging, whether bridges falling down in Minnesota or planes 
being diverted from airports because they are not up to where they 
ought to be. This is what ought to challenge all of us. Dozens of 
bipartisan commissions have told us to invest in infrastructure. We 
also need to invest in human and intellectual capital. That means jobs 
for teachers and job trainers, and research jobs which will create good 
jobs across the whole economy.
  Congress must invest now because the private sector remains skittish. 
Here is what Bill Gross, a Republican and chief investment officer of 
the giant bond fund PIMCO, said:

       Capitalism in its raw form can't pull us out of this hole.

  That is an important message from a man in the private sector, in the 
financial community. In the near term, the private sector is not uneasy 
because of high taxes or government debt or the Environmental 
Protection Agency or even health care reform or Wall Street reform. 
These things all exist. But corporations are doing better than ever. A 
recent report found that of the last year's 100 highest paid corporate 
executives in the United States, 25 of the 100 highest paid CEOs in 
America earned more in income than their company paid in taxes to the 
Federal Government. Corporate profits grew 8.3 percent year over year 
in the second quarter. That growth is far better than the overall 
growth of our economy in the same timeframe.
  As of March 31, the blue-chip companies and Standard and Poor's 500 
index are sitting on nearly $1 trillion in cash. It is not government 
debt, it is not the EPA, it is not health care reform, it is not Wall 
Street reform. No, the private sector in America is still on the 
sidelines because it is still recovering from the wounds of the deepest 
global crisis in over 75 years. While the private sector is licking its 
wounds, the government can promote job creation and reduce uncertainty. 
It is a false choice to say government can either create jobs or reduce 
debt. The truth is, creating

[[Page 12996]]

jobs will reduce debt, and the argument can be made with 14 million 
Americans out of work you will never balance the budget. Creating jobs 
will bring more people into the tax base, increasing our revenues and 
take people off of the safety net programs such as unemployment 
insurance and food stamps. We need more jobs and less debt. One begets 
the other. It is possible. I know many pundits listening now will say: 
Impossible. We can't get bipartisan agreement on job measures now. But 
short-term spending coupled with long-term spending had bipartisan 
support less than a year ago. That is when I was a member of the 
Simpson-Bowles Commission, voted for their findings, and that is what 
they recommended. The Commission said: Don't cut back on spending for 2 
years, until we get out of the recession, and then make a serious 
commitment to deficit reduction. I think they had it right then. They 
still do.
  The Commission explicitly called for near-term spending, a payroll 
tax credit in concert with long-term deficit reduction. Mr. President, 
11 of the 18 members of that Commission, myself included, voted for it: 
5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, 1 Independent. By supporting progrowth 
policies and locking in deficit reduction in the outyears, we can turn 
this economy around, provide certainty in the marketplace, and create 
good-paying jobs right here in America.
  One last point I would like to make. Illinois was largely spared from 
the disasters of the last several weeks. We had our problems with 
flooding earlier this year. But 2011 is shaping up to be a record year 
with regard to disasters. Hurricane Irene could cost us at least $1 
billion, maybe $1.5 billion. People in Illinois have been recovering 
from two federally declared disasters over the long term--one, a 
blizzard in February, and the other, major flooding in the spring.
  Out of the $130 billion provided in FEMA disaster funds in the past 
decade, some $110 billion has been provided as emergency funding. We 
cannot budget for these disasters.
  At a hearing before we left--and I knew government experts would be 
suspect to some, so I brought in experts from the insurance industry, 
the people who write property and casualty insurance. They said: Be 
prepared--more disasters and higher costs in loss than ever before. 
That was before Hurricane Irene.
  According to NOAA's National Climate Data Center, the United States 
has already experienced 10 natural disasters with damages totaling more 
than $1 billion. The previous record for weather-related disasters of 
this magnitude was nine in 1 year. We have already broken it, and there 
are more hurricanes to follow, I am afraid to say. The United States 
has sustained 109 weather-related disasters over the past 31 years in 
which overall damage or costs exceeded $1 billion. The total normalized 
losses for the 109 events exceeded $750 billion.
  In 2011 alone, over $35 billion in damages has been caused by 
catastrophic events. I make that point because some Members of 
Congress--one, a Congressman from Virginia--suggest we can take the 
need for disaster funds out of the regular budget of the United States. 
I will tell you, it is virtually impossible, and we don't know what the 
final cost will be. At this point we expect it to be much more. We have 
to deal with these disasters and come to the aid of families and 
businesses, communities and States, as our State has been aided and 
almost every State has in the past.
  A provision in the Budget Control Act allows Congress several billion 
dollars in emergency spending for additional FEMA aid without budget 
cuts elsewhere. We are going to have to get together on a bipartisan 
basis to deal with this. FEMA estimates that the request leaves the 
disaster fund short by $2 billion to $4.8 billion in the upcoming year. 
These figures do not take into account the most recent damage from 
Hurricane Irene, particularly in the State of Vermont and many other 
places. We need to work on a bipartisan basis to meet these needs for 
the disaster assistance all across America and put America back to 
work.
  At this point I would like to yield the floor to my former remarks 
and engage in the closing script.

                          ____________________