Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation before us and the motion to waive the point of order.
This is a good day for American workers, for Congress is focusing on what they have asked us to focus on. Congress is focusing on what the American people want us to focus on, which is jobs, jobs, jobs, and Congress will act in a bipartisan way. So this is a break, in several ways, from the past. One, we are focusing on jobs and the economy. That is what we should be doing. Second, we are doing it in a bipartisan way.
The bill before us focuses on private sector jobs. It has four pieces. Each is lean. Each is directed at private sector jobs. Each will give the economy a certain lift. Last quarter, we had growth of 5.9 percent. That sounds great, but that 5.9 percent growth resulted in no new jobs being created. In fact, it resulted in a continued loss of jobs, admittedly less of a loss than in the past.
Our job is to take that growth and translate it into jobs for the American people, plain and simple, and that is what we are doing with this HIRE Act. At the center of it is a bipartisan piece of legislation: a payroll tax holiday for 1 year for any new worker hired who has been unemployed for 60 days, authored by the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, and myself. It is the bipartisan glue which hopefully will stick with us as we move forward on our jobs agenda because this is just the first--certainly
not the last--piece of legislation we will put forward in relation to jobs. If we don't create jobs, the economy will not move forward. If we don't create jobs, the American people, American business, and American labor could lose the optimism that has been part of this country since its founding. When you lose that optimism, you lose dollars and cents economically because businesses don't spend, workers don't prepare for the future, people get disconsolate.
So this legislation is admittedly modest and focused and will go far beyond what the specific legislation does because it will show the American people, it will show American business, large and small, it will show American workers Congress is focused on what they want us to focus on and that we will continue to work on our jobs agenda until jobs start growing, until people are being paid decent wages, until the economy roars back on a long and stable trajectory, which can only be done if employment
goes up and underemployment goes down.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this isn't so much a jobs bill as it is a debt bill. It has debt, debt, and debt.
I voted against the budget which passed the House of Representatives. I voted against it because it had $1 trillion worth of deficit every year for as far as the eye can see. It basically put our country on a path of unsustainability, where the national debt will double in 5 years and triple in 10 years; where every one of these young men and women sitting before us who are pages, by the time they graduate from college, will have $133,000 in Federal debt on their heads they will have to pay off
as they go to work. I voted against it because it was profligate, because it wasn't disciplined, and because it was excessive.
However, it appears it wasn't excessive enough for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This will be the third week in a row the leadership of the Democratic Party in this body has brought a bill to this floor that violates their own budget and spends more than their own budget called for. A budget which this year will run $1.6 trillion of deficit isn't running a big enough deficit, according to the other side of the aisle. They have to run up the deficit with this bill by another $3
billion of authorized money, above their own budget. That is on top of last week, when they spent $30 billion this year and $100 billion over 5 years in excess of their own budget.
When is it going to stop? When is it going to stop? When are we going to stop spending money around here as if there is no tomorrow? Because pretty soon there will be no tomorrow for our children as we add this debt to their backs and make it impossible for them to have the standard of living we have had.
Yesterday, Moody's said that although today the AAA rating of this country is not at risk, it may be down the road if we continue to spend money we don't have at the rate we are spending it. That is not a sign of optimism for the future; that is a sign our Nation is in trouble, and it is in trouble because of us.
There is a lot of talk around here about what is the systemic risk to this economy. The systemic risk is this Congress, which continues to spend money it doesn't have, send the bill on to our kids at a rate they can't afford to pay off. As a result, their lifestyle will actually have to be reduced, their quality of life, their standard of living will go down because they will be paying for all this debt we are putting on their backs today.
What is even worse is this Congress isn't even willing to live by the PROFLIGATE--and I hope capital letters will be put in the Record on that because it should be all spelled out in capital letters--by the PROFLIGATE budget which passed the House, which projected trillions of dollars of deficits for as far as the eye could see and doubled the debt in 5 years and tripled it in 10 years. That wasn't enough. No. We have to come to the floor again this week, after last week, after the week
before, with another bill that breaks their own budget.
So all I am asking for is that the other side of the aisle be willing to at least live by its own budget. Last week I asked that they be willing to live by their own pay-go rules. That didn't pass, and $100 billion was spent that wasn't paid for. So this week I am making a point of order that simply says: Live by your own budget. You passed a budget; at least live by that. Can't you live within a $1.6 trillion deficit? Do you have to add another $3 trillion of authorized dollars to this deficit
this year? Gosh, I hope not. So I am making a point of order and asking that we live by the budget that was passed by the Democratic Congress.
The pending amendment would cause the aggregate levels of the budget authority and the outlays for the fiscal year 2010, as set out in the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget, S. Con. Res. 13, to be exceeded--the Democratic budget, by the way. Therefore, I raise a point of order under section 311(a)2 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will support the motion to waive the point of order. I believe I have 1 minute left.
The world is topsy-turvy. My Republican colleagues are opposing a tax cut to businesses, large and small, that hire people. This is exactly what we should do. We don't want to be saying to workers we can't help them find a job. There are shades of Herbert Hoover in what my colleague is saying, and I don't think many of my colleagues on either side of the aisle would support that.
Let me say this about the budget point of order. The Joint Tax Committee, which we all respect, says these provisions are budget neutral.
We have found a way to hire workers, help businesses with tax cuts to hire them, and keep it budget neutral. Yet there is still opposition. When will it end? When will the bipartisan kind of feeling in this body return? This is a bipartisan measure that lives by many of the tenets the party on the other side has stood for, for decades.
Mr. President, is there any time remaining?
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, and section (4)(g)(3) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. GREGG. Parliamentary inquiry. I have made a motion that says the [Page: S1635]
budget point of order stands under section 311, which point of order specifically lies because of the fact that the bill before us spends more in authority and outlay than the Budget Act passed by this Congress allows. Is that not correct? Is that motion not well taken?
Mr. GREGG. Which means that, Mr. President, more money is being spent than is allowed to be spent under our budget rules; is that not correct?