Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2008

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1507, I call up the bill (H.R. 7110) making supplemental appropriations for job creation and preservation, infrastructure investment, and economic and energy assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 7110, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to propound a unanimous consent request in response to the comments that we had during consideration of the rule on this bill. We've had some of our friends on the minority side of the aisle indicate that they are disappointed that the Appropriations Committee did not provide funding for the western schools program, which is expired, and which is not under the jurisdiction of our committee.

In the interest of comity, I would like to respond to that concern by simply asking unanimous consent that the amendment that I have placed at the desk be considered as adopted. It would have the effect of resurrecting that western schools program for 1 year in the same manner in which it was being operated before it expired.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would simply like to have the Record show that we have tried to respond to concerns expressed on the minority side of the aisle, that the objection to allowing us to do that came from the minority side of the aisle. I regret that, but I guess there's not as much interest in comity as I had hoped today. Having said that, let me explain the bill before us.

I think both political parties are seriously misdescribing the economic crisis that we now find ourselves in. I do not believe that this crisis began on Wall Street. I think this crisis began right here in this Chamber. I think it began right here in this town, in the White House. And I think what is happening today is a logical extension of what has happened since the Reagan administration over 20 years ago.

The fact is that this Congress and previous and present Presidents have followed economic policies through the years which have resulted in the middle class--and what's called the underclass by some--being squeezed to the wall. Since 1980, the top 10 percent of American families has absorbed 80 percent of the increase in the national income. And in the last 8 years, the richest 10 percent of American families have absorbed 96 percent of all of the income growth in this country. That means the other 90 percent of American families have been struggling for table scraps, struggling to keep their head above water. And one of the ways that they've been doing that has been by borrowing.

There is a lot of talk about the increase in the Federal debt over the past decade, which has been over $1 trillion. But the fact is that mortgage debt alone in the private sector in this country has increased by almost $7 trillion at that same time. And at the same time that that huge increase in borrowing was occurring by families trying to stay above the water line, we also had a simultaneous, ill-advised deregulation of the financial sector of the economy. The umpire was, in fact, taken off the field, and as a result, Wall Street took advantage of that, invented all kinds of interesting and complicated instruments, and at the same time, there was very little regulation to protect little people who didn't know what they were getting into. And so, as a result, we've had trickle down economics being followed for 25 years, and now we are experiencing the trickle down consequences. We have, I think, a serious choice to make in this Chamber and in the other body over the next few days. And I hope we make the right choice.

All through this year this Congress has tried to do a number of things that would alleviate the squeeze on the middle class. To cite just some of our efforts, we passed the largest expansion of the GI Bill, education benefits, since that program started in 1945. We provided the largest veterans health care funding increase in modern history. We blocked the President's efforts to eliminate all student aid programs except Pell grant and work study. And we, instead, provided an increase in the Pell Grants of $750. And we passed legislation cutting the loan costs of student loans by 50 percent over the next 5 years, all to help middle class families send their kids to school.

We increased the minimum wage for the first time in a decade. We extended unemployment insurance benefits to help people who had run out of unemployment benefits and have still not been able to find a job. We provided additional funding to save the SCHIP program, to help keep needy kids on the health care payrolls of our various States.

We've provided funding to help States establish high-risk insurance pools----

I yield myself another 5 minutes.

To increase access for almost 200,000 people who did not have access to health care. We extended dental care programs for the poor by 50 percent. We passed all kinds of efforts to improve the lot of middle- income Americans. And we had a large dispute with the President of the United States over budget levels for programs in the health, education, science and social services area. The President objected to a number of those programs. He wanted to require Congress to impose $14 billion in cuts in those crucial programs, and he said we simply could not afford that money. But now we are being confronted with a Presidential request to deal with the Wall Street bailout, and that cost will be about 50 times as large as the cost of funding the programs that we've been trying to fund for a year.

Meanwhile, this economy is sagging. Jobs, income, sales, and industrial production have all gone down. We have lost 600,000 jobs. Twenty-seven percent more people are unemployed today than was the case just 6 months ago. And so we are bringing before the House today an effort to counter some of those problems.

We are trying to provide a major increase in investments in highways, bridges and airports to modernize our infrastructure and to provide well-paying construction jobs at the same time.

We are providing a significant increase in funding for construction jobs by helping local communities and States construct sewer and water systems. There is a $600 billion national backlog on that.

We are providing additional help to create jobs by moving ahead with flood control projects.

As far as schools are concerned, the GAO tells us we have a $112 billion backlog in maintenance, building safety, and technology upgrades for our schools. We're trying to provide a small amount of funding to help begin to take care of that.

On the energy front, we've had a theological debate about energy between the parties for the last several months. We are trying to provide some funding here for energy research programs which will create jobs in that area, and at the same time, we are trying to invest a significant amount of money in order to assure that our auto industry, as it converts to battery-driven, dual-technology automobiles, we're trying to make certain that those batteries are developed and produced in the United States. If we can accomplish that, it will be a large number of jobs that we keep here in the United States.

We also are trying to extend unemployment compensation benefits for an additional 7 weeks. And we are trying to help State budgets to make sure that States don't have to knock low-income children and low-income families off the health care rolls.

This is the main thrust of this legislation. We think it is long overdue.

And I would urge passage in the House.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Transportation appropriations subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut, the chairman of the Agriculture appropriations subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the public works and infrastructure authorizing committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I hate to keep going over old ground, but in light of the gentleman's comments, I would like to present a slightly different interpretation of where we are.

The fact is that we have passed out of this body and we expect to have sent to the President this weekend the three foreign policy appropriation bills for the year, representing well over 60 percent of the discretionary funding in the budget. We have not sent him any of the domestic appropriations bills for one simple reason, because the White House declared them dead on arrival before they had ever been written.

The White House simply made quite clear that if we did not submit to their budget wishes and cut $14 billion out of education, out of health care, out of science, out of energy research and the like, if we didn't do that they would veto the bills. When we asked if they would sit down and talk about it and consider compromise, they indicated they had no interest.

It is clear to us that the President means what he says. He often does. So under those circumstances, we had a choice. We could either capitulate to the President's requirements that we cut everything from medical research at NIH to vocational education and the like, or we could say no, we are not going to accept those reductions; we will try to appeal to the public and let them choose.

So the public will choose by their selection of either Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain. I am sorry, it has been a long day. The fellow from Arizona. Anyway, the public will choose one or the other. And if they choose Mr. McCain, then they will get President Bush's domestic budget, and if they choose Mr. Obama, they will get something quite different.

So I think there is a very rational reason for our making this choice. The only other option would have been for us to scream at each other and argue with each other for 6 months, knowing that the bills were going nowhere because of the President's intent to veto the bills.

That, in essence, is why we find ourselves where we are on those domestic appropriation bills.

But this bill is a different issue. This bill relates not to yesterday's arguments, but to today's problems and tomorrow's solutions. What this bill represents is an effort to respond to the economic chaos that we have seen in this country for the past 8 months or more. It represents an effort. At a time when people are talking about doing a huge bailout for the financial system, we are trying to find discrete ways of making life a little less miserable for people who have been hit hard by the

consequences of the economic chaos that has swept over the country.

So we make no apology. In a year when we have lost 600,000 jobs, we make no apology for trying to help resurrect the possibility for some more good-paying jobs by adding to construction, to our infrastructure by way of airport and highway and transit development, by doing additional energy research, by doing additional cleanup of sewer and water, again, construction jobs that will mean a good many families will be seeing decent income again where they were not before. That is what this bill tries to do.

It is in fact a very modest proposal in terms of what most economists think will be necessary, but it is a whole lot better than doing nothing.

FDR warned a long time ago, he said, ``Better the occasional mistake of a government that cares than the constant omission of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.'' And that I think is the choice that faces us today.

As Franklin Roosevelt said a long time ago in his inaugural address, ``This country needs action; it needs action now.'' We are trying in a small way to provide that, along with the two other pieces that are now before this Congress, one being the continuing resolution, and the second being the disposition of the huge economy rescue project that the President has proposed. This is a key element in those efforts.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Should all this be enacted, we will have to rename the chairman ``Obey the Builder'' because this legislation will build America, rebuild America, create jobs, $30 billion to invest in America, the roads, the bridges and the transit and passenger rail systems, the airports, the locks, dams, waterways and environmental infrastructure that enhance mobility, that improve productivity, reduce the cost of logistics, the cost of moving people and goods in our economy and make America productive again.

This investment will create jobs here in America, jobs that will not be outsourced to Bangalore or anyplace else in the world, the real jobs in America that pay the mortgage, send the kids to school, buy the fishing boats and the snowmobiles and put food on the table. These are the real jobs of this economy. Over 800,000 construction workers are now out of work. The construction industry has the highest unemployment of any sector in this economy, 8.2 percent. This bill will create and sustain more than 1 million family wage jobs, jobs and projects that will be underway in 90 days, as we require in the legislation, that we proposed from our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for highways and bridges, $12.8 billion, on projects that are ready to go within 90 days. We have a list already--I will submit that for the Record--that will provide funding for transit and capital investment and $1 billion relief for high energy costs; $500 million for Amtrak, a bill we just passed yesterday in this body; the Airport Improvement Program of aviation, to reduce congestion on our airways, create more capacity on the ground side of airports; and funding for environmental infrastructure under the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund, in fact a bill this House passed over a year ago; as well as $5 billion for the Corps of Engineers to invest in the locks and dams and waterways and improve our ability to resist hurricanes and storms in this country.

We need to make this investment in America for our future, for these jobs in this economy.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 7110, the ``Job Creation and Unemployment Relief Act of 2008.''

This bill invests in America--in the roads, bridges, transit and passenger rail systems, airports, locks, dams, waterways, and environmental infrastructure that enable our economy to work and keep our citizens safe. This is the infrastructure that, too often, we take for granted, until it fails.

This bill recognizes the critical importance of meeting our Nation's transportation and environmental infrastructure investment needs, and provides $30 billion toward that end. This $30 billion investment will yield lasting benefits in terms of reduced travel times, higher productivity, increased competitiveness in the world marketplace, and cleaner water.

With more than 800,000 construction workers out of work, and the construction industry suffering the highest unemployment rate, 8.2 percent, of any industrial sector, this bill puts America back to work. It will create or sustain more than one million good, family-wage jobs--jobs that cannot be outsourced to another country, because the work must be done here in the United States on our roads, bridges, transit and rail systems, airports, waterways, and wastewater treatment facilities.

For highways and bridges, the bill provides $12.8 billion. State Departments of Transportation, ``DOTs'', have a tremendous backlog of highway projects that could be implemented quickly if these additional funds are made available. For example, State DOTs often have open-ended contracts in place for resurfacing projects, which means that work could begin immediately upon receipt of additional funds. In addition, many State DOTs have projects already in process that could be accelerated if additional funding were provided. According to an Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, ``AASHTO'', survey of State DOTs, States have more than 3,000 projects totaling $17.9 billion which are ready-to-go and can be out to bid and under contract within 90 days.

Although I have heard the administration's economists discount the stimulative effects of infrastructure investment, they may want to check with the State DOTs. In August, State DOTs informed the Federal Highway Administration, ``FHWA'', that they had $8 billion of highway projects that could advance before next week, September 30, if funding were available. Regrettably, FHWA only had $1 billion available to distribute to the States through its August redistribution process.

Not only will these additional funds be put to use quickly, they will be put to good use, to meet urgent highway and bridge investment needs. For instance, consider the ready-to-go projects of just one State DOT, Missouri. With funding provided by this bill, Missouri could accelerate repair work on the Brownville, Nebraska bridge over the Missouri River. The 1,903-foot bridge is 70 years old and is structurally deficient. The bridge has a sufficiency rating of 3, which is even lower than the rating of the I-35W Bridge which collapsed in Minnesota. This rating reflects such a serious condition that if its rating drops to 2, the bridge will be closed. If the bridge has to be closed, residents will have to make a 123-mile detour. Missouri could also accelerate the replacement of a structurally deficient and obsolete bridge with the construction of a new bridge over the Osage River at Tuscumbia, Missouri. The current bridge is a two-lane, 1,083-foot structure that is 75 years old and is also rated a 3, serious condition. If this bridge has to be closed, residents will have to make a 40-mile detour.

For transit, the bill provides $3.6 billion for capital investments, and $1 billion for relief from high energy costs. Due to high gas prices, transit agencies across the country are experiencing increased demand for transit services, yet they are struggling to meet this demand due to the impact high fuel costs have had on their own operating budgets. In 2007, 10.3 billion trips were taken on public transportation--the highest number of trips taken in 50 years. Ridership has continued to climb in 2008, with a 4.4-percent increase in trips taken during the first half of 2008 compared to the same period last year, putting 2008 on track to beat last year's modern record ridership numbers. Additional funds could be put to immediate use by transit agencies to meet this demand while at the same time creating much-needed jobs and economic activity.

For Amtrak, the bill provides $500 million. Similar to transit, Amtrak is experiencing record ridership and revenues in fiscal year 2008, and demand is growing across Amtrak's entire system for intercity passenger rail service. With this additional funding, Amtrak will be able to refurbish rail cars that are currently in storage and return them to service, and fund other urgently needed repair and maintenance of its facilities.

For the Airport Improvement Program, ``AlP'', the bill provides $600 million. This funding will allow the AlP program to keep pace with inflationary cost increases, and begin to

address the investment gap in airport safety and capacity needs. Ready- to-go AlP projects that would be funded by this bill include runway and taxiway rehabilitations, extensions, and widening; obstruction removal; apron construction, expansion and rehabilitation; Airport Rescue and Firefighting equipment and facilities; and airside service or public access roads.

For environmental infrastructure, this bill provides $6.5 billion for Clean Water State Revolving Funds, ``SRFs''. Under this administration, funding for the Clean Water SRF program has been cut repeatedly and funding is now one-half of it what it was a decade ago, despite the fact that the needs continue to grow. These cuts have created pent-up demand in the States for project funding. In addition, wastewater treatment facilities must meet new treatment requirements, including requirements to control nutrients, sewer overflows, stormwater, and nonpoint sources. Aging infrastructure must be replaced or repaired. Additional funds could be put to immediate use in many States, creating family-wage construction jobs and economic activity. A recent survey by the Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities and the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators identified more than $9 billion in ready-to-go Clean Water SRF projects that cannot be funded within existing appropriation levels.

For the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the bill provides $5 billion to invest in the Nation's water resource infrastructure. This investment will provide jobs, help American products compete on the world market, reduce the risk that larger sums for disaster relief will be needed in the future, and restore precious ecosystems. For example, the infusion of additional construction capital could be used for the construction of the second 1,200-foot lock at Saulte Ste. Marie. If the second lock were completed, then the incident that occurred earlier this week would not shut down traffic between the Upper and Lower Great Lakes because there would be a second point of transit. The existing Poe lock, that failed, is the only 1,200-foot lock between the Upper and Lower Lakes.

Finally, I thank Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Obey, Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and Chairman Olver, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies, for working with me throughout the development of this job creation package.

Throughout our Nation's history, economic growth, prosperity, and opportunity have followed investments in the Nation's infrastructure. From the ``internal improvements'' of the early 1800s--canals, locks, and roads--to the Interstate Highway System of today, infrastructure investment has been our foundation for economic growth. The investments funded by H.R. 7110 will not only create jobs today, they will provide long-term economic, safety, health, and environmental benefits.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 7110, a true investment in America's future.

I insert in the Record the results of a survey conducted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials of ready-to-go highway and bridge projects in each State.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the pending discussion and debate in the Senate about subsidies to the auto manufacturers and whether passing a large bailout subsidy package for the auto manufacturers is a good idea. Earlier this afternoon I objected to a unanimous consent request by Senator Mikulski and she responded to that objection by noting that she certainly hoped that objecting to a bailout package for auto manufacturers wasn't the last thing I did in the Senate, given that my term is going to be expiring and I am going to be retiring from the Senate. Well, it won't be the last thing I do. If nothing else, the last thing I will do is to explain why her legislation was such a terrible idea to the people of New Hampshire who elected me and to the American people whom I think I have an obligation to serve in making sure that their interests are protected, that their wallets are protected, and that we act with a commitment to fiscal responsibility.

We don't need to be providing subsidies, special benefits or protection to individual businesses, whether they are auto manufacturers or any other business. This is wrong for a large number of reasons. To be sure, no one is happy about the fact that our country is in a recession, that Europe is in a recession, that we have a global slowdown that will affect hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives across the United States and across the world. But by providing subsidies to the auto manufacturers, we do several things that are fundamentally wrong--bad for our economy, bad for taxpayers, bad for consumers.

First, quite frankly, we reward bad decisions that have been made by these firms themselves. The problems within the auto industry are largely the making of those in the auto industry: management choices, production of models that consumers choose not to buy, legacy costs, contracts, health care, pensions. We all understand that within the economic slowdown there has been a significant drop in the number of cars being manufactured, but these businesses were losing money well before the current downturn. By stepping forward now to provide them with $25 billion or $50 billion, depending on which piece of legislation we would be considering and voting on, we, quite frankly, would be taking money from taxpayers across the country and rewarding those poor decisions that have been made by the manufacturers themselves.

Second, this would set a bad precedent. There are many businesses across America that are dealing with tough times, a slowdown in their growth prospects. They have had to deal with layoffs. They have seen a significant slowdown in construction spending or consumer spending. It is affecting every corner of our economy. If we set the precedent of stepping forward with $25 billion in subsidies for auto manufacturers, every other business and industry in America would be looking for the same kind of treatment from the Federal Government. That is simply not in the taxpayers' interests. It is certainly not fair to the average taxpayer. It is not fair to those taxpayers who work for companies that won't get that kind of special treatment. Any time the Federal Government starts putting a significant amount of resources--$1 billion, $10 billion, $25 billion--into a particular firm or industry we distort the marketplace. So we would be rewarding bad decisions. We would be setting a bad precedent.

Finally, we would be placing taxpayers at even greater risk. We need to be honest about the impact of giving $25 billion to the auto manufacturers in order to sustain their unprofitable operations. Many observers have suggested that $25 billion isn't nearly enough, $50 billion probably isn't enough to stave off bankruptcy. So when these firms ultimately did have to file for bankruptcy or when the losses mounted over the next 6 months or 12 months or 18 months and the firms needed additional capital, where would they turn? Back to the taxpayer. So the expectation would be--and I think the likelihood would be--that the $25 billion or $50 billion provided today would simply be a downpayment on even greater losses and greater exposure to the taxpayers in the future.

Now, the proponents of this legislation have said a number of things. First and foremost, they have talked about the number of jobs that would be affected. No one relishes the idea of higher unemployment and job losses that have already begun in this current recession. But there are many businesses and industries across America that employ hundreds of thousands of people, that employ even more than the auto manufacturing segment. The

three largest technology-based firms in the country employ nearly twice as many people as the auto manufacturers. The three largest firms in the financial services industry employ hundreds of thousands more than the auto manufacturers do. These businesses and industries such as the auto manufacturers have their own customers and suppliers and vendors and contractors who would also be affected by the slowdown or by layoffs at those businesses.

We care about the auto manufacturers. We care about manufacturing. We care about every job in our economy, because each job is important to that worker, their family, and their dependents. But we can't be providing unique benefits, unique treatment to one business at the expense of others and at the expense of taxpayers.

A second argument that has been made is that since we passed a financial stabilization package a month ago, we should be willing to keep passing additional subsidy or bailout legislation. I think we need to understand that taking the action we took when the credit markets in the United States and across the world froze was action taken only with the greatest imaginable reluctance, and it was only taken to protect access to credit for a home loan or car loan, a small business loan that our economy needs to function every single day. Moreover, only action of the Federal Government--and the European governments as well--only that action could provide the capital or had the capacity to provide the capital necessary to enable those credit markets to function normally again. And they have begun to function more normally today.

Now, normal functioning of credit markets doesn't guarantee economic growth in this quarter or next quarter, but it does prevent a collapse of the credit system that our economy needs to operate on a daily basis.

So I think the arguments that there are jobs at stake in the auto industry is a false argument, because there are jobs at stake in every corner of our economy. The argument that an economic recovery package passed last month is justification for these kinds of subsidies to other manufacturers is mistaken as well, because that was legislation designed to protect every family, every business in America, given the unique crisis we have had in our credit markets.

Our economy is built on the idea of freedom, transparency, and entrepreneurship. I think we should never forget that. We have the freest economy in the world. If you look at the freest and most open economies in the world and compare them to their more heavily regulated counterparts, in every measure, free and open, transparent markets performed better than their more heavily regulated counterparts. I think there is a lesson here: that we should avoid Government intervention wherever possible. We should minimize the cost of regulation wherever possible. Of course, we should avoid legislation such as that being proposed for the auto manufacturers that would intervene and subsidize bad economics, poor performance, and bad management choices.

I hope this legislation will be dealt with in an appropriate way. I hope my colleagues will see the value in protecting the taxpayers by opposing this kind of intervention, this kind of unnecessary subsidy. A lot of people have made the observation that a failure to pass subsidy legislation would make bankruptcy for the auto manufacturers more likely, and that may well be the case. But the bankruptcy protection process is designed to allow firms, large and small, to reorganize, to restructure, to establish a better, more effective business model, a better system for producing the kinds of products customers want, for delivering the services our economy needs, improving efficiency and, in doing so, provide strong, well-paying jobs that are secure for as many of their employees as possible and for an employment base that suits the marketplace. But when you have a business model that has been proven to be as problematic as those of the large three auto manufacturers, sometimes bankruptcy protection is the best possible methodology for restructuring, reorganizing, and putting together a firm that is more competitive and stronger and healthier for the long term.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on these issues. I think it is important that we protect our economy to the greatest extent possible by keeping taxes on capital low, by creating a Tax Code and a regulatory structure that encourages manufacturing and investment, that rewards entrepreneurship, but none of these things requires that we single out one firm or one business over another for a handout or a subsidy at the cost of the taxpayers.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, what is the regular order of business?

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, first, I wish to thank the Senator from New Hampshire who just spoke for his leadership in the Congress, and it has been a pleasure serving with him. I also will be retiring, but one of the people I will miss is John Sununu from New Hampshire, because I think he has contributed a lot to the process.

I wish to also take a moment to bring to your attention and the attention of my colleagues an issue I have worked hard to address in legislation I proposed this Congress. The issue is identity theft. I was hopeful Congress would pass legislation that addresses the problem of unauthorized foreign workers stealing Social Security numbers and then using the numbers to obtain employment and then, eventually, accruing Social Security benefits.

Almost 2 years ago, I introduced S. 699. It is legislation that facilitated the sharing of existing information among government agencies in instances where the infrastructure, if shared, could expose cases of identity fraud. Unfortunately, my bill stalled in committee and has not since received further action. Congress's failure to enact such legislation is disappointing, because it has left in place existing law which is ineffectual in deterring unauthorized foreign workers from stealing the identity of citizens--that is Americans--and nationals. Individuals continue to engage in this activity in violation of our criminal laws as well as our immigration laws while also defrauding Social Security and citizens.

Identity theft continues to plague our country at an alarming rate.

If there was ever any doubt, let last week's discovery--in Weld County, Colorado--of 1,300 stolen Social Security numbers by illegal immigrants serve as a reminder of the pervasiveness of this problem. A single additional case of an unauthorized worker stealing a U.S. citizen's identity is one case too many, for it is well within the Federal Government's ability to stop this rampant problem. If my legislation had been enacted, the 1,300 illegal aliens using fraudulent Social Security numbers and resulting in more than $2.6 million in stolen tax dollars would have caught the attention of law enforcement much sooner.

Last week, after an intense and lengthy investigation by the Weld County Sheriff s Office, the Greeley Police Department, and District Attorney Ken Buck's office, a series of arrests began in a case that is far-reaching and has national implications.

What is upsetting is that Congress has had foresight about the devastating effects of identity theft. We have also been educated, notably by Secretary Chertoff, of the susceptibility for citizens' identities to be stolen by aliens that are in the United States illegally and without authorization to work. I introduced legislation that recognizes the compelling need to modify the law in order to allow our Government both to enforce immigration laws and also protect the victims of identity theft. Under the current law, by the time identity theft is discovered, the damage has already been done. For instance, an 84-year-old Grand Junction woman was deemed ineligible for Federal housing assistance because her Social Security number was being used at a variety of jobs in Denver, making her income too high to qualify. Several individuals had been using her I.D. number, and each individual's salary was then being reported to Social Security. As a result, her income was recorded much higher than

what she was receiving. If the discrepancy had been discovered earlier, before she had applied for her housing grants, there would have been an opportunity to address the disparity before she became a victim twice over.

What is incredible is that the Federal Government, specifically the Internal Revenue Service, is enabling this. Under current policy, the IRS is under no obligation to share information with other agencies upon the discovery of a Social Security number being used with multiple names or in the case where it is discovered that an individual has more than one person reporting earnings for him or her during a single tax year.

I propose to allow the Commissioner of Social Security to share information with the Secretary of Homeland Security, where such information is likely to assist in discovering identity theft, Social Security misuse or violations of immigration law. It is worth noting Secretary Chertoff supports my proposal, believing it is a practical solution that overcomes the current limitations on information sharing.

Despite the force of these arguments supporting legislation that tears down the wall that prevents the sharing of existing information among Government agencies, Congress has so far rejected Secretary Chertoff's call for a legislative solution.

The 1,300 cases of suspected stolen identities exposed in Weld County alone were brought to light after authorities discovered that an illegal immigrant accused of stealing and using a man's Social Security number to get jobs, loans, and other services, had also been filing and receiving tax returns from the Federal Government. It did not take long for investigators to come to the realization that this particular illegal immigrant's suspected use of stolen identity was not an isolated case. As it turns out, these 1,300 other illegal immigrants filed tax returns using the same tax preparer based in Greeley. This is one tax preparer handling 1,300 fraudulent returns. Take a moment and consider the 1,300 illegal aliens' tax returns, which yielded $2.6 million in tax refunds, were handled by a single tax preparer; now consider the number of tax preparers nationwide and the exorbitant amount of tax dollars--likely in the billions--distributed among illegal aliens using fraudulent Social Security numbers. The way our system works, the tax preparer is relieved of liability, absent reckless misrepresentation or a finding of exceptional negligence.

With whom should the liability lie? The obvious answer is the illegal alien guilty of stealing someone else's identity. But what happens to the helpless victim of the identity theft? Shouldn't our law protect the person who has had their identity compromised, and shouldn't our Federal agencies be required to communicate information about an individual's compromised identity before the individual is robbed of opportunities such as taking out a student loan, purchasing a home, or purchasing tools or equipment with a small business loan? Shouldn't we do all that we can to prevent law-abiding citizens falling victim to identity theft?

Occurrences of identity theft perpetrated by illegal immigrants have risen and will continue to rise as better systems are developed for verifying employment. Illegal immigrants will continue to assume the names and Government-issued ID numbers of American citizens in order to thwart detection at workplaces, get driver's licenses and obtain credit. Once a person takes a job in the U.S., one of the first things his employer will likely ask for is his Social Security number. The integrity of the immigration system depends on the genuineness of our efforts to protect citizens from immigrant-related identity fraud. Identity theft prevention and immigration enforcement will be greatly enhanced by legislation that permits the sharing of social security data among agencies.

The Weld County Tax I.D. case is just the tip of the iceberg. If more than 1,300 illegal immigrants can receive more than $2.6 million in tax refunds using stolen Social Security numbers in a community of 100,000 people, how many other cases exist throughout the country? It adds insult to injury that a legislative solution is easily within reach of Congress.

I know we have a lot on our plate this week, but I would ask the Senate to act to close this loophole.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would guess there is nobody in the House that has more rural territory than this Member, and the program that my chairman is suggesting we put in the bill is one that is very important to my constituency. I do have serious reservations, however, about the way we got to having to present this in the first place.

This Member just received this bill very early this morning. I would guess there may be dozens of Members who have issues that they would hope would be in the bill if they had the time or the flexibility in the approach we handled this bill to have their items considered. So in that sense, I have serious reservations, but it is not my intention to object.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, it was just 2 days ago that we were debating an $800 billion continuing resolution to fund our troops and veterans, protect our homeland, respond to natural disasters and put our country on a pathway towards energy independence. Many Members, including this Member, reluctantly agreed to support the CR to keep the essential business of our government running through March 6 of next year.

Now in addition to being asked to pay for a bailout for Wall Street, taxpayers are being asked by House Democrats to swallow an additional 60, that is $60 billion in spending on a laundry list of items I saw for the first time just a few hours ago. This would be laughable if it were not so serious.

I was reluctant to support the CR the other day because virtually every dollar was approved without the consideration of the House Appropriations Committee, without floor consideration in the House and Senate, without any amendments or input from any House Member or Senator and without formal House and Senate conference committee work.

During our debate we all agreed on the importance of getting the appropriations process back on track. Just 2 days ago we found ourselves back on the House floor making the very same mistakes again, debating an additional $60 billion--$60 billion is a lot of money--in spending legislation that very few have yet seen. There was no committee consideration, no amendments and no debate. One more time, we are presented with a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. So much for getting the appropriations process back on track.

The majority is describing this legislation as a ``stimulus package'' to help our national economy. But let's be clear about that. Let's not fool ourselves. This is a political document pure and simple. If these priorities are so important, why hasn't this bill gone through the normal legislative process? We could have, and should have, debated many of the items included in this package, hearing full committee and House floor consideration when we are considering each of the 12 individual bills. But as we know, the majority is unwilling to move individual spending bills and derailed the appropriations process for this entire year.

Before you make a decision on this legislation, I ask you to consider three sobering facts: First, of the projected $247 billion increase in the budget deficit in 2008, $226 billion results from additional spending, and $21 billion results from decreased revenues. Second, in 2009, spending is projected to reach 21.4 percent of the GDP for the first time since 1993. Third, balancing the Federal budget by 2013 would require either limiting annual spending growth to 1.4 percent or raising annual revenue growth at 8 percent or a combination of both.

So to balance the budget, we either need to raise taxes or we need to spend less. Now I didn't fall off the turnip truck this morning. It doesn't take an economist to tell you that the economy needs our help. And what does this Congress do? It proposes to spend billions and billions and billions more without any offsets in spending. The failure to adhere to pay-as-you-go, or what we call PAYGO, means that this new spending will be financed through additional borrowing, which will increase interest rates and prove a further drag on our struggling economy.

In recent days, government has taken steps to bail out the auto industry to the tune of some $25 billion. It has proposed a bailout for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the tune of another $25 billion. It has committed as much as $70 billion to rescue AIG. In the last few weeks, this Congress hasn't found a cause that doesn't need a handout or a bailout. Where does the spending end, Mr. Speaker? Where does it end?

In this time of financial instability and national anxiety over the state of our financial market, the first goal of the Congress should be to do no harm. But this legislation does just the opposite. Is it any wonder that the approval rating of Congress is now at 13 percent? If Congress were a business, its CEO would have been fired long ago.

Mr. Speaker, there's an old saying: ``No bill is better than a bad bill.'' That is especially true in this case. We would be doing our constituents, our shareholders, the American taxpayer, a tremendous favor if we took our foot off the gas pedal for a while. We ought to be focused on more oversight rather than more spending. Indeed, spending money is not the answer to every problem.

Mr. Speaker, I have got a feeling that I have seen this movie before. And believe me, the sequel is always worse than the original. We must display more discipline and demonstrate better judgment in spending taxpayers' money. There is no better time or place to begin than right here now.

I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this unfettered spending spree.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take very much time, but I do want to take just a moment to express to the Members that which I have expressed to my chairman in many a forum.

This Member has been very, very concerned about the way the appropriations process has been working during this Congress, concerned enough to think that we could very well be on the pathway to destroy the Appropriations Committee, which has historically been the rock of this place in terms of accomplishing real work.

I certainly don't point to my chairman in terms of these concerns directly. We have very, very fine members with great experience and talent on each of our subcommittees. On both sides we have fabulous staff people who make a great contribution to this entire arena. But over this last year or year-and-a-half, those people have been heard all too seldom. Indeed, while our staffs do work together weekend after weekend, in turn they know full well we are not producing the product we could if we had a fully-developed bipartisan discussion in every one of these very important subcommittees.

It is with that concern that I rise to suggest to the Members, it is long past due that we change the pattern by way of which we are carrying forward our appropriations business.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.