Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Texas congressional delegation--the Democrats in that delegation--this is a proud day for us to welcome a distinguished Texan who rose from Weatherford, Texas, to serve here with the legendary Sam Rayburn and then to preside over this Chamber.

To formally introduce him, I would yield to the dean of our delegation, Congressman Ortiz.

Madam Speaker, Speaker Jim Wright, for both all those, who have had not a chance to serve with him, he's here to say hello as well as to colleagues with whom he served, like old Ralph Hall over there and others of our colleagues.

Madam Speaker, with all of the recent talk about unearned bonuses, I want to talk about a bonus that we Americans can give to ourselves and the world. We can do that by approving President Obama's plan to ``make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy.'' Because we can build a clean energy economy by reducing greenhouse gas emissions--carbon pollution--through a market-based system, as the President has proposed, I am today, together with a number of my colleagues, introducing the Safe Markets Development Act.

This legislation will help to ensure that any future market for carbon allowances is not abused by price speculators or undermined by excessive price volatility. This is the first cap-and-trade measure to be filed in this Congress, and it is unique both in responding to concerns about market manipulation, and in its broad support bringing new members and a broader array of interests behind this new idea about how to resolve one aspect of our transition to a cleaner world.

The Safe Markets bill offers an approach that will provide a narrow auction and trading environment for the start-up phase for a cap-and- trade or cap-and-invest system. Experts on commodities markets tell us that price volatility is not unusual with new markets. And certainly legitimate concern recently over speculation in fossil fuel and financial markets must not stand in our way of new clean energy policy.

How does this bill achieve science-based emission reductions? It creates an independent board with strict conflict-of-interest provisions and post-employment restrictions to determine the annual prices per ton of carbon necessary to meet science-based annual emission targets from 2012 to 2020. The Treasury Department would conduct quarterly allowance auctions designed to maintain this price. Under the legislation, the board would conduct an annual review of its success in meeting emission goals in order to adjust for gas prices to ensure compliance with the next year's targets.

Just as a child removes training wheels after becoming comfortable cycling, or tries the shallow end of the pool before moving into the deep end, so too we can gain experience over these first eight years to move eventually to a more traditional cap-and-trade system.

Like President Obama, I believe that the best approach is one that relies

upon a 100 percent auction--that does not give away to polluters ``pollute free'' cards. Budget Director Dr. Peter Orszag has correctly noted that giving away allowances would represent the largest corporate welfare program that has ever been enacted in the history of the United States. As noted in another recent statement by over 600 economists calling for auctioning all allowances, free allocations do little or nothing to protect families and businesses from higher energy costs. The significant shortcomings of the European cap-and-trade system are largely linked to the pursuit of this politically easy but very ineffective course. An abundance of free allocations just leads to more price speculation and would hinder the ability of the system to properly reduce emissions.

The bill that I am introducing today represents the type of legislation that I will continue offering, building block by building block, to help us achieve a comprehensive solution. Next will be a plan that I will advance to ensure the competitiveness of American importers and exporters in the new energy economy. I am pleased this legislation enjoys support from a number of members of the Blue Dog coalition, such as Representative Jim Cooper and Representative Heath Shuler, as well as members of other caucuses here in Congress and a broader array of business interests such as the National Venture Capital Association.

Last week, Speaker Pelosi brought together key House committee chairs to sign a statement that they are uniting behind one bill to achieve our shared goal with President Obama of a more accessible, affordable health care system for every American. I believe we need to do the same thing to resolve global warming. Today's bill represents one new element of that broader legislation that must be developed through cooperation and collaboration of the House Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees as well as many other Members.

I believe that a role exists for every Member of this Congress who is willing to work in good faith based on good science to end obstruction and reduce the real threat of global warming. The more Members we bring together, the more successful we will be in enacting the solution that President Obama has offered and move us to a clean energy economy.

AIG--It has become shorthand for ``Arrogant, Irresponsible Greed.'' The big difference between the AIG insurance bootleggers and Ponzi felon Bernie Madoff is Madoff hasn't asked for a bailout yet, although taxpayers are providing him public housing in prison.

Of course, we wouldn't need to react so swiftly today about these outrageous bonuses if more people had been willing to speak out, not in January, but last September, when the Bush bailout provided almost $1 trillion on unconditional terms. So many here accepted it, hook, line and sinker. Some of us urged last September the dangers of a bailout with no effective limitation on executive compensation, or on compelling taxpayers to bail out the rest of the world.

Well, today's bill is very important in restoring Eisenhower-level taxes to those who took these bailouts. We need to ensure that it gets to the bonuses paid to foreign AIG employees. We need to question why this bailout helped AIG provide 20 European banks almost $60 billion, without asking them to sacrifice one red cent.

The same arrogance and indifference to the struggles of American families that necessitate today's bill, means that some of the most creative people in the world are already working to find ways around the bill. They will use the same creativity they have employed to dodge their tax responsibilities by going to offshore tax havens, and creating subsidiaries, and other creative means that we need to guard against in this legislation.

Meaningful reform means getting behind thoroughly crafted legislation that returns accountability, transparency, responsibility, and the rule of law to markets that haven't had the rule of law for the last 8 years.

Ever since the Bush Administration insisted taxpayers fund a near bottomless bailout, the problem has been battling the mindset that some folks are special--they are above responsibility for their actions, above any public accountability.

Today's legislation is important. It has been swift. It is an overdue step that Congress needs to take, but it must be the first step, not the last.

I thank the gentleman, and I thank my colleague from Texas. It is great that the House is tonight considering a package of elder justice legislation. These bills, of which I am a sponsor of both of the earlier bills by Ms. Waters and Mr. Sestak, are complementary. There is really no silver bullet when it comes to trying to help our elderly citizens, but we think that Silver Alert is one component. And, as my colleague from Texas pointed out, Amber Alert became a national program because of something that happened in Texas. I am pleased that Texas also has taken a leadership with Silver Alert.

Just a couple of examples of what has happened with our State Silver Alert program. I had a constituent who began driving south of Austin about 80 miles to San Antonio, then drove another couple hundred miles up to Dallas going back through Austin, and was finally found there. If he had been here in the North, he would have gone through about seven States. And he was clearly lost. They found him in a shopping center parking lot as a result of Silver Alert, and the Austin Police Department was notified.

More recently, we had an example from the Texas hill country in Kerrville, where a fellow ended up driving to San Marcos. Our San Marcos Police Department dispatchers were helpful because of the Silver Alert program, described just as my colleague from Texas mentioned, using the existing billboards and existing resources, was really valuable in finding it.

As Mr. Johnson pointed out, since this bill was passed here last fall, two more States have joined the effort; I believe there are about another 10 that have it under consideration. All we are trying to do through the Silver Alert initiative here at the national level is to provide them a clearinghouse of best practices, just as we did with Amber Alert earlier, where we will coordinate federal resources from several agencies that have responsibilities, and also reward best practices of the States, try to see that these are replicated so that we can find these people.

This legislation is also related to the legislation we were just considering. As the Elder Justice Coalition pointed out in a statement that they had today endorsing the Silver Alert bill, they say, ``A missing elder person can be the next victim of elder abuse. It is critical that all appropriate resources are utilized at the local level to assist in the safe locating of missing older persons.''

This legislation has been endorsed by a large number of organizations. There is a recognition, we have talked a lot about Alzheimer's tonight and other forms of dementia, that about 60 percent of the people who are afflicted with Alzheimer's at sometime during their disease will wander off from their caregiver. If they are not found within 24 hours, up to half will suffer serious injury or death. Only 4 percent of those who leave home alone are able to find their way back. And so there is a big gap here, a serious problem, if they leave home in not being able to get back. We hope to use what the States have done, what the Amber Alert success has been to link everyone up.

There are many organizations, as I mentioned, that have joined in supporting this effort; but it came to my attention as a Texas idea because of a constituent, Bill Cummings, who is really a model citizen in his involvement and concern for the community. Bill and Carlos Higgins, who is also a devoted member of the Texas Silver-Haired Legislature, brought this to the attention of the Silver-Haired Congress, as seniors from all over the country came together here in Washington, came over to the office, told me of the success of the program, and asked that we take this initiative. We have now been joined by the American Health Care Association, the Assisted Living Federation of America, the National Citizens Coalition for Nursing Home Reform, the Child Alert Foundation, the Alzheimer's Association, and the Alzheimer's Foundation of America, all offering their support for this legislation.

Finally, as both of you have noted, this has been a bipartisan effort. I salute Mr. Bilirakis and Mrs. Myrick, who I believe is not able to join us on the floor tonight. Hers is not a Silver Alert bill, but it is again a companion measure that we have incorporated into this.

Mr. Bilirakis had a very similar idea based on an unfortunate experience in his district. Working together, tonight we can take a positive step forward to keep our seniors safe.

Well, how we got in this situation is that ideology triumphed over reason. For the last eight years, and a little longer, we have been told that there are few problems in America that can't be solved other than by more tax breaks and a permissive attitude toward corporate law enforcement. Now we have the results, the Bush recession, and if we don't pass this legislation it will soon become the Bush depression.

Now, the real question we need to be asking is, ``how do we get the biggest

bang for the buck?'' We want to be concerned about every single one of these taxpayer dollars, that they do the most possible to ensure an economic recovery. And one of the people that we have turned to is a principal economic adviser to Senator John McCain and his presidential campaign.

He, like other economists, has analyzed the provisions of this bill, and he has told us that we will add to our gross domestic product $1.72 for every 1 dollar that we spend in this bill on food stamps to help hungry people in this country. He also told us that on some of the corporate loss carryback provisions, we will get only 19 cents added per dollar spent, and that with a permanent corporate tax cut, as some have advocated, we will get only 30 cents for every dollar we invest.

I think we need to focus our attention where it does the most good in order to ensure an economic recovery for families across our country.

On your time, later.

Let me give an example of what this bill does with regard to one provision in this bill that I was involved in writing that deals with the illegal action of the Secretary of the Treasury under President Bush, Mr. Paulson, to just suspend the law that President Ronald Reagan signed so that corporations wouldn't go out and dodge their taxes by taking over some other corporation's tax losses. Secretary Paulson suspended that law without any legal basis for banks in this country, and some have estimated that could result in a drain on the Treasury of $140 billion. This bill closes that loophole.

On your time.

May I have regular order and may I be assured that I have my full minute to discuss what I want to discuss?

That is great. I have got an additional minute yielded here and a minute there. Which, Madam Speaker, may I take first?

All right, I yield for 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Not only looked at it, but I heard testimony all this morning in the Budget Committee.

I have not only looked at the report, but I have spent most of the morning listening to the testimony of Dr. Elmendorf, who wrote that report, and indeed it is from that very report that the kind of language that I was referring to earlier, some of the proposals that you are advocating, are the ones that are the least effective for getting our recovery going, and that is why I think we have a blended proposal here. But some of the changes you want are not efficient. They are a weak way of getting recovery, and we should be focused on the biggest bang for the buck.

Now, let me focus on the minute that the gentleman from Massachusetts was kind enough to yield to me, because there is one provision in this bill that I think is very important. It is $13.5 billion in additional assistance to many working families, many middle-class families, concerning higher education.

This was not in the bill as originally proposed by President Obama and his advisers, but he said, as he is saying to Republicans, I'm sure, right now, ``If you've got a better idea, I'm open to it.'' And in this case, the better idea was an idea he advanced in the campaign that we need to do more, particularly at a time of economic downturn, to get more of our young people and perhaps not so young people back into community colleges, into higher education institutions across this country.

What this tax credit will do, in addition to the important increase in Pell grants in this bill, is to provide a refundable credit to many working families of up to $1,000, up to $2,500 to other families that will for the first time cover textbooks.

This credit will for the first time cover textbooks, will supplement Pell grants, will provide a real opportunity not only for individuals to retool their skills but in the process retool our whole economy with a better trained workforce.

I think this is a very effective way to address economic recovery. I'm pleased it has been incorporated in this bill. There is not a family that has a stake in higher education, trying to get someone into a higher education institution, or who has someone there now that is not likely to gain, middle-class families, working families, from this bill.

One way this bill promotes economic recovery is by promoting educational opportunity. $13\1/2\ billion of targeted tax relief to help young people and not so young people attend college. Today, one out of five graduating high school students does not qualify for this assistance. But, because we provided a refundable tax credit, we help them, just as the appropriations section of this bill helps with expanded Pell Grants and other direct aid.

For one of these, Brad Burnett at Austin Community College, he says, ``Getting a college education means breaking a generations' long cycle of poverty within my family that lets me fulfill the American dream.''

For the first time, we cover textbooks and instructional materials under this bill. As we provide this individual opportunity, we upgrade the skills of our workforce and help climb out of this economic recession. For students, this is a bill that provides hope we can believe in. And for every one of these students who uses the opportunities in this bill, it can provide a diploma that they can count on.

Madam Speaker, since the broad outlines of economic recovery legislation were first announced, Representative Tom Perriello and I have been working with our colleagues to see that that legislation was strengthened to include additional assistance for students and their families, students who deserve all the education that they are willing to work for.

Today we are pleased to announce success. The legislation that will be filed to improve and strengthen our economy at this time of economic downturn will include about $12.5 billion in new federal assistance over the next 2 years in the form of federal tax credits. These tax credits will be expanded to include textbooks and course materials. They will help now so that every family that is spending a dollar on higher education this year will know they will get that dollar back, up to $2,500 next year when they pay their tax return.

For the first time in history, this will be a refundable credit, as we proposed it, so that families making less than $40,000 a year, who did not qualify for the full credit in the past, will now be entitled to get up to $1,000 of their expenses. At a time of economic downturn, this is the time to support our students and their families. Help them and help rebuild our economy.

What progress, when this Congress and our new President accord such a high priority to the health of our children. A healthy body, like an educated mind, is an opportunity that all children should share--an opportunity denied to over 1 million Texas children because of the failures of Governor Bush and culminating in the ignominious vetoes of President Bush.

Good health care also means prevention, preventing the scourge of tobacco-related diseases. By hiking tobacco taxes today, we will reduce childhood nicotine addiction tomorrow. And this bill takes modest steps to reduce tobacco smuggling, while adding a new provision that I authored directing the Treasury Department to move forward promptly on more effective ways to reduce this serious public health and law enforcement problem.

It is ironic that today, once again, the Republican leadership has one complaint: That we Democrats move too fast, to do too much, for too many young children across our country when it comes to health care. We plead guilty. And we will keep pushing to give these children the care they deserve.

Madam Speaker, in these tough economic times, our families need all the support that we can provide them. Whatever we can do to assist those who seek more education and training to better prepare themselves for this tougher, tighter job market and rising unemployment and under-employment rates, we need to do.

That's why today, Representative Tom Perriello and I, joined by a number of our colleagues on the House Ways and Means Committee, are introducing the College Learning Access Simplicity and Savings Act. We want to put more students in class. It will make our ability to assist students to gain access to our institutions of higher education much easier. Students and their families can benefit from additional and more simplified tax credits for higher education expenses.

Last year, legislation that I offered simplified the student financial aid forms. Now, this legislation will take on the 1040. Today, higher education provisions are needlessly complex. It takes IRS an 86-page brochure to explain to families how to use the existing tax credits for higher education. The complex process is so challenging that 1 in 4 eligible taxpayers don't claim any of the benefits available. It shouldn't take a certified public accountant to become a CPA, or a teacher, or an engineer. This legislation would consolidate some of the existing provisions into a single, unified, easy-to- understand, higher education tax credit that is both more generous and easier to use.

Our bill joins the Hope Tax Credit (currently up to $1,800 per year) with the above-the-line tax deduction for qualified tuition and expenses (currently tax deductible up to $4,000). We replace all of this with a new $3,000 tax credit that is usable for undergraduate education and the first 2 years of graduate school, up to a lifetime limit of $12,000. Up to half of this new tax credit would, for the first time, be refundable. This ensures that working folks, families that are struggling to become part of the middle class, will no longer be excluded from this higher education tax credit.

This bill is, of course, no substitute for a substantial increase and an acceleration of those Pell Grant increases Congress has already enacted. But tax relief, done in a refundable form, can work hand-in- hand with Pell Grants to ensure more opportunity.

We are justifiably concerned with the federal deficit, but there's a real opportunity deficit we need to be concerned with also. When our students are not able to achieve their full, God-given potential, a deficit occurs, and it is that deficit, that opportunity deficit, that this legislation seeks to address.

I respectfully call on our new President-elect to consider inclusion of this legislation in the economic recovery legislation that this Congress must adopt as soon as possible. Investing in American students is an investment in America's future. Putting Americans to work means ensuring that they have access to all the education for which each is willing to work.

It was Thomas Jefferson who urged public support of higher education, wanting the youth of all our states to ``drink from the cup of knowledge.''

Today, there are students who are thirsty for that knowledge, but they confront a number of challenges. Mr. Perriello and I, and our colleagues, hope to address those challenges, and we hope we will have the opportunity to see this legislation enacted into law in the next few weeks.

Listening carefully to neighbors concerned about their retirement, home, or small business, when some in Washington repeatedly hit the panic button, I recognize the need for a swift response.

But when asked for $700 billion in taxpayers' dollars, almost overnight, we have a duty to secure a responsible plan. What President Bush is demanding in response to this subprime lending debacle that we reward Wall Street with what is essentially the biggest subprime loan in American history. We cannot afford to give almost unlimited discretion to one man to determine what toxic securities to buy and at what price, and we should not bail out the entire world.

I will not be stampeded into voting ``yes'' when President Bush employs his standard my-bill-or-no-bill approach. Today, we must draw the line so that tomorrow other irresponsible actors will not be in line asking for a handout.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I commend Warren Buffet on his confidence in American business, but his recent combined investment in Goldman Sachs and General Electric was not a charitable donation. He is not purchasing toxic securities; he is buying preferred stock. Why should American taxpayers get anything less? Why does he buy the preferred, and we buy the leftovers?

I share my neighbors' concerns about the impact of some in Washington hitting the panic button on their retirement, their home, or their business. But when markets are poisoned, you demand the best antidote-- Not yield to another of President Bush's take-it-or-leave-it demands.

Thank you.

Like the Iraq war and the PATRIOT Act, this bill is fueled by fear and hinges on haste. So much is missing. There is:

No requirement that Wall Street pay a dime for the damage it caused or the cleanup cost; though a future President can request that Congress do what it declines to do today.

No meaningful limitation on outrageous executive pay; like the war, there is no shared sacrifice; only rewards for the greedy and more burdens for the needy.

No complete bar on American taxpayers having to bail out the Bank of China--and the entire world.

No guarantee taxpayers will not be overcharged for buying toxic debts that no one else wants.

No guarantee taxpayers get a fair share in future profits of those who are bailed out.

Yes, every one of these concerns receives cosmetic attention in this bill. Not even Avon or Mary Kay can compete with the cosmetics in this bill. It's 100 pages--much better indeed--but three pages of what Secretary Paulson would do and 97 pages of what Secretary Paulson could do, plus excuses for approving most of his three pages.

It aspires, but it seldom requires. All of us want to avoid further economic deterioration. Action or inaction today--that is a false choice. It is a matter of having never seriously considered any alternative in these negotiations to handing over $700 billion to the same Bush Administration that has done so much to create this crisis, so little to prevent it, and for whom the vultures have now come home to roost.

Congressman Lloyd Doggett's assertions about the shortcomings of the legislation are supported by the following citations to the bill:

(1) ``No requirement that Wall Street pay a dime.'' Section 134 (After 5 years, the President need only submit a proposal, which he may or may not support, to Congress, which it may or may not approve, for recouping any shortfall from the financial industry.)

(2) ``No meaningful limitation on outrageous executive pay.'' See Section 111 (Providing limited and vague restrictions on executive compensation and golden parachute payments. Even these very modest provisions apply only during the period of the bailout or as long as the Treasury actually holds the company's debt or equity.)

(3) ``No bar on American taxpayers having to bailout the Bank of China.'' See Section 101(e) (Includes no prohibition on any American institution acquiring troubled assets owned by foreign institutions and reselling them to the Treasury.); Section 3(9) (Subsection (a) defines bailout-qualified ``troubled assets'' as mortgage-related securities created before March 14, 2008, but then subsection (b) then grants essentially unlimited authority for the Treasury Secretary to buy any asset he chooses; neither subsection applies a limitation regarding the date upon which the asset was acquired); see also Section 112 (In certain circumstances, foreign banks holding troubled assets may also sell these assets to the Treasury.)

(4) ``No guarantee that taxpayers will not be overcharged for buying toxic debts.'' See Section 101(e) (expresses concern about unjust enrichment while at the same time granting the Secretary of the Treasury unfettered discretion in purchasing troubled assets.)

(5) ``No guarantee that taxpayers really share in future profits of those bailed out.'' See Section 113(d) (The value of any stock warrants received for troubled assets is at the discretion of the same Treasury Secretary who has made clear he does not want the warrants.)

Madam Speaker, as one of those who voted against President Bush's bailout proposal, I want to express my continued interest in working together to address the Nation's current financial challenges. I do not oppose reasonable steps to intervene in the economy so long as all the burden is not placed on the taxpayers.

I recommend that the House promptly approve a resolution calling on the Administration to exercise authority it already possesses to ensure that our financial markets continue to function properly.

The FDIC should utilize its emergency powers to immediately raise the limits on federally-insured accounts at all banks. The Securities and Exchange Commission should review and consider suspension of current accounting rules on the valuation of mortgage-backed securities. And the FDIC should consider relying on the net worth certificate approach that it utilized during the savings and loan debacle of the 1980s.

These are not just my ideas, rather, they are ideas recommended to the Congress by William Isaac, President Reagan's former Chairman of the Federal Deposit and Insurance Corporation. That approach, and others that were not considered last week, should be considered now to ensure that our financial markets continue to operate.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6600) to amend title II of the Social Security Act to prohibit the inclusion of Social Security account numbers on Medicare cards, as amended.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is an all-Texas act this afternoon, but it's about a measure that affects seniors and individuals with disabilities all over this country.

General Leave

Let me first ask unanimous consent that Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to add any extraneous material in the Record concerning H.R. 6600, as amended.

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

There are 44 million seniors and individuals with disabilities who carry in their wallets or in their purses something that makes them unnecessarily more vulnerable to identity theft, and that is their Medicare cards. Apart from the Social Security card, itself, the Medicare card is the most frequently issued government document displaying a Social Security number. This practice invites foul play.

To protect both the savings and the peace of mind of Medicare beneficiaries, I've introduced with the assistance and the encouragement of my

colleague from Texas, the ranking member on the Social Security Subcommittee, Mr. Johnson, the Medicare Identity Theft Prevention Act. This bipartisan legislation would require Medicare to take the steps that private companies and that other government agencies have already taken to protect the identities of our seniors.

Every time a senior or an individual with a disability hands over a Medicare card, that person is handing over the keys of financial security. With increasingly sophisticated thefts by identity thieves, inaction is unacceptable. Seniors have saved and have built over their lifetimes their financial security and their reputations.

Their savings and their credit should not be put needlessly at risk if someone steals their Medicare card. Just as a doctor swears an oath to do no harm in practicing medicine, Medicare should make sure that it does no harm to the financial security and credit rating of its beneficiaries. The Medicare Identity Theft Prevention Act will help to ensure that the government better protects seniors from identity theft, denying thieves access to this critical data.

The private sector and government agencies, including the Veterans Administration and the Department of Defense, have begun to protect Social Security numbers from identity thieves. But Medicare has not yet taken appropriate steps to do this, hence this legislation.

Inaction jeopardizes the safety of millions of our seniors and individuals with disabilities. This legislation has the support of the Consumers Union, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the National Silver-Haired Congress, and the Texas Silver- Haired Legislature, as well as the Elder Justice Coalition.

Seniors confront many threats to their retirement security these days. This bill is one way to prevent their falling victim to swindlers. I urge the adoption of the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think our colleague from Texas. Mr. Johnson has done an excellent job of outlining the scope of identity theft. It's something we hear about every day and sometimes think it's about someone else in some other place until it strikes a friend or loved one.

We need to do a great deal to address identity theft. This is one small measure to encourage the folks at Medicare to begin to phase in a new type of identity marker for Medicare beneficiaries so that we will eliminate this particular source of the problem of identity theft.

I want to acknowledge Kathleen Black on Mr. Johnson's staff, Jackie Binder on mine, as well as our colleague, the chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee, who will be completing his last term here, Mike McNulty of New York, and also to acknowledge the great interest and help from our colleague Representative Paul Hodes of New Hampshire who filed similar legislation and then worked with us to get this legislation approved. He's unable to be here today, but he's been very concerned about the identity theft issue and has offered great help in fashioning this legislation.

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I believe the problem is clear. The small step we're taking through this legislation is clear, and I would move adoption of the bill.

I yield back my time.

Perhaps the sixth time will be the charm. This is the sixth time that this House has approved this legislation to encourage more renewable energy, more solar energy, more wind energy, and provisions that I authored that will encourage plug-in hybrid vehicles and geothermal heat pumps and will promote small business development of biodiesel.

American innovation can fuel new jobs and increase exports abroad. We can put more green where it really counts, in the wallets and in the purses of the working families of America.

The choice is ours. We can either run this new economy that is less dependent on fossil fuels, or we can get run over by it.

Now, really this is not a House/Senate dispute. This is about the Republicans taking the renewable energy bill hostage. Their approach boils down to this: They absolutely refuse to let us take America forward into a less fossil fuel-dependent economy unless we borrow the money to do it.

We all know what the George Bush approach has been for 8 years. ``What, me worry?'' Well, his philosophy is ``just swipe the debt on the national credit card.'' Just borrow a little more money, whether it's the cost of the Iraq war, or it's $700 billion for a Wall Street bailout. ``Don't worry, it's a free lunch. What, me worry? No, just put it on the credit card.''

And that's what they're saying this morning. They will not let us move forward with renewable energy and a new green economy unless we borrow more money. How much more money do they think the American people can stand to borrow?

Under President George Bush we have added almost $4 trillion, more than all the presidents before him put together borrowing from foreign sources. And they want us to borrow even more before they will allow us to do what the American people want, and that is, to look to the future.

If this George Bush bailout proposal has taught us anything, it is the danger of over-borrowing.

The President's answer to us this morning regarding an over-leveraged Wall Street is to further over-leverage the American people.

Today's bill doesn't make that mistake. If it's worth doing, it's worth paying for. That's what we do.