[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 176 (Wednesday, November 19, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10627-S10629]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 
1123, H.R. 6867, an act to provide for additional emergency 
unemployment compensation and, with that, I send a cloture motion to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 1123, H.R. 6867, the Unemployment 
     Compensation Extension Act of 2008.
         Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Patrick J. Leahy, Bernard 
           Sanders, Kent Conrad, E. Benjamin Nelson, John D. 
           Rockefeller, IV, Dianne Feinstein, Robert P. Casey, 
           Jr., Patty Murray, Richard Durbin, Sheldon Whitehouse, 
           Barbara A. Mikulski, Barbara Boxer, Carl Levin, Daniel 
           K. Akaka, Mark L. Pryor.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 
quorum required under rule XXII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I appreciate the patience of all my 
colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I would ask my friend, the majority 
leader, now, if consent is not granted, this vote would be on Friday?
  Mr. REID. That is right.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I say to my friend, I will be working 
on my side to see if it is possible to move that vote forward to 
tomorrow. Hopefully, he will be doing the same.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I certainly think it would be appropriate 
if we can do that. I will do everything I can to move this forward.
  I again say, Madam President, I appreciate the patience of everyone 
today. A lot of times we do not spend a lot of time here, but it is 
hard getting here. I appreciate it very much. And we were interrupted 
by the President of Bolivia.
  I should say--and I am sorry I did not to my friend, Senator 
McConnell--if we do get cloture, then we could even do that, have a 60-
vote threshold on that. And if that were done, we would be out of here 
as far as I know. So we will work together to see what we can get done. 
We will work to see what we can get done in the next 12 hours.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Auto Manufacturing Industry Bailout

  Mr. SUNUNU. 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

[[Page S10628]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). The Senator from Colorado is 
recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, what is the regular order of business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering the motion to 
proceed to H.R. 6867.
  Mr. ALLARD. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Identity Theft

  Mr. ALLARD. 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

[[Page S10629]]

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.

                          ____________________