John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your kind remarks. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill comes to the floor in a fashion too many bills have not in this Congress: First, we held a subcommittee hearing. Then the legislation was drafted with bipartisan support. Finally, we ensured that it does not increase the deficit by a penny. It is an example of what can happen if we pursue goals that are widely shared and that have been demonstrated to achieve results. The legislation before us would allow all States to follow the successful child welfare reform model tested in Florida and other places. As we learned in our hearing, those reforms reduced the number of Florida children in foster care by 36 percent. It increased adoptions by 12,000, and it improved child safety, all without spending more taxpayer money. I would like to insert into the Record a letter of support for this legislation from Youth Villages, which has worked with local officials to achieve such successes in Florida. Since 1994, 22 States have joined Florida in using child welfare waivers. This legislation extends the authority for all States to do so for 5 years. This will allow other States to test and replicate policies that are working. It is my hope that this one day will pave the way for successful Federal reforms covering all States. While it appears to be good policy to allow States to waive Federal rules, perhaps future Congresses will find it equally propitious to abolish them. Meanwhile, let's move this bill forward and continue our efforts to improve the lives of all children. Youth Villages, Arlington, VA, September 20, 2010. Chairman Jim McDermott, Ways and Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, Washington, DC. Ranking Member John Linder, Ways and Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman McDermott and Ranking Member Linder. On behalf of Youth Villages, I am writing in support of your bill, H.R. 6156. This legislation provides critical authority for the Department of Health and Human Services to extend the Title IV-E waiver program, which has demonstrated substantial impact since creation in 1994. These waivers provide states with greater flexibility in the use of Federal funds for alternative services and supports that promote safety, permanency and well-being for children in the child protection and foster care system. Youth Villages is a leader in innovative and effective services for troubled youth and their families. Since 2008, Youth Villages has had the opportunity to work collaboratively with several local, privatized child welfare organizations, known as Community Based Care agencies in implementing Florida's Title IV-E waiver. Youth Villages has three offices in Florida and is working with local entities to implement our intensive in-home Intercept services, identify and serve underserved or `stuck' populations, and provide them with outcome data to support the impact of their waiver effort. As a result of the flexibility afforded by the Title IV-E waiver, intensive reunification and targeted prevention services are given greater focus in the state's child welfare service approach. Without the award of the waiver, it would have been difficult for Youth Villages to expand its Intercept program into the state to serve the child welfare population. In the two years that Youth Villages has been operating in Florida, we have served over 225 children and families across the Central and Southern regions of the state. Over 77% at six months post-discharge are still living at home or in a home-like environment. The savings associated with serving these 225 children through Intercept instead of congregate, out-of-home placements amounts to roughly $19 million dollars when considering recidivism rates associated with both Intercept and non-Intercept placements. Youth Villages pledges its full support of H.R. 6156, as this legislation has the ability to transform the child welfare system from one that incentivizes out-of-home placement to a system that promotes in-home treatment and family unification. Regards, Patrick Lawler, CEO, Youth Villages. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, some Democrats have said the welfare expansion in this bill is about jobs. It's not. It's about more welfare. This bill would expand the welfare emergency fund Democrats created in last year's failed stimulus bill. That fund made available up to $5 billion in new ``welfare emergency funds'' over fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The bill before us would make available another up to $5 billion for just fiscal year 2011, which starts in October. So they propose to double the welfare funds for this program, all in just one year. That is so much new welfare money that CBO estimates States wouldn't be able to spend it all. Still, the $3.5 billion CBO estimates States would spend next year would almost match the $4 billion States have spent in the last two years. No matter how you slice it, spending out of this welfare emergency fund would accelerate rapidly under this bill. What would this money be spent on? The same things it is currently spent on--almost exclusively more and bigger welfare checks. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has prepared a report on how the welfare emergency fund has been spent so far. As of July 22, 2010, only 25 percent had been spent on ``subsidized employment,'' or the salaries of what are short-term positions. And data from liberal advocates for these programs admit that nearly half of those positions have been summer youth jobs. Since summer is just about over, many of the jobs the other side talks about are nearly over, too. And the other side's own rhetoric admits these jobs in general are as temporary as the Federal funding--which must be extended, they say, or else the ``jobs'' will end. The fact is, despite the other side's newfound but empty ``jobs'' rhetoric, a full 75 percent of this money has been spent on basic assistance--that is, on welfare benefits. But these are not just any welfare checks. States have had to be creative to spend this welfare emergency fund money. Last summer New York State used its share of welfare emergency funds to provide one-time $200 ``back to school checks'' to families already on welfare. Instead of spending the money on back to school supplies, many recipients used the money, as CBS News put it, to purchase ``flat screen TVs, iPods and video gaming systems.'' Convenience stores in low-income areas ``noted marked increases in beer, lotto and cigarette sales.'' Perhaps our colleagues think that creates jobs. I disagree.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to order the previous question. I oppose it so that the minority might have the opportunity to offer legislation that has been endorsed by the American people through the YouCut program, legislation that is strongly supported by Members on both sides of the aisle. That legislation is H.R. 5885, a bill introduced to terminate the advance earned income tax credit, saving American taxpayers more than $1 billion over the next decade. An August 10, 2007, report by the GAO revealed significant noncompliance and fraud with the advance EITC. The GAO found that 20 percent of the recipients did not have a valid Social Security number, almost 40 percent of the recipients did not file a tax return, and 80 percent of the recipients failed to comply with at least one program requirement. And yet, despite evidence of significant fraud, abuse, and general non-compliance, GAO found that only 3 percent of the EITC- eligible individuals used the advance option. Given the low level of utilization and the high error rates among those who do use it, several members of the majority party have proposed to terminate the advance EITC option. President Obama has promised to repeal it in both of his annual budgets. Earlier this week, Senator Reid included repeal as an offset in the small business bill on the Senate floor. And last week, four of our Democrat colleagues here in the House introduced deficit reduction legislation that included the very same language on repealing the advance EITC that is the subject of my legislation. Republicans agree with our Democrat colleagues that the advance EITC is a waste of taxpayer money and should be terminated. I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we may consider this legislation on the floor today.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to consider legislation paying another $34 billion in unemployment benefits. The other side says that these unemployment benefits stretching to almost 2 years are needed and must be added to the $13 trillion debt, even as they claim their trillion dollar stimulus plan has been a success at creating millions of jobs. It makes you wonder if they are looking at the same jobs data as the rest of us. Eighteen months ago, this administration said the stimulus would create 3.7 million jobs. It hasn't. Through June of 2010, the United States lost 2.6 million more private sector jobs, leaving millions of Americans to ask: Where are the jobs? The administration also promised that the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8 percent. It hasn't. Instead, unemployment reached 10 percent and remains stuck near that level today, and that ignores millions of missing unemployed left out of the official statistics. The administration also said that the administration would create mostly private sector jobs. It didn't. Managing all that spending helped government jobs grow by 201,000 since the stimulus was passed, which has made Washington, DC, the Nation's strongest job market. Meanwhile, in the rest of the country, 47 out of 50 States have lost jobs since the Democrats' February 2009 stimulus. While the job situation seems to have finally stopped getting worse, things are not getting much better. The trickle of private sector job creation in 2010 is so anemic that, at the current rate, it would take until 2017 to recover the jobs lost during the recession. That's longer than it took to recover the jobs lost during the Depression of the 1930s. Another estimate finds it will take until 2021 to get unemployment back to prerecession levels. Who knew that the administration's recovery summer would last a decade or more. The fact is the only thing the Democrat stimulus has succeeded in creating is an enormous mountain of debt which is already hurting job creation. The bill before us will only make that worse. Unemployed workers want real jobs with real companies in a real economy, not 2 years of unemployment benefits. But all this Congress offers is more debt and ultimately more pink slips. It is hardly what the unemployed need. I urge Members to oppose this bill and insist that any further spending is actually paid for. If the Speaker is right that unemployment benefits are the most stimulative thing we can do, then it will help the economy to cut other less-effective stimulus spending and use it to pay for benefits like these. That is the sort of budgeting, if we were inclined to pass a budget, that we should have been doing all along and is the only hope for turning this economy around and actually creating jobs that all Americans want and the unemployed need most of all.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we are asked to believe that $34 billion in spending in this new bill is an emergency and thus need not be paid for. But since this is the eighth extension of UI benefits in the past 2 years, Members need to ask, can the eighth bill do anything that is still really a budget emergency? In those two years, and counting the bill before us, we will have spent $125 billion in Federal tax dollars for UI benefits. We have paid for exactly $2 billion of that, and done so by raising taxes on jobs. That is a lot of unpaid-for emergency spending. All because of a bankrupt ideology on the other side that thinks the unemployed are somehow helped more when we use borrowed money to provide benefits than when we cut some other spending to actually pay for them. In the real world, people set priorities. They buy one thing, but not another, if they can't afford both. But in this House, which can't be bothered to consider a budget even in time of record deficits and debt, setting priorities is far too much to expect. Yet that sort of priority setting is exactly what we were promised with the Democrats' PAYGO rules. Here is how the President said they would work. ``Now Congress will have to pay for what it spends, just like everybody else. After a decade of profligacy, the American people are tired of politicians who talk the talk but don't walk the walk when it comes to fiscal responsibility.'' Despite that lofty rhetoric, Democrats included an emergency spending trapdoor in their PAYGO rules, so anything that is used to declare an ``emergency'' doesn't have to be paid for. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Levin, earlier this week repeatedly said there were no excuses for not supporting this legislation, but excuses and tax hikes are all the other side offers when it comes to actually paying for their spending. What is the excuse for that--that there is not enough spending around to cut? Tell that to one of your constituents over the next week. Fortunately, the American people are catching on. Last week, leading employers noted the Democrats' policies, including this record accumulation of debt, are hostile to job creation, and more people think Elvis is alive than believe Democrats' trillion-dollar stimulus created jobs. Unemployed workers want real jobs, not 2 years of unemployment benefits. But all this Congress offers is more debt and ultimately more pink slips. That is hardly what the unemployed need. I urge Members to oppose this bill and insist that any further spending is really paid for. That is the only hope for turning this economy around and actually creating jobs that Americans need.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this deficit extender bill. This bill reflects the American people's rejection of the even more expensive bill Democrat leaders wanted to pass this week but couldn't, so now they're searching for an exit strategy and, mostly, for someone else to blame for their inability to govern. Let us be clear: This charade is an effort to entice Republicans into defeating an unpaid-for bill. The Senate is gone. The door is closed. Nothing is going to come of this bill irrespective of who votes for or against it. The title suggests its authors think this bill is about jobs. One expert at the Urban Institute calls that ``Orwellian'' and ``hideously mislabeled.'' From a taxpayer perspective, this is not about jobs. It is about more government spending, more debt, more taxes. That means fewer private-sector jobs. This bill is also an admission that the trillion-dollar 2009 stimulus plan has failed. We were told that, if we passed that plan, unemployment would be 7.4 percent and falling, not 9.9 percent and rising. So now our colleagues want to extend the unemployment benefits for another 6 months. Why just through November? Why not through December as originally intended? Well, we need to get through the next election cycle. Not one penny of the $40 billion that it will cost is paid for. Instead, our colleagues simply declare this eighth extension of unemployment insurance an emergency and add it to our $13 trillion debt. But can an eighth bill doing anything still be called an ``emergency''? This bill perpetuates the payment of a record 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, which encourages benefit collection over work. As the Detroit News recently put it, even in Michigan, which has America's highest unemployment rate, ``Some job applicants are rejecting work offers so they can continue collecting unemployment benefits.'' Stop the madness. Defeat this bill. Then let's really promote jobs by relieving job-creating businesses and workers of higher government spending, borrowing, and taxes, instead of adding to those burdens. General Leave

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my sincere sorrow to the families of those who were killed or wounded in that accident and all mine accidents and remind our friends that this could have been done on unanimous consent without a rule, but since the rule is here, I rise in support of defeating the previous question to the rule so that we can consider Mr. Price's motion The 1996 Republican welfare reform successfully reduced welfare dependence and poverty and increased work and earnings. But despite that success, opponents have spent years trying to undermine welfare reform. They saw a new opening in the Democrats' 2009 stimulus law. In that trillion-dollar bill, they created a new $5 billion welfare emergency fund designed to promote welfare dependence all over again. The new fund pays States if they increase welfare caseloads, among other outcomes. States have been less than eager to collect. By mid- May, less than half, $2.4 billion, had actually been claimed by States. Only three States received full shares. You know something is wrong when the Federal Government has trouble giving away money. Mr. Price's motion would end this program right here and right now. And that is the right policy for a program that should never have been begun. Just consider how this emergency money has been spent so far. One of the largest chunks has been spent on something called ``non- recurrent short-term assistance.'' A program operated in New York last summer offers an example: New York used these funds to make one-time $200 payments to welfare and food stamp recipients supposedly for back- to-school purchases. But that's not how the money was really used. Some recipients used the money, as CBS News put it, to buy ``flat screen TVs, iPods, and video gaming systems.'' Convenience stores in low- income areas noted marked ``increases in beer, lotto, and cigarette sales.''

Mr. LINDER. ATMs ran out of cash, so now we have no idea how those funds were spent, but I suspect many can guess. The Subcommittee on Welfare, on which I serve, recently had a hearing on this fund. One witness noted taxpayers already spend an incredible $953 billion per year on welfare and other low-income benefits. I asked the administration witness sent to us is she still asking for more welfare spending. I said, Is it your testimony that $953 billion is not enough? Her answer was telling: Who's to say what is enough? It is time that the American people are saying this is enough and so should we. [From the Political Hotsheet, Sept. 2, 2009] Unplugged Exclusive: Stimulus Funds for School Supplies Misused (By Sharyl Attkisson) Getting kids back to school with the clothes and supplies they need can strain the family budget. That's why the Governor of New York decided to use federal stimulus funds for a back-to school program. Needy families got a one-time payment of $200 dollars per child to buy school supplies. It adds up to $140 million of your tax dollars. Neasey Hendricks, single mother of five, says she's putting the money to good use. ``Definitely sneakers, try to save a little bit for a haircut, a couple of pairs of pants, some shirts, get the girls a few skirts,'' Hendricks says. While few argued with the concept of helping low-income families, nobody anticipated the chaos that would come next. On August llth, the state of New York deposited the $140 million in stimulus money into the individual food stamp and welfare accounts of people on public assistance. Some saw their balance shoot up by a thousand dollars all at once. The idea was they would use their regular welfare benefits card, which acts like a debit card, to buy the school supplies. There was just one problem. The letter from the state telling them what the money was for didn't arrive until days later. By then, it was too late. ``No one questions the intention of this particular program. However there is an extraordinary distance between the good intention of the program and the implementation of the program,'' Monroe County's Commissioner of Health Services Kelly Reed said on Wednesday's edition of ``Washington Unplugged,'' which first reported the story. County Executive Maggie Brooks says social workers were flooded with calls from merchants who were afraid fraud was being committed. ``We had different retailers calling us and saying people were coming in with their benefit transaction card, and they are purchasing flat screen TV's, iPods and video gaming systems,'' Brooks told CBS News. Brooks doesn't blame the recipients--she blames the state for not ensuring the funds were spent for school. Businessman Josh Babin says the day stimulus money went into the welfare accounts, business at his Rochester Cell phone store doubled. And he doesn't sell school supplies. ``Most of them came in, picked up most of their accessories, most of their products.'' Welfare recipients were also free to withdraw the money as cash. That led to an unexpected run on ATM's across the state. Brenda Smith, manager of a Wilson Farms store in Monroe County, said most of her increase in sales when the stimulus funds were disbursed were not in school supplies, but in ``pre-pay cell or credit cards.'' She said her store's ATM was wiped empty. Managers of three Wilson Farms convenience stores in Rochester also reported empty ATM machines and increases in beer, lotto and cigarette sales. Managers of four Tops Markets stores in Rochester had similar stories. On West Avenue, the store's three ATM's were all depleted by noon on August 11th. ``Large increase in volume of customers but minimal spoke in sales which were not in school supplies but rather candy racks at the register,'' stated investigative notes obtained by CBS News. So many welfare customers were seeking cash back; the stores implemented a $50.00 cash back limit on-the-spot. At the East Ridge Road location, the ATM ran out of money on August 11 as well. ``Numerous clients came in and purchase minimal items to withdraw the $50.00 limit and then returned to other cashiers in the store in order to retrieve all the money out of their account,'' reads investigative notes. And on Upper Falls Blvd., the Tops Market reported ``500 more customers'' but ``$4,000 less in sales'' than usual. Also, ATM's containing $60,000 were entirely depleted. On ``Unplugged'' Reed said one recipient ``had $1000 dollars on their card and jumped over a period of a few minutes over eighteen lines in a Tops store buying something for forty nine cents for two dollars for fifty cents and getting fifty dollars back in cash,'' each time. ATM's were also wiped out in hours at many Wegman's stores statewide and the owner of a Sunoco station described ``scenes of panic'' at her store, with public assistance customers flooding her ATM machine. Some of them, she says, immediately used the cash to buy cigarettes and beer. Monroe County investigators sampled the accounts of more than 70 drug and alcohol rehabilitation clients and found more than half of them withdrew their back-to-stimulus funds entirely in cash. New York Congressman Eric Massa (D-NY) supports the stimulus bill, but said this program is flawed. ``It's a matter of accountability,'' Massa said. ``Ensuring what's happening with the funding. You and I both know where there's crevices, the water will go through those crevices.'' New York State officials defend the stimulus program saying no matter what welfare recipients purchased with the taxpayer funds, it served to stimulate the economy. State spokesman for the program, Kristen Proud said it stimulated the economy. Supporters accuse critics of making unfair stereotypes about welfare recipients. ``We have as many examples of families using the dollars for school clothes, school uniforms, school supplies,'' Proud said when asked about reports of luxury items being purchased with the back- to-school stimulus funds. In Rochester, the Rev. Marlowe V.N. Washington, Pastor of the Baber African Methodist Episcopal Church, contacted CBS News to say that hundreds of grateful local residents have been helped by the back-to-school funds, and that it's unfair for anyone to assume they didn't spend the money on school supplies. ``That is offensive, attacking and mean spirited,'' Washington told us. ``People need to hear how stimulus funds have benefited American families and not hurt them.'' We asked the Inspector General on stimulus funds for comment on this stimulus project. Based on our report, I.G. spokesman Edward Pound told CBS News that his office has notified the HHS Inspector General to make sure that agency is aware of the problem. HHS is the department from which the back-to-school stimulus funds to New York State originated. Because debit cards don't list what was bought, state officials say they'll never know how much of the $140 million actually went for school supplies. Those who bought luxury items didn't break any laws, because there were no strings attached to the money. Little consolation to taxpayers who were promised that they'd know how every dime of stimulus funds was spent.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This resolution is one that, in a perfect world, would not be necessary. In that perfect world, every child would live with two married parents, and every parent would be unfailingly caring and loving for that child. But even as we promote the best environment for raising children, we know that, sadly, that is not the way the world works. So institutions are needed to ensure that, when biological parents don't adequately care for their children, other responsible adults step in. That is the role played by our foster care system and, most important, the thousands of foster parents who make foster care work to protect children. Every day, foster parents care for about 500,000 children across America who cannot safely remain with their own parents. For that, as this resolution expresses, our Nation says ``thank you.'' While we celebrate those who make personal sacrifices to protect and care for children, we must also admit that this system doesn't always work as it should. Just like not every biological parent is up to the task, not every foster parent or caseworker meets expectations either. Sometimes children are subjected to repeated abuse, or worse, from within the very system designed to protect them. The subcommittee on which I serve has had many hearings on such cases in which children have met with horrific abuse while under the supposed supervision of the child welfare system. Those hearings serve as a sad but important reminder why these systems require constant monitoring to ensure children are adequately and appropriately protected. One of those ongoing efforts is to better involve relatives in the care of children. This is a promising approach, with bipartisan support, which recent laws have encouraged. But we won't make the needed progress until the Department of Health and Human Services issues guidance about the ``notification of relatives'' provisions of section 103 of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008. I urge the Department to act without further delay so relatives can play a greater role in the care of vulnerable children. Doing so during this month of May, which this resolution designates as National Foster Care Month, would be a fitting statement of our common desire to better protect children and also relieve some of the strains placed on the foster parents and caseworkers today. That is the intent of what Congress passed and the President signed into law now approaching 2 years ago. This resolution reminds all Americans of the role foster parents especially play in helping children who have already missed out on so much in life. These children deserve to make progress like any other child. Through the efforts of tens of thousands of dedicated foster parents, they often do, against great odds. We owe these dedicated individuals our thanks and continued support.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us would extend for another 2 months special Federal programs that today mean unemployed workers can collect up to 99 weeks of benefits in most States. This compares with a total of up to 26 weeks of benefits in almost all States during normal times. Other Members note the massive expense of all this spending, which would grow by another $18 billion in just the next 2 months. None of it paid for, just as none of the more than $100 billion in ``emergency'' Federal unemployment spending has been paid for since this program began in mid-2008. But stepping back, what are those 73 weeks of additional benefits, at a cost now of $7-8 billion per month, buying American workers and taxpayers? The answer is a whole lot of disincentives to work, according to recent articles. The April 13 Wall Street Journal (``Incentives Not to Work: Larry Summers v. Senate Democrats on jobless benefits'') put it this way, summarizing the effect of unemployment benefits on returns to work: The second way government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment is by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work Each unemployed person has a `reservation wage'--the minimum wage he or she insists on getting before accepting a job. Unemployment insurance and other social assistance programs increase [the] reservation wage, causing an unemployed person to remain unemployed longer.'' Any guess who wrote that? Milton Friedman, perhaps. Simon Legree? Sorry. Full credit goes to Lawrence H. Summers, the current White House economic adviser, who wrote those sensible words in his chapter on ``Unemployment'' in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, first published in 1999. The experts at the Brookings Institution have reported that these unemployment extensions ``correspond to between 0.7 and 1.8 percentage points of the 5.5 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate witnessed in the current recession.'' So even if you accept the low end of the estimate, unemployment would be 9 percent instead of today's 9.7 percent rate. At the other end, the unemployment rate might be below 8 percent but for the effect of extended unemployment benefit extending and thus increasing unemployment. And in case my colleagues on the other side say these effects only matter when unemployment is low and jobs are plentiful, guess again. As noted by the scholar Amity Shines this past week, ``Two scholars, Stepan Jurajda and Frederick Tannery, looked at Pittsburgh in the first half of the 1980s, a period when the Nation had two temporary increases in unemployment benefits. They determined that one third of those claiming unemployment found work within weeks of the expiration of their benefits, but not before.'' And that was when Pittsburgh had unemployment rates far above the US average today, suggesting that the benefits and not the unemployment rate are reason behind extended and increased unemployment. Mr. Speaker, we can do better than this. What unemployed workers really want are jobs and paychecks. We need to start over and do the things that really help create jobs for unemployed workers. That means repealing Democrats' government health care takeover law and scrapping their energy tax hike plans. It means extending expiring tax cuts on businesses and individuals and ending wasteful stimulus spending. And it means committing to not increase any tax until the economy has fully recovered.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I oppose this legislation. Since the Democrats' 2009 stimulus law, 3.3 million jobs have been eliminated, not the 3.7 million jobs they forecast it would create. Unemployment has risen to 10 percent, not the 8 percent peak Democrats promised. And 16 million Americans are currently unemployed, an all time record. That stimulus legislation created numerous welfare expansions, including a new $5 billion welfare ``emergency fund.'' This fund directly undermines the successful 1996 welfare reforms by paying States more money if they increase welfare dependence instead of work. The legislation before us would extend and expand that welfare emergency fund, costing taxpayers another $2.5 billion. Democrats claim this welfare expansion will create jobs, as they claimed their stimulus bill would. The facts show stimulus didn't create jobs, and this won't, either. Why are we doing this? According to the latest MIS figures, States have not spent over $3 billion in the current welfare emergency fund. By the end of year, the Congressional Budget Office estimates one-third of the fund--about $1.5 billion--will remain unspent. But instead of letting this ``emergency'' fund expire, or even just giving States more time to spend current funds, Democrats insist on shoving another $2.5 billion in welfare out the door. This will cost taxpayers billions of dollars more, and benefit especially those few States that spent all of what Democrats promised in last year's stimulus bill. So the more you spend, the more you get. All on top of last year's trillion-dollar stimulus bill, and the trillion-dollar health takeover bill the President signed yesterday. But it's not enough, because it's never enough. Two weeks ago, in a hearing on welfare spending, one expert testified to the subcommittee on which I serve as Ranking Republican that government will spend $953 billion on means-tested welfare programs next year, a nearly 50 percent increase since 2007. I asked the Obama Administration witness, who supported the welfare expansion before us today, whether her testimony was that $953 billion is not enough. She responded: ``Who's to say what is enough?'' The reality is we are the ones elected to represent the American people in saying what is enough. And after a trillion dollars in failed stimulus spending, and a trillion dollars for the government health care takeover yet to come, I say enough. Oppose this unnecessary welfare spending increase.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I feel rude trying to inject some fact into this kabuki theater, but I am going to try: 85 percent of America is insured; 95 percent of those people are happy with their insurance. The other 15 percent uninsured, they consume 70 percent on average as much insurance as those who are insured. They are cared for. The lady in Cleveland who has been referred to ad nauseam is being cared for at the Cleveland Clinic. So what are we to do about those 15 percent? Why not take over 16 percent of the economy. A $2.5 trillion program that will destroy health care for the 85 percent who are happy, to find health care for the 15 percent who are not insured. This has never been about health care. This is about government.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, drip, drip, drip. Here we are for yet another extension of unemployment benefits and various related programs. These programs have been repeatedly extended, even as Democrats claim their economic stimulus plan has worked and is creating jobs. Well, it's not, and our presence on this floor today is yet another affirmation of that obvious fact. If stimulus was working, more people would have paychecks. But it's not, so we are here to hand out more unemployment checks instead. Let's review the history of just the unemployment benefit extensions we are continuing today. In June 2008, Congress created a new Federal ``temporary'' unemployment benefit program paying 13 weeks of unemployment benefits, on top of 26 weeks of State benefits. CBO said the UI portion of that bill would cost $14 billion. Unemployment was 5.5 percent. In November 2008, that temporary program was expanded by 20 weeks of benefits--for a new total of 59 weeks of UI per person. CBO said that would cost just under $6 billion. Unemployment was 6.9 percent. In February 2009, Democrats' stimulus plan extended the temporary program through 2009 and nationalized the Federal/State extended benefits program, among other changes. That added another 20 weeks of Federal benefits, for a total of up to 79 weeks per person. CBO said that would cost $40 billion. Unemployment was 8.2 percent. In November 2009, Congress added another 20 weeks of temporary extended benefits, for a record total of 99 weeks of UI per person. CBO estimated that would cost $2 billion just in the last few weeks of 2009. Unemployment was 10 percent. In December 2009, the temporary program was extended for two months. CBO said that would cost $14 billion. Unemployment was 10 percent. Last month the program was extended through March, at a cost of $8 billion. Unemployment was 9.7 percent. And here we are again today, pondering yet another extension or expansion--the sixth of the program created in the summer of 2008-- costing yet another $6 billion. Since this program began, CBO estimates would suggest we will have spent a total of $90 billion on Federal UI benefits through the end of next month. And that's not counting another $50-plus billion it would cost to extend these programs for the rest of this year, as the Senate approved last week. Unemployment has soared from 5.5 percent to 10 percent. Yet our colleagues on the other side of the aisle press on with their claims that this is somehow creating jobs. It's not. What it is creating is more unemployment taxes, to cover the costs of the record unemployment benefits States are paying out. Those are taxes on jobs, which are rising in 35 States this year, by a total of 44 percent. Madam Speaker, we have tried extending unemployment benefits again and again. And we have only gotten more unemployment. Yet what unemployed workers really want are jobs and paychecks. We need to start over and do the things that really help create jobs for unemployed workers. That means eliminating uncertainty by scrapping Democrats' government health care takeover and cap and tax energy plans, extending expiring tax cuts on businesses and individuals, repealing wasteful stimulus spending, and committing to not increasing any tax until the economy has fully recovered. Until we do that, additional extensions of unemployment benefits will simply spend even more money we don't have without truly helping unemployed workers find jobs, which must be our real goal.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. This bill would increase Federal spending by $10 billion, or $125 per family of four in the U.S. None of which would be paid for. And that's just a fraction of $1,000 per family of four it will cost to extend these programs through the end of the year, as is already in the works. That, too, will get added to our children's already enormous tab of government debt. They deserve far better. Ironically, just two weeks ago the President signed Democrats' ``paygo'' bill into law. He said ``the PAYGO bill . . . says very simply that the United States of America should pay as we go and live within our means again--just like responsible families and businesses do.'' Yet today, with this bill, we're not living within our means, yet again. A second flaw of this bill has to do with jobs. This legislation simply won't create any. Some say that extending unemployment benefits stimulates job creation. If that were so, we would be at full employment already. Today record numbers of Americans--over 11 million--collect unemployment checks instead of paychecks. They collect record weeks of benefits--up to 99 weeks per person. And Congress added another $100 per month to those checks, for the first time ever. Yet since these programs started in 2008, the unemployment rate has jumped from 5.5 percent to over 10 percent as almost 8 million jobs disappeared. So if these unemployment benefits are creating jobs, they are sure hard to see. But what we can see are mammoth payroll tax hikes this year in most States, as they struggle to pay for these benefits. As employer after employer has said, those tax hikes will further harm job creation when businesses and workers are already hurting. In fact, some respected scholars argue these record unemployment benefit expansions actually are resulting in more unemployment, not less. That seems more than plausible. At this time I would request ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record an article from the November 17, 2009 New York Post, which states: As Larry Summers, the president's top assistant for economic policy, noted in July, ``the unemployment rate over the recession has risen about 1 to 1.5 percentage points more than would normally be attributable to the contraction in GDP''. . . Summers knows why the US rate is so high. He explained it well in a 1995 paper co-authored with James Poterba of MIT: ``Unemployment insurance lengthens unemployment spells.'' . . . (T)he evidence is overwhelming that the February stimulus bill has added at least two percentage points to the unemployment rate. If Congress and the White House hadn't tried so hard to stimulate long-term unemployment, the US unemployment rate would now be about 8 percent and falling rather than more than 10 percent and-- rising. Mr. Chairman, we have tried extending unemployment benefits again and again. And we have only gotten more unemployment. Yet what unemployed workers really want are jobs and paychecks. We need to start over and do the things that really help create jobs for unemployed workers. That means eliminating uncertainty by scrapping Democrats' government health care takeover and cap and tax energy plans, extending expiring tax cuts on businesses and individuals, repealing wasteful stimulus spending, and committing to not increasing any tax until the economy has fully recovered. Until we do that, additional extensions of unemployment benefits will simply spend even more money we don't have without truly helping unemployed workers find jobs, which must be our real goal. [From the New York Post, Nov. 17, 2009] The `Stimulus' for Unemployment (By Alan Reynolds) Why did the unemployment rate rise so rapidly--from 7.2 per cent in January to 10.2 percent in October? It was clearly the administration's ``stimulus'' bill--which in February provided $40 billion to greatly extend jobless benefits at no cost to the states. As Larry Summers, the president's top assistant for economic policy, noted in July, ``the unemployment rate over the recession has risen about 1 to 1.5 percentage points more than would normally be attributable to the contraction in GDP.'' And the rate has moved nearly a percentage point higher since then, even though GDP increased. Countries with much deeper declines in GDP, such as Germany and Sweden, have unemployment rates far below ours. Summers knows why the US rate is so high. He explained it well in a 1995 paper coauthored with James Poterba of MIT: ``Unemployment insurance lengthens unemployment spells.'' That is: When the government pays people 50 to 60 percent of their previous wage to stay home for a year or more, many of them do just that. And the stimulus bribed states to extend benefits--which have now been stretched to an unprecedented 79 weeks in 28 states and to 46 to 72 weeks in the rest. Before mid-2008, by contrast, only a few states paid jobless benefits for even a month beyond the standard 26 weeks. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. Extending unemployment benefits from 26 to 79 weeks was guaranteed to leave many more people unemployed for many more months. And longer unemployment translates to higher unemployment rates--because the relatively small numbers of newly unemployed are added to stubbornly large numbers of those who lost their jobs more than six months ago. Until benefits are about to run out, many of the long-term unemployed are in no rush to make serious efforts to find another job--or to accept job offers that may involve a long commute, relocation or disappointing salary and benefits. (Incidentally, the ``mercy'' of longer benefits does no long-term favors: The literature is quite clear that a prolonged period on unemployment tends to depress income for years after you finally go back to work.) The median length of unemployment hovered around 10 weeks for six months before February's ``stimulus'' plan. Since half the unemployed found jobs within 10 weeks, more than half of those counted among the unemployed in one month would no longer be included three months later. In other words, more frequent turnover among the unemployed held down monthly unemployment. But after February, with jobless benefits stretched out to 46 to 79 weeks, the median duration of unemployment nearly doubled, reaching 18.7 weeks by October. The unemployment rate has not been rising because of growing numbers of newly jobless people. Indeed, initial claims for unemployment benefits are way down. And the number of unfilled private job openings increased by 9.3 percent from the end of April to the end of September. The unemployment rate has been rising because unprecedented numbers of those who became unemployed six to 19 months ago are remaining ``on the dole'' until their benefits are nearly exhausted. Summers isn't the only administration economist who understands this very well. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy Alan Krueger co-authored a 2002 survey of the topic with Bruce Meyer of the University of Chicago. They found that ``unemployment insurance and worker's compensation insurance . . . tend to increase the length of time employees spend out of work.'' Last August, Krueger and Andreus Miller of Princeton also found that ``job search increases sharply [from 20 minutes a week to 70] in the weeks prior to benefit exhaustion.'' Similarly, Meyer found ``the probability of leaving unemployment rises dramatically just prior to when benefits lapse.'' In other words: If you extend benefits to 79 weeks, many people won't find an acceptable job offer until the 76th or 78th week. Meyer and Lawrence Katz of Harvard estimated that ``a one- week increase in potential benefit duration increases the average duration of the unemployment spells . . . by 0.16 to 0.20 weeks.'' Apply that formula to the 20-to-53-week extension we've seen, and you get an average of three to ten more weeks spent on unemployment. And, sure enough, the average unemployment spell has risen by seven weeks this year--to nearly 27 weeks by October. Katz also found that extended benefits, by making it easier for workers to wait and see whether they get their old jobs back, also makes it easier for employers to delay recalling laid-off workers. Just before unemployment benefits run out, Katz found ``large positive jumps in both the recall rate and new job finding rate.'' The White House recently made the mysterious claim of having ``saved'' 640,329 jobs, at a cost of only $531,250 per job ($340 billion). In reality, the evidence is overwhelming that the February stimulus bill has added at least two percentage points to the unemployment rate. If Congress and the White House hadn't tried so hard to stimulate long-term unemployment, the US unemployment rate would now be about 8 percent and falling rather than more than 10 percent and--rising.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, the Social Security Disability Applicants' Access to Professional Representation Act of 2010, will make permanent provisions first enacted in a demonstration program included in the Social Security Protection Act of 2004. The provisions allowed attorney fee withholding under Supplemental Security Income, SSI, and qualified non-attorney fee withholding under the Social Security and SSI programs. It also created standards for qualifying non-attorneys for participation in fee withholding. This action has helped claimants as they work through the often complex and time-consuming disability process. Without action on this bill the provisions will expire on March 1, 2010. The Social Security Administration, SSA, has received favorable feedback on the program from non-attorney representatives and has received no complaints from claimants. The Government Accountability Office studied the process and has raised no significant concerns. In addition to support from disability advocates for making the provisions permanent, we received letters urging passage of the legislation from the National Association of Disability Representatives, NADR, and the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities that Mr. Tanner entered into the Record earlier. At this time I would like to insert a letter of support into the Record from the National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives. Because attorneys and non-attorneys who participate in fee withholding are charged a fee by the SSA, preliminary estimates suggest the provisions would reduce the deficit over 10 years by approximately $55 million. Join me in supporting the Social Security Disability Applicants' Access to Professional Representation Act of 2010. National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, February 3, 2010. Hon. John Tanner, Chairman, Subcommittee on Social Security, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Sam Johnson, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Social Security, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Jim McDermott, Chairman, Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. John Linder, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Tanner, Chairman McDermott, Ranking Member Johnson, and Ranking Member Linder: We are writing in strong support of H.R. 4532, the ``Social Security Disability Applicants'' Access to Professional Representation Act of 2010.'' Applying for Social Security disability and Supplemental Security Income disability benefits can be a confusing, complicated, and difficult process. While claimants have the right to be represented, it is a hollow right if there is no realistic way to obtain representation. The Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (SSPA), Pub. L. No. 108-203, included two provisions intended to help claimants obtain representation: (1) the withholding and direct payment of fees in Supplemental Security Income (SSI) cases; and (2) establishing a demonstration project to allow eligible non-attorney representatives the option of withholding and direct payment of fees in both Title II and SSI cases. Under the SSPA, both of these provisions are scheduled to ``sunset'' after a five-year period, which would be March 1, 2010. Because both projects have been successful, we are writing to support their permanent continuation. H.R. 4532 accomplishes this goal. Established in 1979, the National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives (NOSSCR) is an association of nearly 4,000 attorneys and paralegals who represent Social Security and SSI claimants seeking to obtain disability and income security benefits. NOSSCR members are committed to providing high quality representation for claimants, to maintaining a system of full and fair adjudication for every claimant, and to advocating for beneficial change in the disability determination and adjudication process. Withholding and Direct Payment of Fees in SSI Cases Section 302 of the SSPA amended section 1631(d)(2) of the Social Security Act to extend the Title II attorney fee withholding and direct payment procedures to claims under Title XVI of the Act. This provision became effective for SSI fees paid on or after February 28, 2005. Extending the existing fee withholding and direct payment provisions for Title II cases to Title XVI cases has made a measurable difference in the ability of SSI claimants to obtain representation. SSA's statistics for the hearing level show representation of SSI claimants has increased in every year since the SSPA provision was implemented. Section 302 includes a sunset provision. Under that provision, the amendments made by section 302 will not apply to claims for benefits with respect to which the claimant and the representative enter into the agreement for representation after February 28, 2010. Because the SSPA change has increased the opportunities for SSI claimants to obtain representation, we support the provision in H.R. 4532, which makes this provision permanent. Non-Attorney Representatives Section 303 of the SSPA directs the Commissioner to carry out a five-year nationwide demonstration project to determine the potential results of extending the fee withholding and direct payment procedures that apply to attorneys under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act to non-attorney representatives who meet certain minimum prerequisites specified in section 303 and any additional prerequisites that the Commissioner may prescribe. Under the prerequisites specified in section 303, individuals applying to participate in the demonstration project must have a bachelor's degree or equivalent education, possess liability insurance or equivalent insurance adequate to protect claimants in the event of malpractice by the representative, pass a criminal background check ensuring fitness to practice before SSA, pass an examination testing knowledge of the relevant provisions of the Act and the most recent developments in Agency and court decisions, and demonstrate ongoing completion of qualified continuing education courses. In addition, the Commissioner has required that individuals applying to participate in the demonstration project show that they have sufficient prior experience representing claimants before SSA. The five-year demonstration project on direct payment of fees to eligible non-attorneys began on February 28, 2005, and also is scheduled to ``sunset'' at the end of five years. The demonstration project established by SSPA section 303 applies to claims for benefits with respect to which the agreement for representation is entered into after February 27, 2005 and before March 1, 2010. We support the provision in H.R. 4532 that makes this provision permanent. We believe that, to date, the demonstration project has been successfully implemented by the contractor engaged by the Social Security Administration, CPS Human Resource Services. By all reports, the contractor has done a good job administering the demonstration project including periodic administration of the examination and ensuring that the other required criteria are met. We appreciate your support for improving SSA's service for individuals who are applying for benefits by introducing and co-sponsoring H.R. 4532. We believe that making permanent the SSPA provisions regarding representation will benefit individuals with disabilities who file claims for benefits. Very truly yours, Nancy G. Shor, Executive Director.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation, and in particular the provisions adding $40 billion to the deficit, leading to even more tax hikes on jobs, and ultimately increasing unemployment across the Nation. Those provisions are just the latest in a series of massive expansions of Federal unemployment benefits dating back to 2008. And here we are again with yet another extension of Federal unemployment benefits, at enormous expense to taxpayers. But no matter how much Congress spends and no matter how many benefit extensions this body passes, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can't seem to understand that Americans want paychecks, not unemployment checks. Until they drop their job-killing government health care takeover and energy and other massive tax hikes, jobs and paychecks will continue to be in far too short supply. Promising Millions of New Jobs, Delivering Millions More Unemployed Jobs and paychecks are definitely not what Democrats have delivered to date. They insisted their so-called 2009 stimulus bill would create 3.5 million jobs and keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent. Instead we have lost almost 3 million jobs since then as unemployment rose to 10 percent: Graphic Removed These rates are more than just abstract numbers. They represent real Americans who are no longer receiving a paycheck to provide for themselves and their families--a total of 3.7 million more unemployed than the President promised if his stimulus bill became law. Those 3.7 million people could form an unemployment line stretching literally from Washington, D.C. to Chicago, Illinois. No amount of Federal spending, no White House jobs summit, and not even millions of unemployment checks can distract from that sorry record of job destruction. The American people are not fooled, either. A current CBS/New York Times poll finds that 61 percent think the $1 trillion 2009 stimulus bill has either had no effect or made the economy worse. Half as many, only 32 percent, think the stimulus bill has made things better. Worst ``Jobs Speaker'' Ever In an attempt to distract from this grim record, Democrats have taken to blaming the last President for the failure of their own stimulus plan to create jobs. On December 4, 2009, 35 months after she became Speaker and 11 months after Barack Obama became President, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said ``Bush Administration policies created a huge jobs deficit.'' Yet every one of the ``Bush Administration'' job losses she decried happened on her watch as Speaker. The facts show Nancy Pelosi is the worst Speaker in terms of job creation since official data began in 1939. More than 6 million jobs--4.5 percent of all jobs in the U.S. economy--have been destroyed since she became Speaker in 2007: Graphic Removed Worst ``Jobs President'' since Herbert Hoover Further, and despite repeated claims from the President and various Administration officials that stimulus ``is working,'' Barack Obama has compiled the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover: Graphic Removed Providing Record Amounts of Unemployment Benefits In response to this horrific record of rising unemployment and job destruction, the Democrat leadership has only one ``solution''--paying even more unemployment benefits. This latest extension comes just one month after the House considered the last expansion of unemployment benefits, which added 20 more weeks of Federal unemployment benefits, increasing total benefits to an unprecedented 99 weeks in most of the U.S.: Graphic Removed The USA Today last week called this payment of 99 weeks of unemployment benefits ``excessive'' and ``a disincentive to find work.'' They're right. Everyone from Presidential advisor Larry Summers to the New York Times, Washington Post, and Congressional Budget Office agree that's a concern, especially as the job market starts to recover. And we all hope it will start to recover in the coming months. Creating Record Unemployment Benefit Receipt But regardless of Democrats' current ``jobs'' rhetoric, there is no evidence this bill will deliver jobs and paychecks--just millions more unemployment checks. Those checks will be in addition to the all-time record number of unemployment benefits currently being paid to 9.5 million Americans per week last month. The Federal extended benefits programs are now so enormous--and the 2009 stimulus law was such an utter failure at stemming the tide of job loss and long-term unemployment--that soon more Americans will collect Federal extended benefits than regular State unemployment checks for the first time ever: Graphic Removed Adding Massively to Deficits and Debt These unemployment checks cost a tremendous amount of money. Since ``emergency'' Federal unemployment benefits began in mid-2008, the Federal government has spent an astonishing $100 billion on these programs. That is 4 times what the Federal government spent on emergency unemployment benefits in the wake of the 2001 recession and terrorist attacks. The tidal wave of recent spending has bankrupted the Federal unemployment accounts and forced Democrats to engage in a massive and growing bailout with general revenues. The legislation before us adds to those massive totals, increasing Federal spending by $7 billion per month, or a total of over $40 billion more during just the next six months. All of which will add to our record deficits and debt. Tellingly, none of these additional unemployment benefits will be paid for, despite Democrats' recent claims of fiscal responsibility. For example, last week on the House floor, senior Ways and Means Member Sander Levin of Michigan said of a bill that permanently raised taxes to pay for temporary tax relief ``What we are suggesting here is fiscal responsibility. Don't dig the hole deeper and deeper. Step up and pay for it.'' The next day, Speaker Pelosi held a news conference at which she said: ``On jobs, we hope next week that in our final appropriations bill we will be able to have a jobs piece that will create jobs in the near term to address the needs of those who are unemployed and do so in a fiscally sound way.'' Yet here we are again digging that hole deeper, and doing nothing ``in a fiscally sound way.'' None of our Democrat colleagues suggest we ``step up and pay for'' this new spending either. This despite the fact that, even before this measure passes, debt and unemployment have increased by a staggering 55 percent since President Obama took office just 11 months ago: Graphic Removed More Unemployment and Benefit Spending to Come No one seriously thinks all this spending--or the job losses--will end with this extension, either. That means at least some of the ``emergency'' spending in today's bill is likely to continue for years ahead. The President's economist, Dr. Christina Romer, anticipated as much this past weekend when she said ``I'm not going to say the recession is over until the unemployment rate is down to normal levels.'' She went on to define ``normal'' as ``where we were before the recession.'' How long might that take? According to a recent study by economists at Rutgers, the U.S. won't return to pre- recession employment levels until 2017. That would mean the current recession, in Dr. Romer's view, would last a decade, or as long as the Depression of the 1930s. The Coming Wave of Job-Killing Tax Hikes The Federal unemployment accounts are exhausted and most Federal benefits are currently supported by general revenues--the same source of funding for welfare benefits. State unemployment benefits, in contrast, remain supported either by State payroll taxes, or Federal loans--also supported by Federal general revenues and which will also have to be repaid with future State tax hikes. Those State tax hikes are already under way. On December 8, 2009, the bipartisan National Association of State Workforce Administrators issued a report that 35 States will increase State unemployment payroll taxes in 2010. These are direct taxes on jobs, made worse by the failure of the 2009 stimulus law to create jobs and stem unemployment. The NASWA report notes the 2010 tax hikes range up to a stunning 600 percent. As one small businessman said simply, ``This is a job killer.'' (A list of other recent quotes about how these tax hikes will destroy jobs is included below.) As the above data shows, Democrat stimulus legislation has succeeded in increasing unemployment, not reducing it. Instead of creating 3.5 million new jobs, the 2009 stimulus bill has been followed by almost 3 million job losses. And now record unemployment benefit payments that followed have become their own engine of job destruction, contributing to an enormous wave of Federal borrowing and State tax hikes that will stifle job growth for years to come. Adding to the pain, Democrat energy policies would increase the price of energy and kill millions of jobs. Democrat health policies would make health care and health insurance more expensive and kill millions more jobs. And other Democrat spending proposals in this second (or really third or fourth, depending on how one counts) stimulus bill will further drive up the debt and kill even more jobs. We can and must do better. It's well past time for us to shelve Democrats' job-killing energy, health care, and tax hike agendas. We will then unleash America's job creation engine so laid off workers can finally get back to work. That effort should start with a vote against this legislation, and a renewed commitment to offer unemployed workers real help in finding new work, instead of just more benefit checks. Appendix: Recent Quotes about How State Unemployment Tax Hikes Will Kill Jobs From Sea to Shining Sea California: ``Tax may feed unemployment: business owners fear insurance spike,'' March 30, 2009: ``Thanks to the tanking economy and past benefit hikes, the state's system for providing unemployment benefits is insolvent. And the fix that state lawmakers are considering is to dramatically raise the taxes employers pay into the system. The irony: That could force companies to lay off employees. Take, for example, Steve Diels, who owns a Redondo Beach call center. Any tax increase could force him to fill out some pink slips. `Right now, my profit margin has slipped and I'm doing everything I can to avoid laying anyone off,' said Diels, a Redondo Beach city councilman who employs 38 people at Aamcom Inc. `But if they increase the unemployment tax, employers like me will have to lay people off and that will only make things worse with the unemployment fund.' '' Connecticut: ``State may tax business to bail out broke jobless fund,'' December 5, 2009: ``Tony Sheridan, president of the Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut, said . . . `It's a tough situation and there's not one single business that can stand a tax increase'.'' Florida: ``Creating more jobs is `Job No. 1','' December 10, 2009 ``A good example of policy that discourages hiring is the impending radical increase in the unemployment tax in Florida, triggered by the depletion of the unemployment trust fund by record jobless claims. That increase is so steep--from $8.40 per employee to $100 for the minimum tax; from $378 to $459 for the maximum--that it could not only discourage hiring, it could put some businesses under.'' Hawaii: ``Big payroll tax reset weighs on Hawaii business,'' December 4, 2009: ``Big Island contractor Hinchcliff Drywall Construction will see a more than six-fold increase in its payroll taxes next year, which will soar from the current $18,500 annually to $116,350. . . . `I don't understand why the rates were not raised gradually over the period of two or three years--it almost seems a bit backwards,' said Michelle Danihel-Kreusling, controller of Hinchcliff Drywall, which employs 80 people. `Practically cutting off your nose to spite your face,' she said. `This rate hike will either require many businesses to either drastically reduce their labor force or close shop completely, both of which would increase the unemployment rate.' '' Maine: ``Maine raises unemployment tax by $54 million,'' December 1, 2009: ``David Clough, Maine director of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, said his members will be hit hard by the tax hike. He said it will cost jobs, either from layoffs or positions that go unfilled.'' Maryland: ``Rising unemployment taxes could hinder hiring,'' November 22, 2009: ``Employers already are squeezed by tight credit, rising health care costs, wary consumers and a higher minimum wage. Now, the surging jobless rate is imposing another cost. It's forcing higher state taxes on companies to pay for unemployment insurance claims. Some employers say the extra costs make them less likely to hire. . . . Chuck Ferrar, who owns a liquor store in Annapolis, Md., expects to pay $9,000 in unemployment taxes next year, up from $3,000 this year. Health care costs for his employees will rise by $8,000, or 17.5 percent. `When you start adding this up, it turns into real money,' he said. `If I lose an employee through attrition, I will not replace him. You can't afford to do it.'' Massachusetts: ``Unemployment at 33-year high; insurance fund running dry,'' October 16, 2009: `` `This is a breathtakingly bad picture,' said Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-funded public policy group, and also a member of the advisory council that monitors the solvency of the two accounts that fund unemployment benefits. `They're putting additional taxes on employers, and we are seeing our jobs erode,' Widmer said in an interview. `It's devastating in terms of the state's competitiveness.' '' Michigan: ``New unemployment-insurance taxes: $63 million in 2010,'' September 13, 2009: ``Frank Lope, an alliance board member and chairman of Romulus-based Aztec Manufacturing Corp., said . . . `It's going to be another impediment on businesses as they go to look at hiring people,' Lopez said. `It's just another, so to speak, of the many nails in the coffin for continued growth of businesses in the state of Michigan.' '' Nevada: ``Businesses May See Huge Tax Increase,'' September 23, 2009: ``Some financial experts are still concerned that a huge jump in the unemployment benefit tax will force businesses to lay off employees to pay for the increase.'' North Carolina: ``N.C. borrowing billions for jobless,'' December 1, 2009: ``Walden, the economist, said raising taxes would be a mistake as long as the economy is hurting. `In essence, you can look at that as a tax on new employees, and we don't want to do that,' he said. The deep recession has made it impossible for North Carolina to forecast how much unemployment tax funds the state will receive from employers next year, Clegg said. `Not to be maudlin, but I don't know who will be paying taxes in the first quarter of 2010 because I don't know what businesses will survive,' he said.'' Rhode Island: ``R.I. businesses to pay higher jobless taxes,'' November 23, 2009: ``Mark Higgins, dean of the University of Rhode Island's College of Business Administration, said the tax hike was inevitable . . . Depending on the circumstances, the tax increase is one factor that could discourage a business from hiring next year, Higgins said. Higher unemployment tax `just increases the cost of hiring somebody,' he said. `It increases the cost of payroll . . . [and] of keeping [an employee] on the payroll,' he said.''

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. We are prepared to have that debate right now if the gentleman would yield.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LINDER. We heard the gentleman from Massachusetts talk about Big Oil, and Saudi Arabia funding all of the opposition. I can't find the scientists that are getting those checks. But a recent study came out in the last several weeks that says that government money going to climate science on behalf of those who believe in human-cause global warming has been $79 billion over the last 20 years. They have dwarfed anything on the other side of the issue. And they continue to do it. Would you suggest that maybe that's why they are continuing to hide this situation because the money keeps coming?

Mr. LINDER. I believe the number this year is $7 billion from the government.

Mr. LINDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I first got interested in this 5 or 6 years ago on a trip to New Zealand. It was a congressional delegation. We had a visit with the leader of the NOAA point there where they leave to go into Antarctica for their expeditions and come back to this scientific center. And they put a PowerPoint presentation together for us and a big chart on the wall that showed that at that time they had dug into the Vostok ice core for 400,000 years back, and that from 400,000 years back to today, temperature increases and decreases and CO2 increases and decrease were in consonance. They moved with each other. And I asked him, Who was burning fossil fuels 400,000 years ago? He took that as a rude question, and it took me a year to get a copy of that chart. But I studied that chart. And then I looked at the studies about the Vostok ice core. And what you discover when you don't have it on a, 8\1/2\-by-11 piece of paper and expanded is that temperature changes precede CO2 changes by about 1,000 years.

Mr. LINDER. That's correct. One study says 800 years, one study says 2,800 years, but people average it at about 1,000 years.

Mr. LINDER. That's right. And so is the entire IPCC report. CO2 is a trace gas. It is a plant food. It is beneficial to all of life. CO2 is a modest gas. Methane is 23 times more powerful at trapping heat. Sixty-five percent of the heat-trapping gases come from water vapor. We are not going after them because we are going after people. What you learn when you discover that CO2 levels follow the temperature changes is that there's a reason for it. And the reason is this: we go through ice ages and global increases and declines in temperature. And as the temperature declines globally, the trees at the top of the mountain start to die for lack of photosynthesis, and then the bushes, and then the grasslands. And the dust that blows in the winds that are always here blows out across the oceans. And part of that dust is lead. And when that lead settles to the bottom of the oceans, it catalyzes growth in the largest biological mass we have in this planet, the plankton. And that growth demands CO2 to keep going. Now the oceans contain 70 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere does. And as the plant life, the plankton, pulls that CO2 out of the oceans, homeostasis, or equilibrium, causes more CO2 to come out of the atmosphere and into the oceans. The reverse happens when the planet warms up through more solar activity. So colder oceans hold more CO2 than warm oceans. And when the planet cools off, the CO2 winds up in the oceans and out of the atmosphere. We have 388 parts per million today.

Mr. LINDER. They have been in a cooling period.