Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, jobs. We are here today to help create jobs. Everyone is thinking about jobs and ways to create more of them. Business owners, workers, community leaders across the country, especially in my home State of Montana, are asking what Congress is doing to create jobs. I might say when I was home last week, Mr. President, I had some job forums. At one of them, we had lots of different ways to create jobs and a lot of ideas. At the end, I said: OK, everybody. What does this all boil down to? Give me one or two or three things that we can do to create more jobs. There was a big chorus of: more jobs, more jobs, better-paying jobs. So it is there, and it should be there because unemployment is so high and there is a huge need. In his State of the Union Address, President Obama said: ``Jobs must be our No. 1 focus in 2010.'' Here in the Senate, a group of us have been working on finding the best way to create new jobs. I am pleased to have worked together across the aisle with a thoughtful bipartisan group of Senators to craft legislation to create tax incentives for job creation. I applaud my colleagues, Senators Schumer and Hatch, for working together to bring good ideas to the table. I thank my very good friend, Chuck Grassley, for working with us once again, and I appreciate the tremendous help from Senators Dorgan, Casey, and Durbin who have been spearheading the broader jobs effort. Some of the provisions on which these Senators have worked are before us today. The provisions before us today would address the immediate needs of businesses on many different levels. For example, it would allow smaller businesses faster depreciation of equipment purchases. This provision helps create jobs, clearly. As the demand for services and products increase, so does the demand for workers. But the amendment before us would do more. The amendment would go to the heart of the matter to provide simple and immediate tax incentives for businesses to employ new workers. The amendment answers the challenge of doing something that would make a difference for the unemployed right now. Let me explain the tax incentive for hiring in the amendment. This year any business that hires someone who has been out of work for 60 days or more would qualify for the credit. The business would not have to pay its share of Social Security payroll taxes on that employee for the remainder of the year. It is that simple. This incentive would be available for every new worker hired no matter the size of the business. Moreover, if that business retains the new employee for a full year, then the business would be able to take an additional $1,000 income tax credit against next year's taxes. So, for example, the mom-and-pop grocery store owner in Billings, MT, that employs a previously unemployed store clerk and pays him $25,000 for the rest of the year would save $1,550 on payroll taxes. The medium-sized trucking company that can employ 10 new workers at $35,000 each for the rest of the year would save $21,700 on payroll taxes. The large manufacturer that employs 100 new assembly-line workers at $45,000 each for the rest of the year would save almost $300,000 in payroll taxes. All of these businesses would get another $1,000 for each new employee they retained for a full year. Let me explain why this is a good package. First of all, the incentive is simple. We want all businesses to be able to take the incentive, not just those that can afford an attorney to explain it or an accountant to prepare the necessary paperwork. All private businesses that create jobs and employ the currently unemployed would be entitled to a payroll tax holiday; and because it is simple to understand, we hope the program will enjoy broad news coverage. That way more employers would hear about the incentive and opt in. Second, the amendment would provide an immediate benefit. Employers need help now, and we want to create jobs now. As soon as a business hires a new employee, the business would receive the benefit as a payroll tax holiday on that new employee. The business would get the benefit of every payroll tax deposit it would make. The business would not have to wait until it filed its tax return next year, and the cash that the business would save from the payroll tax cut could be used to help pay the wages of the new employee or the cash could be invested in the business. That is right now. The amendment would not hurt the Social Security trust fund. The government would make the trust fund whole in the full amount of the payroll tax holiday. The third reason this is a good provision is the amendment would encourage faster hiring. An employee with a salary of $50,000 hired on July 1 would save the business about $1,500 in taxes. But the same worker hired earlier, say, on March 1, would save the business about $2,600 in taxes. The faster a business hires, the more benefit the business would receive. The incentive would boost the economy today, and it would create an additional demand for workers sooner. What is the fourth reason this is a good idea? Just this one provision I have been talking about--and that is the payroll tax holiday. The amendment would encourage jobs that pay good wages. The higher the wage, the higher the credit. That is because the incentive is directly tied to the wages subject to the Social Security payroll tax. Fifth, the amendment targets the unemployed. The incentive would reward businesses that hire those who are currently out of work. It would reward those businesses that create employment, not those that shift workers from another job. Yet it would not require the employee be collecting unemployment insurance benefits. For all sorts of reasons, not all persons take unemployment benefits. The incentive would be as broad as possible. It would help all those currently not working who want to be. What is the sixth reason for this payroll tax holiday provision? It is fair. The incentive sets no limits on the size of the business that can utilize it. Job creation happens with all sizes and types of businesses--from the sole proprietor seeking to expand, to the largest manufacturer recovering from downsizing. Because the credit would be on payroll taxes rather than income taxes, the incentive would also help tax-exempt organizations and businesses currently operating at a loss. Those businesses have no income tax to offset with an income tax credit. Seventh, the amendment would provide ease of hiring. The employer would only have to get a signed affidavit from a new employee that the employee had been out of work for the previous 60 days. That is pretty simple--no lengthy certification process through State agencies, as some current wage credits require. Eighth, the amendment would encourage employee retention. Employers that retain their new employees for a year would get an added bonus. Ninth, and most importantly, the amendment would increase employment. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office studied a number of options for job creation in the year 2010. After receiving many ideas, CBO stated that the payroll tax deduction for firms that increase their payroll is the most cost-effective policy for creating jobs. Economists suggest the same thing. While all thoughtful observers are careful to point out no company would hire unneeded workers just for a tax credit, many economists believe that a hiring incentive may be the push that many companies waiting on the sidelines need to hire those extra people. Business owners have flexibility in hiring. They can work longer hours themselves, substitute machines for labor, or pay overtime to current employees. But those employers on the fence may believe this package of tax cuts and hiring incentives are enough of a boost for them to hire new employees now. The National Federation of Independent Businesses indicated in December that there are many companies starting and growing businesses during this recession. In the past, the NFIB has supported a fixed- length payroll tax holiday. Economist Mark Zandi reported that ``various business surveys suggest firms are more open to expanding their payrolls.'' He added: A tax break for hiring could be particularly effective this summer. By then, businesses will have had more time to come to terms with the Great Recession, and banks should be extending credit somewhat more freely by then. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich has suggested a new jobs tax credit for every new job created by small businesses this year. Although he thinks that a job credit does not do much under normal circumstances, he says that these are not normal circumstances, and businesses need a boost. David Greenlaw and Ted Wieseman of Morgan Stanley Research have said that a new job credit, designed correctly, could represent an important source of effective stimulus. And Ted Gayer of the nonpartisan Brookings Institution said that timing of an employment tax credit matters. He warned: The more you dither, then people will wait on the sidelines and not hire now. You want it to be immediate and you want it to go a set length. Let us not delay. Let us answer the call from Americans to help and let us enact this package to get more people to work. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I urge the Senate to pass by unanimous consent H.R. 4532, the Social Security Disability Applicants' Access to Professional Representation Act of 2010, which was recently passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 412 to 6. Claimants of Social Security disability benefits who want to appeal decisions on their cases face many complexities. Therefore, many wish to hire professionals to represent them in these appeals. These representatives can request to have their fees withheld by SSA from the retroactive benefits owed to the claimant. The withheld fees are forwarded directly to the representatives by SSA. This fee arrangement makes it much more attractive for these representatives to take on these cases, which will provide claimants with easier access to professionals willing to represent them before SSA. Prior to enactment of the Social Security Protection Act of 2004, this direct payment of fees was only available to attorneys, not to nonattorneys, and only applied to Social Security claims, not to supplemental security income, SSI, claims. The Social Security Protection Act authorized two nationwide demonstration projects for a period of 5 years each. One project extended the attorney fee withholding and payment procedures that existed for Social Security claims to supplemental security income claims. A second project allowed nonattorney representatives the option of fee withholding for both Social Security and supplemental security income claims. This second project also required that nonattorney representatives who wish to apply for the direct fee payment program must have passed an examination written and administered by the Commissioner of Social Security, have met certain educational and professional liability insurance requirements, and have passed a criminal background check. The demonstration projects have been successful, but both sunset on March 1, 2010. H.R. 4532 eliminates the sunsets of both of the demonstration projects. This bill unifies the attorney and nonattorney fee withholding process for both Social Security and supplemental security income. The bill is a commonsense reform to the Social Security Act and should be enacted. I would like to thank my colleagues in the House of Representatives for the work they put into this bill. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support H.R. 4532.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, the day before yesterday, the Senate voted on the amendment offered by the chairman and ranking Republican member of the Budget Committee to create a budget commission. The Senate rejected that amendment. The proponents fell 7 votes short of the 60 votes they needed. I opposed that amendment because it would have forced the Senate to consider the commission's recommendations using a fasttrack process. It would have outsourced our job to the commission. The Senator from Kansas proposes a commission that also would create a fasttrack process. It would also put vital programs like Medicare, farm programs, and veterans' programs in the crosshairs. Thus, all who opposed the Conrad-Gregg commission on process grounds should oppose this amendment for the same reasons. As well, the Brownback commission would address only the spending side of the budget. So those who wanted a broader commission should have that reason to oppose this commission, as well. I have been advised that the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, joins me in opposing this commission. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, the next amendment is about whether the United States will pay its bills. It is about whether the United States will continue to pay the interest it owes on the money it has borrowed. The spending laws that created the debt are behind us. The only question remaining is whether the government will honor its obligation to pay the bill. We have gone to the restaurant, we have eaten the meal, and now the only question is whether we will pay the check. It is that simple. If Congress does not enact this legislation, the Treasury will default on its debt for the first time in American history, which means lower Social Security payments for a portion of those beneficiaries, and we would fail to pay full pay benefits to a portion of the beneficiaries of all other Federal programs. But that would pale in comparison to the cataclysmic result in the financial markets if we don't honor our obligation. The value of Treasuries would plummet, leaving 401(k) plans and investors holding much less value. The value of the dollar would decline significantly. Ultimately, the question of America's sovereignty and the degree to which we are controlling our future would be in doubt and other countries would be dictating the results and telling us what to do. We must pay our bills; we must pay our debts; we must vote for this legislation.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I think we all know where we are. I do not think anything else needs to be said. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Subcommittee on Green Jobs and the New Economy be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 28 at 9 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Office Building.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 28, 2010, at 9 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Haiti: From Rescue to Recovery and Reconstruction.''

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 28, 2010, at 3:30 p.m.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 28, at 2:15 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 28, 2010, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 28, 2010. The Committee will meet in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building beginning at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 28, 2010 at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I understand there has been a time allocation amongst several of us, but I would like to yield 5 minutes of the time reserved to me to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I do not think there is any disagreement among Senators that it is important to reduce our deficit and debt. That is not the issue at all. So that should be off the table. The question is how. Madam President, the journalist Brooks Atkinson once said: The perfect bureaucrat . . . is the [person] who manages to make no decisions and escape all responsibility. The Senators from North Dakota and New Hampshire have come up with the perfect process to transform all Senators into bureaucrats. They have come up with a process that saves all Senators from making decisions. They have come up with a process to escape Congress's central responsibility. At the core of the Conrad-Gregg proposal is the idea that Senators could not amend this new commission's recommendations. Senators could not change the commission's product. Senators could not exercise their central responsibility as legislators. Two things most define a Senator. Senators can amend legislation, even with different subjects. And Senators can debate legislation, sometimes at length. The Conrad-Gregg proposal curtails both of those defining powers. The Conrad-Gregg proposal completely eliminates the ability to amend. And the Conrad-Gregg proposal sharply limits the ability to debate. And that is why the first amendment that this Senator offered would protect Social Security. The Conrad-Gregg proposal would not allow Senators to offer amendments to protect Social Security later. So that is why we have to vote to protect Social Security now, while we still can. The Conrad-Gregg proposal would allow Senators to escape responsibility for cutting Social Security later. So that is why we have to vote now, while we still can, to ensure that this new commission cannot cut Social Security later. Social Security is a solemn contract that we as a Nation made with our seniors. They were the Greatest Generation. They fought World War II. They fought in Korea. They worked a lifetime. They paid their taxes. And now, we owe them the benefits that they earned. Social Security is one of the greatest poverty-fighting machines ever invented. If Social Security did not exist, 44 percent of America's seniors would live in poverty today. Social Security lifts 13 million American seniors out of poverty. America's seniors rely on Social Security. For two-thirds of America's seniors, Social Security provides most of their income. For one-third of America's seniors, Social Security provides almost all of their income. The chairman and ranking Republican member of the Budget Committee have painted a big red bull's-eye on Social Security. Their commission is a Social Security-cutting machine. This morning, we will put that proposition to the test. If Senators want to put Social Security on the cutting table, then they should vote against my amendment. But if they truly want to protect Social Security, if they do not want this new commission to cut Social Security, then they should vote for my amendment. At least with regard to Social Security, let us not stand by like bureaucrats. Let us take responsibility. And let us protect this vital lifeline. I regret that I have only one other amendment slot available to me. Because I also want offer an amendment to protect veterans programs. We owe a solemn duty to America's veterans, as well. I also want to offer an amendment to protect America's ranchers and farmers from this commission's cuts. I also want to offer an amendment to protect America's poorest citizens from this commission's cuts to Medicaid. The point is: We don't know where this commission will cut. All we know is that if we adopt this new Conrad-Gregg commission, we will not be able to offer amendments to stop it from cutting Social Security, Medicare, veterans programs, farm price supports, or the safety net for the poorest among us. Yes, we should address the fiscal challenges before us. But that does not mean that we have to become bureaucrats. That does not mean that we have to stop making decisions for ourselves. That does not mean that we have to give up all responsibility. For those who favor creating a fiscal commission, there is an alternative. Pending before the Senate, in addition to the Conrad-Gregg commission, is this Senator's amendment to create a fiscal commission. My amendment would create the exact same commission as the Conrad- Gregg amendment. But my amendment would not create new fast-track procedures for the commission's product. Thus, my amendment would allow Members of Congress from both parties to come together to formulate policies to address our fiscal challenges. But my amendment would protect the rights of Senators to offer amendments to the commission's recommendations. My alternative would allow Senators the best of both worlds--a bipartisan statutory commission, without the damage to the Senate's process. Some who advocate the Conrad-Gregg amendment have asserted that we have employed special procedures like the Andrews Air Force Base summit to enact prior budget agreements. They cite these budget agreements as a reason to adopt the Conrad-Gregg amendment. But let's look at two recent budget agreements, those of 1990 and 1997. Both of these agreements led to substantial deficit reduction. Congress enacted both of these budget agreements using the existing budget process. Both in 1990 and in 1997, Congress employed the budget reconciliation process to enact these agreements. And as a result, the Senate considered numerous amendments to each of these amendments. The 1990 budget agreement had the support of the first President Bush as well as the Democratic leadership of Congress. Even so, the Senate considered 23 amendments. The Senate voted on 21 amendments to that legislation. That was a broad, bipartisan agreement. But the Senate still allowed amendment. And then, the Senate passed that landmark legislation, using the existing budget process. Again, in 1997, the President and the congressional leadership came together in a bipartisan budget agreement. That time, in 1997, it was President Clinton and the Republican leadership in Congress. And even though it was a bipartisan agreement, the Senate considered 77 amendments. And the Senate voted on 47 amendments to that legislation. And then, the Senate enacted that landmark legislation. Thus, in the two most successful recent bipartisan efforts to enact substantial deficit reduction, the Senate employed the existing budget process. And the Senate allowed Senators to amend those agreements. That is the process that Congress employed in 1990 and 1997. And that is the process that Congress should employ to implement any bipartisan agreement today. This Senator knows something about bipartisan agreements. This Senator knows something about legislating. Moving major legislation is not easy. But it is not impossible, either. This Senate has, in recent memory, passed legislation to reform health care. We have enacted legislation to expand coverage for children. We have enacted legislation to provide life-saving prescription drugs to America's seniors. We have enacted legislation to cut taxes broadly for middle-income Americans. And this Senate has, within the memory of this Senator and many of our colleagues, enacted major deficit reduction legislation in 1990, in 1993, and again in 1997. None of those efforts came easily. But then, few good things in life do. That does not mean that they were impossible. That means that they took skill. That means that they took effort. That means that they took courage. Bureaucrats do not enact great legislation. Senators do. I call upon my colleagues. The people of our States elected us to do this work. Let us not shirk our responsibility. Let us make decisions for ourselves. Let us accept the responsibility that our constituents gave us. And let us reject this commission. Amendment No. 3300, as Modified

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 3300 be modified with the modification I send to the desk.

Mr. BAUCUS. This modification, which I make on behalf of Senator Grassley and myself, would make clear that changes to Social Security taxes would be off the table, as well. The Parliamentarian's Office has advised us that this is how the Chair would have interpreted my original language. This modification makes that entirely clear.

Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg. There is a real reason why it is important to protect Social Security. Social Security is probably the most successful social program this Congress, this country, has ever adopted. Look how many people it has helped. If we did not have Social Security today, 44-some percent of American seniors would be living in poverty-- that many. At one time, it was 50 percent. It is close to 50 percent of America's seniors who would be living in poverty today without Social Security. These are mostly people who have worked hard during their lives: the World War II generation, the product of the Great Depression, the Korean war. These are hard-working Americans, the real soul of America, by and large, and they deserve Social Security. About one-third of America's seniors today get almost all their income from Social Security. About one-third get almost all their income from Social Security. So why in the world would we even contemplate cutting Social Security? It makes no sense. That is why I offer this amendment, to make it clear we do not cut Social Security. Social Security, also, is not a big problem in our American fiscal situation. Social Security does not go ``belly up'' until about the year 2043. It is not a big problem in our fiscal situation. It is not. There are also reasons why we protect Social Security. Other reasons are recognized by this Congress. In 1985, for example, Senator Hawkins from Florida offered an amendment that passed that Social Security be exempt from the reconciliation process. That is in the law today. In 1990, we took Social Security out of the unified budget. That is in the law today. This body, this Congress, over the years, has recognized the importance--not the importance, the critical importance--of Social Security. It is so important that it should not be part of reconciliation, and it should not be part of the unified budget. We should protect Social Security. So I say to my colleagues, vote for this amendment I am offering to protect Social Security. Show to American seniors we hear their needs, we are taking action to protect them. I hope very much this amendment passes because then it will take one item off this budget commission, if it passes; and it should not pass, in my judgment. I will have more to say about that later because the regular order has worked here. We have cut the budget three times in the regular order since 1990. It works. That is what we, as Senators, should do. We should use the regular order to make sure we do get our fiscal situation back in order. But first let's vote for the amendment to protect Social Security. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am happy to learn from the Senator from North Dakota he favors my amendment or at least he says it would not cause any injustice to his central mission. My main point is, the regular order does work here. In 1990, 1993, 1997, Congress passed reconciliation budget resolutions that worked, and I believe, frankly, we have it within ourselves as Senators to do the same again, to pass a budget resolution through reconciliation to get the deficit under control, working with the President. I very much hope the President, in his State of the Union Message and his budget that is placed in the Congress, starts to get the budget under control. Very much of this depends upon the President and working with the Congress. It is not just Congress. I urge all of us to remember the regular order has worked in the past. It has worked several times. The Andrews Air Force Base agreement was put through regular order. Regular order does work, and that is what we as Senators should do. We are not bureaucrats. We are Senators.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, there is no doubt that we have to get our fiscal house in order. That is not an issue before us right now. So let's take that off the table. All Senators agree we have to address our fiscal situation. Second is the question of what is the best way to do it. I remind our colleagues that we have used the regular order to cut budget deficits in 1990, 1993, and 1997. The Andrews Air Force Base summit agreement was passed through regular order, through reconciliation. We have done it. We have used reconciliation, regular order to get budget deficits under control. In addition, I have an alternative commission amendment. It is the same as the Conrad commission but with one exception, and that is it is amendable on the floor of the Senate. So if you want to have some sense of Senators--we are not going to be bureaucrats, we are going to be Senators--my amendment allows a commission where we as Senators can amend the commission's recommendations. Regular order has worked in this body--new Members do not know that-- in 1990, 1993, and 1997.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask Senator LeMieux be recognized to speak for 10 minutes, and immediately following his remarks the Senate stand in recess.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, the Senators from Alabama and Oklahoma have offered that amendment to the debt limit resolution. As these amendments address matters primarily for the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee, I will defer to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee to address those amendments momentarily. Nomination of Ben Bernanke Madam President, in the meantime, on another matter, I wish to say I strongly support the nomination of Chairman Ben Bernanke to his second term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Last August, President Obama announced his intention to renominate Chairman Bernanke for a second term. There is little debate that our financial system has been through one of the most tumultuous times since the Great Depression. I strongly support President Obama's decision to renominate Ben Bernanke and believe he has the expertise to continue to lead this country out of one of the worst economic downturns in history. Chairman Bernanke graduated summa cum laude from Harvard University, earning a bachelor's degree in economics. He continued his studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he received a Ph.D. in economics. He then had the good sense to head to Stanford, my alma mater, where he taught economics for several years at the Graduate School of Business. After heading back to Princeton University, he quickly rose through the academic ranks to become chairman of the Princeton Economics Department. His groundbreaking economic work on the Great Depression helped increase our understanding of that calamity and prepared him well to tackle our recent disaster. He has a strong record of public service, including work as a visiting scholar at several Federal Reserve banks. In 2002, President George W. Bush appointed him to serve on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. In 2005, President Bush appointed him Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers. In 2006, President Bush appointed him Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The Senate confirmed his nomination by voice vote. After his appointment to three posts by President Bush, Ben Bernanke was renominated as Federal Reserve Chairman in 2009 by President Obama. At this point, I might point out that if any Senator had any problems with the reappointment of Chairman Bernanke, they certainly knew when his term expired and they should have conveyed those views to President Obama, and conveyed them strongly if that was their view, so that President Obama would have had an opportunity to appoint somebody else if that was his choice. It is my understanding that virtually no Senator complained to President Obama about the renomination of Chairman Bernanke before the nomination was sent to the Senate. In his nearly 4 years as Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke has demonstrated he is worthy of another term. Facing the worst financial calamity in nearly 70 years and relying on his keen insight into the origins of financial panics, he successfully worked with the previous and current administrations to ensure that the economy of the United States and the world survived the crisis of 2008. Again, his dissertation was on the Great Depression. This is a man who understands the Great Depression and probably had some pretty good ideas of how to prevent that from occurring. Averting disaster is not something that usually earns you accolades or parades. ``It could have been worse'' is not your typical commendation. But there is no doubt that without Chairman Bernanke's leadership, our economy would have been much worse off. Time will tell how the history of this crisis is written, but economists and experts believed then and still today that the Federal Government could not stand by and let the financial system collapse. Liquidity in the markets evaporated. Small businesses could not obtain the day-to-day cash to buy inventory or make payroll. Foreclosures increased from hundreds to hundreds of thousands. Americans across the country witnessed their retirement savings dwindling before their eyes. Confidence in the system as a whole vanished. Beginning in 2008, Chairman Bernanke began to take a series of steps to walk us back from the brink of disaster. The Federal Reserve cut interest rates early and aggressively in an attempt to inject liquidity into the markets. I might point out that there were some who counseled the opposite action; that is, those most concerned about inflation. Perhaps Bernanke went too far in trying to inject liquidity back into the markets, but that is what he believed was necessary in order to get the economy back on track. The Fed established lending facilities to provide much needed funding. Last year, the Fed, in conjunction with the Department of Treasury, established the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, TALF, to finance more than 4 million consumer and small business loans. That is sometimes forgotten, but that is something he did. At a time when conditions were changing daily and sometimes hourly, Chairman Bernanke did not hesitate to take bold and necessary steps to avoid total collapse of our economy. Madam President, 20/20 hindsight will always reveal things we would have done differently. With such aggressive and unprecedented action comes criticism and judgment. Without a doubt, the Federal Reserve System deserves a share of the blame for fostering the conditions that led us to the precipice, but as this crisis was systemic, so, too, were its flaws. On that point, I might say there are a lot of agencies that probably should be blamed or held accountable for some of the missteps or failure to foresee the crisis occurring. One that comes to my mind is the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Securities and Exchange Commission either did not have jurisdiction or didn't ask for jurisdiction or did not exercise jurisdiction over a lot of the nonbanks that were creating a lot of these fancy derivatives and other instruments. I can name many of them. I think we all know who they are. It was a lack of effort by the SEC. I think the SEC was derelict in not being much more aggressive at that time. There are a lot of areas where fingers can be pointed. One can be the Congress. Where were the oversight committees at that time? What were the questions they were asking? What were they doing? I think, frankly, that mistakes were made, many of them, beginning with the subprime mortgage crisis and working all the way up to mortgage brokers packaging and reselling loans and securitizing those loans and then all the other instruments that were developed at the time, and very high leverage. That was a big mistake made before Ben Bernanke was head of the Fed. It is more apparent than ever that we must pass strong and comprehensive regulatory reform, to crack down on risky financial derivatives, properly regulate the shadow banking system, and ensure consumers are adequately protected. In his confirmation hearing, Chairman Bernanke stated that such a crisis ``must prompt financial institutions and regulators alike to undertake unsparing self- assessments of their past performance.'' Chairman Bernanke is doing just that. The Federal Reserve has already undergone significant regulatory changes, and he is committed to working with me and my colleagues in Congress to put in place proper oversight and transparency to see that we are never again faced with the peril we have witnessed over the past 2 years. But as Emerson once said, ``[b]lame is safer than praise.'' I commend Chairman Bernanke and his team at the Federal Reserve for acting in a time of such uncertainty. There is still much that must be done to get our economy back on track and Americans back to work. I believe that Chairman Bernanke and the Federal Reserve will continue efforts to create jobs and help middle class families. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Chairman Bernanke's nomination for his second term, as he works to restore confidence and prosperity in our economy. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 26, 2010 at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 26, 2010 at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Intelligence Reform: The Lessons and Implications of the Christmas Day Attack, Part II.''