Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, what the Senator from Illinois, who is a lawyer, neglects to mention is the fact that all 347 of the current incarcerated people who have been tried for terrorist acts were arrested under U.S. law. They were investigated by the FBI. They were prosecuted because they were arrested and investigated with that end in mind. Not one single one of those 347 individuals was arrested on the battlefield. What the Senator is now proposing is that we take all 240 of the confined detainees at Gitmo and give them all of the rights that are guaranteed to every criminal who is investigated and arrested inside the United States as opposed to being arrested on the battlefield. That has never happened before in the history of the United States, and we have had an awful lot of captives on the battlefield. For there to be any correlation between the 240 detainees at Guantanamo who are the meanest, nastiest killers in the world, getting up every day thinking of ways to kill and harm Americans, and to compare them to the 347 who are now confined after being arrested inside the United States is somewhat ludicrous. Again, I regret the Senator is objecting to my amendment which would keep those 240 individuals at Guantanamo outside the United States and would ensure that forever and ever they could never be released into the United States. I simply regret he sees fit to object to it.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senate amendment No. 1144 be considered in order postcloture in addition to the requirements under rule XVI, rule XXII, and the adoption of the Inouye amendment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I simply close by saying the Senator is exactly right. There are military tribunals set up in Guantanamo today. In fact, those military tribunals had convicted three separate detainees, and the current administration, when they came into office, dropped the pending charges of twenty-some others awaiting trial, thus suspending the military commissions. These individuals can be tried by military tribunals at Guantanamo. They are in place and ready to go. I would simply urge that is the way these individuals need to be prosecuted and not to be brought to the United States and tried here. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the selfless commitment to the U.S. Army Reserve and to this Nation, of a true American patriot, LTC John H. Burson III, MD. Lieutenant Colonel Burson is a citizen of Carrollton, GA, and earned his bachelor's, medical, doctor of philosophy and doctor of medicine degrees from the Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University. During his medical career, Dr. Burson pioneered a new health care facility with outpatient surgery in Villa Rica, GA, that served as the forerunner for a new Villa Rica hospital with multiclinic services. Later, he led and personally funded college students to visit various World War II historical sites including an extended tour of Normandy and related battlefields in order to educate America's youth about American history, especially the military. I would like to yield to my friend, Senator Isakson for further remarks.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to speak about amendment No. 1144, the Protecting America's Communities Act, which I am offering to H.R. 2346, the supplemental appropriation bill. Before I begin my comments, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Coburn as an original cosponsor of S. 1071, which is a collateral stand-alone bill, as well as a cosponsor to amendment No. 1144.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment and to call up my amendment, No. 1144, which is at the desk.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, this amendment amends immigration law to prohibit any detainee held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Facility from being transferred or released into the United States. It is a little bit different from the vote we are going to be taking at 11:30. There are over 240 terrorists in U.S. custody at the military detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Let me just describe some of the individuals who reside at Guantanamo. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed--or KSM--is the self-proclaimed, and quite unapologetic, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. KSM admitted he was the planner of 9/11 and other planned, but foiled attacks against the U.S. In his combatant status review board, he admitted he swore allegiance to Osama bin Ladin, was a member of al-Qaida, was the military operational commander for all foreign al-Qaida operations, and much more. KSM and four other detainees, who are charged with conspiring to commit the terrible 9/11 attacks, remain at Guantanamo. In addition, Gitmo uses Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri who was responsible for the October 2000 USS Cole bombing which murdered 17 U.S. sailors and injured 37 others. Also residing a Gitmo are Osama bin Ladin's personal bodyguards, al-Qaida terrorist camp trainers, al-Qaida bombmakers, and individuals picked up on the battlefield with weapons trying to kill American soldiers--our young men and women who patriotically serve their country. The detainees at Guantanamo are some of the most senior, hardened, and dangerous al-Qaida figures we have captured. These are exactly the type of individuals we hope never get past our front lines and enter into the United States. However, as one of his very first acts in January, President Obama ordered the closure of Guantanamo, but 4 months later he still does not have a plan to accomplish this. Officials in his administration have stated publicly that some of these detainees could be brought to the U.S., and some could even be freed into the United States. The disposition of the detainees at Gitmo is not a new issue. Over the past several years, the military has transferred the majority of detainees held at Gitmo to other countries. However, the success of these transfers is mixed at best. According to a Defense Intelligence Agency report from December 2008, 18 former detainees are confirmed and 43 are suspected of returning to the fight after being released from Guantanamo. This represents a recidivism rate of over 11 percent. Just two months later this rate rose to 12 percent. These individuals do not even represent the most serious and dangerous terrorists we have captured. The most dangerous detainees remain at Gitmo. This data has likely risen since December, but the Department of Defense refuses to release the information under instructions from the administration. If we start to release or transfer the most hardened terrorists left at Gitmo, these numbers will only increase further. One thing that is clear: we know that these detainees have remained loyal to al-Qaida and Osama bin Ladin despite being captured and remain a danger to our national security. We have statements from detainees avowing it is their goal to kill Americans, claiming that they ``pray every day against the United States.'' Al-Qaida searches every day for operatives who can evade our enhanced security mechanisms in its quest to commit another attack against our homeland. It is important to remember that most detainees held at Guantanamo were captured on the battlefields in Afghanistan or Iraq and were determined to be a threat to our Nation's security. Whatever their ties to terrorists groups or activities, these individuals should never be given the privilege of crossing our borders, even if incarcerated. To do so would be nothing short of an invitation for al-Qaida to operate inside our homeland. KSM and other high value detainees at Gitmo are no different, and do not conceal their intent to harm Americans if given the chance. My amendment would prevent those terrorists at Gitmo from having that chance. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the right to ``establish a uniform rule of naturalization.'' The Supreme Court has determined that the power of Congress ``to exclude aliens from the United States and to prescribe the terms and conditions on which they come in'' is absolute. My legislation capitalizes on the clear and absolute authority of Congress to determine who enters our borders by first adding to the list of those inadmissible to the United States those detained at Gitmo as of January 1 of this year. However, because Congress delegates to the executive branch parole authority, this administration could still bring those terrorists detained at Gitmo into the United States. Parole authority is granted to the Attorney General to allow aliens, who are otherwise not qualified for admission to the U.S., permission to enter our country on a case-by-case basis--essentially a waiver for those otherwise inadmissible. Although aliens paroled into the U.S. are not considered ``admitted'' for purposes of our immigration laws, they are within the borders of our country and therefore become eligible to apply for asylum or seek other legal protections. To deal with this, my legislation also eliminates parole authority for the executive branch as it pertains to those individuals detained at Gitmo as of January 1, 2009. As such, there is no basis for President Obama to allow these detainees to be transferred to U.S. soil. The Protecting America's Communities Act also provides protections for American citizens in the event President Obama decides to try to exercise some other authority to bring these Gitmo detainees to the U.S., such as the authority granted to him via Article II of our Constitution. Again, we know that if the detainees were transferred to the U.S., they would seek legal protection under the generous legal rights our Constitution grants our citizens. However, our courts and our legal system were not established to try individuals detained on the battlefield. Because of the nature of the global war on terror and evidence gathered against them from the battlefield or through intelligence, the detainees are unlikely to be suitable for prosecution within the U.S. criminal courts. There is no ``CSI Kandahar'' in which evidence picked up off the battlefield is carefully marked and the chain of custody is observed. There is too much at stake to grant the unprecedented benefit of our legal system's complex procedural safeguards to foreign nationals who were captured outside the United States during a time of war. Allowing these terrorists to escape conviction--or worse yet, to be freed into the U.S. by our courts--because of legal technicalities would tarnish the reputation of our legal system as one that is fair and just. Prohibiting the detainees from entering into the U.S., as the Protecting America's Communities Act does, is one small step in the right direction. Further, if these individuals were to be brought to the U.S. by President Obama to be tried on our Article III courts and not convicted, the only mechanism available to our Government to continue to detain these individuals would be via immigration law. However, the current immigration laws on our books are insufficient to ensure that these detainees would be mandatorily detained and continued to be detained until they can successfully be removed from our borders. Although I am adamantly opposed to bringing any of these detainees to the U.S., and I do not believe the President has independent authority to do so, I believe we need legislation to safeguard our citizens and our communities in the event they are brought here. To that end, my legislation makes mandatory the detention of any Gitmo detainees brought to the U.S. It also strengthens and clarifies the authority of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to detain any of the Gitmo detainees until they can be removed. This statutory fix is needed because in 2001, the Supreme Court decided the case of Zadvydas v. Davis, holding that unless there is a reasonable likelihood that an alien being held by the Government will actually be repatriated to their government within a given period of time, that alien must be released and cannot be detained by the U.S. Government for more than 6 months. We all know a major issue facing our country in dealing with those folks detained at Gitmo is finding a country to take them. For example, there are 17 Chinese Uighurs being held at Gitmo who have been cleared for transfer to another country. However, the United States will not send them back to China for fear they might be treated unfairly by the Chinese Government. No other country to date is willing to take them. Therefore, my legislation provides authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to continue to detain these individuals and provides for a periodic review of their continued detention until they can safely be removed to a third country. In addition, my legislation prohibits any of those individuals detained at Gitmo from applying for asylum in the event they are brought here. Now, there are a number of other proposals to prohibit funding from being used to transfer to or detain the Gitmo terrorists in the United States--I am going to support those provisions--but those are not permanent. Those will have to be renewed annually. Congress would have to maintain this prohibition in all future spending bills. Although I do believe this is a good short-term solution, and I support those measures, I want to be confident that Congress does not drop the ball in the future. We need a more permanent solution to this problem, and the Protect America's Communities Act provides exactly that. I urge the President to develop a policy that would allow closure for the families of the victims of 9/11 that will prevent terrorists from stepping foot on U.S. soil and will keep them off the battlefield where they will attempt to kill our men and women in future combats. However, we cannot wait for the President to assure us that none of these detainees will be brought to America. The stakes are too high, and in order to maintain the highest degree of security and safety in our country, we need to adopt the Protect America's Communities Act to ensure that they never step foot inside of our Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I will speak a minute on Mr. Gensler. Before I do, I thank the chairman for making sure we got this nomination to the floor for confirmation. We have wrestled with this nomination for several months now, and I will talk about that. CDC'S New Expanded Campus I thank Senator Harkin also for coming to Atlanta last Friday. We had a great tour of the new campus--the fully expanded campus at the Centers for Disease Control, where we had the opportunity to talk with folks firsthand who are dealing with the H1N1 virus. We both were reinforced about the fact that issue is in the hands of highly skilled professional people at the Centers for Disease Control. Senator Harkin has been very much a supporter of the CDC for years in his position on the Appropriations Committee. I thank him for taking time to come down on a day that is very important to his family and to visit with us and to also hold the nutrition hearing on the CDC campus. We had an excellent hearing, and we are going to be working together to get our nutrition reauthorization bill to the floor in the very near future. Nomination of Gary Gensler Mr. President, I rise to support the nomination of Gary Gensler to be Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Mr. Gensler's nomination comes at a critical time. Our Nation is facing very challenging issues in trying to address this economic downturn. Many businesses, as well as the economy, depend upon the commodity markets-- both physical and financial commodities--to help manage costs, to hedge against risk, to access liquidity, and to stay competitive. It is a time where we really need these markets to be performing at their best, to be functioning transparently and without manipulation. The CFTC has been operating with an Acting Chairman for approximately 23 months now and a fully confirmed commission has not been in operation since 2006. This situation is largely due to the recurring politics surrounding the nomination process. While not all Senators will ever agree with everything that any nominee supports, I am very concerned with the need to have a fully seated Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The American people deserve no less, particularly in these difficult times. As Congress seeks to deal with the current economic crisis and examines our financial system, it is absolutely essential that the CFTC and the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry are engaged in the debate. Given our responsibility to ensure that the commodity markets function properly, the CFTC must be engaged in discussions occurring both within the administration and within Congress relative to restructuring our financial system and products that operate within it. The need for properly functioning commodity markets is of utmost importance to those utilizing products based on interest rates, exchange rates, debt, and credit risks. Last year, we witnessed a major market disturbance and a subsequent myriad of theories as to the cause of the meltdown. Economists will study for years to theorize just exactly what caused the economy to buckle when it did. In the meantime, we owe it to the American public to ensure that the regulators who oversee these industries are properly vetted and seated with the backing of the Senate. Frankly, this vote has been too long in coming. One of President Obama's first nominations for his new administration was that of Gary Gensler to be Commissioner and Chairman of the CFTC. His nomination was announced on December 18, 2008, and we officially received this nomination on President Obama's first day in office--January 20, 2009. For the last few years, I have witnessed the troubling trend of stalled CFTC nominations. The process starts with the President sending Congress the nomination, the Senate Agriculture Committee holds a confirmation hearing, and that is as far as it goes. In the case of Gensler, two of my Senate colleagues placed a hold on his confirmation, which, in terms of Senate procedure, effectively stalls the nomination in its tracks. This has happened with almost every nominee to the Commission in recent years. With Senate approval of this nomination, our job is still far from complete in ensuring that the CFTC has a full slate of Commissioners. We currently have two Commissioners with expired terms. I would encourage the President to quickly send us the nominations of the two remaining Commissioners so that we can act quickly on both of them. It is my understanding that the President, if he hasn't already sent one of those nominations over, will be sending one over today. I urge him to send the second one so that we can deal with both of them at the same time and for the first time in several years have a fully confirmed and seated Commodity Futures Trading Commission. With respect to Mr. Gensler, I have had the opportunity to visit with him, to go through his hearing with him, and to observe him. He is qualified, he is capable, he knows the issues, and he is prepared for the job. I urge all of my Republican colleagues to vote in favor of this nomination because I think this is one time where we have the opportunity in a bipartisan way to say to the President: If you send us reasonable and qualified nominees, we are not going to stand in your way. We are not going to be obstructionists. We are going to help you put the right kinds of people in place. I am very pleased to say--since we have had the vote today--that every single Republican who voted today voted to confirm Mr. Gensler. Let me close by talking for 1 second about the comments my colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, made with respect to the overall financial markets and our need to modify some of the regulatory process. I agree with him that we need more transparency in the market. We don't know--and I don't know that we will ever know--what caused this meltdown last year, but the one thing I do know is that as policymakers we have an obligation to make sure that when someone buys a product on a commodities market, they should have the assurance that somebody from a regulatory standpoint is looking over the shoulder of the individuals who administer those markets, so that when they buy something, they know it is exactly what was sold to them. They should have the assurance that they are going to have the opportunity--with the risks they have taken--to see that product either rise in value or sometimes go lower in value but that it will be their decision that causes that and not some manipulation of the market that causes that. The chairman and I have some disagreements over the direction in which we go, but there is no disagreement with the fact that there needs to be more transparency in the market. There are some customized products that are going to be very difficult to regulate, and we have to be careful that we don't stifle markets in this country. They have worked well for decades and decades, and they will continue to work well if we make sure that we have the right policies in place and that we don't let the Federal Government get too much engaged in the process, to the point where these individuals who make the decisions to trade on markets inside the United States get the feeling that the Government is becoming too engaged in the process and therefore they are going to take their business elsewhere, which they can do. Every product that is bought on the market in the United States can be bought in an overseas market. It can be bought from New York City or my hometown of Moultrie, GA, just as easily as it can be bought on the U.S. market. So we have to make sure we regulate those markets in the right way but that we don't overregulate them so that we drive those customers overseas to markets, because we want to continue to encourage a strong and viable commodities market in this country. As we move through the process of seeking to change our regulatory process, I look forward to working with the chairman, as well as any number of other Members of this body who have a lot of information about this issue. And believe you me, it is an extremely complex issue, but it is one we need to address, and we need to make sure at the end of the day that we have done our work in the right way and in a way that will be complementary of the markets and not in a way that is going to be conflicting toward the markets. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to discuss the benefits of nuclear power to our Nation. Last week, I was fortunate enough to visit the Savannah River Site, along with three of our colleagues, Senator Isakson and our two South Carolina colleagues, Senator Graham and Senator DeMint, to watch the Department of Energy employees at the Savannah River Site carry out their mission. This site has been safely operating since the 1950s refining materials for nuclear weapons. In more than fifty years, there has not been a single nuclear incident at the Savannah River Site, proving that it is possible to safely operate and maintain our nuclear facilities. But in the past decade, the place that has helped bolster America's standing in the atomic age and has been a watchword for America's nuclear might has also begun to harness spent forces for peaceful purposes--to bring light and heat into American homes. The Savannah River Site has helped lead the way in disposing of nuclear material. For more than 6 years, the facility has blended weapons-grade, highly enriched uranium to make low-enriched uranium that is being converted into commercial reactor fuel. It recently expanded its mission to include converting excess weapons-grade plutonium from decommissioned nuclear weapons and will become a consolidation point for all weapons-grade plutonium in the United States. This will result in more fuel for commercial power reactors. Materials that once tipped our arsenal of nuclear warheads are now being used to provide the light by which Georgians eat dinner, do their homework, and the power with which they heat their homes in winter and cool them in our hot summers. In fact, one-fifth of Georgia's total generating capacity comes from nuclear power--second only to coal. The two nuclear plants in Georgia provide some of the lowest cost electricity in our State. The power they generate is safe, reliable, and, most significant in the midst of this national debate on climate change--emissions free and environmentally responsible. Despite those clear advantages, in America at large, nuclear power produces some 20 percent of the Nation's energy. Compare that to France, where nuclear power sources provide nearly 80 percent of that country's power. Intriguingly, in terms of national security, the Savannah River Site is playing a key role in America's nuclear nonproliferation efforts. The nuclear power generated from reducing our nuclear weapons stockpile at the Savannah River Site is coming full circle: In its conversion from weapons to commercial nuclear fuel, it is helping reduce America's dependance on foreign energy sources, often from countries that do not like us and do not have our best interests at heart. Additionally, the work conducted at the Savannah River Site helps maintain America's technical and scientific nuclear base, preserving the expertise to expand commercial nuclear energy as well as the expertise to modernize our existing nuclear weapons arsenal. I was impressed by the talent and expertise of Savannah River Site employees I met who are some of the leading nuclear experts in the world. However, they are an endangered breed and will continue to be unless America commits to expanded nuclear energy and research and development. We know America's energy consumption will increase. We know the increased demand will drive the need for more base-load capacity. Demographers predict that 40 percent of the total U.S. population will live in the Southeast by 2030. Georgia alone is slated to add 4 million new residents during that time frame. If we are to meet the growing energy needs of Georgia and of our Nation in keeping with America's national security interests, the ingenuity of employees at the Savannah River Site and other such facilities is key to such efforts. I applaud their great work. I look forward to many more years of expansion of the technology that is being developed to dispose of our nuclear waste as well as recycle our nuclear waste and to reuse that waste.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to call up two amendments that have been filed at the desk, No. 1053 and No. 1054. I want to start by recognizing the great work Senators Levin and McCain have done on this issue. I have been extremely concerned about the acquisition process at the Department of Defense for years--during my House years as well as my Senate years. There have been no two greater champions on the issue than Senators Levin and McCain. They put together a piece of legislation that I think really does move us down the road in the right direction. We are dealing with less money in the defense budget than we have ever had. Yet the needs are greater. So I commend them for the great work they have done. One of the amendments I am going to talk about has already been accepted. I am very appreciative of their support of that amendment. Both of these amendments relate to the organizational conflict of interest--OCI--area of the bill. The first amendment, No. 1053, deals with the ways in which contractors that have affiliates that provide systems engineering and technical assistance, or ``SETA'' services, must organize their SETA affiliates in order to mitigate conflict of interest. In relation to large contractors having affiliates that perform SETA functions, this amendment would allow for a closer modeling of the arrangements that large U.S. companies that are foreign-owned or controlled currently have for their defense-related operations in order to protect classified information. One aspect of these arrangements relates to how the corporate board for the U.S. company, or SETA affiliate in this case, is organized. One model is ``proxy board'' which cannot communicate in any way with the parent company and prohibits any board member for the affiliate from serving on the board of or having other responsibilities within the parent company. The proxy board model requires all outside board members and removes all prerogatives of ownership for the parent company. It does not allow the parent company to exercise any management control or oversight over the separate entity and, as such, is a huge liability for the parent company. As such, it is not an attractive model in many cases. The other approach is a ``special security agreement'' which is what BAE, Rolls Royce, and other large defense contractors who have a reputation for responsibility and trustworthiness use for their U.S. affiliates. This approach requires some board members to be totally independent of the parent company but also permits some communication between the board of the affiliate and the parent company. This model allows for regulated discussions between the affiliate and the parent and protects sensitive--versus routine--information from being shared. This model has other aspects to it that provide for independence and security, and it makes sense and is less onerous for the parent company. My amendment specifies that the arrangements between large contractors and their SETA affiliates should be similar to the ``special security agreement'' I have discussed above. I am pleased that the managers have agreed to accept the amendment. I thank them for that. The second amendment which I have filed, No. 1054, relates to prime contractor ``make-buy'' decisions. These decisions relate to which aspects of a contract the prime contractor chooses to either make themselves or contract out to another company. The current bill prescribes what I believe to be onerous procedures for regulating the prime contractors' decisions in this regard and provides for ``government oversight of the process by which prime contractors consider such sources'' and authorizes ``program managers to disapprove the determination by a prime contractor to conduct development or construction in-house rather than through a subcontract.'' In my opinion, this is an example of the Government interfering in a private company's legitimate business decisions and adds little value to the process. Current acquisition regulations already provide for oversight of ``make-buy'' decisions by the Government. The ``Acquisition Reform Working Group'' composed of industry associations has strong language in their recent report on this bill opposing further Government intervention in ``make-buy'' decisions. Prime contractors are already incentivized through the market to make wise choices in this area and are held accountable to the Government for their choices, both through the terms of the contract in question and through future competitions for which past performance is always a consideration. My amendment strikes much of the provision in the bill and is intended to account for the fact that there are already procedures in place to address this issue. My amendment also attempts to prohibit excessive Government involvement in private sector business decisions. I would like to quote from the Acquisition Reform Working Group's, position paper they issued on this bill in relation to this issue. The acquisition regulations already grant the government oversight of contractors' make/buy programs . . . The government has an appropriate oversight role, but that role must be managed to assure that the government is able to hold a contractor accountable for results. If the government is to determine which subcontractors will be part of a major program, the government will necessarily assume responsibility for that choice which will result in a corresponding reduction in the prime contractor 's responsibility for the program. Make-buy decisions are critical to program success. The prime contractor must consider the selection of a major subcontractor much as the government considers the selection of the prime contractor in the source selection process. The selection of the major subcontractors is made early in the proposal process . . . To have the government substitute an agency decision concerning these selections after award would likely put the prime contractor's performance against the contract awarded base-line at risk. Any additional emphasis on the make-buy process should take into account the program risk created by Government direction for contractor source selection decisions. There is a fine balance that must be maintained to hold contractors accountable for performance and results while affording the government an appropriate oversight role. It is unreasonable to expect a contractor to be held accountable for results if the government does not both provide the responsibility and the right incentives for that performance. Better and earlier planning and program management by the Government will mitigate a contractor's performance risks more effectively than taking away a contractor's intellectual property rights, innovation incentives, and accountability. Taking away such rights will also render the Defense market less attractive for new companies, especially commercial companies, with high risk and little chance of reward. That is a rather extensive quote from that report by the Acquisition Reform Working Group, but I thought it was important to rationalize the way of thinking related to how we look at this issue. Basically, what we are proposing is, not to change the way the situation works today with respect to make-buy contracts. So if you have a major weapons system contractor that is awarded a contract, and under that contract, let's say for an automobile that obviously requires a steering wheel, then the contractor ought to have the ability to decide whether to make that steering wheel themselves or whether to subcontract that steering wheel out to another contractor. If the contractor has a right to make those decisions then the numbers that were contained in their bid are going to reflect that and accurately reflect the ultimate price the Government pays. But if the Government has the right, as the bill says, to step in after the award and tell the prime contractor: You are not going to subcontract out, we are going to mandate that you make that steering wheel, then I think it does take away some of the flexibility and the ability on the part of the prime contractor to be able to adhere to the numbers and pricing that their bid contains. This is a situation where, if we think contractors in the defense community are taking advantage of the system, the language in the bill is the direction in which we ought to go. But there are safeguards in every contract that the Department of Defense awards. I think what we need to do is focus more on making sure contractors are giving us the best possible buy we can get and the best quality of product we can get, and not hamstring those contractors who are making these bids. This will allow us to take the most advantage of taxpayer dollars that we have to use in equipping our men and women who wear the uniform of the United States. I understand the committee may have issues with this amendment, but I think it is a good amendment. I urge its adoption. I want to close by saying again that Senator McCain and I have talked about this issue of acquisition reform a number of times during my years in the Senate. There is no stronger advocate for doing what is right related to proper expenditure of taxpayer money than Senator McCain. I applaud him and Senator Levin for taking this on, getting in the weeds on it, because the contracts for which the Pentagon solicits bids and that they award on a daily basis are extremely complex, they are very large in the amount of money they spend, and this type of reform is not easy to put together. But I think Senators Levin and McCain have done an excellent job of coming up with what I think is a good product. I think with some of the amendments that have come forward today it is going to be an even better product. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that CAPT David Evans, of my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the discussion of this bill.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise today to express my disappointment with the Obama administration's decision to publicize the memorandums from the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. The four memos released by the administration examine whether the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques would violate U.S. statutes or international agreements prohibiting torture. It is important to note that all four memos determined that the techniques did not violate U.S. constitutional or international law or U.S. criminal law. It is disappointing that the White House released to the public these highly sensitive memos. There is simply no productive or meaningful purpose in their release. The memos describe in detail the CIA's interrogation program, the specific techniques that were used, psychological evaluations of detainees, and even detailed descriptions of some of the detainees themselves. All of this information raises questions about how seriously the President believes in protecting our national security as well as the confidentiality of legal counsel and the privacy of individuals. I believe the only reason the Obama administration chose to release these memos was for perceived political gain, and I also believe, based upon what I have heard in my home State, that the political gain has backlashed. I think if Americans read these memos for themselves, they will agree that after the 9/11 attacks, the CIA program was necessary to detect and prevent additional American deaths. The program was designed to exploit information held by only the most senior, hardened, and dangerous al-Qaida figures who had perishable information about the attack's planning. Since its inception in early 2002, fewer than 100 individuals were held in this program, which had significant safeguards, including detailed assessments to determine that the detainees were senior members of al-Qaida--not mere foot soldiers--who likely had actionable intelligence on terrorist threats and who posed a significant threat to U.S. interests before the CIA could detain them. Out of the 100 or so detainees the CIA has held, only 3 were subjected to the most serious, yet legal, interrogation techniques. Those three were Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, whose deadly plan resulted in the murder of some 3,000 innocent Americans; secondly, Abu Zubaydah, a senior member of al-Qaida, whom the CIA assessed to be the third or fourth ranking member of the terrorist group and who had been involved in aspects of every al-Qaida attack against America; and thirdly, Abd al-Rahim al- Nashiri, a key al-Qaida operational planner. Information obtained from these three detainees saved American lives by disrupting al-Qaida attacks and led to the capture or arrest of even more terrorists. These detainees, who have been in the inner circle of al-Qaida and who have occupied some of the most important positions in that group's hierarchy, held information that simply could not have been obtained from any other source. In fact, the memos reveal some of the invaluable information we have gained from the CIA program. This includes prevention of numerous terrorist attacks, such as the west coast airliner plot, which sought to replicate the hijacking of airplanes and crash them into buildings on the west coast of the United States. One memo describes the discovery of this plot by stating: The interrogation of KSM-- Which is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed-- --once enhanced techniques were employed, led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the ``Second Wave,'' to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into a building in Los Angeles. The same memo describes how interrogations provided information on two operatives who planned to build and detonate a dirty bomb in the Washington, DC, area. There is no doubt that the disruption of these attacks has saved American lives. CIA detainees have also confirmed that al-Qaida continues to operate against the United States and its allies. Just recently, a statement from none other than the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, acknowledged that the high-value information came from this same CIA interrogation program and that al-Qaida continues to plan attacks against America. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have seen CIA assessments on the value of information the United States has gained from interrogations as well as intelligence on the continuing resolve of al-Qaida to attack the United States and to attack its citizens. However, much of this information remains classified, so only half of the story is being told. It is important that Americans have an opportunity to see what they were protected from as a result of the CIA interrogations--interrogations that were not only effective but were deemed by the Justice Department not to be torture under U.S. and international law. The CIA's High Value Terrorist Detainee Program was a crucial pillar of U.S. counterterrorism efforts and was the largest source of insight into al-Qaida for the United States and its allies. Now, as a result of the release of these memos, the program is the largest source of information on U.S. operations to al-Qaida and our other enemies. The administration claims it released these memos in an effort to be transparent, but the only transparency it has provided is to al-Qaida. The group now knows the outer boundaries of what the United States is capable of doing and that we are no longer using these methods or any others for interrogation. Our enemies--traditional enemies and terrorists--now know that some interrogation methods were 100 percent effective on our own soldiers when used in what is called SERE training. I can only imagine how delighted our enemies are to learn how to gain secrets from our soldiers. However, I am sure our enemies will not have the same safeguards, medical and otherwise, in place when they conduct interrogations on our men and women in uniform who might be captured. While giving transparency to al-Qaida and our other enemies, the release of these memos will deprive this administration and all future Presidents from receiving candid advice from Justice Department lawyers. The Office of Legal Counsel is supposed to provide the President and the executive branch with thorough and frank legal analysis on a variety of topics. If these talented attorneys have to worry that their confidential and often classified legal advice is going to be released to the public and could result in their prosecution, I guarantee you they will not be able to offer the most straightforward opinions and alternative legal analysis necessary to guide policy. Instead, policy will now guide these lawyers' advice. Finally, it is disingenuous for Members of Congress to say they were unaware of the CIA program. From its inception, CIA lawyers repeatedly obtained legal guidance regarding the program from the Department of Justice, as one can see from the four classified memos released and from other unclassified memos previously released. The CIA briefed congressional leaders early on about the details of the program and the specific interrogation techniques that could be used. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I was aware that the CIA was holding high-valued detainees and was gaining extraordinary insight into al-Qaida's structure and operations. Also, information about the program was leaked to the public and press. Reports about it started to circulate as early as 2005. Yet Congress continued to fund the program for several years afterward. In fact, as the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee noted, the fiscal year 2007 intelligence authorization bill included language which specifically acknowledged that the CIA's program had been important in collecting valuable intelligence on al-Qaida operatives and associates and on planned terrorist attacks against the United States and our allies. This bill was voted out of the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously by a 15-to-0 rollcall vote. I hope that in the future this administration places more emphasis on protecting our national security rather than on placating critics of the rules the United States used to prevent another attack on our domestic soil. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. I am sorry, I did not see the Senator from South Carolina. I do not suggest a quorum call.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Arizona yield 2 minutes to me to speak on the budget.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, as everyone knows, the chairman of the Budget Committee happens to be a dear friend of mine, a guy with whom I work on any number of issues on a regular basis. I empathize with him for having to take what I think has been generally recognized as a freewheeling spending budget coming from the White House and try to evolve that into something that is meaningful and much more responsible. Unfortunately, that is a difficult task. I don't think it has been done. I thought for a minute, in listening to the chairman of the committee speak about the McCain alternative, that perhaps he was going to support it. But I understand why he can't. There is one other major difference the Budget Committee chairman fails to point out between the President's budget and the Democratic budget we will be voting on, and it is a fundamental difference. The President's budget and the Democratic budget focus on where we are going to spend money, versus the McCain budget which seeks to reduce Federal spending for the short term and the long term. The reason that is a fundamental difference is that when you look at the President's budget and you look at the Democratic budget, in the year 2019, for example, the amount of money that will be owed as interest on the debt will exceed the amount of money we are going to spend on discretionary defense. That is outrageous. I have four grandchildren. Two of them are brand new. They are the ones who will be charged with repaying this debt. By passing the Democratic budget and the President's budget, there is simply no way the grandchildren of all of us are ever going to be able to pay the money back. I urge support for the McCain alternative.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the President's proposed budget. A real sense of unease is pervading the country right now, and it is not just the stock market or unemployment fears or the housing crisis. There is a genuine apprehension about where our Nation is headed financially. In my travels throughout my home State this past weekend, I had the opportunity to talk to Georgians from Atlanta, to Waycross, to Blakely, to Macon, and to hear what is on their minds. One of their main concerns is the budget the President has sent to the Hill and the financial hole into which it will put this country, our children, and our grandchildren. They are right to be worried. The independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released its analysis of the President's proposed budget on last Friday. Its assessment is very troubling. The CBO's estimate for the cost of this budget exceeds that of the Obama administration's estimate by $2.3 trillion over a 10-year period. By borrowing and spending so much money, the CBO projects that the public debt--the amount we have to pay back to our creditors--will grow to 82 percent of GDP by 2019. The last time that happened, America was paying off a massive debt it incurred from fighting in World War II. According to the CBO, this year, 2009, the total deficit is estimated to hit $1.9 trillion. By 2018, the CBO projects annual deficits to be more than $1 trillion every year, and rising. Under the terms of this budget, the annual deficit, in 2013, is slated to be $672 billion--or more than 4 percent of estimated GDP. That is one of the largest deficits in American history, but it is actually the smallest projected deficit in this entire budget. Back in 2004, before he was the President's Director of the Office of Management and Budget, current OMB Director Peter Orszag wrote that repeated deficits of 3.5 percent or more will put this country on an ``unsustainable path'' and would result in ``a related loss of confidence both at home and abroad.'' He was right. But we are feeling that loss of confidence among Americans now, much less among those whom we are looking to to buy that huge debt we are creating. To put it plainly, people are worried. These are people such as Phil Perlis, who owns a family clothing business in Tifton, GA. Phil's family has owned The Big Store for almost a century, and it employs approximately 20 people. I know Phil and his family very well. Phil said this is the toughest year he has ever had. He has been ``squeezed in every place imaginable.'' The days of feeling comfortable about making a profit no longer exist, and he simply hopes to be in business this time next year. His confidence is shaken. And given the business climate and the economic issues in Washington--and despite his positive attitude--Phil predicted to me the other day that very trying times are ahead for his store, as well as all other small businesses across America. He is not alone. Americans, despite the optimism that is our birthright, already feel a sense of disquiet about the direction our Nation is headed economically. As an example, the national savings rate has gone from zero in 2005 to 8 percent today. For the good of their families, Americans are trying to hold on to what they have, not throwing caution to the wind and hoping for a future financial miracle. For the good of our country, our children, and our grandchildren, our Government should do the same. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the budget as proposed by President Obama and, to put it very bluntly, I am worried. While several aspects of the budget concern me, the one I find most troubling is the direction in which it will take this Nation's deficit. The budget's cost has been pointed out many times on this floor during the past week--$3.5 trillion is, indeed, a lot of money. But what I would also emphasize is that the President's budget will spawn a deficit of $1.17 trillion next year. There are many items on the President's wish list. Some are worthwhile, but many, such as his health care plan, tax increases, and climate change, deserve a long and lively debate in front of the American people before we have any vote on any of those measures. I have four grandchildren--John, Parker, Kimbro, and Anderson--and I am very proud of all four of them. This budget will spend more money than my four grandchildren's generation will ever have a hope of paying back in their lifetimes. This is not a temporary spike in the deficit. Despite the President's stated intention to reduce the deficit, the smallest deficit envisioned by this budget--$533 billion in the year 2013--would still be larger than any of the annual budget deficits of the last 8 years. The last 8 years have received a lot of criticism from folks on the other side of the aisle, including our President, but the fact is that the last 8 years are going to pale in comparison, from a deficit standpoint, in the event this budget should pass. Further, the debt held by the public doubles, from $5.8 trillion, 41 percent of our GDP, in 2008, to $11.5 trillion, or 66 percent of GDP, in 2013. If that were not astounding enough, by 2019 debt will have tripled from the 2008 to $15.4 trillion, or an astonishing 67 percent of our GDP. Unfortunately, that is not the worst of it. The CBO is expected to release its numbers for this budget tomorrow. Early reports suggest that its deficit forecast will be some 20 percent higher than the White House has expected with the numbers to which I just alluded. I am also worried about this budget's $1.4 trillion tax increase, which will hit our small businesses, the engines of our economy, particularly hard. More than half of small business, with 20 or more employees, will get hit with tax hikes proposed in this budget. That will have a dampening effect on the ability of the small business community to maintain the jobs it has today, much less to think about hiring additional employees. In my home State of Georgia, fully 98 percent of the State's employers in 2006 were small businesses, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy. With a record statewide unemployment rate of 9 percent today, to say that many of them are having a hard time is an understatement. These are small businesses, such as Dixie Industrial Finishing Company in Tucker, GA, which does electroplating. Dixie's vice president, Jim Jones, is also worried. His company has been in business for nearly 50 years and has about 10 employees. Just in the past 2 weeks, because of the very difficult economic times we are in, Jim has had to lay off almost 10 percent of his workforce. Some of these employees have been with the company for 20 to 25 years and were getting close to retirement. I am afraid that, coming during a recession, such tax increases will only add to the financial strain at Dixie as well as other small businesses and further feed the growing job losses in Georgia and elsewhere. I am a firm believer in the optimism that birthed this great Nation. But no matter how hard we try, we cannot wish the deficit away. We cannot let ourselves throw caution to the wind and act with such fiscal irresponsibility. We are leaving our children and grandchildren in hock forever to pay for the wants of today. Now, not in 5 years or 10 years, is the time for us to exercise responsibility and enact some spending restraint to get this deficit under control. Nothing less than our country's future depends on it. The American people understand our fiscal problem. The phone calls into my office are overwhelmingly asking the question: Where in the world is this administration taking our country? What is happening to our country from a fiscally responsible standpoint? In what direction is this country really going? We have to be much more fiscally responsible than the President has proposed in his budget. Very simply stated, his budget spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much. That is the wrong direction in which this country needs to be going in difficult times or in good times. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the three amendments filed by Senator Coburn that we are going to be voting on shortly to the omnibus lands package. With this country in the dire economic straits we are in, with the housing market crumbling, and with all of the major issues we have on our plate, I am not sure I understand why we are here dealing with a lands package today but, more importantly, why we are dealing with this lands package. This omnibus lands package is truly antistimulus because it will erect new barriers to energy exploration and squander billions of taxpayer dollars on low-priority, parochial programs and frivolous earmarks. The bill is another direct challenge from Congress to President Obama's pledge to clean up the earmark process. Last week, the President pledged to eliminate earmarks that didn't serve a legitimate purpose. He also said that each earmark must be scrutinized at public hearings. None of the individual earmarks in this bill were subject to public hearings, nor would many Americans describe earmarks such as a $3.5 million birthday bash for St. Augustine, FL, a legitimate public purpose. The omnibus lands bill should be subject to a full and open amendment process. For months, the leader on the other side has argued that the bill is ``noncontroversial'' and should pass by a voice vote, with no amendments and no recorded rollcall votes. Yet, last week, 144 Members of the House of Representatives voted against the bill because it does need major revision. More than 100 organizations, ranging from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the National Wildlife Refuge Association, have expressed their opposition to this package. The bill blocks the development of both renewable and oil and gas energy resources--one of the critical issues we are still facing in this country even with the price of a barrel of oil down and the price of a cubic foot of natural gas down. But they are not going to stay down. One bill in the package locks up at least 8.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and more than 300 million barrels of oil in a single field, which is equal to nearly twice as much natural gas as all Americans use in a year. All of that will be off limits at a time when we are seeking to take advantage of our natural resources in this country. The bill includes 92 National Wild and Scenic Rivers designations, covering over 1,100 miles that will prohibit any pipeline or transmission crossing. In 19 cases, the bill permanently withdraws Federal lands from future mineral and geothermal leasing. Since the Senate last considered the lands bill, Secretary Salazar has withdrawn major energy leases in both Utah and Wyoming that were the subject of a coordinated lawsuit brought by extreme anti-energy groups. The three amendments we are going to be voting on do three basic things to try to improve this package. First, amendment No. 679 strikes provisions that restrict the development of renewable energy on public lands, including but not limited to geothermal, wind, solar, biomass, and related transmission infrastructure. Amendment No. 680 bars new construction until all current sites are certified by the Secretary as fully operational, ensuring full access by the public and posing no health or safety threat. The National Park Service is currently facing a $10 billion maintenance backlog. Yet we are going to be adding to their inventory. The third amendment prohibits the use of eminent domain for any provision authorized in the bill. These are basic, commonsense amendments that ought to be supported by everybody here. If we are going to have this lands package debated and voted on--and, again, I am not clear as to exactly why we are dealing with this in the middle of our other crises--certainly we ought to make commonsense amendments applicable to basic provisions in this huge package that is going to be the most major acquisition of lands by the Federal Government, which is already the largest landowner in our country over the last two decades. With that, I urge adoption of the Coburn amendments on which we are getting ready to vote. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of S. Res. 53 which commemorates the role of slaves in constructing the U.S. Capitol. What a great historical revelation and statement my colleague from Arkansas has made. This is one of those moments when the Senate has an opportunity to shine, because we have a chance to look back at historical facts that may not have been pretty, as we look back on it, but are a part of our history. I want to tell her how much I appreciate her leadership on this--not just this particular resolution, but on this overall issue. She has been a true champion. Her leadership in her caucus has meant an awful lot to a number of people, particularly those of us who come from the South. She mentioned my good friend John Lewis, my colleague, the dean of our delegation. What a great American John Lewis is. I have the opportunity every year at the Martin Luther King birthday celebration to take the podium with John Lewis at Ebenezer Baptist Church and to recollect and reminisce about some of those times that may not have been pleasant but, again, they are part of our history. John Lewis certainly lived that history and the great story of his contribution to America--his having gone through what he went through--is why we all have such admiration for him. It is one of the great, sad ironies of American history that the very foundation of this building in which we have debated essential questions of liberty and even decided who was free and who was not, was laid by those who wore shackles. We do not know that much about them. In the scant records that were kept, only a few first names survive next to those of their owners, and the sums paid for their backbreaking work. But we do know this. They toiled in the hot Sun and the cold wind in the quarries of Virginia and Maryland to unearth the stone upon which rests this temple of liberty. From 1793 to 1826, as many as 800 slaves at any one time painted, roofed, sawed, glazed, and perfected a building that represented a freedom that was never to be theirs and, in an irony of ironies, as the Civil War tore this country asunder over the very issue of human liberty, a slave laborer named Philip Reid cast the Statue of Freedom that now crowns this very building. Uncredited and unsung, slaves carved and polished the three-story- high marble columns that grace Statuary Hall, a soaring backdrop where so many of us earlier this week debated and discussed the first congressional speech of this Nation's first Black President. How far we have come in this period of history in our country. We can never pay these laborers their due but we can, even belatedly, recognize their significant contributions. This resolution authorizes a plaque to be placed near the original East Front wall of the Capitol, one of the few places their handiwork is still visible, to acknowledge the role and contributions enslaved African-American laborers played in the evolution of this building and, by extension, this democracy. Again, I thank my colleague from Arkansas and commend her once again for her leadership. She and I have worked on so many issues in a strong and bipartisan way. Without her leadership we would not be here now. I thank all my colleagues for their unanimous approval of this resolution.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Eye Bank Association of America, the Georgia Eye Bank, and the recognition of March as National Eye Donor Month. Eye banks today provide for more than 50,000 corneal grafts for transplantation each year. In Georgia alone, citizens donated enough ocular tissue to provide over 1,200 corneas to their fellow Georgians. The generosity of these donors allows for better eye care and the gift of improved sight for those lucky enough to receive transplants. The Eye Bank Association of America is the oldest transplant association in the United States and has restored sight to nearly 1 million individuals. The association was created in 1955 when 12 eye banks formed with the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology. Since 1961, more than 600,000 corneal transplants have been performed, restoring the sight of men, women, and children ranging from 9 days to 107 years old. This year, I am proud to commend Dr. Bruce Varnum, chair of the Eye Bank Association of America, from my home State of Georgia, for his excellent service and commitment to advancing eye transplantation and donation. Corneal blindness can develop from a variety of diseases, injuries, or infections. These transplants have over a 90 percent success rate and give renewed hope for those in need of a new beginning. Despite these encouraging numbers, many Americans are still left waiting in the dark. I urge my colleagues and all Americans to consider becoming eye donors to allow for the miracle of sight that so many of us take for granted. By working with the National Eye Banks Association and local eye banks, we involve ourselves in the selfless and kindhearted spirit that defines the American people. The role of eye donors is paramount in assisting those who have tragically lost the ability to see. Mr. President, lawmakers have recognized March as National Eye Donor Month since President Reagan proclaimed the first one in 1983 and I am honored on behalf of the residents of Georgia and those throughout the country to recognize March as National Eye Donor Month.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to this bill, and I do so somewhat reluctantly because I do not think there is an individual who is a Member of this Senate who does not agree that something needs to be done. We are in a financial crisis in this country today. We are in not just a financial industry crisis but every household has their own financial crisis they are looking at. We have folks out of work. We have folks who are looking at their homes being foreclosed, some of whom are even still working. We have real issues that need to be dealt with. The question becomes: How do we solve this problem? How do we, as policymakers, act in a responsible way to address this crisis? There are three real issues that need to be addressed, in my opinion. First of all, the issue that got us into the crisis mode we are in is the housing industry. The housing industry crisis started years and years ago. I could go all the way back to the Carter administration and talk about bills that were passed by this body that started the ball rolling. It steamrolled in subsequent administrations and came to a head last summer and last fall, when we saw foreclosures reach an alltime high, and they have gotten higher ever since. We saw the financial sector of our economy collapse. But that does not do us any good to talk about that. We have to deal with the cards we have in our hand today, and we have to look forward. But let us make no mistake about it, if we do not fix the housing crisis this country is in, all the hundreds of billions of dollars and trillions of dollars we have obligated and are about to obligate are not going to be spent in the correct manner because we have to fix the housing market. We have too many households in America that are upside down. Upside down means the home they have now is worth less than what they owe on it. Those particular households all across America are struggling right now with the decision of whether they are going to continue to make their house payment or whether they are going to just let the foreclosure proceed so they don't have to make a payment on a house that is worth significantly less than what it was when they bought it. There was a provision we debated on the floor of this body last week called the Isakson amendment. My colleague from Georgia introduced that amendment which would have allowed a $15,000 tax credit to anyone who buys a home in the next 12 months. That $15,000 tax credit would have gone a long way towards incentivizing individuals to buy homes and take these houses that have been foreclosed on out of the inventory of the financial institutions across this country and allowed our developers to get back to work. It would have taken those developers now in their own partially developed--or in some instances totally developed-- subdivisions and given them the opportunity to get back into the marketplace with credit being freed up and continue to develop those subdivisions and build houses and put carpenters back to work and plumbers back to work and folks who lay carpet back to work. That is the kind of stimulus that needs to be done to get the housing industry back on track. Unfortunately, during the conference that took place over the last several days, starting, I think, at midnight the other night, from what I hear, and concluding maybe at midnight the next night, that provision was taken out. So with this bill, as we see it on the Senate floor today, the Isakson amendment has been so watered down that it is meaningless. It is not going to be an incentive on the part of anyone to buy a home. Now, we don't have one single provision in this bill that is going to be voted on, on the floor of the Senate tonight, that is going to really stimulate and invigorate the housing sector of our economy. Secondly, there was another amendment I thought was a pretty good amendment. I didn't know about it until we got the bill on the Senate floor, but it was a Democratic amendment by Senator Mikulski from Maryland. Her amendment basically said: Look, you are not going to stimulate the automobile industry by writing checks to Detroit. The way you stimulate the automobile industry is to put people in the showrooms around America. I am trying to buy a car right now, and I was particularly interested in what she had to say because what her amendment did was to allow an individual who bought a car and financed that car to deduct the interest paid on that loan at the end of the year off of their income taxes. Pretty good idea. For somebody who is in the market for an automobile, that may have been the final thing that put them over the top. Unfortunately, that particular amendment, too, has been so watered down that it is meaningless. It is not going to do one thing to incentivize or stimulate an individual to go out and buy a car today. The next issue that needed to be addressed is job security and job creation. Are there provisions in this bill that seek to create jobs? You bet there are. Out of $789 billion, I would hope some of those billions of dollars would do that. Certainly, with respect to part of that money that is going to infrastructure projects, to build roads, to build highways, to do waterworks projects, there are going to be jobs created by that, and I have an appreciation for that fact. However, the fact is, it falls way short when it comes to looking at the percentage of spending that is allocated in this bill to infrastructure projects. It is minuscule--minuscule--compared to the total amount of $789 billion that has been allocated, and when you add the interest, the $1.2 trillion that we are going to obligate tonight if this bill does, in fact, pass. There is a way we could have addressed job stabilization and job creation. In the McCain amendment that was on the Senate floor, there was a provision in that amendment that said we can incentivize the small business community--which is the heart and soul of the job creation sector of our economy--we can incentivize that small business community to grow their business.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I think I have 7 minutes under the consent. Will you let me know when I have a minute remaining, please.