Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I came to the floor to speak on something else, but I just want to say to my chairman that I commend her for her hard work and dedication and her leadership on this issue of child nutrition. We have worked extremely hard over the last couple of years on this issue, and when she assumed the chairmanship of the committee, she really put this as a top priority and I think it was the first major piece of legislation we passed out of committee under her leadership. Boy, did she ever work hard to make sure that happened. It is a pleasure always to work with her. She is exactly right. We have actually modified the bill a little, even though it came out of the committee unanimously. It is totally paid for, and we are using existing farm bill money, for the most part, to pay for it. So it is a matter of adjusting priorities within good, solid, agricultural policy. So I thank her for it, and I look forward to this bill ultimately coming to the Senate floor and its passage. 2009 Little League Softball Champs Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Warner Robins American Little League Softball team on winning the 2009 Little League Softball World Series. They visited the White House yesterday, where President Obama offered them congratulations, and I appreciate his hosting them in that very generous way. I can't imagine this will be the last time the Warner Robins Little League girls come to DC as the Softball World Series champions because they have the knack for winning. The girls went undefeated in the tournament. There was only one game that was ever in doubt. In the final game they beat a team from Crawford, TX, by a score of 14 to 2. Undoubtedly, there must be something in the water down in Warner Robins because, boy, do these girls know how to win. And they deserved to win. Throughout the tournament they played with heart, played with courage, and played with sportsmanship. In 2007, the boys Little League Baseball team from the same town-- Warner Robins--won the world championship title, making Warner Robins, GA, the first community in America to have a baseball team and a softball team win their respective Little League World Series championships. I am proud of what the girls have accomplished, but my pride cannot compare to that of Warner Robins, to the State of Georgia, or to the entire Little League community. I am also proud of the commitment shown by the parents, coaches, and managers, who offered so much love and support for these girls so they could achieve their dream. Softball is part of our American heritage, our history. It is a sport that cultivates competitiveness, hard work, and speed. It is also a sport that prepares children for the ups and downs of adult life because it brings together people and builds communities. I am grateful to these girls not only for the sense of community their softball team helps bring to Georgia, but also for the economic opportunities this win is helping to bring to Warner Robins. The Little League International's southeastern regional headquarters and stadium recently moved from Florida to Georgia, bringing hundreds of jobs to this city of 60,000. Mr. President, it is my privilege to be able to give voice to the citizens of our State in congratulating Warner Robins on a job well done and on thanking these girls for the recognition and opportunities they have brought to middle Georgia. Once again, I offer my congratulations to the Warner Robins Little League Softball team on this very special occasion, and wish its players the best of luck as they defend their title over the next year. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise, like my leader from Kentucky, to celebrate the life of Paul Douglas Coverdell. I thank the leader for his kind comments about a very personal friend to both Senator Isakson and me as well as to the leader. Paul Coverdell served in this body from 1993 until his untimely death on July 18, 2000. Paul was a longtime politician in our State, having first run for office in 1968. He lost the first election and then was elected to the State senate in 1970. He rose to the rank of minority leader in the Georgia State Senate and had a successful career there. He then decided to run for Congress and lost his first race for the House of Representatives. Paul did something that is so Coverdell-like in the summer of 1978. He was then the chairman of the Georgia Republican Party. He was on vacation in Maine. He knew, obviously, of the soon-to-be Vice President, George H.W. Bush, but he didn't know him and he wanted to get to know him. So he walked up to his house in Kennebunkport--didn't have to worry about the Secret Service back then--and knocked on his front door. President Bush came to the front door. He introduced himself. They became fast friends after that. When President Bush was elected, Paul Coverdell was very involved in his campaign. He wrote him a simple note. He said: If I can help you, I would like to. Well, the President took that to heart and appointed Paul to be the Director of the Peace Corps. Anything Paul undertook, he put his whole heart and soul into. When he became Director of the Peace Corps, he did exactly that. He also was a very good thinker. He created what was called World Wise Schools within the Peace Corps. Those schools all of a sudden cropped up all around the world under the sponsorship of Peace Corps volunteers and all under Paul's leadership. Paul led the first Peace Corps volunteers into Eastern Europe after the fall of the wall. I will never forget going to the Peace Corps building as a Member of the House after Paul's death when the Peace Corps building was named after Paul. To hear the many tributes of volunteers who had served for so long under Paul and the personal stories they had about the involvement of their leader and their affection for their leader was truly humbling and moving. When Paul was elected to the Senate in 1992, he actually had to be elected four times that year. He was in a primary which he won after a runoff. He then came in second in the general election in November, but because of the rules being what they are in Georgia, as I experienced myself in 2008, Paul was in a runoff with the incumbent because an independent third- party candidate got enough votes so that the incumbent did not get 50 percent plus one. Paul then won, after coming in second, the runoff election and, thus, his fourth election in 1992. In 1998, he became the first Georgia Republican to ever be reelected to the Senate. He was such a class guy here that he was respected and admired by folks on both sides of the aisle. I went back and looked at some of the comments Republicans and Democrats made on the floor of the Senate after Paul's death. It truly was, again, a very moving experience to read those comments. He created what is called the Coverdell ESA, or the Coverdell education savings accounts--they are really education IRAs--to allow families to set aside money on a tax-free basis to educate their children. Paul loved education. It was very near and dear to him. He was very proud of being able to establish those IRAs for future leaders of the country. A quick story about Paul. He was a very unique individual. He never wore anything but a dark suit, never wore anything but a long-sleeve white shirt. I remember one day I had an event down in the very southern part of my congressional district, down at the Okefenokee Swamp. It was in July or August, I don't remember which, but I do remember it was extremely hot. The humidity in south Georgia on a June or July or August day is extremely high. We were all there, and some other Members of Congress who were there were in shorts and golf shirts. Whatever we could put on to stay cool or somewhat cool, that is what we had on. Paul showed up. As always, Paul had on a dark suit and a white shirt. We finally did get him to take his tie and coat off because we were going to ride out into the swamp. I used to kid Paul about that really until the time of his death. The leader is right, Senator Lott had a term for Paul Coverdell. He called him Mikey because anytime Trent needed to get something done, he would go to Mikey. Paul just had a way of making sure that whatever the challenge was, it got done and got done in a very efficient way. The photograph I cherish most of all my political photographs is a black-and-white photo. It is a picture of Paul and myself sitting in his office at one of our weekly meetings that took place while I was in the House and he was in the Senate, the two of us just sitting there talking. The expression on Paul's face is so classic Coverdell. It always makes me feel good and is a great reminder of Paul. Paul's wife Nancy has always been a dear friend. She was such a great asset to him. She has chaired my military academy appointment committee in all of my years in the Senate. She is a wonderful lady. Again, we have some very fond conversations together about Paul from time to time. Paul Coverdell was not just a great Georgian; he was a great American. He certainly loved our State and our country as much as anybody who has ever served in this body. It is a sad day but yet a very good day from the standpoint of having the opportunity to remember the strong and positive leadership of Senator Paul Coverdell.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4173. I think it is interesting to note we have had a number of speakers who are proponents of this legislation come forward--just as my good friend from Maryland just did--and say we are going to be the leader, the United States is going to be the leader in the financial world market with these changes. Well, the fact is, other countries that have strong financial markets have said publicly just the opposite. What I am afraid we are setting ourselves up for, and what I talked about a lot during the course of the debate on the Senate floor relative to this bill, is that what we are going to wind up doing is we are going to be driving jobs and business overseas with this massive piece of legislation that truly does not address the problem. There is nothing in these 2,300 pages that deals with the primary catalyst of the market instability in our economy--the bailout behemoths, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill simply ignores the devastating impact these two entities continue to have not only on our capital markets but also on our Nation's deficit, already demanding over $145 billion in taxpayer assistance, and with no end in sight as to what it is ultimately going to cost the taxpayers of this country. The newly created consumer protection bureau is an affirmation that the proponents of the legislation have acknowledged government failures were a significant cause of our economic turmoil. But they still believe bigger government is the solution going forward, and despite failure after failure among various regulatory agencies, a new agency is the answer to these shortcomings, and this time it is going to be different. Instead of addressing the problems of the consumer protections in place under our current regulatory structure, this new oversight agency is an added layer of bureaucracy with the authority to examine and enforce new regulations for not only all mortgage-related businesses, but also small mom-and-pop businesses on Main Street such as payday lenders, check cashers, and other nonfinancial firms. These types of entities were clearly not the cause of the economic crisis, yet they will now be subject to the same regulations as the large financial institutions on Wall Street. This is simply another example of the majority party's preference for a one-size-fits-all regulatory structure, stifling economic growth. Having participated in the conference committee, I unfortunately witnessed firsthand the complete disregard for addressing the real issues at hand. As ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, I have spent a great deal of time understanding the over-the-counter derivatives market--its complexities, and its legitimate utility. I have found that both Republicans and Democrats generally agree on the major issues relating to derivatives regulation. We all generally agree there needs to be greater transparency, registration, more clearing, and compliance with a whole host of business conduct and efficient market operation regulations. This is important, because it is a 180- degree shift away from current law where over-the-counter swaps are essentially unregulated today. Within this general agreement that swaps need to go from unregulated to fully regulated, we have had disagreements about who should be required to clear their transactions and how best to require swaps to be transacted and reported. These disagreements are significant because they involve real burdens and duties which will result in real costs to businesses and consumers. I wish to make sure our new regulations are targeted to serve a useful purpose. Unfortunately, this legislation will enable regulators to impose restrictions on businesses that had absolutely nothing to do with creating the financial crisis. Every industry in the country uses derivatives to manage their business risks and many of them will now be forced to clear their derivative transactions. This seems simple enough, until you realize that clearing does not make risk within the financial system disappear. Risk is simply transferred from the individual counterparties to the clearinghouses, a service provided at considerable expense in the form of margin posted to the clearinghouse. So this bill will not eliminate risk, but it simply transfers risk from one place to another and imposes costs on market participants who had nothing to do with creating the financial crisis. I truly fear that consumers will ultimately pay the price. For example, this legislation would force the farm credit system institutions to run their interest rate swaps through a clearinghouse which will result in additional costs in the form of higher interest rates to their customers without doing anything to lessen the systemic risk. Let me be clear as to who this will ultimately affect. It is very clear that our farmers and ranchers, our electric cooperatives, and our ethanol facilities which seek financing from these institutions will bear this burden. Institutions such as Cobank will be forced to clear their swaps and execute them on a trading facility which will impose significant new costs and result in higher rates for their customer, or, worse, discourage them from managing their risk which will again result in higher costs for their borrowers. And why? Because this legislation broadly applies regulation, treating all financial institutions the same. Cobank and Goldman Sachs are not the same and should not be regulated in the same manner. Cobank should have the option to clear their swaps, not be mandated to do so. While the conference report provides an exemption for some businesses from this derivative clearing mandate, it also imposes new margin requirements on derivative dealers for these same uncleared transactions. Who will likely pay for these new margin requirements in the form of higher fees? Again, it is pretty clear the public and private companies across the Nation that had nothing to do with the financial crisis and that are simply seeking to minimize risk will bear this burden. The entire point of exempting some of them from the clearing mandate was to ensure that they do not bear the burden of increased margin costs, but this language would indirectly subject these businesses to the expense of margins imposed on their dealer counterparties--counterparties that will be forced to recoup this cost in the form of fees, and businesses will be forced to pass their costs on to consumers. I encourage all Members of this body to look at yesterday's Wall Street Journal. There is a front-page story on derivatives. When we come to the floor and start debating derivatives, most people's eyes glaze over because it is complex and an issue that is very difficult to understand. But in that article it explains the simplicity that the derivatives world imparts itself in. The article goes through a process of a farmer in Nebraska and his use of derivatives; then his ultimate purchaser of his product--the rancher--and how that rancher uses derivatives to eliminate risk and hopefully guarantee a profit in his business. Then it describes how the slaughterhouse takes the product from the livestock operator, the market operator, and uses derivatives in their business; and then ultimately the guy who owns the trucking company and how he uses derivatives. It is very clear in this article that these guys' lives are going to change from a business perspective. They are not going to be able to use derivatives in the way they used them before. They had nothing to do with the financial crisis that developed in this country. Also related to derivatives were considerable improvements made to the so-called ``swap desk push out'' provision. I commend the chairman for his work on that. Banks would be able to continue to engage in interest rate and foreign currency swaps which is essential to the business of banks. However, I remain concerned that forcing swap dealer banks to spin off their commodity trading will hurt those utilities and airlines wishing to hedge their energy risks in the immediate future. They will be forced to establish new credit ratings and standings with these affiliates rather than take advantage of their longstanding relationship with their current bank. I fail to understand why forcing these entities to spin off any aspect of their swap business is necessary. I wholeheartedly support efforts to make the swaps market more transparent. It needs to be. I believe this will be accomplished once regulators have access to the data which has to date been completely unavailable to them. The public will benefit from knowing who is participating in these markets, and we will finally have the data we need to make informed policy decisions related to derivatives. Our economy needs more opportunities for all businesses to grow and prosper. Time and again, it is the small- and medium-sized businesses that create the lion's share of jobs after a major economic recession. We need to foster and incubate these small- and medium-sized businesses right now and not hamper them. We need to ensure they are able to access capital and manage their risk through the use of derivatives. Right now, there are a lot of these small- and medium-sized companies that are ready to expand but cannot get adequate access to capital because lenders are saying it is too risky and regulators won't allow these lenders to help. So I believe there is a need to respond to what went wrong in our financial system and I support doing so in a responsible way that will continue to allow Main Street businesses to manage their risk appropriately, hold those responsible for this mess accountable, and not create huge new government bureaucracies. Unfortunately, this legislation falls short of these goals. I am pleased the chairman of the Banking Committee is here, because I do want to say publicly--and I have told him this privately and I will continue to say it--that he had a very difficult job, and while we disagreed on a lot of major issues, he was always open for discussion. He allowed participation on the floor as well as discussions off the floor, and for that I thank him. He knows that I obviously cannot vote for this bill, but he has proven himself to be a very valued Member of the Senate by the way he has conducted himself throughout this whole process, and for that I thank him. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Isakson and I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to join me and my colleague, Senator Isakson, in honoring the life and commitment of 1LT Robert Collins of Tyrone, GA. Lieutenant Collins grew up in the small town of Tyrone in Fayette County, where he attended Sandy Creek High School, played football on Friday nights, where he became a standout student that would take him to the halls of West Point, and where he attended Hopewell United Methodist Church with his family every Sunday morning. On the 7th of April 2010, Lieutenant Collins made the ultimate sacrifice when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle on the streets of Mosul, Iraq. He was 24 years old. To me, it is a particularly difficult situation because Lieutenant Collins was one of my appointees to West Point. He graduated from West Point in 2008 and became an officer in B Company, 1st Battalion, 64th Regiment of the Armor Unit, 3rd Infantry Division, based at Fort Stewart, GA. He deployed to Iraq in the autumn of 2009. Lieutenant Collins served as his platoon's commander. While in Iraq, his unit was charged with improving security and the quality of life for the Iraqi people. He and his men also provided security for the recent successful Iraqi elections. They were dedicated to the goal of a democratic Iraq and sought to help its people lead normal, safe lives. Robert's friends have described him as a man of great compassion. He was a natural leader who truly found a calling in the honor and patriotism of service in the U.S. Army. He has been described by his superiors as a young man who performed his duties courageously, without hesitation, and without reservations because, after all, he was a soldier in the U.S. Army. As a small token of gratitude and remembrance for the ultimate sacrifice paid by Lieutenant Collins, I am pleased to join Senator Isakson in urging our colleagues to rename the post office in Tyrone, GA, as the ``1st Lt. Robert Wilson Collins Post Office Building'' in Lieutenant Collins' honor. Nothing we can do can ever repay the debt and the ultimate sacrifice this young man has made, but this will ensure his name lives on, not just in his friends' and families' hearts but in the heart of his hometown. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I wish to join with my colleague, Senator Isakson, today to honor the accomplishments of COL Clarence S. Parker of Valdosta, GA, in the Record of the Senate. For most of his life, Colonel Parker has been a dedicated pilot. In 1940, when the United States was on the brink of war, Colonel Parker was prepared to fight for his loved ones and his nation. A native of Houston, TX, Colonel Parker began his lengthy career in aviation while enrolled as a student at the University of Houston. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Colonel Parker entered the U.S. Army Air Corps in January of 1942. He completed military flight training and was commissioned in September of that year. During World War II, Colonel Parker was an instructor pilot at Waco Army Airfield, primarily in the BT-13 and the P-40 aircraft. He flew during the early phases of the Berlin Airlift, and later ascended to a position of leadership as the chief of flight procedures from 1948 until the end of the airlift. In 1950, he returned to the U.S. to serve at the Pentagon in the U.S. Air Force Headquarters and also at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida. Following service in Vietnam, he finished his military career as wing commander at Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, GA, flying T-37 and T-38 aircraft. Following his retirement in 1971, Colonel Parker made Valdosta, GA, his home. He became heavily involved in the operations and upkeep of the Valdosta Municipal Airport and began a second career in banking. During his tenure as chairman of the airport authority from 1987 to 2005, he was instrumental in earning funding for several major construction projects, including a project to lengthen the main instrument runway to 8,002 feet. Colonel Parker remains an active pilot with over 7,500 hours of flight time. He continues to work with the Valdosta-Lowndes Chamber of Commerce to benefit the flying activities at both Moody Air Force Base and in the Valdosta civil aviation community. Additionally, he remains a consultant to the Valdosta-Lowndes County Airport Authority. Colonel Parker has enjoyed a career that is extraordinary in length, quality of service, and leadership. For these reasons, he has been selected to receive the Federal Aviation Administration's Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award. The Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award recognizes pilots who have maintained safe flight operations for 50 or more consecutive years. We can think of no higher award for a pilot, and we are proud to recognize Colonel Parker for his receipt of the Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to say a few words about an excellent lawyer from Macon, GA, Marc Treadwell, who has been nominated to serve as a U.S. District Court Judge for the Middle District of Georgia, the district I was privileged to practice in for 26 years. He is a native of Blackshear, GA, but as an ``Army brat,'' he grew up near various bases around the United States and abroad. He is a graduate of Valdosta State University, as well as the Walter F. George School of Law at Mercer University in Macon. At Mercer, Marc served on the law review and was a member of the school's prestigious Brainerd Currie Honor Society. After graduation, Marc went to Atlanta to begin his practice of law and returned to Macon in 1985 and has practiced in Macon ever since. He currently is a partner with the Macon firm of Adams, Jordan & Treadwell. Marc has been inducted into the American College of Trial Lawyers and Martindale-Hubbell and his colleagues have given him the highest rating available to a lawyer in the country with an AV rating. He now teaches at his alma mater, Mercer, and has written more than 50 publications for law reviews and other publications. Marc is also recognized as a leading authority on the evidence law in our State of Georgia. Marc and his wife Wimberly have two sons, Thomas and John. In addition to juggling his law practice, teaching and family duties, Marc is an active member of the Vineville United Methodist Church in Macon. I am pleased to commend Marc Treadwell to my colleagues, and I believe he will serve Georgians and Americans very well as a Federal judge and will be a fine addition to the bench. Marc gets the highest remarks from his colleagues with whom I have talked over the last several months. I am extremely pleased to be here today to recommend to all of my colleagues the confirmation of Marc Treadwell to be a U.S. district judge for the Middle District of Georgia.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today I congratulate the Augusta State University men's golf team on their historic NCAA Championship win last week. On June 6, 2010, Augusta State beat Oklahoma State 3-3-1 in the championship match of the 112th NCAA Division I Championships. ASU's Henrik Norlander, Patrick Reed, Mitch Krywulycz, Taylor Floyd and Carter Newman had already defeated No. 3 Georgia Tech and the No. 2 Florida State to bring them to the championship. All that was left now was Oklahoma State, the No. 1 team in the country. The win seemed unlikely. Oklahoma State was not only ranked higher, but had more funding, more experience and more championship titles. They were giants in the golf world. In addition, Taylor Floyd was sick. So sick, that it seemed as though he couldn't play. But Augusta State was determined. They had tried to win 11 times before this and failed. This was their year to win. So, at the Honors Course just north of Chattanooga, TN, ASU did just that. Its win was not only the first NCAA championship title in Augusta State's history, but also marked the team's 10th straight top-five finish of the season. And they deserved to win. Throughout the tournament they played with heart, played with courage and played with sportsmanship. They became giants on that course. They not only made Augusta State proud but the Augusta and the State of Georgia proud. But no one could be prouder than ASU's head coach Josh Gregory. As tears pooled in his eyes, he said, ``This means everything. This is a dream come true, and they are incredible players.'' Gregory's commitment and dedication to his team has resulted in four NCAA championships appearances, the most by any coach in school history. We can all be inspired by the story of this small school and its struggle to victory. Its hard work and perseverance is unparalleled, and I am grateful that they have represented our state so well. Once again, I would like to offer my congratulations to the Augusta State University team on this special occasion, and wish its players the best of luck as they defend this title over the next year.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise tonight to express my concern with how Congress continues to address this package of so-called extenders. This is a debate we have had on multiple occasions this year, and once again we find ourselves discussing how to enact a short- term extension of items such as emergency unemployment benefits, reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program, the Federal Medicaid matching rate, FMAP, and the Medicare doc fix. This is a difficult debate for many of us. Times are tough across the country, as well as in my home State of Georgia where the unemployment rate is 10.4 percent. During a time of economic hardship, I do not believe we should allow provisions, such as the extension of emergency unemployment benefits, to expire. But I do believe that when we extend these programs, we should do so in a responsible fashion. Congress should find a way to pay for those extensions. That is where there is disagreement on this issue--not whether Congress should pass an extenders package but whether it should be paid for. Even though the need for these extensions comes as no surprise, we again find ourselves in a position where the majority has proposed extending these programs without finding the money to fund them. Just 2 weeks after our Federal debt topped $13 trillion--let me say that one more time; $13 trillion is owed by the United States of America today--we are now poised to vote on another proposal that would spend money this country simply does not have. That number, $13 trillion, is so big that it is difficult to comprehend. But what it boils down to is $42,000 of debt for every single citizen of the United States of America. The public debt has risen by $2.4 trillion in the 500 days since the current administration took office. That is an average of $4.9 billion per day. We are now borrowing 43 cents of every dollar we spend. But still we are continuing to spend. Estimates show that $4.8 trillion of the $9 trillion in debt that America will accrue over the next decade will be from interest. That is $4.8 trillion that could be better used on national defense or returned to taxpayers to pay for other necessities. Instead, future generations will be forced to pay higher taxes to foot the bill for Congress's out- of-control spending. With much of our national debt being held by other nations, such as China, this is also an issue of national security. Just as with our energy and food supply, we put our Nation in a more vulnerable position when we disproportionately rely on other countries. It is a matter of great concern that our Nation is in deep debt to foreign countries that often do not share our positions on domestic or international policy matters. While our global economy ensures that there will be foreign investment in our debt, this sustained, exploding debt guarantees that we provide leverage to our creditors. At some point, we have to say enough is enough and make some tough decisions about spending beyond our means. Again, we can pass an extenders package without recklessly adding to the cost of our Federal debt. Earlier this year, this body voted to give the rule known as pay-go the force of law. And yet virtually every piece of legislation that we have considered between then and now has fallen short of this standard. Talking about fiscal responsibility and restraint while spending recklessly is hypocrisy of which the American people will surely take notice, and they have taken notice. States as well are being left in the fiscal lurch. By not shoring up the Federal Medicaid matching rate, my State of Georgia will have a $370.5 million hole in its budget. We have had to make sacrifices at home. My legislature has had to make very difficult, hard, and tough decisions with respect to trying to find reductions in spending at the State level to come up with a fiscally responsible, and balanced budget that they are required to have under our State constitution. We know States are facing huge challenges, relying as they do on money promised from the Federal Government. But we all need to keep in mind that we are borrowing virtually every cent of that money. It is time we get serious about this Nation's precarious fiscal situation. We can no longer afford to burden our grandchildren with insurmountable debt. Recently, we witnessed what happens when a nation does not live within its means. The economic crisis in Greece was caused by years of unbridled spending and failure to implement fiscal reforms. This recklessness left Greece badly exposed when the global economic downturn appeared. This pattern should serve as a wake-up call to every one of us that spending must be controlled. Retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security are on the verge of bankruptcy. In March of this year, reports emerged that Social Security is set to pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes this year--a threshold the program was not expected to cross until at least 2016. By some estimates, the program will no longer be able to pay retirees full benefits by the year 2037. Instead of trying to place programs such as Social Security on more stable footing, we spent more than a year debating a health care bill that will create even more costly entitlement programs, the true price tag of which is yet to be seen. The original proposal that was debated and voted on earlier today, advanced by the majority, increased spending by $126 billion, which included more than $70 billion in new taxes and increased the deficit by $79 billion over the next 10 years. Thank goodness the votes were not there to proceed with that underlying bill. Now, according to the chairman of the Finance Committee, we have a new bill. While it is smaller in dollars, according to the comments made by the chairman of the Finance Committee earlier tonight--he says also that the majority of the amendment is offset, which means it is still not paid for. We have an opportunity tomorrow to take a step toward responsibility and restraint by paying for this extenders package. I am a cosponsor of the amendment introduced by the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune, which would extend the same programs as the House-passed version of this legislation. But unlike that version, the Thune amendment pays for those programs instead of adding their cost to the Federal debt. It also cuts taxes by $26 billion, cuts spending by more than $100 billion, and, according to the CBO, reduces the deficit by $55 billion. It does this through spending cuts and the use of unobligated stimulus funds. The Thune amendment does away with the harmful tax increases on long- term investment that are part of the underlying bill. These taxes on carried interest would almost certainly serve to discourage capital investment, increase borrowing costs associated with starting or growing businesses, and hurt real estate and stock prices, all at a time when our economy is extremely vulnerable. The real estate and venture capital arena--two segments of our economy that are vital to sustained job growth--would be especially hard hit by these taxes on long-term investments. Many Americans need the programs in this bill to be extended, but we must be sure we extend them in a responsible way, and that is why I urge my colleagues to strongly consider the Thune amendment as we debate it tomorrow and vote in favor of the Thune amendment. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 26, the resolution disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, relating to the endangerment for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Today's debate and this resolution are about whether this Congress will allow an executive branch agency--EPA--to unleash a regulatory onslaught that within a few years will capture homes, small businesses, farms, hospitals, and apartment buildings in an expensive, intrusive, and bureaucratic regulatory program. The consideration of this resolution is about preserving the traditional and constitutional role of Congress as the elected representatives of the citizens of this country to make necessary and proper laws for the Nation. Congress is the appropriate branch of the Federal Government to debate and design a climate change policy. Many have complained that the Senate is taking too long to do this, but that doesn't mean EPA should go ahead and regulate on its own. It is also highly cynical for administration officials to suggest that the specter of EPA regulations should force Congress to act. I don't appreciate the implied threat that if Congress doesn't go along with EPA then the agency will impose costly regulations. Many argue that passage of the resolution would prevent increases in the vehicle fuel economy and undo the ``historic'' agreement among the Federal Government, several states, labor unions, and the auto industry. It doesn't. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration--NHTSA--has had authority to regulate and increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy--CAFE--standards for more than 30 years. In fact, Congress directed the agency to increase the standards to at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020 in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. And these new standards will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. EPA's activities on fuel economy through its so-called tailpipe rule are unnecessary to achieve the desired results, given the authorities already held by NHTSA. Many also argue that passage of the resolution is contrary to the science of climate change. A letter generated by the Union of Concerned Scientists claims the resolution ``ignores'' the scientific findings of EPA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and that the resolution is an ``attack'' on the Clean Air Act. They must not have read the resolution as even a cursory review of it will dispel this notion. The resolution states, ``That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the endangerment finding . . . and such rule shall have no force or effect.'' This means the agency cannot use the Clean Air Act to control greenhouse gas emissions. This does not speak to the issue of whether climate change is happening or what is causing it. Those who claim the resolution ignores science appear to be avoiding the debate over the economic consequences and legal validity of EPA's approach. I also believe that they are attempting an end-run around a skeptical Congress. I am sorry, but that is not how the American system of government works. I know the climate in changing. In 2006, I visited Greenland. I toured the Kangia Ice Fjord and took a boat tour of Disko Bay to view the world's largest glaciers and icebergs floating in the bay. These glaciers were formed more than 1,000 years ago. I saw the glaciers melting and the remains of a 4,000-year-old village. Obviously, it was warm enough in the past for humans to live and thrive in that part of the world, even though in recent memory we only think of Greenland as covered in ice. I talked to the scientists who have studied Greenland's glaciers for decades. They told me that while the climate is changing they don't know with any certainty if the changes are natural or caused by human activity or a combination of the two. I found it interesting that while some glaciers are melting, some are increasing in size. We just don't see what is happening on the back side. The President and the Administrator of EPA, Lisa Jackson, have said their preference is for Congress to act. They know the Clean Air Act was not designed for controlling greenhouse gases. Yet they are swiftly moving ahead. Last week, EPA issued a final rule for regulating greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act's permitting programs. The so-called tailoring rule is the fourth significant action taken by the administration to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The first major action was EPA's determination--the Endangerment Finding--that greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light-duty trucks endanger human health and welfare. On April 1, 2010, EPA finalized the light duty vehicle rule controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Under the Clean Air Act, when a pollutant becomes subject to regulation by one provision of the Act, it then becomes subject to regulation under other provisions. Hence, greenhouse gas emissions are now subject to regulation under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration--PSD--and title V operating permit programs. It is only a matter of time before greenhouse gases are subject to other provisions in the law, such as national ambient air quality standards. Under current law, the title V program permitting requirements are triggered when a facility releases 100 tons per year of a regulated pollutant. For the PSD program, the threshold is 250 tons per year. In the final rule, EPA ``tailors'' the application of the programs to significantly higher threshold levels. Without the tailoring rule, EPA estimates that about 6 million sources, including 37,000 farms and 3.9 million single family homes, will be required to obtain Clean Air Act permits. EPA's own documents call the tailoring rule a commonsense approach to addressing greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act permitting programs. But I don't follow the agency's logic. The rule states emissions from small farms, restaurants, and all but the very largest commercial facilities will not be covered by these programs at this time. The rule establishes a schedule that will initially focus the permitting programs on the largest sources and without this tailoring rule the lower emissions thresholds would take effect automatically for greenhouse gases on January 2, 2011. The agency, in its proposed rule, recognized the inherent problems with using the Clean Air Act. The proposed rule states, ``This extraordinary increase in the scope of the permitting programs coupled with the resulting burdens on the small sources and on the permitting authorities was not contemplated by Congress in enacting the PSD and Title V programs.'' It further states that, ``The new rules would apply Title V to millions of sources Congress did not intend to be covered and would impede the issuance of permits to the thousands of sources that Congress did intend to be covered.'' It is cold comfort that the smallest sources will not be regulated until 2016. We have a rule now that says it is not if but when hospitals, farms, small businesses, and apartment buildings can expect to have to apply for a clean air permit. We can only imagine what will happen to the economy if EPA is successful and its plans to fully regulate greenhouse gas emissions under all of the authorities of the Clean Air Act come to fruition. One of the most troubling aspects about the tailoring rule and EPA's approach to its suite of greenhouse gas regulations is that there is no economic analysis. The agency hasn't even attempted to quantify the economic costs and regulatory burdens it will impose on American businesses and consumers. We have no idea what it will mean for jobs, economic growth or small businesses. Even though we can't quantify it or point to a document, it is not hard to imagine the significant costs it will impose. While EPA isn't worried about this, States, businesses, unions, and individuals are. For example, in March, 20 Governors, including Governor Sunny Purdue of Georgia, wrote House and Senate leadership expressing grave concern about EPA's efforts to impose greenhouse gas regulations. They believe EPA's actions will place heavy administrative burdens on State environmental quality agencies just as States are expected to face their worst financial situations over the next 2 years. The Governors also are concerned that the regulations will be costly to consumers and could be devastating to the economy and jobs. The Governors believe that complex energy and environmental policy initiatives should be developed by elected representatives at the State and national level but not by a single Federal agency. While Georgia believes the final rule is an improvement over the proposed one, there are still significant concerns. Most notably is its legal vulnerability. I quote from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Air Protection Branch comments on the proposed rule: The GHG Tailoring Rule appears to be legally vulnerable and may not provide intended relief from the statutory permitting thresholds for PSD and Title V. If the Tailoring Rule is vacated, the workload for permitting authorities will increase exponentially at a time when State and Local governments are experiencing severe budgetary challenges due to the current economic climate. Vacatur of the GHG Tailoring Rule seems to be a very real possibility. The letter further states: We also believe that EPA has failed to take into account the length of time that it will take for permitting authorities . . . to go through rulemaking, . . . hiring, and training in order to implement the mandate of regulating GHG emissions under the Title V and PSD permitting programs. In Georgia, rulemaking will be required in order to insert the new GHG emission thresholds. Rulemaking will also be required in order to increase Title V fees consistent with the Clean Air Act requirement that permitting programs collect enough revenue to implement the program requirements. Given the current state of the economic situation in our state and country, this issue should not be taken lightly. Then, permitting authorities must hire and train staff to issue these complicated permits. This could take up to two years after the requirement is triggered. Raising the regulatory threshold will not abate the predicted permitting backlog if additional permitting personnel are not in place at the time the additional workload occurs. EPA is moving ahead despite these concerns and the economic consequences of its plans. They will increase energy prices, add to administrative costs for companies, decrease job creation, and create a large new government bureaucracy, which will endanger economic recovery and limit future growth. While the final rule with its phased-in implementation is a small step in the right direction, the Clean Air Act continues to be the wrong tool for the job, and EPA's timeline and its shaky legal foundation will continue to create significant uncertainty for the State permitting agencies and businesses community. At this time, there is no other option to stop EPA from moving ahead. Some of our colleagues have introduced measures to provide for a time out; others are looking at ways to codify the tailoring rule and provide permanent exemptions for small businesses. However, there are no plans for the Senate to consider these measures. If there were another option, I would be open to it. The Congressional Review Act was designed for the purpose of reviewing agency actions. The majority leader understands this and recognizes that, ``overburdensome and unnecessary federal regulation can choke the life out of small businesses by imposing costly and often-ineffectual remedies to problems that may not exist.'' No description could be more accurate about EPA's greenhouse gas regulatory plans. Some argue that it would be a dangerous precedent for Congress to stop EPA's endangerment finding. However, it is far more dangerous for the Nation if Congress allows an agency to impose these regulations under a law that was not designed for the purpose. By issuing the tailoring rule, the administration has again reminded us that if Congress won't legislate, EPA will regulate. I believe my colleague from Alaska was correct when she called this a highly coercive strategy. I am appalled by the actions of EPA. There is a reason why the U.S. Senate hasn't acted on a cap and trade bill. This is because analyses of these bills shows they cause significant economic harm--job losses, higher energy prices, higher gas taxes, less economic growth. It makes no sense for Congress to pass job-killing legislation in order to stave off costly regulation. The House and Senate cap and trade bills are truly bad for agriculture. They would dramatically increase energy and other input costs and, according to EPA, would cause the shift of 59 million acres out of production into trees. With a growing world population to feed, our farmers and ranchers will need to produce more food in the future, not less. If enacted as written today, cap and trade legislation would only push agriculture production overseas, raising many of the same concerns that have been expressed about the loss of manufacturing jobs. Rather than driving American agriculture offshore, a more sensible approach would be to increase food, fuel, and fiber production right here at home. In this Nation, we have an abundant natural resource base, an economy built on open and transparent markets, and sufficient protections for consumers and the environment. Last fall, Texas A&M University released a study on the House cap and trade bill. I mention it again today because it is most instructive of what we can expect to see in the agricultural sector under a cap and trade regime. Texas A&M University used its representative farm database to study the effects of the House bill at the farmgate level. This database was developed to help Congress better understand the effects of legislation at the individual producer level. The study shows that 71 out of 98 farms in the database will be worse off under the House bill. The 27 farms that benefit do so because other producers go out of business they benefit because there are fewer acres in production, thus crop prices rise. Some producers will see increased revenue from an offset program, but it is not a significant factor in the profitability of farms in the analysis. The study also dramatically shows the regional disparities of the House bill. Only some cornbelt farmers benefit. It's hard to imagine that members of the Senate Agriculture Committee will be able to endorse a policy that disproportionally favors certain commodities, few producers and one part of the country at the expense of others. In January, 150 agriculture organizations sent a letter to my colleague from Alaska supporting the introduction of the resolution. These groups wrote that, ``Such regulatory actions will carry severe consequences for the U.S. economy, including America's farmers and ranchers, through increased input costs and international market disparities.'' They also believe that, ``EPA's finding puts the agricultural economy at grave risk based on allegations of a weak, indirect link to public health and welfare and despite the lack of any environmental benefit.'' On May 18, I received another letter from 49 different agriculture groups. They state: Without relief from Congress, we fully expect the application of these programs to have severe economic impacts on agriculture. Not only will producers likely incur increased costs as a result of the regulatory impacts on other economic sectors, but agricultural producers will eventually be directly regulated. The final EPA tailoring rule estimates the average cost for these permits is $23,200 per permit. For the 37,000 farms identified by EPA as likely to require permits this would cost them more than $866 million just to obtain the permit. In contrast to the campaign slogans and feel-good messages of hope and change for farmers, ranchers and rural America, this administration is causing great pain through its actions, especially its economic policies and far-reaching regulatory programs and goals. The endangerment finding and related regulations are only one set--albeit a very significant set--of regulatory actions facing producers and rural America. By themselves, these will impose higher energy costs on rural residents and businesses. Higher costs in rural areas mean fewer jobs and opportunities for those who live there. Another immense expansion of Federal regulatory authority that will have severe consequences for producers and rural landowners is the administration's support for legislation to grant EPA and the U.S. Corps of Engineers--Corps--nearly unlimited regulatory control over all ``intrastate waters,'' including all wet areas within a State, such as groundwater, ditches, pipes, streets, gutters, and desert features. The administration supports giving EPA and the Corps unrestricted authority to regulate all private and public activities that may affect intrastate waters, regardless of whether the activity is occurring in or may impact water at all. Unbelievably, the administration supports eliminating the existing regulatory limitations that allow commonsense uses such as those allowed with a prior converted cropland designation. I strongly oppose this effort to expand EPA's and the Corps' regulatory control. I do not believe the Federal Government should regulate all wet areas within a State. The administration also is attempting to circumvent one of the most highly regarded environmental statutes--the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, that governs the licensing and use of pesticides. This is a well-crafted law that balances the risks and benefits of pesticide use. EPA has an excellent staff of scientists and experts working in this area. However, the agency's political leadership is trying to implement by regulatory fiat a precautionary approach, which is contradictory to current law. For example, last fall, EPA proposed to add language to pesticide product labels that will forbid pesticide applications that result in drift that could cause harm or adverse effects. For many years, EPA and state pesticide regulators recognized that a small amount of drift inevitably will occur, and that when pesticides are applied according to their label instructions, this small amount of drift does not cause an unreasonable adverse effect. If an unreasonable adverse effect is likely to be caused by a certain use of a pesticide, FIFRA requires, and Congress expects, the label to reflect that information and appropriate mitigation be required. In April, I wrote to EPA, along with the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee and other colleagues, about the need for greater clarity in pesticide drift policy and noted that such clarity would benefit the agency, pesticide users and State regulatory agencies. However, we noted that the proposal set forth vague standards and would not have clarified pesticide drift policy. It also exceeded the authority granted to the agency by FIFRA. We asked the proposed policy to be reconsidered. I am pleased to note that recently EPA made the right decision to do so. One other issue I raise reflects the administration's willingness to cast aside rational, science-based policy when given the opportunity to impose additional regulation. In January 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in National Cotton Council v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that would require pesticide applications to be permitted under the Clean Water Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System--NPDES. The permit would be in addition to any label requirements or restrictions already placed on the use of the pesticide under FIFRA. Unfortunately, the administration refused to appeal the decision even though it admitted in a filing with the U.S. Supreme Court this year that the Sixth Circuit Court reached the wrong decision. Pesticides are not pollutants under the Clean Water Act and have never been. Instead, EPA, for political reasons, has been working to develop a NPDES general permit for discharges from the application of pesticides. EPA released the draft permit last week for public comment and will issue a final permit in December 2010. Pesticides applications must be covered by a permit by April 9, 2011. Is your State ready to issue these permits? Are your producers and applicators ready to apply for them? This has been a particular concern for State and public health officials as it has the potential to seriously affect their ability to control mosquitoes, especially those carrying the West Nile Virus. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 720 cases, including 32 deaths, attributed to the virus in 2009. This is better than 2008, in which there were 1,370 cases, including 37 deaths. In 2009, two of those deaths were in my home State of Georgia. Talk about overburdensome, unnecessary regulation! Requiring producers, pest control agencies and other users to obtain NPDES permits will do nothing to enhance the environment. It only doubles the number of permitted entities and creates new requirements for monitoring, surveillance, planning, recordkeeping, and reporting that only will create significant delays, costs, reporting burdens and legal risks from citizen suits. These permits will provide absolutely benefit only cost. All issues regarding water and pesticides are addressed by EPA as part of the pesticide registration process. If there are concerns, mitigation is required. We are fortunate we have a strong law that requires rigorous science and careful balancing of risks and benefits. The Endangerment Finding and related rules, along with the other environmental regulations planned by the administration will hurt the productivity of American farmers and ranchers and make the future for U.S. agriculture far less bright than it should be. These actions are basically a backdoor tax on every American family and business by unelected bureaucrats. Federal regulation is not the key to success or jobs in rural areas or in any other part of this Nation. Some claim that EPA's actions should scare Congress into passing a cap and trade bill, but I disagree. Congress should not be bullied into passing bad legislation and neither should it stand for an agency that is vastly overreaching. The choice is clear to me--do Senators want EPA to impose a regulatory regime that it has tenuous authority to create or do you want Congress to make the laws of the land? If you believe Congress should develop laws and set policy, then vote in support of the resolution. I strongly oppose EPA's actions and plan to vote yes on the Murkowski resolution.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to express my disappointment at the posture of the massive legislative overhaul of our financial markets that appears set to pass this body. I am disappointed at what this bill, as written, means for businesses on Main Street and for the livelihoods of Americans who had nothing to do with the financial meltdown. I am also disheartened at how this body has made a bad bill even worse. For all the times the other side of the aisle has accused the minority of being obstructionists, for all the claims of partisanship, the process by which this bill has become the government power-grab it is today illustrates how the majority has served as its own ``party of no''. After repeated efforts by Republicans in the past 18 months to reach a middle ground on necessary reforms for America's financial regulatory structure, reasonable compromises we presented were rejected at every turn. And two years after the jolt of the economic crisis, and with no hope in sight for cooperation from the White House, a 1,400-page, one-sided piece of legislation was brought to the Senate floor. Now with more than 400 amendments filed, and just 10 percent of those considered, this administration is again set to sign into law another mammoth piece of legislation--one with enormous and long-lasting repercussions for this country--with little to no Republican input. The consequences of actions we take here in the coming days will be drastic in their reach into American businesses of all sizes. Make no mistake: This bill will not punish Wall Street. In fact, the CEOs of Wall Street firms are supportive of this bill as written. After all, it is difficult to say this bill goes after Wall Street when the CEO of one of its largest financial institutions says ``. . . the biggest beneficiaries of reform will be Wall Street itself.'' Lloyd Blankfein, CEO, Goldman Sachs, Homeland Security & Government Affairs hearing, 4/27/10. No, the real targets will be businesses across America, not just big firms on Wall Street but auto dealers in suburbs or appliance stores on small-town Main Streets. Everywhere a small business allows its customers to pay with lines of credit, the Federal Government will be there. One of the biggest problems with this legislation is that it does not address one of the root causes of America's economic crisis: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These entities--effectively deemed by the White House and others as ``too big to legislate''--continue to perpetuate a sickness on the American economy. As structured, these ``bailout behemoths'' continue to rely on taxpayer money to maintain their fiscal imprudence--to the tune of $145 billion. But nothing in this bill attempts to stop that drain on taxpayers' wallets. Another glaring example of government intrusion in this bill is the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau empowered to collect any information it chooses from private businesses and consumers, including personal and financial information. This new agency will have the authority to share that information with the very financial firms it is attempting to regulate. In other words, taxpayers will be paying for Wall Street's market research. As for Title VII--the derivatives title--it is simply a debacle. As ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, I have spent a great deal of time examining how derivatives have played a role in the market meltdown, and not surprisingly, we have found that there are a number of regulatory improvements we need to make relative to the oversight of swap market participants. However the language we are considering today is, quite frankly, another power grab by the administration and the regulators for provisions in law that had absolutely nothing to do with the crisis we experienced in the market place 2 years ago. This administration, along with the majority in this body, want to regulate Ford Motor Credit the same as they regulate large banks such as JP MorganChase and Goldman Sachs. Guess who is going to end up paying the price for that change in regulation? My Georgia constituents who want to buy cars. They will be paying more in the form of interest because if this bill is enacted into law, Ford will be forced to pay more to hedge its interest-rate risk. The majority wants to make it more difficult for clearinghouses to approve swaps for listing, which is senseless, as they also require mandated clearing. The majority claims that by forcing more swaps into a clearinghouse it will lessen systemic risk. Why, then, are we making the clearinghouses jump through more hoops to clear these contracts? As I understand it, the current system where clearinghouses have the discretion to list contracts for clearing have experienced no problems. And as we know, the clearinghouses certainly aren't responsible for the financial crisis. The majority is also requiring major swap participants to hold more capital in reserve. I can understand the need for requiring those who hold large swaps positions to margin, or collateralize, their positions. But why are we also going to make them set aside capital? Again, we are treating them like banks and they are not banks. If we make manufacturers set aside capital, it will only tie up money they would otherwise have available to hire workers, pay benefits and run their companies. With unemployment approaching 10 percent, we should not make it more difficult for employers to hire. We should not apply a banking model to market participants that are not banks. As for market participants that need swaps to manage risk and have negotiated individualized arrangements where they pledge noncash collateral: How are they going to pledge collateral to a clearinghouse? Last time I checked, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, CME, and International Continental Exchange, ICE, did not accept natural-gas leases as margin. This bill will now require theses customers to post cash collateral to the clearinghouse, thereby tying up resources they would otherwise be investing in locating more natural gas or petroleum. This is not a very smart plan when we so desperately need to become less dependent on foreign sources of energy. Rather than focusing on perfecting what actually could help lessen risk within the derivatives system, we have a clear case of what I believe the administration and some in this body see as an opportunity to regulate simply for the sake of regulating. The financial crisis and its causes seem to have become afterthoughts. The objective has shifted from regulating Wall Street to regulating manufacturers, energy producers, food producers, hospitals and anyone else who might seek to enter into a contract to manage their risk. Meanwhile, consumers will pay the price. Why? Because the White House and the majority in Congress lost sight of the problem that should be fixed and seized the opportunity to insert government into every industry, financial and otherwise. Mr. President, our side came to the table in good faith with ideas on necessary reforms to America's financial markets. We presented our thoughts on how best to prevent another meltdown. We negotiated, we compromised, and we tried to work across the aisle toward a common goal. Ultimately, these efforts were fruitless. The other side stonewalled, and our ideas were opposed. Now this bill--which will have a similar economic impact as the health care bill, yet which has only been debated for a fraction of the time--will soon be law. And our economy and the livelihoods of Americans who work in large and small businesses will be worse for it. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, what is the current business before the Senate?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside and I be allowed to call up my amendment No. 3816.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, let me extend the same courtesy to my chairman. She is my dear friend. We work very closely together on virtually every issue. It is extremely unusual for us to disagree on any major issue. She and her staff have been great to work with, as always. They have been very open. We have had an ongoing dialog. We just simply disagree about the way this issue needs to be dealt with. Let me say that an indication of how complex this issue is and why this issue is so important and why we don't need to have our constituents expend money when they don't need to expend money that is going to be passed on to consumers of every single product virtually made in America is this: There are a lot of people who have gotten up on the other side and spoken about this amendment. I know they don't intend to get up here and make statements that are not correct. But frankly, that is what we have heard. All I can attribute that to is the fact that this is such a complex issue, that the folks who have been speaking about my amendment simply don't understand it. Let me give some examples. We talk about large companies falling prey to derivatives. Large companies use derivatives in a very meaningful way that is advantageous to every single American customer. Everybody who buys something--I don't care whether it is an automobile, a widget, a drug--and every major manufacturer uses derivatives. They are very sophisticated individuals who deal in these products. They know what they are doing. They are not falling prey to the use of these products. There have been a couple folks who have said we don't have transparency, that we ought to let these products come out of the shadows. Let me make clear--and I think the chairman will agree with me--100 percent of the transactions under our amendment would be out in the open. There would be a clearing of about 85 to 90 percent of all derivatives contracts under our amendment. The others, the end users, the manufacturers, the energy companies that go out and not only borrow money but buy coal or buy natural gas and that want to have stability in their products, those individual end users would be exempt from the clearing requirement. But every single one of them would have to report every single contract to the CFTC or to the SEC, 100 percent transparency on every single derivative. I don't know why folks can't understand that in our amendment because it is pretty plain. I think Senator Gregg did a good job of explaining exactly how that is done. Somebody said they don't want to return to old-fashioned capitalism. If I am considered to be one who is promoting old-fashioned capitalism in my amendment, I plead guilty. Old-fashioned capitalism has made this country the strongest economy the world has ever seen. Old-fashioned capitalism has an alternative. It is called socialism. I do not believe in socialism. I believe, if somebody wants to work hard and generate money to make a better quality of life for themself and their family, they ought to have the opportunity to do so. That is what old-fashioned capitalism is all about. I could go on and on giving examples of things that have been said that are out of context. Let's get down to the bottom line; that is, who supports the underlying bill? Who supports the Dodd-Lincoln bill? The simple answer is Wall Street. Why do I say that? At a hearing in the Government Relations Committee last week, Goldman Sachs was called to the Hill to testify before Senator Levin and Senator Coburn's committee. Senator Coburn asked a question directly of the Goldman Sachs agent and said: Do you support the underlying bill that is now being debated on the floor of the Senate? Without hesitation, he said: Yes. Why would they support it? They are going to make a lot of money off this underlying bill. Why do I say they are going to make a lot of money? Who is going to clear these contracts? They are going to be cleared by clearinghouses owned by Wall Street banks. Under the underlying bill, there is another provision that has not even been talked about today: Transactions are required to be executed on what is called a swaps execution facility. It is a mini exchange. In addition to going to that swaps execution facility, that contract, after that, has to go to a clearinghouse. So what you have is a party who agrees with a manufacturer that they are going to enter into an agreement on a derivative for an interest rate, let's say. That entity that has put that deal together is going to charge a fee. They would do that anyway. That entity is also likely to be charged by the swaps execution facility where the contract is executed. They are going to charge another fee for doing that. Then they are going to have to go to a clearinghouse that is going to charge another fee. So it is pretty easy to see why Wall Street likes this provision, likes the underlying bill, because they are going to make a lot of money in fees off these contracts. The only other comment I wish to make, with reference to comments that have been made, is whether these end users leave the U.S. markets and go overseas. There has been contention made that is not going to happen. They are not going to do that. Well, they are. Other markets have already indicated they are not about to follow our lead. The London regulator has openly said they will not follow our lead. We have heard nothing out of the Europeans, nothing out of Singapore. Why haven't we? They are watching to see what we do. They are going to be soliciting U.S. customers to go to their markets because our constituents are not going to have to pay these huge fees in their countries that are required under this bill. It only makes sense that if they can generate more money for their bottom line and they can sit in their office in New York City, Atlanta or Moultrie, GA, and execute a contract in Singapore, where they don't have to pay that fee, you better believe that is where they are going to go. They have no more risk. It is the same amount of risk. Is the CFTC or the SEC going to know they have done that? Absolutely not. It will not be reported to them. I could go on and on. At the end of the day, if you want to see 100 percent transparency and you want to see the end users in this business who utilize these swaps and derivatives in a nonsystemically risky way continue to have access, then you need to support my amendment. If you listen to the manufacturers across America that know because they have used these products for decades and have done so in a safe way and a way that provides a cheaper product for their consumer, you need to support my amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, first, let me thank the chairman. And he is exactly right, I would encourage all of those who have indicated to me they wish to speak on my amendment, from both sides of the aisle, to let us know, come down to the floor. We wish to dispose of this amendment as soon as possible. I am prepared to enter into any kind of reasonable time agreement as soon as we get an idea of exactly how many speakers there will be in order to accommodate those folks. I am going to talk in detail about the amendment, but first I do want to respond to the Senator from North Dakota who makes some good points with which I agree. But when we talk about the elimination or not allowing credit default swaps, let me say what bothers me about that. In 2000, when we passed the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, nobody envisioned that credit default swaps would mushroom as they did. The fact is that not only did they grow larger in number, they grew in dollar volume, and they grew in a way that certainly did participate in the collapse that occurred in 2008. But the real problem with it is not that we had those products on the market but that the regulators did not have the power and authority and the tools to deal with those products, rather than thinking about eliminating a specific product, knowing these smart folks who are in this business in the financial industry are out there right now looking at this bill, and trying to figure out other products they can design that will be different from a credit default swap, but yet be as dangerous as what happened in 2008. We need to give the regulators the power and authority to look at these products and put 100 percent transparency in place. That is what I want to see, and that is what my chairman, Senator Lincoln, wants to see, and I think everybody in here agrees we ought to have full transparency.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Surely.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I understand that. My point is the same, though, that if we give the regulators the authority to regulate those products, then I think we can deal with it better that way than targeting specific products to be eliminated or banned. Among the many complex issues this body deals with every day, there are few more complicated than the issue of derivatives. However, we should not let the complexity of the swaps market be an excuse for ignoring good public policy and ensuring that our markets are both safe as well as functional. In the past couple of years, a lot of people have become acquainted with one particular type of derivative known as, as we have just talked about, a credit default swap or CDS, which permits one party to transfer the credit risk or bonds or syndicated bank loans to another party. Since AIG was heavily involved in CDS, it seems simple enough to blame swaps generally for what went wrong in the system. However, that would be an inaccurate oversimplification, because the real situation is much more complicated. We need to distinguish between credit default swaps and the actual underlying assets represented by those swaps, in this case mortgage-backed securities or mortgages that were themselves the root of the problem. There are so many other types of swaps that U.S. businesses rely on every day to mitigate just about any risk they face in the ordinary course of doing business. Before we make a big policy change that makes these over-the-counter products less desirable to market participants or require that these products trade only on an exchange type facility, we need to ask ourselves whether this will even address the underlying problem. Why take a chance in these uncertain times to make legislative and regulatory changes that could possibly make things worse, potentially dry up more capital or force the cost of business going higher? This does not mean there is not room for improvement. That is why I have joined with several of my colleagues today in developing an amendment to apply strong and reasonable regulation to the derivatives markets. Let me be clear. We share the desire to apply stronger safeguards in these markets to regulate swap market participants and to ensure that swap transactions are more closely monitored by the regulators. I am absolutely convinced that the market volatility and financial meltdown of the recent past makes the case for more market transparency. How can we in the Congress be sure of the outcome of sweeping reforms without first properly identifying the exact cause of these problems? How can we identify the cause of the problem without authorizing and requiring more transparency through the collection of necessary data? For this reason, I have worked with several of my colleagues to develop an amendment that would require all swap transactions be made known to the appropriate regulators so effective regulation can be applied where necessary. Additionally, there will be public dissemination of prices and volumes of completed swap transactions in order that investors and other market participants might be assisted in marking existing swap positions to market, making informed decisions before executing future transactions, and assessing the quality of transactions they have executed. Beyond requiring more transparency, I also believe we should provide the CFTC and the SEC with the necessary authorities to more properly regulate those market participants who are potentially contributing to the type of risk that jeopardizes our financial system: swap dealers, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, large hedge funds, and AIG-type entities. Many may not even realize that swaps are statutorily excluded from the current regulatory oversight of both the CFTC and the SEC. That is right; current law does not provide for clear regulation of swap market participants. Our amendment would ensure that these market participants are fully regulated and that their swap positions are cleared through a fully regulated clearinghouse. This is a huge departure from current law. Speaking of clearing, we need to determine how best to encourage the clearing of certain derivative products without jeopardizing either the use of these risk management tools or the sustainability of our clearinghouses. For that reason, our amendment would enable true end- users, those businesses that use swaps to hedge their risk, not for speculative purpose, but true hedging, to avoid an expensive mandate to clear their swaps. These businesses had absolutely nothing to do with the financial crisis and should not be punished with increased costs and burdens. We certainly do not want to discourage them from managing their risk, especially not in the current economic environment. Last Friday, the Department of Labor published their unemployment report for the month of April. Again, unemployment rose from 9.7 percent to 9.9 percent. In my State, it is in excess of 10 percent. Why would we subject U.S. companies to expensive mandates when we should be advancing policies that lessen their financial burdens so they can employ more people? Why is Congress considering slapping an additional cost on them in the form of a clearing mandate? This does not make sense, when these individual companies are the true end-users of the products they are trading in, and they were absolutely not the cause of the financial meltdown. Those mandates should be targeted and in such a way to lessen the risks of those large financial institution swap dealers who are responsible for the bulk majority of all swap transactions and, therefore, contributing to systemic risk. But a clearing mandate is not appropriate for businesses using swaps to manage their risks and keep their costs down. This is very simple. If their costs go up, they will either pass it along to consumers or stop managing their risk, and then they certainly cannot afford to hire more workers. Our amendment has a more targeted clearing mandate designed to reach those who are actually responsible for this crisis we are in, Wall Street and not Main Street businesses. The Senate will soon have the chance to vote on this substitute amendment on derivatives. I am looking forward to further debate on our amendment because it will highlight a handful of significant differences between the derivatives language in the Dodd-Lincoln amendment versus our amendment. I believe our approach on transparency, on clearing, on end users, on capital requirements, and on trading mandates is much more appropriate, much more reasonable, much more business friendly, and, frankly, much more secure. My amendment will ensure that Main Street businesses will still be able to appropriately use derivatives in hedging their daily business risks, while ensuring that appropriate regulatory standards are put into place for the institutions and transactions that contribute to systemic financial risk. If Congress is truly interested in addressing the problem as opposed to politicizing a solution, we can no longer ignore the complexities of these markets. We must seek to understand the legitimate purposes these complex instruments serve for large and small businesses in each of our States. Unfortunately, the language currently before the Senate misses the mark when it comes to the appropriate regulation of derivatives. The underlying bill would have many unfortunate consequences--some intended, some unintended--resulting from applying complicated regulations too broadly and will subject our American businesses to more risk, not less. Three consequences of the underlying bill on derivatives are these: One, the users will pay huge clearing fees and pass on those expenses to consumers; two, no longer will businesses use the derivatives market, and they will pass on the higher, unstable market costs to consumers; and three, these businesses, instead of using U.S. markets, will simply take their business offshore. As they do today, they will trade in the dark, and no U.S. regulator will ever see what they are doing. That is not right. That is not what any of us intend to see happen. The fact is, if we pass the derivatives provisions in the underlying bill, there is going to be a significant number of end users who take their business offshore. That truly is unacceptable. Our amendment makes good business sense and good common sense. We have received support for our amendment from a wide array of businesses. These are not banks that stand to make profits. These are individual users. I have a letter from the National Association of Manufacturers which states: We have serious concerns that the current end-user exemption in S. 3217 (and in the pending Dodd Substitute) is not strong or clear enough. In addition, other provisions in the derivatives title could effectively eliminate the exemption for many companies and, in some cases, subject them to capital and margin requirements or higher costs. Conversely, the Chambliss/Shelby substitute includes a clear and strong end-user exemption that appropriately exempts businesses that use OTC derivatives to hedge their business risk from the regulatory scheme applicable to swap dealers. From the Coalition for Derivatives End-Users, we have the following: That my amendment would ``strike the right balance between bringing fundamental and needed reforms to the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives market while also ensuring significant and burdensome new costs are not necessarily imposed on business end-users.'' Lastly, I have a letter signed by several energy supply groups which states that they ``remain concerned about the potential impact of the proposed financial reform legislation on end-users.'' They go on to say that: Due to the broad definition of ``swap dealer,'' end users may be ineligible for the end-user exemption if they engage in hedging business risks in the ordinary course of business. I ask unanimous consent that these respective letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I have had numerous discussions with both the chairman of the Banking Committee as well as the ranking member and the chairman of the Ag Committee about this issue for weeks and months. I know we have the same goal in common: to ensure there is transparency in the marketplace and that we have regulators who will do the job we ask them to do. Frankly, I am not sure that was the case 5 years ago or even 2 years ago. But if we give these regulators the tools and if we give them the opportunity to look at every transaction, irrespective of whether it is going through a clearinghouse or whether it is over the counter, and they have the opportunity to review every large institution or every small institution that engages in these transactions and they also have the opportunity to look at the other side and see which companies are using these products or which entities are using them and they can then deal with those entities that become systemically risky--they didn't have that power and authority before, and we are going to give them that power and authority now--I have all the trust and confidence that they will use it in the right way and that with those tools and with that transparency and with the bringing of these trades out of the shadows and into the sunlight, we will be able to control the financial markets in a way that allows our end users, those who did not cause any of the problem and are not part of the problem, from being thrown into the same basket with those folks who did become systemically risky and caused the financial meltdown that occurred. My amendment does that. It does it in the right way. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the chairman for allowing us to debate this amendment this afternoon. I think this is one of the most critical amendments that certainly we have talked about to date, and moving forward, unless we address the issue of the GSEs, as I am going to talk about in a minute, I am not sure we have accomplished anything in this bill. For all of the potential unintended consequences in this financial regulatory restructuring package, at least one will be entirely intentional--failing to address Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Despite the general theme of the increased ``overreaching'' regulatory power of this legislation, a glaring example of something that was actually left out is a substantive attempt to address one of the most significant causes of the financial crisis--reform of the government sponsored eniterprises, or GSEs, such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. It has been highlighted from this floor that recent market volatility and a faulty trading construct in our financial markets are illustrations that the bill before us is needed now more than ever. Specifically, the sudden significant drop throughout certain exchanges last week has been pointed to as evidence of the necessity for greater regulation of our markets. However, when news broke last week that Freddie lost $8 billion in the first quarter and would yet again be knocking on the taxpayer's door for a $10.6 billion bailout--another bailout after both Fannie and Freddie had already received $126 billion in taxpayer dollars--I failed to hear calls for reform from the other side. And just today it was announced that Fannie Mae will ask for another $8.4 billion after posting a loss of $11.5 billion for its first quarter. Shouldn't these entities' repeated failures serve as ample evidence that the future of these ``bailout behemoths'' must be addressed? Apparently, this administration feels differently, and has for some time. In fact, while it was busy cutting backroom deals over the health care bill and making noise that a government takeover of health care would reduce the deficit, in the quiet of night on Christmas Eve another deal was made--only this one didn't make it out of the backroom. At the eleventh hour, after the Senate had finished its vote that holiday eve, the administration pledged to the mortgage its current giants unlimited financial, assistance--by lifting $400 billion cap on emergency aid without even seeking congressional approval. How can we have a serious conversation about overhauling our financial regulatory structure, yet ignore two entities that have exposed the taxpayers to more than $5 trillion in risk as of today. As the Wall Street Journal put it recently, ``Reforming the financial system without fixing Fannie and Freddie is like declaring a war on terror and ignoring al Qaeda.'' Many have suggested that now is not the time to restructure these giants; that they will have to be addressed later, indicating that due to the comprehensive nature of their needed reforms, any attempt to address the problems of Freddie and Fannie here would more than double the size of the current financial regulatory reform bill. Where were these legislative ``size standards'' when this body was debating health care? That bill was more than 2,000 pages long. Apparently, while we can address too big to fail, these government sinkholes have become too big to legislate. The fact is that the number of pages in a bill is not the reason Freddie and Fannie are ignored here. And it is not for a lack of understanding the problem. There has been no shortage of hearings on GSEs, in both the House and Senate. The housing policies of this and previous administrations have chained the taxpayers to a self- perpetuating financial illness. Policies such as the Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA, which forces banks to make loans to otherwise unqualified borrowers set the stage for Fannie and Freddie to buy up these bad loans on the secondary mortgage market. Such backward policies exacerbated the causes of the financial crises. Why would a bank not make these loans knowing they could turn around and sell them to the government? Especially when regulators were encouraging such practices? As a result, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration, or more specifically, the taxpayer, now own or guarantee about half of all outstanding residential mortgages. It is time we address this enormous problem, the McCain amendment does that and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, what is the current status of the Senate?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for up to 10 minutes.