Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor this morning to talk about the current pending business before this body. This is an issue which obviously raised its ugly head a couple of years ago with the financial meltdown that occurred in this country, and I think all of us in this body agree it is imperative the Senate take action to try to make sure what happened to the financial industry in America never has the opportunity to happen again. I commend Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby for their work on this bill. We have had our disagreements. Yet we have had significant agreement on some areas. We are now trying to take the base bill and make it a bill that all of us in this body, hopefully, will wind up being able to support because we improve the bill to the point where it addresses the real cause of the problem that arose during 2007, 2008, and on into 2009 and 2010. There are some provisions in the bill that I have particular objection to, and there are some things that are not in the bill that I think should be in the bill. For example, one of the major causes of the problem--and I think it goes without saying--is the fact that the GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have been authorized over the years to purchase mortgages from individuals who simply could not make their payments, and those mortgages have been bundled together and sold on the market, which has been one of the root causes of the problem. I am not by myself in thinking that. There are other individuals but, more important, people who know a lot more about the root cause of the problem who think that. Everybody in this body agrees that is a major issue that has to be addressed in any overall financial reform. To leave any reference to the GSEs, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, out of any additional regulation I think is a mistake. There are going to be amendments with respect to that, and I look forward to that debate. Another issue is, there are no mortgage standards that are specifically set forth in the underlying bill. I can remember very well going in and buying my first house, making an application for a mortgage. I was as nervous as I could be. Even though my payment was going to be fairly minimal to the amount of money I was making, I had to pay 20 percent down, and it took me a couple of weeks to be approved by individuals in my hometown whom I knew very well. At the end of the day, they just wanted to make sure I was going to be able to pay that loan back. It is not that we need to go all the way in that direction but certainly we need standards in place that will ensure that people who are buying houses can afford to make the mortgage payments for which they are making application. With respect to the Consumer Financial Protection Act, it appears that in the underlying bill, there is an umbrella that is cast out that is going to require the inclusion of more nonproblem areas of the consumer finance industry than are, in any way, potentially a part of any future financial meltdown. I hope as we debate these amendments--and I know we will have a spirited debate on them--we can come to some agreement as to what is reasonable. Let's do what we need to do to provide our regulatory agency also with the additional oversight they need to make sure we give them the tools not to allow the situation that occurred in 2007, 2008, and 2009 to recur but that we don't go too far to where we overreach and exercise more control on the part of the regulators than what is absolutely necessary. I wish to speak for just a minute about the derivatives section and some amendments we are going to have on that particular title. The Agriculture Committee has jurisdiction over swaps and derivatives by virtue of the fact that we have jurisdiction over the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which in turn has jurisdiction over swaps and derivatives. There are some swaps and derivatives that are secured by securities themselves, and those securities--being regulated by the SEC--give the SEC some jurisdiction here. That has been part of the discussion and will continue to be as we go through the debate. There are a couple of things I particularly wish to address which I think are faulty in the base bill and need to be corrected as we go through it. We are going to have a substitute amendment for the derivatives title that will do several things that are of primary importance to the industry that, today, is very unregulated, which will bring all the derivatives trades out of the shadows and into a totally transparent matter and make those trades available to the regulators so they can look not only at the trades themselves, to make sure entities that are entering into those trades are the right kind of entities that ought to be trading and that they are not creating systemically risky industries that will have the potential to create situations similar to what we saw in 2007 and 2008 but also that the agencies--the regulators--will have the ability to call into play additional margin requirements or other tools that they will have to ensure that those entities that are engaging in these practices don't ever reach that point of being systemically risky. There are some specific provisions we need to look at. One of those is an expansion of what we call the end user provision. An end user is an individual--an entity, whether it is a manufacturing company or it could be an individual but, for the most part, it is a financial entity, usually a manufacturer of some sort that doesn't engage in the finance end of the economy of our country but does seek to hedge its own particular financial issues in the more productive, more conventional financial industry itself. For example, manufacturers such as John Deere or Caterpillar or Ford Motor Company or, for that matter, any manufacturer across the country that seeks to have stability in the marketplace with respect to interest rates because they don't look out 90 days or 120 days, they look at years into the marketplace to ensure that there is stability from an interest rate standpoint so they know how to purchase items, know how to purchase what they need to make their widgets or whatever it may be. Those manufacturers engage in the purchase of derivatives by hedging the interest rate that they are going to pay. They also hedge the purchase of metals. Ford Motor Company, for example, may hedge the purchase of steel in the steel market, so they can ensure themselves of stability in that market. These are the types of derivatives we are going to be talking about and that we need to make sure--because they were not part of the problem that caused the financial meltdown. But if we are not careful, they are going to be overregulated to the point where the cost of an automobile will be increased, and that is an unintended consequence of this bill, I know. The cost of a John Deere tractor to one of my farmers will be increased. Again, that is an unintended consequence. I wish to take a minute to read a portion of an unsolicited letter I got from a fairly new bank in Atlanta, which is a community bank that began in 2007. According to the chairman of the board, this bank: . . . has built an exceptionally strong balance sheet with superior asset quality, solid and stable deposit funding, and robust capital levels. At quarter end, our equity to assets ratio was 14.39 percent. He also wrote: The Bank received regulatory approval to offer and has been offering interest rate derivatives to our middle market and commercial real estate clients who are concerned about the effects of rising interest rates on their businesses. This affords our clients an opportunity to fix interest rates in what would otherwise be a floating rate environment which could work against them. The Bank will not take interest rate risk on these derivative contracts but instead will hedge all trades with one of our correspondent bank counterparties. In other words, the Bank will operate a matched loan-level hedging program. The Bank does not otherwise engage in any derivatives activities. There are three key problems from our perspective with the regulation as drafted by the Senate Agriculture Committee [which is part of the base bill that we are debating now]: 1. The Bank would likely be considered a swap dealer (under section 50(A)(iii) of the proposed regulation) and would have to spin off or terminate its swap activity. 2. There are no practical end user exemptions for our clients, who would be subject to posting margin against their trades with a clearinghouse. 3. All swap parties have to be an eligible swap participant, so a real estate single project partnership would not qualify. It makes no sense that community and regional banks that run matched loan-level hedging programs should be subject to the swap dealer provisions, as such programs are fully hedged and are not taking undue risk. The letter goes on to say they hope that as we go through this debate, we can fix these unintended practical issues or consequences that provide practical issues in the day-to-day operation of commercial and community banks that are not on Wall Street but are in Atlanta and in Moultrie or other communities around my State and in every other community in America. Just because a bank is big does not mean that bank is risky. We need to remember, as we think about this, that our regulators need to have the right kinds of tools to look at every single trade that comes up. That is why it is important and why we agree on both sides of the aisle that there needs to be 100 percent transparency in these markets. We are going to provide for that in our substitute. There needs to be a fixing of the definition in the underlying bill of what is a major swap participant. There again, that goes to the issue of whether you are a big bank, you are automatically systemically risky, which is not the case, but you are automatically covered by this provision. Should Wall Street be covered? Yes. Will they be covered in the base bill? Yes. Will they be covered in our amendment? Yes. Every swap dealer on Wall Street needs to have not just 100 percent transparency but all their transactions with other financial institutions go through a clearinghouse. That is done in the base bill. That is also provided for in our amendment. We wish to make sure these end users who don't deal in these swaps on a daily basis in the kind of volume the banks do are not thrown into a category of all of a sudden having to pay huge fees and costs added to the cost of doing business. At the end of the day, we know who will pay for that: we consumers who buy the automobiles and the widgets or whatever it may be. Lastly, I wish to talk about the provision in the bill that requires--it is section 106, the 716 provision. What this provision does is require all swaps dealers and financial institutions to be physically moved out of the financial institution and kind of operate on its own. Here is the practical effect of what that will do. Any Wall Street bank that is a dealer in swaps and derivatives today--and every one of them are--will simply take the swaps desk and move it across the street. Under the base bill, they are going to be required to raise huge amounts of capital for that swaps dealer desk. There is no reason for that to happen. If they are going to raise capital, it ought to be in the bank, where they can utilize it and loan that money out to customers. The other truly unintended consequence of moving the swaps desk out is the fact that the financial institution itself--again, major banks will be included in this--those individual banks are not going to be able to access the discount window at the Fed because they are all of a sudden not going to be able to borrow money from any Federal entity under the language that is in the underlying bill. That doesn't make sense. The reason it doesn't make sense is that all these swaps and derivatives transactions--whether they are interest rates, metals or whatever the transaction may be--have to be cleared every day. The bank needs a huge amount of cash or the swap dealer needs a huge amount of cash in order to clear those trades. If they do not have access to the Fed discount window, then they are simply not going to be able to access the amount of cash they need to clear these transactions. The reason they need that cash is to ensure the parties to that transaction are going to, in fact, be able to have the assurance that the other party to the transaction is going to be able to live up to its rights and obligations. If they do not have access to the Fed discount window, then they are not going to be able to access that cash they are going to need to make sure these transactions are, in fact, cashed out at the end of every single day. We are going to have one amendment that will be a substitute, and then we will have a series of additional amendments that will be more in the way of rifle shots to address the specific issues I have talked about. I talked with the chairman of the Banking Committee about these over a period of time. Obviously, I have talked with my friend Senator Lincoln about this. As we go through this debate, I want to make sure that at the end of the day, we do exactly what all of us want to do and certainly what the chairman and Senator Shelby set out to do from the start, which is to protect consumers, to protect people who lost a lot of money in the market because of transactions of greed that took place on Wall Street. We can do that in a bipartisan way because we all agree that has to be done. The thing we want to make sure of is that umbrella or that reaching out to accomplish that particular part of the problem that exists does not look for other problems that do not exist on Main Street and that we have the ability of our community banks, our Main Street banks, as well as our manufacturing sector, to have access to the swaps and derivatives markets that they have done in a commercially responsible way for decades. They are not part of the problem, but yet it is going to be of significant consequence to every manufacturer. Not every community bank engages in swaps and derivative transactions, but a lot of them do. We need to make sure we take into consideration the continued ability of those banks to operate in a normal commercial banking way. Under the base bill, they are simply not going to be able to do that. Again, I commend the chairman for his hard work. I know he and Senator Shelby are still trying to work out some agreements on the too- big-to-fail issue. It is my understanding that some of the provisions in the hopeful agreement they are talking about are going to have a direct impact on some of the things I have talked about today. It will make our job a little bit easier trying to fix the derivatives title to this bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank my colleague.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I will say more about it in my conclusion remarks, but first of all, Senators Dodd and Shelby, thanks for continuing your dialog with each other, and thanks for coming forth with the type of agreement that has allowed us to get this extremely important agreement to the floor. With the financial collapse of 2008, there are a number of issues that simply have to be addressed, and this is the appropriate forum now for all of those issues to come forward and have debate on both sides of the aisle; to hopefully at the end of the day come up with the right kind of product that is going to make sure situations like 2008 never occur again. To my chairman and my partner on the Committee on Agriculture, she is my dear friend, and we have worked very closely together on so many issues, including this one. When we have our differences, we are able to disagree in a very professional way. I am very appreciative of her as well as of her friendship. We all know that appropriate regulation of derivatives and specifically the swaps market is a critical component of this legislation, and the Agriculture Committee is responsible for the oversight of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which will become one of the key regulators of the swaps market. As the ranking member on the Agriculture Committee, I have the responsibility to ensure that we get this right. The Agriculture Committee has a history of not falling subject to partisan influence. We have a long tradition of checking our partisan politics at the door in an effort to reach consensus so that both Republicans and Democrats can then support our products on the floor. For instance, the Agriculture Committee facilitated a bipartisan deal to close the Enron loophole back in 2008. Then-chairman Senator Harkin and I worked across party lines with Senators Snowe, Feinstein, Levin, and Cantwell to ensure that electronic trading facilities offering contracts that perform a significant price discovery function are properly regulated in a transparent way. Earlier this week, the CFTC used this new authority to subject seven natural gas contracts to increased oversight. That is an example of how laws written with bipartisan agreements yield real results. Derivatives legislation should have been handled this way too. It should have come out of the Agriculture Committee as a bipartisan product. My staff and Chairman Lincoln's staff spent 5 months crafting a derivatives bill which should have been reported from the committee with support from both sides. Unfortunately, things fell apart just as we were about to circulate an agreed-upon discussion draft. This discussion draft, which would have required clearing of swaps by swaps dealers and others who contribute to systemic risk--it would have provided the FTC and the CFTC with the authority to establish capital markets and margin requirements. It would have allowed the CFTC to impose aggregate limits, and, most importantly, it would have provided the much needed transparency that has been absent from the swaps market. This would have represented a 180-degree shift from current law that was in place in 2008. Transparency is the key here. Under our agreed-upon discussion draft, 100 percent of all trades in the swaps and derivatives market would have been out in the open and available to regulators to review in real time. Unfortunately, this language is not part of the underlying bill. Instead, we are faced with a derivatives product crafted without input from Republicans, a derivatives product that reflects an agreement between both Democratic committee chairmen and the administration. Republicans were not even invited into the room to provide input. The product they have developed will have many unfortunate consequences for Main Street businesses that had nothing to do with creating this financial meltdown. I fear what I believe to be unintended consequences resulting from applying complicated regulations too broadly will subject our American businesses to more risk, not less. 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 systemic risk. Let me be clear as to whom this will ultimately affect--our farmers and ranchers, our electric cooperatives, and our ethanol facilities that seek financing from these institutions. 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 interest rates for their customers or, worse, discourage them from managing their risk, which will again result in higher costs for their borrowers. Because this legislation broadly applies regulation, treating all financial institutions exactly 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 and not be mandated to do so. This legislation will also prevent John Deere Credit from hedging its interest rate risk except through a clearinghouse. Again, this will result in less attractive credit arrangements for farmers who need financing to buy tractors and combines. The same can be said for consumers who would like favorable financing arrangements with Ford Motor Credit to buy a car. They will not be allowed the best deal because Ford Motor Credit is now going to be forced to take on additional cost when hedging their interest rate risk. Can anyone tell me why we are treating John Deere and Ford Motor Credit exactly the same as Goldman Sachs? Also, entities such as Koch Industries that is hedging their risk and also engaged in developing products for their customers' hedging needs should not inadvertently be captured in a new regulatory category designed to apply to big financial dealers. But that is exactly what this legislation does. Koch's and Goldman Sachs' swaps businesses would essentially be regulated in the same way. Treating these entities like dealers may force them to stop offering those products to their customers, in which case their customers will have no other option but to seek products from the large dealers such as Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street bankers. Today I heard the stock price of Goldman Sachs is up, and this explains it. They will get increased opportunities to make more money under this legislation. Why do we want to essentially lessen competition and drive all of the swaps business to those that are the most systemically risky or, even worse, drive them offshore where we cannot regulate them? Banks such as Goldman Sachs may even be forced out of the swaps business if this legislation becomes law, which begs the question: Who will then be left to offer these risk management tools to our constituents' businesses? Businesses rely on swaps as a very legitimate option to help them alleviate risk inherent to their business. But if no one is left to sell them this protection, they will be forced to hold the risk on their books. Why on Earth would Congress advance legislation that would actually prevent the businesses in each of our States from properly managing their risk, especially in these difficult times? The American public wants to know why we cannot target these new regulations so Wall Street is regulated properly without punishing the businesses they rely on every day. I would like to know the same thing. Unfortunately, I think I already know the answer: It has absolutely nothing to do with regulating Wall Street. When the Obama administration realized the Committee on Agriculture was on the verge of producing a derivatives regulation package that would have appealed to both Republicans and Democrats, they scrambled to kill the deal. You see, to the extent that any aspect of the financial regulatory reform package has Republican support, they can no longer play politics with this issue. If we produce a bill that has the support of several Republicans, then they can no longer blame us for holding up this process, which would cause the administration to lose the message they are pushing, in hopes that voters will forget about health care. Their message is simple: They want to be able to tell the public that Republicans are opposed to regulating Wall Street. Well, that is disingenuous at best and totally false at worst. Republicans are just as anxious as Democrats to address what went wrong on Wall Street and, frankly, it is long overdue. Why has the administration waited almost 18 months to push financial regulatory reform? Why are they trying to cut Republicans out of the process? Is it that they wanted an issue that will drag on into the election season, not a solution that will truly protect the consumers on Main Street? I wish we were here today debating a derivatives product that had input from Senators on both sides of the aisle and perhaps a little less input from the administration. The American people expect the administration to implement the laws that Congress passes, but they elected us to write those laws. I feel certain that we could have done a much better job had we been allowed to work in a more bipartisan way. Unfortunately, I have to encourage my colleagues to oppose the derivatives portion of this bill because I think it will have undesirable consequences for Main Street businesses and consumers who are already struggling in this weakened economy. We will have amendments to correct the deficiencies in this bill, and I hope we will receive bipartisan support for those amendments because they truly will reflect commonsense solutions to the complex derivatives issue. Let me close by saying that I know Senator Dodd, Senator Lincoln, Senator Shelby, all of us, wanted, at the end of the day, to develop a bipartisan bill. I hope we can still do that. I see my friend, Senator Warner, is on the Senate floor. He and I have had some conversations about trying to meld some of our ideas. I know he has worked very closely with my dear friend, Senator Corker, from this side of the aisle. Now that we have this bill on the Senate floor, I hope we can get by the rhetoric; that we can all say our piece and that we can roll up our sleeves and do what the American people want to see us do, which is to work together for their best interests. They are the ones who are going to suffer for what comes out of here or they will be the ones to benefit from what comes out of the Senate. Senator Dodd is a dear friend. We have had many conversations about this bill. I know what is in his heart. I know he wants to get this done in the right way. Likewise with my dear friend, Senator Lincoln. So as we move ahead now, I am very hopeful we can settle down to the real business the Senate is famous for; that is, having real, hard-core debate on issues because these are extremely tough. There has not been a more complex issue that we have had to deal with in my now going on 8 years in this body. But the minds are very capable of resolving these issues. We can do so with good ideas from both sides of the aisle. I am very hopeful at the end of the day, we will come out with a product the American people can look back at and say: Wow. That is the way the Senate is supposed to work. And the people we sent to do the peoples' business have, in fact, put together a good product that is going to benefit America; it is going to benefit American business and, most importantly, it will benefit Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the Natural Resources Conservation Service, NRCS, on its 75th anniversary. Even though we are an urban nation, we are still an agricultural land. Nearly 70 percent of the United States, exclusive of Alaska, is held in private ownership by millions of individuals. Fifty percent of the United States--907 million acres--is cropland, pasture-land, and rangeland owned and managed by farmers and ranchers and their families. In the early 1900s, President Roosevelt and other conservationists like John Muir and Gifford Pinchot had the foresight to set aside America's special places as national parks and forests, seashores, and wilderness areas. America's public land became a showcase for some of the most dramatic and beautiful landscapes on the North American continent. But others also recognized the importance of America's private land to the health of the Nation. It took the seriousness of the Dust Bowl for this message to be accepted. Rooted in our national experience with devastating soil erosion of that time, the conservation movement began with the purpose of keeping productive topsoil--and a productive agriculture--in place. To lead conservation efforts at the Federal level, Congress created the Soil Conservation Service, SCS, within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, in 1935. SCS was renamed the Natural Resources Conservation Service, NRCS, in 1994. This was the beginning of the Nation's historic commitment to a conservation partnership with farmers and ranchers. At the same time, the Nation also adopted a remarkable Federal, State, and local partnership for delivering conservation assistance to farmers and ranchers. The concept was that NRCS would deliver technical and financial assistance for conservation, while State governments and local conservation districts would connect with individual landowners and set local priorities. From the beginning, this was a cooperative approach, drawing on many sources for technical knowledge, financial assistance, and broad-based educational programs for natural resources conservation and management. This partnership remains the preeminent model for intergovernmental cooperation today and is admired around the world. In the 1980s, NRCS's programs began to change as Congress began to increase incentives for farmers and ranchers to practice good conservation. During the 1990s, Congress accelerated the investment in conservation by creating additional programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, to share the cost of enhancing natural resources on farms, ranches and private forestland. Congress increased this investment in the 2002 and 2008 farm bills and is expected to continue to support conservation well into the future. However, there are challenges in conservation today. One challenge is how to sustain the ability of NRCS to provide technical, scientifically sound advice and assistance in a time of tight budgets and increased demands. Another challenge is how to maintain the highly successful conservation partnership that works with farmers and ranchers as individuals to address their specific conservation concerns. W.C. Lowdermilk, the Assistant Chief of the Soil Conservation Service in the 1930s said, ``In a very real sense the land does not lie; it bears a record of what men write on it. In a larger sense, a Nation writes its record on the land. This record is easy to read by those who understand the simple language of the land.'' Conservation leads to prosperous, healthy societies and stable, self-sufficient countries. It sustains the agricultural productivity that allows for division of labor and the growth and longevity of a society. Careful land stewardship through terracing, crop rotation and other soil conservation measures enables societies to flourish. However, neglect of the land, manifested as soil erosion, deforestation, and overgrazing, helps to topple empires and destroy entire civilizations. These lessons of history, including our own with the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, are ones we should not forget. America's future is tied to how we treat our land. Today, the Nation's farmers and ranchers deliver safe, reliable, high quality food, feed, and fiber to the Nation and to the world, but also much more. Through their careful stewardship, farmers, ranchers, and private forest landowners also deliver clean water, productive wildlife habitat, and healthy landscapes. Today, we thank all who have made this happen through their service to our country as part of the NRCS. Congratulations on your 75th anniversary.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I wish to commend the life's work of a good man and a great American, Arthur E. Katz. On Friday, April 23, Arthur was inducted into the U.S. Coast Guard Academy's Wall of Gallantry for his service to our Nation. In 1963, Arthur graduated from the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, where soon afterward, he headed to Vietnam. He served as commanding officer of USCGC Point Cypress from December 1965 to September 1966. For his leadership and bravery during this tour of duty, Arthur was awarded a Bronze Star Medal for Valor Following his service in the Coast Guard, he went on to establish a successful business in Dunwoody, GA. Arthur currently resides in Sandy Springs, a place he has come to love and call home. He is a devoted and loving husband of 46 years, father of three daughters and grandfather of seven. As a well-respected member of the community, Arthur has been involved in numerous roles, such as the past president of the Temple Emanu-El synagogue in Sandy Springs and as a board member of the Marcus Jewish Community Center of Atlanta. His commitment to community service and volunteerism has been tremendously valuable, and I am sure he has touched many lives over the years. Arthur Katz is a true champion of patriotism and it is only fitting that he be honored and featured at the Wall of Gallantry at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, last month the Senate Banking Committee reported out a bill to overhaul the financial regulatory system in this country--a bill that was, unfortunately, designed to invite Republican opposition from committee members, as evidenced by the party-line vote on reporting it out. At that time, I felt some sympathy for my Banking Committee colleagues who wanted to play a role but were shut out of the process. As the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, we have a history of producing bipartisan legislation. We always respect each other and seek to forge compromise in the name of advancing good public policy. The chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Senator Lincoln, is always more interested in getting the policy right than engaging in partisan debates. So I held out hope that the Agriculture Committee could consider our contribution to the financial regulatory reform legislation in a more productive environment than my colleagues on the Banking Committee faced. The issues involved in financial regulatory reform are complex, very important, and involve both the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee and the Committee on Agriculture. The Agriculture Committee has a responsibility to ensure that the Commodities Futures Trading Commission continues to effectively carry out its duties, including any new authorities and responsibilities to regulate derivatives that Congress requires. Before we make a big policy change, we need to ask ourselves whether the solutions that have been proposed by the administration and which are largely reflected in Banking Committee Chairman Dodd's bill 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 capital, force the cost of doing business higher, and ultimately even drive these markets overseas? Let me be clear. I am not proposing a do-nothing approach. In fact, I believe there are a number of ways in which we can more appropriately regulate derivatives, and it is Congress' job to write this legislation. We seek input from the administration and our regulatory agencies, but it is our responsibility to consider their suggestions, take into consideration the opinions of the American public, and put forward that which will become law. Many businesses that use derivatives and swaps to manage risk in their everyday course of business are concerned that as Congress tries to reduce overall systemic risk in our financial markets--including regulation of over-the-counter derivatives--Congress might actually limit their risk management options. I am not talking about large financial institutions. I am not talking about Wall Street financial institutions. I am talking about businesses that provide goods and services and employment opportunities in each of our States. These companies are concerned about aspects of the administration's proposal that would require them to clear standardized transactions and execute their transactions on a trading facility. Many of them have told me this would add considerable costs that would be passed along to customers or consumers, or perhaps prevent their businesses from using swaps and derivatives as a risk management tool altogether. These companies are not antiregulation; they are supportive of increased transparency to the regulator, and they are willing to endure any additional burdens that go along with that. Clearly, the recent past has taught us that the regulator needs more data in order to view and police the entire marketplace, but I am not sure the lesson of the recent market meltdown warrants increased costs to businesses that had little, if anything, to do with creating this financial crisis. Beyond requiring more transparent market data for the regulators, the Agriculture Committee has been exploring how most effectively to apply greater regulation to swap transactions. 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 devote time to understanding these instruments and their applications. We must seek to understand the legitimate purposes these complex instruments serve for large and small businesses in each of our States. Chairman Lincoln and I have devoted a great deal of time to understanding the over-the-counter derivatives market, its complexities and its unique and legitimate utility. That is our job as Senators on the committee of jurisdiction. Unfortunately, our bipartisan negotiations have now been halted due to political influence from the administration. It seems that the administration fears a bipartisan deal on any aspect of financial reform legislation. As the Banking Committee members moved toward a bipartisan deal, the administration launched an attack on such efforts, and as Chairman Lincoln and I were about to conclude our negotiations and release a bipartisan draft on derivatives reform, the administration stepped in once again to shut down the process. The American public should be aware of what is going on here. Republicans on the committees of jurisdiction have been more than willing to constructively participate in the development of new regulations aimed at addressing what went wrong with our financial system. But the current administration seems more interested in political gain than in addressing this critical issue. It seems that, instead of seeking meaningful reform both Democrats and Republicans can support, the administration is more interested in trying to divert attention away from health care by changing the subject as we head into the election season. The administration seems intent on going far beyond finding bipartisan solutions to address what caused the financial meltdown, and instead is pursuing reckless policies that could be dangerous for our markets and ultimately our consumers who depend on these markets. However, it seems to me that the American public is well aware of the financial meltdown, because they live with it every single day. The last thing they want is for Congress to spend months talking about it some more. I want to be very clear. A week ago, I was prepared to support a bipartisan compromise on reforming our derivatives market--a compromise that I believe an overwhelming majority of the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, could have supported and one that would have been implemented quickly to provide much-needed regulation, and then the White House stepped in and basically said a bill with Republican support is not worth advancing. They want an issue, not a solution, and want to drag this issue into the November elections in the hope that voters will be focused on reforming the financial system and forget about how angry they are about the passage of the recent health care legislation. I will say one more thing about the regulation of derivatives for folks to keep in mind as this process moves forward, which is that 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 today over-the-counter swaps are essentially unregulated. Within this general agreement that swaps need to go from unregulated to fully regulated, we have some significant areas of disagreement about whether everyone needs to clear in all instances, 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. As Republicans, we want to make sure our new regulations serve a useful purpose. As we begin the debate on derivatives regulation and Republicans start to get painted--as we have already seen--as the party of Wall Street and against reform, I want folks to know and understand this is disingenuous. Republicans believe there is a need to regulate the currently unregulated swaps market. We support doing so in a way that is responsible and that meets the risk management needs of Main Street. I remain very hopeful that at the end of the day, we can strike a bipartisan agreement--not just on the title that refers to swaps and derivatives but also on the titles to the financial regulatory reform that deal with regulation, as well as the consumer protection finance agency. With that, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life and selfless commitment of 1LT Robert Collins to the U.S. Army and to our Nation. While many other young Americans his age were headed back to school from spring break, LT Collins died April 7, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle on the streets of Mosul, Iraq. He was 24 years old. It is time the American people know a bit more about this young man who sacrificed for his country his life, his family and all his potential, giving up all that he had, and all that he was going to be. LT Collins was both a native Georgian, and was based in Georgia. He hailed from the small town of Tyrone in Fayette County, where he played football under the Friday night lights at Sandy Creek High School, 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 on Sunday mornings. Later, he became a member of the local American Legion Post 105 in Fayetteville, GA. For me, the death of LT Collins is particularly sobering. Robert was one of my first nominees to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in the fall of 2003, and was offered an appointment there the following spring. He graduated from West Point in 2008. He became one of the stalwarts of B Company, 1st Battalion, 64th Armor Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division based at Fort Stewart, GA. He deployed to Iraq in the autumn of 2009. LT Collins served as his platoon's commander. While in Iraq, his unit was charged with improving security and the quality of life for the people of Iraq. He and his men also provided security for the recent, successful Iraqi elections. They were dedicated to the goal of a peaceful, democratic Iraq, and sought to help its people lead normal, safe lives. It is said that the measure of a man can be taken by what those who knew him say when he is gone. Robert's friends have described him as a man of great compassion, a leader with an excellent personality and an infectious laugh. They say he was always there for friends and family, for when they needed him. They say they are better people for having known him. LT Collins found his voice in the honor and patriotism of the Army. With both his mother and his father retired Army officers, he was a man with the military in his blood. They both survive him, as does his girlfriend, Nicole, who was Robert's high school sweetheart. I extend my deepest sympathies to LT Collins' family and friends, and ask that my colleagues--and all Georgians--keep them in their prayers during this time of sadness. Robert performed his duty courageously, devotedly, without hesitation, without reservations. He was, after all, a soldier. The world may be occupied with other things on this beautiful spring day, and the media with other stories. But one of those should surely be the procession that will bring LT Robert Collins' body home today, winding its way from Falcon Field in Peachtree City through downtown Tyrone. It should also be about the Americans who knew him, who will line the roads to welcome him home a final time, recalling the words of A.E. Housman: Today the road all runners come, Shoulder-high we bring you home, And set you at your threshold down, Townsmen of a stiller town. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I will be here this morning to talk about this issue. I, too, just want to say to the Senator from Michigan, it is unfortunate that the Senate has tried to be responsible and react to the situation we are in from an unemployment insurance standpoint, and in a very responsible way, and, unfortunately, the House will not agree with us. I am one of the folks who has a great deal of sympathy for those folks who are unemployed, as do all other 99 Members of this body. This is the fourth time we have sought to extend unemployment insurance for individuals across America. My State of Georgia has an unemployment rate of almost 10.5 percent. We have a lot of people who are hurting in a very significant way. I voted last time, on March 2 I believe it was, to extend unemployment insurance without paying for it because I know the difficulties people are having. But I did it with the understanding that we had 30 days to fix it. We had 30 days to figure out a way to pay for it. Yet, instead of concentrating on ways to figure out a way to pay for it, last night, the Senator from Oklahoma was forced to raise an objection to the extension that is not paid for, so the majority decided: Well, maybe he is really serious about paying for it. Maybe the Republicans do want to see us pay for this rather than adding to the debt that our children and our grandchildren will inherit. That is when serious discussions took place. I will come back with my colleague from Oklahoma and talk more about this later. I regret that the House has taken the action they have. It sends us down a continuing trail that we have been on in the Congress over the last several years. My colleague is right. Republicans have done this, just as Democrats have. Republicans have not been as egregious about it as we have seen in the last year and a half, but it is an issue we have to get under control. Now is the time to do it. If we can't find a way to pay for $9 billion worth of expenses, then it is Katy bar the door. Today we borrow 43 cents out of every dollar the Federal Government spends. That is spending that is out of control. I look forward to continuing this dialog as we turn the discussion over to the other side. We will come back in a little while and talk more about it.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, first, let me thank my colleague from Oklahoma for highlighting this issue and for reaching a point where the American people have wanted us to be for some time, and that is to simply look at the spending that is going on in Washington and say enough is enough. That if we are going to continue down the road of increasing Federal spending, then we have to offset that additional Federal spending that is over and above the amount of revenues coming in. I also wish to say to my friend from Michigan, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who made the request on the approval of the promotion of a general that, as he knows, I have already voted in favor of doing that one time within the committee. I regret we are having to stand up and object. However, as he well knows, that is part of the process here, so Senator Coburn had to object on behalf of another Member of the Senate. I can't help but note, as we are talking about spending here, an article that appeared in this morning's Washington Times. The caption in the article is ``CBO Report: Debt Will Rise to 90 Percent of GDP.'' The article reads: President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the Federal debt to 90 percent of the Nation's economic output by 2020, according to the Congressional Budget Office. In its 2011 budget, which the White House Office of Management and Budget released February 1, the administration projected a 10-year deficit total of $8.53 trillion. After looking it over, CBO said in its final analysis released Thursday that the President's budget would generate a combined $9.75 trillion in deficits over the next decade. This is exactly why, with the leadership of the Senator from Oklahoma, we have to address this issue of spending and why we have to get this issue of spending under control. No time is better suited to do this than now. We are looking at a deficit, according to the independent Congressional Budget Office, of $10 trillion over the next 10 years. The majority is saying we can't find $9 billion to offset this particular bill that everybody agrees is needed and that everybody on both sides of the aisle wishes to see enacted. Very simply stated, the Republicans want to see the bill paid for. If we can't find $9 billion in Federal spending that is out there today to offset this bill, how in the world are we going to be able to do anything other than, under the current leadership, go down this road of seeing nearly $10 trillion in budget deficits accumulate over the next 10 years? Congress has an obligation to serve as custodian of the American taxpayer dollar. When we engage in unchecked deficit spending, it has a long-lasting, negative impact on all Americans. I understand times are tough across the country. As I said earlier, in my home State of Georgia, the unemployment rate announced last month was 10.4 percent. There is a new number coming out today. I suspect it is going to be at least that high. Georgians are hurting, and I am concerned about that. That is why I wish to make sure we can extend this unemployment insurance but to do so without paying for it, in my opinion, is reckless at this point in time and it would not be in the best interests of all Americans to extend it without paying for it. The fact is, as I said earlier, I voted to extend it without paying for it back in the early part of March. The reason I did was because it was with the understanding that the majority had 30 days to work with the minority to try to find the offsets. When did the discussions on what those offsets would be begin? They began last night about 2 hours before we finally decided it was time to go home. To the credit of the Presiding Officer as well as others on the Majority side in a leadership role, they agreed with the Republican party, the Republican Members of this Senate, that we should offset it and we could offset it. That was objected to by Speaker Pelosi. So, unfortunately, here we are today in a situation where we are arguing about $9 billion and looking at a proposed deficit from this administration of $10 trillion over the next 10 years. The American people are as upset as they can be with Congress, and rightfully so. The main reason they are upset with us is because of this very issue. When I am back home, which is where I go every weekend, and I visit with folks, whether it is in the grocery store, whether it is at church or within the business community, every constituent at some point in the conversation about what is happening in Washington will bring up the issue of Federal spending and why in the world Members of Congress don't take some action to get this spending under control. There has never been a better time to do it than with this particular bill, and there has never been an easier time to do it. We are not talking about $1 trillion; we are talking about $9 billion in offsets, in reductions in Federal spending, in waste, fraud, and abuse that we all know is out there, in whatever area we can agree on that the money would come from. As we know, we have already identified some areas where we can reduce Federal spending to pay this. Now is the time to do it. I would simply say to my colleague from Oklahoma, I commend him for being firm. I commend him for being in a leadership role on this issue. I am very pleased to stand with him to say that now is the time to do it. I think we should find that $9 billion.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Reserving the right to object, let me say that the Senator from Oregon has made some very good points, and he is exactly right. They are points we agree with on this side of the aisle. I do not object.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Senator, from New Hampshire. Let me reiterate what just came out of this dialog and colloquy between the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Arizona. That is this. CBO has said this is going to be a deficit saver, a deficit reducer, and the President is going around the country talking about the fact that this bill is going to reduce the deficit. What the President is not going to say but what the Senator from Montana just agreed to, is the fact that our physicians who are due a 21-percent decrease in Medicare reimbursement payments are not, in fact, going to have that 21-percent reduction. That decrease was included in this bill to make it appear more deficit-neutral over the first 10 years. When you factor that in, this not only does not reduce the deficit, but it adds to the deficit an additional $281 billion difference in what the number of the CBO says we are going to reduce the deficit by. You know very clearly we are going to add to the deficit when we pass this bill because the Senator from Montana is right, we are not going to see that 21-percent reduction. I suspect that the $523 billion in Medicare cuts that are provided for in this bill, that are scheduled to take effect in future years, may not ever happen. If that is the case, then not only are we looking at an additional cost of that $523 billion, the $281 billion for the SGR fix or the doctors fix, but we are looking at increasing the deficit to fund a domestic program in a future way. One thing the CBO does say is, this bill provides an additional $569.2 billion in new taxes, new taxes on the American people, particularly the small business community that is hit the hardest by this. The American people have made it very clear: They do not want these bills to become law. Two new polls by CBS and CNN show that only 20 percent of Americans believe this legislation will benefit them and their families. Still, the majority party has chosen to push these unpopular proposals through. My constituents in Georgia have reached out in record numbers to register their opposition to President Obama's plan. Why? For starters, because this is an unprecedented government involvement in an industry that constitutes one-sixth of the Nation's economy. If we get it wrong, if we overreach, our fragile economy will suffer and a recovery will lag, perhaps for years. This bill also does something very un-American: It would penalize individuals for not purchasing health insurance. Today, we have seen 13 State attorneys general file lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of fining Americans for not purchasing insurance. The bill that passed the Senate and was signed by the president is filled with backroom deal-making, partisan arm-twisting and special carve-outs for some of my wavering colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Now, instead of working together on a bill that would be more palatable to all Americans, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided to push forward in the face of united opposition. The Governor of Georgia recently expressed concern regarding the unfunded mandates in this legislation. Our State faces an additional billion dollars or more of Medicaid spending per year. These new costs that will be absorbed by the State will require further tax hikes on Georgians or cuts to public safety, education and other core State government services. The bill that was just signed contains $518.5 billion in gross tax increases. It cuts Medicare by $465 billion--and, more importantly-- does nothing to bend the health care cost curve down. With Medicare on the verge of insolvency, this bill takes money from the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund to pay for unrelated entitlement spending. Under this new plan, new Federal taxes on Americans start immediately. But full benefits won't take effect until 2014. The bill raises $60 billion in taxes before any of the major benefits go into effect. Looking at the years 2013-2024, the 10-year period after the law is fully implemented, the overall cost is estimated to be $2.6 trillion. Some of these numbers are so large that its tough to get your head around them. But rest assured that they will detrimentally impact Americans and our economy. There is also substantial evidence that this new law will hurt small businesses. The bill imposes $493 billion in new taxes that will fall disproportionately on the backs of small-business owners. A $54 billion increase in the Medicare payroll tax will hit approximately one-third of the small-business owners across the country. A $60 billion tax on insurers means small businesses that manage to provide health insurance coverage for their employees will see this tax passed on to them, increasing premiums. The CLASS Act portion of the new law appears to make it less costly because, as the CBO said, ``the program would pay out far less in benefits than it would receive in premiums over the 10-year budget window,'' raising $70 billion in premiums that will fund benefits outside the window. Outlays in later years will increase significantly. And the legislation just signed into law is still filled with the sweetheart deals that have so angered Americans. That includes the Cornhusker Kickback, in which the Federal Government pays the entire tab of Nebraska's Medicaid expansion. It also includes the Louisiana Purchase, in which the Federal Government pays an extra $300 million in Medicaid dollars to the State of Louisiana. And it still has the Gator Aid Florida Medicare Advantage grandfather clause to protect certain areas of Florida from Medicare Advantage cuts that all other seniors in America will face. Meanwhile, the 176,000 seniors in Georgia who rely on Medicare Advantage to supplement the gaps in traditional Medicare will see their benefits cut by $33 each month. The new law significantly raises taxes, cuts benefits for seniors, adds to the Federal deficit and allows the government to make decisions that should be between a patient and his doctor. The reconciliation bill--optimistically deemed a ``fix-it'' bill--is actually a ``make-it-worse'' bill. The legislation before us today raises taxes by an additional $50 billion more than the Senate bill. That is an overall tax increase of $569.2 billion. The reconciliation bill nearly doubles the tax on health insurers beginning in 2014, and also raises taxes and fees on drugmakers and medical devices. The Congressional Budget Office has specifically stated that these taxes will be passed on to all Americans in the form of higher health costs and rising insurance premiums. The reconciliation bill raises another $66.1 billion from Medicare Advantage, bringing total Medicare cuts in both bills to $523 billion. And it forces an additional 1 million individuals into Medicaid on top of the 15 million already added to Medicaid in the Senate bill. That means 16 million of the 32 million newly insured individuals would obtain that coverage through Medicaid--a program President Obama admitted already suffers from serious access problems. It also increases penalties for businesses that don't offer health insurance and have at least one employee receiving a subsidy in the exchange from $750 per full-time employee to $2,000 per full-time employee. And, among other things, it penalizes many Americans with higher incomes from rent, interest, royalties and individuals by forcing an almost 4 percent Medicare tax on their investment income. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill is going to cost $940 billion over 10 years. We are burdening our children and grandchildren--generations of America's future--by creating a behemoth new government entitlement program. And in the same week of its creation, we turned around and immediately added to this new program almost $1 trillion more. The American people are asking a simple question: Where does the spending end? Also, I wish to talk about a specific provision that is going to have an immediate, direct impact on my taxpayers in Georgia; that is, with the increase in the threshold to qualify for Medicaid going from 100 percent to 133 percent, in my State, according to our Governor--and he has run the numbers--that is going to cost the taxpayers of Georgia, in addition to their share of this $569.2 billion in additional taxes, an additional $1 billion per year that Georgia taxpayers are going to have to pay. We are in difficult times in my State, as all 50 States are right now. That is a new provision, a new tax. I ask unanimous consent that a statement from the Governor of Georgia, the Honorable Sonny Perdue, be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Let me say that within the last 48 hours we have discovered that the agency that is going to be administering the new health care reform bill the President signed into law is none other than the Internal Revenue Service. The Internal Revenue Service has said that in order to review the tax returns of every taxpayer in America to ensure that they have complied with the law and bought insurance or had insurance taken out through their employer, they are going to have to have an additional 16,500 Internal Revenue Service Agents at a cost of an additional $10 billion to the taxpayers. That $10 billion is not factored in here in anyway. We are dealing with a piece of legislation that the American public has shown, over and over in every poll taken, whether it is by a Democratic pollster, Republican pollster or an independent pollster, that they do not want. We are going to force that bill down on the American people and that is wrong, that is not the way this body and the body across the Capitol should be working with respect to the best interests of the American people. I urge my colleagues at the appropriate time during the vote on the amendments this afternoon and tonight to repeal this bill and let us replace it with a true, meaningful health care reform bill that we can all agree on. There are a lot of provisions in those 2,700 pages plus, the length of this so-called fix-it bill that we can agree on, that we can replace this bill with, that will provide the American people with true, meaningful health care reform that they need and deserve. We will not see all of these huge increases in taxes, we will not see all of these huge reductions in Medicare benefits, and we can do the will of the people in the right and appropriate way. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Peace Corps on the occasion of its 49th anniversary. Since the Peace Corps' inception in 1961, nearly 200,000 Americans have volunteered to live and work in developing countries around the globe in an effort to help provide stability and progress. Through aiding in education, community development, business development, health awareness and food security, these volunteers are improving lives and communities and making them better places to live and thrive. It is this selfless dedication to helping people and communities help themselves that has strengthened ties between America and the world. I am proud to say that 155 Georgians are serving as volunteers with the Peace Corps, including a former staffer of mine, Rebecca Riccitello, who is working in Ghana. My home State of Georgia has a long history with the Peace Corps. Former U.S. Senator Paul Coverdell of Georgia devoted much of his time to the Peace Corps, and served as its director in the late eighties. During his tenure, the World Wise Schools Program was founded, which connects students in the United States with Peace Corps volunteers around the world. Peace Corps volunteers engage in real, meaningful work and truly make a difference in individual lives around the world. I commend them for their efforts on our nation's behalf, and I am pleased to recognize the Peace Corps and all those who help the organization help others in America's name.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise this morning to thank our distinguished guest Chaplain, Dr. Benny Tate, of Milner, GA, who has brought us an inspirational message with which to begin our day. Dr. Tate is the senior pastor of Rock Springs Church in Milner, GA, and has served his congregation well for 20 years. When Dr. Tate began preaching at Rock Springs Church, only 20 people came to worship on a given Sunday. Today, Dr. Benny Tate preaches to more than 4,000 people on any given Sunday. Rock Springs Church is now the largest church in the Congregational Methodist denomination. Dr. Tate is the kind of pastor who finds creative ways to go out to the community and spread the word of God. He hosts the ``Apples of Gold'' radio program, reaching out to central Georgians through 15 radio stations. He has worked with local civic organizations, leading his flock by example. He served as the Chappell Mill Fire Station Chaplain and as a Georgia Youth Camp board member, just to name a couple of his activities. He has also written three books as well as pieces for the local Griffin Daily News. One of his books has been read by both my wife and myself and has a very unique and very appropriate title called ``Happy Wife, Happy Life.'' All of us males have a great appreciation for that title. I have had the privilege of attending Dr. Benny Tate's church on many occasions. I have always found Rock Springs Church to be a very holy, spirit-filled church. Dr. Tate has a very unique way of spreading the gospel in a manner that is mixed with humor and yet direct, personal feelings and the word of the Holy Spirit and the message that Jesus Christ gives to him. In short, he has effected positive changes in the church and the community through his outreach. We appreciate his efforts and his words of worship this morning, and I am very pleased to have my dear friend, Dr. Benny Tate, with us today. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the brothers of the Delta Chapter of Sigma Chi fraternity at the University of Georgia who honorably served in our Nation's Armed Forces during the Vietnam war. These men made tremendous sacrifices, leaving behind their loved ones and the comfort of college to serve our Nation. One of our brothers, Joe Laslie, gave his life. This weekend, members of the Delta Chapter of the Sigma Chi fraternity will honor the brothers who served during the Vietnam war at a memorial brunch. This will be a touching event, especially for the family of Joe Laslie. Joe made the ultimate sacrifice during the summer of 1968. Many of his close friends at school did not attend his funeral because they did not learn of his death until the following semester. This event will give us the opportunity to pay our respects. I am truly humbled to have had the opportunity to know these men. As fraternity brothers, we competed in sports and threw parties, but we also we built strong bonds of friendship, and learned respect and honor. I am proud of my brothers who so dutifully served our Nation. It is because of their dedication and sacrifice that we are able to live in a safe, free country. As a tribute, I would like their names to be etched into the Congressional Record for posterity: Kenan J. Kern Donald G. Charlton Lloyd G. Ewing William E. Schley Tom J. Jones G. Elliott Hagan, Jr. Warren A. Norman Steve J. Ernest Clyde W. Fitzgerald, Jr. David G. Jones William M. Riley John S. Noell, Jr. John A. Ewing, Jr. William O. McDonald John B. Thurman, III William E. Johnston Harris W. Sims Emory Lee Brinson Richard H. Warner J. Rufus Youmans Warren B. Taylor R. Daniel Weigle James F. Martin Otha C. Dent Richard B. Smith James R. Klein Joseph T. Laslie, Jr.* Martin T. Bailey James W. Friedewald William W. Bell, Jr. Otis L. Durham John Richard Owens Richard B. Russell, IV Daniel H. Bull

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a local leader and a true public servant, Mr. Terry Lindsey. Several years ago, Terry took the helm of marketing at Engineered Fabrics, one of the largest employers in the Rockmart, GA, area. At the end of March, after 33 years on the job, he will leave Engineered Fabrics better than when he started. In addition to serving Engineered Fabrics, Terry has spent a great deal of his life promoting his community. Over the years, Terry has sponsored and hosted several Washington fly-ins, giving the Polk County delegation the opportunity to discuss issues of importance to the community with the Georgia congressional delegation--whether it be issues impacting small businesses, banks, education, or other critical issues to Polk County. I have had the opportunity to get to know Terry during these visits, and I can tell you he is a salt-of-the-earth kind of guy. His friends will tell you that he loves his job, wife, country and God, and is truly thankful for what he has. Terry, a longtime member of the Polk County Chamber of Commerce, has been involved in strengthening his community through activities such as the Youth Leadership committee and hosting the Development Authority of Polk County and the Intergovernmental Committee of Polk. He has also been a member of the Rotary Club of Rockmart/Polk County, and has provided guidance and encouragement as a mentor. I have no doubt he has touched many lives throughout his career. The leadership and public service he has provided over the years is tremendously valuable, and he should be very proud of all he has accomplished. The entire community will miss Terry's visionary leadership. It is my pleasure to congratulate Terry as he concludes his long and distinguished career and begins retirement.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I am submitting a resolution today recognizing that hardwood trees are an abundant and sustainable resource in the United States, and that the products derived from hardwood trees should be given full consideration in programs promoting the construction of environmentally friendly buildings, including commercial, public or private buildings. This resolution will hopefully demonstrate Congress's support for the hardwood industry and that these hardwood materials, a USA product, are sustainable building materials. I invite and encourage all of my colleagues to cosponsor this bipartisan resolution. The Nation's forests are a bountiful resource. Not only do they provide forest products and related jobs, but they also are prized for their scenic beauty, recreational opportunities, wildlife habitat, and maintaining clean air and water. Today, about one-third of the Nation's landscape is forested. The majority of this forestland, about 57 percent, is privately owned. In my home State of Georgia, 24 million acres, about 67 percent of the land, is covered by forests. These forests have a direct economic impact of nearly $13 billion per year. About one-third of Georgia's forests are hardwoods, which supports the nearly 300 hardwood facilities in the State. Most of these are small, family owned businesses, just as they are in the rest of the country. Unfortunately, in Georgia and the rest of the country, this industry has been in decline for more than a decade as paper and wood mills have closed and 158,000 jobs, many in rural areas, have been lost. I hope that with this resolution my colleagues and the Nation remember the numerous benefits of forests and hardwoods. They are a sustainable and renewable resource and should be recognized for the environmental benefits they provide.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, are we in a period of morning business?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate the Albany Area YMCA on the occasion of its 100th anniversary. On October 25, 1909, 100 businessmen met at the New Albany Hotel for the purpose of establishing and building a YMCA in Albany. Five days later, the campaign, led by Judge F.F. Putney, was successful in raising $30,000. Just 1 year later, the vision became a reality, and the first YMCA building in Albany opened its doors at the corner of Pine and Jefferson. Since its inception in 1910, the Albany Area YMCA has been an important part of life for residents of southwest Georgia. Just last year, more than 30,000 people were involved in the YMCA, whether it was coaching baseball, participating in the 5K runs or volunteering at the food drives. I have been to the Albany Area YMCA several times and I am always impressed by the new community initiatives and programs taking place there. The YMCA has always been committed to challenging boys and girls to think beyond themselves and to set goals--and it is this focus on character development that has helped strengthen the community. As a former volunteer and past president of the Moultrie YMCA, I have a special appreciation for the great work the volunteers are doing. And they ought to be commended for their tremendous efforts. For 100 years, YMCA volunteers have helped children develop themselves as honest, respectful, caring and responsible individuals. Additionally, I would be remiss if I did not mention Dave Wallace, who has made a tremendous impact on the Albany Area YMCA while serving as the executive director. I have had the good fortune of knowing Dave for several years. The YMCA has flourished under his leadership--and I have no doubt he has touched many lives throughout his tenure there. Over the years, the Albany Area YMCA has relocated, expanded and changed in many aspects, but it has never steered away from its mission ``to put Christian principles into practice through programs that build a healthy spirit, mind and body for all.'' Once again, I would like to offer my congratulations and appreciation to the Albany Area YMCA on this very special occasion.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to speak about this administration's decision to try the 9/11 conspirators and the Christmas bomber in our civilian criminal justice system. Prosecuting the five 9/11 conspirators currently detained at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, as well as the Christmas bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, in article III criminal court indicates a disturbing tendency by this administration to make terrorism a law enforcement priority rather than an intelligence priority. It a mistake to treat terrorism as a law enforcement problem alone, a mistake that is only compounded by the fact that the intelligence community was not even consulted before they were prevented from gathering any intelligence from Abdulmutallab, a member of a terrorist organization sworn to be at war with America. As the 9/11 Commission found: An unfortunate consequence of this superb investigative and prosecutorial effort was that it created an impression that the law enforcement system was well equipped to cope with terrorism. As we know from an examination of events before 9/11, law enforcement means alone cannot eliminate the threat from al-Qaida. After Abdulmutallab failed to detonate an explosive device on Northwest flight 253, he was taken into custody by law enforcement. Other than the Federal Bureau of Investigation, no member of the intelligence community--in particular, the Central Intelligence Agency--had the opportunity to question Abdulmutallab and gather intelligence. The Department of Justice should have foreseen that a dedicated terrorist, intent on committing suicide and harming Americans, would not be willing to cooperate with U.S. law enforcement, especially after being informed of his rights under our criminal code, including the right to remain silent. Without consulting the intelligence community, the Department of Justice limited the tools used to gather intelligence and potentially prevent future terrorist attacks. The administration is returning to the idea that terrorism can be investigated by the FBI and prosecuted rather than relying on our intelligence community and military to disrupt attacks. The United States should not revert to the days where we waited for an attack to occur, then investigated it and prosecuted it. We must work actively to disrupt terrorist attacks before they take the lives of Americans. We must work actively to deny terrorist safe havens and financing. The most successful way to disrupt and deny terrorist activity is through the intelligence we gather on individuals prior to a criminal or terrorist act occurring or from those individuals after they have made such an attempt. Treating these terrorists as common criminals will put our communities in danger, toll the taxpayers, and cause the government to miss valuable intelligence collection opportunities. For example, bringing the five 9/11 conspirators to New York City is estimated to cost over $200 million per year just in enhanced security. This does not include the cost to millions of New Yorkers and businesses who will have to adjust their way of life to accommodate these trials. Meanwhile, this will allow terrorists to mock our justice system and use it as a stage to espouse their jihadist beliefs and expose our intelligence sources and methods. We have already seen Zacarias Moussaoui use his trial in Virginia to spout al-Qaida propaganda and to try to portray himself as a martyr. Meanwhile, terrorism trials during the 1990s in our criminal courts exposed sensitive and classified information to, among others, Osama bin Laden, including the fact that the U.S. intelligence community was targeting his communications. Let me be clear. These are not common criminals, and they should not be treated as such. The five terrorists responsible for planning and organizing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks--including self- proclaimed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed--should not be entitled to receive the same legal treatment as our Constitution gives to common criminals in this country. These terrorists committed an act of war, an act that led us to an armed conflict in Afghanistan, where, today, more than 8 years later, our troops are still battling al-Qaida. These terrorists should face justice through the military commission process for the atrocities they committed--the same process that had already charged these five terrorists and began over a year ago; the same process that KSM already pleaded guilty under but that the President abolished as soon as he took office. For these reasons, I joined a bipartisan group of Senators, today, in introducing legislation that would prohibit funding for the prosecuting of the 9/11 conspirators in our U.S. criminal article III courts. Under his Constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, along with the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force, the President has the authority--and the responsibility--to detain the 9/11 conspirators and Abdulmutallab because of their actions on behalf of al-Qaida, and to pursue trial by military commission--an option the President determined appropriate for other terrorits, such as Abd al- Rahim al-Nashiri, who was responsible for the USS Cole bombing. Instead, by prosecuting Abdulmutallab and the 9/11 conspirators in criminal court, and Nashiri and others by military commission, it creates the impression that terrorists are rewarded with the full complement of rights and privileges of an American if they attack defenseless civilians at home, but not if they attack our government or military interests abroad. This will only further incentivize terrorists to attack our homeland. As the attempted terrorists attack on Christmas Day illustrates, al- Qaida does not need further incentive to attack America. They are focused on and engaged in harming Americans here and abroad. As such, it is critical that our intelligence community have every opportunity to gain information so we can stay one step ahead of any related terrorists threats. Obtaining intelligence first rather than affording constitutional rights to a foreign terrorist is an obvious solution. Treating members of al-Qaida the same as we treat others captured on the battlefield is another.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to speak about this administration's decision to try the 9/11 conspirators and the Christmas bomber in our civilian criminal justice system. Prosecuting the five 9/11 conspirators currently detained at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, as well as the Christmas bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, in article III criminal court indicates a disturbing tendency by this administration to make terrorism a law enforcement priority rather than an intelligence priority. It a mistake to treat terrorism as a law enforcement problem alone, a mistake that is only compounded by the fact that the intelligence community was not even consulted before they were prevented from gathering any intelligence from Abdulmutallab, a member of a terrorist organization sworn to be at war with America. As the 9/11 Commission found: An unfortunate consequence of this superb investigative and prosecutorial effort was that it created an impression that the law enforcement system was well equipped to cope with terrorism. As we know from an examination of events before 9/11, law enforcement means alone cannot eliminate the threat from al-Qaida. After Abdulmutallab failed to detonate an explosive device on Northwest flight 253, he was taken into custody by law enforcement. Other than the Federal Bureau of Investigation, no member of the intelligence community--in particular, the Central Intelligence Agency--had the opportunity to question Abdulmutallab and gather intelligence. The Department of Justice should have foreseen that a dedicated terrorist, intent on committing suicide and harming Americans, would not be willing to cooperate with U.S. law enforcement, especially after being informed of his rights under our criminal code, including the right to remain silent. Without consulting the intelligence community, the Department of Justice limited the tools used to gather intelligence and potentially prevent future terrorist attacks. The administration is returning to the idea that terrorism can be investigated by the FBI and prosecuted rather than relying on our intelligence community and military to disrupt attacks. The United States should not revert to the days where we waited for an attack to occur, then investigated it and prosecuted it. We must work actively to disrupt terrorist attacks before they take the lives of Americans. We must work actively to deny terrorist safe havens and financing. The most successful way to disrupt and deny terrorist activity is through the intelligence we gather on individuals prior to a criminal or terrorist act occurring or from those individuals after they have made such an attempt. Treating these terrorists as common criminals will put our communities in danger, toll the taxpayers, and cause the government to miss valuable intelligence collection opportunities. For example, bringing the five 9/11 conspirators to New York City is estimated to cost over $200 million per year just in enhanced security. This does not include the cost to millions of New Yorkers and businesses who will have to adjust their way of life to accommodate these trials. Meanwhile, this will allow terrorists to mock our justice system and use it as a stage to espouse their jihadist beliefs and expose our intelligence sources and methods. We have already seen Zacarias Moussaoui use his trial in Virginia to spout al-Qaida propaganda and to try to portray himself as a martyr. Meanwhile, terrorism trials during the 1990s in our criminal courts exposed sensitive and classified information to, among others, Osama bin Laden, including the fact that the U.S. intelligence community was targeting his communications. Let me be clear. These are not common criminals, and they should not be treated as such. The five terrorists responsible for planning and organizing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks--including self- proclaimed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed--should not be entitled to receive the same legal treatment as our Constitution gives to common criminals in this country. These terrorists committed an act of war, an act that led us to an armed conflict in Afghanistan, where, today, more than 8 years later, our troops are still battling al-Qaida. These terrorists should face justice through the military commission process for the atrocities they committed--the same process that had already charged these five terrorists and began over a year ago; the same process that KSM already pleaded guilty under but that the President abolished as soon as he took office. For these reasons, I joined a bipartisan group of Senators, today, in introducing legislation that would prohibit funding for the prosecuting of the 9/11 conspirators in our U.S. criminal article III courts. Under his Constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, along with the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force, the President has the authority--and the responsibility--to detain the 9/11 conspirators and Abdulmutallab because of their actions on behalf of al-Qaida, and to pursue trial by military commission--an option the President determined appropriate for other terrorits, such as Abd al- Rahim al-Nashiri, who was responsible for the USS Cole bombing. Instead, by prosecuting Abdulmutallab and the 9/11 conspirators in criminal court, and Nashiri and others by military commission, it creates the impression that terrorists are rewarded with the full complement of rights and privileges of an American if they attack defenseless civilians at home, but not if they attack our government or military interests abroad. This will only further incentivize terrorists to attack our homeland. As the attempted terrorists attack on Christmas Day illustrates, al- Qaida does not need further incentive to attack America. They are focused on and engaged in harming Americans here and abroad. As such, it is critical that our intelligence community have every opportunity to gain information so we can stay one step ahead of any related terrorists threats. Obtaining intelligence first rather than affording constitutional rights to a foreign terrorist is an obvious solution. Treating members of al-Qaida the same as we treat others captured on the battlefield is another.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, is the Senate still in morning business?