Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, the fact is, that amendment should have passed. It didn't pass. That would have gone a long way toward stabilizing and creating jobs in this market. The third part of this is that we need to be compassionate. We need to extend unemployment benefits. That is an appropriate part of spending but, again, minuscule compared to what is being spent here. This total amount of $789 billion which translates into $1.2 trillion has to be paid back. The Lord has blessed my wife and I with four grandchildren, two of whom we have had for about 10 and 12 years, and two of whom were just born about 60 hours ago. It is those grandchildren of mine and the children and grandchildren of everybody in this Senate and all across America who bear the responsibility of paying this money back. When we spend money, we are obligated to spend it judiciously and responsibly. This expenditure of $1.2 trillion is not going to stimulate this economy, and this bill ought to be defeated. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Do I not have a minute left?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I am sorry, I thought you were going to let me know when I had 1 minute left. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the economic stimulus plan, and I rise in dismay. I am dismayed because we are about to spend $786 billion--or whatever the latest figure is that keeps changing almost by the hour--one of the most expensive bills this or any other Congress has ever seen that will not truly stimulate anything. I am also dismayed that in doing so we are placing an almost insurmountable fiscal yoke across the next generation's shoulders. Yesterday, I became the proud grandfather of two twin granddaughters. It saddens me to know the result of the votes we cast, I assume, tomorrow--and the ultimate cost of this bill-- is going to be borne by those two little girls in their lifetimes and not by my generation in ours. We are saddling this next generation of our children and grandchildren with an unbelievable debt for the purpose of trying to stimulate the economy when, in fact, there is virtually nothing in this bill that truly is going to stimulate the economy in the current crisis we are in. Georgians and Americans are struggling. They need jobs. They need food on the table. They need to be able to go to bed at night knowing, at the very least, they have the blessing of a roof over their heads. But provisions in the bill that could have truly helped Americans, such as a $500-per-worker tax credit, have been so watered down that now the experts say that particular provision is going to provide about $13 more per week in workers' pockets. That is not a stimulus plan. I commend my good friend and my colleague, Senator Isakson from Georgia, who worked to put an idea in this bill, a housing tax credit that we know would have stimulated the economy and revived the plummeting housing market. Now, why are we in this economic crisis we are in today? If you ask any economist to point to one thing that has put us in this crisis, every single one of them--Republican and Democratic economists, conservative and liberal economists, Independent economists--every one of them will tell you the housing crisis is the No. 1 issue that put us into this crisis. Unfortunately, the bill that came out of the House, the bill that originally came out of the Finance Committee in the Senate, contained not one single provision, in either bill, that was focused on addressing this issue of the housing crisis. Under Senator Isakson's proposal that was an amendment to the bill on the floor of the Senate, a $15,000 home buyer tax credit would have been given to anyone who purchased a home during the next year. That would have had a very positive effect on the economy. How do we know that? We know that because Congress passed a similar housing tax credit in 1975, when we were in the midst of another declining housing industry situation in a crisis that was not as severe as this one but still in a crisis. What we found then was that particular provision turned around America's sagging economic fortunes. I know families across the country were waiting for this tax credit to pass. I have heard from Georgians over and over again, over the last several weeks, who are looking for a new home to buy, but they, frankly, have been waiting on the proposal because they have been reading about it. I got a call from a radio talk show host in my home State today who made the statement to me, before we started the interview: Tell me about Senator Isakson's tax credit provision. Where does it stand because I am looking for a home to buy and my realtor called me and said: Look, you can afford to pay a little bit more because here is what is going to be the result of your buying this house: a $15,000 tax credit. Now, with the way this provision has been watered down, it may as well not even be in there. It is unfortunate. This was a bipartisan amendment, an amendment that was talked about on both sides of the aisle by Senators in this Chamber, and was agreed to without even calling for a vote because everybody recognizes the housing sector has to be fixed and that this would play a major role in fixing that sector. All week we have read in the papers and heard from a majority of our colleagues that this bill is a compromise. Well, let me say this: This bill is no compromise. When deals of this magnitude are struck in closed-door, back-room sessions, when the White House talks to this side of the aisle but does not truly listen, you do not have a compromise. It is pretty clear the White House has not listened to this side of the aisle in crafting this final proposal that apparently is in the process of being agreed to. My Republican colleagues have offered proposal after proposal to create jobs, to fix the real crux of our economic troubles--the housing crisis--and to lend a hand to laid-off workers who are suffering through no fault of their own. Instead, we are spending money we do not have on projects or programs that are not needed. What taxpayers are getting instead is a bloated Government giveaway packed with pet projects. Let me say there has been a lot of conversation coming from the White House, as well as on the floor of the Senate, that this bill does not contain earmarks. Well, anybody who says that simply has not read the bill. This bill is packed with as many earmarks as I have seen in any bill that has come into this body in the time I have been here. There is earmark after earmark in here, and we are going to talk some more about that before this bill is voted on, presumably tomorrow. The American people know something needs to be done, and I agree that it does. But this legislation is not what is needed to address the housing crisis, put hard-earned dollars back in our citizens' pockets to spend as they wish, and put Americans back to work. Our side of the aisle offered a very targeted combination of spending and tax reductions in the McCain amendment. A truly bipartisan effort by the majority and the Senate as a whole would have passed that amendment, and we could be headed down the road of reaching a bipartisan agreement on the issue of trying to solve this economic crisis. Unfortunately, that amendment was not agreed to because it was not voted on in a bipartisan way. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today I recognize an exceptional Georgian, COL Eric Boe. Eric grew up in Atlanta and graduated from Henderson High School in Chamblee in 1983. A distinguished graduate with honors from the U.S. Air Force Academy, Eric earned his bachelor of science in astronautical engineering and subsequently a masters of science in electrical engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology. Eric has served his country with distinction. He has been an F-4E pilot, a T-38 instructor pilot, F-15C flight commander, and a test pilot for the F-15 and UH-1N, logging over 4,000 flight hours in 45 different aircraft. Additionally, Eric flew 55 combat missions over Iraq in support of Operation Southern Watch. In 2008, Eric was selected by NASA as a pilot and served in the Astronaut Office Advanced Vehicles Branch, Station Operations Branch, and Space Shuttle Branch as well as the Exploration Branch. In 2005- 2006, Eric served as NASA Director of Operations at the Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center in Star City, Russia. On November 14, 2008, Eric made his first trip to space serving as the pilot on STS-126 Endeavour. The Endeavour launched from NASA's Kennedy Space Center with no delays or issues and docked with the International Space Station on November 16, 2008. The successful 16-day mission, which completed 250 orbits of Earth covering over 6 million miles, expanded the living quarters of the international space station and included four space walks by members of the Endeavour crew. Eric has been recognized with numerous awards and honors. Serving as a Cadet in the Georgia Wing of the Civil Air Patrol, Eric earned the Spaatz Award, the highest award given to Civil Air Patrol cadets. Further, Eric has received various military decorations such as two Meritorious Service Medals, two Air Medals, five Aerial Achievement Medals, the three Air Force Achievement Medals, and the Air Force Commendation Medals, three Outstanding Unit Awards, and the Combat Readiness Medal. I want to acknowledge the achievements of the entire STS-126 Endeavour crew and congratulate them on their successful mission. As a fellow Georgian, I want to especially thank Eric for his outstanding service to our nation as a combat pilot and astronaut. His love of country and dedication are an inspiration, and he is a role model and an example of leadership of which we can all be proud.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise to speak on the stimulus package today. Much has been said on this package that is before us now--in fact, so much that the often employed adage over the weekend was that everything that can be said has been said but not every man has had a chance to say it. While those musings are certainly applicable, it is important to note our debate here is healthy. The perils facing our economy are of the gravest concern and magnitude, which requires a response in kind. When faced with such an undertaking, it is understandable to seek a solution with one voice in the spirit of bipartisanship and compromise. However, when differences arise that are so fundamental, spirited debate and disagreement can pose a healthy return to our purest forms of thought and help to foster basic solutions advocated by a set of guiding principles. The party makeup of the Senate all but confirms passage of this enormous spending bill. Still, I use this time to highlight the most basic differences in beliefs so as to assure the American people that our reason for opposing this bill is not political, is not partisan, but, rather, based on true economic principles. It is a cornerstone of my thinking that the American people deserve and are rightfully entitled to best determine how their own money is spent. While there are most certainly essential Government functions which require funding by the American taxpayer, when faced with a decision as to who can best govern themselves and how to spend their money, I will always side with the taxpayer. As such, I cannot support this spending plan--a plan which not only adds over $1 trillion to our national debt, which would increase our debt ceiling to over $12.1 trillion, but, most importantly, a plan which will do nothing to truly stimulate the economy. Government spending taxpayer dollars on behalf of taxpayers does not grow the economy in the manner which is needed to return strength and stability to our economy. This past month, the unemployment rate hit 7.6 percent. It is higher than that in my home State. Madam President, 598,000 jobs were lost in January 2009, for a total of 11.6 million people unemployed. We must enact policies that create jobs, not simply spend taxpayer dollars, robbing Peter to pay Paul. We must provide incentives to businesses to hire, expand, and grow. This bill does none of that. Unfortunately, this Democratic spending bill will cost the American taxpayer more of the money they so desperately need to be allowed to keep. Moreover, it simply does not do enough to address the crux of the problems facing our economy, which is the housing industry. In fact, the original bill that came out of the Finance Committee did not contain one single provision that addressed the housing crisis. Thank goodness we have an amendment that seeks to address it, but more must be done. Housing problems got us into this mess, and solutions targeted toward housing will help get us out. It is imperative that we work toward narrowing the gap between supply and demand of houses. As long as supply remains at its current level as related to demand, home values will continue to drop and our economy will continue its downward spiral. With this plan, the Democrats are saying they believe the Government can spend its way out of our current economic perils by spending the taxpayers' money for them. There is nothing wholeheartedly I disagree with more. The Government must not act as the purchaser and spender of last resort. Government intervention into private markets and imposition into citizens' pocketbooks does more harm than good. They attack the solutions we have offered as financially imprudent yet advocate a spending plan which spends more money than the entire economy of Australia. But as I began, at the heart of this debate, the numbers here are not as important as is the difference in fundamental economic principles. This spending package only succeeds in doing two things: expanding permanently the size of Government and saddling the taxpayer with the cost and requiring our children to repay the debt. If we reduce the size of Government, limit its impositions into the free market, and allow the private sector to prosper where the Federal Government has staked a claim, businesses will grow, creating more jobs, injecting more capital into the economy. But a piecemeal compromise such as this proposal serves only to dilute the framework needed to allow our economy to return to prosperity. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise in support of the McCain amendment and in opposition to the underlying bill. I was listening to my friend from New York talk about the housing amendment that Senator Ensign has offered, and he now speaks in opposition to that, but he supports a proposal that is coming from the administration next week that aims to try and fix the housing issue. I ask my friend from New York, where was he last week when, as a member of the Finance Committee, he voted out the underlying bill that does absolutely nothing to fix the housing issue? What got us into the economic downturn we are in today is the housing crisis that got worse and worse and continues to get worse every day. What they are now talking about doing from the Democratic side is proposing a housing fix next week, and the details of which are not known by anybody. They are also saying that we need to spend $800 billion, $900 billion, whatever the size of this bill is now, and we need to spend the $500 or so billion dollars that Secretary Geithner is going to come for relative to TARP III, plus whatever hundreds of billions of dollars are relative to the housing fix, plus the trillion dollars in the omnibus bill, which is laying out there, that we understand has already been approved and is going to be coming forward. The American people ask one simple question: When is all of this spending going to stop? We have had many worthy amendments to this underlying bill. I commend the majority leader for allowing both sides to bring forward amendments. The problem is, as these amendments have come forward, the size of the bill has grown. That is the problem. The problem is, we are now seeing both sides of the aisle come forward with amendments that operate on a top-down basis, where we have the base bill that spent some $919 or $920 billion. The numbers are so astronomical we tend to forget, but it is right at $1 trillion. The amendments are seeking to reduce that number. Rather than doing that, which is a poor way to do business, the McCain amendment is a substitute for that base bill. It is a bottom-up approach to try to fix the crisis. It does so with three simple components. First, the housing issue is what got us into this crisis. Unless we fix the housing issue, all of this $1 trillion the folks on the other side of the aisle are proposing to spend will be spent for naught. In the McCain amendment, we directly address the housing issue. The Isakson amendment is in there. There are other provisions relative to housing that are going to allow this market to turn itself around and the free market to operate. If we clear out this inventory of foreclosed homes as well as incentivize the purchase of other new homes, housing construction can begin once again. Second, the McCain amendment is going to increase jobs. It is going to do so in a direct way. It will increase jobs by reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. There will be more money in the pockets of corporations so they can expand their businesses, which will automatically create jobs. Again, there is nothing in the underlying bill that directly focuses on increasing jobs. The other thing from a tax standpoint in the McCain amendment, which is going to go toward stimulating the confidence of people as well as the market itself, is the temporary elimination of payroll taxes so that when every hard-working American gets their paycheck-- whether it is weekly, biweekly, or monthly--it will be bigger. They will have more money in their pockets, which we know that they so desperately need. Thirdly, there is a compassionate part to this bill. There is a large number of Americans out there today who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. They are hard-working men and women who were doing a good job but, because of this crisis, they have lost their jobs. They need help, and they are looking to the Federal Government. There is an extension of unemployment benefits in the McCain amendment. That is the right thing to do. Lastly, as we have talked about this bill, there is one issue that has not been talked about, one issue that has not been mentioned by the folks on the other side, and that is, here we are, once again, after raising the debt ceiling in recent months, once again we are seeing the debt ceiling raised by almost a $1 trillion. What are we going to do next week when the Treasury Secretary's proposal comes down on TARP III and on housing which the Senator from New York mentioned? What are we going to do when the Omnibus appropriations bill comes down, either before the break for President's Day or afterwards? Will we have to raise the debt ceiling once again? I go back to the question I asked at the start, which I hear time and time again from people in Georgia: Senator, when is the spending going to stop and there be some focus on trying to make sure we grow jobs as well as fix the housing issue? I urge passage of the McCain amendment and opposition to the underlying bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. May I ask how much time remains?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak after whoever speaks on that side, after the next Democrat speaks.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Well, no, Mr. President. First up is Senator Thune. Mr. President, if the Chair could tell us--I believe Senator Thune is going now, then a speaker on the other side, and then I will go after that speaker.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, does the Senator from Illinois wish to speak after Senator Thune?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I will go with that.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the economic stimulus package. First of all, my friend from South Carolina has raised so many valid points in his discussion. I know he has an amendment that is primarily focused on reduction of taxes to stimulate this economy, create jobs, and put more money into people's pockets. I concur with him 100 percent that this is the direction in which we need to go. I look forward to further debate on his amendment and seeing his amendment reach the floor. This stimulus package we are now debating gets more expensive and, frankly, less stimulating with every passing day. The Democrat's plan is not a job creating bill. Plain and simple, in its current form it is a spending bill. We have been going through a number of amendments over the last several days and I am pleased to see that some of those amendments have had success. I think the bill looks somewhat better, but we still have a long way to go. This bill should not be about pet projects. Instead of wasting $600 million, for example, of hard-earned taxpayer money for new cars for the Federal Government or $650 million for a failed digital TV transition program or even $120 million for the Census Bureau to hire personnel who specialize in ``partnerships,'' we should be spending Americans' money on creating jobs for Americans. These jobs should allow Americans to go out and buy new cars themselves and thereby stimulate and energize a very struggling automobile industry. This bill should put money in the pockets of individuals who can buy new TVs instead of having to worry about the digital transmission issue covered in this particular proposal. I have been in discussions with Senators McCain, Martinez, and others. We are in the process of finalizing an amendment that will be a substitute for the base bill that does exactly that--focus on creating jobs and stimulating the economy. Any package that is intended to focus on strengthening our economy should focus on three things and three things only: First of all, job creation. Despite an injection of hundreds of billions of dollars into our banking system, the credit markets remain frozen. A lack of both confidence in the market and credible borrowers are precluding our credit markets from thawing and freeing much needed capital. Along with the current dual track of the TARP program, we can loosen this tight grip on capital is through job creation. We must incentivize the creation of new jobs through favorable tax treatment of businesses and individuals. My friend from South Carolina mentioned an issue we are going to have in our amendment that is very critical, I think, to the long-term corporate structure in America. A solution that really will provide for the creation of jobs is the reduction of the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. What are we doing about charging corporations that amount of money? What we are doing is exporting jobs out of America. I talked to one of the leading economists in the country this morning who happens to be a resident of my State and is somebody whom I look to for guidance from time to time. I asked him, ``If you could point to anything that would create jobs in America, what would the first thing be?'' He immediately said, ``Cutting the corporate tax rate.'' He said it is ridiculous what we do and that what we are going to hear from folks on the other side is that what we are doing by cutting the corporate tax rate is looking after the big corporations. The fact is, according to this renowned economist, the big corporations don't pay that 35 percent anyway. It is the guys on Main Street, the insurance agencies in my home State, the veterinary hospitals down the street, and all the other small businesses that are, in fact, paying that 35 percent. It is our small manufacturers that depend on export markets to be competitive that are having to pay that 35 percent. If we reduce the corporate tax on those entities, then we are going to have the potential and the reality of creating jobs in this country. We also need to put more money in the pockets of individuals. One way we can do that, which we are going to have in our amendment, is by the reduction of payroll taxes. That will put a bigger paycheck into the pockets of every hard- working American every single week; make no mistake about it. We have to look at spending measures that will have an immediate stimulative effect on our economy. Military and highway construction can provide jobs in the immediate future and put stability and confidence back in the marketplace and start people spending their paychecks again. There is no better way to put money into the manufacturing sector tomorrow than by putting money into defense contracting if it's done in the right and responsible way. We need to increase defense spending and make sure America remains safe and secure. Yet there is nothing in the base bill that the Democrats have offered that will increase pure defense spending. In addition to job creation, second, we have to focus on housing. The housing crisis is what got us into this real financial mess that we are in today. I don't care what we do with respect to trying to spend or tax our way out of this; unless we fix the housing sector in this country, we are never going to recover from the economic crisis we are seeing today. How do we do that? Again, you will see measures that have already been discussed in the form of amendments over the next couple of days-- amendments such as that from my colleague and friend, Senator Isakson, to provide a $15,000 tax credit to anyone who buys a house between January 1 and December 31. Measures that are outside-the-box thinking such as the one by the Senator from Nevada that proposes to provide long-term, low-interest loans for individuals seeking to either purchase a home or to refinance a home, where if they are not able to do this, they will be subject to foreclosure. So it is these types of housing measures and provisions that will allow us to stimulate the housing sector and try to get that portion of our economy back on track. Third, in addition to the job creation and housing, we have to focus on compassion for folks who have lost jobs during these tough times, through no fault of their own. In my State, we have had 2 weeks of major announcements of job losses. It is simply due to the fact that these corporations are having to develop cost-cutting measures that will improve their bottom line because their sales are down significantly. Their workers are quality workers and they would like to keep them on, but they simply cannot afford it. They have to find cost- cutting measures. So when you find folks such as that who are in need of assistance, we have an obligation, I think, to provide some relief to them. It is important that we prevent the bottom from getting deeper. We need to work to assist those who have fallen as a result of this spiraling economy and not from irresponsible fiscal decisions. We must act to expand protections to serve as a compassionate step toward regrowth of our economy, a restrengthening in our markets, and a return to fiscal security. All these provisions are going to be included, along with others, in the substitute amendment that will be forthcoming either tonight or tomorrow. We must be clear--job creation doesn't mean ``Buy American.'' In tough economic times, it is all too easy to turn inward, to want to build protectionist walls around America. Nobody believes in buying American more than I do, but it is not the time to pretend our economy knows only the bounds of our borders. I say this as someone who represents a State with a strong manufacturing sector. We live in an interconnected, global economy, where most manufactured products have at least one component not made in America. ``Buy American'' is the quickest way to export American jobs. The biggest problem I see with the current proposal that is under debate, which came out of the Finance Committee from the Democratic side, is that we are now having to approach that bill in a top-down way. In other words, we are having to take the bill as it is and have amendments forthcoming that seek to strip out provisions in there that are not stimulating. These are the pet projects for individuals in this body, projects that will do nothing but take money out of taxpayers' pockets. What we should do is develop a system directed toward this crisis that is a bottom-up review and a bottom-up attack on this financial crisis. We can do that basically by scrapping the current bill and starting over again. It is not that complicated to do. I hope, at the end of the day, that this is the approach we will ultimately take. It is not just this trillion dollar spending package we are looking at in the Senate; we have to be responsible as we move forward because there are other bills that are coming right behind this one. There is a TARP III, which we understand will be laid on the table within the next few days. We have heard numbers as high as another half trillion dollars that may be asked for in TARP III, and that may not be the end of the road there. There is also an Omnibus bill that I understand has already been put together that spends $1 trillion of taxpayers' money. One of my constituents said to me the other day, ``We used to talk in terms of a million. Then we got to where we talk in terms of a billion. Now you folks are talking in terms of a trillion. What comes after a trillion?'' That is a pretty tough question to answer, but we are fast getting there. We as policymakers in the Senate have to be responsible with the taxpayers' money. Sure, we want to do everything we can from a policy standpoint to stimulate America out of this economic crisis. But spending our way out of this situation is not the answer. That is why I hope we can review where we are with this current proposal, and instead of having a top-down review of it, look at it in more positive terms and have a bottom-up review. Let's start over again with the basics. We should start with the housing sector and figure out how to fix it. If there are other ideas out there than what has already been talked about, let's put them on the table and figure it out. Secondly, let's look at how we are going to create jobs. We simply know by spending money that we are not going to create or maintain jobs. There are a lot of smart people in this body. Let's figure out the best solution. Lastly, let's be compassionate. We need to make sure Americans are taken care of when they have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see the Senator from Rhode Island is here. I assume going back and forth he would be next.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise to discuss my support for Eric Holder's nomination. When Mr. Holder was first nominated I had serious concerns--concerns about his stance on the second amendment, which is important to me and so many Georgians I represent, concerns about the potential prosecution of those who interrogated detainees in accordance with legal opinions issued by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, and concerns about his role as Deputy Attorney General in some of President Clinton's pardons. I had a long discussion with Mr. Holder last week and we talked extensively about the concerns that I had and that I know many of my constituents have. After our conversation, I was convinced that he will competently serve as our next Attorney General, and will keep the best interests of the American people in mind. With respect to the second amendment, Mr. Holder recognizes the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, holding the second amendment to be an individual right, to be the law of the land. With respect to former interrogators, he recognized that it does not make sense to prosecute those clearly acting under the authority of the Office of Legal Counsel. Finally, with respect to his role in President Clinton's pardoning of Marc Rich, Mr. Holder fully recognized his mistakes and stated if he had to do it again, he would have done things differently. I believe he will take that learning experience with him into his role as Attorney General. Finally, Mr. Holder has been unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate on three separate occasions. He was praised by a Georgian and former Attorney General, Griffin Bell, who recently passed away and for whom I had the utmost respect. President Obama deserves great deference in filling out his Cabinet positions, and because of the very candid conversation I had with Mr. Holder, and my belief that he is up for the task before him, I am pleased to support his nomination.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise today to speak on President Obama's nomination of Timothy Geithner to serve in his Cabinet as Secretary of the Treasury. Over the weeks since Mr. Geithner has been nominated, I followed closely the information regarding his background reviewed and discussed by members of the Senate Finance Committee. Additionally, I have been hearing from Georgians who are seriously concerned with the failure of Mr. Geithner to properly pay his taxes. In this time--a time of such economic volatility and severe fiscal challenges the likes of which we, as a nation, have not seen in decades--there is no more important official or role in our Government other than the President himself and the Secretary of the Treasury. Furthermore, while facing these challenges, something our economy needs now is confidence in our leaders and in Government. With the critical nature of the job, with the authority over the Internal Revenue Service, payment of necessary taxes in the required time parameters is essential. I have listened to some of my colleagues who have indicated that but for these extraordinary economic times, they would find Mr. Geithner's mistakes disqualifying of his nomination. I believe extraordinary times call for extraordinary leaders, leaders who inspire and hold the confidence of the American people, a Secretary who must set the highest standard for the employees of the Department of Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service. For example, taken to its logical conclusion, taxpayers must know that the Internal Revenue agent with whom they are meeting has paid his or her appropriate taxes and that the agent's, ultimately, departmental superior, the Secretary, has paid his taxes fully and on time. A week ago today, last Monday, I was coming through the Atlanta airport, and a gentleman walked up to me and introduced himself. He said: I am a retired Internal Revenue Service employee who was going to send you an e-mail today, and you saved me from having to send you that e-mail. During my tenure at the Internal Revenue Service, I was called upon to fire three separate people who committed exactly the same offense as Mr. Geithner committed. This is not a criminal offense, but there are certain standards that must be adhered to. I know Mr. Geithner is extremely qualified. He is bright. I don't know what kind of replacement the President may come up with in lieu of Mr. Geithner. But at this point in our history, at this point as we change administrations and the people are looking to Washington for some clear and distinct evidence that things are going to be different, here we are making an exception to the rule. I simply think it is not the time to make that exception. Last, I would say that this weekend I spent part of my time filling out IRS documents relative to an employee on whom I have paid taxes for years and years. Every year at this time, I fill out a schedule H, and I also fill out a W-2 form for that employee. I pay the taxes on that employee. I am getting ready to pay them as soon as I file my tax return, exactly as I have done for decades. That is the law. That is what we are required to do. When we ask the people in this country to write that check on April 15 every year, a lot of them do not like to do it, but they do it. We need for them to know that the leadership at the Department of Treasury is called upon and does act exactly the way they have to act. Needless to say, it is troubling to me that only after Mr. Geithner was nominated to this post did he realize his failure to pay his taxes while employed at the International Monetary Fund. I, therefore, am standing here today to say that I am going to vote against this confirmation. Whether he is confirmed or not, I hope the President looks very closely at future nominees whom he sends to the Senate and insists that all of the individuals who are nominated comply with appropriate laws that they know exist. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the distinguished Senator from Wyoming for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the Lilly Ledbetter bill. I oppose, just like everybody else, discrimination in the workplace, and I believe any worker who experiences discrimination should have their claim handled in a fair and timely way. But I would like to reiterate what several of my colleagues have already mentioned, which is that discrimination in the workplace has been outlawed since 1963. This legislation, S. 181, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, did not go through the normal process. I think the Senator from Wyoming has just said that the issue we are talking about now is that this amendment might have clarified something that is not clear in the bill had it gone through the regular process. This bill is not about supporting or opposing discrimination. This debate is strictly focused on when the statute of limitations on pay discrimination suits should begin. As a first-year law student, you learn the critical importance of the statute of limitations in our judicial system. Our judicial system is the envy of the free world, and one of the basic fundamental rights or issues involved in our judicial system is the accruing of a right and a point in time when that right dissipates. That is what we call the statute of limitations, and it truly is fundamental and should not be tinkered with in any way whatsoever. What this bill would do would be to undermine fair and timely resolution of employment discrimination allegations. We are facing difficult economic times today. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, 984 Georgians lost their jobs last week. This bill, should it become law, will have a devastating financial impact on already hindered employers and business owners. Businesses around the country are on the defense. They need more incentives to hire and retain employees. What this will do is to create incentives to take money that would ordinarily be used to either increase pay or to hire more employees and put that money aside because at some point in time they are going to have to defend litigation as a result of this piece of legislation. I believe the legislation would undermine the fair and timely resolution of employment discrimination suits. I strongly support the amendment of my colleague, Senator Isakson. His amendment would make the legislation, should it pass, prospective only and would deny any rights on a retroactive basis. If we go to making bills such as this retroactive, what will we do to the business community? I also rise in support of the amendment of Senator Enzi. What it says is that an action accrues only to an affected employee. Those two amendments are commonsense amendments. Anybody who has ever been in the business world and who has hired employees knows and understands that there are certain guarantees you have to have if you are going to be successful in the business world. One of them is to know your exposure to litigation. What we are looking at here, unless the Isakson amendment is adopted, is that people who have been operating their businesses for years, in a way that they thought limited their exposure, all of a sudden may be exposed to what will amount to frivolous lawsuits that can be filed against them. Again, the Enzi amendment makes such common sense that oftentimes people in this town have a difficult time understanding it. As I have heard the Senator from Maryland discuss this issue a minute ago, I think we agree that only ``affected'' employees are covered by this, and we ought to clarify that. I think Senator Enzi's amendment does that, and therefore I am in strong support of his amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise in support of the motion to disapprove the expenditure of the additional $350 billion. I am one who supported the original package back in September. I thought it was the right thing to do then. I still think it was the right thing to do at that point in time. The reason I thought so then and still think so is that we are certainly in a financial crunch. We were presented with a plan by the Treasury Department that laid out what we were going to do with this $350 billion that was the initial amount authorized to be accessed, that that $350 billion would move us in a direction of loosening the contraction of the credit markets around the country so that banks could borrow money in the credit market from each other, and they would thus have money to loan out to businesses as well as to individuals. The fact is that the Treasury Department, after telling us the plan they proposed to operate to do that, moved in a different direction and moved in a direction of providing funding from this initial $250 billion and now the second $100 billion to fund banks, to provide capital to banks that was supposed to be used to buy toxic loans, not from individual banks but to buy toxic loans that were packaged at banks because they bought the banks. The fact is, it didn't work. It has not worked at all. We have not seen a loosening of the contraction of this credit market. For us to come in today and be faced with a vote here today in the short term relative to accessing the second half of the $700 billion without having a plan that we have some assurance is going to work I believe is the wrong direction to go. Not only that, but as a part of the original $350 billion, there was some $20 billion or so that was accessed and given to the automobile industry, either through direct funding to automobile companies that are domestic companies that are in trouble as well as funding that went to GMAC, a financial arm of the automobile industry. That was never intended when we debated and voted on the original plan back in September of this year. As my friend from Kansas said, it needs to be a written plan that is thoroughly thought through by folks who are certainly smarter than I am on this issue, and it needs to be in place before we take taxpayer money and expose it. I use that term because I still think, on the first $350 billion, we have the opportunity to be paid back, but it is exposed. But for us to further expose an additional $350 billion without some strong assurance that we will get repaid this money and, most importantly, unless we have some plan that gives us, while not a guarantee, a strong indication that accessing that additional $350 billion will move us toward resolution of this crisis and a loosening up of the credit market, I just think is the wrong direction in which to go. Because of that, I intend to vote in favor of this motion and in opposition to accessing that second $350 billion. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 3 minutes.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a long-time, good friend and a great Georgian, Griffin Bell, who passed away on Monday of this week. Judge Griffin Bell was a native of America's Georgia. He was a distinguished lawyer in our State since 1947, when he passed the Georgia bar after completing just four quarters of study in his beloved Mercer Law School in Macon, GA. Upon graduation the following year, he entered private practice in Savannah. Appointed by President John Kennedy to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Attorney General of the United States under President Jimmy Carter, and as an attorney for President George H.W. Bush, Judge Bell has left an extraordinary legacy of courage, integrity, wisdom, and, yes, humor to our Nation and to my State. In one of the press reports this week, upon Judge Bell's death at the age of 90, one of his law partners, Richard Schneider at the distinguished Atlanta firm of King & Spalding, where Judge Bell practiced before and after his service on the Federal bench and as Attorney General, said: No novelist, not even Dickens or John Irving, could have created a more memorable character than Judge Bell. He took the role of being a lawyer and transformed it into a legend. It is remarkable that every man and woman who spent even a brief period with Judge Bell would cling to him and claim him as their hero forever. That is how legends are made and legends last forever. That will be the case with the great Griffin Bell. I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Newnan Times- Herald, in which the Schneider comments appear, be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. When leaving the Fifth Circuit, Judge Bell returned to King and Spalding and distinguished himself as one of the country's premier lawyers. In closing, as I have paid tribute to his distinguished career, I wish to take a moment to pay tribute to this wonderful gentleman and friend. As a lawyer, I learned so much from him about the practice of law. As a Congressman and Senator, I learned so much about politics and public service. As a friend, I enjoyed our visits and conversations. His keen sense of humor has been compared to Mark Twain. As my good friend, Bob Steed--Georgia's very own ``Mark Twain''; a real humorist, columnist, and long-time law partner of Judge Bell--said this week of his wisdom and wit: If he took a position, he'd take it strongly and defend it. But if someone improved it, he was willing to give way. His ego didn't get involved with choices . . . He was sharp to the very end. He told his son that there must be a committee in heaven in charge of dying, because it was taking so long. That was Judge Bell. Griffin Bell changed the course of the history of our country. As a judge on the Fifth Circuit, his decisions regarding integration of school systems in Georgia and across the South were a model for integration throughout the Nation. In his role as Attorney General, he did much to restore the public's trust in the Department of Justice. He was a close personal friend of mine, and this is not only a national loss but a personal one as well. Mr. President, I have before me a commencement speech that he gave at Mercer University Law School in 2002. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I remember the day very well when Judge Bell gave that commencement speech at Mercer Law School because that day his grandson Griffin, III graduated from Mercer Law School, and my son Bo graduated from Mercer that same day. I was privileged not only to be there to see my son graduate from law school but also to share the dais with Judge Bell and to introduce Judge Bell to make that commencement address. He was a great American. He was a great Georgian. He was a terrific lawyer with unparalleled credentials, unparalleled integrity, and someone who is going to be missed by our State and by our country. (Ms. KLOBUCHAR assumed the chair.)

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I also wish to discuss the security in the Middle East and to offer my support for Israel. Israel is an important foundation of stability and democracy in the Middle East. The resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is important not only to the peace and security of the Middle East but also to the rest of the world. The United States and Israel share common principles and a strong commitment to eradicate terrorism and to secure a better future for the world. Israel has been a steadfast ally of the United States and, I assure you, the United States will stand ready to assist our friends, the Israelis, to promote peace, defeat terrorism, and prevent hostile countries that sponsor terrorism from obtaining nuclear weapons. With hopes for peace and a two-state solution, Israel evacuated all of its citizens and soldiers from Gaza in 2005, including the uprooting of homes, schools, and places of worship. Unfortunately and regrettably, following these actions, the Palestinians failed to develop fully the Gaza Strip and voted into power Hamas, a terrorist organization supported by Iran and whose true objective is to eradicate the state of Israel. Following years where terror groups in Gaza launched rockets at Israel, targeting the Israeli civilian population, it became clear that it was time for action. After Hamas failed to renew its self-imposed cease-fire--one it, frankly, never enforced fully--Israel was forced to take appropriate action to protect her citizens. To that end, Israel has responded appropriately. The United States-Israel alliance remains more critical than ever as Israel defends her people and works to end the threat posed from terrorist groups on its borders. The United States and Israel face an unprecedented array of shared threats--from Iran developing a nuclear program with unclear intentions and a clear track record of deceit, to the expanding military capabilities of terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which are supported by Iran--and security and stability in the Middle East, especially for our ally Israel, has never been more precarious. I do hope this conflict will soon come to a peaceful conclusion. Nevertheless--and let me be clear--Israel has every right to defend its citizens while taking precautions, to the extent possible, to spare the civilian population in Gaza and reduce collateral damage. I urge the people of Gaza to reject Hamas and surrender the terrorists' rockets in the most expedient manner to facilitate ending this necessary action by Israel. Israel remains committed to peace talks with the Palestinian Authority, despite Hamas's constant bombardment of Israel and its ineffective control over the Gaza Strip. In order to improve the prospects for successful and lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, it is necessary for all Palestinians to work toward a solution. This cannot be done while Hamas is allowed to rain terror into southern Israel. I encourage the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank to form a legitimate and authoritative body which can speak for all of Palestine, effectuate change, and exercise control over terrorists who reside in their territory. I commend President Abbas for taking part in the international discussions about the situation in Gaza. I support the necessary requirements of any cease-fire which Secretary Rice discussed before the United Nations. Hamas must end the rocket, mortar, and other attacks on Israel, and Israel can then cease its military offensive and reopen Gaza's border crossings so that Palestinians can benefit from humanitarian goods and basic supplies. Most importantly, the smuggling of weapons into Gaza through hundreds of illegal tunnels must end. The Arab states in the region, especially Egypt, should be a part of this process, and I encourage the Palestinians to seek their guidance and support, and in return for them to offer guidance and political and financial support. Madam President, with that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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