Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to my good friend Colonel Lewis Minor Stewart, U.S. Army, Retired. Lewis passed away on July 18, 2009. He was a personal friend and, along with his family, I mourn his passing. Lewis was born on June 13, 1918, and raised in Marion, AL. He graduated from the Marion Military Institute and attended the University of Alabama School of Law. In 1941, Lewis joined the Army. He was a proud solider whose tours during World War II included fighting with the 261st Infantry, 65th Division, landing in LeHarve, France, and ending the war in Austria. Lewis went on to serve as regimental staff officer and then the commander of 24th Squadron, 4th Constabulary Regiment in Lenz, Austria, during the tensions of the Berlin airlift. He also served 16 months in Korea during the early occupation. He was awarded several prestigious honors including the Legion of Merit, Bronze Star with Oak Leaf Cluster, Combat Infantry Badge, Expert Infantry Badge, Army Commendation Medal, Army of Occupation Medal, World War II Medal, American Campaign Ribbon, National Defense Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, Korean Service Medal, Korean Conflict Ribbon, and the Middle Eastern Campaign Ribbon. Lewis was also selected for the Infantry OCS Hall of Fame for obtaining field grade rank starting from the rank of private. After a distinguished military career, in 1972 Lewis retired at the rank of colonel from the Army. Following his retirement, Lewis returned to Marion and remained very active in the community. He served as administrator for the local Public Housing Authority, formed Stewart Real Estate, rehabilitated two historic homes and a Marion commercial building, served as director of special services for the district attorney, 4th Judicial Circuit, AL. He was also deeply involved in the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Perry County Historical Society, and the Lions Club. As an active member of St. Wilfred's Episcopal Church, Lewis served as senior warden of the Vestry and led the revival of the church's historic cemetery. Lewis is loved and will be missed by his two sons Lewis Minor Stewart, Jr. and SG Matthew Rebel Stewart, U.S. Army, Retired, as well as his four grandchildren, three great-grandchildren, and two sisters. Lewis was an inspiration to many and will be remembered as an outstanding husband, father, soldier, churchman, community contributor, friend, and leader. I ask the entire Senate to join me in recognizing and honoring the life of my great friend, Lewis Minor Stewart.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to William Utsey, who passed away on July 18, 2009. A highly successful attorney, William Utsey was a personal friend and along, with his friends and family, I mourn his passing. William was born on October 28, 1939, in Gilbertown, AL. He graduated from the University of Southern Mississippi in 1962 and received his J.D. from the University of Alabama School of Law. In 1965, William was admitted to the Alabama State Bar. He began his legal career serving as a clerk and later as an attorney with the firm of Clement, Rosen, Hubbard, and Waldrop in Tuscaloosa. After practicing law for 5 years in Huntsville, William returned to his home in Choctaw County to embark as a solo practitioner. At the time of his death, William was the senior partner of Utsey and Utsey where he practiced with his son. William's fondness of the legal profession extended well past his private practice. He served as president of the Choctaw County Bar Association and the Alabama Association for Justice. In addition, William held memberships to the Alabama State Bar Association, the First Judicial Circuit Bar Association, and the Alabama Trial Lawyers Association. Most people in west Alabama know William for his many contributions to the Democratic Party in west Alabama. For 20 years, William served as chairman of the Choctaw County Democratic Executive Committee. I knew William to be honest, hard-working, and committed to his family and to the people of Choctaw County. William is loved and will be missed by his wife Treobye Britton Utsey; his sons William Jacob Utsey and John Jefferson Utsey; his daughter Elizabeth Utsey Sadler; and nine grandchildren. I ask the entire Senate to join me in recognizing and honoring the life of William Utsey.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I rise with concern regarding the nomination of Mr. Robert Groves to serve as Director of the Census. I have some of the same concerns my colleague from Louisiana has. Conducting the census is a vital constitutional obligation. Under the U.S. Constitution, the country conducts a census every 10 years to determine apportionment to Congress. Article I, section 2 of the Constitution mandates ``enumeration'' to determine the allocation of seats for each State in the U.S. House of Representatives, as the Chair well knows. By extension, the census also determines the composition of the electoral college which chooses the President of the United States. The information collected from the census has a significant impact on the distribution of political power in this country. The results of this process are a major factor in deciding where congressional district lines are drawn within each State. Through redistricting, political parties can maximize their own party's clout, while minimizing the opposition. If the census were politicized, the party in control could arguably perpetuate its hold on political power. The results of the census are also enormously important in another way--the allocation of Federal funds. Theoretically, if the census were to become politicized, the political party controlling the census process could disproportionately steer Federal funding to areas dominated by its own Members through a skewing of census numbers. This could shift billions of Federal dollars for roads, schools, and hospitals over the next 10 years from some parts of the country to others because of the population-driven financing formula. The census is vastly important and must proceed in as reliable and accurate a manner as possible. On March 20 of this year, I wrote to President Obama regarding reports that the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now known as ACORN--that is what they go by--has signed as a national partner with the U.S. Census Bureau to assist with recruiting temporary census workers. I wish to say this again because it was disturbing to me: On March 20, I wrote to President Obama regarding reports that the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now--ACORN--had signed as a national partner with the U.S. Census Bureau to assist the census with recruiting temporary Census workers. That letter remains unanswered. I cannot support the nomination of Mr. Groves when the administration he works for would partner with such a questionable organization as ACORN. Further, I am dismayed that Mr. Groves, the nominee to head the U.S. Census Bureau, would not denounce ACORN's role in the census. Let me tell my colleagues a little about ACORN, as I understand it. ACORN has had numerous allegations of fraud which should raise great concern about the accuracy of the data it would provide to the census. For example, Washington State filed felony charges in 2007 against several paid ACORN employees and supervisors for falsifying 1,700 fraudulent voter registration cards. An ACORN worker in the State of Pennsylvania was sentenced in 2008 for fabricating 29 falsified voter registration forms. In Ohio, in 2004, a worker for one affiliate of ACORN was given crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underaged as well as dead voters. ACORN has been implicated in similar voter registration schemes around the country, and its activities were frequently questioned throughout the 2008 Presidential election. I believe the census must be nonpartisan. It must be totally above reproach. It must be honest. We cannot allow a biased, politically active organization to take any type of official role in the process, let alone recruit workers for the census. While overcounting here and undercounting there, manipulation could take place solely for political gain. Using ACORN to mobilize hundreds of thousands of temporary workers can surely lead to abuses for those who want to gain political advantage, as we saw with the voter registration issues in past elections. The laws that govern voter fraud were not enough to dissuade those with the intent to throw an election. It is doubtful the laws governing fraud in the census will be any more effective against such deceitful intents. The people of this Nation deserve a census that is conducted in a fair and accurate manner, using the best methods to determine the outcome, and that is free from political tampering. Given ACORN's history and political connections, the U.S. Census Bureau should not partner with an organization that has systemic problems with both accuracy and legitimacy. While I cannot support Mr. Groves' nomination, I hope he will carefully review this issue and terminate ACORN's role in the 2010 census. It would be a big first step for him. We must not let the census become a blatant political tool in this country.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. A the Senator knows, credit card issuers often offer so- called ``deferred interest'' programs for the benefit of cardholders. To my knowledge, the legislation would not affect the ability to offer these types of programs, is that the Senator's understanding?

Mr. SHELBY. Would the Senator from Connecticut yield to me for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy?

Mr. SHELBY. I appreciate that. For purposes of clarifying the intent of this legislation, I would like to ask an additional question. The legislation includes provisions to prohibit a balance calculation method known as ``two-cycle'' billing. This provision would have the effect of prohibiting the card issuer from assessing interest on balances from the immediately preceding billing cycle as a result of a loss of a grace period. Is it the Senator's understanding that this provision would not affect a credit card issuer's ability to offer deferred interest programs?

Mr. SHELBY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, renditions and interrogations were carried out on Attorney General Holder's watch, when he was the Deputy Attorney General. I have serious concerns that the Attorney General could eventually be leading investigations and prosecutions against U.S. officials who carried out the very same actions he approved during his time as Deputy Attorney General. Yet the Executive orders failed to include any investigation of his role in approving renditions of detainees and terrorists that occurred during his previous tenure at the Justice Department. To go back in time, the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center occurred on February 26, 1993. We later saw the bombings of the USS Cole, the embassies in Africa, and Khobar Towers take place before the second attack on the World Trade Center. Many of the terrorists who committed these acts were trained in the very same camps as the terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay. When I asked the Attorney General if the Government had the legal authority to admit someone who had received terrorist training into the United States, he would not answer the question directly. He indicated he would not release anyone who he thought was a terrorist in the United States--who he thought. All of the detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, I believe, are terrorists. Does anyone but the administration and the Attorney General believe anything to the contrary? I think it is misguided to close a facility housing terrorists when there is no plan. All of the prisoners housed at Guantanamo Bay are terrorists. Terrorists attacked our Nation and killed our citizens and pose a threat still today to our national security. We should not, I believe, let this Attorney General or anyone else brand these terrorists as victims worthy of living in the United States of America, nor should we follow the plans of the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, who suggested that terrorists be provided with a taxpayer-funded subsidy to establish a new life here in America. Until we are clear about Attorney General Holder's role in renditions and interrogations prior to 9/11, and what this administration is proposing to do with these terrorists once Guantanamo is closed, I believe it is premature to provide this funding. I again commend the chairman for his actions today and I believe the Senate is on the right track. I hope we stay there. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to support and thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the Senator from Hawaii, for his amendment to strike the Guantanamo Bay funding in the supplemental bill before us. Last week in the Appropriations Committee which he chairs, I raised this issue at the markup with the intent to strike the funding for the Department of Justice. At the behest of the chairman and ranking member, I did not offer the amendment which I intended to offer today. This supplemental, as reported out of the Appropriations Committee, fulfilled the Department of Justice request originally for $30 million to fund the President's reckless campaign promise to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and determine the fate of the 241 terrorists being held there. I also believe that funding for the Department of Justice to carry out the President's Executive order is just the beginning of efforts to begin the investigations of U.S. officials who interrogated terrorists who killed or attempted to kill American citizens. In a Department of Justice hearing before the Appropriations Subcommittee on May 7, I asked the Attorney General if he knew about or sanctioned any of the renditions that occurred when he served as the Deputy Attorney General during the Clinton administration. He said he did, but could not provide specifics and would get back to the committee with a response. We are still waiting for that response. Yesterday, in following up with that, I sent a letter to the Attorney General following up on many of the unanswered questions left after the hearing. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed at this point in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I wish to join in and associate myself with some of the remarks my colleague, the chairman of the committee, Senator Dodd, has made. One, we have what we think, with the Dodd- Shelby substitute, is a step in the right direction. It is a step in the right direction for consumers. It is also a step in the right direction to bring balance to the credit card industry. Is it everything I would want from the Republican side? No, but it is not everything that Senator Dodd and some of the Democrats would want. We have worked together to forge an outcome. We have put a lot of thought and a lot of work into this, as have our staffs, who have worked days and nights. We are close. We could pass this bill today if we could bring a few more people together. I think this is a milestone as far as protecting consumers, informing consumers, as well as to give some balance. You cannot take risk out of the marketplace. You have to consider risk when you make loans. We have some of that in here. But we have great reforms in here that I think we can live with. Some people don't want a bill on both sides, or the others want something that is probably not achievable, not good for the economy, and not good for the American people. We have to remember that the credit card business does extend credit, to some extent, to people where that is their only credit. This bill will at least let them know a lot of the terms upfront. It will let them know what they are paying, and so forth. It is a step in the right direction. I hope we can pass that bill. I would like to do it today. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent the Collins amendment, No. 1107, be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I object.

Mr. SHELBY. I yield back the remaining time.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I raise a point of order it violates the Budget Act.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I rise in support of the Dodd-Shelby substitute amendment. Nearly every adult American has at least one credit card. They provide convenience, access, and service. They have become an essential tool for conducting financial transactions in this country and all over the world. The existing rules governing credit cards, however, no longer strike the right balance between the interests of credit card companies and the consumer. Credit card contracts are unclear at best, and thoroughly confusing at worst. Card issuers raise rates for unclear reasons, use billing methods that consumers do not understand, and assign fees and charges without warning. The bill seeks to remedy this by providing consumers with greater transparency, fairer terms, and more certainty in their dealings with the card issuers. During the committee markup before the Banking Committee, I made it clear that I shared many of Chairman Dodd's goals with respect to this issue. For example, I supported prohibiting double-cycle billing, banning the practice of universal default, limiting certain fees, and placing some restrictions on credit cards issued to young adults in this country. I also thought consumers deserved more and clearer disclosure regarding the terms of their agreements. Finally, I expressed to Senator Dodd the view that we should codify the Federal Reserve rules in a statute to ensure that they become permanent and not subject to the whims of future regulators. At the markup before the Banking Committee, however, I indicated there were some areas where Chairman Dodd and I disagreed at that point. Most notably, the original draft would have prohibited card issuers from using risk-based pricing for existing cardholders, both retrospectively and prospectively. I did not think it was wise to abandon the concept of risk-based pricing. Without the means to price for risk, the credit card companies would be forced to impose significant costs to all--all--users of credit because they would be unable to account for the particular risk of an individual borrower. It would also be much more difficult for card issuers to innovate and create new products and services. I believe credit should be priced according to the risk profile of each individual. Consumers who prudently manage their use of credit deserve to be rewarded with lower prices and better terms. Moreover, they should not be forced to subsidize the bad habits of others. I also believe markets must have the freedom to adapt to new circumstances and consumer demands. In the weeks that followed the Banking Committee markup, I worked with Senator Dodd to craft a compromise that allowed for the use of risk-based pricing. The Dodd-Shelby amendment before us allows card issuers to price risk but requires that they consider both positive and negative changes in the consumer's risk profile when setting rates and terms. This means that consumers will pay more when their credit risk goes up and can have their rates reduced when it comes down. In total, the Dodd-Shelby substitute amendment reflects a broad, bipartisan compromise on many of the issues I raised in the committee. It prohibits double-cycle billing, the practice of universal default, and places restrictions on credit cards issued to young adults. It limits certain fees, provides more robust disclosure, and provides consumers with statutory certainty. It also preserves the fundamental concept of risk-based pricing, which is vital to the ongoing function of the credit card market. I am hopeful this legislation has struck a better balance between the needs of consumers and the credit card companies. I am also hopeful this balance in design ultimately results in a balance in fact. To ensure this, I asked that we include a provision in this substitute we have offered that requires the Federal Reserve to track the impact this legislation has on the cost and the availability of credit and to report its findings to the Congress. Over time, if the Federal Reserve finds we have not achieved that balance, in fact, we will be made aware and we should not then hesitate to make the necessary changes. This legislation addresses some practices that are simply unnecessary. It gives consumers the chance to have a more equitable relationship with the credit card companies. It also preserves the basic framework necessary to maintain the function of a very important marketplace. I look forward to working with Senator Dodd, the chairman of the committee, on the floor of the Senate on this bill, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the substitute amendment offered by Senator Dodd and myself. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I believe this is not a good proposal. This changes the law, as we understand it. It has been working a long time. It will cause all kinds of problems. Once a property is foreclosed, what do you do with it next? It delays it. I ask my colleagues to oppose the Kerry amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to John A. Garrett, an honorable Alabamian and a good friend of mine. On Sunday, May 10, 2009, John A. will celebrate his 100th birthday. John A. was born in 1909 in Bay Minnette, AL. He graduated from Alabama Polytechnic Institute, now known as Auburn University, in 1936, the same year that he married the love of his life, Katherine Virginia Stowers, at the Snowdoun United Methodist Church in Montgomery. Together, they have two daughters, Kitty Walter Dawson and Mary John, a son-in-law Sim Byrd, three grandchildren, and five great-grandchildren. Most people in Alabama know John A. for his many contributions to Alabama's agriculture industry. During the 1950s, he served as the State director of commodity services for the Alabama Farm Bureau. Later, he would go on to own and operate Cherokee Builders, an industrial and commercial construction business. In 1969, he was appointed by President Nixon to serve as the director of the Alabama Farmer's Home Administration, a position he would hold until 1977. In the early 1970s, John A. became a nationally recognized leader on agricultural and water issues. Later, at the age of 68, John A. established the Alabama Rural Water Association, an organization of which he served as executive director for 17 years. An avid leader, John A. is the recipient of many honors and awards. In 1970, John A. was designated an Honorary State Farmer by the Future Farmers of America. Two years later, he relieved the ACTION Federal Employee Distinguished Voluntary Service Award for his extraordinary volunteer service. In 1985, Auburn University honored John A. for his outstanding services on the Montgomery County Auburn Committee. He was named Alabama Arthritis Foundation Humanitarian of the Year in 1989 and was inducted into the Alabama Senior Citizens Hall of Fame in 1991. John A. is also known for his wit and wisdom. In addition to authoring numerous poems, John A. penned the secrets to a wonderful life: a positive attitude and thinking, clean living, and ``Toddy Time'' every afternoon. Indeed, Congress should live by his rules. Today, John A. remains very active in his community. He attends the monthly meetings of the Snowdoun community, Snowdoun Volunteer Fire Department, Montgomery County Alfa, and the Alabama Cattlemen's Association. John A. can also frequently be found greeting the visitors at his gift shop on Mulberry Street or riding on his farm and tending to his cattle. On the day of his 100th birthday, John A. will be celebrated by his friends and family, and honored for his dedication and many contributions to Alabama. I wish him much luck in his future endeavors, and I ask this entire Senate to join me in recognizing and honoring the life of my good friend John A. Garrett.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I share Senator Sander's concern regarding the transparency of these programs. We all do. We just voted on the Dodd-Shelby amendment--96 to 2, it passed, I believe. As Senator Dodd has pointed out, however, disclosing the names of the companies may create financial instability by unnecessarily raising concerns about institutions that accessed these facilities, something we should try to avoid. I believe the Senate has already spoken, and we certainly do not need this amendment.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today with great concern regarding the nomination of Mr. David Ogden to serve as the Deputy Attorney General of the United States. There is no doubt that Mr. Ogden has a long record of legal experience. He also, however, brings a long history of representation of the pornography industry and the opposition to laws designed to protect children from sexual exploitation. He opposed the Children's Internet Protection Act of 2000 that would restrict children's exposure to explicit online content. Mr. Ogden filed an amicus brief supporting the American Library Association in a case that challenged mandatory anti-obscenity Internet filters in public libraries. He treated pornography like informative data, writing that the ``imposition of mandatory filtering on public libraries impairs the ability of librarians to fulfill the purposes of public libraries--namely, assisting library patrons in their quest for information. . . .'' Mr. Ogden also argued against laws requiring pornography producers to verify that models were over 18 at the time their materials were made. Think of that. He challenged the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988 and a companion law adopted in 1990, the Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act. Mr. Ogden argued that requiring pornography producers to personally verify that their models were over age 18 would ``burden too heavily and infringe too deeply on the right to produce First Amendment-protected material.'' Among the many cases in which Mr. Ogden has advocated interests of the pornography industry, none is more egregious than the position he took in Knox v. the United States. The facts in the next case are straightforward. Steven Knox was convicted of receiving and possessing child pornography under the Child Protection Act after the U.S. Customs Service found in Mr. Knox's apartment several videotapes of partially clothed girls, some as young as age 10, posing suggestively. Serving as counsel on an ACLU effort, Mr. Ogden argued to strike down the 1992 conviction of Mr. Knox. On behalf of the ACLU and other clients, Mr. Ogden submitted a Supreme Court brief advocating the same statutory and constitutional positions as the Clinton Justice Department. Mr. Ogden's arguments stated that while nudity was a requirement for prosecution, nudity alone was insufficient for prosecutions under child pornography statutes. Put simply, Mr. Ogden argued that the defendant had been improperly convicted because the materials in his possession would only qualify as child pornography if children's body parts were indecently exposed. In response, on November 3, 1993, the Senate, right here, passed a resolution by a vote of 100 to 0 condemning this interpretation of the law by Mr. Ogden. President Clinton then publicly rebuked the Solicitor General, and Attorney General Reno overturned his position. Now the Senate is being asked to confirm as Deputy Attorney General someone who advocated the same extreme position on a Federal child pornography statute that the Senate unanimously repudiated 16 years ago. The Supreme Court has ``recognized that there is a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors. This interest extends to shielding minors from the influence of literature that is not obscene by adult standards.'' Pornography should not be regarded as immune from regulation simply because it is deemed ``free speech.'' Furthermore, child pornography in any form should not be tolerated. How can Mr. Ogden's clear position on the right to unfettered access to pornography not interfere with the Justice Department's responsibility to protect children from obscene material and exploitation? When asked about this very issue at the Senate hearing on his nomination, Mr. Ogden said he hoped he would not be judged by arguments made for clients. If we cannot judge him on his past positions, what can we judge him on? Past performance is a great indicator of future action. David Ogden is more than just a lawyer who has had a few unsavory clients. He has devoted a substantial part of his career, case after case for 20 years, in defense of pornography. Ogden has profited from representing pornographers and in attacking legislation designed to ban child pornography. Should a man with a long list of pornographers as past clients, with a record of objection to attempts to regulate this industry in order to protect our children, be confirmed for our Nation's second highest law enforcement position? Is he the best choice to actively identify and prosecute those who seek to harm our children? Highlights of the Department of Justice's budget request for the year 2010 indicate an increased focus on educating and rehabilitating criminals, while neglecting funding for vital child-safety programs such as the Adam Walsh Act. I believe Mr. Ogden's past positions, coupled with the Department's growing trend to prioritize criminal rehabilitation over child safety, cause me great concern this afternoon. There is not a quick and easy solution to the problems of child exploitation, but I can state unequivocally that we need a proactive and aggressive Department of Justice to take the steps necessary to attack this problem and demonstrate that protecting our children is a top priority. I am not certain David Ogden will bring that leadership to the Department; therefore, I must oppose this nomination. This vote is made with the belief that a person's past legal positions do mean a great deal. I think if most Americans knew what this man has worked for and whom he has willingly represented, support for his nomination would disappear. I do not believe his legal philosophy, illustrated in the clients he freely chose to represent, reflects the majority's views on the issue of child exploitation. I know certainly they do not reflect mine.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I want to get into something else you have been reading about what happened in my State of Alabama yesterday. I offer my condolences to the families and friends of the victims killed in Samson, AL. Yesterday, my State of Alabama suffered the worst mass shooting in our State's history. As this tragedy unfolded, our law enforcement responded bravely. I commend them for their actions and efforts. I also offer my sincere sympathies to the victims, their families, and the community. This is a tragedy that did not have to happen. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Millard Fuller, a great American entrepreneur who dedicated his life to sheltering the poor. Millard passed away on February 3, 2009. He leaves behind a great legacy of leadership and of service to the world's most vulnerable residents. Millard was born in 1935 in Lanett, AL. It was in this town that Millard, at only 6 years old, earned his first profit by selling pigs and chickens. His entrepreneurial spirit would certainly carry him far. After some time working as a door-to-door salesman selling silk hosiery and underwear, Millard attended Auburn University to study economics. Following his graduation, Millard attended my alma mater, the University of Alabama School of Law, and it was there that he married his wife Linda. While a law student at the University of Alabama, Millard expanded his entrepreneurial horizons and began selling Christmas trees and mistletoe with our fellow student, Morris Dees. Together, they would go on to form a lucrative direct marketing business selling cookbooks and other items. This business would make Millard a millionaire by the time he reached the young age of 29. When his work and devotion to monetary success began to threaten his personal relationships, however, Millard and Linda made the decision to simplify their lives by selling their possessions and dedicating their lives to their Christian values. In 1965, Millard and Linda moved to Koinonia Farm in south Georgia. It was there that Millard and Linda met and became close friends with the farm's founder, Clarence Jordan. Clarence and Millard had much in common and together they developed the concept of a housing program that would provide no-interest loans to people to build modest homes. This idea eventually grew into Habitat for Humanity. In 1976, from a tiny house in Americus, GA, Millard and Linda established Habitat for Humanity. Today, the organization has built more than 300,000 houses around the world, providing more than 1.5 million people in more than 3,000 communities with safe, decent, affordable shelter. In April 2009, Habitat for Humanity's Alabama State Support Organization will celebrate the completion of its 1,500th house. Millard is loved and will be missed by his wife Linda and their four children. He will also be missed by the thousands of volunteers who found inspiration through his dedication. It is because of Millard that thousands of people across the world have a place to call home. I ask this entire Senate to join me in recognizing and honoring the life of Millard Fuller.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, all these economists agree that government spending is not the way to improve economic performance. Over the past year, I have repeatedly called for an extensive examination of the origins of this economic crisis and of the potential solutions. So far, the majority has refused. In the absence of any analysis or detailed information, they have chosen time and again to solve the crisis by throwing money at it. I believe this is laying the groundwork for a much greater economic catastrophe. It took until 1982 for our publicly held debt to cross the $1 trillion mark. In the 27 short years since, we have amassed a debt 10 times that amount. Now we are about to vote on a measure that will, in a single year, add to the national debt what it took nearly 200 years to accumulate. I fear this is a day we will come to regret, not only because I believe the stimulus bill will not work but because it will mark the day when our generation decided we were not capable of enduring the consequences of our own actions, and therefore future generations must shoulder the burden we could not find the courage to bear ourselves. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, during the last 18 months, our economy has been crippled by an unprecedented financial crisis. What began simply as rising defaults on subprime mortgages has rapidly evolved into the greatest economic storm since the Great Depression. Shackled by mounting losses on mortgage-backed securities and falling home prices, our banking system has retracted from normal lending. Starved of financing, our economy is rapidly deteriorating, while millions of Americans face unemployment. Unfortunately, we have watched two succeeding administrations--the Bush administration and now, I fear, the Obama administration--propose plans to revitalize our economy that have failed to live up to expectations. We are now told that the solution to the current crisis lies in this stimulus bill before the Senate. Proponents claim that this bill will jump-start the economy and reinvigorate private commercial activity. I disagree. This bill has been poorly conceived and hastily crafted. First, the immediate impact of this bill is far too small. According to the Congressional Budget Office, only 12 percent of the discretionary spending in this bill takes place in the year 2009. Secondly, this bill is not targeted to maximize its impact. It simply funds, I believe, a wish list of government programs rather than focusing on creating jobs and bolstering the incomes of all Americans. Finally, I fear that the supporters of this bill have been resting far too heavily on their Keynesian ideological crutch rather than devising good policy here. We are told that Professor Keynes said that government spending was the key to restoring long-term economic growth. We need to remember that Professor Keynes' views evolved a great deal over time. He was continually changing his opinions when confronted with new facts and circumstances. His famed ``general theory'' of employment, interest, and money was borne of his concern that the old policy prescriptions were not working. Because his thinking was always changing, Keynes was often criticized for being inconsistent. He famously replied: When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do? I believe we need a solution that fits the facts and circumstances of our times, just as Keynes sought to provide a solution to address those of the United Kingdom at one time. Our solution, I believe, needs to focus on restoring our banking system. Unless our banking system is nurtured back to health, our economy will remain crippled, and much of what is in this stimulus bill, I believe, will have been wasted. It is worth remembering that the first thing Franklin Roosevelt did upon becoming President of the United States was address the Nation's banking crisis, long before he embarked on the New Deal spending programs. Another example I believe we should keep in mind is the experience of Japan during their so-called lost decade. You will recall that during the 1990s, the Japanese experienced a banking crisis as well. Rather than deal with their zombie banks, Japanese policymakers enacted numerous stimulus bills. And despite those spending sprees, the Japanese economy continued to stagnate as they increased Japan's debt- to-GDP ratio from 60 percent to a staggering 180 percent today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of economists, including several Nobel Prize winners.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I rise to support the joint resolution of disapproval which would prevent, as you know, the allocation of another $350 billion to the Treasury's flawed Troubled Asset Relief Program. The Treasury Department's implementation of TARP has been a bureaucratic fiasco. In the years to come, I believe it will be considered a textbook case in our business schools on how not to conduct fiscal policy. The Treasury Department has never had a clear plan on how to respond to the financial crisis or how TARP funds could best be utilized. It told Congress just a few months ago that it would spend TARP funds one way and then spent them another. Rather than establish a clear plan and then use TARP funds to implement it, Treasury has recklessly used TARP funds to bail out big Wall Street firms threatened with bankruptcy. TARP has proven to be helpful for rescuing Wall Street bondholders but has done little for the U.S. economy, small business, and average Americans. Treasury's approach to TARP has been so undisciplined that its commitments already exceed the $350 billion Congress authorized it to spend. Further evidence of the erratic implementation of TARP is the fact that Treasury has even failed to comply with the statutory requirements for requesting the additional $350 billion in TARP funds. The statute clearly requires the Treasury Secretary to provide Congress with a detailed plan on how it will spend the additional funds. There is no plan. There is nothing to review. There is no way we can say to the American people this afternoon that we have conducted in the Senate a thoughtful, thorough examination of how this money is going to be spent because there is, quite literally, nothing to examine. If Congress cannot hold Treasury accountable for providing a simple plan on how it will use an additional $350 billion, why should the American people today have any confidence Congress can hold Treasury accountable on how it will spend it? As you know, I opposed the original TARP legislation because I did not believe the TARP program was based on a well-thought-out plan. During our consideration of that legislation in the Senate, I pointed out to some of my colleagues some clear and serious problems with purchasing troubled assets as Treasury proposed to do at that time. The Treasury Department assured us--assured us--told us unequivocally it could address the financial crisis by establishing TARP to purchase troubled assets from banks using a reverse mortgage auction. Is that what the initial $350 billion was used for? The answer is no. After further examination, the Treasury Secretary decided that purchasing troubled assets was not a feasible plan. It is now clear the Secretary of the Treasury did not have a real plan when he proposed TARP. Rather, he had a hastily conceived notion that, it turned out, was impossible to implement. Because there was so little thought put into the original plan, we have spent $350 billion and the TARP has failed to stem the economic downturn and hundreds of thousands of people have lost their jobs. We should not, this afternoon, repeat our mistake--but we will--by granting the Treasury the additional $350 billion without first determining how to best use those funds. I think it is time the Congress stop and think and take the time to devise an effective solution. First, we should demand that the Treasury Secretary provide a plan on how the $350 billion will be used. That is the least we can do. This is already required, as I said, under the TARP legislation, which directs the Secretary to submit ``a written report detailing the plan of the Secretary.'' What the Secretary has submitted is not only legally insufficient, it is completely devoid of substance. This should not be acceptable to the Senate. Second, the Banking Committee should hold extensive hearings on TARP and alternative ways of addressing our financial problems. It should also hold hearings on how previously committed TARP funds have been spent, who benefited, who is accountable. The Treasury Secretary, whoever it may be, should appear before Congress and tell us exactly how he wants to use the funds. This is especially important now that a new administration will be responsible for spending it. Madam President, $350 billion is an enormous amount of money to me. I find it hard to believe we would even consider granting any public official the authority to spend such an amount without, at the very least, requiring him to appear before us and explain how he will use it. If the majority and the new administration wish to demonstrate that there is a new climate of accountability in Washington, this would be an opportune place to start. I believe the choice is clear. If you support accountability, transparency, the only vote is to support the joint resolution to deny the $350 billion to the Treasury. The American people, I believe, are rightly outraged at the way Congress and the Treasury have recklessly spent billions of TARP dollars. It is time Congress looks at the financial crisis with the seriousness and diligence the American people demand, expect, and reserve. The last time we considered how to respond to the financial crisis, we panicked and passed the TARP bill. We now have a second chance-- though I believe we will throw it away--to fulfill our responsibilities to the American people. I hope we will support the motion to disapprove. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the joint resolution of disapproval. I yield the floor.