Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to give recognition to Ernie Lombard who has been at the forefront of preserving and recording Idaho's great past.

For more than 20 years, Ernie has had a vision of a State park that would showcase Idaho's mining history and allow for motorized recreation. In 2009, the vision was realized when thanks to Ernie's leadership, the Bayhorse ghost town in Custer County became the newest addition to Idaho's State park system.

It was not an easy task. Many parcels in the park needed to have century-old toxic mine waste removed. Bayhorse was one of the first sites in the country to use brownfields grant funds to accomplish that feat. The work was such a success the Bayhorse project was awarded the Partners in Conservation Award by the U.S. Department of the Interior for outstanding conservation results among many partners.

As an architect, Ernie has had a hand in designing several of Idaho's most significant buildings. His talents and passion for architecture and history, along with a strong interest in photography and art, have preserved Idaho's rugged and unique past. Ernie's photographic library includes more than 3,000 images of historic Idaho buildings. His presentation, ``Ghost Towns of Idaho'' has been presented to audiences more than 200 times. Every school district in the State has the video created from this presentation to use in teaching Idaho history.

His work on a county historical advisory board led to the preservation of the historic Guffey railroad bridge across the Snake River between Canyon and Owyhee Counties. This bridge is a centerpiece for Celebration Park.

Ernie also conducts historical ``safaris'' to ghost towns such as Silver City and teaches about Idaho ghost towns and photography in the Boise Community Education Program. He is the longest continuing education instructor in the history of the program having taught 27 years.

Recently, the Idaho State Historical Society awarded Ernie Lombard with their ``Esto Perpetua'' award for significant contributions to the preservation of Idaho history.

It is indeed an honor for me to give recognition to Ernie Lombard for his vision and many years of work to preserve Idaho's significant history and his passion and willingness to educate Idahoans and others about our wonderful State. Future generations of Idahoans have received a great gift from Ernie Lombard, and we are very grateful.

Mr. President, as you read these pages, most of it is incomprehensible. But, interestingly enough,

the point made by the good Senator from Arizona about the ability of the U.S. Government to cut off health care to people is stated so clearly on page 1,189 of the bill. The title of the provision is ``Authority to Modify or Eliminate Coverage of Certain Preventive Services.'' How much clearer can it be? This bill gives authority to the group that was identified to modify or eliminate coverage of certain preventive services.

Had this bill been in effect in the last week when the recommendations came out on mammograms, American women would be denied coverage for mammograms in the time period that was identified by this group. This is absolutely clear on this. This is just the beginning of the kind of health care rationing you are going to see under this bill. Americans are frightened, and they should be. Health care rationing is coming to America if this bill is passed.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate and acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the founding of the city of Glenns Ferry, ID. On September 26, 2009, the citizens of Glenns Ferry will gather in the high school gymnasium to commemorate the 100th year of its founding. This is a very historic and special day for this community.

Glenns Ferry boasts a colorful Western heritage as one of the most famous river crossings on the Oregon Trail. Pioneers would ford the Snake River at the Three Island Crossing until 1869 when Gustavus ``Gus'' Glenn constructed a ferry roughly 2 miles upstream. Gus's ferry would cut-off nearly 20 miles from the Southern Oregon Trail route, as it carried two wagons at a time across the river.

In 1870, Gus's brother Oliver S. Glenn--known as O.S.--joined him in operating the ferry and together they ran it successfully until 1876. In 1871, the town site was platted just downstream from the ferry site and a community started to grow from the desert.

In 1883, this area was inundated by a force of tracklayers whose duty it was to lay the tracks of the Oregon Short Line railroad. The tracklayers camp required 23 saloons and a dance hall. With the establishment of a post office and the appointment of O.S. Glenn as postmaster, the site required a formal name. And what more suitable a name than ``Glenns Ferry'' in recognition of the enormous contributions made by the Glenn family.

The coming of the railroad caused the eventual discontinuation of the

ferry service in approximately 1889. Although Glenn's Ferry was abandoned, the name was not, but was instead given to the city, which was incorporated in October of 1909.

Since that time, Glenns Ferry has developed into a prosperous community along interstate 84 and has retained its historical western roots while incorporating new business and development. In 1971, the Three Island State Park was developed with campgrounds, cabins and a history center. Each August for the past 25 years, the park joined with the city of Glenns Ferry to reenact the crossing just like the pioneers in the 1800s prior to the ferry's development. Last month marked the last reenactment of the dangerous river crossing, but the annual festival will continue in celebration of the city's heritage.

The economic backbone of Glenns Ferry is agriculture. Elmore County grows a wide variety of crops and animals--cattle, alfalfa hay, potatoes, grapes, sugarbeets, wheat, barley, and dairy. Glenns Ferry has become known for its award-winning wines at Carmela Vineyards and Cold Springs Winery. Glenns Ferry is also the home of Korey Hall, fullback for the Green Bay Packers and former Boise State University football star.

Glenns Ferry has much to celebrate and look forward to in its next century as it provides important goods and services at home and abroad. Congratulations to the city of Glenns Ferry for 100 years of service and success.

I rise today, fellow Senators, to discuss the current nomination that is under consideration by the Senate for the U.S. Supreme Court seat.

Like every Member of this body, I take this responsibility seriously. The Constitution of the United States gives each one of the 100 Members of this body the solemn duty to participate in this under what has been called the advice and consent provisions.

Obviously, there are two parts here. First ``advice'' and the second ``consent.'' The first part, the advice that the President seeks, is not under the control of any Member here but is under the control of the President. He did not seek my advice on this, which is not surprising.

But, secondly, I am required to exercise my constitutional duty to express either consent or the withholding of consent. I appear here this morning to explain the conclusion I have reached in that regard.

This is a serious constitutional duty. I think every Member here takes it seriously. I think as we do exercise this constitutional duty, it is incumbent upon each one of us to create, in our own mind, a path forward and a criteria, if you would, as to how to reach a conclusion concerning that consent.

I think all of us come at it from a different point of view. Some of us have had some experience in that regard. Although I have not had experience here in this body with a U.S. Supreme Court appointment, I had the opportunity at the State level, since I have served as Governor and had to appoint judges, to determine if, in my mind, a path forward, if you would, or a way, a method, in which we would reach that conclusion as to the appropriateness of a person, their qualifications to serve in a judicial capacity. I have done that.

In addition to that, I think all of us look to other people who have exercised this responsibility and looked for the type of matrix they used to reach the conclusion. I have also done that. I have chosen someone to emulate as far as how I would reach a conclusion as to whether I would grant the consent or withhold the consent.

That person whom I have chosen to emulate is a person who actually chose a matrix that is similar to mine; that is, when we do this, we judge who the person is, and what that person stands for--the ``who'' and the ``what.''

Like the person I have chosen to emulate, my focus is not on the ``who,'' my focus is on the ``what.'' What does this person stand for? Because it is, indeed, at the end of the day, the ``what'' that will guide that person when that person, when the nominee, makes decisions in their capacity as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

I met with the nominee. I have read her opinions. I have read a lot that has been written about the nominee, and weighed those using the matrix I have chosen, and that person I chose to emulate chose to reach a conclusion as to whether to grant the consent or to withhold the consent.

I think this is a decision that no one should reach lightly but should reach based upon weighing the factors that they have chosen. When it comes to the ``who,'' I find the nominee that the President has put forward to be a person who is engaging, who is very wise, who has had clearly the experience to fill this position. I have no difficulty with that at all. I am honored that she would spend the considerable time she made available for me to meet with her and discuss with her the various issues that are important to the great State of Idaho.

At the end of the day, I have to move from the ``who'' to the ``what.'' And in that regard, I want to talk about now who I chose to emulate when it comes to making this decision. The person I chose to emulate is a person who currently serves as the President of the United States.

He came to this body and had the opportunity to do just what I have done; that is, to go through this exercise to determine the ``who'' and the ``what'' when it comes to the appointment and the qualifications to serve as a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Then-Senator Obama went through this exact same exercise. At the end of the day, when he voted on two of the nominees, two of the Supreme Court nominees, he determined that based upon his weighing of the nominees, he could not, in good conscience, vote for the nominees because--not because of the ``who'' part of the equation but because of the ``what does this person stand for'' part of the equation.

He did that based upon his vision of what he wanted to see in America. I did likewise. He concluded that when he withheld his consent on those two, that person did not meet his view of what the vision for America was. I have reached the same conclusion on this nominee.

In all good conscience, I must withhold the consent. My fellow Senators, I will withhold my consent based not on the ``who'' but on the ``what'' on this nomination. I will vote no.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a program in my home State of Idaho that provides an outstanding service to many who are greatly challenged in a battle for life. Twenty-five years ago this summer, Dr. David McClusky planted the seeds of a dream he had nurtured for many years: opening a camp for kids with cancer in the mountains of Idaho.

Armed with a grant, a group of committed volunteers and the support of the American Cancer Society, 15 campers with cancer kicked off the first of 25 years of very special summers. This new retreat was called Camp Rainbow Gold.

The camp provided an opportunity for these kids to swim, ride horses, fish, hike, paint, bike, eat and laugh. They developed deep bonds with one another as they fought a disease that knows no bounds in the lives it ravages. This one week allowed them an opportunity to escape from the daily emotional and physical battle with an insidious disease.

Today, Camp Rainbow Gold continues to provide that week-long respite from the ever-present cancer fight

and allows these kids to enjoy a beautiful setting with others just like them.

This very week 85 children are in the mountains of Idaho at Camp Rainbow Gold. With an army of volunteers, Dr. McClusky is watching his dream flourish. The kids still attend free of charge. A full medical staff and a licensed social worker volunteer their time to provide medical and emotional support to the children.

As the camp grew, so did the vision to meet not only the needs of the kids with cancer, but their siblings and parents as well. Dr. McClusky's original vision has grown into two more camps: one for siblings and one for families. These camps provide a much-needed break from the demands of the intensive care required for a child with cancer.

Throughout the year, special outings are held to strengthen the bonds of friendships developed at camp and to continue the emotional support among families. In addition, a junior counselor program has been created to allow former campers who have turned 18 to continue their participation at Camp Rainbow Gold. They now offer their support and encouragement to kids who are in the same fight they, too, have fought. Campers and junior counselors are also eligible for college scholarships to help them fulfill their dreams.

It is, indeed, an honor for me to give recognition to Dr. David McClusky for his vision and many years of work in creating and sustaining Camp Rainbow Gold. I extend this recognition to the more than 200 volunteers from around Idaho who support the Camp Rainbow Gold programs; to the American Cancer Society for their backing and administrative support; and to the thousands of Idahoans and many others who provide the funds to make all of this a reality.

Congratulations, Camp Rainbow Gold, on this 25th anniversary.

Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Jim Fisher and his contribution to my home State of Idaho. For much of the past three decades, Jim has worked at the Lewiston Morning Tribune--first as a political reporter and then as an editorial page editor.

Over the years, Jim and I have crossed paths several times, particularly on the opinion page. In most cases, our views on a given issue were not congruent. On the few occasions when Jim and I shared the same opinion, I especially had to take a second look at my position. But you could always count on Jim to be grounded--he always thought the issue through before reaching an opinion. He challenged his readers to think and question their assumption or knowledge about an issue. He relished being a lightening rod and getting people to talk about the subject of the day.

During my time as an Idaho State senator, Governor, and now as U.S. Senator, Jim has continued to challenge me to reach for solid, grounded thinking. In doing so, I respect and value his viewpoint even when we disagree. His desire was to make his community and state a better place. He wanted to give a voice to those that could not be heard. Jim Fischer did his job well.

I extend to Jim my thanks for his many years of outstanding work on the editorial page in promoting critical thinking on the issues important to Idaho. Vicki and I wish him the best in his retirement.

Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today to speak about the National Guard and the need for this Federal Government to better equip our Guard and Reserve units. Senate amendment No. 1143, which I offered to the supplemental appropriations bill, would have done just that. Although the Senate did not adopt this sensible measure, I will continue to seek creative ways to support the National Guard and pursue this responsible and reasonable expenditure.

Simply put, my amendment would have appropriated $2 billion to the National Guard and Reserve equipment account. This money would have come from unobligated funds made available by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The rescissions would not have applied to amounts relating to the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, Military Construction, or the Veterans Administration.

In recent years, our National Guard and Reserve forces have faced substantial shortfalls in equipment, and the military budget requests have been insufficient to remedy the problem. Even prior to 9/11, our National Guard and Reserve forces had equipment deficiencies. Since 9/ 11, due to an especially high operational tempo in the Iraqi and Afghan Theaters of Operations, our National Guard and Reserve equipment is being worn out and exhausted more quickly than anticipated. Combat losses are also contributing to shortfalls. Compounding the problem, in order to provide deployable units, the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve have had to transfer large quantities of their equipment to deploying units, exacerbating shortages in nondeploying units. Also, some National Guard and Reserve units, at the end of their deployments, have had to leave significant quantities of equipment overseas. If these equipment shortfalls are not remedied, our National Guard and Reserve forces run the risk of further deterioration of readiness levels and capability.

In my estimation, it seemed reasonable to move $2 billion in unobligated stimulus spending to fund necessary procurement of new National Guard and Reserve equipment, which was tragically overlooked during the stimulus debate. The National Guard and Reserve equipment account is a critical resource for funding procurement of new equipment for our National Guard and Reserve forces. This $2 billion increase in equipment funding would have provided much-needed modern equipment for our National Guard and Reserve forces, better enabling them to meet mission and readiness requirements. In addition, this funding, which would have to have been spent by the end of fiscal year 2010, would have provided a stimulative effect to the U.S. economy.

New equipment would also directly benefit our Nation's homeland security missions and disaster response efforts, both of which are frequently assigned to National Guard forces. The Guard's ability to carry out these responsibilities depends on the availability of necessary equipment. Much of the equipment that would otherwise be used in these missions remains deployed overseas and is therefore unavailable.

In closing I want to reiterate my commitment to the National Guard and Reserve. Going forward, I will continue to fight to ensure that our Guard and Reserve units have the resources and equipment necessary to complete their missions. They make every American proud, and I am committed to maintaining a healthy and well-equipped National Guard and Reserve for years to come.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside to call up my amendment No. 1143.

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

Mr. President and fellow Senators, I come to the floor to offer this important amendment. What this amendment does is simply appropriates $2 billion to the National Guard and Reserve equipment account. Mechanically, it does this by permitting the OMB to rescind $2 billion that has been previously appropriated in the stimulus package. It exempts from the rescission funds related to the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and part of title X of that bill relating to military construction and veterans and related agencies. Otherwise, the OMB is directed to rescind $2 billion, which is the amount authorized for the National Guard and Reserve equipment account.

The reason for the amendment is that as our Guard units and Reserve units have been asked to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan over recent years, their equipment has been badly depleted. I have personal experience with this, as our Guard unit from Idaho had been dispatched to Iraq and spent time there. When they came back, a lot of their equipment was necessarily left behind for the use of the Iraqis and for the use of other American troops who were going to stay in Iraq. We have in Idaho over a period of time gone through a process by which some of this equipment has been replaced but not all. Obviously, this amendment does not apply just to Idaho; it applies to all States, all National Guard units, all Reserve units.

This is something that is badly needed. The National Guard certainly performs a valuable service to the Governors of each of the States, to the people of each of the States. This bill will help them get the equipment that badly needs replacing back in the queue where it belongs and back where it can be used by these Guard units and Reserve units.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator. As has been pointed out, this is a situation that a number of States face. It will not cost any additional taxpayer dollars. It is a wise expenditure of taxpayer dollars.

I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to talk for a moment about Mike Field, a man whose public service has done much to improve the quality of life for people in our home State of Idaho.

Like many Western States, much of Idaho is made up of large swathes of rural areas where it can be challenging to provide the housing, infrastructure and economic opportunities for those residents. Having grown up in the rural community of Grandview, Mike learned this firsthand. Raised by loving and civic-minded parents, Oscar and Francis, he saw the work ethic and generosity that was demonstrated within his own family and by his neighbors. It became a foundation he used as he built his career in extending the helping hand of the State and Federal governments to Idahoans in our rural areas.

He started his work in this body, the U.S. Senate, where he served under Senators Jim McClure and Larry Craig. Mike worked with fellow Idahoans and helped them sort out their difficulties with Federal agencies. Showing a deft touch with people, he became the Idaho State director of USDA Rural Development and later the USDA Farm Service Agency. In both roles, Mike naturally led and served Idaho's many farmers and ranchers, in part based on his days growing up and working with them. Mike then was appointed as a council member to the Northwest Power Planning Council, where he worked to provide an infrastructure for reliable and cost effective power that would reach many areas of Idaho. He also dealt with natural resource issues that impacted the livelihood of many in the rural parts of our State.

From there, he returned as the head of the USDA Rural Development IDAHO, where he has served over the past 8 years. In that capacity he has used his optimism and good nature to lead and motivate a team that has brought hundreds of millions of dollars in improvements to our State. He oversaw many positive changes in housing, drinking water and jobs throughout our rural areas. Mike built a strong trust between the different levels of government, tribes and agencies as he worked to improving the quality of life for rural Idahoans.

I cannot imagine what Idaho, and particularly its rural areas, would look like today without the efforts of Mike Field. Together, with his wife Debbie, they have greatly improved the lives of Idahoans with their dedicated public service.

I congratulate Mike for his many years of outstanding leadership and service to his fellow Idahoans.

Mr. President, first, let me say to my distinguished colleague from New Jersey, I sincerely appreciate his passion about this problem. I think everyone on this side of the aisle likewise feels as passionately about the difficulties facing the American people today. There is no one who believes this is not a problem. There is no one here who does not feel the empathy every one of us should feel about Americans who are losing their jobs and about Americans who are underemployed.

There are over 92 percent of Americans employed, but there are over 7 percent who are not. The fact that 92 percent are employed in no way denigrates the fact that we have a substantial and a high rate of unemployment.

With all due respect to my colleague from New Jersey, he made reference to the fact that there are people encouraging that we do nothing. I don't know who that person is. I have not run into them yet. It is not anyone on this floor that I know of.

I think this problem is so serious and I believe my Republican colleagues believe this problem is so serious that it does not only deserve something be done but that something major be done, something aggressive be done, and something quickly be done.

With all due respect, I strongly disagree with his characterization that there is anyone on this side of the aisle who hopes this plan does not succeed. We pray every day that this package does succeed. It has to succeed. If it does not, this country is going to be in very serious trouble.

Let there be no mistake about it, this is clearly a Democratic plan. The people who are saying this is a bipartisan plan are flat wrong. This is a Democratic plan. I hope it works. I pray that it works. I pray that we will be able to come out here one day in the very near future and say congratulations to the Democrats for putting together this package and putting it to work so that we turn this economy around. The Democrats own this plan.

Having said that, I urge, and my colleagues on this side of the aisle urge, that this is not just a single path that is going to take us out of the problem we have. Indeed, it is going to take more than just spending. Just spending has not worked in the past. It did not work at the time of the Great Depression. It did not work for Japan in the nineties. It did not even work for us last year when this Congress gave $600 to every individual to go out and spend. It did not even put a blip on the screen as far as helping the downturn in the economy.

The real problem, the systemic problem is the frozen credit markets. It is not Government spending that is going to get us out of this situation; it is the spending by the great American people, by the great American consumer, by businesses large and businesses small. It is their spending that will get us out of the deep hole we are in.

With all due respect to my good friend from New Jersey, I would like to see as much passion about attacking the problem with the banking sector and the frozen credit markets that we are seeing for this spending of $800 billion which, when all is said and done, will turn out to be $1.2 trillion when we include the interest that is going to have to be paid.

I congratulate the good Senator for referring to the work done in the housing sector. With all due respect, I urge it is not enough. This Senate added an excellent provision to this particular package. It was taken out when the conference committee met, and that portion that was taken out reduced in half what needed to be done to help stimulate the housing sector.

Mr. President, you heard my distinguished colleague from New Jersey talk about the amount people will be able to use to go out and get a home. It was reduced in the conference committee. It was cut virtually in half. On top of that, it only allows for first-time buyers, which just does not make sense. If we are trying to stimulate the housing sector, why just first-time house buyers? Everyone should be given this opportunity to go out and to purchase a new home or a previously occupied home and should get the credit.

With all due respect, what this Senate did was taken out in the conference committee. I would like to see the same passion as the other two paths--that is, attacking the frozen credit market and the housing sector--that we keep seeing from the other side as far as the spending of this $800 billion.

I close with this. I asked this on the floor the other day: Why $800 billion? It is really important that history knows why America settled on $800 billion. There is no doubt this is going to pass. The Democrats will vote together on this. Three Republicans have shown they are going to vote with them. And there is no doubt this is going to pass. But we need, America needs, America requires an explanation of why $800 billion.

I heard the President of the United States say earlier this week: That is not just a number I pulled out of the air. I take him at his word. If it was not just pulled out of the air, it was carefully constructed with a formula. I want to see that formula. America wants to see that formula. Historians are going to need to see that formula because if it works, we are going to need that formula in the future again someday. If it does not work, we need to look at that formula and see if we can figure out why it did not work.

Somebody, please, deliver us that formula so we know how the number of $800 billion was reached. It could be $50 billion. It could be $200 billion. It could be $600 billion. It could be $1.5 trillion. We don't know. But if we have that formula, we Republicans can help fine-tune that formula to either spend more if more needs to be spent based on the formula or to spend less if less can be spent and if we can save this money. We are strapping our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren with a horrendous debt. They are going to be paying this back. The money will have to be borrowed probably from China. They are the ones who usually put up the money for this. Future generations are going to be working to pay back the Chinese Government $800 billion. Future generations have the absolute right to know how this administration and how the Democratic Party constructed a formula that spent $800 billion. It is only fair.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President and fellow Senators, I came today to make a few remarks regarding the vote we are about to have, in about half an hour, on the so-called ``stimulus'' package. I think everyone who is a Member of this body agrees with the magnitude of the problem. I have heard my colleagues on the other side and my colleagues on this side speak with great clarity and sometimes with great passion about the problem. Clearly, the American economy is in dire straits. Everyone agrees with that. The amount of passion that one speaks with neither raises nor lowers that level.

I heard the President of the United States last night say there were some people who thought there should be no action taken by our Federal Government. I am not aware of those people. I am sure there are some around, but I think most people agree the main responsibility of the Government of the United States is to protect its people, but closely behind that is to regulate monetary policy and economic policy. Nations have been doing both of those things for many years. My problem with the discussion we have had over recent weeks has been with the focus of the solution, and I believe the focus is misfocused.

The President agrees, we agree, and most economists agree that economic recovery will require a three-path solution. The first is attention to the banking sector, and that comprises two different parts. No. 1 is continued viability of our bank system; and No. 2, and most importantly, reestablishing credit flow, which is badly impaired at this time.

The second path is the housing sector. Most economists agree it was the housing sector that led us into this difficulty and it is going to be the housing sector that leads us out or, if it does not lead us out, at least it has to recover before we will see any decent movement in the economy.

And third is the Government expenditure item. That particular item has received all the ink, all the publicity, and all the discussion in recent weeks. The focus should not be on Government spending. The focus of the solution should be on credit flow and on the housing market, and it is not. To that, I object.

When the President very kindly came to the Republican conference, we had a spirited discussion on these matters. I was delighted to see that he agreed it was going to take a three-path solution to get us out of this. I was disappointed that his enthusiasm continued to be for the spending side, which of course is a very easy thing to do and something which this town is particularly adept at. Again, my problem is the focus. Spending by the Government is not going to resolve this problem.

This proposal has some job creation--that is the so-called ``stimulus'' package--and for that I am grateful. The best example of that is roads and bridges. However, if you take a percentage of the amount of money we are talking about, that is only about 3 percent of the bill. There are lots of parts of this bill that do not do anything to stimulate the economy, and I am not going to spend time on that this morning, because they have been well publicized, and I have no doubt will be publicized more in the future.

The other difficulty with the bill, if you take the number of jobs the President is attempting to create or to protect, the cost is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per job. That, as much as anything, shows how difficult it is for the Government to get us out of this by spending. It is a futile effort. We have between 7 and 8 percent unemployment in this country, which means over 92 percent of Americans are employed. What happens if unemployment continues to accelerate? The Federal Government cannot borrow or print enough money to salvage all those jobs at the cost of several hundred thousand dollars per job. The Federal Government simply can't do it.

Now, there is an entity that can do it. There is an entity that can create enough jobs and protect enough jobs. That entity is called the free market system. It is entrepreneurs, it is risk takers, it is capitalists. Those people and those entities created these jobs to begin with. They can do it again. That entity, the free market system, has created the most successful culture in the history of the world. For the free market system to operate, there must be free-flowing credit, and of course that does depend upon Government policy. That is why I come down on the side of needing to focus more on that particular aspect of this problem.

I listened to the President last night, and he talked about the $800 billion number. He said he did not reach up in the air and pull that number out of the air. I wish I knew where that number came from. I have yet to see the formula that was devised, either by the President or, more likely, his advisers who came up with this $800 billion figure. Indeed, that formula has a lot of value. If that formula could be put on paper, every economy in the world, every country in the world, would be very interested in that valuable commodity. Because if indeed you can simply take that formula and come up with a number and then borrow enough money and spend that money to get the economy moving again, this is very simple.

Here is the problem with all of this. That $800 billion number, or whatever number it turns out to be--and of course when you add interest in, it will be well over a trillion dollars, or somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.2 trillion--that money has got to come from somewhere. It is not free money. The way America is going to get that money is it is going to go out and borrow it. We all know what happens when America goes out and borrows money. Who provides us with that money? The major contributor of purchasing our debt is the Chinese Government and the Chinese people. There is no plan for repayment of that debt. What business in America, what entity in America would think of borrowing any amount, let alone an amount this size, without a clear and cogent plan for repaying that money?

Keynesian economics teaches us we can spend our way out of a problem. Keynesian economics has been proven over and over again to be a great theory, a wonderful theory, a source of hope, but it has been a total failure. It didn't work for the Japanese in the 1990s, it didn't work for this country back in the Great Depression, and it didn't even work last year, when everyone was given $600. It didn't even put a blip on the screen in trying to get us back to prosperity. Keynesian economics--government spending--to get us back on track, has never worked before and it will not work again. If it does work, it will be the first time in history, and it will defy uniform history that has shown us in the past that it won't work.

I hope when we go home during the recess time that this economy is moving in a different direction. I truly

hope that is the case. And I hope we can be arguing on this floor whether it was this enormous spending package that did it or whether it was the vagaries of an undulating world economy, or whether it was economic policy dealing with the banking sector and the housing sector that turned it around.

I am encouraged by the fact the President has committed that he will turn his attention to the other two paths in this three-path system, the banking sector and the housing sector, after this package is passed.

The title of this bill, the ``economic stimulus'' bill, is truly a giant fraud on the American people. It is not a stimulus package. It is a giant spending package. Admittedly, there are parts of it that one could argue are stimulus, but it is so de minimis that one cannot call this an economic stimulus package.

Like everyone on this floor, I am concerned about the future of our children and our grandchildren. Borrowing $800 billion-plus, mostly from the Chinese Government and the Chinese people, and indenturing our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren to work to repay the Chinese Government and the Chinese people so we can spend that money today I believe is fundamentally wrong. I don't believe we should indenture future generations of Americans, and for that reason this Senator will be casting his vote ``no'' on behalf of the people of the great State of Idaho.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.