Floor Statements

Mr. President, the Senate this week, and the whole world--or at least the United States of America, and I wish the whole world--were remembering back to what happened on 9/11/2001 in the United States. Yesterday, most appropriately in this Capitol, just outside of the Rotunda, the Senate and the House jointly dedicated an outstanding memorial to those passengers on United Flight 93, where 33 passengers risked and lost their lives but turned what was the worst day in American history--in terms of the defeat--into the first victory of the war on terror.

On that plane were many Americans who at the last minute had changed their flights. They weren't originally scheduled to take that plane but changed it for various reasons. Maybe it was fate. Don't know what it was. But one of the individuals on that flight was Georgine Corrigan. Georgine Corrigan lived in Honolulu. Georgine Corrigan was really a world renowned antiques dealer. Georgine Corrigan was the sister of Robert Marisay. Robert Marisay lives in Woodstock, GA. Yesterday, for the first time in my life, I had the occasion to meet him as he traveled to Washington to see the unveiling of that remarkable marker now hanging in the Capitol.

In the few moments I had to share with him, he shared with me his love for his sister but also his profound pride in what those people on that plane had done that day. Many of us who are here today in the Capitol may not, in fact, have been here in this Capitol today had they not been able to take that plane down and take it away from the terrorists who had hijacked it.

So as we remember the tragedy of 9/11, as we recommit ourselves as Americans to never, ever having an incident like that happen again, it is important that we remember each and every individual who lost their life in the tragedies of 9/11, whether it was in New York City, at the Pentagon, or in Shanksville, PA. It was a tragic day in our country, a day that opened with great hope, with blue skies on a warm autumn day with a crisp autumn

breeze, and ended as the most tragic day in American history.

I am proud of the Senate and the House for the honor they bestowed upon Fight 93 yesterday, and I encourage all in this body to never, ever forget the tragedy of that day and to renew our commitment to see to it that it never happens again.

Mr. President, this is a happy tribute to a young lady by the name of Melanie Oudin. Melanie is 17 years old. She was born in my hometown of Marietta, GA. She has a pair of tennis shoes that have the word ``believe'' on them. She started competing in tennis years ago. She was thought to be pretty good, so her parents--from the seventh grade on--home schooled her so she would have enough time every day to practice.

Were they ever correct. As I am sure the President knows, a few weeks ago, at Wimbledon, this amazing young lady--17 years old, 5-foot-6-- took on the world of tennis and moved through the fourth round at Wimbledon. Along the way, she beat none other than the former world No. 1, Jelena Jankovic. She made all the newspapers and all the sports shows.

But was she a flash in the pan? No. What happened this last couple of weeks in New York City at the U.S. Open proved this girl is the real deal because she advanced this time to the quarter finals, again defeating top-seeded players and former No. 1 players such as Maria Sharapova and Elena Dementieva, both outstanding players who lost to this little 5-foot 6-inch powerhouse from Marietta, GA.

She did lose in the quarter finals, but she will eventually get to the top because she believes, she is committed, she is dedicated, and she has the support and love of a great family. She leaves soon to play in the Bell Challenge in Quebec City. She will probably move from 70th in the world to about 45th in the world.

Mr. President, I am confident with her dedication and commitment, she will soon rise to No. 1. I pay tribute to the First Lady of my hometown, the tennis player of great renown, Ms. Melanie Oudin.

Mr. President, last night the President of the United States, in the preface to his address on health care, addressed our economy and the current state of affairs. I think he made a very accurate assessment that we had hit the bottom and we were on the bottom. The question that lies before us is how we move from the bottom in this economic time back to a period of prosperity.

Although unemployment applications for benefits are down, they are still extraordinarily high. In my State of Georgia, unemployment is 10.3 percent. In the United States of America, the average home--47 percent of them--is worth less than is owed upon the house. That is a very bad situation which over a protracted period of time will continue to suppress consumer confidence and keep us at a low point in our economy.

There are many ideas about what should be done, but I want to talk tonight about two things. One is something that has already been done by this Senate and the House and signed by the President and one is something I hope between now and November 30, the Senate, the House, and the President can do.

First, in terms of what we have done. Senator Conrad of North Dakota joined with me in introducing a piece of legislation known as the Financial Markets Crisis Commission. I enjoyed a lot of support for that, including from the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island. The appointees have been made. It is a bipartisan commission, has a budget of $5 million, has subpoena powers--everything the 9/11 Commission had--and has an unbridled charge to investigate every aspect of the financial markets, whether it is the rating agencies, the investment bankers, the regular bankers and traditional bankers, the GSEs such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, every component, and report back to us by the end of next year, which is right after the midterm elections, on what it finds happened that caused the economic collapse that began last September and continued to mushroom until late March of this year.

There are some who are talking of a rush to judgment in terms of financial regulation. But I hope we will take a pause, give this commission time to act, and let's find out what a forensic audit tells us of what happened in America in our financial markets, and let's respond to that after we have all the facts. I think a rush to regulatory judgment under what one might think, for the best of intentions, caused the problem could have the unintended consequence of having a more difficult impact on the economy than it should.

I think this body and the House acted wisely. I appreciate the President having signed it expeditiously, and I commend the majority leader, the minority leader, the Banking Committee chairman, the ranking member, the Speaker of the House, the Republican leader in the House, and the majority leader in the House for making outstanding appointments.

The appointees to this commission could not be elected officials and they could not work for the government. They have to be people knowledgable in the field of finance. They are 10 of the brightest minds in our country. I have my ideas. I am sure the Presiding Officer has his ideas. I think every Member of the Senate has ideas about what did go wrong last year and what we need to do to correct it.

But let's get all the facts on the table. Let's get a forensic audit so when we move we move with due knowledge and in due course. The biggest mistake in Sarbanes-Oxley a number of years ago was a rush to judgment in reaction to Bernie Ebbers and Ken Lay. Sarbanes-Oxley, although needed and appropriate, reached further probably than it should have in a number of cases. The same potential lies again in terms of financial reform if we move too quickly or precipitously or without all of the information. So in the interest of our economy, let's wait for this report to come back before we rush to judgment.

Now, secondly, on the 30th of November, the first-time home buyer tax credit that passed this body last July and was amended in February expires. The first-time home buyer credit is a byproduct of an original bill I introduced along with a number of Members of the Senate to provide a $15,000 credit to anybody buying and occupying a home in America as their principal residence. It got parsed down and finally, in negotiations, became a first-time home buyer credit only, means tested for incomes of $150,000 or less. It has had a positive impact on the market.

But America does not have a first-time home buyer problem. America has a move-up-crisis problem. Right now, no one who is in a house in the middle of the market, from $200,000 to $600,000, can sell their house. Transferees from Georgia to the State of Washington or from Rhode Island to Florida are frozen. They cannot sell in Rhode Island to buy in Florida. They cannot sell in Atlanta to buy in Washington State.

The housing market is literally at gridlock. The majority of sales being made in the last few months are short sales and foreclosures, which is depressing further the value of housing. The few direct arm's- length sales that are taking place are, in fact, spurred on at the lower end of the market by the first-time home buyer credit.

So I ask the Senate to think for a second: What happens on December 1 of this year when that credit goes away to the housing market? Well, I will tell you. I used to be in that market. The worst month of the year is December, to begin with. Housing purchases are seasonal, and in the winter, December, January, and February are always the low months. If you take away the single impetus that exists, what do you have? Nothing more than short sales and foreclosures and a continuing decline in equities and values.

But if before that expiration date takes place the Senate could take a legitimate look at what is in the best interest of moving our economy off the acknowledged bottom where we are today, it is fixing the one thing that led us into our difficulty, and that was the collapse of the housing market.

I would submit if we took the $8,000 housing tax credit for first- time home buyers, extended it to $10,000, made it

eligible to anybody who bought and occupied a house as their principal residence, whether it was their first purchase or their tenth purchase, we would move more real estate and move more impetus to the housing market than it has seen in the past 24 months. As we do that, consumer confidence comes back, equities and values come back, the borrowing power of the American public comes back, and our economy comes back. Failure to do so and we remain in a quagmire where we are today, which is no legitimate sales, declining values, a loss of equity, and a continuing high unemployment rate and a continued depressed marketplace.

So as we come back from our August break, as we begin to look forward, as we look at the end of the year, as we look at those things that are terminating, those things that need to be considered, let's pause for a second and realize the good that the tax credit has done so far, as limited as it was, and let's make it better. Let's extend it to July 1. Let's make it $10,000. Let's take the means test off. Let's give an impetus to the move-up market. If we do, values will return, unemployment will go down, our economy will turn, and consumer price confidence will go up. I would submit it is a part of the main solution we need to take an economy that is on the bottom and move it back toward equilibrium and prosperity for America.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and the clerk call up amendment 2306.

Madam President, I want to address this amendment for a moment, and I want to set the stage for the amendment. This amendment was first offered by myself and others in January of 2008. It is an amendment that would provide a $15,000 income tax credit to a family that purchases and occupies as their home any single-family dwelling in the United States, regardless of their age, their income, or their State. Six months later, in the middle of 2008, the Finance Committee did pass a $7,500 tax credit which was an interest-free loan, trying to incentivize first-time home buyers to come to the market. But because it was a loan, it didn't do anything. So in December of last year, we changed it to an $8,000 tax credit for only first-time home buyers with incomes less than $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for couples.

It has worked. In fact, if we look at sales figures from January through through July, we will find that entry-level housing, that housing under $180 to $200,000, has actually begun to recover. But if we examine the marketplace, we find terrible numbers, such as the following: 47 percent of all the homes in the United States of America are worth less than what is owed upon them. That is a tragedy. Worst of all,

in the month of June, 57 percent of all sales in America were foreclosures or short sales; 43 percent were arm's-length sales. The housing market continues to flounder. Values continue to decline, and equities continue to dissipate.

This amendment is added to the cash for clunkers bill for a very important reason. As Senators Stabenow and Levin will tell us, the up- to-$4,500 incentive to buy a new, fuel-efficient car by trading in an old gas-guzzling car worked. It worked so well that in 1 week the money disappeared.

That demonstrates what I have known all my life. Positive incentives cause positive results. The problem is, though, it was not the automobile market that disappeared first in America. It was the collapse of housing in the last quarter of 2007, which accelerated in early 2008, which pulled away the equity, reduced the amount of credit folks had and caused car loans to go bad and people to not buy cars. The only way we will ever turn the U.S. economy around is to return the biggest engine of the U.S. economy and that is the construction industry and single-family construction and single-family homes.

Right now we are stagnant. The problem is not with first-time buyers. It is with move-up buyers. It is the fellow who has transferred from Atlanta, GA to Hartford, CT who can't sell the house in Atlanta because there is no buyer for it and can't buy a house in Connecticut because he doesn't have the equity out of Atlanta. This tax credit does not take other people's tax money and give it to you to buy a house. It gives you a credit against the taxes that you owe. Rather than buying a depreciable asset such as a car, you are buying an appreciable asset such as real estate. It has a multiplier effect.

When we offered this amendment last year, it was estimated by one economist that it would create 700,000 sales in one year and 685,000 jobs. If there is anything America needs, it is just that. So just as cash for clunkers has demonstrated that positive rewards can cause positive actions on behalf of the consumer, so too would the tax credit do the same.

By the way, the cost of this credit is estimated by CBO at $34.2 billion. In January of 2008, they said that is too much money. Since then, we have spent $85 billion on AIG, $700 billion on TARP, $787 billion on a stimulus, and we are still floundering; and $34 billion sounds like a pretty cheap price to address what is the principle problem in the economy. This amendment says it is paid for. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to transfer from the stimulus money to the Internal Revenue Service the claims to cover the tax credits filed by homeowners when they pay their taxes for the houses they have purchased.

Finally and most importantly, there is a rude awakening coming in America, and it is coming on November 30, 2009. That is when the existing tax credit for first-time home buyers goes away. The last incentive for an arm's-length sale will have disappeared. If we think we have economic difficulties now, wait until that happens. But with this amendment, we take, from the date of its passage 1 year ahead, which would be sometime in August of next year, a $15,000 nonmeans- tested credit to replace the $8,000 means-tested credit.

If the economists are right--not me--it will do the one thing the U.S. economy desperately needs. It will generate a legitimate housing market. Values will stabilize. We will reflate in the value of homes. People will buy more cars because of that than they will because of cash for clunkers. So we want to take the evidence of the success of this program, take what we already know has worked in a means-tested manner in first-time home buyers, and apply it to every American, because every American is suffering in this economy. Every American deserves us to look for positive incentives to bring the economy back, restore their equity, improve their value, and return us to a vibrant economy. I hope the men and women of the Senate will adopt this amendment.

To those who are going to say, we can't do it because the House is gone, I ask this question: If we were talking about health care and one body had passed it, the House would be back here in a New York minute. They could come back in a hurry, and we know it.

Restoring our economy is important. Recovering the equity of our homes is important. Repaying the American people for the dissipation of our marketplace is important. The home buyers tax credit will do it. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Isakson amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Amendment No. 2303

Mr. President, very simply, this is the amendment to help our economy recover. The Senator from Washington, the Senator from Connecticut, the chairman of the Banking Committee, are cosponsors of the main bill. It provides a $15,000 tax credit for the purchase of any home in America during the next 12 months. It will make the difference. It does not do anything to the base bill.

For those who would say we cannot do it because the House is gone, we can do anything if we want to. It is time we address the central core issue to our economy: the housing market.

I urge all my friends to support the Isakson amendment to provide the $15,000 tax credit.

Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable section of the Budget Act with respect to my amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am honored to rise with Senator Chambliss to pay tribute to a great Georgian and a great friend to the United States of America and a great veteran of the U.S. Army.

COL Frank Norton was quite an extraordinary man. As Senator Chambliss mentioned, upon graduation he went to Vietnam, and in Vietnam he took one of the most dangerous missions of all and did it superbly. He was decorated nine times. He returned here and throughout his career served in the Congress, the Senate, and served the people of the United States in many ways.

Frank Norton is a very unique individual. When he left military service and left service to the House and Senate liaison committees, he formed a partnership with his old friend Bob Hurt from Georgia. They formed a firm called Hurt and Norton, and they were quite a team; always jovial, always hard working, always on target, always delivering for their clients, and their clients were always the State of Georgia.

Our biggest economic asset in Georgia is our port of Savannah, and they represented the port. Our coastline is one of the most valuable areas of Georgia, and they represented our coastline. And most importantly of all, in the critical days of Fort Stewart, they represented Fort Stewart and the Hinesville community to see to it that the needs of our soldiers were met and the needs of the city of Hinesville, which hosted the soldiers, were met as well.

Frank died on the tennis court with his young son Lee. Tonight I send my regrets to his wife Carol, to Lee, and to all his family. But I also send my praise, my praise for a great Georgian, a great American, who sacrificed in so many ways for this country. May he now rest in peace looking down on all of us from heaven.

I yield back my time.

Madam President, I rise on an issue of particular importance. I am delighted Senators Burris and Dodd are on the floor. Along with Senator Chambliss, the four of us joined in a very important piece of legislation. In fact, in the gallery tonight is a lady named Jackie Boatwright, whose young son Juan, 8 years ago, was severely injured in a daycare center.

For a second, I wish to talk about the legislation we have introduced and encourage all the Members of the Senate to support it. On September 9, 2001, 2 days before the tragedy of September 11, on a Sunday morning, Mrs. Boatwright got up and took her son to daycare and went to church. On her way home, her cell phone rang. She got a call telling her that her son Juan was now in the hospital. While at the daycare center, he pulled up beside a mop bucket, bent over and fell headfirst in the bucket, which was full of dirty mop water and bleach.

Juan, today, lies semicomatose in a hospital on a ventilator.

The daycare center had no liability insurance. To Mrs. Boatwright's credit, from the day of that tragedy, she has advocated on behalf of parents and young children, so that it is required they be able to know the insurance available to them to protect their children in a daycare center. I mentioned that Senators Dodd, Burris, Chambliss, and myself have introduced legislation, which already passed the House. It requires that any daycare center receiving Federal funds from the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program must disclose, upon registration and admittance, to any child and their parents the liability coverage they have to protect that child.

Mrs. Boatwright wants to make sure that what happened to little Juan, and what happened in her life as a tragedy, never happens in the life of any other mother anywhere in America. Mrs. Boatwright is a resident of Augusta, GA. I am proud of her for the example she has set. So many citizens don't think they can make a difference. Mrs. Boatwright is taking a tragedy and making a difference for thousands of parents and children for years to come.

I am proud to encourage the Members of the Senate to help us get unanimous consent to agree with the House and pass this legislation, Juan Boatwright's legacy, the Anthony DeJuan Boatwright Act, requiring disclosure of liability insurance coverage to every parent whose child is entering daycare.

I yield the floor.

I thank the distinguished acting chairman of the HELP Committee for offering that assistance and assisting in the passage of this legislation.

I call up amendment No. 1525.

Mr. President, a few years ago this body granted a Berry waiver on the purchase of rayon fiber made in Austria for the purpose of making fire-resistant uniforms of the U.S. Marines, Army, and aviators. The Berry requirement is the buy American requirement, meaning that you first have to buy American before you go offshore to buy a product.

At the beginning of the Iraq war, the U.S. Army and Marines noticed immediately we had a tremendous increase, because of the nature of that war, in burn injuries. They conducted a survey and looked at the 24 best alternatives they could find anywhere to make fire-resistant uniforms. They finally settled on a para-aramid fire-resistant fiber blend of rayon with nylon.

Environmental Protection Agency requirements to make rayon make it prohibitive in the United States, and there is no rayon produced in the United States. It is produced in Austria.

So the Berry waiver we received a few years ago was to allow them to import, through now and 2013, rayon, fire-resistant rayon, which in the United States is blended for fabric, cut, sewn, produced, and shipped to the U.S. military--10,000 American jobs. The rayon cannot be produced in the United States because of the EPA requirements.

The reason to request an exception and postpone the sunset in 2013 is because the military procurement in the outyears is now reaching beyond that. With the absence of a Berry waiver for those years, they would have to zero

out the purchase for those uniforms which, in turn, would mean the people who make those uniforms would not have the certainty of the Berry waiver because it would be subject to a Berry waiver again. Therefore, the investment they would make would be limited to the years they knew they could make the guaranteed deliveries.

I have offered this amendment as an extension for that very reason. The U.S. Army, the Marine Corps, and the aviators who use the material love it because it breathes, it gives them some circulation, it has tremendous protection against burns and it has performed very satisfactorily and they want to continue to use it and there is no American competitor that can meet or exceed it.

Obviously, if there were, that waiver would go away and we could compete, but at this time they do not. I ask the Members for their consideration on behalf of our military men and women in harm's way in Afghanistan and Iraq and wherever they might be for the uniform that was chosen for the very battle we are now in because it was the best the military could find anywhere in the country.

I yield the floor.

Through the Chair, will the Senator from South Carolina yield for a moment for a question?

With respect, isn't it true that there is nothing in this waiver that in any way inhibits or prohibits American manufacturers from doing the research and development necessary to attempt to come up with a material that meets or exceeds the rayon made in Austria? The problem is they cannot produce rayon in the United States of America because of EPA prohibitions and the costs to meet that.

Mr. President, let me comment, if I can. The Berry ``Buy American'' program is absolutely 100 percent on target. The reason for waivers is when we find that there is no domestic product equal to or better than a product that has a component overseas, in the interest of our men and women in the military, we give the

waiver so it doesn't keep us--so we do not prohibit ourselves from having the best material possible. If an American domestic manufacturer produces an alternative fiber or fabric which meets or exceeds the fire-resistant para-aramid rayon that is now being used, the Berry waiver will no longer apply because there will be a domestically produced U.S. product that is superior or equal to that particular product of rayon.

So I would respectfully submit to the Senators from Virginia and South Carolina that the argument that there is a prohibition--that this would keep people from making an investment in R&D to produce something better is the reverse. It actually will accelerate the need for them to make the R&D investment to try and produce something better in the United States, if they can.

One last point. The U.S. military did 24 different evaluations after the initial move into Iraq when we had so many burn injuries. It determined this fabric has to be the best for our men and women aviators, men and women in the Marine Corps, men and women in the Army in combat, and it has performed well in Afghanistan and Iraq ever since.

So I would submit the R&D argument is actually accelerated with the extension of the waiver, and the proof of the product is in the pudding which we have seen with the safety of our troops and our men and women in harm's way.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. President, it was September 9, 2001, in Augusta, GA, when Jackie Boatwright, on her way home from church, got a horrific call on her cell phone. The little boy, Anthony DeJuan Boatwright, then 14 months of age that she had dropped off at day care in the morning had been rushed to the hospital.

Upon her arrival at the hospital, a doctor gave her the grim news. He said, ``It appears your son has suffered a near drowning accident from falling into a bucket of mop water containing bleach. He has been without a pulse for more than an hour but we have managed to get a heartbeat. It is not a strong one right now but we have one.''

Today, nearly 8 years later, Juan now resides with his wonderful mother Jackie. He is semi-comatose and dependent on a ventilator.

The child care center where Juan was injured was licensed, but not insured. At the time, there was no way for Jackie or other parents to know the insurance status of child care providers.

Today, Senators Dodd, Chambliss, Burris and I introduce straight- forward, bipartisan legislation that will require day care centers to disclose whether or not they carry appropriate insurance for the facility.

The House of Representatives has passed this legislation multiple times, but now we in this body take our turn to simultaneously both honor young Juan and provide parents with much-needed information about child care facilities.

It is time this body passed this legislation and sent it on to President Obama for his signature.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, it was September 9, 2001, in Augusta, GA, when Jackie Boatwright, on her way home from church, got a horrific call on her cell phone. The little boy, Anthony DeJuan Boatwright, then 14 months of age that she had dropped off at day care in the morning had been rushed to the hospital.

Upon her arrival at the hospital, a doctor gave her the grim news. He said, ``It appears your son has suffered a near drowning accident from falling into a bucket of mop water containing bleach. He has been without a pulse for more than an hour but we have managed to get a heartbeat. It is not a strong one right now but we have one.''

Today, nearly 8 years later, Juan now resides with his wonderful mother Jackie. He is semi-comatose and dependent on a ventilator.

The child care center where Juan was injured was licensed, but not insured. At the time, there was no way for Jackie or other parents to know the insurance status of child care providers.

Today, Senators Dodd, Chambliss, Burris and I introduce straight- forward, bipartisan legislation that will require day care centers to disclose whether or not they carry appropriate insurance for the facility.

The House of Representatives has passed this legislation multiple times, but now we in this body take our turn to simultaneously both honor young Juan and provide parents with much-needed information about child care facilities.

It is time this body passed this legislation and sent it on to President Obama for his signature.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. President, almost 7 months ago, Senator Conrad from North Dakota and myself began an adventure attempting to convince this body and the one across the hall to create a Financial Markets Commission to study and do a forensic audit of what happened to our financial markets in 2007, 2008, and 2009. All of us recognize we have been through a catastrophic financial collapse with many potential components contributing to the gravity. It is not over yet.

I commend Leader Reid and Leader McConnell, Leader Boehner in the House, and Speaker Pelosi and others who had the authority under the legislation for announcing their appointments today to the Commission. I particularly commend the majority on the appointment of Ms. Born to the Commission. It was her outspoken words prior to the collapse that should have warned us better, or we should have paid more attention to, about the overleveraging of the economy and the underwriting of risk. Nonetheless, the

collapse has happened. The recession is here. Unemployment in Georgia today topped 10 percent. We are seeing predictions that it will top 10 percent for the entire country within the days ahead. It is critically important that we find out what went wrong, what the contributing factors were, and recommend back to the Congress those actions we need to take to ensure this never happens again.

For my children and grandchildren, if I have one last legacy, it is to say, when it was on my watch, we found out what the problem was, we corrected past errors, and we gave a little more security to their investments and future in the days to come.

I have my opinions as to what went wrong, but I know I am not smart enough to have all the answers. There are others who think they know what has gone wrong. We already have from the White House as well as from the Senate some who are making recommendations over creating czars or authorities or things to address the financial collapse. It would be a mistake beyond words for us to do that now in the absence of all the facts. This Commission has the authority, the money, and the power to get to the bottom of the problem. We gave them a $5 million budget, an 18-month timetable, and subpoena powers. As evidenced by those who have been named today, we have some of the best financial minds in the country--not elected officials, not members of government, some former servants, but some of the best minds in the business to begin the process of studying the collapse that began in 2007, continued through 2008, and in a protracted way continues today.

It is important that we get all the facts. There is plenty of blame to go around. Members of the House, in 1999, such as myself, who voted overwhelmingly for the repeal of Glass-Steagall--that very well could be one of the things the Commission finds was where we had too much deregulation in financial services. We ought to know that and what contribution it may have had. I have grave suspicions over the role Moody's and Standard & Poor's, the ratings agencies, played. I wonder, why should the agency that rates the security be paid by the creator of the security? They ought to be paid by the person buying the security if they are looking for a surety. And why were credit default swaps unregulated? Why did they fall outside the purview of government? What is it about FASB rule 114 that is hurting so bad in the community banking system today because of the devastation of mark-to-market on real estate? And congratulations on the change by FASB of rule 157, which has lessened some of the pressure on mortgage-backed securities and the valuation of those, which has helped some bigger institutions. But there are lots of things that could have gone wrong and some that did. We need to have all of them on the table, the best minds in the business looking at it, and we need to have a bipartisan, unfettered, comprehensive recommendation on what we need to do to ensure that it never, ever happens again.

I urge the President and our leadership to be cautious in moving ahead regulatorily without first getting the facts together. We are in an environment now where everybody does know what the rules are as they exist. In the few months ahead, long before this Commission reports, a lot of decisions will be made that will be dependent and predicated upon the environment the investment community thinks they are operating in or at least knows they are operating in today.

We have some bumps ahead. Commercial mortgage-backed securities are the next shoe to drop in this economic compromise we have been through, although those mortgage-backed securities are not in trouble as much because of their underwriting as they are from the effects of the poor underwriting of the residential mortgage-backed securities that caused a collapse of those markets and those securities. That comes ahead of us.

We have another wave of adjustments in terms of residential mortgages. That is not over. We have the pending problem of the number of mortgages in foreclosure, more performing, good loans at one time than subprime-originated loans at their beginning, meaning the unemployment rate and the protracted decline of the economy is contributing to people who were paying and are falling behind on payments on their houses. Now, because values have declined, they recognize they are better off to leave than to try to sell the house because they can't get anything out of it. We must put an end to this decline. We can best do it by having all the facts necessary at our disposal to know what went wrong when, who did wrong where, and what we need to do as quickly as possible to prohibit this from ever happening again.

I spent 33 years of my life in the private sector in the real estate business. I know lots of people in that business, and I know how much the families they represent, the customers they have had, and the families themselves have suffered in the months past and the pending suffering yet to come.

This is the most important thing this Senate and Congress can do, to do a forensic audit and diagnosis. Let the chips fall where they may and then make the corrections necessary so it never happens again.

I am happy to commend our leadership for their expeditious appointment of highly qualified and talented people. I hope all in this body will pay close attention to what they say and do and not rush to judgment thinking we know the answer, when all of us really know this Commission is essential to finding out what really did happen and what we really do need to do.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 5 minutes and that Senator Thune be recognized immediately thereafter.

Madam President, I rise to affirm everything the Senator from Connecticut said. He made an articulate, detailed case for the F- 22, in opposition to the amendment. I commend him.

I wish to add three thoughts, three good reasons, for the F-22 and not to adopt the amendment: No. 1, when the U.S. Air Force wrote the RFP for the weapon system of the 21st century to replace three existing, aging aircraft, the F-22 met and exceeded every single part of the RFP. No. 2, for those who say the cost is some $2,000 an hour more for maintenance, you have to quantify that. Look what you are buying. You are buying stealth technology that exists nowhere else in the world and the ability to deliver munitions and leave without ever having been seen. Most recently, in Alaska, the F-22, in a mock battle, destroyed 144 aircraft before it lost its first one.

Lastly, and most importantly, while it may not be the plane exactly for Afghanistan and Iraq today, what about North Korea? What about Iran? What about what happened to us in the Balkans in the late 1990s, when President Clinton deployed our air strength to put together what was a terrible situation? We must be prepared for whatever will come in the 21st century. If there is anything we have learned, you cannot underestimate what may come. I commend the Senator for his articulate statement and affirm everything he said in support of not adopting the amendment and to continue to purchase the F-22 beyond the 187 currently being capped--or asked to be capped at. I commend the Senator for his remarks.

Mr. President, I wish to pause for a second and tell everybody in the Senate that on the 1st day of August of this coming month, in Waynesboro, GA, there is going to be birthday party for a 96- year-old lady, Emily Cox. She is not just another 96-year-old lady.

Emily Cox was the mother of Jackson Elliot Cox, my best friend in college. When he graduated from college, he left to join the U.S. Marine Corps, went through OCS, went to Vietnam, and he died on behalf of his country. Miss Emily was saddened, obviously, by the tragedy, as was her husband Sidney.

When Alex Crumbley, myself, and Pierre Howard went to be at the wake and to wait for the body to return and to try to soothe Miss Emily, she soothed us for the loss of our best friend. Since that day, Miss Emily Cox has traveled our State on behalf of veterans, on behalf of the U.S. Marine Corps, and on behalf of our country. She is a living legend in Georgia for her sweetness, for her strength, for her love of country, and for her sacrifice.

While I will not be able to be in Waynesboro, GA, on August 1 to celebrate her 96th birthday, from the floor of the Senate, I send her my greetings and my thanks. She has been a rock for me, a rock for her community.

Miss Emily, we love you, and happy birthday.

Mr. President, before I make my remarks, I want to express my appreciation to Senator Grassley for his obviously passionate and compassionate remarks about a story and a man who has captured America. As Senator Grassley knows, I have the privilege of visiting Iowa once or twice a year and have dear friends there, and I know how strong the people of Iowa are.

I want to tell Senator Grassley, his remarks, his compassion, and his passion are appreciated, I am sure, not only by the family and all Iowans but all of us in America, as we share in the tragedy and loss of a great man. I commend him on his remarks.

Mr. President, I rise for just a minute to talk about a gentleman who resides in my State, a man I have known for 40 years, and a man I, never in a million years, thought I would stand on the floor of the Senate and brag about. But today I did something I have never done. I voted on the Internet in relation to the National Radio Hall of Fame nominees for 2009 for a gentleman by the name of Neal Boortz.

Neal Boortz is a daytime talk show host in the city of Atlanta. He started in radio with Ring Radio in 1969, a little old 1,000-watt station in Brookhaven, GA. Now he is one of the leading talk show hosts in terms of audience in the United States of America.

He is syndicated on 230 different stations, has an audience of 5 million people, and calls himself the High Priest of the Church of the Painful Truth. I have to rise and tell you as a politician who has been both the victim and the beneficiary of any number of Neal's diatribes, he is exactly that. He is a man of the painful truth. He can find the facts on any issue. He can get to the core of the issue, and he can move communities to do good things and do the right thing.

I was delighted to hear that the National Radio Foundation has nominated him for this award, and I want to say today I voted for him because I sincerely hope he gets the recognition for three reasons: One is, while he is not always right, he is seldom in doubt. His passion for what he believes rubs off, and I think that is important.

Secondly, he loves to be challenged. Unlike so many you hear on the radio who want you to believe it is their way or the highway, he loves to share his own ideas. He has published three books. The first one, ``The Terrible Truth About Liberals,'' is on its sixth publishing. ``The FairTax Book,'' which he cowrote with a Georgia Congressman, John Linder, has been on the New York Times Best Seller list for a long period of time.

Right now, his most recent book--and that is, ``Somebody's Got to Say It,'' which he oftentimes does--is in its second printing and No. 2 on the New York Times Best Seller list.

But the best part of Neal Boortz is not the thousands he has influenced in over 40 years on the radio, his humor and his passion. It is not his longevity. It is the fact that he always gives back to his community and his State.

Just one shining example is his wife Donna, who, by the way, prides herself in saying she has never listened to 1 minute of Neal's radio show. But Neal donated the proceeds of his book sales to Donna for the establishment of a foundation, which she uses that money to help those less fortunate, those in need, and those on the cusp of doing great things who need a little encouragement and a little capitalization.

So as all of us have our opinions from time to time about talk radio or journalism or commentaries or those who may sometimes accuse us and sometimes praise us as politicians, I am delighted to stand on the floor of the Senate and praise a man from my State who for 40 years has given the best he has, who has fought for what he believed in but accepted being challenged, and who always tried to say and do the right thing for America and the right thing for our community.

It is my sincere hope when the voting ends on October 1, that millions of Americans will have gone to the poll on the Internet, radiohof.org, and cast their vote for Neal Boortz.

Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. President, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall vote No. 215, an amendment to strike the earmark for the Durham Museum in Omaha, NE, from H.R. 2918, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 2010; rollcall vote No. 216 on a point of order with respect to amendment No. 1365; and rollcall vote No. 217 on passage of H.R. 2918, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 2010.

Had I been present I would have voted yea for rollcall vote No. 215; nay for rollcall vote No. 216; and nay for rollcall vote No. 217 and ask that the Record reflect that.