January 8, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S189 

Mr. President, today the Senate approved a resolution recognizing the 

right of Israel to defend itself against 

terrorist attacks from Gaza and reaffirming the United States’ strong 

support for Israel in its battle with 

Hamas. 

The first thing the resolution does is 

remind people why the State of Israel 

had to act. 

Israel has had to endure more than 

6,300 rocket and mortar attacks on its 

citizens since it fully withdrew from 

Gaza in 2005. In fact, the town of 

Sderot, which is about 3 miles from the 

border of Gaza, has been suffering for 

over 8 years from these attacks. 

Is there any doubt that if the United 

States were suffering an attack from 

just across the border similar to what 

Israel is facing, that we wouldn’t react 

to stop that from happening? I think 

there is no question that we would act 

to stop this terrorism, and this resolution expresses the United States’ support of Israel’s right to defend itself. 

The second point the resolution 

makes is that there is no equivalency 

between the terrorist actions of Hamas 

and the defensive actions of Israel. 

Israel conducts its military operations 

to spare innocent life. It has specifically targeted Hamas command centers, security installations, rocketlaunching sites, weapons stockpiles, 

and weapons smuggling tunnels. It has 

tried very hard to avoid civilian casualties. Hamas, on the other hand, deliberately and maliciously fires rockets 

into civilian areas from civilian areas, 

thereby making it more difficult for 

Israel to target the terrorists and increasing the likelihood of civilian casualties when Israel does take action. 

Finally, this resolution speaks to 

calls for a cease-fire. Many voices in 

the international community have 

been heard pleading for an immediate 

cease-fire, although I think it is instructive that one never hears those 

voices condemning rocket attacks by 

Hamas terrorists. 

I believe the path to a halt in the violence is clear. A cease-fire is appropriate if, and when, it is durable and 

sustainable. A precipitous cease-fire, 

on the other hand, that would allow 

Hamas to rearm and rebuild its support 

in Gaza is not acceptable. Hamas cannot be given a cease-fire that only 

serves to provide it breathing room to 

regroup and then start firing its rockets and missiles again. 

By adopting this resolution, we have 

said to the Israeli people: ‘‘We stand 

with you, and we support you in defending yourselves against terrorists.’’ 

In short, the resolution expresses 

strong support for the defense of Israel 

by its military action today in the 

Gaza Strip, the fact that it has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas terrorists 

from the Gaza Strip, and finally decided that the only way to stop those 

attacks on its citizens was to go into 

Gaza and try to remove the weapons 

and the launching sites and to try to 

arrest the terrorists who were involved 

in the launching of those rockets. 

This resolution expresses strong support for Israel. It reminds us all why 

Israel was forced to act. It makes the 

point that there is no equivalency between the action of the Israelis and the 

terrorist action of Hamas, which deliberately seeks to harm civilians. Finally, it speaks to the question of a 

cease-fire, noting that the position of 

the United States is correctly that a 

cease-fire could only be supported if it 

is durable and sustainable; in other 

words, it ensures that the conditions 

that created the controversy today are 

not simply repeated another 6 months 

from now when the Hamas terrorists 

have had an opportunity to rearm. 

I am pleased the Senate has spoken 

in such a timely fashion on this important issue. I commend my colleagues 

for supporting the resolution. 

f 

ECONOMIC STIMULUS 

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the president-elect spoke to the stimulus package today. The Finance Committee had 

an informal meeting today to discuss 

the proposition. Its outlines are still 

quite vague. There is no specificity to 

what precisely will go into the stimulus package, but there are some general concepts emerging. 

So what I wanted to do today, very 

briefly, is to outline what I think 

would be some sensible tests to evaluate what is being proposed, and what it 

may reveal is that some ideas would 

not meet these tests and should not be 

part of a stimulus package. Others 

would meet the tests and would help to 

resolve the economic crisis that faces 

America today. 

I think the context we put this in is 

one in which we have already had some 

bailouts, and Americans are a little 

suspicious that some of the money we 

have committed to these bailouts is 

going to help—the $200 billion bailout 

to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the 

$150 billion bailout of AIG, the insurance company, the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, the recent 

$17.4 billion auto bailout, and, by the 

way, the announcement yesterday was 

that for the first time in the history of 

the world the budget deficit of a country—namely, the United States of 

America—will top $1 trillion. That is 

over 8 percent of our gross domestic 

product. 

A friend of mine reminded me 

today—I think it is an interesting bit 

of trivia—$1 trillion is more money 

than all the cash in circulation in the 

world today of the United States of 

America. All the dollar bills, the tendollar bills, the hundred-dollar bills, 

and all of the quarters, nickles, and all 

of the other cash of the United States 

does not equal $1 trillion, and that is 

how much the deficit is going to be for 

just this current year. That is a lot of 

money. 

In that context, we have to be very 

careful about how we spend another $1 

trillion or thereabouts to stimulate the 

economy. The money comes from 

somewhere, and it either comes from 

taxpayers directly in the form of increased taxes or it is borrowed and the 

taxpayers eventually have to pay that 

back with interest. The interest cost, 

by the way, is expected to be well over 

$300 billion. So, as a result, we have to 

be very careful that we do more good 

than harm by taking this money away 

from American taxpayers. The first 

test obviously is, will it work? Will it 

stimulate economic growth? That is 

the test that Larry Summers, an adviser to the President-elect, has stated. 

In fact, he said, and I am paraphrasing, 

that investments will be chosen strategically on the basis of which will do 

the most to spur the economy. So if we 

have tried something before, and it has 

not worked, it is a good sign that probably we should not do that. 

The reason I say that is we had a 

stimulus already: the so-called tax rebate. We spent $150 billion on it. The 

facts are now in. It did not work; it did 

not stimulate the economy. In fact, 

only about 12 percent of the money 

turns out to have been spent. The lesson to be learned in a situation like 

this is, if you have tried something before and it has not worked, then do not 

repeat it because it is throwing good 

money after bad. 

The reason it did not work is because 

when people get a one-time windfall, 

they tend to save it or to pay bills with 

it. They spend it if they believe that it 

is a permanent part of their income 

forever, more so if it is going to relate 

to their taxes, we need to ensure that 

they know that they are going to have 

permanent tax relief. If it is simply 

something they believe they are going 

to have for a year or two, chances are 

they are not going to spend it. It is not 

going to do any good. 

Another test is, would Government 

action be better in the private sector 

or the Government sector? We know in 

America it is small business and some 

big business. It is our free enterprise 

system that creates jobs, that creates 

economic growth. The Government 

cannot create economic growth. 

In fact, when the Government gets 

involved, there is more potential to do 

harm than good. We can tax them, we 

can regulate them. Usually, it does not 

do them any good. Sometimes you can 

do things to help business. Usually, 

you do it in a way that helps with their 

tax burden. There are some good ideas 

that I have heard discussed that would, 

by making it more tax friendly to invest in certain kinds of equipment, for 

example, or to hire more people, if we 

knew that would stimulate an economic activity, that those kind of activities would be very useful. 

But frequently when we spend Government money, in this case, for example, potentially creating 600,000 new 

Government jobs, remember we are 

taking that money out of the private 

sector, and it is likely to do less good 

in the public sector than it would if we 

left it in the private sector. 

In fact, a couple of economists with 

whom we spoke yesterday noted that 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
S190 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 8, 2009 

even in a recession business gets a 4 to 

5 percent return on its investment. The 

real test should be, if the money is 

spent in the Government sector, will 

we get at least that return on the investment that we are making? If we do 

not, we should leave that money in the 

private sector so the private sector can 

get that return on that investment and 

therefore generate more economic activity in our private enterprise system. 

Another question is whether the new 

Government spending replaces State 

and local spending. My understanding 

is there is a big chunk of money to go 

to State and local governments. Now 

they have gotten themselves into a 

pickle because a lot of them have big 

budget deficits this year. They are 

going to constrict what they spend 

money on as well or they are going to 

have to raise taxes or fees or find some 

other way to balance their budgets. 

But they obviously would like for the 

Federal Government to bail them out. 

Well, obviously before the Federal Government considers doing that, the first 

question is, Are you going to correct 

what has created the deficiency in the 

first place or are we simply going to 

save your bacon then you do not have 

to do anything to change your ways. 

Are you going to reduce your spending? 

For example, are you going to spend 

the money anyway? 

People are talking about shovelready projects. There are a lot of shovel-ready projects at the State level for 

roads or highways or whatever, and 

they are called shovel-ready because 

the State is prepared to do them. Well, 

if the State is going to do them anyway, then clearly the Federal Government paying for it is not going to create any new jobs. It is not going to 

stimulate economic growth in any way, 

even though it might produce a new 

bridge or a new highway that is useful 

to the people in that State. So since 

our goal is to stimulate new economic 

activity, we must ask whether the 

spending will really create new economic activity or merely replace something at the State level that would 

occur anyway. 

The penultimate question is, Is it 

worth doing? We have to ask the taxpayers from whom we are getting 

money whether an investment is worth 

undertaking at all. For example, one of 

the things that would be on an infrastructure to-do list was a mob museum 

in Las Vegas; there was a snowmaking 

venture in Minnesota. Are these the 

kind of investments that American 

taxpayers believe are warranted under 

any circumstances? 

There are a lot of investments the 

Federal Government can make that are 

worthwhile. For example, clearly we 

have used a lot of military equipment 

that needs to be replaced. There are 

good jobs throughout this country producing military equipment. We need to 

add personnel to our military. I think 

there is a general consensus to do that. 

That will cost money. That will obviously create jobs. 

So those are activities that are needed, are worthwhile, are job creating, 

and clearly would help our country, potentially being much more worthwhile 

than, like I say, a mob museum or 

some kind of snowmaking equipment. 

Then, finally, I think there is one 

final test that we might talk about. In 

view of the huge deficit we have, 

should we make the deficit worse? This 

is a cost-benefit analysis. This is clearly going to be added to the deficit. So 

the question is, How much more deficit 

can we pile on without having adverse 

consequences in the immediate and 

long-term? We might stimulate the 

economy over the next 3 or 4 months, 

but if we are creating a huge hole to 

dig out of 3 or 4 years from now, we 

have to ask, Is it really going to be 

worth it. 

So when we evaluate the different 

proposals, we have to ask whether it is 

going to be worth it to have this large 

a deficit, twice the $1.2 trillion of this 

coming year. One thought in this regard is this: When we lower tax rates, 

we know it helps people. It helps small 

business create jobs. That is what you 

do in a recession. You try to help people by letting them keep more of their 

money so they can spend it and help 

get us out of the recession. 

Permanent tax cuts are the way to 

do that. The permanent tax cut obviously may or may not reduce revenue 

to the Treasury. The right kind of tax 

cuts can actually produce more revenue to the Treasury, but increased 

spending, there is no way around it, 

loses money to the Treasury. It puts 

you in a deeper hole. So as between the 

potential relief from taxes, leaving 

more money in the private sector, 

which is eventually going to create the 

jobs to get us out of the recession, or 

having the Government spend more 

money and creating a larger deficit 

that way, it is a test that I think we 

need to be very clear about, from my 

mind. 

While I am willing to help do things 

to stimulate economic activity in the 

short term, I am not willing to ignore 

long-term consequences of a deficit the 

size that would be created by the kind 

of spending we are talking about. 

If we apply the right kind of tests— 

and they are sensible. They are not Republican or Democratic tests; they are 

obviously tests that any prudent person would ask before spending this 

kind of money—I think that will help 

us better evaluate the kind of economic stimulus package we can actually support in the Senate. It will be 

the kind of analysis our taxpaying constituents expect of us when, in view of 

all of the other things that have been 

done to bail out various aspects of our 

economy, with the kind of trillion-dollar-plus deficit we are looking at, they 

want us to engage in, they want us to 

be prudent. 

They have had their fill of wasteful 

Washington spending. They want us to 

be very careful about what we do with 

their money in the future. I hope as we 

engage this debate in the future—we 

will have plenty of time to talk about 

it, debate it, think about it, to analyze 

it and I am not suggesting we try to 

slow-walk it, but in trying to move 

quickly we nevertheless take the time 

to perform the kind of analysis I have 

talked about. 

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous 

consent that the order for the quorum 

call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

GRIFFIN BELL 

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I 

rise to pay tribute to a long-time, good 

friend and a great Georgian, Griffin 

Bell, who passed away on Monday of 

this week. Judge Griffin Bell was a native of America’s Georgia. He was a 

distinguished lawyer in our State since 

1947, when he passed the Georgia bar 

after completing just four quarters of 

study in his beloved Mercer Law 

School in Macon, GA. Upon graduation 

the following year, he entered private 

practice in Savannah. Appointed by 

President John Kennedy to the Fifth 

Circuit Court of Appeals, Attorney 

General of the United States under 

President Jimmy Carter, and as an attorney for President George H.W. Bush, 

Judge Bell has left an extraordinary 

legacy of courage, integrity, wisdom, 

and, yes, humor to our Nation and to 

my State. 

In one of the press reports this week, 

upon Judge Bell’s death at the age of 

90, one of his law partners, Richard 

Schneider at the distinguished Atlanta 

firm of King & Spalding, where Judge 

Bell practiced before and after his service on the Federal bench and as Attorney General, said: 

No novelist, not even Dickens or John Irving, could have created a more memorable 

character than Judge Bell. He took the role 

of being a lawyer and transformed it into a 

legend. It is remarkable that every man and 

woman who spent even a brief period with 

Judge Bell would cling to him and claim him 

as their hero forever. That is how legends are 

made and legends last forever. That will be 

the case with the great Griffin Bell. 

I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Newnan Times-Herald, 

in which the Schneider comments appear, be printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

[From the Newnan Times-Herald] 

HEAVEN IS GREATER WITH THE ARRIVAL OF

GRIFFIN BELL

Georgia is saying goodbye to one of our 

state’s most distinguished citizens. Griffin B. 

Bell, lawyer, judge, U.S. attorney general 

and confidante to presidents, governors and 

many others, died Monday. A public graveside service will be 11 a.m. today in Americus, where he was born. A public memorial 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE