[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 123 (Friday, July 25, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7436-S7462]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008

  Pending:

       Senator Reid entered a motion to concur in the amendment of 
     the House of Representatives to the amendment of the Senate 
     to the amendments of the House to the amendment of the Senate 
     to the bill, with amendment No. 5103, to establish the 
     effective date.
       Reid amendment No. 5104 (to amendment No. 5103), to change 
     the enactment date.


                             Cloture Motion

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, pursuant 
to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture 
motion, which the clerk will state.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the 
     House amendments to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3221, the 
     Foreclosure Prevention Act.
         Harry Reid, Christopher J. Dodd, Debbie Stabenow, Maria 
           Cantwell, Barbara A. Mikulski, Frank R. Lautenberg, 
           Robert Menendez, Patty Murray, Bill Nelson, Daniel K. 
           Akaka, Jeff Bingaman, Ron Wyden, Ken Salazar, Charles 
           E. Schumer, Daniel K. Inouye, Jon Tester, Patrick J. 
           Leahy.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory 
quorum call is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the 
House amendments to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3221, an act to 
provide needed housing reform and for other purposes, shall be brought 
to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Colorado (Mr. Allard), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens).
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 80, nays 13, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 185 Leg.]

                                YEAS--80

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--13

     Barrasso
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burr
     Corker
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Allard
     Coburn
     Graham
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
     Stevens
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 80, the 
nays are 13. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SALAZAR. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have voted for cloture today because 
unless we end the Republican filibuster and act on this legislation, we 
will continue to experience the record-high oil and gasoline prices 
that are badly hurting millions of American consumers and businesses. 
Without action on this legislation, these record-high prices will 
continue to reverberate throughout our economy. I have spoken at length 
in the last couple of days about the investigations conducted by my 
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and the importance of acting 
now to address excessive energy speculation as a way of bringing down 
the extraordinary high energy prices, which are not the result of 
ordinary operation of supply and demand.
  Today, I would like to speak more broadly on energy policy and the 
need to decrease our dependence on oil. We need a long-term 
comprehensive energy policy that will decrease our dependence on 
foreign oil and reduce our climate change emissions while at the same 
time promote use of renewable energy sources and environmentally 
responsible domestic production of conventional energy sources. We need 
a balanced portfolio that includes energy from a broad array of 
sources--renewable technologies such as solar, wind, and biomass, as 
well as more conventional sources such as coal and natural gas--and we 
need to develop new and advanced technologies that will allow us to use 
that energy in a clean and responsible fashion. I am a strong advocate 
of advanced technology and believe that the Federal Government must 
play a key role in the development of that technology, both in 
providing funds for development and in being an early adopter of 
advanced technology. Equally important to the successful development of 
advanced technologies are tax incentives for these technologies across 
the energy spectrum--including energy efficiency

[[Page S7437]]

technologies, renewable energy technologies, advanced clean coal 
technologies, advanced vehicle technologies, and development of clean 
and renewable low-carbon and carbon-free fuels.
  The Congress has passed significant energy legislation three times in 
the last 4 years. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included provisions 
that increased the diversity of our Nation's fuel supply, encouraged 
investment in infrastructure and alternative energy technologies, 
increased domestic energy production, improved the reliability of our 
Nation's electricity supply, and improved energy efficiency and 
conservation. In 2006, Congress enacted legislation to increase the 
supply of natural gas in the United States by opening up new areas of 
the Gulf of Mexico to development. In 2007, Congress enacted the Energy 
Independence and Security Act, which contained several measures to 
lower our dependence on oil and reduce our energy consumption, 
including an ambitious increase in fuel economy standard for cars and 
light trucks, an increase in the renewable fuel standard, and 
significant new energy efficiency standards for lightbulbs and for a 
wide range of appliances. I supported all of these measures because 
each one moved us toward a sounder energy policy and greater energy 
security and efficiency for the United States.
  Far more must be done, however. I regret that we are unable to move 
forward with this legislation today because it offered us a vehicle not 
only to address excessive energy speculation but also to address other 
critical energy issues--such as development of advanced automotive 
technologies and advanced batteries, development of new wind and solar 
energy technologies, assured funding for home energy assistance under 
the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and diligent development 
of areas on Federal land that are already open for oil and gas leasing. 
These are all issues that were addressed by Senator Bingaman's 
amendment, which we will not have an opportunity to consider because of 
the Republican filibuster.
  Senator Bingaman's amendment will take significant strides toward 
development of the advanced automotive technologies that are needed to 
meet new fuel economy standards and to reduce our oil consumption and 
greenhouse gas emissions. We need strong Federal efforts to make 
revolutionary breakthroughs in automotive technology, and we need to 
invest in leap-ahead technologies such as advanced batteries and plug-
in hybrid vehicles that will reduce our dependence on oil, reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce what we pay for fuel at the pump. 
Two provisions of Senator Bingaman's bill would have taken important 
steps in this regard--first, by providing funding for direct loans 
authorized in 2007 for retooling of manufacturing facilities to produce 
these new technologies; and second, by requiring a new interagency 
Federal effort to develop advanced battery technologies. I believe it 
is critical that this Congress support Federal assistance for retooling 
of our existing manufacturing facilities and Federal assistance for 
development of the advanced battery technologies that will be required 
to support plug-in hybrids and other advanced vehicle technologies. 
Without this support, our companies will simply not be able to compete 
with their global competitors who benefit from significant support from 
their governments and we will not be able to reach the goals for 
reducing our dependence on oil that we all share. I applaud Senator 
Bingaman's efforts to put these issues before the Senate. Indeed, we 
have similar advanced battery provisions in the Defense authorization, 
which we approved in the Armed Services Committee many months ago and 
which awaits Senate consideration.
  Finally, I would like to address the importance of Congress acting 
this year to extend existing tax credits for renewable production of 
electricity and for energy efficiency technologies. Renewable 
technologies such as wind and solar are becoming more economical every 
year, and our manufacturing sector can play a major role in the 
production of these technologies. Extension of the tax credits that 
will expire this year, or in some cases have already expired, is 
critical to the development of these technologies and critical to our 
developers' and manufacturers' ability to commit to projects that will 
utilize these technologies. Also included in the so-called tax 
extenders package is an extension of the tax credit for alternative 
fuel pumps and establishment of a new tax credit for plug-in hybrid and 
all-electric vehicles. These tax incentives are key not only to the 
development of these technologies but also to consumer acceptance of 
these vehicles. We have been unable, so far, to pass these critical tax 
provisions because the Republicans in the Senate continue to filibuster 
the bill. I hope that we will overcome that filibuster and extend these 
provisions.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 2 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without 
objection, it so ordered.


                   Master Sergeant Mitchell W. Young

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, 3 weeks ago, we celebrated the Fourth of 
July. Nine days after that, on July 13, 2008, MSG Mitchell Young, 39 
years old, of Jonesboro, GA, was killed in action while conducting 
combat reconnaissance patrol to the eastern Helmand Province of 
Afghanistan.
  Master Sergeant Young was attached to Company B, 1st Battalion, 7th 
Special Forces Group (Airborne) at Fort Bragg, in my State of North 
Carolina, where he lived with his wife, Robyn. It was Sergeant Young's 
fourth deployment in the global war on terror.
  His awards and decorations include four Bronze Star Medals, a 
Meritorious Service Medal, a Joint Service Commendation Medal, and 
three Army Commendation Medals. Today, Sergeant Young's memorial 
service is being held at Fort Bragg.
  A little over a year before his death, Master Sergeant Young posted a 
letter that was published in the July 4, 2007, edition of his hometown 
newspaper, the Clayton News Daily, in which he celebrated the spirit 
and sacrifices of the American soldier.
  I would now like to read the text of that letter:

       To the editors:
       Today is July 4th, our country's Independence Day, and 231 
     years ago, our forefathers won this for all to enjoy. Today, 
     our country has more freedoms and wealth than any other in 
     the world. We have all of our freedoms granted to us by the 
     U.S. Constitution. This document sets the standards for all 
     Americans to be guaranteed their freedoms and rights.
       Of all the freedoms and rights granted to each American, it 
     is not the news reporter or politician who ensures that each 
     American enjoys these rights, but it is the American Service 
     Member (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard). 
     This is the person who every American should be thanking 
     every day for what they do.
       Even though less than 1 percent of the American population 
     serves in the military, it is that sacrifice made by an 
     individual to help protect and guarantee these freedoms. 
     While enjoying the day's festivals celebrating our country's 
     birth, take the time and effort to thank a veteran, or a 
     current service member for their sacrifice in helping to 
     protect your freedom.
       If you are unable to thank a vet, say thanks to either the 
     parents or the spouse of a vet, because they are the ones who 
     worry the most while the service member is away, protecting 
     your freedoms.

  Today, we thank God for the life of MSG Mitchell W. Young.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri is 
recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from North Carolina 
for sharing with us those very memorable words from a brave American 
who gave the ultimate sacrifice. His words and his example ought to be 
something we keep in our hearts and our minds every day. I thank my 
colleague for saying it.
  I wish to talk about a crisis--a crisis we are going to have to 
address in the coming week on this floor. The gas prices are a crisis; 
$4 and up gasoline prices are hurting Americans.
  In my State of Missouri--and I trust in every State in the Union--
families, farmers, truckers, and small businesses are suffering record 
pain at the pump. We deserve real action now to get prices down.
  Fundamentally, it is a problem of not enough supply to meet the 
demand. It is economics 101. We need to find more oil and use less.
  My amendments and the measures I support will bring Missouri and 
America the new oil supplies and conservation we need to bring those 
prices down, to get the supply we need.

[[Page S7438]]

  Instead, the Democratic leadership in this body is desperate to deny 
the people of America the relief they need.
  One amendment I have, No. 5122, would lower gas prices through 
opening opportunities to explore for oil supplies in the United States 
offshore, the off-coastal drilling area, 50 miles out.
  The amendment to the bill currently on the Senate floor--and I plan 
to stay until I can offer it--would open a potential for 18 billion 
barrels of oil, a 10-year supply currently off-limits off America's 
shores.
  The bill would give States the choice to opt into production at least 
50 miles off their coasts and share lease proceeds with the Federal 
Government.
  Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership is currently blocking this 
amendment and the gas price relief it would bring to all Americans.
  I am cosponsoring another amendment with my colleagues to open oil 
production in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. There are almost 3 billion 
barrels of oil in the eastern gulf waiting to help bring prices down 
for Missouri and America. The Democratic leadership is currently 
blocking consideration of this amendment as well.
  Not only do we need to produce more, but we need to use less. So I 
have an amendment, No. 5123, to help America use less oil. It would 
aggressively promote advanced vehicle batteries for plug-in hybrid and 
electric vehicles. That way, you could avoid using gas--or at least 
avoid a lot of gas usage. This amendment, when we pass it, will drive 
down the price of advanced vehicle batteries for hybrid and plug-in 
vehicles.
  My amendment will provide significant new funding for hybrid battery 
research and development, manufacturing equipment and capabilities, and 
reequipping and expanding or establishing U.S. domestic manufacturing 
facilities for hybrid vehicle batteries.
  U.S. domestic mass production of hybrid batteries would get their 
prices down and get the price of hybrid vehicles down.
  Right now, we depend largely on supplies from Asia, and there is not 
enough supply to meet the demand. We need these batteries to conserve 
oil, give jobs to blue-collar manufacturing workers, and help the 
environment. But the Democratic leadership is blocking consideration of 
this amendment.
  There is a bill before us to address abusive speculation. I agree we 
should deal with the areas of speculation that are abusive. We need to 
cover the over-the-counter market. Fundamentally, it is a problem of 
too little supply to meet demand. Exports know this. The American 
people are smart enough to know this.
  I don't understand why the Democratic Party continues to block our 
responsible efforts to get gas prices down through new oil production. 
The American people deserve better. The people of Missouri deserve 
better. I think they know better.
  We have to get gas prices down. We need to open offshore supplies, 
and we need to provide ways of using less. I believe the people of our 
country need and deserve no less.


                                housing

  Mr. President, I voted against cloture on the Housing and Economic 
Recovery Act, which we concluded.
  I commend Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby for working long and hard 
to address the housing crisis, the need to reform regulatory oversight 
of the mortgage government-sponsored enterprises, and to modernize the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development's FHA. The bill also 
includes emergency authorities for the Government to shore up Fannie 
Mae and Freddie Mac. I support the Government's involvement in helping 
struggling responsible homeowners. In fact, I support many key 
provisions of the legislation, such as a stronger regulator of the 
GSEs, additional housing counseling funding, increased bond authority 
for State housing finance agencies to refinance troubled loans, 
elimination of seller-financed downpayment programs, and improved 
disclosure and transparency in the home-buying process. That was in the 
bill I introduced on the floor--the bill that left the floor and went 
to the House. Unfortunately, I cannot support--and I urge my colleagues 
not to support--H.R. 3221 because it is a major bailout for subprime 
lenders and potentially a budget buster for the taxpayers of America.
  I am strongly opposed to the proposed expansion of FHA with a new 
program called the HOPE for Homeowners loan program.
  As I explained during our last floor debate about the Senate's 
version of the bill, the HOPE Program is fatally flawed since it 
provides limited help to troubled homeowners, while allowing lenders to 
dump their worst subprime mortgages on an already stressed FHA. 
Further, the program will result in HUD becoming a huge landlord of 
foreclosed properties, which we know is an extremely bad outcome for 
communities and other homeowners based on the Department's history of 
being unable to manage the real estate it owns.
  The CBO estimates that under this program, ``mortgage holders would 
have an incentive to direct their highest-risk loans to the program.'' 
This means lenders who were, in a number of cases, either fraudulent or 
negligent in their treatment of borrowers, will be able to clear out 
many of the biggest problem loans. Not surprisingly, CBO estimates that 
a cumulative default rate for the HOPE Program would be 35 percent--
meaning that one out of every three loans refinanced would fail. In 
other words, over 130,000 homeowners would still go into foreclosure, 
and FHA would be the inept administrator of those.
  FHA is significantly limited in plan managing and implementing its 
loan activities, which have been documented by the HUD inspector 
general and GAO for several years. Not too long ago, the entire 
department was on the GAO's high-risk list.
  Unfortunately, FHA's history of problems is going unheeded. I am 
further concerned that we are setting up this new program when FHA is 
playing a growing role in assisting distressed homeowners. And to add 
400,000 of the worst new loans to FHA's portfolio would create a 
perfect storm for failure. We can do better.
  We have characterized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as being too big to 
fail. I believe this 694-page bill has become too big to succeed.
  We have to address the solvency of Fannie and Freddie, but it must be 
done responsibly. We must address the GSEs' management and a new 
regulator with new personnel must ensure that the GSEs act consistently 
with their mission and better manage risk. CBO's cost estimate of the 
GSE rescue plan reported that the ``riskiest loans, known as alt-A and 
subprime mortgages, account for about 15 percent'' of the GSEs' 
portfolio. Not surprisingly, a significant portion of the subprime 
portfolio was likely originated by lenders such as Countrywide. 
According to Fannie Mae's annual report, filed with the SEC for the 
fiscal year ending December 31, last year, its top customer was 
Countrywide. The report states that Countrywide accounted for 28 
percent of Fannie Mae's single-family business volume in 2007, which 
was actually higher than its volume in 2006. No one can deny that 
holders of Countrywide paper will be the biggest beneficiaries of this 
bill. It will not be homeowners. They are not bailing out homeowners; 
they are bailing out the banks that hold the Countrywide paper and the 
other financial institutions that hold them.
  The legislative process was supposed to be a compromise, but this 
compromise is unacceptable. Let me state for the record that I have 
great respect and confidence in our current Treasury Secretary. He has 
stated he would take care to protect the American people, and I believe 
in the months he has left in that office he will do so. But this GSE 
rescue authorization will continue for a full year after he 
leaves. This is a huge gamble we are taking, and this compromise does 
not address that issue. It provides too little benefit to struggling 
homeowners, too much benefit to the subprime lenders, such as those who 
hold Countrywide paper--who contributed to the housing crisis--and it 
provides too much risk to the American taxpayer.

  I cannot support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
against the bill.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho.


                         Amendments to S. 3268

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, my colleague from Missouri has just spoken 
very clearly about a fundamental problem facing the American consumer 
and

[[Page S7439]]

the American family, and he has used the word ``crisis.'' I totally 
agree with him that $4-a-gallon gas or more at the pump today is truly 
a crisis for the American family and for the budget of every American 
household.
  He joined with me in cosponsoring an amendment, and he spoke of that 
amendment a few moments ago that we would like to offer to the bill the 
majority leader, the Democratic leader, has brought to the floor, S. 
3268, a bill to allow drilling in this area of the gulf where we know 
there is substantial oil potential. The Senator from Missouri spoke of 
some 3 billion barrels, or somewhere near that, available in this 
yellow zone off the coast of Florida and down from the coasts of 
Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana.
  It is critical that the American oil industry be allowed to lease 
that land and begin development and exploration. Why? Not only do we 
believe the oil is there, but it is immediately adjacent to pipelines, 
refineries, and the facilities that will immediately process that oil 
and put it into the American distribution system.
  Many are saying: Well, it is going to take 5 years, 6 years, 7 years, 
or 8 years if we drill now in the Outer Continental Shelf. It will take 
some time. But in this area, it will take potentially a great deal less 
time because we know the oil is there and it is immediately adjacent to 
the distribution system of this country and the refinery capacity in 
the Gulf States.
  The American consumer today goes to the pump and pays $4, $4.10, 
$4.15, nearly $5 in some States and asks the question: Why? Here is 
what has happened in the American oil supply system that answers that 
question.
  Starting in 1950, as the rate of use of oil in our country grew, we 
began a slow but very aggressive spread between our supply and the 
demand. As you will notice here, starting in the 1990s, we actually 
begin to supply less of our own oil into the market and we begin to buy 
more and more oil from foreign countries.
  This debate today is about a supply-and-demand issue. Yes, there 
could be--pointed out yesterday by our Federal Trade Commission--a 
small amount of speculation in the market, and we ought to address it. 
But the reason there is so much activity in the market is the equation 
right here--the dramatic difference between what supply is entering the 
market and the demand from use, world use, in the market.
  It really is that fundamental a problem. When we are using more than 
we are producing in the world market--and it is a world commodity--
then, of course, prices begin to escalate, as they have dramatically 
over the last several years and now in the last year even more so.
  Why are we saying to the rest of the world: Drill your oil; we don't 
want to drill ours. Produce from your oilfields; we are going to keep 
ours off limits. I don't understand and I don't think the average 
consumer in any way understands that kind of an argument. Yet, for the 
last 15 years, that has been largely the public policy of this 
country--to put off limits known oil reserves while we ask the rest of 
the world to supply for us.
  This is a larger picture of exactly what we are talking about. We are 
producing oil in this area of the gulf now. Our largest domestic volume 
of oil is coming from that area. But look at this area here, almost 
equivalent in size and potentially as rich in oil, and yet it is off 
limits. It is politically off limits. We can go there and we can 
explore and we can develop it if we have the political will to say yes 
to it. And the amendment I am offering--or I would like to offer to the 
bill that is on the floor--would allow us to do that and create a 50-
mile safe zone for the citizens of Florida. But we are not given that 
opportunity. That is really the fundamental issue at hand.
  The bill that we refuse to let go any further until we get the 
opportunity to offer amendments is this bill, S. 3268. As I said 
yesterday, look, not one drop of oil in it, not one drop of oil to 
satisfy the supply side of a very aggressive, demanding market. The 
only way we are truly going to bring prices down at the pump is to send 
a very clear message to the marketplace that we are going to allow a 
greater volume of supply to enter that market. While we are doing that, 
over the next 5 to 10 years, we are going to make every effort, through 
loan guarantees, through new types of technology, to reduce the demand 
side of our market. That is what we ought to be about here as we shape 
public policy for our future--to assure that we have the abundant 
supplies we need, while we recognize that it is a finite item and that 
there will be a day when there will be substantially less oil out there 
than there currently is and that we ought to be going toward the new 
technologies--the electric cars, the plug-ins, the hybrid, and all 
different kinds and versions of that.

  I am one of those who now believe we ought to be looking at every 
possible source of energy for the energy supply of our country. But we 
shouldn't be openly denying known supplies today, and that is exactly 
what is happening here on the floor of the Senate. For the last 2 days, 
or nearly 3 days now, the leader has simply refused to allow the 
process to go forward, to allow my amendment and other amendments by my 
colleagues that would ensure a public policy allowing us to go into 
this area and develop it and to go into other areas we have taken off 
limits for political purposes only and put them within our limits 
again. Our technology is there. The technology we have for the deep 
water of the gulf is truly the finest in the world, it is the safest, 
and it is environmentally by far the soundest of any other country in 
the world. Yet we deny ourselves the right to use our own technology to 
supply our own energy to the American household.
  No, I suspect the average person listening can't quite figure out 
what is going on here on the floor of the Senate, and it is really a 
fundamentally simple argument: The Democratic leader will not allow 
this country to produce in the areas where we have known oil reserves 
that we can get to the quickest and that we can bring online the 
fastest. I hope the phones start ringing as Americans grow angry with a 
politician who denies them the supply to the marketplace that would 
bring down the price of oil at the pump. S. 3268 is the vehicle with 
which we could do that if we were allowed to amend it, if we were 
allowed the normal process of the Senate.
  Republicans unanimously said today that we ought to have the right to 
amend it, that we ought to stay here all next week working on it, until 
we can say to the American people that the energy crisis isn't over, 
but we have done everything within our power to bring down the price 
and lessen the burden on the family budget.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know Senate procedure can be confusing, 
but by the vote that was just held, we have said we are not leaving, we 
are not giving up, and we intend to fight to help bring down the price 
of gasoline at the pump.
  People may ask: How in the world can Congress do that? Well, the 
reality is, Congress has been the problem when it comes to accessing 
the American sources of oil we have right here at home. The consequence 
has been that we send $700 billion a year to foreign countries for the 
oil we consume here in America because we are so unwise and so stubborn 
and so opposed, for some reason, to developing those natural resources 
right here in America.
  That is what this vote meant, that we are not going to quit and we 
are going to stay on this issue until we can convince the people 
responsible for setting the agenda here in the Senate to provide us an 
opportunity to vote on additional supply as we consider a comprehensive 
approach which includes conservation, renewable fuels, and clean energy 
alternatives. The fact is, we know we are not going to be able to deal 
with the high price of gasoline at the pump until we increase American 
supply--until we find more and we use less right here at home.
  It is important to talk about responsibility. None of us here in the 
Senate can control what the majority leader, the Democratic leader of 
his caucus, does. Only he has the power to allow a full debate and an 
amendment process that will allow Democrats and Republicans a vote on 
additional supply.
  I know Congress is held in low esteem. All you have to do is look at 
a public opinion poll. But it is important for the American people to 
know that

[[Page S7440]]

it is not necessarily Congress as a whole. It is the leadership that 
actually has the power and the authority to allow something to happen.
  We are here imploring the majority leader, the leader of the 
Democratic caucus, to allow us a vote on provisions in this bill which 
we believe will have a dramatic impact on the price of gasoline at the 
pump.
  Right now, we have, in effect, a moratorium on 85 percent of the 
domestic natural resources here in America, whether it is the submerged 
lands in the Outer Continental Shelf along the coastlines or the oil 
shale out West or the oil up in the Arctic. We not only have a 
moratorium, or a ban passed by Congress for the last 30 years 
prohibiting the production of those natural resources, but we have a 
political blockade. And the people who have imposed that political 
blockade are the Democratic majority leader, Harry Reid, Speaker  Nancy 
Pelosi, and the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party for 
President, Barack Obama. They have the power to allow an opportunity 
for the American people to get some relief at the pump, but they are 
the ones who are blocking it through this political blockade.
  We know there are at least 44 Republicans who agreed to a bill we 
call the Gas Price Reduction Act. We are looking for about 10 or 11 or 
12 Democrats to join us in saying: Yes, we can, Because all we hear on 
the other side of the aisle is no, we can't.

  Yes, we can. We can tear down these walls that prohibit domestic 
energy production here in America and I hope Barack Obama, if he thinks 
it is important enough to go to Berlin yesterday and talk about tearing 
down walls, will come back here to the Senate and say let's tear down 
this wall. If he does so, and the Democratic leadership follows suit, 
we can open up America's vast national resources to production. We can 
acknowledge the existence of the laws of supply and demand, and the 
American people will get the relief they want and so desperately need.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority controls the next 30 
minutes.
  The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.


                        Aggressive Drug Pricing

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with outrage 
over what some of the pharmaceutical companies have been doing with 
pricing for important medications affecting the lives of people in this 
country. I know that you, the Presiding Officer from the State of Rhode 
Island, have been a leader in this health care area and share many of 
the concerns I have and in fact are working on this issue as well.
  Yesterday I chaired a hearing of the Joint Economic Committee to 
discuss the phenomenon of dramatic price increases of these 
medications. These are drugs that, because of aggressive pricing 
practices, have seen dramatic increases in cost. Oftentimes because of 
a limited market or other factors, the drug's price goes up to an 
astronomical level.
  I first became aware of this issue when I received word from 
Children's Hospital in Minneapolis, one of the leading children's 
hospitals in the country, that the price for a drug called Indocin--it 
is also known as indomethacin--has increased substantially. It is a 
medication used to treat little babies with patent ductus arteriosis, 
PDA, and it is a disorder that prevents holes from healing in the 
hearts of premature infants. This drug has been around since the 1970s 
and it is the commonly used method of treating this condition. It is a 
great drug because it allows doctors to prescribe medication instead of 
resorting to surgery.
  We had an event in Minnesota a few months ago with the head of 
Children's Hospital and a number of doctors who are specialists in this 
area and a family named the Bensons, whose little child survived 
because of the help of this drug. To see this little baby and then to 
think of what this drug company had done when they jacked up the price 
of this drug--you cannot even imagine why they would have done such a 
thing. I will go into the facts.
  This drug has been around since the 1970s. Merck had the drug, this 
drug called Indocin. Two years ago Ovation Pharmaceuticals acquired the 
rights to the drug from Merck. The company quickly increased the price 
by more than 18 times--from $100 a dose to $1,800 a dose. Was there 
research? No. Were there more changes to the drug? No. It was the very 
same drug and they increased the price, because they could, from $100 
to $1,800 a dose, for three 1-milligram units of the drug.
  Even though it is an American company, and this is what gets 
outrageous--even though it is an American company, the price Ovation 
charges for this lifesaving drug for babies is now 44 times higher in 
the United States than what they sell it for in Canada. It is 44 times 
higher in the United States than they sell the same drug for in Canada. 
Nothing can justify this kind of price disparity except that this 
company wants to bring in more money to their coffers.
  As it happens, there is only one other drug approved by the FDA for 
this heart problem, a formulation of intravenous ibuprofen. Ovation, 
interestingly enough, the same company that bought the drug from Merck 
when the drug was selling at $100 and now it's up to $1,800, is the 
sole source of the other drug in the United States. Not surprisingly, 
the price it charges for this medicine is nearly identical to what it 
charges for Indocin.
  A number of other Ovation products have seen similar drastic price 
increases, drugs that, like Indocin, have been around for a long time 
and are the premier treatments for a number of diseases.
  In a recent article in the medical journal Pediatrics, Dr. Alan H. 
Jobe of Cincinnati Childrens' Hospital, described Ovation's pricing of 
its two drugs for the premature babies' heart condition as ``quite 
extraordinary.'' He didn't mean extraordinary in a good way. He wrote:

       Words such as ``unconscionable,'' ``unethical,'' and 
     ``socially irresponsible'' come to mind.

  The issue we have is that an upstart company purchases a number of 
drugs from another company and, even though these drugs have been on 
the market for years, the upstart company increases the prices 
drastically.
  But Ovation is not the only company engaged in this disturbing trend. 
Look at this chart. It shows why this is a timely issue as we approach 
the major health care debate we are going to be going into next year. 
Look at why this is such a timely issue. These are what we call, using 
the doctor's language, extraordinary price increases.
  What this chart shows is they are becoming more and more common. What 
this measures is the number of branded drug products whose prices have 
more than doubled in a single price increase. We are used to going to 
the drugstore, sadly, these days, and seeing a 1-percent increase or 5 
percent increases going up. Then we see other markets, such as the oil 
market, where things are completely volatile. Here you have it in the 
drug market. Look at these drug products where the prices have more 
than doubled in one single price increase. Back in 1988 it only 
happened five times. Back in 1994 it happened zero times. Then you see 
this gradual trend up where to we are now, in the year 2008: It has 
happened 64 times. This is a full-year projection, based on 6 months of 
data. This is a projection of 64 times. Then, in 2007 you see it was at 
47 times.
  Questcor Pharmaceuticals--this is an example--was once losing money 
at the rate of $1 million a month. The company's fortunes turned around 
after they purchased HP Acthar from Aventis. This drug was approved in 
the 1970s, similar situation, a drug approved years and years ago to 
treat multiple sclerosis, but it is now primarily the gold standard for 
treating infantile spasms, a disorder that affects about 2000 families 
in the United States.
  We were privileged to have one of the families from Rhode Island, the 
home of the Presiding Officer, there with us at the hearing. Danielle 
Foltz was the mother who testified--I will never forget her story about 
how her little baby is sick in the hospital, suddenly having spasms. 
These could actually have affected his brain. His name is Trevor. He is 
in the hospital and she tries to get the drug that helps with this, 
this Acthar. She found out it is about $1,700 per vial at the initial 
stages. That is what they thought it was going to be. Then what 
happens? Once it was sold to Questcor, when her little baby needed

[[Page S7441]]

this drug, the price of the drug skyrocketed to $23,000 per vial--that 
is a 14-fold increase. This mom and dad are in the hospital with their 
little baby Trevor and this drug has gone up to $23,000 per vial. What 
do you think is going to happen? Do you think the insurance company, 
when they used to pay for it when it was $1,700, was going to say: Oh, 
no problem. They had to negotiate for 5 days with the insurance 
companies, they had to get their neurologist involved, and she had to 
write a letter saying that this is going to affect this baby's life, 
the baby could be mentally retarded if he doesn't get the drug. It is 
actually a short-term treatment. I think the baby had the drug for a 
matter of months and then went off the drug--talk about short-sighted. 
Eventually, after 5 days, she was able to get the drug approved.

  These people were missionaries in Africa. They had worked in Africa. 
They didn't have the money, they didn't have the house to mortgage, but 
they were able to save their little baby's life because finally they 
fought hard enough to get it covered.
  From the data we heard yesterday we are hitting only the tip of the 
iceberg because the problem is not isolated to drugs that benefit a 
small number of patients. Abbott Pharmaceuticals increased the price of 
Norvir, a drug used to treat AIDS. The drug was often used as an 
ingredient in their drug therapies. In 2003, Abbott jacked up the price 
for Norvir by 500 percent. This was done at the same time they began 
marketing their new product, Kaletra, another AIDS product that 
included Norvir, and served as a replacement for the competition's drug 
therapy. The result forced patients and providers to turn to Abbott's 
Kaletra instead of the formerly cost-effective alternative that used 
Norvir and competitors' drugs. Previously undisclosed documents and e-
mails reviewed by the Wall Street Journal in 2007 show that Abbott's 
leadership actively considered ways to promote Kaletra over Norvir.
  As you can see from this bar graph of the price increase of Norvir, 
you see before the change was made, $257.18 and then up to $1,285.89. 
This is an egregious increase.
  Another example. The next chart shows only a few examples of enormous 
price increases that we have seen. Mustargen, which is used to treat 
rare cancers, had a 1,000-percent increase. You see Cosmegen, which 
treats kidney disease--that had a 3,500-percent increase. You can see 
the names of the companies here: Abbott, Questcor, Ovation, Sigma-Tau. 
You can see what the prices were before. Here is Cosmegen, $16.79. It 
goes up after the sale to $593.75, a 3,436-percent increase in the drug 
price.
  Look at what we have seen with Matulane. Matulane goes nearly off the 
charts. Look at this. This is used to treat rare Hodgkin's lymphoma and 
you see an increase of 7,999 percent. That is an 8,00-percent increase. 
What is this?
  I am not an economist. To me this looks like simple price gouging. It 
not only hurts the hospitals that have to purchase these expensive 
drugs, but also the patients who rely on them.
  An elderly woman from Park Rapids, MN, who suffers from cutaneous T-
cell lymphoma was forced to pay over $8,000 in out-of-pocket expenses 
for Mustargen, the drug I discussed which was sold by Ovation, whose 
single dose price increased from around $50 to nearly $550 after the 
company acquired the rights to the drug.
  What is the solution? In America, we have a serious problem with 
health care inflation and runaway costs. That is not a surprise to 
anyone. It is no wonder, when we have pharmaceutical companies such as 
Ovation or Questcor increasing prices to astronomical price levels 
because of the lack of competition in the market. Their actions are 
able to exploit an extremely vulnerable and captive market. It is not 
as though the pharmaceutical industry is withering on the vine. You can 
see pharmaceutical companies earn higher profits than other Fortune 500 
companies. Here you have the profits for other Fortune 500 companies. 
These are huge companies. Then you look at pharmaceutical profits. What 
have we seen over time? They are always significantly ahead of other 
Fortune 500 companies.
  I want to mention the Orphan Drug Act because this is timely for what 
we are talking about, the treatment of these rare diseases. The Orphan 
Drug Act was passed in 1983 to provide incentives to drug companies to 
develop innovative drugs for rare diseases because, without incentives, 
drug companies may never be able to recoup research and development 
costs in niche markets. What we have seen, however, is that at least a 
handful of drug companies have used the status of orphan drugs to keep 
increasing costs well beyond the cost of research, development, and 
manufacturing. These staggeringly high prices in turn threaten the 
financial security of middle-class families relying on these drugs.
  Where generic drugs have helped lower the cost of many prescription 
drugs on the market, generic competition is also less likely to occur 
for orphan drugs. According to a study published in the RAND Journal of 
Economics, the market size for a drug has to be about $32 million--that 
is 2007 dollars adjusted for inflation--to justify the entry of a 
generic into the market.
  When we are talking about indomethacin to treat populations of only a 
few thousand, there is often not enough of an incentive for the generic 
drug to enter the market.
  Beyond hospitals and patients, a dramatic, unforeseeable increase in 
price for one of these drugs has a significant impact on the Federal 
Government--Medicare, Medicaid. Look at what is going on. I know 
Representative Waxman in the House held a hearing showing what is going 
on with the pricing of these pharmaceuticals across the board.
  I have asked the Federal Trade Commission to initiate an 
investigation into any potential anticompetitive conduct or 
consequences arising out of Ovation's market actions and dominance in 
the area of nonsurgical treatment for PDA.
  We need to ensure that the FTC continues to conduct these crucial 
investigations to guarantee competition; keeping costs low for 
consumers and encouraging innovation. That is one drug that is coming 
out of my State, the State of Minnesota, because some doctors had the 
foresight to see that this was outrageous and figured out that one 
company owned both of the drugs that were competing with each other. It 
is disturbing that our providers, hospitals, and patients are being 
blindsided by these exorbitant price increases. Our Federal Government 
should be able to track these trends in pharmaceutical pricing. If we 
start to monitor the data, there is more of a paper trail, giving us 
enhanced ability to do something about these companies' practices.
  You know, I am a supporter of reimportation of drugs from Canada; I 
favor negotiating under Medicare Part D to save our seniors some money. 
All these things must be on the table as we approach health care reform 
in the next year.
  When provided with the right information on drug prices, especially 
in smaller markets, doctors can be alerted of big price increases, 
potentially spurring generic alternatives to expensive drugs and giving 
the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid the tools and the information to 
better track pricing in this market. To start looking at this 
information, I am in the process of working with the GAO to look into 
the issue of drug pricing and these enormous increases.
  Finally, I intend to investigate whether the FDA can fast-track 
approval for generic drugs, that that would be just as safe and 
effective but much less expensive, creating competition in markets with 
dramatic price increases.
  I understand we have a market-based economy. It is fine for companies 
to make money on the products they sell. They should. But when we are 
dealing with the well-being of sick patients, babies and the elderly 
and everyone in between, we know something is wrong.
  These companies cannot be allowed to make money off the backs of 
little babies who have holes in their hearts. I hope yesterday's 
hearing was a starting point for addressing problems that accompany 
such enormous price increases, problems that have been plaguing our 
doctors, our insurance companies, our Medicare and Medicaid Programs, 
and most importantly, our patients for far too long.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S7442]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware is 
recognized.
  Mr. CARPER. I appreciate the opportunity to talk for a few minutes 
about two subjects. First of all, the legislation, one of the two 
pieces of legislation that came before us today dealing with 
speculation in the oil markets, I wish to talk a little about that. And 
then maybe a word or two, if time permits, on the housing legislation, 
which we have taken another step forward toward enacting.
  On this chart, we see a couple of numbers mentioned. In a moment, I 
hope they will be clear why they are relevant to this discussion, with 
respect to oil prices and the availability of oil.
  The first number is 25 percent. We consume, as a nation today, this 
week, this month, this year, roughly 25 percent of the oil that is 
consumed on our planet, 25 percent. But we have, within this Nation, 
onshore and offshore, less than 5 percent of the world's oil reserves. 
When people wonder why are prices running up, this is one of the 
reasons.
  When people say we ought to simply drill, whether it is in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge or on the Outer Continental Shelf, drilling is 
part of the answer, not necessarily in those places, but drilling is 
part of the answer.
  But when you are consuming 25 percent of the world's oil every day, 
and we have less than 5 percent of the world's known oil reserves, 
there is a mismatch here. That suggests to, among others, T. Boone 
Pickens, a long-time renowned Texas oilman, that this is a problem we 
cannot drill ourselves out of.
  While drilling is part of the solution, it is by no means the entire 
solution. What we need is a comprehensive strategy. I wish to talk a 
little bit about that this morning.
  We have had any number of hearings in recent weeks, actually in 
recent months in the Senate, that focused on why are oil prices, why 
are gas prices going up. I keep coming back to three major reasons. The 
first of those is supply and demand. There is a limited amount of oil 
that is being produced. The nations that have most of it in their 
control do not want to produce a whole lot more. They do not want to 
increase supply dramatically.
  Demand meanwhile continues to rise. We are a country in love with our 
cars, trucks, and vans. For every 1,000 Americans in this country 
today, there are about 800 vehicles. Pretty amazing. There are 800 
vehicles for every 1,000 people who live here.
  Over in China, for every 1,000 people who live there, they have 16 
cars, trucks, and vans. I do not know that they want to get to 800 
right away, but they are going to have a lot more than 16 per 1,000. 
They may have 116, 216, 316. But they want to buy and they want to be 
able to have their own vehicles. They are adding dramatically to the 
number of vehicles on the road.
  That, along with the growth in the economy and other aspects of the 
economy in China, places such as India, we have seen a dramatic 
increase in demand, and we are going to continue to see that increase 
in demand.
  The second thing that is going on is the drop in the value of the 
dollar. The dollar today, we all know, is not worth what it used to be. 
Some friends of mine returned from traveling in Europe, and they told 
me how unfortunate they felt in having gone this year instead of about 
3 or 4 years ago because the value of the dollar has dropped by roughly 
a third against most of the European currencies. In fact, it has 
dropped dramatically in currencies around the world.

  And we see, it takes more dollars because oil is traded in dollars. 
These countries that have all this oil, they want to make sure they are 
getting their money's worth. As a result, they raise the price of oil 
to offset the drop in the value of dollars. So that is part what is 
going on.
  The third thing that is going on, and we have heard from people a lot 
smarter than I on these issues, but the third thing that is going on is 
there is a lot of trading in oil futures, people who do not have any 
intention of ever taking possession of a barrel of oil, but they see it 
as a way to make money--not buying oil and refining the oil and selling 
the product, but they see a way to make money by speculation and 
trading in these futures, and they hope the value of the price of oil 
will go up, they will make money and not take possession of the oil.
  In the meantime, we as consumers are paying more for oil. Not every 
day. We have seen some trending down in the at least week, which is 
good, but this is part of what is going on.
  Is speculation 10 percent of the problem, 20 percent of the problem, 
30 percent of the problem? I do not know. I do not know that anyone 
knows. But as we can be convinced that that supply and demand is part 
of the problem. It is not the whole problem. The drop in the value of 
the dollar is part of the problem. It is not the whole problem. And 
neither is speculation. But each of them is a contributing factor in 
the runup in the price of oil. If we want to bring down or stabilize 
the price of oil, to keep the price from getting any worse, we need to 
work on supply, we need to work on demand, we need to do some things 
here at home to restore the value of the dollar, to prop it up, to 
strengthen the dollar, and we need to do something with respect to 
speculation.
  I wish to mention a thing or two about the legislation I supported, 
introduced by the majority leader on speculation. Without getting into 
the weeds on the legislation, the bill that is designed more than 
anything to provide greater transparency, not to come in and command 
control the way the markets are being run but to make sure we have a 
little better disclosure, a little better transparency into that 
operation.
  The legislation did not pass. I think most people here actually favor 
doing something similar to that. For reasons that are maybe more 
political than practical, we could not move that legislation today 
because we did not have the 60 votes to break a filibuster.
  Let me talk a bit about supply. Along with Senator Voinovich of Ohio, 
we are privileged to lead a subcommittee of the Environment Committee 
that focuses on, among other things, clean air and on nuclear power.
  Part of the answer to our supply situation is growing in our fields 
the fuels that we need. I am not suggesting that taking kernels of corn 
off an ear of corn and turning that into ethanol is a smart idea, at 
least in the long haul. I do not think that it is. It disrupts our food 
system, our food chain, makes the prices of meat, poultry, and milk 
more expensive than it needs to be.
  But there are things going on with respect to biofuels that I think 
are very encouraging. I wish to mention a couple of those. Our folks up 
at DuPont, they are headquartered in my State, they have a research 
center. At the research center they have been working on cellulosic 
ethanol for 3, 4, 5 years.
  They have launched joint ventures on cellulosic ethanol with another 
company. They are going to be building out in the Midwest a refinery to 
be able to create, in some quantities, a biofuel that will be much 
better than ethanol; have better energy content than ethanol, travel 
better in pipelines than ethanol, mix better with gasoline than 
ethanol.
  They are coming up with a biofuel called biobutanol, partnering with 
our friends from BP, and actually they are test marketing the product 
over in England this year. Again, biobutanol, better energy density 
than ethanol, travels better in pipelines than ethanol, mixes better 
with gasoline at different temperatures than does ethanol.
  There is another company called Coskata, C-o-s-k-a-t-a. I had not 
heard of them before this year. But they are a small startup biofuels 
company. They have interesting technologies that enable them to take 
plant waste, corn, corn hulls, cornstalks, corn leaves, corncobs, 
woodchips, switchgrass, any variety of products, and turn it into a 
biofuel.
  And they not only can take that plant waste, they can take municipal 
waste and transform it into a biofuel. They can take the old tires off 
cars, trucks and vans and turn that into a biofuel as well. They use 
about maybe less than a gallon of water to create a gallon of biofuel. 
Again, they can create this biofuel from a variety of sources without 
disrupting the food system.
  The energy content of the fuel they create, the biofuel they create 
is about

[[Page S7443]]

seven times greater than the amount of energy that is used to create 
the biofuels.
  The amount of CO2 that is released in burning this biofuel 
is about 85 percent less than the carbon dioxide that is created by 
burning gasoline, and they can create it for maybe about a buck a 
gallon.
  They are going to be creating it in more significant quantities about 
2011. Coskata is an example of one biofuels company that has an 
exciting technology that I think portends hope, should convey hope to 
all of us as we try work on the supply side.
  Some people ask me why I believe nuclear power can actually be 
helpful on the supply side too. I always say, the answer is two words: 
Chevrolet Volt. Chevrolet Volt is a vehicle that GM is going to launch 
toward the end of 2010. This is a flex-fuel, plug-in hybrid vehicle. 
Plug it into your electric outlet at your house, charge it overnight 
when electric prices are low, leave the next day, drive away, you can 
you go 40 miles with a charge on your battery.
  We are working hard to develop a lithium ion battery. The Federal 
Government is helping to partner the research on that. The idea is to 
go out, run the first 40 miles on your battery, and then when your 
battery runs low, to recharge the battery with an alternative power 
source aboard the vehicle. It could be a fuel cell, it could be a low-
emission diesel, it could be a traditional internal combustion engine. 
Those power sources, auxiliary power sources, recharge the battery, and 
then the battery continues to run the vehicle.

  The opportunity to get 80, 90, even 100 miles per gallon off a Chevy 
Volt flex-fuel, plug-in hybrid is not unrealistic. And it is a source 
of great encouragement. The question is where are they going to get the 
electricity to charge the battery.
  Today, nuclear provides about 20 percent of our electricity in this 
country. I think 70 percent of the carbon-free electricity that is 
produced comes from nuclear. We have about nine new applications in. We 
have not built a new nuclear plant in 30 years. We have nine 
applications in right now to build about 14 more. We expect next year 
maybe another dozen or so applications and the opportunity for a 
renaissance in nuclear power.
  As we go forward, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has their hands 
full, as you might imagine, making sure that the 104 powerplants we 
have in existence today are run well, safely; relicensing a number of 
those powerplants so their life can be extended for another 20 years, 
and then saying grace over all these new applications for new 
powerplants that are coming in.
  It is important for us in this body to make sure the NRC has what 
they need so they can oversee a safe renaissance in nuclear power. And 
that renaissance will help us on the supply side, especially as we move 
toward electric vehicles.
  On the demand side, in talking about the Chevrolet Volt, a vehicle 
that if it gets 80 to 90 miles per gallon, helps us on the demand side, 
I think that is pretty obvious. There are other things we can do on the 
demand side as well. For my home, we went out, about a year ago, and 
bought a new air-conditioning unit. It is one that sits up about this 
high. It is pretty big. It is a SEER 18; we have energy efficiency 
ratings on our appliances.
  But one of the things we can do is buy more energy-efficient 
appliances. We basically have cut our electricity bill in half since we 
went from a SEER 10 up to about a SEER 18. As we buy new appliances, we 
need to continue to do those sorts of things.
  Gee, as I look at the lights in the Senate Chamber, and as we change 
out the light bulbs in our offices, in our homes, we can buy more 
energy-efficient light bulbs, change out the ballast systems in our 
lighting systems, put in new lighting systems. There is a lot we can do 
in terms of lighting.
  The drop in the value of the dollar is coming from a couple things. 
One of the things it flows from is the uncertainty in the housing 
market, the collapse in housing prices, great uncertainty about the 
banking system, the mortgage financing system with Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac.
  One of the things we can do--and hopefully we will take the final 
step tomorrow--is provide a strong independent regulator for Fannie Mae 
and Freddie Mac. We do that in this legislation. We take steps to make 
sure people who are facing foreclosure--and it is not something they 
have done wrong or no malfeasance involved, because we don't want to 
reward bad behavior--are given an opportunity to avoid it. We make the 
FHA relevant in the 21st century. We are going to provide housing 
counselors for thousands.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time controlled by the 
Democrats has expired.
  Mr. CARPER. I thank the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that speakers on 
the Republican side be limited to 10 minutes each.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the U.S. Congress has had its ups and 
downs, but the way the 110th Congress has handled our energy crisis is 
a low point.
  High energy prices affect every American, whether they are Democrat, 
Republican, or Independent; whether they are labor unions, school 
teachers, or lawyers; whether they are white, African American, or 
Hispanic. But no group is hurt more by high oil prices than the poor. 
Restricting our Nation's oil supply is the most regressive policy 
imaginable.
  All we have heard from the other side is let's blame oil company 
profit; let's blame oil companies for sitting on the leases; let's 
blame speculators for responding to a very small spare capacity of oil 
in the world.
  Our citizens are begging us to drill more, but all the Democrats can 
do is blame more. Listening to the energy debate these past few days, I 
couldn't help but wonder whether the Democrats really believe their own 
arguments. Are they really drinking the Kool Aid the anti-oil 
environmentalists are serving them, or do they actually know better?
  I am no expert on energy, but the arguments the anti-oil 
environmentalists are selling to my friends on the other side of the 
aisle are so obviously wrong that I would like to put some of their 
statements to the test.
  Let's take a look at this chart here.
  The first item on this chart states that an oil lease allows an oil 
company to drill. The truth is you cannot drill on your own oil leases 
without a permit to drill, and there is a huge backlog of applications 
for permits to drill. It is a very long, expensive, and frustrating 
process.
  Let's take a look at this chart. This is what happens after an oil 
company gets a lease. First of all, the oil company must pay rental 
fees to hold onto its lease. Often, the detailed analysis of the actual 
energy resource is completed after a lease has been won. If the 
analysis indicates the resource is economic, the oil company must apply 
for a permit to drill, and that kicks in the NEPA process requiring the 
environmental studies.
  And then there is still no guarantee the oil company will get a 
permit to drill. But if they do, there are still serious hurdles to 
overcome. They must comply with hundreds of State and Federal 
environmental rules, seasonal restrictions due to wildlife patterns, 
and very, very often, they must overcome protests and lawsuits by anti-
oil environmentalists.
  So let's go back to our first chart. We can see that this first 
statement is not true, so I'll put an ``F'' there for false.
  The next line on the chart states that companies don't want to drill. 
The irony here is astounding, because the Democrats have been fed this 
line by the very same anti-oil extremists that are putting up all the 
lawsuits against drilling permits.
  Let's take a look what the trend has actually been with oil permits 
and drilling.
  The data on this chart shows what's been happening at the BLM Office 
in Vernal, UT. This is very representative of the rest of the country. 
Since the year 2000, applications for permits to drill have doubled, 
permits granted by the government have doubled, and new wells completed 
since the year 2000 have doubled. And even with a doubling of efforts 
by the government and the oil companies, there is still a very large 
backlog of applications for permits to drill. Mr. President, these are

[[Page S7444]]

facts, so I hope we can stop all the innuendo about oil companies not 
wanting to drill.
  The last line is based on data the BLM just gave me yesterday, and 
this number applies to all oil and gas permitting in the Nation. Since 
the year 2000, environmental protests against oil and gas permits have 
gone up 700 percent.
  It is an insult to the American people to mislead them this way. Is 
it any wonder that Americans are getting completely fed up with this 
Congress?
  Anyway, let's go back to our chart and put a big ``F'' on the line 
that says oil companies don't want to drill.
  And that leads us to the third line on the chart, which states that 
the release of final commercial lease regulations on oil shale would 
lead to a ``fire sale'' on oil shale leases.
  It is an argument I have heard more than once, but a very quick 
review of existing oil shale law proves it to be false.
  I was the sponsor of the Oil Shale and Tars Sands Development Act. It 
is now Public Law and referred to as Section 369. Senators Pete 
Domenici and Wayne Allard were heroic supporters of the proposals, and 
we consulted with Senators Jeff Bingaman and Ken Salazar on the 
legislation.
  It is worth taking a look at the actual language in the law, and I am 
paraphrasing to save time, but the law states it very clearly:
  ``The Secretary shall consult with the Governors of the States . . . 
to determine the level of support and interest in the States in the 
development of tar sands and oil shale. . . .''
  Even after final commercial lease regulations are published, not one 
lease can be put out to bid until after the Secretary of the Interior 
consults with the relevant Governor to determine the level of State and 
local support for such activity. Then the law states that:
  ``If the Secretary finds sufficient support and interest exists in a 
State, the Secretary may conduct a lease sale in that State.''
  Notice that the Secretary may move forward only if there is support 
from the State. Anyone who reads the actual law, Mr. President, will 
see that issuing final regulations on commercial oil shale leases will 
not lead to a fire sale.
  This chart shows the five major steps the law requires before the 
final regulations are released and then another set of major steps that 
must be taken after the final regulations are published, but before a 
single lease can be put up to bid.
  A fire sale is when a business sells damaged goods at basement 
bargain prices. The public auction of oil shale leases is just the 
opposite. The auction would offer up valuable leases of only to the 
highest bidder. The winners will be paying a premium price to the 
Government with the goal of getting a return on their investment, and 
the Government wants them to be successful, because everyone wins when 
energy production occurs.
  The oil shale law specifically ensures that no company will just sit 
on commercial oil shale leases. The law reads that ``The Secretary 
shall, by regulation, designate work requirements and milestones to 
ensure the diligent development of the lease.''
  So let's go back to our original chart, and put a ``F'' on the third 
line. Oil shale leasing is, in every way, the opposite of a fire sale.
  I am the sponsor of the FREEDOM Act, which provides strong tax 
incentives for plug-in electric vehicles. I also sponsored the CLEAR 
Act, which is the existing law giving tax credits for hybrids and 
alternative fuels. I understand that there are alternatives to oil, but 
I also choose to deal in the real world when I make policies. Just as 
with oil shale, each alternative will take years to fully develop, but 
we must work on them today if we want the benefits tomorrow.
  Today, alternatives make up only about 3 percent of transportation 
fuels, and most of that is corn ethanol.
  I hate the mandate on ethanol, but I am on record as a strong 
supporter of incentives for ethanol.
  But let me remind my colleagues of some of the points I made on the 
Senate floor earlier this week. And these facts are based strictly on 
Government data and science journals.
  If ethanol production were expanded to make up 20 percent of our fuel 
supply, it would move into drier areas and require irrigation.
  This chart shows a comparison of how much water would be required to 
make that much ethanol, compared to the amount of water for the same 
amount of oil shale. The idea that oil shale needs huge amounts of 
water is an absolute myth, but the media keeps repeating it.
  This chart shows us how much land would be required to produce enough 
ethanol for 20 percent of our fuel supply. As you can see, it would 
take the equivalent of Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, and South 
Dakota combined to grow that much ethanol. This is calculated based on 
data from the Energy Information Administration which shows it would 
take about 353,000 square miles to make that much ethanol, which is 
represented by the green area on the map.
  Now, you probably cannot see it from your chair. But this red arrow 
on the chart points to a tiny dot on the map, which is the smallest 
county in Kansas. It is about 156 square miles, and that is all the 
area it would take to produce enough oil shale for 20 percent of our 
fuel supply. It is important to remember that after an acre of oil 
shale is used up, the law requires that it be restored back to nature.
  If you look at this large green area on the map you can recognize 
that ethanol requires a lot of land cultivation.
  The February issue of Science magazine published a peer-reviewed 
article which states that when land is cultivated, it releases gigantic 
amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
  The Science article determined that because of the land disturbance 
associated with corn ethanol production, ethanol emits 93 percent more 
carbon than gasoline. And switchgrass, even when grown on existing corn 
lands, emits 50 percent more carbon than gasoline.
  On the other hand, the Department of Energy calculates that oil 
shale, without using any carbon capture technology, emits only 7 
percent more carbon than gasoline.
  Whether you are talking about water, land use, or greenhouse gases, 
oil shale is certainly an improvement over ethanol. I continue to 
support ethanol production, but I know it is limited in what it can do.
  On the other hand, as you can see by this chart, we have between 1 
and 2 trillion barrels of recoverable shale oil in the United States. 
That is a pretty important number, because it is about the same of 
amount of the entire world's proven oil reserves. All government has to 
do is get out of the way.
  Unfortunately, Congress has been exceedingly dysfunctional when it 
comes to energy.
  On one hand they complain about oil companies sitting on oil leases, 
which we know isn't true, and on the other hand they ban development of 
our Nation's biggest oil resource, oil shale.
  I wish they would make up their mind. And so do the American people, 
especially those Americans who fall well under the poverty line.
  Let's take a look at the last item on our energy quiz today. It 
states that our poorest citizens spend about half their income on 
energy costs.
  A book written by one of our Nation's civil rights crusaders, Roy 
Innis, shows how the poorest of the poor spend up to 50 percent of 
their income on energy needs. Can you imagine the impact the anti-oil 
agenda has had on these Americans?
  So, for this final item, I will be marking it with a ``T'' because it 
is a true statement. Historically, the poor have looked to the liberals 
to promote their needs in Congress, but on energy, they have been sold 
out.
  Earlier this month, a group of protesters came to Capitol Hill 
calling on Congress to stop the war on the poor by groups and 
congressmen who are closing off America's energy resources.
  Included in the group were pastors and civil rights leaders calling 
on this body to unlock America's oil resources for the benefit of 
Americans and especially for the benefit of lower income Americans.
  One of the participants was Bishop Harry Jackson. I would like to 
quote some of his remarks for the record. These are his words:

       I am a registered Democrat, but this has nothing to do with 
     partisan politics. Unless the public understands that there 
     are specific people and organizations that are fueling this 
     war against the poor, nothing will

[[Page S7445]]

     change and the poor will continue to suffer. We will unmask 
     those behind this war regardless of their political party or 
     ideology. Party labels and partisan ideologies are 
     meaningless when it comes to protecting the lives of 
     America's most vulnerable citizens.

  Democrats in Congress must choose between the very well funded 
extreme anti-oil interests, or the poor, because on energy prices, 
there is no compromise between the two. To be honest, I believe 
Americans have put their finger on this conflict, even before their 
representatives in Congress have fully begun to understand it.
  Representative Henry Waxman passed a law that bans the Federal 
Government from purchasing oil sands from Canada, unless it can be 
proven that it has a lesser greenhouse gas footprint than gasoline. In 
other words, we are turning away 1.5 million barrels of oil a day from 
a friendly neighbor in favor of oil from the Middle East and Russia. 
What about the greenhouse gas footprint of shipping that oil all the 
way over here?
  Last year, Representative Mark Udall, who represents Aspen, CO, 
passed the one-year moratorium on commercial oil shale leasing. At 
first, I thought he was simply seeking a little extra time for 
comments, but a year moratorium on leases is a very long time. Now he 
is trying to extend the moratorium for another year.
  I guess there are not too many poor in Aspen. I love Aspen and the 
people there, but it is no secret that it is home to plenty of wealthy 
elites and environmentalists. I have no problem with Representative 
Udall choosing the elite anti-oil crowd over the poor. But let's be 
honest about the choices we're making around here.
  Just a couple months ago a local Aspen newspaper reported about how 
the city of Aspen has been besieged with building permit applications. 
The article states that new building permits every day equate to about 
$2 million. From what I know about Aspen, I am sure there are some very 
nice brandnew homes, stores and restaurants going up, and more power to 
them.
  Ironically, the local governments in Colorado's oil shale areas 
support oil shale development. But it is the wealthy environmentally 
minded citizens like the good people of the not so nearby Aspen who are 
opposing it. I addressed the environmental benefits of oil shale 
production earlier in my remarks, but extreme views are sometimes 
extremely hard to change.
  The American people are not asking for a big appropriation or some 
difficult action by Congress. They are not asking us to give oil 
companies big subsidies or environmental loopholes. All they ask is 
that this Congress stop locking up our domestic oil resources. They are 
asking us to stop relying on foreign governments who are much smarter 
than we are about developing their own oil resources. They are asking 
us to find more and use less.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. How much time remains?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republicans control 18\1/2\ 
minutes in 10-minute increments.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with 
my Republican colleagues for the 18\1/2\ minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Would the Chair be so kind as to let me know when 1 
minute remains?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will do so.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the Senate just voted, because of the 
way Republicans voted, to stay on $4 gasoline until we can find a 
serious solution to this problem. This is the biggest problem facing 
our country. The point we are trying to make is that we think we ought 
to take it up, take a week, take several days, offer our ideas, and the 
Democratic ideas--there are many about which we agree--and see if we 
can make some substantial progress to finding more oil and gas and 
using less oil and gas, which is the way we lower price if you believe 
in the law of supply and demand.
  What we have discovered, to our surprise--we are willing to do both, 
to find more and use less, but the Democratic leader, at least, is not. 
Whenever we say we want to use more, he says: No, we can't. More oil 
shale: No. More offshore drilling: No.
  So what we would like to emphasize in these next few minutes is that, 
unlike the way the Democratic leader has characterized our proposal, we 
are equally interested in using less oil and finding more. After all, 
the United States uses 25 percent of all the oil in the world. So if we 
really want to reduce the demand for oil as a way of affecting price, 
we need to get serious about using less oil as well as finding more.
  I went to Oak Ridge National Laboratory in May and suggested we need 
a new Manhattan Project for clean energy independence, to put us on a 
path, over the next 5 years, toward clean energy independence. We would 
start with doing the things we already know how to do, such as building 
more nuclear powerplants--we know how to do that--offshore drilling, 
for which 85 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf is now, by law, off 
limits.
  But I mentioned, then, several things we do not know how to do. We 
ought to have crash programs and do them quickly. One was to make solar 
energy cost competitive with fossil fuels in 5 years. Another was 
research in advanced biofuels so we can make alternative fuels from 
crops we do not eat as well as crops such as corn that we do eat. That 
is another way to use less oil. Another is to make all new buildings 
green buildings. We waste a lot of energy, and much of it is in our 
buildings. Another goal is to make plug-in electric cars and trucks 
commonplace. That is another way to use less oil.
  The Senator from Alabama has been an effective spokesman not only for 
using and finding more American energy but for using less of it. I 
heard him on the floor yesterday, and I would ask the Senator, isn't it 
true that an essential part of the Republican plan--but let's call it 
the American plan--for really dealing with the price of gasoline today 
is to deal with both supply and demand, and that we are equally 
interested in the demand part and using less part as we are in the 
supply part?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I certainly agree. I say to Senator 
Alexander, I think you have articulated that so well. I just heard most 
of the remarks of Senator Carper, our Democratic colleague. He was 
talking about ways to produce more nuclear power, biofuels. I think--
don't you--there is a basis for compromise between our parties that 
will have conservation plus more production? Both of those together, I 
am convinced, will help break this cycle of ever-rising prices of fuel. 
That is the direction we need to go. I do find it odd that the 
Democratic leader is keeping this negotiation--really, this discussion 
that would occur from a real Energy bill debate--keeping that from 
occurring and keeping progress from being made.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Alabama, I 
was just thinking last night, we could have been taking these 
amendments up since last Friday. The Democratic leader brought up his 
speculation bill, which is a perfectly appropriate energy bill to bring 
to the floor, and instead of having the Senator from Delaware come make 
a speech about nuclear power, he could have offered an amendment about 
nuclear power. So we could have already spent 1 whole week dealing with 
issues on the supply side and demand side that would help lower the 
price of gasoline and other expenses.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think that is exactly right. I just 
want to thank the Senator for his leadership and study. One of our 
Members said there are few issues in which more Members of this Senate 
have educated themselves than on energy. I think most of our Members 
are deeply committed to doing something. If they are listening to their 
constituents, they are.
  I calculated out, I say to Senator Alexander, that according to the 
estimates of the Government, the average family travels 24,000 miles a 
year. That means in their budgets they will spend this year, based on 
the increase in gasoline prices, $1,260 more. That amounts to $105 per 
month. After they pay their Social Security, after they pay their 
taxes, after they pay their insurance, after they pay their house loan, 
and all these fixed expenses all of us have, they have that little 
remaining money

[[Page S7446]]

that discretionary money to do the things they want to do to take care 
of their family and many critical needs, and they have $100 less per 
month.
  I believe we have to do something. I do not believe we should go home 
without confronting this question. It requires conservation, less 
utilization, alternatives to this high price of oil, as well as more 
production.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Alabama, one 
of the parts of the Republican proposal is to make plug-in electric 
cars and trucks commonplace, which sounds like a startling idea the 
first time you hear it, the idea that you would just take your car or 
your truck and plug it into the wall at home and fill it up with 
electricity instead of gasoline.
  But the fact is, Nissan announced in Tennessee the other day that it 
will have a pure electric car out in about 3 years. General Motors, 
Toyota, Ford--they are all going to be selling these cars. We are going 
to have the cars. The Tennessee Valley Authority, which serves the 
region where we live, says it has plenty of electricity at night which 
it can sell at low cost. So we have the cars coming. We have the 
electricity. All we need is the cord.
  We could use a debate and discussion on the Senate floor to help make 
this country a place in which plug-in electric cars and trucks would 
succeed. That is part of our amendment.
  I ask the Senator from Alabama, don't you think there is widespread 
support for plug-in cars and trucks on that side and widespread support 
on this side? Why don't we have some amendments about that? Why aren't 
we allowed to do it?

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I could not agree more. In fact, Senator 
Carper, our colleague, just 10 or 15 minutes ago emphasized plug-in 
hybrids as one of the key solutions. I think you and I agree from our 
discussions that in the immediate future, a plug-in hybrid automobile 
may have more potential to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels than 
almost any other thing that is within our technological capabilities to 
achieve. Would the Senator agree with that?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, that is exactly my view. What makes it 
especially appealing is that the Government is not in charge of it. The 
car companies are making the cars. The utilities have the electricity. 
It is estimated that we could electrify half of our cars and trucks in 
America without building a single new powerplant.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask Senator Alexander this. I get so 
frustrated when I say and Members on this side say: Well, we need to 
produce more oil and gas, we have blocked 85 percent of our offshore 
lands--not south of Alabama, we have supported that, but other areas 
are blocked--and they say that is because we are for oil companies. But 
the truth is, this idea you and I are talking about--a plug-in hybrid--
would take us from oil, would give some competition to the big oil 
companies, and would have a significant effect, would it not, in, 
hopefully, reducing the price of oil and their profits in the process?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. It would.
  I see the Senator from South Dakota, who has been in many ways the 
foremost champion of renewable energy here. We often hear him say that 
in the Dakotas they have more opportunity for wind energy, which, to 
the extent we use it, would reduce the amount of oil we use if we plug 
in electric cars and trucks, as an example, or use biofuels that are an 
alternative fuel.
  I wonder if the Senator from South Dakota would not agree that using 
less oil, giving big oil some competition, is not a big part of the 
Republican proposal?
  Mr. THUNE. Absolutely, the Senator from Tennessee is correct. I 
appreciate his leadership on the energy issue. I think putting it in 
very simple terms--finding more and using less--is something the 
American people understand and something that is seriously missing in 
this debate.
  The Democratic leadership, by filling the amendment tree, has 
prevented the opportunity for Senators on our side or Senators on their 
side to offer amendments that would address the very basic issue of 
finding more and using less. What we have before us on the floor is a 
very narrow solution that does nothing to address America's dangerous 
dependence upon foreign sources of energy, does nothing to add to our 
domestic supply in dealing with the ``finding more'' side of the 
equation, and, frankly, does nothing to deal with the ``using less'' 
because all the good amendments--and I have looked at the list of 
amendments here on our side, at least--we have 24 ``finding more'' type 
of amendments, 14 ``using less'' type of amendments. We have a number 
of people who would like to offer amendments with regard to 
conservation and renewable energy.
  As the Senator said, I am very much supportive of renewable energy. 
We are just going over--South Dakota will eclipse now the 1 billion-
gallon level annually in ethanol, biofuels. We think there is a 
tremendous upside in the potential future in advanced, what we call 
next-generation biofuels, cellulosic ethanol, which would 
geographically diversify ethanol production in this country. So, I say 
to the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Tennessee, their 
States might be able to participate in that as well because they would 
be able to make it from other forms of biomass.
  I am very much for having a wide-ranging debate that includes 
opportunities to offer amendments on conservation, on renewable energy, 
on biofuels, on wind. South Dakota is home--maybe second to Washington, 
DC, because there is a lot of hot air in Washington--but when it comes 
to wind energy, South Dakota and the upper Midwest, the Great Plains 
States, probably have more of an abundance of wind than about anywhere 
in the country.
  Everybody says: Well, wind is intermittent, and it does not blow all 
the time. That is true, although you would have an argument from people 
in South Dakota because it does seem to blow all the time there. But we 
have very consistent wind which can be converted to energy and help 
address the ``find more'' part of the energy solution in this country.
  But here we are in the Senate, the world's greatest deliberative 
body, having amendments being blocked that would do anything to address 
this issue of supply and demand. In fact, as to the Energy bill we 
voted on in 2005, we adopted 57 amendments and we spent 10 days on the 
floor debating amendments. As to the Energy bill we passed in 2007--
late last year--we spent 15 days of time on the floor of the Senate and 
adopted 49 amendments. So we have a history on big issues such as this 
of allowing the Senate to work its will, and here we have probably the 
most important economic issue affecting America, not only currently but 
in the future, and the pocketbooks of every single American--and that 
is this incredible toll and economic hardship that the high price of 
fuel is taking on our economy and on Americans' pocketbooks. And we are 
being cut off from even offering any debate that would address these 
issues of conservation.
  We have some great ideas on conservation, renewable energy, advanced 
battery technology. The Senator from Tennessee talked about--and so did 
the Senator from Alabama--having these electric hybrids that run for 40 
or 60 miles on electricity and then convert over to fuel. I would like 
to be able to talk about and offer some amendments that would--once 
they get to that, where they start kicking in and running on a gasoline 
engine, making those flex-fuel vehicles because then you could run on 
any type, whether it is gasoline, whether it is E85. You could use 
blends that could be used to not only run the cars but also move us 
away from dependence upon fossil fuels and petroleum and more toward 
biofuels.
  But in any event, the point of all this is, we are standing on the 
floor of the Senate with an opportunity to do something about an issue 
that is incredibly impacting Americans in this country, and we are 
being blocked from even having an opportunity to have some of these 
amendments that would impact the ``finding more'' side of the equation 
in additional domestic production and also the ``using less'' side, 
which is the conservation component.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the Senator who has helped us frame the 
debate has arrived on the floor, the Republican leader. I have heard 
him say repeatedly that we want a result. This is not a time for 
playing games. This is not a time for scoring points. This is a

[[Page S7447]]

time when Americans--South Dakotans, Alabamians, Tennesseans--we are 
all hurting.
  I get stories from marines who do not have money for their vacation 
with their family after 18 months in Iraq, from moms who are losing 
their job because they cannot afford the commute.
  We have an opportunity. We could be doing it this day. We could be 
debating Senator Thune's proposals on wind and renewable energy and 
biofuels, Senator Sessions' proposals on conservation and plug-in 
vehicles. Yet we are in this parliamentary procedure to block us from 
offering anything that has to do with finding more and using less--
except the one proposal.
  I see the Republican leader in the Chamber. I wonder if he would 
agree with me that the American people are ready for the Senate to act 
and get a result on $4 gasoline, and the Republicans are at least as 
interested in using less oil, giving big oil some competition, as we 
are in finding more?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it strikes me that the public opinion 
polls are overwhelming. People, frankly, do not care who gets it done, 
but they know they need both sides to cooperate to get there. I think 
Senate Republicans this morning spoke almost with one voice, saying: 
Let's stay on this subject and get it right now.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I say to Senator Alexander, I have great 
affection for the Democratic leader, but I just could not agree with 
his statement that we do not have time. We have a whole month coming up 
for which we are supposedly going home for recess. Our soldiers are 
working 7 days a week, with 15-hour days. This Congress cannot stand to 
stay in session a while and confront this issue and do some things we 
know will work?
  I know there are a lot of specific steps everybody in this Chamber 
would agree would be positive to deal with this problem. We need to 
take those steps, and on a bipartisan basis; but we can't get there 
unless we are able to bring up the bill and debate it.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. We should start today. I wonder if the Senator would 
agree with me. What I hope I never hear on the Senate floor again is it 
will take 10 years or it will take 5 years because, I wonder what we 
are supposed to do, not look ahead for the kind of country we want for 
our children?
  What if President Kennedy said: I would like to go to the Moon, but 
it will take 10 years, so forget it. What if President Roosevelt had 
said: We need to build an atom bomb to win World War II, but it is 
going to take 3 years, so we better drop that idea. Or what if Benjamin 
Franklin had said: I would like to see a republic for these colonies, 
but it might take 50 years, so let's not do that.
  Our job is to look down the road a few years and try to create a 
better environment for people. In addition, the price of gasoline today 
is based upon the expected supply and expected demand tomorrow. So if 
this world saw the United States of America take major steps today to 
change the supply and demand in the world for oil and gas, the price 
would be affected today, in my view.
  I wonder if the Senator from South Dakota would agree that the family 
budget--
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. ALEXANDER.--that the family budget is more important than the 
legislative calendar, and that the family budget in America is more 
important than a legislative vacation, and what we ought to be doing 
today and over the weekend and next week is figuring out what to do 
about $4 gasoline by finding more and using less.
  Mr. THUNE. There is no doubt the folks I represent in South Dakota, 
as well as the people of Tennessee and the people of Alabama, are 
speaking loudly and clearly about this. They want this addressed. They 
think all this finger-pointing and playing the blame game in Washington 
isn't doing anything to solve their problem, which is the tremendous 
toll and impact this is having on their pocketbooks. I would hope we 
would be able to have a wide-ranging debate, be able to vote on 
amendments, look at a balanced, comprehensive approach that includes 
more production, that includes conservation, that includes use of 
renewables.
  That is not happening in the Senate, and it is not happening because 
the Democratic leadership has decided they don't want to take votes. 
They don't want to take votes on additional production, and so they 
have done what they call in Washington ``filling the tree.'' In simple 
terms that basically prevents anybody--including Members on their side 
but Members on our side as well--from offering amendments that would 
actually solve the problem.
  It is unfortunate where we are, but the Senator is exactly right.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican time has expired.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I wish to proceed on my leader time. I 
am unsure what the time situation is.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Senate took a defining vote this 
morning.
  Americans have been crying out, asking us to act to lower high gas 
prices. They just heard the official response from the Democratic 
leadership in Congress: A few new guidelines for the energy futures 
market is enough. We don't need to do anything other than that. That is 
it. That is the Senate Democratic position.
  The American people have been telling us for months that the house is 
on fire, and the Democrats just showed up at the scene with a squirt 
gun--a squirt gun.
  The vote we took this morning was their response to $4-a-gallon 
gasoline. That is what a few of our friends on the other side are doing 
for all of those people out there who are standing at the gas pump, 
hopping mad at what it just cost them to fill the tanks of their cars. 
They have told 49 Republicans and more than a dozen Democrats who are 
open to increased domestic exploration the same thing: take it or leave 
it, speculation or nothing.
  Americans are insisting that we do a lot more than that. They want us 
to do something to cut the price of gas and to lessen our dependence on 
oil in the Middle East. They don't want us to quit working until the 
job is done, and leaving this issue is what the Democratic leadership 
just voted to do.
  A majority in the Senate wants America to be self-reliant and to find 
more American energy, but the Democratic leadership says: No, we can't.
  To drive down gas prices, we should be opening the Outer Continental 
Shelf today, but the Democratic leadership says: No, we can't.
  To drive down gas prices, we could be lifting the ban on development 
of the vast oil shale deposits in Western States that sit on three 
times the reserves of Saudi Arabia. The Democratic leadership says: No, 
we can't.
  To drive down gas prices, we could have approved incentives for 
battery-powered electric cars and trucks today. The Democratic 
leadership says: No, we can't.
  To drive down gas prices, we could have voted to open up untapped 
American oil today, but the Democratic leadership says: No, we can't.
  To drive down gas prices, we could have voted today for new, clean, 
nuclear technology, but the Democratic leadership says: No, we can't.
  To drive down gas prices, we could have approved new coal-to-liquid 
technology today, but the Democratic leadership says: No, we can't.
  Nearly eight in ten Americans say we should do these things, but the 
Democratic leadership and their Presidential nominee have the same 
simple response to every one of them: No, we won't.

  A dozen Democrats in the Senate say we should consider these things, 
but the Democratic leadership had the same answer for them: No, we 
won't.
  The Democratic leadership just voted to give up on finding a solution 
to high gas prices. They just voted to give up on trying to find more 
and to use less. They just voted to give up on our effort to consider 
serious ideas from both sides of the aisle. They want us to tell the 
American people the Senate's time would be better spent on other 
things, and that it is time to simply move on.
  Well, Republicans have a three-word response for the Democratic 
leadership: No, we won't.

[[Page S7448]]

  I just voted to keep the Senate on the most important domestic issue 
facing our Nation. If there is a more important domestic issue facing 
the country, let's hear it; otherwise, let's get serious and work 
toward a big solution to this very big problem.
  I mentioned yesterday that I received recently a letter from a 
dialysis center in Kentucky. They were pleading with the Senate to take 
action now on the high price of gas at the pump. The letter said that 
some of the rural patients who have to go to this center for treatment 
three times a week are now foregoing some of their treatments because 
they can't afford the gas to get there.
  So I ask my friends on the other side the same simple question I 
asked them yesterday: If you won't act now, with dialysis patients 
cutting back on treatments because of high gas prices, when will you 
act? What is it going to take?
  I know my colleagues across the aisle are stuck between the ``No, we 
can't'' position of their Presidential candidate and the Democratic 
leadership--stuck between them on the one side and the guy at the gas 
pump with smoke coming out of his ears on the other. For me, though, 
that decision is an easy one: I am going to be with the guy at the 
pump.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The senior senator from Rhode 
Island is recognized.


                                Housing

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I wish to talk about the pending passage of 
extraordinarily important legislation: the Housing and Economic 
Recovery Act. We are debating it today, and it is one of the most 
significant pieces of legislation that we will address in this Congress 
and perhaps in many Congresses to come. It is in direct response to the 
housing crisis, which has not only undermined home values throughout 
this country, forcing thousands and hundreds of thousands of people 
into foreclosure or onto the verge of foreclosure, but its effects have 
essentially been transmitted throughout the entire economy, and we are 
seeing a huge economic downturn. Unless we provide some type of footing 
for housing in the United States, I do not think the economy will begin 
to recover. It is perhaps the most significant economic issue that we 
face.
  For months now we have been battling to get this legislation through, 
and we are now on the verge of passing this significant bill. I am 
excited for that moment, and I wish to first commend individuals who 
have played a critical role. Senator Dodd has been remarkable in his 
management of this legislation, along with Senator Shelby. They have 
played a dynamic and very creative and very positive role in bringing 
this legislation to final passage. They have been ably assisted by 
their staff, and I have been particularly assisted by my staff members, 
Kara Stein and Didem Nisanci. They have done a remarkable job.
  For the first time in a generation with this legislation, we are 
beginning to update, modernize, and strengthen the institutions that 
undergird our mortgage and housing markets to provide some footing, 
some economic traction, so that Americans can begin to feel somewhat 
hopeful and confident about their economic future again. We are also 
providing grants and tax incentives to encourage the development of 
housing across the Nation for low-income families.
  One of those issues that has been persistent and, indeed, pernicious 
for many, many, many years before the onset of this housing crisis is 
the lack of affordable housing in many parts of the country--in fact, 
practically every part of the country. Low-income families have been 
struggling for decent, affordable housing.
  In this legislation, we are providing a response to their struggle--a 
response I think will not only benefit low-income families but benefit 
communities throughout the Nation.
  This legislation is a comprehensive and realistic response to the 
current crisis. I believe it will help millions of Americans to find 
decent, safe, and affordable housing.
  Again, let me thank Chairman Dodd and Senator Shelby for all of their 
hard work and their very astute, very wise judgments at various places 
along the way where this legislation could have gone off the track. 
They have done a remarkable service for this body and for the American 
people. This bill is not just going to provide families with some hope; 
it is also going to provide families with real help, and that is so 
critical at this juncture.
  For families, such as many in Rhode Island who are struggling to stay 
in their homes, this legislation creates a new program at the Federal 
Housing Administration--the FHA. This HOPE for Homeowners Program will 
allow families who have mortgages that are underwater--their mortgage 
is greater than the value of their home at this time--to refinance into 
30-year, fixed-rate, FHA-insured mortgages they can afford. It is going 
to increase funding for home ownership counseling so that more families 
have access to these much needed services.
  This legislation also aids our returning soldiers, sailors, airmen, 
and marines. I just had the privilege of traveling into Iraq and 
Afghanistan with Senator Hagel and Senator Obama to personally thank 
these young men and women and to tell them we are with them. We are 
with them not just there in the war zone, but we have to be with them 
when they come home so they have a chance when they come back to 
maintain their homes and get the services they need. This legislation 
will help them by lengthening the time a lender must wait before 
starting the foreclosure process and by providing these soldiers, 
sailors, airmen, and marines with 1 year of relief from increases in 
mortgage interest rates. It is fitting that we spend a moment in this 
legislation to recognize these brave young Americans.

  It will also provide $3.92 billion for States and local governments 
for the development of abandoned and foreclosed homes. It has been 
estimated that Rhode Island will receive about $56.7 million of this 
community development block grant funding, which should help stabilize 
many of our neighborhoods and stem the significant losses in the home 
values of surrounding neighbors.
  What happens when a home is foreclosed? It affects dramatically and 
traumatically the individual family, but the effect is not contained to 
that home because the values of the surrounding homes go down as well. 
Almost like a cascading effect, one foreclosure follows another, home 
values descend, and then you have a blighted community. We have seen 
this in Rhode Island.
  My colleague, the Presiding Officer and junior Senator from Rhode 
Island, has traveled through some of our communities where not one 
home, but two, and then three, and four, and then ten are foreclosed--
then suddenly we have a problem which is eating at the heart of the 
community.
  This CDBG money will help cities move aggressively, first, to protect 
the physical structures of these homes. One of the things we have 
seen--not just in Rhode Island but nationwide--is that when these homes 
are abandoned, they are subject to predators who come in, rip out the 
copper piping, the wiring, take off the siding, and before you know it, 
you have lost that opportunity to put another family in that home. It 
is a great loss to the community.
  We have done much over the last several decades to begin to turn the 
corner in many of our communities in Rhode Island. You could see the 
sense of pride and progress as homes were fixed up and new properties 
were developed, but we stand the chance of losing that, of letting it 
slip away. So without this community block grant development money, we 
will see neighborhoods turned inside out, begin to fail, and provide a 
further pull downward on the economy in so many communities in this 
country. This is another important aspect of this legislation.
  This legislation also will help to stabilize and stimulate the real 
estate market.
  This has been one of the great engines of our economy over the last 
decade or more.
  This legislation contains a provision that will provide a $7,500 tax 
credit for first-time homebuyers--help people get back into the real 
estate market.
  It will also provide States with $11 billion of additional tax-exempt 
bond authority in 2008 to help refinance subprime loans, make loans to 
first-time homebuyers, and finance the building of affordable housing. 
Many States--particularly in our State of

[[Page S7449]]

Rhode Island--have housing authorities that have done a remarkable job 
of partnering with private, not-for-profits, and local commercial and 
financial institutions to try to help develop affordable housing, help 
people who are having difficulties with their mortgages. This 
additional bonding authority will give more support to these local 
efforts. It is a critical issue.
  The legislation also increases the GSE--which are Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac--FHA, and VA loan limits. This is going to allow more 
families to access conventional mortgage rates and be able to place 
themselves in affordable and sustainable mortgage products. One of the 
problems we have seen over the last several years has become much more 
vivid. Looking back, because we didn't empower the VA, FHA, and GSEs to 
more aggressively provide access to conventional loans, many families 
turned to these exotic mortgages with accelerating interest rates. As a 
result, they find themselves now in a great dilemma. Studies have shown 
that many people who were getting these subprime loans would have 
qualified for one of these conventional loans with a conventional 
interest rate. Because we weren't reaching out through these Government 
agencies, the VA, Federal Housing Administration, and also 
incentivizing the quasi-governmental agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac, these people had very little choice but to be subject to the 
blandishment and allure of these seemingly good deals in the subprime 
mortgage market. Now we are getting much more aggressive with 
conventional mortgages. That will be, I think, going forward a good 
thing.
  Important also, this legislation helps restore confidence in Fannie 
Mae and Freddie Mac. It creates a new, strong, independent, world-class 
regulator for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks.
  The bill also includes a provision, at the request of Secretary 
Paulson and the administration, which will authorize the Department of 
the Treasury to provide an explicit backstop should the GSEs encounter 
grave financial problems.
  I am pleased also that the Federal Reserve's consultative role with 
the newly created regulator will also be also limited to the duration 
of this authority rather than in perpetuity.
  I firmly believe that issues surrounding regulatory reform need to be 
seriously considered at length for the remainder of this year and in 
the upcoming year. We should not be merely bootstrapping these issues 
to the current bill without significant deliberation on the role and 
the ability of the Federal Reserve to perform such responsibilities. 
Let me say that again. It is vitally important to signal to the markets 
and the American people that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still 
vital, valuable parts of our mortgage market. In fact, they represent 
right now roughly 70 percent of that market. If they are faltering, if 
our real estate markets decline further, that is going to be a 
significant weight on our overall economy--even more significant than 
in the present day. Restoring confidence in Fannie and Freddie and the 
marketplace is one of the building blocks to beginning to restore and 
rebuild our economy going forward. These provisions will, I hope, do it 
in such a way that they provide psychological support so that actually 
drawing down funds by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may be unnecessary. 
This backstop will send, I think, the right message to the marketplace 
so we can move on to begin to deal with some other issues with respect 
to the larger financial markets of this country, and indeed the world.
  Finally, let me mention some of the provisions I am particularly 
proud of in the bill. They represent the culmination of years of work--
not my work alone, but work on which I have taken upon myself to 
provide some, I hope, leadership.
  I have been working to create a national affordable housing trust 
fund, this in response to the needs I have seen--and my colleague, the 
junior Senator from Rhode Island, has seen--around the country, with 
families struggling to find a decent place to live. Without a decent 
and a permanent place to live, how can you expect children to succeed 
in school, if they are in three different schools when families move 
from one rental to another one? How can families choose between 
shelters at all, when apartments are riddled with lead hazards, which 
impacts the health and welfare of a child and the family? How can you 
expect someone to confidently go out and look for a job and maintain a 
job, when they are asked for a permanent home address and they have to 
scribble something--either make it up or change it repeatedly? These 
are the challenges many face because we don't have adequate affordable 
housing for many of our citizens. Prompted by that, I have, since I 
have been in the Congress--the House and the Senate--been working for 
the day we can provide more support for affordable housing for our 
citizens.
  When I was chair and ranking member of the Housing and Transportation 
Subcommittee of the Banking Committee during the last few Congresses, 
it became clear to me that our Nation had this affordable housing 
crisis. One of my first public policy endeavors as a young lawyer in 
Rhode Island was to be the pro bono legal counsel to Amos House, a 
wonderful organization in our home State, in Providence, which 
attempted to provide support to people who were poor and also provide 
some housing. I first became convinced that if we can provide stability 
in housing, that would go a long way towards giving people the 
confidence, self-esteem, and the skills needed to master the challenges 
of living in a very difficult economy.

  Housing is expensive now--very expensive. It is falling, but it has 
gone up dramatically. The affordable housing crisis continues to be 
with us. Indeed, one of the ironies of the marketplace will be--and I 
hope quickly--when the market restores itself and home values begin to 
rise because of this legislation and other legislation, it will make it 
even more difficult for low-income and modest income Americans to find 
a place to rent or buy. We want the economy and the housing market to 
come back strong, and we want housing values to rise. But we cannot 
forget the people who may be left behind because their income is flat.
  So this affordable housing provision is critical. There is no place 
in this country, for example, where an individual with a full-time job, 
at the minimum wage, can afford a two-bedroom apartment. Today, the 
minimum wage is going up, which is long overdue; but even at $6.65 an 
hour, that doesn't leave a lot for a good, safe two-bedroom apartment 
for a family. We have to do more. This legislation does more.
  In my State of Rhode Island, the average wage for a renter is $11.61. 
In order to afford the fair market rent for an apartment at this wage, 
a renter must work 68 hours per week, 52 weeks a year. If you are 
making the average wage, in order to afford a decent two-bedroom 
apartment, you have to work 68 hours a week, 52 weeks a year. People 
are doing that. They are doing it for their children; they are doing it 
to make sure that at least there is a safe and healthy place for their 
children. That is an extraordinary burden. That is just to pay the 
rent. What about the increased food prices? What about the gasoline 
prices we are all recently talking about with such intensity?
  This legislation creates an affordable housing trust fund from a less 
than one-half cent fee on each new dollar of business that Fannie Mae 
and Freddie Mac engage in. This is not from the taxpayer. This is from 
the business activities of these government-sponsored entities. A less 
than a half-cent new fee on each new dollar of business.
  The fund, we estimate, is going to provide approximately $500 million 
per year for the building, preservation, and rehabilitation of housing 
for low-income families. Rhode Island should receive approximately $3 
million from the trust fund program once it gets up and running.
  Part of the money collected from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will also 
be allocated to a new program that will be run by the Secretary of the 
Treasury, called the Capital Magnet Fund.
  Community development financial institution and nonprofit housing 
developers will be able to apply for funding if they can show an 
increased investment in the development, preservation, rehabilitation, 
and purchase of affordable housing for primarily low-income families. 
So there are basically two funding streams. We hope it will incentivize 
the use not just of these

[[Page S7450]]

funds but additional private funds so we can provide even more support 
for affordable housing.
  The grantees of the capital magnet program must show they can 
leverage at least $10 in private dollars for each dollar they receive 
from the Capital Magnet Fund. That is a pretty good deal. If they can 
leverage $10 of private investment for $1 of investment from that fund, 
that will multiply many fold the effect of these affordable housing 
dollars. These grantees will have to show that leverage and show 
innovative ways in which they can deliver affordable housing services. 
This will be a private solution to this problem. These grantees are 
primarily community development financial institutions or not-for-
profits, who want to go ahead and support affordable housing in their 
communities.
  This funding will be used to create and support financial programs 
that dramatically increase investment in low-income housing, such as 
revolving loan funds, risk-sharing loan programs, loan-loss reserves, 
and affordable housing trust funds at the local level.
  I also helped draft provisions that would require Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac to purchase more mortgages made to low- and very low-income 
families. This should increase the access of these families to 30-year 
fixed rate conventional mortgages. These provisions also require Fannie 
and Freddie to purchase more mortgages for rental housing built for 
low-income families, which decreases the mortgage rates on these 
mortgages. Frankly, more financial institutions will make the mortgages 
because they will be able to sell them to the secondary market.
  The legislation also includes the text of a bill I introduced, called 
the Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act. These provisions require that 
consumers are provided with timely and meaningful information regarding 
the terms of their loan, including loans that refinance a home or 
provide a home equity line of credit. As we look back on this subprime 
crisis, so many times borrowers were totally unaware of the details of 
the mortgage. They might have been able to afford the first year of 
payments, but once the escalator kicked in, they were out of the box. 
They never understood this fully. Frankly, there were more incentives 
for the brokers and dealers of the loans to obscure the bad news than 
to deliver the news to the borrowers. With these improvements, people 
will have fair warning. They will have the information they need to 
make a better judgment about the mortgages they will sign up for.
  In particular, the TILA, the Truth-in-Lending Act form, will now show 
the maximum payment a consumer might have to make under the terms of 
the loan, and increase penalties if a lender doesn't provide this 
information in a truthful and timely way to the consumer. You will know 
the maximum exposure you will have as a borrower. That should be a 
sobering caution for people who are trying their best to get into a 
home.
  I am also pleased that this bill includes language I authored to 
expand access to HUD-approved counseling programs by allowing any low 
or moderate income homeowner to be eligible for financial counseling 
services. This provision will allow many more families to get the 
advice or assistance they need to help keep their homes.
  As most of you know, FHA also insures reverse mortgages that can be 
used by homeowners age 62 or older to convert their home equity into 
monthly streams of income, or a line of credit to be repaid when they 
no longer occupy the home.
  As the coauthor with Senator Allard of a bill to improve the home 
equity conversion mortgage program, I am pleased this bill contains our 
language to remove the current congressionally imposed 275,000 cap on 
the number of reverse mortgages that FHA can insure per year. This 
should allow the successful FHA program for seniors to expand and serve 
more seniors.
  The bill also includes important provisions to protect our seniors 
from fraudulent practices, such as requirements for independent, third-
party counseling before they enter into the mortgage, limits on the 
amount of origination fees that can be charged, and prohibitions on 
requiring the purchase of other products, such as insurance or 
annuities. This is a good program. We think we have made it better and 
believe it will now be able to serve more seniors.
  Additionally, the legislation contains language I authored to use $25 
million in FHA savings every year for the purpose of modernizing and 
improving FHA's technology, processes, and program performance. This 
funding can also be used to provide more staffing for FHA's newly 
expanded programs. This funding is critical to ensure the success of 
the FHA modernization proposal since it will allow FHA to access 
cutting-edge mortgage industry practices and procedures. If we want the 
FHA to be a strong participant in the mortgage market, they have to 
have the modern tools to do that, not only to serve more borrowers but 
also to protect against problems, to protect the resources they are 
committed on behalf of the Government to use for the benefit of our 
fellow citizens. So this modernization provision is absolutely 
critical, it is important, and I am glad it is in the bill.

  We are at a critical juncture, and I am very pleased that we have 
finally been able to reach bipartisan agreement on this legislation. 
Again, it is a tribute to Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby and so many 
others and to a remarkable staff who have worked so hard. I am most 
proud of what we have been able to do to increase access to credit and 
affordable housing for low-income people in Rhode Island and across the 
Nation. This legislation is going to be the linchpin that helps 
millions of families have decent, safe, and affordable housing.
  It also should restore confidence in not only our Nation's housing 
market but in our Nation's economy. As we move forward, I think we have 
much to learn from this experience, including how integrally connected 
our housing markets and capital markets have become. Safe, decent, and 
affordable housing should not just be the American dream, it should be 
the American promise. I look forward to witnessing the good this bill 
does in moving us in that direction.
  As a final point, my colleague, Senator Sanders, has shown remarkable 
leadership to get LIHEAP funding onto the floor of this Senate. We need 
it. One of the responses, one of the immediate responses--not talking 
about drilling that 10 years from now will put more gasoline into the 
world market--in immediately dealing with the crisis this fall and 
winter for families everywhere is to pass a LIHEAP bill. I hope we can 
do that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, first, I wish to welcome back our 
colleague, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, who has returned from a trip 
to Iraq and Afghanistan with Senators Obama and Hagel. I know he has 
made many trips there and I thank him for his service in the Senate and 
his contact with our troops and we are glad to have him back.
  Mr. President, how much time remains on the Democratic side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, briefly, I will say that we have pending 
before us a housing bill. You couldn't have missed this story in 
America; it has hit so many communities so hard. My home State of 
Illinois is fourth or fifth in the Nation in mortgage foreclosures. Our 
largest county, Cook County, is No. 2 among counties in the Nation in 
mortgage foreclosures. I have gone to the west side of Chicago and 
taken a look--with Bob Fioretti, the local alderman--and seen a 
beautiful row of houses, and among those are many well-kept places, 
with the lawns manicured, and smack dab in the middle is one boarded-up 
house with trash all over the front yard and a sign that says it will 
be up for auction in a few weeks.
  Of course, that is dragging down the property values for the good 
neighbors who are trying to keep their homes nice and make their 
mortgage payments on time. So mortgage foreclosure isn't just your 
neighbor's misfortune, it is your misfortune. And when 2\1/2\ million 
Americans lose their home to foreclosure, 44 million homes see a 
decline in values.
  In my hometown of Springfield, IL, when somebody files for 
foreclosure a block or two away, it affects my property value. Of 
course, a home is one of

[[Page S7451]]

the most important assets most families own. So we want to get this 
under control.
  Those people who have been defrauded by mortgage practices that never 
should have been allowed need a second chance. I don't have any 
sympathy for speculators--those high flyers trying to make a fortune. 
But for those families who need a second chance to stay in their homes 
and not lose everything they have put into them, this bill can help.
  We worked on this bill on a bipartisan basis. We now have the 
President's support. The fact is, this bill should be on the 
President's desk today, and it could be. Sadly, one Republican Senator 
is holding up this bill and making the Senate stay in session until 
tomorrow. I hope that Senator is here for the vote when it takes place 
tomorrow, but this is totally unnecessary. It is just a matter of 
delaying critically important bipartisan legislation that can try to 
address the terrible home situation we have across America.
  The National Association of Realtors has reported that home sales 
have dropped yet again last month, leaving sales 15\1/2\ percent below 
where they were a year ago. The median price of a home sold in June 
dropped 6.1 percent from a year ago. That is the fifth largest year-
over-year price reduction on record.
  In Illinois, my home State, sales were down again, and the median 
sale price was down 6.1 percent from June of last year. Unfortunately, 
it doesn't look like it is going to get better soon.

  Six months ago, the Center for Responsible Lending estimated that 2.2 
million homes may be lost to foreclosure in the near future. That means 
44\1/2\ million families will see a decline in the value of their 
homes. The total decline in home values across America from 
neighborhood foreclosures is expected to be over $220 billion.
  This bill that we have before us, that will be passed--I hope 
tomorrow--with a strong bipartisan vote, the Housing and Economic 
Recovery Act, will take several steps to help families facing 
foreclosure keep their homes, help other families avoid foreclosure, 
and help communities that have been devastated by foreclosure to 
recover.
  Chairman Chris Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut, and ranking member 
Richard Shelby, a Republican from Alabama, came together and crafted a 
bipartisan bill and worked hard to do it. Chairman Barney Frank of 
Massachusetts, over in the House, did an extraordinarily good job, and 
we were able to not only improve the regulation of Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac, two Government agencies that are directly involved in 
almost half the home sales in America, but the bill also gives tax 
benefits to families who want to buy homes and cities trying to rebuild 
low-income housing.
  It helps veterans--and we should always do that--by increasing loan 
limits for their mortgages and extending the period of time that lapses 
after a soldier returns from service before he can face foreclosure.
  Cities receive $4 billion under the bill to purchase and rehab 
foreclosed property, and it helps avoid foreclosures in the future by 
tightening licensing requirements on mortgage brokers.
  All these steps are in the right direction, but we also need a good-
faith effort from lending institutions. For too long they have stood by 
the sidelines watching these foreclosures stack up. They should be in 
the game, working with these families to save the homes, where they 
can. That is not only the right thing to do morally, it is the right 
thing to do for their industry. If we are going to get the American 
economy moving again, create jobs, and have a bright economic future, 
we need to get our housing sector back on its feet.
  I am sorry that one Senator makes us wait until tomorrow to get it 
done, but I trust tomorrow we will get it done. We are going to pass 
this bill, send it to the President, and I hope start the economic 
turnaround this country needs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I join with the assistant Democratic 
leader in looking forward to passage of the housing bill. Americans are 
caught in what appears to be a perfect storm. The subprime mortgage 
crisis, of course, causes a collapse in that area, and then all other 
housing is impacted by what happens to a neighbor. People lose value in 
their homes, they lose equity, they can't reinvest, can't fix the 
floors, and then we see jobs impacted. It is a problem, and I look 
forward to dealing with that tomorrow. I am pleased we have come 
together in a bipartisan way to address this very critical problem.


                                 Energy

  The other side of the coin--that perfect storm--is the issue of 
energy, the gas crisis--$4-a-gallon gas, a barrel of oil costing $130, 
$135, $140, and who knows where it ends. I come to the floor to discuss 
an energy amendment I introduced yesterday, with the support of 24 
other Senators, including the distinguished ranking member of the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Domenici.
  Before I begin making my remarks, I wish to make a parliamentary 
inquiry: I filed an amendment to S. 3268, the energy speculation bill. 
When the Senate resumes consideration of that bill, which I presume we 
will go to after we deal with the housing bill, would it be in order 
for me to offer that amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would take unanimous consent to offer that 
amendment.
  Mr. COLEMAN. So if anyone on the other side objects, then I do not 
have the opportunity to move forth that amendment; is that correct, Mr. 
President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If any Senator objects.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, we are dealing here, for those who watch 
the Senate, with a procedure where the majority leader has done what is 
called filling the tree. It is a tactic where the Democratic leader 
brings a bill to the Senate, fills the tree so no amendments can be 
offered without his consent, and then files cloture on the bill, which 
stops debate. The end result is a process that is designed to fail 
because it prevents any other Senator from offering amendments.
  I would note the number of times the amendment tree has been filled 
by the present majority leader has been 14 in this 110th Congress. That 
is more than the total number of times that procedure was used by the 
leaders in the 107th Congress, the 108th, and the 109th Congress.
  Here we stand in the Senate, while our constituents are raising their 
voices, expressing their frustration, and asking us to do something on 
an issue which is ``the issue'' of the day. We worry about the high 
cost of food. My farmers have an increase in the cost of energy that is 
driving up the cost of food, and we are taking more money out of our 
pockets now to pay for gas. I tell folks at home, not so jokingly, that 
when you go to the gas station today and you put the pump in the tank, 
you wonder what is going to get filled first, the tank or your credit 
limit. So what we have is an energy speculation bill. This is what we 
are allowed to debate when it comes to answering the most urgent crisis 
facing America. This is the Senate. It is supposed to be the greatest 
deliberative body in the world, and this is not the way you deal with 
the energy crisis. You don't set up a procedural process that is 
designed to fail. I am going to talk further about speculation, but we 
have to do all of it.
  In Minnesota, we play hockey. It is a way of life for many. There is 
no question we have plenty of ice to play on, and everyone knows hockey 
isn't exactly a no-contact sport. In the same way, it is reasonable to 
expect there will be differences of opinion and lively debate among 
Senators when an important bill is considered on the floor. But what 
the majority leader has done with the process on this Energy bill is 
akin to a hockey team throwing their gloves on the ice before the puck 
is even dropped.

  This isn't about solving a problem. This no-amendment process is set 
up to deliver a political fight, and that is not in the best interest 
of the American people. It is the last thing Americans want and need. 
Minnesotans are smart--Americans are smart--and they get it. They know 
we need to use every resource at our disposal to deal with this energy 
crisis. They also know politicking when they see it. I don't think 
either party wins if we go home in August without passage of a strong 
energy bill. Not this. Not this, designed

[[Page S7452]]

to fail, addressing a narrow aspect of it. I wish to address it, but 
there is so much more that has to be done.
  I agree speculation is an important issue. I have been looking into 
this matter, as ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigation and when I was chairman before that. So as both the 
chairman and ranking member, since 2006, we have been looking at this. 
But speculation can't be dealt with substantively without changing the 
current supply-and-demand dynamic. The bottom line is we need to find 
more, we need to produce, and we need to consume less.
  Speculation is based on the belief that there is going to be scarcity 
in the future. If you tell folks: No, no, there is not going to be 
scarcity because we are going to tap into American resources, we are 
going to do what has to be done to break that dependence on foreign 
oil, to do what we have to do to tap into our resources in an 
environmentally safe way--you change the dynamic.
  We had testimony before our subcommittee, and one of the witnesses 
said that if we did it--and he was talking mostly, by the way, about 
renewables and conservation and production--if we put it all together, 
the price of gas would drop like a rock. Now, I can't guarantee that, 
but I can tell you if you are concerned about speculation, then one of 
the things you want to do is to tell the speculators who are betting on 
scarcity that there is not going to be scarcity in the future because 
we are tapping into American resources.
  We have those resources to tap into. That is what the Coleman-
Domenici amendment would do; it would untie America's hands as we try 
to deal with this energy crisis by allowing States to explore for 
deepwater oil and natural gas that is 50 miles or more off the Nation's 
east and west coasts. That amendment would also focus on the 
conservation side because you have to do both. It would pave the way 
for plug-in hybrid vehicles, by making battery production more 
efficient and more affordable.
  Currently, 85 percent of the lower 48 Outer Continental Shelf acreage 
is off-limits--85 percent of the OCS is off-limits right now in the 
lower 48. Meanwhile, undiscovered OCS reserves are expected to be as 
large as 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of 
natural gas. Producing just 1 million barrels a day from the OCS would 
increase domestic oil production by nearly 20 percent for 40 years.
  I live in a State that is cold in the winter, and that winter starts 
early. We are going to see the price of natural gas start spiking in 
September and October. My farmers are impacted by that because natural 
gas is important to the production of fertilizer. They are having 
trouble getting price quotes--not just for next year, some are having 
trouble getting price quotes for the near future. If we tell the world 
we are tapping into this resource that is there, regardless of when it 
comes on, we are going to change the dynamic today.

  On the demand side, widespread use of plug-in hybrid electric 
vehicles will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, greenhouse gas 
emissions, and the costs associated with driving. In fact, we could 
reduce the petroleum consumption by 3 to 4 million barrels a day by the 
mid-21st century and cut the cost of driving by about 75 percent.
  This amendment is not a silver bullet. In fact, there are many other 
areas we need to look to--coal to liquid, oil shale, ethanol, expand 
nuclear production now, wind energy--expand that now. We had Boone 
Pickens come into our caucus--and he spoke to our colleagues on the 
other side--and say: Do it all. Do wind, do nuclear, do Outer 
Continental Shelf exploration, do oil shale--do it all. I think there 
is a better way to address the speculation issue than what has been 
done in the underlying bill.
  Unfortunately, the Senate has been handed a take-it-or-leave-it 
process on a speculation bill that doesn't cover production and doesn't 
cover conservation. I believe if we abandon the type of take-it-or-
leave-it process that failed to allow full consideration of a whole 
range of bills, as we have seen with this process of filling the tree, 
and look to the bipartisan template that was so effective during the 
farm bill debate, we have a chance to pass an energy bill. That is the 
way the Senate works.
  There are Senators on both sides of the aisle who want to do this. 
They are listening to their constituents. They understand.
  I want to go back to the farm bill. If you recall, last November it 
looked as though the farm bill was dead. The legislation responsible 
for ensuring America's food security had fallen victim to disagreement 
about amendments. There were 285 amendments filed to the farm bill, and 
the stalemate over process lasted weeks. But at the end of the day, the 
majority and minority leaders agreed to 20 amendments on each side. 
Voting began on December 11, and the farm bill was passed by 79 votes 
on December 14. Argument over process had lasted for weeks. Yet in 4 
days the Senate was able to breeze through an incredibly complex 
reauthorization bill. Senators did not need to vote on 285 amendments, 
but they did need enough votes to ensure the Senate could fully 
consider the measure and do the job.
  The farm bill debate not only proved reasonable accommodation of 
process can be found on important issues, but it also proved the power 
of bipartisanship to allow this body to serve the American people. The 
farm bill couldn't have been passed without Senators on both sides 
coming together for the greater good of the Nation.
  The American people are in desperate need of a good energy policy. We 
don't need to vote on every amendment that has been filed, but there is 
no reason we can't start out with seven amendments on each side. Time 
should not be a problem either, as surely it will not take the 4 days 
it took doing the farm bill. Maybe this could be shorter. But we need 
to do it. We need to move forward. Americans are demanding it.
  I will be the first to sign up. I want to work with the Presiding 
Officer. I want to work with others. We need to find a bill that finds 
more and uses less. Let's find something for production, for 
conservation, and speculation. Do it all. That is what the Senate 
should have a chance to vote on.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I understand I am entitled to speak now, for how long?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Before the Senator leaves the floor, I wanted to say--I 
wanted to talk about three things, briefly.
  First, the Senator is talking about an amendment that I cosponsored 
with him. He adequately explained that if the tree were not filled by 
the majority leader, that amendment could very well be before the 
Senate. It is very important and very simple. We would have a chance at 
some point in time to vote, would we not, on that amendment? And it 
would say we are going to open the 85 percent of the offshore of the 
United States that is closed today, and we are going to let the 
Governors work with us and try to give them part of the royalties so we 
can have a seamless growth in the offshore production, which could 
indeed change the supply-demand pendulum that is currently causing this 
big spiral upwards that causes gasoline prices to go up--that is what 
that amendment is for?
  Mr. COLEMAN. I say to my colleague from New Mexico, if the tree were 
not filled, and the majority had not used that procedure, we could put 
it on the table and it would be another option for Americans to tap 
into the resources that we have, more production and more opportunity. 
That would have an impact today by telling folks we would have less 
scarcity in the future.
  I tell my friend from New Mexico, because the tree has been filled, 
we are not going to have the opportunity to have that debate.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I want to make one more point. I heard the Senator talk 
about his hope for a bipartisan bill. We could get plenty of people on 
because there ought to be Democrats who are for this. Wouldn't it help 
a lot if eight or ten Democrats on the other side were to tell their 
leader they do not like this, they do not like the way he has filled 
the tree, he ought to take down some of those amendments so we could go 
to work, bipartisan or otherwise, so we could try to have an amendment 
to vote on? That would help, wouldn't it?
  Mr. COLEMAN. I tell my friend from New Mexico I certainly can't 
influence what the majority leader does. But I

[[Page S7453]]

have to believe the American people are talking to me as I know they 
are talking to the Senator from New Mexico. When I go home, they are 
scared, they are anxious. They have to be speaking to folks on both 
sides of the aisle. If that voice is then heard by the majority leader, 
maybe then we could have an opportunity to fully debate and fully 
consider the most important issue facing Americans today.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I don't know where the voices are going. All the voices 
in America, up to 75 percent, are saying they want to open the offshore 
so we will have that asset for them to use. You cannot do that without 
having a vote on the Senate floor. That would not happen but by a 
miracle; you would have a vote.
  Mr. COLEMAN. I say to my colleague, as one who is on the forefront of 
renewable technology in Minnesota, we pride ourselves as being the land 
of 10,000 lakes. Actually, we have more than that. Minnesota is prone 
to understatement. But clean water and clean air is an important part 
of where we live. We are an environmentally strong State. The people of 
Minnesota are telling me: Senator Coleman, we have to do it all. We 
need to open drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf; we need more 
production; we need commitment to consume less, but we also need the 
opportunity to find more and produce more. Those are the voices I am 
hearing in Minnesota. I have to believe we are hearing it in New Mexico 
and Arkansas and Pennsylvania and throughout this country.

  Mr. DOMENICI. That amendment the Senator has spoken of that he was 
going to offer, but it is out of order--he is going to have to ask the 
majority leader for permission. That is a real strange U.S. Senate. I 
never understood that we had anybody of whom you had to go ask 
permission, but that is the way they have it set up. You will have to 
go ask him. If he says no, you can't offer this wonderful amendment.
  The second part of your amendment is the part that concerns energy, 
and it could be working within a couple of years, couldn't it? The part 
on batteries that would help us with new electric cars, it could come 
on by the numbers, by the hundreds?
  Mr. COLEMAN. I would say to the Senator from New Mexico, there has to 
be strong bipartisan support for moving forward on new battery 
technology. I do not know who is against that; it is part of the 
solution. More production is part of the solution. More conservation is 
part of the solution. Addressing speculation is part of the solution. 
But, unfortunately, because of this process that we are seeing so much 
more frequently today, we are losing the ability for the Senate to do 
what the American public expects the Senate to do, and that is to have 
a full debate, put the ideas on the table, and let it come to 
conclusion. I want to come to conclusion.
  I want a bill. We have a process that is set up right now to fail, to 
say we addressed it or say somebody blocked it, and move on without any 
real desire to solve the problem. I think that is a great tragedy. I 
think it is inconsistent with the traditions of the Senate.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I want to say, the Senator from Minnesota couldn't put 
it more clearly before the American people than he has done. He has 
tried to offer an amendment that goes right to the problem and 
confronts it head on. The Senator has heard from the Parliamentarian--
you have requested permission to offer the amendment, and you heard you 
cannot. Why you cannot is because the tree is filled; that is, the 
number of amendments allowed has been filled by amendments by the 
majority leader, and there is no more room. There is no more room for 
something really good--your amendment. There is no room for it.
  You have shown everybody what that all means. This means we are going 
to be around here telling the American people: We cannot help you. We 
cannot help you with the amendment that you talked about because we 
cannot consider it.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Unfortunately, the Senator from New Mexico is right. We 
do not have the opportunity to come before the American public and say 
we fully debated, fully considered the opportunity to produce more 
energy, to find more energy, to do more with conservation because the 
tree has been filled. Now, I believe that right of the Senate, that 
obligation and responsibility, cannot be fulfilled.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am going to proceed. How much time do 
I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I think the Senator from Oklahoma wanted to speak?
  Mr. INHOFE. I have been listening to the debate. We need more supply. 
We need to have about 10 Democrats come along and help us to pass the 
legislation, the amendments that we have that would allow us to go out 
and drill and bring in energy.
  Mr. President, I have two unanimous consent requests. First of all, I 
ask unanimous consent that my statement be reflected in the Record 
tomorrow on the LIHEAP, S. 3186 vote; and, second, my statement 
pertaining to the housing, H.R. 3221 vote tomorrow be printed in the 
Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have spoken on the Senate floor about 
how the majority leader has used this process and eliminated our 
ability to offer amendments. I refer my colleagues to a speech given on 
the floor last night by the senior Senator from Pennsylvania where he 
lays out a compelling case against the growth of this process known as 
filling the tree by the majority leader in the Senate. It is a good 
speech. My colleagues should read it and heed it, heed the warning, 
because the more it is used, the less this place is a Senate. The more 
it is used, the less we have the rights of Senators to offer amendments 
and debate and have votes because we are curtailed, cut off, eliminated 
by this process. You ought to read the speech and be fearful of the 
future of this institution but, more important--equally important--your 
rights as a Senator. You ought to be worried about that.
  It will not be the Senate you thought it was if you sit around and 
let this happen. We are going to stay on it until the leader 
understands that there is a group of Senators who do not like it and 
are not going to sit here and take it.
  I would like to speak for a minute for the American people. I would 
like to talk about a great amendment that is going to be pushed aside 
because of this short-circuiting in this bill. This amendment gets to 
the heart of what we have been saying. We need to find more and use 
less.
  We have a great quantity of American resources on the Atlantic and 
Pacific offshore coast. So the first part of the Coleman-Domenici 
amendment which Senator Coleman has been speaking about would allow the 
coastal States--to say to those areas that we can open the waters 
within their offshore boundaries for leasing 50 miles out. Believe it 
or not, we know how to do that. Platforms can be built 50 miles out or 
60 miles out, drill down 50,000 feet and have 12 or 14 wells under one 
platform. They do not have to drill a platform for each well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask, who has time next? How much time does the 
Senator have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 9 minutes remaining under the control 
of the Republicans.
  Mr. DOMENICI. All right. I yield the floor and hope later on to talk 
some more with the Senate about this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I commend Senator Domenici on his passion 
for energy and what we need to do to preserve the future of our 
country. I have had a chance, as many Senators I am sure have, as well 
as Americans all over the country, to look in on the debate about 
energy this week. Frankly, if it were not so serious and perhaps sad, 
it would be entertaining. I have been entertained to see my Democratic 
colleagues bobbing and weaving and trying to change the subject and 
deflect the attention from the real needs, trying to obscure 20 years 
of obstruction on developing American energy and to shift the blame to 
big oil, to speculators or President Bush instead of talking about the 
real subject.
  It is sad that this is probably the most important issue of this 
generation. We know it is hurting Americans every day, who are paying 
more and

[[Page S7454]]

more for gasoline, families who are just making ends meet, increasingly 
having to make the decision of whether to buy the gas they need to go 
to work or even buy the right food they need for their children.
  This is a serious crisis. Yet we are playing games here on this very 
important issue. The Democratic majority will not even allow an open 
and honest debate. They will not allow Republicans to bring amendments 
down because they fear their Members will have to take a vote to show 
America where they stand on the issue.
  If we had an open and honest debate, America would find out that 
Democrats would prefer the prices to be high; that based on the input 
from the environmental extremists who tell them the higher the price 
is, the less fossil fuels we will use, that is better for the 
environment.
  The problem is, over the last 20 years, as the Democrats have 
obstructed the development of nuclear energy, they have obstructed the 
development of America's own oil and natural gas supplies. Our 
dependence on foreign oil has gone up. We have burned more coal than 
other countries that have developed clean alternatives such as nuclear.
  The environmental extremists have actually hurt the environment. They 
have made our country hostage to other countries that would like to 
harm us. And when it comes to the point where we need to decide what we 
are going to do as a country, the majority leader will not even allow 
us amendments. He wants to ram it through and change the subject and go 
on to the next thing.
  That is where we are today. We have put in the middle of this the 
housing bill, which, like the Energy bill, the majority leader will not 
allow any amendments to. This is a huge, unprecedented bill, putting on 
the line $300 billion that can be used for mortgage companies to unload 
bad loans onto the taxpayers, making the Federal Government the owner 
of mortgages in real estate for the first time, and crossing that line 
between freedom and socialism where we actually get so involved in the 
private sector and the managing of the financial markets that our 
country is moving more toward a European style of socialism than the 
America we know.
  We have a bill here that on one side adds nearly $1 billion of taxes 
on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and then, on the other side, is asking 
America to bail them out because they are not making enough money. That 
is the kind of logic Congress is using.
  And we do not want to debate it. We want to get this thing done 
immediately. The majority leader scheduled a vote that would come out 
on Saturday. He did not give us the courtesy of offering one amendment. 
Then he is demanding that we shorten the time period so he can have a 
Friday vote and let folks go home.
  I have been entertained by the suggestion that I have actually 
scheduled votes tomorrow. As I understand it, and the Parliamentarian 
may want to correct me, there is only one person in this Senate who can 
schedule a vote. That is the majority leader on the Democratic side, 
and he scheduled a vote on Saturday and will not change it in order to 
give us an amendment.
  There are a lot of amendments that could improve this bill. Setting 
up a slush fund so local communities and their agencies can buy real 
estate and rehab it and sell it is a bad idea. It is a slush fund that 
is not going to be accountable. It puts those governments in the real 
estate business.
  I wish to have an amendment to remove that, and to remove the new 
taxes that are going to cost everybody who buys a home after we pass 
this bill. Everybody is going to pay more to get a mortgage because 
this bill adds taxes to it. The folks who are pushing it do not want 
you to know that. The President had threatened to veto it over this bad 
policy, but he decided to change his mind because he felt we so much 
needed to provide the backup for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So because 
we cannot have the amendments that we need to improve the bill, I asked 
for one amendment that is basic and common sense.
  We have seen in the Wall Street Journal and publications all over the 
country the growing suspicion that the fact that the reforms that were 
needed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the last 10 years were not 
even talked about in Congress because of so many political 
contributions to Congressmen and Senators.
  Now, we do not like to think that about ourselves, but there is a 
reason Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spent over $200 million over the last 
10 years on campaign contributions to those of us here in the House and 
the Senate, and they got something for it. They got left alone. They 
grew out of control. They grew into a big monster where now we say they 
are too big to fail. If we let them fail, they are going to bring down 
the whole American economy. So we have got to put the American taxpayer 
behind them with an open checkbook to write any check that is needed to 
keep them in business. That is what we are being told in this bill 
right now. If we are going to do that, if we are going to make the 
American taxpayer stand behind those companies, then there is one 
commonsense thing we can do to keep it more open and honest. These 
organizations that are now guaranteed by the American taxpayer should 
no longer be able to spend millions of dollars buying influence in 
Congress. That is a conflict of interest. My amendment would simply 
stop the political activity, the lobbying and the contributions of 
these organizations which are now a part of the Federal Government 
because of this explicit guarantee. That is the only amendment I asked 
for. We could have voted on it yesterday and finished the housing bill 
yesterday if the majority leader had wanted it. We could vote on it 
today and move straight to passage.
  I have offered the majority leader several options. It does not even 
have to be a part of this bill if he thinks it is going to delay it. 
All I have asked for is a straight-up vote on this bill that would 
eliminate lobbying by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and we could do it 
sometime before the end of the session.
  We could vote on housing immediately, right now, send it to the 
President unchanged, so there would be no delay. But the majority 
leader is so afraid of asking his Democratic colleagues to vote on this 
bill that would ban lobbying, that benefits us so much in our 
campaigns, he does not want them to take that vote in public view. So, 
instead, he is going to keep everyone here Saturday and try to say I am 
scheduling this vote when, in fact, he is scheduling that vote because 
he does not want the lobbying and the campaign contributions to stop 
from these organizations which are now basically being backed up by the 
full faith and credit of the American people.
  That is what is going on here. It would be entertaining if it were 
not so sad. Again, the blame is trying to be deflected to someone else 
so the American people cannot see where people stand. Instead of having 
amendments we can vote on, and instead of seeing where people stand on 
the lobbying of these organizations the American people now have to 
stand behind, they are trying to blame it on the fact that we are going 
to have a Saturday vote.
  Over half the American people do not want us to pass this bill. They 
deserve a voice in this Chamber. And if there is no one else who is 
going to stand up and speak against it, I will, because it is wrong to 
pass a bill of this magnitude so quickly, 700 pages that have not been 
read by one Senator here. It has so many flaws in it that they want to 
get it off the floor before people figure out what is in it. It is a 
mistake to pass this bill so quickly. I am not going to allow it to go 
through today. We are going to be here tomorrow for a vote because 
people are afraid to show the American people what they stand for.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, if we wanted to solve this 
problem on energy, if we wanted to solve the problem on health care, if 
we wanted to solve the problem on housing, which we are finally going 
to get to final passage on tomorrow, if we wanted to do it and we had 
the political will, we could.
  The problem is the Senate is all wound around the axle because people 
cannot get along with each other. That is being reflected in the two 
leaders not being able to get agreement on unanimous consent, which to 
operate in this

[[Page S7455]]

Senate is necessary to have that kind of good will and mutual trust.
  Yet we do not have it. So now someone is listening on TV or sitting 
up in the galleries right now and hearing the statements on this floor 
that are completely contradictory of each other. We have had statements 
on this floor over the last several days. People say, for example: 
Well, there is no problem drilling out in the waters off of the Outer 
Continental Shelf of the United States because we do not have any 
experience on oil spills now.
  As a matter of fact, we have had Senators on this floor who have said 
there were no oil spills after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. And, of 
course, I have pointed out the White House itself came out with a 
report, Lessons Learned After Hurricane Katrina. It came out in 
February of 2006. I quoted at length from that document that pointed 
out over 7.4 million gallons of oil were spilled after Hurricane 
Katrina. That is the White House report.
  But let me give you another example. We have had, including the 
Republican Leader has said: There was not a drop of oil spilled after 
Hurricane Katrina.
  I want to show you a satellite photo. This is a NOAA photo 4 days 
after Hurricane Katrina. This is the coast, the gulf coast. Would you 
look at the oil spills that are out there as a result of Hurricane 
Katrina, a Category 3, and it was a Category 4 at one point out in the 
Gulf.
  What is it doing to those oil platforms? What do you think all of 
that is? That is oil. What do you think all of that is? It is oil. What 
do you think all of that is? And that. And that. And that. And that. It 
is oil.
  I am pointing out that people are making extreme statements that have 
no basis in truth. As a result, we are getting ourselves so worked up 
into our own little positions that if we wanted to, we could come 
together and we could have a bill that could be part speculation, part 
drilling.
  There are still plenty of places out there to be drilled. I am not 
talking about the 68 million acres that are under lease, under lease by 
the oil companies on public lands, the lands of the U.S. Government, 
the 68 million acres that are under lease to the oil companies that 
have not been drilled that are out in the Gulf of Mexico. There are 32 
million acres that have been leased and have not been drilled.
  This Senator knows something about that because 2 years ago, we did a 
compromise to try to protect the interests of Florida from oil spills 
on our beaches, from oil spills in our delicate estuaries that spawn so 
much of the marine life in the gulf, indeed, to try to protect the 
interests of the national security of the country in keeping oil rigs 
away from the military testing and training area, which is the largest 
testing and training area for our military in the world.
  So we struck a compromise. Originally they wanted 2.5 million acres, 
but it was headed on a line straight from Tampa Bay, entering the 
military mission area. Instead, we worked out a compromise where they 
got four times as much. They got 8.3 million acres. But we kept it away 
from the military testing and training area and kept it away from the 
coast of Florida where that testing and training area is.
  We worked it out then 2 years ago. But now that is not enough, even 
though none of that 8.3 million acres has been drilled. This is getting 
to be ridiculous in the amount of hyperbole and rhetoric and, oh, the 
sky is falling, the sky is falling, when it would take that for us to 
come together and have a bill that would go after speculation, the 
unregulated speculation after the Enron loophole was opened that allows 
unregulated trading.
  I have commentary here. I will not go through it. I have got three 
oil executives who have testified to the Congress saying that in normal 
supply and demand, one executive says, would have oil at $60 a barrel; 
another executive says it would be $50 to $55 a barrel.
  These are oil company executives saying, if the world oil market were 
only operating by supply and demand, but it isn't. It is up close to 
$130 a barrel. So there are other factors contributing to it. One of 
them is unregulated speculation on these unregulated markets that bid 
that price up and up and up. We can address that. We can address 
drilling in other parts of the gulf. In addition to the 68 million 
acres of public lands, there are more public lands that you could drill 
in in the central and western gulf, if we really wanted to, but 
everybody wants to sit around here and fight.
  Then we could do something really important. We could get serious 
about putting Federal money into research and development for 
alternative fuels and creating new engines and tapping renewables such 
as Sun and wind, really get serious about that, get serious as we did 
when we finally raised the miles per gallon. It only took us the 8 
years that I have been in the Senate to increase the miles per gallon 
on the fleet average of our cars.
  My goodness, look who is in trouble in Detroit. It is not Toyota and 
other foreign manufacturers. They have a 50-miles-per-gallon standard 
in Japan and in the high 40s in Europe. It is not those automobile 
companies. It is the American automobile companies that are in 
financial trouble because they have fought us the whole way on 
increasing miles per gallon. Their problems, as we say back home, are 
like chickens coming home to roost. We could do that, if we just had 
the political will and we would put our differences aside.
  On this issue of speculation, the bill that was turned down today 
because we can't get 60 votes to cut off debate to get to the 
speculation bill, I know Senators on the other side are saying they are 
not able to offer amendments, but again, it could happen like ``that,'' 
if we would get together to offer a certain number of amendments and 
use the speculation bill that Senators on that side have already spoken 
in favor of. If we wanted to, we could get it done.
  We do need an additional law on speculation because when we tried to 
plug the loophole in the farm bill, we didn't completely plug it. 
Senator Reid has offered this leadership bill that reins in speculation 
by imposing limits to ensure that legitimate speculation doesn't get 
out of hand. It is a complicated approach, but it can get us to where 
we need to be. I believe there are some improvements that could be made 
to the bill. If we really wanted to come to agreement, we could have 
those amendments offered. If we pass a bill that allows speculators to 
evade limits of how much they can control, then we are going to be in 
the worst of all possible worlds--a bill that purports to tamp down on 
speculation but fails to do so.
  Wall Street financiers and the Wall Street Journal call the effort to 
shut down excessive speculation ``misguided.'' They say that the 
spiking price of a barrel of oil is just the market telling us that 
demand exceeds supply. But ask yourself if that makes sense. When the 
Saudis agreed to increase production--in other words, increasing 
supply--there wasn't any decrease in the price of oil. The price of oil 
keeps on spiraling, and there is no evidence that dramatically 
increased demand is going to do anything but allow speculative money to 
pour into the energy futures markets.
  We have had the CEOs of all the various airlines come to see us. They 
wrote all Senators a letter. They said:

       Normal market forces are being dangerously amplified by 
     poorly regulated market speculation. The nation needs to pull 
     together to reform the oil markets and solve this growing 
     problem.

  That is the CEOs of every major airline.
  What do we hear in this debate? We hear: Drill here, drill now, pay 
less. It is an easy slogan, but it will not solve it because it is 
cruelly misleading and deceitful.
  If we are really going to do something, we are going to have to have 
the political will in a bipartisan way to get to the bottom of this. 
Think about it. Why such a seductive argument about ``drill here, drill 
now,'' when, in fact, there is 68 million acres that has not been 
drilled of public lands? What does that do for oil companies? The more 
leases of acres they can have, the more reserves they can show on their 
books, which is shown as an asset, increases the value of the oil 
company. That, of course, is to their advantage. But unless we can get 
them to start drilling and show good faith that they are going to drill 
on the 68 million acres they have now, why is that the answer? Well, it 
isn't.
  That is, again, where we need the balanced approach--alternative 
fuels,

[[Page S7456]]

rein in speculation, drill where it is available now with existing 
permits, drill onshore, offshore, continue to work with our 
international partners, lessen our consumption of foreign oil by doing 
all of the above plus shifting to alternative fuels with a vigorous 
research-and-development project of developing those alternative fuels 
and alternative motors.
  I have had the privilege of being a part of one of this Nation's 
great accomplishments; when a young President said, in the midst of the 
Cold War, when we looked as if we were having our lunch being eaten by 
the Soviet Union because they were taking the high ground in space and 
we had not even flown John Glenn in orbit, President Kennedy said: We 
are going to the Moon and back in 9 years. If ever there has been an 
example of a nation having a determination and coming together in a 
bipartisan way and focusing the political will on solving what seemed 
to be an insolvable task and committing the resources, that is the 
example of how to do it.
  Another example I can think of is 1983. We were at a point in which 
Social Security was going to run out of funds within 6 months. Social 
Security was not going to be able to pay its bills. Two old Irishmen--
one the President of the United States, President Reagan, and the other 
one the Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill--got together and said: We 
are going to solve this in a bipartisan way. We are going to put 
together a bipartisan, prestigious panel, and they are going to come up 
with the recommendations of how we can make Social Security actuarially 
sound and safe. That is another one of the great examples where 
political leaders of different parties came together in a bipartisan 
way and took that highly volatile issue of Social Security off the 
table at the next election by saying: We are going to solve it, because 
we had the political will. We had the political will in the Apollo 
project going to the Moon and, in 1983, to solve the Social Security 
crisis.
  If we had the political will in a bipartisan way to solve this energy 
crisis right now, right here, we could do it. But you can't do it if 
the attitude is ``my way or the highway.'' You have to do what this 
body is best adapted to do. As the Good Book says: Come, let us reason 
together. Let us work this problem out together.
  I am tired of hearing all of this excessive rhetoric. I am tired of 
hearing this rhetoric that does not display truth. I am tired of 
hearing the ``it is my way or no way'' attitude. Our people out there 
want us to solve this problem, not only for here and now but for 
generations to come. For example, since we get in excess of 60 percent 
of our daily oil from foreign shores, can you imagine the disruption of 
any one of those foreign sources such as coming out of the Persian 
Gulf, such as coming from Nigeria, such as coming from Venezuela, all 
of which are substantial percentages of our daily consumption of oil? 
Can you imagine what that would do if it happened today or if it 
happened to our children or our grandchildren? It is up to us to solve 
this by coming together.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, let me first say to my colleague from 
Florida that he is very correct in making the statement that the only 
way you solve big problems around here is if you work together. That 
has happened in the past. It certainly has happened here in the Senate 
in the last several years, as we have worked on energy legislation. The 
passage of the 2005 act was an example of Republicans and Democrats 
coming together and passing what was one of the most significant pieces 
of energy legislation in recent times. The passage of the 2006 
legislation, which the Senator from Florida supported, which opened 
lease sale 181 and 8 million acres of the gulf coast for exploration, 
is another example of that bipartisanship. This last year, passage of 
the Energy Efficiency Act, signed by the President in December, was 
also another example of Republicans and Democrats working together to 
reach for higher efficiency with new CAFE standards that have been long 
neglected and doing other things to move forward with alternative fuels 
and trying to create an energy future for America that works.
  Those pieces of legislation all came together because of the 
willingness of Democrats and Republicans to move forward on the energy 
agenda. I hope we can find the same kind of bipartisan spirit in moving 
ahead now on the next chapter to try to address the pain Americans are 
feeling at the pump. I appreciate his comments and his wisdom in this 
area.
  I come to the floor to speak in support of the housing bill which we 
are now debating in the postcloture timeframe.
  Housing is an incredibly important part of the American economy. 
Housing is, in fact, a cornerstone of the American economy. Many of the 
economic ills which the United States is feeling today, frankly, have 
been brought about because of the housing crisis we are seeing today.
  Since housing prices peaked in the summer of 2006, our Nation has 
seen some very sharp declines in home values. We have seen a staggering 
decrease in the number of home starts and home sales, and we have seen 
a dramatic increase in the number of foreclosures nationwide.
  For most people across America, and certainly in my State of 
Colorado, when you drive down a neighborhood and you see there are 
signs, where there were very few of these signs 2 years ago--but now 
the signs are not only sprouting up everywhere with houses that are for 
sale, but you also see price-reduced signs--we know we have a 
tremendous glut in the housing market, in part, caused by the number of 
homes we have in foreclosure.
  So a picture of this kind of a sign that you see in front of a home 
is a picture that tells a story about a family who has lost their home 
or is losing most of their equity in their home, as they try to sell it 
at some reduced price. It is a pain that is being felt all across the 
country, and it is certainly being felt in my State of Colorado.
  In the State of Colorado, this is what has happened with respect to 
foreclosure filings over the last 4 years. In the year 2003, the whole 
State of Colorado saw about 10,000 foreclosures that year. Now in 2007, 
we are seeing a foreclosure number that is almost 50,000 homes being 
foreclosed upon in the State of Colorado. You can see the dramatic 
increase in the number of homes that have been foreclosed upon in my 
State of Colorado.
  Mr. President, 1 in 45 households in the State of Colorado has filed 
for foreclosure. This is not a problem which is circumscribed in some 
way only to those tens of thousands--hundreds and hundreds of 
thousands--of Americans who are facing foreclosure. It is also a 
problem that affects the entire American population that is in home 
ownership because as houses have been foreclosed upon, as the housing 
market has faced such a huge glut in terms of the large inventory that 
is out there in the market, it has had a dramatic impact also on the 
values of the homes in the neighborhoods.
  In Colorado, as we look ahead at 2008 and 2009, we know there are 
about 50,000 more homes that will be foreclosed upon in 2008 and 2009, 
as adjustable rate mortgages adjust upward and families will no longer 
be able to afford to pay the higher mortgage rates. But what also 
happens as that occurs is the surrounding homes will suffer declines in 
values.
  According to the Center for Responsible Lending, it is expected that 
about 750,000 homes in the State of Colorado will see a decline in 
their value. So it is a problem which does start with the foreclosure 
market and the financial markets that we have seen, but it spreads out 
into all of America that is in home ownership, including most of the 
home ownership in my State of Colorado.
  Mr. President, 748,000 homes--almost 750,000 homes--represent almost 
half of the homes in the State of Colorado that are going to see a 
significant decline in value. So it is a major problem we face.
  I am thankful for the leadership of the chairman of the Banking 
Committee, Senator Dodd, as well as the ranking member, Senator Shelby, 
and all of those who have worked to put this housing package together.
  As a member of the Finance Committee, I am honored to have had a 
small part in putting together parts of this bill working with Senator 
Baucus, the chairman of the committee, and

[[Page S7457]]

Senator Grassley, the ranking member of the committee.
  I think it is instructive that this legislation appears to have the 
kind of broad bipartisan support we ought to have when we are 
addressing the major problems that face America today. Certainly, I am 
hopeful by the time we get to about this time tomorrow we will have had 
a housing bill that will help the people of America.
  This legislation contains numerous provisions that will help us 
address this cornerstone of our economy.
  First of all, the bill provides targeted relief to families and 
communities that are affected by foreclosure. The legislation will 
reverse the downward trend in home values and sales and get the housing 
market back on track.
  The housing bill contains help for homeowners, for homebuilders, and 
for home buyers. It creates a tax incentive to reinvigorate the housing 
market by providing a refundable first-time home buyer credit of 10 
percent of the purchase of a home--up to $8,000--for homes that are 
purchased between April of this year and April of 2009. That $8,000 tax 
credit will create major incentives for new homeowners to buy homes and 
help us get rid of the glut we currently have in the market.
  In addition, the legislation provides tax relief for families that 
are facing high property taxes. It is the kind of middle-class tax 
relief we ought to be working on more in this country. This tax relief 
will provide nonitemizing taxpayers the opportunity to deduct their 
property taxes from the taxes they currently pay.
  In addition, the housing bill will increase the availability of 
stable home financing, and it will do so by allowing Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Authority greater flexibility in 
terms of the kinds of mortgages they can purchase and insure. That will 
have the direct consequence of increasing the availability of stable 
credit.
  In addition, an amendment in the Finance Committee that was sponsored 
by Senator Kerry will add $11 billion in the use of tax-exempt mortgage 
revenue bonds. That will provide low-interest financing and refinancing 
assistance to low- and moderate-income home buyers. That is an 
important component of this legislation.
  The housing bill also contains help for families and communities 
affected by foreclosure. It does so in a variety of ways. One way is it 
will provide $150 million for credit counseling.
  In the State of Colorado, we have developed a foreclosure assistance 
hotline. It has helped tens of thousands of families since the 
beginning of this program a few months ago. What we have found through 
foreclosure counseling in the State of Colorado is that 80 percent of 
families who contact the foreclosure hotline ultimately end up 
renegotiating their loan terms at their bank and are able to stay in 
their home. So it is a very successful program, and the $150 million 
that is included in this legislation for mortgage foreclosure 
counseling assistance will be very helpful in keeping people in their 
homes.
  The legislation also helps communities which have been, in many 
cases, devastated by the number of foreclosures, and it will do so by 
adding $3.9 billion for the Community Development Block Grant Program, 
which will help communities purchase and rehabilitate foreclosed homes.
  It is also important there are protections against future 
foreclosures by requiring mortgage companies to have stronger 
disclosure requirements, all in the name of truth in lending, so home 
buyers know what it is they are getting into prior to the time they are 
signing on the dotted line of very extensive documents.
  I am proud of this bill. This housing bill sends a strong signal to 
the families and businesses of America that we care about one of the 
cornerstones of our economy in America today.
  It sends a strong signal to the financial markets that we in Congress 
can work together, Democrats and Republicans, to address one of the 
toughest economic issues our country has seen. Indeed, the housing 
crisis we are looking at today is probably the worst housing crisis 
since the Great Depression. That is why it requires strong medicine to 
cure the problem. The legislation we have in front of us will do 
exactly that.
  In conclusion, this legislation represents months of hard work and 
bipartisan cooperation to address this key cornerstone of our economy. 
Congress should pass this legislation here, hopefully in the next 24 
hours, and send it to the President for his immediate signature, so the 
legislation can start providing the cure that is so needed for America 
today.
  Mr. President, I thank you for listening and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                                 Energy

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, yesterday I drew the Senate's attention to 
an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. It said that liberal leaders 
in Congress are ``gripped by a cold-sweat terror. If they permit a vote 
on offshore drilling, they know they will lose. . . .''
  Today's Washington Post featured a similar editorial, which you 
normally don't get that would be favorable to the conservative view. 
They said:

       Why not have a vote on offshore drilling? There's a serious 
     debate to be had over whether Congress should lift the ban on 
     drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf that has been in 
     place since 1981. Unfortunately, you won't be hearing it in 
     the House of Representatives--certainly, you won't find 
     lawmakers voting on it--anytime soon.

  This same editorial ended with another good question. It said:

       If drilling opponents really have the better of this 
     argument, why are they so worried about letting it come to a 
     vote?

  That is critical.
  The distinguished senior Senator from Florida and the junior Senator 
from Colorado were talking about: Let's all get along. Let's work 
together. Let's have a bipartisan solution.
  I think we should. All you have to have for a bipartisan solution is 
a vote. For those people--and I am sorry to say it is right down party 
lines--ever since the veto took place back in the middle 1990s, when 
we, the Republicans, were the majority, we tried to open everything for 
exploration: the Outer Continental Shelf, ANWR. And, of course, we have 
those huge other reserves that if we had been able to do that, we would 
not be faced with this problem today. Yet all we want now is a vote.
  So I do not know why becoming self-sufficient for America should be a 
partisan issue. Look at the reserves. Look at the possibility of what 
is out there, what we would be enjoying today if it had not been for 
that veto.
  Now, that is not the worst part. The worst part is that if you go to 
my Web site, epw.senate.gov, you will see I have called up every vote 
that has taken place since that 1995 veto; and right down party lines, 
Democrats refused to increase the supply of oil and gas in America.
  Look at the Outer Continental Shelf. We have been talking about that. 
That is what all these editorials are about. Look at ANWR. That is not 
as much as a lot of people think, although anyone who has been to ANWR, 
who has been up there, they don't come back saying it is a pristine 
wilderness, because it is not. It is a frozen tundra. Everybody up 
there wants to explore there. We know. We have a pipeline ready. That 
could be coming down here.
  The Rocky Mountain oil shales--that is the biggest of all reserves 
out there. Right now we are under a Democrat-sponsored moratorium that 
keeps us from getting at those oil shales. We are talking about 2 
trillion barrels. It is huge.
  The Senate has been in session all week. It held one vote Tuesday and 
two votes this morning. Those were both procedural votes. All we want 
to do is consider amendments.
  When my good friends from Florida and Colorado say: We want to all 
cooperate with each other, all we have to do is bring out amendments 
and vote on them, I would love to have the Senator from Colorado have 
the opportunity to vote in favor of expanding the supply of oil and gas 
in America.
  A lot of people have tried to denigrate the idea of supply and 
demand, and yet there is no one I know of in America who has gone 
through the high school level who has not studied supply and demand. It 
is a very simple thing.
  The Senate Democrat majority, after wasting an entire week, is 
engaged in a process, a scheme, to go ahead and have some votes 
tomorrow.

[[Page S7458]]

  By the way, let me share, as I did once before earlier, the two bills 
that will be voted on tomorrow are bills that I have opposed in the 
past. I think it is very interesting, when they talk about LIHEAP, when 
they talk about doing something about supplying gas to heat homes in 
the Northeast, instead of subsidizing, let's open the supply line, 
let's start producing gas and oil, and bring the price down so we do 
not have to subsidize it. It is a very simple thing. So I am going to 
vote ``no'' on that. I oppose it. In fact, I do not even think I will 
stay here for that vote.
  The other one--the housing vote--I respectfully disagree with some of 
the comments that were made. Of course, we do not have some of the 
problems in Oklahoma they do in other places. But, nonetheless, the 
idea is we could have been doing these all week long, but we also could 
have been doing amendments. We could have been voting on amendments.

  We have consistently tried not only to go out there and explore and 
to develop the resources we have--we are the only country in the world 
that doesn't export our own resources--but we also have to have an 
increase in refinery capacity. I have to say this: We have--I 
personally have in legislation not just opening it up for exploration 
so that we can increase the supply but also refining it. If we had all 
the supply in the world, we wouldn't have the refining capacity because 
of some of the stringent requirements we have in this country and the 
unwillingness to allow new refineries in the United States. We wouldn't 
have the refinery capacity. So I have what is called the Gas Price Act. 
I introduced it some time ago--I guess 3 years ago now--and we never 
have been able to get it passed. It divides right down party lines. The 
Democrats will not allow us to increase our refining capacity. This is 
a bill no one should be opposed to.
  A lot of people know what the BRAC process is, the Base Realignment 
and Closure Commission. What we have had an opportunity to do is to 
close some of these bases, these military installations that are not 
performing a function commensurate with the cost. What do the adjoining 
communities do when this happens? They are in dire straits economically 
because they don't have anything to do with that property. Yet this 
would allow them to do it and have EDA grants to attract refining 
operations in these areas.
  That is what the Gas Price Act was all about. That is what we have 
currently in legislation that we hope will be considered before very 
long.
  We are presently considering a bill to impose new rules on 
speculating, claiming that speculators have been driving up the price 
of oil. It is always easy to find somebody to blame when we have not 
done the responsible thing as legislators. I know it is tough for some 
Democrats to face up to some of the extremists, the environmentalists, 
and agree to go ahead and develop the resources we have and explore and 
produce and drill for oil. However, if you talk to the smart people out 
there who are looking at this bill--this bill we are talking about is 
trying to blame everything on speculators. T. Boone Pickens, who has 
had a lot of attention recently, says:

       Speculation doesn't have anything to do with it. You have 
     85 million barrels of oil available in the world and demand 
     is at 86.4.

  Warren Buffett:

       It is not speculation, it is supply and demand.

  Walter Williams. This is a good one. He says:

       Congressional attacks on speculation do not alter the oil 
     market's fundamental demand and supply conditions.

  Then the International Energy Agency says:

       Blaming speculation is an easy solution which avoids taking 
     the necessary steps to improve supply-side access and 
     investment.

  I see the Senator on the floor who will be able to go into some other 
aspects of this. I think this debate is very significant, but the 
debate in absence of votes is really meaningless, except we are letting 
the American people know that it is the Democrats in the Senate and in 
the House of Representatives who are not allowing the Republicans to 
pass legislation that will increase the supply and will bring down the 
price of gas at the pumps. I will be going back tonight to my State of 
Oklahoma, and I can assure you, the No. 1 problem in the Nation is the 
price of gas at the pumps.
  Let me clarify one thing before I yield the floor. I have known Boone 
Pickens for a long time. Let me tell you, he is not very pleased with 
the misinterpretation that the Democrats are coming down and 
attributing to him. When he ends his ad saying, ``We can't drill 
ourselves out of this problem,'' he is talking about, we have to drill 
everywhere. This is his statement. We need to drill on the Outer 
Continental Shelf. We have to drill in ANWR. We have to have the Rocky 
Mountain oil shales. We have to preserve access to the Canadian oil 
sands. We need it all. Even after all of this, we still need to do 
more. I agree with that. I have another piece of legislation that will 
help him in taking the compressed natural gas so it can be used to get 
a more immediate response to this growing problem in America.
  So I would only say we need to keep talking about this. The American 
people need to keep listening until they realize and accept the fact 
that the Democrats are blocking the Republicans from increasing the 
supply of oil and gas, and we are not going to be able to bring down 
the price at the pumps until we are successful and have enough public 
support to get this country back producing again.
  It is interesting. If you look at the polling data, one State--I 
won't mention the State because it is quite a liberal State 
philosophically--2 years ago, only 28 percent of the people in that 
State wanted to drill on ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf. Today, 
it is 68 percent. So with that, I think it is a very simple solution. 
We need to get busy with it to increase our supply.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe I am recognized for 10 minutes; 
is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized to speak for as long 
as he wishes to speak under his 1 hour of cloture.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask the Chair to advise me when I have spoken for 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so advised.


                             Majority Power

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, first, I wish to congratulate the Senator 
from Oklahoma for bringing some facts to the floor of the Senate which 
need to be stated over and over, one of which is that we as a nation 
have a significant supply of oil and natural gas which we are not using 
and which, if we did use, would significantly reduce the price of 
gasoline and home heating oil for Americans. If we produce more 
American energy and we conserve more American energy, we will reduce 
the price of gasoline and home heating oil for Americans.
  As the Senator from Oklahoma has so appropriately pointed out, there 
is a huge amount of available resources which are locked up now because 
of language in legislation which was placed there by the Democratic 
leadership of this Congress--language which limits our ability to drill 
on the Outer Continental Shelf, which we can do in a safe and 
environmentally sound way, and language which limits our ability to use 
oil shale, of which there is 2 trillion barrels of reserve, which is 
twice the reserves of Saudi Arabia. So the resources are there, but we 
can't get to them because we have legislative language at the Federal 
level which locks down those resources.
  What we have asked for as a party is the ability, first, to debate 
that fact, and secondly, to have a vote in this Senate of the United 
States on the issue of whether we should be able to drill on the Outer 
Continental Shelf and explore on the Outer Continental Shelf, to use 
oil shale, to use more nuclear power, to create electric cars, to 
conserve energy, to have renewables. But we are being barred from 
having that vote.
  The Democratic leader, for the 15th time in this Congress, has done 
what is known as ``fill up the tree,'' which means he has essentially 
locked down the floor so that only one person, one person in this body, 
gets to decide what is voted on, what amendments are allowed to come to 
the floor, and what the debate will be about, and that becomes the 
majority leader of the

[[Page S7459]]

Democratic Party of the Senate, the leader of the Democratic Party.
  That is not the way the Senate was supposed to function. We are on a 
serious slippery slope to destroying the integrity and the purpose of 
the Senate. This continual action of barring Members of the Senate from 
coming to the floor and offering amendments in what has been the 
regular and typical order of the Senate for over 200 years is truly 
undermining the character of the Senate and, as a result, it undermines 
the character of democracy in this country.
  You don't have to believe me. Let me quote from a little pamphlet 
that is put out called ``Traditions of the U.S. Senate.'' It is 
actually published by the Senate, and I think the majority leader's 
office may pay for this. Let me quote from the leading authority in the 
history of the Senate on the issue of the way the Senate works--on its 
history, its prerogatives, and procedure--a Senator who has served in 
the Senate longer than any other Senator and who has cast more votes in 
the Senate than any other Senator. He has held the position of majority 
leader. He is the senior Senator from West Virginia, and he still 
serves here. Let me quote. He was giving a lecture or a speech or a set 
of comments to a new group of Senators who had come to the Senate in 
1996.
  Robert C. Byrd said to those Senators:

       Few, if any, upper chambers in the history of the western 
     world have possessed the Senate's absolute right to unlimited 
     debate and to amend and block legislation passed by a lower 
     House.

  Let me read that again because it is very important because it really 
does go to the essence of what the Senate has for its power:

       Few, if any, upper chambers in the history of the western 
     world have possessed the Senate's absolute right--

  Absolute right--

     to unlimited debate and to amend and block legislation passed 
     by a lower House.

  He goes on to explain why this is the situation:

       The Framers recognized that a minority can be right and 
     that a majority can be wrong.

  This is Robert C. Byrd, the leading authority on the Senate, its 
purpose within the context and the constellation of American democracy.
  The essence of the Senate is the ability of Members to bring 
amendments to the floor--especially minority Members of the Senate--to 
bring amendments to the floor and have them voted on, have them 
discussed, and have unlimited debate if that is what is needed. Without 
that right, the Senate no longer functions as set up by the Framers. 
The Senate becomes an institution like the House of Representatives, 
which is dominated by the majority to the point where the minority 
essentially has no rights.
  It is not minority Senators who are being denied their rights when 
the Senate rules are changed so fundamentally by one individual--the 
majority leader--when 200 years of precedence is thrown aside, and when 
the majority leader decides to take an autocratic position here in the 
Senate. It is not minority Members whose rights are being lost; it is 
all the people of this Nation who are represented by those of us who 
are sent to the Senate to speak for them in the American people's 
forum. Where they get to be heard and they cannot be muzzled is here in 
the Senate. It is not in the House of Representatives because in the 
House of Representatives, Members can be muzzled. In the Senate, for 
200 years, Members and the rights of Members have never been trampled 
on to the point where Members have been muzzled, but that is exactly 
what is happening under this Putin form of democracy which is being 
placed on the Senate.
  What we have occurring here is a situation where power--the desire 
for power by the majority party--is taking absolute precedence over the 
ability of the people to present policy, have it debated, and have it 
voted on.
  In this instance, of course, where the right of the people, through 
the amendment process, to be heard on whether we should have drilling 
on the Outer Continental Shelf, on whether we should use oil shale, on 
whether we should use more nuclear power, on whether we should have 
electric cars--the denial of the right of the people to be heard on 
those issues is doing the people fundamental harm because we are not 
being allowed to bring up those issues, as the price of gasoline is 
really having a staggering impact on Americans.
  I can tell you that in New England and in New Hampshire, the fear of 
having home heating oil prices triple this winter has a lot of folks 
very scared--and rightly so. Those people whom I represent and whom 
others represent in this body have every legitimate right to expect 
that the Senate will debate and will vote on the issue of whether we 
should expand America's supply of energy. They have every right to 
expect that the Senate will vote on whether you can reduce the price of 
energy in this country by bringing more supply to the market and have 
it be American supply. The American people have every right to expect 
that amendments will be taken up on the floor of this Senate and will 
be voted on that address the issue of whether we should be paying 
Americans to produce energy or whether we should be giving our money to 
Venezuela and to Iran, nations which have expressed a deep resentment 
of us. The American people have every right to expect that amendments 
can be brought up on the floor of the Senate and can be voted on that 
deal with conservation, that deal with renewables, that deal with a 
whole panoply of ideas as to how you can better deliver energy to the 
American people.
  But those rights are being trampled on here. They are being trampled 
on in a way that has never occurred in the history of the Senate. That 
is what is important to focus on. This has never happened before. 
Fifteen times, on major pieces of legislation, the majority party has 
filled the tree, so the minority does not have the right to bring 
forward an amendment. And then the majority says we are obfuscating, 
delaying or in some way impeding progress--when they are pursuing such 
a clear autocratic approach.
  Well, I hope to come back to this issue a few more times, since this 
appears to be the policy of the leadership on the other side of the 
aisle. But it flies in the face of the essence of the purpose of the 
Senate, as defined by one of America's great Senators, the historian of 
the Senate, when he said:

       Few, if any, upper chambers in the history of the western 
     world have possessed the Senate's absolute right to unlimited 
     debate and to amend and block legislation passed by a lower 
     House. . . .

  The purposes of this right is that:

       The Framers recognized that a minority can be right and 
     that a majority can be wrong.

  I will add that the minority should be heard from and should be 
allowed to offer amendments, and those amendments should receive a 
vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                Housing

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire has made a 
compelling speech with which I associate myself entirely. It is obvious 
he has traveled to his State, as I have traveled to mine, and listened 
to constituents who tell me their biggest problem, in particular, is 
the price of gas. It seems to me the world's most deliberative body 
should never stop deliberation on what is the crisis of the day. The 
Senator from New Hampshire made a tremendous speech that was right on 
point. We may have our differences one way or another on what to do but 
objecting to letting us debate those differences is not acceptable.
  For 25 years, the United States has encouraged consumption and 
discouraged production. It is time we encourage conservation and 
empower production, as we bridge our way from gasoline today as an 
energy source to the next energy source of the 21st century, whether it 
be the lithium battery, hydrogen engine or whatever.
  There is another crisis on our economy I wish to talk about for a 
second that is equally compelling and that is the housing industry and 
the tremendous stress our financial markets are under and our financial 
institutions. There have been a number of speeches made on the housing 
bill, which we will vote on tomorrow at 11 a.m., which, quite frankly, 
trouble me because they

[[Page S7460]]

have not been on target. For a second, I would like to make a few 
points.
  There are a lot of people saying the housing bill we will pass is a 
bailout for the people who caused the problem. That is not correct. The 
people who caused the problem are off the radar screen; the investment 
bankers and Moody's and Standard and Poor's caused the subprime 
mortgage problem. Wall Street securitized the paper, and Moody's and 
Standard and Poor's rated it investment grade. It wasn't investment 
grade and should not have been packaged, but it was. They put out all 
over America--the originators and lenders--loans that didn't require 
documentation or a downpayment and that only cost a high yield on the 
mortgage to make it a nice instrument to sell.
  As the housing crises of 1968, 1974, and 1991 were predicated, in 
part or in whole, on easy credit and shoddy underwriting, so is the 
stress on our economy today based on that easy credit and shoddy 
underwriting generated by the subprime market.
  The bill we are doing tomorrow is not a bailout to Freddie Mac and 
Fannie Mae or the institutions that made bad loans. It is an infusion 
of confidence the financial markets need. Fannie and Freddie suffer by 
perception from the difficulties of our mortgage market. If anybody 
would take the time to go look at default rates, for example, they 
would look at the loans Fannie Mae holds, and they are at 1.2 percent, 
well under what is considered a normal, good, healthy balance. The 
subprime market's defaults are in the 4- to 6- to 8-point range. That 
is causing that problem. That wasn't Fannie Mae paper, and it wasn't 
securitized by Fannie Mae. They have $50 billion in capital, when the 
requirement is to have $15 billion, so they are sound. But the 
financial markets, because of the collapse of the mortgage market, have 
gotten worse.

  I think Secretary Paulson has done the right thing. I commend Senator 
Dodd and Senator Shelby for the second key component of the bill. The 
Dodd-Shelby provision ensures that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will have 
regulatory oversight and be held accountable, as the banking system in 
our country is. What Paulson has done is said, in return for that, we 
will give to Freddie and Fannie what the American banking institutions 
have and that is access to the Treasury window for secured 
collateralized borrowing.
  You might say: What does all this mean? What it means is we will put 
liquidity back into the mortgage market. There will be good 
underwriting and accountable credit issued by mortgages that are then 
sold to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to provide the liquidity in the 
marketplace. This is not a bailout for those two institutions. It is an 
insurance policy that the credit markets will understand that, A, those 
institutions are strong and the United States is going to hold them 
accountable and, B, provide them with liquidity when they need it. That 
is good for this country and this economy, and it would be a tragedy if 
tomorrow this Senate doesn't overwhelmingly embrace that legislation.
  The second component of the legislation is the reform of FHA, raising 
the loan limits and providing mechanisms also for troubled loans to be 
refinanced--not a gift as a bailout but providing a lender whose loan 
is in trouble because the house depreciated below the outstanding 
balance on the loan--it is going to be allowed to refinance on a fixed 
rate--an FHA underwritten loan the individual has to qualify for. If 
the lender takes the discount down, or takes the hit, that loan can be 
refinanced and that homeowner, instead of being foreclosed on and 
having a vacant house, ends up having a chance to pay for that mortgage 
and the economy is improved.
  What is happening today in America is the combination of a large 
number of foreclosures and no liquidity, as the housing market is off 
in many areas by as much as 50, 60 percent. Home values are declining 
at a rate of 15 percent per year this year and 11 percent last year. 
What has happened to American families' main source of spendable 
income--their equity line of credit--is that it has vanished. That is 
why the economy has gone into the tank. We had a housing/fuel boom in 
the 1990s and early 2000s, and now again we have a housing/fuel 
recession. The only difference between the boom and recession is, 
during the boom, we had liquidity, but underwriting got too shoddy. Now 
underwriting is strong, but the liquidity is not there. The FHA reform 
and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae reform will, in fact, do that.
  There is a third feature I wish to talk about. It is a feature I 
introduced, originally, 6 months ago in the Senate. It is a housing tax 
credit for first-time home buyers to go into the marketplace and buy a 
house. The United States, in 1974, had a serious recession similar to 
the one we have today. It was fueled by an oversupply of unsold houses 
in the marketplace. A Democratic Congress and the Republican President, 
Gerald Ford, in 1975, passed a $2,000 tax credit for first-time home 
buyers who went and bought a standing vacant inventory house and 
occupied it as their home. That incentive brought Americans off the 
sidelines and into the marketplace, and we absorbed a tremendous amount 
of the standing inventory. Values came back in the United States and 
the housing market responded. The $8,000 tax credit--$4,000 a year for 
the first 2 years--on a home that a first-time home buyer buys and 
occupies is going to be a huge incentive to the housing market. It 
doesn't bail anybody out; it incentivizes a market to come back. When 
that happens, the problems go away. We cannot regulate ourselves, as a 
nation, into a strong economy. But we can incentivize our people and 
get confidence to the financial markets and restore what is a very 
shaky economy.
  I come to the Senate floor with the following message: I thank 
Senator Dodd and Shelby for all their work. I commend the House on what 
they did to make this housing bill a good bill.
  Again, I reassure everybody we are not bailing out anybody. What we 
are doing is incentivizing Americans to come back into the marketplace, 
providing them with good, accountable, credible credit, so there is 
liquidity in the housing market, and seeing to it that two institutions 
that ensure that Americans can be homeowners--Freddie Mac and Fannie 
Mae--are strong, and the investment markets have the confidence they 
need to have the support of the United States and, lastly, under the 
same type of transparency and accountability that the American banking 
system has been under since Alexander Hamilton.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Disaster In Iowa

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to remind my 
colleagues and the American people, once again, about the deadly 
tornadoes, storms, and floods that affected the Midwest earlier this 
year. Iowa, my State, was especially hard hit by this severe weather 
event. The people in Iowa have great pride and resiliency. They don't 
like to complain, and it is even harder for them to ask for help. 
However, I wish my colleagues to know that Iowans are hurting, similar 
to people in other natural disasters. I see it in their eyes as they 
sort through the rubble and try to rebuild their lives.
  As their Senator, their friend, their neighbor, I am asking my 
colleagues to help and to help now. I thank my colleagues who have come 
to me and the rest of the Iowa congressional delegation and other 
Members whose States were affected. We have all had colleagues come to 
us to share their condolences and ask how they can help.
  However, I have heard some comments that this disaster was not severe 
enough to warrant special legislative attention. Washington doesn't 
seem to understand the devastation. That is the way I see it. In other 
words, it is not on television for 2 months in a row such as it was in 
New Orleans, so we don't seem to be getting the attention of colleagues 
such as we did from Hurricane Katrina. But we do have an emergency, and 
Congress needs to respond such as we did after 9/11 for New York City 
or after Katrina for New Orleans.
  Ten States were affected by this severe weather system. In Iowa 
alone, 340 communities were affected by these tornadoes, storms, and 
flooding. Iowa

[[Page S7461]]

suffered well over $10 billion in damages. Of this amount, 
approximately $4 billion was agricultural loss, $4 billion was business 
loss, and $1 billion was housing damage and loss. Right now, those are 
very rough figures. I think they are only going to climb every day 
after these initial estimates.
  The floods in Iowa were well over a 500-year flood event level in 
many parts of my State. For example, the Cedar River in the Cedar 
Rapids area was 11 feet over record flood stage. Since we began keeping 
records in the 1850s, the highest flood level had been 20 feet. The 
levees protecting the city are at 22 feet. In June, Cedar Rapids had 31 
feet of water, well over the 22 feet of the levee protection and the 
the previous record of 20 feet.
  Even my small hometown of New Hartford, IA, was first hit by an F5 
tornado, which caused several deaths and severe damages and, just 2 
weeks later, hit by severe flooding. Mr. President, 240 out of 270 
homes had moderate to complete damage. Many of the businesses also 
suffered severe loss. They are trying to figure out how to stay in 
business. Unfortunately, for my small town, several have decided not to 
reopen.
  On Monday, I visited the home you see in this photo. This is one of 
my constituents in Cedar Rapids, IA. As you can see, they have already 
taken out the moldy drywall. Here, this lady, Shirley, is showing how 
high the water was on the first floor, and that is after the basement 
had been completely filled with water. We also couldn't go to the 
second floor in this home because half of the steps were washed away.

  So we are not just talking about standing water. At one point this 
was rushing water, turning over appliances and leaving boats in 
people's living rooms. It is people such as Shirley, who are in limbo 
because Congress is not acting, needing to know what assistance can be 
provided. They do not know whether the Government will help. Should 
they stay or should they leave?
  Then we have business owners who are worried about their employees 
not having homes. Will they leave town because they do not have a place 
to live? Then will the small businesses be closed because customers who 
use the local diner won't be there or the local flower shop won't be 
there? It is a vicious circle when you don't have housing for your 
workers.
  My colleagues in the Midwest and I have been working with 
appropriators on additional emergency assistance to help us with the 
recovery and with the rebuilding process. I happen to be concerned that 
this additional emergency assistance is being held up by nonemergency, 
nonrelated, and, in fact, quite controversial provisions. I believe we 
should do what we did for New York and what we did for New Orleans: 
consider the emergency portion separately from other appropriations 
that people think need to be done, and do it before the August 
congressional recess.
  Aid to the Midwest should not be held hostage to politics. Iowans are 
beginning to notice the inaction in Congress. I get asked why--why 
hasn't something been done? I would like to read to you parts of an 
editorial running in the Waterloo Courier. Waterloo is close to my 
hometown. I am not going to read it all, but, I want to include the 
entire editorial in the Record. I will read from just portions of it 
because it tells what Iowans are thinking about the inaction in 
Congress and that maybe there is a double standard.
  The headline is: ``Congress Needs To Make Time To Help Iowa.''

       Iowans who don't agree with the recent minuscule approval 
     ratings of Congress may want to take a second look. Congress 
     has delayed consideration of a bill that includes further 
     disaster aid for Iowa until after Congress' August recess.

  The editorial goes on:

       That's quite a slap in the face to those people and 
     businesses already confused by which direction to take 
     concerning housing and rebuilding issues. The Senate 
     Appropriations Committee was scheduled to take up the 
     supplemental package on Thursday, but Senator Robert Byrd, 
     Democrat of West Virginia, the committee chairman, announced 
     late Tuesday it was putting off consideration until after the 
     recess.

  Then they quote Senator Byrd:

       There is no opportunity to begin consideration of a 
     supplemental appropriations bill during the next 10 days.

  Then the editorial goes on to say that Byrd said the Senate was busy 
debating legislation on housing, energy, defense policy, and taxes 
before the recess.
  Continuing to quote the editorial:

       Our response to Senator Byrd and the rest of the Congress 
     is: Make the time. Delay the recess if you have to. We'd also 
     like to remind the Senator of his comments just last month 
     after areas in West Virginia were ravaged by storms.

  The editorial refers to that statement, with Senator Byrd saying 
this:

       Once again, West Virginia has suffered at the hands of 
     Mother Nature. Every moment counts in the recovery efforts, 
     and every little bit of help is crucial.

  Then the editorial repeats again the last words of Senator Byrd's 
statement--``every moment counts.'' That was his plea then.
  It goes on to say:

       Sounds very similar to situations faced today by many Iowa 
     communities, businesses, families, and individuals. It 
     appears that Byrd's view on timely assistance doesn't extend 
     to the Midwest.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the entire editorial so people can read it in its entirety.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         [From The Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier, July 25, 2008]

                Congress Needs To Make Time To Help Iowa

       Iowans who don't agree with the recent minuscule approval 
     ratings of Congress may want to take a second look.
       Congress has delayed consideration of a bill that includes 
     further disaster aid for Iowa until after Congress' August 
     recess.
       That's quite a slap in the face to those people and 
     businesses already confused about which direction to take 
     concerning housing and rebuilding issues.
       ``Congress doesn't seem to understand the devastation,'' 
     Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley said. ``We've got an 
     emergency, and Congress needs to respond. If my colleagues 
     doubt me that this is an emergency, I'm in Iowa every weekend 
     and I'll be happy to show them around.''
       Don't expect too many of Grassley's cohorts to take him up 
     on his invitation.
       On Tuesday, Iowa Gov. Chet Culver met with a congressional 
     delegation and said he was asking for an additional $1 
     billion in disaster relief. The government has already 
     approved $2.6 billion in assistance.
       The Senate Appropriations Committee was scheduled to take 
     up the supplemental package on Thursday, but Sen. Robert 
     Byrd, D-West Virginia--the committee chairman--announced late 
     Tuesday it was putting off consideration until after the 
     recess.
       ``There is no opportunity to begin consideration of a 
     supplemental appropriations bill during the next 10 days,'' 
     Byrd said in a statement.
       Byrd said the Senate was busy debating legislation on 
     housing, energy, defense policy and taxes before the recess.
       Our response to Sen. Byrd and the rest of Congress is: Make 
     the time. Delay the recess if you have to.
       We'd also like to remind the senator of his comments just 
     last month after areas in West Virginia were ravaged by 
     storms.
       ``Once again, West Virginia has suffered at the hand of 
     Mother Nature,'' Byrd said. ``Every moment counts in the 
     recovery efforts, and every little bit of help is crucial. I 
     appreciate the willingness of the Bush Administration to 
     extend relief to additional counties in our state. This wise 
     decision will bring much needed FEMA aid to these struggling 
     communities so they can begin the difficult task of 
     rebuilding.''
       Just to reiterate: ``Every moment counts,'' was his plea 
     then.
       He had previously written to the president asking for a 
     disaster declaration as soon as possible, as the damage was 
     ``beyond the capabilities of the State of West Virginia and 
     the affected local governments.''
       Sounds very similar to the situations faced today by many 
     Iowa communities, businesses, families and individuals.
       It appears Byrd's view on timely assistance doesn't extend 
     to the Midwest.
       Sen. Byrd's Web page is www.byrd.senate.gov. An e-mail 
     address can be found there. If you feel compelled to leave 
     him a message, please make it brief. We would hate to take up 
     too much of his time.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have also, as an individual Senator, 
been working on a comprehensive plan to provide tax relief to flood, 
tornado, and severe storm victims in the Midwest. My Midwestern 
colleagues have been helping me with this effort. We urge Congress to 
act quickly on enacting a tax relief law because we acted very 
quickly--within 3 weeks--after Katrina for New Orleans.
  On Wednesday, I introduced this tax bill with Senators Harkin, Bond,

[[Page S7462]]

McCaskill, Coleman, Klobuchar, Durbin, Obama, Roberts, Brownback, 
Lugar, and Bayh and called it the Midwestern Disaster Tax Relief Act of 
2008. The same bill was introduced in the House by the Iowa 
congressional delegation in a bipartisan fashion.
  Federal tax relief has proven to be very helpful to disaster recovery 
efforts in recent years. We modeled this legislation after the tax 
legislation that Congress passed to help victims of Hurricanes Katrina, 
Rita, and Wilma in 2005, and the tornadoes of Kiowa County, KS, in 
2007. We took into account the lessons learned from the other disaster 
packages, so we have been able to slim down this package and tailor it 
to meet the needs of this major natural disaster and not repeat the 
mistakes we made for Katrina, where some people who weren't hurt by the 
disaster were able to take advantage of it.
  So we are curtailing the cost considerably. But there is another 
inconsistency. I have been told by the chairman of the House Ways and 
Means Committee, Mr. Rangel, that our disaster tax relief package needs 
to be offset. Well, he didn't hear Chuck Grassley say the tax package 
we passed for New York City after 9/11 had to be offset. It was an 
emergency. New York City needed help and New York City got help from 
this Senator, chairman of the committee at that time. I guess at that 
time I was ranking member, but still helping. And when Katrina came 
along, I was chairman of the committee once again, and we did not ask 
for offsets for Katrina. People in New Orleans were hurting and we 
passed the legislation and the President signed it 3 weeks after 
Katrina. We appropriated $60 billion within 5 days after reconvening 
after Labor Day in 2005.
  So I don't want anybody telling me that we have to offset a disaster 
relief package for the Midwest where people are hurting, when we didn't 
do it for New Orleans. Why the double standard? Is it because people 
aren't on rooftops complaining for helicopters to rescue them, and you 
see it on television too much? We aren't doing that in Iowa. We are 
trying to help ourselves in Iowa. We have a can-do attitude. It doesn't 
show up on television like it did in New Orleans for 2 months.
  So we are going to move ahead. We have targeted this assistance in 
this tax bill to those who have suffered damage and lost specifically 
from this severe weather event--individuals and businesses located in 
presidentially declared disaster areas due to floods, tornadoes, or 
severe storms, in just these States--Iowa, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, 
Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and Wisconsin--just 
where the harm has happened this spring.
  Among other provisions, this legislation would let disaster victims 
with damages to their primary residence tap their assets and access 
cash by withdrawing money from retirement plans without penalties and 
suspend limits on tax incentives for charitable contributions, thus 
strengthening local and other fund-raising drives collecting money to 
help small businesses and families recover. We also create tax-credit 
bond authority to help local governments rebuild infrastructure with 
interest-free loans; increase the amount of tax-exempt bond authority 
to help businesses receive below-market interest rate financing; remove 
limitations on deducting casualty losses due to natural disasters; and 
reduce the 2008 tax burden for businesses by substantially increasing 
the 2008 deductions from depreciation and expensing the business 
property.
  We tried to add a disaster tax relief package as an amendment to the 
housing bill--and I have to say Senators Shelby, Dodd, and Baucus were 
very helpful in that process--but we didn't get all these details 
ironed out in time to get it in the housing package.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 4 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. We have agreed to pursue Midwestern tax relief either 
as a separate bill, which would have to start in the House of 
Representatives, or on another tax bill that is over here under 
consideration in the Senate. I want to thank Senators Shelby, Dodd, and 
Baucus, though, for their consideration of putting that in the housing 
bill.
  We have had further discussions since then with Chairman Rangel and 
Baucus. It is our hope that we can swiftly reach a bicameral agreement 
with Ways and Means and the Senate Finance Committee on our proposals. 
I think we basically have it ironed out, except for this offset issue. 
And we should pass this tax bill in both the House and Senate by 
unanimous consent before we leave for the August recess. That would get 
it done in still a longer period of time than it took me to get tax 
relief for New Orleans.
  Once again, assistance to Iowa and the Midwest should not be held 
hostage to politics and gamesmanship. We treated the victims of the 
gulf coast with quick and fair action, as I have indicated twice during 
my remarks. We passed $60 billion in appropriations bills within a week 
of returning to Washington after the August recess--Katrina happening 
just days before Labor Day, during our recess--and we passed that tax 
relief bill that I have mentioned that was signed by the President 
within 3 weeks. Those were clean bills. They weren't loaded down with 
controversial extraneous positions and didn't need offsets.
  Efforts underway by Democratic leadership are letting down the people 
of the Midwest. They are trying to use this disaster assistance as a 
vehicle to promote an agenda and pet projects, and I will give you some 
examples. The majority would like to include a provision to give $1.2 
billion in tax credits to New York City, even though New York City does 
not pay Federal taxes. This proposal is widely reported to fund the 
building of a train from Manhattan to John F. Kennedy Airport through 
the use of New York Liberty Zone tax credits. According to the Joint 
Committee on Taxation, Congress has never before provided a limited tax 
benefit such as this to a government unit.
  This provision is very controversial, is nonemergency, and it would 
slow down getting assistance to the Midwest, and Iowans, where people 
are hurting and hurting right now. I reiterate that politics should not 
get in the way of helping the victims of the storms and tornadoes in 
the Midwest. To cut through this hogwash, we ought to pass the 
Midwestern disaster tax relief bill by unanimous consent even this 
week.
  As Iowans and others in the central United States start recovering 
and rebuilding their lives and communities after these record deadly 
storms and floods, they need and deserve swift Federal action. The 
assistance should not be held up over politics.
  I am often asked by constituents not to forget them. Therefore, I am 
asking my colleagues in Congress this very minute not to forget my 
constituents or other constituents of Midwestern States. We only ask 
that Congress give Iowans and those in the Midwest the same 
consideration we gave victims of other disasters--and most often I 
mention New York City and New Orleans--nothing more, nothing less.
  If any of my colleagues doubt that this is an emergency and that 
Federal aid is needed, I am in Iowa every weekend--except this weekend, 
I am sorry to say, because we are in session on Saturday. But whenever 
they come, I will be happy to show them around. I have all kinds of 
pictures, which I think my staff has been putting up from time to time, 
to demonstrate this disaster that we have had in the Midwest.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Recess Subject to the Call of the Chair

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask the Senate stand in recess subject 
to the call of the Chair.
  There being no objection, the Senate, at 2 p.m., recessed until 2:03 
p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. 
Casey).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.

                          ____________________