[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 123 (Friday, July 25, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7462-S7474]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 LIHEAP

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need to

[[Page S7463]]

harmonize our energy, environment, and economic policies.
  In the midst of summer it is hard to think about our Nation's winter 
heating needs, but experts say we are at a pace for skyrocketing energy 
prices this winter that will place even further financial strain on the 
budgets of too many Americans. The chickens have come home to roost. 
For 27 years the Federal Government has helped disadvantaged Americans 
with their heating costs through the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program. It is one of the programs I supported while I was mayor and 
then as Governor of Ohio.
  Last year in my State alone, LIHEAP assisted some 387,000 Ohio 
households earning less than 175 percent of poverty on about $37,500 
for a family of four. Furthermore, over 188,000 Ohio households were 
served by the Emergency Winter Crisis Program. This program provides a 
one-time payment for eligible households whose home heating sources 
have been disconnected, threatened with disconnection, or have less 
than a 10-day supply of bulk fuel. The fact that so many Ohioans have 
utilized these programs demonstrates a need for help.
  Congress has not sat idle. Since I came to the Senate in 1999, 
Congress has increased LIHEAP funding from $1.1 to $2 billion in 2008. 
That is an 80-percent increase. In 2006, Congress provided $2.5 billion 
for LIHEAP, a 32-percent increase above the previous year's 
appropriations.
  I have consistently supported these increases, but I have become 
frustrated that despite the new money in the program, fewer families 
are getting real help on their heating bills. The nonpartisan 
Congressional Research Service reports that despite the increase in the 
number of households eligible for LIHEAP assistance, climbing energy 
prices have reduced the number of families actually receiving help.
  From 1983 to 2005, the percentage of eligible families receiving aid 
decreased from 31 percent to 15 percent. The increased funding simply 
is not keeping up with the rising cost of heating fuel. Our dollars are 
not going so far. The Ohio Department of Development tells me they are 
expecting the same rapid increases in costs this coming winter. Natural 
gas is the best example of what has happened in my State and perhaps in 
the State of the Presiding Officer. The prices for consumers like me 
went from $3 an mcf in 2000 to $11 per mcf today. In fact, prices for 
this June-July are nearly double what they were during the same period 
last year. And it isn't getting any better. I understand that the 
Vectren Natural Gas Utility Company in the Dayton area, is so alarmed 
about the expected spike in the price of natural gas this winter it is 
warning customers now to prepare for rates to increase by as much as 50 
percent. This would devastate a lot of Ohioans living on fixed incomes 
who already have tight budgets.
  Unfortunately, Ohioans are not alone. There is a growing number of 
families across this country who will need help this coming winter. I 
understand the need for the safety net LIHEAP provides and support its 
funding at reasonable levels, but when I look at the numbers, it 
becomes clear that appropriating more and more money for LIHEAP is not 
the answer.
  The real reason some folks will be having such a hard time this 
winter making ends meet is our Nation has no energy strategy. For 
example, large-scale fuel switching from coal to gas began with the 
implementation of the 1990 Clean Air Act. These requirements continue 
to be phased in and have become increasingly stringent. One can see a 
clear correlation between regulation and the increasing cost of natural 
gas. More utilities are turning from coal to gas.
  A major contributor to these skyrocketing energy prices is 
environmental policies that discourage our use of abundant domestic 
energy supplies and a failure to harmonize our country's energy, 
environmental, economic, and national security policies. This has 
resulted in substantial unintended costs in the form of increased fuel, 
food, electricity prices and lost jobs, and has contributed to the 
almost doubling of the LIHEAP program.
  Sadly, this is not a new problem. We have know for years that we need 
a comprehensive energy strategy, and I have been calling for one since 
I came to the Senate.
  But it took us 5 years and 6 weeks of floor debate for Congress to 
Pass the 2005 Energy Policy Act--a bill that took only limited strides 
forward. And while the bill encouraged improved national energy 
efficiency, boosted research and development funding for advanced 
energy technologies and promoted increased use of biofuels. It didn't 
go far enough toward increasing our domestic energy supply, which has 
been hamstrung by moratoria on exploration that would have given us 
increased oil and natural gas.
  We have to make real investments today that will help us achieve our 
goal tomorrow. If our goal is to help those who are less fortunate with 
their heating bills, then we should be treating the disease rather than 
the symptoms. We must increase our supply, reduce our demand through 
alternative energies, and conserve what we have. We must be also 
careful to avoid--I like to refer to them as smokescreens that cloud 
our paths to real solutions.
  The debate here in Washington over oil speculation is something that 
is part of this what I call smokescreen. It is causing us to not face 
up to the situation where we have to increase the supply if we expect 
to deal with the problems in oil and in natural gas here in the United 
States. I firmly believe that we find ourselves in this situation today 
because of a tail wagging the dog environmental policy. This has 
paralyzed Congress and polarized us in such a way that we have been 
unable to find common ground on the most important issue currently 
facing our nation.
  But let's keep in mind that our situation could be much worse. This 
June, amidst what at the time were record high gas and energy prices, a 
bill was brought to the floor to attempt to address climate change. 
While finding a solution to climate change is a goal I share, this bill 
was a bureaucratic and economic disaster, creating over forty new 
government agencies and spending programs--constituting a $6.7 trillion 
dollar tax increase on American families. This bill would have sent 
ripple effects through the economy.
  Indeed, it was estimated that the State of Ohio would loose 139,000 
jobs by 2020 as a result of the legislation. And with Ohio consumers 
paying as much as 29 percent more for gasoline, 50 percent more for 
natural gas and 80 percent more for electricity, disposable household 
income could be reduced $1,928 per year by 2020 and $3,522 per year by 
2050.
  Fortunately, this legislation was defeated. But if we continue to 
ignore the economic impacts of our country's environmental policies, we 
will further erode our competitive position in the world marketplace, 
all the while increasing costs for those among us who are least able to 
pay.
  Few would argue that the economic consequences of those regressive 
policies fall hardest on the most vulnerable of our population--the 
poor and elderly. And that is what brings us to this LIHEAP debate.
  I agree the program plays a key role in helping our neediest brothers 
and sisters with the high cost of heating their homes this winter. 
However, it is disconcerting to me that many of my colleagues who 
support the increase in LIHEAP, as I have, have also supported 
environmental policies that have encouraged the use of natural gas, and 
at the same time prevented the exploration for new natural gas 
deposits.
  Most of us understand that when you drive up the demand for gas and 
limit the supply, prices will go up. Yet, unfortunately those that 
support these short-sighted environmental polices ignore the impact 
rising prices have on all of us, particularly the middle class, the 
elderly, and poor. Some of the people back in my State say: What do 
they think we all are, rich? What is worse, as the Band-Aid we use to 
temporarily treat the symptoms of rising energy prices gets bigger--in 
this case almost doubling the funding for LIHEAP, as I mentioned over 
what was appropriated this year--we are adding to our growing national 
debt. We cannot continue to live in the United States of Denial, 
borrowing money for programs and passing the cost, including interest, 
onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.
  Instead, those demanding more LIHEAP should also be required to vote 
on increasing our energy supply or at least give the Senate an up-or-
down

[[Page S7464]]

vote on lifting the ban on exploration of the Outer Continental Shelf. 
The Mineral Management Service estimates that the undiscovered 
technically recoverable resources contained in the OCS, Outer 
Continental Shelf, could equal 420 trillion cubic feet. This is 40 
percent of the total natural gas estimated to be contained in the 
undiscovered fields in the total United States. So I think we owe it to 
our children, we owe to it our grandchildren to take care of our larger 
energy problem and get to its root. Moving forward, we must ensure our 
environmental policies are not considered in a vacuum. They should be 
complimentary to--not in opposition to--our country's energy and 
economic needs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. I agree with the previous speaker, the distinguished 
Senator from Ohio, about the need for a national energy policy. He and 
I may disagree as to what that policy should look like, but at a time 
when we are spending $700 billion a year importing oil from abroad, at 
a time when we are contributing toward global warming, at a time when 
the oil companies are enjoying recordbreaking profits, at a time when 
some people will tell us, experts will tell us, that speculation is 
driving up the cost of a barrel of oil by 25 to 50 percent, I think we 
need a new energy policy.
  But I sincerely hope my good friend from Ohio will not penalize the 
millions of low-income people who are not here on that debate. For 
them, it is a life-and-death issue, in some cases, about whether we 
double LIHEAP funding in order to provide the benefits they desperately 
need. There are many reasons that any of us can give for not voting for 
a piece of legislation, but I hope in terms of the very important 
LIHEAP vote, we do not have folks coming up, well, I believe in LIHEAP; 
I am not voting for A or B; this is why--if we do not double the amount 
of money for LIHEAP at a time when home heating oil costs will be 
double what they were a couple of years ago.
  Natural gas prices, as the Senator from Ohio said, are rising very 
rapidly. People throughout the country, in the southern part, are 
unable to afford electricity and are trying to get by without air-
conditioning at a great threat to their health. I hope those people 
will not be held hostage to the debate we are having.
  Yes, of course, we need a national energy policy. Yes, of course, 
this current policy is a disaster. But, please, let's not create a 
situation where people die and people suffer. Who gets LIHEAP? My 
friend from Ohio knows who gets LIHEAP. Those are the elderly people 
who get LIHEAP. Those are lower income families with children. Those 
are people with disabilities. Please, let's not hold those people 
hostage tomorrow while we continue the debate.
  So, I say to my good friend from Ohio, count me in as someone who 
will continue to fight for a national energy policy. I happen to 
disagree with the Senator on some of the particulars, but we need a 
national energy policy. Of course, we need to lower the cost of energy.
  But, right now, when we are seeing in the northern tier of the 
country, in the Northeast, a doubling of the price of home heating oil, 
people will go cold, people will freeze if we do not provide them with 
the help they need. I hope I can count on my friend's support tomorrow 
for that legislation.
  I am very happy to say, in terms of LIHEAP, we are getting very 
significant bipartisan support for this legislation. This bill which, 
as I mentioned, would double the amount of money we are spending on 
LIHEAP--it is S. 3186, the Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act. It 
now has 52 cosponsors, 35 Democrats, 13 Republicans, and 2 
Independents. I want to thank all of them. I want to thank Majority 
Leader Reid, Senators Obama, Durbin, Murray, Landrieu, Leahy, Cantwell, 
Jack Reed, Kerry, Kennedy, Schumer, Levin, Cardin, Brown, Klobuchar, 
Menendez, Casey,--and I want to thank you, the Presiding Officer, for 
your strong support for this legislation--Bingaman, Lautenberg, 
Stabenow, Bill Nelson, Baucus, Salazar, Wyden, Whitehouse, Rockefeller, 
Dodd, Tester, Mikulski, Biden, Kohl, Dorgan, McCaskill, and Boxer.
  I also want to thank 13 Republican cosponsors of this legislation. It 
is no secret that we are in the midst of a lot of partisanship, a lot 
of bad feelings. But I am very glad that 13 Republicans have come on 
board this legislation. They are Senators Grassley, Snowe, Stevens, 
Coleman, Smith, Sununu, Collins, Murkowski, Gregg, Lugar, Bond, Dole, 
and Specter.
  I appreciate their support, as well as Senator Lieberman, the other 
Independent, in addition to myself. I thank Senator Reid, the majority 
leader, for trying to push this legislation.
  Not only do we have a significant amount of support in the Senate, we 
are getting support from dozens and dozens and dozens of organizations 
from all over this country who understand the importance of LIHEAP and 
the need to substantially increase funding.
  Now, one of the organizations that has been very active and actively 
involved in this issue is the AARP, which is the largest senior group 
in this country. I would like to, if I may, read briefly from a 
statement that the AARP made in support of the legislation that is 
coming up tomorrow.
  And that is:

       AARP fully supports the Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer 
     Act. This legislation will provide needed relief for many 
     older persons who may not receive assistance despite their 
     eligibility due to a lack of funding. Older Americans who are 
     more susceptible to hypothermia and heat stroke know the 
     importance of heating and cooling their homes. They often 
     skip on other necessities to pay their utility bills.
       However, today's escalating energy prices and the Nation's 
     unpredictable and extreme temperatures are adding to the 
     growing economic hardship faced by seniors. LIHEAP is 
     underfunded and unable to meet the energy assistance needs of 
     the program's eligible households. Studies show that while 
     LIHEAP serves more households than ever before, only 16 
     percent of eligible households received assistance in 2006.

  Let me repeat that. Only 16 percent, in 2006. The need is now 
substantially greater because of the rising cost of fuel and because of 
the recession we are in currently.
  AARP finishes by saying:

       An estimated gap of almost $28 billion now exists between 
     what LIHEAP pays and total energy costs facing the eligible 
     LIHEAP population.

  So we are very appreciative that AARP is supporting this legislation. 
Let me mention a letter that I received yesterday from the National 
Governors Association. The National Governors Association, representing 
all 50 Governors in this country, is also supporting this legislation. 
Let me read briefly from this letter.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SANDERS. The letter states:

       Dear Senator Reid and Senator McConnell: On behalf of the 
     Nation's governors, we write to express our support for 
     increased funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
     Program for fiscal year 2008.
       Bipartisan efforts, such as the ``Warm in Winter and Cool 
     in Summer Act'' (S. 3186), which would add $2.53 billion in 
     LIHEAP funding for FY 2008 and split this funding equitably 
     between the LIHEAP base formula grant and the contingency 
     fund, are a step in the right direction. This approach will 
     help ensure that States receive an equitable share of the 
     energy assistance.

  I thank the National Governors Association. The letter was signed by 
Governor Granholm and Governor Rell of Connecticut. We appreciate their 
support.
  I come from a State where the weather gets 20 below zero. In a 
moment, I will be talking about what some of my constituents 
experienced last winter and the fears they have for the coming winter 
and why it is absolutely imperative that we substantially increase 
LIHEAP funding.
  What I want to do right now is read about what is going on in America 
today, in July and in June of 2008, in terms of the impact that high 
temperatures are having on some of our most vulnerable citizens, 
primarily the elderly.
  We gathered some headlines and brief articles about events and 
tragedies that are occurring right now.
  From the Mississippi Daily Journal:

       An autopsy report confirmed a Monroe County, Mississippi, 
     man died as a result of heat stroke Sunday.

  Later on in the article it states:

       When the temperatures hit the high 90s, North Mississippi 
     Medical Center emergency department starts seeing more heat-
     related

[[Page S7465]]

     illnesses, particularly heat exhaustion [hospital officials 
     said.]

  Then there is an article, which I am sure you are familiar with, 
which comes from the Philadelphia Inquirer. This was June 14, 2008. 
This was rather astounding because Philadelphia is not in the middle of 
the South. This is the way the article reads. It says:

       The National Weather Service warned last week that the 
     four-day hot spell that began June 7 could be deadly--and the 
     projection proved all too true. As of yesterday----

  This is the article on June 14--

       As of yesterday, the deaths of 17 people in Philadelphia 
     has been linked to the heat during those four days. Most lack 
     air conditioning in their homes. In several cases fans and 
     open windows proved insufficient.

  That is from the Philadelphia Inquirer. I know that is one of the 
reasons you are such a strong supporter and why Senator Specter is also 
a strong supporter.
  That was in Philadelphia. In Modesto, CA, ``Heat Claims Life of 
Elderly Modesto, California Woman.''
  In Woodland, CA, ``4 Deaths Blamed on NorCal Heat Wave.''

       Last week's Northern California heat wave is being blamed 
     for killing at least four people.

  June 12, 2008, The Capital, the newspaper in Annapolis. It reads:

       An elderly man was found dead inside his stifling Orchard 
     Beach, Maryland home early this week, marking the first heat-
     related fatality in Anne Arundel County, Maryland in three 
     years.

  The article goes on:

       Maryland recorded 21 heat-related deaths in 2007, 43 in 
     2006 and 47 in 2005, according to the Maryland Emergency 
     Management Agency. The county Health Department said Anne 
     Arundel had three heat-related fatalities in 2005.
       ``Every summer, we see an increase in call volume related 
     to heat-related emergencies,'' Chief Tobia said. And 
     tragically, this death highlights the absolute importance of 
     staying cool, staying hydrated and checking in on your 
     neighbors.''

  Arizona Republic, Phoenix, AZ, June 9, 2008. Headline: ``69 Valley 
Facilities Give Water, Aid to Homeless.''

       Blue Swadener, a spokesman for St. Joseph the Worker, said 
     there were 50 heat-related deaths in Maricopa County, AZ 
     between May and September 2007.

  On and on it goes. This is only a sampling of headlines dealing with 
heat-related deaths. Let me talk a little bit about what is going on in 
some of the northern States, especially in Vermont. A couple of months 
ago, I asked Vermonters to write to me telling me about their 
experience with high energy costs and a very tough economy. These are 
some of the letters I received from Vermont. A moment ago we talked 
about what is going on in warm weather States, when the weather becomes 
very hot. This is from Vermont. The first letter comes from a mother 
who lives in rural Vermont:

       We have two small children (a baby and a toddler) and felt 
     fortunate to own our own house and land but due to the 
     increasing fuel prices we have at times had to choose between 
     baby food [and] diapers and heating fuel. We've run out of 
     heating fuel three times so far and the baby has ended up in 
     the hospital with pneumonia two of the times. We try to keep 
     the kids warm with an electric space heater on those nights, 
     but that just doesn't do the trick . . . Please help.

  That is what we are talking about. That is why we need to increase 
LIHEAP so that children do not get cold and end up in the hospital or 
that elderly people in the southern part of this country die or end up 
in the hospital because of heat exhaustion.
  Another letter I received from a small city in Vermont:

       I am a single mother with a 9 year old boy. We lived this 
     past winter without any heat at all. . . . To stay warm at 
     night my son and I would pull off all the pillows from the 
     couch and pile them on the kitchen floor. I'd hang a blanket 
     from the kitchen doorway and we'd sleep right there on the 
     floor. By February we ran out of wood and I burned my 
     mother's dining room furniture. I have no oil for hot water. 
     We boil our water on the stove and pour it in the tub.

  I know there are a lot of reasons to vote against anything. Please do 
not hold these people hostage to the ongoing energy debate we face in 
this country. Yes, of course, we need an energy policy. Yes, of course, 
what we are doing today is absurd. But there are people who will die. 
There are people who will end up in the hospital. There are people who 
get sick. There will be people who have to take money out of their 
medicine budget, out of their food budget to pay for heat in the winter 
or air-conditioning in the summer. Let us not punish those people. I 
know all the excuses, all of the reasons that people can give for 
voting no. Hold them. Don't use them tomorrow. Let the people back home 
know you are going to stand up for some of the most vulnerable people 
in this country while we work on a national energy policy.
  At a time when home energy bills are soaring, what this legislation 
does is basically double the amount of LIHEAP funding. It fulfills what 
the authorization level was. That is what it does, not more than that. 
What it understands, as I mentioned earlier, is that while millions of 
people today are receiving LIHEAP funds, millions more who are eligible 
for the program simply are not getting into it because there is not 
enough funding available. What happens is, as home heating prices soar, 
either fewer people will be able to receive benefits or else the 
benefits people receive will be simply inadequate because States have 
to cut back. That is why the National Governors Association is 
supporting this legislation.
  I made this point the other day, but it is worth repeating: When 
there is a flood, when there is a fire, and then there is a natural 
disaster, CNN and the other TV cameras are there. They cover it. All of 
us are concerned about the enormous problems facing the Midwest in 
terms of the flooding there. We are concerned about the terrible forest 
fires taking place in California. As a nation, we have to address those 
problems. But I ask my colleagues to understand that just because CNN 
is not in a house which has no heat when the weather gets 20 below 
zero, don't think that is not as important an issue. Do not think that 
suffering is not as real. In fact, according to the Centers for Disease 
Control, over 1,000 Americans from across the country died from 
hypothermia in their own homes, not out on the street, from 1999 to 
2002, which are the latest figures we have available. They froze to 
death in the United States. That is why LIHEAP as a program was 
created, and that is why we have to expand the mission of LIHEAP to 
address the reality of today, that while our economy is declining, 
energy costs are soaring. More and more people are in need of LIHEAP.
  As I mentioned earlier, this is not only a cold weather issue. Over 
the past decade more than 400 people died of heat exposure in Arizona, 
including 31 in July of 2005 alone.
  Let me wrap up my remarks by thanking all of the Members of the 
Senate--I think there are 52 or 53 cosponsors, including 13 
Republicans--for their support. I thank the AARP and the dozens and 
dozens of other organizations for their support. I thank the National 
Governors Association for their support. Every person in the Senate is 
a politician. We know how the system works. We know we can give any 
excuse under God's sky for voting no on an issue. We can vote no any 
time we want to. We can write a press release explaining why we are 
voting no. I hope tomorrow Members of the Senate will not exercise that 
option. I hope tomorrow Senators will not force millions of the most 
vulnerable people--LIHEAP is primarily for the elderly; it is for 
people with disabilities, for families with kids--please, do not punish 
those people, do not force those people to go cold or get sick or die 
because of heat exhaustion because of the debate we are having here 
right now. There is widespread support that this legislation should be 
passed, that funding should be substantially increased. That is what we 
are doing.
  I hope tomorrow we can have a very significant and good vote on this 
important piece of legislation so the American people can see that in 
the midst of all of this partisanship, Members of the Senate have come 
together to say that no one in our country will freeze to death this 
winter or die of heat exhaustion.
  This is an important issue. The vote is tomorrow. I look forward to 
widespread support from both sides of the aisle.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1


                               National Governors Association,

                                    Washington, DC, July 25, 2008.
     Hon. Harry M. Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reid and Senator McConnell: On behalf of the 
     nation's governors, we

[[Page S7466]]

     write to express our support for increased funding for the 
     Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) for fiscal 
     year (FY) 2008. Bipartisan efforts, such as the ``Warm in 
     Winter and Cool in Summer Act'' (S. 3186), which would add 
     $2.53 billion in LIHEAP funding for FY 2008 and split this 
     funding equitably between the LIHEAP base formula grant and 
     the contingency fund, are a step in the right direction. This 
     approach will help ensure that states receive an equitable 
     share of the energy assistance provided, which is what 
     Congress envisioned when it authorized the multi-tiered 
     formula. This kind of equity is an important goal.
       Additional funding will support critically needed heating 
     and cooling assistance to millions of our most vulnerable 
     citizens, including the elderly, individuals with 
     disabilities and families that often have to choose between 
     paying their heating or cooling bills and buying food, 
     medicine and other essential needs. With greater financial 
     support, states will be better able to maintain and 
     potentially increase benefit levels, as well as potentially 
     increase outreach to eligible families in need of rising 
     energy cost assistance.
       Governors applaud bipartisan efforts to increase funding 
     for heating and cooling assistance and fully support adding 
     $2.53 billion in LIHEAP funding for FY 2008 to help our 
     nation respond to existing home energy needs.
           Sincerely,
     Governor Jennifer Granholm,
       Chair, Health and Human Services Committee.
     Governor M. Jodi Rell,
       Vice Chair, Health and Human Services Committee.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from 
Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I echo the remarks of the 
distinguished Senator from Vermont. There is simply no sense for 
political games to be played with the lives of people, particularly the 
lives of the elderly--in his State having to do with the cold; in my 
State having to do with heat. It is extremely important. It is sad we 
have to be delayed on a piece of legislation that should have been 
passed long ago. Here again, it is another example, as I was saying 
earlier this morning, having to do with the energy legislation, talking 
about trying to do something about the supplies of energy as well as 
the cost of it, of all these games that are being played out here, 
these political games. Another example is right here with the program 
of assistance to the poor for the cost of heating and air-conditioning.
  There is no sense in the world that we should be having to come back. 
I could care less about coming here on a Saturday, but the fact is, 
this should have been passed several days ago, not being strung out as 
it is. Then we have a test that we have to meet the 60-vote threshold 
to get through cutting off debate in order to even proceed to the bill. 
This is some of the monkey business that is going on around here, pure 
partisan political games. There is no sense for it.
  I couldn't help but reflect on what the Senator from Vermont has 
said. I appreciate his leadership on it and certainly his coming from 
Vermont, those cold winters and those senior citizens who are going to 
be doing everything they can to stay alive. This is America in 2008. 
Senior citizens should not have to be making that decision. Senior 
citizens also should not have to be making the decision of whether they 
are going to eat or take their medicine, which is another battle we 
have had on this floor, as the Senator from Vermont has fought with us 
on that as well.
  I thank the very distinguished Senator from Vermont.
  (The remarks of Mr. NELSON of Florida pertaining to the introduction 
of S. Res. 627 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the pending 
legislation, S. 3186, The Warm in Winter Cool in Summer Act. This 
legislation would provide additional funding in fiscal year 2008 for 
the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP. An 
additional $2.5 billion would be provided, and under this legislation, 
these new funds carry an emergency designation that means it will be 
added to our debt.
  I would like to first commend Senator Sanders, the sponsor of the 
legislation, on this well-intentioned bill. We all know that the price 
of oil has increased this year. We feel it at the gas pump every week 
when we fill up our tanks. And with winter just around the corner, 
Senator Sanders is trying to provide additional funding for a home 
energy assistance program that is one component of our country's social 
safety net.
  But while the intent of this legislation is admirable, I cannot 
support this additional funding because it is not paid for. It is 
simply another IOU dropped on top of the pile that our children and 
grandchildren will be responsible for. It may be them who will have to 
go without heat or air conditioning because of the debt these types of 
proposals make them responsible for.
  If Congress wants to boost funding for LIHEAP, then we ought to pay 
for it by cutting spending in a different program. This bill does not 
do that. It passes the cost to future generations, by charging the 
expense to the government credit card.
  The debate we are having today also invites a discussion on budget 
process reform. We ought to have contingencies for emergency spending. 
Last month the Congress approved a supplemental spending bill that 
provided funding for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as extend 
veterans' education benefits and unemployment insurance. This spending 
is in addition to the approximately $1 trillion in annual spending 
through the regular appropriations process. My understanding is that in 
September the Appropriations Committee will mark up another 
supplemental spending bill related to infrastructure and the economy. I 
haven't seen the details of that proposal, but expect that it will be 
large in size and scope. Much of this new spending has merit and ought 
to be funded. I don't take issue with that. However, working outside of 
the regular budget process allows for new spending that does not count 
against the regular budget caps.
  So for these reasons, I oppose the LIHEAP funding bill we are 
debating today. While I commend the supporters for bringing their 
proposal forward we ought to tighten the fiscal belt and pay for this 
new spending. If this is a high priority then we need to eliminate some 
spending that is a lower priority to pay for it. Regretfully, this 
legislation does not do that, and I intend to vote no on final passage.


                                 Energy

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on S. 3268, the Stop 
Excessive Energy Speculation Act. I thank the majority leader for his 
leadership on this issue, which addresses one of the most critical 
problems facing our Nation today--the problem of high oil and gas 
prices. I am deeply disappointed that our Republican colleagues chose 
to block the Senate from taking action on this bill, despite including 
provisions to address speculation in their own proposal.
  Energy is an economic issue. As every American has been reminded over 
and over in recent weeks and months, virtually everything we do 
requires energy--whether it is driving to work, cooking dinner for our 
families--or cooling our homes in the hot summer months. And when the 
cost of that energy goes up, our quality of life goes down.
  And feelings across the country are raw right now. Whether it is the 
crisis in our housing markets, skyrocketing health care costs, rising 
unemployment, or soaring energy costs, people are hurting--people are 
angry and frustrated, as circumstances completely beyond their control 
prevent them from taking care of their families--and they want their 
elected leaders to do something to get this economy moving again.
  But, we simply cannot drill our way to lower gas prices. President 
Bush's Energy Information Administration has said that not a drop of 
oil from the Outer Continental Shelf would be produced until 2017, and 
we would not reach peak production until 2030. Even then, this 
increased production will never be enough to lower world oil prices--we 
only have 2-to-3 percent of the world's oil reserves.
  President Bush and Republicans in Congress are demanding we open up 
more areas--yet oil companies are sitting on 68 million acres that they 
have already leased but refuse to explore. That is 3 out of every 4 
acres these companies have under lease.
  That is why Senators Feingold, Menendez, and I have introduced 
legislation that denies new leases to companies that leave the areas 
they lease unused. We have also introduced the Responsible Ownership of 
Public Lands Act that forces companies to pay a penalty on areas they 
have leased but not put into production. These fees

[[Page S7467]]

would be used to help bring clean, domestic, renewable sources of 
energy online. We had hoped to offer both of these proposals as 
amendments to the legislation before us; unfortunately, obstruction by 
the Republicans will prevent us from doing so.
  The message is simple: instead of continuing to pad the coffers of 
oil executives while American families struggle, we are telling these 
companies they can either ``use it or lose it.'' I hope my colleagues 
will join us in pursuing this legislation as an amendment to the 
pending bill.
  I also strongly support efforts to rein in excessive speculation in 
energy markets. Over the last several months there have been numerous 
congressional hearings and reports from experts across many fields--oil 
industry executives, airline industry leaders, financial analysts, and 
others. Jeroen van der Veer, the CEO of Royal Dutch Shell, was quoted 
in the Washington Post on April 11 saying that ``the . . . fundamentals 
are no problem. They are the same as they were when oil was selling for 
$60 a barrel, which is in itself quite a unique phenomenon.'' 
Representatives of Exxon-Mobil, the Petroleum Marketers Association of 
America, and others have all expressed similar views. Yet the price of 
a barrel of oil has doubled in the last year.
  Indeed, expert economists have estimated that speculators in energy 
markets are responsible for anywhere from 25 percent to 50 percent of 
the price of a barrel of oil. Even the Japanese government's Ministry 
of Economy, Trade, and Industry has concluded that speculation has 
played a significant role in driving up oil prices.
  This bill is supported by a broad coalition of airlines, trucking 
associations, labor groups, and environmental groups because it takes 
important steps that will help eliminate the ``speculative premium'' on 
each barrel of oil. The dramatic increase in oil prices is hurting 
American families and threatens to cripple countless American 
businesses.
  This important legislation closes the ``London loophole'' by treating 
oil traders using a foreign exchange as if they were trading in the 
U.S. for regulatory purposes, in order to stop traders from 
manipulating prices and speculating excessively by routing oil trades 
away from U.S.-based exchanges. In addition, the bill requires the CFTC 
to convene a working group of international regulators to develop 
uniform reporting requirements, require the CFTC to collect data on 
index traders to ensure they are not adversely impacting the price 
discovery process, and authorize the CFTC to hire at least 100 
additional full-time employees.
  At the same time, I feel that some areas of the bill can be improved. 
In particular, I am concerned that section 6 may cause unintended 
disruptions for financial institutions with over-the-counter hedging 
transactions and unnecessarily increase costs for operating companies 
that are trying to manage their energy costs through hedging. In 
addition, it appears that some aspects of section 7 and other sections 
may be unclear or have unintended consequences. I hope we have another 
opportunity to address the issue of speculation, and I look forward to 
working with the majority leader on ways to address some of these 
concerns.
  Mr. President, I am disappointed that this bill will not have a 
chance to become law. I recognize that addressing the issue of 
speculation will not solve our energy crisis. This crisis is too big of 
an issue with too many root causes. But speculation is part of the 
problem, and curbing speculation must be part of the solution. This 
bill would have achieved that goal.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, high energy prices are having a 
devastating impact on our economy and our people--particularly in 
large, rural States such as Maine. Eighty percent of Maine homes use 
oil as their primary heating source, so thousands of families are 
worried about how they can afford to stay warm next winter.
  The high cost of energy is also taking a toll on businesses, both 
large and small. Truckers, paper mills, fishermen, farmers, and 
countless others are struggling with the high cost of oil, gasoline, 
and diesel.
  Many factors affect energy prices, including the value of the dollar, 
global tensions, and demand in other countries, such as China and 
India. Supply concerns also enter the picture. Business Week has 
reported that data on Saudi production potential indicate that the 
kingdom may be unable to sustain their projected output of 12 million 
barrels a day past 2010, while International Oil Daily reports that 
Mexico's crude-oil exports are down 17 percent versus 2007, and ``could 
represent the start of a precipitous decline.'' Other supply concerns 
for places like Iran and Nigeria also affect expectations, and prices.
  These and other considerations have led many of us to advocate a 
comprehensive energy policy that would promote more exploration and 
production, more conservation and efficiency, and more alternatives in 
the energy sector. We need more American production to meet America's 
needs, while protecting our environment. In short, we need to produce 
more, use less, and pursue alternatives.
  It is imperative for both economic and national-security reasons that 
we reduce our dependence on imported oil and the supply shocks that our 
dependence entails, that we develop new resources here, and that we 
promote more efficient use. I have a 10-point energy plan that includes 
proposals to accomplish those objectives.
  Those ideas deserve a full debate. I sincerely hope the current 
procedural obstacles to considering a variety of amendments will be 
removed. Holding a lengthy debate on our energy problems is a fruitless 
exercise if the ground rules choke off consideration of the many ways 
we can tackle those problems by reducing our reliance on imports, by 
promoting more development of American conventional and alternative 
fuels, and by advancing efficiency and conservation initiatives.
  There is, of course, another critical factor in the energy-price 
crisis that demands careful attention and effective action. That is the 
role of excessive speculation in energy markets, especially by 
institutional investors and index funds.
  Senator Lieberman and I have heard persuasive and troubling evidence 
in three hearings of our Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs on this issue. We heard testimony from Federal 
officials, from exchange officials, from academics, from institutional 
investors, and from a bakery owner and a farm representative.
  The evidence that we found of greatest concern involves the impact of 
noncommercial investors who do not produce or take delivery of oil or 
agricultural products--unlike commercial participants such as oil 
producers and heating oil dealers, farmers and cereal companies. 
Instead, these noncommercial investors use futures contracts and 
related transactions solely for financial gain.
  Speculation in commodity markets by noncommercial investors has grown 
enormously. In just the last 5 years, the total value of their futures-
contract and commodity index-fund investments has soared from $13 
billion to $260 billion.
  Many experts have concluded that these massive new holdings of oil-
futures contracts by pension funds, university endowments, and other 
institutional investors have driven prices beyond levels that normal 
marketplace factors would produce.
  These investors' intentions may be simply to provide good returns, a 
hedge against inflation, and asset diversification, but the effect of 
their activity appears to be driving up prices for traditional users of 
commodity markets, not to mention American families and businesses that 
are affected by the ultimate price increases.
  I worked with Senator Lieberman to produce a comprehensive and 
bipartisan bill, the Commodity Speculation Reform Act of 2008, which we 
and Senator Cantwell introduced on July 10.
  Our bill, S. 3248, takes some very strong steps toward countering 
excessive speculation.
  First, it would remedy staffing shortfalls at the Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission by adding 100 staff to improve its market oversight 
and enforcement capabilities. This is a vital step. The CFTC tells us 
that more than three billion futures and options contracts were traded 
last year, up from 37 million in 1976. Yet the Commission is operating 
with fewer employees than it had 30 years ago.

[[Page S7468]]

  Second, our bill closes the so-called ``swaps loophole,'' which 
currently allows financial institutions to evade position limits on 
commodity contracts that regulators use to prevent unwarranted price 
swings or attempts at manipulation.
  Third, our bill directs the CFTC to establish position limits that 
will apply to an investor's total interest in a commodity, regardless 
of whether they originate on a regulated exchange, the over-the-counter 
market, or on foreign boards of trade that deal in U.S. commodities.

  I would note that our bill instructs the CFTC to set and administer 
these position limits. That task is currently delegated to the 
exchanges, subject to Commission review. The regulated commodity 
exchanges have good reputations as self-policing operations, but we 
believe as a matter of principle that regulators should be setting 
speculative position limits.
  Fourth, our bills instructs the CFTC to permit no foreign boards of 
trade to deal in U.S.-linked commodity contracts unless they agree to 
reporting and data-accessibility standards at least equivalent to that 
required of U.S.-regulated exchanges. This is not a matter of telling 
other countries what to do: foreign boards of trade request ``no-
action'' letters from the CFTC so they can maintain trading terminals 
here while remaining regulated by their own authorities. The CFTC has 
recently taken positive steps to require comparable reporting, and our 
bill codifies those improvements.
  These are powerful measures, but they are also carefully designed. We 
recognize that producers, handlers, and purchasers of commodities who 
use those markets to lock in prices, hedge risks, and see clues for 
price trends require some level of participation by non-commercial, 
financial investors.
  Thus, our bill does not prevent financial investors from 
participating in commodity markets. It simply places some limits on 
their activity by directing the CFTC to set position limits across 
trading venues at a level no higher than that needed to ensure that 
commercial participants can always find counter-parties for their 
contract needs.
  The bill pending before the Senate parallels key provisions of the 
bill that Senators Lieberman and Cantwell and I introduced.
  The majority leader's bill has some additional features, such as the 
working groups to study the regulatory framework for commodity-market 
regulation and to consult on internationally agreed standards, that 
deserve support.
  Two aspects of the majority leader's bill, however, raise some 
concerns, and I have filed two amendments to address them. Senator 
Lieberman has joined me as an original cosponsor of the amendments.
  The first simply extends the reach of S. 3268 to include agricultural 
as well as energy commodities, mirroring our bill's approach. We 
believe this is important because high energy prices affect the costs 
of fertilizing, producing, harvesting, transporting, processing, and 
distributing commodities. Consumers know this is a real problem, and 
price data prove it: the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the 
annualized rate of food-price inflation in the second quarter of 2008 
was 8.5 percent. Meanwhile, the Bureau's energy price index for the 
second quarter was climbing at an amazing annualized rate of nearly 54 
percent.
  Energy and food commodities are linked, and both have been subject to 
large-scale, noncommercial speculation. When we note that the BLS rate 
of price increase for nonfood, nonenergy items was only 2.5 percent, it 
is clear that both agricultural and energy future markets need 
protection against excessive speculation.
  My second amendment replaces the definition of commercially related 
hedging in the majority leader's bill with the language from our bill. 
This will not impair the CFTC's ability to monitor and police hedging 
activity across trading venues, but it will reduce an apparent 
potential for unintended consequences. We have heard concerns that the 
bill's restrictive language about hedge-trade proximity and equivalence 
to the initial commercial transaction could make bona fide hedging 
impossible or more difficult and expensive for the intermediaries who 
provide that service. My amendment is fully consistent with the 
intentions of the pending bill, but mitigates the risk that we might 
unintentionally impede hedging that has a genuine commercial basis.
  Mr. President, I hope the Senate will consider a full range of 
amendments to the majority leader's bill. I urge my colleagues to 
support my amendments--and then to support the underlying bill. We can 
all agree that excessive speculation is not the only factor affecting 
energy and food prices. But it is one that we can influence, and action 
is already long overdue.


                                Housing

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, in a recent column for the Arizona Republic, 
``Rescuing Fannie Mae or Freddie is Nonsense,'' Bob Robb exposed some 
of the flaws in H.R. 3221, the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure 
Prevention Act of 2008, specifically, the bailout for Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac.
  Mr. Robb argues, ``This plan isn't about mitigating today's housing 
difficulties. Nothing in the plan gets a mortgage paid that wouldn't 
otherwise be paid. Nor is the rescue really about today's credit 
crunch, except for the minor effect a doubt about the reliability of 
Fannie and Freddie guarantees might have on the capital of other 
financial institutions. Instead, it's about enabling Fannie and Freddie 
to continue to do even more of the same in the future, and that's a bad 
idea.'' Mr. Robb calls this plan for what it is--an overreaction to 
Fannie and Freddie's self-inflicted financial wounds.
  I ask unanimous consent that his column be reprinted in the Record, 
and I urge my colleagues to consider his thoughtful views.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Arizona Republic, July 23, 2008]

               Rescuing Fannie Mae or Freddie is Nonsense

                             (By Bob Robb)

       The proposed rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac makes no 
     sense.
       Both companies are mortgage bundlers and investors.
       They buy mortgages from other lenders and securitize them. 
     They hold some for investment and sell some to others. They 
     guarantee payments on the mortgage-backed securities they 
     sell to others. And they buy mortgage-backed securities from 
     other bundlers for investment.
       Recently, the stock prices for Fannie and Freddie fell 
     precipitously, to roughly a quarter of their previous peak. 
     That represents a sharply revised judgment by investors about 
     the value of Fannie and Freddie's business model and 
     activities.
       That's too bad for holders of Fannie and Freddie stock. But 
     in and of itself, it doesn't represent a systemic economic 
     threat warranting the intervention of the federal government.
       Other financial institutions do hold mortgage-backed 
     securities guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie. If Fannie's and 
     Freddie's financial conditions deteriorates to the point of 
     raising questions about their ability to make good on their 
     guarantees, that would reduce the value of securities they 
     have sold to others. And that could reduce the capital of 
     other financial institutions.
       But the effect should be minor. The mortgage-backed 
     securities guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie are the good 
     stuff. The mortgagors are all credit-worthy and made healthy 
     down payments. The securities are ultimately backed by the 
     properties mortgaged. Even without Fannie or Freddie's 
     guarantee, losses should be minimal.
       After all, even including the bad stuff, 92 percent of all 
     mortgages in the United States remain current. Losses in 
     Fannie and Freddie securities are currently running at just a 
     fraction of a percent.
       Nevertheless, the Bush administration has proposed that 
     Fannie and Freddie be given an unlimited line of credit from 
     the federal government and that the federal government be 
     permitted to contribute equity if Fannie and Freddie have 
     capital problems. Congress appears likely to go along.
       In the meantime, the Fed has agreed to lend to Fannie and 
     Freddie as well.
       Instead, Congress should phase out the existing $2.25 
     billion line of credit each enterprise has with the federal 
     government over a period of, say, five years, and declare 
     that Fannie and Freddie from that point on are on their own.
       When Fannie Mae was formed in 1938, there was arguably a 
     role for government to play in creating a secondary market 
     for mortgages. Lending capital was scarce and fewer than half 
     of all Americans lived in their own homes.
       Fannie Mae was initially a government agency. It was sold 
     to private investors in 1968, but retained a favored 
     relationship with the federal government. Freddie Mac was 
     formed in 1970, with the same favored relationship, to offer 
     competition ahd choice.

[[Page S7469]]

       Such government-sponsored entities are an anachronism 
     today. Over two-thirds of Americans live in their own homes 
     and, in a world of international finance, there is plenty of 
     private-sector interest in providing a secondary market for 
     mortgages.
       This rescue plan isn't about mitigating today's housing 
     difficulties. Nothing in the plan gets a mortgage paid that 
     wouldn't otherwise be paid.
       Nor is the rescue really about today's credit crunch, 
     except for the minor effect a doubt about the reliability of 
     Fannie and Freddie guarantees might have on the capital of 
     other financial institutions.
       Instead, it's about enabling Fannie and Freddie to continue 
     to do even more of the same in the future, and that's a bad 
     idea. The rescue plan makes an implicit federal guarantee for 
     Fannie and Freddie explicit. This would give them an even 
     greater competitive advantage, enlarging their already 
     dangerously overlarge presence in the secondary-mortgage 
     market.
       The Bush administration and Congress are moving toward a 
     much larger federal role in the housing market. Congressional 
     Democrats propose that the federal government refinance some 
     $300 billion in mortgages, while the Bush administration 
     wants to open the federal checking account to Fannie and 
     Freddie and perhaps invest in them.
       Meanwhile, the Fed's balance sheet is getting corrupted 
     with junk that others won't buy or lend against.
       All this is to keep the housing market propped up at a time 
     in which the market is screaming, about as loudly as it can: 
     There's been an overinvestment in housing. What the 
     politicians propose to do about our economic problems has 
     been consistently more troubling than the problems 
     themselves.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, many homeowners in my State of Arizona and 
across the Nation are having a hard time making their mortgage 
payments, but the legislation Congress is considering is not aimed at 
helping them. Rather, it is designed to help mortgage lenders and the 
two big Government enterprises ``Freddie Mac'' and ``Fannie Mae.'' In 
fact, the bill we are considering will place an immense financial 
burden on every American taxpayer for a long time and waste billions of 
dollars in misguided efforts to help lenders deemed ``too big to 
fail.'' Therefore, I will vote against H.R. 3221, the American Housing 
Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008.
  One of the few provisions in the bill that I support is the much 
needed reform of the government-sponsored enterprises, GSEs, that 
establishes an independent regulator to ensure that Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac are properly managed and financially sound. The reason they 
are in trouble is that they have taken too many risks, something I have 
been warning about for 3 years. These two GSEs hold more than $5 
trillion in liabilities composed of mortgage-backed securities and 
other debt that enjoy an implicit guarantee by the Federal Government. 
This legislation makes that guarantee explicit for the first time.
  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's role is to promote liquidity in the 
mortgage industry, but due to the downturn in the housing market, poor 
oversight, and reckless portfolios, Fannie and Freddie have incurred 
losses of more than $5 billion in the past year, the first loss for 
these two GSEs in 25 years. Fannie and Freddie have also seen their 
stocks sink more than 80 percent in value over the past year. Congress 
should have passed this much needed reform years ago to avert the 
erosion of Fannie and Freddie's portfolios, and it should be stronger 
now, given their resistance to reform.
  Because Fannie and Freddie enjoy this Federal Government guarantee of 
its debts, both the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve 
recently proposed various administrative and statutory actions to 
stabilize the GSEs. The actions included in this bill would allow the 
Federal Reserve to grant both Fannie and Freddie access to its discount 
window, temporarily remove the $2.25 billion cap on Fannie and 
Freddie's lines of credit at the Treasury Department, thereby allowing 
them to borrow an unlimited amount of taxpayer money if needed, 
temporarily permit Treasury to purchase equity in the institutions to 
ensure that the two GSEs have access to sufficient capital, and provide 
the Federal Reserve authority to gain access to information and perform 
a consultative role in the new GSE regulator's process for setting 
capital requirements and other prudential standards that this bill 
mandates. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates that the 
proposal could cost American taxpayers $25 billion over fiscal years 
2009 and 2010; however, there is a chance that a further deterioration 
of Fannie and Freddie's finances could require an infusion of $100 
billion or more. We simply do not know how much this proposal will 
cost--a gamble with taxpayers' money that I am not comfortable making.
  In addition to the possible costs of the proposal to help Fannie and 
Freddie, the provisions of H.R. 3221 intended to deal with foreclosures 
would cost taxpayers billions and do little to help struggling 
homeowners. For instance, a key component of the bill is the HOPE for 
Homeowners Program, which would allow subprime mortgage holders to 
refinance their mortgages into Federal Housing Administration backed 
loans if the lender agrees to write down the value of the mortgage. 
This represents a huge risk to American taxpayers. The program would 
allow lenders to cherry pick up to $300 billion of their worst loans 
and refinance them into FHA guaranteed loans. The Congressional Budget 
Office estimates that a third of the mortgages refinanced under the 
HOPE for Homeowners Program will enter into default.
  But even more troubling to me is the burden this program will place 
on the FHA considering its current financial woes. The New York Times 
reported in April that the FHA will face a deficit for the first time 
in its 74-year history; the deficit is largely blamed on the risky 
mortgages that the FHA already holds in its mortgage portfolio. I don't 
see the rationale for expanding FHA's liability with this $300 billion 
program when the agency cannot sustain its current portfolio and when 
American taxpayers will bear any losses that the FHA incurs because of 
the HOPE for Homeowners Program.
  This bill also includes a new tax on the GSEs--estimates range up to 
$600 million a year--to pay for the HOPE for Homeowners Program for 3 
years, and thereafter, for a new affordable housing trust fund. It 
simply does not make sense for Congress to impose a new tax on Fannie 
and Freddie at the same time that the Federal Government thinks it must 
bail them out by infusing cash and equity into the institutions. It is 
also likely that Fannie and Freddie will simply pass along the cost of 
this new tax to consumers, which obviously would not help lure buyers 
back into the housing market.
  Not only do I oppose taxing the GSEs' profits, but I also question 
the efficacy of the affordable housing trust fund that would be funded 
by the GSEs. The bill would direct 65 percent of the money it taps from 
the GSEs to the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, HUD. Under vague guidelines in the bill, the Secretary of 
HUD would then have the discretion to establish grant criteria that 
could favor certain States. Once the money is allocated by the 
Secretary, State and local politicians would be able to disburse the 
money to favored organizations and for-profit groups that share their 
political agendas. The remaining 35 percent of the money that the bill 
takes from the GSEs would be distributed to nonprofit groups selected 
by the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury. This, too, could 
allow the politicians in power to divert Federal dollars to their 
favorite housing causes. I cannot support a bill that essentially 
creates a slush fund for politicians.
  I also oppose the nearly $4 billion in funding the bill allocates to 
the Community Development Block Grant, CDBG Program because the funding 
would go to local officials to buy foreclosed property from the lender 
that is holding the property. Not only does this create a scenario ripe 
for political favoritism, it would also bail out the very lenders who 
offered mortgages their customers couldn't afford. And, again, it does 
nothing to help the former homeowner. Moreover, the CDBG Program is 
fraught with inefficiencies and mismanagement. According to a February 
2008 report from the White House budget office, the CDBG Program was 
labeled as ``ineffective,'' and only received a score of 27 out of 100-
point scale of achieving results. I cannot vote for a bill that has 
such a poorly run program as one of its centerpieces.
  Finally, I disagree with certain parts of the tax title contained in 
this bill.

[[Page S7470]]

When the tax title was initially drafted, I successfully added a 
provision designed to protect taxpayers from having property tax relief 
provided in the bill completely offset by rising taxes at the State and 
local levels of government. However, when the legislation reached the 
House of Representatives my language protecting taxpayers from tax 
increases was dropped. Homeowners and average Americans are struggling 
to pay their mortgages, higher gas prices, and more expensive grocery 
bills. State and local governments should not add to these burdens by 
raising their own taxes and certainly should not try to divert Federal 
tax reductions intended to help individuals contending with today's 
economic challenges into their own coffers.
  One must understand that the Federal Government already provides a 
tremendous amount of financial assistance to State and local 
governments. According to the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, the 
Federal Government will provide $476.1 billion to State and local 
governments in 2009, an increase of roughly $10 billion from 2008 and 
67 percent more than in 2000. Almost 50 percent of Federal financial 
assistance is spent on health care. Spending on income security, 
education, and transportation roughly accounts for the remainder.
  In determining the total amount of assistance the Federal Government 
provides to State and local governments, one must also factor in the 
foregone revenue that results from tax expenditures which benefit State 
and local governments. The two largest tax expenditures are the 
deduction for State and local tax payments and the interest exclusion 
on public purpose State and local government debt. Combined, these 
provisions reduce Federal revenue by nearly $60 billion in 2009.
  Interestingly, if the Federal Government did not provide State and 
local governments with assistance, the budget would run persistent 
surpluses. There would have only been 16 budget deficits over the last 
50 years. U.S. debt would have been substantially lower.
  I also oppose the $16.8 billion of tax increases included in the bill 
used to offset the cost of the new spending. In particular, one 
provision would require the payment card industry to design and build a 
new computer system so that it can collect merchants' transaction 
information and provide it to the IRS. It would also require payment 
card companies to withhold 28 percent of a merchant's reimbursement if 
it cannot verify the company's taxpayer identification number, TIN.
  No hearings have been held on this proposal and now Congress is 
rushing through an incomplete payment card reporting proposal that has 
not been adequately vetted. Once implemented, the provision would 
require the industry to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to 
redesign their information systems to comply with the new information 
reporting regime. The payment card industry's current computer records 
do not contain merchant TINs and other information that the proposal 
would require to be reported.
  If payment card companies do not currently have a system in place to 
ensure valid TIN information on all existing merchants, errors in TIN 
matching will subject merchants to withholding, even where merchants 
have provided TIN information. Withholding 28 percent of a merchant's 
gross reimbursements would severely disrupt a business's operations and 
impair its cash flows.
  There are programs currently operating that provide responsible 
relief to struggling homeowners at no cost to American taxpayers. HUD 
has organized an assistance program, called HOPE NOW, for homeowners in 
distress to rework their mortgages if both the borrower and lender 
decide that renegotiation of their mortgages is in their mutual 
interest. This voluntary program has helped over a million Americans 
having trouble paying their mortgages, and I fully support these 
efforts. In less than a year, HOPE NOW has assisted nearly 17,000 
Arizonans negotiate repayment plans with their lenders. Additionally, 
over 6,000 Arizonans have received loan modifications. The HOPE NOW 
Program was just recently expanded to help even more struggling 
homeowners in Arizona and nationwide.
  I oppose H.R. 3221 because I do not think the benefits of the bill 
outweigh the numerous liabilities that could be passed to American 
taxpayers. Congress should not pass a bill just to show it is ``doing 
something'' to help homeowners who cannot make their mortgage payments 
or write a blank check to Fannie and Freddie. This bill passes more 
burden to American taxpayers.


                payment card and third party networking

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
Chairman Baucus and Senator Snowe about the payment card and third 
party networking information reporting provision. I am concerned about 
the impact this proposal will have on small businesses. It is my 
understanding that the proposal included in the Housing and Economic 
Recovery Act of 2008 is a modified version of the administration's 
proposal that was included in administration's budget for fiscal year 
2009. I ask the Chairman, can you explain who bears the reporting 
requirement and how the provision was modified?
  Mr. BAUCUS. The provision requires the bank, third party network, or 
third party processor that settles credit card payments with the 
merchant to report annually to the IRS and to the merchant the gross 
amount paid to the merchant during the calendar year. These reports may 
be made electronically. The effective day of the proposal was modified 
to apply to information returns for calendar years beginning after 
December 31, 2010. Back-up withholding provisions apply to amounts paid 
after December 31, 2011. Back-up withholding is required only if the 
paying institution does not have a valid taxpayer identification number 
on file for the merchant. In addition, for third party networks, there 
is an exception for transactions of $20,000 or less or 200 transactions 
or less.
  Ms. SNOWE. I am also concerned of the impact of this proposal on 
small businesses. Senator Kerry and I both want to make sure the 
additional tax compliance burden on small businesses will be minimal 
and the new information that will be collected will be protected. Can 
the chairman expand upon how this information will be used by the IRS?
  Mr. BAUCUS. The IRS indicates that it intends to implement the 
information reports in a graduated way that will give the agency time 
to use the amounts on a 1099 in a manner to accurately and efficiently 
identify cases with higher likelihood of noncompliance, potentially 
sparing compliant businesses from unnecessary audits. Existing privacy 
rules will apply to the information reports required under this 
proposal.
  Mr. KERRY. The provision requires reporting to be made on a calendar 
year basis. It my understanding that many retailers operate on a fiscal 
year basis and I want to make sure that this provision will not create 
an unnecessary burden on sm all retailers because they will be required 
to reconcile differences.
  Mr. BAUCUS. The provision provides the Secretary of Treasury with the 
authority to prescribe regulations or other guidance to implement this 
provision and prevent the reporting of the same transaction more than 
once.
  Ms. SNOWE. I want to make sure that the benefit of improved 
compliance from information reporting is outweighed by the cost of 
compliance. Can the Chairman expand on the benefits of the proposal 
versus the burden?
  Mr. BAUCUS. The benefits of this proposal are substantial. IRS 
research shows that there is 46 percent compliance rate when there is 
no information reporting and over 90 percent compliance when there is 
information reporting. There will be upfront programming costs which 
will be spread over a number of merchants and a period of years, which 
should help to minimize the costs to individual merchants.
  Mr. KERRY. I commend the Senator's efforts on trying to reduce the 
tax gap and improving the underreporting of income. I would like to 
continue to work with the Senator on this issue to ensure that the 
provision is implemented in a manner that is not burdensome to small 
businesses.
  Ms. SNOWE. I concur with Senator Kerry, and appreciate the Senator's 
efforts on addressing the tax gap. While small businesses should not be 
excused from meeting their tax obligations, I also want to ensure that 
tax gap proposals such as this one meet a delicate balance of improving 
compliance in the

[[Page S7471]]

least burdensome manner possible for the majority of small businesses 
who are already in compliance. I look forward to working with the 
Senator on the implementation of this provision in a manner that does 
not negatively impact small businesses.


                              Section 2203

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
Chairman Dodd to clarify the intent of section 2203 of the Housing and 
Economic Recovery Act of 2008. This provision amends section 207 of the 
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, SCRA, 50 U.S.C. App. 527, to limit the 
maximum interest rate for mortgages that servicemembers obtain before 
their military service, during the period of their service and one year 
thereafter. It has come to my attention that there is a drafting error 
in this section that does not reflect the intent of the Congress.
  In subsection (b), paragraph (1), the phrase, ``in excess of 6 
percent'' should have included the words, ``per year.'' This would 
reflect the intent to limit the maximum rate of interest for 
servicemember obligations to 6 percent per year during the period of 
military service, and in the case of mortgages, for an additional year 
after service. Does the Chairman agree that the words ``per year'' were 
inadvertently omitted?
  Mr. DODD. Yes. It is my intent that section 2203(b)(1) should read 
'in excess of 6 percent per year `` before subparagraph (A). This would 
track the existing language in section 207(a)(1) of the SCRA that 
refers to preexisting obligations or liabilities bearing an interest 
rate in excess of 6 percent per year. It is not my intent to modify 
this aspect of section 207(a)(1).
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chairman for addressing this issue. It is the 
longstanding understanding of both military servicemembers and lenders 
that the reduction in interest under this section would be to ``6 
percent per year,'' which has been existing law for many years. The 
provision in section 2203 was not intended to change existing law, 
other than to extend the interest cap of 6 percent for servicemembers' 
mortgages for an additional year beyond military service.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity 
to share this issue with the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                              food safety

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an issue which has 
gotten some attention in our country, but with so many economic 
problems that face the American people and our families, it probably 
has not gotten enough attention in Washington. That is the issue of the 
outbreak of foodborne illnesses and other problems that have arisen in 
the last couple weeks and months with regard to our food supply.
  As of July 21, 1,256 people in 43 States, the District of Columbia, 
and Canada have been affected since April with the very same strain of 
a rare foodborne bacteria, Salmonella Saintpaul.
  At least 231 individuals have been hospitalized for treatment. Sadly, 
the deaths of two individuals in Texas have also been connected to the 
outbreak.
  But many people who get sick from food do not even seek medical 
attention. So many illnesses linked to this outbreak have gone 
undiagnosed.
  The Centers for Disease Control estimates that for every one illness 
diagnosed and attributed to Salmonella, 38 more cases actually occur. 
That means the number of illnesses caused by this outbreak could 
actually number in the tens of thousands.
  According to the CDC, this is the largest ongoing outbreak of 
foodborne illness in the United States in at least a decade. It has now 
been more than 7 weeks since the FDA first warned consumers against 
eating certain types of tomatoes. But since June 2, the numbers of 
individuals sickened by this outbreak steadily have continued to rise.
  Many of these subsequent illness reports were due to delays in 
testing and reporting by States. But a shocking 600-plus people have 
had illnesses that began after--after--the FDA announced that tomatoes 
were linked to the outbreak.
  As a result of the FDA's warning, the U.S. tomato industry has likely 
sustained well over $100 million in collateral damages. Many tomato 
growers and wholesalers fear that, like spinach, demand for the 
products may be affected for years to come.
  And now, more than 7 weeks and many tens of millions of dollars later 
in losses, FDA says it is ``highly unlikely'' tomatoes were even 
involved in the outbreak.
  Instead, new test results have lead FDA to now conclude that jalapeno 
peppers are to blame for this multi-State outbreak. But even this 
linkage has not given us the answers needed to put an end to this 
outbreak.
  FDA has issued a recall for jalapenos grown in Mexico and distributed 
through a company in Texas. But it is unlikely that jalapenos from this 
small company can account for more than 1,200 illnesses.
  While FDA has continued to investigate other parts of the 
distribution chain, they still do not know where the contamination 
happened.
  The FDA and the CDC have candidly stated that there is a very real 
possibility that we may never determine--never determine--the root 
cause of this outbreak. As unsettling as that is, what we have 
uncovered is equally unsettling.
  Our Government has no way to trace food products from the farm to our 
dinner plates, no way to trace food products. In an era where we can 
instantly detect and report stolen credit identities, where we have the 
technology to instantly pinpoint a person's location, where we can 
track an online shopping order from the production process all the way 
through delivery to our doorstep, we have no way to trace and determine 
where our food came from.
  There are currently no laws or regulations requiring a national 
system for traceability of U.S. foods. While many in the food industry 
do employ voluntary record-keeping systems, there is no consistency 
from one system to the next.
  Instead, members of the U.S. food industry--from the farmers to the 
processors to the distributors to the vendors--use differing systems to 
capture differing types of data regarding their products. Because this 
data lacks consistency, it becomes difficult to link or share this data 
among the various partners in the U.S. food industry.
  Much of this data trail is not even computerized. Instead, it remains 
in antiquated paper files, and it makes FDA's and CDC's job of tracing 
the cause of this outbreak even more difficult and time-consuming.
  Compounding these difficulties, many produce items are mixed with 
products from various other sources, and then they are repackaged. Some 
food products even leave the country before being returned for sale in 
this country, and along the way, these types of products lose any type 
of information that might help us identify their source.
  This lack of traceability of information about our food is 
unacceptable in this day and age and in this country. Implementing a 
natural system of food traceability would allow us to more quickly 
identify the source of contamination in an outbreak of food-borne 
illnesses, and it would allow us to more quickly act in the interests 
of public health to notify consumers about unsafe products they may 
have in their kitchens. In a recent AP poll, 86 percent of the people 
in the United States said produce should be labeled so it can be better 
tracked to its origin. It is time for industry and the Government to 
take action to give consumers this information.

  However, implementation of a national traceability system is only 
half the battle. There are still 76 million cases of food-borne 
illnesses in this country every year. Those illnesses send an estimated 
300,000 Americans to the hospital each year, and they kill--they kill--
an estimated 5,000 individuals yearly. Many of these deaths occur in 
young children, the elderly, and those with chronic illnesses.
  I believe the Senate must begin looking at ways to modernize the U.S. 
system of food inspection. We must provide the agencies that regulate 
food safety with additional authority to ensure the safety of our 
Nation's food supply, and we must increase resources to the Federal 
Food and Drug Administration so they can hire more personnel and so 
they can invest in improvements to their systems of inspecting domestic 
and imported food products. We must mandate science-based

[[Page S7472]]

regulations to ensure the safety of food products that carry the most 
risk, and we must improve coordination between the USDA, the Department 
of Agriculture, the FDA, and the various other Federal and State 
agencies charged with regulating food safety.
  Americans have every right to expect a safe food supply, and we in 
the Senate owe it to them to make needed improvements to this system 
before another outbreak sickens thousands more of our citizens.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                Housing

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I believe Democrats are committed to 
strengthening our weakening economy by addressing record-high home 
foreclosures and record-high energy prices. The good news is that we 
will pass--I certainly hope, tomorrow--the housing bill.
  Even though President Bush originally opposed the essence of what we 
are trying to do in the housing foreclosure prevention bill, he has 
finally dropped his rather stubborn opposition to an important bill. He 
finally realizes, as Democrats have for quite some time, that we have 
to act immediately to address the housing crisis. We have to act 
immediately, not only for the 2 million American homes that could be 
lost and the American dream gets turned into the American nightmare but 
because of what that means to us collectively as a nation in terms of 
our economy and what it means to all of us.
  We have seen our economy continue to go in all of the wrong 
directions, and we have seen rising inflation costs of essential goods 
that people and families need. We have seen rising costs of energy, 
which I will talk about in a moment, and we have seen decreasing values 
of homes as a result of foreclosed properties within neighborhoods. As 
this takes place, the value of everyone else's home in that community 
goes down $10,000 or $15,000. If there are multiple foreclosures, there 
are even greater amounts of home values that are lowered, and those 
values which are in their homes, which for the average American is the 
single biggest part of their savings and investment and opportunity to 
draw from, when that value goes down, the opportunity to educate their 
children, put them through college, to borrow against it, goes down. 
For having a medical emergency, the opportunity gets diminished. For 
having retirement savings, the opportunity gets diminished. So the 
housing package has so many dimensions to it that it is critical to the 
country.
  We appreciate that the President has finally dropped his veto threat 
and will sign the bill. It will help Americans keep their homes and 
their home equity. We are restoring stability to the housing market and 
helping businesses and communities hurt by this crisis not only recover 
but also create new jobs. The bill will help prevent another crisis of 
this magnitude, stop foreclosures before they begin, and preserve for 
future generations the American dream of home ownership.
  The nearly 8,500 new families filing for foreclosure each day can no 
longer wait for help. That is why it is my expectation, in a special 
session we will have tomorrow, Saturday, that we will get the votes 
necessary, this will pass, and it will go on to the President. It has 
already passed the House.


                                 LIHEAP

  As we talk about saving people's homes, there is another great 
challenge for many--not only those who face foreclosure but those who 
are working very hard every day to meet their obligations and, in fact, 
some who have worked a lifetime and find their home mortgages paid off 
but find themselves with the challenge, as we look forward in the next 
several months to the winter season, of the consequences of not being 
able to afford to heat their homes. Yes, there are many Americans in 
this country who face that challenge. So there will be another critical 
vote tomorrow, and I certainly hope it is a vote that a majority of 
this body will support; that is, the Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer 
Act that provides an additional $2.5 billion in LIHEAP funding.
  There is no doubt that the pain at the pump has been devastating to 
millions of American families, but we cannot forget also that the 
skyrocketing price of home heating oil, propane, kerosene, natural gas, 
and electricity is also breaking family budgets right now. That pain 
will only get worse as the cold weather approaches.
  I am particularly concerned about this winter when people will be 
faced with the prospect of paying $1,000 or more up front to pay for 
the heating oil they need in the winter. For seniors, for low-income 
families, for people on fixed incomes, and those struggling with a poor 
economy, these enormous upfront costs are simply out of reach.
  High energy costs this winter will be severely compounded by our 
struggling economy. We lost 62,000 jobs in June--the sixth straight 
month of job losses. Real wages have fallen rapidly. Housing 
foreclosures are up while home values are plummeting, and we have also 
seen shrinking credit markets, troubled banks, and a volatile stock 
market.
  However, despite all of these problems, it seems we have some 
difficulty getting some of our colleagues here to understand the 
necessity of now--the ability to legislate now and to get this resource 
available and ready to go so people will not go cold in the winter.

  Despite apparent bipartisan agreement on a whole host of issues in an 
effort to clamp down on oil speculation, the minority party said no, 
even though they put that as part of their overall energy package. They 
just said no. We saw that in a vote earlier. Despite agreement on 
pursuing conservation, Republicans have said no to pursuing that. 
Despite the fact that the majority leader has even offered them a vote 
on the floor of the Senate on their singular issue that we have heard 
for a week and a half talking about drilling off the Outer Continental 
Shelf--even though it won't do anything about gas prices, which was 
recognized by the Bush administration as such; even though, in fact, it 
risks the coastal economies worth $200 billion on the east and west 
coasts; even though it doesn't do anything about breaking our addiction 
to foreign oil or even domestic oil; even though any production would 
take a decade before we saw a drop and 2030 before we would see full 
production; even though full production would be a fraction of what we 
have seen in reduced demand and increased supply by the Saudis--despite 
all of that, the majority leader said yes, you can have a vote on it, 
and they couldn't take yes for an answer.
  So if we are going to avert a disaster this winter, it is time for 
our Republican colleagues to say yes. LIHEAP is a program we have to 
help the most vulnerable people in this country stay warm in the 
winter, and for far too long this essential program has been 
underfunded. Due to this insufficient funding, the average LIHEAP grant 
only pays for 18 percent of the total cost of heating a home with 
heating oil in the winter, 21 percent of residential propane costs, 41 
percent of natural gas costs, and 43 percent of our electricity costs. 
It is only expected to get worse because this is what it covers in 
terms of what it has covered. As prices rise for oil and gas and other 
related products, the reality is that it will cover less and less of a 
percentage of the costs necessary to be able to keep families warm.
  In this poor economy, with a crashing housing market, banks reporting 
record losses, joblessness creeping up, and the specter of inflation 
looming, too many people simply cannot make up the difference out of 
their own pockets. With home heating oil now at $4.50 a gallon, if we 
don't pass this bill, we can face potential tragedy of an unimaginable 
scale this winter.
  These are individuals who work every day, work at some of the 
toughest jobs in America, important to us collectively in our economy 
and in our society, yet they struggle to make ends meet. They are not 
sitting at home depending upon the public largesse; they work hard 
every day. Many of them are working two jobs just to try to make ends 
meet. But they cannot heat their homes this winter without some help.
  What does it say to us about our values as a nation? I know the 
Capitol will be warm. I know the leadership offices here have 
fireplaces that will be blazing away. No one is going to go cold in

[[Page S7473]]

the Senate. The question before the Senate tomorrow will be, Will we 
let Americans in this country go cold and have to choose between being 
able to heat their homes or put food on the table? Will those who have 
worked a lifetime to help build families and communities and now find 
themselves on fixed incomes be told: Oh, sorry, you can freeze. These 
are not dramatic spectacles of something that will not happen; these 
are the realities of the challenges if we do not act.
  So we ask our colleagues, especially those on the other side, to join 
us in averting this looming disaster and to vote for the Warm in Winter 
and Cool in Summer Act. It is finally time to say yes to help those who 
are struggling the most in this economy.


                                 Energy

  Finally, I wish to turn to a third item. We talked about the housing 
bill so critical to our collective economy and to millions of families 
who need heat and who are in the process of losing their homes or who 
are on the verge of that challenge. We talked about the need to keep 
people in their homes, those who have struggled to not have to be in a 
foreclosure but still cannot meet the challenges of heating their homes 
for their families this winter, and what we need to do.
  Finally, I wish to talk about, once again, the question of energy, 
the question of gas prices and what we can do.
  We as Democrats have been working at this for some time. We want to 
increase domestic production of the oil supply now--not more than a 
decade from now, not in the year 2030 from now. That won't do anything 
to give anybody relief at the pump tomorrow.
  It is time to put the American people ahead of the big oil companies; 
that is the bottom line. They have record profits. We saw that parade 
start this week with ConocoPhillips, with record profits in their 
quarter. I cannot wait to see the next set of record profits we are 
going to hear from the other oil companies.
  Yet all we hear from many of our colleagues is that we need to give 
them more--more Federal money, more Federal land, and more of every 
break. They are responsible for nothing, and they are the only entity 
that can solve our energy future.
  It is such a shame because that is what you overwhelmingly hear. We 
believe it is time to put the American people ahead of big oil. We can 
fast-track domestic production. We have 68 million acres that, in fact, 
are already on lease, doubling the lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico, 
accelerating leases in Alaska--where all of the infrastructure is, to a 
large degree, already. When we talk about drilling off the east and 
west coasts, there isn't any drilling infrastructure there. The 
president of the American Petroleum Institute said we don't have the 
infrastructure, the drilling rigs, the pipelines, the tanker ports that 
are all necessary to do that. So we are talking about a very long time, 
and people need relief in the short term.
  That is why we have said a couple of things. One, let's end excessive 
speculation. People sometimes wonder, what does that mean? It means we 
have traders buying huge quantities of oil online, intentionally 
inflating prices. They turn it around and sell it to other traders at 
even higher prices. These traders never intend to use the oil. It is 
not that they are going to end up selling it to an entity that will 
actually disperse that oil. The purpose is to bid up the price and cash 
in. The problem with that deal is it might be good for the traders and 
speculators, but it is terrible news for families who have to pay at 
the pump.
  What is it, in fact, that those who say speculation is not that 
important don't get about this issue? Yesterday we saw that the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission--the regulatory agency responsible 
to make sure this area of the marketplace is appropriately regulated--
accused a company of making a million dollars in illegal profits over 
the course of 11 days. How did they do it? Well, in audio tapes 
uncovered in the investigation, the regulators said one of the 
defendants described the scheme as an effort to ``bully the market'' by 
making a large number of trades at or near the end of the trading day 
to move closing prices. Moreover, unlike many other manipulation cases, 
this one accuses the defendant of actually succeeding in moving prices 
that were used as benchmarks for consumer markets--a remarkable claim. 
So, in essence, they are saying they did bully the market and they did 
manipulate the market. They made a million dollars in 11 days.
  But the worst part of it is it resulted in higher prices during a 
period of time for gasoline and crude oil. Guess who paid for that. The 
consumers of this country. Notwithstanding even this latest evidence, 
our friends on the other side have said no to us on pursuing ending 
market speculation, having more transparency in the marketplace, and 
having the regulators pursue a course that will ensure what oil company 
executives testifying before Congress have said--that speculation can 
account for up to $50 per barrel of oil. Well, I would like to take 
that $50 out of the cost of oil and end the speculation and the type of 
manipulative trading that is going on that yesterday the CFTC accused a 
company of performing, and succeeding at increasing oil and gasoline 
prices. That is what we have before the Senate. But our Republican 
colleagues said no.
  We also believe that releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve is incredibly important. This is a huge reserve we have 
underground. We buy oil as a country collectively, for all of the 
taxpayers, and we put it underground. What is the problem? It is a good 
idea except that we have 97 percent of it filled. We have an excess of 
a certain type of oil. We are even told by the Congressional Budget 
Office if we swapped that out and sold a significant element of that, 
we could do various things. No. 1, taxpayers would make money on it. 
No. 2, we could bring that oil on the marketplace to help burst the 
speculative bubble and try to bring down gas prices. No. 3, we would 
change the type of oil we have for a different quantity that we need of 
a different type of oil. So on all counts it would be good. Yet we 
cannot seem to get that done.
  Finally, we have tried to pursue several times on the Senate floor 
renewing the tax credits that are critical for us to get out of this 
dilemma, not just in the short term but in the long term. We consume 25 
percent of all of the world's oil. So even if we opened all of our 
coasts and everything to drilling, we are not going to create more than 
2 or 3 percent of the world's oil. Bottom line: We are always going to 
be, if we continue down this road, in a deficit. We are always going to 
be more of a consumer than a producer. That means to me that, for our 
economy, our security, and our environment we need to break this 
addiction to oil, whether it be foreign or domestic, and be able to 
seek renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, biomass, and 
cellulosic ethanol.
  Even T. Boone Pickens, the gentleman who made a fortune in oil, is on 
TV telling us all that we cannot drill our way into the type of energy 
independence we need. The bottom line is the renewable energy tax 
credits are what, in my mind, is the most critical element to get these 
different renewable energy sources into the commercialized aspect, with 
the tax credits necessary to bring them to scale, so we can break our 
addiction. Yet we continue to hear no.
  It is past time to pursue a strategy of having legislative failure as 
a way toward political victory. It is fundamentally wrong to have a 
strategy of saying no so this body cannot move forward on the critical 
issues Americans face, so that then you can blame the majority party in 
this body, even though the rules permit the minority to stop the 
majority from moving forward, and most Americans have been taught there 
is the fundamental lesson of majority rule. In the Senate, because of 
its procedures, when a single minority Member, or a group of minority 
Members, don't want to allow us to move forward, they threaten 
filibusters and/or invoke them, and 60 votes are needed. Since the 
majority has only 51 votes here of Democrats, we need Republicans to 
join us. When they fail to do that, the Nation's business doesn't move 
forward. That is a great strategy for a political exercise, if you 
think that exercise is going to bring you victory in November, by 
saying this body in the Congress cannot proceed on the critical issues 
that face Americans, but it is a horrid exercise as it relates to the 
Nation's major challenges.

  Fortunately, we have been able to break through this several times. 
We say we want to protect and honor the

[[Page S7474]]

men and women who serve the country in uniform. It was because of 
Democrats leading, with Senators Webb, Lautenberg, and others to move 
that GI bill. Even though the President said: No way, too expensive, 
and it is a fraction of the cost of 1 month in Iraq, he said he was 
going to veto it. We said: No way, we are going to honor the men and 
women who honor the uniform and take care of them when they come back. 
That is how a grateful nation honors those who serve. Because of our 
persistence and communicating with the American people, today he signed 
into law the greatest GI bill investment since the first one--a major 
accomplishment.
  Tomorrow we will pass this housing bill over the objections of the 
President, who said, ``I am not going to sign it''--a major commitment 
to our economy, to restoring the American dream in terms of home 
ownership, and making sure we move in a different direction. It is time 
to say yes to the American people, and stop filibustering. It is time 
to stop using the powers of the minority in an abusive way. I respect 
the powers of the minority, but not to be used in an abusive way that 
undermines the fundamental principle of majority rule.
  The people of the United States elected a new majority a year and a 
half ago to move the country in a different direction. The fact that 
the minority wants to simply show that, in fact, the Congress cannot 
move in that direction as a tool of political expediency and a tool of 
political success is totally inappropriate and, most important, 
damaging to the Nation's interest. I hope that starting tomorrow, when 
we consider the critical issues on housing and LIHEAP, to keep people 
in their homes, and to warm those homes, we can move forward in a way 
that speaks to the true values of our Nation and the integrity of this 
institution.
  With that, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________