HOME Act

I also want to say a few words on climate change and the issue of global warming. Let me begin by quoting from an op-ed that appeared in the Burlington Free Press, my hometown newspaper, on October 7, by Bill McKibben, well known as one of the most savvy and best known environmental writers in the world. He happens to teach at Middlebury College. He said:

It's not Democrats negotiating with Republicans or

environmentalists negotiating with business interests. It's

human beings negotiating with chemistry and physics, and

chemistry and physics don't really do much in the way of

bargaining. Science has told us what we need to do: cut

carbon emissions quickly in the next few years, and keep that

pressure on til we've trimmed our emissions at least 80

percent by midcentury. No loopholes for vested interests, no

hard-to-quantify offset schemes, no giveaways to the

utilities. Just a commitment to stop vetoing the laws of

nature. That commitment has got to come soon . . .

The point that Bill McKibben and many other scientists and environmentalists have made is, we are up against very serious laws of physics. That is what we are dealing with. It is not what I say or what anybody else says. It is whether we are going to get a handle on global warming. Because if we don't, this planet is going to suffer severe and irreparable damage.

I begin my remarks by thanking Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner for their hard work in putting together America's Climate Security Act. As a member of that same subcommittee, I look forward to playing an active role in strengthening that legislation. I look forward to working with them on this issue.

I also take this opportunity to thank the 18 cosponsors of the legislation Senator Boxer and I introduced in January of this year, S. 309. Those are Senators Akaka, Biden, Cardin, Casey, Clinton, Dodd, Durbin, Feingold, Inouye, Kennedy, Klobuchar, Lautenberg, Leahy, Menendez, Mikulski, Obama, Reed, and Whitehouse.

This legislation, S. 309, tackles global warming as best we could based on the science. To be more specific, this bill is based on the desire to limit the global increase in temperature to no more than 2 degrees Celsius, and to meet this goal science tells us we must stabilize global CO2 concentrations at no higher a level than 450 parts per million. This level only provides us, the scientists say, with a 50/50 chance of keeping the worst from happening. These odds are not great. It is a gamble. If we were cautious and conservative about these things, we would err on the side of safety and keep the pollution down lower than this level in order to protect the one and only world that we have.

I thank all of the cosponsors of the legislation that Senator Boxer and I introduced for standing with science. We should also be clear about one other thing. This is a very important point. What the scientists are now telling us is, in terms of their projections, in terms of their analyses, they have been too conservative. What they are now telling us is the problem of global warming and the rapidity of the global warming changes is more severe than they had previously anticipated. In other words, we have to be even more aggressive, not less aggressive, in addressing this major planetary crisis.

It may well be that the legislation Senator Boxer and I introduced is too conservative, but it is for sure that we should be going forward and not backward.

Let me take this opportunity to quote from some of the major environmental organizations in terms of what they are saying about the legislation introduced today by Senators Lieberman and Warner. I think it is best that I read from them rather than giving my views at this particular point.

This is what the U.S. Public Interest Research Group says:

We applaud Senators Lieberman and Warner for their

leadership on global warming. Time is running out to stop the

worst effects of global warming, and this bill is an

important starting point for action.

U.S. PIRG then goes on to say:

To rise to the challenge of global warming, this new bill

must be strengthened. Three changes are essential:

(1) The bill must achieve faster and deeper cuts in

pollution, which is what the science demands. The pollution

caps in the bill aim to reduce total U.S. global warming

emissions by about 11 percent by 2020 and by just over 50

percent by 2050.

Additional, modest reductions may be achieved through other

policies in the bill, but those reductions are difficult to

quantify and are not guaranteed. According to the current

science, the United States must reduce its total global

warming emissions by at least 15% by 2020 and by at least 80%

by 2050. In addition, periodic reviews of the bill's

scientific adequacy must trigger additional pollution-

reduction requirements.

(2) Flexibility mechanisms in the bill must be tightened to

prevent undermining the goals of the bill. The bill currently

allows companies to exceed their pollution limits by paying

sources not covered by the program to reduce emissions.

Ensuring that a ton of pollution from such ``offsets'' equals

a ton of real reductions is a major challenge. In addition,

offsets delay the transition to cleaner technology that will

be needed to achieve deep future cuts in emissions. Under the

bill, a company could theoretically meet its entire 2020

pollution-reduction requirement through offsets. The number

of offset reductions allowed under the bill must be

significantly lowered.

(3) Polluters must be required to pay for every ton of

pollution they put into the atmosphere. The bill gives

hundreds of billions of dollars to polluters for free, which

will create windfall profits, such as has occurred in Europe,

and take vital resources away from easing America's

transition to a clean energy future. In the United Kingdom

alone, windfall profits from emission trading have been

estimated at nearly $2 billion. These profits come directly

from the pocketbooks of consumers. Under this bill, just

under half (49%) of the pollution permits would initially be

given to polluters for free, and it will take 25 years (until

2036) before we stop handing polluters free money.

That is what U.S. PIRG had to say.

Let me go to another group, an even better known environmental group, and that is the Sierra Club. Let me tell you what they said today in their press statement. I quote from the Sierra Club:

The bill is a significant political step forward for the

U.S. Congress, but unfortunately the legislation as

introduced still

falls short from what is demanded by the science and the

public to meet the challenge of global warming. This comes

even as U.S. states, cities, and counties move forward with

ambitious, science-based proposals to tackle the issue. We

look forward to working with Senators to seek the additional

improvements necessary for the bill to sufficiently address

the challenge before us.

I continue to quote from the Sierra Club:

At this crucial moment, we must continue to insist on a

global warming bill that is committed to scientific integrity

and economic fairness. In order to prevent the most

catastrophic effects of global warming, we must cut emissions

80 percent by 2050--an achievable annual reduction of about 2

percent. In order to get the market moving and bring

America's clean energy future to life, any bill must start

out strong by seeking a short-term reduction on the order of

20 percent of total emissions by 2020. Disturbances to the

climate have come more quickly and forcefully than even the

most pessimistic among us predicted. The Lieberman-Warner

bill, as introduced, leaves us in serious danger of reaching

the tipping points that scientists tell us could lead to

catastrophic changes to the climate.

Continuing to quote from the Sierra Club statement of today:

While the bill has moved in the right direction, it gives

too many free allowances to polluters for far too long--

enriching executives and shareholders instead of generating

the funds needed to help us meet our emissions goals and

ensure a smooth transition to the clean energy economy.

That is some of the statement from the Sierra Club.

Let me now quote from another organization, an organization of physicians. It is called Physicians for Social Responsibility, a well- known group. They have also issued a statement today. Let me quote from the statement of the Physicians for Social Responsibility:

Physicians for Social Responsibility appreciates the

efforts of Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner to craft

legislation to address global warming but calls on the Senate

Environment and Public Works Committee to make necessary

improvements before passing the bill.

It continues:

The reality of global warming is becoming more apparent

every day, and the science is clear as to what action we need

to take. In order to prevent this world-wide disaster, we

must stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse

gases. And, the U.S. must meet the challenge of starting now

and reaching a goal of 80 percent reductions below a 2000

baseline. Unfortunately, the bill drafted by Senators

Lieberman and Warner will not meet that goal.

Let me continue quoting from the Physicians for Social Responsibility, who, of course, are physicians. This is what they say, providing an interesting analogy:

Physicians for Social Responsibility's approach to this

[global warming] is similar to the manner in which a

physician treats a patient: what are the symptoms, what are

the causes and how do we treat the disease? We would not

prescribe half of the needed medication to a patient, and we

cannot support a bill that does not fully address the causes

of global warming. To protect human health and reverse global

warming, we need to begin aggressive treatment right away.

That is Physicians for Social Responsibility.

I could sit here and quote from many other press statements or talk to my colleagues about the science, but I will not do that. This is what I want to say: If we are concerned about the future of this planet--I know every Member here is--and the lives and well-being of our kids and our grandchildren, not only in this country but all over the world, we are going to have to rise up to this issue.

It is not just a bargain here and a bargain there. Because you can have all the bargaining you want, and all the nonpartisanship you want, and yet this planet will face catastrophic damage unless we deal with the reality of the science. It is not whether we are nice guys or bad guys. This is what we are facing. We are facing science. What the scientists are telling us is their projections were too conservative. The problem is more severe than they had anticipated.

I note my friend and colleague, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, made a very important point that others have made, which is, as we deal with the issue of global warming, let us not forget about the workers who are impacted, the consumers who are impacted. Certainly and absolutely we must do that. One of the bright aspects, the positive aspects about this whole discussion of global warming is if we get our act together-- if, for example, we begin the process of breaking our dependency on the automobile and expand our rail system; if, in fact, we produce cars that get the kind of mileage we know Detroit can produce--we can grow jobs in the transportation area, not see them shrink.

If we begin to move intelligently toward energy efficiency, if we retrofit our homes and our offices and our schools, we can create huge numbers of good-paying jobs through the installation and the production of the products we need to make this Nation much more energy efficient. It is all sitting there waiting to happen. If we have the courage to move away from fossil fuel, to move to solar energy, to move to wind, to move to other forms of sustainable energy, we can create millions of good-paying jobs.

I would mention to my colleagues that right now out on the Mall--I was there last evening--there is a wonderful display of solar homes put together by the Solar Decathlon. We have universities from all over the United States of America, and from Europe as well, showing us what we can do today in making energy-efficient homes and utilizing the potential of solar energy. California is making progress. Germany is making progress. We are not moving anywhere near the degree to where we should be moving.

Think about the jobs we create when 10 million homes in America have photovoltaic units on their rooftops. Think of the energy we produce through solar plants in the South and the West and the Southwest of this country. Think about what it means when we have small wind turbines all over rural America. It is not only moving away from fossil fuels, which are destroying the planet, not only moving to clean energy, it is creating millions of good-paying jobs.

We know how to do this. We know how to do it. The technology is there today. It will only get better. Our country has to start investing in these technologies. We can create the jobs. We can reverse global warming.

I conclude by saying this: I applaud Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner. I hope we can work together. But I think we have a distance to go to make that legislation better, stronger, more consistent with the science that is out there. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to do that.

Mr. President, I rise to add my voice to the important floor debate that has just occurred with respect to FHA reform and the subprime crisis.

Mr. President, this subprime crisis is one that is affecting folks all across the country, including my State of Minnesota. This isn't just a one-State issue or a regional issue, this is a national issue. This is a serious problem for States from Minnesota to Ohio to Florida to Nevada. And when you look at the current foreclosure numbers and the mortgage reset projections for the next 2 years, it is clear that the problem is not just short term but also one that will become worse in terms of the additional number of homeowners who will be affected.

Mr. President, when you consider my State of Minnesota, it may come as a surprise to some to learn that while Minnesota has consistently ranked as a leader in homeownership, Minnesota also unfortunately ranks up there in terms of the subprime crisis. For the third quarter, Minnesota ranks third in the Nation in terms of subprime mortgages in foreclosure. In this year alone, foreclosures are expected to increase by 84 percent to 20,573.

In the State, the subprime crisis isn't just affecting folks in the Twin Cities. This is affecting people in the suburbs and in greater Minnesota. Just the other day, the Star Tribune ran a story, ``Mortgage Foreclosures Ripple into Rural Minnesota,'' about how rural Minnesotans are being hit by the subprime crisis.

Behind all the terrible numbers are people like Ms. Shoua Yang, who spoke at last month's housing town hall forum I hosted in Minneapolis. Ms Yang spoke about how her mortgage payment has gone through the roof, from $800 to $1,300 per month, because her adjustable rate mortgage has reset. Now she and her three children are close to losing the roof over their heads.

But it isn't just homeowners with adjustable rate mortgages who are suffering.

It is renters, whose homes have been foreclosed through no fault of their own. It is construction workers--Minnesota has now lost nearly 7,000 construction jobs over the year.

One of those families who has been directly impacted by the housing downturn is the Buchite family of Zimmerman, MN. At last month's town hall forum, Audrey Buchite heart-breakingly spoke of how the loss of her husband's job as a house framer has left the family in dire financial straits, even though they have a fixed, 30-year mortgage. In order to make ends meet, they have dropped their health insurance and their college-bound daughter has decided to help with the family finances instead of going to college.

And it is also folks in the timber industry. I was recently up in Aitkin in northern Minnesota, timber country, as part of my tour of all 87 Minnesota counties this year.

While I was up there, loggers were telling me how the housing downturn is hurting their business by depressing softwood lumber prices.

Mr. President, as a former mayor, I strongly, believe that home ownership brings about a boat load of social good. So it goes without saying that if home ownership does so much good, anything that threatens this social good threatens the whole community, not to mention the economy at large.

And so, Mr. President, with the worst still ahead of us, I approach this crisis with a sense of urgency and commitment to helping at-risk and distressed homeowners in a fair and responsible way.

To that end I am pleased that we just passed FHA reform legislation to enlist the Federal Housing Administration in efforts to stem the surge in housing foreclosures and also prevent buyers from resorting to risky mortgages they may not be able to afford. This is an important step in addressing the subprime crisis--the legislation will increase FHA single-family loan limits across the board, at both the high and low ends and will help people refinance into safer mortgages.

I am also pleased that the administration has rightly helped to bring industry together to come to terms on a voluntary, market-driven mortgage relief plan.

Some would argue that the relief plan amounts to a bailout; that it violates free-market principles; that it merely kicks the can down the road. And others claim that it doesn't go far enough.

Well, the way I see it, mortgage servicers and investors have a collective self-interest in preventing mass foreclosures from happening. No one wins in a foreclosure.

Under the plan, as many as 1.2 million folks can be helped either by refinancing their mortgage or having their interest rates frozen for 5 years, which for many should give them the time needed to keep their homes. To put this in context, 1.8 million subprime mortgages will reset in 2008 and 2009.

It is important to also have the big picture in mind. If mass foreclosures happen, it isn't just the homeowner who has lost his or her house who is affected, but also the surrounding homeowners whose property values may decline, not to mention the impact on our communities. The key is to help folks who can be responsibly helped to keep their homes.

So the way I see it, the administration's mortgage relief plan is an important, responsible step towards preventing what could be a foreclosure catastrophe.

In no way however, is the administration's plan the entire solution. There is no one single solution. Rather it will require a comprehensive set of solutions including: the just passed FHA reform bill; making mortgage debt forgiveness tax free; allowing middle-income homeowners penalty-free access to their retirement savings in order to save their homes from foreclosure, as I propose through the HOME Act, the Home Ownership Mortgage Emergency Act S. 2201. This legislation is modeled after the Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of 2005; and providing temporary, middle-class mortgage bankruptcy relie as proposed by Senator Specter's ``Home Owners Mortgage and Equity Savings Act,'' HOMES Act, of which I am a cosponsor.

We also clearly need better consumer safeguards, and to that end I am encouraged the Federal Reserve is planning to issue new rules relating to unfair or deceptive mortgage lending practices and mortgage disclosures.

But as we work to address the subprime crisis, we need to be careful that we do not unintentionally do harm with policies that could restrict mortgage credit to future home buyers. We have to be mindful of the unintended consequences of the policies we pursue.

I am just concerned that we could very well end up 5 years from now wondering why mortgage credit is not readily available to first-time home buyers.

Mr. President, I want to take some time now to speak to one aspect of the

fallout from the subprime crisis which is near and dear to my heart as a former mayor, and that is the collateral damage that is being inflicted upon communities by the subprime crisis.

The on-the-ground reality is that the subprime crisis is setting off a terrible chain reaction in our communities that, if not mitigated, has the potential to affect communities' standard of living for years to come.

According to Mayor Tim Howe of Coon Rapids, a suburban community just north of Minneapolis, one of the greatest effects of the subprime crisis has been the vandalism of foreclosed homes and associated petty crime in the hard-hit neighborhoods. To give you a sense of how quickly a foreclosed home can become the target of crime and a problem for communities, consider that in Cleveland a home is looted and vandalized in just 3 days. I am sure this is a similar story for communities all across the country.

I believe in the broken windows theory that it takes just one small act of crime to set in motion bigger troubles down the road. So the sooner we address the small problems, the better off we are.

For some communities in particular, the subprime crisis also has the potential to reverse years of hard-won economic and community revitalization progress, and in no time at all. As mayor, CDBG grants helped fund the Main Street Program helped to revitalize St. Paul, creating thousands of jobs and bringing people back to the city. However, the current mortgage crisis threatens to undo this very progress.

Another aspect of the subprime crisis is how renters, usually of modest means, are finding themselves without a home due to foreclosure. These are just one of the unintended victims of the subprime crisis.

So in an effort to enable communities to better deal with the impact of the subprime crisis, I introduced this week with Senator Leahy the Community Foreclosure Assistance Act, S. 2455, which would provide emergency community development block grant funding.

From the housing town hall forum to my conversations with community leaders, I have been told this funding will provide critical support to communities ranging from renter assistance to mortgage counseling to dealing with abandoned, boarded-up homes. Due to the unique flexibility of CDBG, communities will able to respond as they need do and quickly.

CDBG is a program that has served our communities well overall, and in particular, during extraordinary economic distress. We turned to CDBG to provide $16.7 billion in response to Hurricane Katrina and $2.7 billion to New York following 9/11. Back home, Minnesota was helped by CDBG following the terrible 1997 Red River flood.

In a situation like this we cannot be penny-wise and pound-foolish. Bottomline, this funding can help limit the terrible chain reaction that can be set off by a foreclosure. For if we do not reach out and help communities in trouble today, the cost to communities will be far greater and far more expensive to deal with in the future.

And so, Mr. President, as I have led the bipartisan fight against CDBG cuts in past years, I will fight to provide this emergency funding as a tool to help communities manage the mortgage crisis. Just because a foreclosure happens does not mean the entire community needs to suffer. That is the intent of this proposal.

Mr. President I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter of support from the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, National Community Development Association, National Association for County Community and Economic Development, and the National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies, and letters of support from the Minnesota Association of Counties, the League of Minnesota Cities, and Mayor Mark Voxland of Moorhead, and an article from the Star Tribune.

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

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chair of our Environment Committee. I thank her for her very kind and informed remarks, but, more broadly, I thank her for the steadfast encouragement she has given to Senator Warner and me and for her principled, passionate, and very effective leadership. She understands that global warming is real and wants to use the chairmanship she has now to see that we, together, fashion a solution to this very real problem. I thank her.

I hope and believe myself that she is right--that we will look back on this day, as we stand here together across party lines to introduce this legislation, as the beginning of something very significant that finally happened. I have said before, and I will say it again, at this moment, I feel as if we had been in a race between tipping points. The challenge would be that we get to the political tipping point where we could come together and do something about global warming before we reach the environmental tipping point, after which it would be harder to avoid the worst consequences of global warming.

I think today we have begun to reach that political tipping point, and there is no one who is more responsible for that than the senior Senator from Virginia, my dear friend, John Warner. His partnership with me on this and his commitment to get this done have made all the difference.

I am pleased to stand with my friend from Virginia to announce today the introduction of the America's Climate Security Act. I am proud to also say that we have five original cosponsors--Senators Cardin, Coleman, Collins, Dole, and Harkin. The doors are wide open for additional cosponsors as this day and the days after go on.

This day comes after several months of work with Senator Warner, with our staffs, with stakeholders, environmentalists, business community people, and numerous hearings before the Environment and Public Works Committee.

This legislation, S. 2191, America's Climate Security Act, is the result of all that work. It is a pleasure now to yield to the aforementioned great Senator from Virginia, John Warner.

Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma is correct.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee, and I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. Obviously, we are going to have a spirited debate on this subject.

What I want to say is the pleasure I have in having announced the seven original cosponsors. As Senator Inhofe indicated, I had partnered with Senator McCain on an earlier version of a climate change bill. We brought it before the Senate twice. It failed twice.

To me, the most remarkable and specific fact today that gives me encouragement is of the seven original cosponsors--that is, Senator Warner and I and the five others who have just come forward without us reaching out to them--four of those seven voted against one or both of the iterations of the McCain-Lieberman bill. So this issue is moving in the right direction. It is moving in the right direction because we have answered in this bill some of the questions and concerns that Senator Inhofe expressed about the economic consequences.

First, I wish to say America's Climate Security Act is for real. It achieves necessary emissions by putting a cap on America's greenhouse gas emissions over electric power, transportation, and manufacturing sources that account for 75 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and by strengthening energy efficiency standards for appliances and buildings.

I note the presence on the floor of our colleague from Tennessee, Senator Alexander. I know this was of particular interest to him. He made a significant contribution to this bill in that regard.

Now, what does this achieve? It does what we have to do. It doesn't do everything everybody wants to do. I have already heard from some who have said it doesn't go far enough. But let me set up this standard: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group of more than 2,000 scientists from around the world who just shared the Nobel Prize with our former colleague Al Gore, has said the goal should be to keep the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere below 500 parts per million, because that will avoid what they describe as the high risk of severe global warming impacts here in the United States, which obviously has to be our first concern, but also around the world.

I am pleased to say that if you take the Environmental Protection Agency's analysis of the McCain-Lieberman bill and apply it to this bill that Senator Warner and I are introducing, you will find the concentration of greenhouse gases will be well below that danger level of 500 parts per million by the end of the century.

Secondly, Senator Warner and I are as committed to promoting and sustaining American prosperity as we are to protecting America's environment and the global environment from the danger of climate change. Senator Inhofe made an interesting point. This is different from McCain-Lieberman, which had big jumps, or I should say big drops in greenhouse gas emissions. We create a steady glidepath down, and that is going to be easier for the sources of emissions to deal with.

Yes, we set a good solid goal in 2020 to make it clear that this is real, a 20-percent reduction, bringing us back down to where the 1990 levels were. So it is real, but it moves slowly. And in this cap-and- trade system, with the auctioning of credits and the opportunity to subsidize some and provide free credits to other businesses while they are in the transition, we are going to smooth the impact.

We have also created a mechanism--a carbon market efficiency board, very creative--which comes out of work Senator Warner did with Senators Graham, Landrieu, and Lincoln, a kind of Federal Reserve Board for climate change cap and trade, which can step in during times of economic stress to smooth this out so the American economy will continue to grow. And, of course, the basic premise here--cap and trade--is to set the standard: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Make sure you are reducing them.

Others have said: Why don't we pass a carbon tax? Well, I suppose a carbon tax would reduce carbon-emitting fossil fuels, but we don't know that for sure. Look how the demand for gasoline has stayed up even as the price has gone up. So you don't want to tax people without a certainty of result. Mandatory cap and trade guarantees the result: We want to protect our environment, our lives, our health, our wildlife, and our beautiful natural places. It does it in a way that will drive innovation and entrepreneurship. The market this bill creates will do what we in this country have known that markets do best--they get the job done and drive prices down.

I say finally that this legislation includes many provisions that were drafted, suggested and, in fact, in some cases introduced by colleagues in the Senate. This is an incomplete list, but I want to be certain I mention Senators Collins and Alexander, who are on the floor, Senator Coleman--and I will come back to him specifically--Senators Boxer, Lautenberg, Sanders, McCain, Bingaman, Specter, Dole, Harkin, Klobuchar, Carper, Lincoln, Casey, and Baucus.

Senator Coleman particularly has made a contribution to this legislation that responds to a statement Senator Inhofe made. What is the impact this is going to have on average working people in this country--middle income, low income? We are concerned about that, and Senator Coleman has essentially inserted a provision here that we worked on with him that will ensure that low- and middle-income Americans do not bear the brunt of paying for this program.

This bill is a synthesis of an enormous amount of work on the part of many Members of the Senate. Senator Warner and I are deeply grateful for their contributions. Let me say it specifically: We are introducing the legislation today. Our subcommittee is going to have a hearing next week. We are going to do the markup the week after that, the week of October 29. This is an ongoing process.

Our doors, Senator Warner's door and mine, are open. We are putting before the Senate today exactly what he said, a framework, a strong, detailed, politically credible bill that has a real chance of passing, but we are not claiming perfection here, and we welcome the opportunity to work with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. This is not a partisan issue and it certainly is not a partisan problem to fix it before our children and grandchildren suffer from it.

Finally, before I yield back to Senator Warner, I again want to come back to him. John Warner and I have worked together on many matters, mostly regarding America's national security, as I have served under his leadership on the Armed Services Committee. His decision to come to the leadership of this effort to stop the onward movement of climate change has made all the difference. I can't say it any better. It is the tipping point, as far as I am concerned, in this Chamber. I believe he is doing it for the same reason that has motivated him in the other work we have done in the Armed Services Committee. He feels America is threatened by this environmental problem and he wants to be part of the solution to it.

We all know our colleague is retiring, after enormous service to our country, at the end of this session. I think that together we have the opportunity, with his participation, for this to be, in a long life of great service to America both in this Chamber and in service in the military, one of the great acts of service and leadership that John Warner has done for America. I thank him from the bottom of my heart as a dear friend and a wonderful partner in this effort.

I also want to thank his extraordinarily tireless legislative assistant, Chelsea Maxwell, who has worked so well with Dave McIntosh and Joe Goffman on my staff. This is the day of a breakthrough, but it is only a beginning. We have kind of crossed the 50-yard line here, I think, my friend from Virginia, and we have some work to do before we go into the end zone, but with your help, we are going to do it.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor back to my friend from Virginia.

Mr. President, for me, today is one of the most important days in my career because, with the introduction of the Lieberman- Warner bill, today will be remembered, in my view, as the turning point in the fight against global warming. Let me explain why I make that very sweeping statement.

First, this bill represents a bipartisan breakthrough on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. When I took the gavel of the committee 9 months ago, I said that global warming was the challenge of our generation, a challenge that I believed our committee could meet with knowledge, with bipartisanship, and in pursuit of that knowledge we have held 18 global warming hearings and 2 scientific briefings this year in the Environment Committee.

At our very first hearing in January, we invited all Senators to come to the committee and share their perspectives. More than one-third of the Senate took part in that historic event. Since then, we have heard from more than 120 witnesses, ranging from utility executives, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, religious leaders, and Nobel Prize winners. Indeed, yes, we had Al Gore, we had members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and we also heard from business community leaders who have formed the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. We heard from mayors, Governors, and leaders of both parties, from many different States, cities, and counties across America.

Then a wonderful thing happened: Senator John Warner, who is the ranking member on Senator Lieberman's Global Warming Subcommittee, decided it was time that he play a lead role in crafting a landmark environmental law which will take its place beside the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and other great bipartisan environmental legislation.

Senator Warner, this decision of yours is giving heart and hope to literally not only the people of the United States of America but all the people who share our planet. I know in your beautiful State of Virginia how proud they are. We had a hearing with you and with Senators Mikulski and Cardin, and we heard about the impact of global warming already taking place on the Chesapeake. Your Governor was also there. So this is a great moment.

I cannot tell you how touched and moved I am that Senator Warner has joined Senator Lieberman. It is a wonderful moment in history. This, I believe.

We would never leave a child alone in a hot, locked car, and I believe the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will not leave this issue of global warming burning for another generation to address. It is our responsibility, and we must act.

Today, with the introduction of this bill, we are taking the first immensely important legislative step to meet the challenge of global warming with hope and not with fear and with approaches that are carefully thought out and some already successfully tried out, like a cap-and-trade system that has been so successful in addressing acid rain. Also in this bill, which I am very proud of, is a section on energy efficiency, which has been so effective in lowering per capita energy use, costs, and greenhouse gas emissions in my own home State of California.

For the past 50 years, the United States of America has been the world leader in environmental protection. Laws such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and the Superfund Act have achieved so much for our Nation and so much for our people. They have cleaned up our rivers and lakes, improved the quality of our air, and protected our drinking water supplies. Each of those laws--if you go back and study them--became a reality because Congress started on the path that, over time, would lead to enactment of strong legislation. The same is true for what we face today in global warming. We must start on the path to pass strong legislation.

I have been working very closely with Senators Warner and Lieberman as they have assembled their bill, as have many other colleagues. I praise my friends for including so many people, including the occupant of the chair, Senator Casey, who was quite involved in crafting the green jobs portion of the bill. I have been so impressed with the effort they have invested, seeking out the views not only of other Senators but outside groups and business leaders, environmentalists, everybody, pro and con, with whom they have met. They have put great work into this effort. I am proud of that.

In my own conversations with them, I have laid out some important principles that I believe must be reflected in legislation to address this challenge.

First, the most important thing is that any bill has to include real, mandatory cuts in global warming pollution. Any bill we pass must set the Nation on the path to achieving the emissions reductions that will avoid dangerous climate change. Under the Lieberman-Warner bill, we anticipate reaching 1990 emissions levels by 2020. This will send a strong early signal to the marketplace, which is a very important part of getting where we need to go.

The second necessary element is the flexibility to respond to new information because all of us know that daily we face new reports, new scientists telling us new things we didn't know before. So I ask my colleagues if they would include what I call a look-back provision in the bill. The bill must include provisions for continuing to review the science. We want to have our work based on science, and it has to happen at regular intervals. We have to know whether we are doing enough, too much, or if we have to do even more.

Third, we must establish a cap-and-trade program for global warming pollution like the one that worked so well

in curbing acid rain. A cap-and-trade system will put a market price on carbon, driving greater efficiency and new technology, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Fourth, we must protect the pioneering State efforts that are already underway. The States have been leading the way on this issue and doing it in the most bipartisan fashion. In my own State of California, we have seen trailblazing there with a Republican Governor and a Democratic legislature. I believe my State has the gold standard bill. A total of 29 States have completed comprehensive climate action plans, and many have set mandatory reduction targets. We don't want to interfere with their work.

Fifth, it is a moral imperative to do what we can to ease the impacts of global warming--not only on the American consumer but on world populations suffering from drought, floods, and famine. The religious community has worked very closely with all of us on this moral imperative.

Finally, a bill must take into account the actions of countries that are not making progress toward a clean, sustainable energy future and must help level the playing field. Countries that want to export goods into the United States must take steps consistent with our global warming policy or be accountable for their emissions.

All of these elements I have mentioned are included in the Lieberman- Warner bill. Some of us may want to make them stronger, and some of us may want to make them weaker. But here is the important point: We have the framework. Every single issue anyone could raise about global warming has been raised and addressed in this bill, giving us a perfect place to start.

I thank all of my colleagues who have introduced bills to deal with global warming. Each bill has made an important contribution to the debate, and I know each bill has helped Senators Warner and Lieberman craft an excellent piece of legislation. We have this framework. We can build on it; it embodies all of the key concepts. The bipartisan progress on the bill is a reflection of how far we have come and brings us that much closer to the day we will have comprehensive legislation to deal with this great challenge of our generation.

It is with great pride that I yield the floor to Senator Joe Lieberman.

Yes.

Yes, I am with you.

Mr. President, I will take 1 minute. As I said to Senator Lieberman, before Senator Inhofe and I go to a hearing we are having in the Environment and Public Works Committee, I thank my colleagues for participating in this conversation. Senator Inhofe is right. This is a very important moment in time. The cost of doing nothing, according to the leading economist on this topic in the world, Nicholas Stern, is five times what the cost will be to address this issue now. So let's be wise about what we do.

The second point is, I am looking forward to Senator Inhofe's 2 hours on the Senate floor. I really am. Mr. President, I say to Senator Inhofe, I am giving him a compliment.

I said, I am looking forward to hearing Senator Inhofe for 2 hours on the Senate floor, and I hope he will stay for my 2 hours when he is done. I will, in fact, do that because many of the points Senator Inhofe makes--it is cherry-picking information.

I think it is very important that we have this debate. In many ways, it is good we are chairman and ranking member--and the last time it was the opposite--because I do think certainly the Senate gets the benefit of the broad viewpoint on this subject of global warming.

I yield the time back to Senator Lieberman.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Connecticut and esteemed colleague from Virginia for their work on this critical issue of climate change. We spend a lot of time in this debate talking about large numbers: the number of species that could be lost, the millions of metric tons of CO2, the billions of dollars at stake for our economy if mitigated incorrectly. But it is smaller numbers I am most concerned about--hundreds of dollars. That is what the annual burden could be for a household making around $15,000 a year should we attempt to transform our energy supply without holding struggling families harmless. One elderly woman waiting at a bus stop in Minneapolis-St. Paul, when it gets to be about minus 15, minus 20, sometimes minus 25, who is on a fixed income, who can't find money for her other needs if energy rates go up--this is the price paid if we do not address climate change responsibly; the young daughter who hopes her dad can keep his job mining taconite up on the Iron Range in northern Minnesota. This is the family we must protect if China decides it won't take responsibility for its emissions. It is the numbers our neighbors count that raise the most critical issues in the climate change debate, the little things that end up becoming the big things.

That is why, when I signed on to Senator Lieberman's Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act several months ago, we came to the floor together and signed our names to a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that stated that any comprehensive, mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reduction program enacted by Congress must also take care of low-income Americans, who will see their energy costs rise, prevent U.S. workers from being undercut by foreign industries that produce goods in countries without comparable greenhouse gas reduction programs, and incentivize the production of clean energy technologies so that Americans can create more green jobs at home while diversifying our energy supply.

Senators Lieberman and Warner have listened to my concerns over the last few months as they have worked to craft this legislation. This bill is hard evidence that they took those concerns to heart and that they too care about the small numbers that affect our fellow Americans the most.

There are several provisions I am particularly proud of in America's Climate Security Act, including provisions to provide an estimated $275 billion for low- and middle-income families to help hold them harmless against increased energy costs, including additional funding for critical programs such as LIHEAP and the Weatherization Assistance Program--programs that the Senator from Maine, who is on the floor, championed, because we know how important they are for those, the least amongst us, who are impacted so greatly by energy costs.

This bill includes $30 billion through 2030 for job training for new clean energy jobs that provide new employment opportunities in the new green economy. It authorizes the President to require importers of greenhouse-gas-intensive manufactured products credits if their home countries have not taken comparable action. It incentivizes clean energy technology by investing an estimated $400 billion through 2030 in zero and low carbon technologies, to accelerate our transition to a clean energy future.

This bill does not just take care of the environment; it takes care of our children. It is a major step forward in addressing global climate change in a manner that brings the Senate together. This is, a tremendous bipartisan coalition. Some folks were not on this side a while ago, but understand the problem is real and the path we are taking is a responsible path.

I am proud to cosponsor this bill. I thank both Senators for their hard work and determination. They have proven they are committed to action. I am proud to stand by their side.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Home Ownership Mortgage Emergency Act, HOME Act, my good friend Senator Martinez.

This bill seeks to provide a measure of relief to those homeowners who are having troubles meeting their mortgage payments and as a result are facing the prospect of having their homes foreclosed.

As a former Mayor, I know the value and importance homeownership has on our communities. Housing is after all one of the foundational assets of our society. Policies encouraging homeownership is a good thing, not just for our communities but also for first-time homebuyers who through homeownership can be a part of the ownership society.

Over the years, we made great progress as the homeownership rate has increased from 64 percent in 1994 to 69 percent in 2006. That is why I am very troubled by the significant increase in the number of foreclosures that have occurred already and the projections of worse to come, as a record number of adjustable rate mortgages are due to reset in the months ahead, putting an increasing number of homeowners at serious risk of losing their homes. According to one estimate, $515 billion in adjustable rate mortgages are due to reset this year and $680 billion next year.

To underscore the seriousness of the situation, Mr. President, just consider these sobering figures. My State ranks 4th in the Nation in terms of the percentage of subprime mortgages in foreclosures, and currently 17 percent of subprime adjustable rate mortgages are past due. More generally, the number of foreclosures has increased 183 percent in the last year. Nationally, foreclosures have almost doubled in the last year, and more than 14.5 percent of subprime mortgages are past due.

While there is no one single solution to the housing crisis, there are a number of reasonable, measured efforts we can undertake that can help folks stay in their homes in these difficult times. To that end, I am introducing the HOME Act, which would allow low-to-middle income homeowners penalty-free access to their retirement savings and allow tax free distributions from their retirement savings so as long as the withdrawals are paid back to the retirement accounts.

More specifically, my bill would allow homeowners who are 60 days late in their mortgage payments to withdraw penalty-free up to $100,000 through 2009 to be used to refinance into an affordable mortgage or avoid foreclosure. Except for very limited cases, a 10 percent penalty is applied to early retirement distributions. As the tax code currently waives this penalty for distributions from Individual Retirement Accounts for first-time home purchases, I think it is only fair that we waive this penalty for those who want to keep their homes.

Bottom-line, this bill is about helping homeowners help themselves. While the 10 percent penalty is well-intentioned in that we want people to avoid using their retirement savings during their working years, times like these require us to recognize that sometimes such rules can be counterproductive. Both on a homeowner level and on a community level, I believe that it makes sense to enable those, who can, to keep their homes. Ultimately it is up to the homeowner to

decide whether it makes financial sense to turn to their retirement savings to keep their homes. At the very least however, for those who do decide to do so, we should not penalize them for trying to keep a roof over their heads and wanting to remain a part of the community they have called home.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure as we seek to help out homeowners in trouble.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.