A bill to provide a temporary increase in the maximum loan guaranty amount for certain housing loans guaranteed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Mr. President, later this afternoon the Senate will be voting on two measures. One is the housing bill. We have been working on it for months. The object behind this bill is to find some relief for the thousands of people who will lose their homes today and every day.

About 7,500 Americans will have their homes foreclosed on today, and that has been repeated over and over. We are reaching a housing crisis in this country. It not only affects those who are losing their homes; it affects those of us who live nearby who make our mortgage payments and watch the value of our homes go down because somebody in the neighborhood lost their home, had to put it up for auction, sold it at less than what they wanted to just to get out of the deal. So we need to do something about this housing crisis, not just for the good of those families affected by foreclosure and those living nearby but for the housing industry, which is an important part of our economy.

This housing bill has been around for several weeks. This week alone we had two Republican filibusters slowing down this bill. If there has ever been a time when we shouldn't slow down, when we should move forward with dispatch, it is now. With the state of our economy, with the number of people unemployed, with the costs that a lot of families are facing, this Senate ought to put politics behind, stop these filibusters, move these bills forward, and give our best efforts to try to solve some of the problems facing our country.

The second bill we are going to be voting on is called the PEPFAR bill. This is a bill which relates to a program announced by President Bush.

Now I am on the Democratic side of the aisle. I have sure had my differences with President Bush. However, I can remember his State of the Union Address when he stood up and said: I think the United States should lead the world in fighting the global HIV/AIDS epidemic. I jumped out of my seat to applaud because he was right. I supported the President every year when he came in asking for more money so we could work around the world to deal with the scourge of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. After the first 5 years, the President came back and said: We need a new program, one that takes into account what we are doing around the world and what we need to do in the future. I think he was right.

We basically had two programs going at once, and we were participating more in one--the PEPFAR Program--which was the President's emergency program to deal with this problem. It was the direct aid of the United States to countries around the world--some 15 different countries--where we provide assistance in dealing with HIV/ AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. There is a separate endeavor called the Global Fund, and that really engages the whole world and the rest of the world. We participate in that too. We are part of it.

A lot of people may say: Well, with all of the problems in the United States, why are we spending all of this money overseas? It turns out to be a small fraction of our budget but a very important investment. First, that money spent defines who we are. America is a caring nation. When we read about tragedies around the world, whether it is a hurricane or an earthquake or some other disaster, our people rally to help.

We always have. I am proud of that. I think it says a lot about who we are. There are a lot of people trying to paint an image of America around the world that is very negative, an image most of us here don't even recognize. For a lot of people in the world, all they ever hear is bad news about the United States.

This is part of the good news about the United States. President Bush's initiative to deal with the global AIDS crisis is the right thing to do. It explains who we are and what American values are. It brings the expertise we have in our country to other countries around the world who are, frankly, struggling with a very slow economy or backward economy, and a lot of people are in trouble.

When I first went to Africa a number of years ago, I wasn't looking for a global AIDS epidemic, but I could not avoid it. In every country there I visited, I would see more and more people who were doomed to die because they had been infected--young people, mothers and fathers with children by their side, who knew death was the ultimate result of this disease. There was no place for them to turn. At that point, there weren't any drugs--at least not available to these poor countries. All they were doing was trying to keep people as strong as they could for as long as they could to avoid the fatal onset of these diseases.

Things have changed. They have changed because of the PEPFAR program of President Bush, the global fund program. We are taking therapies now and medications that have kept Americans infected with HIV alive for so many years and sharing them with countries around the world. President Bush comes before us now with this proposal, S. 2731, which wants to reauthorize the global AIDS program. I think it is a good idea. I am a cosponsor. It is a bipartisan bill, led by Senator Biden, a Democrat from Delaware, and Senator Lugar, a Republican from Indiana. It is a bipartisan bill. This bill has been stopped on the floor of the Senate for months. A handful of Senators don't want this bill to move forward for a variety of reasons. If they disagree with this bill, if there is something they wish to change, let them offer an amendment about the bill.

But it turns out, yesterday, when we confronted these Senators and said: What is your problem? What is the amendment you want to offer, they want to offer amendments that have nothing to do with the global AIDS crisis, nothing to do with this bill. That, to me, is unnecessary and unfortunate. We are delaying the passage of this important lifesaving legislation so some Senators can offer amendments that have nothing to do with the subject matter.

I hope they will reconsider. In fact, the Senate being in session this late on a Friday is unusual. We are usually back home by now. But we are here, having spent the whole day waiting for a vote at about 5:20 because one particular Senator--Senator DeMint of South Carolina-- objected to moving forward with the vote on this bill either this morning or on Monday. So 100 Senators--at least those of us who are still here--wait patiently for this vote and hope to get home to our families this evening or maybe even tomorrow. I hope we pass the bill. We need 60 votes to do it. If all Senators are present, there are 51 Democrats and 49 Republicans. Even with all the Democrats supporting the President, we need nine Republicans to make this a bipartisan bill, and we should.

The Presiding Officer, Senator Brown of Ohio, has focused a large part of his congressional career in the House and in the Senate on the issue of tuberculosis. He has traveled all around the world and has seen the scourge of the disease and what it has meant to these different nations. We can treat it effectively. If we fail to treat it effectively, it can get complicated and very challenging--this multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, which we read about in the newspapers once in a while and is extremely difficult to treat.

If a person in a developing country is developing tuberculosis, and we can spot it and treat them with very low-cost medicine immediately, we can cure it. If we fail, their condition can worsen and the disease can worsen and more people can be subject to it.

We don't live in a world where public health problems are isolated. The public health problem in Africa today could be the same public health problem in America 2 weeks from now. All it takes is an airplane ride. We have seen that happen before. So when we treat these diseases overseas, we are not only speaking of our values and who we are, we are doing something that is right when it comes to the area of public health.

Critics of the bill have said it goes too far. Let me give you one illustration. They argue, for example, we should not be including in this bill--directed at HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria--nutrition programs. They are wrong. I went to an area of Nairobi, Kenya. It is a slum area, where about 600,000 people are living in very abject circumstances. It is called Canberra. If you saw the movie ``The Constant Gardener,'' I believe it was broadcast--or at least filmed in this slum. They have all the problems you can imagine--public diseases and health problems. Of course, HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis are found in this slum area. They took me to a section on the outskirts where there were mothers with small children, families. The kids were playing in this courtyard-like area and the

mothers were sitting on benches. Most of the mothers looked like they were about to die. I said: Why didn't these mothers, who are suffering from HIV/AIDS, get the drugs they need? They said: Well, they did. Unfortunately, these mothers were suffering from malnutrition. They don't have enough food. They give the food to the kids. Because they don't have enough food to eat, the drugs cannot work. Their systems are so compromised because of their weakness and malnutrition that the drugs don't work.

So to say we are going to send drugs to that slum in Nairobi, Kenya, to cure HIV/AIDS but not food to feed the patients is self-defeating. We would not achieve our goal of saving lives and giving those kids the parents they need for the rest of their lives. A nutrition program is an important part of this effort.

I hope this bill will pass this afternoon, or at least move forward, but we need 60 votes for that to happen. We have to come together and put politics aside. I hope those who wish to offer a variety of amendments relating to other things, and not directly to global AIDS and HIV, will save those battles for another day. I want them to save those battles because that mother in Nairobi is fighting a battle right now; she needs our help. President Bush understands that. Senator Lugar, a Republican leader, understands that, Senator Biden understands that, and the Senate should too.

It is, to me, a bit embarrassing that we have waited this long to bring up this bill of such critical importance to so many millions of people around the world. It is our chance this afternoon to do what is right and move it forward. The sacrifice we have made to stick around and not be with our families this evening, as we hoped to be, is worth it if, at the end of the day, we can pass this important motion, move the legislation forward for a vote early next week.

I salute the occupant of the chair for his leadership on the issues of tuberculosis and many other areas of public health. I know you feel this is the right thing to do. A small investment now can make a big difference in lives around the world. I hope our colleagues will share that view this afternoon when we vote on the motion to proceed to this bill, which is President Bush's plan to deal with the global AIDS crisis.

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

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama), the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. President, I will take the leader time, if Senator McConnell is not here.

Further, that the remaining time on the Republican side be allocated as follows: Senator DeMint, 20 minutes; Senator Hutchison, 5 minutes; Senator Domenici, 7 minutes; Senator Shelby, 7 minutes.

No, Mr. President. I would take not to exceed 10 minutes right now.

I am not requesting an extra 10 minutes. Following my 10 minutes of remarks now, the other time is allocated to complete the total of the Republican time, the time allocated to our side.

Mr. President, we are engaged in a somewhat rare Saturday session this morning. One might ask, what is the purpose for this session? In addition to voting on important housing legislation, the other vote the Senate will cast today is a very important vote. It is whether we are going to end our discussion and our effort to deal with America's biggest challenge on the domestic front--namely, the high price of gasoline and high price of fuel, which drives prices of everything else--or whether we will move on to other matters, other matters that are, at least in the eyes of the American people, far less important than dealing with this important energy crisis. There is no question that the American people believe our biggest challenge right now, a challenge that should be faced up to by Congress, is dealing with high gas prices. The Democratic majority would like to move on.

The second vote we have this morning is to move on, to move off of the energy and gas price debate and to move on to another bill. If that is unsuccessful, then next week they intend to move on to something else. Republicans will say no. We need to stay here and complete our work on this important gas price reduction legislation, and we should not leave here until we act.

Yesterday, the Washington Post had a somewhat critical editorial of the Democratic majority's position in the House and Senate. The title of it was ``No Drilling, No Vote.'' It begins:

Why not have a vote on offshore drilling? There's a serious

debate to be had over whether Congress should lift the ban on

drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf that has been in

place since 1981.

It concludes:

If drilling opponents really have the better of the

argument, why are they so worried about letting it come to a

vote?

That is our view. Why shouldn't we have a vote?

The Republican leader came to the floor earlier this week and asked unanimous consent that we consider six or seven amendments, the very first one of which was to enable us to drill offshore. The majority leader objected to that request. It is fairly obvious that the amendment or something like it would pass because there are Members on both sides of the aisle who appreciate the fact that the first thing we should do to resolve this crisis is to have more American production. Republicans don't believe this is the only solution. Nobody believes drilling solves the problem. But most experts would agree it is the biggest first step, the one thing we could do that would make the most difference. We believe it is important to produce more and use less, meaning, to produce more by offshore drilling in the deep waters off the Gulf of Mexico, to take advantage of oil shale we have available, the vast resources in Alaska, and other resources that are American resources that can solve this American problem and get us off dependence on foreign oil.

There are other sources for electricity. We support increased nuclear production, wind, solar, and coal gasification and liquefaction. We also support more conservation. That is the ``use less'' component, including being able to transport ourselves in automobiles that use battery technology. The Democratic bill, on the other hand, deals with one subject: it puts the blame on so-called speculators and says that is where we should solve the problem. Not one drop of oil would be produced, not one bit of natural gas would be produced by the Democratic legislation.

Republicans agree that the CFTC, the regulatory body, needs more resources. It demonstrated its ability to work by announcing this week that it is going after some people who are trying to manipulate the market. We agree that they need all of the funding and employees to do their job as possible, but clearly, it is not the answer to the problem.

Here is what is happening. The market looks out a few months and says: What will the supply be; what will demand be? What it has seen is that demand is increasing dramatically, and it sees supply either flat or declining. It sets the price accordingly. It sets the price going up. My colleague John McCain is right: When the market sees we are serious about increasing production, market prices will go down accordingly.

We have American energy. We need to free it up for the American people. But the Democrats' game here is a very cynical one: Let's just have two amendments. Let's have a face-off between a Democratic proposal and a Republican proposal. It is the same old politics. Neither side wins, and that is the way it is set up. The American people lose.

Republicans have a better idea. Let's work on a bill one bite at a time. If it is too tough to do this in one giant swallow, then let's build consensus from the bottom up with people on both sides of the aisle agreeing to the components of the legislation. We can do this in a bipartisan way, and we can do it within a week. But until we get somewhere on gas prices, we shouldn't quit and move on to something less important in the eyes of the American people.

I ask unanimous consent that, at the conclusion of my remarks, a short statement be printed in the Record that deals with the contribution of a weak dollar to high oil prices.

This makes the point that there is a direct connection between the weak dollar and the high oil prices Americans are having to pay at the pump. It makes the point that if the dollar were stronger, it would take fewer dollars to buy the same amount of gasoline. That is something additional we can do. That is primarily not a congressional matter but a matter for the Federal Reserve and the Department of the Treasury, primarily the Federal Reserve.

All of these are ways we can deal with the problem of the high cost at the pump. We need to address all of these issues. But until we have addressed them, we should not move off of the legislation and take up something that is less important. The only exception to that is the housing bill we will vote on next. We have complete agreement to do that. Then when that is concluded, we will move back to the energy debate we have been having, the debate on how we can reduce the cost of gasoline at the pump. The American people expect us to do that, and we should complete that work before we leave for our August recess.

Exhibit 1

S. 3268 ``Stop Oil Speculation Now''

A Weak Dollar Contributes to High Oil Prices

At $124 a barrel, oil prices are still close to record

highs, and the weakness of the American dollar has a lot to

do with it.

Often the increase in oil prices can be attributed to

political turmoil in the Middle East or a significant supply

issue (as occurred after Hurricane Katrina). While these are

factors today, there is another reason you could see an

increase in the price at the pump.

Since January 2007, while oil prices have more than

doubled, the American dollar's

value has decreased by approximately 13 percent. As the

economy has slowed, the Federal Reserve has dropped the

Federal Funds rate numerous times over the past year--a total

reduction of 3.25 percentage points since January 2007.

Dropping the interest rate is meant to stimulate the U.S.

economy, but it also weakens the dollar.

The American dollar is the currency used by the

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the

conglomerate of oil producing nations that sets global oil

prices. Thus, any fluctuations in the value of our dollar are

reflected in the price of oil.

As our dollar falls in value relative to the euro, yen, or

price of gold, the price of oil goes up. Since oil is priced

using the American dollar, what Americans pay for oil will

increase to compensate for this change.

At the same time, however, other nations are shielded from

the same oil price increase because their own currencies are

more valuable than the dollar. European and Asian countries

(among others) are importing their oil for significantly less

than what Americans are paying. Europeans pay just 79 euros

for a barrel of oil while Americans pay more than $124.

Returning the U.S. to a ``strong dollar policy'' would

greatly reduce the price U.S. consumers pay for oil.

Confidence in the value of the U.S. dollar is also vital to

American financial competitiveness. A weak dollar makes

investment in foreign markets more attractive, particularly

for those who seek to diversify their portfolios as our

economy slows. Further dollar weakness could precipitate a

dramatic shift of money from domestic to foreign markets.

The key idea to understand here is that the value of our

American dollar is an important consideration to the investor

and consumer confidence. Without this confidence, our economy

will have a difficult time avoiding recession.

So these are several reasons why it is in our nation's best

interest to support a stronger U.S. dollar. Economist David

Malpass wrote in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, ``A

strong, stable currency is itself one of a country's most

valuable fundamentals, not a byproduct of other fundamentals.

Our fundamentals haven't been nearly as bad as the dollar's

seven year slide. More likely, the weak dollar trend is

itself a bad economic fundamental, masking health

elsewhere.''

The Federal Reserve Should Focus on Fighting Inflation

There are two things that can be done to better the dollar.

First, the Federal Reserve should switch its focus from

maintaining economic stability to fighting inflation. In

periods of slower economic growth the Federal Reserve

traditionally responds by reducing short-term interest rates,

but that can exacerbate inflation, which has increased

substantially--growing at 4.9 percent in June from the same

time a year ago.

Note that while the dollar has fallen, the euro remains

relatively strong because the European Central Bank (ECB) has

not only refrained from lowering interest rates due to their

concerns about global inflation but actually raised their

target interest rate to 4.25 percent on July 3rd.

The Federal Reserve needs to follow the ECB's lead and

resist the political pressure to cut interest rates in order

to stabilize the value of the dollar.

The second thing would be for Congress to begin to make our

current, relatively low, tax rates permanent.

Our currency is the foundation for our economy; without a

strong dollar our economy will not be able to achieve the

stability that is necessary to control oil prices or the

economy.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Ensign-Cantwell amendment to the housing bill. This amendment extends expiring tax credits for renewable energy production and development and tax credits for energy efficient homes and buildings.

Let me be perfectly clear. I fully support extending these tax credits. I voted for them last December when we tried to attach them to the Energy bill. I supported them again when we considered the economic stimulus package in February. I am in fact an original cosponsor of the freestanding legislation this amendment is based on. I have long argued that we have a responsibility to put our nation on a path toward energy independence. In addition to making us better stewards of the environment, this is also vitally important to protecting our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign fossil fuels. Done responsibly, it can also spur economic growth and create tens of thousands of new good-paying green collar jobs.

However, I felt compelled to oppose the Ensign-Cantwell proposal as an

amendment to the housing bill. In my view, however, the housing bill simply was the wrong legislative vehicle for this initiative. As I have said many times, nearly 8,000 people every day are facing foreclosure-- 8,000 people every single day are losing their homes and must cope with uncertain and difficult financial futures for themselves and their families. Working this week with Senator Shelby, the majority and minority leaders, and others, I felt it my responsibility to shepherd through a basic set of policies that will help mitigate this housing crisis. This bill did clearly not include everything I would have liked, but it provides a critical first step, and it was imperative in my view that we act quickly to stem this national housing crisis without being sidelined by other matters, regardless of their merit.

I wish to thank my colleagues Senator Cantwell and Senator Ensign for their commitment to clean, renewable energy and their leadership on the issue. For the reasons I have given, I wish this proposal could have been advanced differently. However, I remain committed to working with them and all the Members of this body to achieve the goal of energy independence.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Alabama and myself be recognized for 20 minutes, 10 minutes apiece, to make some closing comments.

Mr. President, before I make those remarks, and I have checked with the Parliamentarians, I would be remiss if I didn't recognize a former colleague, Senator John Glenn, who is here on the floor of the Senate.

Senator Glenn, welcome to the Senate. Nice to have you back.

Mr. President, if I may, this morning, I think we have adopted a very good piece of legislation, one that is going to take a significant step in dealing with the present housing crisis in our country. As I have repeated on numerous occasions over the last number of

weeks on the Senate floor, almost 8,000 people every single day are facing foreclosure. That is a staggering number of people, and in a given week's time that would fill most any college or professional sports stadium.

Eight thousand people every day run the risk of losing their most important asset outside of their beloved family members. The greatest accumulation of wealth for most people is their home. It may mean for them, in their future, providing for a secure retirement, dealing with college education, providing for the unforeseen crisis that can occur where that equity in a home can make all the difference in the world, not to mention what a stabilizing influence it has for a family, a neighborhood, or a community. Home ownership. All of that is at risk for too many of our fellow citizenry.

Over these last many days, the Senator from Alabama and I and others have tried not to solve every problem in that area but to take a major step forward in addressing the issue of foreclosure, the housing crisis, and the economic problems we face. I think we have done that with this bill. This legislation includes the original ideas we were able to work out a week or so ago dealing with FHA modernization, dealing with disclosure, dealing with mortgage revenue bonds, and dealing with the idea of providing some tax relief for people who are willing to move in and occupy foreclosed properties, which provides assistance to communities that would otherwise lose as a result of having dilapidated and boarded-up properties in their midst. And there were a number of other provisions, including counseling services and the like, included in that core piece of legislation.

But over the past week, a little less than a week, we have added a number of other provisions to this bill at the behest of our colleagues, working with both the chairman and the ranking member of the Finance Committee as well as members of the Banking Committee and those who are interested in this legislation. The underlying bill and the important provisions in it contained many good increases in support for various things we need to accomplish.

In addition, the managers' package, which was adopted last evening, accommodates 16 different amendments, Mr. President. These amendments help veterans meet their housing needs. We actually increased some counseling funds that Senator Murray and Senator Mikulski and Senator Schumer were interested in. We improved coordination at counseling agencies. We were able to accommodate a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle.

I particularly want to express my gratitude to Senator Salazar for his amendment, Senator Boxer, Senator Carper, and Senator McCaskill, who offered some very good ideas. I mentioned Senator Murray and Senator Mikulski, Senator Leahy, Senator Johnson, Senator Crapo, along with Senators Harkin and Sanders and Pryor, and Senator Ensign, Senator Brownback, Senator Gregg, Senator DeMint, and Senator Cornyn, who all offered ideas which we were able to accommodate.

Members of both sides had a lot of very good ideas which strengthen this bill. So we are very grateful for their participation and involvement in allowing us to come to where we are today.

I should have actually begun my remarks by thanking the majority leader. Senator Reid made this possible. When I talked with Senator Reid about a week and a half, 2 weeks ago, after having a conversation with Senator Shelby and other members of the Banking Committee, we believed we could come forward with a core group of ideas and offer our colleagues the opportunity to begin to move on this housing crisis. Senator Reid approached the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, and as a result of their leadership, they provided this opportunity, resulting in where we have arrived today, coming to this accommodation. So Senator Reid and his staff deserve, along with Senator McConnell, a very special thanks for making it possible for us to achieve what we have.

Let me say very quickly that this bill is called the Foreclosure Prevention Act. Quite candidly, what we have done doesn't quite live up to the title. We have more work to do. We don't do enough, in my view, in preventing more foreclosures in the country. We do some things but not enough. But I would say to my colleagues who are concerned, we are not done yet. There is more work that needs to be done.

In fact, this morning, Senator Shelby and I and the committee were having a hearing on how to deal with additional foreclosures in the country. We have more work to do--another hearing next week. We have to deal with the Government-sponsored enterprise legislation, we have flood insurance to deal with, and a number of other issues that require our attention, and our intention is to work on those issues. So more work needs to be done, but at this juncture we believe we have presented a good package.

Mr. President, Congressman Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, is holding hearings this very morning, as he has over the last day or so, on these issues. My hope is we can get quickly to a conference with the other body on this package and come back with a compromise that is as strong as the one we are sending out for consideration.

Again, I thank Senator Shelby, my friend and colleague from Alabama. We have worked closely together over the years on the Banking Committee. I served under his chairmanship of the committee where he had good strong leadership and offered some very strong ideas that were adopted by the Congress of the United States. The tide has turned. I am now chairman. But I have a good partner in Senator Shelby and his staff in helping us work through these issues.

I mentioned Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, Senator McConnell, and their staffs for their work as well on this legislation, but we don't often thank or mention the names of the people who do all of the late work, who stay up all night drafting and arguing, disagreeing and debating on what to include in these packages.

So I want to thank, particularly in the leadership area, Gary Myrick, Randy Devalk, Lula Davis, who has been terrific with the floor staff-- absolutely wonderful in the last several days--Tim Mitchell, Mark Wetjen on Leader Reid's staff, and Rohit Kumar and Dave Schiappa on the minority leader's staff. Dave, we thank you for your support and help in all of this. On Senator Shelby's staff, Bill Duhnke, Mark Oesterle, Shannon Hines, Mark Calabria, and Jim Johnson all were helpful. And I want to acknowledge all the positive efforts of my staff: Shawn Maher, the staff director of the Banking Committee; Jonathan Miller, Jenn Fogel-Bublick, Amy Friend, Julie Chon, Lynsey Graham Rea, and Drew Colbert. These are all people--and there are others as well on these committees--who do a lot of good, hard work, and we thank them.

Again, Mr. President, before the close of business, another 8,000 people may file for foreclosure in this country, so we have work yet to be done in this area, but this bill is a major, positive step in the right direction. There are provisions that, frankly, I am not as enthusiastic about, but they were consensus provisions added to this legislation. There are many provisions that I think take us exactly in the right direction in minimizing the impact of what is occurring in our country and allowing us to get back on our feet, again restoring confidence and optimism in the housing market, and for that I am very grateful to all who have participated in allowing us to arrive at this point.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I support the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 because it provides targeted relief to homeowners facing foreclosure and communities dealing with the negative effects of increasing numbers of foreclosures. Unfortunately, this bill also includes provisions that would not provide assistance to those most in need and it is my hope that those provisions will be modified or removed during the conference process. While I have reservations about some of the provisions in this bill, on balance, the legislation takes a step towards addressing some of the problems in the housing industry by increasing mortgage disclosures provided to borrowers and providing more housing counseling to homeowners facing foreclosure. I hope as Congress moves forward on this bill and other related housing measures we make sure that the legislation is crafted to help those most in need.

It is estimated that at least 2 million Americans may face foreclosure on their homes in the coming months and years, which will not only have a devastating impact for those individual families, but will also have significant negative impact on the communities in which those homes are located. Various cities report that increased numbers of foreclosures and the concentration of foreclosures in certain neighborhoods can lead to increased instances of vandalism, crime, and theft. We need to act now to provide assistance that will help keep American families in their homes both for the good of those families and also for the good of whole neighborhoods.

While Wisconsin has not been as hard hit as other regions of the country, foreclosures are in the rise in the state and a number of Wisconsinites have told me about their concerns about the effects of rising number of foreclosures on communities around the state. I have heard from local government officials who are concerned about holding lenders accountable for maintaining abandoned homes and ensuring the abandoned homes do not fall into disrepair. I have heard from housing advocates concerned about borrowers who may have been misled into taking out a subprime loan and now face the prospect of losing their homes. And I have heard from dedicated lawyers and counselors who are trying to provide counseling and other services in order to help individual and families through these tough times.

If these personal stories are not enough to urge us to act, available foreclosure data should also move us to take steps to address the rising number of foreclosures around our country. One report, by the Center for Responsible Lending, looks at the effects of subprime loans issued in 2005 and 2006 throughout the Nation, including in Wisconsin. According to the center's analysis, there were over 60,000 subprime loans issued in 2005 and 2006 in Wisconsin and close to 12,000 of these homes financed by a subprime loan during those years may be foreclosed upon. Additionally, the foreclosures from these subprime loans may result in over 550,000 surrounding homes in my State of Wisconsin experiencing a decline in their value. These statistics are alarming and unfortunately are replicated in States around the country.

This bill does take some good steps towards trying to address the rising number of foreclosures around the country. I am pleased that this bill includes an additional $150 million in housing counseling funds for 2008 and $30 million to provide legal services to homeowners dealing with the possible foreclosure of their homes. These funds are to be used to assist families facing foreclosure reach agreements with their lenders so that they can remain in their homes while also making reasonable payments on the amount owed on the home. Congress appropriated funding for counseling services as part of the fiscal year 2008 omnibus appropriations bill and reports indicate that these funds are a cost-effective use of Federal resources. I am disappointed that the Senate did not provide the full $200 million in housing counseling funds that was included in the original bill introduced by Senator Reid in February. I am hopeful that we can continue to look for fiscally responsible ways to increase access to foreclosure counseling services in the coming months in order to assist more families in their attempts to restructure payments.

I was also pleased to support the increased Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, funds that were included in the Foreclosure Prevention Act. CDBG is an immensely popular Federal program that provides a flexible source of funding for States and local governments to address the unique problems facing their communities. States and localities will be able to use these CDBG funds for a variety of purposes including: establishing methods to purchase foreclosed homes, rehabbing these homes in order to sell or rent them out, and demolishing foreclosed homes that are contributing to neighborhood blight. The increased number of foreclosures is impacting States and local communities in unique ways, and providing flexibility in the use of these CDBG funds is essential to help communities make the best possible use of this money. I was particularly pleased that the negotiators of this bill agreed to require that 25 percent of the CDBG funds provided in this bill be used to redevelop foreclosed homes for families or individuals whose income is at 50 percent of the area median income or less. While this targeting could be even stronger, it will help ensure that the Americans most in need are not left out of the Federal assistance provided in this legislation.

The additional mortgage disclosures included in this package will do much to help ensure that future borrowers, whether taking out a first mortgage or refinancing their existing mortgages, better know the terms of the mortgages and how much they can expect to pay every month. While it is true that some borrowers fully knew that they

were getting in over their heads when they took out mortgages, other borrowers did not understand the terms of their loans or were misled by lenders. The changes that this legislation makes to the Truth in Lending Act, TILA, will help to prevent some of the egregious lending practices that have gone on in the past from occurring again. While this provision is a good step forward, much more needs to be done to rein in predatory lending. I hope that the Senate can move quickly on comprehensive predatory lending legislation this year.

Unfortunately, there were some tax provisions included in this legislation that will not directly help families and individuals facing foreclosure on their homes. I am particularly disappointed that the single largest provision in the bill is a tax break that bails out some of those businesses whose actions helped aggravate the housing crisis.

I was also disappointed that the Senate voted to table the Durbin amendment which would have removed a provision in bankruptcy law that prevents mortgages on primary residences from being modified during bankruptcy. According to advocates, the Durbin amendment could have helped approximately 600,000 individuals or families remain in their homes. It is the single most effective thing that could be done to reduce foreclosures. Unfortunately, this amendment faced stiff resistance in the lending community, even though mortgages on vacation homes and luxury items such as yachts can be modified in bankruptcy under current law. Senator Durbin even worked to narrow the amendment to address some of the lenders' concerns. Even after these reasonable modifications, the lending community remained opposed to the amendment, and the Senate bowed to this opposition. That is unfortunate. The Durbin amendment was a measured response targeted at homeowners facing extreme hardship. I voted for Senator Durbin's stand-alone legislation on this last week in the Judiciary Committee, and I hope the Senate can move this proposal forward in the coming weeks and months.

With respect to the renewable energy amendment offered by Senators Ensign and Cantwell, while I continue to support extending critical renewable energy tax provisions, I am disappointed that this amendment was not offset. I also oppose the amendment's section 105 language. It unfortunately does not reflect the latest compromise reached within both the House and Senate as reflected in H.R. 6, which passed the House on December 2, 2007; S. Amdt 3841, which I supported on December 13, 2007; and H.R. 5351. I am pleased, however, that Senator Cantwell has committed to working with me to ensure this provision is fixed to correct its overly broad definition, which poses a unique but serious threat to Wisconsin. Unless modified, the bill's language could have the unintended consequence of penalizing Wisconsin, which has a unique, State-mandated independent transmission model, by incentivizing its existing independent transmission company to sell assets to another independent transmission company. The provision is intended to only apply to vertically integrated utilities and I am pleased by my colleagues' willingness to work with me and Senator Kohl to preserve this intent.

I have reservations about some of the provisions in this bill, but I will support the final bill because the bill does provide some important assistance to individuals and communities and it is important that we get the CDBG and housing counseling funds to States and local communities as soon as possible. The high number of foreclosures around our country has caused much suffering among individual homeowners and throughout local communities and we need to take action now to help these homeowners and communities rebuild their lives and neighborhoods. I hope that this bill can be improved during conference negotiations and that Congress will address the unresolved housing issues we face, including the need for stronger predatory lending laws and the need for more affordable housing for low income Americans. The problems in the housing industry and their broader impact on the Nation's economy are serious issues that will require the involvement of all levels of government as well as both private and nonprofit organizations. This bill represents a step forward in those efforts, but much more remains to be done.

Mr. President, I have a question for the distinguished Republican whip.

You are going to take the minority leader's 10 minutes prior to the 11 o'clock vote?

Mr. President, I am happy to ask consent that the Senator have that, but he is not entitled to leader time. If he wants an extra 10 minutes, that is fine with me.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the minority has 2 minutes left; is that right?

Mr. President, I say to my friend, do you intend to use that?

Mr. President, on our side, it is my understanding we have 1 minute, plus my time; is that right?

Mr. President, I would yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer. No, he doesn't want it. OK. That is unusual.

I wish I had the words to express adequately my appreciation for the work done by the chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the committee. Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby have done a remarkable job under tremendously difficult circumstances to get where we are today. They were for this piece of legislation before Fannie and Freddie got into big trouble because they knew and they could see the problems with the housing industry. The fact that Fannie and Freddie got into trouble only made it more imperative that these two managers of this legislation move forward more rapidly. They have overcome tremendous obstacles.

We have had seven cloture votes on this housing bill. I do not know if in the history of this country we have ever had a single piece of legislation with that many cloture votes, but we had them on this bill. These two very fine legislators--one from the State of Connecticut, with a totally different economy, different political base than that of the State of Alabama--worked together for the good of the American people. I so admire and appreciate the work they have done under, I repeat, very difficult circumstances.

For most Americans, yesterday, Friday, was an ordinary summer Friday. But for about 8,500 families, it was a terrible day because, when they got their mail, there was a foreclosure notice or, when they opened their door, they found on their door a notice of foreclosure or, when they opened the door on Friday, there was someone at the door serving papers on them, moving the legal process forward--foreclosure notices. But they joined, yesterday, 8,500 who received their notice the day before and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that.

During the process of this legislation moving forward, that we should have passed fairly quickly--within, at the most, a week--hundreds of thousands of people received foreclosure notices. Well, 8,500 families will not receive their foreclosure notices today or tomorrow but only because the courthouses are closed for the weekend. On Monday, the drumbeat of foreclosure will continue.

In Nevada, 1 out of every 43 families who have a home now have their home in foreclosure. It is almost the same in Arizona and almost the same in California and almost the same in Florida. There are only two States in the country that do not have the problem, one of which is the State of Alabama.

But for families who face each day with trepidation because of a foreclosure concern they have, hoping a notice has not arrived, in some fashion--but knowing it may soon--a foreclosure notice is something that is a terrible day in their lives. But today, this Senate will deliver some rare and much-needed good news for people who own homes throughout America. Not only will it help those people who own homes but neighborhoods, communities, States, local governments and servicers and lenders.

We are on the verge of passing a bipartisan housing bill that will help rebuild communities, safeguard future housing meltdowns, and, most importantly, help at-risk families keep their homes. Because of the work in this legislation dealing with Fannie and Freddie, the financial community in America will be stabilized.

It has taken far too long to reach this point where we are today. We have talked about that. The housing bill was introduced in February and work began in the fall of last year.

Now, I have already talked about Senators Dodd and Shelby. During the process of working to get legislation that they thought was appropriate to bring before this body, they both received pressure from their respective caucuses, from editorials: Why aren't they doing something more rapidly? They wanted to bring something to the Senate that would pass. They wanted to work with the House on something that would pass both bodies and be signed by the President. So, again, I underscore the great legislative work these two gentlemen did.

Not only have we had seven cloture votes but we have had Presidential veto threats. Thank goodness those threats have been withdrawn.

As some Republicans have continued to stall, families have continued to lose their homes. And note I said ``some'' Republicans, not all Republicans in the Senate. But today, at long last, a ray of hope--a chance to turn the page on the housing crisis and begin a new chapter that gives more families a chance at the American dream of responsible home ownership.

Now, we are going to move--after we complete legislation on this housing bill--to LIHEAP. We would not have the opportunity to vote on this most important measure, this energy legislation, but for one Senator, a Senator from the sparsely populated State of Vermont, Mr. Bernard Sanders. It is because of his advocacy for months and months that we are going to have an opportunity to vote on this. He has worked on legislation. We have Republicans who support and have agreed to support his legislation. We are going to move to proceed to that.

Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle have expended countless hours of floor time and many barrels of ink talking about the need to do something about energy prices. While they have endlessly talked, the Democrats have been proposing comprehensive solutions.

Yesterday, Republicans refused to join us in a bill to stem the excessive

speculation by Wall Street traders who artificially bid up the price of oil for their own profit. That was a plan Republicans had claimed to support previously. It was part of their legislation. When it came time to take action, the monied interests of this country backed the Republicans down from doing the right thing.

When we offered the Republicans a vote on the very thing they claim to want more than anything--offshore drilling--they passed on that. They said no.

Now, Democrats are proposing improvements to the LIHEAP program. This is yet another bipartisan opportunity to help Americans cope with our energy crisis.

This is something that is a crisis that has been here for a while. Listen to what George Bush, the President of the United States, said. This is a quote:

First and foremost, we've got to make sure we fully fund

LIHEAP, which is a way to help low-income folks, particularly

here in the East, pay for their high--high--fuel bills.

A direct quote from President Bush.

This legislation assists senior citizens, low-income families, and those who are disabled to afford to heat their homes in winter and cool them during excessive periods of heat in summer.

There are not many States like Nevada. In the southern part of the State, in Laughlin, NV, it is not unusual for the temperature to hit 120 degrees. In the northern part of the State, in places such as Owyhee, it is the coldest place in the Nation on many occasions. It is not unusual at all for it to be 20 degrees below zero. These ranges in temperature indicate that if you are old, if you are disabled, if you are poor, you have trouble paying for the fuel costs to cool your home to survive or to heat your home to survive. People who have temperatures above 100 degrees know how important it is to keep their home cool, and people who are freezing know how important it is to keep their house warm.

Since 2001, Americans are paying three times as much for heating oil and twice as much for propane. As these energy costs have skyrocketed, these LIHEAP proposals we have talked about have been hamstrung. These programs are not there to provide the necessary assistance. As the winter months are growing near, this problem will exacerbate. It will grow worse.

This legislation has rightly earned bipartisan support, as I have talked about, with at least a dozen Republican cosponsors of the Senator's legislation. It is regrettable Republicans could force us to waste valuable hours on a cloture vote on proceeding to this legislation--even allowing us to debate the matter. It is unimaginable Republicans might choose to block us from passing this worthy legislation for which President Bush said: ``First and foremost, we've got to make sure we fully fund LIHEAP, which is a way to help low- income folks, particularly here in the East, pay for their high--high-- fuel [costs].''

Well, it is not only folks in the East. It is folks in the West and Midwest and all over this country. I hope they will not stall this. They say they want to legislate on energy. They had the chance yesterday. They did not take that. They have a chance again today. We will soon see what they choose to do.

If Republicans choose to join us in passing LIHEAP, we will welcome their votes, certainly, with open arms. But if they choose to block this legislation, they will have to shoulder the burden of millions of low-income families, senior citizens, and those with disabilities who are struggling and suffering to pay their ever-rising energy bills.

Mr. President, I ask that the vote now occur that is scheduled for 11 o'clock.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I know everybody is concerned about what is going to happen tomorrow and Monday. We won't know until after the next vote is cast. Within an hour or so after the final vote, all of the offices will know what will happen either tomorrow and/or Monday. We will have more definite information after the next vote.

Mr. President, today I am pleased again to join my friend and colleague Senator Kit Bond of Missouri in bringing to the Senate another matter of importance to the missions of the National Guard and to the dedicated men and women of the Guard who perform these missions.

Today we are introducing the National Guard Empowerment and State- National Defense Integration Act of 2008. We introduce this legislation on behalf of the 91-member U.S. Senate National Guard Caucus, which we co-chair. The military is still not structured properly to respond to the domestic emergencies that we know will come again. This legislation would take us tangible steps forward in correcting that. Our bill would sharpen the Defense Department's focus on helping the National Guard respond to domestic emergencies.

This legislation is a new phase in our bipartisan and bicameral drive to empower the Guard for successfully meeting the challenges that our States and the Nation are asking the Guard to meet. It would clear away bureaucratic cobwebs in the Defense Department's organizational structure to improve decision making on homeland defense issues that involve the Guard. This bill builds on some of the strong provisions enacted from the previous version of the Guard Empowerment Bill in the recently enacted fiscal year 2008 Defense Authorization Bill. By empowering the National Guard through more responsibilities, authorities, and new lines of control, this bill focuses the Defense Department's attention on this critical realm of domestic defense. The bill structures potential military operations within the U.S. in a way outlined by the Constitution, ensuring local and State control--not Federal control--in these emergencies.

We know that the military--the active duty force, the National Guard, and the Reserves--has an important role in responding to emergencies at home, events like natural disasters. The events of Hurricane Katrina and so many other situations have amply underscored that reality. Our civilian authorities will continue to want to tap into the resources, personnel, and expertise, and there is no question that we need a system that permits that. The debate taking place, mostly behind the scenes and within the walls of the Pentagon, has been about how we structure that response. The goal must be an effective response in line with the Constitution. Our national charter protects our basic liberties and places sovereignty in the hands of the people through government with adequate checks and balances, splitting administration among Federal, State, and local levels.

This Empowerment Bill would be effective because it drives to enhance the National Guard, our first military responders. This force has stepped up during dire situations time and time again. The National Guard takes its responsibility to carry out relief missions at home as seriously as it takes its missions abroad as the nation's primary military reserve. The National Guard is a locally based force, spread out in armories and readiness centers across the country. The Guard can flow forces among States through the Emergency Management Assistance Compacts process, which helped make the force one of the few shining lights in the darkness of the response to Hurricane Katrina. The National Guard has units that specialize in civil support, including highly trained, full-time teams located in every one of our States. The bottom line is that the Guard has shown that it can do this mission and do it superbly.

The approach of the Empowerment Bill is constitutional because it properly involves every layer of Government. It is our mayors, our public safety chiefs, and our Governors who are responsible for the security of their communities. Under our governmental system, they are the ones that should be in control of emergency situations and any Federal assets that come in should be strictly in support of them-- certainly not the other way around. The Guard is a State force that works closely with these civilian authorities all the time. The Guard, which serves under the command of the Governors, is part and parcel of the community. The Guard knows that it is civilians, including their elected leaders and the populace, who are the ultimate decision-makers in these situations.

Our bill includes several key provisions. To improve the quality of advice at the highest levels, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau would gain a full seat on the Joint Chief of Staff, a key advisory body where insufficient attention is paid to homeland defense matters. The bill would ensure that U.S. Northern Command remains a Federal military headquarters that truly supports the Governors and the initial Guard response in an emergency, providing for the Governors to have tactical control over any active duty and Reserve assets that might be operating in their home State during an emergency. The National Guard Bureau is enhanced in another section which specifically gives the National Guard a separate budget to purchase domestic defense-oriented items. The Bureau would carry out its responsibilities in close cooperation with a newly

established planning committee and council that integrally involves the States' Adjutants General. And the bill assigns several key command and deputy command positions to National Guard officers who have experience in homeland defense and domestic emergency response matters.

This fiscal year 2008 Defense Authorization Bill ushered in several improvements to the National Guard, including an elevation of the Bureau Chief to the rank of four-star general. The National Guard Bureau is now more a joint agency than a sub-branch of the Army and the Air Force, though the Guard remains a key part of the Army and Air Force's Total Force. The Deputy Commander or Commander of U.S. Northern Command now must come from the ranks of the National Guard. These are far-reaching steps, though I remain concerned that the Department has yet to implement these provisions, not even filling the four-star position yet.

Together, last year's enacted organizational changes and those put forth in this bill will fundamentally improve our preparations for an emergency, and ensure an effective, swift, and constitutional response when another emergency occurs.

Our National Guard has never let our country down, and--once again-- we cannot let our Guard down. I urge prompt attention and action on this vital legislation.

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

Mr. President, today, I join with Senator Hatch to introduce a bipartisan bill to address the resource needs of our men and women on the Federal judiciary and people around the country by authorizing additional U.S. courts of appeals and district court judgeships. It has been 18 years since the last time a comprehensive judgeship bill was enacted to address the growth in the workload of the Federal judiciary by adding new Federal judgeships. That legislation established 11 additional circuit court judgeships and 61 permanent and 13 temporary district court judgeships.

Since 1990, case filings in our Federal appellate courts have increased by 55 percent and case filings on our district courts have risen by 29 percent. Without a comprehensive bill, Congress has proceeded to authorize only a few additional district court judgeships and extend temporary judgeships when it could. For instance, in 2002 we were able to provide for 15 new judgeships in the Department of Justice authorization bill. However no additional circuit court judgeships have been created since 1990 despite their increased workload.

In 2006, the weighted number of filings in district courts, which takes into account an assessment of case complexity, were 464 per judgeship, well above the Judicial Conference's standard. The same year, the national average circuit court caseload per three-judge panel approached the record number of 1,230 cases, recorded a year earlier.

Our Federal judges are working harder than ever, but in order to maintain the integrity of the Federal courts and the promptness that justice demands, judges must have a manageable workload. The bill that we are introducing today would add 12 permanent circuit court judgeships, 38 permanent district court judgeships, and convert five existing temporary judgeships into permanent positions. These additional judgeships would address the significant increase in caseloads that the Federal courts have seen over the nearly two decades since the last comprehensive judgeship bill was enacted. It is based on the recommendations of the Judicial Conference and its analysis of caseloads and needs.

Our bipartisan bill would also add 14 temporary district court judgeships, two temporary circuit court judgeships, and extend one existing temporary district court judgeship. These additional temporary judgeships allow Congress some flexibility with regard

to future judgeship needs. If caseloads continue to increase, Congress has the option to introduce legislation making permanent or renewing these temporary judgeships.

By providing that these new judgeships become effective the day after the inauguration of the next President, we attempt to insulate this effort from partisan politics.

This bill has the support of the Judicial Conference and Senators on both sides of the aisle. I thank Senators Feinstein and Schumer for joining us in this effort. A comprehensive bill to respond to the increasing workload of our Federal judiciary is long overdue.

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

I plan to speak for about 10 minutes.

Mr. President, is there equal distribution of time to be added to the majority?

Reserving the right to object, if the time comes out of what is allocated to the Republicans, I have no objection. There is additional time to the Republicans already allocated.

Mr. President, as long as it comes out of the Republican time, there is no objection.

I think people are expecting a vote at 11. There is time on the Republican side, so I object.

Mr. President, I know it is unusual that the Senate would be here on a Saturday, in a voting session, but I am pleased that we are here because at last we are going to have a chance to vote on final passage of H.R. 3221, the housing legislation that is so important to the people of this country.

I first wish to thank Senators Dodd and Shelby for the manner in which they have handled this legislation. It has been handled in a bipartisan manner, the way it should be. They have been extremely patient.

This bill has been on the floor on numerous occasions. There have been many opportunities for all of us to offer our suggestions on this legislation. It has been one of the most open bills we have had.

I know there are some on the other side of the aisle--my colleague from South Carolina--who raise certain objections. There are some who would like to see this matter further delayed. I understand that. In the other body, Republicans have decided to vote against this legislation by a 3-1 margin. That is their prerogative. And there are some in this body who believe the status quo is acceptable. They do not believe we should be aggressively trying to help the people of our communities in the housing crisis. Well, I disagree with that, and I think the majority of this body disagrees, and it is important for us to provide the tools necessary to deal with the housing crisis in this country. Every day that we wait, 8,500 more foreclosures are here in America--8,500 people are in danger of losing their houses every single day. So, Mr. President, I am sorry we didn't get this legislation done earlier, but I am pleased we are here today to complete this legislation and to send it to the President for his signature.

We all know the current status of our economy. We know that people around this Nation are having a difficult time dealing with their everyday costs--dealing with energy costs, dealing with

health care costs, and, yes, dealing with their housing expenses. We know that the trigger to the current downturn in our economy was caused by the housing market. So it is important for us to pay special attention to the housing market as we try not only to help families who are struggling to keep their homes and keep communities strong but also to help our economy.

This is true in each one of our States. In Maryland, in the second quarter of 2008, we saw a 130-percent increase in foreclosures. In my own State, 1 out of every 243 households is in some stage of foreclosure. This is a crisis affecting millions of people in our Nation. Maryland now ranks 16th in the Nation on foreclosures. The problem is continuing. There are subprime mortgages that are out there with adjustable rate mortgages that will be coming due during 2008 and 2009, and we will see more and more foreclosures. So we need to act to try to prevent those foreclosures.

I know there have been some who have said: Well, look, this was a free market and people made their own decisions. But I can tell you of communities in my own State where homeowners were steered into subprime mortgages--homeowners who could have qualified for standard mortgages, but because of the way the fees were arranged, they were steered into these subprime products and are now in danger of losing their homes. So we need to do something.

I want to first acknowledge that there have been many groups that have stepped forward. Nonprofits in my State and around the Nation have tried to do what they can, and I applaud them for their actions. A lot of the people involved in the nonprofit housing sector have tried to help through counseling and other means, and that is laudable. In my own State, I applaud the efforts of our Chief Judge Bell, who has called upon the lawyers of Maryland to attend training sessions to offer pro bono services to help homeowners who are in danger of losing their homes. I think that is what the bar should be doing, what lawyers should be doing, and they are stepping up to try to help. We also see State and local governments doing what they can to try to help in the housing market, and even private companies have stepped up to try to restructure loans so that people can stay in their homes. All of that is what should be happening, and I applaud the efforts of the private sector and local governments. But the Federal Government should be a full partner in this effort, and I think H.R. 3221 moves us in a direction toward accepting that responsibility.

The bill helps current homeowners on the brink of foreclosure. It will provide $180 million for financial and legal assistance to homeowners who are in danger of losing their homes, which I think is very important. The legislation provides for counseling services to help counselors deal with individuals who are in danger of going into foreclosure on their properties. It also helps with refinancing. It is estimated that 400,000 people in this country will benefit from the provisions of this legislation that allow for refinancing of their loans.

Some have said this is bailout. It is not a bailout. The loans are going to be bought at market value. Investors are going to lose part of their investment on these refinancings, as they should. It is not a bailout. And the homeowners who take advantage of it, it is to help them stay in their homes. If they sell their homes, part of the profits need to be returned. So it is a fair way to keep people in their homes, recognizing the fact that it is not only the individual homeowner who loses but the entire community loses when a house is foreclosed upon.

I am particularly pleased with the provision in this legislation dealing with first-time homeowners. Several months ago, I talked to Senator Baucus about a housing credit for first-time home buyers to help more people become engaged in buying and selling homes. We know that 40 percent of home buyers are first-time home buyers, and by helping first-time home buyers, we help the housing market and we help the economy. I think the provision in this bill that will provide a $7,500 credit or an interest-free loan will help. It is targeted to moderate-income families, and it is temporary. It needs to be used in the next year. It is reasonable from the point of view of helping people get back into the housing market, and I thank the committee for including that provision.

This legislation also deals with the credit crunch--the availability of mortgage money for those who need to buy homes. The FHA modernization will help, and the reverse-mortgage provisions that seniors use. Seniors who have lived in their home for many years have a lot of equity in their home. They need the cash out of their house in order to stay there, and reverse mortgages help them obtain the resources they need to deal with their health care and to deal with quality-of-life issues. This bill modernizes the reverse-mortgage provisions, providing strong consumer protection provisions for our seniors.

We all know about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provisions and how we have tried to strengthen the regulatory system. I think that is what we should be doing. We are giving the Secretary of the Treasury the flexibility and authority that he needs in order to make sure we don't have a crisis in this country by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae not being able to carry out their stated mission.

I am also pleased that the $11 billion for local mortgage bonding authority remains in this bill to help local governments deal with the availability of low-income housing.

The legislation also includes improvements to the CDBG funds by $4 billion, of which $89 million will be available to the people of Maryland. These are for the communities that are directly affected and have large numbers of foreclosed properties. This provision will allow the local governments to be able to buy foreclosed properties and turn them back and make them available for moderate-income families through home ownership and rental.

There is a provision in the bill that deals with veterans, through our VA home loan program, to prevent foreclosure and increase home ownership.

Lastly, there are provisions in this bill to help us in the future with better mortgage disclosure rules and nationwide loan originator licensing and registration.

The bottom line is, it increases the tools available in our toolbox to deal with vulnerable families who are in danger of losing their homes, it provides the financial wherewithal so that we can keep credit available for people to buy and sell homes, and it is a message and action to help our economy in these very difficult times. I am pleased we are able, at last, to vote on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this very important bill.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Medicare Rural Health Access Improvement Act of 2008.

The purpose of this legislation is to continue ongoing efforts to ensure that Americans in rural areas have access to health care services. Much has been done in the past to improve access to rural providers such as hospitals and doctors. Much more still needs to be done.

I hold town meetings in each of the 99 counties in the great State of Iowa every year. As many know, Iowa is largely a rural State, and a significant concern that I consistently hear during these meetings is the difficulty my constituents experience in accessing health care services. As the former chairman and currently the ranking member of the Finance Committee, it has, therefore, been a priority for me to improve the availability of health care in rural areas.

In Iowa, as in many rural areas across the country, hospitals are often

not only the sole provider of health care in rural areas, but also employers and purchasers in the community. Moreover, the presence of a hospital is essential for purposes of economic development because businesses check to see if a hospital is in the community in which they might set up shop. As you can see, it is vital that these institutions are able to keep their doors open.

In previous legislation, Congress has been able to improve the financial viability of rural hospitals. For instance, the creation and subsequent improvements to the Critical Access Hospital designation has greatly improved the financial health of certain small rural hospitals and ensured that community residents have access to health care.

However, there are still a group of rural hospitals that need help. I am referring to what are known as ``tweener'' hospitals, which are too large to be Critical Access Hospitals, but too small to be financially viable under the Medicare hospital prospective payment systems. These facilities are struggling to stay afloat despite their tireless efforts. Like in many communities across the country, the staff of tweener hospitals and their community residents take great pride in the quality of care at these facilities. I have heard countless stories of the exemplary work tweener hospitals in Iowa perform not only as providers of essential health care, but also as responsible members of their communities. It is for this reason that many provisions in this bill are intended to improve the financial health of tweener hospitals and ensure that people have access to health care.

Most tweener hospital are currently designated as Medicare Dependent Hospitals and Sole Community Hospitals under the Medicare program. There are provisions, both temporary and permanent, included in this bill that would improve Medicare payments for both types of hospitals. This includes improvements to the payment methodologies so that inpatient payments to these facilities would better reflect the costs they incur in providing care. Improvements are also proposed in this bill to Medicare hospital outpatient payments for both Medicare Dependent Hospitals and Sole Community Hospitals so they would both share the benefit of hold harmless payments and add-on payments.

Also, a major driver of the financial difficulties that tweener hospitals face is the fact that many have relatively low volumes of inpatient admissions. This bill would improve the existing low-volume add-on payment for hospitals so that more rural facilities with low volumes would receive the assistance they desperately need.

Over the years, many have commented that it is simply unfair for many rural hospitals to receive only a limited amount of Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospital, or DSH, payments while many urban hospitals are not subject to such a cap. This bill would eliminate the cap for DSH payments for those rural hospitals for a 2-year period.

There are also other provisions that would continue to help rural hospitals. The rural flexibility program would be extended for an additional year. Certain rural hospitals that are paid on a cost basis for the outpatient laboratory services they provide would continue to do so on a permanent basis. And Critical Access Hospitals that provide outpatient laboratory services would be paid 101 percent of their costs regardless of whether the specimen was collected from a patient of the CAH or whether the specimen was collected in a skilled nursing facility or clinic associated with the CAH.

This legislation also seeks to improve incentives for physicians located in rural areas and increase beneficiaries' access to rural health care providers. It includes provisions designed to reduce inequitable disparities in physician payment resulting from the Geographic Practice Cost Indices, or adjusters, known as GPCIs. Medicare payment for physician services varies from one area to another based on the geographic adjustments for a particular area. Geographic adjustments are intended to reflect cost differences in a given area compared to a national average of 1.0 so that an area with costs above the national average would have an index greater than 1.0, and an area below the national average would have an index less than 1.0. There are currently three geographic adjustments: for physician work, practice expense, and malpractice expense.

Unfortunately, the existing geographic adjusters result in significant disparities in physician reimbursement which penalize, rather than equalize, physician payment in Iowa and other rural states. These geographic disparities in payment lead to rural states experiencing significant difficulties in recruiting and retaining physicians and other health care professionals due to their significantly lower reimbursement rates.

These disparities have perverse effects when it comes to realigning Medicare payment to reward quality of care. Let me put that into context. Iowa is widely recognized as providing some of the highest quality health care in the country yet Iowa physicians receive some of the lowest Medicare reimbursement due to these inequitable geographic adjustments. Medicare reimbursement for some procedures is at least 30 percent lower in Iowa than payment for those very procedures in other parts of the country. That is a significant disincentive for Iowa physicians who are providing some of the best quality care in the country, and it is fundamentally unfair. Congress needs to reduce these disparities in payment and focus on rewarding physicians who provide high quality care.

The inequitable geographic payment formulas have also exacerbated the problems that rural areas face in terms of access to health care. Rural America today has far fewer physicians per capita than urban areas. The GPCI formulas are a dismal failure in promoting an adequate supply of physicians in States such as Iowa, and more severe physician shortages in rural areas are predicted in the future.

The legislation I am introducing today makes changes in the GPCI formulas for work and practice expense to reverse this trend. It establishes a 1.0 floor for the physician work and practice expense adjustments. It also revises the calculation of the work and practice expense formulas to reduce payment differences and more accurately compensate physicians in rural areas for their true practice costs. We must act now to help rural States recruit and retain more physicians so that beneficiaries will continue to have access to needed health care.

Congress has previously enacted a number of other provisions to improve Medicare payment for health care professionals and providers in rural areas that will expire soon. This bill extends the five percent incentive payments for primary care and specialty physicians in scarcity areas through December 2009. It also extends the existing payment arrangements which allow independent laboratories to bill Medicare directly for certain physician pathology services.

The bill includes several new provisions to improve beneficiary access to health care services. It increases rural ambulance payments by 5 percent for the next 18 months. It permanently increases the payment limits for rural health clinics. It allows hospital-based renal dialysis centers and skilled nursing facilities to provide telehealth services. It also allows physician assistants to order post-hospital extended care services and to serve hospice patients.

Finally, the bill would protect rural areas from being adversely affected by the new Medicare competitive bidding program for durable medical equipment. It would ensure that home medical equipment suppliers who provide equipment and services in rural areas and small metropolitan statistical areas, MSAs, with a population of 600,000 or less can continue to serve the Medicare program by exempting these areas from competitive bidding. We must ensure that rural areas continue to have medical equipment suppliers available to serve beneficiaries in these areas.

Mr. President, as you can see, we still have much to do when it comes to ensuring access to health care in rural America. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important matter.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a summary of the bill.