White Mountain Apache Tribe Rural Water System Loan Authorization Act

Mr. President, George Bernard Shaw once said: ``If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion.''

Sometimes I feel the same about legislation to extend expiring tax provisions. Sometimes it feels as though that process never reaches a conclusion. Regrettably, Tuesday, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the House-passed renewable energy and tax extenders bill.

Today, we must begin anew the march to a conclusion for the tax extenders package.

Next week, the Senate will face a choice. We'll vote again on getting to the tax extenders bill. We'll vote on allowing the Senate to get to the substitute amendment, the text of which I introduce today. I think that it's a pretty easy choice.

We need to decide whether we will develop new jobs and new medications.

Or, we can continue to allow hedge fund managers to defer, without limitation, their compensation for investing other people's money.

The choice is easy. We must pass this package of expiring provisions. We must reach a conclusion.

Last month, the House passed its renewable energy and tax extenders package, by a vote of 263 to 160. It came over to the Senate last week. My Colleagues on the other side of the aisle objected to moving to the House bill, for which I was prepared to offer a substitute amendment.

Today, I am introducing that substitute amendment as a stand-alone bill. This extender package is fully paid-for. These offsets are fiscally responsible. And these revenue-raising provisions are also sound tax policy.

The first revenue-raising provision is an extension of the effective date of the worldwide allocation of interest. The bill would delay application of the new rule.

This section of the code is scheduled to take effect in 2009.

Many of the companies that will benefit from this provision told me that they would rather have business extenders, including R&D, active financing, and CFC look-through. They prefer those important extenders to a 2009 application of the world wide allocation of interest.

These companies want a conclusion. And, they realize that to get a conclusion, they, along with Congress, must be fiscally responsible and pay for these provisions.

This provision allows Congress to be fiscally responsible and to pay for the priorities of the business community.

The second revenue-raising provision addresses offshore deferred compensation. This provision prevents hedge fund managers from deferring income. This is not an increase in tax on hedge fund managers. Rather, it is a change in the timing of when they have to pay their income tax.

We need to make decisions about our priorities. Is the ability of hedge fund managers to defer taxation of their compensation more important than spurring research and development?

This bill has a solid energy-tax package. It has about $17 billion in incentives for alternative energy, efficiency, and clean coal. This package is important for our environment and energy security. And it's important to facilitate the transition to a carbon-controlled economy.

I have been working to get the Congress to pass a good energy-tax package for the better part of a year. At the beginning of last year, the Finance Committee conducted several hearings. Last June, the Committee marked up a bill to bolster investment in clean energy, efficiency, and clean coal. Our bill--a roughly $30 billion package-- passed the Finance Committee with a 15-to-5 vote.

The bill included a 5-year extension of the credit for production of renewable electricity. That credit enjoys strong bipartisan support.

It included 8-year extensions of credits for solar power. Solar power still needs significant subsidies to compete with fossil-based energy.

It included $4 billion in new funds for clean coal tax credits. These credits are needed to demonstrate that coal--which accounts for half of this Nation's electricity--can be burned cleanly.

The bill included a new consumer credit for plug-in hybrids. Already prototypes of plug-in hybrids can go a hundred miles on a gallon of gas.

The bill included a new credit for cellulosic ethanol. Some experts predict that cellulosic ethanol will become the fuel of the future.

Last June's Finance Committee package was largely financed by reducing tax benefits for oil and gas companies. We proposed repealing the manufacturing deduction for oil and gas firms. That raised about $9.4 billion for the package.

We proposed a tax on production in the Gulf of Mexico, with credit for the tax provided to companies paying royalties on that production. This raised more than $10 billion.

We also proposed tightening the rules on tax credits received by oil and gas companies that pay taxes to overseas jurisdictions. This proposal raised about $3.2 billion.

Taken together, these tax changes would have financed about two- thirds of the roughly $30 billion energy-tax package. We argued that the oil and gas offsets were justified, in part because of record-high oil prices. Recall that in 2005, President Bush said, ``With $55 (a barrel) oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore.''

When the Finance Committee passed this energy-tax bill, oil traded at $69 a barrel.

After moving the bill through the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley and I offered that measure on the Senate floor. We offered it as an amendment to the energy policy bill.

But our amendment got 57 votes on the floor, 3 shy of the 60 votes that we needed to break a filibuster.

The objections, almost entirely from the other side, were that the bill would increase energy prices. They argued that our bill unreasonably targeted the oil and gas industry. They argued that the package was simply too big.

So we went back to the drawing board. In negotiations with the House, we cut the size of the energy package by about a third. We dropped the $10 billion tax on Gulf production. We retained repeal of the manufacturing deduction for large oil and gas firms, and the provision to tighten loopholes on foreign tax credits for oil and gas companies. And we also included nearly $7 billion in offsets from President Bush's own budget proposal.

That's right. About one-third of the package that came to the Senate floor in December was offset by items taken directly from proposals offered by President Bush in his 2008 budget.

Even though we cut the package by about a third, the bill still maintained meaningful support for alternative energy and efficiency. It included extension of the renewable energy production credit. It included long-term extensions of credits for solar power. It included $2 billion for clean-coal projects. And it included a new consumer incentive for plug-in hybrid cars.

It was not as ambitious as the June 2007 Finance Committee bill. But the compromise product that came to the Senate floor in December was a very good package.

Nonetheless, the President issued a veto threat on the bill. And 40 Senators followed his lead. On December 12, 2007, the compromise package failed in the Senate by a vote of 59 to 40, just one shy of 60 needed to break yet another filibuster.

Faced with the choice of maintaining tax breaks for oil and gas companies and investing in a fledgling alternative energy industry, the Senate minority chose to protect the oil and gas companies.

Faced with the choice of investing in green-collar jobs or maintaining the status quo on energy, the minority chose the status quo.

Remember the President's assertion that tax breaks were not needed when oil traded at $55 a barrel? Well, when the Senate voted on the energy package on December 13, 2007, oil cost more than $92 a barrel.

So where are we now? Vital new energy-tax provisions--such as incentives for plug-in hybrid vehicles--have not become law. Existing incentives--such as those for energy-efficient appliances--have lapsed. And in less than 7 months, many others will lapse, including the renewable energy production credit, solar credits, incentives for efficient buildings, and credits for biofuels.

So what do we do about it? To paraphrase Thomas Edison, ``I have not failed. I've just found two ways that won't work.''

I hope that this attempt will work. The bill that I introduce today, and on which I hope the Senate can vote next week, includes a robust energy package. It is very similar to that negotiated with the House last year. It is very similar to the one that got 59 votes in the Senate.

Like last year's bills, this package includes long-term extensions of renewable energy credits. It includes major funding for clean coal projects. It includes a new incentive for plug-in hybrids. And it includes extensions of vital incentives to promote energy efficiency.

This $17 billion energy package is slightly smaller than last December's. But it's still critically important to our Nation's energy future.

There is a key difference between this year's package and last year's: the offsets. In response to criticisms of the oil and gas offsets and the President's veto threat, we have dropped proposals to repeal oil and gas tax breaks.

Instead, we have included two offsets that have nothing to do with oil and gas. In fact, they have nothing to do with energy. They are simply good policy. And they have broad support.

The bill also extends provisions that offer tax benefits to individuals and businesses. One such provision is the teacher expense deduction.

Our schools are in desperate need of repair. Our students don't have the books or supplies they need. Some teachers have taken it upon themselves to use money from their own pockets to provide classroom supplies for their students.

In 2005 alone, more than 3.4 million families took the teacher expense deduction. The average salary for a teacher is about $38,000.

This says a lot about this profession's dedication to educating America's youth. These teachers work diligently to make sure that America stays competitive in this global economy by educating our children. And yet they pay out of their own pockets for supplies. The least we can do is to help share the cost.

Another provision that is important to American families is the qualified tuition deduction. Tuition costs have long been increasing faster than inflation. Parents and students worry about how to cover these escalating costs.

4.4 million families took the qualified tuition deduction in 2005. But the provision expired at the end of 2007.

The bill that I introduce today has other important benefits. Millions of families get tax relief from these expiring provisions and will suffer without this legislation.

Businesses will also suffer if Congress does not act. Many of the business provisions contained in the extenders package are crucial in allowing U.S.-based multinational corporations to compete effectively in a global economy.

America accounts for a third of the world's spending on scientific research and development, ranking first among all countries. This is impressive. But relative to the size of our economy, America is in sixth place. And the trends show that maintaining American leadership in the future depends on increased commitment to research and science.

Asia has recognized this. Spending on research and development has increased by 140 percent in China, Korea, and Taiwan. In America, it has increased by only 34 percent.

Asia's commitment is already paying off. More than a hundred Fortune 500 companies have opened research centers in India and China. I have visited some of them. I was impressed with the level of skill of the workers I met there.

There are workers in other countries who seek coveted research positions. Ireland, Poland, and other European countries would like American corporations to shift their R&D operations to their countries. Some of these countries offer incredible tax and non-tax benefits.

Yet our R&D tax credit expired on December 31. American corporations are at a competitive disadvantage. They are unsure if they will be able to obtain the benefit of the credit this year. And they need to plan for the future.

We need to pass an extenders package that allows American companies to take the credit as soon as possible.

American businesses need the R&D tax credit to compete in a global economy. The R&D tax credit gives companies an incentive to begin or continue research here in America. These jobs pay well and result in the creation of intellectual property.

We want these jobs. And we want the intellectual property to be created in our country.

American financial services companies successfully compete in world financial markets. We need to make sure, however, that the U.S. tax rules do not change that.

This legislation will extend the active financing exception to Subpart F. This provision preserves the international competitiveness of American-based financial services companies. This provision also contains appropriate safeguards to ensure that only truly active businesses benefit.

The active financing exception applies to active financial service income earned abroad by American financial services companies or American manufacturing firms with a financial services operation. The exception makes sure that this income is not subject to U.S. tax until that income is brought home to the U.S.

This provision will put the American financial services industry on an equal footing with foreign-based competitors who are not taxed on active financial services income.

There are several other provisions in this bill that encourage businesses to invest in this country. There are provisions that will help American businesses compete in a global economy. We must extend these provisions as soon as possible.

Finally, my bill will provide an AMT patch for 2008. The provision is not offset, because we recognize the reality of the budget constraints we face. We need to get this done. This is an important provision to the American families.

The patch will hold the number of people subject to the AMT at 4.2 million. As a result, over 20 million taxpayers will avoid the AMT next year.

The choice is easy. We should continue to support teachers, families and schools. We should continue to support the creation of jobs and intellectual property. That is why I urge my Colleagues to support this fully offset package.

Which is more important, Mr. President? 11 million families who take the state and local tax deduction, or a few hundred hedge fund managers?

Which is more important? 3.5 million teachers who pay out of their pocket for school supplies, or a few hundred hedge fund managers?

4.5 million families who struggle to pay for college tuition, or a few hundred hedge fund managers?

It is time to reach a conclusion. You can lay all the extenders bills end to end. But I submit that the best conclusion is the extenders package that I introduce today and that the Senate will try to get to next week. I urge my Colleagues to support the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Economic Recovery Act of 2008. I think it is evident our economy is struggling to overcome the twin effects of record-high energy prices and a steep downturn in the housing market.

Earlier this year, this Congress acted to provide rebates to taxpayers to help them cope with the effects of the downturn in the economy. The hope was also that the impact of these rebate checks would be to stimulate the economy.

It is evident much more needs to be done, so the legislation I am introducing today is aimed at reinvigorating our economy. It is my proposal for a second economic stimulus package.

Over the course of the past several years, we have seen the price of oil climb by more than 400 percent, from about $30 per barrel in 2003, to more than $133 per barrel this morning. This escalation in energy costs threatens to plunge our economy into a recession, and it is imposing a tremendous hardship on middle-income and low-income families, on our truckdrivers, our farmers, our fishermen, our schools, virtually everyone.

Big factories and mills, as well as small businesses, have also been harmed by high energy prices. In fact, a week ago we learned a mill in Millinocket, ME, is going to be forced to shut down because it can no longer afford the oil that is essential to the operations of that paper mill.

We are working with Governor Baldacci to try to find alternatives. But it is a prime example of the tremendously harmful impact high energy prices are having on the economy of our State and indeed States throughout the Nation.

Gasoline is already topping $4 a gallon 2 weeks into the summer driving season. Maine families fear the cost of staying warm next winter because home heating oil prices have reached record highs.

At the same time, the cost of diesel fuel is pushing some of America's independent truckers to the brink of bankruptcy. Consider this astonishing fact. In 1999, a Maine truck driver could go from Augusta, ME, all the way to Albuquerque, NM, on $500 worth of diesel. Today, $500 worth of diesel will not get that truck driver to Altoona, PA. What a difference a few years makes.

Of course, with diesel prices continuing to increase, the problem is only getting worse. Meanwhile, weaknesses in the housing market are making it impossible for millions of Americans to get the financing they need to stay in their homes when their adjustable rate mortgages reset. Many of these families are being forced into foreclosure, leaving behind vacant properties and creating a ripple effect that is pulling down home values even further. This problem hurts communities across the Nation, and it requires an effective Federal response.

The legislation I am introducing today would provide much-needed help to Americans who are struggling with high energy costs and the weak housing market. Let me outline the provisions of the economic stimulus package I am proposing.

First, the Economic Recovery Act proposes a series of initiatives to promote increased energy efficiency that would help consumers save money on their energy bills, and help advance the goal of energy independence for our Nation.

Second, the bill provides relief from truck weight regulations that are injuring truckers in the State of Maine.

Third, it proposes a new program to finance transportation infrastructure that is based on the model of the Build American Bonds Bill.

Fourth, it would increase funding under the Workforce Investment Act so we can help displaced and unemployed or underemployed workers.

Fifth, it proposes tax incentives designed to help America's small businesses.

And, sixth, it would help to restore stability in the housing market by expanding the FHA Secure Program, which would help homeowners refinance mortgages that are in danger of foreclosure.

We have focused a lot on the housing problems and the turmoil in the housing and financial markets. Indeed, that is an important factor in the decline of our economy. As I have indicated, I think more needs to be done. But I am convinced high energy prices are an even greater cause of the economic downturn.

We must act to protect ourselves from rapid increases in oil prices and in the long term achieve energy independence. One way to help achieve both those goals is to encourage greater efficiency. My bill would double the funding for the Department of Energy's Weatherization Program, reaching $1.4 billion by the year 2010.

The bill would also provide $112 million each year for the valuable Energy Star Program, which helps consumers choose energy-efficient appliances, and would extend the renewable electricity tax credit through 2011 and the residential investment tax credit for solar and energy-efficient buildings through 2012.

My bill also includes a $500 credit to consumers who replace their old wood-burning stove with a new, cleaner-burning model using wood or wood pellets. This complements a proposal I introduced in February.

We must take action to address the impact rising diesel prices are having on the trucking industry, which is struggling. The rapid increase in the price of diesel is making it more difficult for our Nation's truckers to stay on the road.

It is also increasing the cost of delivering goods that communities throughout our country rely on. We can help trucks to operate more efficiently if we ease Federal trucking regulations that prohibit trucks that carry more than 80,000 pounds from traveling on the Federal interstate system.

My bill includes a provision that would create a 2-year pilot project that would permit trucks carrying up to 100,000 pounds, which is the weight level that is permitted on Maine's highways, to travel on the Interstate Highway system when diesel prices are at or above $3.50 a gallon. The savings on fuel consumption will benefit the trucking industry, the consumer, and our Nation at a time when we are looking for ways to decrease our dependency on foreign oil.

Let me tell you, the current system simply makes no sense at all. In Maine, the trucks that have 100,000 pounds of cargo are forced to leave the Interstate in Augusta, ME, a road that is built to accommodate the heaviest trucks, and instead are forced to go on secondary roads through towns and villages, stopping at railroad crossings. That wastes fuel, and is less safe than keeping them on the Interstate. The trip takes much longer because they are on secondary and slower roads that often are not the most direct routes to the destination. So that simply makes no sense at all.

Any proposal to stimulate the economy should help to fund transportation infrastructure projects. They are a proven means of fostering economic growth and are a lasting investment; an investment we need.

This past winter has been so difficult and so hard on the roads in Maine. I do not think I have ever seen so many frost heaves and so much wear and tear that the very difficult cold and snowy winter has had on our roads and highways as I have seen this spring in Maine. The legislation I have introduced calls for a $50 billion investment through new transportation bonds for roads, bridges, transit, rail, and waterways.

Now, I wish to give credit where credit is due. This proposal which I put into the economic stimulus package was first introduced by Senator Wyden. I was very pleased to be a cosponsor of his bill. I have included our proposal as part of this broader package. Not only will this funding serve as the catalyst for thousands of good jobs today, we all know construction jobs are good jobs, but it also will improve our transportation infrastructure, which is critical to economic development over the long term.

This is an investment that makes sense. Many of these transportation projects are ready to go. They only need the funding. We must also act to provide assistance to those who have lost their jobs in this economic downturn. Now, that means extending unemployment compensation benefits. I hope we are going to do that soon. But in addition, we need to invest in our workers.

In the last 4 months, we have seen 340,000 jobs lost across the country. Today, we have more than 1.6 million additional unemployed workers, compared to 2001; 800,000 more than a year ago. The national unemployment rate has jumped to 5.5 percent. In my home State, 33,600 Mainers are looking for work.

In view of this increase in unemployment, it makes no sense whatsoever that the President's budget actually proposes another cut in the Workforce Investment Act. In fact, overall, the President's budget would cut $1.5 billion from the Department of Labor's workforce programs.

We must invest in America's workforce. Yet since fiscal year 2001, funding for the Workforce Investment Act programs has been reduced by nearly $1.7 billion in real terms. My bill would provide $1 billion in additional Workforce Investment Act funding that would enable us to train nearly 300,000 additional workers.

The bill would also increase funding for the Dislocated Workers program and for Youth and Adult training programs. Support for job training, investing in our workers is critical, but it is also important that we provide relief to the job creators in our economy, and that is our small businesses. The fact is, small businesses create 80 percent of the net new jobs in America. During economic downturns, however, they struggle with cash flow and they must forgo investments they need to grow and remain competitive. That is why I am proposing some tax incentives to help small businesses.

First, we should make the Section 179 expensing limit for small companies permanent so they can count on it. Second, we should renew a provision of tax law that allows restaurant owners to depreciate their equipment more quickly, over 15 years.

Finally, we must take action to steady the housing market. More than 50 million Americans hold mortgages at present and, fortunately, most of them are current with their payments. But 7 million of these mortgages are so-called subprime loans, and most of them are adjustable rate mortgages that reset to higher, often unaffordable rates after only 2 or 3 years of very low introductory rates. What we are finding is a lot of first-time homeowners simply did not understand the risk they were taking with subprime loans. As a result, approximately 1.3 million of these 7 million subprime mortgages are delinquent and could soon be in foreclosure. This number is expected to rise as more mortgages reach the reset date.

I am not interested in bailing out speculators, people who took a gamble that housing prices were going to increase. What I am talking about are homeowners who were peddled an unsuitable mortgage product. We need to help them. Foreclosures inflict losses all around--on the families who lose their homes; on the neighborhoods where values fall as empty houses proliferate; on borrowers who face tighter requirements and higher costs, as perceptions of lending risk increase; and on those who work in the construction or real estate industry, dependent on a strong housing market.

One source of help--and this is what I am proposing in my bill--would be to bolster the FHASecure program administered by the Federal Housing Administration. This program allows eligible homeowners to avoid foreclosure by assisting them with refinancing so they can afford to make their mortgage payments. My bill would expand this program to make it easier for lenders to accept voluntary write-downs of distressed mortgages and allow borrowers whose incomes are not sufficient to meet the terms of their existing mortgages to refinance their homes on terms they could afford. My bill also grants the FHA expanded authority to adjust insurance premiums, depending on the individual borrower's risk profile, to ensure the solvency of the FHA insurance fund. These provisions could help FHA reach hundreds of thousands of additional homeowners by the end of the year, and to do so without taxpayer subsidies.

The legislation I am introducing today includes comprehensive proposals that, taken together, would go a long way toward addressing the two factors truly harming our economy--high energy prices and a weakening housing market. I urge my colleagues to work together in a bipartisan way, to look at the ideas that I and others have proposed so we can work together on a second stimulus package to address these concerns and to help restore and strengthen our Nation's economy.

Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with Senators Feinstein, Durbin, and Dorgan, the Close the London Loophole Act. This legislation would ensure that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, has the same authority to detect, prevent, and punish manipulation and excessive speculation for traders in the United States who trade crude U.S. oil or other energy commodities on foreign commodity exchanges as the CFTC has for traders who trade on U.S. exchanges.

Today, U.S. crude oil and gasoline futures are traded primarily on exchanges in New York and London. While the CFTC--our cop on the beat-- has clear authority to go after trading abuses on the New York exchange, its authority is less clear when it comes to U.S. energy commodities traded on the London exchange. The bill we are introducing today would close the London loophole by ensuring the CFTC has all the information and authority it needs to stop price manipulation or excessive speculation involving U.S. energy trades on foreign exchanges.

Under current law, the CFTC obtains the information it needs to detect price manipulation and excessive speculation involving U.S. energy trades on foreign exchanges only through voluntary data-sharing agreements it arranges with the relevant foreign regulators. In many instances, the CFTC can take action against a U.S. trader on a foreign exchange to prevent manipulation or excessive speculation only with the cooperation and consent of the foreign regulator.

Our bill would strengthen CFTC oversight by providing the CFTC with clear legal authority, as well as a clear legal obligation, to obtain trading data from foreign exchanges operating in the United States through direct trading terminals. In addition, the bill would enable the CFTC to act on its own authority and initiative to prevent manipulation or excessive speculation by U.S. traders directing trades through foreign exchanges. This new authority would ensure that our own government has the information and ability to protect American markets from manipulation and excessive speculation, no matter where U.S. energy commodities are traded. U.S. traders will no longer be able to avoid the cop on the beat by routing their trades through a foreign exchange.

This legislation would complement a recent legislative initiative I have long worked on to ensure that U.S. commodity markets are free from manipulation and excessive speculation. Last month the Congress passed, over the President's veto, legislation to close the Enron loophole. This loophole, enacted into law in 2000 at the behest of Enron and other commodity traders, had allowed large traders to buy and sell energy commodities on U.S. electronic markets without CFTC oversight. The legislation passed last month as part of the farm bill gave the CFTC the authority and mandate to police U.S. electronic exchanges to stop price manipulation and excessive speculation. No longer will these electronic commodity exchanges be able to operate in the dark, as they had under the Enron loophole.

Closing the Enron loophole is a major advance in U.S. energy market oversight as a whole, and for our natural gas markets in particular, but it is not enough. Because over the last two years, energy traders have begun trading U.S. crude oil, gasoline, and home heating oil on the London exchange, beyond the direct reach of U.S. regulators, we have to address that second loophole too. I call it closing the London loophole.

There are currently two key energy commodity markets for U.S. crude oil, gasoline, and heating oil trading. The first is the New York Mercantile Exchange or NYMEX, located in New York City. The second is the ICE Futures Europe exchange, located in London and regulated by the British agency called the Financial Services Authority.

British regulators do not oversee their energy markets the same way we do. They don't place limits on speculation like we do, they don't monitor trader positions like we do, and they do not require the same type of data to be reported to regulatory authorities. That means that traders can avoid U.S. crude oil speculation limits on the New York exchange by trading on the London exchange. It also makes the London exchange less transparent than the New York exchange. The legislation I introduced last year to close the Enron loophole would have required U.S. traders on the London exchange to provide U.S. regulators with the same type of trading information that they are already required to provide when they trade on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Unfortunately, this provision was dropped from the close-the-Enron- loophole legislation in the farm bill.

The Consumer-First Energy Act, S. 3044, which the Majority Leader and others introduced recently to address high prices and reduce speculation, included at my request a provision to curb rampant speculation, increase our access to foreign exchange trading data, and strengthen oversight of the trading of U.S. energy commodities no matter where that trading occurs. This provision would require the CFTC, prior to allowing a foreign exchange to establish direct trading terminals located in this country, to obtain an agreement from that foreign exchange to impose speculative limits and reporting requirements on traders of U.S. energy commodities comparable to the requirements imposed by the CFTC on U.S. exchanges. This issue is so important that I introduced this section of the package as a separate bill, S. 2995, along with Senator Feinstein.

Following the introduction of our legislation, the CFTC finally moved to address some of the gaps in its ability to oversee foreign exchanges operating in the United States. Specifically, the CFTC, working with the United Kingdom Financial Services Authority and the ICE Futures Europe exchange, announced that it will now obtain the following information about the trading of U.S. crude oil contracts on the London exchange: daily large trader reports on positions in West Texas Intermediate or WTI contracts traded on the London exchange; information on those large trader positions for all futures contracts, not just a limited set of contracts due to expire in the near future; enhanced trader information to permit more detailed identification of end users; improved data formatting to facilitate integration of the data with other CFTC data systems; and notification to the CFTC of when a trader on ICE Futures Europe exceeds the position accountability levels established by NYMEX for the trading of WTI crude oil contracts.

These new steps will strengthen the CFTC's ability to detect and prevent manipulation and excessive speculation in the oil and gasoline markets. It will ensure that the CFTC has the same type of information it receives from U.S. exchanges in order to detect and prevent manipulation and excessive speculation on the London exchange.

However, in order to fully close the London loophole, better information is not enough. The CFTC must also have clear authority to act upon this information to stop manipulation and excessive speculation.

That is why I have been working with the sponsors of the Consumer- First Energy Act to develop additional language to ensure that the CFTC has the authority to act upon the information obtained from the London exchange to prevent price manipulation and excessive speculation. This new provision would make it clear that the CFTC has the authority to prosecute and punish manipulation of the price of a commodity, regardless of whether the trader within the United States is trading on a U.S. or on a foreign exchange. It would also make it clear that the CFTC has the authority to require traders in the United States to reduce their positions, no matter where the trading occurs--on a U.S. or foreign exchange--to prevent price manipulation or excessive speculation in U.S. commodities. Finally, it would clarify that the CFTC has the authority to require all U.S. traders to keep records of their trades, regardless of which exchange the trader is using.

This new provision is included in the bill we are introducing today. I hope that it will also be included in the Consumer-First Energy Act when Senate debate is allowed to go forward on that bill.

In closing the London loophole, we will ensure there is a cop on the beat for all U.S. energy commodity traders, no matter whether they are trading on an exchange in New York or in London. It will ensure that our regulators have the information and the tools to detect, prevent, and punish manipulation and excessive speculation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce The Oil Speculation Control Act, a bill to reduce the impact of excessive speculation in the oil markets.

The legislation is cosponsored by Senator Ted Stevens.

Last week the price of oil hit $138 per barrel. A commodity that used to be priced at $11 a barrel is now swinging $11 in a single day. Yesterday it jumped $5--supposedly in response to a single Department of Energy report.

Gasoline prices now average more than $4.50 in California. Some gas stations have to charge by the half gallon. Their pumps cannot calculate in prices this high.

There seems to be no relief in sight for consumers as we enter the summer travel season.

In the Farm Bill Congress finally closed the ``Enron Loophole,'' and placed all major electronic trades that could drive energy prices under the watchful eye of the Commodity Futures Trading commission, CFTC.

Today I and Senator Levin introduced the Close the London Loophole Act to close another loophole. This bill would bring oversight to American energy commodities being traded beyond our borders.

I also joined Senator Durbin in calling for the President to add 100 I enforcement professionals to the ranks of the CFTC.

However, these steps are not enough.

I believe we must do more to reduce the excessive speculation of institutional investors in oil markets.

So today I am introducing the Oil Speculation Control Act.

Let me explain what this bill would do.

First, it requires CFTC to review the trading practices of institutional investors and their dealers within 30 days:

It ensures that their trading is not adversely impacting the market price.

It determines whether different regulations are necessary:

It proposes to Congress regulations and legislation necessary to prevent the dramatic increase of fuel costs in the futures markets.

Second, the bill establishes reporting requirements. It requires institutional investors, such as pension funds or endowments, to report their energy market positions to the CFTC, even when trades are executed by a third party broker.

To further increase transparency, it would force CFTC regulations and reports to begin distinguishing between the institutional investors and the ``swaps dealers'' or ``index traders'' who broker their trades.

Third, the bill would force CFTC to limit institutional investor and index trader positions, as CFTC limits the positions of more traditional market speculators.

Fourth, it prevents CFTC from considering the positions of institutional investors or their brokers to be ``bone fide hedges'' that would be exempt from speculative position limits.

Finally, it requires that the Office of the CFTC's Inspector General be removed from the CFTC Chairman's Office and established as an independent office.

This bill is necessary because I believe that speculation in oil futures by large institutional investors and index funds is inflating the price of oil.

The unconstrained and overwhelming entrance of these new commodity investors, who have bet more than 99 percent of their funds on prices rising, must be controlled.

Recent testimony before numerous Congressional Committees indicates that between 2000 and 2002, major institutional investors began to view commodity futures markets as a new ``asset class'' suitable to be used in large financial portfolios. Since 2000, investment fund managers have come to believe that investing in commodities balances a stock portfolio.

As Daniel Yergin, one of the Nation's leading energy market experts put it: ``Oil has become the `new gold'--a financial asset in which investors seek refuge as inflation rises and the dollar weakens.''

Never before have so many institutional investors made large scale investments in commodity markets, but from 2003 to 2008, investments in commodity index funds rose from $13 billion to $260 billion.

The implications for consumers of this shift are potentially devastating. Unlike gold, energy and agricultural commodities meet essential needs in the everyday lives of average Americans, and the potential risk that investment strategies will push the price of these goods higher during economic downturns presents a threat to the public welfare. I do not believe this is in the best interest of the American public.

Under the Commodity Exchange Act, the CFTC must impose speculation limits on the size of energy trader positions. Crude oil speculative positions are limited to a total of 20 million barrels of oil and 3 million barrels of oil in the last three days of a contract.

However, it is CFTC's practice to exempt institutional investors from such limits when investors execute their trades through brokers or dealers.

This is a mistake.

They are not hedging against the risk of changing oil prices, as airlines or utilities frequently must do.

They never take delivery of the product.

They participate in the oil markets only on paper.

This bill will assure that the existing speculation limit powers will constrain the market distortion resulting from this massive influx of capital. It will ensure a regulatory system that limits the size and influence of institutional investor positions in energy markets.

Even CFTC has realized that its policy may be mistaken.

Last month it announced that it will review the trading practices for index traders in the futures markets to ensure that this type of trading activity is not adversely impacting the price discovery process. They also plan to determine whether different practices should be employed.

Today's markets evolve quickly, and we need to make sure our market oversight responds just as quickly.

We now know that over the last few years a whole new kind of investor has entered oil markets. Institutional investors only bet that the price will go up. No matter how high the price goes, they pour into the market to push it higher.

We have ways to control this. We have speculation limits. But we are not using them. I am introducing this bill to make sure we use the tools we have.

As the markets continue to evolve, so must our regulation. I believe the Oil Speculation Control Act takes this step, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Responsible Ownership of Public Land Act. I thank my friends Congressmen Rahm Emanuel, Ed Markey, Maurice Hinchey, and Nick Rahall for their leadership on this issue in the other chamber. With the issue of oil and gas prices at the forefront of our national consciousness, this bill is timely and critically needed.

As gas prices across the Nation soar to shocking, unprecedented levels, we can all agree that the time has come to end our dependence on oil. But that can't happen unless we also commit to something the Bush administration and its allies in Congress have refused to:

End our dependence on the oil companies--on letting them hold the American people and economy hostage to rising prices that have no end in sight.

In my home State of Connecticut, a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline today reached $4.36. That is an increase of 41 cents from just a month ago--and $1.12 from only a year ago. For reasons that economists seem at a loss to explain, my State today has the second- highest gas prices in the Nation. It seems that every single day we turn on the television or open a newspaper, we hear about new records being set for the price of a barrel of oil or how much people are paying at the pump.

The rising price of gas only begins at the pump. It is also causing prices to rise at the grocery store and elsewhere. Wherever they go, families are feeling economic pressure like never before--finding themselves forced to make difficult decisions and cut down on spending in other areas simply so they can afford to commute to work or take their kids to school. Too often they are forced to choose between food, gas, utilities, and lifesaving medications.

In my view there are many things we need to do to address this pressing issue. In the long term we need to develop clean, renewable energy sources that will alleviate our dependence on foreign oil that often comes from unstable, hostile regimes and create new green jobs here at home. But in the short term, we need to take steps to help out families who are hurting and angry and need relief.

One idea we hear time and again from President Bush and his Republican allies is that the answer to our energy problems is to open up environmentally fragile areas of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to more drilling. In response, I would point out that there are already 44 million offshore acres that have been leased by oil companies, who have only put 10.5 million of those acres into production. Of the 47.5 million onshore acres under lease for oil and gas production, only 13 million are in production.

Combined, oil and gas companies hold leases to 68 million acres of Federal land and waters that they are not producing any oil and gas on. This is compared to the 1.5 million acres that make up ANWR that proponents of drilling there would like to see opened up. Instead of putting pristine wilderness in grave peril, these companies should first be producing on acres already under lease. The vast majority of oil and natural gas resources on Federal land are already open for drilling and are not being tapped, and the oil and gas resources available in the unused land under lease far outstrips what is available in ANWR and other areas closed to drilling.

Therefore, I am offering this legislation as a solution to this problem--a production incentive fee for acres under lease that are not in production. This fee would rise with the number of years the land has been under lease but not used. The revenue raised by these fees could be used to fund the development of clean, renewable energy, energy efficiency, and programs such as LIHEAP that help families struggling with sky-high energy prices.

Over the last 8 years, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their allies in this body have done all they can to block any progress toward energy independence. They have belittled and undermined policies and technologies that, had they been adopted, would have helped consumers avoid the deplorable situation they find themselves in today.

As a result, American families are now at the mercy of foreign dictators, market speculators, and big oil companies reaping enormous profits--the largest profits in corporate history.

As a result, every time the price of a gallon of gas reaches a new record, Americans are the ones paying the price of this administration's inaction.

It is time to end our dependence on the oil companies. This bill would start that process by saying the time has come to put the American people first.

It is my hope that with the introduction of the Responsible Ownership of Public Land Act, we can begin again to work toward delivering the kind of change American families are desperate for. I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this commonsense effort to responsibly address the Nation's desperate energy needs.