Bus Utility and Safety in School Transportation Opportunity and Purchasing Act of 2008

Mr. President, energy prices are on a roller coaster, taking American consumers and the American economy on an unpredictable, expensive, and damaging ride. Just over a year ago, a barrel of crude oil sold for $70 a barrel. In less than a year, the price doubled to nearly $147. Last week, that same barrel of oil cost $91, a price drop of $56 over a few months. Just in the past week crude oil prices have jumped from about $96 per barrel to $130 per barrel and then back to $106 per barrel. No one knows whether, by the end of the year, the price of oil will stay around $100, drop lower, or climb back up. The huge price spikes we experienced can't be explained by changes in supply and demand; about half the trading in oil futures results from speculation as to whether oil prices will rise or fall by traders without any interest in actually using the oil they are buying and selling.

The natural gas, gasoline, and heating oil markets have also seen huge price swings. The prices are up, they are down, they are unpredictable--making it impossible for many businesses and consumers to afford even basic goods and services.

The sky-high oil and gasoline prices in effect for the last year are taking a tremendous toll on millions of American consumers and businesses. Speculation--not supply and demand--is keeping prices high, and our economy is forced to respond to erratic price changes. Unless we act to protect our energy markets from excessive speculation and price manipulation, the American economy will continue to be vulnerable to wild price swings affecting the prices of transportation, food, manufacturing and everything in between, endangering the economic security of our people, our businesses, and our Nation.

Congress should act now to help tame rampant speculation and reinvigorate supply and demand as market forces.

Today, I am introducing legislation, along with Senators Bingaman and Harkin, that represents our collective effort to enact the strongest and most workable measures to prevent excessive speculation and price manipulation in U.S. energy markets. It will close the loopholes in our commodities laws that now impede the policing of U.S. energy trades on foreign exchanges and in the unregulated over-the-counter market. It will ensure that large commodity traders cannot use these markets to hide from CFTC oversight or avoid limits on speculation. The bill will strengthen disclosure, oversight, and enforcement in U.S. energy markets, restoring the financial oversight that is crucial to protect American consumers, American businesses, and the U.S. economy from further energy shocks.

More specifically, this legislation would make four sets of changes.

It will require the CFTC to set limits on the holdings of traders in all of the energy futures contracts traded on regulated exchanges to prevent traders from engaging in excessive speculation or price manipulation. Since we closed the Enron loophole this year all futures contracts must be traded in regulated markets.

It would close the ``London loophole'' by giving the CFTC the same authority to police traders in the United States who trade U.S. futures contracts on a foreign exchange and by requiring foreign exchanges that want to install trading terminals in the U.S. to impose comparable limits on speculative trading as the CFTC imposes on domestic exchanges to prevent excessive speculation and price manipulation.

It will close the ``swaps loophole'' by requiring traders in the over-the-counter energy markets to report large trades to the CFTC, and it would authorize the CFTC to set limits on trading in the presently unregulated over-the-counter markets to prevent excessive speculation and price manipulation.

It will require the CFTC to revise the standards that allow traders who use futures markets to hedge their holdings to exceed the speculation limits that apply to everyone else.

My Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations' investigations have shown that one key factor in price spikes of energy is increased speculation in the energy markets. Traders are trading contracts for future delivery of oil in record amounts, creating a demand for paper contracts that gets translated into increases in prices and increasing price volatility.

Much of this increase in trading of futures has been due to speculation. Speculators in the oil market do not intend to use oil; instead they buy and sell contracts for crude oil in the hope of making a profit from changing prices. According to the CFTC's data, the number of futures and options contracts held by speculators has gone from around 100,000 contracts in 2001, which was 20 percent of the total number of outstanding contracts, to almost 1.2 million contracts, which represents almost 40 percent of the outstanding futures and options contracts in oil on NYMEX Even this understates the increase in speculation, since the CFTC data classifies futures trading involving index funds as commercial trading rather than speculation, and the CFTC classifies all traders in commercial firms as commercial traders, regardless of whether any particular trader in that firm may in fact be speculating.

There is now, as a result, 12 times as many speculative holdings as there was in 2001, while holdings of nonspeculative or commercial futures and options is up but three times. The greater the demand there is to buy futures contracts for the delivery of a commodity, the higher the price will be for those futures contracts.

Not surprisingly, therefore, this massive speculation that the price of oil will increase, together with the increase in the amount of purchases of futures contracts, in fact, helped increase the price of oil to a level far above the price that is justified by the traditional forces of supply and demand.

In June 2006, I released a subcommittee report, ``The Role of Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices: A Need to Put a Cop on the Beat.'' This report found that the traditional forces of supply and demand didn't account for sustained price increases and price volatility in the oil and gasoline markets. The report concluded that, in 2006, a growing number of trades of contracts for future delivery of oil occurred without regulatory oversight and that market speculation had contributed to rising oil and gasoline prices, perhaps accounting for $20 out of a then-priced $70 barrel of oil.

Oil industry executives and experts have arrived at a similar conclusion. Late last year, the President and CEO of Marathon Oil said, ``$100 oil isn't justified by the physical demand in the market. It has to be speculation on the futures market that is fueling this.'' Mr. Fadel Gheit, oil analyst for Oppenheimer and Company describes the oil market as ``a farce.'' ``The speculators have seized control and it's basically a free-for-all, a global gambling hall, and it won't shut down unless and until responsible governments step in.'' In January of this year, when oil first hit $100 per barrel, Mr. Tim Evans, oil analyst for Citigroup, wrote ``the larger supply and demand fundamentals do not support a further rise and are, in fact, more consistent with lower price levels.'' At the joint hearing on the effects of speculation we held last December, Dr. Edward Krapels, a financial market analyst, testified, ``Of course financial trading, speculation affects the price of oil because it affects the price of everything we trade. . . . It would be amazing if oil somehow escaped this effect.'' Dr. Krapels added that as a result of this speculation ``there is a bubble in oil prices.''

The need to control speculation is urgent. The presidents and CEOs of major U.S. airlines recently warned about the disastrous effects of rampant speculation on the airline industry. The CEOs stated ``normal market forces are being dangerously amplified by poorly regulated market speculation.'' The CEOs wrote, ``For airlines, ultra-expensive fuel means thousands of lost jobs and severe reductions in air service to both large and small communities.''

As to reining in speculation, the first step to take is to put a cop back on the beat in all our energy markets to prevent excessive speculation, price manipulation, and trading abuses.

With respect to the futures markets, the legislation we are introducing today requires the CFTC to establish limits on the amount of futures contracts any trader can hold. Currently, the CFTC allows the futures exchanges themselves to set these limits. This bill would require the CFTC to set these limits to prevent excessive speculation and price manipulation. It would preserve, however, the exchanges' obligation and ability to police their traders to ensure they remain below these limits.

This legislation would also require the CFTC to conduct a rulemaking to review and revise the criteria for allowing traders who are using the futures market to hedge their risks in a commodity to acquire holdings in excess of the limits on holdings for speculators.

Another step is to give the CFTC authority to prevent excessive speculation in the over-the-counter markets. In 2007, my Subcommittee issued a report on the effects of speculation in the energy markets, entitled ``Excessive Speculation in the Natural Gas Market.'' This investigation showed that speculation by a hedge fund named Amaranth distorted natural gas prices during the summer of 2006 and drove up prices for average consumers. The report demonstrated how Amaranth had shifted its speculative activity to unregulated markets, under the ``Enron loophole,'' to avoid the restrictions and oversight in the regulated markets, and how Amaranth's trading in the unregulated markets contributed to price increases.

Following this investigation, I introduced a bill, S. 2058, to close the Enron loophole and regulate the unregulated electronic energy markets. Working with Senators Feinstein and Snowe, and with the members of the Agriculture Committee in a bipartisan effort, we included an amendment to close the Enron loophole in the farm bill, which Congress passed this past spring, overriding a veto by President Bush.

The legislation to close the Enron loophole placed over-the-counter-- OTC--electronic exchanges under CFTC regulation. However, this legislation did not address the separate issue of trading in the rest of the OTC market, which includes bilateral trades through voice brokers, swap dealers, and direct party-to-party negotiations. In order to ensure there is a cop on the beat in all of the energy commodity markets, we need to address the rest of the OTC market as well.

Previously, I introduced legislation, S. 3255, along with Senator Feinstein, the Over-the-Counter Speculation Act, to address the rest of the OTC market not covered by the farm bill. A large portion of this OTC market consists of the trading of swaps relating to the price of a commodity. Generally, commodity swaps are contracts between two parties where one party pays a fixed price to another party in return for some type of payment at a future time depending on the price of a commodity. Because some of these swap instruments look very much like futures contracts--except that they do not call for the actual delivery of the commodity--there is concern that the price of these swaps that are traded in the unregulated OTC market could affect the price of the very similar futures contracts that are traded on the regulated futures markets. We don't yet know for sure that this is the case, or that it is not, because we don't have any access to comprehensive data or reporting on the trading of these swaps in the OTC market.

The legislation introduced today includes these same provisions to give the CFTC oversight authority to stop excessive speculation in the over-the-counter market. These provisions represent a practical, workable approach that will enable the CFTC to obtain key information about the OTC market to enable it to prevent excessive speculation and price manipulation. These

provisions are also included in the legislation introduced by the majority leader and others, S. 3268, to stop excessive speculation.

Under these provisions, the CFTC will have the authority to ensure that traders cannot avoid the CFTC reporting requirements by trading swaps in the unregulated OTC market instead of regulated exchanges. It will enable the CFTC to act, such as by requiring reductions in holdings of futures contracts or swaps, against traders with large positions in order to prevent excessive speculation or price manipulation regardless of whether the trader's position is on an exchange or in the OTC market.

The bill we are introducing today, unlike S. 3255, gives the CFTC the authority to establish position limits in the over-the-counter market for energy and agricultural commodities in order to prevent excessive speculation and price manipulation. The CFTC needs this authority to ensure that large traders are not using the over-the-counter markets to evade the position limits in the futures markets.

Earlier this year I introduced legislation with Senators Feinstein, Durbin, Dorgan and Bingaman, S.3129, to close the London loophole. This loophole has allowed crude oil traders in the U.S. to avoid the position limits that apply to trading on U.S. futures exchanges by directing their trades onto the ICE Futures Exchange in London. The legislation we introduced also was incorporated into the legislation to stop prevent excessive speculation introduced by the majority leader, S. 3268. These provisions are now included in the legislation we are introducing today.

After this legislation was first introduced, the CFTC imposed more stringent requirements upon the ICE Futures Exchange's operations in the United States--for the first time requiring the London exchange to impose and enforce comparable position limits in order to be allowed to keep its trading terminals in the United States. This is the very action our legislation called for. However, the current CFTC position limits apply only to the nearest futures contract. Our legislation will ensure that foreign exchanges with trading terminals in the U.S. will apply position limits to other futures contracts once the CFTC establishes those limits for U.S. exchanges.

Although the CFTC has taken these important steps that will go a long way towards closing the London loophole, Congress should still pass this legislation to make sure the London loophole stays closed. The legislation would put the conditions the CFTC has imposed upon the London exchange into statute, and ensure that the CFTC has clear authority to take action against any U.S. trader who is manipulating the price of a commodity or excessively speculating through the London exchange, including requiring that trader to reduce positions.

The legislation we are introducing today also includes a number of provisions in the majority leader's bill, S. 3248, that require a variety of studies, investigations, and reports designed to improve the transparency and regulation of the energy markets. It also provides authorization for the CFTC to hire an additional 100 employees to oversee the commodity markets it regulates.

On September 11, the CFTC issued a ``Staff Report on Commodity Swap Dealers and Index Traders with Commission Recommendations.'' The legislation we have introduced embodies several of the CFTC's recommendations to improve the transparency and regulation of swap dealers and commodity index traders. These recommendations include: develop and regularly publish reports on the activity of swap dealers and commodity index traders; more accurately assess the type of trading activity in the CFTC's weekly reports on commercial and noncommercial trading; review whether to eliminate the bona fide hedge exemption for swap dealers and create new limited risk management exemption; provide additional staff and resources for the CFTC.

Our legislation also is consistent with CFTC Commissioner Chilton's dissenting views on the CFTC's recommendations. In his dissent, Commissioner Chilton requested that Congress provide: ``specific statutory authorities to allow the Commission to obtain data regarding over-the-counter transactions that may impact exchange-traded markets; ``specific statutory authorities to allow the Commission to address market disturbances or violations of the Commodity Exchange Act, based on the data received regarding over-the-counter transactions;'' and authorization and appropriation for 100 additional employees.

Our bill provides the CFTC with the statutory authorities requested by Commissioner Chilton and authorizes the requested employees.

In summary, the legislation we are introducing today will give the CFTC ability to police all of our energy commodity markets to prevent excessive speculation and price manipulation. This legislation is necessary to close all of the loopholes in current law that permit speculators to avoid trading limits designed to prevent the type of excessive speculation that has been contributing to high energy prices. We hope our colleagues will support this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a bill summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, many years ago, when I attended school in Searchlight, I walked to school. When it was time for high school, I hitched a ride into a town 40 miles away and had to stay with family during the week. There weren't many options back then. That was how many kids got to school in rural Nevada--walk or hitchhike.

Now, of course, in both urban and rural America, most children take school buses to school.

Unfortunately, rural school districts across America are strapped. They can't afford to buy newer, safer buses. With gas near $4 a gallon, their budgets have been stretched to the limits. As a result, many rural areas have no choice but to operate outdated, unsafe school buses for as long as they can pass inspection.

Over the years, I have met several times with the school superintendents in my State--all 17 of them. While each district has their own unique challenges, they all have an urgent need for safe and reliable school buses.

In some rural Nevada counties, school buses must travel a million miles in a single school year. Last school year, the buses in one of Nevada's rural school districts traveled close to 5 million miles combined. I am fairly confident that many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would agree that the need for newer and safer school buses is not unique to Nevada's rural school districts.

From my meetings with our State's superintendents, it was clear that our school districts needed assistance. In the 108th and 109th Congresses, I introduced legislation to help these and other rural districts transport children to school in a way that is safe, affordable, and environmentally sound.

The Bus Utility and Safety in School Transportation Opportunity and Purchasing Act of 2008--or BUS STOP--allows school districts across rural America to be eligible for transit funding through the Department of Transportation, with the Federal Government contributing 75 percent of the cost.

Some may wonder why we need such a program when the Environmental

Protection Agency already has a cost-share grant program--the Clean School Bus USA program--to help school districts purchase new buses powered by natural gas or other alternative fuels.

Unfortunately, most of the rural districts in my State, and, I would imagine, across the country, cannot apply for these grants because they don't have the infrastructure in place to support this technology.

However, working in the spirit of a cleaner environment and healthy children, this bill will help rural school districts buy newer buses that are better for our air, and safer for our children.

There are many small, rural towns in America, like Searchlight, where kids travel to school in outdated buses. They deserve no less than safe, clean, economical buses to get them to school.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend Senator Ensign to introduce the Southern Nevada Higher Education Land Act of 2008. This bill will expand opportunities for higher education in one of the Nation's fastest growing areas, southern Nevada.

In July 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Land Grant College Act into law, creating a higher education legacy that continues to benefit our country today. That bill, now referred to as the Morrill Act, provided 30,000 acres of Federal land per Member of Congress to establish institutions of higher education in each State. Today, thanks in large part to the foresight of Senator Justin Smith Morrill from Vermont and others from his time, this Nation has one of the finest public university systems in the world.

Among the many universities established as a result of this forward- looking legislation was the University of Nevada. The State's first university was originally founded in Elko in 1874. Two years later, Nevada's State legislature voted to move the university to its current home in Reno. The University of Nevada remained the State's only higher education institution for 75 years.

From these humble beginnings, the State of Nevada has expanded its higher education system to now include two research universities, one State college, one research institution, and four community colleges. The Nevada System of Higher Education, which was formed in 1968 and encompasses all 8 institutions, has grown to serve roughly 98,000 degree-seeking students.

As the State of Nevada continues to grow, so too must its university system. With over 2 million residents in 2007, greater Las Vegas is the fourth-largest metropolitan area in the Mountain West. In this decade alone, the area's population has grown by 31 percent, 5 times faster than the Nation as a whole. By the year 2040, the area's population is projected to double to nearly 4.3 million residents. We must expand higher education opportunities to meet the demands of this growing region.

Consider the following--the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, with 28,000 students and 3,300 faculty and staff, is the fourth fastest- growing research university in the Nation. The College of Southern Nevada, also in Las Vegas, serves 39,000 students and its three

urban campuses are at near capacity. The town of Pahrump, 60 miles from Las Vegas in rural Nye County, has grown by 20 percent since 2000. Great Basin College's small branch campus in Pahrump uses high school classrooms at night to serve the city's 41,000 residents.

Our legislation will make selected parcels of Federal lands available for the future growth of the university system. Land will be provided for new campuses for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas; the College of Southern Nevada; and a Pahrump campus of Great Basin College. The current campuses for these three institutions comprise 1,150 acres in southern Nevada. With the passage of this legislation, an additional 2,400 acres will be available for new classroom, research, and residential facilities to help further the missions of these three fine institutions.

To establish these new campuses, three parcels of land would be conveyed from the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, to the Nevada System of Higher Education. Two of the parcels are located in Clark County, within the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act, SNPLMA, disposal boundary. The third parcel is located in Pahrump, west of Las Vegas, in Nye County. BLM has designated all of these parcels for disposal because they are surrounded by development and are difficult to manage.

It is important to point out that the land our legislation conveys for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, borders Nellis Air Force Base. Nellis was once on the outskirts of town, but now development is on its doorstep. In order to protect the mission of the Nellis Air Force base, we have put a special provision in the legislation requiring that the university system and Air Force sign a common agreement regarding development plans for the campus before any land is conveyed. The university system and the Air Force have been in conversations about this agreement for at least 2 years and seem to have found a middle ground that will serve the interests of both parties. We greatly appreciate the efforts of the university system and the Air Force to make this work.

This same land bordering Nellis was once used as a small arms range during World War II and will need to be cleaned up before it can be conveyed to the university system. Because it will take time to accomplish this, our legislation allows the land to be conveyed in phases, as the remediation is completed.

This proposal to expand higher education opportunities in southern Nevada has been welcomed by area leaders. City and county officials have worked closely with the Nevada System of Higher Education to plan the development of world-class facilities in their communities. These facilities are critical to meeting the challenge of diversifying their economies and attracting and growing knowledge industries in the area.

Just as the Morrill Act opened up Federal land to expand higher education across the Nation, I am hopeful that this important, though much more modest effort can do the same for the residents of southern Nevada. We look forward to working with Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Domenici and the other distinguished members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to move this legislation in an expeditious manner.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Carson City Vital Community Act of 2008 for myself and Senator Ensign. We originally introduced this bill on July 31, 2008. Since then we have sought and received important feedback on the legislation. Carson City, numerous citizens, our federal land agencies, and committee staff have all brought important ideas to the table. We are reintroducing this legislation today so that anyone who has an interest in this legislation can see how the bill has improved as result of the input we have received.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue of critical importance to the security of our Nation and the world. I want to talk about the future of Iran's nuclear capabilities and what it means for the United States.

Too often here in Washington, we get caught up in the debate of the moment and fail to appreciate the larger picture. Too many are more concerned with petty blame games and not enough are concerned with the greater challenge of protecting Americans.

General Michael Hayden, the Director of Central Intelligence, has said that he believes Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. Others, including the President of the United States and the leaders of France and Great Britain agree.

I ask myself what would happen if the Ahmadinejad regime in Iran succeeded in acquiring a nuclear weapon. Among the possibilities, he could use that weapon. Iran could share it with terrorists or other rogue states. At a minimum, an Iranian nuke would prompt its neighbors in the Gulf, in Turkey, in Egypt and elsewhere to seek a similar ability in order to defend themselves against Iran's efforts to gain regional dominance.

The stakes could not be higher, and I am concerned that we are not meeting the challenge. To the contrary, I believe we are being tested, and we are failing.

Iran is the most active state sponsor of terrorism around the world. In addition to its long time support for groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, Iran is now active in directing aggression against our troops in Iraq, sponsoring not only Shiite extremists but even Sunni terror groups. According to General Petraeus, ``...Iran has played [a fundamental role] in funding, training, arming, and directing the so- called Special Groups and generated renewed concern about Iran in the minds of many Iraqi leaders. Unchecked, the Special Groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq.''

In addition to its destabilizing sponsorship of violence across the Middle East, we also know that Iran is working on delivery vehicles for deadly weapons. The regime has continuously upgraded its missile capabilities, and now has delivery vehicles that can strike targets all over the Middle East and into Europe. Couple that knowledge with the evidence available that Iran has worked on fitting nuclear warheads onto these missiles, and we have even more practical reasons for concern.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated emphatically that his Nation ``will not give up one iota of its nuclear rights.''

Where does this leave the United States, and the American people, in confronting this growing and multidimensional threat? Unfortunately, the answer appear, to be: confused.

The clearest evidence that we have yet to focus on the exact nature of the Iranian threat--an understanding that is imperative if we are going to succeed in countering it--is last year's National Intelligence Estimate on Iran.

Although leaders and intelligence agencies around the world believe that Iran is indeed pursuing nuclear weapons, the NIE drew confusing, misleading, and contradicting conclusions. In dramatic phrasing clearly designed to mislead, the NIE states that ``We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.'' In a footnote that got short shrift from both the press and the jubilant Iranian regime, the analysts explain that what they say `` `nuclear weapons program' we mean Iran's nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work; we do not mean Iran's declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment.'' In other words, the work referred to that had ``halted'' was in fact work that this Congress had heretofore not been able to confirm, and that we were uncertain existed. What continued, according to the NIE, was Iran's attempts to use its licit nuclear program to develop nuclear weapons capability. Which is exactly what we have been worrying about all along.

Since the NIE, the intelligence community has backed away from its original assessment. The Director of National Intelligence, Vice Admiral Mike McConnell said that Iran could ``probably'' produce the fissile material needed for a nuclear weapon by as early as 2010. He has also testified that he would ``change the way we described the nuclear program'' in the NIE.

Both Hayden and McConnell have also admitted that the NIE was so quickly declassified and poorly focused that it confused people. Unfortunately, the damage is done. The notion that Iran has suspended its nuclear program--however false that may be--has derailed our diplomatic push to a great extent and caused more confusion. Whatever the intentions behind this misleading assessment, we now know that Iran, with some of its international supporters, used the opportunity to derail the diplomatic process and move ahead with its uranium enrichment. Iran is now on the verge of producing enough highly enriched uranium for one to three nuclear weapons a year.

This is not good news. Diplomacy, and more serious sanctions, keep military action at bay. A lack of options is what forces nations to make military choices.

I raise these points not to criticize the administration, advocate for one action course of action over another, or argue about the results of the recent NIE. I raise these points because our Nation cannot afford confusion about the threat at hand. We have underestimated our adversaries in the past, and missed important developments even in friendly nations. Saddam Hussein developed nuclear weapons while receiving U.S. aid. India detonated a nuclear device before the U.S. had any advance warning. More recently, Syria procured a nuclear reactor as the United States negotiated in good faith with its suppliers in North Korea.

We need to get this right. A mistake, a botched timeline, a missed event, a faulty analysis--all or any of the above could result in the worst of all possible outcomes. It is for that reason, that I rise today to introduce the legislation to help us better assess the nuclear threat from Iran. This legislation will create an independent commission comprised of 12 private U.S. citizens with expertise in nuclear proliferation and experience on the question of Iran. They will be appointed by the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, and the Senate Minority Leader. Together, they will lend their expertise on this critical issue.

There is a venerable history to such bipartisan commissions, including the 9/11 Commission, the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, and the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States. A commission can provide a set of fresh eyes to look without bias at the information at hand and make assessments upon which the American people and American policymakers can rely.

Perhaps there are some among my colleagues or in the bureaucracy of the executive branch who believe that they need no help, and that such a commission is not necessary. To them, I suggest a brief review of history. Let us rely on the best our Nation has to offer, and bring bipartisan, fresh expertise to the question of the Iranian threat.

I urge my colleagues to support me in this effort.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Obesity Prevention, Treatment and Research Act of 2008. This legislation creates unprecedented collaborations and collective across agencies, and among private and public entities, individuals, and communities.

The very high prevalence of individuals who are obese or overweight has resulted in an epidemic in the United States, affecting over 66 percent of adults and 32 percent of children according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. Over the last 30 years, the obesity rate has more than doubled in all ages. The United States now has the highest prevalence of obesity among the developed nations. In fact, the prevalence of obesity in U.S. in 2006, 34 percent is more than twice the average for other developed nations, 13 percent. The prevalence of obesity in the next closest country, the United Kingdom, is over 25 percent less than that of the U.S.

The Obesity Prevention, Treatment and Research Act of 2008 comprehensively addresses the obesity and overweight epidemic by focusing on coordinating and augmenting existing prevention and treatment activities. The legislation is based on the extensive work on obesity of the Institutes of Medicine, IOM, over the last few years.

The legislation focuses on developing dynamic new collaborations and collective actions, which IOM recommends as essential to successfully addressing the problems of obese and overweight individuals throughout the nation. In addition, the legislation focuses on supporting interventions that will improve access to obesity prevention and treatment services in our federal healthcare programs in recognition that the high prevalence of overweight and obese individuals dramatically increases the costs in Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and other public and private health insurance programs.

I note that interventions aimed at significantly decreasing the prevalence of these illnesses are extremely cost effective and are critical to overall disease prevention and health promotion efforts. The Trust for America's Health recently reported that an investment of just $10 per person per year in proven community based disease prevention programs would yield a $2.8 billion annual health expenditure reduction. Put another way, our nation would recoup nearly $1 over and above the cost of a comprehensive disease prevention and health promotion program for every $1 invested in the first 1 to 2 years of the program.

The Obesity Prevention, Treatment and Research Act of 2008 establishes the United States Council on Overweight & Obesity Prevention, USCO-OP, which is charged with creating a comprehensive strategy to prevent, treat and reduce the prevalence of overweight individuals and obesity. This advisory council will update Federal guidelines, identify best practices, conduct ongoing surveillance and monitoring of existing Federal programs, and make recommendations to coordinate budgets, policies and programs across Federal agencies in collaboration with private and public partners. In addition, the Council will provide guidance to the Federal Government for a new series of grant programs established by the legislation to combat obesity and the high prevalence of overweight individuals.

It is important to note that in July the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that physical activity levels drop sharply as children age. Children should be engaging in 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity most days of the week. While 90 percent of children met the recommended activity at age 9, by age 15 only 31 percent met the level on weekdays, and only 17 percent on weekends. Moreover, these behaviors become worse as they get older. I find these trends very disturbing.

In addition, experts tell us that Americans want and need better and more accessible information about healthier foods, beverages and exercise programs. The Council will help develop and update the daily physical activity requirements in our schools, and identify activities that families can do together, involving parents and their children throughout the week, and as lifelong participants.

My legislation also creates grant programs to provide funding to schools, community health centers, academic institutions, state medical societies, state health departments, and communities to reduce the prevalence and improve the prevention and treatment of individuals that are obese or overweight.

It is also critical to point out that certain populations are more vulnerable than others to the obesity and overweight epidemic. In my home state of New Mexico, for example, the consequences are devastating. 74 percent of Native American adults in New Mexico are overweight or obese, as are 38 percent of Native American High School students. I take steps in this legislation to address populations more severely impacted by the obesity and overweight epidemic, including: prioritizing grants to these populations

and requiring Federal reporting on research and data related to obesity in these populations.

The legislation also doubles existing funding levels for the Department of Agriculture's Fresh Foods and Vegetables program to levels that will assure that most low-income children will have access to these foods within their schools.

The legislation also requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Agriculture to consult with USCO-OP to update and reform Federal oversight of food and beverage labeling. Such reforms include improving the transparency of labeling with regard to nutritional and caloric value of food and beverages. These updates and reforms are critical. Research suggests that high-energy dense foods that are low in nutrients represent 30 percent of the average American total calorie intake. Research also suggests that these foods don't trigger the brain's normal pathways and responses to let the body know that it is full.

My legislation also amends the Social Security Act to expand access to medical nutrition therapy and exercise counseling when determined cost effective by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. We have to figure out a way to prevent the development of end stages of morbid obesity, such as kidney failure, heart failure and disability from arthritis and other problems. My bill seeks to invest our Federal dollar more wisely. This is truly the case where an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I would like to thank Dr. Dan Derksen, who served as a Robert Wood Johnson Health Policy Fellow in my office this year, for his great work in developing this legislation. In addition, I would like to thank the Institutes of Medicine, the Campaign to End Obesity, and First Focus for their assistance in developing this legislation.

The legislation has received the endorsement of: the Campaign to End Obesity, American College of Gastroenterology, First Focus, Shaping America's Health, YMCA of the USA, the National Coalition for Promoting Physical Activity, the Sporting Goods Manufacturers of America, and the New Mexico Medical Society.

I urge my other Senate colleagues to join in supporting this critical legislation.

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

Mr. President, over the past several days the Federal Government has been called upon to bail out some of America's largest financial companies. While I recognize that swift action must be taken to prevent the collapse of our Nation's major financial institutions, like many other Americans, I believe we also should come to the aid of our Nation's small businesses, which are also imperiled by this financial crisis.

Today the problems facing small firms and the banks that typically lend to them are not unlike those being faced by corporate America-- firms simply cannot access the capital they need to keep their small businesses afloat in the wake of this economic crisis. Although the Small Business Administration's loan programs were designed to reach these marginalized borrowers, there is ample evidence that the programs are failing to do so at this critical juncture.

Last year, the SBA's 7(a) and 504 loan guarantee programs combined to provide over 100,000 American small businesses with essential financing, and they injected approximately $20 billion into our local businesses and communities. As a result of the financial crisis, 7(a) loans are down about 30 percent in terms of the number of loans made, and down about 11 percent in terms of dollars. Meanwhile, the number of 504 loans has decreased about 16 percent and they are down approximately 15 percent in terms of dollars loaned for fiscal year 2008. But these are more than just statistics; they are stark indications that the SBA's loan programs are not reaching enough of the small businesses that are now struggling to obtain affordable credit.

The recent drop in SBA lending paints a picture of small business borrowers and lenders caught in a vicious cycle driven by the financial crises of the past year. On the lender side of the equation, struggling banks have become so concerned with risk that they have virtually cut off conventional small business borrowing, even to well-qualified firms. On the borrower side, the banks' extremely tight lending practices are preventing loans--SBA loans in particular--from serving small businesses that need capital to survive the current economic crisis. That is why I am introducing the Small Business Lending Market Stabilization Act of 2008--which will jump start SBA lending, helping thousands of American small businesses receive the financing they need to survive the current financial crisis.

In April, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I held a hearing to learn why the SBA loan programs were not reaching small businesses that were being squeezed out of the conventional loan markets by the credit crunch. Although the Administration refused to admit it at the time, virtually every other witness at the hearing told me that the SBA's increased fees played a significant role. The bill I have introduced today will address that problem by temporarily eliminating the fees that the SBA charges to borrowers, lenders, and ``Certified Development Companies'' for the 7(a) and 504 loan guarantee programs. This will immediately reduce the cost of capital for SBA borrowers. With lower monthly loan payments, more money will be placed into the hands of small business owners-- money that will allow them to continue purchasing inventory and equipment. At the same time, the fee relief will also reduce the cost of lending for SBA's partners in the private sector, allowing them to make more small business loans through the programs.

The bill also includes several provisions that will expand the universe of small businesses that can access the SBA's loan programs. For instance, one measure will permit certain borrowers to refinance a limited amount of their preexisting debt through a new 504 loan. This adjustment will allow 504 loans to reach small business owners who want to refinance their company's existing debt, but have been turned down by conventional lenders.

The bill also contains measures that will give lenders greater flexibility in making SBA loans. One provision would allow the SBA to use ``weighted average rates'' when pooling loans for sale on the secondary market, making the secondary markets for SBA loans more efficient and improving liquidity among participating banks. Another provision would provide greater flexibility by directing the SBA to give lenders at least one alternative interest rate to the Wall Street prime rate, which will help reduce interest rate typically charged on 7(a) loans.

In short, the bill I am introducing today will provide much needed support for America's small businesses, helping them break free from the vicious cycle caused by the crisis in our financial markets. I will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that the massive Wall Street bailout proposal we have been asked to approve contains adequate protections for taxpayers. But I also urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, which will provide a lifeline to hundreds of thousands of American small businesses along Main Street.