A resolution welcoming home Keith Stansell, Thomas Howes, and Marc Gonsalves, three citizens of the United States who were held hostage for over five years by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) after their plane crashed on February 13, 2003.

I agree with the previous speaker, the distinguished Senator from Ohio, about the need for a national energy policy. He and I may disagree as to what that policy should look like, but at a time when we are spending $700 billion a year importing oil from abroad, at a time when we are contributing toward global warming, at a time when the oil companies are enjoying recordbreaking profits, at a time when some people will tell us, experts will tell us, that speculation is driving up the cost of a barrel of oil by 25 to 50 percent, I think we need a new energy policy.

But I sincerely hope my good friend from Ohio will not penalize the millions of low-income people who are not here on that debate. For them, it is a life-and-death issue, in some cases, about whether we double LIHEAP funding in order to provide the benefits they desperately need. There are many reasons that any of us can give for not voting for a piece of legislation, but I hope in terms of the very important LIHEAP vote, we do not have folks coming up, well, I believe in LIHEAP; I am not voting for A or B; this is why--if we do not double the amount of money for LIHEAP at a time when home heating oil costs will be double what they were a couple of years ago.

Natural gas prices, as the Senator from Ohio said, are rising very rapidly. People throughout the country, in the southern part, are unable to afford electricity and are trying to get by without air- conditioning at a great threat to their health. I hope those people will not be held hostage to the debate we are having.

Yes, of course, we need a national energy policy. Yes, of course, this current policy is a disaster. But, please, let's not create a situation where people die and people suffer. Who gets LIHEAP? My friend from Ohio knows who gets LIHEAP. Those are the elderly people who get LIHEAP. Those are lower income families with children. Those are people with disabilities. Please, let's not hold those people hostage tomorrow while we continue the debate.

So, I say to my good friend from Ohio, count me in as someone who will continue to fight for a national energy policy. I happen to disagree with the Senator on some of the particulars, but we need a national energy policy. Of course, we need to lower the cost of energy.

But, right now, when we are seeing in the northern tier of the country, in the Northeast, a doubling of the price of home heating oil, people will go cold, people will freeze if we do not provide them with the help they need. I hope I can count on my friend's support tomorrow for that legislation.

I am very happy to say, in terms of LIHEAP, we are getting very significant bipartisan support for this legislation. This bill which, as I mentioned, would double the amount of money we are spending on LIHEAP--it is S. 3186, the Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act. It now has 52 cosponsors, 35 Democrats, 13 Republicans, and 2 Independents. I want to thank all of them. I want to thank Majority Leader Reid, Senators Obama, Durbin, Murray, Landrieu, Leahy, Cantwell, Jack Reed, Kerry, Kennedy, Schumer, Levin, Cardin, Brown, Klobuchar, Menendez, Casey,--and I want to thank you, the Presiding Officer, for your strong support for this legislation--Bingaman, Lautenberg, Stabenow, Bill Nelson, Baucus, Salazar, Wyden, Whitehouse, Rockefeller, Dodd, Tester, Mikulski, Biden, Kohl, Dorgan, McCaskill, and Boxer.

I also want to thank 13 Republican cosponsors of this legislation. It is no secret that we are in the midst of a lot of partisanship, a lot of bad feelings. But I am very glad that 13 Republicans have come on board this legislation. They are Senators Grassley, Snowe, Stevens, Coleman, Smith, Sununu, Collins, Murkowski, Gregg, Lugar, Bond, Dole, and Specter.

I appreciate their support, as well as Senator Lieberman, the other Independent, in addition to myself. I thank Senator Reid, the majority leader, for trying to push this legislation.

Not only do we have a significant amount of support in the Senate, we are getting support from dozens and dozens and dozens of organizations from all over this country who understand the importance of LIHEAP and the need to substantially increase funding.

Now, one of the organizations that has been very active and actively involved in this issue is the AARP, which is the largest senior group in this country. I would like to, if I may, read briefly from a statement that the AARP made in support of the legislation that is coming up tomorrow.

And that is:

AARP fully supports the Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer

Act. This legislation will provide needed relief for many

older persons who may not receive assistance despite their

eligibility due to a lack of funding. Older Americans who are

more susceptible to hypothermia and heat stroke know the

importance of heating and cooling their homes. They often

skip on other necessities to pay their utility bills.

However, today's escalating energy prices and the Nation's

unpredictable and extreme temperatures are adding to the

growing economic hardship faced by seniors. LIHEAP is

underfunded and unable to meet the energy assistance needs of

the program's eligible households. Studies show that while

LIHEAP serves more households than ever before, only 16

percent of eligible households received assistance in 2006.

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

AARP finishes by saying:

An estimated gap of almost $28 billion now exists between

what LIHEAP pays and total energy costs facing the eligible

LIHEAP population.

So we are very appreciative that AARP is supporting this legislation. Let me mention a letter that I received yesterday from the National Governors Association. The National Governors Association, representing all 50 Governors in this country, is also supporting this legislation. Let me read briefly from this letter.

I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

The letter states:

Dear Senator Reid and Senator McConnell: On behalf of the

Nation's governors, we write to express our support for

increased funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance

Program for fiscal year 2008.

Bipartisan efforts, such as the ``Warm in Winter and Cool

in Summer Act'' (S. 3186), which would add $2.53 billion in

LIHEAP funding for FY 2008 and split this funding equitably

between the LIHEAP base formula grant and the contingency

fund, are a step in the right direction. This approach will

help ensure that States receive an equitable share of the

energy assistance.

I thank the National Governors Association. The letter was signed by Governor Granholm and Governor Rell of Connecticut. We appreciate their support.

I come from a State where the weather gets 20 below zero. In a moment, I will be talking about what some of my constituents experienced last winter and the fears they have for the coming winter and why it is absolutely imperative that we substantially increase LIHEAP funding.

What I want to do right now is read about what is going on in America today, in July and in June of 2008, in terms of the impact that high temperatures are having on some of our most vulnerable citizens, primarily the elderly.

We gathered some headlines and brief articles about events and tragedies that are occurring right now.

From the Mississippi Daily Journal:

An autopsy report confirmed a Monroe County, Mississippi,

man died as a result of heat stroke Sunday.

Later on in the article it states:

When the temperatures hit the high 90s, North Mississippi

Medical Center emergency department starts seeing more heat-

related

illnesses, particularly heat exhaustion [hospital officials

said.]

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

The National Weather Service warned last week that the

four-day hot spell that began June 7 could be deadly--and the

projection proved all too true. As of yesterday----

This is the article on June 14--

As of yesterday, the deaths of 17 people in Philadelphia

has been linked to the heat during those four days. Most lack

air conditioning in their homes. In several cases fans and

open windows proved insufficient.

That is from the Philadelphia Inquirer. I know that is one of the reasons you are such a strong supporter and why Senator Specter is also a strong supporter.

That was in Philadelphia. In Modesto, CA, ``Heat Claims Life of Elderly Modesto, California Woman.''

In Woodland, CA, ``4 Deaths Blamed on NorCal Heat Wave.''

Last week's Northern California heat wave is being blamed

for killing at least four people.

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

An elderly man was found dead inside his stifling Orchard

Beach, Maryland home early this week, marking the first heat-

related fatality in Anne Arundel County, Maryland in three

years.

The article goes on:

Maryland recorded 21 heat-related deaths in 2007, 43 in

2006 and 47 in 2005, according to the Maryland Emergency

Management Agency. The county Health Department said Anne

Arundel had three heat-related fatalities in 2005.

``Every summer, we see an increase in call volume related

to heat-related emergencies,'' Chief Tobia said. And

tragically, this death highlights the absolute importance of

staying cool, staying hydrated and checking in on your

neighbors.''

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

Blue Swadener, a spokesman for St. Joseph the Worker, said

there were 50 heat-related deaths in Maricopa County, AZ

between May and September 2007.

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

We have two small children (a baby and a toddler) and felt

fortunate to own our own house and land but due to the

increasing fuel prices we have at times had to choose between

baby food [and] diapers and heating fuel. We've run out of

heating fuel three times so far and the baby has ended up in

the hospital with pneumonia two of the times. We try to keep

the kids warm with an electric space heater on those nights,

but that just doesn't do the trick . . . Please help.

That is what we are talking about. That is why we need to increase LIHEAP so that children do not get cold and end up in the hospital or that elderly people in the southern part of this country die or end up in the hospital because of heat exhaustion.

Another letter I received from a small city in Vermont:

I am a single mother with a 9 year old boy. We lived this

past winter without any heat at all. . . . To stay warm at

night my son and I would pull off all the pillows from the

couch and pile them on the kitchen floor. I'd hang a blanket

from the kitchen doorway and we'd sleep right there on the

floor. By February we ran out of wood and I burned my

mother's dining room furniture. I have no oil for hot water.

We boil our water on the stove and pour it in the tub.

I know there are a lot of reasons to vote against anything. Please do not hold these people hostage to the ongoing energy debate we face in this country. Yes, of course, we need an energy policy. Yes, of course, what we are doing today is absurd. But there are people who will die. There are people who will end up in the hospital. There are people who get sick. There will be people who have to take money out of their medicine budget, out of their food budget to pay for heat in the winter or air-conditioning in the summer. Let us not punish those people. I know all the excuses, all of the reasons that people can give for voting no. Hold them. Don't use them tomorrow. Let the people back home know you are going to stand up for some of the most vulnerable people in this country while we work on a national energy policy.

At a time when home energy bills are soaring, what this legislation does is basically double the amount of LIHEAP funding. It fulfills what the authorization level was. That is what it does, not more than that. What it understands, as I mentioned earlier, is that while millions of people today are receiving LIHEAP funds, millions more who are eligible for the program simply are not getting into it because there is not enough funding available. What happens is, as home heating prices soar, either fewer people will be able to receive benefits or else the benefits people receive will be simply inadequate because States have to cut back. That is why the National Governors Association is supporting this legislation.

I made this point the other day, but it is worth repeating: When there is a flood, when there is a fire, and then there is a natural disaster, CNN and the other TV cameras are there. They cover it. All of us are concerned about the enormous problems facing the Midwest in terms of the flooding there. We are concerned about the terrible forest fires taking place in California. As a nation, we have to address those problems. But I ask my colleagues to understand that just because CNN is not in a house which has no heat when the weather gets 20 below zero, don't think that is not as important an issue. Do not think that suffering is not as real. In fact, according to the Centers for Disease Control, over 1,000 Americans from across the country died from hypothermia in their own homes, not out on the street, from 1999 to 2002, which are the latest figures we have available. They froze to death in the United States. That is why LIHEAP as a program was created, and that is why we have to expand the mission of LIHEAP to address the reality of today, that while our economy is declining, energy costs are soaring. More and more people are in need of LIHEAP.

As I mentioned earlier, this is not only a cold weather issue. Over the past decade more than 400 people died of heat exposure in Arizona, including 31 in July of 2005 alone.

Let me wrap up my remarks by thanking all of the Members of the Senate--I think there are 52 or 53 cosponsors, including 13 Republicans--for their support. I thank the AARP and the dozens and dozens of other organizations for their support. I thank the National Governors Association for their support. Every person in the Senate is a politician. We know how the system works. We know we can give any excuse under God's sky for voting no on an issue. We can vote no any time we want to. We can write a press release explaining why we are voting no. I hope tomorrow Members of the Senate will not exercise that option. I hope tomorrow Senators will not force millions of the most vulnerable people--LIHEAP is primarily for the elderly; it is for people with disabilities, for families with kids--please, do not punish those people, do not force those people to go cold or get sick or die because of heat exhaustion because of the debate we are having here right now. There is widespread support that this legislation should be passed, that funding should be substantially increased. That is what we are doing.

I hope tomorrow we can have a very significant and good vote on this important piece of legislation so the American people can see that in the midst of all of this partisanship, Members of the Senate have come together to say that no one in our country will freeze to death this winter or die of heat exhaustion.

This is an important issue. The vote is tomorrow. I look forward to widespread support from both sides of the aisle.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

National Governors Association,

Washington, DC, July 25, 2008.

Hon. Harry M. Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Reid and Senator McConnell: On behalf of the

nation's governors, we

write to express our support for increased funding for the

Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) for fiscal

year (FY) 2008. Bipartisan efforts, such as the ``Warm in

Winter and Cool in Summer Act'' (S. 3186), which would add

$2.53 billion in LIHEAP funding for FY 2008 and split this

funding equitably between the LIHEAP base formula grant and

the contingency fund, are a step in the right direction. This

approach will help ensure that states receive an equitable

share of the energy assistance provided, which is what

Congress envisioned when it authorized the multi-tiered

formula. This kind of equity is an important goal.

Additional funding will support critically needed heating

and cooling assistance to millions of our most vulnerable

citizens, including the elderly, individuals with

disabilities and families that often have to choose between

paying their heating or cooling bills and buying food,

medicine and other essential needs. With greater financial

support, states will be better able to maintain and

potentially increase benefit levels, as well as potentially

increase outreach to eligible families in need of rising

energy cost assistance.

Governors applaud bipartisan efforts to increase funding

for heating and cooling assistance and fully support adding

$2.53 billion in LIHEAP funding for FY 2008 to help our

nation respond to existing home energy needs.

Sincerely,

Governor Jennifer Granholm,

Chair, Health and Human Services Committee.

Governor M. Jodi Rell,

Vice Chair, Health and Human Services Committee.

Mr. President, in a recent column for the Arizona Republic, ``Rescuing Fannie Mae or Freddie is Nonsense,'' Bob Robb exposed some of the flaws in H.R. 3221, the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008, specifically, the bailout for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Mr. Robb argues, ``This plan isn't about mitigating today's housing difficulties. Nothing in the plan gets a mortgage paid that wouldn't otherwise be paid. Nor is the rescue really about today's credit crunch, except for the minor effect a doubt about the reliability of Fannie and Freddie guarantees might have on the capital of other financial institutions. Instead, it's about enabling Fannie and Freddie to continue to do even more of the same in the future, and that's a bad idea.'' Mr. Robb calls this plan for what it is--an overreaction to Fannie and Freddie's self-inflicted financial wounds.

I ask unanimous consent that his column be reprinted in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to consider his thoughtful views.

Mr. President, many homeowners in my State of Arizona and across the Nation are having a hard time making their mortgage payments, but the legislation Congress is considering is not aimed at helping them. Rather, it is designed to help mortgage lenders and the two big Government enterprises ``Freddie Mac'' and ``Fannie Mae.'' In fact, the bill we are considering will place an immense financial burden on every American taxpayer for a long time and waste billions of dollars in misguided efforts to help lenders deemed ``too big to fail.'' Therefore, I will vote against H.R. 3221, the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008.

One of the few provisions in the bill that I support is the much needed reform of the government-sponsored enterprises, GSEs, that establishes an independent regulator to ensure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are properly managed and financially sound. The reason they are in trouble is that they have taken too many risks, something I have been warning about for 3 years. These two GSEs hold more than $5 trillion in liabilities composed of mortgage-backed securities and other debt that enjoy an implicit guarantee by the Federal Government. This legislation makes that guarantee explicit for the first time.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's role is to promote liquidity in the mortgage industry, but due to the downturn in the housing market, poor oversight, and reckless portfolios, Fannie and Freddie have incurred losses of more than $5 billion in the past year, the first loss for these two GSEs in 25 years. Fannie and Freddie have also seen their stocks sink more than 80 percent in value over the past year. Congress should have passed this much needed reform years ago to avert the erosion of Fannie and Freddie's portfolios, and it should be stronger now, given their resistance to reform.

Because Fannie and Freddie enjoy this Federal Government guarantee of its debts, both the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve recently proposed various administrative and statutory actions to stabilize the GSEs. The actions included in this bill would allow the Federal Reserve to grant both Fannie and Freddie access to its discount window, temporarily remove the $2.25 billion cap on Fannie and Freddie's lines of credit at the Treasury Department, thereby allowing them to borrow an unlimited amount of taxpayer money if needed, temporarily permit Treasury to purchase equity in the institutions to ensure that the two GSEs have access to sufficient capital, and provide the Federal Reserve authority to gain access to information and perform a consultative role in the new GSE regulator's process for setting capital requirements and other prudential standards that this bill mandates. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates that the proposal could cost American taxpayers $25 billion over fiscal years 2009 and 2010; however, there is a chance that a further deterioration of Fannie and Freddie's finances could require an infusion of $100 billion or more. We simply do not know how much this proposal will cost--a gamble with taxpayers' money that I am not comfortable making.

In addition to the possible costs of the proposal to help Fannie and Freddie, the provisions of H.R. 3221 intended to deal with foreclosures would cost taxpayers billions and do little to help struggling homeowners. For instance, a key component of the bill is the HOPE for Homeowners Program, which would allow subprime mortgage holders to refinance their mortgages into Federal Housing Administration backed loans if the lender agrees to write down the value of the mortgage. This represents a huge risk to American taxpayers. The program would allow lenders to cherry pick up to $300 billion of their worst loans and refinance them into FHA guaranteed loans. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a third of the mortgages refinanced under the HOPE for Homeowners Program will enter into default.

But even more troubling to me is the burden this program will place on the FHA considering its current financial woes. The New York Times reported in April that the FHA will face a deficit for the first time in its 74-year history; the deficit is largely blamed on the risky mortgages that the FHA already holds in its mortgage portfolio. I don't see the rationale for expanding FHA's liability with this $300 billion program when the agency cannot sustain its current portfolio and when American taxpayers will bear any losses that the FHA incurs because of the HOPE for Homeowners Program.

This bill also includes a new tax on the GSEs--estimates range up to $600 million a year--to pay for the HOPE for Homeowners Program for 3 years, and thereafter, for a new affordable housing trust fund. It simply does not make sense for Congress to impose a new tax on Fannie and Freddie at the same time that the Federal Government thinks it must bail them out by infusing cash and equity into the institutions. It is also likely that Fannie and Freddie will simply pass along the cost of this new tax to consumers, which obviously would not help lure buyers back into the housing market.

Not only do I oppose taxing the GSEs' profits, but I also question the efficacy of the affordable housing trust fund that would be funded by the GSEs. The bill would direct 65 percent of the money it taps from the GSEs to the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD. Under vague guidelines in the bill, the Secretary of HUD would then have the discretion to establish grant criteria that could favor certain States. Once the money is allocated by the Secretary, State and local politicians would be able to disburse the money to favored organizations and for-profit groups that share their political agendas. The remaining 35 percent of the money that the bill takes from the GSEs would be distributed to nonprofit groups selected by the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury. This, too, could allow the politicians in power to divert Federal dollars to their favorite housing causes. I cannot support a bill that essentially creates a slush fund for politicians.

I also oppose the nearly $4 billion in funding the bill allocates to the Community Development Block Grant, CDBG Program because the funding would go to local officials to buy foreclosed property from the lender that is holding the property. Not only does this create a scenario ripe for political favoritism, it would also bail out the very lenders who offered mortgages their customers couldn't afford. And, again, it does nothing to help the former homeowner. Moreover, the CDBG Program is fraught with inefficiencies and mismanagement. According to a February 2008 report from the White House budget office, the CDBG Program was labeled as ``ineffective,'' and only received a score of 27 out of 100- point scale of achieving results. I cannot vote for a bill that has such a poorly run program as one of its centerpieces.

Finally, I disagree with certain parts of the tax title contained in this bill.

When the tax title was initially drafted, I successfully added a provision designed to protect taxpayers from having property tax relief provided in the bill completely offset by rising taxes at the State and local levels of government. However, when the legislation reached the House of Representatives my language protecting taxpayers from tax increases was dropped. Homeowners and average Americans are struggling to pay their mortgages, higher gas prices, and more expensive grocery bills. State and local governments should not add to these burdens by raising their own taxes and certainly should not try to divert Federal tax reductions intended to help individuals contending with today's economic challenges into their own coffers.

One must understand that the Federal Government already provides a tremendous amount of financial assistance to State and local governments. According to the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, the Federal Government will provide $476.1 billion to State and local governments in 2009, an increase of roughly $10 billion from 2008 and 67 percent more than in 2000. Almost 50 percent of Federal financial assistance is spent on health care. Spending on income security, education, and transportation roughly accounts for the remainder.

In determining the total amount of assistance the Federal Government provides to State and local governments, one must also factor in the foregone revenue that results from tax expenditures which benefit State and local governments. The two largest tax expenditures are the deduction for State and local tax payments and the interest exclusion on public purpose State and local government debt. Combined, these provisions reduce Federal revenue by nearly $60 billion in 2009.

Interestingly, if the Federal Government did not provide State and local governments with assistance, the budget would run persistent surpluses. There would have only been 16 budget deficits over the last 50 years. U.S. debt would have been substantially lower.

I also oppose the $16.8 billion of tax increases included in the bill used to offset the cost of the new spending. In particular, one provision would require the payment card industry to design and build a new computer system so that it can collect merchants' transaction information and provide it to the IRS. It would also require payment card companies to withhold 28 percent of a merchant's reimbursement if it cannot verify the company's taxpayer identification number, TIN.

No hearings have been held on this proposal and now Congress is rushing through an incomplete payment card reporting proposal that has not been adequately vetted. Once implemented, the provision would require the industry to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to redesign their information systems to comply with the new information reporting regime. The payment card industry's current computer records do not contain merchant TINs and other information that the proposal would require to be reported.

If payment card companies do not currently have a system in place to ensure valid TIN information on all existing merchants, errors in TIN matching will subject merchants to withholding, even where merchants have provided TIN information. Withholding 28 percent of a merchant's gross reimbursements would severely disrupt a business's operations and impair its cash flows.

There are programs currently operating that provide responsible relief to struggling homeowners at no cost to American taxpayers. HUD has organized an assistance program, called HOPE NOW, for homeowners in distress to rework their mortgages if both the borrower and lender decide that renegotiation of their mortgages is in their mutual interest. This voluntary program has helped over a million Americans having trouble paying their mortgages, and I fully support these efforts. In less than a year, HOPE NOW has assisted nearly 17,000 Arizonans negotiate repayment plans with their lenders. Additionally, over 6,000 Arizonans have received loan modifications. The HOPE NOW Program was just recently expanded to help even more struggling homeowners in Arizona and nationwide.

I oppose H.R. 3221 because I do not think the benefits of the bill outweigh the numerous liabilities that could be passed to American taxpayers. Congress should not pass a bill just to show it is ``doing something'' to help homeowners who cannot make their mortgage payments or write a blank check to Fannie and Freddie. This bill passes more burden to American taxpayers.

payment card and third party networking

Mr. President, high energy prices are having a devastating impact on our economy and our people--particularly in large, rural States such as Maine. Eighty percent of Maine homes use oil as their primary heating source, so thousands of families are worried about how they can afford to stay warm next winter.

The high cost of energy is also taking a toll on businesses, both large and small. Truckers, paper mills, fishermen, farmers, and countless others are struggling with the high cost of oil, gasoline, and diesel.

Many factors affect energy prices, including the value of the dollar, global tensions, and demand in other countries, such as China and India. Supply concerns also enter the picture. Business Week has reported that data on Saudi production potential indicate that the kingdom may be unable to sustain their projected output of 12 million barrels a day past 2010, while International Oil Daily reports that Mexico's crude-oil exports are down 17 percent versus 2007, and ``could represent the start of a precipitous decline.'' Other supply concerns for places like Iran and Nigeria also affect expectations, and prices.

These and other considerations have led many of us to advocate a comprehensive energy policy that would promote more exploration and production, more conservation and efficiency, and more alternatives in the energy sector. We need more American production to meet America's needs, while protecting our environment. In short, we need to produce more, use less, and pursue alternatives.

It is imperative for both economic and national-security reasons that we reduce our dependence on imported oil and the supply shocks that our dependence entails, that we develop new resources here, and that we promote more efficient use. I have a 10-point energy plan that includes proposals to accomplish those objectives.

Those ideas deserve a full debate. I sincerely hope the current procedural obstacles to considering a variety of amendments will be removed. Holding a lengthy debate on our energy problems is a fruitless exercise if the ground rules choke off consideration of the many ways we can tackle those problems by reducing our reliance on imports, by promoting more development of American conventional and alternative fuels, and by advancing efficiency and conservation initiatives.

There is, of course, another critical factor in the energy-price crisis that demands careful attention and effective action. That is the role of excessive speculation in energy markets, especially by institutional investors and index funds.

Senator Lieberman and I have heard persuasive and troubling evidence in three hearings of our Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on this issue. We heard testimony from Federal officials, from exchange officials, from academics, from institutional investors, and from a bakery owner and a farm representative.

The evidence that we found of greatest concern involves the impact of noncommercial investors who do not produce or take delivery of oil or agricultural products--unlike commercial participants such as oil producers and heating oil dealers, farmers and cereal companies. Instead, these noncommercial investors use futures contracts and related transactions solely for financial gain.

Speculation in commodity markets by noncommercial investors has grown enormously. In just the last 5 years, the total value of their futures- contract and commodity index-fund investments has soared from $13 billion to $260 billion.

Many experts have concluded that these massive new holdings of oil- futures contracts by pension funds, university endowments, and other institutional investors have driven prices beyond levels that normal marketplace factors would produce.

These investors' intentions may be simply to provide good returns, a hedge against inflation, and asset diversification, but the effect of their activity appears to be driving up prices for traditional users of commodity markets, not to mention American families and businesses that are affected by the ultimate price increases.

I worked with Senator Lieberman to produce a comprehensive and bipartisan bill, the Commodity Speculation Reform Act of 2008, which we and Senator Cantwell introduced on July 10.

Our bill, S. 3248, takes some very strong steps toward countering excessive speculation.

First, it would remedy staffing shortfalls at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission by adding 100 staff to improve its market oversight and enforcement capabilities. This is a vital step. The CFTC tells us that more than three billion futures and options contracts were traded last year, up from 37 million in 1976. Yet the Commission is operating with fewer employees than it had 30 years ago.

Second, our bill closes the so-called ``swaps loophole,'' which currently allows financial institutions to evade position limits on commodity contracts that regulators use to prevent unwarranted price swings or attempts at manipulation.

Third, our bill directs the CFTC to establish position limits that will apply to an investor's total interest in a commodity, regardless of whether they originate on a regulated exchange, the over-the-counter market, or on foreign boards of trade that deal in U.S. commodities.

I would note that our bill instructs the CFTC to set and administer these position limits. That task is currently delegated to the exchanges, subject to Commission review. The regulated commodity exchanges have good reputations as self-policing operations, but we believe as a matter of principle that regulators should be setting speculative position limits.

Fourth, our bills instructs the CFTC to permit no foreign boards of trade to deal in U.S.-linked commodity contracts unless they agree to reporting and data-accessibility standards at least equivalent to that required of U.S.-regulated exchanges. This is not a matter of telling other countries what to do: foreign boards of trade request ``no- action'' letters from the CFTC so they can maintain trading terminals here while remaining regulated by their own authorities. The CFTC has recently taken positive steps to require comparable reporting, and our bill codifies those improvements.

These are powerful measures, but they are also carefully designed. We recognize that producers, handlers, and purchasers of commodities who use those markets to lock in prices, hedge risks, and see clues for price trends require some level of participation by non-commercial, financial investors.

Thus, our bill does not prevent financial investors from participating in commodity markets. It simply places some limits on their activity by directing the CFTC to set position limits across trading venues at a level no higher than that needed to ensure that commercial participants can always find counter-parties for their contract needs.

The bill pending before the Senate parallels key provisions of the bill that Senators Lieberman and Cantwell and I introduced.

The majority leader's bill has some additional features, such as the working groups to study the regulatory framework for commodity-market regulation and to consult on internationally agreed standards, that deserve support.

Two aspects of the majority leader's bill, however, raise some concerns, and I have filed two amendments to address them. Senator Lieberman has joined me as an original cosponsor of the amendments.

The first simply extends the reach of S. 3268 to include agricultural as well as energy commodities, mirroring our bill's approach. We believe this is important because high energy prices affect the costs of fertilizing, producing, harvesting, transporting, processing, and distributing commodities. Consumers know this is a real problem, and price data prove it: the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the annualized rate of food-price inflation in the second quarter of 2008 was 8.5 percent. Meanwhile, the Bureau's energy price index for the second quarter was climbing at an amazing annualized rate of nearly 54 percent.

Energy and food commodities are linked, and both have been subject to large-scale, noncommercial speculation. When we note that the BLS rate of price increase for nonfood, nonenergy items was only 2.5 percent, it is clear that both agricultural and energy future markets need protection against excessive speculation.

My second amendment replaces the definition of commercially related hedging in the majority leader's bill with the language from our bill. This will not impair the CFTC's ability to monitor and police hedging activity across trading venues, but it will reduce an apparent potential for unintended consequences. We have heard concerns that the bill's restrictive language about hedge-trade proximity and equivalence to the initial commercial transaction could make bona fide hedging impossible or more difficult and expensive for the intermediaries who provide that service. My amendment is fully consistent with the intentions of the pending bill, but mitigates the risk that we might unintentionally impede hedging that has a genuine commercial basis.

Mr. President, I hope the Senate will consider a full range of amendments to the majority leader's bill. I urge my colleagues to support my amendments--and then to support the underlying bill. We can all agree that excessive speculation is not the only factor affecting energy and food prices. But it is one that we can influence, and action is already long overdue.

Housing

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

harmonize our energy, environment, and economic policies.

In the midst of summer it is hard to think about our Nation's winter heating needs, but experts say we are at a pace for skyrocketing energy prices this winter that will place even further financial strain on the budgets of too many Americans. The chickens have come home to roost. For 27 years the Federal Government has helped disadvantaged Americans with their heating costs through the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. It is one of the programs I supported while I was mayor and then as Governor of Ohio.

Last year in my State alone, LIHEAP assisted some 387,000 Ohio households earning less than 175 percent of poverty on about $37,500 for a family of four. Furthermore, over 188,000 Ohio households were served by the Emergency Winter Crisis Program. This program provides a one-time payment for eligible households whose home heating sources have been disconnected, threatened with disconnection, or have less than a 10-day supply of bulk fuel. The fact that so many Ohioans have utilized these programs demonstrates a need for help.

Congress has not sat idle. Since I came to the Senate in 1999, Congress has increased LIHEAP funding from $1.1 to $2 billion in 2008. That is an 80-percent increase. In 2006, Congress provided $2.5 billion for LIHEAP, a 32-percent increase above the previous year's appropriations.

I have consistently supported these increases, but I have become frustrated that despite the new money in the program, fewer families are getting real help on their heating bills. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reports that despite the increase in the number of households eligible for LIHEAP assistance, climbing energy prices have reduced the number of families actually receiving help.

From 1983 to 2005, the percentage of eligible families receiving aid decreased from 31 percent to 15 percent. The increased funding simply is not keeping up with the rising cost of heating fuel. Our dollars are not going so far. The Ohio Department of Development tells me they are expecting the same rapid increases in costs this coming winter. Natural gas is the best example of what has happened in my State and perhaps in the State of the Presiding Officer. The prices for consumers like me went from $3 an mcf in 2000 to $11 per mcf today. In fact, prices for this June-July are nearly double what they were during the same period last year. And it isn't getting any better. I understand that the Vectren Natural Gas Utility Company in the Dayton area, is so alarmed about the expected spike in the price of natural gas this winter it is warning customers now to prepare for rates to increase by as much as 50 percent. This would devastate a lot of Ohioans living on fixed incomes who already have tight budgets.

Unfortunately, Ohioans are not alone. There is a growing number of families across this country who will need help this coming winter. I understand the need for the safety net LIHEAP provides and support its funding at reasonable levels, but when I look at the numbers, it becomes clear that appropriating more and more money for LIHEAP is not the answer.

The real reason some folks will be having such a hard time this winter making ends meet is our Nation has no energy strategy. For example, large-scale fuel switching from coal to gas began with the implementation of the 1990 Clean Air Act. These requirements continue to be phased in and have become increasingly stringent. One can see a clear correlation between regulation and the increasing cost of natural gas. More utilities are turning from coal to gas.

A major contributor to these skyrocketing energy prices is environmental policies that discourage our use of abundant domestic energy supplies and a failure to harmonize our country's energy, environmental, economic, and national security policies. This has resulted in substantial unintended costs in the form of increased fuel, food, electricity prices and lost jobs, and has contributed to the almost doubling of the LIHEAP program.

Sadly, this is not a new problem. We have know for years that we need a comprehensive energy strategy, and I have been calling for one since I came to the Senate.

But it took us 5 years and 6 weeks of floor debate for Congress to Pass the 2005 Energy Policy Act--a bill that took only limited strides forward. And while the bill encouraged improved national energy efficiency, boosted research and development funding for advanced energy technologies and promoted increased use of biofuels. It didn't go far enough toward increasing our domestic energy supply, which has been hamstrung by moratoria on exploration that would have given us increased oil and natural gas.

We have to make real investments today that will help us achieve our goal tomorrow. If our goal is to help those who are less fortunate with their heating bills, then we should be treating the disease rather than the symptoms. We must increase our supply, reduce our demand through alternative energies, and conserve what we have. We must be also careful to avoid--I like to refer to them as smokescreens that cloud our paths to real solutions.

The debate here in Washington over oil speculation is something that is part of this what I call smokescreen. It is causing us to not face up to the situation where we have to increase the supply if we expect to deal with the problems in oil and in natural gas here in the United States. I firmly believe that we find ourselves in this situation today because of a tail wagging the dog environmental policy. This has paralyzed Congress and polarized us in such a way that we have been unable to find common ground on the most important issue currently facing our nation.

But let's keep in mind that our situation could be much worse. This June, amidst what at the time were record high gas and energy prices, a bill was brought to the floor to attempt to address climate change. While finding a solution to climate change is a goal I share, this bill was a bureaucratic and economic disaster, creating over forty new government agencies and spending programs--constituting a $6.7 trillion dollar tax increase on American families. This bill would have sent ripple effects through the economy.

Indeed, it was estimated that the State of Ohio would loose 139,000 jobs by 2020 as a result of the legislation. And with Ohio consumers paying as much as 29 percent more for gasoline, 50 percent more for natural gas and 80 percent more for electricity, disposable household income could be reduced $1,928 per year by 2020 and $3,522 per year by 2050.

Fortunately, this legislation was defeated. But if we continue to ignore the economic impacts of our country's environmental policies, we will further erode our competitive position in the world marketplace, all the while increasing costs for those among us who are least able to pay.

Few would argue that the economic consequences of those regressive policies fall hardest on the most vulnerable of our population--the poor and elderly. And that is what brings us to this LIHEAP debate.

I agree the program plays a key role in helping our neediest brothers and sisters with the high cost of heating their homes this winter. However, it is disconcerting to me that many of my colleagues who support the increase in LIHEAP, as I have, have also supported environmental policies that have encouraged the use of natural gas, and at the same time prevented the exploration for new natural gas deposits.

Most of us understand that when you drive up the demand for gas and limit the supply, prices will go up. Yet, unfortunately those that support these short-sighted environmental polices ignore the impact rising prices have on all of us, particularly the middle class, the elderly, and poor. Some of the people back in my State say: What do they think we all are, rich? What is worse, as the Band-Aid we use to temporarily treat the symptoms of rising energy prices gets bigger--in this case almost doubling the funding for LIHEAP, as I mentioned over what was appropriated this year--we are adding to our growing national debt. We cannot continue to live in the United States of Denial, borrowing money for programs and passing the cost, including interest, onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.

Instead, those demanding more LIHEAP should also be required to vote on increasing our energy supply or at least give the Senate an up-or- down

vote on lifting the ban on exploration of the Outer Continental Shelf. The Mineral Management Service estimates that the undiscovered technically recoverable resources contained in the OCS, Outer Continental Shelf, could equal 420 trillion cubic feet. This is 40 percent of the total natural gas estimated to be contained in the undiscovered fields in the total United States. So I think we owe it to our children, we owe to it our grandchildren to take care of our larger energy problem and get to its root. Moving forward, we must ensure our environmental policies are not considered in a vacuum. They should be complimentary to--not in opposition to--our country's energy and economic needs.

Mr. President, I come here on a happy note. I am filing a resolution and I hope this is the kind of thing the Senate can come together to celebrate, the fact that three Americans that were held hostage over 4 years in the jungle by the FARC contraband guerillas, a drug-running crowd, murderers who put chains around these captives' necks just like an animal, a wild animal, and they had to carry these collars, these steel collars with these steel chains, heavy, so that was another way of keeping them from escaping. But if they escaped, where were they going to go? They were out in the middle of the jungle. This resolution which I am introducing with Senator Isakson, because there is a connection of one of the hostages to Georgia, and my colleagues Senators Martinez, Dodd, Coleman, Lieberman, Cardin, Craig, Bond, Domenici, Hatch, and Chambliss, I would like to see move like greased lightning through the Senate so we can recognize this significant achievement of the Colombian military, assisted by the U.S. Government in a miraculous hostage rescue of 15 people, including Ingrid Betancort, the celebrated and quite well known former senator in Colombia who also had dual citizenship with France.

In this miraculous rescue operation there was not one bullet fired and not one drop of blood spilled.

Our three Americans, all of whom live in Florida--Keith Stansell, Thomas Howes, and Marc Gonsalves--were held hostage for over 5 years by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, known as the FARC, after their plane had crashed on February 13, 2003.

The pilot was hurt, and he was executed. There was another Colombian with them at the time who was executed. These three--Keith, Tom, and Marc--were taken hostage and, in the words of Keith Stansell, whom I have spoken to today, they were human currency. They were the trading, the barter for the FARC to get whatever they wanted.

They kept them over 5 years. They would still have them if they did not have this miraculous rescue operation. This is one of the few times you have seen in the entire world where the world came together and focused and said: That is a job well done; for it was reported how miraculous this was,

through deception, through interception of communications, through creating a story line that this was an operation to come in and move these hostages from one part of the jungle to another.

By creating such a good ruse, they were actually--with all these 15 hostages in 3 different places, 50 miles apart from each other in the jungle--they were able to get their FARC captors to bring them together in one location, and to load on a helicopter that they thought was going to be taking them to the No. 1 commander of the FARC in another part of the jungle.

It is a miraculous story: the fact that it was pulled off by a hostage rescue team--all volunteers, playing their roles--but knowing that if it went awry, they, too, would become hostages of the FARC.

We want to send our congratulations to the Colombian Government, the Colombian military, and especially to that hostage rescue team that performed so flawlessly but that knew the risk they were taking.

This resolution I have submitted honors our three Americans and recognizes their families and their relatives who kept faith all these years--all those years, over 5--without even knowing the fate of their loved ones.

Finally, on July 2 of this year, Colombian forces carried out this dramatic rescue mission, freeing those 15 hostages, including Keith Stansell, Thomas Howes, and Marc Gonsalves.

In this Colombian rescue operation, not a gun was fired; the playacting, the ruse, the deception was so good, not a drop of blood. It is going to go down in history as a model for these kinds of operations.

We in America are very grateful to President Uribe; to Defense Minister Santos, whom I had the pleasure, a couple days ago, of hosting; and the Colombian military for the execution of this historic operation and for bringing our men and their folks home to freedom.

I wish to recognize our commander of the U.S. Southern Command, Admiral Stavridis, and I wish to recognize our U.S. Ambassador to Colombia, Bill Brownfield, for the exceptional work they have done to strengthen the United States-Colombian relations which laid the foundation and the close coordination that was demonstrated by this successful operation.

I believe this dramatic hostage rescue and the competence and professionalism that was demonstrated by the Colombian military have not only put the FARC on notice, it has put them on their heels. They are in disarray. They are demoralized. There are defections from FARC every day.

The FARC is designated by our Government as a foreign terrorist organization because it has committed atrocities against the citizens of Colombia and the United States.

The FARC still holds 700 people as hostages. When I talked to Keith Stansell today, he said what we have to do is to keep remembering them. Because of the rescue of the 15 hostages, he said they have now put heavier chains around their necks and they are making them constantly move. You can imagine: 700 people. He told me about individual hostages and how brave they have been. He said: Let's don't forget them. And let's keep talking about this until they are able to bring all those people safely home.

So I wish to echo what has already been said by the Government of Colombia, that we call on the FARC to lay down their arms. They are not going to win. They can see it now. They are demoralized. They are having defections every day.

Come to your senses, revolutionary guerrillas whom you think you are. Come to your senses and work out a plan with the Colombian Government and President Uribe to release the remaining hostages you have-- hundreds of them.

We say to Mr. Cano, the leader of the FARC, your numbers are dwindling. Today you have only about 8,000. This is less than half the force you had just a few years ago. And you are losing your rank-and- file soldiers because they see it is a lost cause. And you have suffered losses in your secretariat and in the mid-level ranks by death and desertion.

These are significant losses. The U.S. people have stood with the Colombian people as they fight this violence, this impunity, this narcotrafficking in this little country of Colombia.

It is a happy occasion for us but a sobering reflection upon those who are still held similar to animals in cages. It is a happy occasion, and we are overjoyed at the return of Keith and Tom and Marc. But Colombia's war against the narcotraffickers is not over.