Floor Statements

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the House amendment to S. 3001, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. This bill was voted out of the Senate Armed Services Committee by a unanimous vote back in April. Last week, the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 88-8.

Over the last week, we have worked around the clock to reconcile the Senate and House versions of the Defense authorization bill. The compromise version of the bill--the House amendment to S. 3001--has now been approved by the House by on overwhelming bipartisan vote of 392- 39.

The bill that we bring before the Senate today contains many provisions that will improve the quality of life for our men and women in uniform, give them the tools that they need to defend our nation, and provide critical reforms to improve the operations of the Pentagon.

First and foremost, the bill would provide critical support to our men and women in uniform. For example, it would increase military pay by 3.9 percent--a half a percent more than the President requested; provide continued authority for the payment of enlistment and reenlistment bonuses, accession and retention bonuses for service members with critical skills or assigned to high-priority units, and other special bonuses and incentives needed to reward our troops and ensure that we can recruit and retain the people that we need in our military; authorize funds for military family housing and military construction projects needed to ensure that our troops have the housing that they deserve and our military has the facilities it needs for the national defense; and protect members of the military, family members and retirees from any increase in TRICARE fees, premiums, deductibles and copays.

The bill would increase the end strength of the Army, the Marine Corps, and the Army National Guard, to help reduce the incredible stress on our troops. It would also establish and extend critical authorities needed by the Department of Defense in our current operations. For example, the bill would provide DOD the authority to use funds for quick-turnaround construction projects needed to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; extend DOD's authority to provide ``train and equip'' funds and ``stabilization and security assistance'' so essential to the well-being of our troops; provide $1.5 billion for the Commanders' Emergency Response Program, CERP, which commanders on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan consider the highest priority for protecting U.S. forces; and provide funding for critical initiatives, including $2.2 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization's, JIEDDO's, ongoing efforts to defeat the threat of improvised explosive device, IEDs.

At a time when thousands of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are deployed around the world and our all-volunteer military is straining to meet the requirements of two ongoing conflicts while remaining prepared for other contingencies, these are steps that we simply must take. When our men and women in uniform are in harm's way, there is nothing more important.

The bill also includes a number of measures to ensure the proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

It would also ensure that the Iraqis use their own oil revenues rather than U.S. tax dollars to pay for large infrastructure projects and for the training and equipping of the Iraqi military. At the beginning of the Iraq war, then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz testified that Iraq would be able to ``finance its own reconstruction'' through oil revenues. That has not proven to be true. To date, the U.S. taxpayers have paid approximately $48 billion for stabilization and reconstruction activities in Iraq. While the Iraqi government has generated more than $100 billion in oil revenues since the war began, it has spent only a small fraction of that amount on its own reconstruction. The Iraqi government now has $80 billion at its disposal to fund large scale reconstruction projects. Under these circumstances, it is inexcusable for U.S. taxpayers to continue to foot the bill for projects that Iraqis are fully capable of funding themselves.

Other provisions of the bill would help improve the management of the Department of Defense and protect taxpayer dollars. For example, the bill would institute improved cost controls for the acquisition of major weapon systems; require program managers to incorporate energy efficiency requirements into the performance parameters for such systems; establish new ethics standards to prevent personal conflicts of interest by contractor employees who perform acquisition functions on behalf of the Department of Defense; and establish a new database of information regarding contractor integrity, ensuring that this information

is available to acquisition officials making key contracting decisions.

I am disappointed that procedural obstacles in the Senate precluded us from considering a package of more than a hundred amendments, which would have taken further steps to support our troops and improve the management of the Department of Defense. Where it was possible within the scope of the House and Senate bills, we tried to include eleme nts of these amendments. Unfortunately, many of these important amendments were beyond the scope of the two bills and will have to be deferred until next year.

I am also disappointed that we were unable to adopt provisions addressing the administration's excessive reliance on contractors to perform functions that should be performed by the uniformed military or by civilian federal employees. For example, both the Senate bill and the House bill included provisions that would have precluded the use of contractor employees to perform inherently governmental functions in an area of combat operations, or to conduct interrogations of detainees. Unfortunately, these provisions drew a veto threat, so we had to limit ourselves to a Sense of Congress expressing our views on the issue.

When this bill was under consideration in the Senate, we spent a great deal of time and effort discussing how best to provide public visibility for our funding decisions, including earmarks of funds authorized in the bill. Historically, our funding tables have been included in report language, rather than in bill language. In Executive Order 13457, the President stated his view that such funding decisions should be ``included in the text of the bills voted upon by the Congress and presented to the President.''

Unfortunately, the Government Printing Office informed us that incorporating our funding tables into bill language would have added three full days to the time required to prepare a bill for floor consideration in the Senate and the House--even if GPO did not have other high priority work to accomplish at the same time. This delay would have been in addition to the day and a half it would have required for the committee staff to prepare the funding tables in a form that could be processed by GPO, and to ensure the accuracy of GPO's work.

With only a few days left for the House and the Senate to consider the bill before the end of this year's session of Congress, we determined that placing the funding tables into bill language was not an option that was available to us. Instead, we have incorporated the tables into the bill by reference--an action that has the same legal effect. To ensure public visibility of all of the funding decisions in the tables, the tables have been posted on the websites of both the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Armed Services Committee. This is in addition to the posting on these websites of separate transparency tables which--as required by the Rules of the Senate and the House of Representatives--provide information about each funding item requested by a Senator or a Member of Congress.

As of today, almost 200,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are deployed far from home, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait and other theaters of operations around the world. After more than 6 years of war, our military, particularly our ground forces, are severely stressed. Too many of our troops are worn out, their families are tired of repeated deployments, and our equipment is being used up.

We need to enact this bill to improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform. We need to enact this bill to give them the tools that they need to remain the most effective fighting force in the world. Most important of all, we need to enact this bill to send an important message that we, as a nation, stand behind them and appreciate their service.

At a time when our men and women in uniform are sacrificing so much for our country every day, it is surely not asking too much for our colleagues to agree to enact this bill so we can provide our troops the support that they need and deserve. I urge my colleagues to support the House amendment to S. 3001--the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.

Madam President, first, let me thank the Presiding Officer.

This is a bittersweet moment for me. This will be the last time the Senator from Virginia and I will be standing here and celebrating the passage of a Defense authorization bill. We stood together in support of these bills and the men and women of our Armed Forces for 30 years. In this particular case--there have been previous examples of this, but this is perhaps the most dramatic one--we would not be standing here with a bill in hand now going to the White House but for the courage of the Senator from Virginia.

I will not go into all the details as to how that came about, but it is because of his commitment to the men and women in uniform that we have a bill. We would not have a bill this year except that he took the steps which he was determined to take as a Senator of this Nation--not just of Virginia--to support the men and women in uniform.

So on behalf of 25 committee members, 45 committee staff members, 2.3 million Active Duty and Reserve members of the military and their families, I offer a heartfelt thanks for them for a job always well done by the Senator from Virginia.

I will have more to say about the Senator from Virginia also next week. But for the time being, let me say this: In the future, when we cannot seem to find our way out of the difficult situations that a bill of this magnitude and complexity get us into, people will say: Well, what would John Warner have done? That will be the question we will ask. When we ask that question, the right answers will follow. I thank my dear friend.

Well, Madam President, the men and women of this Nation would be grateful to John Warner if they knew him, had that honor of knowing him. They have been benefited by him even though they will never know him. Maybe as a 17-year-old sailor back in 1945, the last thing in his mind was that he would ever be a Senator. There is something about this Nation that makes it possible for men and women-- in this case a man such as John Warner--to rise to the very top of the respect of his country men and women. It has been a true pleasure and honor to serve with him.

I, again, will have more to say about that next week. But I, again, wish to thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Congress needs to take action to stimulate the slumping economy in ways that create jobs and help average middle- class Americans. So I am pleased that today the Senate is voting on a second economic stimulus package of $56.2 billion aimed at creating jobs and helping people suffering from higher prices at the pump and at the grocery store, reduced State services, high unemployment, home foreclosures and otherwise feeling the economic pain in their daily lives. We clearly need more economic stimulus, especially in States like Michigan. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill.

Importantly, this package includes a much needed unemployment extension. In August, Michigan's unemployment rate rose from 8.5 percent to 8.9 percent. The Nation's unemployment rate also increased by .4 percent, to 6.1 percent, the highest since 2003. These are very hard economic times. Unemployment rates are rising and since January 2001 we have lost 3.686 million manufacturing jobs nationally and 253,800 manufacturing jobs in Michigan. Since 2000, we have lost more than 450,000 jobs in Michigan across all industries.

The unemployment insurance extension which was signed into law on June 30 as part of the supplemental war appropriations bill included a 13-week extension of UI benefits for all States. Since then, workers who started receiving the 13-week extension in mid-July under the current program will have their benefits cut off starting October 5. This means that an estimated 42,600 workers in Michigan will be cut

off in October, and 775,000 workers across the Nation. By the end of this year, the number of individuals who would have exhausted their unemployment benefits will rise to 58,000 in Michigan and 1.1 million nationally.

The unemployment insurance extension included in this economic stimulus package is essential. This extension will ensure that hard working Americans have an additional 7 weeks as they continue to find jobs. In high unemployment States like Michigan, these States will receive an additional 13 weeks. We must ensure that those individuals who have lost their jobs and are looking for work, during a time when industries are losing jobs and the price of food and energy are rising, are not also struggling to put food on their table, pay their utility bills, and cover their mortgages.

With States facing billions of dollars in shortfalls in revenue collection, they are forced to cut health care, education and other important programs that average people depend on. This bill will help States facing shortfalls by providing $19.6 billion to reduce the State's share of Medicaid costs by increasing the Federal share by 4 percent.

The bill also includes $10.8 billion for building and repairing highways, bridges, mass transit and airports. I have been calling for additional infrastructure spending because infrastructure investment creates jobs and promptly puts people to work. This type of investment strengthens our economy and it gives us better roads and safer bridges.

President Bush had opposed providing infrastructure funding as an economic stimulus claiming there is a lag time to get infrastructure projects going and Federal funding could not be spent fast enough to spur the economy in the short term. But there are plenty of ready to go projects in Michigan and other states that can put people to work right away.

Infrastructure spending for projects that are ready to begin construction could immediately create high-paying jobs in the short term. Once built, the new infrastructure would enhance economic output over the long term. Investment in transportation, water and sewer projects, navigational systems, and other public infrastructure projects that are ready to go will create jobs and provide the means for future economic growth. Specifically, Michigan has at least $263 million of transportation projects that could be started this year.

The Great Lakes navigational system also faces a backlog in construction and operations and maintenance projects. The Army Corps of Engineers estimates $62 million could be used this year to address the backlog in dredging projects to help ensure that shipping--one of the lowest cost ways to transport supplies to industry and products to customers--is not impeded. The Economic Recovery Act includes $100 million for Army Corps of Engineers dredging projects to address this backlog and to ensure that channels are dredged for energy shipments and other raw materials. Great Lakes coal trade for the year totals about 24 million tons, fueling electric utilities and manufacturing plants. In total, Great Lakes vessels transport about 115 million tons of cargo each year, fueling our Nation's industries and manufacturing plants. This funding is critical for ensuring these shipments can continue to flow. The bill also would provide $600 million for the Environmental Protection Agency's clean water State revolving fund, which provides funding to States for low-cost loans for sewer projects. This money could be used immediately in Michigan, which has 20 sewer projects that are ready-to-go, and could use $55 million this year.

I am pleased that the stimulus package contains a significant increase in funding for the Department of Energy's weatherization assistance programs, providing an increase of $500 million over what is already proposed to be included in the continuing resolution for fiscal year 2009, providing a total of close to $1 billion for this program. The Bush administration has consistently reduced funding for weatherization assistance in previous years and even proposed to eliminate it completely this year. But instead of decimating the program as proposed by the administration, the stimulus package will more than triple the current level of funding assistance provided by the Federal Government and help to weatherize an additional 300,000 homes and support more than 8,000 existing jobs.

This stimulus package also includes over $700 million to continue to help our Nation's homeowners and renters, many of whom are experiencing the real impacts of this housing crisis first hand. The increased funding to implement the recently-passed Housing and Economic Recovery Act, funding for legal assistance to families whose homes are in foreclosure, and housing assistance to renters who are being displaced by foreclosure included in this bill would provide much needed relief to those caught in the middle of this crisis. In addition, this bill would provide additional funding to assist the FBI in their investigation of the rising claims of mortgage fraud throughout this country.

The cost of operating and maintaining public housing has been rising and public housing agencies need additional funding to address critical and urgent safety, security and energy-related needs. This bill includes funding to address these needs that will prioritize rehabilitating vacant rental units in order to meet increasing demand for affordable rental housing.

The stimulus package includes an additional $300 million for advanced battery research and development and battery manufacturing. This funding is critical if the U.S. is to develop the components needed for advanced technology vehicles and if we are to remain competitive in the global marketplace. There is a strong push here and in other countries to develop a lithium ion battery suitable for vehicle applications at affordable cost. Significantly more Federal investment is required--as much as triple the amount being spent now--if we are to meet this challenge in the U.S. Over time, Japan and other Asian governments have invested significantly more money in battery technology and have supported their manufacturers in bringing these technologies to the market. Most of these technologies were originally invented here, but the manufacturing has been done overseas because these other countries more vigorously support their manufacturing base. We need a similar strong commitment in the U.S.--both in exploratory research and development and in development of advanced battery manufacturing capabilities--to ensure that the next generation of technology is built here in America. The additional $300 million included in the stimulus will take a giant step in the right direction.

This legislation also includes valuable funding for law enforcement and border security. It includes $490 million for Byrne grants to support State and local police and $500 million for the COPS hiring grant program, which will put 6,500 new officers on the street across the country. Further, the bill includes $776 million for border construction at CBP-owned inspection facilities at land border ports of entry.

Mr. President, with the economic crisis on Wall Street looming before us Congress must act to help people on Main Street now more than ever. The bill before us does this and I will vote for it.

Mr. President, a recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine examined the link between the presence of guns in the home and the chance of suicide. The article, written by Dr. Matthew Miller and Dr. David Hemenway, entitled ``Guns and Suicide in the United States,'' illustrates a direct correlation between having a loaded firearm in a home and the success rate of suicide attempts.

According to the article, in 2005, the most recent year mortality data are available, suicide was the second leading cause of death among Americans 40 years of age or younger. More than half of all suicides in the United States are carried out by a firearm. An average of 46 Americans per day committed suicide with a firearm in 2005, accounting for 53 percent of all completed suicides.

Many of the attempts made at suicide are both impulsive and fleeting. There is often a very short window between the time a person decides they are going to attempt suicide and the time they follow through with the attempt. These attempts are often made drastically, in reaction to a specific event. However, as the initial reaction to the event subsides, so often does the urge to attempt suicide. This is illustrated by the fact that more than 90 percent of the people who survive a suicide attempt, do not go on to die by suicide. Unfortunately, those attempt suicide using a firearm are rarely fortunate enough to survive and thus have an opportunity for reconsideration. Suicide attempts that involve drugs or cutting have a much lower mortality rate.

The article cites over a dozen studies that have found that there is between a two and ten times greater risk of suicide in a home with a firearm than without. These risks do not only increase for the gun owner but also for the gun owner's spouse and children.

The simple fact is that guns increase the chance of suicide. Suicide prevention is a national problem that demands our attention and commitment. Congress must do its part by taking such steps as ensuring gun manufacturers supply trigger locks and closing the loopholes that allow young people easy access to guns.

Mr. President, I have the distinct honor of rising today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of a true Michigan success story, the founding of General Motors Corporation. It was 100 years ago this month that a man named Billy Durant who, after years in the horse- drawn carriage business, founded General Motors in Flint, MI. Durant had taken the helm at a small motor car company called Buick, and, in September 1908, incorporated it into General Motors. Under his stewardship, Buick became the best-selling brand in the world, affording Durant the opportunity to buy a number of other small companies including Oldsmobile, Cadillac, and the company that would eventually be known as Pontiac. Later he started Chevrolet and brought it into General Motors as well.

Over the century that followed its incorporation, GM would become the largest company in the world, driven by the goal articulated by Alfred Sloan, president of GM in the 1920s and 1930s, to build ``a car for every purse and purpose.'' In that pursuit, the company time and again originated innovations that continue to benefit consumers to this day, ranging from the closed-body car, 1910, to the electric starter, 1912, to mass-produced automatic transmissions, 1940, to pollution controls, 1963, to airbags, 1973, to the catalytic converter, 1974.

But the intertwined nature of the company with this nation's economic growth extends far beyond innovative technological contributions and even beyond balance sheets and metrics for economic growth.

You can ask just about anyone, ``What's the heartbeat of America?'' And years after that slogan last passed across our television screens, people still know the answer is Chevrolet. And of course many Americans heeded the good advice to ``See the USA in your Chevrolet.'' Cadillac has become a ubiquitous synonym for quality. The Pontiac GTO defined an era of muscle cars. The legendary ``409'' block engine became an American icon.

During the Second World War, GM provided more than $12 billion of goods to support the Allied effort, more than any other company. The company also played critical roles in the navigation system that sent Americans to the moon for the first time, and designed and built the lunar rover, which was used by astronauts to travel around the Moon in subsequent trips.

Today, GM employs more than 250,000 people, and in 2007 sold nearly 9.37 million cars and trucks. And its next century is filled with promise. As the GM marketing team has noted, in 2008 we are in the middle of an American revolution.

The company that helped to make Michigan the arsenal of Democracy is working on fuel cells that can make help break our democracy's dependence on foreign oil. The company that invented the electric starter is going to be a leader in bringing a plug-in hybrid, the Volt, to consumers. The company that brought consumers the first automatic transmission is striving to bring consumers the first zero-emissions commute.

I offer my congratulations to the entire GM family on 100 remarkable years, and wish them all the best in keeping the pedal to the metal for 100 more.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Levin pertaining to the introduction of S. 3577 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, while this is far from being a perfect bill, I am pleased that the Senate is finally taking up this package of ``tax extenders'' after repeated filibusters of this effort by the minority.

I am a strong supporter of advanced and alternative energy technologies and believe that the tax incentives included in this bill are an essential component of bringing these technologies to the commercial market place. We need a balanced energy strategy that includes energy from a broad array of sources--renewable technologies such as solar, wind, and biomass, as well as more conventional sources such as clean coal and natural gas. We also need to reduce our consumption and dependence on petroleum by promoting expanded use of advanced, more fuel-efficient vehicle technologies and alternative fuels such as ethanol and other biofuels. Critical to the success of all of these advanced and alternative energy technologies are tax incentives, which will both spur development of these technologies and make them accessible and affordable to consumers.

The energy tax extender package was a long time in coming. The Senate considered it first in June 2007, again in December 2007, and then multiple times in this calendar year. This package extends many critical existing tax incentives--including those for renewable production of electricity from wind, solar, and biomass; it extends existing tax credits in the area of alternative fuels production and alternative fuel infrastructure; and it extends tax incentives for energy efficient appliances and residential home energy improvements. The package also includes new tax incentives for plug-in hybrid vehicles, small residential wind investments, and carbon capture and sequestration technologies.

This package of energy tax provisions will take important steps forward to develop and commercialize all of these technologies. Renewable technologies such as wind and solar are becoming more economical every year and our manufacturing sector can play a major role in the production of these technologies. Extension of these tax credits is critical to the development of these technologies and critical to our manufacturers ability to commit to projects that will utilize these technologies. Similarly, extension of the tax credit for alternative fuel pumps for ethanol and natural gas, and extension of tax credits for production of ethanol and other biofuels are essential to both the production and distribution of these fuels.

I am particularly pleased to see in this package establishment of a new tax credit for consumers for plug-in hybrid and all-electric vehicles. All of our auto manufacturers are working to develop new vehicle technologies that will use advanced batteries and will draw a greater percentage of their power from electricity. These technologies will revolutionize the way in which we drive and the distances that we can go without refueling. But the development and commercialization of these technologies are also expensive. Therefore, these tax incentives are key not only to the development of these technologies and but also to consumer acceptance and widespread use of these vehicles.

This bill also provides help to those affected by the numerous floods, tornadoes, and severe storms that occurred this summer in the Midwest. I am pleased that those individuals and businesses that suffered losses this past June in Michigan's declared disaster areas will be eligible for these benefits.

I am also glad that this bill extends the research and development tax credit. At a time of increasing globalization, America's prosperity depends more than ever on its capacity for innovation. For decades, our Nation's leadership in basic and applied research has led to discoveries that have dramatically improved living standards and given rise to new industries that have in turn created millions of high paying jobs in engineering, research and technology. Other countries are well aware of the significant economic benefits that flow from R&D activities, and many have created strong

tax incentives designed to increase levels of local R&D and attract R&D investment from around the world. Particularly for large multinational corporations, the question is often not whether to invest in R&D, but where. I hope that in the near future we can cement our commitment to this incentive by making the R&D credit permanent.

There are a number of other good policies that I am pleased are in this bill, including the IRA rollover provision which allows individuals over the age of 70\1/2\ to donate up to $100,000 from their individual retirement accounts to qualifying charitable organizations on a tax-free basis. This provision has contributed to a considerable increase in IRA donations to eligible charities across our country. Unfortunately, the provision was only temporary, and it expired at the end of 2007.

I am also glad that this bill extends the critically important adjustment to the alternative minimum tax. Relief from the AMT is needed to avoid imposing an unintended tax increase on millions of middle income families. But in order to have money for other priorities, AMT relief should be done without busting the budget. I wish that the amendment that would have paid for this provision had been adopted.

There is another part of this bill that deserves mention: the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act. This critical piece of legislation will address inequities between health insurance coverage for medical and surgical benefits and coverage for mental health and substance abuse disorders for group health plans with more than 50 employees.

Under most health insurance plans, beneficiaries of mental health or substance abuse services do not receive the same level of coverage as medical and surgical services. An earlier piece of legislation, the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996--title VII of Public Law 104-204-- sought to address this issue by providing limited parity for mental health coverage under employer-sponsored group plans. While the 1996 parity law prohibits insurers from establishing more restrictive annual and overall lifetime limits on mental health coverage than for other health coverage, it is far from adequate. For example, the Act did not require that mental health benefits be offered as part of a health insurance package. Additionally, it did not require parity in copayments or deductibles for mental health services nor does it require health plans to cover a minimum number of inpatient days or outpatient visits. As a result, many health plans have found ways to discourage the use of mental health care by setting higher copayments and deductibles, or by lowering limits on the number of hospital days and physician visits for which they would pay.

Under this new legislation, if such a group health plan provides both medical and surgical benefits as well as mental health or substance abuse benefits, the plan's requirements and limitations must not be more restrictive as applied to mental health or substance abuse benefits. For example, if such a plan provides out-of-network coverage for medical and surgical benefits, then it must also provide parity in out-of-network coverage for mental health or substance abuse disorder benefits. If the change leads to increases in cost for a particular plan, the legislation establishes a procedure whereby an employer can apply for 1-year exemptions.

Mental health parity is about basic fairness and equity. Individuals suffering from mental health illnesses deserve access to adequate and appropriate health care. I am glad that Congress is righting this wrong.

My concerns with this bill are not over what is included, but rather what is not. The main dispute in the long drawn-out battle over these extenders has been whether we could do this in a way that is fiscally responsible, so that we do not leave our children and our children's children to foot the bill. I am troubled by the fact that this bill pays for only $42 billion of the $161 billion 10-year cost of extending these incentives. Some of my colleagues argue that Congress should just add the $62 billion cost of the AMT fix to the deficit and leave it at that. But while taxpayers are given necessary relief, if we don't pay the cost, but merely increase the debt, the burden is shifted to our children and grandchildren.

Paying for these extenders does not need to be controversial, and we do not need to raise taxes on the middle class. It is estimated that the use of offshore tax havens by tax dodgers robs our Treasury of more than $100 billion in revenue each year, leaving honest taxpayers to foot the bill. Last year I introduced the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, S.681, which would provide important tools to combat offshore tax abuses and would bring in a significant amount of that lost revenue. I will continue to fight to enact that bill and other commonsense measures to close tax loopholes.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate continue in a period of morning business with Members permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, let me first thank our dear friend from Louisiana for allowing this interruption. It is a very important presentation.

In a moment, I am going to propound a unanimous consent request. Before doing that, there has been a lot of inquiry as to whether a managers' package is included in this. It is not. It has been unable to be cleared on the other side, so it is not included in this unanimous consent request, so that everybody understands it.

I now ask unanimous consent that at 6:30 p.m., morning business be closed; that after the bill is reported, all postcloture time be yielded back, the first and second-degree amendment be withdrawn, the bill then be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; that upon passage, it then be in order for the Senate to consider, en bloc, the following calendar items: Nos. 733, 734, and 735; that all after the enacting clause of each bill be stricken and the following divisions of S. 3001, as passed by the Senate, be inserted as follows: Division A, S. 3002; Division B, S. 3003; Division C, S. 3004; that these bills be read a third time, passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, en bloc; further, that the considering of these items appear separately in the Record.

Further--and this is what I am going to call the second half of this unanimous consent request--the Senate then proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 758, H.R. 5658, the House companion, that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 3001, as amended and passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; the bill be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the title amendment which is at the desk be considered and agreed to; that upon passage of H.R. 5658, as amended, the Senate insist on its amendments, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees without further intervening action or debate, and that no points of order be considered waived by virtue of this agreement.

Madam President, let me first thank my dear friend from Virginia. He is accurate in his statements about differences not being able to be resolved in terms of a number of amendments which we had hoped to get to votes. My statement referred only to a managers' package on which we had cleared about 100 amendments. That is the one I made reference to before.

Given that objection to our going to conference, I now ask unanimous consent that at 6:30 p.m., morning business be closed; that after the bill is reported, all postcloture time be yielded back, the first- and second-degree amendment be withdrawn, the bill be then read a third time, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; that upon passage, it then be in order for the Senate to consider en bloc the following calendar items: Nos. 733, 734, and 735; that all after the enacting clause of each bill be stricken and the following divisions of S. 3001 as passed by the Senate be inserted as follows: Division A, S. 3002; Division B, S. 3003; and Division C, S. 3004; that these bills be read a third time, passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; further, that the consideration of these items appear separately in the Record.

I will again thank my friend for all of his efforts on this bill. He has been, as always, a highly constructive force. We could not even be this far without his great support. I am indebted to him and the Senate is indebted to him, I hope, and the Nation again is indebted to Senator Warner.

Again, I thank our good friend from Louisiana. We have interrupted her for a little longer than I promised.