Floor Statements

I am going to speak on this for a minute and then on one other issue that I mentioned to the Senator from Massachusetts. But first I thank him for his leadership.

The bottom line is, we have made progress in this country over the last 100 years because workers gather and bargain. Simply because somebody is in a life-threatening position, a position that saves lives--police and fire and emergency medical personnel--does not mean they should be deprived of that right.

The rules might not be exactly the same, and this bill is cognizant of that, but at the same time, for a policeman, a firefighter, to have the right to basically bargain and give his family a life with some decency and some dignity is extremely important. So I thank the leader from the Health, Education and Labor and Pensions Committee for bringing this bill forward. I think it will mark real progress.

I think, again, those who put their lives on the line for us, police and fire, should not be penalized because they are in those professions. The right to bargain is an important one. Many State and local workers have it. It is something I supported my whole career. I am proud to be a supporter of this legislation. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his leadership.

(The remarks of Mr. Schumer pertaining to the introduction of S.J. Res. 32 are located in todays Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss rising energy prices. I remind President Bush, as he leaves for his trip to the Middle East, his ally, Saudi Arabia, holds the key to reducing gasoline prices at home in the short term.

I, along with my colleagues, Senator Dorgan of North Dakota, Senator Casey of Pennsylvania, Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota, and Senator Sanders of Vermont plan to submit a Senate resolution that would block all four pending arms deals to Saudi Arabia, which together total $1.4 billion, unless Saudi Arabia shows that our friendship is a two-way street and increases its oil production by 1 million barrels per day above the January 2008 output levels.

Because these weapons have not yet been delivered to Saudi Arabia, Congress still has the power to block these four deals as leverage to get the world's larger oil producer to bring its production back to historical levels, an action that would have the single greatest impact of lowering gas prices in the short term.

I am very proud that we today voted to prevent continued oil going into the SPR as Senator Dorgan, the sponsor and somebody who has pushed this issue a long time and done it well, has noted that will probably reduce prices about a nickel. There is more. It is a good first step, as he would be the first to say, but we can do more.

If Saudi Arabia would increase production by 1 million barrels a day, the price of gasoline would go down 50 cents a gallon almost immediately. It is a short-term fix.

As my colleagues across the aisle and the administration continue to side with big oil, we have no other choice because, right now, it is Big Oil and OPEC that are benefitting and American families are losing. It is unfortunate we are at this point. Eight years of poor stewardship over our Nation's energy policy has left us with alternatives. And my Republican colleagues have blocked every attempt at real energy reform that would help alleviate the rising energy prices in this country.

In the 110th Congress alone, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have blocked four different attempts by Democrats to extend the alternative tax provisions, and not only for a year or two but many.

On June 21 of last year, the extension of energy credits received 57 votes; on December 7, it received 53 votes; on December 13, it received 59 votes; and on February 6, 58 votes.

Each time, Republicans put up roadblocks requiring 60 votes in order to pass the bill. Each time the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted for the bill, the overwhelming majority of Republicans voted against.

President Bush opposed the bills because each would have ended tax breaks for big oil, as if they needed more tax breaks given their record profitability.

Meanwhile, Americans continue to spend more and more on gasoline, as prices at the pump have skyrocketed upward to record heights. Although our President was not aware that gasoline prices were predicted to top $4 a gallon this summer, American households already faced with rising fiscal burdens incurred as a result of the subprime foreclosure crisis and the financial credit crunch are being squeezed further by record- high prices at the pump.

In a sign that high prices will continue unabated, the Department of Energy recently forecasted that gasoline prices would average $3.66 per gallon across the U.S. this summer, 25 percent higher than last summer's average.

So I, along with several of my colleagues, think it is time to get the President's attention and the attention of the leaders of Saudi Arabia. The resolution we have introduced today, which Senator Reid will rule to move on to the calendar this afternoon, requires Saudi Arabia to increase their oil production by 1 million barrels a day or jeopardize their $1.4 billion of pending arms deals with the United States.

One of those deals includes the sale of JDAMs, Joint Direct Attack Munitions, which makes conventional bombs into smart bombs that can be aimed through the window of a house. The administration has warned us that Saudi Arabia needs to use these weapons in their fight against terrorism.

But how are they going to use laser-guided bombs to fight terrorists in their midst? Saudi Arabia very much wants these smart bombs. So our resolution sends a strong signal to the administration and to Saudi Arabia that friendship with the United States is a two-way street. If the Saudis want to see their weapons, we need to see an increase in crude oil production within the next 30 days. As we all know, the principal cause underlying the rise in gasoline prices has been a spike in crude oil prices, now over $120 a barrel, a 100-percent increase over the crude price at this point last year. A significant portion of this price rise is due to supply decisions made by OPEC. The largest member of OPEC, Saudi Arabia, controls one-fifth of the world's crude reserves and constitutes more than 10 percent of daily production of crude oil.

In the past, Saudi Arabia has kept crude oil prices high by limiting supply, producing anywhere from 1 to 5 million barrels per day below capacity. Currently, they are producing 2 million barrels a day below capacity. Why? Why right now, when crude prices are at an historic high, are the Saudis continuing to cut back on production? Does it make any sense? It does if you are a member of OPEC. It does if you are ExxonMobil. But it doesn't if you are almost everybody else. With crude oil at the highest price ever, Saudi Arabia and other members of OPEC are making record profits, and Saudi Arabia is not alone. Last month big oil companies announced some of the best profits in recorded history. Exxon made almost $11 billion in profit last quarter. So we know OPEC has no incentive to increase their production right now, since that would decrease their profits. In fact, if Saudi Arabia were to increase its production by 1 million barrels per day, that translates to a reduction of 20 percent to 25 percent in the price of crude oil. Crude oil prices would fall by more than $25 a barrel from the current level of $126. In turn, that would lower the price of gasoline between 13 and 17 percent or by more than 62 cents off the expected summer price, if the Saudis would simply produce the amount of oil they used to produce when they were far more responsible. Yet Saudi Arabia's oil minister said there was no need to increase supplies by even one barrel of oil.

But even as they are saying no, no, no to the United States, they are saying yes, yes, yes to China. They are doubling oil production for China. This is galling. When the President goes to Saudi Arabia and acts as if the Saudi King and the Saudi leadership are our good friends, he ought to look the American family in the eye and say that and say Saudi Arabia is a loyal ally. To most Americans, a well-armed Saudi Arabia is far less important than a reasonable price for gasoline, heating oil, and all other products upon which oil is based.

The Saudis have to understand this is a two-way street. The President has to understand that the one-way street relationship with Saudi Arabia has to end. We provide them weapons. Our troops provide them protection. Then they rake us over the coals when it comes to the price of oil. Just as Saudi Arabia feels a need to protect itself with high- tech, laser-guided missiles, American consumers and our economy need protection from record high oil prices, exacerbated by OPEC's stranglehold on supply. The administration needs to use all of the leverage it has to influence the OPEC cartel to stop manipulating the world's oil supply to its member nations' own wealth advantage. It is time we stop treating a cartel that would be illegal in the United States with kid gloves. That is what our resolution does. It reminds the Saudis there are consequences for keeping oil prices high at a time when American families are hurting. It reminds Saudi Arabia that it can't take American support for granted. They can choose record oil profits or American weapons, but they can't have both.

I would like any Member of this Chamber and President Bush to look the average American family in the eye and say: There is nothing we can do to get Saudi Arabia to be responsible.

There are things we can do; we just refuse to do them. This resolution has us step to the plate. The resolution is not the final answer, of course, to the problem of rising gas prices. That is why I am a proud cosponsor of S. 2991, the Consumer First Energy Act of 2008 that we Democrats will offer on the floor before Memorial Day. That bill addresses underlying causes that are

driving up energy prices and forces big oil to reinvest some of their record-breaking profits into alternative and renewable sources of energy that are both good for the environment, the consumer, and break our dependence on foreign oil.

Our bill will also attack the broader bill's speculation, punish price gouging, and put additional pressure on the OPEC cartel. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. I am hopeful we can move on this resolution as soon as possible so American consumers no longer have to carry the heavy burden of high energy prices all by themselves.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss rising energy prices. I remind President Bush, as he leaves for his trip to the Middle East, his ally, Saudi Arabia, holds the key to reducing gasoline prices at home in the short term.

I, along with my colleagues, Senator Dorgan of North Dakota, Senator Casey of Pennsylvania, Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota, and Senator Sanders of Vermont plan to submit a Senate resolution that would block all four pending arms deals to Saudi Arabia, which together total $1.4 billion, unless Saudi Arabia shows that our friendship is a two-way street and increases its oil production by 1 million barrels per day above the January 2008 output levels.

Because these weapons have not yet been delivered to Saudi Arabia, Congress still has the power to block these four deals as leverage to get the world's larger oil producer to bring its production back to historical levels, an action that would have the single greatest impact of lowering gas prices in the short term.

I am very proud that we today voted to prevent continued oil going into the SPR as Senator Dorgan, the sponsor and somebody who has pushed this issue a long time and done it well, has noted that will probably reduce prices about a nickel. There is more. It is a good first step, as he would be the first to say, but we can do more.

If Saudi Arabia would increase production by 1 million barrels a day, the price of gasoline would go down 50 cents a gallon almost immediately. It is a short-term fix.

As my colleagues across the aisle and the administration continue to side with big oil, we have no other choice because, right now, it is Big Oil and OPEC that are benefitting and American families are losing. It is unfortunate we are at this point. Eight years of poor stewardship over our Nation's energy policy has left us with alternatives. And my Republican colleagues have blocked every attempt at real energy reform that would help alleviate the rising energy prices in this country.

In the 110th Congress alone, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have blocked four different attempts by Democrats to extend the alternative tax provisions, and not only for a year or two but many.

On June 21 of last year, the extension of energy credits received 57 votes; on December 7, it received 53 votes; on December 13, it received 59 votes; and on February 6, 58 votes.

Each time, Republicans put up roadblocks requiring 60 votes in order to pass the bill. Each time the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted for the bill, the overwhelming majority of Republicans voted against.

President Bush opposed the bills because each would have ended tax breaks for big oil, as if they needed more tax breaks given their record profitability.

Meanwhile, Americans continue to spend more and more on gasoline, as prices at the pump have skyrocketed upward to record heights. Although our President was not aware that gasoline prices were predicted to top $4 a gallon this summer, American households already faced with rising fiscal burdens incurred as a result of the subprime foreclosure crisis and the financial credit crunch are being squeezed further by record- high prices at the pump.

In a sign that high prices will continue unabated, the Department of Energy recently forecasted that gasoline prices would average $3.66 per gallon across the U.S. this summer, 25 percent higher than last summer's average.

So I, along with several of my colleagues, think it is time to get the President's attention and the attention of the leaders of Saudi Arabia. The resolution we have introduced today, which Senator Reid will rule to move on to the calendar this afternoon, requires Saudi Arabia to increase their oil production by 1 million barrels a day or jeopardize their $1.4 billion of pending arms deals with the United States.

One of those deals includes the sale of JDAMs, Joint Direct Attack Munitions, which makes conventional bombs into smart bombs that can be aimed through the window of a house. The administration has warned us that Saudi Arabia needs to use these weapons in their fight against terrorism.

But how are they going to use laser-guided bombs to fight terrorists in their midst? Saudi Arabia very much wants these smart bombs. So our resolution sends a strong signal to the administration and to Saudi Arabia that friendship with the United States is a two-way street. If the Saudis want to see their weapons, we need to see an increase in crude oil production within the next 30 days. As we all know, the principal cause underlying the rise in gasoline prices has been a spike in crude oil prices, now over $120 a barrel, a 100-percent increase over the crude price at this point last year. A significant portion of this price rise is due to supply decisions made by OPEC. The largest member of OPEC, Saudi Arabia, controls one-fifth of the world's crude reserves and constitutes more than 10 percent of daily production of crude oil.

In the past, Saudi Arabia has kept crude oil prices high by limiting supply, producing anywhere from 1 to 5 million barrels per day below capacity. Currently, they are producing 2 million barrels a day below capacity. Why? Why right now, when crude prices are at an historic high, are the Saudis continuing to cut back on production? Does it make any sense? It does if you are a member of OPEC. It does if you are ExxonMobil. But it doesn't if you are almost everybody else. With crude oil at the highest price ever, Saudi Arabia and other members of OPEC are making record profits, and Saudi Arabia is not alone. Last month big oil companies announced some of the best profits in recorded history. Exxon made almost $11 billion in profit last quarter. So we know OPEC has no incentive to increase their production right now, since that would decrease their profits. In fact, if Saudi Arabia were to increase its production by 1 million barrels per day, that translates to a reduction of 20 percent to 25 percent in the price of crude oil. Crude oil prices would fall by more than $25 a barrel from the current level of $126. In turn, that would lower the price of gasoline between 13 and 17 percent or by more than 62 cents off the expected summer price, if the Saudis would simply produce the amount of oil they used to produce when they were far more responsible. Yet Saudi Arabia's oil minister said there was no need to increase supplies by even one barrel of oil.

But even as they are saying no, no, no to the United States, they are saying yes, yes, yes to China. They are doubling oil production for China. This is galling. When the President goes to Saudi Arabia and acts as if the Saudi King and the Saudi leadership are our good friends, he ought to look the American family in the eye and say that and say Saudi Arabia is a loyal ally. To most Americans, a well-armed Saudi Arabia is far less important than a reasonable price for gasoline, heating oil, and all other products upon which oil is based.

The Saudis have to understand this is a two-way street. The President has to understand that the one-way street relationship with Saudi Arabia has to end. We provide them weapons. Our troops provide them protection. Then they rake us over the coals when it comes to the price of oil. Just as Saudi Arabia feels a need to protect itself with high- tech, laser-guided missiles, American consumers and our economy need protection from record high oil prices, exacerbated by OPEC's stranglehold on supply. The administration needs to use all of the leverage it has to influence the OPEC cartel to stop manipulating the world's oil supply to its member nations' own wealth advantage. It is time we stop treating a cartel that would be illegal in the United States with kid gloves. That is what our resolution does. It reminds the Saudis there are consequences for keeping oil prices high at a time when American families are hurting. It reminds Saudi Arabia that it can't take American support for granted. They can choose record oil profits or American weapons, but they can't have both.

I would like any Member of this Chamber and President Bush to look the average American family in the eye and say: There is nothing we can do to get Saudi Arabia to be responsible.

There are things we can do; we just refuse to do them. This resolution has us step to the plate. The resolution is not the final answer, of course, to the problem of rising gas prices. That is why I am a proud cosponsor of S. 2991, the Consumer First Energy Act of 2008 that we Democrats will offer on the floor before Memorial Day. That bill addresses underlying causes that are

driving up energy prices and forces big oil to reinvest some of their record-breaking profits into alternative and renewable sources of energy that are both good for the environment, the consumer, and break our dependence on foreign oil.

Our bill will also attack the broader bill's speculation, punish price gouging, and put additional pressure on the OPEC cartel. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. I am hopeful we can move on this resolution as soon as possible so American consumers no longer have to carry the heavy burden of high energy prices all by themselves.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the provision related to the New York liberty zone that appears in the FAA reauthorization bill. A few of my friends on the other side of the aisle have called this provision an earmark. They have called it a fund to create a train to Kennedy Airport, even though that is not even mentioned in the legislation.

I wish to fill in on the facts. First, after the devastating attacks of 9/11 which scarred my city and our country, Congress and the President generously agreed to provide $20 billion in assistance toward the rebuilding of lower Manhattan. It was a promise the President made to me and Senator Clinton the day after the attacks. It is a promise that, to his everlasting credit, the President has kept and has never wavered from. The President understood, I think all of my colleagues understand, what happened in New York. But we still live with the scars. That downtown has not recovered. There are fewer square feet of office space today than there were then in downtown. And the families who lost loved ones still grieve every day, as does just about every New Yorker.

There has always been talk about wearing flags. I put this flag on my lapel on 9/12/2001. I have worn it every day since and, God willing, I will wear it every day for the remainder of my life in remembrance of what has happened.

Now, of the $20 billion, the money was divided for various purposes. Some, of course, was to help the families who have lost loved ones. Some was for the cleaning up of the World Trade Center site. It was a massive undertaking--to visit the rubble a day later, to smell death and the burnt flesh in the air, and then to realize that people, not only from New York but from around the whole country came to help us help heal those wounds.

Some of the money was put aside specifically so that downtown would recover; incentives to bring business back and money for transportation, because the entire subway nexus had been destroyed. At that point in time, people worried that people would desert downtown and never come back.

New Yorkers, through efforts and valiance, have struggled, and so that is how the $20 billion came about. Was any part of the $20 billion an earmark? Is there any reason to equate it with a bridge to nowhere? Please. Please, my colleagues, I do appreciate that my friend from New Hampshire--I do consider him my friend--has retracted that specific statement. But to call the $20 billion, or a significant part of it, an earmark is unfair labeling, to be kind. Or the tax preferences for the gulf opportunity zone after Katrina,

were they earmarks? They were a benefit, a large benefit, designated for a specific region. When we help a disaster area, is that an earmark? No. And all the hallmarks of earmarks done for only one member, slipped in in secrecy, none of that applies here.

In fact, this exact proposal is in the President's budget this year in the light of day for all to study because the President himself, as I said, has kept his word. Has it been done secretly? Obviously, no. This provision has been around for a while.

As I will show in a few minutes, many of my colleagues who oppose it now have voted for it in other legislation. Why has New York had to wait so long for this provision? It is because it has passed the House a couple of times, it has passed the Senate once, but the bills that passed never hooked up and never made it to the President's desk.

Are we going to tell those who argue that this is an earmark that any aid to any region, no matter how publicly talked about, no matter how desperate the need, is an earmark? With all due respect to my colleagues, it is not fair. It is not right. It is not up to the level of this body or this discourse. It is using a word that has a bad connotation and inappropriately labeling something that has been part of America's nobleness since 9/11.

Let me give you a little bit of history here. After the $20 billion in aid was passed, some of the provisions were not fully realized, others were, and exceeded the amounts of money. So the New York delegation had talked with the President and with OMB leaders about how to make sure those dollars were most wisely spent, and in some places, the amounts of money changed.

A consensus emerged as we went through this that the best way to support private enterprise, or one of the best ways to support private enterprise and rebuild lower Manhattan, was to improve transportation in and around the liberty zone.

As a result, the city and State proposed supporting improvements in transportation infrastructure in or connected with the liberty zone. If you look at the Treasury blue book, my colleagues, it is on pages 47 to 49. This is not something that was slipped in by any Member of the Senate, not by me or anyone else. It was the President who proposed it in this budget, as he has proposed it in previous budgets.

It is not something that was slipped into the bill in the middle of the night. And to equate it with wasteful porkbarrel projects is an in insult to the families of those who survive, to every New Yorker, and I believe to every American.

When New York was struck, we all rallied together. We have sort of kept that tone since, when it comes to helping areas that need help. So this is not about funding porkbarrel projects. This is about keeping our promises and our faith.

Second, my colleague insists that this is a train to Kennedy Airport. I refer him to the language in the FAA bill. There is no reference to a train to Kennedy Airport. There is no reference to an air rail. As I said, it sounded good, but I appreciate the fact that the Senator from New Hampshire has pulled back from calling it a train to nowhere. I personally called him 2 days ago and read the language of the bill to him. It does not mention a rail project. There has been talk in Manhattan, among the mayor and Governor and the city leaders who would be in charge of spending this money, that that is a possibility. But there are many other possibilities as well.

The one thing the legislation states is about improving and rebuilding transportation in the liberty zone. That is all. There is no specific project mentioned in the language. There is no particular project or projects I am supporting. To say otherwise is untrue. It would be totally within the law to use this for some subway improvements or other types of spending. That will be what the city will decide, in consultation with the Governor and the appropriate legislative bodies.

As for the mechanism of funding which allows the city and State to keep part of the Federal income taxes withheld from city and State workers, we have tried various ways of designing this aid, and this is what the administration came up with, with our agreement and consent. If any of my colleagues would like to suggest another way for fulfilling the promise they would support, I am happy to listen. But I remind them that this is a solution supported by the administration. In fact, the Bush administration has supported the $2 billion trade-in for the liberty zone in four consecutive budget proposals. The details of how to do it, again, of how to spend the money, will be left up to the city and State. This is not new money, I remind my colleagues. It is the last part of a solemn promise made by President Bush and supported by this Congress in 2001.

The current version of the language passed the full House in the most recent energy bill. It was part of a Senate energy bill that received 59 votes last year and 58 votes earlier this year. It was also part of the FAA reform package that passed out of committee by broad bipartisan vote. This is not something that was snuck into the bill as it reached the floor of the House. It was passed and debated in the Finance Committee. In fact, two of my colleagues who have raised questions about this--my friends from New Hampshire and South Carolina have both voted for legislation in favor of enacting the liberty zone provision, when it has been previously considered as part of other legislation.

So now to object to this, to the whole FAA bill because it has this provision in it, is a change of view. There was no objection to other legislation that had it on that basis.

The junior Senator from South Carolina voted yes on final passage of two bills in the 109th Congress--S. 2020, and H.R. 4297--that both contained the liberty zone provision. Unfortunately, the provision was not in the final versions of these bills, and the remaining funds for Ground Zero were not allocated. By advocating against this current position, it is clearly a change. There was no specific vote on this rail link, but there were votes on larger packages that contained it, just as this FAA package is a larger package that contains it. The senior Senator from New Hampshire has voted in favor of the liberty zone tax provisions at least three times: First, in favor of the original bill, H.R. 3090; again, in favor of two separate bills--S. 2020 and H.R. 4297--to complete the funding in the 109th Congress.

So it is hard to understand, since this is not an earmark. This is not a specific project. This is supported by the President. It fulfills a promise that, frankly, this Nation made to New York, the last part of it. It is hard to understand why the views have changed. We have been working 4 years to finally complete this promise. Each time objections are raised. If someone doesn't like it on this bill, then make a commitment on what bill we can finally get it done because I am going to try to get this on any piece of legislation that moves in the Senate until the promise to the people of my city and, frankly, the people of America is finally fulfilled.

I say this to the 98 other Senators not from New York: If 9/11 had happened in your State, you would be down here on the floor of the Senate making the same fight we are making. You would not allow anything to get in the way of a promise that had been made to a city or State, particularly when the arguments made don't really apply--not an earmark, not a train to nowhere, and not something that was done in the dark of night.

I want to note again that the Bush administration has been supportive. I have many disagreements with the White House on a host of issues, but they have been helpful and true to their word on this issue. President Bush himself has. I have thanked him for it repeatedly. The President believes it is important to keep his promise. This body should feel the same way. That is why he put his proposal in four consecutive budgets. That is why when the administration issued its statement of administrative policy on this bill, they did not note any objection to this provision.

I know there can be objections. That is part of what we do around here. But I haven't seen a good argument against this other than you don't believe New York City should get the money that was promised to it. This is about keeping a promise. I am going to make sure, to the best of my ability in this body, that this promise is kept. My constituents demand it. Fairness demands it. If this were about your State, you would demand it too.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask you to let me know when I have spoken for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today to address a serious issue and that is the dramatically rising cost of energy and its impact on American families. The problem with rising gas prices compounds the pain felt in the American economy. Today we learned the economy had stalled to a paltry .6-percent growth rate. If you factor out the highest 10 percent in income, the remaining 90 percent of Americans are clearly experiencing a recession. Only people at the very high end--the wealthiest, the best educated, by and large--are experiencing significant increases in income, and when you factor that out, everybody else is experiencing decreases in income. The vast majority of Americans are already in a recession, and they do not need any statistic to tell them that.

It is also obvious from today's data that the entire economy has stalled. The last time we had two significant quarters such as this, we were battling a recession in the 1990s. Americans are being squeezed at every possible pressure point--at the gas pump--I am going to talk about this issue later--the grocery store, by their mortgage company, and by their employers. Just because President Bush will not say the word does not mean Americans are not feeling like we are in a recession. If we look at income numbers for most Americans, that is absolutely true.

It is long past time for the President to work with the Congress to help get this economy and American families back on track. If President Bush simply gives speeches and brings out the same old saws, we know he does not want to work with us. He is simply trying to say: I am out here talking about this, but there is no real solution. Imagine, the solution to the oil crisis is ANWR, the Alaskan oil reserve, which has been defeated even in a Republican-controlled Congress, which would not produce a drop of oil for 10 years and would bring no relief to the American driver. But I guess it is better than saying nothing, at least if you are the President of the United States.

With regular gasoline prices in States such as mine already over $3.75 a gallon--over $4 a gallon in many other States--and with the entire national average threatening to surpass $4 a gallon this summer, it is no surprise Americans are outraged as they hear about record profits for both the big oil companies and OPEC. Sometimes I wonder if there is any difference because OPEC and the big oil companies are almost always in cahoots.

Gas prices are 63 cents higher than last year, more than double in the time since President Bush took office, and they show no intention of slowing down. Shockingly, our very own President responded with a surprise to a question at the end of February about the likelihood of $4-a-gallon gasoline by saying:

That's interesting. I hadn't heard that.

Well, Mr. President, I hope you hear us now because gas is at $4 a gallon already in many places in America, and it is only going higher. The only people who are happy about $4-a-gallon gasoline are big oil companies and OPEC in the Middle East.

We know the reason prices keep going up, of course, is in good part, world demand is increasing. We know, too, in the long run, we will not be able to reverse this price increase if we do not have a real energy policy. In fact, we have had no energy policy since President Bush took office. If you think it is energy policy to say let the oil companies do what they want, you are sadly mistaken. That is why we have $4-a- gallon gasoline.

This administration's energy policy is simply of, by, and for big oil and OPEC, of course, their partners, their buddies benefit. So in the long run, we need a comprehensive plan. We need conservation--that is the cheapest and easiest way to get lower prices--and we need new production of alternatives and also, in a reasonable and sound environmental way, new production of fossil fuels in America.

But we are also looking for some short-term ways to reduce the price of gasoline because even should we embark on a long-term energy policy that makes sense--and I am hopeful under the next administration, the new President, she or he, will make sure that happens--there are things we can at least attempt to do in the short term because people cannot wait 4, 5, 6 years to begin reducing the price. Even if tomorrow we were to implement a comprehensive policy, it would not be enough, it would not happen quickly enough.

So what can be done in the short term? One of the most important things that could be done quickly in the short term is to increase supply in existing reserves. The one country that has ample supply and has held back is our good ``ally''--and I use that word in quotes--the Saudis. The Saudis should

begin to understand that their relationship with America is a two-way street. They want our weapons, they want our troops to provide them with protection, but then they rake us over the coals when it comes to the price of oil.

The Saudis and big oil are in cahoots, and this administration has coddled both of them for far too long. There is no better evidence of this cozy cooperation than BP and Shell reporting record earnings this week and ExxonMobil and others on deck to do the same.

The bottom line--the sad bottom line--is the whole Bush tax cut for middle-class families this year will line the pockets of OPEC. Let me repeat that. The whole Bush tax cut for middle-class families this year will line the pockets of OPEC. People will pay out more because of the increase in energy prices than they got back on any tax rebate. The stimulus checks we are all so proud people are receiving, the stimulus checks families will receive in the mail next month will, in all likelihood, go to paying eye-popping gas and grocery bills this summer and end up in the coffers of countries such as Saudi Arabia. Therefore, people will pay more for gasoline this year than they will receive from their stimulus checks. It is galling to think our stimulus checks will be lining the pockets of OPEC.

Yet despite all this, last week, Saudi Arabia's Oil Minister said there was no need to increase supplies by even one barrel of oil. However, as they are saying no, no, no to U.S. consumers, the Saudis are planning to double oil production for China.

Despite record billion-dollar profits, it seems the big oil producers, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait, are willing to turn a blind eye to the supply demands and leave Americans with skyrocketing prices at the pump. In Saudi's case, they have not produced as much oil in the last 2 years as they did in 2005.

I urge my colleagues to take a look at this chart when they get a chance because it says it all. Here is Saudi oil production in 2005. It is lower in 2006 and lower still in 2007. This is not new production they have to explore for, this is not something where they have to change things around. They can order the new production and we could have millions of extra barrels of oil a day out there in the markets within a month or two, and the price would come down significantly.

The countries are putting profits straight into their pockets. So that is why I, along with four others of my colleagues, have demanded the Bush administration stipulate that Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait must increase their oil production or risk that Congress will block their lucrative arms deals while they stick it to American consumers at the gas pump.

The administration has proposed selling roughly $14 billion in arms to gulf countries that are members of OPEC, and it is clear to us that without pressure from this administration, oil prices will continue to rise as countries such as Saudi Arabia will continue to reap the reward of high prices.

It is terrible that this administration, after making the American taxpayer foot the bill for its war in Iraq, is now rewarding the very countries that are driving up the price of oil.

Congress has the authority to block these arms deals, and we want to put the administration on notice that if they fail to deal aggressively with OPEC countries that are not producing at their full capacity, we will seriously consider blocking this and other arms deals.

On their face, I question the merit of these deals, $14 billion in arms, but it is particularly egregious when Americans are paying through the nose to put money in the pockets of the administration's friends in the Middle East. OPEC nations may have to protect themselves with these weapons systems, but American consumers and our economy also need protection from high oil prices, exacerbated by OPEC's stranglehold on supply.

The administration needs to use all the leverage it has to influence the OPEC cartel to stop manipulating the world's oil supply to its member nations.

Again, to those who say we cannot do anything in the short term to reduce prices, look again at this chart. Saudi production in 2005, Saudi production in 2006, Saudi production in the last full year we have numbers for, 2007, it is lower and lower. The Saudis have not kept the supply flat; they have decreased it at a time when the world is thirsty for oil.

At a time when the world is thirsty for oil, we know they are driving down supply, increasing the price. Yesterday, President Bush said there is not much you can do about the price of oil. Mr. President, we beg to differ. Get your friends, the Saudis, get your close buddy, the King of Saudi Arabia, to begin producing more oil. If they produce half a million more barrels of oil a day, the price would come down a very significant amount and at the same time it would stop the speculation that keeps driving up the price of oil. We would get a double benefit.

We need to ask ourselves what the economic consequences are for our Nation--not only from the long and expensive war in Iraq but from this administration's cozy relationship with the only international organization he seems to have any high regard for--OPEC.

I yield the floor.

Before I get into the substance of my remarks on Medicaid regulation, I compliment my colleague on his speech. I do not agree with all of it; I agree with some. I note one of the reasons he pointed out on his chart is it was foreign countries that owned most of our oil supply. That is true. I would note and commend to him to look at the Saudis, who have the largest number of oil fields and are the largest producer. Actually at a time of increasing demand, as my colleague from Idaho well knows, Saudi Arabia has cut back on production. It was higher in 2005 than it was in 2006, and it was higher in 2006 than it was in 2007. I will be coming to the floor, either later today or, more likely, tomorrow, to talk about that.

The Saudis are, No. 1, the short-term answer. We can talk about increasing production here, whether it is alternative energy or fossil fuels. We can talk about increasing conservation. They are vital, necessary, and cannot be avoided. They are long-term answers. But the quickest short-term answer to the problem would be for the Saudis to increase production.

They have cut back. They talk a good game. We see pictures of President Bush arm in arm with the Saudi leader, the Saudi King, yet we get nothing in return. Yet we are considering selling them some of the most advanced weapons we have. So stay tuned tomorrow, where some of us are going to be talking about that and augmenting in a certain way what the Senator from Idaho was talking about.

Moratorium on Medicaid Regulations

Mr. President, today I rise to speak about the moratorium on Medicaid regulations. Last week the House passed a bipartisan bill with overwhelming support to block the ill-advised Medicaid cuts the Bush administration has proposed. The House bill introduced by Chairman John Dingell passed by a vote of 349 to 62. By definition, that had to have a majority of both parties--128 Republicans and every Democrat voted for this bill. It was an incredible victory--at least a first step toward a victory for American patients who are served by hospitals, for hardworking physicians and other health providers as well as case managers and social workers who do so much to help those in need. It would extend all the way to those who work in hospitals at 2 a.m., sweeping the floors, mopping, to make sure the hospital is spick and span for the next morning.

Later today Majority Leader Harry Reid will ask for unanimous consent that H.R. 5613, protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act--the same bill as passed the House--be approved. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will go along with this vitally needed piece of legislation. The bill is now on the Senate calendar, thanks to the majority leader and Chairman Baucus. Many of us on this side and I believe many on the other side hope we will have a chance to take it up this afternoon. These proposed Medicaid rules the administration proposed could not come at a worse time. State budgets are already worsening due to the weakening of the economy, and few States can absorb these massive and unvetted cuts. The administration did not look here or look there at specific places where they might save. Oh, no, it was a meat-ax, an almost across-the-board cut at a time when our hospitals, our economy, and most of all our people who are sick cannot take it.

If the Congress does not act, the States will face terrible choices-- to cut

their Medicaid Programs or cut other programs to free up more funds for Medicaid. In a sense it will undo much of the stimulus package, putting money in the hands of people so they can spend it and then requiring the States to cut back.

We need a moratorium so the next administration can make things right. We need a moratorium so this administration will not be able to succeed in its meat-ax approach to health care and to Medicaid in particular.

Let me tell you a little more about the eight Medicaid regulations this administration has proposed. I am sure many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have heard from their hospitals, their Governors, and constituents, that these rules are a disaster for our health care system.

The expiration of moratoria on two regulations, GME--that stands for graduate medical education--and the IGT, intergovernmental transfers, is fast approaching. It reaches us on May 25, 2008. That is a little less than a month away.

We have two additional moratoria that are expiring on June 30: the ``rehabilitation'' and ``school-based health'' rules. Then, if that is not enough, there are at least four other rules that have no moratoria, and they go into effect shortly, piling on the people and an industry that at this point is in bad enough shape.

What would happen if we didn't pass H.R. 5613 is that our States, our hospitals, our public providers who do so much important work for American patients would be devastated. Right now they are in a terrible state of panic--and that is not an exaggeration--over these proposed changes that will cost billions more dollars.

Like so many of my colleagues, I believe the integrity of the Medicaid Program is extremely important, but I think a large majority of the Senate agrees these rules go way too far and will end up hurting patients and the very system that serves them. With close to 50 million Americans uninsured in my own State of New York, the estimate is there are over 2 million adults and kids who do not have health insurance. We are penny wise and pound foolish to allow reductions in the critical safety net funding that currently exists.

The Medicaid GME, or graduate medical education rule, is one I am particularly worried about. This proposal represents a major shift in administration policy. By proposing not just to cut but to eliminate Medicaid GME, the Government is essentially forcing the Medicaid Program to shirk its responsibility to cover its share of training physicians. The GME regulation would pull the Federal rug out from underneath the Medicaid support for training physicians at a time when across the country, in rural and urban areas alike, we are experiencing a shortage of physicians in every specialty and in primary care.

For example, a community in New York State's southern tier, the area that borders Pennsylvania, experienced a 20-percent decline in general surgeons from 2002 to 2006. In 6 rural counties in the Mohawk Valley, there was a 33-percent loss in general surgeons over that same time period.

The impact of the GME proposal is estimated to be a $3 billion loss over 5 years to New York State teaching hospitals alone. The public hospitals in New York State have told me how devastating the cuts would be if these rules are implemented.

For instance, Coney Island Hospital, a hospital that tends to the poor, tells me they would no longer be able to offer smoking cessation programs for pregnant mothers. What a terrible shame. What a wrongheaded approach. These hospitals are using these funds in a cost- effective way that will improve health, but this administration is saying no to them and no to patients.

We talked about the sacredness of life, and we know a baby in vitro should be given, if not a head start, at least an equal chance. But if that baby's mother is smoking, the health of that child is impaired.

``Smoking cessation programs work. Let's cut them out.''

No rationale, no discussion saying they do not work, just cut them. That is wrong. Prevention is important. Yet these rules make prevention efforts, such as smoking cessation programs, impossible.

They also hurt medical and dental residents. I recently heard from a dentist trainee, a dentist who was training in a New York public hospital, who said the wait for an appointment is already way too long. With these unwise regulations, that wait increases tenfold, and what was originally a minor dental treatment could end up a huge problem and end up costing the Federal Government and the State government more.

This dental trainee said these rules will increase emergency visits for situations that could have been prevented. It will increase unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions and reduce our ability to reach out and educate the community about dental care.

One of the hallmarks, and why the European systems are more cost efficient, is they focus more on education and prevention. We are cutting it out here. Instead of moving it forward and becoming more cost efficient by focusing on prevention, we are saying, Prevent it? Why would we want to do that?

We should be expanding prevention and expanding dental care in the early phase, not rolling it back.

With health care costs rising and health care reform the No. 1 issue on our constituents' minds, how can we allow these rules to go forward and make things so much worse? We need to vote on this legislation. We need to take this important step for health care.

I urge my colleague, the minority leader, to let this bill move forward. I urge all of my colleagues to do what the House did, a broad, bipartisan vote in favor.

We need to take this important step for health care. The list of supporters of the bill H.R. 5613 is a virtual who's who of health care: the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the National Governors Association, the National Association of Mental Illness, the American Federation of Teachers, the National PTA, and the list goes on and on. More than 2,000 national and local groups have called for passage.

I urge all Members of the Senate to join the list of supporters when Senator Reid asks for unanimous consent later this afternoon to allow us to move to H.R. 5613. I hope that will be met by unanimous accord on the other side. Our health care system demands no less.

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

Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy for his brilliant leadership on this and so many other issues.

First, I have to say that I sat and listened to my good friend from Georgia, and I noted that Lilly Ledbetter is in the gallery, and I was just thinking of having her listen to all of this talk, a lot of it sort of legalese and parsing hairs. Just think of who she is--a hard- working woman from Gadsden, AL, a supervisor in a tire plant working just as hard as the men alongside her and every day and every week and every year not getting paid the same as they simply because she was a woman. It was not because she did a worse job, not because of any other reason. She has had to listen first to the Supreme Court and then to some of my colleagues parse hairs, and it is just not fair, it is not right, and it is un-American.

Now, let me say this: As a male, this is something that is very difficult for men to understand, and yet women, whether they make $20,000 or $70,000 or $200,000, they know it and live with it every single day. It is not a surprise that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was so upset at this decision--a mean decision, a decision that makes people dislike the law--that she read her entire dissent from the bench, a highly unusual practice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Equal pay for equal work is as American as it comes. Equal pay for equal work is as American as apple pie. And to have a bunch of lawyers, whether they are Senators or Supreme Court Justices, parse hairs and deny simple, plain justice is as un-American as can be as well.

So I hope this body will rise to the occasion. This is not a decision where you need a Harvard law degree to understand how backward it is. All you have to do is know who Mrs. Ledbetter is and who the millions of other American women are who are put in the same position as she is, and you know the cry for justice, justice, justice should ring from these Halls.

So I hope we in this body, again, will rise to the occasion. I hope this body will do right by Mrs. Ledbetter in her long struggle to right this wrong, and to the millions of American women, our wives, our daughters, our friends, our relatives, and the many others we all do not know who are working hard, by the sweat of their brow, trying to support their family, trying to move up the ladder of decency and honor and success so that they, too, when they work, will be treated like their male counterpart.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask that you notify me when I have gone 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. President, I, too, rise in strong support of the transportation technical corrections bill. First, I commend my friend and colleague, Senator Boxer, on her hard work and leadership in putting in these corrections.

I thank Leader Reid for his determination to get this act through the body. Yet it seems our colleagues across the aisle will stop at nothing to obstruct our efforts which will improve the lives of working Americans who struggle to make ends meet and filibuster a comma, filibuster an exclamation point, filibuster the name change of a road to a way.

What is going on here? What is going on? Well, I have two points I would like to make. But first I ask my colleagues across the aisle, is there any topic that you will not filibuster? If you will filibuster a technical corrections bill, name changes, punctuation changes, corrections in terms of where the miles were supposed to be and where they are, what will you not filibuster?

Now, let's talk about two things. First, this bill is a win-win for the American people. We are entering a recession. We all know we need to prime the pump. Many of us believe we should have a large public works spending program. But the question is, Should we pay for it or should we not?

But in the SAFETEA-LU bill, this technical corrections bill, the money is already allocated. It cannot be spent because of some nonpolitical small error in the drafting. So this bill makes those corrections and hundreds of projects can sally forth and employ people with no particular cost to the Federal Government. Who could object to that? Do my colleagues want to tell the construction workers and those who have little diners and lunch places and restaurants where construction workers eat, and those who supply the construction industry: Heck with all of you, we are filibustering.

So on the merits it makes no sense to block this bill--on the merits. I have to say this to our minority leader: I know there are probably Members on his side who say: I want something else. I do not want to let this bill go through. There is a larger obligation. If we let every single Member of the other side of the aisle paralyze this body, then we are doing America a disservice.

I would plead with the minority leader to tell his individual Members: You do not have--each one of you does not have veto power over anything, particularly something as trivial as this.

So why is this happening? That is the second point I wanted to address. I will tell you why. The other side is basically paralyzed. They have no program for America. They have no agenda for America. They do not know what to say except the old nostrums that were rejected years and years and years ago. They cannot say yes and so they try to show some kind of position. They just say no. That is what is going on here. It is the internal problem on the other side of the aisle, the hard right versus the right, versus the mainstream versus the moderates. They are all in a knot, and they cannot come to an agreement on anything, even a technical corrections bill that everyone has agreed to on the substance.

So the only thing that can unify them is a two-letter word: N-o.

Well, let me say that to allow any single Member to obstruct this bill is not living up to what the Senate is all about. It is not living up to what America is all about. It is not living up to what democracy is all about. Our leader has not said you cannot amend. Our leader has not said you cannot debate. I know there are a few Members on the other side of the aisle who believe there may be changes made. Let them debate it and let's vote.

But, no, the answer is only no. It has not been only on this bill. My friend and colleague from Illinois went through a long list of bills that are even more consequential than this one. Now, this one is not inconsequential. The changes are inconsequential, but the results are consequential. Again, it will employ thousands of people and release millions of dollars that have already been paid for to do worthy projects.

That, nobody disputes. But instead we have 65 filibusters already; 57 is the record--65 and going up. The filibuster used to be used on issues of major importance. It is now being used for everything, even the changing of punctuation and spelling, misspellings. Why? Because the only thing that unifies the other side is the word ``no.''

Well, the American people, come November 2008, are going to say ``no'' to the other side.

They are going to say: No more of this obstruction. We are going to give our side the number of votes we need to move forward, because 50 votes is not enough. Sixty is the need. This temporary refuge in the word ``no'' of a false unity will only be temporary.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will defer to my colleague from Oklahoma.

I would be happy to.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma, with whom I do not agree on many things, but I know he speaks with integrity and from the heart.

I rise to speak in support of S. 2739, the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008, which we are working on. I wish to thank my colleague from New Mexico, Chairman Bingaman, and Vice Chairman Domenici for their leadership on this legislation. We have waited a long time for it. In the Senate we need to get just about everyone on board. Due to some Senators' steadfastness, including Majority Leader Reid's, we are here today.

All provisions of the legislation are important, but there is one provision for western New York for which we have waited a very long time, and that is the provision that would designate land at thematic sites along the entire Niagara River corridor--from Buffalo in the south to Lake Ontario in the north--as a national heritage area.

Establishing this heritage area will allow us to protect the world class natural resources of Niagara Falls while promoting tourism and economic development in the region. For the first 5 years of this heritage area, a Federal commission would work to implement a management plan to capture the full benefits of the natural, historic, cultural, and recreational resources of the entire Niagara Falls region.

Known the world over, Niagara Falls, of course, is a geological wonder that has drawn visitors for more than 200 years. But the region has so much more than just the profound drama of beautifully cascading waters.

The Niagara River corrridor has played an important role in our Nation's history. Native American culture, early European exploration, the French and Indian War, the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Underground Railroad, and the development of hydroelectric power all have strong connections to the region.

Furthermore, the Niagara River corridor abounds with scenic beauty that offers something for recreational enthusiasts of all stripes. With numerous State parks in the area, hikers, fishermen, birders, and hunters flock to the region to enjoy its outdoor splendor.

Despite these strong assets for tourism, visitors to the U.S. side of Niagara Falls have been on the decline for several years. Too much of the New York side of the border is marked by aging infrastructure and blighted land. And all too frequently, visitors spend far more time on the Canadian side of the falls, while barely visiting the New York side. We must reverse this trend.

Let me be clear. The attractions and resources exist for the Niagara River corridor to become a world class destination. But the attractions it offers lack a comprehensive, unifying thread that ties the elements together in a meaningful way for the visitor.

Designating the land a heritage area will help us link the existing sites of interest in a coordinated fashion, marking the region effectively, and attract more visitors. It will promote collaboration among Federal, State, and local resources and help spur investment and economic development in the region.

Let me say that this heritage area has been years in the making. When I first was elected to the Senate in 1999, people in Niagara Falls said we have to do something. It probably surprises my colleagues that there is virtually no Federal involvement at Niagara Falls, one of our greatest scenic wonders. We tried to figure out the way to go. Some advocated it should be a national park, and there were other things. We concluded that the heritage area is the right way to go. It will allow Federal help to come to the region, Federal resources and experience, with planning and linking the great wonder of Niagara Falls to other historic and tourist attraction sites, but at the same time it will allow the local region to maintain control.

So in 2001, at my request, the NPS reconnaissance team visited the region and recommended a congressionally authorized study be undertaken to determine the best development strategies for the area along the Niagara River. We asked them to look at the heritage area.

In 2005, the National Parks Service completed that study. I thank the Park Service, because they certainly relied on local input. There was tremendous local input here, so nobody in the Niagara Falls area felt anything was being rammed down their throat. What they found--the Park Service--is strong local support for a heritage area, as well as a very great need for the resources it would offer. The report wrote:

In order for Niagara Falls to fulfill its strategic role as

a key regional attraction, it is necessary for it to upgrade

the visitor experience to match the expectations of 21st

century travelers.

That sums up the challenge we face in Niagara Falls. The study concluded that based on Niagara Falls' natural and cultural resources, the evidence of a thematic framework, the potential for effective public and private partnerships, as well as strong public support, the region met the criteria for designation as a National Heritage Area.

Last May, the Subcommittee on National Parks held a hearing on this issue, where I testified in support of the bill. After the hearing, we worked closely with both the National Park Service and the Energy Committee staff--whom I thank for the good work they do--to iron out the technical corrections to the bill so it could be discharged by the full committee. The heritage area has been studied now for more than 7 years. It has broad public support, and it is time for it to become law.

The $10 million authorized under this act should help Niagara Falls realize a substantial return on that investment. First and foremost, any Federal expenditures will be matched by State, local, or private contributions, adding millions more to the investment in the region.

Second, it is estimated that implementing the heritage area would attract 140,000 new visitors per year, and some estimates project that this would infuse up to $20 million into the local economy annually.

With the summer tourist season fast approaching, we are reminded that far too many visitors only view Niagara Falls from the Canadian side of the border. They have missed out on the history, culture, recreation, and natural beauty that is found in equal measure on the New York side. This legislation will take great strides in balancing that inequity and help revitalize an area of our country in need of investment and economic development.

With that, I yield the floor and thank my colleague for working so long and hard with us to make this legislation today a reality.

Madam President, I am proud to rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington, the Senator from Pennsylvania, the Senator from Ohio, and myself, and I first wish to thank Senator Murray for her leadership on this issue. This is crucial, and when Senators Casey, Brown, and I sent her a request to include this money first in the appropriations bill and then in the omnibus bill, Senators Dodd and Bond offered an amendment for another $100 million, and by the time we got through with conference, $180 million was offered. So I thank all my colleagues. We also have Senators Clinton, Menendez, and Kerry as cosponsors of our amendment.

Madam President, as you know, we are in the midst of a massive spike in mortgage delinquency and foreclosures. Housing prices are going down at record levels. We haven't seen housing prices go down this much since the Depression. Our economy, the national economy, is heading south. Yet where is the President? The President has been in Bucharest, both literally and figuratively. The President is literally in Bucharest today, but he has been in Bucharest for months when it comes to the economy and housing. He is nowhere to be seen here.

Foreclosure filings are soaring. They are up 57 percent in January. From December to January alone, foreclosures increased 8 percent. The 57-percent figure is over the year. Home foreclosure filings topped 1.3 million in 2007, and more than 2 million are likely now. We are all more than aware of the havoc this has wreaked in neighborhoods, on Main Street, on Wall Street, and throughout the Nation and even the world. So it is amazing that with all of these problems rippling out from housing foreclosures, a simple addition could greatly ameliorate the problem, and that addition is mortgage counselors. Why, you ask? Why should a mortgage counselor help solve not just problems of individual foreclosures but of declining home prices and declining economy and financial ripples throughout the world, in London and Shanghai? The answer is simple: The majority of those in foreclosure do not have to have their houses foreclosed upon. They have the resources, and the price of their home is such that a simple refinancing would work.

In the old days--when banks were the only issuer of mortgages, they issued them and held them--none of this would have happened. The mortgage counselor from the bank would have gone over to the homeowner and helped him or her rework this. Madam President, 60 percent of those in foreclosure or about to go into foreclosure are prime borrowers; most of them, the majority, are in home refinancings, not new homes; and many of them were duped through no fault of their own.

A mortgage counselor on the scene, provided there are dollars to refinance, can help that homeowner refinance.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Klobuchar, the Presiding Officer, be added as a cosponsor of our amendment.

I thank her for always being on top of things.

In any case, a mortgage counselor could easily do the job in so many cases, but there are none around. Foreclosure counselors are skilled and work. There are groups throughout the country that do this and do it well, with very little waste and much dedication. That is why Senators Casey, Brown, and I went to Senator Murray and asked her to put this in the omnibus bill. That is why she did it, and that is why Senators Bond and Dodd added additional money in an amendment. We need these people.

I wish to tell a story. I have told it before on this floor, but I want to make sure people hear about it. It shows the need for counselors. It is about Frank Ruggiero, a homeowner from Ozone Park in Queens. Frank is a retired subway motorman. He had a pension of $28,000 a year, Social Security of $11,000 a year--$39,000 income a year. He lived in his nice little brick house with a mortgage of $1,100 a month or about $12,000 a year and happily paid the mortgage for 16 years of the 30-year mortgage.

Then Frank got diabetes. He needed $50,000 for some kind of treatment that his medical plan would not pay for. Instead of going to the bank, which was Frank's mistake--because banks have not caused this problem; it is the independent mortgage companies, unregulated, that caused it-- he saw an ad in the paper for one of these fiends--they are not all fiends but this person was--

that said ``get quick cash; refinance your home.''

Frank called, and he came over. Frank said: How much more will I pay?

He said: You will pay $100 more in January.

And Frank says: I can easily afford $1,200 a month to cure my diabetes. That is worth it. He signed a new 30-year mortgage and sure enough, his mortgage only went up to $1,200 in January.

What he was never told was that the following January his mortgage would go up to $3,900 a month. That is easy math. That is about $47,000 a year. Frank's total income was $39,000 a year. Even if he didn't pay one nickel for the whole year for any food or heat or taxes, he couldn't pay it.

What happened? This more relates to the amendment of my colleague from California--the mortgage broker was paid a huge commission to dupe Frank. He duped him legally because there are no regulations. It said on the big document Frank signed, on page 23--I am a lawyer, but I couldn't understand it--6 points above LIBOR after 4 months, after this, after that--it said the mortgage would go up that much, but no right person would understand it. It wasn't in plain English, and it wasn't available. The mortgage broker made a huge fee, walked off into the sunset, and Frank was about to lose his home.

The irony is, Frank was a prime borrower. He had never missed a payment on his mortgage, he had never missed a payment on his credit card. His FICO score was above 700. He easily could refinance. Frank is a good customer for a lending institution. But there was no one to help him. There was no bank. It was a mortgage broker, independent, who got money from a mortgage company, independent, both unregulated. That relates to the amendment of my friend from California. They are off into the sunset with their profits, and Frank is stuck and no one is there. The mortgage company didn't hold the mortgage, they chopped it up in 40 pieces and gave it to some investment house that sold securities, and it is now scattered among thousands of investors in little tiny pieces in different degrees of reliability.

So Frank is out there alone. If there were a mortgage counselor on the scene, that mortgage counselor could easily help Frank refinance.

You say, where would they get the money for refinancing? Good news; finally, after months of prodding by myself and Senator Dodd and others, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have made $200 billion available for these kinds of mortgages.

But the dollars are not going to walk over to Frank's house in Ozone Park, Queens, and say: Here we are. You need a mortgage counselor. And that is what the amendment of the Senator from Washington and the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Ohio and my amendment does. It simply provides more mortgage counselors. It is not huge science. You do not need a Ph.D. in mathematics or an accounting degree to be a mortgage counselor. You have to take a little course and learn it. It is easy for the various groups that have done this for years but were not faced with a flood of foreclosures to do it again. We could probably prevent about 50 percent of all the foreclosures that are about to happen, maybe even more, because 60 percent are prime borrowers, and even some of the nonprime borrowers could be helped by this, depending on the value of the home and the cost of their mortgage and the mortgage processing agreement.

That is all we want to do. In this package originally that we offered about 3 weeks ago, there was $200 million. That is not enough. Senator Murray and I and others wanted to ask for $500 million, but we were asked by the majority leader to keep the cost down so we offered $200 million. Madam President, $200 million is not enough. We need more than that.

We did appropriate $180 million in the omnibus bill, as I mentioned before, that Senator Murray put together--at least her part of it. Now there is talk we don't need the $180 million; they have not even spent that. Why give them more?

Here is a letter. I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the Record.

It is a letter dated yesterday, to Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby, signed by about 100 organizations that do this, saying the following:

We respectfully request that you fund this program for not

less than $200 million as was initially proposed by Senator

Reid in S. 2636.

They said they have received applications for $340 million in grants, twice the $180 million Congress appropriated. Several States were underrepresented in the original applicant pool because they had not seen high rates of foreclosure, but now many of them have applied. Of the $180 million, $130 million has already been spent in a short 6 weeks. The only reason the rest has not been spent is they are keeping it aside for a very rainy day. They could spend that in a minute if we were to ask them to in report language, should this bill get that far, which I hope and pray it does.

So we need the money. It is not much money. We are putting $4 billion in for CDBG. That is worthy, but it is not as important as mortgage counselors. We are putting $6 billion in for the loss carryback provisions, the FOLs, to help homebuilders. We can't afford a needed $100 million more for mortgage counselors, who do more good to prevent foreclosure and provide more bang for the buck than any other part of this bill, bar none?

Why the $100 million was cut out--I was told they said they didn't need it. This letter proves conclusively they need it. It is now in the Record. I urge my colleagues to look at it. We desperately need it.

I hope we will have bipartisan support for this amendment. Senator Bond, who has been a leader on these issues, supported the amendment, with Senator Dodd, to put in the original $200 million. This is hardly a partisan issue. This is not a bill that costs $15 billion. Another $100 million is not

going to make that much difference, especially when we are doing $6 billion for the loss carrybacks, and $4 billion for CDBG. I urge my colleagues to support it. It is a much needed amendment that will do tremendous good. It will help the Frank Ruggieros and the millions of others like him to keep their homes. It will prevent housing prices in their neighborhoods and in the country from declining more than they have to. It will stabilize mortgage markets and thus stabilize many of our largest banks and institutions, both here and abroad.

So this little amendment is like Mighty Mite--it is small, it is at the center, but it has tremendous power to ripple outward and affect us positively.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it so we might strengthen this bill.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, a few minutes ago I attended a little press briefing with Senators Reid, McConnell, Dodd, Shelby, and other members of both leadership and the Banking Committee. It was a very good meeting because, at the meeting, Senators Reid and McConnell empowered Senators Dodd and Shelby to get together and try to come up with a compromise housing package. That is the best news we have had in this housing crisis in weeks and weeks. The eyes of America are looking at the Senate and saying: What are you going to do about the housing crisis?

Since we last adjourned, we have had a near meltdown on Wall Street. Since we last adjourned, new numbers have come out that show thousands more are losing their homes weekly. Since we adjourned, we have seen buying power is down for the average person and housing values are down.

For most people, housing is their piece of the rock.

That is their largest asset. When they are worried about their home, they are worried about everything. When the middle-class consumer gets worried, the economy catches cold, and that is what has happened.

Yet for weeks and weeks the Senate has been paralyzed in terms of doing things about housing. We were very quick--the Fed--to go rescue Wall Street, and they were looking down the abyss. I don't think they had any choice. I was supportive of that. But I am not supportive of a bifurcated policy that says when a major financial company gets in trouble, we rush to their aid, but when John and Jane Smith homeowners have trouble, we say: You learn. You are a moral hazard. If we help you, then everyone else will not repay their mortgages. First, the argument is unfair. John and Jane are probably more blameless than many of those who undercapitalized Bear Stearns and played it right at the edge. Second, this moral hazard argument makes no sense. The statistics show that when a homeowner owns his or her home, when a family owns their home, they do everything to repay that mortgage. They don't go on vacation. They don't buy the new suit of clothes for the kid who is starting school. They cut back on what they eat. That nice Friday night out at the local restaurant which the family looks forward to goes, all so they can pay their mortgage. So this moral hazard argument that if we help people who are blameless makes no sense.

Let me tell my colleagues about a typical person who has suffered foreclosure. I met many of them. I actually sat down and talked to some of them from New York. So that my colleagues can understand, these great thinkers up in their ivory towers, the conservative think tanks, who are saying: You better learn your lesson, don't even know what is going on. Let me tell my colleagues about Frank Ruggiero. He is a retired subway motorman. He lives in Ozone Park, Queens. His income is--I should say was, because Frank passed away a month ago, but that doesn't have anything to do with the story. Frank had a good pension. His union, TWU, provided him a good pension of $28,000. His Social Security was $11,000, and he had a nice little house in Ozone Park, a working-class neighborhood in Queens, New York City, that was worth--he had paid 16 years of a 30-year mortgage. He hadn't missed a payment, as most homeowners have not. They pay whenever they can.

Frank got diabetes. His health care plan would not pay for the treatment the doctor said he needed, and he was desperate. So Frank saw an ad in the newspaper and it said: ``Get quick cash. Refinance your home.'' He called up the number and a mortgage broker came over. This mortgage broker is unregulated. He didn't come from a bank. He was an independent operator. That is where most of the trouble was, from these unregulated mortgage brokers. We are not dealing with that in this bill, but we should in a future bill. A bill I have introduced would deal with this issue. Anyway, he asked the mortgage broker: Could I get $50,000? He said: Yes. And Frank asked the right question. He said: How much will my mortgage go to? The mortgage broker said: It will go from $1,100 a month to $1,200 in January. Well, Frank thought, I can afford that, so he signs the mortgage deal.

Let me say three things about what happened to Frank. Frank is typical--typical. His mortgage did go up to $1,200 a month the next January, but the following January, it went up to $3,900 a month. Frank's income was $39,000. A quick calculation will show that $3,900 a month is more than Frank could pay. If he didn't spend one nickel for food, clothing, health care, and everything went to the mortgage, he still wouldn't have enough.

Why? Was Frank defrauded? No. On page 37 of this 50-page mortgage document, it did say the mortgage would go up, but it didn't say so in a language you or I would understand, only that certain things would happen after this, that, and the other. I think if you read it--and I read it--it was deliberately disguised. So there was no fraud. There should have been, but our laws for mortgage brokers don't say it is fraudulent to sell somebody a mortgage that is beyond what they can pay.

The second point: Of the $50,000 Frank was supposed to get, guess how much he got. He got $5,700. You say: $5,700, how could that be? Because in that disguised mortgage document, it said the broker would get a commission. What it didn't say is the broker's commission from a mortgage company, also unregulated, also not a bank--the higher the interest rate the agent got Frank to sign for, the greater the commission. If it was a no-document loan, which this was no documents-- another story for another day, and I will be back on the floor this week, if we are able to debate this bill, and talk about all these things because I have studied this issue and I have been working on it for a long time. It was a no-doc loan, an absurd concept; how investors bought no-doc loans is again something we have to look at. But he got an additional commission for that.

Then there was a prepayment penalty. If somehow Frank would prepay this ludicrous mortgage, there would be a big penalty to prepay. When should that ever happen? Those should be outlawed.

So this guy got $22,000, the mortgage company got points of $11,000, way beyond what any bank would charge or would be allowed to charge. Between the appraiser, the lawyer, and everyone who came with the package, they all took their piece and Frank got $5,700, all because of the structure of the mortgage company. You say: Well, what about the mortgage broker? He is probably off in the sunset on his yacht with all the $22,000 he made from duping the Franks of the world. Where is the mortgage company? It is bankrupt. Frank is stuck.

The third point: Frank was a prime borrower. He had a FICO score somewhere around 700. He had paid his mortgage payment religiously for 16 years. He had never missed a credit card bill. Frank was one of those old-fashioned people who believed you pay your bills, so he was a prime borrower. Sixty percent of those who have subprime mortgages in or about to go into foreclosure are prime borrowers. They pay their loans. They are not trying to gyp anybody. It is a disgrace. The sad fact is if Frank hadn't answered that ad but had walked into a local bank, because they are regulated, they would have said to Frank: You need $50,000? Fine. We will sign you a new 30-year fixed-rate mortgage and that will cost you $1,500 or $1,600 a month instead of $1,100. That would have been a stretch for the Ruggiero family, but they would have made it. They would have signed it and he would have gotten his money and his treatment.

What are we saying, that Frank should be punished for what he did? I ask some of those ideologues from the think tanks and even from the other side of the aisle: What did Frank do wrong? What did Frank do wrong? What harsh lesson are we going to impose on the Franks of the world, and what will anyone else have to learn from them? So the moral hazard argument makes no sense.

We have to do something. Now, what this bill contains is something Senator Brown and Senator Casey and myself and, with Senator Murray's help, have been working on for a long time, where somebody on the ground today could go to Frank, if Frank were alive, but to people similar to Frank, and they could help him rewrite a new mortgage that he could repay and he wouldn't lose his home. Now, after 6 months of the administration opposing and opposing and opposing, Senators Brown and Casey and I, again with Senator Murray's help, were able to get $180 million into the omnibus budget bill at the end of last year. Guess how much of that has been used. Mr. President, $160 million already, after about 6 weeks, 7 weeks since it passed. We need more. To me, the most important part of this bill, with a lot of good provisions, is the money for the mortgage counselors. Not because it is a great, heroic thing to do, not because it dramatically restructures our economy--these things are needed--but because it saves people's homes. It saves the Franks of

the world, their little piece of the rock, which they struggled so hard and long to own and to keep. So we proposed another $200 million. To be honest, we need $500 million. To compromise with the other side--they hate all Government spending, some of them--we have said $200 million.

Then, when the mortgage counselor came around, you would still need money to refinance the mortgage. That is why there are provisions for mortgage revenue bonds in the proposal. There is also a proposal for CDBG money. That seems to raise the ire of some: Government money. Well, let me say what the CDBG money will do. The houses that are already foreclosed upon and are vacant are cancers on neighborhoods. Let's say you are a homeowner anywhere within a tenth of a mile of a home that has suffered foreclosure; a vacant home in your neighborhood brings the home values down 1 percent, each vacant home. So a totally innocent person suffers. No moral hazard here. You could have paid your mortgage off and you are hurting because there are foreclosures. What this provision will do is allow the State, the local governments, to buy up that foreclosed home, fix it up, and sell it. Isn't that a good thing or are we again going to stay in our ideological ivory tower and say: That is the Government spending money. Of course it is the Government spending money. We spend money for soldiers. That is an external cost. Foreclosed homes are also an external cost. So this is a good package.

The final provision is a bankruptcy provision which I support and I hope will stay in the bill. I know it is controversial. But Senator Durbin has wisely modified it. The argument against it is it would raise interest rates because people would build in the cost of the lower repayment once somebody was in bankruptcy into the original cost of the mortgage. So what Senator Durbin did in an effort to compromise is actually say it will only apply to existing mortgages, not forward- looking ones, not ones that are going to be signed tomorrow. So it can't affect future mortgages. So these are five good provisions.

Now, I wish to say to Senator McConnell and Senator Shelby, and I think I speak for just about every one of us on this side of the aisle: We welcome additions. We welcome discussions. Senator Johnny Isakson, of Georgia, has a provision about tax credits for first-time homebuyers that might encourage the housing market to get going again. I think it is a good provision. I praised him while we were on break. Senator Isakson should get to offer his amendment.

There are many other amendments. Senator Carper worked diligently to see that FHA reform comes forward. Senators Dodd and Shelby are close. The only disagreement, as I understand it, is over what the limits should be. The administration and some of us, including Senator Dodd, support $740,000 approximately, and Shelby says $400,000. I cannot believe we cannot work that out. I say to Senator Shelby that in places such as Long Island, where the average home costs about $450,000, we don't even cover half of the homes right now. It was always intended that about 80 percent of the homes be covered--not just the very wealthy but middle class and down. Hopefully, they can come to a compromise on that.

Anyway, this is good news. I know what happened. Two weeks ago, when we proposed the same thing, we were blocked. I talked to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who wanted to put a bill together. They said there were some who said the only debate we should have on this is to reduce the estate tax or make permanent the Bush tax cuts. With all due respect, neither of those has anything to do with solving the housing crisis, whatever your view is.

Then something happened. We had a meltdown on Wall Street and all these new housing figures I mentioned during the 2 weeks we were away. I am glad to see that the minority leader and others have now seen, hopefully, the price for inaction, the price for a narrow ideological commitment--no Government, as our economy goes down the drain.

I am hopeful, and I pray that the negotiations that are going forward right now between the Chair and ranking member of the Banking Committee will bear fruit. Let us hope we can spend the rest of this week far more productively than we spent the last week here in session. Let's hope we can debate housing. Let us hope we can help the Franks of the world, who have done nothing wrong and need help. When we help the Frank Ruggieros of the world, we help our economy gradually get better.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, may I make an inquiry of the Chair? How much time do I have?

I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes. Is that in order?

Mr. President, first, I wish to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania before he leaves the floor. He is a great member of the committee, a great Senator, and always has his eye on the average family. One of the reasons he has been so effective on the Joint Economic Committee is he understands all the concepts, of course, but then he is able to take them and relate them directly to the needs of average families. I thank him for the good job he did this afternoon, which is typical of the good job he always does on the JEC and elsewhere. I also thank my colleague, Senator Webb, who also took some time to speak on these issues.

Now I will conclude our Humphrey Hawkins budget debate.

Today, we are looking at an economy on the verge of recession. Many economists would say it is already in recession. The economic hits to middle-class American families just keep on coming and coming.

Before I talk about our Democratic budget package, which is far superior to the President's budget, I would like to use this Humphrey Hawkins debate time as chair of the Joint Economic Committee to talk a little bit about the economy.

In the last week alone, we have learned that we are experiencing record home foreclosures in the prime and subprime mortgage markets from coast to coast. Every single State has been affected by an increase in foreclosures. According to an analysis by the Joint Economic Committee, home prices in every major market are falling. Families have historically low equity in their homes.

Moody's Economy.com estimates that 8.8 million homeowners--that is 10 percent of all homeowners--will owe more money than their homes are worth. Think of that: 10 percent of all homeowners--not homes in foreclosure, not homes in trouble, but 10 percent of all homeowners will owe more money than their homes are worth.

Just this past Friday, the Labor Department reported back-to-back months of losses in jobs, with serious losses this past month in manufacturing, construction, and retail. Today, the Commerce Department released data showing rising trade deficits with China and oil- producing nations such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. Americans are paying a record average $3.22 per gallon of gasoline today, and if that wasn't enough, oil is selling for over $110 a barrel. Let me repeat that. Oil is selling for over $110 per barrel. That is an alltime record.

As we put forward a more sensible budget plan for our country this year, we have to recognize that the pressure on families has been made worse since President Bush took over. Over the last 7 years, Americans have been squeezed by skyrocketing energy, health care, and education costs. Energy costs have ballooned 64 percent during Bush's tenure. A gallon of regular-grade gasoline has increased 60 percent in real terms, up from $1.62 in January 2001. To put this in perspective, the average middle-class family is paying more just in higher gasoline prices than they received in the Bush tax cuts. Again, let me repeat that. The average American family is paying more just in higher gasoline prices than they received in the President's tax cut. That is appalling.

There are 7.2 million more people uninsured since the President took office, and average health insurance for families who do have it increased nearly 40 percent since 2000. Inflation-adjusted tuition for 4-year public colleges increased 36 percent, to $5,526 per year between 1999 and 2005. In February of 2008, 4.9 million people were working part time for economic reasons but wanted to work full time, and the underemployment rate is almost 9 percent--9 percent--up 1.6 percent since 2000. Now there are 1.4 million fewer people with jobs since the President took office--1.4 million unemployed.

The bottom line is that this administration is the owner of the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover, and the last 2 months of losing nearly 90,000 jobs secures the President's unfortunate place in history, as this chart shows. Here is Herbert Hoover. Everyone did better than George Bush since Herbert Hoover.

The significant job losses in manufacturing and construction have continued since the housing market has been in trouble and doesn't seem to be getting better. The job losses in the retail sector are particularly troubling because it indicates that consumer spending, which has driven this economy, has also declined measurably.

The President's ``hear no evil, see no evil, do no evil'' policies on our economy simply don't work. It is only a matter of time before consecutive months of job losses, falling home prices, rising energy prices, and cutbacks in consumer spending lead us into a full-blown recession. It is crystal clear to everyone except the people in the White House that we are inevitably heading toward a recession.

It isn't a surprise to many in Congress that we are on the brink of recession--or are already in one--although the administration has done an excellent job of hiding its head in the sand, because their strategy has produced burgeoning budget deficits, a serious global trade imbalance, and brought us to the brink of recession. That is because their only economic strategy for everything is to cut taxes--help their wealthy friends and no help for the rest of America.

The unmistakable economic downturn began early last year as the subprime mortgage mess unfolded. The spillover effects into the broader housing market, the credit market, and overall economy are tremendous and ongoing.

According to the JEC's conservative estimates, by 2009 at least 1.3 million foreclosures will occur as the riskiest subprime mortgages reset over the course of this year and next. This will lead to the destruction of approximately $100 billion in housing wealth, including an estimated $71 billion in direct losses on foreclosed properties and a decline in the value of neighboring properties by an additional $32 billion.

Overall housing prices continue to fall, as seen in the almost 10 percent decline of the S&P/Case-Shiller national home price index since the first quarter of 2006.

Last week, the Federal Reserve released data showing that American families hold less equity in their houses than at any time since the Fed began tracking this data in 1945. Under the Bush administration, the primary source of wealth for most Americans--the equity in their houses--dropped by nearly 10 percentage points, from a 57.8 percent equity stake when Bush took office to a current low of 47.9 percent.

Given that housing wealth totaled about $23 trillion in 2006, the decline in household balance sheets is now between $1 and $2 trillion. Declines in house prices are likely to have significant negative effects on consumer spending and a host of other deleterious effects on the economy. But housing is the bull's-eye of this crisis. It has spread outward and outward and outward. Again, the administration, wrapped in ideological handcuffs, does nothing.

We are also borrowing to pay for this war in Iraq. The economic cost for the Iraq war is truly staggering. According to professor Joe Stiglitz, a Nobel Laureate who testified at our Joint Economic Committee last month, the war could cost $3 trillion--that is with a T--$3 trillion. According to a report our committee did in November--we have been pursuing this issue of the cost of the war--the war will cost each American household $37,000.

The Federal Government is increasingly reliant on the rest of the world to buy our public debt, and with falling dollars and skyrocketing debt, who knows how much longer we can count on the largesse of our trading partners.

President Bush turned huge budget surpluses into huge deficits in a few short years, as we see here. In January 2001, the CBO projected surpluses would total $5.6 trillion in 2002 to 2011. In 2001, CBO's projection was a surplus of $573 billion in 2007. In reality, the deficit was $163 billion, a turnaround of $736 billion, and more than $100 billion for every year that the President has been in office. This remarkable, dramatic turnaround in the budget picture shows a reckless disregard by this administration for living within our means and

has, frankly, jeopardized the economic future of families across the country.

The President may have passed some big tax cuts for the people who need it least, the very well off. But he has not been very compassionate to future generations who will be paying for the increased debt for generations. I compliment the Senator from North Dakota for the amazing budget he put together. It is the best budget document I have ever seen since I have been in the Senate.

The Democratic budget provides some measure of sanity and order to our budget priorities and, hopefully, will put our country back on more solid economic footing. Senator Conrad did an amazing job in crafting a budget resolution that gets us started on the road to recovery from these misguided policies.

One of the most important things about Senator Conrad's budget is that by restraining spending and making the right choices on long-term tax cuts, it provides room for important middle tax cuts to ease the middle-class squeeze, such as the tax cuts provided in Senator Baucus's amendment. These tax cuts are not a fix for what ails our economy in the long term, but they will indeed help middle-class families make ends meet.

Senator Baucus's amendment is broad-based tax relief targeted to the middle class, plain and simple. Everybody benefits, but the middle class gets most of the spoils. That is the way we ought to provide tax relief in this country--not providing more and more tax breaks to the top one-tenth of 1 percent, whose incomes have shot up into the stratosphere. Tax cuts for those who need them, not for those who would not notice them. That is our watchword, while the other side continues to believe in trickle down, but not even trickle down from the middle class to the poor but from those higher regions of wealth.

If we look at the tax cuts that passed in 2001, we know which ones should be made permanent and which ones should not. The $1,000-per- child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and the 10-percent bracket are all sensible tax cuts that can be made permanent with the surpluses provided for in the Conrad budget.

The Baucus amendment does some other sensible things as well. Across the country, parents are struggling to manage the crunch of work and family. According to a report issued by the Joint Economic Committee, full-time childcare costs average about $7,300 per year in the United States. That is almost 20 percent of the median income of families with young children. The Baucus amendment will permanently extend the tax credit for childcare expenses to provide essential benefits to working families.

Senator Baucus's amendment also includes provisions to offset the impact of rising local property taxes. I hear about that from my constituents every week. The amendment will make permanent the important military tax benefits passed both by the House and the Senate last December. These benefits are particularly targeted toward service men and women and their families. Given the multiple rotations many of them have endured, these tax provisions are supported by all, and they are the least we can do.

I know what the other side will say: ``Democrats are for tax increases.'' My friends, telling people who are making a million dollars a year or more that they should continue to get a tax cut is what is wrong, not saying they should begin to pay their fair share. I have news for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Their old arguments are not going to work because the middle class has seen promise after promise from this administration, and then they have seen the vast majority of the tax cuts go to the very top of the income scale.

I will repeat it again: The average middle-class person has paid more of an increase in gasoline than their entire Bush tax cut, while this administration twiddles its thumbs about the energy crisis and continues to tell those at the top of the economic ladder that they get the vast majority of the benefits, even though they don't need it.

So I hope we will support the Conrad budget. It is a good, fine, and well-thought-out one. I hope we will support the Baucus tax cuts, which are targeted at the middle class. I hope we will support a budget such as the one proposed on our side, which is smart and helps the middle class.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, today I am here to talk about the obstructionism across the aisle and how it is hurting our country, preventing progress, preventing change at a time when Americans demand change. This chart says it all: 73 Republican filibusters and counting.

The Republican Party, Leader McConnell, and others have pointed out that a handful of the filibusters may have been started by Democrats. We can look at the circumstances of those. Maybe those were done because there was no choice, because somebody else was delaying in another way. But let's say there were 10 of these that are Democratic. Then we will change this number from 73 to 63. It is still overwhelming. It is still the record.

The point we are making is very simple: This Republican minority, unable to put forward its own agenda, unable because they are not in sync with America, can only obstruct. If you had a single word to describe the tenor of the Republican minority this year and last year, this session of Congress thus far, it would be ``obstruct.'' If you needed two words, it would be ``obstruct, obstruct.'' If you needed a few more words, it would be ``obstruct, obstruct, and then obstruct again; get in the way.''

Admittedly, this body was designed, in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, to be the cooling saucer. This body is supposed to take a careful look and slow things down. But there are times when history demands change. There are times when the minority has understood that, and even though they would modify the way change occurs, they don't stand in the way and just say no. This is one of those times.

Technology has changed our world. It is not the same world it was even 10 or 15 years ago.

Technology has created terrorism. Why? Small groups of bad people have been enabled by technology to strike at New York or London or Madrid and innocent civilians.

Technology has created one global labor market in so many different areas. It means the kids in the schools of New York or Arkansas or Missouri have to compete with the kids at schools in Berlin and Beijing and Bangor. It means that jobs are competing. It used to be New York State would compete with Connecticut and New Jersey and Pennsylvania and Missouri and Arkansas. Now we compete around the globe. That is technology, nothing else.

Technology has allowed us all to live longer. Praise God. The average life expectancy goes up and up and up. I have a Dad who is 84. He plays golf. Thirty years ago, a man 84 was rare, and when someone was 84, they were old and frail. My dad, who led a hard life--so happy he now has a nice, happy life--is active. He drives all around, argues with my mother about how far he can drive, and all of that.

We live longer, but that creates new strains on us as well. What about health care for our elderly people? The costs go up, and every one of us would give our right arm to see our mother or father have another good year of health, or husband or wife or child. It means pensions and what we do with later-life changes. It also means we live longer and things get stretched out. People get married later. They are not in a rush to get married and have a family. They find careers later. They experiment. In the day when you had to just get a job quickly--a lot of people don't do that anymore. So it has changed that.

Technology has even changed little things. Our parents felt very much in control of us. I would get home at 3 o'clock from grade school, and I would go out on my street to play. It was baby boom time. There were 50, 60 kids. We played all kinds of games and ran around. These days, more likely, the children stay home. They are on the Internet. Lord knows what they are seeing. It is a different world.

Technology has changed everything, and technology demands that the U.S. Government help people adjust to that technology so they can continue to have the great American life. That is what America is demanding--change. Look at the polls. They are unprecedented. How many people think our country, under George Bush's leadership, is moving in the right direction? A smaller and smaller percentage. How many people think we need significant change? A larger and larger percentage. We can argue about what that change should be, but change we must or our children and even ourselves in later years will not have the same good life we have today.

We on the Democratic side are seeking to bring about some of that change. Some of it is quite large--change the course of the war in Iraq, change our health care system, change our energy policy. Some of it is smaller but important.

What do we face from the other side? The word ``no'' and the word ``no'' again and the word ``no'' again. Using the Senate rules, which allow them to require 60 votes on even the smallest measures, they have slowed everything down. Again, the exact number is not the point; it is that they have set the record. Republican filibusters are rampant. A few of these are ours, many are theirs. They will get to 73 soon, I assure you.

Why do they do it? I will tell you why. I try to study history a little bit. I am hardly a Ph.D. in history, but I like to read about it, think about it. There are times when there is a paradigm shift in our politics. The year 1980 was one such time. Most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle came in in that 1980 Ronald Reagan paradigm: strong security, shrink government, family values. Those were very attractive. Now the times have changed. The old way doesn't work. But their base--20 percent of the electorate but half, maybe more, of the Republican base--is stuck in that old world. So they have one foot in one camp. They see where the public is, but they can't move. Their base and their inability to break with that base have them paralyzed. So there is only one choice--obstruct, say no. When you can't say yes about anything, say no. That is what they have done--63, 65, 67, 68, 69. Again, we are busy calculating how many, but it is a whole lot, and it is a record.

Let me talk about one example, the housing crisis. Our economy is heading south. The numbers are not good. Unemployment is going up. Job creation is meager, anemic almost. The amount of income people have is declining, and expenses are going up. Just to continue to buy energy-- oil, gas, heating oil--food, with prices that have gone through the roof because of energy in part, eats up all of most average families' extra income. So our economy is hurting.

What is at the bull's-eye of that economic downturn? It is housing, all kinds of problems. Again, the old philosophy, Reagan philosophy-- don't regulate these new mortgage brokers--has led to a disaster. The banks were pretty regulated. They are not to blame in this crisis by and large, the initial

banks that made mortgages, the community banker, for instance, regulated by the Federal Government. But the mortgage brokers who are not affiliated with banks, unregulated, are clearly at the nub of this. They were unregulated, and that was the old philosophy on that side of the aisle--no regulation, let the buyer beware. Well, the buyer got hurt. But as we learned in economics, the person in the house next door, who is fully paid on his or her mortgage, got hurt because his or her housing values went down.

Now we even have a credit freeze because people so miscalculated--the great financial moguls so miscalculated the value of these mortgages, it has now cast into doubt the way we evaluate credit everywhere. The Port Authority of New York just paid 17 percent for a short-term bond. Everyone knows the Port Authority is going to pay it back--they have a great revenue stream--but still, people are worried.

So the only way we are going to get to turn this economy around is do some things with housing. We on the Democratic side proposed a modest package of five measures, many of which had bipartisan support--raising the mortgage revenue caps was proposed by President Bush--and every one of them was designed to be focused, not that expensive--some money but not a huge program, designed to bring support from the other side.

Then Senator Reid went to the floor and said: There are good ideas from the other side of the aisle. Senator Isakson has a very interesting idea about a credit for first-time home buyers for a while to encourage people to buy homes and get this housing market going. Senator Reid offered Senator McConnell the opportunity--you offer your amendments, modify the housing package, and let's move forward.

Again, what did we get? I don't know what number it was: another block, another filibuster, another requirement that we are not going to let this go forward. We are either going to delay and delay and delay with countless amendments, irrelevant amendments, or we will not let you move forward on any of your amendments--either one fitting into this category of ``filibuster.''

Why don't they join us? Here the economy is sinking, and yet we had one vote, I believe it was, on the other side of the aisle saying: Let's move forward and get a housing package.

We are willing to entertain your amendments--not amendments that have nothing to do with housing: the estate tax--you know, the old saws. Let's do that another time. We have done it before. I am sure we will do it again, probably on the budget that is coming up next week. But let's move forward on housing.

Senator Reid was extremely generous in his offer. What was the answer? No. This chart, in other words, says: No.

Our country demands change. Housing is in crisis. The housing crisis has spread like ripples outward on a pond, hurting--hurting--our economy, hurting it as a whole. Here we have a smart, well-designed, thoughtful, and not overly broad package of housing reforms, and instead of debating, the other side obstructs. Is it because there are few on that side of the aisle who say: No Government involvement, and they are able to exert their will on the whole Republican minority and say: Just stop it? Is it because most of the other side is scared of the Republican base that says: No Government involvement, let the economy sink?

We heard that from Herbert Hoover. We heard that from William McKinley. We have learned about the economy since those days. We have learned that smart government involvement, particularly when there is an economic downturn--people are hurting, jobs are not being created-- is the right thing to do.

Again, we can debate what the right way to do it is. I am sure most on the other side would more prefer tax cuts. Some of us prefer some money for CDBG or mortgage counselors--some Government spending. But let's debate it, and let's come up with a result. And instead: No. Filibuster. Again, maybe it is No. 73, maybe it is No. 69, maybe it is No. 67. I don't know what number it is. They are busy calculating that upstairs. But it is a big two-letter number.

The only thing I can say, putting on my political hat--I will tell you, the public is demanding change. The times, they are a-changing. If you do not seek to make that change, you will be called accountable in November. I do not want that to happen. I want to see a good, robust election. I want to see Democrats pick up seats. But given the choice, I would much rather have us join together in constructive legislation and each get credit for it.

But that is not going to happen unless we have a change in attitude, unless we go back to the old ways when filibusters were used on issues of major import but not used routinely to block every single piece of legislation.

Let us hope the membership on the other side of the aisle will see the light. Let us hope they will see that mere obstructionism is not what the country wants. Let us hope they understand there is a demand for change out there in the country. And let us hope they will join with us in seeking that right degree of change with open debate, with discussion of relevant amendments, and moving forward to heal some of the economic wounds the country is now facing.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of S. 2663, the CPSC Reform Act, and I would like to thank Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman Stevens for their leadership on this important and groundbreaking bill. I also want to thank Senator Pryor for his extraordinary work in crafting this outstanding bill which has strong bipartisan support.

The CPSC Reform Act will provide the Consumer Product Safety Commission with the authority and resources it needs to be more effective in its critical mission to protect consumers. Quite frankly, the current product safety system is broken, and the CPSC is in desperate need of reform. Too many unsafe goods are reaching the shores of the United States. Too many dangerous products are finding their way into the hands of American consumers, and all too often, young children.

It seems that over the past year, nearly every week we have had to frantically pull Chinese and other imported goods off store shelves as we learn of each new tainted product. The bottom line is that our safeguards are failing and we need to act fast to fix them. We worry about our kids when they are in class, when they are walking or driving home alone, even when they surfing the Internet. We should not have to worry that the toys they play with might be hazardous to their health or even fatal. From children's costume jewelry to toy trains, these recalls call in to question our ability to keep dangerous toys out of the hands of our kids.

For years, CPSC has been starved of funding and plagued by budget and personnel cuts. As a result, the effectiveness of the CPSC has been severely undermined and the agency, despite its efforts, has been unable to keep up with globalization of the marketplace. This bill will reverse those trends and give the CPSC the budget and the tools it desperately needs to again become an effective force for consumer protection. These important tools include $40 million to upgrade CPSC's laboratories and 50 additional personnel to inspect goods at U.S. ports and overseas product facilities. The bill will also give consumers better access to vital safety information by creating a searchable database that has information including reports of injuries, illness, and death related to the use of consumer products.

It is essential that we take strong steps to protect all consumers, but especially our children. This bipartisan bill takes a tough approach to cracking down tainted products and seeks to restore America's faith in the mechanisms we have in place to safeguard our kids against these dangerous products. First, the bill prohibits importing untested children's products. Second, it also requires tracking labels for children's products that will help parents tie safety recalls and alerts to their prior purchases. Third, the bill prohibits the sale of recalled products so that as parents and consumers, we don't continue to see these hazardous products on the shelves. Finally, this legislation bans all children's products containing lead.

The CPSC must do a better job of getting hazardous products off the shelves and out of consumers' reach, and these provisions will give the CPSC the tools to do just that. It is essential that manufacturers, importers, and retailers do their part to ensure product safety and keep tainted products out the market. This bill seeks to hold companies accountable by increasing criminal and civil penalties for those who knowingly and willingly violate product safety laws. It also gives State attorneys general the power to crack down on companies by enforcing Federal safety standards and provides them with the authority to get dangerous products off the shelf. Furthermore, the bill gives protection to whistleblowers so that employees who identify dangerous products along the supply chain can come forward with vital health and safety information without fear of reprisal.

As you can see, these are important commonsense solutions that will keep consumers informed and safe from dangerous products. Passage of this bill is vital if we hope to rebuild, reform, and revitalize the CPSC and restore America's faith in the agency's ability to protect consumers and their children from unsafe products. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation that restores the CPSC and gives it the much needed authority to put an end to the alarming trend in tainted products faced by this country in recent months.

proposition 65