Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes, if I may, before we conclude business here today, and then basically I guess we will be in either adjournment or recess until the first week in September. I wish to take a moment or so and review the events of the past number of weeks, culminating in the vote a week or so ago on the housing legislation. Of course, the Presiding Officer played a very important and supportive role, and I appreciate immensely his participation on the Banking Committee and the effort we made together to achieve what I think is a fairly historic piece of legislation.

The news from the housing and financial markets continues to be grim. Unfortunately, the new Case-Schiller Index--which most people are familiar with and which is used to determine the level of home values-- Case-Schiller data earlier this week shows that home prices were down 15.8 Percent from May of last year, including a .9-percent, 1-month drop in the month of May alone. The 10-city price index, which dates to 1988, dropped 16.9 percent, its sharpest decline on record since those numbers have been kept over the last 20 years. All 20 cities measured by the index showed annual declines in home values, and 10 cities have suffered double-digit percentage declines over the last year.

Job data is not any better, I am sad to point out. It shows a loss of 50,000 jobs. The unemployment rate now is at 5.7 percent.

Earlier this week, the President signed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act. I am grateful to him for that signature. He earlier indicated he was going to veto the bill but changed his mind. I, for one, appreciate that

change of mind, because I think it is an important message to send to markets about the importance of this bill. I wish to quickly point out that the President didn't like every provision in this bill, nor did I necessarily, for that matter, but he signed it into law and for that we are grateful.

This legislation is a crucial response to the ongoing housing and economic crisis. Most of the legislation took effect immediately upon it being signed into law by the President. Already, the new regulator for the housing GSEs is on the job. We are not even a week into the bill and he is already there, preparing to write the numerous new regulations required by this law.

On Tuesday, before the President even signed the bill, I met with members of the oversight board of the new HOPE for Homeowners program: the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Chairman Bernanke; the Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Sheila Bair; the Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary Paulson; and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary Preston. We all met in my office as the oversight board. I urged them to get to work immediately. They assured me they were doing that. In fact, the very next day they were having the very first meeting of the oversight board. I commend them for that. Anywhere from 400,000 to 600,000 families can keep their homes if, in fact, that program works as we all hope it will.

Next week, my staff is meeting with HUD staff to push them to complete the regulations to get out the $3.9 billion in Community Development Block Grant funds. For Connecticut, as well as Pennsylvania and other States, these dollars could be very valuable in restoring neighborhoods and homes that have been foreclosed, getting them back on the market and producing those tax revenues every community needs in order to provide services to its people. The law requires HUD to have a formula for the distribution of this money ready in 60 days, and I intend to make sure this deadline is met, hence the reason for the meeting with the HUD staff.

The Housing and Economic Recovery Act has a number of provisions that will make a real difference in people's lives, and I want my colleagues to be able to explain them to their constituents as they travel around their States over the next several weeks. First and foremost, the bill establishes the HOPE for Homeowners Act to help 400,000 families keep their homes. It does so after asking both lenders and borrowers to make financial sacrifices, and it does so at absolutely no cost to taxpayers. This program will become effective on October 1.

In addition to providing a much stronger regulator, the bill increases the loan limits for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to $625,000. These GSEs--government-sponsored enterprises--along with the Federal Housing Administration, have been about the only sources of mortgage credit available to most Americans. This will make this credit more widely available to more families seeking to buy or to refinance their homes.

The bill modernizes and expands the Federal Housing Administration programs, raising the loan limits from $362,000 to $625,000, so that 98 percent of the counties in our country and 85 percent of the population of our Nation will have access to this very critical program. FHA has proved its value over and over again, particularly in the current crisis, as it has continued to be a stable source of mortgage credit, even while many of the lenders have failed. By raising these loan limits, that credit line now becomes available, as I said, to more than 85 percent of the population of our country.

The bill also includes a permanent, affordable housing fund financed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This is the first time ever in the history of our Nation we have established a permanent affordable housing program. Ninety percent of these dollars will go for the construction of rental housing. This will take a little time to get in place and will not immediately come on line as other provisions of the bill will, but for the long-term needs of our country, including the ability to build affordable housing every single year as a result of GSE money, is going to provide great relief for those who can't afford a home, those who are starting out and need to have affordable rental housing.

The bill includes new protections for elderly homeowners taking out the FHA-insured reverse mortgages so they are not deceived into using the proceeds from these loans to buy expensive and needless insurance products. It will require mortgage brokers to be licensed. Again, that is a major reform in this legislation.

The bill expands the ability of the VA housing programs. It includes a number of provisions to help our returning veterans coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere to save their homes from foreclosure. Tragically, you would be amazed at how many of our service men and women serving in harm's way are at risk of losing their properties while they are serving overseas. This bill changes that by providing new housing benefits to our veterans.

The legislation includes $3.9 billion, as I mentioned, in Community Development Block Grant funds. These are dollars that go directly back to our communities to allow them to rehabilitate homes and revitalize neighborhoods that have been devastated by the foreclosure problem. Remember, 8,000 to 9,000 people every day end up in foreclosure--8,000 to 9,000 homes every day. Certain neighborhoods in our States and in our cities have been literally devastated by foreclosures. These dollars will help to get those neighborhoods back on their feet.

Finally, the bill includes $150 million in counseling money to organizations out there trying to bring lenders and borrowers together.

Let me take advantage of this moment to urge my colleagues to do what I am going to be doing in my own State, and that is doing public service announcements, asking my media outlets on a daily basis to inform people as to what they can do. If they are delinquent in their mortgages, they may very well qualify for this program we have passed in the Congress, where they can save that house. It is not going to be free of charge; they are going to have some obligations to meet. It is not for everyone. You have to be an owner-occupier. It is not for speculative investments people have made. I urge people to call their banks, call one of these nonprofits, call the office of your Congressman or Senator, and they will tell you how to get in touch with them, but don't allow another month or two to go by on a delinquent basis. You may end up losing a home that you need to have, and it is possible to save that property if you will step up.

So I urge my colleagues, if they are interested in doing what they can for their constituents in the month of August, to find the time to talk about this program, let your constituents know it exists, urge them to step forward, urge your lenders to be in touch with borrowers to see if we can't avoid the kind of continuing foreclosure issues that are going to make our economic recovery difficult.

I will end on this note: The heart of our economic problems, whether it is the unemployment problems, the staggering lack of commercial development that is going on, the problem with student loans--all of it relates back to the foreclosure issue. The sooner we can stop this hemorrhaging of foreclosures in the country, the quicker we are going to get back on our feet economically. So this is not just about saving homes or keeping people in their homes; it is also dealing with the contagion effect that has spread over to other aspects of our economy.

I wanted to take advantage of these closing moments to talk about the bill, to talk about what is in it, and urge our colleagues--Democrats, Republicans--whether you are for the bill or against the bill, there is an opportunity now to make a difference for the people you represent.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my colleagues Senators Lieberman, Reed, and Whitehouse, to mark the 50th anniversary of a momentous occasion in our Nation's maritime history, an occasion that truly launched the American Navy into the Nuclear Age. On August 3, 1958, the USS Nautilus, the world's first nuclear powered submarine, became the first vessel to travel under the North Pole. The intrepid crewmen of the Nautilus received a Presidential Unit Citation for their service, and Operation Sunshine, as it was called, provided a powerful boost to American morale following the Soviet launch of Sputnik. Today, we mark this important milestone with a resolution honoring the Nautilus's historic feat.

The USS Nautilus's Arctic voyage was a remarkable feat of American naval engineering, demonstrating the evolution of submarines from slow underwater ships to warships that could submerge for many weeks and travel through varied depths and conditions, maintaining travel speeds of 20-25 knots. Submarines, as was proven that day, would pursue unconventional courses to achieve incredible results, in this case, traveling a much shorter distance than was thought possible, to reach strategically important destinations on the other side of the globe.

But most important, it marked a major milestone for our nuclear Navy, which would lead to other developments, such as submarines powered by single pressurized water reactors, and an aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise, powered by eight reactor units in 1960.

While the Nautilus's successful voyage was an inspiration to all America, it serves a particularly important point of pride to our submariners, as well as the engineers and shipbuilders of the Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics, who have built our Nation's nuclear submarines in Connecticut for more than four decades. As a young boy, I attended the launch of the USS Nautilus in Groton, CT; and had the honor to witness my late mother christening the USS Stimson. My first cousin, Bill McAree, was one of the chosen few to serve in the nuclear submarine force under Admiral Rickover, and for 34 years, I have had the distinct pleasure of representing the home State of our Nation's premier undersea warfare facilities, including Naval Submarine Base New London.

As we commemorate the 50th anniversary of this important voyage, we must also look forward to the future of American naval power. As nations around the world continue to enlarge their own submarine fleets, the U.S. ability to travel freely and swiftly beneath the waves represents a critically important component of U.S. seapower. Today, our submarine fleet is contributing invaluable surveillance and reconnaissance to our warfighters, and providing an important platform for operations in what the Navy calls ``the littorals,'' or coastal areas. Our military has no more stealthy means for delivering power than the submarine, carrying Navy SEAL teams to enemy territory undetected, or traveling to specific locations to launch cruise missiles. Submarines are not merely weapons of war, they are tools of statecraft, providing critical intelligence to policymakers and serving as a critical deterrent to promote stability throughout the globe. And it is submarines' demonstrated ability to traverse the world undetected, at any point in the ocean, even the North Pole, that makes the work of our silent service, our submariners, so critically important to our national security.

As we look back on the first 50 years of America's nuclear submarine program, the United States must be ready to continue the great legacy of the USS Nautilus, its crewmen, shipwrights, and designers, and remain in the forefront of submarine development.

Mr. President, I rise today along with Senators Jack Reed, John Kerry, Tom Carper, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Joe Biden to introduce the Sunscreen Labeling Protection Act of 2008, or the SUN Act. I thank them for their support of this legislation and have enjoyed working with them on the issue of sunscreen labeling. This is an issue I have been working on for more than a decade. I also want to thank the many outside organizations who support this legislation including the American Cancer Society, the Melanoma Research Foundation, and many others as well as the leading U.S. manufacturers of sunscreen, Banana Boat and Hawaiian Tropic.

As we head into yet another steamy, sweltering summer locally in Washington, DC, and as Americans throughout the country hit the outdoors to enjoy a relaxing time at beaches, backyard barbeques and parks, we cannot forget how important it is to protect our skin from the sun's damaging rays.

However, I am profoundly disappointed to report that yet another summer is passing us by without adequate sunscreen labeling to protect consumers from harmful ultraviolet radiation, including UVA and UVB. Americans are being left in the lurch by the inaction of the Food and Drug Administration, which has failed to issue comprehensive and consistent standards for measuring and labeling sunscreen products for their protective value and for guarding against false claims on sunscreen products.

Americans may be surprised to learn that the Sun Protection Factor, SPF, number on the sunscreen they buy at their local convenience store or supermarket measures only the level of UVB protection provided by the sunscreen. It does not include a measure of the level of UVA protection. UVB has long been associated with sunburn while UVA has been recognized as a deeper penetrating radiation that contributes to skin cancer. While many products claim to offer UVA protection, that claim is not backed by enforceable, FDA-recommended standards by which those claims can be substantiated.

The FDA's standards for sunscreen testing and labeling lag 30 years behind our knowledge of the dangers of sun exposure. Research tells us that individual risk of melanoma, the most serious form of skin cancer, is associated with the intensity of sunlight that a person receives over a lifetime. In 2008, it is estimated there will be more than 1 million new cases of skin cancers and 62,480 new cases of melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer. Tragically, there will be as many as 8,420 deaths from melanoma this year.

Many sunscreen products carry claims that they protect against cancer-causing UVA rays, but without FDA action to set standards for testing and labeling, these claims can't be validated. Indeed, an analysis released earlier this summer found that many sunscreen products have misleading labels that make unsubstantiated claims.

Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island and I, along with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, have repeatedly urged the FDA-- for over a decade now--to follow through with its

development of standards. We have written letters to the FDA dating back more than ten years, we have made phone calls, we have asked questions at hearings, and we even directed the FDA to issue final labeling for UVA and UVB in the fiscal year 2006 Agriculture Appropriations bill.

The American Cancer Society, the American Academy of Dermatology, and numerous other organizations speak of the value of using sunscreen to protect our skin from damaging UVA and UVB rays as an important step in preventing skin cancer. For years, we have heard their repeated cries for industry-wide standards that will help Americans protect themselves from a preventable cause of cancer. And still there is no final action by the FDA.

The public deserves better. If you take one look at the startling numbers of Americans who will be diagnosed with skin cancer this year and who will likely die from this disease, it is clear that the public must know that what they read on the label of a sunscreen product represents a scientifically valid claim of protection from both UVA and UVB radiation.

Almost a year ago, the FDA issued a proposed rule that would set standards for testing and labeling sunscreen that includes UVA and UVB. I applaud this progress. It was a long time in coming. But I must reiterate that until the proposed rule is finalized, consumers and manufacturers lack an enforceable, consistent and comprehensive standard for testing and labeling of sunscreen products.

That is why I am introducing the SUNscreen Labeling Protection Act of 2008, or the SUN Act. This simple, straightforward bill gives the FDA 180 days from the date of enactment to finalize the proposed rule for comprehensive labeling, including formulation, testing and labeling requirements for both UVA and UVB, after which point the proposed rule would become effective.

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of this issue. The public continues to be misled by false claims that cannot be effectively challenged because there are no enforceable FDA standards for measuring and labeling UVA protection.

If the FDA would finalize its proposed rule including UVA and UVB protection, this legislation would not be necessary. But, a year and an entire summer season has nearly passed since the rule was proposed, as have decades of inaction prior to the proposed rule even being issued. All the while, consumers have gone without the information and protection they need which is what makes this legislation so critical.

I urge my colleagues to support this critically important bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today along with Senators Jack Reed, John Kerry, Tom Carper, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Joe Biden to introduce the Sunscreen Labeling Protection Act of 2008, or the SUN Act. I thank them for their support of this legislation and have enjoyed working with them on the issue of sunscreen labeling. This is an issue I have been working on for more than a decade. I also want to thank the many outside organizations who support this legislation including the American Cancer Society, the Melanoma Research Foundation, and many others as well as the leading U.S. manufacturers of sunscreen, Banana Boat and Hawaiian Tropic.

As we head into yet another steamy, sweltering summer locally in Washington, DC, and as Americans throughout the country hit the outdoors to enjoy a relaxing time at beaches, backyard barbeques and parks, we cannot forget how important it is to protect our skin from the sun's damaging rays.

However, I am profoundly disappointed to report that yet another summer is passing us by without adequate sunscreen labeling to protect consumers from harmful ultraviolet radiation, including UVA and UVB. Americans are being left in the lurch by the inaction of the Food and Drug Administration, which has failed to issue comprehensive and consistent standards for measuring and labeling sunscreen products for their protective value and for guarding against false claims on sunscreen products.

Americans may be surprised to learn that the Sun Protection Factor, SPF, number on the sunscreen they buy at their local convenience store or supermarket measures only the level of UVB protection provided by the sunscreen. It does not include a measure of the level of UVA protection. UVB has long been associated with sunburn while UVA has been recognized as a deeper penetrating radiation that contributes to skin cancer. While many products claim to offer UVA protection, that claim is not backed by enforceable, FDA-recommended standards by which those claims can be substantiated.

The FDA's standards for sunscreen testing and labeling lag 30 years behind our knowledge of the dangers of sun exposure. Research tells us that individual risk of melanoma, the most serious form of skin cancer, is associated with the intensity of sunlight that a person receives over a lifetime. In 2008, it is estimated there will be more than 1 million new cases of skin cancers and 62,480 new cases of melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer. Tragically, there will be as many as 8,420 deaths from melanoma this year.

Many sunscreen products carry claims that they protect against cancer-causing UVA rays, but without FDA action to set standards for testing and labeling, these claims can't be validated. Indeed, an analysis released earlier this summer found that many sunscreen products have misleading labels that make unsubstantiated claims.

Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island and I, along with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, have repeatedly urged the FDA-- for over a decade now--to follow through with its

development of standards. We have written letters to the FDA dating back more than ten years, we have made phone calls, we have asked questions at hearings, and we even directed the FDA to issue final labeling for UVA and UVB in the fiscal year 2006 Agriculture Appropriations bill.

The American Cancer Society, the American Academy of Dermatology, and numerous other organizations speak of the value of using sunscreen to protect our skin from damaging UVA and UVB rays as an important step in preventing skin cancer. For years, we have heard their repeated cries for industry-wide standards that will help Americans protect themselves from a preventable cause of cancer. And still there is no final action by the FDA.

The public deserves better. If you take one look at the startling numbers of Americans who will be diagnosed with skin cancer this year and who will likely die from this disease, it is clear that the public must know that what they read on the label of a sunscreen product represents a scientifically valid claim of protection from both UVA and UVB radiation.

Almost a year ago, the FDA issued a proposed rule that would set standards for testing and labeling sunscreen that includes UVA and UVB. I applaud this progress. It was a long time in coming. But I must reiterate that until the proposed rule is finalized, consumers and manufacturers lack an enforceable, consistent and comprehensive standard for testing and labeling of sunscreen products.

That is why I am introducing the SUNscreen Labeling Protection Act of 2008, or the SUN Act. This simple, straightforward bill gives the FDA 180 days from the date of enactment to finalize the proposed rule for comprehensive labeling, including formulation, testing and labeling requirements for both UVA and UVB, after which point the proposed rule would become effective.

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of this issue. The public continues to be misled by false claims that cannot be effectively challenged because there are no enforceable FDA standards for measuring and labeling UVA protection.

If the FDA would finalize its proposed rule including UVA and UVB protection, this legislation would not be necessary. But, a year and an entire summer season has nearly passed since the rule was proposed, as have decades of inaction prior to the proposed rule even being issued. All the while, consumers have gone without the information and protection they need which is what makes this legislation so critical.

I urge my colleagues to support this critically important bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

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

Madam President, I come to the floor today to remember the terrible tragedy that occurred 1 year ago tomorrow in Minneapolis, MN, when the bridge carrying Interstate 35W over the Mississippi River near downtown Minneapolis abruptly collapsed during the evening rush hour. At least 50 vehicles plunged some 60 feet into the Mississippi River, killing 13 people and injuring dozens more.

As we approach the anniversary of this devastating event, my thoughts and prayers and those, I know, of all our colleagues are with the victims and their families, with Senator Klobuchar, our colleague, Senator Coleman, Representative Ellison, whose district the bridge is in, and all those affected by this terrible tragedy.

The people of my own State of Connecticut can sympathize in a direct way with the people of Minnesota, as they prepare to remember: 25 years ago, a bridge carrying Interstate 95--the main thoroughfare along the east coast of the United States--over the Mianus River in Greenwich, CT, abruptly collapsed in the early afternoon. Four vehicles plunged into the Mianus River, three people lost their lives, and others sustained serious injuries. It remains one of the worst transportation disasters in my small State's history.

The tragedy in Minnesota is the most recent example of our national infrastructure crumbling before our very eyes. Indeed, this is not a problem that only affects Minneapolis or Connecticut or--in the case of last year's steampipe eruption--New York City. These are problems affecting every single State, every single county, every single community in our Nation from San Diego, CA, to Bangor, ME.

For far too long, we have taken all our infrastructure systems--our roads, bridges, mass transit systems, drinking water systems, wastewater systems, public housing properties--for granted. For far too long, we have failed to invest adequately in their long-term sustainability. Today, we find ourselves in a precarious position concerning their future viability--a precarious position that is costing lives and jeopardizing the high quality of life we have come to enjoy and expect as American citizens.

The Federal Highway Administration estimates that 152,000 of the Nation's bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Put another way, one out of every four bridges in our Nation is in a state of serious disrepair. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials estimates it would cost some $140 billion just to repair the 152,000 bridges that are in that condition.

The life-threatening problems are not confined to bridges. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that approximately 14,000 Americans die each year, at least in part, because our roads and bridges are no longer up to the task.

Congestion on our highways causes tons of carbon dioxide and other pollutants to be pumped into the atmosphere every day. These emissions compromise the health of children and adults and contribute to global warming, which poses immense risks to the future of all of us. This congestion on our highways stems from the absence of mass transit systems or other adequate means to move people.

Tens of millions of Americans receive drinking water in their homes every day from pipes that are, on average, over 100 years old. In our Nation's capital city, in the area of Georgetown--one of the city's most affluent neighborhoods--wastewater is still conveyed through wooden sewage pipes constructed in the 19th century.

In the city of Milwaukee, over 400,000 people were sickened several years ago with flu-like symptoms caused by a strain of bacteria in the municipal drinking water system of that community. The bacteria strain was eventually linked to inadequate treatment of the drinking water.

It is not just our health and safety that is affected by our crumbling infrastructure; in fact, our national prosperity is at stake. From the days of the Roman aqueducts to the present, a nation's ability to grow and prosper has always relied upon its ability to effectively move people, goods, and information.

Ask any American today how we are doing in achieving this objective, and chances are the response would be the same: We are not doing very well, and we could be doing substantially better.

When the average American spends 51.5 hours a year--more than 2 full days of one's life, per year--stuck in traffic congestion, then I think we can do better. When one out of three of our roads is in poor, mediocre, or fair condition, then I think all of us would agree we can do better. When the United States invests less than 2 percent of its gross domestic product on infrastructure, while nations such as China and India--the major competitors of this country in the 21st century-- invest between 7 and 12 percent, then I think all of us recognize we need to do better or we are going to find our country in a very weakened position very quickly. Infrastructure is not something you can correct overnight. The investments need to be made. It takes time to do it right. We are almost to the second decade of this century, and we remain way behind in this area.

Tomorrow is also the 1-year anniversary of the introduction of the National Infrastructure Bank Act that I have offered along with Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. It is a bipartisan bill that has gained a number of cosponsors over the last year, and we would like more.

The Infrastructure Bank would establish a unique and powerful public- private partnership to restore our Nation's infrastructure. Using limited Federal resources, it would leverage the significant resources, both at home and abroad, of the private sector. If we don't talk about how we are going to finance this, it is not going to happen.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 additional minutes.

We need to come up with a financing mechanism. We all understand the need for doing this. I think all of us recognize as well that we are not going to talk about doing this out of the appropriations process alone. There are not enough resources there to meet the $1.6 trillion currently needed to repair decaying infrastructure. We need a better mechanism to finance this. Senator Hagel of Nebraska and I have worked with the Center for Strategic and International Studies over the last 2\1/2\ years, along with Senator Bob Kerrey, the former Senator of Nebraska; Warren Rudman, the former Senator of New Hampshire; Felix Rohatyn, a well-known business individual from New York who is almost certainly responsible for getting New York City back on its feet years ago; and John Hamre, a former official at the Defense Department, and we have constructed a means by which a limited amount of Federal dollars could attract massive amounts of private capital to allow us to really begin this work.

Absent some idea like this--and we think this is a good one--then year after year we can give speeches about our infrastructure, but nothing much will happen. This bill is designed to deal with regional and national needs, not local ones. We leave those up to the local municipalities.

We need to once again recognize that to grow as a people, to have our economy grow and provide the jobs and fulfill the aspirations and hopes of many Americans, we have to grow as well in our capacity to handle that kind of growth. The infrastructure needs of our Nation are daunting.

So on this tragic anniversary of the events in Minneapolis and the reminder of what occurred in my own State, as well as the recognition of what is occurring every single day all across our Nation, my hope would be that in the coming Congress, whether we are talking about a McCain administration or an Obama administration, that infrastructure would be a high priority for our country, that we get on that track together, as Democrats and Republicans, and come up with some creative ideas on how we can invest in this needed aspect of our economy.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me return the compliment by commending our colleague from Maryland, who has taken on the Herculean task in the absence of our colleague from Massachusetts, of shepherding, along with Senator Enzi, this very important piece of legislation. My compliments to Mike Enzi, the Republican leader on this issue, along with Barbara, and the House leaders--George Miller, with

whom I was elected to Congress many years ago--and the members of the House Education Committee.

This is a very important bill. A few days ago we passed the housing bill to make a difference for people facing foreclosure. We tried to pass legislation dealing with low-income energy assistance. I remind my colleagues, the Presiding Officer led the effort on that issue, and we will come back to it.

Education costs are critical to address. This bill is sweeping in its reforms, making a difference for average Americans and their families to deal with those costs and allow them to achieve the goal of a higher education, which not only has tremendous advantage for them individually but for us, as a country. It is a small price to pay for the reward we receive. The GI bill, which was adopted during World War II, is another example of this sort of effort, providing 8 million Americans benefits. Over the years it cost a lot of money, but the benefit to our country has vastly exceeded the cost of that program. This bill is like that one in many ways. This bill is not inexpensive, but it provides benefits to our country.

I am particularly proud of a number of provisions. One is the Pell grant increase, up to $8,000, which will help us in dealing with the cost of a public education, though not close enough when it comes to private education. The Patsy Mink Fellowship Program, which I am proud to have authored, creates scholarships and makes it possible for young women and minorities to become college professors, and addressing the very small number of women who are providing a college education. The provisions designed to get colleges and universities to control their costs, including both transparency and incentives for schools who succeed in this endeavor. I am also proud of the improvements we have made to TRIO and GEAR-Up and the expansion of child care in this bill.

Lastly, as my friend and colleague from Maryland pointed out, the inclusion of the Private Student Loan Transparency Improvement Act, which Senator Shelby and I, along with 19 other members of the Banking Committee authored unanimously, will make a difference when it comes to protecting student borrowers from excessive debt. These provisions require lenders to provide more accurate and timely information to their customers about interest rates, terms and conditions of their private loans, and prohibits documented private student lending practices that have harmed students and their families, keeping them from obtaining the most competitive and affordable student loans.

The bill also ensures that private lending is done on the fairest and most transparent terms. It prevents kickbacks and co-branding that may allow steering of students to specific lenders, and it guarantees borrowers time to consider their options and shop around for better terms without losing the loan they have been offered. These are very important steps.

Finally, I end where I began. None of this would have happened without the senior Senator from Massachusetts who has dedicated his life to working families. This bill is yet further testimony to his commitment to those constituencies, the people of this country. We have missed him terribly lately, but he had a champion in the Senator from Maryland. If I had to pick one person to replace Ted Kennedy, I would choose Barbara Mikulski every day of the week. She did a fabulous job on behalf of students and their families. We thank her immensely. I know my friend from Massachusetts is watching tonight, and he thanks her as well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Utah, Senator Orrin Hatch, in introducing the National Pain Care Policy Act of 2008. This important legislation would make significant strides in the understanding and treatment of pain as a medical condition. Pain is the most common symptom leading to medical care and a leading health issue. Yet people suffering through pain often struggle to get relief because of a variety of issues. This is why we are introducing this important legislation.

Each year pain results in more than 50 million lost workdays estimated to cost the United States $100 billion. Beyond the economic impact, pain is a leading cause of disability, with back pain alone causing chronic disability in 1 percent of the population of this country. In the United States 40 million people suffer from arthritis, more than 26 million, ages 20 to 64, experience frequent back pain, more than 25 million experience migraine headaches, and 20 million have jaw and lower facial pain each year. It is estimated that 70 percent of cancer patients have significant pain as they fight the disease. And half of all patients in hospitals suffer through moderate to severe pain in their last days. As with many medical conditions, this is a problem that is likely to become worse as the baby boom generation approaches retirement and the population ages.

Sadly, though most pain can be relieved, it often is not. Many suffering patients are reluctant to tell their medical provider about the pain they are experiencing, for fear of being identified as a ``bad patient,'' and concern about addiction often leads patients to avoid seeking or using medications to treat their pain. But even if patients were more forthcoming about their condition, few medical providers are equipped to do something about it. Often they have not been trained in assessment techniques or pain management, and are unaware of the latest research, guidelines, and standards for treatment. There is also concern among most providers that prescribing treatment for pain will lead to greater scrutiny by regulatory agencies and insurers.

But we can do something about these barriers and help individuals suffering from pain. The National Pain Care Policy Act would lead to improvements in pain care across the country. The legislation would call for an Institute of Medicine conference on pain care to increase awareness of this issue as a public health problem, identify barriers to pain care and determine action for overcoming those barriers. A number of years ago, my good friend Senator Hatch helped establish a Pain Consortium at the National Institutes of Health to establish a coordinated pain research agenda. This legislation will codify that consortium and update its mission. The bill addresses the training and education of health care professionals through new grant programs at the Agency for Health Research and Quality, AHRQ, and the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA. And finally this legislation creates a national outreach and awareness campaign at the Department of Health and Human Services to educate patients, families, and caregivers about

the significance of pain and the importance of treatment.

I want to thank Senator Hatch for his leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to join us on this important effort to help the millions of Americans suffering from severe pain.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Utah, Senator Orrin Hatch, in introducing the National Pain Care Policy Act of 2008. This important legislation would make significant strides in the understanding and treatment of pain as a medical condition. Pain is the most common symptom leading to medical care and a leading health issue. Yet people suffering through pain often struggle to get relief because of a variety of issues. This is why we are introducing this important legislation.

Each year pain results in more than 50 million lost workdays estimated to cost the United States $100 billion. Beyond the economic impact, pain is a leading cause of disability, with back pain alone causing chronic disability in 1 percent of the population of this country. In the United States 40 million people suffer from arthritis, more than 26 million, ages 20 to 64, experience frequent back pain, more than 25 million experience migraine headaches, and 20 million have jaw and lower facial pain each year. It is estimated that 70 percent of cancer patients have significant pain as they fight the disease. And half of all patients in hospitals suffer through moderate to severe pain in their last days. As with many medical conditions, this is a problem that is likely to become worse as the baby boom generation approaches retirement and the population ages.

Sadly, though most pain can be relieved, it often is not. Many suffering patients are reluctant to tell their medical provider about the pain they are experiencing, for fear of being identified as a ``bad patient,'' and concern about addiction often leads patients to avoid seeking or using medications to treat their pain. But even if patients were more forthcoming about their condition, few medical providers are equipped to do something about it. Often they have not been trained in assessment techniques or pain management, and are unaware of the latest research, guidelines, and standards for treatment. There is also concern among most providers that prescribing treatment for pain will lead to greater scrutiny by regulatory agencies and insurers.

But we can do something about these barriers and help individuals suffering from pain. The National Pain Care Policy Act would lead to improvements in pain care across the country. The legislation would call for an Institute of Medicine conference on pain care to increase awareness of this issue as a public health problem, identify barriers to pain care and determine action for overcoming those barriers. A number of years ago, my good friend Senator Hatch helped establish a Pain Consortium at the National Institutes of Health to establish a coordinated pain research agenda. This legislation will codify that consortium and update its mission. The bill addresses the training and education of health care professionals through new grant programs at the Agency for Health Research and Quality, AHRQ, and the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA. And finally this legislation creates a national outreach and awareness campaign at the Department of Health and Human Services to educate patients, families, and caregivers about

the significance of pain and the importance of treatment.

I want to thank Senator Hatch for his leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to join us on this important effort to help the millions of Americans suffering from severe pain.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Free Flow of Information Act. This bill would protect journalists from being forced to reveal their confidential sources not as an end in itself but as a means to a well-informed public.

I applaud the tireless efforts of those who have made this possible, including our colleagues in the other body who have shown their strong commitment to this issue. As far back as 2004, I introduced similar legislation which was called the Free Speech Protection Act. Since that time, I have worked closely with the senior Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, and earlier this Congress we introduced legislation that would have provided more protection to journalists. Companion legislation passed the House 398 to 21.

I was also pleased to cosponsor Senators Specter and Schumer's legislation, which passed the Judiciary Committee earlier this Congress. Over the last several months, we have worked to

bring this important issue to the attention of Congress and the Nation.

And while this bill does not include everything I had hoped for, I recognize that in this body, we do not get to write or pass these bills by ourselves. We have to reach out and work together that is how we advance or in this case protect our more cherished principles. I thank both of my colleagues for their diligence and commitment to the first amendment.

Indeed, though I recognize this fight will not likely be over today, in the 4 years we have been working together on this legislation, we are closer than ever to acting on this bill.

I hardly have to recite the litany of abuses that have been exposed because journalists called the powerful to account nor must I remind my colleagues how many of those exposures relied on confidential sources.

Without confidential sources, would we still know about the abuse of power in the Watergate era?

Without confidential sources, would Enron still be profiting from defrauding its investors?

How long would torture at Abu Ghraib have persisted, if proof of these abhorrent crimes had not been provided to the press?

The most meaningful check on abuses such as these is the free flow of information. Thomas Jefferson said it best: If I had to make a choice, to choose the government without the press or to have the press but without the government, I will select the latter without hesitation. Jefferson clearly understood that a free government cannot possibly last in the absence of a free press.

But today, we find this cornerstone of self-governance facing a new threat--one that comes not from the dictates of a dangerous government, but for the best of intentions.

As we have heard time and again in recent years, in a spate of cases, prosecutors have used subpoenas, fines, and jail time to compel journalists to reveal their anonymous sources.

Judith Miller of the New York Times was famously jailed for 85 days for refusing to reveal a source.

Two San Francisco Chronicle reporters were found in contempt of court for refusing to identify sources and hand over material related to the BALCO steroids investigation.

A Rhode Island journalist was sentenced to home arrest on similar charges.

In 2005, some two dozen reporters were subpoenaed or questioned about confidential sources.

Their offense, Mr. President? Journalism.

As one prominent magazine editor told Congress because of what has happened: ``Valuable sources have insisted that they no longer trusted the magazine and that they would no longer cooperate on stories. The chilling effect is obvious.''

Experience has shown us that the most effective constraint on free speech need not be blatant censorship. It only takes a few cases like Ms. Miller's and the San Francisco Chronicle's before the news begins censoring itself. We can only speculate as to how many editors and publishers put the brakes on a story out of fear that one of their reporters could be caught in a spider web of subpoenas, charges of contempt, and prison.

When we minimize the impact of confidential sources, serious journalism is crippled. We will find our papers full of stories more and more palatable to the powerful and secretive. No one argues that that is the intention of those prosecuting these cases I think prosecutors simply want to do their jobs. But few deny that it could, in time, be the effect.

When journalists are hauled into court and threatened with imprisonment if they don't divulge their sources, we enter dangerous territory for a democracy. The information we need to remain sovereign will be tarnished and the public's right to know will be threatened. And I would submit to you that the liberties we hold dear will be threatened as well.

That is exactly why we need a Federal reporter shield. Forty-nine States as well as the District of Columbia have already adopted shield laws or other legal protections for reporters trying to safeguard their sources. The Free Flow of Information Act simply extends that widely recognized protection to the federal courts.

This bill will allow journalists the opportunity to argue before a court that they should not have to reveal sources and this can include bloggers. This is an important step the Federal Government can take to ensure that the free flow of information is protected.

That is why I have such a difficult time understanding our Director of National Intelligence's recent comments regarding this bill. In an opinion piece in USA Today earlier this week, Admiral McConnell writes:

The intelligence community recognizes the critical role

that the news media plays in our democratic society. However,

this bill would upset the balance established by current law,

crippling the government's ability to investigate and

prosecute those who harm national security.

I find that very hard to believe. Every time the Congress seeks to balance the need for security with our rights as Americans, this administration says ``we can't have both--it's one or the other. You either can be safe or give up rights.''

As I have said before--it is a false choice.

And it is a mischaracterization of what this bill does. The reporter shield is not absolute--nor should it be. The public's need to know must and will be weighed against other goods, which is precisely why the bill establishes a balancing test that will weigh the Government's interest in disclosure and the public interest in gathering news and maintaining the free flow of information.

In other words, we are balancing our right to know with our need for security, whether physical or economic.

This bill makes clear that secrecy is as necessary in extreme circumstances as it is dangerous on the whole.

Ultimately, it comes down to what makes us most secure in the long run. As men and women on both sides of the aisle understand, a prosecution, whatever its individual merits, sacrifices something higher when it turns on reporters--and so those merits must be balanced against the broader harms such a prosecution can work.

If a free press inexorably creates a free government, as Jefferson suggested, then the agents of that free government--prosecutors included--owe a high debt to journalism. When prosecutors threaten journalism, they have begun to renege on that debt.

So, Mr. President, I am proud to support this valuable legislation-- it is a critical first step toward rebalancing the pursuit of justice and the diffusion of truth. I thank my colleagues again for their leadership.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to honor a man we recently lost--a remarkable individual full of warmth and generous of spirit.

My wife Jackie and I came to know Frank Stroud as a doctor at the Spring Valley Pediatrics practice to which we take our daughters. But before Frank was one of our daughter's doctors, he was a friend.

My father said at the end of his life that he hadn't regretted a moment of his career in public life because no other calling gave him the opportunity to impact the lives of so many people.

He might have said otherwise had he met Frank Stroud.

Frank had a remarkable capacity for remembering every detail about you. His ability to make casual acquaintances feel like old childhood friends would have made Members of the Senate green with envy.

But public office wasn't his vocation. Nor was the seminary, which he contemplated entering. As his children say, Frank found a higher calling:

Helping children--which Frank did for nearly four decades, specializing in helping children struggling with learning disabilities such as attention-deficit disorder.

But politics was certainly never far from his mind--or his work. His wife Kandy, whom he loved dearly, worked for the Democratic National Committee.

As Terry McAuliffe once said, Frank became ``the pediatrician for the Democrats,'' having treated Al Gore's children and Smith Bagley's, among others. And 40 years ago this year, Frank became medical director at the Office of Economic Opportunity which was, of course, at the very center of President Johnson's War on Poverty.

We all have unique experiences in our lives that shape the person we become. In Frank's case, one of those experiences was that he was raised by a single mother. One of his children said in his eulogy of his father words that are so poignant today:

``At a big party, he would make sure to dance with all the single ladies as though he knew what it felt like for his mother to sit along the edges of the dance floor.''

Frank passed away a little over a month ago. At the time, he was doing what he always does: caring for someone other than himself--in this case, his beloved mother Lila, from whom his strength of character was surely handed down.

And so today, I wish to extend our thoughts and prayers to Kandy, their three children and the entire Stroud family, and quote the words in his obituary, which read:

The innocence of a child,

The elegance of a Prince,

And the generosity of a Saint,

Frank Stroud was a majestic human being.

Indeed, he was. Frank will be missed. His memory will remain, his legacy will endure, for as long as the children he cared for grow into the healthy adults Frank always believed they could. And because of Frank Stroud, they most certainly will.

Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, let me commend our colleague from Vermont for his eloquence and his passion this morning on a subject that, as he says, ought to unite all of us, regardless of geography or political party.

I would be remiss if I did not recognize, as well, that the Presiding Officer today has been a champion of this issue during his tenure in the Senate. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his passion about this issue as well.

In the quarter of a century that I been here, as the Senator from Vermont has pointed out, this issue has been an issue that has not divided us along these lines. There have been those who, from time to time, have opposed low-income energy assistance but, by and large, this is a matter that has enjoyed broad bipartisan support.

While we are in the depths of the summer today, and there are those who are wondering what we are talking about, we talk about home heating oil and gas for the winter, we are only days away from those temperature changes.

Of course, for those who live in our southern States, the issue of heat exhaustion is something they live with all the time. And low- income energy assistance, as the Senator from Vermont points out, cuts across all geographical lines. It is the basic necessity. You cannot survive without it. Over the years, we have been able to do something to support it.

So I urge our colleagues, when the vote occurs later this morning on this issue, that we join on this matter and support the effort to provide for that low-income energy assistance.

I commend my colleague from Vermont, who has been patient about this issue over the last number of weeks. My hope is it will be supported. I hope we do on low-income energy assistance what we have done on housing.

I note the presence of my colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby. I wish to begin my remarks by thanking my friend from Alabama. I thank him and our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, on the Banking Committee.

The Presiding Officer and others, by a vote of 19 to 2, we came out of our committee back in March on a housing proposal. We have worked closely together over these last number of weeks in order to bring us to this moment, which I wondered if it would ever occur, given the number of times we have voted on this matter since March.

But in about 30 minutes, we are going to have a chance to finally decide whether this Congress is going to do something about the growing economic problems, basically founded and anchored in the foreclosure crisis of our Nation, that has now spread far beyond residential mortgages.

It is long overdue that this Congress respond. We are about to do so in a bipartisan fashion. Given the vote yesterday of 80 to 13, it is an indication of this what this body can do when we are determined to work together to make a difference.

So I wish to thank--I see my colleague from Georgia--Senator Isakson and others who have done a terrific job in packaging this proposal. If each one of us could write this alone, it would be different. We serve in a body of 100 Members. We need to work together to develop final products. This is an example of what can happen when that occurs.

I am pleased we are finally ready to pass the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 and send it to the President's desk for his signature. This has been a long and arduous process. It started when Leader Reid, who has been remarkable and marvelous in this process, Leader McConnell, Senator Shelby and I, announced on March 31 that we were going to put together a bipartisan housing stimulus bill that would address the growing housing crisis. Not much more than 24 hours later, Senator Shelby and I, along with Senators Baucus and Grassley, brought the first version of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act to the floor where it received an overwhelming vote of 84 to 12. We continued to work over subsequent months to expand and improve the legislation so it would more thoroughly address the growing foreclosure and financial crisis. This is the product we present to our colleagues this morning.

This action is coming none too soon. Earlier this week data was released showing that home sales hit a 10-year low, falling 2.6 percent, over twice as much as what had been expected. Home prices continue to fall. The Census Bureau reported that foreclosures contributed to a record number of vacant homes in the second quarter. Merrill Lynch reports that June numbers show we now have 11 months of inventory of single-family homes. That is a 23-year high.

RealtyTrac reported yesterday that forecloses in the second quarter more than doubled from a year earlier and jumped nearly 14 percent from the previous 3 months. As you have heard me say over and over, every day between 8,000 and 9,000 of our fellow Americans are put into foreclosure. There have been a record number of bank seizures as well. This is happening in the United States. It simply ought to be unacceptable to every single one of us.

Bill Gross, the CIO of PIMCO, one of our largest investment funds, estimates our economy will face nearly $1 trillion in mortgage losses when it is all said and done. Martin Feldstein, who served President Reagan as chief economist, wrote in the Wall Street Journal in March:

The 10 percent decline in house prices has cut household

wealth by more than $2 trillion, reducing consumer spending

and increasing the risk of a deep recession.

This is a staggering loss of wealth we are seeing, coming at the very same time, as the Senator from Vermont has pointed out, that food prices, gas prices, health care, and education costs are rising. We are experiencing the worst of all possible worlds. Wealth is declining, the source of wealth creation, and costs are rising simultaneously. Moreover, when we consider the role that home equity has played in supporting consumer spending, we see the danger a vicious downward cycle could create, an economic disaster for our country.

Don't let yourselves be dulled by nameless and faceless statistics either. Behind each one of these numbers I have recited, there is a family--a mother, a father, children trying to grow up, facing unemployment, losing their homes, wondering what the future holds. So when we talk about the numbers, about how important this data is, pause for a minute, when deciding whether to support this bill, and remember: Behind every one of those numbers there is an American family who this morning is wondering whether their Congress can do anything at all about the problems they face.

In about 30 minutes, we will have an answer for that, I believe, an overwhelming one, that says: We are on your side. We want to make a difference to keep you in your homes and get back on your feet again. That is what this is all about--not the numbers but the faces. Those families are counting on us. In the face of these daunting challenges, I believe we all have a responsibility to act. That is what we are going to do this morning by passing this bill.

Let me quote again Mr. Gross of PIMCO, who wrote this past Thursday:

. . . the omnibus housing/GSE bill now placed before the

Congress and the President is the best way to begin the long

journey back to normalcy [in this country].

I believe that to be the case. Treasury Secretary Paulson said the passing of this legislation is the most important action we can take to address the housing crisis.

This legislation will not perform miracles. I want the American people to have a realistic expectation as to what we are about to do. But as others have said, it is a step--I hope and expect an important step--toward putting our Nation on the road to economic recovery. Let me sum up the legislation very quickly before turning to my colleague from Alabama.

The bill establishes the HOPE for Homeowners Act to help at least 400,000 to 500,000 families stay in their homes. It does so after asking both lenders and borrowers to make financial sacrifices, and it does so at absolutely no cost to the American taxpayer.

The bill creates a new world-class regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks. Recent news makes it clear these entities need a stronger regulator to ensure they are viable and healthy institutions, able to provide credit in times of stress such as we are experiencing today. It also raises loan limits

from $417,000 to a high of $625,000 so the government-sponsored enterprises can play an even more active role in stabilizing the housing market.

At the request of Secretary Paulson, the legislation includes standby authority for the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase the stock or debt of the housing GSEs only if he finds such action is necessary to keep the financial markets stable and mortgage credit flowing. It is our strong expectation that creating this authority will make it unlikely that it will ever be needed. As I have said, the GSEs have significantly more capital than is required by law. They continue to have open access to the debt markets, and their holdings consist primarily of 30-year fixed rate mortgages.

The bill modernizes the Federal Housing Administration program, raising the loan limits from $362,000 to $625,000 so that 98 percent of the counties in the United States and 85 percent of the population will have access to this important program. FHA has proved its value in the current crisis, as it has continued to provide a stable source of mortgage credit even while many other lenders have failed.

The bill includes a permanent, affordable housing fund financed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that will provide tens of thousands of affordable housing units. I tip my hat to the Presiding Officer, who has been a tireless champion on behalf of affordable housing. With the work of Senators Shelby and Reed, we have a permanent, affordable housing program, the first time ever in our history. The bill includes new protections for elderly homeowners taking out FHA-insured reverse mortgages so they are not deceived, as many have been, into using the proceeds from these loans to buy expensive and needless insurance products. These provisions were incorporated from a bill introduced by our colleague from Missouri, Senator McCaskill.

The bill includes a new mortgage broker and lender licensing requirement added by Senator Martinez, with strong support from Senator Feinstein, that will begin to address the many abuses of the mortgage process perpetrated by brokers. In addition, it includes improved disclosure requirements added by Senators Reed and Bond. Because of the efforts of Senators Kerry, Coleman, Akaka, Cornyn, and Sanders, the bill expands the availability of the VA housing program and includes a number of provisions to help returning veterans save their homes from foreclosure, and provides new housing benefits to disabled veterans. The legislation includes $3.9 billion in emergency Community Development Block Grant funds for areas hard hit by foreclosures, to help them purchase and rehabilitate these homes and put them into productive use. As the Boston Globe wrote in an editorial earlier this month:

The major beneficiaries [of this provision] would be the

urban homeowners to pay their mortgages diligently yet face

declining property values, crime, and blight associated with

a rash of foreclosures near their homes.

This body has repeatedly provided emergency funds to communities ravaged by floods, hurricanes, and natural disasters. The foreclosure crisis is every bit as much of a disaster. This is an emergency equally deserving of these funds.

Finally, the bill includes $150 million in new counseling money. Housing counselors have been our troops on the frontline, working with troubled borrowers and lenders. These funds, which were included at the request of Senator Murray, along with Senator Schumer, will result in tens of thousands of American families being able to keep their homes.

Let me close by saying again this legislation is the product of tireless collaboration in the Senate and the other body, the House of Representatives, with the work of Barney Frank and his colleagues on the Financial Services Committee and, of course, the administration, particularly Secretary Paulson and his staff, to help develop solutions that will strengthen our economy, restore confidence in our financial markets, and provide urgently needed relief to American families struggling to make ends meet. Such an outcome could not be possible without the full support and leadership of my colleague and ranking member, Senator Shelby. Every vote we have taken on this bill, from the 19-to-2 vote in committee to yesterday's 80-to-13 vote on cloture, has been strongly bipartisan. The American people can take some pride in this institution for our willingness to work together through these difficult issues to get such a good outcome.

Finally, legislation of this magnitude takes hours and hours of staff time to work out. There is never going to be an adequate expression for Senator Shelby and me to thank our staffs on the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. They have been remarkable, beginning with the Senate staff director, Shawn Maher of my office, along with Jonathan Miller, Amy Friend, Roger Hollingsworth, Aaron Klein, Julie Chon, Jenn Fogel-Bublick, Sarah Kline, Kate Szostak, and Drew Colbert; legislative counsel Laura Ayoud and Rob Grant; Senator Shelby's staff--Bill Duhnke, Mark Oesterle, Peggy Kuhn, Jim Johnson--and from Senator Reed's staff, Kara Stein.

I thank Senator Harry Reid lastly, our majority leader, for his diligence, patience, and determination. We have been through six cloture motions, delay after delay after delay by a handful of Senators who were determined to do everything they could procedurally to stop us from getting to this moment. I thank immensely the majority leader, and his staff as well, for their tireless support of this effort.

Again to my colleague from Alabama, I tip my hat. He is a good man to work with, and I thank Senator Shelby.

Mr. President, I rise today to thank the majority leader, Senator Reid, for including in S. 3297, the Advancing America's Priorities Act, an important initiative to support the horticulture operations of the Smithsonian Institution. Without this needed support, the Smithsonian Institution would not be able to maintain or continue the same level of horticulture services it currently provides.

I additionally want to thank Senator Feinstein, chair of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, for her support of this important initiative. I would also like to note the support for this effort of Senators Leahy and Cochran and thank them for their work to preserve the Smithsonian's many valuable contributions.

I do not believe that the provisions of title VII of S. 3297 constitute a ``congressionally directed spending item,'' but out of an abundance of caution I certify that neither I nor my immediate family has a pecuniary interest in the provisions of title VII of S. 3297, consistent with the requirements of paragraph 9 of rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important and needed initiative to support the horticulture operations of the Smithsonian Institution.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on S. 3268, the Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act. I thank the majority leader for his leadership on this issue, which addresses one of the most critical problems facing our Nation today--the problem of high oil and gas prices. I am deeply disappointed that our Republican colleagues chose to block the Senate from taking action on this bill, despite including provisions to address speculation in their own proposal.

Energy is an economic issue. As every American has been reminded over and over in recent weeks and months, virtually everything we do requires energy--whether it is driving to work, cooking dinner for our families--or cooling our homes in the hot summer months. And when the cost of that energy goes up, our quality of life goes down.

And feelings across the country are raw right now. Whether it is the crisis in our housing markets, skyrocketing health care costs, rising unemployment, or soaring energy costs, people are hurting--people are angry and frustrated, as circumstances completely beyond their control prevent them from taking care of their families--and they want their elected leaders to do something to get this economy moving again.

But, we simply cannot drill our way to lower gas prices. President Bush's Energy Information Administration has said that not a drop of oil from the Outer Continental Shelf would be produced until 2017, and we would not reach peak production until 2030. Even then, this increased production will never be enough to lower world oil prices--we only have 2-to-3 percent of the world's oil reserves.

President Bush and Republicans in Congress are demanding we open up more areas--yet oil companies are sitting on 68 million acres that they have already leased but refuse to explore. That is 3 out of every 4 acres these companies have under lease.

That is why Senators Feingold, Menendez, and I have introduced legislation that denies new leases to companies that leave the areas they lease unused. We have also introduced the Responsible Ownership of Public Lands Act that forces companies to pay a penalty on areas they have leased but not put into production. These fees

would be used to help bring clean, domestic, renewable sources of energy online. We had hoped to offer both of these proposals as amendments to the legislation before us; unfortunately, obstruction by the Republicans will prevent us from doing so.

The message is simple: instead of continuing to pad the coffers of oil executives while American families struggle, we are telling these companies they can either ``use it or lose it.'' I hope my colleagues will join us in pursuing this legislation as an amendment to the pending bill.

I also strongly support efforts to rein in excessive speculation in energy markets. Over the last several months there have been numerous congressional hearings and reports from experts across many fields--oil industry executives, airline industry leaders, financial analysts, and others. Jeroen van der Veer, the CEO of Royal Dutch Shell, was quoted in the Washington Post on April 11 saying that ``the . . . fundamentals are no problem. They are the same as they were when oil was selling for $60 a barrel, which is in itself quite a unique phenomenon.'' Representatives of Exxon-Mobil, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, and others have all expressed similar views. Yet the price of a barrel of oil has doubled in the last year.

Indeed, expert economists have estimated that speculators in energy markets are responsible for anywhere from 25 percent to 50 percent of the price of a barrel of oil. Even the Japanese government's Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry has concluded that speculation has played a significant role in driving up oil prices.

This bill is supported by a broad coalition of airlines, trucking associations, labor groups, and environmental groups because it takes important steps that will help eliminate the ``speculative premium'' on each barrel of oil. The dramatic increase in oil prices is hurting American families and threatens to cripple countless American businesses.

This important legislation closes the ``London loophole'' by treating oil traders using a foreign exchange as if they were trading in the U.S. for regulatory purposes, in order to stop traders from manipulating prices and speculating excessively by routing oil trades away from U.S.-based exchanges. In addition, the bill requires the CFTC to convene a working group of international regulators to develop uniform reporting requirements, require the CFTC to collect data on index traders to ensure they are not adversely impacting the price discovery process, and authorize the CFTC to hire at least 100 additional full-time employees.

At the same time, I feel that some areas of the bill can be improved. In particular, I am concerned that section 6 may cause unintended disruptions for financial institutions with over-the-counter hedging transactions and unnecessarily increase costs for operating companies that are trying to manage their energy costs through hedging. In addition, it appears that some aspects of section 7 and other sections may be unclear or have unintended consequences. I hope we have another opportunity to address the issue of speculation, and I look forward to working with the majority leader on ways to address some of these concerns.

Mr. President, I am disappointed that this bill will not have a chance to become law. I recognize that addressing the issue of speculation will not solve our energy crisis. This crisis is too big of an issue with too many root causes. But speculation is part of the problem, and curbing speculation must be part of the solution. This bill would have achieved that goal.

Yes. It is my intent that section 2203(b)(1) should read 'in excess of 6 percent per year `` before subparagraph (A). This would track the existing language in section 207(a)(1) of the SCRA that refers to preexisting obligations or liabilities bearing an interest rate in excess of 6 percent per year. It is not my intent to modify this aspect of section 207(a)(1).

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

Madam President, I rise this afternoon to share with my colleagues the good news: that we are about to pass, I believe, after many weeks and months, numerous votes on countless amendments on the floor of this body, as well as efforts in the other Chamber, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.

I am going to share some thoughts on where this is and what is included in this bill that passed the House yesterday and is pending as one of the matters that will be considered in the next 24 to 48 hours by this Chamber.

My first expression of gratitude goes to the majority leader, his staff, and others, along with the minority leader's staff, particularly those on the floor who have been very patient.

In the case of the majority leader, he has been far more patient but tremendously supportive of this effort. This has taken a long time and has gone through a lot of different processes over the last number of months to get to the point where we are today: on the brink of passing the most sweeping housing legislation in more than a generation, that will particularly focus on trying to keep people in their homes.

There are literally thousands every day who face the prospect of foreclosure. This legislation will not protect everyone, but it will make a difference in the case of thousands, as well as many of the provisions which I will address in a minute or so. But I begin by expressing my gratitude to those who made it possible for us to get to this point.

Again, the majority leader and his staff played a critical role. Senator Shelby of Alabama, former chairman of the Banking Committee, today the ranking Republican of that committee--we would never have been able to succeed at what we achieved without him and his staff and the work he has done on the committee. We were able to mark up this bill several weeks ago and bring it to the floor of the Senate on a vote of 19 to 2, and that was because of the work of Senator Shelby and others, along with, of course, the wonderful staff I have as part of the Democratic majority of that committee and as chairman of the committee. They worked well together. They spent countless hours. Last weekend alone, they were up until 2 o'clock, 3:30 in the morning trying to iron out details with ourselves and with the leaders in the House of Representatives. There are a lot of people who can claim credit for helping us get to this point. I wish to recognize them and I will continuously over the coming days as we move beyond this legislation.

But it is very important to know that people who never get a chance to speak in this Chamber but who put in the countless hours, the staff who work on these bills, work in our respective offices, work for the committees, do tremendous work on behalf of the American people. I, for one, am very grateful to all who made such a difference in bringing us to the point of stepping up and doing something about this economic crisis, which at its heart, of course, is the housing crisis, and behind all that is the foreclosure crisis.

I wish to share some views on what the bill does and why this moment is important beyond the specifics of this bill.

In my view, we should have and could have acted months ago on this legislation. Regrettably, there are still one or two Senators who are doing everything and anything they can to block this bipartisan legislation from going forward, delaying the kind of relief American homeowners, and so many others, desperately need to get our economy moving in the right direction.

Yesterday, the President of the United States agreed to sign this legislation. That was a reversal. Only a few days earlier they announced they would veto the bill. But yesterday they made the announcement they are going to accept this legislation and they are going to sign it into law.

Let me say how grateful I am to the President of the United States. We are of different political parties. We have different views on many issues. But I thank him. It takes a big person to recognize a mistake, in this case announcing a veto and then changing your mind and saying, in fact, this legislation deserves passage. I appreciate President Bush's willingness to come to that point of view and to make that announcement and to virtually, I hope, guarantee the adoption of this legislation and to begin working to make a difference in people's lives.

As many of my colleagues know, we are in the midst of the most serious economic crisis to face our Nation in many years. Certainly, the American people live it every day. They don't need to read the data; they live the data, whether they are losing their

jobs, losing their homes, watching the value of their stocks, their pensions, their 401(k)s. All are worth less today than they were even a few weeks ago. So the American people do not need a tutorial on whether things are tough out there. They are living it and their families are and they want to know whether their Government is doing anything about it to make a difference.

Income is stagnant, and for many people it is falling at precisely the time Americans are experiencing increasing costs in their daily lives. The source of wealth creation in this country has been damaged badly. Housing, which is a source of great wealth creation for many people, is losing value. Stocks, we know, have lost value. Bonds are losing value. These are the items upon which many Americans, through mutual funds and other vehicles, are able to increase their wealth, increase their security, prepare for their retirement, assist their children to achieve a higher education and to lead decent lives with a degree of happiness and hope that Americans ought to expect, living in this great country of ours. But all these items have been badly damaged over the last number of weeks and compound that loss of wealth creation with the fact that gasoline prices are going up, food costs are going up, health care costs are going up, and the cost of an education is going up. At the very time the source of wealth creation is going down, the cost of living is rising.

Unemployment numbers are also worrisome. In the month of May, we saw a one-half of 1 percent increase in unemployment. That is the largest single monthly increase in unemployment in 22 years in our Nation.

The root cause of all this--again, you don't need to know all this because you have been feeling it--the root cause of all this is the virtual collapse of the housing market that, in my view, did not have to happen. This did not have to occur. This is not a natural disaster. It is not a hurricane or a cyclone or a snowstorm. This is a problem that was created because the people responsible for being the cops over these institutions were not doing their job. As a result, we are in the mess we are in today.

I do not want to oversimplify it, but virtually that is what happened. The collapse was caused by what the Secretary of the Treasury has described as ``bad lending practices'' that were at best ignored and, in crucial respects, knowingly tolerated, if not encouraged, by Government officials over the last number of years. As a result, every single day in this country, Madam President, 8,000 to 9,000 of our fellow countrymen are entering into foreclosure. Home prices nationwide have dropped by the largest and most precipitous amounts since the Great Depression back in the 1930s. Tens of millions of Americans have watched their retirement savings, their pension funds, and the value of their homes fall by alarming amounts.

Madam President, I want to remind my colleagues that this legislation has proven time and time again to enjoy strong bipartisan support. Again, without the work of my partner in all of this, Senator Shelby, we wouldn't have arrived at that remarkable result. But my colleagues who have been with us on all of this, those who have added their ideas to this legislation, who have brought thoughtful proposals and added comments as well as specific ideas, deserve a great deal of credit for this as well.

Shortly before we left for our July recess, this piece of legislation passed this Chamber by a vote of 79 to 16. Yesterday, in the House, the bill received a bipartisan vote of 272 to 152. It is time to take up this bill one last time and send it to the President for his signature.

Let me review for my colleagues, if I may, exactly what it is we are working so hard to achieve. The bill we are about to adopt, and that we have worked on for weeks and months, has a number of key elements, all of which have been supported by the strong bipartisan votes in this body. First, we have the HOPE for Homeowners Act, which we are told will help somewhere between 400,000 to in excess of 500,000 Americans keep their homes and avoid going into foreclosure.

My hope, Madam President, is that number will actually be larger than that. That is a low estimate but certainly an important one. These families were simply seeking the American dream of home ownership. Sadly, in case after case after case, they were led astray. They were steered into mortgages they couldn't afford, and the people who steered them into those mortgages knew it because they were going to make their money quickly, and then they were going to sell the mortgage, move on, and never be accountable. In my view, these people should be going to prison for what they did.

I know people say that is a harsh conclusion, but to knowingly lure someone into a financial arrangement you know they could never afford, and to know full well they would end up defaulting on or falling behind, to me, that behavior is reprehensible and people ought to be held accountable. I am speaking of those who knowingly engaged in a practice that caused so much harm in our country. These are cases where often the mortgage brokers and loan officers pretended to be trusted financial advisers but were exactly the opposite. They had no intention and were doing nothing when it came to advising and providing help to these borrowers at all.

In fact, we now know, according to the Wall Street Journal, over 60 percent of the people who were talked into subprime loans actually could have qualified for a conventional mortgage at far lower cost to them than what a subprime mortgage cost. Sixty percent of these people were lured into that category by people who knew they had an opportunity to qualify for something that would have cost them far less than they ended up paying.

Anyway, this part of our HOPE for Homeowners Act is a voluntary program that will help save these homes by forcing the lenders who chose to participate to take some losses. These are not bailouts. The borrowers will have to pledge at least 50 percent of all new equity and future appreciation in order to get the benefit of a new reduced mortgage at a fixed rate that they can afford to pay. So the lender takes a haircut. They are not going to get what they thought they were going to get, but they are not going to get zero; and the borrower gets to stay in his or her home. They are going to end up paying that insurance and also contributing a part of the equity that will increase over the years to compensate for this program.

There are many protections built into this program. Only homeowners will qualify; no speculators, only homeowners. No investors or speculators will be allowed to participate. Borrowers will have to show they cannot afford their current mortgages, and all loans will be underwritten at a level the borrower can afford to pay. New loans will be at 30-year fixed rate mortgages.

All of this is done at no cost to the taxpayer. In fact, over the next 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office tells us that the program will actually raise some $250 million for the Treasury of the United States. This provision, combined with the government-sponsored enterprises--Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the home loan banks--regulatory reform of this bill, passed the Banking Committee 19 to 2, as I mentioned earlier.

Now, let me put to rest, if I can, an issue that has been raised. I have just described what this will do for that borrower who is with that very distressed mortgage. I can hear someone out there listening to these remarks and saying: Well, Senator, I live next door, and I have a mortgage I would like to get reduced as well. Now, I am not at risk of losing my home because I have my job and, frankly, I got a mortgage at a time when my broker and my banker worked out an arrangement that I could afford to pay. But why is that neighbor of mine getting this deal and I am not? Is that fair?

That is a good question. Let me say to you, as a borrower, first of all, I want to keep that borrower, if I can, in a home. If you are in a similar problem, we want to do what we can to help you. But you don't want that neighbor of yours to go into foreclosure. If your neighbor goes into foreclosure, then the value of your home that day begins to decline dramatically. The last thing any neighbors want on a block is foreclosed properties. So for every 8,000 or 9,000 people who go into foreclosure today, as they will, there are 16,000 people who live next door to that foreclosed property. And when the value of

properties go down in a neighborhood, crime rates go up, and it just spirals further and further down.

So I hear what you are saying. But if you think carefully about how this actually helps you as well, by keeping that homeowner in that house, keeping up the value of your property, then everyone benefits. So to those out there who wonder why everyone is not going to get a new mortgage at a rate they can afford, the value of this program is to try to put a tourniquet, if you will, on the hemorrhaging that is going on. There are 1.5 million people who have lost their homes in the last year. It is predicted by some--Credit Suisse being one--that one out of every eight homes, if we don't act, will end up in foreclosure in the next 5 years. Obviously, that is an intolerable situation in our country.

So this legislation is designed to provide hope not only for the homeowners but hope for the neighborhoods and communities being so adversely affected by this present problem. We desperately need this legislation. And as I have said repeatedly, every day we wait, some 8,000 to 9,000 foreclosures are filed. In fact, the delays we have suffered over the last number of days have caused an awful lot of people whom we might have been able to help to find themselves without a home.

Remember, these aren't just numbers. I have been citing numbers to you--a million and a half, 8,000 to 9,000, and how this program would work. But for every one of these numbers there is a family. Just imagine tonight that you had to go home and tell your husband or your wife or your children: We are no longer going to live here. We can't afford to stay here. This has been our home, but we have to find some other place to live. I don't know of anyone who would like to come home carrying that message because someone lured them into a mortgage knowing full well they could never afford to pay the fully indexed price.

These numbers don't speak about the human tragedy and the cost beyond the financial implications. So the importance of this legislation goes to the heart of who we are as a people, that sense of optimism and confidence. That fulfillment of a dream--of owning a home and raising a family, living in a quiet, safe neighborhood--for many people is no longer going to be there because these foreclosures are occurring at such a rapid rate around our country.

In late June of this year, Census reported that the home ownership rate, after reaching an all-time high in 2005, has fallen to a little over 67 percent, the sharpest annual decline in 20 years. According to the New York Times, minorities, who are disproportionately likely to get subprime loans, are suffering especially badly. That is why this legislation is widely supported by community and civil rights groups, financial institutions, and others. They see a generation of wealth being lost as a result of this foreclosure crisis.

The Senate expressed its strong bipartisan support of the HOPE for Homeowners Act when it defeated an amendment that was offered to strip out this program entirely. To the credit of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, we voted 69 to 21 to keep this program a part of this bill.

I want to make people understand something. There is no miracle here. I am not suggesting to you that this is going to work perfectly. It is our best judgment that this voluntary program could make a difference, and my hope is it will.

The second part of the bill, Madam President, includes the FHA Modernization Act. This passed early in April of this year as part of the Foreclosure Prevention Act by a vote of 84 to 12. The provisions in the current bill are identical to that legislation that I authored earlier this year, with the exception that the loan limits have been increased in high-cost areas to a maximum of $625,000.

As the administration has repeatedly said, the modernization of the Federal Housing Administration will put it in a better position to keep future borrowers away from abusive subprime loans.

Thirdly, this legislation creates a strong, effective, world-class regulator for the housing government-sponsored enterprises--Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks. These entities have kept the housing and conforming mortgage markets going while other capital markets have literally frozen. We need to make sure these crucial market players are appropriately capitalized, well regulated, and properly supervised so the American people can continue to depend on them to ensure that affordable mortgages will always be available. Recent losses at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac speak to the urgency of this need, and the legislation before us accomplishes that goal.

In addition to the government-sponsored enterprise portion of this bill, we have created a new permanent affordable housing fund that will help finance the construction and preservation of affordable homes and apartments across this Nation. Again, the need for this is growing, especially as the foreclosure crisis is pushing more and more families into rental housing. Again, the Senate spoke forcefully in support of this program when an amendment was offered by a Senator in this body to strike that entire program. My colleagues, again Democrats and Republicans, voted 77 to 11 to keep this permanent affordable housing program.

The bill also includes $3.9 billion for community development block grant funds to help communities across the Nation revitalize neighborhoods that have been devastated by foreclosures. This provision has strong support from the Nation's mayors, community groups, religious organizations, housing groups, and civil rights organizations as well. Unfortunately, we can't stop every foreclosure, but these funds will help our communities deal with the fallout of this terrible problem and help stabilize and renew our hardest hit communities.

There are important sections of the legislation that help our Nation's veterans find and keep housing and provide them with housing counseling. We increase housing counseling money in this bill so we can help people avoid the scourge and trauma of losing their homes to foreclosure.

There are a number of important tax provisions, and I want to commend my friend and colleague from Montana, Max Baucus, and Senator Grassley of Iowa. The Finance Committee did a terrific job with this bill. They got rid of some onerous, and I think wrong, tax provisions that had been adopted earlier and included some wonderful provisions to help first-time home buyers, as well as to provide some assistance in the area of encouraging additional investments in our housing areas.

So I want to commend Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley and members of the Finance Committee for the additions they have added to this bill that are going to make a significant difference.

Finally, the legislation includes important standby authority, which was requested by the Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson. He worked all weekend, two weekends ago, with various other people to do what they could to figure out how not to lose the major investments in our government-sponsored enterprises, and he came up with this idea of standby authority. Now, it is unprecedented the authority he is asking for, but Hank Paulson impresses me as someone who has thought about this. He has spent a lifetime in the private sector and knows and understands these issues pretty well. And I know for a fact that he reached out to a lot of other people in the country as well, not of his own political persuasion but people he respects, and listened to them as they crafted this standby authority.

My colleagues have raised some very good questions about it. We had a long, almost 5-hour hearing on the Banking Committee last week where Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Christopher Cox of the SEC, sat there for 4\1/2\ hours and answered questions from 22 members of the Banking Committee about this proposal. And there are legitimate issues about it.

I see my friend from New Mexico here, the former chairman of the Budget Committee, and we asked questions that he would have asked in that committee, and I think we answered them as well as we could.

But I think Hank Paulson has it about right. This authority is going to be critical if we are going to encourage people to stay involved in this critically important area of liquidity to the

housing market. So I know my colleagues are concerned about this 18- month proposal, and that is how long it will last, but we will watch it carefully. Any authority that he would seek would be subject, of course, to the debt ceiling limit, which the Congress can impose at any point to slow this down. But the idea that the authority is there will give us, I think, the needed security that many global investors--and I want to point out they are global investors these institutions need in order to stabilize them at a critical time when there are significant jitters about whether these institutions can survive.

So, Madam President, this provision is one that was added by the Secretary of the Treasury, added by the administration, but Senator Shelby and I believed it was worthy of inclusion in this bill, and that is why we included it.

In short, this is a good, balanced bill. In many ways it is almost landmark legislation. It has taken a long time to get here and unfortunately it took some bad news for us to build the support this bill needed. But we are where we are.

This bill is going to make a difference almost immediately. In fact, we are seeing a difference already in the markets around the country-- and around the world, for that matter. This bill has very broad support, including from the Conference of Mayors, the League of Cities, the Mortgage Insurance Companies of America, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Mortgage Bankers Association of America, the Consumer Federation of America, the National Association of Homebuilders, NAACP, ACORN, the Financial Services Roundtable, and numerous other business, consumer, and civil rights organizations. In fact, I ask unanimous consent that a long list of these organizations be printed in the Record for my colleagues.

Madam President, I point this out because, as my colleagues will tell you, oftentimes we have one group of people for something and not another. But when you get the Financial Services Roundtable, the NAACP, the Consumer Federation of America, the League of Cities--you get some idea of what we have been able to put together, Senator Shelby and I have, with this bill.

Is this a bill Richard Shelby would write on his own? No. Is this one I would write on my own? Absolutely not. We do not do business like that here. There are 100 of us here, and we try to work together to fashion ideas that make sense, and that is what we have done with this critically important legislation.

I thank Senator Shelby. I thank my colleagues, my Democratic colleagues on the Banking Committee--Jack Reed, Chuck Schumer, Tim Johnson, a long list of people who made a significant contribution to this bill. I thank my Republican colleagues on the committee as well; 8 out of 10 of my Republican colleagues on that committee have supported this effort and stayed with us through this long, arduous process, a process that did not have to last this long and should not have to last this long over the next several days. We could pass this bill in the next hour and send it to the President for his signature this afternoon. That is the kind of news I think the world is waiting for, both at home and around the globe--that the American Congress, Democrats and Republicans, contrary to the opinion people have of us, can actually sit down and work together and produce something for the American people.

That is what we have done with this bill. I thank my colleagues for it and I urge the adoption of this legislation when the moment occurs.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator very much.