Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that three members of my staff, Seth Olson, Charles von Althann, and Eitan Goldstein, be granted the privilege of the floor during today's session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 774, S. 2607.

I ask unanimous consent that an Inouye substitute amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2159 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that a Dodd-Shelby amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I note this is a coin bill that was authored by Senator Nelson of Florida commemorating the 50th anniversary of the establishment of NASA, a historic moment. I commend Senator Nelson for his efforts.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, Friday, June 20; that following the prayer

and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date and the Senate resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 3221, the housing legislation.

As previously announced, there will be no votes tomorrow or Monday. Senators should be prepared to vote Tuesday morning.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of legislation that I think will help to address some of the most important challenges facing our Nation's economy today. The Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008 is a critical step toward forever breaking the crippling hold that foreign oil has on our Nation. It will provide American entrepreneurs with incentives to develop new, environmentally safe energy technologies and create jobs that will stay in the United States, while strengthening all our communities. The bill will also provide important tax breaks for middle and lower income families at a time when the economic pressures on them are enormous.

To be sure, Americans are waking up to bad news about the economy each and every day. For months now we have watched as prices for gas and food have climbed. We have witnessed a foreclosure crisis that has ravaged our economy, and put 7,000 to 8,000 Americans in danger of losing their homes each day to say nothing of the 15,000-16,000 Americans who become neighbors to homes in foreclosure. As if this did not paint a dismal enough picture, since January of this year the American labor market has hemorrhaged more than 324,000 jobs and the number of people seeking unemployment benefits has hit 8.5 million.

The time has come to change how our economy operates--and that starts with what our economy largely runs on. The time has come to end our dependence on oil.

Each day new energy technologies are being developed and advanced, and these technologies need help to grow and become viable, cost- effective alternatives to oil. For nearly a century, technological innovation and the intellectual capital of our industries have been the engine driving American prosperity. But this administration's repeated quest to open more of Alaska and more of Florida's coast to drilling comes at a high price indeed--not only at the cost of our environment but also long-term economic stability.

By extending tax provisions such as the research and development tax credit, the solar energy and fuel cell investment tax credit and the renewable energy production tax credit, we make a bold statement to the world. We would be saying that the United States is dead serious about clean, sustainable, energy independence.

The State of Connecticut is home to firms who are at the cutting edge of wind and solar energy development. These firms are creating new jobs, in emerging industries, that will be serving all Americans--jobs that cannot and will not be outsourced, like so many have been under the Bush tax regime.

Of course, this bill provides so much more than energy tax breaks. It also extends the child tax credit, the qualified tuition deduction and other provisions that help lower and middle-income families make ends meet, and afford higher education costs. According to the Joint Economic Committee,

from 2000-2007 the median household income in Connecticut has increased by a mere 1 percent. Meanwhile, the cost of a gallon of gasoline in our State consistently tops the national average, and the cost of going to college in the State has risen by 29.1 percent since 1999.

For Connecticut, the need to act is clear. And with this bill, we are.

This legislation is paid for. The cost of these tax provisions will not, as the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 did, merely pass the cost on to our children and grandchildren. This bill provides crucial incentives for job creation, as well as middle-class tax relief, but it also pays for these benefits. It does so by changing the tax rules for executive compensation, and delays a rule that would provide incentives to firms operating abroad. And so not only do we hope to offset some of the economic ills that America is currently struggling with, this legislation also offers a big step toward restoring fiscal responsibility to our government, which this administration has utterly abandoned.

Now, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are opposed to this fiscally responsible legislation for no other reason than that they are opposed to paying for tax breaks--opposed to the belief that future generations should not be stuck with our bill.

I see it differently--as does the business community of our Nation which supports these offsets for a simple reason:

Because they recognize the benefits that this legislation will provide not just to their bottom lines but to our economy.

Unfortunately, some in this body remain unconvinced--unconvinced that these tax provisions will spur new job creation, move us further towards energy independence, and restart our economy.

On June 9, a consortium of more than 300 different American businesses signed a letter to Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley urging the Senate to work together in a bipartisan manner to pass this bill. These businesses represent some of the largest employers in our Nation, and at this moment the partisan paralysis that is affecting this body has put them in an awkward position. Many of these provisions are set to expire in December, and now is the time many of these employers are working to plan ahead and solidify new contracts, and sign new employees. They are making decisions about their futures. A recent study estimated that if we do not extend the tax provisions in this bill, we will not only lose $19 billion in clean energy investment, but also 116,000 potential green jobs.

It is time for us to recognize that to get our economy back on track, we must lead. We must make critical decisions about the future of our Nation. And above all, we must put politics aside and work on behalf of not our political parties but the American people. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this critically important legislation.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from New Mexico, who is a wonderful friend. I appreciate his kindness and generosity.

I wish to speak, if I may, about the so-called Merida Initiative. This is a proposal which was made by President Bush, along with President Calderon of Mexico, to deal with the raging drug violence that is occurring along the Mexican border, particularly in Mexico itself. However, I also wish to briefly address, if I may, the issue of energy production.

We had this debate earlier this week on energy issues. I know one of the arguments being raised is, of course, that we are denying the oil and gas industry the opportunity to drill for more of these products off our own shores, and if we did more of that, then we would be reducing our problems and bringing down costs.

Let me announce to my colleagues that I intend to propose legislation directly addressing this issue of oil production and development. I commend the Members of the other body--Congressman Markey, Congressman Hinchey, Congressman Rahall, and Congressman Emanuel. They proposed a bill over there, which I will offer here, which addresses this issue.

We hear this argument that if we allow production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and some of the coastal regions, we will be in great shape. But, Mr. President, there are 44 million offshore acres that have been leased by the oil companies, but these companies have put only 10.5 million of those acres into production. Of the 47.5 million onshore acres under lease for oil and gas production, only 13 million are in production. Combined, oil and gas companies hold leases to 68 million acres of Federal land and waters on which they are not producing any oil and gas, despite the fact they have the leases and could be drilling there. Compare that with just 1.5 million acres of ANWR that proponents of drilling say they want us to open. The vast majority of oil and natural gas resources on Federal lands are already open for drilling, and they are not being tapped.

I hear complaints about the 1.5 million acres closed off in ANWR, and yet we are sitting on roughly 68 million acres under lease but not in production--why don't they talk about that?

So our bill is basically a ``use it or lose it'' lease idea. If you are going to sit on these leases and do nothing with them, then you ought to be paying a higher fee. In our proposal, this fee would be $5 per acre per year for the first three years. We would then raise the fee, if the property remains unused, to $25 per acre in the fourth year and to $50 per acre in the fifth year and beyond. This will be an incentive to companies to put these millions of acres where leases have already been granted for oil and gas production to actually use this land they control. This is our answer to the great complaint: Let us drill in ANWR. Why not use the leases you have already been given?

I will offer that legislation.

By the way, the revenue that would come in from those production incentive fees would be devoted to the development of wind, solar, other alternative energy ideas, weatherization programs, and, of course, low-income energy assistance, to help with what is sure to be a staggering cost for moderate and lower income families come next winter.

This is an idea that I think will debunk this notion that if we can only produce more by drilling in new areas, we will solve our energy problems. Well, why aren't you drilling on the millions of acres you have leases on already instead of complaining about 1.5 million acres or a few more offshore when there are literally millions of acres already under lease that oil companies are doing nothing with? If they are not going to drill on it, they are going to pay more.

Merida Initiative

Madam President, I wish to address the Merida Initiative. As all of my colleagues are aware, this bilateral initiative, the Merida Initiative, is a proposal between the United States and Mexico designed to combat the shocking increase in drug-related violence in Mexico over the past year.

Last weekend, I spent the weekend at an interparliamentary meeting in Monterey, Mexico, with our colleague from Tennessee, Senator Corker, at their annual meeting. This is the 47th gathering of the bilateral Members of Congress of the United States and Mexico to meet and talk about bilateral issues. I am pleased that this was my 20th or 21st year in which I participated in these bilateral meetings with our neighbors to the south. But the issue of the drug cartels and the violence they are causing in that country, not to mention our problems on the border, was the dominant theme of this past weekend's gathering. Much of the discussion, as I say, focused around this initiative, in large part because of the grotesque increase in drug-related violence in Mexico within recent months.

While in Mexico, I expressed my condolences to the Mexican people on behalf of our colleagues here and the American people for what they have gone through. Some 4,000 people, police officers, military personnel, have lost their lives to the drug cartels in recent months, including the assassination of the chief of police of the country, Millan Gomez, who was gunned down inside his home. Cartel members waited inside his house to assassinate him. This would be tantamount to the Director of the FBI being gunned down in his home in the United States. That is how violent these cartels are. That is how unafraid they are of any retribution. So I think the notion of cooperation between our two countries is absolutely critical.

Mexico, as I said, has been under siege, and they need and deserve a combined effort. Though it is the Mexican people who bear the brunt of so many of these problems they are facing, there are, indeed, common security challenges affecting both of our people. So let me say unequivocally that the United States is committed--I believe all of us are--to helping and working with our colleagues, our neighbor to the south, Mexico, to end such violence.

President Calderon of Mexico made a very sincere gesture in reaching out to the United States for cooperation in this battle. Combating drug trafficking and related violence and organized crime through intelligence sharing, law enforcement, and institution building is critically important.

But it was unfortunate that the proposal that was made to the Mexican Government by the Bush administration lacked any input or consultation with the respective two legislative bodies. That was not just a violation of good manners. Rather, if you are going to propose these kinds of initiatives, it is critically important that you invite the Members of Congress who will have

to appropriate the money and be responsible for the oversight of these programs. So at the outset you need to involve Democrats and Republicans in both Chambers, not because you fear they are going to object to the proposal, but because you are going to need their ongoing support.

In the case of the Merida Initiative, while all the good intentions are there, when you announce these proposals and do not invite input, you invariably end up with a train wreck that caused the problems that I had to listen to all weekend long in Mexico about whether we are putting conditions on these proposals, in some way limiting them or certifying this kind of financial assistance to Mexico, which was met with incredible hostility by every political party in the country-- political parties that rarely agree on anything, by the way, but on the response to the Merida Initiative, there was unanimity among the political parties in Mexico despite what I think is a clear desire to see the kind of cooperation we absolutely need if we are going to have any success at all in taking on these cartels.

There also needs to be more accountability on both sides of the border. My primary concern is that Merida, as presented to both Congresses, focuses too much on the short-term fixes, which are of course needed, and very little on the longer term problems which we must address. I do not and would not object to this program on that basis alone, but I think it is important that we acknowledge this shortcoming.

No one denies that we need well-trained and well-equipped police forces to confront the most violent criminals, and no one doubts that Mexico urgently needs assistance fighting these violent criminals. They are tremendously well financed, and they are incredibly well armed. They have equipment and armaments that would compete with almost any military in the world, let alone a police force.

But what is equally needed is well-trained and well-equipped civilian judicial authorities and institutions to enforce and uphold the rule of law. We must work to combat corruption and do a better job of sharing intelligence.

These are all commonly held goals. We must tackle the larger, systemic problems which only exacerbate the drug trafficking and violence we witnessed over the last number of months.

Only by creating robust economic alternatives to the drug trade can the United States and Mexico together build the kind of future that reduces the number of people who enter into the drug trade either by force or by choice. That is why I am very supportive of an approach that more broadly promotes regional trade and political engagement, an approach that fosters sustainable growth through private investment, increased foreign aid, and supports regional institutions, such as the Inter-American Development Bank. Given our shared border of thousands of miles, the United States and Mexico must also deepen their bilateral partnership in ways that are mutually beneficial, such as more closely coordinating border security to ensure our goods and services can move through more effectively and efficiently. We should promote more business and cultural ties and more direct investment across the border as well. The United States must also support Mexico's integration with its southern neighbors as well and the role they play in both of our economies.

While a bilateral approach will be necessary, given the interrelated nature of our economies, a regional approach will be required to ensure effective and sustainable economic growth over the long term.

In addition to fostering sustainable economic development, we must also cooperate on financial intelligence and counter money-laundering programs and combat the black-market peso exchange which undermines the very economic alternatives we are trying to create on a bilateral basis.

In addition, of course, our own country must take responsibility for our contributions to the growing insecurity and to the violence that occurs in Mexico. Though we often fail to admit it or take action to address it, one of the biggest markets for illegal drugs, and by far the largest supplier of weapons to some of the most violent cartels in Central South America and Mexico, is, of course, our own country. Any sustainable effort to reduce trafficking and violence in Mexico must seriously address problems on both sides of the border, and here, I think, Merida, while it is a very good proposal and idea, falls a little bit short.

Despite all this, Merida is a very good first start, and I support it. Despite the failure of this administration to work with and consult Democrats and Republicans in both Houses, which should happen if we are going to succeed with this initiative, and despite the fact Merida is focused too much, in my view, on short-term fixes, and despite the fact Congress will most likely not be able to fully fund Merida as much as we would like--given problems in other places around the world, including Burma and Darfur, U.N. peacekeeping and food aid--this is a good beginning and it is deserving of our support--identifying the common concerns we share with our neighbor to the south.

While in Monterrey, I heard many concerns voiced by our Mexican counterparts about some of the language in the Merida Initiative, particularly language which many of our friends to the south are calling conditions in the legislation. Let me be clear, at least for my own part. The intent of the Senate language is not to condition our aid but rather to insist--as Mexicans ought to as well--on accountability from both our administration and from the Government of Mexico.

I, for one, am not going to sign off on a blank check that does not demand accountability from this administration. Of all the terrible lessons we learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, surely one is that more accountability can only be a positive thing, not only to guarantee taxpayer money is being well spent but also to sustain these programs over the longer term. That said, I understand Mexico's sensitivity to the idea of conditions, and I agree with those sensitivities.

Many in this Chamber will remember the arduous and contentious certification process we used to use to determine whether Mexico was cooperating in counternarcotics programs. My friend and colleague, Senator Pat Leahy, has been a hero on these issues, to me and many others, over many years. His concern about human rights and accountability of dollars is long-standing and never focused on any country, or one specific issue. He is concerned, as he should and all of us should be, to make sure we abolish the certification process.

He was not only cooperative but also understood better than most when the debate raged in this Chamber about a certification bill, because rather then ensuring cooperation on counternarcotics operations, all certification ensured was that the United States and Mexico would simply feud day in and day out over what qualified--a development that benefitted no one but the drug traffickers.

So as a joint effort, we were able to change that certification process. And cooperation improved dramatically as a result, I might add. So I support the work Senator Leahy is engaged in. I explained to our Mexican counterparts what his intentions were in regard to the Merida Initiative, and because of the negotiations we have had over the last number of days, I believe the Merida Initiative, as constructed, is going to work well and be received well.

The people of Mexico, indeed, Latin Americans in general, have no greater friend than Patrick Leahy, a Senator who champions human rights and has worked throughout his career to foster closer ties and change in our hemisphere.

The United States--including myself, Senator Leahy, and others--is committed to addressing many of the concerns voiced by Mexico and to reaching a compromise acceptable to everyone, a compromise that will, in the words of Senator Leahy, ``provide support for the Merida Initiative in a manner that addresses our shared interests and concerns.''

So rather than characterize these ongoing talks with our friends in Mexico, as some have in the United States, as ``rejecting Merida'' or ``abandoning Mexico'' or an ``infringement on sovereignty,'' I believe we have an obligation--both countries do--to share responsibilities with our executive branch, to tone down the rhetoric, to lower the temperature, and to work together to craft an effective broad-based

strategy that combats drug trafficking, takes on these cartels, and lets them know they are never going to prevail in the efforts they are using today to advance their narcotics trafficking.

It is important that the cartels understand this debate about the Merida Initiative in no way should be construed as a retreat from our common goals to see that the cartels are soundly defeated; that they are wiped out as cartels trying to do what they do every day.

Secondly, the audiences in our respective countries should understand that we will work cooperatively, that we will work together to advance this cause. I believe that is a sentiment that we all share in this Chamber, and that people across this country share too.

So working together, I think we will get Merida right. I am confident that, in the end, we will produce an agreement that will be acceptable to both the Mexicans and Americans so we can join together in building a safer, more productive future and successfully combat those engaged in the violence within Mexico and along our border area. That is our shared goal. That is the kind of lasting change I think we all want. And through this process, this is what I believe we can produce together.

I yield the floor for my colleague from Pennsylvania, who is here and ready to speak.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Responsible Ownership of Public Land Act. I thank my friends Congressmen Rahm Emanuel, Ed Markey, Maurice Hinchey, and Nick Rahall for their leadership on this issue in the other chamber. With the issue of oil and gas prices at the forefront of our national consciousness, this bill is timely and critically needed.

As gas prices across the Nation soar to shocking, unprecedented levels, we can all agree that the time has come to end our dependence on oil. But that can't happen unless we also commit to something the Bush administration and its allies in Congress have refused to:

End our dependence on the oil companies--on letting them hold the American people and economy hostage to rising prices that have no end in sight.

In my home State of Connecticut, a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline today reached $4.36. That is an increase of 41 cents from just a month ago--and $1.12 from only a year ago. For reasons that economists seem at a loss to explain, my State today has the second- highest gas prices in the Nation. It seems that every single day we turn on the television or open a newspaper, we hear about new records being set for the price of a barrel of oil or how much people are paying at the pump.

The rising price of gas only begins at the pump. It is also causing prices to rise at the grocery store and elsewhere. Wherever they go, families are feeling economic pressure like never before--finding themselves forced to make difficult decisions and cut down on spending in other areas simply so they can afford to commute to work or take their kids to school. Too often they are forced to choose between food, gas, utilities, and lifesaving medications.

In my view there are many things we need to do to address this pressing issue. In the long term we need to develop clean, renewable energy sources that will alleviate our dependence on foreign oil that often comes from unstable, hostile regimes and create new green jobs here at home. But in the short term, we need to take steps to help out families who are hurting and angry and need relief.

One idea we hear time and again from President Bush and his Republican allies is that the answer to our energy problems is to open up environmentally fragile areas of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to more drilling. In response, I would point out that there are already 44 million offshore acres that have been leased by oil companies, who have only put 10.5 million of those acres into production. Of the 47.5 million onshore acres under lease for oil and gas production, only 13 million are in production.

Combined, oil and gas companies hold leases to 68 million acres of Federal land and waters that they are not producing any oil and gas on. This is compared to the 1.5 million acres that make up ANWR that proponents of drilling there would like to see opened up. Instead of putting pristine wilderness in grave peril, these companies should first be producing on acres already under lease. The vast majority of oil and natural gas resources on Federal land are already open for drilling and are not being tapped, and the oil and gas resources available in the unused land under lease far outstrips what is available in ANWR and other areas closed to drilling.

Therefore, I am offering this legislation as a solution to this problem--a production incentive fee for acres under lease that are not in production. This fee would rise with the number of years the land has been under lease but not used. The revenue raised by these fees could be used to fund the development of clean, renewable energy, energy efficiency, and programs such as LIHEAP that help families struggling with sky-high energy prices.

Over the last 8 years, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their allies in this body have done all they can to block any progress toward energy independence. They have belittled and undermined policies and technologies that, had they been adopted, would have helped consumers avoid the deplorable situation they find themselves in today.

As a result, American families are now at the mercy of foreign dictators, market speculators, and big oil companies reaping enormous profits--the largest profits in corporate history.

As a result, every time the price of a gallon of gas reaches a new record, Americans are the ones paying the price of this administration's inaction.

It is time to end our dependence on the oil companies. This bill would start that process by saying the time has come to put the American people first.

It is my hope that with the introduction of the Responsible Ownership of Public Land Act, we can begin again to work toward delivering the kind of change American families are desperate for. I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this commonsense effort to responsibly address the Nation's desperate energy needs.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Responsible Ownership of Public Land Act. I thank my friends Congressmen Rahm Emanuel, Ed Markey, Maurice Hinchey, and Nick Rahall for their leadership on this issue in the other chamber. With the issue of oil and gas prices at the forefront of our national consciousness, this bill is timely and critically needed.

As gas prices across the Nation soar to shocking, unprecedented levels, we can all agree that the time has come to end our dependence on oil. But that can't happen unless we also commit to something the Bush administration and its allies in Congress have refused to:

End our dependence on the oil companies--on letting them hold the American people and economy hostage to rising prices that have no end in sight.

In my home State of Connecticut, a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline today reached $4.36. That is an increase of 41 cents from just a month ago--and $1.12 from only a year ago. For reasons that economists seem at a loss to explain, my State today has the second- highest gas prices in the Nation. It seems that every single day we turn on the television or open a newspaper, we hear about new records being set for the price of a barrel of oil or how much people are paying at the pump.

The rising price of gas only begins at the pump. It is also causing prices to rise at the grocery store and elsewhere. Wherever they go, families are feeling economic pressure like never before--finding themselves forced to make difficult decisions and cut down on spending in other areas simply so they can afford to commute to work or take their kids to school. Too often they are forced to choose between food, gas, utilities, and lifesaving medications.

In my view there are many things we need to do to address this pressing issue. In the long term we need to develop clean, renewable energy sources that will alleviate our dependence on foreign oil that often comes from unstable, hostile regimes and create new green jobs here at home. But in the short term, we need to take steps to help out families who are hurting and angry and need relief.

One idea we hear time and again from President Bush and his Republican allies is that the answer to our energy problems is to open up environmentally fragile areas of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to more drilling. In response, I would point out that there are already 44 million offshore acres that have been leased by oil companies, who have only put 10.5 million of those acres into production. Of the 47.5 million onshore acres under lease for oil and gas production, only 13 million are in production.

Combined, oil and gas companies hold leases to 68 million acres of Federal land and waters that they are not producing any oil and gas on. This is compared to the 1.5 million acres that make up ANWR that proponents of drilling there would like to see opened up. Instead of putting pristine wilderness in grave peril, these companies should first be producing on acres already under lease. The vast majority of oil and natural gas resources on Federal land are already open for drilling and are not being tapped, and the oil and gas resources available in the unused land under lease far outstrips what is available in ANWR and other areas closed to drilling.

Therefore, I am offering this legislation as a solution to this problem--a production incentive fee for acres under lease that are not in production. This fee would rise with the number of years the land has been under lease but not used. The revenue raised by these fees could be used to fund the development of clean, renewable energy, energy efficiency, and programs such as LIHEAP that help families struggling with sky-high energy prices.

Over the last 8 years, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their allies in this body have done all they can to block any progress toward energy independence. They have belittled and undermined policies and technologies that, had they been adopted, would have helped consumers avoid the deplorable situation they find themselves in today.

As a result, American families are now at the mercy of foreign dictators, market speculators, and big oil companies reaping enormous profits--the largest profits in corporate history.

As a result, every time the price of a gallon of gas reaches a new record, Americans are the ones paying the price of this administration's inaction.

It is time to end our dependence on the oil companies. This bill would start that process by saying the time has come to put the American people first.

It is my hope that with the introduction of the Responsible Ownership of Public Land Act, we can begin again to work toward delivering the kind of change American families are desperate for. I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this commonsense effort to responsibly address the Nation's desperate energy needs.

Madam President, I rise today in support of S. 1459, the Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Research, Cure, and Care Act of 2007, and to encourage my colleagues to lend their support to this important legislation. Psoriasis is a chronic, inflammatory, painful, and debilitating disease that affects as many as seven and a half million Americans. Ten to 30 percent of people with psoriasis also suffer from psoriatic arthritis, which causes pain, stiffness and swelling in and around the joints. The National Psoriasis Foundation estimates that in the state of Connecticut as many as 89,000 adults live with psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or both.

No one knows exactly what causes psoriasis. With very few effective treatments and no cure, this disabling disease often strikes between age 15-25, marking the beginning of a lifelong struggle for psoriasis sufferers. Psoriasis is often minimized and undertreated because treatments are considered ``not medically necessary'' or ``cosmetic''. If a patient is accurately diagnosed, the search for an appropriate treatment can prove exasperating because treatments vary widely in effectiveness, can have serious adverse side effects, and can stop working without warning.

Often misunderstood to be contagious or due to poor hygiene, psoriasis causes many patients to experience social discrimination and stigma. Studies have shown that psoriasis causes as much disability as other major medical diseases. In fact, lost productivity and forgone future earnings create an estimated burden of $114 million annually for Americans with psoriasis.

Unfortunately, research on psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis has not been made the priority it should be. S. 1459 would direct the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases to expand biomedical research on psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis and to coordinate research efforts across the NIH. The bill would also direct the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to develop a national patient registry for collection and analysis of longitudinal data on psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Without such a resource, we will remain limited in our ability to evaluate the usefulness--and side effects--of the therapies that patients must endure throughout their lifetimes.

Those suffering with psoriasis are also at an increased risk for numerous other serious, chronic and life-threatening conditions such as heart disease, diabetes and mental health conditions. These co- morbidities inflict a significant economic and social burden on society in addition to the individuals with psoriasis. This legislation would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to convene a summit of researchers, public health professionals, patient advocacy organizations, academic institutions, and Federal and State policymakers on the current research, treatment, education, and quality-of-life activities conducted or supported by the Federal Government with respect to psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, including psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis related co-morbidities. A comprehensive report from this summit would provide a roadmap for future activities necessary to address current gaps and better our chances of finding a cure. Lastly, the bill would require a study and report by the Institute of Medicine to address health insurance and prescription drug coverage as they relate to medications and treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. We must ensure that these patients receive the best regimen and most appropriate care for their disease.

In closing, I would like to commend the National Psoriasis Foundation for their more than four decades of leadership and work to improve quality of life for people with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. I would also like to extend great thanks to my constituents, John and Vivian Latella, who have shared their personal stories of the difficulties of living with psoriasis. For them, and for the millions of Americans suffering from this disease, I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Research, Cure, and Care Act.

Madam President, today I recognize a significant milestone for one of the towns in my home State of Connecticut. This year, the town of Ridgefield is celebrating the 300th anniversary of its founding.

Ridgefield's heritage dates back to the founding of this country and the American Revolution. A small militia force led by Generals David Wooster and Benedict Arnold faced off here against a larger British force at the Battle of Ridgefield on April 27, 1777. Whether it's the graves of the soldiers

on both sides of the conflict who were killed and are now buried together in a cemetery on Main Street, or the cannon ball that remains lodged into the side of the Keeler Tavern, landmarks of this battle can still be found throughout Ridgefield.

This beautiful colonial town of approximately 24,000 people has historically been known as a farming community. Today it is regularly recognized not only for the high quality of its schools and tranquility but for its world class restaurants and inns. Considered right after World War II as a potential location for the United Nations secretariat building, Ridgefield has managed to retain its small town, New England charm to this day.

The residents of Ridgefield are rightfully proud of the town's rich cultural and agricultural heritage and have organized a number of activities to celebrate this momentous occasion. I ask my colleagues to join with me in congratulating my many friends among the good people of Ridgefield as they gather this year to celebrate their town's three centuries of history.

Mr. President, may I inquire, has my colleague from Alabama completed his remarks? You have?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to take a few minutes to share with our colleagues the current condition of the housing situation and the steps being taken by the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee--the steps we have taken in recent days and what I hope we can continue to do in the coming days over the next week or so, depending upon the agenda the leadership will set for us: our hope is to bring forth one more proposal that will complete the circle of the steps we can take as public policy setters in the area of dealing with the heart of the economic crisis, which is the housing crisis. The heart of the housing crisis is, of course, the foreclosure crisis. So this report I share with my colleagues is both a positive one--which includes the steps we are taking together to address the problem--as well as, unfortunately, a rather negative one in terms of the actual statistics and numbers that people are living with every day.

When we talk about these numbers and statistics, they actually reflect what is going on in the lives of very real people in our country who are struggling economically to make ends meet. Home ownership and the value of homes is at the heart of not only the American family dream but also at the heart of their economic success in many ways. So as I have done regularly over the past several months, I wish to share with my colleagues some of the problems we are facing in our economy and some of the steps we are taking to address them.

Three weeks ago, with overwhelming bipartisan support, we were able to pass out of the Banking Committee the Hope for Homeowners Act and legislation to reform the Government-sponsored enterprises--the so- called GSEs. These measures will help reduce foreclosures, strengthening the housing market and ultimately helping to restore our economy to healthy growth. We also added as part of that legislation an affordable housing program which will exist in perpetuity; not a short- term, 4- or 5-year program but one that will be around for years to come to assist those who are in desperate need of adequate and decent shelter, including rental housing.

The committee work in these major areas follows the work that the Senate accomplished earlier this spring when we passed the Foreclosure Prevention Act. That legislation contains several very important provisions to help homeowners, neighborhoods, and communities throughout our Nation. The legislation included $4 billion for communities to use through the Community Development Block Grant Program to purchase and rehabilitate foreclosed properties in their communities. The act also included $150 million in additional foreclosure prevention counseling, on top of the dollars we had already appropriated earlier, to assist in that area. Counseling, I would add, is a proven and very effective program that has helped struggling homeowners avoid the devastating effects of losing their homes. Finally, the act includes legislation that would modernize the Federal Housing Administration so the FHA can play an enhanced role in allowing hard-working American families to pursue and achieve the dream of home ownership through a suitable and sustainable mortgage.

I am continuing to work with our colleagues and the ranking member, Senator Shelby of Alabama, along with other members of the committee-- both Democrats and Republicans--and the Senate to enact comprehensive legislation that includes these and other provisions. These Members include Senators Baucus and Grassley, the chairman and ranking member respectively of the Senate Finance Committee, who have contributed very important tax provisions to the Foreclosure Prevention Act.

There is no question in my mind that the almost daily information we are receiving on the performance of our economy should continue to spur action on the part of this Congress. Our economy has been limping along for the last 6 months, with growth well under 1 percent. If you take away the growth in Government and the buildup of inventories that occurs when the economy enters a recession, our economy grew by three- tenths of 1 percent in the first quarter of this year. In other words, our economy is at best stagnant, and in the view of many economists and others, we are actually in a recession.

Last week we learned that the unemployment rate in April rose by one- half of a percentage point in 1 month. That is the largest monthly increase at that rate in 22 years. We have lost thousands of jobs each and every month this year so far, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This year, our economy has lost just under 400,000 private sector jobs, and most economists expect they will continue to lose jobs as the economy struggles. That is why I think it is critically important that we ought to provide for extended unemployment insurance benefits for those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own as part of our response to the economic challenges we are facing. Certainly if we weren't able to do this, it would be the first time in my experience in this body for a quarter of a century that we didn't extend unemployment insurance benefits to people who have lost their jobs during periods of economic hardship. That has never happened before in my tenure here, and it is my serious hope that we will provide those extended benefits to those who deserve them.

The data we are looking at, as sad as it is, also confirms that the housing market continues to be mired in a deep recession as well. Residential construction fell by over 30 percent in the first quarter of this year. Sales of existing homes fell by 13 percent over last year. Now, let me quickly add some new data today for April that indicates sales may have finally picked up slightly, and we welcome that news. Most analysts, however, believe this uptick, if you will, in homes sales occurred only because home prices have continued to fall over the last several months. Regardless of that uptick, the number of new homes that remains unsold continues to rise, reaching the highest number in over a quarter of a century. Joining this growing number of new homes sitting vacant on the market unsold are homes where the previous owner has been foreclosed.

Foreclosures have hit a new all-time record. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association--the MBA--this data shows that almost 1 in every 11 homes with a mortgage in our country is in default or in foreclosure as of March of this year. That is the highest level since the MBA began tracking foreclosures in 1979. Foreclosure rates have been growing at record levels for some time, and last year alone 1.5 million of our fellow families in this country had their homes enter into a foreclosure.

Each and every day, over more than 8,100 families enter foreclosure. Every single day, 8,100 families on average enter foreclosure. The projections are that foreclosure rates will remain at historic highs for the foreseeable future. The investment bank Credit Suisse just released a report in which they predict that 6.5 million homes will fall into foreclosure over the next 5 years. They state:

The coming flood of new foreclosures could put 8.4 percent

of total homeowners, or 12.7 percent of homeowners with

mortgages, out of their homes.

The scenario they are describing is one in which one out of eight American families with a mortgage could lose their homes. That is a chilling prediction.

Robert Schiller, the widely respected economist from Yale University who helped invent the so-called Case-Schiller Index that is used throughout the country and the markets to measure the change in home values, gave a speech recently in New Haven, CT where he said there is a good chance that housing prices will fall further, perhaps by as much as 30 percent since their peak in the late part of 2006. If that were to happen, it would mean the decline in home prices would be greater now than it was during the Great Depression back in the 1920s and 1930s of the previous century.

These are indeed historic times with historic challenges. Already we have seen home prices decline nationally for the first time since the Great Depression. For the first time since the Federal Reserve began keeping track of home equity in the 1940s, Americans today own less than half the value in their homes.

The effect this is having on our economy cannot be overstated. Martin Feldstein, who served as President

Reagan's chief economist, recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

The 10 percent decline in home prices has cut household

wealth by more than $2 trillion, reducing consumer spending

and increasing the risk of a deep recession.

That means American families have lost more than $2 trillion of wealth. Losses of that magnitude are staggering. That is almost 20 percent of our Nation's GDP. Put another way, a national loss of wealth of $2 trillion means a typical family of four would have lost over $25,000 of wealth due to the current housing market crisis. This sharp loss in wealth for the average American homeowner comes at a time when they face record high prices for essentials of American life: Food, gasoline prices--as we have heard about today the cost of gas has been increasing every day--health care, and the cost of higher education. So the so-called foreclosure crisis is affecting far more than only those facing foreclosure. It is affecting nearly all of us in every imaginable way. As one home falls into foreclosure, the value of countless other homes in those neighborhoods is falling as well. If Dr. Schiller's predictions come to bear and home prices fall by 30 percent nationally, then the loss to American families will exceed $6 trillion. That is more than half of our Nation's annual GDP. It would mean the typical family of four would have lost approximately $80,000 of wealth. That is more than most American families earn in an entire year.

The nationwide implications of this crisis help explain why consumer sentiment is at historic lows. Americans' expectations for future economic growth are at the lowest level in 35 years since the deep recession of the early 1970s.

These negative views about our economic prospects are based on the real experiences of most Americans. The Pew Center conducted a recent survey of Americans' views not only on the economy as a whole but on their personal well-being. The Washington Post characterized the Pew Center's finding as:

Offering the gloomiest assessment of economic well-being in

close to half a century, a new survey has found that most

Americans say they have not made progress over the past 5

years as their incomes have stagnated and they have

increasingly borrowed money to finance their lifestyles.

By almost any measure, Americans are struggling more and more than they have at any time in recent memory. Real median family income has fallen this decade as the cost of gasoline, health care, and college tuition, have risen at levels far outstripping any increases in paychecks. To keep pace with these rising costs, Americans have turned to borrowing from credit cards and their homes. But now, as the crisis in our capital markets begins to threaten sources of liquidity for people, such as mortgages, student loans, and other types of lending, the American economy is in a precarious place, to put it mildly. That is why we need new policies and new action to prevent this recession from becoming more severe, and to lay the foundation for our recovery.

The Federal Reserve is engaged in a series of interest rate cuts as they continue to aggressively use monetary policy to try and deal with the recession we are facing. But the Fed is running out of pages in its playbook to address the growing crisis of credit and confidence that has taken hold of our financial markets and threatens to undermine our Nation's economy. Until we more thoroughly address the core issue behind this recession--namely, the problems in the housing market and the foreclosure crisis--we are unlikely, in my opinion, to put our economy back on the right track. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke understands the seriousness of this problem. In a recent speech on the subject of foreclosures, he said:

High rates of delinquency in foreclosure can have

substantial spillover effects on the housing market, the

financial markets and the broader economy. Therefore, doing

what we can to avoid preventable foreclosures is not just in

the interest of lenders and borrowers. It's in everybody's

interest.

I pledge to continue to work every day--as I know my colleagues on the Senate Banking Committee will, as well as those in the House Financial Services Committee under the leadership of Congressman Barney Frank and as I am confident all of us in this Chamber will--to do everything we can to address these issues from the perspective of what we can do as part of the national legislature. That is why I am pleased to say that through these efforts, what we have brought to the floor of the Senate over the last several weeks has enjoyed broad-based bipartisan support. We will now be coming back again in the coming days. The leader of our Chamber, Senator Reid, has committed that we will get to this as soon as we possibly can, given the crowded agenda he has to deal with. But we cannot, in my view, allow this Congress to continue to move forward in the coming days without addressing the remainder of these issues.

I cannot promise absolutely that everything we have offered is going to change the world dramatically. But there is one thing I hope it does do and that is restore confidence in the American families, whom the Members of this Congress serve, both Democrats and Republicans, are doing everything in their power to try and prevent foreclosures, restore confidence in the marketplace, and make it possible for the American dream of home ownership not to become the nightmare it has for far too many fellow citizens. It is at the core of everything else we are grappling with. We have seen the problem spill over into credit cards, financial services, commercial lending, student loans, and at the heart of all of this is the foreclosure problem.

That is what every single responsible economist, regardless of political ideology, has concluded. They have said there are steps we can take to make a difference--those steps we have created in a legislative manner to bring to this body. Our hope is we will enjoy the kind of broad-based support we have had in our committee. Anybody who has watched this body knows that when you get a 19-to-2 vote in committee on a matter such of this, you get some indication of the willingness of members to work together to make a difference. Senator Shelby and I and the other members of the committee will continue to do that. We hope to put on the President's desk by July 4 this comprehensive financial services Banking Committee proposal, dealing with FHA, dealing with the government-sponsored enterprises, dealing with affordable housing, dealing with counseling, dealing with the community development block grant program, as well as tax ideas that we think could help, and the Hope for Homeowners Act, which is critical to try to put the brakes on this foreclosure problem.

I wished to take some time this afternoon to share with my colleagues that this problem grows more serious. It is growing more troublesome, spreading beyond our national borders, in terms of what the subprime market and the purchase of those mortgage-backed securities has done to the markets, not only in this country, but abroad as well.

This is our major responsibility, in my view and I think we have a commitment to address it. Senator Shelby and I have worked very well together over the past number of weeks to try to fashion this legislative proposal.

I commend Barney Frank, my friend from Massachusetts, who is chairman of the Financial Services Committee in the other body, and other Members for the job they are doing together as well. I hope that in the remaining days, before the July break--hopefully sooner than that--we will be able to present to our colleagues a final proposal bringing together these ideas for their consideration and support as we do our part to try to make a difference in getting this economy and the confidence of the American people back on track.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honor the memory of Marine Cpl Christian Scott Cotner of Waterbury, CT, who died last week while serving our Nation in Iraq. He was 20 years old.

On May 30, 2008, Corporal Cotner's life was tragically cut short as he served his first tour of duty with the Marines in Al-Anbar Province, Iraq. His heroic service is remembered today by a grateful nation.

Friends and loved ones remember Corporal Cotner for his positive attitude, his great sense of humor and his pride in serving the country he loved. It was while in high school, where he volunteered to serve in the honor guards and the ROTC, that Corporal Cotner decided to serve his country, and shortly after graduating he joined the Marines.

All of us in the State of Connecticut and across the United States owe a deep and solemn debt of gratitude to Christian Cotner and to his family and friends for his tremendous service to our country. On behalf of the Senate, I offer my deepest condolences to Christian's parents Graham and Karen and to everyone who knew and loved him.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Lieberman- Warner Climate Security Act. I am deeply grateful that we are at last beginning to address an issue that goes to the heart of our security, our economy, our ingenuity and our leadership in the world: Climate change.

Over the course of this debate, I have no doubt that some will continue to argue that the science of global warming remains ``inconclusive''--that there is simply too much uncertainty to take any sort of action.

But before we even go into the science of global warming, let us consider all that is quite certain today because of our dependence on fossil fuels.

We can start with our national security, which is compromised because we import oil to the tune of $300 billion every year, much of it from the most unstable countries in the world, a great many of whom are no friends to America.

We can then examine how this dependence puts our economy at risk, as families and businesses struggle with ever-rising gas prices that now top $4 per gallon, impacting our economic security and competitiveness alike.

We can also look at the public health implications, as asthma rates soar, disease spreads to new regions and the developing world experiences increases in climate-sensitive diseases, such as malaria, malnutrition--diseases that acutely threaten children.

There is also the rise in extreme weather incidents of Katrina-like ferocity that have increasingly become not the exception but the rule.

And finally, we can reflect on our waning moral leadership in the world, due at least in part because of this administration's stubborn insistence on abandoning the Kyoto Protocol entirely.

They didn't propose ways for the United States to improve a flawed but noble effort important to virtually every other nation in the civilized world. Nor did they demonstrate any commitment whatsoever on our part to leading the world in alternative energy production.

Instead, they simply let the problem fall to the next administration. They picked up their chair and went home.

Whatever else you think about the science of climate change, surely you must agree that American families have paid a price for our failure to act on these many related issues.

But I would immediately add, on the fundamental question of whether climate change is real and whether human actions are responsible, there can be no debate.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming, an international panel composed of hundreds of the

most respected scientists in the world, conducted a comprehensive study of available climate change data.

And what they found was unequivocal. The IPCC concluded that, and I quote, ``most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.''

In plain English, virtually the entire scientific community agrees on two points--one, that temperatures are rising because of greenhouse gas emissions, and two, that such increases are caused by human activity.

And so, let us be very clear: global warming is real, and we are causing it. It is not in question. And it is a very big problem for all of us.

Yet even still, some continue to push back. Some acknowledge the science behind climate change but argue we cannot take action because of the threat it poses to our economy.

They present us with what I believe is a false choice:

That we can choose environmental responsibility or economic prosperity, but not both.

I completely and emphatically disagree.

Our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels may pose some of our biggest problems. But breaking that dependence offers us the single greatest opportunity for a brighter, more secure future.

How is that possible?

Because if so many problems can stem from a single source--and in the case of energy, they surely do--then it is only logical that if we deal with that problem, we can begin meeting those challenges as well.

We can begin creating a stronger, more prosperous America that relies not on politically fragile corners of the globe for its security, but on the ingenuity of America's small businesses and university laboratories.

A stronger, more prosperous America that uses its abundant economic resources not to perpetuate anti-American sentiment abroad but to create jobs here at home--from the construction of energy efficient buildings and renewable energy power plants to an auto industry that builds cars that lead the world in fuel efficiency.

An America that charges not simply our cities with helping us achieve these goals but also rural communities across the country. That is not only a stronger, more prosperous America; it is one more Americans get to be a part of.

As such, I believe we can no longer wait to move to quickly reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions in a comprehensive way. That is why I have supported cap-and-trade proposals in the past, and I will continue to do so, because they offer a way for America to begin tackling global warming.

But I believe there is a more promising solution that too often gets lost in these debates: A carbon tax, a fee placed on each ton of carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuels.

Such a solution has been endorsed by everyone from NASA scientist James Hansen and former Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence Summers to conservative Harvard economist N. Gregory Mankiw, President George W. Bush's former chief economic advisor.

Even Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State, George Schulze, has voiced support for the idea. All agree it is the most efficient way to address the climate problem.

The idea is simple. We already know how much carbon is emitted from the burning of various fossil fuels, and we already collect the data we need to figure out how much to tax each sale of fossil fuels. As such, all that we would need to do to impose a carbon tax is set a price for a ton of carbon. That price would increase over time, leading to decreased carbon emissions as the cost of using dirty fossil fuels overtakes the cost of investing in clean, renewable technologies.

I know ``new taxes'' have been anathema to American politics for years. But a carbon tax eliminates the last incentive there is to pollute because it is cheaper.

A carbon tax would reduce carbon emissions much more efficiently than a cap-and-trade program. The Congressional Budget Office said as much, finding that ``available research suggests that in the near term, the net benefits . . . of a tax could be roughly five times greater than the net benefits of an inflexible cap.

Put another way, a given long-term emission-reduction target could be met by a tax at a fraction of the cost of an inflexible cap-and-trade program.''

Why? Because a tax provides the kind of long-term predictability for the price of emissions a carbon allowance would not. It allows companies to more effectively plan over the long-term how they could most cost-effectively reduce emissions.

Additionally, a carbon tax could be much more easily administered and overseen than a cap-and-trade program because the administrative infrastructure already exists to levy taxes on the upstream sources of fossil fuels, with their carbon contents known quantities as well.

Unlike cap and trade, which would require a complex new administrative structure to oversee and regulate the carbon market, we don't have to start from scratch.

In my view, a carbon tax is a critical piece of the debate over global warming, and I look forward to engaging with Chairwoman Boxer and my other colleagues in making part of this discussion. If for no other reason than the short window of time with which we have to address this problem before it is too late, it must be.

Allow me also to briefly address some other issues raised by the Lieberman-Warner bill.

I appreciate all that Chairwoman Boxer and her colleagues on the EPW Committee have done to take care of low-income consumers who will struggle with rising energy prices and the increased cost of consumer goods. The steps taken in this bill are certainly a good start.

However, I am concerned that we could be delivering rebates to low- income consumers more efficiently than we do in this legislation. Already, nearly 3,000 of the 5,400 households in my State who qualify for heating assistance are exhausting their benefits in the dead of winter every year.

We cannot put seniors and low-income households in the position of having to stretch tight household budgets to the breaking point simply to heat their homes, drive to work and put food on the table.

I look forward to working with Chairwoman Boxer and others to make sure our most vulnerable citizens are taken care of, which I know is as high a priority for her as it is the rest of us.

Lastly, I want to say a word about public transportation which falls within the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. Given that the transportation sector is responsible for a third of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, clearly we need to direct significant resources toward public transit, which reduces the number of cars on the road.

While I thank Chairwoman Boxer as well as Senators Lieberman and Warner for recognizing transit's importance in this bill, I do believe more needs to be done, and I look forward to working with them to make that possible.

Ultimately, I believe this bill represents an important first step toward grappling with what may prove to be the defining challenge of our age. And if we meet this challenge, it could mean the difference between rural America being left behind by the 21st century economy or becoming the engine that drives it.

It may be the difference between small businesses being burdened by energy costs or finding innovative ways to drive them down.

It may well be our very best chance to give our children and grandchildren the future of hope, prosperity, and optimism I know we all want to give them.

I thank the Chair for this opportunity, yield the floor, and look forward to this debate continuing in the coming weeks and months.