Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached letter from the American Council of Life Insurers be printed in the Record, along with the materials I submitted for S. 1677, the Currency Reform and Financial Markets Access Act of 2007.

Madam President, section 721 of the Defense Production Act, also known as the Exon-Florio amendment, Exon-Florio, established a statutory framework for the U.S. Government to analyze foreign acquisitions, mergers, and takeovers of privately owned entities within the United States to determine whether such transactions affect the national security of the United States. The Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 amends section 721 for the purpose of strengthening the process by which such transactions are reviewed and, when warranted, investigated for national security concerns. In addition, the act provides for a system of congressional notification so that Congress is able to conduct proper oversight of the national security implications of foreign direct investment in the United States to ensure that it is beneficial and has no adverse impact on U.S. national security.

Exon-Florio established a four-step process for examining a foreign acquisition: (1) voluntary notice by the companies; (2) a 30-day review to identify any national security concerns; (3) an optional 45-day investigation to determine whether identified concerns require more extensive mitigation efforts or a recommendation to the President for possible action; and (4) a Presidential decision to permit, suspend, or prohibit an acquisition in those instances where potential national security concerns cannot be mitigated.

During the standard review period, CFIUS conducts a national security analysis to determine whether any national security issues exist with a particular transaction, and if so, whether those concerns can be mitigated. In practice, companies sometime ``pre-file'' with CFIUS, providing information about the transaction in order to ensure that CFIUS has all necessary information during the formal review period. Further, companies may withdraw from the formal review in order to address concerns on the condition that they re-file promptly with CFIUS or abandon the transaction.

Therefore, while the vast majority of CFIUS transactions are approved by the end of the 30-day review, the total time devoted to transactions is sometimes longer. If national security concerns have not been resolved during the 30-day review, CFIUS can extend its review to a second stage 45-day investigation. At the end of a 45-day investigation, the transaction is sent to the President for a decision, accompanied by a CFIUS report and recommendation. Any transaction that goes to the President must be reported to Congress. Transactions that enter investigation may also be terminated before reaching the President, with the companies voluntarily withdrawing and abandoning the investment. Presidential decisions are also avoided in cases where a mitigation agreement has been reached during the investigation period and the companies withdraw from investigation and immediately refile.

Mitigation agreements, which are contracts with CFIUS or CFIUS agencies entered into by the parties to the transaction, are an important element of the CFIUS review and investigation process. These agreements are intended to mitigate possible national security threats posed by a transaction short of requiring that the parties abandon the transaction altogether. The Department of Defense, hereafter DOD, has for many years used various types of mitigation agreements under existing DOD authority and regulations such as the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual, NISPOM, to address the impact of foreign ownership and control over companies that have classified contracts with the Pentagon or intelligence agencies. In recent years, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security have also done so.

S. 1610 reinforces CFIUS's capacity to refuse, suspend, modify or reverse any transaction if a written notice of such transaction is not filed with CFIUS or if there is an intentional material omission or falsehood in connection with a completed CFIUS review or investigation, or an intentional material breach in any posttransaction mitigation agreement, and establishes a formal requirement that all filings with CFIUS must be complete and accurate to the best of the filing party's ability. Thus, the committee establishes a

clear signal that all violations of such notice certification should be considered in the context of title 18, section 1001, and all intentional breaches or misstatements could also lead to severe modification or divestment of an acquisition of a previously reviewed transaction at any time.

The bill also establishes a mechanism by which CFIUS can unilaterally reopen a transaction that had previously been approved. My expectation is that this authority will only be used in exceptional circumstances when no other remedies exist and where there has been an intentional breach that affects national security. For that reason, the bill requires important procedural safeguards to ensure that this authority is not used lightly--among other safeguards, it requires, for example, that the decision to reopen a case is made at the same level of seniority as is required in the bill for the approval of transactions. The bill makes clear that CFIUS can only reopen a transaction if these threshold tests are met.

Of necessity, the reviews and investigations, which contain classified evaluations of national security vulnerabilities as well as extensive proprietary business information, remain highly confidential. Given this lack of transparency, there have been concerns over the years about CFIUS's accountability to Congress and to the public, particularly with regard to fundamental questions of whether CFIUS policies are consistent with the statute, executive orders, and regulations that govern its operations and whether CFIUS policies are applied consistently from transaction to transaction.

CFIUS has explicit authority in the regulations to open a case in the event that CFIUS discovers there has been a material misstatement or omission in the information provided by the parties to the transaction. CFIUS agencies also have all of the remedies that are normally available under a contract in order to enforce the terms of the mitigation agreement. In addition, in a large number of CFIUS cases, and particularly those involving the Defense Department, CFIUS approvals can be effectively nullified simply by ending the federal agency's contracting relationship with the company. Defense-related contracts are often a central element of CFIUS transactions, so the threat of being denied a contract going forward ensures compliance with the terms of mitigation agreements or other conditions agreed to by the foreign investor.

On October 6, 2005, under the leadership of then-Chairman Richard Shelby, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs conducted a hearing into the findings of the GAO report. Discussion between the GAO witnesses and Banking Committee members further highlighted deficiencies in implementation of Exon-Florio and the level of dissatisfaction with the lack of communication between CFIUS and the appropriate oversight committees of Congress. That hearing was followed on October 20, 2005, by another hearing that allowed the Banking Committee to hear directly from many of the agencies that comprise CFIUS, including the Department of the Treasury, which has the lead role in implementing Exon-Florio, as well as private sector representatives.

In late January 2006 congressional offices became aware of the proposed acquisition of terminal operations at a number of U.S. maritime ports by Dubai Ports World, hereafter DPW, an established port operator owned by the government of the Emirate of Dubai. Concern within Congress about a transaction that would transfer control of terminal operations to a company owned by a Persian Gulf emirate through whose financial system funds had been transferred to the terrorists who carried out the September 11, 2001, attacks upon the United States, and that had been a central conduit for nuclear weapons components being smuggled to hostile regimes, provided further impetus for review of the manner in which foreign transactions were being analyzed by CFIUS.

That senior White House officials, and the Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries of the Departments of the Treasury and Homeland Security were unaware of the Dubai Ports World transaction, combined with the fact this transaction was not subjected to a formal investigation in violation of the Byrd amendment, compounded congressional concerns about the nature of the underlying transaction.

In response to congressional criticism related to the DPW case in 2006, CFIUS agencies pledged to address flaws in the CFIUS process identified by Congress. There were 113 transactions filed with CFIUS in 2006, up 74 percent from the previous year. Because companies seek CFIUS consideration voluntarily, this increase reflected greater sensitivity among foreign investors, which in turn may reflect a more aggressive stance from CFIUS. CFIUS conducted seven second-stage investigations, the same number of investigations that had been conducted over the previous five-year period. There was also an increase in the number of companies withdrawing from CFIUS reviews and investigations, which suggests a higher degree of scrutiny: either companies withdrew for the purpose of terminating the underlying transaction or in order to restructure the transaction to address CFIUS concerns.

The number of cases in which CFIUS approved transactions with conditions attached through mitigation agreements also increased. CFIUS has also increased its Congressional outreach, notifying the Congressional leadership and committees of jurisdiction upon completion of CFIUS action on each transaction. Treasury also finally produced the long-overdue quadrennial report on CFIUS-related issues as mandated by the Defense Production Act of 1950.

In response to continued concerns regarding implementation of Exon- Florio, on April 30, 2006, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs reported an original bill, S. 109-264, which made significant amendments to Section 721 to strengthen the review and oversight process. Senate bill 109-264 passed the Senate on July 26, 2006. On the same day the House passed its own reform legislation, H.R. 5337. No further action occurred on the bills prior to the adjournment of the 109th Congress.

On February 28, 2007, The House once again passed legislation amending section 721 to strengthen the foreign investment review process, H.R. 556--The National Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act of 2007. On May 16, 2007, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs convened to consider and report an original bill--the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007--Proposed by Chairman Christopher J. Dodd, working closely with Ranking Member Richard Shelby and drawing upon the extensive work that members of the committee had undertaken on this subject in the 109th Congress.

Let me offer a brief summary of the most important provisions of the bill.

The Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007--

Establishes the membership of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS, in statute;

Strengthens the role of the Director of National Intelligence, hereafter DNI, by making the DNI an ex-officio member of CFIUS and requiring that the Director undertake a thorough analysis of the transaction with respect to any national security implications, engage the intelligence community, and report the DNI's findings to the committee within 20 days of the commencement of the CFIUS review. Requires the DNI to update CFIUS with any additional relevant intelligence information that becomes available during the course of a review and/or investigation;

Mandates the designation of a lead agency or agencies for each covered transaction, in addition to the Treasury Department, charged with negotiating any mitigation agreement or other conditions to ensure that national security is protected, and for follow-up compliance with the terms of the agreement after the transaction has been approved by

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Claire Collier Social Security Disability Insurance Fairness Act. This legislation will ensure that individuals suffering from certain terminal diseases are entitled to receive Social Security disability benefits. Under current law, an individual who contracts a covered terminal illness, and who has not been part of the workforce for a period of time, may not qualify for Social Security disability benefits they would otherwise be entitled to.

This bill is named after Claire Collier, a Stamford, Connecticut mother of three, who I first met a few years ago after she was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, in 2003. ALS, commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease, first strikes the nerve cells, then weakens the muscles, causes paralysis and tragically leads to death.

Three years ago, Claire applied for Social Security disability benefits. However, she was denied the benefits because she did not have enough work credits. Ms. Collier, who worked for more than 15 years as an events planner, does not qualify for Social Security disability benefits, even though she paid Social Security and Medicare taxes for more than 15 years. The reason is the Social Security Act mandates that an individual earn 20 quarters of Social Security earnings during the 10 years preceding a disability to collect benefits. This discriminates against people who have earned the required number of credits outside of the time period prescribed under current law.

Under the present system, hardworking Americans, such as Claire Collier, are being denied benefits at a time when they need them most. In Claire's case, the rules are especially unfair since she has been penalized for choosing to stay at home with her children prior to being diagnosed with ALS.

The bill I am sponsoring will change the eligibility standard. The Claire Collier legislation will amend the Social Security Act to provide that the eligibility standard for disability insurance benefits not be applicable in the case of a disabled individual suffering from a terminal illness.

Passage of this important legislation will simply ensure fairness. We should reward individuals who contribute to Social Security, not punish them. The Claire Collier Social Security Disability Insurance Fairness Act will eliminate inequity in the current system. I look forward to working with

my colleagues to see that this legislation is not only passed by this body soon, but that it is signed into law.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Claire Collier Social Security Disability Insurance Fairness Act. This legislation will ensure that individuals suffering from certain terminal diseases are entitled to receive Social Security disability benefits. Under current law, an individual who contracts a covered terminal illness, and who has not been part of the workforce for a period of time, may not qualify for Social Security disability benefits they would otherwise be entitled to.

This bill is named after Claire Collier, a Stamford, Connecticut mother of three, who I first met a few years ago after she was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, in 2003. ALS, commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease, first strikes the nerve cells, then weakens the muscles, causes paralysis and tragically leads to death.

Three years ago, Claire applied for Social Security disability benefits. However, she was denied the benefits because she did not have enough work credits. Ms. Collier, who worked for more than 15 years as an events planner, does not qualify for Social Security disability benefits, even though she paid Social Security and Medicare taxes for more than 15 years. The reason is the Social Security Act mandates that an individual earn 20 quarters of Social Security earnings during the 10 years preceding a disability to collect benefits. This discriminates against people who have earned the required number of credits outside of the time period prescribed under current law.

Under the present system, hardworking Americans, such as Claire Collier, are being denied benefits at a time when they need them most. In Claire's case, the rules are especially unfair since she has been penalized for choosing to stay at home with her children prior to being diagnosed with ALS.

The bill I am sponsoring will change the eligibility standard. The Claire Collier legislation will amend the Social Security Act to provide that the eligibility standard for disability insurance benefits not be applicable in the case of a disabled individual suffering from a terminal illness.

Passage of this important legislation will simply ensure fairness. We should reward individuals who contribute to Social Security, not punish them. The Claire Collier Social Security Disability Insurance Fairness Act will eliminate inequity in the current system. I look forward to working with

my colleagues to see that this legislation is not only passed by this body soon, but that it is signed into law.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that will ensure dignity and prosperity for millions of American workers.

It is no secret that unions helped build in America the largest and strongest middle class the world had ever seen. But where does that middle class stand today? Since 2000, real median household income is down, real wages are down; real wages, in fact, are lower now than they were in 1973. Nearly 50 million Americans, and more every day, are without health insurance. And all this stagnation while corporate profits are up 83 percent since 2005, while the pay of CEOs has skyrocketed to 411 times the pay of their workers.

It is no secret that, while American inequality has reached these heights, fewer and fewer workers are members of unions. In large part, that is not by choice. Worker intimidation is not the activity of a few outlaws--it is persistent, it is systemic, and it is devastating. Employers illegally fired workers in one quarter of union organizing drives. In 2005, more than 30,000 workers were discriminated against in connection with union-busting activities.

If we are going to preserve the American middle class--if workers are going to have the ability to bargain for their fair share--then we need to deter coercion and discrimination; we need a way for workers to fearlessly let their voices be heard.

The Employee Free Choice Act is the tool they need. It has three key provisions.

First, the bill recognizes that union elections are often the high point of employers' intimidation tactics. Rather than provide them a concentrated target, the EFCA establishes majority signup: If a majority of workers sign cards stating that they want union representation, a union is certified as their official collective bargaining agent. Workers are still free to participate in a secret ballot election supervised by the National Labor Relations Board if they so choose; but the Employee Free Choice Act gives that choice to workers themselves.

Second, the bill provides strict penalties for employers interfering with their workers' free choice to join or establish a union. Under the bill, the National Labor Relations Board may obtain a court injunction against an employer that is illegally firing or otherwise harassing workers. Illegally fired workers will be entitled to three times their back pay--a strong deterrent. And willful and repeated violation of workers' rights will result in a civil fine of $20,000 per incident. These penalties replace consequences that, to date, have proven ineffective. Companies will no longer have an incentive to ignore the law.

Third, the bill makes it easier for unions and employers to reach their first contract. It stipulates that bargaining must begin within 10 days of a new union being certified. If, after 90 days, no agreement has been reached, this legislation then authorizes either party to seek mediation through the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, which, in 2006 handled more than 5,500 cases and had an 86 percent success rate; if no contract is reached after 30 days of mediation, the parties will then submit to binding arbitration, which will impose a contract that lasts for 2 years. This clear process ensures that unions serve their purpose--because, without contracts, collective bargaining is meaningless.

There is no doubt that majority signup, stricter intimidation penalties, and the clear first contract process will strengthen American unions. But this is not a union bill, not if that term is understood to mean any narrow constituency or any narrow interest. Whatever his or her choice, it is in the interest of every American worker to have that choice recorded fairly, free from fear and threat. When the unfair and illegal barriers are removed, however, I am confident that more and more workers will put their trust in unions. Unions offer millions of us better wages, sounder health care, and more secure pensions. They are the best way we have yet discovered to share the fruits of our prosperity more equally. Workers know that, Mr. President--and they are waiting to be heard.

Mr. President, I am proud to submit S. Con. Res. 39, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of a world day of remembrance for road crash victims. This resolution is the Senate companion to H. Con. Res. 87, which was recently submitted in the House.

Each crash might seem to us, in its immediacy, like an isolated tragedy, but when we step back, we see that each has its part in a global crisis that is deepening year by year. The day of remembrance-- set by the United Nations General Assembly for the third Sunday of November--is not just for the 40,000 people who die in road crashes each year in America; it is for the 1.2 million who die in crashes in every part of the world and for the staggering 20 to 50 million who are injured. In fact, the World Health Organization predicts that, by the year 2020, the death rate from crashes each year will surpass the death rate from AIDS.

True, many of these crashes are unique disasters, but that leaves many more whose causes are systemic and preventable. Unsafe roads, poor medical facilities, and inadequate driver education all contribute their share to the death toll. And unsurprisingly, the toll is highest, and rising, in middle- and low-income countries. Road safety, then, is an issue of economic justice.

On the world day of remembrance, we will recall all of the victims of road crashes; we keep their families in our thoughts, and we pray for the full recovery of those still living. But our compassion for individuals must not obscure the bigger picture. ``We have to change the way we think about crashes,'' said Diza Gonzaga, the mother of a car-crash victim in Brazil. ``The majority of people think that crashes are due to fate. We have to think of a crash as a preventable event.''

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the pending energy bill and the future of energy in the U.S. I commend Chairman Bingaman for crafting this compromise bill and bringing it before the full Senate for consideration. Like many of us, he recognizes that the energy crisis we face will be long-term and life-altering, and that we must enlist all Americans, and the cooperation of governments worldwide, to solve it.

Let's be honest. We have only gotten to this critical point because we have put off for too long momentous energy decisions. In fact, the main answer to our energy dilemma from the party across the aisle while they were in power in Congress was the 2005 energy bill, a scandalous mix of billions in drilling subsidies and other giveaways to big oil companies which even some of them admitted were unnecessary. That effort was doomed from the start: While we consume 25 percent of the world's oil, we only hold 3 percent of its reserves--so we can't, we never could, drill our way out of the problem. The results of that bill in the last 2 years haven't been surprising: skyrocketing oil and gas prices; no slackening of demand; increased U.S. dependence on foreign oil; underfunding of renewable energy initiatives; and slashed conservation funding. This bill takes us in a much better direction, with progressive new policies. And that is critical. If we are to address honestly the threat posed by America's addiction to carbon- based fossil fuels, and especially imported oil, it is long past time to move in a better direction, and to make some difficult choices.

We have known for a long time about the three-fold threat--to our national security, our economic vitality, and our environmental health--posed by our over-reliance on foreign oil. To our national security, because we now import about 60 percent of our oil from some of the most politically unstable regions of the world, governed by authoritarian regimes, some serving as breeding grounds for terror. To our economic vitality, through high gasoline prices, rising home heating costs, and electricity price spikes which strain family budgets, burden businesses, and make our Nation less competitive. To our environmental health, due to smog, climate change, increased asthma risks, cancer and other diseases caused or exacerbated by pollution. We continue on this path to our peril. A better way forward is to embark now on a course of dramatic change in our energy policies, including setting clear long-term goals and enforceable benchmarks; backing our rhetoric on conservation, renewable energy and other initiatives with real funding; scaling back wasteful oil industry subsidies, and including all Americans in energy conservation efforts. If we do it right, Middle East imports will decline and vital U.S. interests will be made less vulnerable; our air will be cleaner; new jobs in the renewable sector will be created, our rural communities will be revitalized through energy innovation, and our relationships with allies and overall position in the world will be strengthened.

Our over-reliance on foreign oil, especially from the Middle East, makes us vulnerable to price spikes, supply disruptions, and market uncertainty. We also, sadly, pay for the privilege of propping up authoritarian regimes that use oil reserves to bolster their own power, insulate themselves from demands for political and economic liberalization, and protect themselves from the need to improve their human rights records--what NYT columnist Tom Friedman calls ``petro- authoritarianism.'' This is why the government of Iran can suppress its own people; it's why Russia can crush Chechnya and intimidate its neighbors; it's why China, a major owner of Sudan's main oil consortium, can continue to block effective U.N. action on Darfur. We are effectively financing them to do it through our oil purchases.

And we have been doing this for decades. I was first elected to Congress in 1974, in the wake of an energy crisis prompted by an OPEC oil embargo. It was a summer of gas lines and shortages, of steps large and small taken to address the problem. And now here we are, fighting another uphill battle to enact a good energy bill, which contains an important set of incremental steps to address these problems. I would like us to go much farther than this bill does. But at least with its passage we would finally be headed in the right direction.

I think almost everyone in this Chamber would agree that the future of energy in this country, to the maximum extent possible, should be clean, green, domestic, and renewable. We know that our dependence on foreign oil leaves us vulnerable, increases our trade deficit, and creates volatility in energy prices and hardships for American consumers and businesses. We know that emissions from fossil-fuel fired powerplants cause unnecessary illnesses and deaths. And we know that our emissions of greenhouse gases are causing global climate change, which is leading to higher sea levels, melting glaciers, shifting ecosystems, and ocean acidification.

Our national energy policy must be retooled to address those threats directly, and to encourage the development and deployment of technologies that will encourage the use of clean, domestic, renewable energy. This bill, modest as it is, does that, I applaud Senators Stevens, Inouye, Feinstein, and others for crafting a compromise on fuel economy standards, though we must recognize that it is a compromise: the new fuel economy standards contained in this bill do not do enough to achieve the full potential of current technologies to increase fuel efficiency. Even so, setting the CAFE target at 35 miles per gallon by 2020, is

an important advance for a Congress that has not managed to increase standards at all for over 20 years. There was no increase in fuel economy standards to blame for the decline in American auto manufacturers' market share from 73 percent in 1986 to 55 percent in 2006; the future strength or weakness of those manufacturers will depend far more on the extent to which they transform themselves by taking advantage of new green vehicle technologies in the coming years. The same arguments we have heard for many years--that the technology is unavailable to enable these higher standards, that they will make cars less safe, that we will hurt our own manufacturers--are the ones made in the late 1970's; they are no more true now than they were then.

We have spent much of this debate on a few contentious issues, but there are many significant provisions in the bill that have not been as widely discussed, including creating research and demonstration programs for carbon capture and sequestration, substantially increasing appliance efficiency standards, and making the Federal Government a leader in the use of renewable energy and green construction. Moreover, this legislation puts the Senate on record in our support of engagement with other countries, especially those in the Western Hemisphere, to better coordinate energy security and assure diverse and reliable energy supplies. While it is not perfect, it is a step in the right direction.

Mr. President, let me say a final word about the elephant in the room, which we have scarcely acknowledged thus far in this debate about energy policy: climate change. Climate and energy policy are inextricable--any energy policy we adopt will have an enormous impact on the climate. I recognize that this body is not yet ready to adopt a comprehensive measure to substantially limit emissions of greenhouse gases, or to take the bold step of imposing some form of a comprehensive corporate carbon tax. If we were honest with the American people, that is the kind of bold step we would take to help resolve our energy dilemma.

The truth is that, on energy and climate issues, Americans are ahead of their political leaders. They understand the serious, long-term cumulative threat climate change poses to their children and grandchildren; they're willing to make tough choices to address it. They understand that cleaner energy is possible; they know that fuel- efficient vehicles and appliances are within reach--but they're worried that American manufacturers are falling behind. Americans overwhelmingly support the development of alternative energy, higher mileage standards, hybrid vehicles, and incentives to produce and install more energy efficient appliances. They see the potential for savings generated by energy-efficient technologies, both for their families and for a more efficient, more effective use of their tax dollars by government. And they want change. They understand that the threats of climate change are not geographically remote or far off in time; they are real and urgent. I hope that the day when we can take up and pass tough new controls on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases arrives soon. But however we address emissions and efficiency, conservation, bio-fuels, fuel economy, and other important provisions, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and to start us on the road towards a future of clean, domestic, and renewable energy.

Mr. President, I rise briefly to speak for a few moments about the horrible tragedy we witnessed Tuesday morning in Charleston, SC: the death of nine firefighters: Captain Wiliam ``Billy'' Hutchinson, Captain Mike Benke, Captain Louis Mulkey, Engineer Mark Kelsey, Engineer Bradford ``Billy'' Baity, Assistant Engineer Michael French, Firefighter James ``Earl'' Drayton, Firefighter Brendon Thompson, and Firefighter Melvin Champaign.

Clearly, this loss is one of profound sadness for the Charleston community and, indeed, for the entire Nation. My thoughts and prayers go out to these firefighters' loved ones, families, friends, and colleagues.

These nine brave men died while fighting a horrific multialarm fire in which two people were ultimately

saved. In other words, they selflessly gave their lives while ensuring the safety and well-being of others. This is the ultimate sacrifice of a firefighter--a sacrifice that has been made by 3,148 men and women since 1981.

We must never forget the dangers firefighters across our Nation dauntlessly face each and every day--dangers that have their roots in nature or mankind. Whether responding to fires, natural disasters, or acts of terrorism, our firefighters risk and give their lives extinguishing fires, delivering lifesaving emergency medical services, conducting search and rescue missions, and responding to and handling hazardous biological and radiological agents. Our Nation's firefighters certainly do not perform these duties for any self-glorification. They perform these duties because each and every one of them answers a noble call to serve this country and protect its people from harm.

Woodrow Wilson once wrote that ``. . . loyalty means nothing unless it has at its heart the absolute principle of self-sacrifice.'' Clearly, the loyalty of these nine firefighters--loyalty to duty, country, and each other--were tragically demonstrated overnight Monday. May we mourn them and draw inspiration from their actions. May we never forget them.

Mr. President, I am proud to add my voice in support of H. Con. Res. 86, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of a world day of remembrance for road crash victims.

Each crash might seem to us, in its immediacy, like an isolated tragedy, but when we step back, we see that each has its part in a global crisis that is deepening year by year. The day of remembrance-- set by the United Nations General Assembly for the third Sunday of November--is not just for the 40,000 people who die in road crashes each year in America. It is for the 1.2 million who die in crashes in every part of the world and for the staggering 20 to 50 million who are injured. In fact, the World Health Organization predicts that, by the year 2020, the death rate from crashes each year will surpass the death rate from AIDS.

True, many of these crashes are unique disasters, but that leaves many more whose causes are systemic and preventable. Unsafe roads, poor medical facilities, and inadequate driver education all contribute their share to the death toll. Unsurprisingly, the toll is highest, and rising, in middle- and low-income countries. Road safety, then, is an issue of economic justice.

On the world day of remembrance, we will recall all of the victims of road crashes; we keep their families in our thoughts, and we pray for the full recovery of those still living. But our compassion for individuals must not obscure the bigger picture. ``We have to change the way we think about crashes,'' said Diza Gonzaga, the mother of a car-crash victim in Brazil. ``The majority of people think that crashes are due to fate. We have to think of a crash as a preventable event.''

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Currency Reform and Financial Markets Access Act of 2007 on behalf of myself, Senator Shelby, Senator Bayh, Senator Carper, Senator Brown, and Senator Casey.

Nearly two decades ago, the Senate Banking Committee enacted legislation which required the Treasury Department to identify countries that manipulate their currency for purposes of gaining an unfair competitive trade advantage and to take prompt action to eliminate the unfair trade advantage when manipulation is found.

One of the very first actions that I undertook as chairman-elect of the Senate Banking Committee in December 2006 was to write a letter with then-Chairman Shelby to the Treasury Secretary about the report required under this legislation, the International Economic and Exchange Rate Policy Report and the inaugural U.S.-China strategic economic dialogue, SED. In that letter, we expressed our concern that the Treasury Department had not cited China, and potentially other nations, as currency manipulators.

At one of the very first hearings I held as chairman, in January 2007, Treasury Secretary Paulson provided his first congressional testimony since his confirmation, on the SED and the exchange rate report. At that hearing, Secretary Paulson testified that China did not meet the technical requirement for designation as a currency manipulator and that the SED is the ``best chance to get some progress [on the currency issue].''

Senator Shelby and I wrote to Secretary Paulson in advance of the most recent exchange rate report and the May SED urging him to consider steps beyond dialogue to eliminate the unfair trade advantage resulting from China's ongoing currency manipulation and discriminatory market access practices. But instead of taking action, the Treasury Department once again chose not to cite China as a currency manipulator in its latest report to the Senate Banking Committee, despite acknowledging ``heavy foreign exchange market intervention by China's central bank to manage the currency tightly.''

Secretary Paulson's efforts to engage the Chinese through dialogue are commendable, but after two meetings of the strategic economic dialogue, numerous congressional hearings, and the shortcomings of the most recent exchange rate reports, it is clear that dialogue alone is not enough to make progress and legislative action is needed.

Therefore, Senator Shelby and I are today introducing the Currency Reform and Financial Markets Access Act of 2007 which will provide the Treasury Department and Congress new, tough authority to recognize and remedy currency manipulation without ambiguity or delay.

Under current law, Treasury claims that no countries meet the technical finding of intent to manipulate their currencies. Treasury reiterated this point in its most recent exchange rate report, stating:

The Department of the Treasury concluded that, although the

Chinese currency is undervalued, China did not meet the

technical requirements for designation under the terms of

Section 3004 of the Act during the period under

consideration. Treasury was unable to determine that China's

exchange rate policy was carried out for the purpose of

preventing effective balance of payments adjustment or

gaining unfair competitive advantage in international trade.

The Currency Reform and Financial Markets Access Act of 2007 requires a Treasury designation of currency manipulation based on objective data, and without regard to subjective factors such as purpose or intent, removing a technicality that the Treasury Department has been using to defend its inaction.

Once currency manipulation is found, the bill requires the Treasury Department to submit a detailed plan of action to the Congress within 30 days of such finding. The plan of action sets specific timeframes and benchmarks, with the goal of remedying the manipulation. The bill also requires the Treasury to initiate both bilateral and multilateral negotiations, including immediate IMF consultations and to use the Treasury's voice and vote at the IMF to address the manipulation.

Our bill also provides new authority for the Treasury to file a WTO article XV case to remedy currency manipulation if the goals and benchmarks for progress are not met within 9 months of designation.

If the Treasury continues to avoid designating countries as currency manipulators, our bill creates a new process by which Congress, led by either the Senate Banking or House Financial Services Committee, can originate a joint resolution of disapproval of the Treasury's inaction and provides for an expedited process for such a motion through the floors of both Chambers.

Finally, the Currency Reform and Financial Markets Access Act of 2007 promotes market access for U.S. financial services firms to level the playing field for American businesses and to help develop the financial sector reform needed to support a freely floating currency in China. It also requires the Treasury Department to report on the progress of the SED, as well as on opening foreign markets to American financial services firms. It is time for American firms to be afforded the same open and fair treatment abroad that our country provides to foreign firms in the United States.

I am confident that in a free and fair environment American business and entrepreneurship will flourish. Our bill will require Treasury to assume its responsibility as a referee and will fight to level this playing field by identifying and addressing unfair practices and market access barriers.

During the SED events in Beijing, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke talked about the market distortions that result from ``an effective subsidy that an undervalued currency provides for Chinese firms that focus on exporting.'' I agree with Chairman Bernanke that undervalued currency is an export subsidy causing market disruptions and fully dealing with such subsidies can involve some trade remedies that are not within the Banking Committee's jurisdiction and hence not within the scope of this bill. But, remedying countervailable export subsidies is a policy that could be fully appropriate and supported by myself and my colleagues through other legislative proposals.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a one page summary of the bill, and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Family Leave Insurance Act of 2007 and especially pleased to be joined by my colleague Senator Stevens. This bill, which would provide 8 weeks of paid benefits to workers who take time off for reasons allowed under the Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, is an important step in continuing to help our Nation's workers to be both productive employees and responsible family members.

Before the FMLA, workers had no guarantee that their jobs would still be there if they took time off to care for loved ones or recover from illness themselves. Millions of Americans were forced into a challenging dilemma: care for their families, or provide for them.

That is why I worked to create the FMLA in 1985, and that is why I fought for its passage through 7 years of obstruction and two presidential vetoes, pointing out that its denial of guaranteed leave put America virtually alone among nations, industrialized or otherwise.

Finally, on February 5, 1993, the Family and Medical Leave Act was signed into law. Under its protection, eligible workers receive 12 weeks of leave every year, so that they can watch over a newborn or adopted baby, or help a parent through an illness, or get better themselves, knowing that their job will be there when they return. To date, more than 50 million Americans have taken that opportunity. The FMLA isn't just good for American workers, it is good for American business. Ninety percent of employers have reported that the FMLA had a neutral or positive effect on profits.

Today, the idea of guaranteed leave seems obvious; but now, it is time to take another step in making that hard-won leave a possibility for even more Americans. In the 21st century, working families should not have to give up the leave they earned because they cannot afford it, they deserve paid leave.

Why do we offer nothing, when the European standard is 14 paid weeks? Why are we one of only four countries in the world to deny paid maternity leave, leaving us in the company of Swaziland, Liberia, and Papua New Guinea?

For every worker who can weather a day without pay, three more can't afford the loss. To these workers, unpaid leave is a hollow promise, an impossible choice between the family they love and the job they need.

I believe it is a choice that no American should ever again be forced to make. When Congress passed and President Clinton signed the FMLA, we affirmed that health and family should never have to suffer because of the demands of work. I fail to see why that right should only be afforded to Americans in a certain income bracket.

With the introduction of the Family Leave Insurance Act, we take a huge step toward making family leave a possibility for all Americans. Its 8 weeks of paid leave per year will apply to employees who need time off for any of the reasons included in the FMLA: birth of a child; placement of an adopted or foster child; the care for a child, parent, or spouse with a serious medical condition; or recovery from a serious personal medical condition. Benefits will be tiered on the basis of wages, with the tiers themselves indexed to inflation. This structure will provide the greatest benefit to those with the lowest salaries. And workers who are covered by the FMLA will retain their health insurance and will be guaranteed a return to their job, or a comparable position, on their return.

The act creates a new Family Leave Insurance Fund into which premiums are paid, to finance benefit payments, allowing stakeholders to pool risk and lower costs, and funded through small, shared premiums. Those costs will be shared by employees and employers; the Federal Government will pay for administrative costs. Participation will be mandatory for all businesses with 50 employees or more; those with fewer employees can choose to participate and receive a discount on premium payments. To reduce administrative burdens for employers and employees, employers will pay leave benefits to employees through their regular payroll, with prompt reimbursement from the Family Leave Insurance Fund.

We know that many employers, both large and small, offer very generous leave policies, exemplifying best business practices. Through this legislation, we seek to support companies who offer paid leave so they continue to do so, and to create an incentive for smaller companies to offer paid leave. A provision in the bill allows employers to maintain their own paid leave plan, if it is certified to be equivalent or better to the plan in this legislation.

Our bill will also allow States flexibility in maintaining their existing programs. Several States already have systems to provide paid family and medical leave, and several more have legislation pending to create such systems. In recent years, more than 25 States have introduced legislation to create paid leave programs. The landscape in the States is changing quickly on policies for working families and there are complex issues around the interaction between this legislation, State programs and employers within States. We look forward to collaborating with States so they can maintain maximum flexibility, and provide the best leave policy, as the bill moves forward.

As the FMLA has demonstrated so strongly, family leave benefits both workers and businesses, and that is certainly the case for paid family leave. Paid leave cuts down on employee turnover and the high costs of training replacements; it has been shown to raise morale and productivity; and it levels the playing field by allowing small businesses to adopt a benefit that many of their larger competitors have been offering for years.

Our changing workforce demonstrates the strong need for paid family and medical leave. Almost 80 percent of the workforce is made up of

dual earner couples, who struggle to find time to care for their sick children or their own illnesses. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the workforce will be caring for older parents by 2010. For these and many other reasons, this bill is the right policy.

The FMLA established the principle, and now the Family Leave Insurance Act puts it into practice and into reach for more Americans. Its passage will bring America closer to the world's standards, help our businesses, and protect our workforce. In the lives of millions of Americans, it will help reduce the dilemma of balancing work and family. Let us continue to work together: Government, business and employees need to continue this conversation and improve our policies for working families and individual employees who need paid leave. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Currency Reform and Financial Markets Access Act of 2007 on behalf of myself, Senator Shelby, Senator Bayh, Senator Carper, Senator Brown, and Senator Casey.

Nearly two decades ago, the Senate Banking Committee enacted legislation which required the Treasury Department to identify countries that manipulate their currency for purposes of gaining an unfair competitive trade advantage and to take prompt action to eliminate the unfair trade advantage when manipulation is found.

One of the very first actions that I undertook as chairman-elect of the Senate Banking Committee in December 2006 was to write a letter with then-Chairman Shelby to the Treasury Secretary about the report required under this legislation, the International Economic and Exchange Rate Policy Report and the inaugural U.S.-China strategic economic dialogue, SED. In that letter, we expressed our concern that the Treasury Department had not cited China, and potentially other nations, as currency manipulators.

At one of the very first hearings I held as chairman, in January 2007, Treasury Secretary Paulson provided his first congressional testimony since his confirmation, on the SED and the exchange rate report. At that hearing, Secretary Paulson testified that China did not meet the technical requirement for designation as a currency manipulator and that the SED is the ``best chance to get some progress [on the currency issue].''

Senator Shelby and I wrote to Secretary Paulson in advance of the most recent exchange rate report and the May SED urging him to consider steps beyond dialogue to eliminate the unfair trade advantage resulting from China's ongoing currency manipulation and discriminatory market access practices. But instead of taking action, the Treasury Department once again chose not to cite China as a currency manipulator in its latest report to the Senate Banking Committee, despite acknowledging ``heavy foreign exchange market intervention by China's central bank to manage the currency tightly.''

Secretary Paulson's efforts to engage the Chinese through dialogue are commendable, but after two meetings of the strategic economic dialogue, numerous congressional hearings, and the shortcomings of the most recent exchange rate reports, it is clear that dialogue alone is not enough to make progress and legislative action is needed.

Therefore, Senator Shelby and I are today introducing the Currency Reform and Financial Markets Access Act of 2007 which will provide the Treasury Department and Congress new, tough authority to recognize and remedy currency manipulation without ambiguity or delay.

Under current law, Treasury claims that no countries meet the technical finding of intent to manipulate their currencies. Treasury reiterated this point in its most recent exchange rate report, stating:

The Department of the Treasury concluded that, although the

Chinese currency is undervalued, China did not meet the

technical requirements for designation under the terms of

Section 3004 of the Act during the period under

consideration. Treasury was unable to determine that China's

exchange rate policy was carried out for the purpose of

preventing effective balance of payments adjustment or

gaining unfair competitive advantage in international trade.

The Currency Reform and Financial Markets Access Act of 2007 requires a Treasury designation of currency manipulation based on objective data, and without regard to subjective factors such as purpose or intent, removing a technicality that the Treasury Department has been using to defend its inaction.

Once currency manipulation is found, the bill requires the Treasury Department to submit a detailed plan of action to the Congress within 30 days of such finding. The plan of action sets specific timeframes and benchmarks, with the goal of remedying the manipulation. The bill also requires the Treasury to initiate both bilateral and multilateral negotiations, including immediate IMF consultations and to use the Treasury's voice and vote at the IMF to address the manipulation.

Our bill also provides new authority for the Treasury to file a WTO article XV case to remedy currency manipulation if the goals and benchmarks for progress are not met within 9 months of designation.

If the Treasury continues to avoid designating countries as currency manipulators, our bill creates a new process by which Congress, led by either the Senate Banking or House Financial Services Committee, can originate a joint resolution of disapproval of the Treasury's inaction and provides for an expedited process for such a motion through the floors of both Chambers.

Finally, the Currency Reform and Financial Markets Access Act of 2007 promotes market access for U.S. financial services firms to level the playing field for American businesses and to help develop the financial sector reform needed to support a freely floating currency in China. It also requires the Treasury Department to report on the progress of the SED, as well as on opening foreign markets to American financial services firms. It is time for American firms to be afforded the same open and fair treatment abroad that our country provides to foreign firms in the United States.

I am confident that in a free and fair environment American business and entrepreneurship will flourish. Our bill will require Treasury to assume its responsibility as a referee and will fight to level this playing field by identifying and addressing unfair practices and market access barriers.

During the SED events in Beijing, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke talked about the market distortions that result from ``an effective subsidy that an undervalued currency provides for Chinese firms that focus on exporting.'' I agree with Chairman Bernanke that undervalued currency is an export subsidy causing market disruptions and fully dealing with such subsidies can involve some trade remedies that are not within the Banking Committee's jurisdiction and hence not within the scope of this bill. But, remedying countervailable export subsidies is a policy that could be fully appropriate and supported by myself and my colleagues through other legislative proposals.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a one page summary of the bill, and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Family Leave Insurance Act of 2007 and especially pleased to be joined by my colleague Senator Stevens. This bill, which would provide 8 weeks of paid benefits to workers who take time off for reasons allowed under the Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, is an important step in continuing to help our Nation's workers to be both productive employees and responsible family members.

Before the FMLA, workers had no guarantee that their jobs would still be there if they took time off to care for loved ones or recover from illness themselves. Millions of Americans were forced into a challenging dilemma: care for their families, or provide for them.

That is why I worked to create the FMLA in 1985, and that is why I fought for its passage through 7 years of obstruction and two presidential vetoes, pointing out that its denial of guaranteed leave put America virtually alone among nations, industrialized or otherwise.

Finally, on February 5, 1993, the Family and Medical Leave Act was signed into law. Under its protection, eligible workers receive 12 weeks of leave every year, so that they can watch over a newborn or adopted baby, or help a parent through an illness, or get better themselves, knowing that their job will be there when they return. To date, more than 50 million Americans have taken that opportunity. The FMLA isn't just good for American workers, it is good for American business. Ninety percent of employers have reported that the FMLA had a neutral or positive effect on profits.

Today, the idea of guaranteed leave seems obvious; but now, it is time to take another step in making that hard-won leave a possibility for even more Americans. In the 21st century, working families should not have to give up the leave they earned because they cannot afford it, they deserve paid leave.

Why do we offer nothing, when the European standard is 14 paid weeks? Why are we one of only four countries in the world to deny paid maternity leave, leaving us in the company of Swaziland, Liberia, and Papua New Guinea?

For every worker who can weather a day without pay, three more can't afford the loss. To these workers, unpaid leave is a hollow promise, an impossible choice between the family they love and the job they need.

I believe it is a choice that no American should ever again be forced to make. When Congress passed and President Clinton signed the FMLA, we affirmed that health and family should never have to suffer because of the demands of work. I fail to see why that right should only be afforded to Americans in a certain income bracket.

With the introduction of the Family Leave Insurance Act, we take a huge step toward making family leave a possibility for all Americans. Its 8 weeks of paid leave per year will apply to employees who need time off for any of the reasons included in the FMLA: birth of a child; placement of an adopted or foster child; the care for a child, parent, or spouse with a serious medical condition; or recovery from a serious personal medical condition. Benefits will be tiered on the basis of wages, with the tiers themselves indexed to inflation. This structure will provide the greatest benefit to those with the lowest salaries. And workers who are covered by the FMLA will retain their health insurance and will be guaranteed a return to their job, or a comparable position, on their return.

The act creates a new Family Leave Insurance Fund into which premiums are paid, to finance benefit payments, allowing stakeholders to pool risk and lower costs, and funded through small, shared premiums. Those costs will be shared by employees and employers; the Federal Government will pay for administrative costs. Participation will be mandatory for all businesses with 50 employees or more; those with fewer employees can choose to participate and receive a discount on premium payments. To reduce administrative burdens for employers and employees, employers will pay leave benefits to employees through their regular payroll, with prompt reimbursement from the Family Leave Insurance Fund.

We know that many employers, both large and small, offer very generous leave policies, exemplifying best business practices. Through this legislation, we seek to support companies who offer paid leave so they continue to do so, and to create an incentive for smaller companies to offer paid leave. A provision in the bill allows employers to maintain their own paid leave plan, if it is certified to be equivalent or better to the plan in this legislation.

Our bill will also allow States flexibility in maintaining their existing programs. Several States already have systems to provide paid family and medical leave, and several more have legislation pending to create such systems. In recent years, more than 25 States have introduced legislation to create paid leave programs. The landscape in the States is changing quickly on policies for working families and there are complex issues around the interaction between this legislation, State programs and employers within States. We look forward to collaborating with States so they can maintain maximum flexibility, and provide the best leave policy, as the bill moves forward.

As the FMLA has demonstrated so strongly, family leave benefits both workers and businesses, and that is certainly the case for paid family leave. Paid leave cuts down on employee turnover and the high costs of training replacements; it has been shown to raise morale and productivity; and it levels the playing field by allowing small businesses to adopt a benefit that many of their larger competitors have been offering for years.

Our changing workforce demonstrates the strong need for paid family and medical leave. Almost 80 percent of the workforce is made up of

dual earner couples, who struggle to find time to care for their sick children or their own illnesses. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the workforce will be caring for older parents by 2010. For these and many other reasons, this bill is the right policy.

The FMLA established the principle, and now the Family Leave Insurance Act puts it into practice and into reach for more Americans. Its passage will bring America closer to the world's standards, help our businesses, and protect our workforce. In the lives of millions of Americans, it will help reduce the dilemma of balancing work and family. Let us continue to work together: Government, business and employees need to continue this conversation and improve our policies for working families and individual employees who need paid leave. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, in 6\1/2\ years in office, President Bush has picked up his veto pen only two times. Today he adds a third; and once more, he is standing against hope for thousands of Americans afflicted with deadly diseases. His veto of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act is a grave moral error.

Embryonic stem cell research may one day provide relief to more than 100 million Americans suffering from Parkinson's, diabetes, spinal cord injury, Lou Gehrig's disease, cancer, and many other devastating conditions for which there is still no cure. Today, Federal funds are only allowed for work on 21 stem cell lines that existed as of August 9, 2001, all of which are contaminated. Scientists understand that access to more stem cell lines would significantly expand the scope and possibility of their research. That is why the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act expanded the number of embryonic stem cell lines available for federally funded research by allowing the use of stem cells derived through embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics. Stem cell research turns embryos that would otherwise be discarded into the seeds of life-giving science.

Of course, the decision to dedicate embryos to research is a heavy one. We have never argued otherwise. That is why the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act contained strict ethical requirements. Under this legislation, the only embryonic stem cells that can be used for federally funded research are those that were derived through embryos created for fertility treatment purposes and donated for research with the written, informed consent of the individuals seeking that treatment. Any financial or other inducements to make this donation are prohibited under this legislation. These ethical standards are stronger than current law--possibly stronger, in fact, than the standards attending the creation of the 21 approved lines.

Stem cells from embryos have a unique potential to reduce human suffering--and for precisely that reason, embryonic stem cell research is supported by a strong majority of Americans. Today, President Bush set himself against that potential, and against that majority; he set himself in the way of our scientists, and our suffering patients. I hope that, when he has left office at last, he will come to regret his choice. If not, history will regret it for him.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to call attention to a very serious, painful neurological disorder, dystonia, that affects many muscle groups simultaneously. We recently commemorated Dystonia Awareness Week and I would like to call further attention to this serious disorder.

Dystonia is a painful disorder characterized by powerful involuntary muscle spasms. The spasms cause twisting, repetitive muscle movements, sustained postural deformities, and debilitating physical ailments. Although most forms of dystonia cause no mental damage, people living with dystonia are often prisoners in their own bodies. Currently, no cure is known and available medical therapies can only superficially address the symptoms.

Approximately 50 percent of people with dystonia have a genetically inherited form whereas birth injury, physical trauma, exposure to certain medications, surgery, or stroke is the cause for the other 50 percent. Dystonia is not selective, occurring in all racial, ethnic, and age groups. It is significantly more common than Huntington's disease, muscular dystrophy, and Lou Gehrig's disease. Given the prevalence and dystonia's impact on so many Americans as well as the limited treatment options available, I am pleased to support the goals of Dystonia Awareness Week. The Dystonia Advocacy Coalition through the commemoration of Dystonia Awareness Week and several other outreach activities seeks to raise awareness of dystonia's impact on the quality of life of 300,000 people in North America.

I call on my colleagues to support increased funding for the National Institutes of Health to support needed advances in dystonia research. Research is needed to develop reliable tests to diagnose dystonia as well as access to new treatment options to improve the lives of people living with this terrible chronic disease. Until we can find a cure for dystonia, I respectfully ask my colleagues to make a prolonged commitment to the dystonia community that goes well beyond Dystonia Awareness Week.

Mr. President, today, Senator Landrieu and I come to the floor to introduce the Gulf Coast Housing Recovery Act of 2007. This bill will help jump-start economic development in the communities devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. It will also help bring people home so they can resume their lives.

At the outset, let me recognize Senator Landrieu for all of her efforts to secure assistance for the people of Louisiana, who suffered the lion's share of damage from the 2005 hurricanes. She has worked tirelessly, every day since the storms, to ensure that Louisianans and others in the gulf coast can return to vibrant towns and cities. I also want to recognize the work of Congresswoman Waters and Financial Services Chairman Frank, who laid the groundwork for this legislation in the House. They did an outstanding job of ushering a housing recovery bill through the House.

The bill we are introducing today does the following: it authorizes additional funding to help rebuild the gulf coast; it requires the Federal, state and local governments to take additional actions to bring people home; and it requires accountability on the part of FEMA, HUD, and the states and cities receiving Federal funds.

Almost 2 years after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, hundreds of thousands of people remain in limbo, wondering if they will be able to return home. The population in New Orleans remains at about half of pre-Katrina levels, though local groups and residents have made clear that many more want to return. Unfortunately, many of these families have no home to return to, and there is great uncertainty about whether adequate services will be available if they do return. As of April of this year, less than half of New Orleans' public schools, a third of its child care centers, and half of its hospitals were open.

Over 82,000 families from across the devastated region are still living in FEMA trailers, which were recently found to contain toxic chemicals. Over 32,000 families are receiving temporary rental assistance through HUD, and over 11,000 others are receiving temporary rental assistance through HUD. Tens of thousands of other families are being assisted by cities, counties and individuals throughout the gulf region and our country.

Much has already been done to help restore the gulf coast. Billions of dollars have been spent to house evacuees and clean up areas of Texas, Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi. In addition, emergency CDBG funds have been appropriated to help families start to rebuild their homes and their lives. While these funds are finally getting to people in need, the reach of these funds is limited, to a great extent, to those who owned homes prior to the storms. Both Louisiana and Mississippi have understandably focused their efforts on getting homes rebuilt, and I support their efforts to help people whose largest asset was washed away. However, we must not forget the large number of residents who were renters at the time of the storms, many of whom held jobs that were critical to the economy and the culture of the gulf coast, including jobs necessary for the tourism and fishing industries.

In New Orleans, over half of the rental housing was flooded. We have an obligation, as a fair society, to ensure that all of our citizens in the gulf coast, including renters, are given the opportunity to return home, and the bill that Senator Landrieu and I are introducing today will do that.

This bill helps to do six key things that are necessary to help those displaced as a result of the hurricanes return to thriving cities and towns: it helps to bring people home; it replaces lost housing; it creates homeownership opportunities; it spurs economic and community development; it provides continued assistance to evacuees; and it requires accountability so that funds are properly used.

There are numerous provisions in our bill that will help families of all income levels return to a stronger gulf coast. I want to highlight a few of these provisions.

While most of the funds already provided to individuals for rebuilding efforts have gone to homeowners, even those funds have proven to be insufficient. The Louisiana Road Home program has pledged all of its funds, leaving many eligible homeowners without any assistance. This bill authorizes funding necessary to make this program whole so long as the State of Louisiana puts up $1 billion of its own funds towards this shortfall. I will be working with Senator Landrieu over the coming weeks to get a better sense of the exact amount needed in this program, why a shortfall of this amount exists, and to determine the legitimate uses of these funds.

Prior to the storm, there were over 5,200 families living in public housing in New Orleans, and thousands of others throughout the Gulf States. Many of these families include people with disabilities, seniors, and children. We cannot turn our backs on them.

HUD is currently running the Housing Authority of New Orleans, HANO, and it plans to demolish much of the public housing without replacing many of the affordable units. I believe this is shortsighted. I understand that in rebuilding New Orleans, there are many who advocate deconcentrating poverty, and I believe we can achieve this goal without sacrificing needed affordable housing. Under the bill we are introducing today, every unit of public housing that was occupied prior to the storm must be replaced, but not necessarily with a traditional public housing unit, nor in a traditional public housing setting.

In order to facilitate the replacement of public housing in New Orleans, this bill takes HANO out of HUD's hands, and puts it into judicial receivership. HANO has been a troubled agency for many years, and HUD control has not led to enough improvement. We need significant change at this agency.

This bill helps to spur much-needed development. It requires $55 million from funds previously given to the State of Louisiana to be used to help finance community development pilot programs in the State so that land can be acquired, bundled sold for redevelopment. In addition, the bill establishes an innovative program, the FHA-New Orleans Homeownership Opportunities Initiative, under which HUD will transfer to the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority properties which are under HUD control to be used for homeownership opportunities for low-income families.

While providing large amounts of Federal funds to the disaster area, it is important to ensure that funds are used correctly and are not subject to waste, fraud and abuse. This bill has stringent monitoring and reporting requirements that apply to FEMA, HUD, and the States receiving emergency funds so that the Congress can keep tabs on the disaster spending and ensure funds are being used efficiently and effectively to help rebuild and strengthen the gulf coast.

The Gulf Coast Housing Recovery Act of 2007 is a critical step towards rebuilding the gulf coast. It is supported by a broad coalition of national organizations, including the AARP, ACORN, Enterprise Community Partners, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the NAACP, the National Association of Homebuilders, the National Association of Realtors, the National Fair Housing Alliance, the National Low Income Housing Coalition, US Jesuit Conference, Volunteers of America, as well as Gulf Coast organizations such as Alabama Arise, Catholic Charities of New Orleans, Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center, the Louisiana Association of Nonprofit Organizations, and Providence Community Housing.

Again, I would like to thank my colleague Senator Landrieu for her work to restore the lives of so many of her constituents and others in the gulf coast region. I urge my colleagues to support this bill so that needed housing and community development activities can be undertaken in the gulf coast.

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