Floor Statements

Mr. President, with some reluctance, I come to the floor today to continue the discussions that were begun this morning about the Intelligence Committee's report that comes out today, called phase

Mr. President, good morning. Let's be clear as we begin this discussion. I, along with a vast majority of my colleagues, support cutting carbon emissions. We want to cut down on any kind of air pollution we have. We have done a great job over the years in improving our air, and we need to do more. But we must cut carbon without raising prices on gasoline, diesel, electricity, all the things that drive our economy. When American families are suffering record pain at the pump, a home mortgage crisis, and a soft economy, this is not the time to put the Government in a position of raising energy prices far higher than anything we have ever seen.

How much would Lieberman-Warner raise energy prices? We can quote from the sponsors of the legislation themselves. This is what the junior Senator from California has said Lieberman-Warner would raise: $6.735 trillion. It takes two charts to put up all the zeroes that this would increase energy prices and, thus, tax American consumers. As we can see, too big to fit on any one board.

The bill's sponsors claim they are trying to hit energy companies with the cost of this program. Does anybody doubt what will happen when we increase taxes on producers? That has to be passed on. It will be passed on to families, workers, farmers, truckers in

the form of higher energy bills and more pain at the pump. The bill's sponsors point to the customer relief they intend in the form of $800 billion over 40 years for tax relief and $900 billion to utilities to help consumers. That would still mean only $1.7 trillion was returned to an American public paying $6.7 trillion in higher energy costs. That is a $5 trillion loss. That complicated Soviet-style scheme would be based on the wisdom of some small group of bureaucratic czars who would decide who gets the money. It seems they are writing Congress out of the responsibility of handling the Treasury. They want to go around and turn a small group of wise men into the ones who decide who gets the allowances, who gets the relief, and where any relief will go.

The problem with the $6.7 trillion in higher energy prices is gas prices are already at record levels. Gas prices topped $4 in many parts of the country and are approaching that in the rest. Drivers are suffering at the pump. I was back in Missouri and traveled all over the State, from one corner to the other, over the Memorial Day recess. I heard firsthand from commuters, farmers, average citizens, businesses looking at absolute catastrophe from these higher energy prices. They are all fed up with higher gas prices. Regrettably, higher gas prices, higher diesel prices are the result of Congress's action or inaction in blocking for 30 years the production of new energy in the United States.

I visited truck stops in Joplin in southwestern Missouri and Palmyra in the northeast part of the State. I heard from truckers about the record diesel prices. Things are getting so bad that many are laying off drivers. Some are even going out of business. This is a real problem for our country. When truckers suffer, we all suffer. If they go out of business, we will not have trucks to deliver the goods. Transportation costs make up a significant part of the cost of almost every consumer item. When diesel prices go up, prices go up, and families will pay. In many areas, we may not have the trucking infrastructure to deliver the goods we need.

How much will Lieberman-Warner increase our pain at the pump? The Environmental Protection Agency estimates Lieberman-Warner will increase gas prices by 53 cents per gallon by 2030 and by $1.40 per gallon by 2050. Supporters of this bill tell us this is no big deal; it only represents 2 cents a year. A good statistician can try and make any number look not quite so bad. I can't speak for folks in other States, but I can tell you the folks back home have a minimum amount of high enthusiasm for Congress taking more action to raise prices.

Mr. President, $1.40 is $1.40. That increase in the price of gasoline is totally unacceptable, particularly when it comes with increases in prices in all other forms of energy. Yet that is the path the supporters of this legislation want us to trod.

Some Senators say that since gasoline prices have risen 82 cents since the beginning of the year, it is OK that Lieberman-Warner will only raise prices another 53 cents to $1.40. Does anybody ever stop and think that we are going in the wrong direction? We ought to be talking about what we can do to increase supply, to bring prices down, not figuring out how to come up with a cockamamie scheme that is going to increase prices even more. I find the logic a little bit disturbing, if you can call it that. The 82-cent rise in gas prices over the last year has not been OK with the people in my State. A further 53-cent increase by 2030 in gas prices is not OK. A further $1.40-increase in gas prices is not OK with the people in Missouri. I can tell you that if we don't change the path we are on now, the increase in prices will be even greater.

The bill's sponsors say the demand for oil will go down under Lieberman-Warner. Such a claim seems fantastical, until you examine the source of the study. It is a study by the International Resources Group. That name seems normal enough. But then looking at a copy of the study, it shows it was guided by the close involvement of the Natural Resources Defense Council. They are the ones who are behind it. The NRDC study used by the other side assumes we will get 50 or 60 percent of our energy by 2050 from renewable sources such as wind and solar. I am all for clean wind and solar power. But nobody in their right mind will believe we will go to generating 50 percent of our power from wind and solar. That isn't going to happen. You talk to the experts. I have listened to experts, experts who are very knowledgeable about biofuels and others. They say biofuels can help. Wind and solar can help at the margin. But we are still going to depend upon fossil fuel for most of our energy costs, particularly our transportation costs.

On oil demand, the NRDC study makes more outlandish assumptions. They predict the fleet efficiency for cars and light trucks will go up to 52 miles per gallon. Congress just finished raising CAFE standards to 35 miles per gallon. Now the NRDC says: No problem, we will move it up to 52 miles per gallon. That would mean we would have a fleet of golf carts hauling our produce. I wonder how many golf carts it would take a farmer to deliver the hay to cattle in the field, how many golf carts to pull a wagon full of corn, how many golf carts to take a large family to school. A fleet of golf carts is a wonderful thing.

The NRDC says we will get 52 miles per gallon by moving the vehicle fleet to hybrid and plug-in vehicles. That is another startling assumption, 100 percent hybrids and plug-ins. Don't get me wrong. I am a big fan of the potential of hybrid cars using advanced vehicle battery technology. These are things we ought to be working for.

Over the recess, as part of my six-city tour of Missouri I mentioned earlier, I visited the Ford assembly plant in Kansas City, where they make the hybrid Escape SUV. Kansas City is a national leader in hybrids and battery technology. We have the Ford hybrid SUV plant. We have a GM plant assembling hybrid sedans and SUVs, and we are an international leader in all kinds of battery technology, starting from the original lead batteries to lithium-ion batteries to lithium-ion polymer batteries.

All these things will help. But Ford is only making about 20,000 of these cars a year. They don't have enough batteries to meet the needs. I wish to expand on the use of advanced vehicle batteries for hybrids and plug-ins. I believe we need to jump start it.

I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.

How much time remains on the Republican side?

I ask my colleague how much time he needs.

I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

If we can get a domestic manufacturing supply base for hybrid batteries to get the volume up and the prices down, that would be good. Right now we are all depending upon a Japanese battery manufacturer. We need to have those batteries manufactured in the United States and not be dependent solely on an external source. That is a twofer. We could expend the use of clean cars, burning gasoline only occasionally, expand the number of blue-collar manufacturing jobs--good for the environment and good for workers. But I do not think we can rely on the idea that we will achieve 100 percent hybrid and plug-in use during this bill. The NRDC study also assumes massive new production from carbon captured from powerplants and used for enhanced oil recovery. I support this too. But to think we can cut oil imports by 58 percent because we are expanding domestic production from burned- out wells through enhanced oil recovery is beyond the possible.

So if we set studies aside by environmental groups supporting the bill and manufacturing groups such as NAM opposing the bill, that leads us to the mainstream Government agencies such as EPA. They say gasoline prices will rise 53 cents per gallon by 2030, $1.40 by 2050. If you add a $1.40-per-gallon Lieberman carbon surcharge to the current price of $4-a-gallon gasoline, you get gas prices at $5.50 a gallon.

I can tell folks back home right now there is no way I can accept the Lieberman-Warner offer of $5.50-a-gallon gasoline. When I tell my Missouri constituents we are on the floor debating a bill, when we have $4-a-gallon

gasoline, and the bill would significantly increase energy costs rather than increasing supply that would reduce the price of oil, they cannot believe it.

We are on the wrong track. We need to cut carbon. We do not need to increase energy prices on the American public.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I commend my colleagues for their fine remarks about the need to cut carbon emissions. I agree with them on cutting carbon emissions. I think that is important. But I think it is timely that we have this discussion now about the cost of it because we should pursue cutting carbon emissions, but we cannot slash family budgets, knock farmers and workers out of jobs and out of productive revenue.

At a time when Americans are suffering record pain at the pump, high energy costs, a mortgage crisis, and a soft economy, I am very concerned about raising energy prices on our families and workers.

I just returned from a six-city energy tour in my State of Missouri. Did I learn something. From Joplin in the southwest of my State, to Palmyra in the northeast, families, businesses, farmers, and truckers are suffering from record-high prices. Drivers are fed up with gasoline prices approaching $4 and diesel prices even higher. One pump in Joplin is $4.75 for a gallon of diesel.

These truckers and small businesses are saying how they are struggling now. Some are being forced out of business and don't know how they are going to meet their fuel costs and still employ people and carry the goods we need to get to market. When they pay higher prices, we all pay higher prices for everything because transportation costs are a critical element. They are squeezing farmers already. Do we want to vote to make this misery much worse?

I fear that this bill, as currently drafted, will make our suffering families and workers much worse off. The sponsors of the substitute tell us this bill will raise, between now and 2050, over $6.735 trillion. I apologize that there are nine zeroes on the charts; so you have to have two panels to have all the zeroes in that trillion-dollar figure. It would not fit on one poster board. That is what this bill would cost. Do you know where that cost goes? Similar to lots of stuff, it rolls downhill. This would roll down on the consumers. They are the ones who will pay for it in energy prices--millions of families and workers across the Nation.

Now, some may claim they are trying to hit energy companies with the cost

of this program. Does anybody think energy companies will continue to produce if their costs go up this much? The first thing they do will be to pass it along to all of us, and we will feel it. Energy consumers and producers will have no other choice. That is because the technology to meet deep-and-fast carbon cuts, without massive economic disruptions, doesn't exist today; and as I talk to scientists in my State, as we look at projects on which we are working, they will not be ready for another 15 to 20 years.

We are working on some things that will work now. Biofuels is making a small dent--a small, small dent. We can expand that a little more. But even the advanced cellulosic ethanol processing is not economically feasible now. Thus, the impossible mandates of Lieberman-Warner will be a massive tax increase for all Americans.

To sum it up, cap and trade is a taxation, a massive taxation without technology. Cap and tax is what it was called in an article today.

The $6.7 trillion cost would hit my Missouri constituents particularly hard. Experts at the American Council for Capital Formation predict Missouri will lose 76,100 jobs by 2030 if we enact Lieberman-Warner. The average Missouri household will face a $6,852 extra cost per year. Energy cost for electricity will be 153 percent higher. Gasoline cost at the pump will be 140 percent higher.

The Lieberman-Warner bill, regrettably, has a particularly unfair and harsh impact on America's heartland. This chart shows how much bills will go up depending on where one lives. In the Northeast, it is 40 percent. In the Midwest, it is 137 percent. In the South, it is 104 percent. In the Great Plains, it is 113 percent. In Mountain/West, it is 87 percent. And the West Coast, not much. I mean no offense when I say that it is easy when you look at the chart to see that the primary proponents of this measure, in the Northeast and the far West--the pain will be focused primarily on the coal-dependent manufacturing jobs, heavy Midwest, South, and Great Plains.

Perhaps the most disturbing feature of this debate is that for all the pain on families and workers, for all of its $6.7 trillion pricetag, it will have no measurable impact on world temperatures. That is right; the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that if China and India do not institute similar plans to the same extent we do, as they have already told us they will not, this bill before us will have no measurable impact on world temperatures. That means $6.7 trillion in pain for American families and workers for no gain in global temperature lowering.

I will have more to say about this issue during this debate in the coming days. I also look forward to debating how we can cut carbon without cutting family budgets or worker payrolls. There is so much we can do to reduce carbon emissions by increasing nuclear power production, and we do need to get more nuclear power. Do we have the scientists, the engineers? No. Do we have the basic vats that are needed? No. We need to develop that industry in the United States. We need to do something about reprocessing spent fuel. Right now we are limited, we are constrained by our inability to get rid of spent nuclear fuel. We need to reprocess it and reduce it by 95 percent.

We need to expand coal technology, coal to liquid, coal gasification. These are very important. But what do we do with the carbon? That is why we are working on a project in southwest Missouri, for which I got an earmark 4 years ago, to try sequestration underground. Is it going to work? We don't know. That is why it is a demonstration project.

We need to expand our domestic manufacturing supply base for more advanced batteries to get more hybrid cars and trucks on the road. We worked with companies in Missouri to help them build better batteries. I would love to see the day when we have a full-size automobile, not a golf cart, that we can plug in at night when power demand is lowest, charge the battery, commute to work and back without ever having to stop at a gasoline pump. We are not there yet. We do not have the batteries.

We need more next-generation work on cellulosic biofuels. I was talking to the top scientists in Missouri on Wednesday. I was talking about biofuels. We have hundreds and hundreds of square acres with as much as 4,200 tons of green wood that need to be cleaned out of the forest to make it healthy.

I said: Congress, in its wisdom, has already mandated we produce 16 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol by 2022. I said: By the way, how is the technology to convert wood to cellulosic ethanol?

They said: We are not there yet. We haven't found a means of converting wood to ethanol in an efficient, economically viable way.

I said: When do you expect it?

They said: We don't know.

I said: That is Congress; we passed a law saying you have to produce 16 billion barrels, and we forgot to ask the scientists when we were going to get that conversion.

We are working on it, but we are not there yet.

In each of these areas, I am proud to say that Missouri is leading the way to look for ways to reduce our carbon emissions. We want to do that. Set aside the arguments over the international impact and what the impact is. We will join with you in reducing carbon emissions, but, please, friends, let us develop the technology and not impose taxes when we put on caps without the technology. Caps without the technology is a $6.7 trillion tax increase.

We can all be leaders in clean energy for the future. We need to do so without ruining our economy, which this bill would do.

I look forward to discussing this issue in a constructive manner with all my colleagues in the coming week, and I assume in the months and years to come.

I yield the floor.

The price of gasoline----

We said 140 percent. There are various figures that would add $1.44 to $1.45. This one is from the National Association of Manufacturers. I believe the EPA figures say $1.40, $1.45. I can tell the Senator that we are looking at significant increases in the price of gasoline. The low number would be $1.40, I believe, from the EPA.

We have $6,852 on the average Missouri household. Our source for that is National Association of Manufacturers, March 13, 2008. Obviously, these costs are only estimates. When you realize that those States, such as Missouri, which depend on coal--and no telling what the grand czars will allocate, the unelected bureaucrats will allocate for coal production or utilities burning coal. They are right now $13 a ton on carbon emissions. I think some are trading three times that high in Europe. These numbers are all, at best, estimates. We can tell you that there is no way this won't have a significant impact.

Mr. President, one of the most distinguished Americans living today is Mr. Frank Woodruff Buckles. Born in Bethany, MO, on February 1, 1901, 2 years before Orville and Wilbur Wright made their historic first flight, Mr. Buckles, now 107, is the last living U.S. World War I veteran. He is truly a national treasure: Of the 2 million soldiers the United States sent to France in World War I, he is the lone survivor.

His life story is nothing short of amazing. In 1917, Mr. Buckles told his Army recruiter he was 21 years old and wanted to go to war. He was really just 16. Upon arrival in England, he convinced his superiors to send him forward to France where he would serve as an ambulance driver, carrying wounded allied troops to medical facilities.

When the war ended, Mr. Buckles was responsible for returning prisoners of war to Germany. He separated from the Army in 1920 after achieving the rank of corporal, but his service to the Nation continued as a civilian in the Philippines, where he worked for a U.S. shipping company. When the Japanese took Manila in 1942, Mr. Buckles was made a prisoner of war for the next 39 months, until his subsequent rescue by the 11th Airborne Division in 1945.

During his captivity, he developed chronic illnesses that still afflict him today. But there was no surrender then and there is no surrender today in Mr. Buckles.

Mr. Buckles remains witty and active. During a recent interview, he was asked about the circumstances surrounding his questionable enlistment into the Army. He replied with a chuckle, ``I didn't lie; nobody calls me a liar . . . but I may have increased my age.'' I also understand he does 50 sit ups and lifts weights daily. That is more physical activity than most men my age and even younger!

Today, before Memorial Day, I ask you to join me in honoring Mr. Buckles for all he has done for his country. The debt paid by Mr. Buckles and his fellow soldiers on behalf of future generations must never be forgotten. His life epitomizes patriotism and dedication to our nation. His incredible individual achievements and sacrifices, along with those of his fellow ``doughboys,'' deserve our ongoing admiration and thanks.

Mr. President, it is time for us to get real about energy. It is time for us to get real about gas prices. Withholding from the American people new oil supplies needed to get gas prices down will only hurt our families and our workers more.

American families are suffering from record pain at the pump. Truckers and shippers face layoffs and losses. Farmers, processors, and packagers are sending their food to market with higher prices and higher costs, and airlines are once again threatened with bankruptcy.

Whether you drive a car, a big rig or a tractor, you know personally what I am talking about. With average gas prices now topping $3.70 a gallon, you have a right to demand some answers about our energy future. Your pain and suffering demands we supply you with relief. Relief comes in the form of economics 101. Folks, every time prices are too high, there is too much demand and too little supply. Now, maybe some of our colleagues did not take the economics course, but I believe in common sense, and I believe the American people have common sense. They realize that when you don't have enough of something, and the demand keeps going up, the price goes up.

That is how our system works. Answers that focus only on demand and not on supply are not enough to fix the problem. So we are where we are today with record high gas prices inflicting record pain at the pump.

Don't get me wrong. I support good, strong measures to reduce the demand for oil. Last year, I supported Congress's measure to increase aggressively but achievably high standards for corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE. That would force better gas mileage from cars and trucks. But those new fuel efficiency requirements will take years before they have an effect. In the meantime, families and workers will suffer through years of higher gas prices. Auto makers cannot go out tomorrow and build a new fleet of high gas mileage cars and trucks. New cars take years to design and build.

Even if highly efficient cars were available tomorrow, families in the middle of 4-year car loans probably cannot go out and buy a new car. They have to wait until they can purchase a more fuel-efficient car. In the meantime, these families will suffer through more years of higher prices.

We can cut demand with more people riding mass transit, and I have supported mass transit. I will continue to do so. But if you don't have mass transit in your area, such as where I live and where a whole lot of people in rural America live, you cannot move to the city or get a different job. In the meantime, you will suffer through years more of higher gas prices.

We can cut demand by subsidizing hybrid vehicles. Congress supported those tax credits, as I do. But hybrid cars are too expensive now and will take too many years to become affordable to most families. We are working in Missouri to get much more efficient, much lighter batteries that can help meet the needs for hybrid and plug-in cars. In the meantime, while we are working on those technologies, families will suffer through years more of higher gas prices.

I, for one, am unwilling to allow families to suffer years more of higher gas prices, while we wait for demand strategies to work.

To address supply, some say we should take our hat in hand and beg our Middle Eastern suppliers to produce more oil. Since when has increasing our dependence on the Middle East ever been a good idea?

Some propose raising taxes on suppliers searching and developing new domestic oil supplies. Since when has taxing something more ever increased its supply or lowered its price? Never. When we put taxes on those who are searching and developing for new domestic oil supplies, we ensure that there won't be as much and the price will be higher.

Some say we should investigate suppliers to probe what is making prices so high. I too support investigating wrongdoing, but since when has investigating something ever increased its supply or lowered its price?

The American people deserve more than begging, taxing, and investigating. American families and workers deserve real actions toward real solutions. America doesn't need to look that far. Indeed, the solutions to America's supply problems are right here in our own backyard. America's lands, ocean floors, and mountains hold billions of gallons of oil waiting for us to come and get it.

We have millions of gallons of oil beneath the frozen tundra of northern Alaska. Had there not been a veto in 1995 of the development of the sources above the Arctic circle in Alaska, we would be getting a million gallons of oil a day from Alaska. You cannot tell me that would not lower the price. It would have a huge impact. We also have millions of gallons of oil beneath the seabeds miles off our coasts. We have billions of gallons of oil trapped in the shale beneath our Rocky Mountains.

Tapping these new U.S. supplies will help relieve prices immediately. While it is true it will take years before new supplies will come on, we will send an immediate signal to the speculators in the oil trading markets that new suppliers are on their way. They cannot continue to push prices higher.

Today's prices built on limited supply and a world dependent on trouble spots will see America deciding to open vast and safe new oil supplies. Oil prices, built on predicting the future, will have no choice but to fall in the face of a future safe, new supply source for America.

We can also face the future using new technologies. America owns, and uses every day, environmentally friendly oil technologies that are cleaner than ever before for exploring, developing, and producing. We can drill sideways deep underground to avoid sensitive areas above. We can drill many locations from a single site to avoid sensitive areas around.

Environmentally friendly operations in northern Alaska can drill in the winter and be gone long before any animals are active in the spring.

Environmentally friendly operations could drill in the ocean and survive hurricanes such as Katrina with no spilled oil or gas. Does anybody recall the spills resulting when Hurricane Katrina tore through the Gulf of Mexico drilling rigs? No, because they didn't happen.

To say we would repeat the mistakes of the 1960s and 1970s with the same 40-year-old technology is like saying we will all continue to call ourselves on rotary telephones or write each other on typewriters.

Another source of transportation fuel from new technology is coal to liquids. The technology to turn coal into liquid jet fuel or diesel has been around for a hundred years. We now have the technology to capture carbon emissions and make it cleaner than refining conventional oil and, in addition, providing a greater supply.

We are also developing even cleaner and more affordable forms of biofuels. Technology giving us clean-burning corn ethanol today will give us cellulosic ethanol tomorrow with grasses and wood chips.

In my State of Missouri, gas is 10 cents cheaper than it otherwise would be because we require 10 percent ethanol in all pumps. This will save Missouri drivers $285 million this year. Some people say ethanol is driving up prices. Ethanol is a lot cheaper to produce, and it uses fermentation, not the cat cracking that goes into regular gasoline. It brings down prices; it doesn't drive up the price of the fuel. The overall shortage of fuel has driven up the price for food. But most importantly, the Government hoarding food is driving up the price. Don't make farmers the scapegoats. They are responding to the demand Congress made of them to go out and build ethanol-producing plants and produce the ethanol to get cleaner, cheaper, domestically-produced energy. That is what they are doing.

Now the future is brighter in many areas because of new, cleaner technologies. We can have a brighter future of energy supplies if we let all these new technologies work for us.

We can also have a brighter future of energy supplies if we stop being selfish and start thinking about the collective good. Too many individuals are willing to say ``not in my backyard,'' even if it means the group suffers. Too many groups pursue NIMBY strategies even if it means the Nation suffers.

Nobody here is trying to force Alaska to do something Alaska doesn't want to do. Alaskans want to open more of their oil reserves. But it is people in places such as Massachusetts saying no to Alaska.

No one here is trying to force Virginia to do something it doesn't want to do. Virginians want to explore for oil and gas off their coastline. It is people in places such as California and New Jersey saying no to Virginians.

Nobody here is trying to force Colorado to do something it doesn't want to do. Colorado wants to tap the shale beneath its mountains. It is people in places such as Washington, DC, saying no to Colorado.

This type of NIMBY sentiment must end. This type of selfishness must end. This type of inflicting multiyear pain waiting for demand strategies must end. We must no longer deny Americans the new supply solutions they need. We must no longer refuse American families and workers the lower gas prices they demand.

We must not only suspend shipments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we must also open new oil supplies in northern Alaska, open new oil and gas supplies under our oceans, and open new oil shale supplies under our mountains, and open our ability to refine more oil. We must open the ability of U.S. workers to manufacture more hybrid batteries.

I urge my colleagues to support the Republican amendment and provision that will be coming tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today joining my colleagues in congratulating our friends in Israel as they celebrate the 60th anniversary of their independence and modern-day founding.

Sixty years ago, Missouri's own President Harry S. Truman signed the telegram making the United States the first Nation on the Earth to recognize officially the State of Israel. Since that time, Israel and the United States have stood side by side on many issues and have shared common bonds and values that unite us still today.

I daresay that no country has faced such adversity and strife during such a short period of time. Our staunchest ally in the region has persevered against enemy invasions, random terror attacks, and saber rattling throughout its short existence and has grown stronger as a result.

As a Member of this body, I have been proud to support joint U.S. and Israeli programs aimed at strengthening our mutual defense and cooperation. We are engaged in a war against a common enemy that seeks to further its agenda through suicide bombings, the targeting of innocents, and the destruction of the civilized world. The United States and Israel recognize that without freedom, respect for human rights, and liberty, we are lost.

Today, I congratulate and offer my sincere thanks to the people of Israel for being our ally during trying times and a friend upon whom we can always count.

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

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am delighted to be able to join today with our leader, Senator McConnell, in urging prompt action on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement because, as he has said, this represents one of the most important foreign policy and economic opportunities before this Congress.

It is both an economic opportunity to increase our exports, particularly at a time when our economy has slowed down--the dollar is weak--and we should be supporting policies that will create jobs and boost exports.

The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement also represents a key opportunity to strengthen an alliance with a friend and ally in a part of the world full of anti-American socialists led by, of course, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

I have long believed that trade and commercial ties are one of the most effective arrows in America's quiver of smart power, to build strong alliances for peace and friendship throughout the world.

But, also, as vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and a longtime believer in free trade, I believe this agreement is in our national security interests as well as our economic best interests.

First, let me discuss some of the geopolitical and strategic benefits and why Colombia, as a partner with the United States, has demonstrated that it is worthy of such an agreement.

President Alvaro Uribe's administration finds itself surrounded by states determined to undermine Colombia's growing democracy. These other states provide safe havens to insurgent groups, allow freedom of maneuvering in border areas, and provide monetary support for their drug and terror activities that threaten those countries and our own country.

I am sure Hugo Chavez would love nothing more than to see this deal fail. This would be a huge victory for Hugo Chavez. Such an event would embolden his support for rebels in Colombia and undercut American interests throughout the region. Our credibility would be sadly destroyed among people who should be our friends--our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere.

The question we ought to be asking ourselves is, Do we support Hugo Chavez or do we support President Alvaro Uribe? It is critical for peace and prosperity, not just in Colombia but for all of Latin America, and it is very important for our security that we take the opportunity to show we stand with President Uribe, who has done so much to move his country forward in a positive manner.

President Uribe has implemented far-reaching policies to protect labor union members--policies that have led to a general decline in violence, and an even greater decline in violence against union members.

Murders in Colombia overall have decreased by nearly 40 percent between 2001 and 2007, and murders of union members were reduced by over 80 percent. Legal reforms have been implemented under President Uribe to transform the judicial system and increase the number of prosecutions. These prosecutions and law enforcement are necessary because of the violent terrorists who are still operating in Colombia, though President Uribe deserves great credit for cracking down on them.

In October 2006, a special subunit within the Unit of Human Rights was set up in Colombia to investigate and prosecute over 1,200 criminal cases of violence against trade union members.

President Uribe has pushed back Marxist guerrillas of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC--that we will be referring to later--and the National Liberation Army, or ELN.

Earlier this year, the interdiction of two high-value targets, senior terror planners and former operators, was a testament to President Uribe's commitment to ending terror operations in his country and stopping the threat to his democratic government posed by the socialist Marxist neighbors trying to bring him down.

It is important to remember that the FARC insurgent group holds more than 700 political and military prisoners, including three Americans.

This regime has been behind some of the most disturbing human rights atrocities over the past three decades, and it finances its operations by facilitating the drug trade. Now, that, if nothing else, ought to get our attention.

If the leadership in the House in Congress is concerned about improving

America's image abroad, fighting to keep illicit drugs off our streets, and improving America's strategic interests in its own backyard, then why don't they start by giving a helping hand to the one good friend we have surrounded by challenges?

What would the rejection of this agreement say about America's commitment to our friends around the world? It would say: Don't count on the United States. Big talk; no action. Big hat; no cattle. We talk a good game, but we can't come through. And that is a serious indictment of the United States.

Friends such as Colombia, and I might even add Korea, who are helping us fight terrorism, fighting for freedom in their parts of the world, want to open their markets to U.S. goods and embrace America's values.

Under President Uribe's leadership, tremendous strides have been made in the last 5 years. Colombia is a functioning democracy in an area surrounded by socialist anti-American vitriol.

The fact that Colombia still faces challenges and needs continued reforms should not lead us to withdraw support for this agreement. Rather, we should increase our support to help Colombia strengthen its democratic institutions, implement continued social reforms, and strengthen its legal proceedings.

Approving the Colombia FTA will embolden President Uribe to continue to make these positive reforms and keep Colombia on the right path.

As for the economic benefits, as I have said, if the strategic and geopolitical benefits were not enough, I believe the economic interests in supporting free trade are just as compelling.

As anxiety increases about what most analysts agree is the beginning of a recession, a sure way to help head it off is through increasing free trade and opening markets abroad to sell U.S. goods. Yet the Colombia Free Trade agreement, as have other negotiated FTAs, has been held hostage by short-sighted politicians and Presidential election year politics. These politics are denying American producers and exporters expanded markets.

Now, my colleague and good friend, our leader, Senator McConnell, has already talked about an 80-percent tariff on beef going into Colombia. It is not just Kentucky beef producers, it is Missouri beef producers, it is America's beef producers who want to have access to that market because that is going to be an important market to them.

But look at the others. Here is what the U.S. workers have to pay for the goods they produce to export, and that is a tariff--a tax--on what they are exporting.

Automobiles: American workers pay 35 percent in tariffs put on by Colombia. They pay 2.5 percent. Furniture: a 20-percent tax on goods going into Colombia. Mineral fuels: 5 to 15 percent. There is no tax on fuels coming into the United States. Cotton: Our cotton farmers have to pay a 10-percent tariff going into Colombia. They pay less than 4 percent. Metal products: Our workers in the metal products industry are hampered by 5 to 15 percent. They pay zero. Computer products: We are taxed 10 percent on computer products we send to them. They pay no tax. They come in free.

Why is this not a good deal? It makes no sense. These are efforts that could increase by $1 billion our trade with Colombia.

I remember in 1999 going to the battle in Seattle. There were people demonstrating against world trade. There were longshoremen up there. They were out demonstrating against free trade. Without international trade, they have no job. There were workers at Boeing in Washington who were demonstrating against free trade. Over half their business is in world markets. There were teamsters up there demonstrating against free trade. The largest teamster employer in the United States, I understand--at least at the time--was United Parcel Service, UPS, but for every 40 packages UPS sends abroad, they hire another teamster.

We need to get real about economics. Free trade is in our interests.

Some people have been throwing around the term ``Hooverism.'' They are worried about Hoover economic policies, and I think they are right, because President Hoover made some disastrous decisions that kept us not only in recession but deepened it into a long-serving depression we only came out of with World War II. In 1930 he signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, setting off a wave of protectionist retaliation and damage to the world economy. He damaged it more than the initial stock market crash did in 1929. Two years later, he undid the Coolidge-Mellon tax cuts, raising the top marginal income tax rate from 25 percent to 63 percent. Now, that is Hooverism: When you are in a recession, impose protectionist barriers and raise taxes. That got us the longest depression we have had in the last century and a half.

Unfortunately, we are hearing some people in the campaign talk about raising taxes and withdrawing from NAFTA, withdrawing and stopping free trade. That is a recipe for disaster. We need to look beyond the politics and look at the economics. Free trade expands not only economic and commercial ties, but it strengthens critical cultural ties and strategic alliances.

Yet many in Congress seem to care more about improving our image by talking with rogue regimes such as those in Syria, Venezuela, and Iran than working with and completing trade agreements with friends in places such as Colombia and Korea. Their denial of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, if we continue on that path, would irreparably damage our ability to maintain and forge new strategic alliances with countries of the world.

To close, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently said:

Continued progress in Colombia is essential to stability in

the region . . . the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement

will help a neighbor and a long-time ally continue putting

its house in order under very difficult circumstances. It

offers a pivotal opportunity to help a valued strategic

partner consolidate security gains, strengthen its economy,

and reduce the regional threat of narco-terrorism. This is an

opportunity we cannot--and must not--ignore.

I could not agree more. We cannot continue to delay the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. It will disadvantage America's economy and most certainly damage our reputation in Colombia, Latin America, and damage our national security interests. I join my colleagues in urging the House to pass the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there is an issue that has been festering in our military ranks for quite some time that we must address now.

America's warriors voluntarily leave the comfort of their homes and families to serve the greater good under very difficult conditions. They are fighting an incredibly complex battle on an asymmetric battlefield, against an enemy that is not bound by rules of war or human decency. They are courageously protecting our freedoms--each and every day--against those who seek to do us harm. As the father of a two-tour Iraq War Veteran, this issue is very close to my heart, and should be at the forefront of the Senate's day-to-day business.

Many of our military service members bear the physical scars of war. Thanks to advances in modern medicine and the efforts of brilliant medical personnel in the field, many of our war-wounded are able to return to a relatively normal life. Our practice of compensating disabled veterans financially helps our heroes reintegrate and assume again civilian status.

A growing concern revolves around those soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who return home with invisible injuries, the psychological wounds of war that have had a huge impact on a large percentage of our military forces.

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injuries, TBI, are not quickly diagnosed because we cannot see them. But we know they exist, and they often manifest years later and wreak all sorts of havoc on our military, on our military families, and on our society.

The recently-released Rand Study and American Psychiatric Association studies acknowledge the issue and paint a bleak social and financial future. The question is: What are we doing to help these men and women? The answer now is: Not enough. There are simply not enough resources available to our combat veterans to deal adequately with the problem.

Today we are proposing legislation that will address this crisis. Our proposal will address both short- and long-term solutions for those suffering from PTSD and TBI. We will increase our troops' access to qualified behavioral-health specialists and increase the number of those specialists annually in an effort to treat our men and women and help them cope with their ailments.

My staff has worked closely with the VA on these proposals and our legislation has the support of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans' Association and Veterans for Common Sense.

First, our bill improves veterans' access to care by expanding the use of our Vet Centers. Currently, our Active, Guard, and Reserve military personnel do not have access to the VA's Vet Centers, community-based counseling

centers which are successfully providing mental health care to veterans.

An estimated 30 percent of troops return from combat suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Traumatic Brain Injury, or other mental health problems. But there are grossly insufficient numbers of military behavioral health specialists to provide the care our troops need. Recent testimony from all military Surgeons General highlighted the shortage of mental health professionals service-wide.

This legislation will give our troops the same access to Vet Centers our veterans receive for mental health care, which not only opens the door to additional resources but also lightens the load on our currently over-tasked specialists. Additionally, the legislation will reduce the stigma associated with behavior disorders by allowing troops to seek treatment outside of conventional military channels.

We also propose to enhance the recruitment and training of Military Behavioral Health Specialists through a scholarship program that targets former service members or service members preparing to separate from the military.

This legislation, overseen by the Veterans Health Administration, will provide incentives for retiring or separating military personnel and veterans to pursue an education in the behavioral health field. Over time, that will alleviate the shortage of behavioral health specialists who serve our troops and veterans.

The estimated cost to recruit an additional 80 to 90 behavioral health specialists a year is $1.5--$2 million annually. This program would pay for itself if it were to save just one veteran from developing 100 percent service-connected PTSD.

We also propose extending the survivor benefits for Service Members who commit suicide and have a medical history of PTSD or TBI.

We know that mental-health issues often manifest long after the service member has left active duty. As a result, Congress has extended free health care to five years for recently-discharged veterans with any condition that may be related to their combat service.

Unfortunately, survivor benefits have not kept up with this logic. Current coverage for veterans who commit suicide does not take into account the time it takes for PTSD and TBI to manifest.

This legislation guarantees benefits for any Service Member who commits suicide within two years of separation or retirement from the military, provided they have a documented medical history of a combat- related mental-health condition, including PTSD or TBI.

The Service Member's survivor will be entitled to the same Social Security, Survivor Benefit Plan, Veteran's Affairs Benefits, and active duty burial benefits that they would have received had the Service Member died on their last day of active duty.

Our legislation also creates a grant program for non-profit organizations to provide support services to the families of our deceased Active, Guard, and Reserve Military personnel and Veterans.

The psychological impact associated with the loss of a loved one in a combat zone is tremendous. Unfortunately, there are not adequate numbers of military Casualty Assistance Officers to serve surviving families. While norofit organizations have professional staff that provide long-term and peer-based emotional support, Department of Defense Casualty Assistance Officers are only temporarily detailed to these duties and often are unfamiliar with the regulations or the emotional needs of surviving families.

This legislation establishes a competitive federal grant program for nonprofit support organizations to provide vital support services to the surviving families of deceased military personnel.

Next, our legislation will ensure the fair treatment and care of all of our military personnel, including those whose discharges may have been caused by combat-related mental-health condition, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or Traumatic Brain Injury.

Many of those who are forced to leave the military because of performance issues such as substance abuse or anger problems have underlying mental health conditions such as TBI or PTSD that are not being properly diagnosed.

In many cases the military has inappropriately discharged these veterans, and they subsequently lose access to VA care and other benefits.

No veteran that has served this nation in combat should be denied the benefits they earned on the battlefield. This provision allows the VA to screen the veteran's discharge, and, if the veteran is found to have been improperly diagnosed, to take action to correct the problem accordingly.

Specifically, this legislation would reinstate the provision repealed from the law in 1996 giving the Vet Centers the authority to help the new generation of war veterans to resolve any problems presented with the character of their discharges.

Finally, our legislation will better prepare our troops for combat through the creation of a pilot program at Ft. Leonard Wood, Missouri and Ft. Carson, Colorado. We will provide comprehensive training to educate U.S. military personnel on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder--how to prevent it, how to recognize it when it occurs, and what to do about it when it happens. We hope to build resiliency, enhance performance, and mitigate stress among the troops.

The rise in PTSD cases demands a new approach to preparing U.S. military personnel and their families for the stresses associated with combat.

The pilot program is designed to enhance the individual's neurophysiological understanding of stress and trauma resolution and to equip them with performance-enhancing skills drawn from both the military special-operations community and the elite sports world.

The program will train and support an Army Brigade Combat Team and their families at all stages of a soldier's tour: pre-deployment, mid- deployment and post-deployment.

Addressing PTSD head on through self-awareness training will teach military personnel to cope better with combat-related issues and reduce the need and cost for long-term treatment.

The long-term effects of untreated mental illness are severe: drug and alcohol abuse, job and marital problems, even suicide.

We can prevent much of this unfortunate legacy by prompt and effective treatment when our troops come home.

We are all the beneficiaries of the sacrifices of others. Our responsibility is to continue to improve the ways in which we support our troops and their families.

They do not take our freedom for granted; we should not take their sacrifices for granted.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support these proposals.

Mr. President, there is an issue that has been festering in our military ranks for quite some time that we must address now.

America's warriors voluntarily leave the comfort of their homes and families to serve the greater good under very difficult conditions. They are fighting an incredibly complex battle on an asymmetric battlefield, against an enemy that is not bound by rules of war or human decency. They are courageously protecting our freedoms--each and every day--against those who seek to do us harm. As the father of a two-tour Iraq War Veteran, this issue is very close to my heart, and should be at the forefront of the Senate's day-to-day business.

Many of our military service members bear the physical scars of war. Thanks to advances in modern medicine and the efforts of brilliant medical personnel in the field, many of our war-wounded are able to return to a relatively normal life. Our practice of compensating disabled veterans financially helps our heroes reintegrate and assume again civilian status.

A growing concern revolves around those soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who return home with invisible injuries, the psychological wounds of war that have had a huge impact on a large percentage of our military forces.

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injuries, TBI, are not quickly diagnosed because we cannot see them. But we know they exist, and they often manifest years later and wreak all sorts of havoc on our military, on our military families, and on our society.

The recently-released Rand Study and American Psychiatric Association studies acknowledge the issue and paint a bleak social and financial future. The question is: What are we doing to help these men and women? The answer now is: Not enough. There are simply not enough resources available to our combat veterans to deal adequately with the problem.

Today we are proposing legislation that will address this crisis. Our proposal will address both short- and long-term solutions for those suffering from PTSD and TBI. We will increase our troops' access to qualified behavioral-health specialists and increase the number of those specialists annually in an effort to treat our men and women and help them cope with their ailments.

My staff has worked closely with the VA on these proposals and our legislation has the support of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans' Association and Veterans for Common Sense.

First, our bill improves veterans' access to care by expanding the use of our Vet Centers. Currently, our Active, Guard, and Reserve military personnel do not have access to the VA's Vet Centers, community-based counseling

centers which are successfully providing mental health care to veterans.

An estimated 30 percent of troops return from combat suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Traumatic Brain Injury, or other mental health problems. But there are grossly insufficient numbers of military behavioral health specialists to provide the care our troops need. Recent testimony from all military Surgeons General highlighted the shortage of mental health professionals service-wide.

This legislation will give our troops the same access to Vet Centers our veterans receive for mental health care, which not only opens the door to additional resources but also lightens the load on our currently over-tasked specialists. Additionally, the legislation will reduce the stigma associated with behavior disorders by allowing troops to seek treatment outside of conventional military channels.

We also propose to enhance the recruitment and training of Military Behavioral Health Specialists through a scholarship program that targets former service members or service members preparing to separate from the military.

This legislation, overseen by the Veterans Health Administration, will provide incentives for retiring or separating military personnel and veterans to pursue an education in the behavioral health field. Over time, that will alleviate the shortage of behavioral health specialists who serve our troops and veterans.

The estimated cost to recruit an additional 80 to 90 behavioral health specialists a year is $1.5--$2 million annually. This program would pay for itself if it were to save just one veteran from developing 100 percent service-connected PTSD.

We also propose extending the survivor benefits for Service Members who commit suicide and have a medical history of PTSD or TBI.

We know that mental-health issues often manifest long after the service member has left active duty. As a result, Congress has extended free health care to five years for recently-discharged veterans with any condition that may be related to their combat service.

Unfortunately, survivor benefits have not kept up with this logic. Current coverage for veterans who commit suicide does not take into account the time it takes for PTSD and TBI to manifest.

This legislation guarantees benefits for any Service Member who commits suicide within two years of separation or retirement from the military, provided they have a documented medical history of a combat- related mental-health condition, including PTSD or TBI.

The Service Member's survivor will be entitled to the same Social Security, Survivor Benefit Plan, Veteran's Affairs Benefits, and active duty burial benefits that they would have received had the Service Member died on their last day of active duty.

Our legislation also creates a grant program for non-profit organizations to provide support services to the families of our deceased Active, Guard, and Reserve Military personnel and Veterans.

The psychological impact associated with the loss of a loved one in a combat zone is tremendous. Unfortunately, there are not adequate numbers of military Casualty Assistance Officers to serve surviving families. While norofit organizations have professional staff that provide long-term and peer-based emotional support, Department of Defense Casualty Assistance Officers are only temporarily detailed to these duties and often are unfamiliar with the regulations or the emotional needs of surviving families.

This legislation establishes a competitive federal grant program for nonprofit support organizations to provide vital support services to the surviving families of deceased military personnel.

Next, our legislation will ensure the fair treatment and care of all of our military personnel, including those whose discharges may have been caused by combat-related mental-health condition, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or Traumatic Brain Injury.

Many of those who are forced to leave the military because of performance issues such as substance abuse or anger problems have underlying mental health conditions such as TBI or PTSD that are not being properly diagnosed.

In many cases the military has inappropriately discharged these veterans, and they subsequently lose access to VA care and other benefits.

No veteran that has served this nation in combat should be denied the benefits they earned on the battlefield. This provision allows the VA to screen the veteran's discharge, and, if the veteran is found to have been improperly diagnosed, to take action to correct the problem accordingly.

Specifically, this legislation would reinstate the provision repealed from the law in 1996 giving the Vet Centers the authority to help the new generation of war veterans to resolve any problems presented with the character of their discharges.

Finally, our legislation will better prepare our troops for combat through the creation of a pilot program at Ft. Leonard Wood, Missouri and Ft. Carson, Colorado. We will provide comprehensive training to educate U.S. military personnel on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder--how to prevent it, how to recognize it when it occurs, and what to do about it when it happens. We hope to build resiliency, enhance performance, and mitigate stress among the troops.

The rise in PTSD cases demands a new approach to preparing U.S. military personnel and their families for the stresses associated with combat.

The pilot program is designed to enhance the individual's neurophysiological understanding of stress and trauma resolution and to equip them with performance-enhancing skills drawn from both the military special-operations community and the elite sports world.

The program will train and support an Army Brigade Combat Team and their families at all stages of a soldier's tour: pre-deployment, mid- deployment and post-deployment.

Addressing PTSD head on through self-awareness training will teach military personnel to cope better with combat-related issues and reduce the need and cost for long-term treatment.

The long-term effects of untreated mental illness are severe: drug and alcohol abuse, job and marital problems, even suicide.

We can prevent much of this unfortunate legacy by prompt and effective treatment when our troops come home.

We are all the beneficiaries of the sacrifices of others. Our responsibility is to continue to improve the ways in which we support our troops and their families.

They do not take our freedom for granted; we should not take their sacrifices for granted.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support these proposals.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to note an anniversary. Although you may have noticed there has been no gift giving, no celebration, no remembrances of the day, the promise was made. That is because the people who made the promise failed to keep their promise. They failed to bring the change they promised.

Now, to what promise am I referring? I am referring to the day, 2 years ago today--April 24, 2006--when then-House minority leader Nancy Pelosi announced ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' She told the American people that if they put Democrats in charge of the House and the Senate, we would all see lower gas prices. The then-minority leader, the senior Senator from Nevada, said, on that same day, that it was just ``about priorities.''

Well, it is time to get real about energy. Democrats running for office across the Nation in 2006 said change would come with a Democratic Congress. Well, we certainly got change all right. Since the Democrats have come to power in the House and Senate, pain at the pump has increased by 50 percent. Americans who paid, on average, $2.33 a gallon in January 2007 now pay $3.53 a gallon, on average--hardly a change any of us bargained for. However, $3.53 is just the national average. Some are paying much more. To just take a few States, in California, it is $3.87; in Nevada, it is 3.60; in Illinois, it is $3.67; in New York, it is $3.67. Mr. President, $1.30 more for a gallon of gas is certainly not the kind of change I would believe in or support.

What is this doing to hardworking families struggling just to get by? ``With gas hitting record highs, drivers [are] feeling squeezed,'' as my home State Kansas City Star reported this week. For example, Carol Licata, a 75-year-old retiree, told in the story of how a larger part of her fixed income is now going toward gas. She said that ``to get to the doctors . . . it's an awful lot of money . . . I don't drive that often, but I have to take necessary trips . . . and [gas] takes a big chunk out of our budget.''

Fixed-income seniors, though, are not the only ones suffering record pain at the pump. Consider the plight of low-income workers struggling to get to work. Their affordable housing is a great distance, maybe, from where they have a good-paying job. Maybe they are driving from the inner city out to a suburban job or from a distant suburb, where housing prices are lower, to the city. Either way, modest-income folks with the least ability to pay higher gas prices are hit especially hard.

What about truckers? For all the hard work they put in on the open roads, they never seem to make more than a modest living. Now they are being hit with even higher diesel prices. At $4.20 a gallon, diesel prices are 40 percent higher than they were a year ago.

Unfortunately, this pain at the pump is just one more burden families and workers are bearing at the same time as a housing meltdown, higher food prices, higher health care prices, higher power bills, higher heating bills, and I expect, this summer, higher air-conditioning bills.

So what is the Democrats' ``commonsense plan'' to lower gas prices and help working families? With record-high gas prices, it is clear we are still waiting for the ``commonsense'' part of the solution. About the only thing we have heard proposed from the other side is to increase taxes on oil companies. Since when does raising taxes on something increase its supply or lower its price? Never. Again, that is all we hear.

What is so sad is the fact that we are sitting on top of a big part of the solution. We can lower the prices by tapping the millions of barrels of oil just waiting for us here in America.

In Alaska, above the barren Arctic Circle, Democrats refuse to allow us to tap millions of barrels of oil in an environmentally safe manner. They say drilling in an area smaller than the size of Dulles Airport would have too great an impact on an area the size of the State of South Carolina. Congress, in 1996, passed a budget resolution which would have allowed the opening of ANWR. However, President Clinton vetoed that resolution, pointing out that he opposed and would not support opening ANWR. Had ANWR been opened, there would be a million more barrels of oil a day flowing into the United States.

Now, speaking of South Carolina, Democrats refused to let us get at millions of barrels of oil and natural gas a safe distance off our coastal shores, literally unseen because it is over the horizon. Some say this is another example of ``not in my backyard,'' or ``NIMBY,'' but this is really a case of not in ``your'' backyard because the people, for example, of Alaska and Virginia are happy with and want to tap the oil and gas on their lands and off their shores.

But Democrats still refuse to unlock the vast untapped natural resources

here at home. Our dependence on foreign sources of energy grows greater, and families continue to suffer. Is it any wonder Americans are fed up? Democrats are looking at thirsty Americans and saying: You should drink less or drive less. Now, do not get me wrong, I support and have supported aggressive but achievable automobile fuel efficiency increases, incentivizing low-emission vehicles such as hybrids and plug-ins, and more fuels from renewable sources, but these are long- range solutions that will not pay dividends for years.

Some say opening our reserves would not pay dividends for years. While it will take time for the oil to start flowing, there would be a message. Right now, the market is factoring in the present U.S. attitude which says we will do nothing to increase our supplies of oil. A change in our attitude would change their attitude for the future. Saying we are going to increase supply and cut demand would help relieve the pressure. I think we need to support it.

Another pressure I support relieving is continuing to add to the strategic petroleum reserves during times of record-high prices. We need to stop supplying these strategic petroleum reserves when gas hits $3 a gallon.

Unfortunately, my friends on the other side, predominantly, support legislation that will send gas prices even higher. I am referring to the Warner-Lieberman climate bill the majority plans to bring to the floor in early June. In pushing forward that bill, Democrats are willing to say that $3.53 a gallon gas is not enough. They will be telling the American people that gas prices should be even higher.

The Environmental Protection Agency recently estimated that Lieberman-Warner will force gasoline prices to rise $1.44 per gallon higher. For those of you keeping score at home, that would mean $5-a- gallon gasoline. It boggles the mind, the majority advocating $5-a- gallon gas in just over a month, but that is what they would be doing supporting that bill. That is not the kind of change our families and workers need. That is not common sense. That is why there are no flowers today, no fancy dinner tonight. On this anniversary, there will only be more pain at the pump.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, today millions of Americans are reminded about Ben Franklin's poignant observation: Nothing is certain but death and taxes.

Today families across the Nation are being forced to tighten their belts as the Federal Government takes more and more of their hard- earned money. For working families, the tax bill that comes due every April 15 is often a tremendous burden. In fact, the average American pays more in taxes than it spends on food, shelter, clothing, and transportation combined.

For American families, tax day is a real eye opener. This year, families will work the first 113 days of the year to pay their Federal, State, and local taxes. Unfortunately, this year tax day has come around when families are facing spiking energy, housing, and health care costs, runaway college tuition, and high rising prices for consumer goods.

While the Senate has acted to help these families in the short term, the stimulus and housing relief bills, a long-term fix is a long way off and badly needed. We should support long-term economic growth policies that lower taxes, create more jobs, and grow our American economy.

Our distinguished minority leader, the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, has outlined the dangers of going back to a high-tax era. We all know that the tax reductions adopted by Congress in 2003 which gave relief for capital gains taxes encouraged more small businesses to invest, gave them the resources to grow, and small businesses are the dynamic engine of this country.

That tax relief provided some 8.4 million new jobs. But as Senator McConnell said, my friends on the other side of the aisle have proposed a budget that includes the largest tax increase in American history and would raise taxes on every American taxpayer by doing nothing, intentionally doing nothing.

The plan of the Democrats raises taxes on the average American family by $2,300 a year. A $2,300 increase in taxes will be a devastating hit to American families. For families in Missouri and across the Nation, this is $2,300 they will no longer be able to use to buy groceries, put gas in their car, pay tuition, or purchase prescription drugs. And, as Senator McConnell pointed out, there will be an even larger tax increase on small businesses--small businesses that we expect to create the new jobs we will continue to need as our economy and technology evolves.

Unfortunately, not only are taxes getting higher, they are getting more complicated. According to the President's panel on tax reform, there have been more than 14,000 changes to the Tax Code since 1986. With all of these changes, it is no wonder that the average time burden for all taxpayers filing a 1040 is 30 hours, and now more than 6 in 10 Americans hire someone to help prepare their returns every year.

So in addition to taking 113 days in wages, the Federal Government requires you to spend an initial day and even more money to hire a professional to make sense of what you owe. It is a daunting task for anyone, particularly if they have a family and business activities to make sense of what they owe.

In January, I introduced a radical solution, and I think the time has come for a radical solution to bring some common sense to this process. My bill, the Fair and Simple Tax Act, will simplify the Tax Code and help American families keep more of their paychecks. It will get rid of the AMT and the double calculations middle-income taxpayers must make. It will eliminate higher tax rates, get rid of the myriad targeted reductions, credit givebacks, phase-ins, phase-outs, and other special interest provisions.

The Fair and Simple Tax Act will provide a simpler, lower, flat income tax option, as well as offer historic tax relief for families and businesses to create jobs for American workers.

This bill will reduce the tax rate on families and the employers who create jobs, make permanent existing tax relief, keep current deductions for home mortgage interest and charitable deductions, but give Americans more control over their health care by providing tax relief to individuals and families who do not now have access to employer-provided health care.

Also, my bill will eliminate the death tax which is a significant burden for farmers and small businesses.

The best fiscal policy is economic growth, job creation, and keeping taxes low for middle-class families. And the best economic or fiscal policy is also the best social policy. There is no better policy than assuring a good-paying job for hard-working Americans.

The last thing our economy needs right now is a tax increase, which is what Americans will receive when the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire. And you know what will happen. It will not only be a tax increase on individual families; by increasing significantly taxes on small business, it is going to curb job growth, it is going to cut the ability of people to find a job.

Let me be clear. Unless we stop this looming tax hike, which would be the largest in history, more than 2 million Missouri families will face higher tax bills. My bill would prevent the family-budget-killing tax hikes. My bill would simplify the tax rate for millions of Americans. My bill would mean tax relief and real money back into the pockets of American families.

Let's get real about taxes and bring back some common sense to a Tax Code that is too complex, too confusing, and too costly. This plan will give American taxpayers what they need: a fairer system that puts more of their own money back in their pocketbooks and takes off their back the hassle of April 15.

I ask for the support of my colleagues in bringing a radical but simple commonsense reform to our Tax Code.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I know many people have been watching General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker reporting on what is going on in Iraq. Obviously, it is very important information, and I would hope we would heed what they are saying.

Regrettably, I must say that too many in the Democratic Party remain in denial over the progress being made in Iraq and still remain politically vested in defeat. We have heard the leaders of the party say: Oh, we have already lost. They believe that might give them an advantage in the November elections. That is certainly a bad way to decide what our strategy should be to defend the security of the United States.

We have made great progress in our fight against terrorism. The war is far from won, but today there is no question that the central battleground in the global war on terror is Iraq. Our men and women in the military are fighting the al-Qaida terrorists there in Iraq, where Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri say they are going to establish their caliphate. We are fighting that war so that future generations will not have to fight them on our own soil.

For my colleagues who argue we should not be fighting them in Iraq but in Afghanistan, let me get you a little bit of intelligence news. Al-Qaida is not in Afghanistan. Al-Qaida left Afghanistan after we deposed Saddam Hussein. What we are fighting there are the indigenous Taliban insurgents, not al-Qaida.

More than anyone else, our brave veterans who are fighting in Iraq against the al-Qaida know the dangers of defeat. They know what they and others like them have done. Their word to us is: We as a nation, but more specifically we as your military, have made too many contributions and too many sacrifices to walk away from this essential battle for our freedom and declare defeat.

My own son, a marine, returned last fall from his second tour of Iraq with his scout snipers. He returned on success because they cleaned al- Qaida out of Falluja and Al Anbar, and they turned the job of keeping security over to the Iraqi Sunni Citizens Watch and the police.

If my colleagues will listen today to the voices of veterans who are on the Hill in their tan golf shirts, they are the voice of people who have been in the field--the Vets for Freedom, with whom I have had the honor of being this morning, and to General Petraeus and Admiral Crocker--these are the people we need to listen to, not the voices of moveon.org and the Code Pink extremists. We need to bring our troops home, but we need to bring them home on success. That is what they fought for; that is what they are there for.

As one man in the field reported today: You can't be for us, for the troops, and against the war because we are the war.

Despite the evidence of progress in Iraq, the media seems trigger happy to report bad news. Less than 48 hours after Iraqi security forces began their campaign against the militant Shia factions in Basra, the media already was declaring the operation a failure. The operation initiated on March 25 was designed to quell rogue factions of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army. In covering the fighting, the press displayed its previously seen penchant for quickly throwing in the towel when the military operation does not instantaneously achieve its goals. If the operation were a failure and didn't meet its goals, then why did Muqtada al-Sadr order a cease-fire? I don't know of any commander who has declared a cease-fire when he is winning.

Right now, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are testifying before the Senate on the progress being made in Iraq. I expect that testimony will show that the new counterinsurgency, or COIN strategy, backed up by the surge, has been working and has brought Iraqi citizens to our side in the fight against al-Qaida.

Since the surge forces began operating under this new policy in mid- 2007 and the adoption of the COIN strategy, there is some important security progress to point to. Overall violence in Iraq, civilian deaths, sectarian killings, and attacks on American forces are all down. Coalition forces have captured or killed thousands of extremists in Iraq, including hundreds of key al-Qaida leaders and operatives. American troops are beginning to return home on success.

In addition to security progress, the Iraqis are also making critical political progress. While this front has been the slowest--and we must continue to demand that the Iraqis assume greater control--the Government has taken several important steps. The Iraqi Government has enacted a pension law that keeps the promises made to Sunnis. It has enacted a debaath- ification law that allows midlevel Baath Party members to reenter political and civic life. It has passed a budget that focuses spending on security reconstruction projects and provincial governments. It has enacted an amnesty law, and it has reached agreement on a provincial powers law that will ensure the Iraqis the right to be heard in upcoming elections.

Democrats are in denial of the progress in Iraq despite this evidence of both security and political gain. Their rejection of the reality in Iraq does not extend just to the current Petraeus and Crocker testimony, however. Some who favor retreat and defeat in Iraq have also taken issue with the classified Iraq National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE, distributed to lawmakers last week.

Always quick to tout and cherry-pick information from a NIE that can be twisted to support their motives, the retreat-and-defeat gang has outright rejected the latest Iraqi intelligence report. They claim it is ``too rosy.''

Unfortunately, this denial is no more than rhetoric and fodder for the mainstream media because we know that defeat in Iraq would have serious national security implications and do great harm to our image around the world, an image that so many of our colleagues on the other side say they wish to repair. Iraq is the central battleground in the war on terror. In addition to giving al-Qaida safe haven, defeat in Iraq would embolden a possibly nuclear-armed Iraq. The intelligence community has stated in an open hearing before the Intelligence Committee earlier this year that if we withdraw from Iraq before their army and police can maintain security, violence and chaos will spread across the region.

This has been a tough fight. We have lost over 4,000 of our bravest and finest men and women. The surest and most fitting way to honor their memory and their service is to ensure victory, not defeat.

Mr. President, I have several Members on my side who have been waiting for time in morning business. What is the situation?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his kind words about the housing bill that is before us. This is the measure on which we are working on a bipartisan basis to deal with what is one of the most serious economic problems we face today in America and across the world. There has been so much subprime mortgage paper put out from adjustable rate mortgages and teaser mortgages in the United States that it has gone into financial systems in many countries, and they are facing similar problems to the ones our financial system faces here.

I believe there are a lot of steps that are important that we take at the macro levels, things the Federal Reserve does and what the Treasury can do and what the government-regulated, government-sponsored entities can do. But it is also my firm belief that this problem is one that we are going to have to save community by community, neighborhood by neighborhood, and family by family. That is why I have an amendment filed today, Bond amendment No. 3436, to avoid these problems in the future.

I have listened to a lot of homeowners, and one of the real problems we have is right now there is not a clear and simple disclosure of payments and interest rates for adjustable rate loans with the so- called teaser rates. The teaser loans with interest rates and payments that jump up to unaffordable levels played a large part

in the current subprime mortgage crisis. Many potential borrowers either did not understand what they were getting into or were falsely assured that everything would be OK. That is a part of bringing relief to families and neighborhoods suffering through the current housing finance crisis. I want to ensure we do not face another crisis in the future because we did not correct the problem.

For those of us who have taken out a mortgage loan to buy or refinance a home, we know what a pile of paperwork we face and all the legal jargon. I am a recovering attorney. I have had the experience of having that stack of papers--enough to choke a horse--put down in front of me, and the real estate agent, whoever is there, just says: Sign this, sign this, sign this, sign this, sign this. About 40 minutes later, you are dizzy from signing, and nothing in those papers clearly tells you what you are getting into. That is why we passed the original Truth in Lending Act and applied it to home mortgage loans. We knew then that most people did not take the time to read and understand the fine print in mortgage loan documents.

Regrettably, the consumer protections in the original Truth in Lending Act were written long ago and are outdated--woefully outdated. They were written when most bought a home with a 30-year fixed rate mortgage. Now--and this is a good thing--there are many more loan tools to help people share in the dream of home ownership. There are adjustable rate mortgages, adjustable rate mortgages with initial fixed terms, sometimes called teasers, prepayment penalties, refinance options, quicker and easier than ever before. But while more choices can be a good thing, uneducated consumers or consumers who do not have assistance in understanding that information may not understand that what they are doing is falling into a trap.

I want to see the disclosures laid out simply so that nobody is caught in a trap the way one of my constituents, Willie Clay of Kansas City, MO, and his family were caught. I shared Willie's story on the floor a month ago when we first introduced the SAFE Act, Security Against Foreclosure and Education Act, a relief bill, which forms the basis of the Dodd-Shelby bill before us.

Willie lives in a working-class Kansas City neighborhood of modest ranch homes called Ruskin Heights. He was a Vietnam war paratrooper, living largely on disability payments. He refinanced a mortgage in 2004 for a total of $101,000. As we can see, Willie is a man of modest means. He was not a speculator gambling on the housing market; he was not an investor buying a vacation home; he just wanted to live in a decent home. He was looking for extra money to pay off his medical bills, car loans, and some credit cards, and he agreed to a subprime adjustable rate loan with an initial fixed rate of 8.2 percent. For several years, everything went fine. He made the payments, honored his agreement. Then, last October, the initial fixed rate ended and the loan reset to a variable rate. Given the condition of the market at the time, his new interest rate became 11.2 percent and then was set to rise again in March to 12.2 percent, with more rises coming.

Willie told the Kansas City Star:

If the rates go up again, I can't afford it.

Willie and his wife Ina would have to give up their home and move into an apartment. Willie now admits that he never fully understood how an adjustable rate worked when he agreed to the new loan. I will tell you, Mr. Clay, don't feel alone. There are a lot of people who do not understand the terms of their mortgage, and it is far too confusing under the system we have now.

He said:

I don't have the education to understand it. And they

didn't explain it to me. I thought if the interest [rate]

went down, your payment went down. If the interest rate went

up, your payment stayed the same.

Willie was now facing a mortgage payment 50 percent higher than when he started. He was trapped in his loan because there was a $2,500 prepayment penalty, which prevented him from getting out. This is not just Willie Clay's family crisis. The entire neighborhood is suffering through this housing crisis. There are more than 500 foreclosures in his ZIP Code alone. On Willie's block, there are already several empty houses.

Foreclosed homes are dragging property values down for everyone. It is becoming a self-perpetuating downward spiral. That is why I felt so strongly about how we need to help these suffering families and neighborhoods. That is why we introduced the original Security Against Foreclosure and Education Act.

The ``e,'' for education, focused on language meant to prevent this problem in the future, and that is the subject of the amendment that will be before us when we return to the bill.

My amendment, representing the disclosure requirements from the SAFE Act that were not transferred to the Dodd-Shelby substitute, updates the Truth in Lending Act to modern times.

The Bond amendment will apply to adjustable rate mortgages with an original fixed or teaser rate. This is the kind of loan Willie Clay had and millions of Americans across the country hold. For these types of adjustable rate loans with teasers, lenders or brokers will be required to provide in large, prominent type the loan's fixed interest rate, the initial fixed payment, and the date on which the fixed rate will expire. The lender or broker will also need to provide an estimate of what the payment will be when the loan resets from its initial teaser rate to a floating adjustable rate. For many subprime borrowers lured with a low teaser rate, this jump can be quite large, and borrowers should be aware of it. If they are not aware of it, then they should not be permitted to do the loan.

What we are saying is, put the critical dollars-and-cents items in large type on the first one or two pages. Don't bury this in a whole bunch of legal mumbo-jumbo that we lawyers--my colleagues who are still lawyers--love to write to make sure we cover every possible contingency.

The Bond amendment also requires lenders to disclose that there is no guarantee the loan can be refinanced before the initial fixed rate expires. Too many of the people in this trap now have said and told me and others that they were told there was no problem to refinance. Yes, there is a problem, and a lot of borrowers were caught when they found out they could not refinance. They did not know how high their rates could go after the teaser rate expired. Any concern they had that they could not afford their loan in the future was put to rest by the broker with a reassurance that there was no problem refinancing the loan before the teaser rate expired. For many, this turned out to be true, but when the credit market seized up and loan standards were raised, the rest were caught in this squeeze.

The amendment I will ask this body to adopt requires a disclosure that there is no guarantee the borrower will be able to refinance the loan when the teaser rate expires.

The Bond amendment also requires disclosure of any prepayment penalty, the amount, and its expiration date. Prepayment penalties is what caught Willie Clay and his family. While prepayment penalties can be good, giving certainty to the lender, who can in turn provide a lower interest rate, people need to be aware of what they are getting into and how it will be costly to get out.

That is the theme of this entire amendment. It does not block adjustable rate mortgages. It does not block initial fixed rates. It allows prepayment penalties, an opportunity to refinance quickly.

The advantages in the mortgage business have been good for consumers, allowing a new generation of home buyers to share the American dream. It just requires plain disclosure of loan terms so that people will know what they are getting into.

Some may ask why we need to be prescriptive in telling brokers what to say and regulators what to require. That is because in this situation, current protections and oversight have failed. Brokers and lenders did not do enough to disclose to and educate consumers. Regulators also failed here, and they continue to fail. Neither HUD nor the Fed required disclosure of these terms in the past, neither sought to increase disclosures when the subprime crisis started, and neither's most recent proposal takes this on.

The American consumer cannot wait while the bureaucracy, slow to move

before, further delays and equivocates on what must be done now. What must be done is simple, straightforward disclosure of the most basic loan terms--rate, payment, new rate, new payment, penalties, and guarantees.

These are basic consumer protections which I expect will help prevent a future home loan crisis and trapping of a large number of American families who are caught in this situation now. I urge my colleagues to adopt them and to support the Bond amendment when it is brought up.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, too many families in Missouri and across the Nation are feeling the pain of the housing crisis. They need our help now. This Senate is coming together on a bipartisan basis to provide some relief to deal with some of the real problems we find in communities throughout our Nation.

Over the Easter break, I traveled around the State. I talked with a lot of folks who have a real and deep interest in this housing crisis. I met with families struggling under the threat of foreclosure, neighborhood groups counseling families on how to keep their homes, government officials at the local level--mayors and council members-- who were trying to find ways they could assist, community leaders asking for our help. They told me about the neighborhoods devastated by foreclosures. More critically, they told me of the personal problems faced by families running into foreclosure where their adjustable rates had risen so high they could no longer afford them. And they talked to me about the devastation of family after family being threatened with losing their home.

I did not hear from speculators who overbuilt and are now caught with too much inventory. I did not hear from investors who bought a second or third vacation home, expecting that the price would go up more than they paid for it and now regret their bad decisions. And I did not hear from the greedy lenders who went out and offered terms that were too good to be true. Some of the worst ones were the no-downpayment loans. Many others offered unbelievable teaser rates and then put out paper that was absolutely unaffordable by the borrowers. They spread this toxic paper throughout the system. It is putting at risk not only our national financial system, but that toxic stuff has spread to international markets, and markets across the world are feeling the pain of our subprime crisis.

In Missouri, I heard from mothers and fathers who want to keep their home. I heard from fixed-income seniors who thought they had a deal they could live with until the rates started adjusting and the mortgages got out of their ability to pay. These folks do not want a government handout. They do not want a bailout. They do not want the Federal Government buying their mortgage or buying the homes around them. They are hard-working Americans who want to be able to meet their original commitments and keep the promises they made. They need targeted temporary help to get them refinanced and on with the rest of their lives.

That is the kind of relief I offered on behalf of several of my Republican colleagues in the Security Against Foreclosure and Education Act, or SAFE Act, of 2008. It provided help for families to refinance distressed subprime mortgages, help for neighborhoods for the purchase of foreclosed homes, help for returning war vets coming home to the threat of foreclosure, and reform of the Federal Housing Administration that we all agreed upon last year and still have not been able to pass.

These proposals, I am very happy to say, form the core of the Foreclosure Prevention Act substitute amendment that is before us today. I thank Senators Dodd and Shelby who came together and assembled this bipartisan package of relief for families and neighborhoods. They took proposals from our SAFE Act, housing proposals from our Democratic colleagues, and provisions from our friends on the Finance Committee to make this relief package.

Most importantly, this measure will help struggling families refinance their subprime mortgages by authorizing State housing finance agencies to issue $10 billion in tax-exempt bonds and use the proceeds for refinancing.

I happen to know very well how effectively our Missouri Housing Development Corporation functions, and if they have this authority and if they can sell their bonds, then they will be able to refinance where people have seen their mortgage payments escalate beyond their ability to pay. This is the kind of assistance we expect from our housing finance agencies, and we need to empower them.

Secondly, to help families know their options to avoid foreclosure and keep them in their homes, it provides an additional $100 million for loan counseling. I was proud to be able to join with my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, in the Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill last year to put $180 million in counseling. Congress passed it in December. The first of these funds has gone out, and they tell me already they are having a great effect. Many say that knowledge means power. Housing counselors I met with over the recess told me how these counseling funds are helping families know how to renegotiate with their banks to get good refinancing and keep their homes.

The message all of us ought to carry back to our home States when we talk to people who are threatened by these problems is that if you see your mortgage rates going up beyond your ability to pay, if you have concerns about whether you can meet the terms of the financing, don't wait until foreclosure proceedings are initiated. Don't wait until you get hauled up on the courthouse steps to see your property sold. There are counseling agencies that we have funded and will be funded additionally across the country in every large community that will come in and work with the homeowner and with the lending agencies to try to work out terms.

Many of these will be able to get refinanced. It has to be voluntary on both sides, but as has been said earlier on this floor, lenders have a real disincentive for foreclosing. They got into the business not to own homes, they got in the business to receive payments. Very often this means there is common ground which can be agreeable to the homeowners and the lenders to stay the costs and the risks of foreclosure.

Foreclosure not only is devastating to the family, it is very devastating to the neighborhood. The neighbors see their home values go down, and the whole community suffers. That is why I had mayors and council members and city aldermen coming out and saying, what can we do? I said: Get good education.

As the Senator from California said, we need better education for people before they seek to buy a home, and certainly we need education and counseling for those who see mortgage payments rising above their reach.

Back to the provisions in this bill. We supported on our side--and this measure includes--help for struggling neighborhoods by providing tax credits for that purpose over the next year of a home in or facing foreclosure. It is $7,000 available for families moving in and living in the home over 2 years to keep the neighborhoods from being flooded with properties in foreclosure, which drags down property values for everyone. These tax credits should help all homeowners in the neighborhood by stabilizing property values as families get back into vacant homes and add value.

Not surprisingly--not surprisingly--when I laid out this proposal to the roundtables and the discussion groups I had around the State, one of the things the mayors and the city councilmen liked the most was this ability to get those homes in foreclosure sold and occupied by borrowers who would be contributing members of the community and helping to stabilize those communities. They recognize the importance this has for their communities as well as the families who would be living there.

One other part of this proposal that is very important to me is that the measure proposes new loan disclosure requirements with a prominent, plain English explanation of key loan conditions. I want the borrowers to see in big type any teaser rates or introductory rates, anything that will change the terms of their payments or limit their ability and lead to foreclosure.

I have had the distinction of living in several houses in the last few years. As we have moved from house to house and purchased homes, I have seen that stack of documents. As the occupant of the chair, I used to be a lawyer. I am recovering from it now. I have looked at those documents and tried to make

sense of them, and I tell you there is not enough time if you are purchasing a house. It took me about 45 minutes to sign all the pieces of paper that came before me. Now, that doesn't help anybody. The Truth in Lending Act has gone to ridiculous extremes. Unfortunately, we let lawyers draft that, and there ought to be a law against lawyers drafting any kind of disclosure documents. We need to have those simple, in plain English, so you know what your rate is, what it could rise to, whether there is a prepayment penalty, and whether you can refinance it. That is on the first or second page.

Tell me something I need to know. Don't make me sign 30 pages saying I have read all the fine type or all the fine print.

Everybody knows that is a joke. Let us put disclosure in plain terms. That should be a help in the future.

We also have a provision from Senator Coleman of Minnesota in this bill to give returning war veterans more time to avoid home foreclosure. Currently, they have a 3-month window from their return to work out any mortgage difficulties they have. This may not be enough time for them. So this proposed measure would extend the protection against foreclosure to 6 months after arrival home. That is the least we can do for our returning heroes.

We have included provisions of the Federal Housing Act reform bill, which passed the Senate 93 to 1 last year. That bipartisan, near unanimous reform bill deserves to become law. FHA is one of our key financing insuring agencies for lower income people. We need to make sure it works. We have heard about the possible application of FHA Secure to assist borrowers whose mortgage payments have gone beyond their reach, but it is too limited. They can't use it. We need to loosen up the terms so that the terms are not so strict that FHA is in the position of what some people used to characterize as a bank being a place that lends you an umbrella and takes it back when it starts to rain. The FHA holds out great promise for being able to insure loans and get people in houses, but when they say, if you do anything, if there is anything, if you miss any step, you can't get the protection, it seems to me maybe we have tightened it down too hard.

I believe, however, for the future, it ought to be the policy of the FHA--and I would hope it would be the policy of any responsible mortgage broker or lender--not to make any no-downpayment loans. No- downpayment loans are one of the most significant contributors to housing foreclosures and failure to be able to meet those terms. If you don't have the money to buy a house, there is nothing wrong with living in a rented house. I have lived in rented houses. You can save up the money to buy a house. But to buy a house responsibly, you need to have some downpayment. I hope that the FHA would get rid of the idea that it is the American dream to put somebody into a house with no equity in it. That is asking for trouble, and that is one of the sources of the trouble we face.

I would say one other thing. A lot of people are now realizing that this housing crisis is the basis of financial challenges and financial difficulties in the United States and possibly even internationally. I said earlier, this toxic paper has been spread throughout the world, and there are banks in other countries, there are investment houses in other countries that are suffering because of it. There had to be steps taken at the Federal level, and some of the steps were a little bit breathtaking. I was not wild about seeing the Fed have to move in and wipe out Bear Stearns and provide the guarantees, but I am willing to accept what the Chairman said, and what others have said, that this was necessary to stop the domino effect of collapsing Federal institutions and federally insured institutions, and it is necessary to stop a worldwide panic from subprime loans.

There are other steps that have been taken as well--lowering the Fed rate to 3\1/4\, 2\1/4\. These steps are necessary on a macro level. But let me tell you one thing. This macro problem has a micro problem basis. The problem we face is not just what happens in Washington or happens in New York or happens at the Federal Reserve. This problem depends upon how we solve the problems of the families facing foreclosure, of the communities seeing a wave of foreclosures driving down property values.

This problem requires also that we work for a solution that begins at the ground up; that takes care of the families in need; that takes care of the communities facing these problems and not do only what has been done nationally, what we read about in the headlines, but what we can only see in community newspapers back home, as to how we help families and communities struggling with foreclosure.

This housing bill before us represents the needs and values of our families and neighborhoods. It doesn't provide for any government buyouts of mortgages, as some propose. It does not provide for refinancing of vacation or investment homes, as some fear. Together, our housing proposal will help families and neighborhoods across this country get through the crisis and help our financial systems to maintain stability. But most of all, for our families, for our neighborhoods, for our communities, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Madam President, I yield the floor.