Floor Statements

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

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

Mr. President, I commend the work of my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee on this important legislation which I hope President Bush will sign into law prior to the start of the fiscal year. In this tremendous time of transition for our military, we owe them a law that will enable the DOD to execute this year's budget efficiently and effectively.

This bill provides a budget that allows the DOD to plan for future threats, combat current threats, and provide for the welfare of our brave veterans both past and future.

It should also be noted that this year's bill and the authorization bills from the preceding 28 years could not have been completed without the statesmanship and the strong bipartisan leadership provided by Senator John Warner. This will be Senator Warner's final authorization bill during his nearly 30 years on the Senate Armed Services Committee, on which he also served as chairman and ranking member. In his nearly 60 years of serving our country both in and out of uniform, he has always upheld his commitment to our brave service men and women with the highest standards of honor and integrity

I would first like to point out a few of the highlights of the National Defense Authorization Act currently being considered:

Authorizes a much needed 3.9 percent across-the-board pay raise for the brave men and women of our armed forces. This pay raise is a half percent higher than that requested by President Bush;

Fully funds Army readiness and depot maintenance programs to ensure that forces preparing to deploy are properly trained and equipped;

Authorizes $26.1 billion for the Defense Health Program, which includes

the $1.2 billion necessary to cover the rejection of the administration proposal to raise TRICARE fees;

Requires the Secretaries of Defense and VA to continue the operations of the Senior Oversight Committee to oversee implementation of Wounded Warrior initiatives; and

Fully funds the eight ships requested in the President's budget, including full funding for the third ZUMWALT class destroyer. This ship is critical to maintaining the technical superiority that our Navy has enjoyed on the oceans throughout the world. The future maritime fleet must be adaptable, affordable, survivable, flexible and responsive. The ZUMWALT class provides all of these characteristics as a multimission surface combatant, tailored for land attack and littoral dominance. It will provide independent forward presence, allow for precision naval gun fire support of Joint forces ashore, and through its advanced sensors ensure absolute control of the combat air space. All of this capability is based on today's proven and demonstrated technologies. We cannot build the same ships that we did 20 years ago and hope to defeat tomorrow's emerging threats.

This year I once again had the honor of serving as the chairman of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee. Senator Dole served as the ranking member of the subcommittee and working together, our subcommittee produced good results in the bill now before the Senate. The Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee is responsible for looking at new and emerging threats to our security, and considering appropriate steps we should take to develop new capabilities to face these threats.

In preparation for our markup, Senator Levin, the distinguished chairman of the committee, provided guidelines for the work of the committee, including the following two items:

Improve the ability of the armed forces to counter nontraditional threats, including terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and

Promote the transformation of the armed forces to deal with the threats of the 21st century.

In response, our subcommittee recommended initiatives in a number of areas within our jurisdiction. These areas include:

Supporting crucial nonproliferation programs and other efforts to combat Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD);

Supporting advances in medical research and technology to treat such conditions as traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder;

Increasing investments in new energy technologies such as fuel cells, hybrid engines, and alternate fuels to increase military performance and reduce costs;

Increasing investments in advanced manufacturing technologies to strengthen our defense industrial base so that it can rapidly and efficiently produce the materiel needed by our Nation's warfighters; and

Increasing investments in research at our Nation's small businesses, Government labs, and universities so that we have the most innovative minds in our country working to enhance our national security.

Specifically, some notable initiatives in this bill that originated in the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee include:

Authorizing more than $120 million in the area of nonproliferation and combating weapons of mass destruction, including $50 million for denuclearization activities in North Korea; $20 million for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program; and more than $50 million for chemical and biological defense programs.

Consolidating funding for the Mixed Oxide, MOX, program in the National Nuclear Security Administration, NNSA, as a nonproliferation activity, rather than as part of the nuclear energy budget as the budget requested.

Clarifying that excess fissile material disposition is an NNSA nonproliferation responsibility.

Establishing a nonproliferation scholarship fund to deal with shortages in technical and other fields such as radiochemistry and nuclear forensics.

Adding $25 million to nonproliferation research & development, R&D, for nuclear forensics and other R&D activities.

Authorizing the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and providing an additional $10 million for new initiatives outside of the former Soviet Union, $1 million for Russian chemical weapons demilitarization, and $9 million for nuclear weapons storage security in Russia to complete the work under the Bratislava agreement.

The bill also includes a number of legislative provisions that will enhance the Department's ability to procure and use critical defense technologies, such as:

Legislation that would implement recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences to help ensure that the DOD develops and procures printed circuit boards that are trustworthy and reliable for use in defense systems;

Legislation that would implement the recommendations of the Defense Science Board seeking to enhance the Department's ability to ensure that microelectronics procured from commercial sources, including foreign sources, and embedded throughout defense systems are reliable and trustworthy; and

Legislation requiring the development of a joint government-industry battery technology roadmap to ensure that a healthy and innovative defense industrial base for batteries exists in the United States, to support a variety of requirements in military vehicles, computers, and other equipment.

Relative to science and technology funding levels, the bill would increase the Department's investments in innovative science and technology programs by nearly $400 million to over $11.8 billion; and fully support the Secretary of Defense's initiative to increase university defense basic research funding and increase the level by nearly $50 million over the President's request.

In the area of force protection, the bill includes a provision that would increase the amount and quality of testing performed on force protection equipment, such as body armor, helmets, and vehicle armor, before it is deployed to the field, to ensure that our soldiers and marines have the best available equipment and protection.

In order to enhance our ability to combat international terrorist groups, the bill would fully fund the $5.7 billion budget request, and add over $20 million for items to help find and track terrorists, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance packages; extend authorization to the Special Operations Command to train and equip forces supporting or facilitating special operations forces in ongoing military operations, and increase the funding available for this activity; and increase funding for DOD's Regional Defense Combating Terrorism Fellowship.

Concerning counterdrug programs, the bill includes a provision that would extend the authority to use counterdrug funds to support the Government of Colombia's unified campaign against narcotics cultivation and trafficking, and against terrorist organizations involved in such activities. It also includes a provision that would extend the Department's authority to use counterdrug funds to support law enforcement agencies conducting counterterrorist activities.

This is a good bill. The members of the committee and the committee staff have worked many hours to get this bill to the floor. We are a nation at war and the military needs this bill. I urge my colleagues to work together to pass it so that we can conference with the House and send it on to the President for his signature.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I recognize the achievement of the La Salle Academy Players, the theater troupe from my high school alma mater, which recently gave four performances of ``The Scottish Play: Macbeth'' at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival. This prestigious event, the world's largest arts festival, is held annually in Scotland.

The La Salle Players were one of only 43 high school troupes chosen to perform from among hundreds of high school drama programs by the American High School Theatre Festival. La Salle Academy was the first Rhode Island private high school and only the second Rhode Island high school to have been selected in the 14 years that the American High School Theatre Festival has participated in the Fringe Festival.

I am especially pleased to share that, by all reports, the young men and women of the La Salle Players conducted themselves with great talent and poise, representing both their school and their country with distinction.

I want to individually recognize the cast and crew, faculty, and staff, who were instrumental to this effort: Brother Michael McKenery, the president of La Salle Academy, served as producer. The student cast and crew included Trisha Moise, Tiia Groden, Gabbie Whitney, John Pleasants, Dan Tracy, John Coletta, Nick Oliveira, Nick Montecalvo, Ryan Zins, Cam Burns, Matt Petrarca, Mark Sullivan, Valentina Szlashta, Michael Commendatore, Alex Schlageter, Sean Walsh, Kevin Cronin, Molly B. Allen, Katie Ryan, Emily Maher, Colin Whitney, Ashley Smith, Stephen Zukauskas, JR McKenzie, and Michael Gebhart. Faculty and staff included Thomas Haynes, Elissa Cerros, Margaret Hayes, and David Cabral.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Mikulski for not only the time to speak about this important measure but for her leadership. I particularly wish to recognize the extraordinary contribution of Senator Kennedy who has been the architect of this legislation and many previous reauthorizations. And I wish to give particular thanks to Senator Enzi whose quiet, thoughtful, and determined approach made a contribution to this legislation. I thank him for his hard work.

I rise in strong support of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008. It will be an important way in which we fulfill our obligation to the American people, and keep opportunity and hope alive throughout this country. Education is truly the engine that pulls people forward. It allows individuals and families to move up the economic ladder, and not only for their own progress, but also for the benefit of the communities in which they live.

This might be one of the most important pieces of legislation we ever considered on this floor. I am proud it has been so well handled and so meaningful that today we are debating legislation which I believe will get overwhelming support. I am particularly pleased it is being reauthorized at this time. We have seen an economy in turmoil. One of the realizations that is taking place is that the housing sector of our economy is so central to everything we do. I can imagine, as we all can, that there are literally hundreds of thousands of families across America who are counting on the equity in their homes to send their son or daughter to college. That equity has been diminished, if it has not disappeared altogether.

Today we are responding to that urgent need by providing more assistance to families to send their children to higher education. I am particularly pleased the aspects of the legislation I helped author are included in this final version. I introduced legislation called the FAFSA Act, which is the acronym for the federal financial aid form, to streamline the financial aid application process. There will now be a short EZ-FAFSA form for low-income students and families while also allowing students to apply earlier so they have an idea of what their financial options are as they consider college. These provisions will make the sometimes daunting task of getting financial aid, I hope, a little easier and a little more efficient.

I am also pleased that aspects of my legislation called the ACCESS Act have been included. This legislation deals primarily with the LEAP program. The LEAP program is a partnership between States and the Federal Government to provide grants to students who need the help--not loans, but grants. The States put in some resources; we match those resources. It is a way in which we can fulfill our commitment and our promise to many low-income families. This legislation builds on the LEAP program by providing critical additional financial resources, particularly resources and that will be useful for helping middle- and low-income families attend college.

We are all concerned about another aspect of our educational system, and that is teacher quality. This legislation incorporates some other provisions which I advanced that will help prepare teachers for the reality of today's classroom. I am very pleased they are included also.

We also included in this legislation a Perkins student loan forgiveness for librarians and for members of the Armed Forces. The Perkins program provides need-based loan assistance for students attending college. We are going to forgive the debt on that loan assistance for librarians and members of our armed services.

This is a wonderful act. I am pleased and proud to support it and be a part of it. I once again thank Chairman Kennedy, Senator Enzi, and Senator Mikulski for their great work.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to talk about the pending passage of extraordinarily important legislation: the Housing and Economic Recovery Act. We are debating it today, and it is one of the most significant pieces of legislation that we will address in this Congress and perhaps in many Congresses to come. It is in direct response to the housing crisis, which has not only undermined home values throughout this country, forcing thousands and hundreds of thousands of people into foreclosure or onto the verge of foreclosure, but its effects have essentially been transmitted throughout the entire economy, and we are seeing a huge economic downturn. Unless we provide some type of footing for housing in the United States, I do not think the economy will begin to recover. It is perhaps the most significant economic issue that we face.

For months now we have been battling to get this legislation through, and we are now on the verge of passing this significant bill. I am excited for that moment, and I wish to first commend individuals who have played a critical role. Senator Dodd has been remarkable in his management of this legislation, along with Senator Shelby. They have played a dynamic and very creative and very positive role in bringing this legislation to final passage. They have been ably assisted by their staff, and I have been particularly assisted by my staff members, Kara Stein and Didem Nisanci. They have done a remarkable job.

For the first time in a generation with this legislation, we are beginning to update, modernize, and strengthen the institutions that undergird our mortgage and housing markets to provide some footing, some economic traction, so that Americans can begin to feel somewhat hopeful and confident about their economic future again. We are also providing grants and tax incentives to encourage the development of housing across the Nation for low-income families.

One of those issues that has been persistent and, indeed, pernicious for many, many, many years before the onset of this housing crisis is the lack of affordable housing in many parts of the country--in fact, practically every part of the country. Low-income families have been struggling for decent, affordable housing.

In this legislation, we are providing a response to their struggle--a response I think will not only benefit low-income families but benefit communities throughout the Nation.

This legislation is a comprehensive and realistic response to the current crisis. I believe it will help millions of Americans to find decent, safe, and affordable housing.

Again, let me thank Chairman Dodd and Senator Shelby for all of their hard work and their very astute, very wise judgments at various places along the way where this legislation could have gone off the track. They have done a remarkable service for this body and for the American people. This bill is not just going to provide families with some hope; it is also going to provide families with real help, and that is so critical at this juncture.

For families, such as many in Rhode Island who are struggling to stay in their homes, this legislation creates a new program at the Federal Housing Administration--the FHA. This HOPE for Homeowners Program will allow families who have mortgages that are underwater--their mortgage is greater than the value of their home at this time--to refinance into 30-year, fixed-rate, FHA-insured mortgages they can afford. It is going to increase funding for home ownership counseling so that more families have access to these much needed services.

This legislation also aids our returning soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. I just had the privilege of traveling into Iraq and Afghanistan with Senator Hagel and Senator Obama to personally thank these young men and women and to tell them we are with them. We are with them not just there in the war zone, but we have to be with them when they come home so they have a chance when they come back to maintain their homes and get the services they need. This legislation will help them by lengthening the time a lender must wait before starting the foreclosure process and by providing these soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines with 1 year of relief from increases in mortgage interest rates. It is fitting that we spend a moment in this legislation to recognize these brave young Americans.

It will also provide $3.92 billion for States and local governments for the development of abandoned and foreclosed homes. It has been estimated that Rhode Island will receive about $56.7 million of this community development block grant funding, which should help stabilize many of our neighborhoods and stem the significant losses in the home values of surrounding neighbors.

What happens when a home is foreclosed? It affects dramatically and traumatically the individual family, but the effect is not contained to that home because the values of the surrounding homes go down as well. Almost like a cascading effect, one foreclosure follows another, home values descend, and then you have a blighted community. We have seen this in Rhode Island.

My colleague, the Presiding Officer and junior Senator from Rhode Island, has traveled through some of our communities where not one home, but two, and then three, and four, and then ten are foreclosed-- then suddenly we have a problem which is eating at the heart of the community.

This CDBG money will help cities move aggressively, first, to protect the physical structures of these homes. One of the things we have seen--not just in Rhode Island but nationwide--is that when these homes are abandoned, they are subject to predators who come in, rip out the copper piping, the wiring, take off the siding, and before you know it, you have lost that opportunity to put another family in that home. It is a great loss to the community.

We have done much over the last several decades to begin to turn the corner in many of our communities in Rhode Island. You could see the sense of pride and progress as homes were fixed up and new properties were developed, but we stand the chance of losing that, of letting it slip away. So without this community block grant development money, we will see neighborhoods turned inside out, begin to fail, and provide a further pull downward on the economy in so many communities in this country. This is another important aspect of this legislation.

This legislation also will help to stabilize and stimulate the real estate market.

This has been one of the great engines of our economy over the last decade or more.

This legislation contains a provision that will provide a $7,500 tax credit for first-time homebuyers--help people get back into the real estate market.

It will also provide States with $11 billion of additional tax-exempt bond authority in 2008 to help refinance subprime loans, make loans to first-time homebuyers, and finance the building of affordable housing. Many States--particularly in our State of

Rhode Island--have housing authorities that have done a remarkable job of partnering with private, not-for-profits, and local commercial and financial institutions to try to help develop affordable housing, help people who are having difficulties with their mortgages. This additional bonding authority will give more support to these local efforts. It is a critical issue.

The legislation also increases the GSE--which are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--FHA, and VA loan limits. This is going to allow more families to access conventional mortgage rates and be able to place themselves in affordable and sustainable mortgage products. One of the problems we have seen over the last several years has become much more vivid. Looking back, because we didn't empower the VA, FHA, and GSEs to more aggressively provide access to conventional loans, many families turned to these exotic mortgages with accelerating interest rates. As a result, they find themselves now in a great dilemma. Studies have shown that many people who were getting these subprime loans would have qualified for one of these conventional loans with a conventional interest rate. Because we weren't reaching out through these Government agencies, the VA, Federal Housing Administration, and also incentivizing the quasi-governmental agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, these people had very little choice but to be subject to the blandishment and allure of these seemingly good deals in the subprime mortgage market. Now we are getting much more aggressive with conventional mortgages. That will be, I think, going forward a good thing.

Important also, this legislation helps restore confidence in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It creates a new, strong, independent, world-class regulator for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks.

The bill also includes a provision, at the request of Secretary Paulson and the administration, which will authorize the Department of the Treasury to provide an explicit backstop should the GSEs encounter grave financial problems.

I am pleased also that the Federal Reserve's consultative role with the newly created regulator will also be also limited to the duration of this authority rather than in perpetuity.

I firmly believe that issues surrounding regulatory reform need to be seriously considered at length for the remainder of this year and in the upcoming year. We should not be merely bootstrapping these issues to the current bill without significant deliberation on the role and the ability of the Federal Reserve to perform such responsibilities. Let me say that again. It is vitally important to signal to the markets and the American people that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still vital, valuable parts of our mortgage market. In fact, they represent right now roughly 70 percent of that market. If they are faltering, if our real estate markets decline further, that is going to be a significant weight on our overall economy--even more significant than in the present day. Restoring confidence in Fannie and Freddie and the marketplace is one of the building blocks to beginning to restore and rebuild our economy going forward. These provisions will, I hope, do it in such a way that they provide psychological support so that actually drawing down funds by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may be unnecessary. This backstop will send, I think, the right message to the marketplace so we can move on to begin to deal with some other issues with respect to the larger financial markets of this country, and indeed the world.

Finally, let me mention some of the provisions I am particularly proud of in the bill. They represent the culmination of years of work-- not my work alone, but work on which I have taken upon myself to provide some, I hope, leadership.

I have been working to create a national affordable housing trust fund, this in response to the needs I have seen--and my colleague, the junior Senator from Rhode Island, has seen--around the country, with families struggling to find a decent place to live. Without a decent and a permanent place to live, how can you expect children to succeed in school, if they are in three different schools when families move from one rental to another one? How can families choose between shelters at all, when apartments are riddled with lead hazards, which impacts the health and welfare of a child and the family? How can you expect someone to confidently go out and look for a job and maintain a job, when they are asked for a permanent home address and they have to scribble something--either make it up or change it repeatedly? These are the challenges many face because we don't have adequate affordable housing for many of our citizens. Prompted by that, I have, since I have been in the Congress--the House and the Senate--been working for the day we can provide more support for affordable housing for our citizens.

When I was chair and ranking member of the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee of the Banking Committee during the last few Congresses, it became clear to me that our Nation had this affordable housing crisis. One of my first public policy endeavors as a young lawyer in Rhode Island was to be the pro bono legal counsel to Amos House, a wonderful organization in our home State, in Providence, which attempted to provide support to people who were poor and also provide some housing. I first became convinced that if we can provide stability in housing, that would go a long way towards giving people the confidence, self-esteem, and the skills needed to master the challenges of living in a very difficult economy.

Housing is expensive now--very expensive. It is falling, but it has gone up dramatically. The affordable housing crisis continues to be with us. Indeed, one of the ironies of the marketplace will be--and I hope quickly--when the market restores itself and home values begin to rise because of this legislation and other legislation, it will make it even more difficult for low-income and modest income Americans to find a place to rent or buy. We want the economy and the housing market to come back strong, and we want housing values to rise. But we cannot forget the people who may be left behind because their income is flat.

So this affordable housing provision is critical. There is no place in this country, for example, where an individual with a full-time job, at the minimum wage, can afford a two-bedroom apartment. Today, the minimum wage is going up, which is long overdue; but even at $6.65 an hour, that doesn't leave a lot for a good, safe two-bedroom apartment for a family. We have to do more. This legislation does more.

In my State of Rhode Island, the average wage for a renter is $11.61. In order to afford the fair market rent for an apartment at this wage, a renter must work 68 hours per week, 52 weeks a year. If you are making the average wage, in order to afford a decent two-bedroom apartment, you have to work 68 hours a week, 52 weeks a year. People are doing that. They are doing it for their children; they are doing it to make sure that at least there is a safe and healthy place for their children. That is an extraordinary burden. That is just to pay the rent. What about the increased food prices? What about the gasoline prices we are all recently talking about with such intensity?

This legislation creates an affordable housing trust fund from a less than one-half cent fee on each new dollar of business that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac engage in. This is not from the taxpayer. This is from the business activities of these government-sponsored entities. A less than a half-cent new fee on each new dollar of business.

The fund, we estimate, is going to provide approximately $500 million per year for the building, preservation, and rehabilitation of housing for low-income families. Rhode Island should receive approximately $3 million from the trust fund program once it gets up and running.

Part of the money collected from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will also be allocated to a new program that will be run by the Secretary of the Treasury, called the Capital Magnet Fund.

Community development financial institution and nonprofit housing developers will be able to apply for funding if they can show an increased investment in the development, preservation, rehabilitation, and purchase of affordable housing for primarily low-income families. So there are basically two funding streams. We hope it will incentivize the use not just of these

funds but additional private funds so we can provide even more support for affordable housing.

The grantees of the capital magnet program must show they can leverage at least $10 in private dollars for each dollar they receive from the Capital Magnet Fund. That is a pretty good deal. If they can leverage $10 of private investment for $1 of investment from that fund, that will multiply many fold the effect of these affordable housing dollars. These grantees will have to show that leverage and show innovative ways in which they can deliver affordable housing services. This will be a private solution to this problem. These grantees are primarily community development financial institutions or not-for- profits, who want to go ahead and support affordable housing in their communities.

This funding will be used to create and support financial programs that dramatically increase investment in low-income housing, such as revolving loan funds, risk-sharing loan programs, loan-loss reserves, and affordable housing trust funds at the local level.

I also helped draft provisions that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase more mortgages made to low- and very low-income families. This should increase the access of these families to 30-year fixed rate conventional mortgages. These provisions also require Fannie and Freddie to purchase more mortgages for rental housing built for low-income families, which decreases the mortgage rates on these mortgages. Frankly, more financial institutions will make the mortgages because they will be able to sell them to the secondary market.

The legislation also includes the text of a bill I introduced, called the Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act. These provisions require that consumers are provided with timely and meaningful information regarding the terms of their loan, including loans that refinance a home or provide a home equity line of credit. As we look back on this subprime crisis, so many times borrowers were totally unaware of the details of the mortgage. They might have been able to afford the first year of payments, but once the escalator kicked in, they were out of the box. They never understood this fully. Frankly, there were more incentives for the brokers and dealers of the loans to obscure the bad news than to deliver the news to the borrowers. With these improvements, people will have fair warning. They will have the information they need to make a better judgment about the mortgages they will sign up for.

In particular, the TILA, the Truth-in-Lending Act form, will now show the maximum payment a consumer might have to make under the terms of the loan, and increase penalties if a lender doesn't provide this information in a truthful and timely way to the consumer. You will know the maximum exposure you will have as a borrower. That should be a sobering caution for people who are trying their best to get into a home.

I am also pleased that this bill includes language I authored to expand access to HUD-approved counseling programs by allowing any low or moderate income homeowner to be eligible for financial counseling services. This provision will allow many more families to get the advice or assistance they need to help keep their homes.

As most of you know, FHA also insures reverse mortgages that can be used by homeowners age 62 or older to convert their home equity into monthly streams of income, or a line of credit to be repaid when they no longer occupy the home.

As the coauthor with Senator Allard of a bill to improve the home equity conversion mortgage program, I am pleased this bill contains our language to remove the current congressionally imposed 275,000 cap on the number of reverse mortgages that FHA can insure per year. This should allow the successful FHA program for seniors to expand and serve more seniors.

The bill also includes important provisions to protect our seniors from fraudulent practices, such as requirements for independent, third- party counseling before they enter into the mortgage, limits on the amount of origination fees that can be charged, and prohibitions on requiring the purchase of other products, such as insurance or annuities. This is a good program. We think we have made it better and believe it will now be able to serve more seniors.

Additionally, the legislation contains language I authored to use $25 million in FHA savings every year for the purpose of modernizing and improving FHA's technology, processes, and program performance. This funding can also be used to provide more staffing for FHA's newly expanded programs. This funding is critical to ensure the success of the FHA modernization proposal since it will allow FHA to access cutting-edge mortgage industry practices and procedures. If we want the FHA to be a strong participant in the mortgage market, they have to have the modern tools to do that, not only to serve more borrowers but also to protect against problems, to protect the resources they are committed on behalf of the Government to use for the benefit of our fellow citizens. So this modernization provision is absolutely critical, it is important, and I am glad it is in the bill.

We are at a critical juncture, and I am very pleased that we have finally been able to reach bipartisan agreement on this legislation. Again, it is a tribute to Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby and so many others and to a remarkable staff who have worked so hard. I am most proud of what we have been able to do to increase access to credit and affordable housing for low-income people in Rhode Island and across the Nation. This legislation is going to be the linchpin that helps millions of families have decent, safe, and affordable housing.

It also should restore confidence in not only our Nation's housing market but in our Nation's economy. As we move forward, I think we have much to learn from this experience, including how integrally connected our housing markets and capital markets have become. Safe, decent, and affordable housing should not just be the American dream, it should be the American promise. I look forward to witnessing the good this bill does in moving us in that direction.

As a final point, my colleague, Senator Sanders, has shown remarkable leadership to get LIHEAP funding onto the floor of this Senate. We need it. One of the responses, one of the immediate responses--not talking about drilling that 10 years from now will put more gasoline into the world market--in immediately dealing with the crisis this fall and winter for families everywhere is to pass a LIHEAP bill. I hope we can do that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am very pleased by the Senate's actions last night to pass bipartisan legislation that I introduced, the Conquer Childhood Cancer Act.

Recently, through the leadership of Representative Pryce, the House passed its version of this legislation by an overwhelming vote of 416- 0. The bill was renamed after Representative Pryce's daughter, Caroline Pryce Walker, who died of neuroblastoma at a young age.

Ben Haight of Rhode Island also died of neuroblastoma. But Caroline and Ben shared more than this terrible disease. They inspired their families to turn tragedy into hope. They and others also inspired many of us in Congress to work on this legislation.

The bill invests $30 million a year to expand pediatric cancer research. It also creates a national childhood cancer registry to track pediatric cancer. Researchers would be able to contact patients within weeks, enroll them in research studies, and follow up with them over time. In Europe, similar registries are already yielding results to research questions.

Again, I am pleased that our many efforts to overcome objections to the bill have finally succeeded, and that the bill is on its way to the President's desk to be signed into law.

Mr. President, I wish to spend a few minutes discussing why I vote against final passage of H.R. 6304, the House companion to S. 2248, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. I would like to begin by commending Senators Rockefeller and Bond who have negotiated this bill, literally for months, in order to reach the compromise that we voted on today.

I believe that many aspects of this bill are an improvement, not only to the Protect America Act which passed last August, but also to S. 2248, the bill we voted on in February. I opposed both of those bills. This compromise bill specifies that FISA and certain other statutes are the exclusive means for conducting surveillance on Americans for foreign intelligence purposes. It requires the inspectors general of the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, the National Security Agency, and the Director of National Intelligence to conduct a comprehensive review and issue a report on the President's surveillance program. It requires the intelligence community to create reverse targeting guidelines so that the National Security Agency cannot conduct surveillance of a U.S. citizen without a warrant by targeting a foreigner. Finally, it sunsets this legislation in 4\1/2\ half years rather than the 6 years called for in the original bill. All of these measures increase oversight and help protect civil liberties and are helpful changes.

However, title II of this bill still grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies for actions they may or may not have taken in response to administration requests that may or may not have been legal. As I have stated before, the administration has had years to provide the written legal justification that they gave the telecommunications companies when they requested their cooperation in the aftermath of September 11. A few of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee and Intelligence Committee were allowed to read certain documents related to this matter after extensive negotiations with the administration. However, I, and the rest of my Senate colleagues who are not on those committees, were denied access to those documents. In addition, the telecommunications companies who have been named in several lawsuits have been prohibited by the administration from providing any information regarding this issue to the courts, to the plaintiffs, to Members of Congress, or to the public. In good conscience, I could not simply trust with blind faith that the administration and telecommunications companies took proper, lawful actions.

I therefore supported three attempts to strip or limit this immunity during today's debate. First, Senator Dodd offered an amendment to strike title II. When that failed, Senator Specter offered an amendment to require a Federal district court to assess the constitutionality of the terrorist surveillance program before granting retroactive immunity to the companies alleged to have assisted the program. This amendment also failed. As a final effort, Senator Bingaman offered an amendment which would have stayed all pending cases against the telecommunication companies related to the Government's warrantless surveillance program and delayed the effective date of the immunity provisions until 90 days after Congress receives the required comprehensive report of the inspectors general regarding the program. If Congress took no action in that time, the telecommunications companies would receive immunity. Unfortunately, that amendment also failed.

The Senate had three opportunities to implement sensible measures to ensure that the grant of immunity to the telecommunication companies was appropriate. But these amendments were voted down. I believe the result sets a dangerous precedent. We must take the steps necessary to thwart terrorist attacks against our country, but these steps must also ensure that the civil liberties and privacy rights that are core to our democracy are protected. This bill fails to meet this threshold. For these reasons, I oppose the passage of this bill.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, we are at a critical moment. According to the Mortgage Bankers, the rate of foreclosures and the percentage of loans in the process of foreclosure are at the highest recorded level since 1979.

The delinquency rate for all mortgage loans on one- to four-unit residential properties stood at 6.35 percent of all loans outstanding at the end of the first quarter of 2008. This is an increase of 151 basis points from 1 year ago--a 1.5-percent increase--which is usually significant because it translates into thousands and thousands of Americans who are facing foreclosure.

The percentage of loans in the foreclosure process was 2.47 percent at the end of the first quarter, more than double what it was a year prior.

In my own State of Rhode Island, 5.65 percent of all loans are past due, and 2.75 percent are in foreclosure.

That is a staggering statistic. Rhode Island has the unfortunate distinction of having the highest foreclosure rate in New England and is fourth in the Nation for subprime foreclosures.

For many Rhode Islanders--in fact, the majority--their home is their wealth, their nest egg. Unfortunately, with such a high foreclosure rate, many Rhode Islanders are seeing their wealth erode as home prices fall. Thousands more are in default because they are no longer able to refinance or sell their homes since their mortgages are now worth more than the appraised value of their homes.

This week, the latest Case-Schiller home price index was released. Home prices in 20 U.S. metropolitan areas in April fell by 15.3 percent from a year earlier, signaling that the housing recession is not over. In fact, it continues unabated.

More foreclosures will further exacerbate the overall decline in property values and have a dramatic and drastic effect on entire communities. It is clear that this vicious cycle in the mortgage and housing markets is negatively impacting the entire economy.

In addition, as a result of the credit crunch in the mortgage markets, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are now the largest player in the secondary housing market. Combined, they are purchasing and securitizing almost 80 percent of the mortgage market right now and almost single-handedly are keeping mortgage credit flowing throughout the country.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are at a critical juncture, and we need to make sure they are well capitalized and overseen by a strong and independent regulator with more bank-like regulatory authorities.

Finally, we do not just have a credit crunch and a mortgage meltdown, we also have a continuing and persistent affordable housing crisis in this country. The irony is, we had an affordable housing crisis when prices were going up because people were being squeezed out of rental properties. Rents were going up. People were being squeezed because there was a real demand for upscale housing and not the same kind of demand in the private market for affordable housing.

As the housing market declines, people are also squeezed. People lost their homes and are moving into apartments. The activity to build and develop affordable housing has not picked up at all. So we have the situation where we also have to deal with affordable rental housing in particular. In the wake of the foreclosure crisis, all of these factors are compounding the plight of Americans across the board. Homeowners are losing their homes, low-income Americans are struggling to find properties to rent, and homeowners have seen the value of their housing investment--which represented their plans for the future and the future of their children--all being radically rewritten as we speak because of a decline in the price of houses. We have seen for the first time a reversal in what had been a positive trend in home ownership. That is now declining.

So I think we are working hard to try to respond to all these issues. How do we inhibit, prevent, as much as we can, this drumbeat of foreclosures? How do we provide support for families who are looking for affordable housing? How do we do it in a conscientious way and also strengthen the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? I think we have achieved that in this legislation, and now the time is to move forward. That is why I am encouraging all of my colleagues to support the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.

This bill includes the Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act, which will allow us to create a world-class regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks, the housing government-sponsored enterprises. This regulator will have broad, new authorities to ensure the safe and sound operations of all these institutions. These powers will include establishing capital standards, setting prudential management standards, enforcing orders through cease-and-desist authority, civil monetary penalties and also the authority to remove officers and directors, restricting asset growth and capital distribution for those institutions which are undercapitalized. It can place a regulated entity into receivership, and it can review and approve new product offers. All of these are the powers which we have extended historically to bank regulators, and now these powers are being extended to the regulator of three of the most prominent financial institutions in the country, although their focus is on housing exclusively, or generally.

This legislation expands the number of families Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae can serve by raising the loan limits in high-cost areas to 150 percent of the conforming loan limit. It also significantly enhances the housing component of the GSEs' mission.

It includes provisions I authored that will dramatically expand Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's affordable housing mission by creating a new housing trust fund and capital magnet fund, financed by annual contributions from the enterprises, which will be used for the construction and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing. We expect these programs to eventually provide between $500 million to $1 billion per year for the development of housing for low-income families. These affordable housing contributions are obtained by requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to set aside less than half a cent on each dollar of unpaid principal balance of the enterprises' total new business purchases. Eventually, 75 percent of the funds collected will be used for the affordable housing trust fund and 25 percent will be allocated for the payment of Government bonds to keep the bill deficit neutral.

I was very pleased to have worked out a compromise with all my colleagues, particularly Senators Dodd and Shelby, that would allow the HOPE for Homeowners Program--the

program Senator Dodd has taken the lead in crafting which will resolve or attempt to resolve some of these foreclosure difficulties--to be a mandatory program that is deficit neutral and would not require any payments from the Federal taxpayers because it would use the proceeds from the Federal housing fund in the first 2 years to pay for this foreclosure program. I think this program is a great way to accomplish many of the objectives we have. First, we do want to help people facing foreclosure, but we also do not want to necessarily engage taxpayer funds in that process. This arrangement accomplishes those two objectives.

As many of my colleagues know, I introduced a bill in November to improve the mission of the GSEs that would, in fact, allocate all the money to affordable housing. The bill before us would help this affordable housing mission, but it would also allow, as I have said, for the first 2 years, to allocate some of the resources to Senator Dodd's proposal to prevent and assist in the foreclosure process.

Once we have the foreclosure program up and running, then, after 2 years, the resources will be devoted to affordable housing, with 65 percent being used to create a permanent housing trust fund. The housing trust fund will be managed by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and it would distribute these funds to States via a formula. At least 75 percent of the funds distributed to the States must be targeted to extremely low-income families.

Thirty-five percent of the affordable housing funds will be allocated to a capital magnet fund and will be used by the Secretary of the Treasury to run a competitive grant program to attract private capital for and increase investment in affordable housing. Applicants for funding will need to show they can leverage the funding by at least 10 to 1. We believe this will result in the creation of many more units of affordable housing than could be done otherwise. What we are requiring these applicants to do is to enlist private capital in a ratio of at least 10 to 1 to match the public capital and increase significantly the scope of these programs and to house many more Americans. I think this is a great way to incentivize and challenge private capital to come into the field of affordable housing and to put more Americans in decent, affordable rental housing.

The mission improvement section of the bill also strengthens Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's affordable housing goals. In particular, it would align their goals regarding the purchase of affordable mortgages with current Community Reinvestment Act income targeting definitions and ensure that these enterprises provide liquidity to both ownership and rental housing markets for low- and very low-income families. We want to make sure we target these resources to those Americans particularly struggling in a very difficult economy--low- and very low- income Americans.

The legislation requires the enterprises to serve a variety of underserved markets, such as rural areas, manufactured housing, and affordable housing preservation. It improves reporting requirements for affordable housing activities, including expansion of a public-use database, and strengthens the new regulator's ability to enforce compliance with these housing goals.

All of these affordable housing provisions are premised on the fact that with Fannie and Freddie's Government benefits come many important responsibilities to the public.

As I mentioned earlier, this legislation also contains a bill authorized by Senator Dodd called the HOPE for Homeowners Act. I wish to commend him for his hard work in crafting these provisions and also commend him for the judicious way he has managed this legislation.

In the last several weeks, this legislation has called for very critical judgments about procedures and timing and substance. On every one of those occasions, Senator Dodd, working closely with Senator Shelby, has made some remarkable, wise, and judicious judgments, and I commend him for that--both of them, and for their stewardship of this legislation.

Now, this legislation Senator Dodd is proposing, the HOPE for Homeowners Act, would create a new temporary, voluntary program within the Federal Housing Administration to back FHA-insured mortgages to distressed borrowers. The program is vitally important and could not come at a more important time.

Two weeks ago, the OCC--the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency--put out a report documenting the scope of the failure of the Bush administration's efforts to stem the mortgage crisis. The administration has been relying on a voluntary industry effort called HOPE Now. HOPE Now has been reporting that it has produced in excess of 1 million loan modifications through this program. They have had events to tout it in the public and the press. They always mention this number.

The credibility of the HOPE Now numbers has been under attack for a while, primarily because they are self-reported numbers and because HOPE Now includes in its numbers ``payment plans,'' which are not loan modifications but only delay troubled home borrowers. Apparently, the regulators themselves have begun to feel a little uncomfortable, and the OCC decided to do its own report with its own numbers. They reported that voluntary mortgage industry efforts have resulted in only 52,000 loan modifications out of 3 million seriously delinquent loans.

In addition to the 3 million seriously delinquent loans--loans over 60 days or in bankruptcy or foreclosure--there are also 1.5 million foreclosures in process, and new foreclosures initiated during the same period total almost 300,000. In effect, foreclosures are running six times ahead of loan-modification efforts. Looking at it another way, loan modifications are less than 2 percent of seriously delinquent loans and only about 3 percent of foreclosures.

It is clear that the administration's argument that no new action is needed has been proven wrong. The OCC data also clearly demonstrates that helping mitigate the effects of this mortgage mess cannot be left completely up to the mortgage industry and voluntary efforts. ``Fuzzy math'' and a lack of transparency are what got us into this mess. It should not be used to try to cover up the fact that there is still a major problem.

That is why Senator Dodd's HOPE for Homeowners Program is so important. It is going to enable approximately 400,000 homeowners to refinance into 30-year fixed mortgage products with FHA mortgage insurance. Many of these homeowners have no other financing option since their homes are now worth less than their mortgage. They are ``underwater.''

Any lender who participates in the HOPE Program Senator Dodd is advancing will have to write down the value of the mortgage to 90 percent of the current appraised value of the home. They will write off the loss, and then the new loan for the homeowner will have to be for 30 years at a fixed rate and with FHA mortgage insurance. In exchange for getting a new loan with built-in equity, homeowners will have to share future appreciation equally with the FHA.

The intent of the legislation is to set a floor on lender losses while at the same time putting families into 30-year fixed rate mortgages that will allow them to keep their homes. This legislation, we hope, will help stabilize the housing markets in parts of the country that need the help the most.

In addition, most of the provisions from the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 that passed the Senate by a vote of 88 to 8 on April 10 are included in this legislation. This section of the bill contains the Banking Committee's legislation to modernize, streamline, and expand the reach of the FHA mortgage insurance program.

The FHA modernization section includes provisions I authored that would expand access to home ownership counseling, provide for technology and staffing improvements at FHA, and update the FHA Home Equity Conversion Mortgage--HECM--Program, allowing seniors to safely tap into the equity of their home for other necessary expenses.

The FHA loan limit is increased from 95 percent to 110 percent of area median home price, with a cap at 150 percent of the GSE limit in high-cost areas, which currently will be $625,000. This should allow families in older areas of the country to access home

ownership through FHA. It also requires a downpayment of at least 3.5 percent for any FHA loan.

In addition, the Foreclosure Prevention Act section of the bill provides $3.92 billion in funding to communities hardest hit by foreclosure and delinquencies to purchase foreclosed homes at a discount and rehabilitate or redevelop the homes to stabilize neighborhoods and stem the significant losses in house values of neighboring homes. It also contains $150 million in additional funding for housing counseling.

It contains some important provisions to help our returning soldiers avoid foreclosure by lengthening the time a lender must wait before starting the foreclosure process and providing the veterans--soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen of the current conflict--with 1 year of relief from increases in mortgage interest rates. In addition, the Department of Defense is required to establish a counseling program to ensure these veterans can access assistance if facing financial difficulties. The legislation also increases the VA loan guarantee amount, so that veterans have additional home ownership opportunity.

I am also pleased that the bill contains a provision I authored in my bill, S. 2153, to amend the Truth in Lending Act to improve home loan disclosures. This provision will ensure that consumers are provided with timely and meaningful disclosures in connection with not just home purchases but also for loans that refinance a home or provide a home equity line of credit. The bill requires that mortgage disclosures be provided within 3 days of application and no later than 7 days prior to closing. This should allow borrowers to shop for another mortgage if they are not satisfied with the terms. If the terms of the loan change, the consumer must be notified 3 days before closing of the changed terms.

If consumers apply for adjustable rate or variable rate payment loans, there will now be an explicit warning on the 1-page Truth in Lending Act form that the payments will change depending on the interest rate and an estimate of how those payments will change under the terms of the contract based on the current interest rate. The bill also provides a new disclosure that informs borrowers of the maximum monthly payments possible under their loan. The bill provides the right to waive the early disclosure requirements if the consumer has a bona fide financial emergency that requires they close the loan quickly and increases the range of statutory damages for TILA violations from the current $200 to $2,000 to a range of $400 to $4,000.

Finally, it requires lenders to include a statement that the consumer is not obligated on the mortgage loan just because they received the disclosures. This will give consumers the opportunity to truly shop around for the best mortgage terms for the first time ever. They will be able to compare the payments and costs associated with a certain loan product and decide not to sign on the dotted line if they do not like the basic terms of the loan.

I believe that giving consumers the information they need regarding the maximum payment is absolutely critical. Borrowers need to better understand the full financial impact of entering into a particular loan early in the process and before they actually consummate the loan.

There are many borrowers today who signed up for a loan with teaser rates with a monthly payment they could well afford and then were shocked 18 months later to get the adjusted rates that were staggering to them and were, for many, unaffordable. Many in good faith relied on what they thought would be the initial introductory loan. I do not think they should be in that position. I think all the details, the maximum loan amount under the current rate should be available upfront, not hidden in a pile, literally a foot high, of closing documents.

They also have to have a chance to back out of the loan, if the terms are not acceptable to them, before closing the loan at the conference room table.

I am pleased my Republican colleagues have agreed with the need to improve mortgage disclosures also.

Finally, this legislation includes some important tax provisions that should enhance and strengthen the low-income housing tax credit program and the mortgage revenue bond program. It also has a refundable first- time home buyer credit of up to $8,000 to help reduce the stock of existing unoccupied housing and a nonitemizer tax deduction for State and local property taxes from Federal income tax.

It is my hope this legislation will help more families to refinance out of bad loans, help stabilize the housing market, and improve the laws and regulations so this type of foreclosure crisis never happens again.

As a member of the Banking Committee, I wish to particularly thank Chairman Dodd and Senator Shelby for including a number of bills and initiatives that I have been working on in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act that is before us today, and I hope we are going to be able to pass this important legislation in very short order.

The American people need a lot more than the current HOPE Now program, they need help now. I encourage all my colleagues, we should move forward deliberately--today, I hope--on this important legislation and send it to our colleagues in the House.

I know Chairman Frank and his colleagues have done a remarkable job on their side to pass legislation that is very close to ours. Together, we should be able to send something to the President that he will, I hope, sign and will send a message to the American people that hope is not just a fiction of rhetoric, but it is a reality--and not just hope, but help is on the way.

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

I too yield my postcloture hour to Senator Dodd.

Madam President, I come to speak against the proposal by Senator Bond which would significantly--in fact, catastrophically-- undercut the affordable housing program we have included in this legislation, with the support of Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby.

This legislation is necessary. Even before we had a foreclosure crisis, hundreds of thousands of Americans--millions--did not have decent, affordable housing. So this is not something that is a temporary fix to the mortgage crisis; this is long-term solution aimed at addressing a long-term problem of not having enough affordable housing in this country. It is absolutely necessary.

The Bond amendment would essentially say: Well, yes, you can have a housing trust fund, but we are not going to fund it because the funding mechanism comes from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Oh, by the way, you can create a home ownership protection program, but the first 3 years of affordable housing trust fund monies won't be available to help pay for it, which was how we dealt with the objection of Senator Shelby and many others that we not use public funds to help with the foreclosure problem.

This is a way in which we can accommodate many objectives: helping people facing foreclosure without using public funds and in the long term creating a permanent, affordable housing trust fund. There is no place in this country--none of my colleagues have places--where the constituents are not coming up and saying we need help with affordable housing. The rent is going up. We can't afford it. We are on the street. Please help us. That problem will not expire when this foreclosure crisis is over.

Let me also say I think it is entirely appropriate that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac participate. They were chartered originally as quasi public entities. They have--we have given them and we continue to give them--affordable housing responsibilities. That is part of their mission, part of their mandate. Some would say: Well, listen, if that is the case, let them decide what they want to do. We spent years creating this affordable housing program. One of the criticisms of this program was that if you gave Fannie and Freddie control of the money or required them to spend in a certain way, it would become politicized. They would pick winners and losers not based upon needs in certain parts of the country but based on political advantage. That was a criticism that was advanced most strenuously by my Republican colleagues. So we have created an affordable housing program, part of which is lodged at Treasury and part of which is lodged at HUD.

If the Bond amendment is adopted, we are giving up the last chance we have for an affordable housing trust fund in this country, the last major chance. I urge opposition.

Mr. President, the CBO has scored the Banking portion of this bill so that not a penny of taxpayer dollars will be spent. This is not a bailout by taxpayers dollars. Second, the bill in no way benefits lenders. Lenders have to take a haircut, as Senator Shelby pointed out very clearly. Also, this bill is really an amalgamation of provisions, many of which have passed the Senate before, that have been discussed extensively in the Banking Committee. That are the result of numerous hearings.

This is not the case where we have created something completely new, completely out of whole cloth. There might be changes, but I think it is quite easy for committee staffs and individual Members to deal with these changes and if there are objections, to make amendments.

This motion is to kill this bill. As Senator Schumer pointed out, what we are losing here is help for hundreds of thousands of homeowners--not financial institutions. What we are losing here is a stronger regulatory structure to govern Fannie and Freddie. I have sat on the committee for years listening to people say: We have to get regulatory reform, GSA reform. We cannot let these institutions--Fannie and Freddie--operate without strengthened oversight. That is precisely what this legislation does.

So this legislation is about helping homeowners, regulating Fannie and Freddie, and has nothing to do with bailing out companies.

Countrywide is mentioned in this motion to recommit. Countrywide was trading a year ago at $38.89. It closed today at $4.83. It is subject to an acquisition by Bank of America. The market has penalized Countrywide. Bank of America will acquire it. By the time this legislation is effective, Countrywide very well might not exist as an entity in the country.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the importance of extending unemployment insurance benefits to workers whose regular benefits ran out before they could get a new job.

As we know, the labor market is weak. The unemployment rate has jumped to 5.5 percent in April from 5 percent in March. That is an extraordinary jump. This is the largest single month spike in 22 years and the highest level in 3.5 years.

In addition, the Labor Department's alternative unemployment rate, a measure that includes people who want to work but who are discouraged from actively seeking employment because they cannot find full-time jobs, reached 9.7 percent in May. This latter statistic might be more accurate with what has actually happened in neighborhoods across America.

For Rhode Islanders, the situation is among the worst in the Nation. The number of unemployed Rhode Islanders has risen to approximately 35,000, which has been trending upward and is the highest since June 1994. Indeed, 6.1 percent are jobless right now, a figure which has remained unchanged over the past 2 months.

This is the fourth highest unemployment rate in the United States, and the highest rate in Rhode Island since August 1995, more than 12 years ago. It is also critical to point out that almost half, 41 percent of Rhode Islanders unemployed in January, February and March, exhausted their benefits, which is more than any other State in New England. Unfortunately, other economic indicators are equally discouraging. Economists think inflation is here to stay, and it is likely to get worse. We have received a very poor inflation number this morning which suggests that the forecasts of economists are sadly becoming true.

Food prices are high. Consumers are able to afford fewer groceries at the supermarket and restaurants are being squeezed by food costs. Food prices across the country spiked by more than 4 percent in 2007, the biggest jump in 17 years, and they are expected to escalate another 6 percent this year, though some items, including eggs and milk, have gone up much more. So we are not talking about luxury items, we are talking about the basics to survive. They are getting more and more expensive as more and more people are not able to find adequate work.

The price of gasoline has risen 35 percent from a year ago, when it averaged approximately $3. In Rhode Island, it now costs $4.11, on average, for a gallon of regular unleaded, making it very difficult for working families simply to get to school, to get to their job, and to get around the State.

The gross domestic product, the Nation's total output of goods and services, the measure of the overall economic activity of the country, increased at a mere .9 percent in the first quarter of 2008, which is nearly the same as the fourth quarter of last year. This stagnant growth obviously is highly correlated with the rising unemployment.

In April, consumer credit borrowing rose $8.9 billion for the month to $2.56 trillion. This is significantly higher than economists forecast. This means increasingly that Americans are going to their credit cards to get by, and this is a timebomb ready to explode in our economy.

More American families are being overwhelmed by debt. More and more families are forced, because they do not have adequate jobs, adequate wages to face the rising cost of gasoline and food, to take out the plastic. That can only last a certain amount of time. This is a looming problem that we have to recognize.

Similarly, there is speculation that the impact of the foreclosure crisis will continue to spread. In my home State of Rhode Island, we have the highest foreclosure rate in New England. And the outlook is just as bleak. A recent Credit Suisse report noted that foreclosures could impact about 6.5 million loans by 2012, meaning that nearly 13 percent of residential borrowers could be put out of their homes; 13 percent of homeowners in America are facing the prospect within the next few years of losing their homes. That is a startling and unacceptable projection.

Given that the economic situation is significantly harsher now than the start of the last recession, the need to extend unemployment benefits is clear. In doing so, we can start to stimulate the economy. We have virtually no growth, we have a foreclosure crisis with escalating gasoline and food prices. If we want to get this country moving again, we have got to stimulate the economy. We tried with the rebates a few months ago; that has not proved effective. Unemployment insurance

benefits have a very high return on their investment. It generates approximately $1.64 in gross domestic product for every dollar we put in, and that makes sense.

Individuals receiving these benefits are going to go right to the store, they are going to fuel their cars, they are going to buy food, they are going to try to take care of their children. This money is going right back in the economy. It is going to stimulate 64 cents more than we invest.

I am disappointed that the administration has released a Statement of Administration Policy stating that it strongly opposes the bipartisan measure overwhelmingly passed by the House of Representatives last week.

I am disappointed that the minority is unwilling to enact this meaningful legislation before us today. This would make a positive difference for America. I think it is reckless and irresponsible. Unfortunately, it is characteristic of this administration that they would oppose unemployment benefits for Americans while they continue to exhort us to spend billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The contrast could not be more stark and, I think, more condemning of this administration.

I believe we have to pass this legislation. We have to face it. And for my constituents in Rhode Island, it would be extremely useful.

According to the Center for Budget Policy Priorities, we have done this, we have extended benefits seven times over the past half century. They have provided much needed relief to workers. This is not something novel and unique. This is something we have done and we should do. We cannot afford to delay extending these benefits any longer. People are struggling throughout this Nation. It is our responsibility to respond to their needs, to give them a chance, to keep them afloat in a very stormy economic sea.

I urge the immediate passage of these unemployment benefits.

I yield the floor.

I believe I have been put in order for 10 minutes.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, we have heard a number of interesting opinions on the reasons and potential solutions to the energy crisis in which we currently find ourselves. Unfortunately, yesterday many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle blocked our ability to have a meaningful debate about the proactive steps we should be taking to address the issues that are contributing to skyrocketing prices Americans are paying at the pump.

All around the country, high gas prices are contributing to already shaky economic times for the American people. In my home State of Rhode Island, gas prices have increased by over 140 percent since 2001. Currently, Rhode Islanders are paying $4.09 a gallon for regular unleaded gasoline and $4.93 a gallon for diesel. Households in Rhode Island are paying $2,000 more per year for gasoline than they paid in 2001. That is $2,000 more than they were paying in 2001.

For the State economy, this means that families, businesses, and farmers in Rhode Island will spend $835 million more on gasoline this year than was spent in 2001 if prices remain at current levels. But these prices seem to be constantly accelerating. Rhode Island residents, farmers, and businesses are on track to pay over $1.44 billion for gasoline this year. That is an extraordinary drain on the economy of my State and on States throughout the Nation.

It is well known that our current energy crisis is due in part to the marriage of two uncontrollable circumstances: a fast-growing worldwide demand for oil and increasingly limited oil supplies. The Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act, which was signed into law in December of last year, made important improvements to our national energy policy, and I am confident the provisions in that law will help to decrease our long-term dependence on oil and thus lessen our future vulnerability to its availability. However, there is also a number of controllable variables that are contributing to the volatility of energy markets that we must address immediately to ensure the high prices Americans are paying at the pump are not going into the wallets of speculators and oil companies looking to exploit these difficult times.

The Consumer-First Energy Act would take action by incorporating proactive measures to protect against excessive speculation, keep the hedge funds and oil companies honest, and require investments by oil companies toward the development of our Nation's renewable energy infrastructure or face a windfall profits tax.

Experts now estimate that well over 25 percent of the cost of a barrel of oil can be attributed to excessive speculation by the financial traders of energy commodities. Yet yesterday we failed to move forward on a bill that would clamp down on excessive speculation by preventing traders from routing their transactions through offshore markets in order to evade speculation limits and subject energy traders to stronger reporting requirements.

Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say we must open up more land to drilling to solve the current crisis, increase the supply, and lower the demand. The fact of the matter is over recent years we have already opened up significant areas of the land and the Continental Shelf to oil companies and given them tax incentives to subsidize and encourage their exploration and drilling activities.

Over that same span of time, oil companies have reported bigger profits--almost $600 billion. Yet we still find ourselves in a precarious energy situation today. Moreover, the Minerals Management Service has reported that of all the oil and gas reserves believed to exist on the Outer Continental Shelf, 82 percent of the natural gas and 79 percent of the oil are located in areas that are already open to leasing. Onshore, 72 percent of oil and 84 percent of natural gas resources are either accessible already or are pending review.

We also hear very little about the nearly 91 million acres of land currently open to leasing in the Alaskan arctic area outside of ANWR, of which only 11.8 million acres have actually been leased.

The idea that we need to make more areas available to drilling to increase domestic production is not substantiated by the facts. We have broad swaths of land and Continental Shelf that are available for exploration and drilling. They are not being used. Until we have thoroughly reviewed and sited projects there, the idea that we have to open up ANWR is only a subterfuge, an excuse for inaction.

Indeed, in the last 4 years, the Bureau of Land Management has issued 28,776 permits to drill on public land. However, during that time, only 18,954 wells were actually drilled. Thus, oil companies are currently holding onto 10,000 unused permits which could just as easily help to increase domestic production as the lands that are currently protected under law. Clearly, the problem is not that there is a lack of places to drill.

Thus, drilling our way to energy independence is not the answer. Neither is increasing the importation of foreign oil and natural gas. The answer is investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs that currently save us more energy each year than the amount we consume from any single energy source, including oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power. These investments offer short-term and long- term solutions to strengthen our national security by reducing our energy consumption and making us less reliant on oil from unstable regions of the world. Moreover, they enhance our economic competitiveness by creating American jobs in this new green economy, and they protect our environment by reducing our carbon footprint.

There are actions the Congress can and should be taking, which were laid out in the Consumer-First Energy Act, that could ease the pinch people are feeling at the pump. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle also refused yesterday to debate a package of energy and tax extenders that would also go a long way to help investing in new renewable energy sources and the jobs these new sources would create.

Other economic indicators are equally discouraging, in addition to those concerning the energy sector. There are particular concerns in our economy today about inflation, slow growth in gross domestic product, significantly higher consumer borrowing, a rising Consumer Price Index for food, and other indications of difficult economic times.

But perhaps the most growing statistic and worrisome statistic across the country is unemployment. New monthly job numbers were released last Friday, and they were far worse than economists had predicted. The unemployment rate jumped to 5.5 percent from 5 percent in only 1 month.

In Rhode Island, 6.1 percent are jobless right now--unchanged over the past 2 months. This is the fourth highest unemployment in the United States, behind only the States of Michigan, Alaska, and California. It marks the highest unemployment rate in Rhode Island since August 1995--more than 12 years ago. The number of unemployed Rhode Islanders has risen to approximately 35,000, and it has been trending upward.

The Providence Journal reported today that about 41 percent of Rhode Island's unemployed in January, February, and March have exhausted their benefits. This is the highest of any New England State.

As we all know, the Senate and the House are currently reconciling an emergency appropriations bill. I was especially pleased the Senate version provided domestic spending for LIHEAP and unemployment insurance--two critical issues we are facing today: accelerating energy prices and exploding unemployment numbers. This domestic funding is critical to boosting our economy and helping those who are most in need.

Indeed, many economists have pointed to an extension of unemployment benefits as a quicker way to stimulate the economy than the rebate checks that were being passed out and are being passed out today. An extension of UI benefits provides a very high return on the investment, generating approximately $1.64 in gross domestic product per dollar spent. This is especially helpful at a time when people are saving less, making them ill-prepared to cope with a long-term economic slump.

In Rhode Island, it is estimated that the number of jobless who could immediately benefit from an extension of unemployment benefits ranges from 6,500 to 8,000 or more. Under the Senate-passed provisions, Rhode Island would not only qualify for an additional 13-week extension, but given our consistent 6.1 percent unemployment rate, we would trigger extended benefits of another 13 weeks. This means Rhode Island could receive up to 26 additional weeks of assistance to help amid these difficult times. That is why I will continue to press also for an extension of unemployment benefits.

We had the opportunity yesterday to move forward on progressive, proactive energy legislation, and it was stymied by my colleagues on the other side. We cannot let that happen. And we cannot also let the unemployed go without extended benefits.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I will be happy to yield.

Madam President, reclaiming my time, I am informed that we are attempting to alternate between the Republican and Democratic side, and so I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Jersey be the next Democrat to speak, because we are informed somebody is coming from the Republican side.

Madam President, let me do this. I will accede my position to Senator Menendez to speak, and I ask unanimous consent that I follow the next Republican speaker.

Thank you, Madam President. We are engaged in an extraordinarily important debate here. It is somewhat disappointing that the debate has been shortchanged due to procedural maneuvers by the minority party, which forced the clerk to read the entire bill and forced the majority to file a cloture petition.

I think what Senator Kyl and many others have said, I might not agree with, but it is important to have this vigorous debate. I am somewhat disappointed that it has been curtailed.

But now we are engaged in something that will impact this country and generations to come in a significant way. Seldom have we debated such an issue with global ramifications over decades and decades and decades.

We talk about many times the burden that our children and grandchildren will bear as a result of the Federal debt.

But there is an equally daunting burden placed on generations to come if we fail to come to grips with carbon emissions.

Each ton of heat-trapping carbon dioxide that human activity releases into the atmosphere remains there for 100 to 500 years, amplifying the warming effect on our planet, changing the climate, and fundamentally altering ecosystems, landscapes and public health.

The more carbon that is piled onto this ecological debt today, the more drastic the consequences will be in the future. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases is now the highest it has been in 650,000 years, and it continues to grow.

Madam President, what we do or what we fail to do with respect to climate change will have an impact not only on our country but on life on this planet into the next century and beyond. Seldom has this body grappled

with an issue with such sweeping global ramifications.

We frequently talk about the burden that is placed on our children and grandchildren by the Federal debt, but an equally daunting burden will be placed on generations to come if we fail to come to grips with carbon emissions. Each ton of heat-trapping carbon dioxide that human activity releases into the atmosphere remains there for 100 to 500 years, amplifying the warming effect on our planet, changing the climate, and fundamentally altering ecosystems, landscapes, and public health. The more carbon that is piled onto this ecological debt today the more drastic the consequences will be in the future.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases is now the highest it has been in 650,000 years and it continues to grow. With near scientific certainty, the IPCC tells us that the high level of greenhouse gases in the air has led to the increase in global temperatures that has occurred since the beginning of the 20th century. This increase has accelerated in the last 50 years, making the years 1995-2006 the warmest on record. Indeed, global temperatures may now be the hottest observed in the last 1,300 years.

The impacts of climate change are already observable:

Higher ocean temperatures have led to an increase in the number of intense hurricanes in the North Atlantic over the last century.

In Rhode Island's Narragansett Bay, the water temperature has climbed 4 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 40 years, coinciding with declines of winter flounder and lobsters.

Permafrost is thawing and becoming unstable, causing buildings to collapse in the Arctic region.

In 2007, the extent of Arctic sea ice was 23 percent less than the previous all-time minimum observed in 2005.

Snowpack and glaciers are diminishing and are melting earlier in the spring. This, in turn, is causing a decline in the health of rivers and lakes and is threatening habitat for endangered species.

There has been an effect on human health, with increased mortality from extreme heat and changes in infectious disease vectors. For instance, in Rhode Island this has meant an increase in the incidence of tick-borne disease.

The best science tells us that we must begin to curb emissions within the next decade in order to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations and avoid the catastrophic effects of climate change. If we fail, temperatures will continue to rise with dramatic results:

With an increase of 2 degrees Celsius, millions more people will experience coastal flooding each year.

An increase of 3 degrees will result in the loss of 30 percent of the world's wetlands.

An increase of 1-5 degrees will place 30 percent to 40 percent of species at risk of extinction.

Hundreds of millions of people, including up to 250 million people in Africa, will lose access to reliable water supplies.

But this is not a debate solely about plants and animals. It is not merely about feeling better about how we treat the Earth. At its heart this issue is tied to the fundamental national security challenge of this century, energy and our dependence on imported fossil fuels. Changes to the environment do not occur in a vacuum and will have far- reaching impacts on our national interests and our national security.

The U.S. intelligence community has recognized the threat and is in the midst of conducting a national intelligence assessment on the effect of climate change on our security.

Last year, the CNA Corporation's Military Advisory Board, consisting of 11 former general and flag officers, led by former Army Chief of Staff, GEN Gordon Sullivan, called for action to stabilize global temperatures. They warned:

Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability

in some of the most volatile regions of the world. Projected

climate change will seriously exacerbate already marginal

living standards in many Asian, African, and Middle Eastern

nations, causing widespread political instability and the

likelihood of failed states.

Just this week, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer reiterated that the alliance must prepare for new threats that stem from the impact of global warming, saying: ``climate change could confront us with a whole range of unpleasant developments--developments which no single nation-state has the power to contain.''

Regrettably, we have already witnessed the political ramifications of climate change. In writing in the Washington Post last summer, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon noted that ``[a]mid the diverse social and political causes, the Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change.'' As Secretary General Ban notes, a protracted drought, likely brought on by climate change, served to spur conflicts over resources and fuel the hatreds that brought genocide to this region.

With so much at stake, the United States cannot fail to lead. In fact, we have a special obligation. As noted NASA climate expert James Hansen recently wrote, carbon dioxide from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is still present in the atmosphere today, contributing to the warming our planet is experiencing. He estimates that the responsibility of the U.S. for the level of greenhouse gases is three times greater than any other country.

These are the imperatives that bring us to this debate.

I commend Senator Boxer for her efforts to bring this legislation to the point where it is today. Certainly, there must be compromise on legislation of this magnitude. As we engage in this debate, I want to highlight some areas of concern.

First, we should be setting more aggressive targets for emission reductions so temperature increases are contained within an acceptable range. In that regard, I'm concerned that the bill will reduce emissions, at most, by 63 percent by 2050. The IPCC has estimated that we may need to reduce emissions by as much as 85 percent in order stabilize carbon. Sixty-three percent leaves very little room for error. Given the stakes, I believe we should be setting a higher target. As a cosponsor of the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, S. 309, which sets a final reduction target of 80 percent, I believe this is the goal we should set in this legislation. I am pleased to join as a cosponsor of Senator Sanders' amendment to reach this goal. I am also pleased to join Senators Kerry and Feinstein in their amendment to require a scientific review by the National Academy of Sciences to ensure the goal we are pursuing is sufficient to stabilize carbon concentrations and to require new legislation to be proposed by the President if we are projected to fall short.

Second, because we must ensure that emissions begin to decline no later than 2020, we must implement the carbon cap as quickly as possible. I think we should begin implementation in 2010. Equally important, I have serious concerns about the bill's cost-containment provisions which would allow the auction of allowances borrowed from future years in order to provide additional allowances in early years. Although unlikely, this mechanism creates the potential for a situation in which there could be almost no reduction in U.S. emissions through 2028. Even if it is remote, it's not a possibility we should accept.

Third, we should ensure that the needs of consumers, particularly low-income consumers are recognized in the policy that we enact. I was disappointed to see that auction proceeds that were dedicated to the Weatherization Assistance Program, WAP, and Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, under the committee-reported bill were removed. As this debate progresses, I plan to offer an amendment that will again provide funding for these programs, which not only help consumers pay their energy bills but also make important strides in reducing energy consumption and carbon emissions.

Fourth, I appreciate the steps that are taken to promote and coordinate market oversight among various regulatory agencies, but I am concerned about the capacity of the EPA to lead the effort to provide oversight to a market of this size.

Fifth, we need to make sure that in any climate change bill we address the very real impacts that capping carbon

will have on everyday Americans living paycheck to paycheck. That is no small task, but no climate change bill will be a success unless we find a way to provide help to middle class families already struggling in an ever more competitive global economy. They must be afforded the same kind of transition assistance that many on the other side want to provide to carbon emitters.

Make no mistake, addressing climate change will not be easy. It will involve change and sacrifice, but it also offers opportunity and hope. We hold the power to unshackle ourselves from the dangerous energy resources of the fossil age and develop an economy based on new, clean energy sources and technologies. Instead of becoming increasingly beholden to foreign energy suppliers, we have the opportunity to become an exporter of energy technology and to bring light to the 2 billion people in the developing world who lack access to reliable energy. By making the choice to face the reality of climate change, we will help leave the world a better place for our children, grandchildren, and generations to come.

While I hope that we can continue to make improvements to the bill, I believe that this is an essential debate to have.