Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I congratulate Ms. Bailee Carroll Mayfield on receiving the American Veterans, AMVETS, scholarship award. The AMVETS National Scholarship Committee has awarded Ms. Mayfield a $4,000 scholarship after competing successfully against nearly 200 applicants. AMVETS has recognized Ms. Mayfield as an outstanding high school senior exhibiting academic excellence, promise and merit.

The AMVETS organization awards only six scholarships per year. Each scholarship is awarded to a high school senior who is the child or grandchild of a United States veteran, and is seeking a postsecondary education. Ms. Mayfield plans to utilize her scholarship at Eastern Kentucky University to pursue a career in psychology.

Ms. Mayfield has proven herself to be an exemplary student, rightfully receiving the AMVETS Scholarship Award. She is an inspiration to the citizens of Kentucky and to students everywhere. I look forward to seeing all that she will accomplish in the future.

Madam President, I want to speak directly to the folks at home right now. In the last few days, we have heard Senators say that we are in a historical crisis that requires action by the Federal Government. Supporters of this bill say it directs relief to homeowners who desperately need it, and deserve it. But they are trying to sell you on the cover of a book without letting you see what is inside. I like to know what kind of product I am buying before I open my wallet. As U.S. Senators, we have a responsibility to dig through any piece of legislation before we open up your pocketbook.

This bill is over 600 pages long. I have seen portions of it in the Banking Committee and the Finance Committee, but for the first time we are seeing the whole package here on the Senate floor. I am not buying it, and I do not think you, your children, and your grandchildren should have to either. Let me tell you why.

This bill puts you, the taxpayer, at risk. It creates a new, permanent tax on mortgage business done by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That tax threatens the solvency of those institutions and permanently punishes the shareholders, many of which are institutional investors such as pension funds. The tax also reduces the amount of capital these GSEs can provide to the mortgage lending system in a moment of serious liquidity issues in the market.

Furthermore, the FHA is already projecting losses of over $4.6 billion from existing loans, which will wipe out 22 percent of its capital reserves. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that participants in the FHA refinancing program will re-default at a rate of 35 percent. That is more than one out of every three loans refinanced through the program. We are putting more bad loans on an already broken program that can't handle the risks it currently has. Is that a good idea? Of course not.

The author of this bill says it does not put the taxpayer on the hook. That is just not true. First, the tax on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be paid by ordinary Americans, either through higher costs for future mortgages or through lower share prices in their retirement accounts. Is that fair? No.

Second, taxpayers are on the hook for any losses beyond what is being taken from the GSEs. Supporters of this legislation say that will not happen, but even their own numbers show just how likely it is for this program to be bankrupt in a few years. The CBO score for losses only fits within the GSE tax set aside for the program because they assume less than a third of the refinancing authority is used. I think time will prove all those assumptions wrong. The real question in my mind is when will we have to bail out FHA and who is going to pay for it?

This bill not only creates a dangerous new tax, but also uses that revenue to fund housing initiatives off the books of the Federal Government. Under this bill, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be assessed $500-800 million annually by the Federal Government. At least for the first year, that money will be used to cover the inevitable losses to the FHA from a bailout program for irresponsible and undeserving lenders and borrowers. The balance of that money will pay for a permanent slush fund for housing causes that will end up benefitting partisan groups, some of whom have recently had workers indicted for voter fraud. Additionally, there is an extra $150 million in counseling funds for these partisan groups, with even less accountability attached to those funds.

Another provision that has received little attention is $4 billion in emergency spending to buy foreclosed homes. That is nothing more than a gift to the banks, who by definition are the ones who have foreclosed homes to sell. These funds will have the perverse effect of increasing foreclosures because banks know there is going to be a willing buyer.

And if these tax and spend policies weren't enough, this bill vastly increases an already overreaching Federal bureaucracy. It nearly doubles the size of the FHA. It assigns important decisionmaking responsibilities with regard to this program to a board created of various agency heads, not Congress. It creates a new trust fund for ``affordable housing'' that is permanent and mandatory, outside the normal appropriations process. It requires loan originators to participate in a National Mortgage Licensing System and Registry. If you are a fan of big government, this bill definitely delivers.

But I am only skimming the surface. Unfortunately, it gets much worse. Make no mistake--this bill is a huge bailout for our Nation's lenders. The bill's author has said this bill is going to help the everyday man. Let's take a closer look and see what you think.

The FHA program created by this bill refinances borrowers who have defaulted on their mortgages into government-insured loans. Just how much of those loans does the government insure? One hundred percent. By creating this program, this bill limits how much lenders can possibly lose through mortgage transactions. When you invest in a business venture or in the stock market does the Federal Government cap your losses? No. But when it comes to big banks this bill willingly transfers downside risk of future losses right to the FHA and you, the American taxpayer.

As I said before, CBO estimates at least one in three mortgages refinanced under this bill will default again. Therefore, we have put in motion a scenario where taxpayers take the hit rather than the lenders who made that loan to a risky buyer who bought a house he could not afford, with a mortgage he could not afford. That is a bailout for the lender any way you slice it.

Probably the most glaring flaw is that the bill offers no way to keep out irresponsible and undeserving borrowers. In fact, borrowers are not required to show that they did not lie on their original mortgage application. To qualify for the bailout, borrowers get to sign a piece of paper saying they did not lie the last time they signed for a mortgage. This bill subjects the FHA to another wave of fraud that these no-documentation loans experienced in the primary market.

Borrowers who have not demonstrated an ability to pay can get a bailout because there is no requirement that borrowers have made any timely payments on their original mortgage. There is no income cap on eligibility for the program. As written, this bill would allow homeowners with houses valued at up to $550,000 to qualify for a bailout. In my county in Kentucky, which is one of the most expensive in the whole State, the median home price is $270,000. So this bill would give a bailout to people with homes valued at twice the median price. The American people are compassionate and often willing to help those in need. But I do not think giving a bailout to anyone who owns such an expensive home is fair to the average American. If you recall from the economic stimulus debate, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle vehemently opposed rebates for ``rich'' taxpayers. Now when it comes to bailing out banks that made risky loans, all income classes of borrowers can qualify.

The list of problems goes on and on. Mortgage professionals, people who by definition should have known better, can qualify for the bailout. People who defaulted on government loans before can come back to the trough. People who drained all the equity in their homes to buy flat screen TVs and new cars can qualify. This seems to me like a surefire way to set a program up for failure at a time when the FHA is reporting record losses.

The tax division of this bill also is flawed in several respects. In particular, it includes a $9.8 billion tax increase on small businesses that the Senate Finance Committee has never held hearings to review. This credit card reporting provision will result in a vast increase in paperwork for credit card companies and in millions of confusing and possibly misleading notices sent to the IRS and taxpayers.

Another provision that needs more work is the new limitation on the gain exclusion for the sale of a second home. This provision applies to any second property owned by the taxpayer, including an investment home. That means that taxpayers who lose their principal residence and move into a vacation home or investment property will also lose the benefit of gain exclusion. Is that the drafter's intent? This legislation has not been well thought out. That scenario should be excluded, and I have no doubt it would have been if this bill had followed the normal course through the Senate Finance Committee.

There are a few provisions in this bill which are worthwhile and needed. Most importantly, the bill creates a strong new regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress has been trying to pass such a bill for years, and it is sorely needed and worth passing on its own. But the proponents of the bailout are holding those needed reforms hostage to get their bailout.

I and many others hoped to offer amendments to try to mitigate the damage this bill could do. Unfortunately we have been blocked from doing so. On a bill of this magnitude that is irresponsible and unacceptable.

One of my amendments would have made refinancing more affordable for the vast majority of homeowners by allowing them to write off interest points paid on a home mortgage in the year paid. For no good reason, the Tax Code requires homeowners to treat points differently, depending on when they are incurred. If they are incurred in an original purchase financing, the points are deductible, just as they would be under my amendment. If they are incurred in a refinancing, the points can only be deducted ratably, over the life of the loan. The difference is so significant that it will affect the ability of millions of homeowners to afford refinancing.

The whole idea of bailing out people who took a gamble and lost is an irresponsible way to spend the taxpayers' money. I do not think the people back in Kentucky sent me to Washington to bailout speculators, Wall Street executives, and people who drained the equity in their homes to buy flat screen televisions and new cars.

This bill is simply the wrong kind of housing policy for Congress to be engaging in and is fatally flawed. Even the sponsor of the bill has admitted on the Senate floor that he is not even sure it is going to work, but he hopes it will. As the most deliberative body in the world, I think we can do better. In fact, we owe it to our grandchildren to do better. Who is going to bail them out when FHA is left with $300 billion in bad debt? On behalf of the people of Kentucky, this Senator is not buying this bailout bill.

Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I make this motion to refer the House message on the housing bill to the Banking Committee so the Senate can have all the facts about who will benefit from this legislation before we go forward. As anyone who has looked at the 631 pages of the substitute text can tell, this is a very serious piece of legislation. Hundreds of billions of dollars are on the line under the various parts of this bill. One part of this bill alone is a $300 billion refinancing program for problem mortgages. That part of the bill will open the door of the FHA to borrowers who have defaulted on their mortgages. I question the wisdom of that program. But for the moment, I want to focus on who will benefit rather than the losses the taxpayers will face.

The supporters of this bill say borrowers will benefit and lenders must take a loss on the loan before it can be refinanced. But that is not the whole truth. Lenders are already facing losses on these loans, so moving a loan into the program puts an end to the bleeding, and the FHA assumes the risk of all future losses. What that means is the lenders and others who hold mortgages are going to dump their worst $300 billion of mortgages on the FHA, without requiring so much as a thank-you to the taxpayers. If we are going to give such a large gift to the big banks and the investment houses, we should at least know to whom we are sending it.

Some of the lenders who are blamed for creating this housing crisis stand to benefit the most. For example, I read in the morning Wall Street Journal that one lender, Countrywide Financial, could benefit to the tune of $25 billion. That is a large gift from Congress to a private company, especially one that has been identified by some as the leader of the mortgage madness and has written more than 10 percent of the total of the most risky loans.

Does that make sense to anybody? Does that make sense to my fellow Senators? I don't think so.

Some may question that $25 billion figure. The truth is, no one in this Senate knows what the real number is. That is my point. The American people deserve to know who is going to benefit from this bill before we pass it. That is why I make this motion to refer the bill to the Banking Committee so that the committee can assess which banks and lenders will benefit and by how much. I make this motion with the full knowledge that it is going to take 59 fellow Senators to realize that the 631 pages of this substitute have just appeared before us yesterday. I continue to press my motion.

I now yield to my good friend from South Carolina, Senator DeMint.

Mr. President, I reiterate the fact that since we have the 631-page substitute, we have had no CBO scoring on this bill. It would only make sense to me to refer it back to the Committee on Banking so that CBO can work their magic and come up with the numbers so we know who is benefiting and who is not benefiting from the many pages in this bill.

I ask for the yeas and nays and yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I would like permission to speak briefly in rebuttal for 2 minutes.

Mr. President, I want everybody to see this bill--631 pages. This is the substitute bill out of the Banking Committee. This bill never came through the Banking Committee. This is a substitute bill. No one saw this bill until 5 p.m. last night--631 pages.

My good friend from New York has made many good points about the bill that we did discuss in the Banking Committee, and you know about it. But this is a brandnew substitute that has new provisions, and no one has had a chance to go through them.

I am saying that this bill ought to be sent back to the Banking Committee and examined to make sure all those wonderful things the Senator from New York has said are true. That is the reason for my motion to refer.

I yield all of my time back.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the speakers during this hour controlled by Senator Inhofe be the following: Senator Bunning, Senator Vitter, Senator Corker, Senator Sessions, Senator Domenici, and Senator Inhofe.

Thank you, Madam President.

I am here on the floor today because this mandatory cap-and-trade bill represents the greatest threat to the American economy I have seen since my fellow Kentuckians first elected me to represent them in 1986. We have had 30 years to address the energy crisis in America. In 1974, we got the first shot across the bow, and the balance of power in the world shifted from the oil consumers to the oil producers. We looked at domestic production and alternative fuels. But when the crash in the 1980s came, so did our investment in future sources.

But what is the biggest achievement of this Congress? Stopping 70,000 barrels of oil from going into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We could have had a million barrels a day right now from Alaska if President Bill Clinton had signed our legislation to open ANWR in 1995.

What about the need for clean nuclear energy? Thanks to the majority leader and environmental groups, we have spent decades working on Yucca Mountain and still do not have the waste reserve we need for a strong nuclear energy industry.

The last thing America needs today is another energy mistake.

The reason this climate change legislation is on the floor today is simple: It is fear. The Democrats in Congress want you to be afraid. They want you to be afraid that manmade emissions will cause massive hurricanes, raise sea levels, prolong droughts, and kill off endangered species.

I am not standing here telling you we should not protect the environment or that manmade carbon emissions have not increased. I am telling you that carbon emissions are a function of economic growth and technology. It means jobs, cars, and energy. When I look at these emissions, I do not know what role they play in overall climate change relative to other natural effects such as solar radiation.

For a minute, let's say the carbon issue needs immediate action. What will we get from passing this legislation? If all the world's industrial nations were to completely comply with familiar or similar ambitious goals, the climate change would be seven one-hundredths of 1 degree Celsius cooler in 20 years. Such a small change occurs naturally all the time. From Sun spots to forest fires to volcanic activity, nature does much more on its own day to day.

So what is the point of the climate change bill? The Democrats in Congress want you to pay more for energy so you drive less, buy smaller cars, and use less electricity. They are telling Americans they know better and want the Government to manage their money for the good of the environment.

This bill would raise $5.6 trillion for the Government over the next 40 years. Let me say that again: $5.6 trillion. This money does not magically appear in the Government coffers; it comes out of your pockets. The supporters of this bill will try to tell you it comes from oil companies, utilities, or any number of other people. But they are just straw men. That is not how our economy works. American consumers are going to get stuck with this bill. It means natural gas prices doubling. It means gasoline prices 30 to 40 percent higher--and it costs $4 a gallon for regular unleaded gasoline today--than they would have been. It means electric costs between 40 and 120 percent more.

In my home State of Kentucky, the average family will spend $324 more for electricity every year, $133 more for natural gas, and $397 more for their gasoline. That is per year. So I want everyone in America to take a look at your last month's bills. Can you afford to double your natural gas bills, add a dollar for every gallon of gasoline you buy, and add $50 to the average electricity bill? Many of us cannot do it. Now, think about paying that money every month, every year, for the next 40 years. That is your share of the $5.6 trillion Uncle Sam will take because of this legislation.

What will happen to all of the money you send to us here in Washington? Under this bill, there is a $5.6 trillion cost over 40 years, and the Government will spend it on new programs, $566 billion to the States--back to all 50 States--$237 billion for wildlife, $342 billion to foreign countries--figure that one out. I cannot.

Let me make it clear: Democrats and the environmentalists are trying to scare Americans into adopting legislation that will take money out of their pockets to pay for new Government programs that could decrease global thermal temperatures by seven one-hundredths of 1 degree over 20 years. And these changes are only estimates. They are not backed by conclusive evidence. Respected scientists disagree about the true effect increased emissions will have in coming decades. Just 20 years ago, some of these same scientists came to the Capitol warning us of an ice age. Can you believe that? Twenty years ago.

If this tax-and-spend plan based on incomplete science does not sound bad enough, it only gets worse. Based on several studies, nearly 4 million Americans will lose their jobs because of this legislation. A cap-and-trade program would force many industries, such as steel, automotive, aluminum, cement, and others, to take their jobs to other countries where energy costs are lower and environmental regulations are looser.

Let's look at the airlines as an example of what could happen to American jobs because of this bill. Based on current projections, the airline industry expects to pay $62 billion for jet fuel in 2008. That is $20 billion more than they paid last year, or about a 50-percent increase.

Let's look at this chart I have in the Chamber. In response to this price shift, eight airlines have gone completely out of business in the last 6 months and another is operating in bankruptcy. Eight are out of business. Thirty cities lose service, and 9,000 jobs are eliminated. To make it worse, the Democrats in Congress have stopped efforts to address this crisis in the airline industry.

I have proposed incentives for coal-to-jet-fuel facilities that would produce clean-burning aviation fuel with carbon capture technology at less than half of the current cost of oil: $65 a barrel. If we had invested in alternative jet fuel technology, maybe we could have saved the thousands of jobs that are now in jeopardy.

Think about what you would feel if you were laid off because of high oil prices or if you had to choose between the grocery store and filling your truck with gasoline. Now imagine your congressional representative deliberately voted to make things worse. It is not just about American jobs and dollars and cents. America could bring its greenhouse gas emissions to zero and it would not reverse the growth in worldwide emissions, thanks to rapid expansion in China and India and other developing countries.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 more minutes.

Mr. President, I would like to congratulate the American Business Women's Association, ABWA, which will be holding their 2008 National Women's Leadership Conference in Covington, KY. For nearly 60 years the ABWA has identified and addressed the needs of working women. Local ABWA chapters continuously contribute to the professional development of their members through educational programs, along with charitable opportunities, networking, and scholarships. The national scholarships sponsored by ABWA have helped thousands of women meet their educational goals.

With several Kentucky and Ohio chapters and networks sponsoring this year's conference, over 1,000 women from around the country are expected to attend. In addition to meeting distinguished speakers, members will attend seminars and workshops on professional development, industry trends and techniques to improve their job skills.

By improving the lives of women for more than a half century, the American Business Women's Association has proven itself to be an exemplary professional development organization. I

congratulate the ABWA for its success in supporting the dreams of working women and welcome their national conference to Kentucky.

Mr. President, today I congratulate Ms. Carrie Lierl on placing first in Kentucky for the 21st annual National Peace Essay Contest State-level competition. Sponsored by the United States Institute of Peace, the National Peace Essay Contest asks American high school students to write an analytical essay on a topic chosen by the Institute's board of directors. This year's topic was on the relationship between natural resources and international conflict. An independent panel of experts judges each essay and a winner is chosen from every state, plus one from U.S. territories and one from among American students living abroad.

In addition to placing first in Kentucky, Carrie will receive a $1,000 college scholarship and is currently competing for national scholarship awards of up to $10,000. On June 22, 2008, Carrie will join fellow essay winners from around the country in an all-expense paid weeklong seminar in Washington, DC, to participate in embassy briefings, and conflict resolution simulations, while meeting with officials from Congress, Federal agencies, and experts and practitioners from various organizations.

Ms. Lierl has proven herself to be an exemplary student, representing the Commonwealth of Kentucky at the 2008 National Peace Essay Contest. I look forward to seeing all that she will accomplish in the future.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize May as National Foster Care Month. I salute the thousands of families in Kentucky and throughout the country who serve as foster parents, along with those who expand their families by adopting a child from the foster care system. Unfortunately, not every child finds a home. In 2005, more than 24,000 foster children reached their 18th birthdays without being adopted. As these young adults aged out of the foster care program, they faced many of life's challenges without the family support and encouragement that many of us take for granted. With over a half million children currently in our Nation's foster care system, it is imperative that we do all that we can to ensure that they

are able to join the families they so desperately need and deserve.

From my home State of Kentucky, Chris Brown is a testament to the importance of adoption. Chris entered foster care at the age of 11, after the death of his mother. He spent more than 2 years in foster care before being adopted. At the age of 13, Chris was adopted by his Big Brothers, Big Sisters mentor, Dave Brown. Chris thrived in his adoptive home, and was presented with opportunities he would not have had otherwise. Through the support of his adopted family, he was able to attend Northern Kentucky University, where he majored in psychology. Now married and with a family of his own, Chris has dedicated his career to social work, using his talents and skills to give back to the community. Chris's story demonstrates how an investment in just one child can pay off for an entire community.

The care provided by foster homes and foster families is of great value. Raising awareness about the number of foster children in America, and making it easier for families to adopt is crucial to guaranteeing that America's foster children have the resources and support they need to succeed. Chris Brown is an excellent example of how a child can thrive and develop in a loving family. National Foster Care Month reminds us of our obligation to America's youth. I commend all those who love and accept into their homes those children needing a home.

Mr. President, today I congratulate Ms. Katelyn Bowles and Ms. Riley Miller on receiving the Prudential Spirit of Community Award. Sponsored by Prudential Financial and the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the Prudential Spirit of Community Award recognizes middle and high school students who perform outstanding community service at the local, State and national level. Each year, two students are chosen as State honorees from each of the 50 States, and the District of Columbia.

Ms. Bowles, a senior at Montgomery County High School in Mount Sterling, KY, has been recognized as one of the Commonwealth top youth volunteers. She spearheaded a campaign to renovate the Mount Sterling C&O Train Depot, an integral part of the community tradition. By initiating a business plan between Future Business Leaders of America members and local government agencies, Ms. Bowles successfully secured $200,000 in grants for the project, including $153,000 from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. Additionally, she managed to recruit fellow high school students to help with much of the renovation, scheduled to be completed next year.

In addition to being chosen as a State honoree, Ms. Miller, an eighth grader at Drakes Creek Middle School in Bowling Green, KY, has been selected as one of America's top 10 youth volunteers. She is recognized for her outstanding efforts in raising $50,000 for childhood cancer research over the past 3 years. Having lost two younger brothers to leukemia, raising money for cancer research is a particularly important mission for Ms. Miller. Last year alone, Ms. Miller managed 29 lemonade stands with over 200 volunteers across Bowling Green, raising $19,000. This incredible feat demonstrates her exceptional dedication, organizational skill, and enormous capacity for leadership.

Ms. Bowles and Ms. Miller have proven themselves to be exemplary students and volunteers, deserving of the Prudential Spirit of Community Award. They are an inspiration to the citizens of Kentucky and to student leaders and community volunteers everywhere. I look forward to seeing all that they will accomplish in the future.

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

Mr. President, in recent polling, close to 80 percent of the American public have told pollsters the Nation is on the wrong track. We have enormous problems to solve. The American people know it, and we should be working together to solve those problems. But this budget, written behind closed doors and in secret by a partisan group of Senators, will do

nothing to close the gulf that is keeping us from the people's business. Maybe that is by design.

Majority Leader Reid recently explained that Senator Clinton recommended to him that the Democrats should have a Senate ``war room.'' The war room is up and running today, churning out falsehoods, such as claims that Republicans have staged 71 filibusters--a claim now disputed by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Who are the Democrats at war with?

Just as my good friend, General Petraeus, began to make progress reversing the insurgency in Iraq, the leadership of the Senate decided to wage a different kind of war--a war on Americans who do not share their vision of the future. The vision Democrats would promote, to the exclusion of all others, is laid out in this budget document before us. It begins with more tax enforcement. Everybody should abide by the law and pay the taxes they owe. And I support our new IRS Commissioner. But the notion that we can save anywhere near the amount proposed by Senator Conrad is nonsense, and he should know it.

The only way to collect that revenue would be to toss out the procedural rights American taxpayers now enjoy. These rights are critical because they assure fair and evenhanded enforcement by the IRS. The Government will lose far more revenue than Senator Conrad proposes to save if the public loses confidence in the fairness of our tax system.

His own colleagues in the House are not serious about this either. If they were, the House would not have voted on party lines to stop audits of a handful of wealthy Americans under audit by the IRS who claim to be Virgin Islands residents. What is the IRS to make of this mixed message?

The next part of the Democratic vision is predictable: more taxes. In order to achieve balance, the Democrats' budget assumes $1.2 trillion in additional revenue compared to today's baseline. Has anybody asked the 80 percent who think we are on the wrong track whether they would raise taxes on 116 million Americans?

At least 43 million American families will pay $2,300 more per year in Federal tax for the spending in this budget proposal.

Finally, and most significantly, the Democrats' plan on entitlement reform is to stay the course. Senator Domenici, the former chairman of the Budget Committee, told Budget conferees yesterday that he fears for our future and the future of our children and our grandchildren. Having 35 grandchildren, I share his concerns.

As any ship's captain knows, when you are heading for the rocks, it is time to change course. Staying the course is the wrong policy and the wrong message, and I am disappointed my colleagues have been unwilling to work with me and with the President to turn the ship of state in the right direction with this budget document.

Please--the American people are watching--let's do what is right and reject this partisan document and write a budget we can all be proud of.

I yield back.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to speak for a few minutes on the bill itself.

I wish to speak about the flood insurance bill before the Senate and about the program in general.

The flood insurance program is one I care about a great deal. It is vitally important to States such as Kentucky that are surrounded and crossed by major rivers and exposed to flooding.

In 2004, former Senator Sarbanes, Senator Shelby, and I sat down to make some important changes to the program and we did. My bill was a step in the right direction for fixing the program. Our reforms established a mitigation program to reduce further losses, charge higher premiums if property owners refused to reduce their risk.

Unfortunately, we were not able to address all of the problems in the bill, but I am glad some of the things we wanted to do back then are being done in this bill before us today.

As we saw from the storms of 2005, the flood insurance program is not financially sound. This bill builds on the reforms of the 2004 law by ending the subsidy for the most costly and least deserving properties. It requires more at-risk people to purchase flood insurance, and increases penalties on the lenders for not following the law.

It also sets up a reserve fund to keep the program from going into debt in future years with significant flood losses. This bill does not fix all of the problems in the program, but it is a strong bill which I support. While I do not like forgiving the program's debt, it is a necessary step to stop policyholders in Kentucky and across this country from having to foot the bill for the gulf coast's problems.

Every Senator should think about that $18 billion we are forgiving when they consider the additional cost of amendments being offered. We have 40 years of experience that says the Government is a terrible insurance company. Adding wind insurance will drive out private insurers and put the taxpayers throughout the entire country on the hook for the risks taken by those who choose to live in the path of hurricanes.

The sponsors of the amendment claim premiums will reflect the actual risk, but I would point out to them the 18 billion reasons why I do not believe that will happen. Several other amendments are worth mentioning. One would create a Federal backstop for State disaster insurance funds. I understand why the Gulf Coast States would want a Federal backstop for the risk, but I do not understand why my State or anyone else's State should be put on the hook for the decisions of coastal State legislators who choose to socialize insurance.

Other amendments would increase coverage limits or decrease the amount policyholders would have to pay. One would even make a certain earmark for an area in Illinois for lower premiums. Those amendments would defeat the entire purpose of this bill. Instead of making the program more financially sound, they would make the current problems worse by charging policyholders less than their actual risk.

After some version of this bill becomes law, we will have to keep an eye on how FEMA acts on these reforms. It took FEMA more than 2 years to implement some of the 2004 reforms, and they did that only after the Vice President and the Secretary of Homeland Security intervened. We must make sure the program is run the way Congress intended, not as the bureaucrats think it should be run.

I congratulate Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby and their staffs for writing a good bill. I also thank former Senator Sarbanes for his help in writing the 2004 bill and setting the foundation for this bill today.

Finally, I wish to say I am glad Senator McConnell has brought up the important issue of energy. The American people are watching gas prices go through the roof, and this summer electric bills are going to do the same. I have heard the other side talk about energy before, but I have not seen them do one thing about the problem. The problem is, we do not have enough supply. The solution is expanding domestic production of energy any way we can. We can drill for oil safely in Alaska, we can get more natural gas from the Gulf of Mexico.

But beyond the usual ways to increase production, we can use new technologies to change the game for energy prices. That is why I have supported and will keep pushing coal-to-liquid fuels. We are sitting on hundreds of years' worth of coal, and through a proven and environmentally sound process, we can turn that coal into gasoline for our cars, diesel for our trucks, and jet fuel for our planes.

I have met with the Air Force many times. This is one of the most important security issues they face. We cannot rely on Middle Eastern oil to provide fuel for our jet fighters and our tanks. With secure domestic alternative fuels, we can guarantee the military the fuel they need.

The American people deserve a Congress that takes action. Every barrel of fuel made in America is a barrel of fuel we do not have to buy from the Middle East. Increasing production of energy in America will bring down energy costs and protect jobs.

For too long we have heard about manufacturers and companies moving good-paying jobs to China or the Middle East because of cheap energy. Today, with this package we can do something about it. We can give American companies the energy they need to build cars, fly planes, and produce goods with American workers.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Mr. Kevin Webb of Glasgow, KY. Mr. Webb was recently chosen to be one of eight speakers at the first ever Ticket to Work Partners Summit held in Louisville, KY.

In March 2008 the Social Security Administration launched the Ticket to Work Partners Summit to bring together over 400 of Social Security's partners who actively engage Social Security disability beneficiaries in work through the Ticket to Work Program. Mr. Webb was chosen to be one of eight speakers nationally to discuss how they have benefited from this program.

With the help of the Social Security Administration, Mr. Webb was able to start his own business in April 2006. Today he is a proud co- owner with his father, Ron Taylor, of Webb/Taylor Horseback Riding and Boarding.

Prior to becoming a successful business owner, Mr. Webb was faced with a number of difficult challenges in finding employment. Despite all of the setbacks and obstacles he had to overcome, Mr. Webb never gave up on his dreams and continued to search for a job that made him happy.

Mr. Webb applied for a grant given to five individuals each year by the Kentucky Council on Developmental Disabilities and the State vocation rehabilitation for startup funds for new businesses. With the grant and a fully funded Plan for Achieving Self Support from the Social Security Administration, Mr. Webb and his father were able to launch the Webb/Taylor Horseback Riding and Boarding.

Besides starting his own business, Mr. Webb has also worked with elected officials in the Kentucky State Legislature on behalf of individuals with disabilities. In 2003, the Kentucky State Legislature passed the Kevin Webb and Kim Brown Self-Determination Act to require the Commission on Services and Supports for Individuals with Mental Retardation and Other Developmental Disabilities to make recommendations to the Department of Medicaid Services for the implementation of a self-determination model for individuals who are receiving services through the Supports for Community Living waiver program.

I would like to congratulate Mr. Webb for his hard work and dedication as he celebrates the two year anniversary of opening Webb/ Taylor Horseback Riding and Boarding. Mr. Webb is truly an inspiration to all Kentuckians and I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate Ms. Kelly McCormick and Ms. Jeannie Luersen on their selection to participate in the 2009 Special Olympics World Winter Games, to be held February 6 to 13, in Boise, ID. Over 3,000 athletes from 85 countries will compete in 7 sports: Alpine skiing, cross-country skiing, figure skating, floor hockey, snowboarding, snow- shoeing and speed skating.

Ms. Kelly McCormick has been a Special Olympics athlete for 17 years. She serves as a global messenger, speaking on behalf of the program at many public events. Ms. McCormick will compete in the Alpine Skiing event. This will be her first time participating in the world games.

Ms. Jeannie Luersen has participated in the Special Olympics program for 25 years. This will be her second straight year at the World Games. Having won a Gold Medal in figure skating at the 2005 Winter Games in Nagano, Japan, Ms. Luersen will compete again in the figure skating event.

Special Olympics is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year as an international, nonprofit organization dedicated to empowering individuals with intellectual disabilities to become physically fit, productive, and respected members of society through sports training and competition. Ms. McCormick and Ms. Luersen represent Special Olympics Kentucky, which is celebrating its 36th year.

I congratulate Ms. McCormick and Ms. Luersen on their achievements. They are an inspiration to the citizens of Kentucky and to athletes everywhere. I look forward to seeing all that they will accomplish in the future.

Madam President, I wish to congratulate Mrs. Holly Collinsworth of Ft. Thomas, KY, for being named one of the Cincinnati Enquirer's Women of the Year for her dedication and service to our community. This outstanding award is given annually to 10 women in the northern Kentucky and Greater Cincinnati area for their hard work and commitment to making our communities a better place to live.

Mrs. Collinsworth, mother of four children, has begun a task never before imagined to help improve Fort Thomas schools. She is currently leading a fundraising campaign that has collected millions of dollars in private money to help renovate the 71-year-old Highlands High School, her alma mater. The school has not been refurbished since the 1960s. With her leadership, over $7.4 million in private donations, State matching funds and grants has been raised to help with the repairs.

Mrs. Collinsworth's contributions to the Commonwealth do not stop there. She and husband Cris Collinsworth, former Cincinnati Bengal and current NFL broadcaster, are among the founders of UGive, a nonprofit that matches area students fulfilling their school community service requirements with charities in need of volunteers. The UGive program was started this year and will be up and running by August.

Mrs. Collinsworth also serves on the board of the Cris Collinsworth ProScan Fund and cochairs its Pink Ribbon Luncheons which have raised more than $1 million for programs such as breast cancer education and mammograms for low-income uninsured women.

I thank Mrs. Collinsworth for her dedication and commitment to the community. She has made a tremendous impact on individuals across northern Kentucky and the Greater Cincinnati area. I appreciate all that she has done and will continue to do in the future. Mrs. Collinsworth is truly an inspiration to all Kentuckians.

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

Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside so I may speak on the bill itself for 15 minutes.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, this is an unusually bad bill, and I have opposed it from the very start. The course it has followed almost guarantees that it will be filled

with the worst kind of gimmickry, and it is. The Senate may be the most deliberative body in the world, but this bill is anything but the product of deliberation. It is a jumble of disjointed ideas, unlikely to solve the crisis at hand, and it is unpopular. It turns out that the American people do not like the idea of bailing out banks and their neighbors who gambled on home prices. The voters understand what is going on in Washington better than we do.

What is more, several of the complicated tax provisions in this bill never benefited from a full review by the Senate Finance Committee. Normally, this is a critical part of the Senate's deliberation.

One example of a provision that could use more review is the new deduction for State property taxes. While it may be well intended, this new provision will complicate life for millions of American homeowners who will have to calculate their taxes twice to find out which method results in a lower tax. This complicates tax filings, and any Senator who has said the Tax Code is too complicated should be ashamed to vote for this provision.

Because the Senate has not had any serious review of this provision, colleagues also may not know that this provision also allocates more of the Nation's tax burdens to residents of States that impose an income tax, such as Kentucky.

The State with the highest income taxes faces the biggest relative tax increase, and this is illustrated in the chart that supporters of this provision hastily distributed to us. For example, the chart shows that 59 percent of Texan homeowners but only 23 percent of Maryland residents will benefit.

The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, on which I serve, is not even managing this bill, even though tax provisions account for about two-thirds of its cost. That is kind of hard to explain to the average Senator on the Finance Committee.

Another provision that deserves far more scrutiny is the $4 billion in community development block grants that will be allocated to the States and local governments to buy foreclosed properties. To begin with, this current program is very poorly managed. The Wall Street Journal called it among the worst run programs in Washington, and there is a lot of competition for that title. The White House called the program ineffective just 2 months ago, and when the HUD inspector general testified before Congress in 2006, he explained that his agency had recently indicted 159 individuals and recovered $120 million of misappropriated funds. GAO also has criticized the targeting of grant recipients, which is a polite way of saying that the money is going to those with political connections and influence in local governments. Adding money to this program is risky at best.

Let's have no illusions. This extraordinarily unwise grant of taxpayers' money is really just a bailout for banks in disguise. It goes to States, but the ultimate beneficiary will be banks that made risky loans.

Instead of selling foreclosed properties on the open market, these banks will have the luxury of selling to local officials with whom they may already have a relationship. These officials will be buying properties not with their own funds but with OPM--OPM stands for ``other people's money''--and in this case, the OPM comes from you and me, the American taxpayers, and the millions of unborn Americans whom we are saddling with even more debt.

Another provision that could benefit from more thoughtful deliberation is the $100 million spending on counseling. Yes, counseling is a good idea before a homeowner signs a loan they can't afford. But afterward, the real problem is financial. It is too late for counseling.

We also don't know all that much about the nonprofit groups that will get the money. Are some of these groups funded mostly by credit card companies? Are they? If so, will they have a clear conflict of interest? Maybe they will actually advise people to abandon their home, to foreclose, in order to pay credit card debt. That would make the foreclosure situation worse, not better. One thing is certain: no amount of counseling is going to put money that they do not have into homeowners' pockets.

Now, I have an amendment that I have tried to get a vote on that would do so--put money into homeowners' pockets--and that is why I think it is appropriate to redirect these public funds toward helping homeowners with the cost of refinancing. If we are going to give away $4.1 billion--I will say it one more time--if we are going to give away $4.1 billion in this bill, let's give it back to the taxpayers and do so in a way that encourages homeowners to restructure their mortgages and keep them out of bankruptcy and foreclosure. My amendment would do this. It would use the $4 billion in funding this bill uses to bail out banks and give it back to taxpayers while simplifying the Tax Code as well.

The Joint Committee on Taxation says that this amendment would be revenue-neutral over 10 years. It is entirely paid for within the four corners of this legislation.

This change in the tax law that my amendment contains is strongly supported by the Mortgage Bankers Association because it would get to the heart of the housing crisis. Let me try to explain.

Often, when people are searching for a home, they are more concerned about qualifying for financing than getting the best possible terms on that loan. Millions of homeowners have taken out an adjustable rate mortgage that has a low interest rate for a short period of time, often 2 or 3 years. These loans adjust to a much higher rate after the initial period. The assumption of many homeowners has been that they can refinance later in a conventional fixed mortgage loan for 30 years. But the Tax Code creates an obstacle to this.

According to Bank of America research, published in the Wall Street Journal, more than $510 billion worth of adjustable mortgages, including prime and subprime loans, will reach the end of their fixed rate period before December of this year. For the holders of these loans, the options are stark: Refinance or default. It is unlikely that many of them can long afford the high interest rates on these mortgages after the fixed rate period expires.

Unfortunately, our tax law has this exactly backward. It encourages homeowners to spend lavishly on first-time financing, but it exacts a penalty when homeowners find they are living beyond their means and need to refinance. My amendment would have changed all this. It would allow homeowners to currently deduct the mortgage interest points that lenders typically charge in connection with a home mortgage refinance. For example, under my amendment, if a homeowner has a $200,000 adjustable rate mortgage and refinances into a 30-year fixed mortgage, paying 1 percent in points, the homeowner would have a $2,000 tax deduction for home mortgage interest paid. That is under my amendment. Under present law, the homeowner would only be allowed to deduct $66. There is no good reason to allow the deduction for home purchase mortgages and to deny it for those who need it to refinance.

My amendment would remove a significant financial obstacle to refinancing that would allow struggling borrowers to keep their homes. It would help Americans to get out of first mortgages that they have entered into without being able to shop for the best possible mortgage. Unlike some of the other provisions in this bill, it truly would help prevent foreclosures for many who are about to have their homes foreclosed.

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

Mr. President, I pay tribute to the Northern Kentucky University women's basketball team. The Norse defeated the University of South Dakota 63 to 58 to capture the NCAA Division II Championship on March 29, 2008.

This is the second time the Northern Kentucky University women's basketball team has won the NCAA Division II Championship. The last time the Norse reached the pinnacle of their sport was in the 1999 to 2000 season.

The citizens of Kentucky are proud to have these national champs living and learning in the Northern Kentucky community. Their example of hard work and determination should be followed by all in the Commonwealth.

I congratulate the players for their success in bringing another championship trophy to the campus of Northern Kentucky University. I also want to congratulate their coaches, along with their peers, faculty, administrators, and parents for their support and sacrifices they have made to help them meet their achievements and dreams. They all represent Kentucky honorably.