Floor Statements

Madam President, I strongly support the reauthorization of the President's emergency plan for AIDS relief. The fight against pandemic AIDS is an important international priority, and I am very pleased that we can work toward a bipartisan consensus on this legislation. We have the benefit of 5 years of lessons learned to integrate into this bill, and the resources that we are putting into action through this measure will deliver lifesaving medicines, basic health care infrastructure and hope to millions of people around the global who face the threat of HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.

I have had a particular interest in the area of health care infrastructure in Africa, and have worked closely with my colleagues Senators Durbin and Feingold on legislation relating to this. I am very pleased that some of our language and ideas have been integrated into the current PEPFAR bill. The fact of the matter is that we face great challenges in the area of health infrastructure in Africa, including serious shortages of health care workers, clinics, and hospitals in many areas of the host countries that limit our ability to reach the millions of people who need care and treatment. It is my view that at least some of the answers may be found in the private sector, and it is my hope that U.S. agencies will reach out to the private sector to help us meet the overwhelming needs of the affected countries.

I would like to share with my colleagues the success of one unique nonprofit from my home State that has harnessed the powerful force of franchising to establish a sustainable network of health clinics and pharmacies in two PEPFAR countries. This program, run by the HealthStore Foundation, was established more than a decade ago to ``prevent needless death and illness by sustainably improving access to essential medicines.'' Since that time, the HealthStore Foundation has established a network of more than 65 franchises in Kenya, serving roughly 525,000 patients and customers in 2007. Currently, the program is expanding to Rwanda, and the first franchise should be open within a few weeks. By 2012, the HealthStore Foundation plans to expand its network to over 14 countries serving millions of patients per year.

Each HealthStore franchise is locally owned and operated by a licensed nurse or by a community health worker. Some hire employees, creating still more jobs, mostly for women. HealthStore operates as a typical franchisor, and franchises are licensed under the Child and Family Wellness Shops, CFW shops, brand name. The model incorporates key elements of any successful franchise network:

strong branding, proven operating systems and training; strict quality controls enforced through regular inspections; and well-chosen locations. It is worth noting that franchising the distribution of health care and pharmaceuticals has also helped to curtail incentives for corruption, as franchisees risk losing their business if they fail to comply with franchise system standards.

I describe the HealthStore Foundation program as a ``microfranchise'' model, because this model shares many of the unique characteristics of the microlending efforts led by the Grameen Bank. In Kenya, clinics are easily accessible, located within an hour's walk of the communities they serve. Each clinic offers a range of government-approved, tested medicines and products along with basic health care services from licensed nurses. Up front costs for each franchise unit are modest, and the stores generate a steady income for their owners. To ensure that capital is available, the HealthStore Foundation provides financing for up to 88 percent of the required initial capital, although many owners raise funds through family and friends. Most importantly, these clinics operate to turn a profit, and it is the long-term maintenance of this profit that sustains the system.

Franchising delivers certain competitive advantages, including economies of scale, centralized distribution of high-quality drugs, central management of regulatory and legal issues, and a critical mass of locations that can share best practices and leverage resources. Apart from the benefits accrued through these competitive advantages, franchise owners also receive extensive training, marketing and promotions support, technical advice, and an established, trusted brand name.

The genius of the HealthStore Foundation's strategy for building a sustainable infrastructure of health care delivery in Kenya and Rwanda is the adoption of the franchise business model. Franchising is such a tried and true business strategy in this country that most Americans take it for granted, but franchising is taking place all around us. In fact, a recent report by the International Franchise Association Educational Foundation shows that roughly 909,000 franchise businesses in the United States account for 21 million jobs and more $2.3 trillion in annual economic activity, and franchising has been growing at a faster pace than the overall economy. In the United States, franchising is a business strategy that works because an entrepreneur with a great idea or great product can quickly and efficiently develop a network of businesses to deliver a consistent, high quality product in every State, city and town across the Nation.

The goal of this legislation is to halt the spread of pandemic diseases in a large part of the world. Certainly, the HealthStore Foundation has proven that microfranchise businesses can be capable partners in this effort, but the ownership opportunities provided by franchising also offer us other benefits. We know that ownership is a powerful incentive. Ownership gives people a stake in the future. In Kenya, owning a HealthStore clinic has become an attractive career choice for health care workers, helping to slow the pace of emigration of these trained professionals. The microfranchise model also supports the development of a strong small business infrastructure in villages and towns throughout the PEPFAR regions, and the lessons learned through franchised health care clinics can be repeated in other kinds of businesses.

For these reasons, the Senate should work with U.S. agencies to consider microfranchise business creation among the strategies for putting these resources to work in the PEPFAR region. In order to continue to raise awareness around this important approach that has been tried by the HealthStore Foundation, I plan to follow up this statement with a colloquy with one of my Senate colleagues.

Mr. President, I would like to submit for the Record a statement given by Mrs. Sheng Xiong, a spokeswoman for her husband Hakit Yang and other families of Hmong-American citizens from St. Paul, MN, that are being detained by the the Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, LPDR, regime. This statement was given by Mrs. Xiong at a congressional forum on Laos on January 31, 2008, organized by the Center for Public Policy Analysis.

I ask unanimous consent that the Statement to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I honor the distinguished public career of LeRoy Koppendrayer, retiring chairman of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. LeRoy was appointed commissioner in 1998 and chairman in 2003. He has served Minnesotans honorably for 10 years, upholding and protecting the interests of Minnesota's utility ratepayers while enjoying the respect and camaraderie of his fellow commissioners and those who have come to know him.

LeRoy's journey to becoming a commissioner has been filled with a lifetime of experiences anyone would admire. In the 1990s, LeRoy was elected to four terms as a representative in Minnesota's Legislature where he worked successfully on issues ranging from agriculture to energy to education. He also worked for years as a dairy farmer and then as an international agricultural consultant, spending time in South America, Africa, Jamaica, Philippines, and Indonesia, consulting farmers and working to develop and improve their economies and their lives. LeRoy's appointment to the commission caps his decades-long commitment to public service.

LeRoy's work as commissioner includes decisions on a myriad of issues facing Minnesota's utility ratepayers, such as rate cases filed by natural gas, electric, and telephone utility companies, the twin cities metro area code split, the establishment of rules governing reliability standards for electric utilities, renewable energy projects and the citing and routing of energy facilities and transmission pipelines, to name just a few.

LeRoy's committee memberships include the National Association of Regulatory Commissioners, known as NARUC; as liaison to NARUC's International Relations Committee; the NARUC Regulatory Advisory Committee to the Institute of Public Utilities; and the NARUC Committee on Electricity and Subcommittee on Strategic Issues. He has also served as chair of the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition and as a member of the board of the Organization of Midwest States, which oversees the Midwest electricity grid.

As chairman, LeRoy has ensured the integrity of the commission's process through thoughtful consideration of issues and a friendly rapport with those who appear before the commission. Whether it is a lawyer representing a utility or a concerned citizen appearing for the first time, LeRoy's approach is the same. He treats everyone with genuine respect and professional courtesy and with a sincere interest in understanding each person's point of view.

And on top of it all, LeRoy recently found time to make a 150-mile bicycle trip with his wife Carolyn and 10 other family members in support of MS research.

LeRoy is a man of loyalty, conviction, and fortitude. He commands great respect and great affection. He has an enviable capacity for warmth and kindness and is driven by his value for hard work. He stands firm in what he believes and yet finds common ground where there are differences, using a welcoming approach and a friendly smile to bring people together. And if all else fails, he'll make you laugh, mostly at his own expense, by poking fun at himself.

Today, at this bittersweet moment, it is with gratitude and admiration that I stand before you to honor LeRoy's longstanding contributions to the people of Minnesota through his years of service as commissioner of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.

Mr. President, I rise with my colleague from Florida to speak on behalf of our amendment to allow homeowners penalty-free use of up to $25,000 in retirement funds to keep their house.

Before I speak to the amendment, I would like to thank, first, the chairman of the Banking Committee Senator Dodd and ranking member Senator Shelby, as well as the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus and ranking member Senator Grassley for their leadership in putting this important bipartisan housing bill together. And, I have special thanks for Senators Baucus and Grassley for working with us one this important amendment.

The need to act to address the housing crisis could not be more urgent. In my travels throughout my State, I have seen how the housing crisis is hurting families, communities and the economy.

Just to underscore how serious this situation really is for the Minnesota economy, we learned last week that more Minnesotans are out of work than since 1983. We are talking about construction workers of which nearly 7,000 have lost a job during the past year.

We are talking about folks like Ron Enter and his wife whose small building materials business is being devastated by the housing crisis. They have already significantly reduced their workforce and warn of more cutbacks if the housing market does not improve in order to keep their business going.

Bottom-line, our housing woes have spilled over into the rest of our economy, and as a result it is a problem that is undercutting entire communities and their families.

This amendment presents a bipartisan solution that's in the spirit of the cooperation demonstrated by Senators Dodd, Shelby, Baucus, and Grassley on this housing package.

During my travels and housing town hall forums I have held back home in Minnesota, I have met more and more folks who are tapping into their retirement savings in a desperate effort to keep their homes--average, hard-working folks such as Terri Ross, a nurse, who I met at a housing town hall forum in St. Cloud, where she talked about using her retirement savings to keep her home.

The problem is that as homeowners across Minnesota and the Nation use their retirement savings to save their homes, they are getting hit hard with a 10-percent early withdrawal tax penalty.

As we are on the verge of passing this bipartisan legislation to address the housing crisis, Senator Nelson and I believe that one more way we can responsibly address the housing crisis is to temporarily waive this 10 percent penalty. Given that the Tax Code waives the 10 percent penalty for early withdraw from individual retirement accounts, IRAs, for first-time home purchases, I believe that it is only fair to waive this penalty for those who want to keep their homes.

At the end of the day, we should not penalize homeowners for trying to keep a roof over their heads and wanting to remain a part of the community they have called home.

In an effort to address a point of concern raised by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut when we were on the floor in April, Senators Nelson and I are proposing that this relief be made available only to those homeowners who participate in government or industry sponsored foreclosure prevention programs such as the HOPE for Homeowners Program and FHA Secure. We do agree that it would make good sense to ensure that lenders also do their part to help homeowners keep their homes.

And, that is why in this amendment, homeowners could only use this relief in cases where the lenders also provide relief. We believe that this is fair and right. We believe that this modification to our previous proposal will ensure there is, to quote the chairman ``commensurate responsibility on the part of the lender.''

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense and much-needed amendment and thank my colleague from Florida for his great work on this amendment.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the rising cost of energy, at a time when Americans are suffering from gas prices that are seeing $4 a gallon and diesel fuel is higher than that. The price of diesel fuel has gone up 65 percent from where it was a year ago. That impacts farmers, it impacts small businesses. The Medicare bill is a critical issue, but right now we need to address the impact the cost of gas and energy is having. It is having a devastating effect on folks as they sit around the dining room table trying to figure out how to make ends meet. It is getting tougher and tougher to find money for food and fuel. I wish to say up front that the principal culprit right here is our addiction and our dependence on foreign oil.

My folks in Minnesota--families, farmers, and businesses--can't afford these rising costs. They are talking about commodity prices rising. On the other hand, the cost of commodity prices is rising because of the cost of oil. The cost of energy, gas, and diesel on those folks who are producing the food is having a devastating impact.

My State has one of the highest housing foreclosure rates in the Nation. The State of Minnesota is always seen as being somehow outside the economic woes that affect so many. The unemployment rate is going up, not down. Record fuel costs are the final straw for a lot of folks. It should be the final straw for partisan bickering on energy that is getting us nowhere and is letting the American people down.

Mr. President, 232 years ago yesterday, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and other Founders were set to work by the Continental Congress on a document that set America on a new course, just as the American Army was retreating from the British to Lake Champlain.

The invasion we have today is the invasion of hundreds of billions of dollars of foreign oil. This year nearly a half a trillion dollars will be sent overseas for energy we should be capable of producing at home. This is America. We should have the technological ability, the capacity, and the resources to end that addiction. The fact is we are being held hostage by a world oil market where much of the supply is controlled by thugs and tyrants such as Chavez and Ahmadinejad.

Just as the Founders, we have a choice. We can focus on our differences as Republicans and Democrats or we can work together to fight a common foe. Are our differences greater than those of the colonists, most of whom had never been outside their home States? We know that is not true.

Now is the time to write our own declaration of independence. Now is the time to use every resource at our disposal to address this energy crisis.

Now is the time for us to declare that American freedom, liberty, and security are not going to be held hostage over a barrel of oil. That is what it is about. It is about being held hostage. We may in the future always import foreign oil, but we are being held hostage by our dependency.

Our Nation's future depends on the decisions we make right now. The good news is that we possess the resources to take our energy prices head on. If we were, in fact, to make that commitment, we could stand up and say we are not being held hostage anymore. July 4 is just around the corner. If we were to do that, I think it would have a dramatic impact on speculation because they would know America is now committed--Democrats and Republicans--to doing the right thing. It is simple: renewables, increased production, and redoubling of our clean energy technologies efforts.

To make this happen, we not only have to transform how we do energy in this country, we have to transform how we do business in the Senate.

On Tuesday we had a contentious vote on an energy package that wasn't a bipartisan product. I voted to go forward on the debate of that package because I believe we must get going on a new energy bill. However, I think the only thing yesterday's process was set up to deliver was finger pointing. We must sit down together, Democrats and Republicans, and find out what policies we can agree on and then send an energy bill to the President.

The energy bill proposed by the other side of the aisle includes many ideas we have seen before. I am reminded of a quote by H.L. Mencken, who wrote:

There is always a well-known solution to every human

problem--neat, plausible, and wrong.

I believe we need to stop rehashing ideas that don't get to the heart of the problem and begin an energy revolution by dramatically increasing production of every energy resource at our disposal. I still don't support drilling in ANWR. We have the opportunity, though, to do deepwater exploration off the Outer Continental Shelf and tap into substantial resources. That is increased production. We had the worst natural disaster in the history of this country, Hurricane Katrina, and there wasn't a drop of oil spilled, so there shouldn't be an environmental issue there to increase production. We need to dramatically increase investment in renewable fuels. I support that. It is critical to my State. Energy efficiency, boost nuclear energy production, and take advantage of coal to liquids--coal to jet fuel.

This week I have been listening to my colleagues speak about energy. Some say what we need is more efficiency. The others say we need more renewables in nuclear, oil, and gas development. I believe we need all of those sources of energy. I don't think our debate should be about whether to drill or whether to tax those who drill. You are not going to increase production by simply taxing the oil companies. That is not going to solve the problem. It may make a political point somewhere, but it is not going to solve the problem. Instead, I believe the answer to breaking through our energy crisis and our political energy logjam

is to couple domestic oil and gas development with responsible environmental protection--you can do both--to fully utilize the clean energy technologies at our disposal, such as nuclear, while we look to emerging technologies, to grow more fuel on the farm and save energy at home. We need to move forward with at least the potential of cellulosic ethanol.

Today I have introduced an energy bill, the Energy Resource Development Act of 2008, that I hope will foster the bipartisan discussion we need to have. It is not about holding my idea of the perfect energy bill in the air, pointing a finger and saying: This is what they won't do. No, this bill is about asking the other side what we might be able to do together.

Here is what I think we can do together: We could open the Outer Continental Shelf to oil and gas development outside of Florida in a way that protects the economy, the environment, and the economy of States in new development areas. There is an estimated 2.8 billion barrels of crude oil and 12 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that could be produced between now and 2025 in areas currently under moratoria. If developed, this could reduce America's trade deficit by $145 billion by offsetting oil imports.

We must open development in a way that recognizes that many States are opposed to opening development in the Federal waters off their coasts, which is why my bill does not allow the Federal Government to allow development unless the State's Governor approves of the plan. And, to get the discussion going between the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Defense and coastal Governors, this proposal will give the Governors an opportunity to make a counterproposal and to propose long-term protection of Federal waters off their shores. The Federal Government can then accept this proposal and begin negotiation with the Governor. The idea is to move past the take-it-or-leave-it approach to Outer Continental Shelf development and provide States the authority and process they need to make a deal that protects their economic and environmental interests.

My bill would require that an oil company holding an OCS lease develop the oil and gas on that tract in a reasonable timeframe or lose the right to develop that area. Existing leases that come up for renewal will face the same limitation.

No. 2, this proposal would create an energy independence trust fund to be funded with the Federal share of additional royalties that would be collected when more of the Outer Continental Shelf is opened for development. This trust fund, which could receive tens of billions of dollars from new royalties, would go to fully fund all renewable energy, energy efficiency, research and development, and technology deployment programs from the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence Security Act of 2007. We have made a big commitment to new technology in past energy legislation. This is a way to fund it. This would make sure programs we already have on the books to develop technology such as fuel cells, hybrid vehicles, solar, wind, advanced batteries, building efficiency--the list goes on and on--are fully funded. We want to make sure they are fully funded.

Additionally, the fund will provide resources for a new ethanol pipeline loan guarantee program and provide new nuclear energy production incentives.

No. 3, the bill would utilize our 250-year supply of coal by creating a new standard of production of fuel from clean coal, often called coal-to-liquid technology. My bill would take a new approach by tightening the environmental standards required of this fuel.

No. 4, my bill would recognize the fact that nuclear energy is one of America's energy solutions as it provides an affordable, zero-emissions source of energy. The French are not braver than we are. Close to 90 percent of their energy is nuclear. This proposal will improve the loan guarantee for nuclear production, create a nuclear production tax credit, and increased training for the nuclear workforce.

I believe these measures do a great deal to address our current energy crisis. But I promise my colleagues I am open to their ideas and initiatives as well. The only thing I am not open to is more political gamesmanship and bickering.

The American people want and need bipartisan energy legislation that goes to the root causes of our energy problems. I urge my colleagues to consider this proposal. I urge my colleagues and leadership on the other side of the aisle to sit down with a bipartisan coalition. I urge all of us on my side of the aisle to sit down and put together a bipartisan coalition that will produce a bill that truly transforms how we do energy as we, as Senators, work together for the American people.

That is what they are looking for right now. They are frustrated. They are scared. They are facing economic stress. They are looking to us. We have a responsibility to put the gamesmanship aside, put the ideological divide aside, and figure out a way--can't we do renewables? Can't we do conservation? Can't we do production? It doesn't mean drilling in every corner of the universe.

If there ever was a moment for us to come together as a nation to protect and preserve our freedom and our liberty, that moment is now.

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

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, we are in the middle of an energy crisis, and the only way we're going to get out of it is to dramatically transform how this country does energy.

That is what the Lieberman-Warner climate bill does--it takes on one of the greatest economic and national security threats America faces today: our energy insecurity.

Sometimes we must look around the mountain, we must look to our future and recognize where our path must lead. We must recognize that we need massive and speedy development of domestically produced clean energy sources.

If we had committed to this bill 10 years ago, we wouldn't be in the tight spot we find ourselves in right now. We needed carbon capture technology for coal, increased nuclear power, cellulosic ethanol, and widespread renewable energy use yesterday.

This year, nearly half a trillion of our dollars will be sent overseas for energy we are capable of producing at home. The fact is, we are being held hostage by a world oil market where much of the supply is controlled by thugs and tyrants like Ahmadinejad and Chavez. But, as we have found in Minnesota, we can grow our own fuel, and the potential of cellulosic ethanol to replace foreign oil makes today's renewable fuels production look small, but it still hasn't reached commercialization.

Meanwhile, nuclear energy is an affordable, zero-emissions source of energy, yet we have not built a nuclear plant in this country in 30 years.

And, due to environmental concerns, it is increasingly difficult to utilize one of our greatest sources of energy in the country: coal. We have a 250 year supply of coal that we must find a way to use for energy production because one thing is certain--America's energy needs are only increasing.

At the same time, we have abundant energy around us that has yet to be tapped. When I am fishing on a beautiful morning up in Lake Ada back home, the sunshine and steady breeze are a constant reminder of the renewable resources that we can harness to power our homes and businesses.

The solutions to our energy woes are at our fingertips; it's time we grabbed hold of the great opportunity at hand and lead an energy revolution that will be the source for future security and increased opportunity for generations to come.

But, we can't wait for this revolution to come to us. I am skeptical that we are just going to wake up one day and see cellulosic ethanol at the pump or see a nuclear energy renaissance or clean coal with carbon sequestration or widespread use of renewables, unless we take bold action.

Mr. President, that's what this bill is about.

The Climate Security Act empowers Americans to do what we must do, which is to transform our production of energy. It sets up a cap-and- trade system, just as was done in the 1990 Clean Air Act to combat acid rain, that gives greenhouse gas producers flexibility in meeting their obligations through submission of allowances. Listening to some of the debate over this last week, one might think this bill is a windfall for the Federal Government, but what this bill really does is allocate these allowances to help the folks regulated in their transition to clean energy and to help energy consumers, both families and businesses with their energy costs. Just look at what happens in 2012, when the cap begins:

Over 38 percent of allowances are given out for free to fossil-fired power plants, energy consumers, natural gas and petroleum facilities, carbon intensive manufacturing facilities, agriculture and forestry, and states that are manufacturing and coal reliant;

Another 36 percent of allowances go to states and emitters to incentivize clean energy deployment and carbon sequestration; and

The 25 percent of the allowances that the Government does ``auction'' go to programs that invest in our energy future by doing things like dramatically boosting clean coal technology, clean energy research and development, and worker training assistance.

In particular, the bill provides record investment in clean coal, renewables, and cellulosic ethanol, including: $17 billion of support for carbon capture and storage technology for coal to kick start this technology, $120 billion in incentives for carbon capture and storage, and my CO2 pipeline study proposal; bonus allowances for renewable energy that I have strongly supported; $150 billion for renewable energy; $92 billion for low-carbon electricity technology; and $26 billion for production of cellulosic ethanol.

But there is no doubt in revolutionizing our energy production, a transition will be required that won't come easy. That's why, from the time I cosponsored the first Lieberman-Warner proposal, I made clear that as we work on this legislation, we have to keep in mind the single mother in St. Paul working two jobs who can't afford higher energy prices and we must protect the economy and American jobs.

I compliment Senators Lieberman and Warner for taking these concerns to heart. This substitute makes several critical changes from earlier drafts to assist poor and middle class families with energy prices and to protect jobs.

First, this substitute dramatically increases the resources dedicated to help consumers, both families and businesses, with energy costs-- bringing the total assistance to $1.7 trillion. $800 million of this amount is targeted at a tax cut for low income Americans' energy costs. Meanwhile, this substitute increases by 40 percent the funding that will go to energy consumers through their utility bill, bringing this provision's assistance total to $900 billion.

Secondly, this bill includes a new allowance trigger at between $22 and $30 per allowance that provides an important off-ramp should costs become high. This trigger is critical because economic consequences escalate when the price of an allowance increases.

Many of the high energy cost and GDP estimates cited on the floor this week have been taken from an EPA study that assumes an allowance price of at least $46 per allowance. Under this substitute, prices won't be allowed to get anywhere near that level.

Finally, this bill places an allowance purchase requirement on importers of products like steel, chemicals, and other energy intensive products if a commission does not find that the country of origin is taking comparable action to curb greenhouse gases.

There is a lot of concern that this bill will increase energy prices and hurt the economy. You will hear many of my colleagues cite studies with drastic cost increase numbers. While this substitute amendment, with the protections I just outlined, has yet to be analyzed, I believe much of the economic pain projected in some studies is overstated--even without the off-ramp.

For instance, the independent Energy Information Agency found in their High Cost scenario that there is a predicted electricity price increase of 1.5 percent a year and a gas price increase of 2 cents per year. Meanwhile, EIA has projected less than half of one percent effect on GDP--again, this is before the off-ramp.

I do want to commend Senators Lieberman and Warner for their work on this bill--they deserve much credit for taking this on, for pouring themselves into this very difficult, complex task--taking on one of the great challenges of our day.

That's why I am so disappointed that we won't have a chance to consider this bill on the floor. Mr. President, the Clean Air Act took 5 weeks, we have been given less than 5 days on a much more comprehensive piece of legislation. The process set up here robs us of an opportunity to take our energy crisis head on.

I have supported the Lieberman-Warner effort as a cosponsor, and I continue to support this bill, but I have always made clear that I would work to improve the bill to protect Minnesota jobs. So, I have a few amendments, some that I am introducing, some I am cosponsoring that substantively improve this bill--many of these changes are very small, but the consequences of not including them will be very large in my state.

Because of this process, I won't have the chance to offer my amendment to create a fuel assistance fund that will lower Federal fuel taxes by an amount equal to fuel price increases those driving cars and trucks and riding on airplanes have to pay as a result from this bill. This is an amendment to protect American consumers, it's common-sense, and it keeps the Highway Trust Fund and the Airport and Airways Trust Fund whole.

I won't have a chance to amend the bill to ensure that my state's many waste-to-energy facilities are considered renewable. This is a small change, but without it, we could disadvantage an important clean energy technology.

This bill needs a nuclear energy title. We need to boost tax incentives for nuclear power plants and improve the existing loan guarantee program. We need to train a workforce for the nuclear renaissance that we'll need to meet our energy needs.

Meanwhile, we need to restore the transition assistance for rural electric cooperatives that was included in earlier drafts of the bill, and we need to exempt steel process emissions as there is no feasible technological alternative to using carbon to produce iron ore. If these process emissions aren't excluded, we're going to send steel jobs overseas.

These amendments are designed to work within the structure of this bill, to augment it, to remove negative impacts that could hit Minnesotans--they deserve to be considered.

Mr. President, the challenge we face in solving our energy security problems is great, but for the folks who don't think America can meet this challenge, I would like to remind them of the fight we had over the first Renewable Fuels Standard, RFS, just a few years ago. I worked with a bipartisan cast of colleagues to pass the first RFS in 2005, and at the time, it was criticized as onerous and too ambitious.

We thought we were aiming high by passing a 7.5 billion gallon renewable fuels requirement by 2012. Today, in 2008, we have the renewable fuel production capacity of 8.5 billion gallons--we have far out surpassed expectations of production at the time.

Driving around Minnesota's countryside, I have witnessed the source of this overwhelming success--local entrepreneurs, innovators, and visionaries. And, the Minnesotans who have built our renewable fuels industry, which contributes over $5 billion to the State's economy, have transformed their local economies. The government sent the market a strong signal, and the American people responded.

Mr. President, the time for an energy revolution is long overdue. We cannot afford delay, and it is my hope that we will be provided the time we need to consider and pass this critical bill in the near future.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Georgia. Along with all the thanks that have been set forth by the Senator from North Dakota, I wish to thank the Senator from North Dakota.

I went to Lake Bronson in northwest Minnesota in 2005, and the room was filled with family farmers who were talking about disaster assistance. We look at the farm bill--and today we are at a time when commodity prices are high. Folks look at that and say: Why do we need a safety net? Why do we need a farm bill? Two years ago, I had people who were struggling. The pain and fear on their faces was something I wish I had a picture of that I could show you.

My colleague from North Dakota has been a champion--a champion--for ensuring that there is a safety net, particularly regarding disaster assistance. With all the partisan divide we have in this body, here we have an example where it is not about partisan politics; it is about doing the right thing. Folks have dirt under their fingernails who are helping provide the safest, most affordable food supply in the world, and we are talking about a safety net. My colleague from North Dakota has been a tremendous champion, and I wish to express my thanks.

Also, I see the chair of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, who has also been involved in providing the kind of safety net that when bad things happen, we are going to be proud of this bill; we will be proud. So I wish to express my deep appreciation for the continuous effort that finally has yielded some fruit right here. It will be a shame if we don't make sure this becomes law.

These are tough times right now. Folks are worried about their jobs, they are worried about the cost of food, they are worried about the cost of energy. I don't need an economist to tell me whether we are in a recession or talk to Minnesota families and business owners to know folks are worried out there. We need something that promotes job growth.

I come to the floor to ask my colleagues to work with me to pass one of the most critical economic stimulus packages this body will have a chance to vote on all year. This is a balanced proposal, both ensuring the viability of a key economic sector--agriculture--and helping the many Americans who are struggling to put food on the table. It is a farm bill that we will soon vote to send to the President. At only 1.9 percent of the Federal budget, this farm bill will have enormous impact--providing, as I said, a safety net for American agriculture that in turn employs one out of five Americans and contributes roughly $3.5 trillion a year to the U.S. economy. In my State of Minnesota, agriculture generates $55 billion in economic activity and underpins 367,000 jobs.

We labeled this bill, as folks have said, a farm bill, when in reality it is a food bill, a nutrition bill. Over 66 percent goes to the nutrition safety net. We have all seen the rise in foreclosures and the impact of food prices depleting our food shelters. Families are being hit hard right now. This farm bill helps meet the increased needs. It provides an additional $10 billion above baseline to nutrition.

As the ranking member of the Nutrition Subcommittee, I worked hard to see that nutrition programs--and the Emergency Food Assistance Program, EFAP, in particular--saw substantial increased funding. Well, we got it. The farm bill conference agreement will provide an additional $1.3 billion for our food banks. I have been to Second Harvest and Heartland in St. Paul. The needs are great, and we are meeting those needs today.

The Food Stamp Program receives an almost $8 billion boost in this bill. Our Nation is too prosperous not to lend a helping hand when it is needed.

Despite the importance of the farm bill safety net for hungry families, most of the attention is centered on the commodity programs. Commodity prices are high, critics say. The farmers are doing well. Why should they get a safety net? The reality is the critics don't understand agriculture. They don't understand that although the importance of agriculture to our economy is certain, the survival of individual farm families is not. Once again, the farm bill supports a sector of the American economy that provides millions of jobs, and it is insulting to farmers who put their necks on the line every year to wake up with the Sun and work all day to say they should be able to farm without a safety net.

I urge my colleagues to step into the shoes of one of my Minnesota farmers for a moment. We see high prices in the world market today, but we have no way of knowing whether the drought in Australia is going to continue or whether the consumption habits in countries on the other side of the world will change. Input costs for diesel and fertilizer are going through the roof. Meanwhile, depending on where your farm lies, Minnesota weather has kept you off the tractor, threatening your yields, and not knowing whether you will even have a product to sell for those high prices.

What price is too high for a safety net that keeps farmers, such as those in Minnesota, farming, despite all the uncertainty that allows the agricultural economic engine to continue generating trillions of dollars? How about 0.27 percent of the Federal budget? That is what this bill's commodity title costs. By the way, this bill's safety net is based on the structure of the 2002 farm bill that costs $20 billion less than expected.

From a jobs perspective, this bill is a bargain, and from a commodity payment reform perspective, this bill is historic. I firmly believe we should

eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in farm programs and try to get the Ted Turners of the world out of the commodity payment business. At the end of the day, no bill is perfect, but this bill is something we can be proud of.

This bill will prevent payments from going to nonfarmers with an adjusted gross income over $500,000, an 80-percent reduction from current law; repeal the triple-entity rule, reducing title I benefits by 50 percent for some producers. We require direct attribution of all benefits to natural persons so we know exactly where it is going--100 percent transparency. We explicitly prevent farm benefits from ever going to a deceased person. There are other reforms. I could go on and on.

I read a headline the other day: ``Fiscal Hawks Eye Farm Bill.'' They should, because this is a fiscally responsible piece of legislation that delivers big bang for the buck.

When I talked with my farmers, again, they told me the 2002 farm bill had the right safety net, it just needed to be improved. And in this conference report, that is what we do. Building on the existing safety net, the bill updates target prices and marketing loan rates for key Minnesota commodities such as wheat, barley, and soybeans. For sugar beet farmers who have been waiting 15 years for updated loan rates, there will finally be an increase. Minnesota's dairy farmers will be relieved to hear the payment rate for the MILC Program will return to 45 percent. I have appreciated Senator Leahy's leadership on this issue.

In addition to tweaking the current safety net, this farm bill also creates entirely new programs that American farmers desperately need. One I have talked about: permanent agriculture disaster assistance. The other is about sugar to ethanol. I take great pride in the sugar-to- ethanol provision in this bill. This was a proposal that was once met with indignation when I first raised it a few years ago. Even some folks in Minnesota sugar country said it couldn't be done. But I believed then as I believe now--and clearly the conference report lays this out--that it only makes sense to take excess sugar from trade agreements, get it off the market, and use it to help address our dependence on foreign oil. I saw what Brazil was achieving with oil independence, largely as a result of the production of sugar ethanol. The technology for sugar ethanol isn't out of reach. It is at our fingertips. U.S. sugar producers now share this vision and when this sugar ethanol program is implemented, we will be able to quickly add more diversity to our economic food stocks. We have to end our dependence on foreign oil. We have to stop sending billions of dollars out of this country into the pockets of thugs and tyrants, such as Ahmadinejad and Chavez, and we need to do it again with the renewables being a part of it. This bill does it.

The renewable energy vision doesn't stop there. It looks to the future by paving the way for the next generation of biofuels: cellulosic ethanol. Included in this bill is a program I have supported to promote the production, harvesting, and processing of biomass. The bill's biomass loan program will prioritize local ownership--local ownership--so it is not the fat cats on Wall Street, as some say, but it is folks in our local communities who will benefit from America's energy independence movement, which is renewables, which is biofuels.

On the tax side, there will be a $1 production tax credit for cellulosic ethanol. All in all, this bill provides $1.2 billion in new energy investment.

This conference report is a real victory for Americans fighting hunger and working to feed the Nation, but it is also a victory for bipartisanship. I wish to thank the chairman, Senator Harkin, Senator Conrad, and Senator Baucus for committing to a bipartisan process from the very start and working with me throughout this process. It has been a pleasure to sit across from them and my colleague, Senator Chambliss, and I appreciate the work they have done to produce something this Nation needs right now.

I am disappointed the President intends to veto this bill. If he does that, that is a mistake. I will work hard with my colleagues to override that veto. This country needs this farm bill. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, a birthday is an occasion that allows a family to focus on one of its members and celebrate what is unique and special about that person. It is time to reflect on major challenges met and major fulfillments achieved. The same is true when we celebrate the birth of a nation, or perhaps more appropriately today, its rebirth.

The modern State of Israel is 60 years old today. But the idea of Israel was born at the dawn of recorded history. Students of the Bible know that Israel was originally a person--the father of 12 children who became the Twelve Tribes. Israel became a nation as the progeny of those patriarchs grew in population of more than 1 million. And Israel has become a revered concept, a union of spiritual ideas that has benefited many cultures far from the Middle East.

That is what our second President, John Adams, meant when he wrote:

The Hebrews have done more to civilize man than any other

nation. If I were an atheist and believed blind eternal fate,

I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be

the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations.

We in the United States have enjoyed that civilizing influence. Much of what we believe and assert in our founding documents was drawn from ancient Jewish roots. The belief in individuals having ultimate value is because they are made in the likeness and image of God; respect of the rule of law as the foundation of a just society, not just the power of men; and a commitment to the cause of liberation because the rights of the people are an inalienable gift from their Creator.

So this celebration is not just a milestone for the Jewish people but for all humanity. It is a celebration of the perseverance and faith of the Jewish people, those who have resisted oppression for thousands of years. The story of Israel is a passionate history of the capacity of human beings to remain true to ideals, to overcome the longest odds, to realize a dream in the midst of those who wish to deny it.

Over a century ago, Theodore Herzl put into writing his vision for a free Jewish state. His immortal words: ``If you will it, it is no legend,'' personified the deep faith of the Jewish people and their heritage and their role on this planet. Both the United States and Israel were founded on the hope and promise of being ``a light unto nations,'' and this is a principle that defines us and binds us together.

For this reason, I believe the anniversary of the State of Israel encompasses much more than the rebirth of a nation. As a person of Jewish heritage and a public servant, this milestone has special significance for me. It reminds me not just of the added sense of responsibility to work for justice and peace, but of the lesson to never give up in my pursuit of those ideals, no matter the size of the obstacle.

But in Israel's existence, there is also a lesson of what we are called to pursue. The Jewish people have withstood much persecution through the years and endured some of the most horrific crimes against humanity that the world has ever seen. It is our responsibility to remind the world what humanity is capable of if we do not remain vigilant and fight ignorance and injustice wherever it emerges.

Even today, after 60 years of independence and 7 wars fought to preserve it, Israel continues to face grave threats. Iran and its regional proxies--Hamas and Hezbollah--continue not only to reject a peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, but also to undermine the very existence of Israel as a democratic and Jewish State.

The Iranian President continues to blatantly deny the Holocaust of the Jewish people while vowing to create another one. Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon is very real and must not be allowed to succeed. A nuclear Iran would dramatically alter the fragile balance in that volatile region and would pose an existential threat to the State of Israel.

In 1948, the United States under President Harry Truman made an unconditional commitment to the State of Israel. That commitment was not based on the price of gas, economic policy, or partisan politics. It was a moral covenant made in response to generations of mistreatment of the Jewish people and a desire for them to have a secure homeland founded upon democratic principles. We believed then, as we do now, that democracy is, in Lincoln's words, ``the last best hope of Earth.'' From such a commitment there is no out. To deny our support of Israel would be to deny everything America holds sacred and vital. We not only have to hold to our commitment, but we must use our influence around the world to encourage other nations to move in that direction.

This commitment dictates that we remain vigilant and watchful over these Iranian threats. I expect the United States to lead the way and use its influence over other countries that may undermine these nonproliferation efforts. For this reason I was very disappointed by the administration's insistence in signing a nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia. I have written, along with Senator Bayh, a letter to the President signed by 32 Senators from both parties in which we state that taken together, Russia's opposition to effective U.N. sanctions against Iran's nuclear weapons program, its ongoing assistance to Iran's ballistic missile programs, its exports of fuel to Iran's Bushehr reactor, and its increasingly abrasive foreign policy, all give us cause for concern without finalizing such an agreement.

Submitting a 123 agreement with Russia to Congress at this time could severely undermine our policy with respect to Iran at a critical juncture. Iran's testing of advanced centrifuges could significantly reduce the time it would take to reduce highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon. We urged the President not to send the agreement to Congress until Russia has ended support for Iran's ballistic missile program and stopped providing advanced conventional weapons and assistance to Iran's nuclear fuel cycle program. Russia must also cooperate with us to increase meaningful economic pressure on Iran to end its defiance of the United Nations Security Council's mandatory resolutions to suspend its enrichment of uranium.

Improving our commercial ties to Russia may be a national interest. It may be good economically for the United States and for Russia, but preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is a national interest of greater importance on which we cannot compromise.

When I reflect on Israel at 60, I am excited about Israel's future, despite the ever-present challenges. As David Ben-Gurion said in the early days of the modern Israeli nation, ``Around here, if you don't believe in miracles, you're not a realist.''

The Jewish people truly understand this concept, as there are many miracles that have come together to preserve the Jewish people throughout history, including the one that brought the modern State of Israel into existence. The anniversary of this miracle should be a joyous one, and the fact that Israel has now stood firm for 60 years should be celebrated.

America should thank God for the heritage of freedom Israel has given us. On this day, America should reaffirm its resolve to protect and sustain the place and the people who have given us so much. The gift Israel needs from us on its birthday is our gratitude, to be sure, but also our renewed, unshakable commitment to keeping those ancient dreams and ideals that we share alive.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

(The remarks of Mr. Bond are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Reserving the right to object, I would like to be added as a cosponsor with Senator Nelson on his amendment. I ask that I be recognized for 5 minutes after Senator Nelson.

Mr. President, I rise with my colleague from Florida to speak on behalf of our amendment No. 4423. I start by thanking, first, the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Dodd, and ranking member Senator Shelby, for bringing us to this point. People are losing their homes. I hear it. We all heard it when we went back over Easter break. For Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby to come together in a bipartisan way and give us an opportunity to do what this Senate is going to be doing, I express my deep appreciation; also to Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley, the chair and the ranking member, for working with us on this amendment. It is one of those things that goes to the heart of what we are trying to do today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Martinez be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. President, during our travels back home to housing townhall forums during the course of this last year, we are all meeting more and more folks who are in very desperate straits, trying to keep their home. Minnesota ranks No. 2 in the number of subprime mortgages in for closure. Minnesota--who would have thought? That is the reality. It is across the country. I was in a forum at St. Cloud, in the central part of my State. I met a nurse named Terri Ross, a woman who had two jobs, bought a house which was in need of repair. She had a pretty good mortgage, low interest rate, and wanted actually to quit one job to go back to school. She wanted to improve herself, improve her life, add to her education. She met with the mortgage broker. He said: Have I got a deal for you. We can get you a mortgage and it will be at a low rate. Don't worry about the fact--I am not sure she even knew it was going to pop up in a few years. Don't worry about it because property values are rising and there will be more equity in your house. She put the money in the house, did the mortgage. When all was said and done, she found herself in the situation where the value of the house was less than the value of the additions. She had lost one job. She now had one job, her income was in half. She is in big trouble.

Here is a woman who worked all her life, put aside some money for retirement. What she did is she tapped into that and then she paid a penalty on it, trying to save her home. That was what she had. The problem is, across the Nation, people are now looking to use their retirement savings to save their homes and they get hit hard with a 10- percent early withdrawal penalty.

There was an article in USA Today. They ran a piece entitled ``401(K)s Tapped to Save Homes.'' The article focuses on this problem. Americans are being slammed with taxes and penalties as they try to keep their homes.

I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks this article be printed in the Record.

These are the stories my friend from Florida and I have been exchanging. We have personal accounts that do stretch from the Gulf of Mexico to the Great Lakes. These are the reasons we were called to take up this commonsense cause. We want to work on this legislation that Senator Nelson and I believe is one more way we can responsibly help homeowners, to temporarily waive this 10-percent penalty for withdrawals up to $25,000. Our amendment would also waive ordinary income taxes, as the Senator from Florida indicated, if the homeowner pays back the withdrawal within 3 years of making it, so homeowners are provided with a strong incentive to make their retirement savings whole again.

This is not a silver bullet--I don't know if there is a silver bullet in terms of the crisis we are dealing with--but it helps those whom we want to help, homeowners who are in big trouble. In doing so, this temporary relief can prevent an unnecessary foreclosure from happening, one which hurts not only the family but hurts the entire community. When houses are foreclosed and vacant, it affects everyone in the surrounding area. It affects the neighborhoods. As a former mayor, I looked at neighborhoods we built up in my time as mayor and I believe the same neighborhoods are being torn down by the crisis we are facing.

This bill is about homeowners helping themselves. While the 10- percent penalty is well intentioned and we do not want people to be using retirement savings during their working years, times such as this require us to recognize that sometimes such rules need to be flexible in order to serve a greater good. Both on a home ownership level and community level, I believe it makes sense to enable those who can to keep their homes. Ultimately it is up to the homeowner to decide whether it makes financial sense to turn to their retirement savings to keep their homes.

At least for those who decide to do so, we should not penalize them for trying to keep a roof over their heads and wanting to remain part of the community they have called home.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense and much needed relief.

I yield the floor.

[From USA Today]

401(K)s Tapped To Save Homes

(By Christine Dugas)

Struggling to save their homes from foreclosure, more

Americans are raiding their 401(k) retirement accounts to pay

their bills--and getting slammed with taxes and penalties in

the process, according to retirement plan administrators.

Rather than borrow money from their 401(k) accounts, which

would have to be paid back, a growing number of beleaguered

families have been cashing out, plan administrators say.

This is happening even as borrowing from 401(k) accounts

remains fairly flat. Fewer still are borrowing from 401(k)

plans to buy homes. By contrast, new figures from plan

administrators show the number of 401(k) ``hardship

withdrawals'' is up in early 2008 compared with the same

period last year.

The main reason? The need to stave off foreclosure or

eviction.

Consider Tamara Campbell, who raided her 401(k) after her

husband was laid off from his job as an occupational

technician, and they

fell behind on their mortgage for several months. ``If I

hadn't done that, we would have been foreclosed on last

year,'' says Campbell, who lives in a Denver suburb.

Such hardship withdrawals began rising last year and, by

January this year, had exceeded January 2007 levels. During

the first month of the year, as the economic slowdown

tightened pressure on mortgage holders, hardship withdrawals

rose 23 percent at plans that Merrill Lynch (MER) administers

compared with the same period in 2007, says Kevin Crain,

managing director of the Merrill Lynch Retirement Group.

The 401(k) withdrawals are rising mainly because people

such as Campbell and her husband want to save their homes.

Merrill Lynch found that the primary reason for the rise in

hardship withdrawals was to prevent foreclosure or eviction,

based on its sampling of applications filed in January.

Likewise, in the first month of the year, compared with

January 2007, Great-West Retirement Services saw a 20 percent

increase in hardship withdrawals to save a home. And

Principal Financial (PFG) reports that in January it received

245 calls from participants who inquired about 401(k)

withdrawals to prevent a foreclosure or eviction, up

dramatically from 45 similar calls it received in January

2007.

For workers, the consequences can be severe. About 85

percent of employers bar employees from making 401(k)

contributions for six months after taking a hardship

withdrawal, says Pamela Hess, director of retirement research

at Hewitt Associates (HEW). Worse, employees who pull money

out of tax-deferred 401(k) plans before age 59\1/2\ generally

must pay a 10 percent penalty on top of the taxes owed.

A 401(k) loan imposes no such punishment. ``But let's face

it: If your problem is paying bills, and if you take out a

loan, then you just add another bill to pay,'' says Nevin

Adams of PlanSponsor.com, which monitors the 401(k) industry.

As Campbell considers whether to make another withdrawal,

she notes, ``It's not the kind of thing you want to use your

401(k) for. And if I keep doing this, I'm not going to have

any retirement savings.''

If the Senator will yield, I also understand the concern raised by the chairman of the Banking Committee. I will be pleased to work with the chairman and my colleagues. I ask the chairman of the Finance Committee, I think one of the things he did address, a piece of issue, had to do with the tax consequences. If a mortgage was $150,000 and it was taken down to $100,000 by agreement, in the past that $50,000 was a taxable gain. I believe recently--again, this little piece--we took that building block and said: Hey, if you knock it down to $100,000, that $50,000 is no longer a taxable gain; is that correct?

All these pieces fit together. Again, there is no silver bullet at the end, but if we can come closer to addressing the full range of concerns, I think that would be positive. I think we already moved, with the leadership of the chairman of the Finance Committee, to address that one piece. This is another piece. It is your home, your future, and clearly there is more work to be done.

What is the status we are in right now?

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I congratulate the majority and minority leaders, the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Dodd, and Senator Shelby. We have done something today the American people should be very proud of. I understand there is an agreement to move forward on a bipartisan agreement that would allow us to address certainly one of the major concerns impacting the American public today; that is, the collapse of the housing industry, collapse of home values. I believe this ties directly into the difficulties we are having with our economy. The fact is, there is less value in homes and the ability to refinance. Folks are not fixing up their homes, doing renovations. In my State, folks who cut down the timber, log it, truck it, process it through sawmills, ultimately the contractors, the construction workers who build, all have been impacted.

When one person loses a house and a series of homes are lost through foreclosures due to refixing of mortgages, adjustable rate mortgages which people do not have the capacity to repay, that impacts the value of every home in a neighborhood. So we are seeing a significant decline in many of our neighborhoods, not just urban but throughout the State and the country.

I congratulate the leadership of my colleagues who have come together with an opportunity to move forward in an area of great importance and one that I, as a former mayor and with the privilege now to serve in the Senate, understand and am deeply concerned about.

I believe we have to move forward. We now have an opportunity. The fact is, in my State of Minnesota, communities are grasping for solutions to stem the tide of our housing crisis. Local leaders and concerned citizens are working to prevent erosion of the building blocks of their communities, which are neighborhoods. Despite their best efforts, neighbors can't fight the growing number of empty houses this rush of foreclosures is bringing. Local governments can't fend off plunging property tax revenues that make balancing the books nearly impossible. Individual businesses don't have a choice

when fewer people are coming through the door and they are faced with difficult decisions about which employees they can keep on board.

As homes become abandoned, it starts a vicious cycle. Abandoned and vacant homes create blight, reduce the value of houses around them, and the opportunity for criminal activity increases as those interested in law-breaking seize upon the opportunity to take advantage of other people's mistakes.

When I was mayor, I believed in the broken window theory. If a violent crime happened in a neighborhood, some would say: Why did it happen? You would go back and say: Well, you had a window that was broken, and it wasn't fixed. And then another window was broken, and it wasn't fixed. Then the graffiti got on the walls, and the gangs and the drug dealers and prostitutes hang out. All of a sudden, somebody gets killed. We are seeing folks abandoning homes, blighted neighborhoods. This is spreading with very dangerous and negative effects. Beyond the loss of a home, the lives of those around those homes are also impacted. It is creating a downward spiral that is difficult to stop.

I think we have a chance today in this body to move forward in a way to at least slow the downward spiral, not stop it. This is a problem none of us can solve on our own. There are some problems that are too big for one party to solve. This is one of them. Republicans and Democrats need to come together to lift our neighborhoods out of their crisis.

As a former mayor, I know the foundation of our communities is based on home ownership. Housing is the foundation for strong neighborhoods. Housing creates good jobs, creates stable places for workers to live. Housing has created wealth. When there is trouble in housing, the economy suffers, workers suffer, families suffer. From my travels and townhall forums during the past several months back home in Minnesota, I have seen and heard firsthand how this crisis is hurting my State. Like every American, this crisis is attacking the place I call home. It has taken away from the folks I live around, whom I worked hard to help as mayor. There are communities and neighborhoods that were struggling in the 1990s when I got elected. We built them up. Now many of them are starting to fray and come apart. It is a very personal issue for all of us. It is not just an urban problem. In my State, it is a rural problem as well.

I understand there are statistics which show that Minnesota ranks second in the Nation in subprime mortgages and foreclosure. According to the nonprofit Minnesota Housing Link, if current trends continue, the number of foreclosures will increase by nearly 48 percent this year to 37,854. By contrast, in 2005, there were 6,466 foreclosures. Meanwhile, the housing downturn has taken a toll on construction jobs in Minnesota. In the past 2 years alone, 15,000 of these jobs have been lost. But behind these troubling statistics is the human face that reflects the terrible crisis.

This is about folks such as Joanne Ness, whom I met at a forum earlier this year in St. Cloud, MN. Joanne spoke of a struggle to keep her house as her adjustable rate mortgage payment soared from $1,300 to almost $1,900 per month. Hers is a typical story I hear time and again when I talk to families around the State.

Similar to when my son would throw a rock in one of Minnesota's many lakes--and you would see the ripple impact--the impact of these foreclosures is rippling throughout my State's economy.

I mentioned the folks in the timber industry. I was going to have a cup of coffee with, I thought, a small group of folks up in Aitkin, MN. It is in the northeastern part of the State. It is timber country up there. They talked about how their businesses are hurt by depressed softwood lumber prices.

Ron Enter and his wife stopped by my office the other day to share how the housing crisis has hurt their small building materials business. According to the Enters, their business sales have dropped roughly by half, and they have had to reduce their workforce from 25 employees to 15 employees. These are more than numbers. These are moms and dads who have family obligations who are out of work. If you are out of work, you lose your health care. It has all sorts of impacts. It is not just about numbers. If the housing market does not improve, they warn they may have to cut back to as little as six workers, employees, in order to keep their business going. These are moms and dads, brothers and sisters, folks who are now out of work.

We are acting not a moment too soon. The time to act is now. It was yesterday, but we are going to move forward today, and I think that is tremendous. Folks such as the Nesses and the Enters are looking for us to work together on solutions to the housing crisis.

To that end, I joined Senators Bond and Isakson and other colleagues of mine in introducing, last month, consensus-based housing legislation called the Security Against Foreclosure and Education Act or SAFE Act. There are a number of provisions in this act which I believe are now contained in the compromise bill we will have a chance to vote on.

Senator Isakson had a provision to address the oversupply of homes that is not only depressing home values but the construction industry as well. He originally had, I think, a $15,000 tax credit proposal for the purchase of new or foreclosed homes. I think we did something similar in the 1970s, and it had an impact in getting rid of some of the excess inventory in the market. If you get rid of excess inventory in the market, it brings up the value of everyone's home. I understand the Isakson provision in a modified form will be contained in the bill we address. The numbers may be somewhat different. It may be $3,500 for 2 years. But it is a step forward.

Another provision that I joined with Senator Smith in introducing last year would allow State and local governments to use mortgage revenue bonds to refinance subprime loans which have fueled the surge in foreclosures. Again, while this proposal, on its own, will not solve the crisis, it can nonetheless make a real difference for Minnesotans, such as Joanne Ness, who are looking to get safer and sounder mortgages so they can keep their homes. I understand this concept would also be included in the bipartisan bill.

The bottom line is there are folks who are hurting. We have a chance to help them.

I have also looked at a provision that would give returning veterans and servicemembers additional protections from foreclosure. These brave men and women who have made such incredible sacrifices on behalf of our country should not be penalized by the threat of losing their home because of the difficulties they face in their service abroad.

As we work on this bill, I hope we also look to provide, as I have proposed with Senator Martinez, temporary tax relief for homeowners who are increasingly using their retirement savings to keep their homes. This helps folks such as Terri Ross, a nurse whom I met at a St. Cloud forum.

She had a situation in which she was looking--she had an old house. She moved into it. It needed to be updated. She spoke to a mortgage broker who said: No problem. She could not afford to do it herself. They said: Listen, we can get you to refinance. We will get you additional money. You can put it into the house to fix it up. She did that. She was, I think, at the time paying about $700 a month. She did the fixing up of the house, but with the collapse in the value of the homes, by the time it was done, her house was worth less than what it would have been worth with the addition of the money she put in it.

She found herself also facing a rise in mortgage payments to the point where her mortgage had doubled. Now it is $1,300 a month. She originally had two jobs, and she told the mortgage company she was going to get rid of one to go to school. ``No problem.'' They were not being very honest with her. She had a problem. She started taking in renters, working additional shifts--a lot of problems.

In the end, one of the things she had to do was to tap into--because she had a good job; she had been working--her retirement income. The problem is, when you use your retirement savings, you get hit hard with a 10-percent early withdrawal tax penalty in addition to ordinary taxes.

Last month, USA Today ran a piece entitled: ``401(K)s Tapped to Save

Homes.'' This article talks about how Americans are ``getting slammed with taxes and penalties'' as they try to keep their homes.

So I hope my colleagues will work with me on this concept based on my HOME Act that would allow homeowners who have fallen behind on their mortgages penalty-free access to their retirement savings as well as tax-free savings so long as the withdrawals are paid back within 3 years.

So you can put the money back, but you avoid the very significant penalty. This is not a silver bullet that solves all the problems, but there are a lot of folks who have worked hard over the years who have found themselves, similar to Ms. Ross, in deep trouble, who are forced to tap into retirement savings and then are penalized on top of that. That does not make sense. We should not penalize people for trying to keep a roof over their heads and wanting to remain part of the community they have called home.

I am optimistic we will make the most of this opportunity before us to stabilize the housing market and prevent further damage to our economy and our communities. People such as Terri Ross and the Enters are counting on us to work together to do so.

In the end, I believe our recently passed economic stimulus package and our current efforts to pass bipartisan housing legislation will help to bring brighter and better times.

These are difficult times. Folks are hurting out there. They are worried about the price of gas at the pump. They fill their car up paying with a credit card, and they wonder which will get filled up first, their tank or their credit limit. They are worried about the rising cost of fuel. Many of them got into these adjustable rate mortgages. Some of them have what we call NINJA mortgages--no income, no jobs or assets. Now the interest rate goes up, the mortgage payment goes up, and they are left in a home with less value, and they are out of a home.

We have a lot of work to do. I am pleased to be here today, after listening to the majority leader reflect that a consensus has been arrived at, that there has been agreement between the chairman and ranking member of the Banking Committee to bring forth a proposal to this body that will allow us to move forward on addressing one of the major concerns facing the people of this country, and that is the terrible housing crisis that is undermining our economy and, more importantly, is hurting people--individual moms and dads and others. We have an obligation to step forward in the right way, in a responsible way, and I am looking forward to being a part of that discussion this afternoon.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to talk about one of my colleagues, the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.

Last night, he secured the nomination of the Republican Party to be President of the United States. I must admit that about 6 months ago, I was one of those who questioned whether Senator McCain would be successful in this quest. While his passion for our Nation has never been in doubt, my sense was that his campaign for the Presidency was flickering to a close. What you saw last night is a reflection of character, the character of John McCain, the character that allowed him to persevere through the terrible torture of tiger cages in Vietnam.

John McCain has never, ever given up on this Nation. In the end, at a time when there is so much cynicism in the body politic and the public about politicians, it is uplifting, not just for this party or for this body, because the next President of the United States will come from this body, but for this country to have as our candidate a man whose character has been tested in a furnace that has burned hotter than any one of us could possibly understand.

At a time when the issues of security are so preeminent, we have as a candidate John McCain, who has been as steadfast on protecting this Nation as one could ever imagine. At a time when the public is concerned about wasteful Washington spending, we have as our candidate an individual who has been a champion in fighting wasteful Washington spending.

I wanted to take a few moments to offer my congratulations to our colleague from Arizona and to say to the American public, at a time when there is such doubt and cynicism, such division in this country, we have before them an individual whose character is strong. His courage is unquestioned. He has shown the ability to overcome the deep, divisive, partisan divide that tears this body apart, that tears this country apart. That is a wonderful thing.

I offer my heartfelt congratulations to our colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain.

Mr. President, today, along with my distinguished colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, I am introducing legislation to restore and enhance our Nation's competitiveness for international students, scholars, scientists, and exchange visitors, and better facilitate legitimate business travel to the U.S.

In the immediate aftermath of the events of 9/11, it was necessary to take the steps we did to improve and enhance our Nation's security. But in the more than 6 years since 9/11, these well-intentioned changes have had unintended consequences, stifling legitimate academic and scientific exchange and international business travel, and tarnishing our Nation's image around the world.

Three years ago, Senator Bingaman and I introduced a similar bill designed to reverse the decline in the number of foreign students studying at American colleges and universities. At that time, international applications to U.S. graduate schools and to English as a Second Language, ESL, programs were plummeting, and visa delays were numbering in the thousands. Visa delays were also negatively impacting the scientific and business communities, resulting in billions of dollars of losses for the U.S. economy, as scientific research, conferences, and business meetings had to be canceled and shifted to overseas locations.

Over the past 3 years, there have been improvements with visa issuance, and it is the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs, particularly Assistant Secretary Maura Harty, who deserves much of the credit. I am pleased with their advancements to enhance consular staff; adopt newer,

more efficient technology; offer international students, scholars, and exchange visitors preferential consideration when scheduling in-person interview appointments; and extend security clearance validity. The Department also has established a business visa center to field inquiries from U.S. businesses and their worldwide counterparts, although the center cannot expedite in-person interview appointments or the processing of visa applications.

This is not to say that visa delays have disappeared entirely. Delays do continue to occur, albeit not at the huge volume they once were. Because of this, there is a lot of lingering uncertainty about the process which generates a great deal of concern for international students, scholars, exchange visitors, and business travelers, and reinforces a perception that America is not a welcoming place for international visitors.

Indeed, serious concerns remain regarding the U.S. position in the competition for international talent, particularly among higher education, the scientific community, and the private sector. Our competitiveness problem is not just a visa problem--we cannot solve it simply by fixing the visa problems that were created after 9/11.

The U.S. now faces strong competition for international students, scholars, scientists, and exchange visitors. The United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and the European Union all have coordinated, government-led strategic plans in place for attracting international students and scholars to their colleges and universities. Even our neighbor to the north, Canada, plans to announce a strategic plan this year. Meanwhile, traditional sending countries such as China and India are expanding their own higher education offerings, both to retain more of their own students and to attract international students. In the face of this competition, the U.S. still struggles along with piecemeal efforts, with each positive action seemingly cancelled out by a negative action and persistent negative perceptions. The results are worrisome.

While international student enrollment in the U.S. declined in both the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 academic years, and remained stagnant in 2005-2006, over the same period, enrollment in the United Kingdom jumped more than 80,000, in Australia and France more than 50,000, and in Germany and Japan more than 20,000. In 2006, then-U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair announced a goal of attracting an additional 100,000 international students to Great Britain in the next 5 years.

Although we have started to see the enrollment numbers tick upwards slightly just this past year--in Minnesota, 9,048 international students were studying at colleges and universities last academic year, contributing $186.4 million to the state's economy--it is still below the peak level of 9,143 achieved in 2003-2004, so there is still ground to make up for what was lost over the past 3 years to ensure we regain our place as the most desired destination for study and for research. Even if we return to pre-9/11 numbers, we may find we have lost market share to competing nations.

Why should this matter to the U.S.? Recent public opinion polls taken around the world show that the U.S. has fallen out of favor. But these same polls also show that foreigners who have personally visited the U.S. have a significantly more favorable opinion than those who have never visited.

International students and scholars benefit greatly from their experiences in the U.S., not only from their studies and research, but also from living in daily American life. They carry these experiences home, often becoming ambassadors of goodwill and understanding. Many go on to achieve leadership positions in their home countries in government, business, or education. These exchanges also benefit American students, researchers and business colleagues, who similarly have the opportunity to learn about another culture in this globalized world.

Two expert commissions recently issued recommendations citing international educational exchange as a critical form of public diplomacy outreach. Last November, the Center for Strategic and International Studies' Commission on Smart Power cited international educational exchange as a key element for improving America's declining standing and influence in the world. Just last month, the Secure Borders and Open Doors Advisory Committee, a federal advisory committee tasked by the Departments of Homeland Security and State to provide recommendations on the Departments' missions to protect not only America's security but also our economic livelihood, ideals, image, and strategic relationships with the world, cited the need for a proactive national strategy to mobilize all the tools and assets at our disposal to attract international students and scholars to the U.S.

International students and scholars are not only important for public diplomacy, they also are essential for our Nation's global competitiveness. They make significant contributions to our economic growth and innovation. According to recent National Science Board data, nearly half of all graduate enrollments at U.S. colleges and universities in the science and engineering fields are international students. And these students often go on to positively impact future research and technology output in this country. I strongly support efforts to build up America's own supply of science and technology talent, but we also must continue to actively attract international talent to our shores if we are to retain our innovative edge.

It is a reality of our time that, at the high-skill level, the temporary immigration system has become a conveyor belt of talent into the permanent immigration system. Most foreign students do want to go home after graduation, but some want to stay and use the knowledge they have acquired at our universities. For example, Ms. Indra Nooyi, the current CEO of PepsiCo, the world's fourth largest food and beverage company, is herself a former international student who received her master's degree from Yale University's School of Management.

So it is for all these important reasons that Senator Bingaman and I once again introduce legislation on this important issue: The American Competitiveness Through International Openness Now, ACTION, Act of 2008.

This year's bill once again calls for the establishment of a strategic plan for increasing the competitiveness of the U.S. in recruiting international students, scholars and exchange visitors. The U.S. can no longer sit back and rest on its laurels when engaging in this global competition, especially when all of our competitors clearly have stepped up their game.

Our biggest problem is our inability to marshal the efforts of all the relevant agencies into one coherent effort. Too often, these agencies work in an uncoordinated manner, or worse, at cross purposes. The PR blunder cases, where one arm of our government sets up exchange programs to attract people and another arm of the government detains them at the border, is only the tip of the iceberg. Our legislation would create a White House-chaired International Education Coordinating Council to guide the work of the myriad agencies that affect our competitiveness for international students and exchange visitors.

One of the most important provisions in the legislation would remove the nonimmigrant intent requirement for international students, the so- called 214(b) rule. This outdated requirement that all applicants for student visas must intend to return home after their studies makes no sense, especially when talent-starved high-tech industries actively court international students upon graduation. As I stated earlier, our ability to attract international talent is essential to sustaining our competitive edge in the world. Retaining such a requirement is simply out of step in this day and age, especially when most of our competitors are going out of their way to enact policies to make it easier for international students to stay after graduation.

The bill calls for further improvement in the timeliness and efficiency of the visa issuance process for those in the sciences. It directs the Secretary of State to issue guidance to reduce the length of time to issue visas to scientists to a maximum of 30 days, and to provide a special review process for those cases that are delayed more than 45 days. It also directs the Secretary of State to review and update the Technology Alert List on a regular basis,

and to consult with academia and the private sector as part of this review, to ensure the list reflects the current state of technology.

It also calls for expediting visa reviews for so-called ``Trusted Travelers'': easily identifiable, low-risk frequent travelers who have a history of past visa approvals, haven't violated their immigration status, and have provided their biometric data, plus any additional information required, to the consulate. This would both ease travel for these individuals and permit consular resources to be focused on more important cases. There is also a provision to also allow expedited visa reviews for international students, scholars and exchange visitors who leave the United States temporarily to visit their families or attend conferences and require a new visa to return to the same program. Today, these people can be stranded abroad for months without being able to return to their programs.

The legislation calls for the reinstatement of domestic or stateside visa renewals for those here on employment-based non-immigrant visas. This practice was discontinued in 2004, because U.S. consulates abroad were better equipped to collect the required biometric data from the renewal applicant. Given today's available technology, we should seek to reinstate this practice. This would help to alleviate the volume of renewal applicants at our overseas consulates, as well as help renewal applicants who often opt to forgo travel overseas due to the uncertainty of timely and efficient processing of their renewal applications.

Finally, there has been much public debate about driver's licenses and Real ID. In our well-intentioned efforts to ensure that only persons in the U.S. legally are able to acquire driver's licenses, we have unintentionally hamstrung the ability of legal nonimmigrants to have licenses. Real ID's unrealistic documentation and renewal requirements for international students and scholars send yet another negative signal about America's openness to them, and frankly ignore technical advances which could provide both better assurances about a person's legal status and licenses of a longer validity. Our bill will correct this problem in a way that will strengthen, not weaken, the integrity of driver's licenses.

For all of these reasons, our legislation is endorsed by NAFSA: Association of International Educators, the world's largest professional association advocating for international education and exchange programs, by the National Foreign Trade Council, the Nation's premier business organization dedicated to advancing global commerce, and by USA Engage, a leading broad-based coalition of trade associations promoting global economic engagement.

The American way of life owes its success and vitality to its historic ability to harness the best in knowledge and ideas, not only those that are homegrown, but also those that come from outside our borders. The longer we wait to take action, the more we risk missing out on future U.S. academic, business, and research success.

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