Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative Act. This bill will reauthorize the Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative, which promotes the protection and restoration of the marine waters, habitats, and species of the Northwest Straits region of Puget Sound in Washington State in order to achieve ecosystem health and sustainable resource use.

The Northwest Straits region makes up 60 percent of the Puget Sound's shoreline and includes the marine waters, nearshore areas, and shorelines of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and of Puget Sound from the Canadian border to the southern end of Snohomish County. This region represents a unique resource of enormous environmental and economic value to the people of the United States and, in particular, of the region surrounding the Northwest Straits. However, in the last several decades, habitat health, water quality, and populations of commercially and culturally valuable species found in the Northwest Straits have sharply declined. During the 20th century, extensive development, a legacy of lost or abandoned fishing gear, land conversion, loss of native sea grass, and invasive species have destroyed once intact native habitats in its ecosystem.

In 1997, I partnered with former Congressman Jack Metcalf and brought opposing stakeholders together to create an advisory commission to address regional and local issues in the marine environment. Many were skeptical of our efforts, but our work created an innovate model for restoring and protecting marine habitats. As a result, the Northwest Straits Initiative was created to provide funding to help citizens design and carry out marine conservation projects driven by local priorities and informed by science and the Initiative's goals and benchmarks.

The Northwest Straits Initiative is composed of volunteer-based marine resources committees in 7 counties, as well as over 100 members representing residents, tribes, businesses, fishermen, boaters, and scientists. It has logged thousands of volunteer hours and completed hundreds of projects, demonstrating that citizen involvement in marine resource conservation and restoration is powerful, effective, and necessary. And the program has accomplished a lot: thousands of derelict crab pots and fishing nets have been removed, miles of forage fish spawning habitat have been surveyed, hundreds of thousands of native Olympia oysters have been planted, marine stewardship areas have been designated, nearly 1,000 tons of creosote wood has been removed, and dozens of stewardship and public outreach programs have been completed.

The authorization of the Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative will ensure the continuation of this successful and innovative regional approach to marine resource restoration and protection.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative Act. This bill will reauthorize the Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative, which promotes the protection and restoration of the marine waters, habitats, and species of the Northwest Straits region of Puget Sound in Washington State in order to achieve ecosystem health and sustainable resource use.

The Northwest Straits region makes up 60 percent of the Puget Sound's shoreline and includes the marine waters, nearshore areas, and shorelines of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and of Puget Sound from the Canadian border to the southern end of Snohomish County. This region represents a unique resource of enormous environmental and economic value to the people of the United States and, in particular, of the region surrounding the Northwest Straits. However, in the last several decades, habitat health, water quality, and populations of commercially and culturally valuable species found in the Northwest Straits have sharply declined. During the 20th century, extensive development, a legacy of lost or abandoned fishing gear, land conversion, loss of native sea grass, and invasive species have destroyed once intact native habitats in its ecosystem.

In 1997, I partnered with former Congressman Jack Metcalf and brought opposing stakeholders together to create an advisory commission to address regional and local issues in the marine environment. Many were skeptical of our efforts, but our work created an innovate model for restoring and protecting marine habitats. As a result, the Northwest Straits Initiative was created to provide funding to help citizens design and carry out marine conservation projects driven by local priorities and informed by science and the Initiative's goals and benchmarks.

The Northwest Straits Initiative is composed of volunteer-based marine resources committees in 7 counties, as well as over 100 members representing residents, tribes, businesses, fishermen, boaters, and scientists. It has logged thousands of volunteer hours and completed hundreds of projects, demonstrating that citizen involvement in marine resource conservation and restoration is powerful, effective, and necessary. And the program has accomplished a lot: thousands of derelict crab pots and fishing nets have been removed, miles of forage fish spawning habitat have been surveyed, hundreds of thousands of native Olympia oysters have been planted, marine stewardship areas have been designated, nearly 1,000 tons of creosote wood has been removed, and dozens of stewardship and public outreach programs have been completed.

The authorization of the Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative will ensure the continuation of this successful and innovative regional approach to marine resource restoration and protection.

I come to the floor this afternoon to join my colleague from Washington State and thank her for her comments and attention on this enormously important issue to our State and to our entire country.

As she outlined earlier this month, the Department of Defense took a rare step involving a major procurement contract. Defense Secretary Gates decided the competition to replace the next generation of aerial refueling tanker was so flawed that it should be rebid. He elevated that competition from the Air Force to his office, and he promised to address all of the findings raised last month in a Government Accountability Office ruling which determined that the contest was skewed in favor of the European company Airbus and against Boeing.

I was glad to hear the Defense Secretary had decided to take new bids and start over. But I come to the floor today to join with my colleague from Washington State because I too have very serious concerns about the Pentagon's plans for that new competition. Some Pentagon officials are already indicating to us they are considering using this opportunity to amend the request for proposals to give greater weight to a bigger plane.

As a result of those comments, defense experts and analysts are now beginning to predict that as a result of that, the contract will simply go back to Airbus. I brought this up in a meeting this week with Acting Air Force Secretary Donley, in which we discussed the history of this tanker contract, and we talked about the needs of the Air Force, the criticisms that have been lodged against the latest competition, and our concerns about the amendment to that RFP that would tip the scales to favor one bidder.

I am not saying the Pentagon cannot change the requests for proposals. However, I strongly believe that all those changes have to be rooted in the original requirements that were set out by the Air Force when it began the process of replacing the military's midsized tanker, the KC-135.

I recognize the Pentagon's procurement team is very serious about getting this competition right. They want to get the right tanker for our warfighters. They want to do it quickly. But I also want to make it clear that if the Pentagon moves forward with this effort, officials must take the GAO's findings seriously and ensure that this competition is as fair and transparent as it can be.

Last month the GAO upheld eight points of protest that were raised by Boeing, including that the Air Force changed directions midstream in the process about which criteria were more important. It did not give Boeing credit for providing a more capable plane, according to the Air Force's description of what it wanted. Yet it gave Airbus extra credit for offering amenities the Air Force did not even ask for. The GAO report said the Air Force deliberately and unreasonably increased Boeing's engineering costs. When that mistake was corrected, it was discovered that the Airbus tanker actually cost tens of millions of dollars more than Boeing.

The GAO found that the Air Force accepted Airbus's proposal even though Airbus could not meet two of their key contract requirements. They could not meet the contract requirement, Airbus could not, and refused to commit to providing long-term maintenance as was specified directly in the RFP, even after the Air Force repeatedly asked them for it.

Secondly, the Air Force could not prove that Airbus could refuel all of the military's aircraft according to procedure. This goes to show how there were major flaws that occurred throughout that process.

So as it continues with this competition now, the Department of Defense must make sure there is no reason to question its motives. If they truly plan to make this a fair contest, Secretary Gates has to ensure that before the selection team reopens this competition, it goes back and addresses each one of those GAO findings. It has to ensure that both companies are on the same footing and it has to prove the competition is as transparent as possible. Our refueling tankers are the backbone of our global military strength. They are stationed around the world today and they service planes from every branch of our Armed Forces. This is a contract that is ultimately worth more than $100 billion. We are going to have these planes for decades. We cannot afford to make mistakes.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I recognize that Secretary Gates is very serious about getting this competition right. At the end of the

day, this is about getting the right equipment for our airmen and airwomen who are put in harm's way for our security every day. Our servicemembers deserve a plane that will enable them to do their job and return home safely.

Our taxpayers deserve to have confidence that the errors are going to be fixed in this contract as the GAO outlined. So I come to the floor today to say, as the Pentagon moves forward with this effort over the next several weeks, I strongly urge our officials to take those GAO findings seriously and ensure this competition is as fair and transparent as it can be.

Samuel Snow

While I am on the floor this afternoon, I want to take a moment to say a few words about a different topic; that is, about a gentleman who sacrificed very dearly for our country.

My colleague from Florida, Senator Nelson, was on the floor earlier today talking about a veteran named Samuel Snow who traveled from Florida all the way to my home State of Washington, all the way across the country this past week, to finally receive the honorable discharge from the Army that he deserved to get more than 60 years ago.

This man traveled from Florida to Washington to finally get an honorable discharge 60 years later. Samuel Snow was one of 28 African- American soldiers who were wrongly prosecuted in a court martial for a crime that occurred in Seattle at Fort Lawton in 1944.

Last weekend, 64 years later, the Army finally publicly acknowledged that Mr. Snow and 27 others were unjustly convicted and issued a formal apology. As my colleague from Florida talked about this morning, Mr. Snow came all the way from Florida to Seattle and participated in the dinner there with sons and daughters of some of the men he served with in prison. But later that evening in Seattle, Mr. Snow checked himself into a hospital, and he missed the next day's ceremony. His son Ray Snow went to the ceremony and accepted the honorable discharge on his father's behalf, that honorable discharged he had waited decades to receive, and took it from that ceremony, went to his father's hospital bed and was able to hand it to him personally and see the smile in his dad's eyes for the first time.

Sadly, very sadly, his father, Mr. Snow, passed away shortly after he was handed that honorable discharge. Samuel Snow was a hero for our country who suffered unjustly. He deserves the thanks of our entire country for his service and his sacrifice. My thoughts now are with the Snow family during this difficult time. I am so glad he was able to finally receive that honorable discharge he waited for so many years and to receive it before he died.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be closed.

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the motion to proceed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the motion to proceed to H.R. 6049 be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be agreed to, and the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to H.R. 6049 occur at 3 p.m., with the time until then equally divided and controlled by the leaders or their designees.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum

call time be equally divided between the majority and minority between now and 3.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in the last year, Americans here at home have faced an ever increasing number of challenges--skyrocketing gas prices, the mortgage and foreclosure crisis, record job losses, and devastating natural disasters. Families are hurting in this country today and they need relief right now.

I have come to the floor this evening because we will soon be voting on legislation that will help ease the burden for many of these families. We know it is not perfect, but the Jobs, Energy, Families and Disaster Relief Act of 2008 will take important steps to create jobs and provide disaster relief to flood, tornado, and hurricane victims. That bill includes critical provisions that will help our renewable energy industry continue to thrive and to shore up our Highway Trust Fund as well. It also includes provisions that are important to my home State of Washington, including a measure to extend the sales tax deduction and help our rural schools.

I come to the floor this evening to take a few minutes to urge my colleagues tomorrow to support this legislation and help get it into the hands of our taxpayers and our communities that so desperately need it. I will begin by explaining how important it is that we extend the sales tax deduction.

In most States, taxpayers can deduct their State income taxes on their Federal tax returns. But people who live in my home State of Washington historically have not had that option. Back in 2004 I worked with my colleagues from my home State of Washington, Senator Cantwell and Congressman Baird, on a measure that temporarily enables taxpayers to take an itemized deduction for State and local sales taxes. That provision enabled nearly 1 million people to save an average of $519 to $575 each and every year. It has helped many of our middle-class families pay for school or cars or other major expenses.

The Washington State Office of Revenue Forecast has told us that the sales tax deduction has actually created thousands of new jobs in our State. But it was a huge blow to the taxpayers in my home State when that sales tax deduction expired in December and then our Republican colleagues decided to block a bill that would have extended it for 2 more years. Tomorrow we will have, finally, another chance. That proposal we will vote on would extend this provision to the end of 2008.

At a time when so many of our families are struggling to get by, at a time when we are looking for innovative ways to stimulate the economy, it is vital that we approve that measure tomorrow and establish fairness in our State tax system and put money back

into the pockets of our State taxpayers.

Another provision in this same bill we will be voting on tomorrow is important to help communities in my State and others pay for roads and schools and basic services. In Washington State and in other big Western States where vast areas of land are owned by the Federal Government, States currently lose millions of dollars in tax revenue that normally would go to pay for our schools or our local government services. In the past, the Federal Government shared the revenue from timber sales on our Federal lands to help our States make up for that lost revenue. But because timber sales have been decreasing since the middle of the 1990s, Congress passed an act called the Secure Rural Schools Act, to ensure that our rural communities and counties would continue to get the money they need to pay for their schools and their roads and provide basic services. That act expired 2 years ago now. While we funded it for a year on the fiscal year 2007 supplemental, it has not been extended this year, and that means our rural communities in my home State and across the West are now struggling to keep their school doors open. Some of our counties, in fact, have already been sending out pink slips.

The bill we will vote on tomorrow will again extend that program to 2011 and adjust the funding formula to make it more equitable and increase Payments in Lieu of Taxes to these rural communities and counties across the country. This provision is extremely important to our rural communities. All of our children deserve an equal opportunity to learn, regardless of where they live. That is why the secure rural funding program is so important. I hope our colleagues across the aisle will join us tomorrow to vote for this.

I also want to say a few words about the highway trust fund fix, which is also in the same bill we will be voting on. The condition of the highway trust fund, which helps us pay for all of our highway repair and construction across this country as well as mass transit, has been deteriorating now for years. Skyrocketing gas prices have made an already dire situation worse.

This year we are going to see the largest recorded decrease in highway miles traveled in the last 17 years. As a result of that, the highway trust fund is now less than a year away from going bankrupt. That is going to leave a lot of critical construction projects in every one of our States in peril.

I, along with Senator Bond, who is the ranking member on my Transportation and Housing Appropriations Subcommittee, have been sounding the alarm about the problems facing our highway trust fund for almost 2 years now. In January of 2007 we wrote and voiced our concerns to Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley on the Finance Committee and they promised to help us fix this problem.

The Senate has now tried twice to move a bill through the Senate to fix the highway trust fund for this year, for 2009. There is a broad, bipartisan consensus for solution. But, unfortunately, our efforts have been blocked repeatedly by a few Senators.

This bill we will vote on tomorrow, if it passes, will provide enough money, $8 billion, to get us through this coming fiscal year. That means our construction projects can continue to go forward in every single State and it will help us keep as many as 380,000 good-paying jobs to continue critical construction and repair projects that will make our highways and our bridges safer. That proposal that is in that bill will not have any revenue effect. It passed the House on July 23 by an overwhelming majority and it is vitally important to all of our communities that this Senate do the same thing.

I hope our colleagues join with us tomorrow to invoke cloture and move to this bill, this tax extenders bill, so we can put this provision in place.

That same bill also includes a number of other provisions that will help ease the burden of the faltering economy for our taxpayers. It will extend the tax credits for wind, biomass, geothermal, and other renewable energy providers, and help provide stability for that developing industry.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the bill is not perfect. Unfortunately, we have had to leave out some worthy items. But it is an extremely important bill and we are very close to making this legislation a reality. We need a few Senators to vote with us tomorrow morning.

I am worried. I come to the floor to speak tonight because I am concerned that there are some on the other side of the aisle who seem to be willing to play politics, rather than help us bring forward this bill that will create jobs and support clean energy and provide tax relief for our families. I am here tonight to say this is far too important an issue with which to play politics. Not only are all of these provisions critically important but they are time sensitive. They are time sensitive. At a time when our economy is lagging and so many families are struggling, we need to get these programs in place and we need them now.

I hope that tomorrow morning when we vote on the cloture to move to this tax extenders bill that our friends on the other side will join us, that they will put politics aside and hopefully make American families a priority.

I will yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to talk about the fact that the Senate is going to have an opportunity to vote on cloture to move us to an important bill that will address the issue most of my constituents in the State of Washington, as well as all those in the country, are facing, and that is the high price of gasoline today--$4.45 is what I paid last weekend when I went home to Washington State. This is having an impact on our families, on our communities, and on all of our businesses--on everyone.

It is important that we address this issue. The bill that is being offered, which we hope to get past cloture and filibuster from the other side, is not a silver bullet, but it is an attempt to get at what we believe is a fundamental part of the solution, and that is the manipulation of the oil marketers by a few greedy traders, thereby increasing the cost you and I pay at the pump. We are not asking for a large energy bill, but we are saying it is important that we address this issue in a way that will produce relief as quickly as possible in some way for our consumers as we head out a week from now for our August break.

I have been listening to this debate, and I have to say I am fairly surprised by all of those who come to the floor and say: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Unless we get to offer amendment after amendment after amendment on drilling more, and drilling more, and drilling more, then we are not going to allow the Senate to deal with the issue of speculation, which Members on both sides agree is critical that we address. I think it is important that we step back for a minute and go back in history and talk about energy and this Senate's history over the last 8 years and this White House's history over the last 8 years.

Democrats understand there are short-term solutions for the crisis facing us, but we also need long-term solutions because we believe, at the end of the day, that we have to decrease our dependence on oil. We have to decrease our dependence on oil, otherwise this Senate body, 10 years from now, will again be debating whether to open up more drilling. Meanwhile, we are all supposed to ride our bikes until we have more oil out there again, and then the next generation gets to debate oil again. We want to break this cycle. We want to get to long- term energy independence. We want to create new alternatives for people. We want that new technology to be invested in so that consumers 10 years from now, and the next generation of Senators who are here and consumers out across the country, don't have to listen to this debate again. We can get there, but it is not easy.

Eight years ago, this country elected two oilmen to the White House. No surprise: Every energy debate since then has focused on how we can drill more for oil. Here we are today, a week before we leave for the August recess, and those on the other side want to take us right back to drilling again. Let me remind our colleagues what Senators on this side of the aisle have been doing for some time. When we got the majority a year and a half ago, we said: Okay, with the majority, we want to

begin making inroads on focusing on energy independence which, by the way, will reduce the cost to everybody as the consumption decreases. We looked at CAFE standards. We were successful, not in doing it quickly, but at least beginning to make progress on setting CAFE standards so our cars will be using less fuel. That is part of reducing the price of gas in the long term and our dependence on oil.

We also looked at an energy tax package. In fact, we brought an energy tax package to the floor of the Senate that would create incentives for alternative energy. It costs a lot to develop new technology for energy. We said it is time for the Government to put its backing there and provide tax credits for these companies so they can do the research that is necessary to get that alternative technology out there. What did the other side do? Filibustered. Blocked it. And today, those investors are not out there investing in new technology. Democrats said we need to move this bill. It is part of our plan in the long run to reduce the price of oil to create those alternatives. We were blocked on the other side from doing that.

A few months ago, Democrats said: It is important to look at how we can stop this increasing, spiraling cost as soon as possible. We put together an energy package, and one of the key components was focusing on the oil companies, who were reporting record profits at the time-- and by the way, still are today--and we tried to repeal some of the oil companies' tax breaks they currently get so that those costs would go back to consumers and reduce our prices. What happened? We brought the bill up, and it was blocked by the other side. Why? Because they wanted to focus on drilling more oil.

We have tried many ways on this side to focus on the larger picture of energy and how we can reduce consumption, how we can get to energy independence, how we can focus on making sure those high gas prices that my constituents and others pay today--and by the way, when this administration took office 8 years ago, gas was $1.46 a gallon, but because of the energy bills that have been pushed by the other side that focus on drilling, it is now $4.45 a gallon in my home State. Yet here we are today, as we try to focus on speculation in the markets, and what does the other side say? Oh no, we need to drill for more for oil. Well, that hasn't worked in the past. We have already, several years ago, added an additional--and I see my colleague from Illinois here on the floor--I believe it was an additional 8 million acres to be leased in this country. We added that. Did it reduce the price of gas at the pump?

I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Illinois.

The Senator from Illinois is absolutely correct. Every time we have come out here to try to broaden the energy debate and to bring down the price of gasoline and get to energy independence, we have heard from the other side: Oh, no, there is only one answer, and that is drill more.

We have given them that. In fact, yes, the oil companies have 68 million acres of land today that can be drilled, but they are choosing not to. Why? Because if they increase the supply, the price is going to drop. So what good does it do for us to give them even more of our Federal lands, because their benefit is keeping the price high.

Well, I say to the Senator from Illinois, he is absolutely correct. In fact, in the past few days, a headline from Reuters read: ``ConocoPhillips' Earnings Rise With Record Oil Prices.''

The oil companies are making a lot of money, so what is the other side's answer to every energy debate we have? Give them more money.

I say to my colleague from Illinois, I know he goes to the President's State of the Union Addresses every January, as I do, and we sit in the House Chamber and listen to what the President is presenting to us. I wonder if the Senator from Illinois remembers 2\1/2\ years ago, the President's third State of the Union, I believe it was--and I rose with excitement when I heard the President say this to us:

Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And

here we have a serious problem:

Now, this is the President of the United States in his State of the Union speech.

America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from

unstable parts of the world. The best way to break an

addiction is through technology.

These are not my words, but those of the President of the United States. Yet every time we have tried to bring a bill to the floor to break our addiction to oil, we are stopped because the other side wants to drill more oil.

So I say to my colleague from Illinois, does it feel to him as though we are trying to break our addiction to oil here?

The Senator from Illinois is absolutely correct. I have listened to this debate, and it is not just the debate today on speculation, about whether we should do that. It is whether we should bring energy tax credits, whether we should repeal oil company tax breaks and whether we can invest in alternative energy. Every time, the only answer we get from the other side is, no, we are not going to do that. We want to drill more.

I would say to my colleague that drilling for oil is a false promise to the

American people that it will bring down their prices substantially as we head off to our August break. Even their own Presidential candidate has said drilling oil only brings psychological benefit. We don't need any mental health care. We need real reductions at the pump. Even President Bush's own energy experts say drilling more oil will not produce a significant decrease in the price at the pump.

As I truly believe and I think most people understand in this country, until we invest in long-term energy independence, all we are going to do is see the oil companies get more profits and our prices go up. The bill we are offering today and hope to move to will begin to deal with that and that addresses the issue of speculation. I hope we move to that.

I yield the floor.

I assure my colleague from Pennsylvania, I was listening carefully to his comments. He has traveled worldwide, and I am certainly interested in his viewpoints. I hope I didn't make him feel rushed at all, and I appreciate what he had to say.

Housing

Mr. President, this week, tens of thousands of homeowners traveled here to the Nation's Capital, and lined up for hours--and even days--in hopes of taking advantage of a mortgage counseling workshop through the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America.

These homeowners came from as far away as Boston or Miami--all because they are struggling to hold onto their homes, and they need help with their mortgages. Many others are now steps away from foreclosure because they have seen their mortgage rates rise out of control, or because their mortgage now exceeds the value of their home

because property values have plummeted.

Now, while many of the homeowners who came to DC this week were able to get help, there are millions more across this country in the same position who are still in need of assistance. Nearly 8,500 families file for foreclosure each day. And as many as 2 million homeowners could lose their homes this year. Fortunately, we will have a bill before us soon that will enable the Federal Government to lend a helping hand to many of those families.

The housing package that passed the House on Wednesday includes a variety of provisions that would restore stability to the housing market, provide assistance to communities hurt by this crisis, and help prevent thousands of foreclosures. We have considered much of this package before, but it has been blocked by Republicans who have preferred to drag their feet than to address this crisis. We now have another chance, and I have come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to support this legislation and get help into the hands of the homeowners and communities that need it.

Those of us who go home each weekend to talk to their constituents know how worried our families are about the economy--and about whether something will happen to threaten their ability to keep their homes.

It is hard to overstate how serious the housing crisis has become. There are communities across this country where people are literally abandoning their homes because they can't afford their mortgages, and they can't find a willing buyer. As I said, as many as 2 million families could lose their homes to foreclosure this year. And reports estimate the number of families facing foreclosure is higher than at any time since the Great Depression.

At the beginning of this crisis, many of those people were subprime borrowers who received adjustable-rate loans or who were the victims of loan scams. But as home values have dropped across the country, the problem has spread. Families with strong credit, who received fixed- rate mortgages, have seen their homes drop in value by tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past couple of years. Their mortgages are now under water, and thousands of them are at risk for foreclosure too.

This is a problem even in regions that have been relatively healthy, like my home state of Washington--where more and more people tell me they are worried that they will be stuck with homes they can't afford.

The housing legislation that we will consider soon may be one of the most important steps we take this year to help our faltering economy because it addresses the root of the problem--the housing crisis. So I want to take the next couple of moments to talk about three of the main provisions of this bill to explain why we must act now.

First, the bill provides $180 million to give counseling agencies the resources to reach out and help struggling homeowners. Counseling is one of the most cost-effective tools we have to help families who are on the verge of foreclosure. Counselors can help families negotiate with their lenders, readjust their payments, or learn how to budget their expenses better.

And it is incredibly important that we provide the resources now so that we can help families before they reach the crisis point.

Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to meet a single mother from Ohio who had fallen on hard times, which in turn led her to fall behind on her mortgage. Luckily she was able to talk to a counselor, and she and her children were able to stay in their home. She explained that when she got behind, she was overwhelmed. She told me she didn't know what to do. She said, ``This isn't something they teach you in school.''

This bill would help more families like hers get help. Despite the numbers who traveled to Washington, DC for help this week, far too many homeowners still don't know they have options when they get behind on their mortgages.

I fought alongside Senators Mikulski, Schumer, and Brown to include this counseling funding back when this bill was first debated in April. It comes on top of a $180 million initiative that my ranking member, Senator Bond, and I included in the 2008 Transportation-Housing Appropriations Act. And I want to thank Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby for helping to protect the funding in the most recent package.

Next, the bill makes some important changes to help modernize the Federal Housing Administration and enable it to help more homeowners refinance their mortgages. First, it raises the loan limit to take into account the increase in home prices over the last several years. This is very important because in many communities, home prices are higher than the current loan limits, meaning FHA mortgages aren't an option.

It also provides $300 billion to enable the FHA to back loans and help as many as 400,000 homeowners at risk of foreclosure get more affordable--and less risky--mortgages. These changes will help stabilize the housing market and encourage more mortgage holders to give borrowers a more affordable loan that will enable them to keep their homes.

Now, while I support these measures, I want to add--as chairman of the Transportation and Housing Appropriations Subcommittee--that this bill is also putting a lot of new responsibility into the hands of the FHA. That agency currently has close to 300 vacancies and it has the money to fill them. Unfortunately, it has been burdened by the painfully slow hiring processes at HUD.

It is my understanding that FHA Commissioner Montgomery, and our new HUD Secretary, Steve Preston, are determined to reverse this hiring record and get more people on board soon. I certainly hope they succeed. But I also recognize that as we head into the new fiscal year, we may need to take measures to boost the salary and expense funds provided to the FHA as well as get money to the agency to improve its computing capabilities. I intend to address those needs when the Appropriations Committee marks up the next Supplemental Appropriations bill in September.

Finally, I want to caution my colleagues on the Banking Committee that we will all need to continually monitor the lending activity and the funding balance of the FHA's existing mutual mortgage insurance account as well as the new homeownership preservation entity fund established in this bill. None of us wants to saddle taxpayers with unnecessary risk as we try to help homeowners. This bill establishes a new board that will face the daunting challenge of deciding which homeowners can and can't be helped under this new program.

But Congress will also need to do its part to monitor the fiscal health of both the new and old FHA accounts to ensure that the taxpayer isn't guaranteeing loans that have no hope of being repaid. The whole hope of this legislation is about calming the housing markets and using the FHA guarantee to entice mortgage holders to give borrowers a better break--an affordable loan that will keep them in their home. But we must ensure that taxpayers don't end up holding the bill for unsalvageable loans.

Finally, the bill would take important steps to strengthen Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by establishing a new regulator. It also provides temporary authority to allow the Treasury Department to take action when needed to keep them stable. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the foundation of our system to finance homeownership in the U.S., and it is absolutely critical that we take decisive action to help quickly restore confidence in them.

We started work on this bill in February because Democrats wanted to get help into the hands of homeowners who need it. But despite the desperation people feel in communities across this country, some Republicans have preferred up to this point to stall and block this bill. Now, I was very happy to see President Bush finally drop his opposition this week. And I hope my Republican colleagues will help us get this bill to his desk as quickly as possible.

Especially when it comes to helping people keep their homes, timing is everything. A family that gets access to housing counseling before they start missing mortgage payments can still save their home. And I hope we will finally be able to make that possible for thousands more families in need.

I hope when we finally get this bill out of here, we will be able to make it

possible for more families to feel secure in this country again.

Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer and look forward to the vote tomorrow morning.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 896, H.J. Res. 93, the Burma Sanctions Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the statutory time be yielded back, the joint resolution be read three times, passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the cloture vote on S. 3268, and if cloture has not been invoked, and the Senate has subsequently invoked cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the House amendments to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3221, then postcloture debate time on Friday, July 25, be divided in 30-minute blocks, beginning at 10 a.m., and until 1 p.m., and as specified in a subsequent order; with postcloture time running during any recess or adjournment of the Senate; that when the Senate convenes on Saturday, July 26 at 9 a.m., after the opening of the Senate, the time until 11 a.m. be equally divided and controlled by the leaders or their designees, with the time from 10:40 a.m. to 10:50 a.m. controlled by the Republican leader, and the time from 10:50 a.m. to 11 a.m. controlled by the majority leader; that at 11 a.m., all postcloture time be yielded back, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the House amendments to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3221; that if the motion is successful, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table and the motion to concur with an amendment be withdrawn; further, that if cloture is invoked on S. 3268, then the provisions of this agreement be null and void.

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

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

Mr. President, I understand that S. 3335, which was introduced earlier today by Senator Baucus, is at the desk. I ask for its first reading.

Mr. President, I ask for a second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:15 a.m. tomorrow, Friday July 25; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate resume consideration of S. 3268, and immediately proceed to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 3268, the energy speculation legislation. I further ask that the time from 10 a.m. until 1 p.m. be equally divided and controlled by the leaders in alternating 30-minute blocks of time, with the Republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the next 30 minutes. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that Senators have until 10 a.m. Friday to file second-degree amendments.