Floor Statements

Mr. President, I was hosting a home ownership fair in Wilmington, DE, that kicked off at 6 o'clock this morning. I ran into construction on I-95, ran into construction on New York Avenue, and arrived right at the end and missed the first vote.

On rollcall vote 186, I ask unanimous consent that the Record indicate that had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

The Nation has gone through a housing bubble over the last year or two. Housing values have gone up in a way that are unsustainable. We have now seen the collapse of the bubble. As we eventually move our way toward a stabilizing of housing prices, with this housing legislation to make sure that when we do reach the bottom, prices stabilize, and there is enough confidence on the part of people who are renting houses today, people who would like to be homeowners, that they can move in, they will have a mortgage mechanism that still works, they will have a housing finance operation that still works, and we will be able to get this economy moving again.

The legislation we have adopted provides for stabilizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, makes sure we have a strong independent regulator for them, brings the FHA into the 21st century and streamlines it, provides for housing counselors. It does a whole lot of good things.

I commend everyone who has had a hand in working in that, including the Presiding Officer, and say that I am delighted it has passed and the President is going to sign it into law.

I appreciate the opportunity to talk for a few minutes about two subjects. First of all, the legislation, one of the two pieces of legislation that came before us today dealing with speculation in the oil markets, I wish to talk a little about that. And then maybe a word or two, if time permits, on the housing legislation, which we have taken another step forward toward enacting.

On this chart, we see a couple of numbers mentioned. In a moment, I hope they will be clear why they are relevant to this discussion, with respect to oil prices and the availability of oil.

The first number is 25 percent. We consume, as a nation today, this week, this month, this year, roughly 25 percent of the oil that is consumed on our planet, 25 percent. But we have, within this Nation, onshore and offshore, less than 5 percent of the world's oil reserves. When people wonder why are prices running up, this is one of the reasons.

When people say we ought to simply drill, whether it is in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or on the Outer Continental Shelf, drilling is part of the answer, not necessarily in those places, but drilling is part of the answer.

But when you are consuming 25 percent of the world's oil every day, and we have less than 5 percent of the world's known oil reserves, there is a mismatch here. That suggests to, among others, T. Boone Pickens, a long-time renowned Texas oilman, that this is a problem we cannot drill ourselves out of.

While drilling is part of the solution, it is by no means the entire solution. What we need is a comprehensive strategy. I wish to talk a little bit about that this morning.

We have had any number of hearings in recent weeks, actually in recent months in the Senate, that focused on why are oil prices, why are gas prices going up. I keep coming back to three major reasons. The first of those is supply and demand. There is a limited amount of oil that is being produced. The nations that have most of it in their control do not want to produce a whole lot more. They do not want to increase supply dramatically.

Demand meanwhile continues to rise. We are a country in love with our cars, trucks, and vans. For every 1,000 Americans in this country today, there are about 800 vehicles. Pretty amazing. There are 800 vehicles for every 1,000 people who live here.

Over in China, for every 1,000 people who live there, they have 16 cars, trucks, and vans. I do not know that they want to get to 800 right away, but they are going to have a lot more than 16 per 1,000. They may have 116, 216, 316. But they want to buy and they want to be able to have their own vehicles. They are adding dramatically to the number of vehicles on the road.

That, along with the growth in the economy and other aspects of the economy in China, places such as India, we have seen a dramatic increase in demand, and we are going to continue to see that increase in demand.

The second thing that is going on is the drop in the value of the dollar. The dollar today, we all know, is not worth what it used to be. Some friends of mine returned from traveling in Europe, and they told me how unfortunate they felt in having gone this year instead of about 3 or 4 years ago because the value of the dollar has dropped by roughly a third against most of the European currencies. In fact, it has dropped dramatically in currencies around the world.

And we see, it takes more dollars because oil is traded in dollars. These countries that have all this oil, they want to make sure they are getting their money's worth. As a result, they raise the price of oil to offset the drop in the value of dollars. So that is part what is going on.

The third thing that is going on, and we have heard from people a lot smarter than I on these issues, but the third thing that is going on is there is a lot of trading in oil futures, people who do not have any intention of ever taking possession of a barrel of oil, but they see it as a way to make money--not buying oil and refining the oil and selling the product, but they see a way to make money by speculation and trading in these futures, and they hope the value of the price of oil will go up, they will make money and not take possession of the oil.

In the meantime, we as consumers are paying more for oil. Not every day. We have seen some trending down in the at least week, which is good, but this is part of what is going on.

Is speculation 10 percent of the problem, 20 percent of the problem, 30 percent of the problem? I do not know. I do not know that anyone knows. But as we can be convinced that that supply and demand is part of the problem. It is not the whole problem. The drop in the value of the dollar is part of the problem. It is not the whole problem. And neither is speculation. But each of them is a contributing factor in the runup in the price of oil. If we want to bring down or stabilize the price of oil, to keep the price from getting any worse, we need to work on supply, we need to work on demand, we need to do some things here at home to restore the value of the dollar, to prop it up, to strengthen the dollar, and we need to do something with respect to speculation.

I wish to mention a thing or two about the legislation I supported, introduced by the majority leader on speculation. Without getting into the weeds on the legislation, the bill that is designed more than anything to provide greater transparency, not to come in and command control the way the markets are being run but to make sure we have a little better disclosure, a little better transparency into that operation.

The legislation did not pass. I think most people here actually favor doing something similar to that. For reasons that are maybe more political than practical, we could not move that legislation today because we did not have the 60 votes to break a filibuster.

Let me talk a bit about supply. Along with Senator Voinovich of Ohio, we are privileged to lead a subcommittee of the Environment Committee that focuses on, among other things, clean air and on nuclear power.

Part of the answer to our supply situation is growing in our fields the fuels that we need. I am not suggesting that taking kernels of corn off an ear of corn and turning that into ethanol is a smart idea, at least in the long haul. I do not think that it is. It disrupts our food system, our food chain, makes the prices of meat, poultry, and milk more expensive than it needs to be.

But there are things going on with respect to biofuels that I think are very encouraging. I wish to mention a couple of those. Our folks up at DuPont, they are headquartered in my State, they have a research center. At the research center they have been working on cellulosic ethanol for 3, 4, 5 years.

They have launched joint ventures on cellulosic ethanol with another company. They are going to be building out in the Midwest a refinery to be able to create, in some quantities, a biofuel that will be much better than ethanol; have better energy content than ethanol, travel better in pipelines than ethanol, mix better with gasoline than ethanol.

They are coming up with a biofuel called biobutanol, partnering with our friends from BP, and actually they are test marketing the product over in England this year. Again, biobutanol, better energy density than ethanol, travels better in pipelines than ethanol, mixes better with gasoline at different temperatures than does ethanol.

There is another company called Coskata, C-o-s-k-a-t-a. I had not heard of them before this year. But they are a small startup biofuels company. They have interesting technologies that enable them to take plant waste, corn, corn hulls, cornstalks, corn leaves, corncobs, woodchips, switchgrass, any variety of products, and turn it into a biofuel.

And they not only can take that plant waste, they can take municipal waste and transform it into a biofuel. They can take the old tires off cars, trucks and vans and turn that into a biofuel as well. They use about maybe less than a gallon of water to create a gallon of biofuel. Again, they can create this biofuel from a variety of sources without disrupting the food system.

The energy content of the fuel they create, the biofuel they create is about

seven times greater than the amount of energy that is used to create the biofuels.

The amount of CO2 that is released in burning this biofuel is about 85 percent less than the carbon dioxide that is created by burning gasoline, and they can create it for maybe about a buck a gallon.

They are going to be creating it in more significant quantities about 2011. Coskata is an example of one biofuels company that has an exciting technology that I think portends hope, should convey hope to all of us as we try work on the supply side.

Some people ask me why I believe nuclear power can actually be helpful on the supply side too. I always say, the answer is two words: Chevrolet Volt. Chevrolet Volt is a vehicle that GM is going to launch toward the end of 2010. This is a flex-fuel, plug-in hybrid vehicle. Plug it into your electric outlet at your house, charge it overnight when electric prices are low, leave the next day, drive away, you can you go 40 miles with a charge on your battery.

We are working hard to develop a lithium ion battery. The Federal Government is helping to partner the research on that. The idea is to go out, run the first 40 miles on your battery, and then when your battery runs low, to recharge the battery with an alternative power source aboard the vehicle. It could be a fuel cell, it could be a low- emission diesel, it could be a traditional internal combustion engine. Those power sources, auxiliary power sources, recharge the battery, and then the battery continues to run the vehicle.

The opportunity to get 80, 90, even 100 miles per gallon off a Chevy Volt flex-fuel, plug-in hybrid is not unrealistic. And it is a source of great encouragement. The question is where are they going to get the electricity to charge the battery.

Today, nuclear provides about 20 percent of our electricity in this country. I think 70 percent of the carbon-free electricity that is produced comes from nuclear. We have about nine new applications in. We have not built a new nuclear plant in 30 years. We have nine applications in right now to build about 14 more. We expect next year maybe another dozen or so applications and the opportunity for a renaissance in nuclear power.

As we go forward, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has their hands full, as you might imagine, making sure that the 104 powerplants we have in existence today are run well, safely; relicensing a number of those powerplants so their life can be extended for another 20 years, and then saying grace over all these new applications for new powerplants that are coming in.

It is important for us in this body to make sure the NRC has what they need so they can oversee a safe renaissance in nuclear power. And that renaissance will help us on the supply side, especially as we move toward electric vehicles.

On the demand side, in talking about the Chevrolet Volt, a vehicle that if it gets 80 to 90 miles per gallon, helps us on the demand side, I think that is pretty obvious. There are other things we can do on the demand side as well. For my home, we went out, about a year ago, and bought a new air-conditioning unit. It is one that sits up about this high. It is pretty big. It is a SEER 18; we have energy efficiency ratings on our appliances.

But one of the things we can do is buy more energy-efficient appliances. We basically have cut our electricity bill in half since we went from a SEER 10 up to about a SEER 18. As we buy new appliances, we need to continue to do those sorts of things.

Gee, as I look at the lights in the Senate Chamber, and as we change out the light bulbs in our offices, in our homes, we can buy more energy-efficient light bulbs, change out the ballast systems in our lighting systems, put in new lighting systems. There is a lot we can do in terms of lighting.

The drop in the value of the dollar is coming from a couple things. One of the things it flows from is the uncertainty in the housing market, the collapse in housing prices, great uncertainty about the banking system, the mortgage financing system with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

One of the things we can do--and hopefully we will take the final step tomorrow--is provide a strong independent regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We do that in this legislation. We take steps to make sure people who are facing foreclosure--and it is not something they have done wrong or no malfeasance involved, because we don't want to reward bad behavior--are given an opportunity to avoid it. We make the FHA relevant in the 21st century. We are going to provide housing counselors for thousands.

I thank the Chair.

I understand that S. 3335 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

I object to any further proceedings with respect to the bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority for 100 years of sisterhood and service and for the sorority's commitment to living lives of excellence that can serve as an example for us all.

Founded on the campus of Howard University in Washington, DC, in 1908, Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority is the oldest Greek organization established by African-American college-trained women. The small group of founders hoped the organization would ensure that their college experiences were as significant and helpful as possible. As the sorority expanded, members emphasized dual themes of the importance of the individual and the strength of an organization of women of ability and courage.

Alpha Kappa Alpha is currently comprised of more than 950 chapters located in the United States, the Caribbean, Germany, Korea, Japan and my home State of Delaware. It includes more than 200,000 women who represent a diverse group including educators, politicians, lawyers, medical professionals, media personalities and decisionmakers of major corporations. They can certainly serve as role models to each of us.

Furthermore, the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority is dedicated to service. Currently, members are actively involved in a voter education and registration drive in order to mobilize Americans for the upcoming general election. They are also implementing the Extraordinary Service Program Platforms with activities dedicated to improving the living standards within the Black community, creating opportunities for women entrepreneurs, assisting Black families and improving the mental and physical health of local communities.

I am enormously proud to welcome members of the Delaware chapter of Alpha Kappa Alpha, along with many of their sisters, to Washington, DC, for their 100th anniversary celebration.

With this important anniversary in mind, the women of Alpha Kappa Alpha are to be commended and applauded for their leadership in communities across America, their commitment to service and the outstanding character that they personify.

Mr. President, each year the Nation celebrates National Health Center Week to honor the efforts of the nearly 40,000 medical professionals who strive to provide quality health care to Americans throughout all 50 States. I am pleased to announce that this year National Health Center Week will be held August 10 through 16.

As an annual supporter of this event, I once again commend the work of the Mid-Atlantic Association of Community Centers and the many health centers in my home State for the role they play in delivering quality, affordable health care to lower-income Delawareans.

These health centers are community-run and open to all Americans regardless of their ability to pay. Delaware is fortunate to have a number of these health centers, including Westside Health in Wilmington and Newark, Henrietta Johnson in Wilmington, Delmarva Kent Community Health Center in Dover, and La Red Health Center in Sussex County.

These centers and those across our Nation are extremely valuable, operating in both rural and urban medically underserved areas and providing care that might not be otherwise available to residents.

By serving as a point of access for affordable primary and preventative care, our Nation's health centers allow to patients to stay healthier, or if they are ill to allow them to seek earlier treatment. This prevents patients from relying solely on costly treatments, such as emergency room visits, saving money for them and our health care system as a whole.

Again, I wish to commend the health centers of Delaware for their hard work and dedication. I thank them for all of the valuable services they provide to so many of us who call Delaware home.

Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

Mr. President, Senator Biden and I are delighted to welcome to the Senate today the Rev. Dr. Patricia Bryant Harris, who pastors at a church not far from where Senator Biden and I live in northern Delaware.

In her prayer this morning, she called on God to grant us wisdom. It is not infrequently, when our Senators meet with our own Senate Chaplain, Barry Black, that he, too, prays for us for wisdom and encourages us to ask God for wisdom as we deliberate the issues that are before us. As Senator Biden and the Presiding Officer know, the issues before us this week have been difficult and we needed all the wisdom we could garner.

I have been privileged to know Reverend Harris for close to two decades. She has had a career that included remarkable accomplishments in the private sector and then, somewhere in the 1990s, she decided she felt a calling from God to enter the ministry. She has done that as a Methodist pastor in our State and a series of assignments--actually an assignment that led her down to Salisbury, MD, and the Delmarva Peninsula, where she oversaw a great number of churches.

As we could tell from her prayer, she is a loving, giving, caring, patient person. She is one who has reminded me, and I think reminds her congregants in her own home church in Marshalltown, that God wants us to do two things--if nothing else, to do two things: To love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, and mind and to love thy neighbor as thyself.

Barry Black, our Chaplain, oftentimes reminds us in the Senate--as Senators we ask how do we use our faith to help inform what we do as Senators, and he always takes us back to that second great commandment, and so does Reverend Harris, that we have an obligation to love our neighbor as ourselves.

She also reminds me and reminds those who worship at her church that we have an obligation to those who are hungry--when they are hungry we have an obligation to feed them; when they are naked we have an obligation to clothe them; when they are thirsty we have an obligation to give them to drink; when they are sick and in prison we have an obligation, regardless of what our faith is, to visit them.

Those are wonderful lessons, not just for the people in her congregations over the years; not just for those who worship in our State but wonderful lessons for us in the Senate.

It is with great pride that Senator Biden and I welcome Reverend Harris today to help get us started on the right foot and to do not just the Senate's business, not just the business of our country but the Lord's business as well.

With that having been said, I know Senator Biden is here and he wants to comment. I am delighted to welcome Senator Harris--Senator Harris? There was a Senator Harris, there may be another one someday too--I am delighted

to join him in welcoming Reverend Harris today.

Mr. President, may I be recognized?

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am told we cannot shift the time until tomorrow. I am told we need to use the time that has been allocated today. That is my understanding.

Mr. President, I understand--and I look to the Parliamentarian and to the Presiding Officer--I am told the Senate is required to use the time that has been allocated for the discussion of these amendments today, and there is additional time for it tomorrow in tomorrow's debate before we begin voting. But we need to use up the time that is allocated for this afternoon and this evening.

I would inquire of the Presiding Officer, is that your understanding as well?

Reluctantly, I must object.

Mr. President, I believe under the unanimous consent agreement entered earlier, I am recognized for 10 minutes, and I ask unanimous consent that my time be counted against time controlled by Senator Rockefeller.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the FISA compromise legislation that is before us this week. I believe reasonable people can disagree about this measure, and I certainly respect the views of those who oppose it. But I wish to take a moment this afternoon to explain, first, why I am supporting this bipartisan compromise and, second, to encourage my colleagues and others to do so as well.

All of us know we live in a dangerous world today. We face serious threats to our safety and to our security. At the same time, we face a difficult balancing act between, on the one hand, the need to protect our country and the safety of our citizens and, on the other hand, the need to preserve our civil liberties.

All too often, the Bush administration's approach has been, at least in my judgment, misguided. Many opponents of the FISA legislation before us are rightly concerned that civil liberties have been ignored and in some cases violated.

I believe that is why, to some extent, many critics of this bill have focused so heavily--almost exclusively, in fact--on the legislation's retroactive immunity provisions. I regret the majority of my colleagues in the House and the Senate do not see eye to eye with those critics regarding immunity. However, I wish to take a few minutes to explain why most of us who support this bill in its amended form believe that granting immunity is fair.

During the extraordinary national emergency that followed the September 11 attacks upon our Nation, the Federal Government reached out--

Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

That is correct.

Reclaiming my time, if I may, Mr. President, during the extraordinary national emergency that followed the September 11 attacks upon our Nation, the Federal Government reached out to some of America's major telephone carriers. We asked them to help intercept communications between sources in our country and terrorists located overseas.

A number of our phone companies responded in good faith and agreed to help. They did so, however, only after receiving written directives from our Government's senior national security and law enforcement officials that their cooperation--the cooperation of the telecommunications companies--was both lawful and constitutionally sound.

It does not seem fair, at least to me, that these companies now should be made victims of their own good-faith cooperation and assistance in the ongoing fight against terrorism. That is why I support immunity for phone companies that can demonstrate in Federal court that their participation in the program was found to be lawful by the Bush administration.

With that said, however, I believe the issue of immunity has taken on a significance that goes beyond its actual importance. This is not to suggest that immunity is unimportant, but the more critical aspects of this FISA bill seem to have been overlooked. In my view, those portions of the bill matter more--much more.

Rather than looking backward, at immunity, our real focus should be on what this FISA bill does going forward. I believe this legislation strikes the right balance in providing our intelligence networks with the tools they need to protect our country without diminishing our civil liberties. The administration has overreached on this front before. The FISA legislation before us, though, is a significant improvement over current law and will help to ensure that neither this administration nor the next administration will overreach again.

Now, how does it do that? First of all, this compromise bill makes it crystal clear that FISA is the exclusive means to conduct surveillance, ensuring that neither this President nor our next President can go around the law.

Second, the bill mandates reports by the inspectors general of the Justice Department, the Department of Defense, and our intelligence agencies that will provide the relevant congressional committees here and in the House with the information we need to conduct needed oversight.

Third, the compromise bill--this compromise bill--establishes a shorter sunset period of 4\1/2\ years instead of what had been proposed earlier, 6 years. In addition, this compromise bill--for the first time--requires FISA Court warrants for surveillance of Americans overseas.

I applaud both Senator Rockefeller and Senator Bond, as well as my friend, Congressman Steny Hoyer of Maryland, for their collective work in negotiating this compromise. They know, as I do, that this compromise is not ideal. It is not perfect. But, in my view, it is the best bill we can agree on at this time. It represents the best chance we have today to protect both our national security and our civil liberties.

For all these reasons, I am supporting this legislation. I hope my colleagues--Democratic and Republican--will join me in supporting the efforts of those who have crafted it.

Mr. President, if I could, I wish to end today with a pledge: Should this bill pass and be signed into law--and I hope it will--I will work with my colleagues in the next Congress and with the next President and his administration to make additional improvements that our country and our citizens may need and deserve.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I recognize the outstanding contributions of Jeanna Henry, whose dedication to the Environmental Protection Agency earned her the Glen Witmer Award. Jeanna, noted for her dedication, resourcefulness, and sheer joy in her work, is an excellent example of the quality employees who serve us at the EPA.

The Glen Witmer Award is presented each year to the employee whose service is distinguished by concern for our environment, enthusiasm for environmental programs, a logical approach to problem solving, attention to detail, resourcefulness and initiative, and an ability to interact with people in a manner that fosters cooperation, understanding, and resolution of environmental problems. It is the highest award that may be presented to an employee by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Jeanna grew up in Delmar, MD--the town too big for one State--and graduated from Salisbury State University in 1996 with a degree in environmental health and minors in biology and chemistry. Following through on a goal she set her freshman year of college, Jeanna went on to work as an environmental scientist at the EPA upon winning a National Network for Environmental Management Studies Fellowship. Currently an enforcement officer at EPA's Waste and Chemical Management Division in Wilmington, DE, she has managed a multitude of hazardous waste and underground storage tank enforcement cases, all with motivation, professionalism, and extraordinary attention to detail.

Beyond her achievements in her field, Jeanna is most noted for her work ethic, exceptional communication skills, and for the passion that she brings to all of her undertakings. New employees often gravitate towards her because despite her heavy workload, she is never too busy to take time out to help others. She has become a mentor for new employees, a role model for her peers, and an absolute joy to her supervisors.

Jeanna is not only an outstanding employee, but a remarkable person, as well. Her lifelong passion for the environment has enabled her to help shape and enrich the lives of many in her field and the lives of those lucky

enough to call her their friend. I rise today to extend my sincere congratulations to Jeanna on her award. She is a remarkable woman as well as a credit and testament to the community that she represents so well.

Mr. President, today I recognize Robert Lingenfelter, affectionately known as ``Link,'' for being named Delaware History Teacher of the Year by the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History and Preserve America. Link has dedicated his life to the thousands of school children whose lives he has touched as a teacher, as a coach and as a mentor.

The History Teacher of the Year Award, now in its fifth year, was designed to promote and celebrate the teaching of American history in classrooms across our Nation. The award honors one exceptional teacher from each State and U.S. territory. The selection of the State winner is based upon several criteria, including a deep

career commitment to teaching American history; evidence of creativity and imagination in the classroom that address literacy and content beyond state standards; and evidence of thoughtful assessment of student achievement. Through Link's 13 dedicated years of teaching, it is clear that he embodies all of these criteria and many more.

After working for years as a night supervisor for what is now AstraZeneca, Link graduated from Wilmington College in 1995 with a bachelor's degree in education on a day that I was privileged to deliver the commencement address there. Three years later, he earned his master's of instruction from Wilmington College, which is now Wilmington University. He was motivated to become a teacher because of his interest in American History, his love of coaching and his passion to motivate children to achieve their true potential.

His interest in American history was increased in part by his work with me as a volunteer photographer over the past 26 years. During that time, Link also has documented a host of important events throughout Delaware. In his own words, he ``created history with his camera lens.''

In addition to teaching, Link has coached high school baseball for 14 years. He developed a love of the game as a child and wanted to see the same passion he felt for the game in the eyes of the children he coached. He stresses individual success for each of his players and he has always believed that once a child experiences success, they start believing that anything is possible. Link tries to foster this ``anything is possible'' mentality in all of his students and players, continually encouraging them to do their absolute best and settle for nothing less.

He has been instrumental in the growth of many children, building their confidence and showing them the path to personal success. His dedication to the children he coached is apparent to all who know him as he teaches his players lessons that will help them in all walks of life, both on and off the diamond.

Noticing his innate ability to connect with students and his drive to help them grow, Link's friends and players' parents suggested he pursue a career in teaching. With their encouragement, he decided to combine his love for American history and his commitment to helping children succeed. He became a teacher.

Link started his teaching career at Stanton Middle School, where he worked from 1995-1998 as a 7th grade social studies and language arts teacher. In 1998, he joined Skyline Middle School where he teaches today. He is an 8th grade American history and social studies teacher and also serves as the social studies department chair. In addition, he works as an adjunct professor at Wilmington University.

Link has been recognized many times as the Social Studies Teacher of the Year by the Red Clay School District and was named the 2002-2003 Teacher of the Year at Skyline Middle School. These awards are a tribute to Link's creative teaching style and his genuine desire to help his students succeed.

Link's teaching style is unique and specifically tailored to helping students not just learn history but relive it. Link and others think of him as more than just a teacher. He is something of an actor, as well. He brings history alive in his classroom with props and costumes and engages his students in a way no textbook can. He and his students hold simulations of historical events, assuming the roles of prominent historic figures and acting out the sequence of the events. His students reenact the Boston massacre mock trial, the Constitution Convention of 1787, slavery and the underground railroad, and even battles of the Civil War. He doesn't simply teach history he engages his students to participate in history, bringing to mind the old Chinese proverb: Tell me, and I'll forget. Show me, and I may remember. Involve me, and I'll understand.

Link also utilizes the historic sites in the area to further instill in his students an understanding of America's past. He takes his students on trips to the Constitution Center in Philadelphia and to Fort Delaware, as well as to any number of sites in Washington, DC. His ``classroom museum'' is a place of interactive learning that is far from a memorization of dates and locations; instead, it is a journey through American history, with stops and detours along the way where students fully embrace America's past and its impact on the present.

Link is a powerful teacher with a deep love for his students and for history. He has a lighthearted attitude that allows him to connect with students on a level that few can. He can always be counted on to have a joke ready to break up the stresses of the students he teaches. Using his sense of humor to his advantage, Link constantly builds a closer relationship with his students to the point where they know they can come to him with anything from a history question to a problem with a friend at school.

Link is a truly remarkable teacher and human being. He encourages his students to reach beyond their limits and settle for nothing less. He instills in them the confidence they need to stand up for principles they believe in and become proponents of change in the future. His teaching philosophy is one to be admired and emulated as it allows students to be participants in history as opposed to mere observers.

Robert ``Link'' Lingenfelter has become one of the finest teachers in Delaware, and he is on his way to becoming one of the finest teachers in America. It is with a genuine sense of honor and joy that I rise today to extend heartfelt congratulations to my good friend for his award. There could not be a more deserving recipient. He will always be a role model, not just to his own students, but to all of us.

Mr. President, yesterday I was here on the floor and I shared with my colleagues news about work that Senator Voinovich and I and others have done to reduce the diesel emissions that come from the approximately 11 million diesel engines across the country, causing tens of thousands of premature deaths from asthma and cancer and other diseases because of those emissions. I talked about how a number of us working together, Democrats and Republicans, in the Senate and in the House, cobbled together legislation that would have a positive affect in reducing the health threats from these emissions.

Today we bring up for consideration another piece of legislation. It is not designed to save lives, but it is designed to make the quality of life better for people in this country, to make sure people who might otherwise not have a decent place to live, might lose their home in which they now live, or they might have a chance to retain that home, or maybe to obtain a home they never otherwise would have had.

One of the things I like especially about this legislation is it was developed in the same bipartisan way that Senator Voinovich and I worked on the Diesel Emission Reductions Act. We have legislation here that the chairman of the committee, Senator Shelby, their staffs, and our staffs have worked on for months to bring to fruition. Also, it involves the great and important input of the administration, the Federal Reserve, and other bank regulators.

If you go back about 2 months ago, in April of this year, the Senate passed what we call the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008. At the time, I spoke on the floor about how that legislation was, as I described it, the third act of a four-act play that would hopefully begin to bring economic recovery following this mortgage meltdown.

From time to time in this country, our economy goes through a bubble of one sort or the other. Before another one happens, we have to go maybe 10 years. We experienced the telecom bubble during which the market soared, and not for any good reason--maybe irrational exuberance. Eventually, the values plummeted down to something more reasonable. We went through the housing bubble, where the housing has gone up, and it is hard to explain it as anything but irrational exuberance. That bubble has now collapsed, and we are looking for the bottom and for the market to stabilize property values. We are trying to make sure we get to the bottom quickly, that we maintain the banking system, that we help neighborhoods where there are foreclosed homes, which creates a blight in the community, and to try to ensure that people in an upside-down mortgage situation, where the cost of the mortgage is higher than the value of the home, don't walk away from their homes and create a further blight in their communities.

I have a couple of charts I want to show, you if I may. This refers to the four-act play. Act I stars the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke and the folks he works with. Act II, the stimulus package we took up and debated here earlier this year; act III, the Foreclosure Prevention Act that we passed about 2 months ago here in the Senate by a very wide margin; and act IV is legislation that has been reported out of the Banking Committee, I want to say by about an 18-to-2 vote a month or so ago, under the leadership of Senators Dodd and Shelby. Among other things, that provides for a strong, independent regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are heavily involved in making it possible for people to become homeowners, and also addresses the issue we are having now where the mortgage of a home is greater than the value of the home for which the mortgage is held. So that is the four-act play, and I want to maybe talk about each of those and a couple of them in more detail.

I have been around for a while. In talking about act I, I have never seen the Federal Reserve do the kinds of extraordinary things they have done this year to help us avoid a recession, or if we are to have one, to make sure it is shallow: dramatic moves in reducing the Fed's fund rate; encouraging or taking away the stigma for financial institutions, commercial banks, as well as noncommercial banks, investment banks, to use the discount window; serving as the marriage maker, if you will, between JPMorgan Chase and Bear Stearns as it was about to go down to ensure it didn't fail--just a whole series of extraordinary things-- swapping out mortgage-backed securities that banks are holding that are highly illiquid and exchanging in place highly liquid U.S. Treasuries. Those are all things the Fed has done. We have seen them do one or two of those during the course of an economic cycle, but to see all four or five steps within a span of a couple of months is extraordinary, and I give them high marks for what they have done in act I.

Act II was the action taken by the Congress to pass the economic stimulus package earlier this year. While the economic stimulus package was not perfect, probably not the one the Presiding Officer or I would have designed, it was, to its credit, targeted, it was timely, and it is temporary. Right now, it is helping to bolster our economy, and we expect it to add maybe 1 to 1\1/2\ percentage points to our gross domestic product.

Act III was the Foreclosure Prevention Act that we passed back in April by an overwhelming majority. I think it passed something like 84 to 12. That bill included a number of important provisions, including making sure more counselors are available to help folks who are sliding into a tough spot, maybe thinking about walking away from their homes, going into foreclosure and losing their homes. We said: We are going to make sure, by allocating $100 million, there are enough trained counselors out there to truly respond to people who need help. So that was part of that legislation. In that legislation, we also helped local communities deal with properties that were foreclosed on or abandoned.

We took the Federal Housing Administration, FHA, which has been around for 75 years, and we made it relevant, if you will, for the 21st century. If you go back 5 or 6 years, something like 15 to 20 percent of mortgages in this country were FHA guaranteed. FHA was created to help first-time home buyers become homeowners and to help folks who had marginal credit strength become homeowners as well. In the last year or so, we didn't have 15 or 20 percent of the mortgages being FHA guaranteed or insured mortgages but maybe 5 percent. What has happened in recent years is people who would maybe at one time have used FHA to become a homeowner instead ended up relying on these exotic adjustable rate mortgages--maybe no downpayment, low interest, or teaser rates to begin with and which balloon up to much higher rates which are hard to get out of, and they then get stuck there and it is difficult to refinance out of. We want to make sure people don't buy their homes with those kinds of financing vehicles and they go back to the plain- vanilla or FHA insured mortgages, 30-year fixed-rate mortgages in many instances. The legislation we passed 2 months ago does just that for the FHA.

Act IV is our effort that is currently underway here today to permanently overhaul the regulation of our government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are heavily involved-- and I will explain in a minute just how they are heavily involved--in making it possible for people to own their homes. At the same time, we want to help homeowners be able to refinance into affordable FHA mortgages as they are running into difficulties in their own lives.

I think the bill that is before us today, the Housing Economic Recovery Act, truly is a comprehensive effort to address our Nation's housing problems.

For many years, unscrupulous lenders paid no attention--I shouldn't say for many years--in recent years, unscrupulous lenders have paid little or no attention to a potential homeowner's credit history for making their mortgage loans. Home buyers--both knowingly and unknowingly--were given mortgages they could never realistically expect to repay. One might ask why. The answer in part lies in the fact that the financial sector has become increasingly complicated. Today, a mortgage is made, really, in the blink of an eye. The mortgage is bundled with others and sliced into tiny pieces known as ``tranches.'' Wall Street readily buys these mortgages, bundles them together as mortgage-backed securities, and sells them to investors around the world. As long as home prices continued to rise, there was very little risk to the lender, and for years home prices have continued to rise-- until now.

In the past, homeowners could always refinance their home and sell it for a profit and pay off their debt. When home prices began to lag, though, a vicious cycle began to emerge, and many of these so-called subprime customers have defaulted on their loans, and homes prices, as we know, have fallen drastically over the last year in many places around the country, eliminating the option to sell for a profit. As a result, the financial institutions and investors are losing billions of dollars and the private secondary mortgage market is in shambles.

Communities are also hurt by home foreclosures. Houses that have been abandoned attract crime and further drive down the home values in their neighborhoods. Homeowners trying to refinance are now finding themselves in an upside-down situation where they owe more than their house is worth. Foreclosure is now more than possible, it is probable for a lot of those homeowners. We have seen hundreds of thousands of people in this country in recent months literally just walk away from their homes. In fact, there is a company called Just Walk Away, designed to actually help people walk away from their home and leave it in foreclosure.

In February of this year, the Senate Banking Committee held a hearing on the state of our Nation's economy, and there were a number of witnesses there--Secretary Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, and Securities and Exchange Commissioner Cox. All gave testimony on the problems facing our economy because of this housing crisis.

At that hearing, I asked Treasury Secretary Paulson to list the administration's top legislative priorities for dealing with the housing crisis, and the Secretary's response was unequivocal. He was very clear and very direct in his response, and this chart really summarizes it.

He said, first of all, the administration wants housing authorities around the country to be able to issue tax- exempt revenue bonds, not just for first-time home buyers or for multifamily housing but to issue tax-exempt revenue bonds to raise money to help people in desperate situations refinance out of a subprime mortgage and get into something that is better suited for them.

The second thing he said is: We want FHA to be modernized and streamlined and brought into the 21st century so it is relevant again and can help people with questionable credit or maybe people who are fist-time home buyers.

The last thing he said is: We need to overhaul the way we regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with a strong, independent regulator, much as our banks have strong, independent regulators. We need that kind of regulator

at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and for the Federal Home Loan Banks.

The next thing I wish to do, if I can, is to look at this chart.

One of the other elements of the legislation we passed back on April 10, which was bundled together with the legislation I just described from the last chart, was to move FHA into the 21st century and provide $150 million for mortgage counseling.

We have probably seen on television commercials that say: Having trouble on your home, facing foreclosure, whatever, or facing bankruptcy? Call this number. You always wonder: Is that the number of a scoundrel, somebody unscrupulous, or somebody who will really help the person who is in distress? We are providing through this legislation about $150 million for someone to actually be there to help when the phone rings. At the other end of the line will be someone who is a trained housing counselor who can answer questions and help a person avoid foreclosure and possibly losing their home.

Finally, we provide in this legislation something like $4 billion for CDBG, community development block grants, so that State and local governments, city governments, can help take properties in foreclosure that are really decaying in a neighborhood and damaging the value of the whole community--we want counties and cities to actually buy those properties, fix them up, and get them sold and back into the marketplace so they can get a homeowner in that home.

The last thing I wish to mention is that this housing package we are passing goes even further and creates a new voluntary program within FHA to help those folks who are in an upside-down mortgage situation where they owe more than the house is worth. What our legislation calls for is something we call HOPE for Homeowners, where a number of people are asked to take a financial haircut--not a real haircut but a financial haircut--where homeowners are willing to take a little financial haircut and the lenders and investors as well voluntarily take a financial haircut. In return, the homeowner agrees to stay in the home and then share the appreciation in value, when the value of the home rebounds, with the FHA.

This program is not intended to bail out investors or borrowers. Let me be clear: The Federal Government should not be in the business of rewarding bad behavior. We don't want to do that, and this legislation does not do that. The goal of this program, the HOPE for Homeowners Program, is to help families who can stay in their homes to stay in their homes rather than give up and walk away. We are not going to get rich doing this, but hopefully they will still have a roof over their heads and a little bit of equity in the home they have purchased.

The last thing I want to mention is in terms of regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks. They are involved in raising trillions of dollars to finance home mortgages--trillions of dollars. We have strong, independent regulators of financial institutions, thrifts, credit unions, and large bank holding companies, and for the most part they are not nearly as large as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac don't have a strong and independent regulator. They need one, and with this legislation, they are going to get one. The new regulator will have the power to establish capital standards to manage the portfolio of these entities-- these behemoths--to review and approve, subject to notice and comment, new product offerings.

For the last few years, I have worked tirelessly with many of my colleagues, including Chuck Schumer--who is sitting right behind me-- Senator Mel Martinez, and others, to establish a new world-class regulator for the housing GSEs. We have come close a couple of times, but each time we had to let a few differences stand in the way of our progress. Today, we actually made progress and put in place a strong, independent regulator as we face an uncertain future.

The last thing I wish to mention--and I know I said that once before, but the last thing I especially like about what we do, in addition to providing a strong, independent regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is we require them to establish and to begin contributing into an affordable housing fund.

Some of you know that we have these 12 Federal Home Loan Banks around the country. They raise money that can be used by banks in housing and business to help finance housing construction and purchases. Every one of the Federal Home Loan Banks has a requirement under the law to commit to donate 10 percent of their net income into an affordable housing fund. That filters back into the community, and it leverages a lot more money to help first-time home buyers and multifamily housing. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac don't have that requirement to contribute to a housing fund. With this legislation we are passing this week, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will have that requirement. The amount of money that it will generate in a year, probably a couple years down the road, a half billion dollars a year--twice as much as is generated by the affordable housing fund by the Federal Home Loan Banks. That will be a wonderful tool for us to use in our communities.

I think that is pretty much what I wanted to say. I know my friend Senator Schumer is behind me and anxious to say his piece too. So I will just close by saying that with respect to the cost of the bill, I am concerned about paying for things, making sure if something is worth doing, we pay for it. The tax provisions in this bill are not completely offset. Mostly they are, but they are not completely offset. I think there is a shortfall of about $2 billion. We are supposed to be living under the pay-go rules we adopted and put in place in the Senate last year--emphasis on ``supposed to.'' In a tax package such as this one, where the intent was to pay for the new home-buyer credits and other matters, we should have stuck to our principles and found the necessary offsets to pay for these tax breaks or simply scaled them back. Unfortunately, we fell short in that regard. Certainly I don't blame the chairman, who knows what we ought to do and need to do, as do I. That is simply not the jurisdiction of our committee. In the whole package, I suppose that is the one disappointment I have, and my hope is we will come back and fix that later.

Overall, though, this is great legislation. This is great legislation. This will mean real progress in a responsible way, and our chairman deserves great credit, as does Senator Shelby and our staffs.

I say to my friend Senator Dodd that I spoke to the majority staff, the Democratic staff, yesterday in the cloakroom. I sit on the Commerce Committee, among other committees, and we have great staff there, especially at the committee level, and I want to say that this year our majority staff and I think our minority staff have really showed what they are made of, and we will all benefit from that as a nation. So my hat is off to you, our leader, and to our the staffs.

Mr. President, to reiterate, in April, the United States Senate passed the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008. At that time, I spoke right here on the Senate floor about how that legislation was the third act in a four-act play that will begin to bring economic recovery following the mortgage meltdown.

Act I was the actions taken by the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates low and provide liquidity to the markets.

Act II was the action taken by Congress earlier this year to pass the economic stimulus package. While our economic stimulus package was not perfect, it was targeted, timely and temporary, and right now is helping to bolster our economy.

Act III was the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 that just passed in April by an overwhelming majority of 84 to 12. This bill included important provisions to provide counseling to Americans facing foreclosure; to help local communities deal with properties in their neighborhoods that are abandoned or foreclosed; and to reform the Federal Housing Administration so that more Americans have access to affordable, safe, government-backed loans.

Act IV is our effort currently underway here to permanently reform the regulator of the government sponsored enterprises--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--and to create a program that will help homeowners refinance into a safe, affordable FHA mortgage.

The bill that is before us today, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, is truly a comprehensive effort to address our nation's housing problems.

For many years, unscrupulous lenders paid no attention to a potential homeowner's credit history when making their mortgage loans. Homebuyers--both knowingly and unknowingly--were given mortgages they could never repay.

Why?

The answer, in part, lies in the fact that the financial sector has become increasingly complicated. Today, a mortgage loan is made in the blink of an eye. The mortgage is bundled up with others and sliced up into tiny pieces--known as tranches. Wall Street readily buys these mortgages, bundles them together as mortgage backed securities and sells them to investors around the world.

As home prices continued to rise, there was very little risk to the lender. The homeowner could always refinance their home or sell for a profit, paying off the debt.

When home prices began to lag, however, a vicious cycle began to emerge. Most of these so-called subprime customers have defaulted on their loans and home prices have fallen drastically over the past year, eliminating the option to sell for profit. As a result, financial institutions and investors are losing billions of dollars and the private, secondary mortgage market is in shambles.

Communities are also hurt by home foreclosures. Houses that have been abandoned attract crime and further drive down the home values in the neighborhood. Homeowners trying to refinance now find themselves ``upside down''--owing more than the home is worth. Foreclosure is now more than possible, it is probable for many homeowners.

In fact, there are companies that now specialize in teaching homeowners how to just walk away from their home.

In February of this year, the Senate Banking Committee held a hearing on the state of the Nation's economy. Treasury Secretary Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke and Securities and Exchange Commissioner Cox gave testimony on the problems facing our economy because of the housing crisis.

At that hearing, I asked Secretary Paulson to list the administration's top legislative priorities for dealing with this housing crisis. The Secretary's response was unequivocal:

Congress must allow communities to issue more mortgage revenue bonds, modernize the Federal Housing Administration and give the government sponsored enterprises a new regulator.

I am pleased that this bill before us today addresses each and every one of the administration's priorities.

First of all, we would allow the issuance of an additional $10 billion in mortgage revenue bonds to be used not only for first-time homebuyers and low-income housing, but also to help homeowners refinance out of a subprime mortgage.

This bill also contains the FHA modernization provision, passed in the Foreclosure Prevention Act, earlier this year.

This bill brings the FHA into the 21st century by expanding the maximum FHA loan limit from $360,000 to as much as $625,000 in high- cost areas. This bill also streamlines and automates the process to apply for an FHA loan, making it easier for American families to have access to safe government guaranteed loans.

Along with these steps, the bill includes $150 million for housing counselors across the country, and almost $4 billion in community development block grants to go to communities hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis.

The Housing and Economic Recovery Act goes even further to create a new voluntary program within FHA to help homeowners in ``upside down'' mortgages to refinance into a safe, affordable FHA mortgage.

Under the new Hope for Homeowners program, lenders agree to take a loss and allow a homeowner to refinance into a new loan. In return, the homeowner agrees to share any future appreciation with the FHA.

This program is not intended to help bail out investors or borrowers. Let me be clear: The Federal Government should not be in the business of rewarding bad behavior.

The goal of this program is to help families who can stay in their homes, remain in their homes rather than give up and walk away.

The Housing and Economic Recovery Act also provides assistance to the secondary mortgage market by reforming the regulator for the government sponsored enterprises--often called GSEs--which are made up of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks.

Today, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are regulated for safety and soundness by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. The Department of Housing and Urban Development is the mission regulator.

Since its creation, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight has lacked the same regulatory powers and authorities of the other banking regulators. This bill provides the new regulator with all of the tools needed to ensure that the enterprises and the Federal Home Loan Banks operate in a safe and sound manner that is consistent with their statutory mission.

The new regulator will have the power to: establish capital standards; manage the portfolio; review and approve--subject to notice and comment--new product offerings.

For the last few years, I have worked tirelessly to establish a new world class regulator for the housing GSEs. We have come close several times, but each time we would let a few differences stand in the way of progress.

In addition to creating a new world class regulator, this bill also creates an affordable housing trust fund. This fund will generate hundreds of millions of dollars each year to be used to create safe and affordable housing for those most in need.

The Federal Home Loan Banks already set aside 10 percent of their profits to go to affordable housing. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will now also contribute a small amount of each new business deal to create this new trust fund.

Both Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby have done a very good job reaching a compromise on this bill. I know it is not easy. And like most compromises, this one is not exactly perfect.

If I could, I would just like to take a minute or two to express some concerns I have about the final product. First is an issue many of us have raised, and that applies to the enactment date in the bill for the new GSE regulator. Under this legislation, the director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight would have all the supervisory powers immediately after the bill is signed into law.

Under the GSE bill the House passed, we would allow 6 months before the new regulatory agency is created. To me, a 6-month cooling off period, in order to give the new agency time to transition, makes sense.

Also, it can be argued that there is a bias against the GSEs holding mortgages on their portfolio. While we want to make sure that the GSEs are not taking on undue risk, we should also be mindful that current market conditions require the GSEs to take a more active role in ensuring liquidity in the market. Today, they can only do that by purchasing mortgages and holding them in their portfolios.

Another concern that I have is the cost of this bill. The tax provisions in this bill are not completely offset and there is a shortfall of approximately $2.4 billion. We are supposed to be living under pay-go principles in the Senate. Emphasis on ``supposed to be.'' On a tax package such as this one, where the intent was there to pay for the new homebuyer credit and other matters, we should have stuck to our principles and found the necessary offsets to pay for these tax breaks or simply scale them back. Unfortunately, we fell short.

Having said all that, I believe that, overall, this legislation will help to bring stability to our economy and make the changes to our regulatory structure to ensure a healthy housing sector for the future. I have worked hard for years on elements in this final housing legislation and I am hopeful they will become law soon.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be here on the Senate floor this morning with my colleague from Ohio, Senator Voinovich. I want to reflect on what Senator Chambliss just spoke about with respect to energy.

There are a wide variety of things we need to do: create biofuels, conserve energy. I think we need to incentivize a greater reliance on alternative and renewable forms of energy, including solar, wind, and geothermal. I believe we need to incentivize--and we are incentivizing--a new generation of nuclear powerplants in this country. Nine applications are in. We expect another 30 or so over the next couple of years, a wide variety of things: plug-in hybrid vehicles, very low emission diesel engines, and the list goes on and on. We do not need any one of them. We, frankly, need to do almost all of them.

One of my colleagues, one of the people I most enjoy working with in the Senate, is a former Governor from Ohio. We worked together for many years in the National Governors Association. Now I have the pleasure of working with him in the Senate.

Among the issues we worked on, we served together on the Environment and Public Works Committee. He came to me about 3 years ago and said: Let's talk about diesel emissions.

I said: OK. And I said: What do you want to say?

He said--I will paraphrase what he said: There is good news and bad news about diesel emissions.

I said: What is it?

He said: The good news is, diesel engines last a long time.

I said: OK.

Then he went on to say, and the bad news is, diesel engines last a long time. The old diesels we have on the road today, and most of the diesels we have on the road are old diesels, and there are millions of them. They are in trucks and buses and ships. They are in locomotives. But mostly, though, diesels put out a lot of bad emissions, bad stuff, that we end up breathing.

What Senator Voinovich came up with in 2005--he was good enough to let me be the lead Democrat on the legislation--was the proposal that says: Why do we not create a grant program, through EPA, that provides incentive money for State and local governments, for school districts with buses, for private truck companies and so forth, to incentivize them to begin to use new technology that goes into the diesel engines and reduces diesel emissions by as much as 80, 85 percent?

I said: That sounds like a great idea. I would be pleased to be your Democratic lead sponsor. A number of others ended up joining us. I think that Senator Clinton was among them. But there were a variety of Republicans and Democrats who joined us.

I remember going to a press conference with Senator Voinovich about 100 yards from where we are today. We introduced the legislation that day. The next week there may have been a hearing--there may not have been a hearing. The next week after I think the legislation passed the Senate. Within a month or so, it was the law. I have never seen legislation move so quickly in my life.

We were here earlier this morning with one of the earlier discussions on the floor talking about filibusters and how our Republican friends are slow walking legislation, something that we were accused of doing when they were in the majority years ago.

But it is wonderful to have an example, once 3 years ago, with the passage of the Diesel Emission Reduction Act, and more recently with a change to the act which actually makes it even better, to see that we can still work together, we can set aside our partisan differences, Democrats and Republicans can find common ground, actually address our problems and resolve them.

So that sort of sets the stage for today. I think each of us is going to be recognized for 10 minutes, and when I run out of time, I may ask for a little bit of extra time if there is not a press of colleagues who want to come to the floor.

But let me start off by laying the groundwork and to say a special thank-you to our colleagues in the House of Representative and in the Senate for passing S. 2146. It is a bipartisan bill that gives EPA the authority to accept, as part of air quality settlements, diesel emission reduction supplemental environmental projects.

What does that mean? That means, when EPA enters into some kind of enforcement action against a polluter, for example, and out of that enforcement action comes a requirement for the polluter to pay certain fines or charges, the idea is, how can that money be used by EPA?

We want to make sure that money can be used by EPA to further reduce diesel emissions; to install this technology, diesel emissions reduction technology, in buses, in trucks, in all kinds of emitters of pollution of diesels. So we ran into a problem with this over the last couple of years.

Today--actually yesterday--the legislation was passed. We resolved that problem. I also wish to thank some of our colleagues--Senators Inhofe, Clinton, Cardin, Alexander--for joining Senator Voinovich and me on this latest version of this legislation.

This is a small bill. This is a small bill with big consequences, big consequences for jumpstarting the effort to clean up our Nation's diesel vehicle fleet and making our air cleaner and toxin free. Like a number of our colleagues, I am a strong advocate for diesel engines, clean diesel engines. They are powerful, they are fuel efficient, and with the implementation of EPA's new fuel and engine regulations, they will also be a lot cleaner. However, dirty diesel emissions can be deadly. Reducing emissions from diesel engines is one of the most important air quality challenges facing our country. This week we are going to do something about it.

EPA estimates there are some 11 million diesel engines in America that lack the latest pollution control technology. When diesel engines are built today for cars, trucks, buses, and so

forth, they are required to have the latest technology. The fuel they use is very low in sulphur content today, so we end up dramatically reducing the kind of damage and threat to our public health.

But there are 11 million old diesels out on the road, and they are going out on the road for a long time. Taken together, these engines produce something like 1,000 tons of particulate matter every day. I will talk a little bit more about particulate matter in a moment.

As a result, dirty diesel emissions are linked to some 21,000 premature deaths, hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks, millions of lost workdays, and numerous other health impacts every year. In fact, diesel soot is linked to more premature deaths in this country than firearms, HIV, or drunk driving. The risks are nationwide, but they are especially high risk in urban areas.

I have a chart here. Let me see if I can point out a couple of things. First of all, here is Ohio. Here is Ohio, where I went to Ohio State University, along with my colleague, George Voinovich. Here is Cleveland, OH, where Senator Voinovich is from. This is dark red. This is dark red. In fact, much of Ohio is dark red.

Over here is Delaware. Delaware is in an area of our country which is dark red. If you look down at the color code, there from the lowest impact, which is pink in color, to the highest impact, which is like a dark red color. For Nebraska, our Presiding Officer's State, it is looking pretty good, part of it in the pink.

But what we want to make sure is that the whole country is in the pink; not in the dark red, not in the red, not in the dark pink. We want to make sure it is in the light pink. What that means is healthier air for us to breathe for us and our families.

Why is diesel so toxic? Let me take a moment to show this. This is a diesel particle. It looks big, doesn't it? But in reality they are very small. You cannot even see them with the eye. But we breathe them, nonetheless. The fact is, as we walk about Washington, DC, or wherever we live, we probably breathe some of these little babies as well.

But at the core is something called elemental carbon. Around that core are organic carbon compounds. Around that, in the yellow here, secondary sulphate and nitrate. Surrounding them are metals. Then surrounding that on the outer core are toxins.

Diesel exhaust is a mixture of vapors and fine particles. The small particles have a core of carbons, as I pointed out, with a layer of toxins, many of which can cause cancer.

Here we have a picture of the lungs--in fact, two lungs. We have in fine detail--some of this matter is hard to tell. This is called the alveoli. That is where the oxygen that we breathe in is actually transferred into the blood system. And when these particles get down this far, they get into the blood system. That is what causes cancer.

But the fine particles can get deep into our lungs to cause inflammation. They cause scarring of the lungs, and some of that leads to bronchitis. It can lead to asthma. But when they get down into the bloodstream itself, they get spread all over the body and cause lung cancer and spread cancer to other parts of our bodies.

If that were not enough, these carcinogens can cause not just cancer but death. And some of the 21,000 people who will die this year will die not from bronchitis, not from asthma or asthma attacks, but they will die from cancer. This is why poor air quality, caused by old, dirty diesel engines, can lead to higher than average cancer rates for those living along heavily traveled interstates, highways such as Interstate 95 which stretches all the way from Maine in the north down to Florida. It runs right through my State of Delaware and a bunch of other States, too, on the east coast. And what we have--notice this curve--what we have is the zone of greatest exposure.

When you have a highway such as I-95--or it can be Interstate 70 or any other interstate or densely traveled highway, especially one with a lot of buses and trucks on it, what you see is a concentration of diesel exhaust right around the highways. And the threat to our health is the greatest for those who travel the highways or live or work in the near proximity of those highways.

That is the bad news. Here is the good news. The good news is we now have the pollution control technology to greatly reduce these deadly diesel particles and therefore greatly impact human health.

In 2004, the EPA began to address these public health concerns by requiring that all new heavy-duty highway diesel vehicles had to install pollution control technology starting in 2007. We also changed the law with respect to sulphur content. It is 15 parts per million sulphur fuel that is sold, I think, after last year. It began last year. They had to reduce the sulphur content rather dramatically.

However, this ruling is a problem because it does nothing for the millions of diesel engines that are already on the roadways, as I said earlier. Reducing diesel emissions in the current fleet could save an estimated 100,000 lives between now and the year 2030.

In response to what the EPA did in 2004, Congress passed the Diesel Emission Reduction Act, which Senator Voinovich introduced, and was good enough to let me and others join him in doing that. That program, again, established the voluntary national and State grant loan program to clean up some of those old diesel engines in buses and trucks and trains and ships.

Our intention was to build upon a program that EPA already had in place which allowed air quality polluters to fund diesel cleanup programs as part of their settlement with EPA.

For example, in October of last year, EPA reached a settlement agreement with a company called American Electric Power. As part of that settlement, American Electric Power will spend about $21 million retrofitting diesel engines with pollution controls. In fiscal year 2008--that is the year we are in right now--Congress appropriated $49 million to help fund the Diesel Emission Reduction Act.

So we had, on one hand, a settlement with American Electric Power, a $21 million settlement, the moneys of which were to be used for diesel emission reduction technology. Then we provided an appropriation in 2008, $49 million, to help fund the same program.

Put that money together, I think it adds up to about $70 million. That is enough money to have a significant impact on diesel emissions and to improve our air quality.

Unfortunately, EPA determined that if Congress funds through an appropriation the Diesel Emission Reduction Act grants, EPA could no longer accept diesel projects as part of air quality enforcement settlements. They could not use the $21 million they got in the settlement from American Electric to also help fund the program.

There is enough need. We could spend 10 times the amount of money we appropriated to help clean up diesel emissions. The need is huge. There are 11 million vehicles. We could spend money for a long time, and a lot more money than we are appropriating. But the idea of having $70 million versus $49 million is a big thing. We want to make sure we have and use the money from these settlements. So it does not make much sense to me or to Senator Voinovich.

The EPA said: Sorry, our hands are tied. We think this is the law, and we have to abide by it. What this bill does is it corrects the unintended consequence of successfully funding the Diesel Emission Reduction Act. As a result, we are going to be able to use settlement money. We are going to be able to use money that we appropriated for diesel emission reductions. We will be able to use the combined amount; parcel it out to States for grants and for loans and to get diesel emissions down and under control.

The House amended our bill and said: We want to add the District of Columbia to the 50 States that can participate in this grant program established by the Diesel Emission Reduction Act.

Let me close by saying, I do not think there is a silver bullet to reduce the environmental risks that lead to cancer, that lead to asthma, or to death. But cleaning up emissions from our Nation's diesel fleet is certainly a positive step. It is a diesel fleet that can help us use more judicially the resources that we have in this country, to use them more wisely but to be able to use that diesel engine in a way that doesn't threaten our health. That is a very good thing.

In closing, I thank Senator Voinovich for the terrific leadership he

provided over the years on this particular subject and for allowing others to work with him, to enact the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act and then to join me in coming back and saying the unintended consequence, where the EPA couldn't spend the settlement money and appropriations to finance diesel retrofits, that we had to take care of that. They can spend them both and reduce emissions.

Senator Voinovich and I sometimes lament how difficult it is to get anything done around here. On a day such as today, when it is a beautiful day outside, clear skies, beautiful day, walking from the train station, walking right up Delaware Avenue, seeing the Capitol at the top of the hill, the green trees, blue skies, the sun shining, it was beautiful. We wish to make sure that more days look like today, not only in Washington, DC, but all over the country, that the air is safe to breathe.

With this legislation, it will be a lot safer for years to come. I salute my friend, Senator Voinovich, for helping make it happen.

The Presiding Officer who is leaving the chair was Governor of Nebraska, and he had the opportunity to work with Senator Voinovich and myself at that time. Among the people we worked with was the father of our brand new Presiding Officer, the former Governor Casey. We have been reflecting back on the way it was and how we worked so well across party lines in those days. The legislation that we celebrated passage of yesterday is another indication we can still do that right here in the Senate.

I wish to ask a question, through the Presiding Officer, of Senator Voinovich. Senator Voinovich mentioned leveraging. Every dollar we appropriate in Federal dollars, EPA is now able to use for Supplemental Environmental Projects to install clean diesel technology to clean up emissions of diesel. He mentioned we actually leveraged some money from other sources, State and local governments, maybe school districts, private companies too. So for every $1 of Federal, we get another $3 to use from other sources. My recollection is that in terms of cost benefit--cost being how much it costs to install the technology--there is a health benefit that is a lot greater than the $1 we spend on the technology itself. I want to say it is $12, $13. I ask Senator Voinovich, if I may, through the Presiding Officer, is my recollection correct? Is there a 13-to-1 benefit in terms of a $1 investment in the technology and $13 in payoff, in terms of health benefits?

Mr. President, you were not presiding when we looked at this map earlier, but this is a map of the United States, obviously. This is a map that shows the mortality risks from U.S. diesel emissions. The best color to have is pink, and those States have relatively low diesel emissions and fairly low threats for whether it is bronchitis or asthma or cancer from diesel emissions.

If you happen to be from a State such as Ohio--where Senator Voinovich is from, and where I spent part of my youth and went to college--or if you happen to be from Delaware or happen to be from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, things are a bit grimmer.

What we have come up with, thanks in large part to Senator Voinovich's leadership, is a way to turn the dark red to pink. We want to get the whole country in the pink. Hopefully, in a relatively few years we, will.

The last point I want to mention--Senator Voinovich comes from a State that builds a lot of cars, trucks, and vans. Delaware has the only two automobile assembly plants that still exist anywhere up and down the east coast. We are fearful of losing our Chrysler plant at the end of next year, and we would be down to a single GM plant. Chrysler has invested in a new technology with Daimler, and their technology is for low-emission diesel vehicles--very low emission diesel vehicles. The emissions are so low and the fuel efficiency is so high, the people who buy those very low-emission diesel vehicles starting, I think, next year, will be eligible for the same kind of tax credit they would get by buying a hybrid vehicle today, with a tax credit anywhere from $500 to $3,500 per vehicle.

We want to encourage people to buy those low-emission diesel engines. But as people are buying those very low-emission, highly energy- efficient diesels, we want to make sure the other 11 million old diesel engines that are on the road--that are not as fuel efficient; that are not as clean burning--that we get to work at cleaning them up.

The good thing we have accomplished, working with House and Senate Democrats and Republicans, is we are striking a blow for clean air but not at the cost of energy efficiency.

With that, Mr. President, I will yield the floor.

Again, I say to my friend, Senator Voinovich: On to more battles. We will take on more battles, and we will do good things.

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

I just did. I thank the Senator.

Gas Prices

Mr. President, I spent close to half an hour around lunchtime today with a number of governors. There were some 30, 40 governors gathered in one of the Senate office buildings not far from where we are standing today. They were not governors in their thirties, forties, fifties, or sixties; they were, for the most part, teenagers, and these governors are about to become seniors in high school. They are part of the YMCA Youth in Government. They are here from all over the country. It was great to be with them and see young leaders coming up through the ranks and hoping to push old guys like us out of the way and take our places, whether it is New Jersey, Florida, Georgia, or Delaware.

One of the issues we talked about was how difficult it is to get things done around here anymore. If you read the Constitution and you read the rules of the Senate, there is the opportunity for one person in the Senate to slow things down quite a bit, for a handful of people to really bollix things up and bring business to a halt.

I have never seen a time when we have had so many filibusters in the Senate. This is my eighth year, about as long as the Presiding Officer. So far in this Congress, we are up to 75 filibusters.

The issue we were dealing with yesterday was whether we were going to bring up a bill to fund the development of renewable fuels, such as solar, wind, and geothermal, and pay for that by rescinding some of the tax cuts oil and gas companies enjoy. The legislation would also crackdown on speculators and price gouging. Unfortunately, we were not able to get the votes we needed--60 votes, if you will, not 51 but 60 votes--to be able to move to debate the bill.

For everybody keeping score, this chart is not showing anybody's age, but that is how many filibusters we have had to go through during the course of the year.

I believe sometimes a picture can be worth a thousand words. Let's look at a couple pictures on these charts and see what we have.

This is a picture of what has gone on with oil prices over the last 7\1/2\ years, starting in 2001 when the price of oil was little more than $20 a barrel, and by 2004, it was up to close to $40 a barrel. In 2007, we were up to close to $70 a barrel. Today, gosh, it is approaching $140 per barrel.

How does that translate, given that kind of history, into prices at the pump? I just filled up my old Town and Country Chrysler minivan the other day, which I am proud to say has 175,000 miles on it. It is a 2001 model. Delaware is not a big State, but we have gone up and down that State many times in that vehicle, and it is still running. We changed the oil a couple times, but other than that it is doing just fine.

It is getting expensive to fill up the tank. It is a 20-gallon tank. When I filled up my first tank in my Town and Country minivan, it cost me about a buck 30, a buck 40 to fill up. I filled it up this last weekend, and it was $75--a lot of money. It is the most we have ever paid. It was painful.

This is what the runup in prices looks like. There is not too much difference from 2001 to 2003, and then they steadily climb. Recently, we have seen it take off.

That chart was looking at 8 years. Let's look at 1 year. This is another way of--I don't think we will look at this chart. We just looked at something similar to this.

This is 2008. This is just 1 year of gas prices. We saw at the start of the year about $3.11 per gallon; by May 26, $3.93; and in most cases, around the country it is up over $4 a gallon.

To follow up on what Senator Nelson was talking about, why the runup? We had some really smart people come by and testify before the Commerce Committee last week. One was a guy named George Soros, a gentleman, a very wealthy man. The Presiding Officer probably knows him or certainly knows of him, as do many of us. One of the issues he talked about that was very insightful was the value of the asset that the oil-producing nations have, the oil under the ground, how that is an appreciating value, a rising value over time. We just saw the increase from 20 bucks a barrel up to 140 bucks a barrel, an appreciating asset underground. Our asset is a currency, a depreciating asset over the last number of years. We have seen the value of the dollar against most other currencies go down.

If you are an oil-producing nation, why would you surrender an asset appreciating in value to take on an asset--our currency--which is depreciating in value? Why would you be anxious to pump more oil, which is appreciating in value, to take on the dollar, which is depreciating in value? I think it is one of the reasons the oil-producing nations are reluctant to produce more oil. It is a problem we face and other oil-consuming nations around the world face.

It is not just supply and demand causing the runup in prices. That is part of it. It is not just the drop in the value of the dollar causing the runup in prices. As Senator Nelson and others suggest, there is something going on with speculation.

Not everybody who buys a contract on oil to deliver to this country has the intention of taking possession of that oil; rather, they are speculating that the price is going to go up, not unlike the way people would buy houses or condos--as in recent years we appreciated the housing bubble--expecting housing prices would continue to rise, and they did up until now. Speculators are trading on the idea that the value of oil is going to continue to go up. Maybe it will, but my guess is it will not be forever. Part of our challenge in this country is figure how it won't go up forever and provide some relief at the pump.

This chart shows the percentage of oil owned by speculators from January 1996 to April of this year. In 1996 or so, less than 15 percent of the oil was actually owned by speculators. If you look at today, at 2007-2008, we are up to almost 35, 40 percent not owned by those who are anxious to take oil and refine it but those who are speculating the value will continue to go up.

What can we do about it? One of the things we can do about it in this country is to go after the speculators, and we certainly attempted to do that as recently as yesterday with the legislation we could not get 60 votes to move to. But there are some other things we can do, and there are some actions we have already taken as a Congress, working with the administration, to encourage people to be helpful in bringing down the demand for the limited amount of oil that is out in the marketplace. Let me mention a few of them.

I wish to mention the hybrid Dodge Durango and the hybrid Chrysler Aspen. A few years ago, a partnership was formed between our friends at General Motors, DaimlerChrysler, and BMW to develop the next generation of hybrid, and the first fruits of that have gone into the hybrid Dodge Durango and the hybrid Chrysler Aspen. Today, the Durango and the Aspen, in the city, get about 14 miles per gallon and, on the highway, about 18. Starting in August, when they will begin selling the hybrid, in the cities I think they will get close to 22 miles per gallon, and on the highway about 25 miles per gallon. That is not such terrific mileage, but compared to what it was, it is almost a 50-percent improvement over what was the case. For people looking for a larger vehicle and SUV, there is something to look for right here. People don't have to buy a big vehicle to be able to enjoy better gas mileage in our vehicles. I wish to mention, if I can, the Chevrolet Malibu hybrid. The Chevrolet Malibu was selected as the car of the year. Last year, the Saturn Aura was selected as the car of the year. We haven't competed too well for a while in this country for our vehicles, in the midsize sedan segment, but the Malibu is not only the car of the year but also J.D. Power announced last week that, in terms of midsize sedans, the Malibu is selected as a top-quality vehicle. That is against some tough competition in the Toyota Camrys and the Honda Accords and the Nissan Altimas of the world. For a top-quality car, the Chevrolet Malibu looks great and gets good gas mileage but also has a hybrid people might be interested in, for people looking to buy a new vehicle or maybe downsize or resize their vehicle. This is not a bad one to look at. There is the Saturn Aura up there.

Here in the middle is a concept car I saw at the North American Auto Show about a year and a half ago. At the time, it was an idea, and they actually had a full-size mockup of what they called the Chevrolet Volt. I called it eye candy at the time--very good-looking vehicle, very attractive, very easy on the eye, but it turns out it is a plug-in hybrid vehicle. The idea is you plug it in and charge the battery. You plug it into your garage or wherever you have an outlet in your home, and the next day you can drive it for 40 miles without a charge. It has an auxiliary power unit onboard. It could be a low-emission diesel, could be an internal combustion engine, could be a fuel cell. It could be any one of those three alternative power systems that would recharge the battery. They don't run the vehicle, they recharge the battery.

The idea for gas mileage in this vehicle, which is to be on the road in 2010, is about 80 miles per gallon. Now we are talking. One of the things we are doing in the Congress is providing investment monies, about $100 million for investing in lithium ion battery technology. So when 2010 actually rolls around, we will have a battery to do the job.

The other thing we are doing is we are providing tax credits for folks who buy highly energy-efficient hybrids, credits anywhere from about $500 per vehicle up to about $3,500 per vehicle. When plug-in hybrids come along in 2010, I expect to see a credit there of up to about $5,000 per vehicle to incentivize people to buy those vehicles.

We also have a requirement that for the Federal Government in the Postal Service, both on the civilian side of the Government and the military side of the Government, about 75 percent of our vehicles that we purchase have to be advance technology vehicles starting this year, and the same requirement for the Postal Service.

Another thing we can do as Americans, as consumers, to bring down the demand side and try to put some downward pressure on prices, is simply to encourage folks to take transit more. They don't need a whole lot of encouragement because they are taking it. They are certainly taking it in Maryland, where our Presiding Officer is from, and they are taking it in Delaware a whole lot more.

Transit saves nearly 4 million gallons of gasoline per day. At $4 per gallon, that is almost $16 million saved from transit every day. Not every year, not every month, but every day we are going to save $16 million from transit. The typical public transit user consumes about one-half the oil an automobile rider consumes.

What else can we do as consumers? Take the train. Not just MARC trains in Maryland between DC and the Delaware line, but they can take Amtrak. These are the ups and downs of Amtrak ridership since 1991. Ridership on trains peaks usually between Thanksgiving and New Year's Day. Ridership peaks during the summer months as well.

Ridership at other times drops off. Right about here, Amtrak's on-time performance was not very good. I was on the Amtrak board at the time as Governor of Delaware. There was very good on-time performance and not very good ridership.

Look at this. Ridership continues to climb. Ridership on Amtrak last year was up about 10 percent. Ridership is up this year, this fiscal year to date, up about 15 percent. I would tell the Presiding Officer that I rode the train on Monday. I went to Philadelphia, to New York, and came back to Delaware. Every train I took, and not peak-time trains, basically SRO--standing room only. A lot of people are taking the train. It is a great way not just to save money but to reduce congestion at the airports and on the roads too.

Here is what is going on in commuter rail ridership from Seattle, WA, to Philadelphia, PA. We have worked with SEPTA, in a partnership there. Seattle, WA, ridership up there the first 3 months of this year is about 28 percent; Harrisburg, PA, of all places, up 17 percent; Oakland, CA, 16 percent; Stockton, CA, 14 percent; and Pompano Beach, not exactly a place you think of for transit, up 13 percent; and Greater Philadelphia, up about 10.

The reason I come to the floor today is to say we in Congress have a responsibility to do a number of things: tax policy that encourages people to buy more efficient vehicles--hybrid and so forth--and we are doing that; investing our dollars to help develop lithium ion batteries and technologies for the Chevrolet Volt and other vehicles, and we are doing that; we are trying to provide support for transit. The Presiding Officer and I have been very much in favor of doing that and working hard toward that end and providing reasonable support for Amtrak to help expand their capacity.

But you know the old story ``You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink''? We as consumers have to take advantage. When Amtrak is offered, when transit is offered and it is available and it makes sense for us, and when it is time to trade in for a newer vehicle, keep in mind the kind of vehicles that are out there and produced in this country and from around the world and take advantage of those and buy one.

That can be what we can do as individuals to make a difference on this issue.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the remainder of time for our business for the next 27 minutes be allotted to me.

Mr. President, I want to take a moment on the heels of the comments of my friend and colleague from Georgia to look at some of the hard and fast numbers. We can conjecture here all we want about what is going to happen to the price of gasoline going forward. He suggested it is going up by 100 percent or 150 percent--who knows? Here is what happened. This we do know. We do know the price of gasoline starting back here in 2001 was at about $1.50 a gallon and has risen today to almost $4 a gallon. We do know that. We can conjecture until the cows come home about what might happen in the future, but we do know what happened in the past under the watch of the current administration. It is not pretty. If we want to make sure this trend continues, we will not come up with ways to reduce our consumption of oil; we will not produce more energy-efficient cars, trucks, and vans; we will not reduce the amount of miles we travel in our communities and our States; we will not find a whole host of ways to conserve energy; we will not come up with ways to conserve energy through renewables. If we don't do any of those things, this kind of thing will continue. Our challenge here today and the way to make sure this doesn't continue is to pursue legislation along the tracks of that which is before us today and this week.

I begin today by commending the work of Senator Boxer, Senator Lieberman, Senator Warner, and others in developing this global warming legislation. Let me say to my colleagues, your initial bill was a good start. I believe the version that has been brought before the Senate this week represents a significant improvement over that original proposal. The leadership of this troika--it is actually tripartisan leadership--a Democrat, a Republican, and an Independent--your leadership gives me hope we will pass landmark legislation on this front, not this week, not this month, probably not this year, but in the not too distant future when hopefully we have a new administration, regardless of who is President, who is more amenable, more supportive, more understanding of addressing global warming. I plan to do all I can in the meantime to make sure we do not lose that opportunity.

As a lot of my colleagues may know, addressing global warming has been an important issue for me since my early days in the Senate. I think the facts are indisputable today. Our planet is growing warmer. We human beings are a major contributor to that.

My passion on this issue began about a dozen or so years ago when I first met two doctors, Dr. Lonnie Thompson and Dr. Ellen Mosley- Thompson, as they received something called the Commonwealth Award for Science in Wilmington, DE for their pioneering work on global warming. The Thompsons are natives of West Virginia, as am I, and they are both professors at Ohio State University, where I received my undergraduate degree, and both are world renowned for their research on the effects global climate change is having on glaciers and ice fields throughout the world. Measuring levels of carbon from ice core samples that go back nearly 1 million years in time, they focused on glaciers and ice caps atop mountains in Africa and South America. They have concluded that many of them--that being the mountains and glaciers, the ice caps on the mountains and glaciers--will probably melt within the next 15 years or so because of global warming. They fear little can be done to save them. It is up to us in this body to prove the skeptics wrong, to show we can do something, we can pull together and we can address this threat to our planet.

Three years ago during our Senate debate on this same issue, I stressed that the Arctic sea ice had shrunk by 250 million acres over the past 30 years, an area about the size of California, Maryland, Texas--and maybe Delaware--combined.

Today, I am sad to say, the Arctic sea ice has shrunk by not 250 million acres but 650 million acres, an area the size of Alaska and Texas combined or the size of 10 United Kingdoms combined. If we continue down this path on which we have started, the consequences for our planet and our country and our people will be catastrophic. It is up to us to ensure that America leads the world down a different path. We must and we should.

The EPA estimates that unless global warming is controlled, sea levels will rise by as much as 2 feet over the next 50 years. I have heard even greater amounts over the next 100 years. For island nations and coastlines, that could mean entire cities and beaches are wiped out. It is up to us in this body to ensure that those beaches and those cities, those coastlines, are preserved.

I have a chart here I want to share with my friends. For those of you who have not been to Delaware, this is Delaware: About 100 miles end to end, and from east to west, maybe 50 miles here. This is the outline of our coast. This is Lewes. This is Cape Henlopen. This is Rehoboth Beach, Dewey Beach, Bethany Beach, Fenwick Island, the Nation's summer capital. This is where the beach is today. Fifty years from now, if we don't do anything about global warming, sea level rises will have been 2 feet and this will be the beach in Delaware. This is Dover, DE, our State capital. This past Sunday we hosted 150,000 people from all over the country--NASCAR race. In 50 years from now, if we are not careful, this will not be Dover, it will be Dover Beach. We won't be having NASCAR races at Dover Beach. We may be having sailing regattas, we may have motorboat races, but we will not be having stock car races unless we do something about it, so this is imperative for a lot of reasons, including some that are close to my heart.

Since our last Senate debate on this issue we have seen the scientific community come together on this issue. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has undeniably affirmed that the warming of our climate system is linked to us, human activity. We also know the United States is one of the world's two largest emitters of greenhouse gases, along with the Chinese. In fact, they may have overtaken us by now. We account, in this country, for almost 20 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions and for almost one-quarter of the world's economic output. I believe our Nation has a responsibility to reduce our emissions of CO2. In short, we have a responsibility to lead.

Unfortunately, we have not seen a whole lot of leadership coming from the White House or enough from the Congress on this front. At least not yet. That has to change and that change is starting, I hope, this week. Others, in the meantime, have begun filling the void. We have another chart here. This is a chart of our country. There is a lot of green, light green, dark green, and blue. The light green areas are the areas where the States are actually developing their own climate action plans. They have been waiting for us. They have given up on that. They started to take the bull by the horns. Light green is where States have something in progress in terms of developing their climate action plans. The dark greens are the States where they completed action. The blues are where they have revisions in progress--about 38 States. They have been waiting for us. They are tired of waiting for us, and I don't blame them. One of those States is Delaware. We have a plan in my State and a lot of other States will soon have plans to reduce their own carbon emissions.

The States are not the only ones filling the void of Federal inaction. Fortunately, our Nation's businesses, a number of them, are doing the same thing. Companies such as DuPont, a global manufacturer headquartered in my home State of Delaware, have taken steps to reduce their own carbon emissions.

DuPont CEO Chet Holliday has said:

As a company, DuPont believes that action is warranted, not

further debate. We also believe the best approach is for

business to lead, not to wait for public outcry or government

mandates.

Contrary to concerns that combating global warming will hurt American businesses, DuPont's actions have had major positive impacts on its bottom line. In the mid-1990s, as part of a climate change initiative, DuPont began aggressively maximizing energy efficiency. That initiative has allowed DuPont to hold its energy use flat while increasing production. As a result, DuPont reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by more than 70 percent. By doing so, the company actually saved $3 billion--billion, with a ``b.'' But a patchwork of State initiatives combined with good corporate stewardship, however welcome, is not enough. We must have a comprehensive national approach, not only to give a signal to corporate America that this is a priority, but to the world, the United States is prepared at long last to be a leader on this front as well.

I have enough faith in American technology, American ingenuity and know-how, to believe we can provide that leadership without endangering our Nation's economic growth.

In fact, if we are smart about it, we will end up strengthening our Nation's economy, we will end up creating hundreds of thousands of new green jobs and we will end up creating products and technologies we can sell and export around the world.

I would quote Thomas Edison on opportunity. This is what Thomas Edison loved to say about opportunity: A lot of people miss out on opportunity because opportunity comes along wearing overalls and is disguised and looks a lot like work.

You know, some people look at global warming, our dependence on foreign oil or emissions or bad stuff in the air, and they see a problem. I see an opportunity. It is an opportunity that brings with it economic advantages and the possibility of creating jobs and products that flow from that, including technology and jobs and products.

Well, that is one of the big reasons I support the approach of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, to provide a solid framework for creating a national, mandatory program to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas over the next 40 years or so.

I am pleased to see Chairwoman Boxer's substitute makes several improvements over the bill we passed in the committee last year. Specifically, I applaud the chairwoman's efforts in strengthening the recycling and cost-containment sections of the bill.

Let me take a minute here, if I can, colleagues, to focus on the importance of recycling and combating global warming.

A lot of times people say: What can I do as an individual to help on global warming? As it turns out, everybody can recycle. Everybody can do that. Here are a couple of reasons why.

In 2006, the United States threw away literally, in cans of trash, some 82 million tons of material, with a recycling rate of about one- third--we recycled about a third of that stuff. Let me back up. Let me say that again. In 2006, the United States recycled about 80 million tons of materials. That is about one-

third of all that we would otherwise throw away, offsetting the release of some 50 million tons of carbon. That is equivalent to the emissions we save by recycling some 39 million cars each year, because we recycle. However, we only recycle about one-third of what we could. However, each year Americans discard enough aluminum to rebuild our entire domestic airline fleet every 3 months.

Put simply, increasing recycling cuts greenhouse gas emissions. To encourage recycling, the bill compels States to bolster recycling programs by requiring that no less than 5 percent of carbon credit revenues allocated to States must be used for improving recycling infrastructure to help States and local communities recycle more. I wish to thank the chairwoman again for working with me on this important issue.

Let me talk about cost containment next. I am also pleased with the cost-containment provisions Senator Boxer included in the substitute, such as the extra pool of allowances available in the early years to help contain high prices and the allowances that are returned to customers to keep energy prices down. I believe these provisions are moving us in the right direction to address any runaway costs that might occur in a new market.

Although this bill is a good start, I believe we can make some significant improvements in it, particularly in the area of pollution control, in the areas of output allocations and transit, encouraging people to get out of their cars and take a bus, take a train to get where they need to go.

Let me start off by addressing the four p's. It stands for the four pollutants. I appreciate that this bill acknowledges that dangerous air pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury, are emitted by the power sector in this country. However, acknowledging a problem is not the same as solving that problem. I believe that in addition to reducing greenhouse gases, we must additionally pass a comprehensive bill that also reduces these other three harmful pollutants.

As some of my colleagues know because I have driven you crazy over the last 5 or 6 years on this, visiting many of your offices, 12 of my colleagues and I introduced the Clean Air Planning Act of 2007, or CAPA. We believe CAPA provides an aggressive, yet achievable, schedule for powerplants to reduce emissions and alleviate some of our worst air-related health and environmental problems, such as ozone, acid rain, mercury contamination, and, of course, global warming. This multipollutant approach fits perfectly within the framework of this comprehensive global warming bill. I believe we would be foolish to address only one pollutant coming out of our Nation's smokestacks, however important it is--carbon dioxide--while others--sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury--threaten our health and our environment too.

My State of Delaware, along with the States around us--Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey--we are at the end of the Nation's tailpipe. We continue to breathe dirty air. During the summer months, when ozone pollution is at its worse, more than 10,000 Delawareans cannot work or carry out daily activities. Nationally, some 27 million children age 13 and younger are being exposed to unhealthy levels of ozone.

We have another chart here. Not only do we have problems with folks breathing bad air, which is harming their lungs and their respiratory systems, for young children being carried in the mother's womb, mothers ingest large amounts of fish that contain mercury. This year some 630,000 infants will be born with high levels of mercury exposure. As a result, they could have brain damage. A number of them will have developmental delays, some will have mental retardation, and some of them will have blindness.

Sulfur dioxide emissions, meanwhile, from powerplants will cause 24,000 Americans to die this year--24,000 this year, 462 this week, 66 today, and 1 or 2 during the time I am speaking here will die because of exposure to sulfur dioxide emissions from powerplants. I do not know how many people are going to die from climate change, from global warming, from CO2 emissions in this country in this year. I can tell you how many will die from sulfur dioxide--24,000. Twenty-four thousand. That is almost as many people who live in Dover, DE--24,000 people. Fossil fuel-fired powerplants are the single largest source of pollution that is causing these health problems.

If we do not act to tighten our emissions of these pollutants, too many communities will continue to live with the air that is unhealthy to breathe and mercury will continue to pollute our communities and bring harm to pregnant women and to children.

I believe it is not only the right thing to do but also the economic thing to do. Strict caps for all four pollutants, not just carbon dioxide, can help drive technology toward a comprehensive mitigation rather than a piecemeal approach. That is why I am introducing an amendment, along with Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, that achieves similar reductions for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury that are in CAPA but are adjusted to fit the Lieberman-Warner timetable.

The bottom line is, as we develop an economywide solution to global warming, we cannot lose sight of the simultaneous need to enact stricter caps on mercury, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur dioxide from powerplants.

Next, let me turn to something called output allocations, the way we allocate the credits to polluters that emit carbon dioxide. I applaud this bill's provisions that provide important funding for zero- and low-carbon technology as well as funding to encourage the commercialization of carbon capture and sequestration for coal-fired generation of electricity.

However, I believe we are going to use coal for a long time. We have to figure out how to capture the other major pollutants as well, and the sooner the better. I believe the Boxer substitute can do better to support clean and efficient power generation. I am concerned this legislation still provides too many subsidies to dirty, less- efficient power generation at the expense of new, clean technologies.

Global warming legislation should make wind and other renewable energy products more economically viable. Affordable clean energy should be one of our main goals.

Unfortunately, this bill still continues on the same old paradigm of rewarding the historical polluters by distributing pollution allowances on an ``input'' basis. This means allowances to emit CO2 in this bill are allocated based on historic emissions and the fuel being used rather than with respect to the efficiency with which power is generated.

Output-based allocation is an important policy tool to ensure that existing powerplants--particularly coal-fired plants--are made far more efficient and clean within a reasonable period of time. That is why I am planning on offering an amendment to change the distribution of allowances in the fossil fuel-powered sector from an input allocation to an output allocation.

It seems to me, colleagues, here we are trying to figure out how to apportion those allowances to emit CO2. Why not provide more allowances to those utilities that create more electricity by using less energy? That is what we should be doing. Unfortunately, what we do in this bill is we provide more allocation to emit CO2 to powerplants that use more energy rather than less energy. We should really provide the allocation and distribution of allowances--to some extent, at least--to reward those that provide a lot of electricity without using a lot of energy.

In addition to providing allowances to efficient fossil fuel facilities, my amendment--our amendment--would also provide allowances for new entrants generating electricity from other renewable forms of energy.

I have a couple of thoughts on this one. I and some of my colleagues are strong supporters of safe--underline ``safe''--and secure-- underline ``secure''--nuclear power and believe it must be a prominent part of any global warming solution.

The resurgence of nuclear power in the United States gives us a unique opportunity to rebuild a carbon-free energy industry and create, in doing so, tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs for building the plants and operating them in the future. But to do this, we must provide support and incentives to the nuclear manufacturers to redevelop the workforce--especially facilities--and capacity to participate and ultimately lead the world in quality nuclear manufacturing. That is why I

have joined Senator Warner and Senator Lieberman in an amendment we will offer that provides a sense of the Senate that supports workforce training for the nuclear industry.

Next, transit. Finally, I wish to discuss a very important provision in the Boxer substitute that funds transportation alternatives.

I talked to you earlier about the importance of getting us out of our cars, trucks, and vans and getting us to take alternative forms of transportation that use less energy and produce less pollution. The transportation sector is responsible for about 30 percent of our Nation's carbon dioxide emissions, almost one-third. That is why Congress passed legislation that I coauthored with a number of my colleagues last year--Senator Feinstein and others--to increase auto fuel economy from an average of 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles a gallon by 2020. The bill before us today also includes a low-carbon fuel standard and funding for alternative fuels.

Let's look at this chart here on my left. This line right here shows what CO2 emissions are from our car, truck, and van fleet starting in 2005 by incorporating the new CAFE standards for 35 miles per gallon by 2020. Here is where we end up in CO2 emissions for cars, trucks, and vans. Great progress. Unfortunately, if we keep driving more and more every year, the great reductions in CO2 which could be recognized here are going to end up with no reduction at all unless we do something about vehicle miles traveled and reduce the amount of time we spend in our cars, trucks, and vans rather than continue to see that grow as we have over the last decades.

Living in sprawling areas without transit literally can double a family's greenhouse gas emissions. The negative consequences go beyond impacting our environment. With gas prices approaching $4 a gallon, longer commutes and increased distances required for errands costs money too.

Public transportation has saved Americans from an additional 286 million hours of sitting in traffic. So we included a provision in this bill--Senator Cardin was very active on this--to use some of the auction proceeds to provide people with an alternative to driving, additional alternatives to people to driving. This provision in the bill would provide transit to more communities and would also expand transit where it already exists. That is good for our environment, it is good for our pocketbooks, and it is good for our peace of mind.

While this provision is important, we need to find a way to give communities a greater say in how they can spend their transit dollars. Transit is needed across our Nation. However, many communities would benefit from improved bike and pedestrian infrastructure, be they sidewalks, crosswalks, traffic calming, bike lanes--you name it. In rural areas, increasing freight rail capacity might be the most effective way to reduce vehicle pollution. Ideally, I think we ought to leave it to the local communities to determine which strategy works best for them and therefore allow all communities to take steps to address this portion of transportation pollution. Having said that, the provisions in this bill are a good first attempt to address this problem. We ought to do those, but we can do more and should do more.

As the only Member of the Senate who serves on all three transportation-related committees, I look forward to attempting to bring those three committees together and agree on a comprehensive approach to reducing carbon emissions from the transportation sector before we address climate change next year.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

I thank the Chair.

In closing, I appreciate the significant progress that has been made already to improve this legislation. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues, Senators Boxer, Lieberman, and Warner, for the work they and their staffs and our staffs have done. The authors of the bill can be proud and their staffs should be commended, our staff should be commended.

We have seen forward-looking companies such as DuPont show leadership and vision to develop a business plan for operating in a carbon- constrained economy. We have seen States such as California, Delaware, and a few others take action to reduce our carbon emissions.

What we have not seen yet is leadership from our Federal Government. While we continue to do nothing, or too little, our international competitors are already developing new technologies and preparing for the future.

President John Kennedy once said:

There are risks and costs to a program of action. But they

are far less than the long-range risks and costs of

comfortable inaction.

I recognize that despite the hard work of our staffs, Members, and leaders on this issue, there is a good chance this conversation will need to continue next year. It will and it should. I believe we must act on this issue next year, if we ultimately are unable to find common ground this year. That is why I am committed to joining Senators Boxer, Lieberman, and Warner in leading discussions today and throughout the year and bringing together all involved interests and parties to forge a path forward toward a solution that can pass the Congress early in the next administration. As Members of the Senate, we have a responsibility to ensure that our country provides leadership for the world in which we live on any number of fronts. The time has come for us to fulfill that responsibility with respect to global warming.

For some people, this is a political exercise. They will offer amendments to try to embarrass one side or the other, maybe embarrass the authors of the legislation, to basically ensure we don't get anything done, to tie us in knots and walk off and leave this legislation behind at the end of this week or sometime next week. That would be unfortunate. The American people know we have a problem. The problem is, the planet is getting warmer. If we don't do something about it eventually, we will not be able to turn it around. It is important for us to get serious. The American people want us to figure out how to work together. Our next President, whoever she or he might be, is going to provide us with much stronger, more positive leadership on this front. It is incumbent on all of us--Republicans, Democrats, and one Independent--to figure out how we can work with that next President and with ourselves, with folks in the business community, the environmental community, to come up with a plan of action to reduce and eventually eliminate the threat that global warming poses to our planet but to do so in a way that seizes on what Tom Edison said: Some people do actually miss out on opportunity because it comes along wearing overalls and looks a lot like work. This is one of those opportunities. We should seize the day--as we say in our State, carpe diem--not squander the opportunity but make the most of it.

I yield the floor.