Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that Karl Cordova, Alicia Jackson, Lucas Knowles, and Bryan Mignone, of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, be granted the privilege of the floor during debate on the Climate Security Act.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak about Senator Webb and Senator Hagel's new GI bill.

Mr. President, one of the smartest things Congress has ever done is pass the GI bill for World War II veterans.

Several of the Members of the Senate--including me--would not be here if it were not for the GI bill.

I went to the Ohio State University on a Navy ROTC scholarship, and when I got out, I went to graduate school at the University of Delaware on the GI bill.

As you know, the authors of this new veterans benefit proposal and two of my fellow Vietnam veterans--Senators Webb and Hagel--were also able to use the GI bill to help transition back into society after fighting in the jungles of Vietnam.

I share their belief that we need to reexamine the current GI bill with an eye toward Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.

To that end, Senators Webb and Hagel have worked tirelessly to try to provide the men and women of the Armed Forces who have served since 9/11 with the education benefits they deserve.

These two Senators have created a bill that represents the best hope of increasing veterans' education benefits. They should be commended for their hard work and their commitment to our troops.

Let me be clear: I support their proposal, and I would be proud to pass an emergency supplemental with this proposal included.

However, how we pass this bill will be very important.

This emergency supplemental provides these veterans education benefits at about $50 billion over the next 10 years.

Like the rest of this bill, there is no offset and no way to pay for these benefits.

Our colleagues in the House, however, did something quite different and, in my view, a lot better.

When the House passed this same veterans education benefit, they also included a way to pay for it.

They created a nominal tax increase of .47 percent on individuals making over $500,000 or couples making over $1 million.

By offsetting this increase in veterans' benefits, the House sent a clear message to the country and to the troops. That message was that we will honor the members of the Armed Forces by giving them the benefits they rightfully earned, but we are going to do this in a fiscally responsible way; we are not going to do this by going deeper into the red; we will exercise a little discipline; we will tighten our belts; and we are going meet our troops' sacrifice with a sacrifice of our own.

In this time of war and economic hardship, I believe the Senate needs to send a similar message to our troops: We will sacrifice here at home to give you what you deserve, because you sacrificed abroad to protect the United States.

That is why I have offered an amendment to this bill that provides the same offset as the House bill.

In order to pay for the new GI bill, my amendment calls for a small sacrifice: a nominal tax increase--less than one-half of 1 percent--on individuals making over $500,000 or couples making over $1 million.

One of the principles that I have always tried to follow is, if it is worth doing, it is paying for.

I doubt any of my colleagues would argue that providing veterans with a new GI bill is not worth doing. So then, I ask my colleagues, why is trying to pay for this benefit not worth doing?

I realize my amendment is not the most popular idea. We in the Senate like to talk a good game about the need to rein in Government spending, reduce the deficit, and to adhere to pay-as-you-go principles. But we are not so good at walking the walk.

I also know that several of my colleagues have argued that when this bill passes, we will have spent nearly $600 billion in Iraq and none of that has been paid for. Why shouldn't we, then, try to find an offset for $50 billion in education benefits for our veterans?

I understand that sentiment. I am a veteran. I benefited from the GI program. And I, too, am not happy about our situation in Iraq.

I have complained for years that our spending in Iraq lacks accountability and that we have done little to nothing to make Iraq pay its fair share.

Again, I want to unequivocally state that I will vote to pass this new GI bill--offset or not--because our troops deserve this benefit.

However, I just feel strongly that before we pass a new entitlement, we should at least make an attempt to pay for it, that we in the Senate should be willing, as the House has done, to put our money where our mouth is, to step up to the plate, and say this is worth doing and it is worth paying for.

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

Mr. President, I want to say a few words on the 100th anniversary of the National Governors Association.

I especially want to thank my friend and colleague Senator Durbin for yielding to me to speak first this evening.

It was 100 years ago today that the first meeting of our Nation's Governors took place. In recognition of the National Governors Association's Centennial today, I, along with a number of my colleagues, including Senator Voinovich of Ohio and Senator Alexander of Tennessee, have submitted a resolution commemorating the 100th anniversary of the National Governors Association.

It is my hope we will be able to clear this resolution honoring the 100th anniversary this evening. As former Governors currently serving in the Senate, Senators Bayh, Bond, Gregg, and Ben Nelson will also be joining myself and Senator Alexander, along with Senator Rockefeller, in sponsoring this resolution.

If you think about it, that is all of the former Governors who now serve in the Senate and who were at one time members of the National Governors Association. I was privileged to serve, along with Senators Voinovich and Alexander, as chairman of the National Governors Association at one time.

It is a special privilege for me to take a moment to reflect on the organization's growth and its accomplishments over the last 100 years. On May 15, 1908, 100 years ago today, President Teddy Roosevelt hosted the first meeting of our Nation's Governors at the White House. They gathered to discuss conserving America's natural resources.

Now, 100 years later, the Federal Government is still working with our Nation's Governors in an ongoing effort to protect America's natural resources through conservation provisions such as the farm bill that we adopted here today or addressing climate change or protecting our air through legislation such as the Clean Air Planning Act.

Today, 100 years later, the National Governors Association serves as the collective voice of our Nation's Governors and remains one of Washington, DC's most respected public policy organizations.

Through this bipartisan organization, Governors are able to identify and discuss a broad range of issues relating to public policy and to governance. I have long said the 50 States are laboratories of democracy, and we should use them as such, and we do.

Today we do that. From the redwood forests to the gulf stream waters, initiatives and policy recommendations that have come from the Governors often serve as catalysts for change both in the States and at the national level.

I was Governor of Delaware back in 1995 when Congress was actively debating how to reform a failing Federal welfare program, trying to decide how do we make work pay more than welfare. Without solutions coming from the Congress, the States had already begun taking reform efforts into their own hands. Over half the States, including my own State of Delaware, and I believe the State of Vermont, had made significant changes to their own welfare programs by seeking waivers from the Federal rules.

Many of the welfare policies and practices tested by States were ultimately adopted by the Federal Government in the sweeping 1996 welfare reform legislation passed by the Congress and signed by President Clinton, which the Governors helped to write.

As with welfare reform, the National Governors Association has played and continues to play a key role in developing national policies ranging from

transportation to education, to environmental protection and health care, to name a few.

In the 1950s, President Eisenhower enlisted the Governors' help to help build our very first interstate highway system. The State-Federal partnership forever changed the face of transportation in America and underscored how critical States' participation has been to realizing national goals.

The same is true of Medicaid and the SCHIP program, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The same is true of the implementation of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, and as we fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the National Guard units of all 50 States.

Over the past century, the National Governors Association has played a key role in shaping public policy and addressing America's most pressing challenges. On behalf of each of the former Governors who are privileged to serve today here in the Senate, it is my honor to acknowledge the leadership of Governors both past and present, to celebrate what they have achieved over the last 100 years by working together, and to look toward with anticipation of what lies ahead for our Nation's National Governors Association and for the Governors who will help to lead it in this century and beyond.

If I could just add a footnote, I always think of the States as laboratories of democracy. We can test policies or programs to see if they work at the State level, and if they do, maybe see if they would work on a national level.

One of the things I especially liked about being part of the National Governors Association was that every even-numbered year, right after the election in mid-November, the National Governors Association would host a school for new Governors and spouses. For 3 days, a different Governor would host in his or her State the NGA's school for new Governors and spouses. The students were the newly elected Governors who had been elected 2 weeks earlier. They were Democrats and Republicans, in some cases an Independent. The faculty were the current Governors and their spouses. We would spend 3 days together. Usually, it was as many as 20 Governors and spouses on faculty.

We would spend those 3 days together in different places around the country--no press, very little staff. The idea was for the grizzled veterans to really bare our souls to the new guys and gals, incoming Governors, and tell them the mistakes we made and to say to them: Learn from our mistakes. Don't make the same ones we did, whether it is putting together your team, developing your communications plan, working with the legislature, deciding where you are going to live and trying to be a chief executive and still be a good parent, a good spouse. But during those 3 days we spent together, a remarkable bonding occurred between the old Governors, the veterans, and the new Governors, and across party lines. I am convinced one of the reasons why the Nation's Governors tend to be less partisan is what happens in new Governor school.

Among my closest friends are Governor Mark Racicot, former Governor of Montana, who later went on to be national committee chair and general campaign manager for President Bush's reelection; Mike Leavitt, former Governor of Utah, who succeeded me as chair and who serves today as a Cabinet secretary in this administration. What we have tried to do in the Senate, those of us who used to be Governors who serve here today but went through new Governors school, is take that idea and transplant it here. I call it Senators school. It is really orientation.

This fall, in November, 2 weeks after the election, we will have new Senators, newly elected Senators, their spouses will come. They will spend 3 days together; some sessions with spouses, others not with spouses. The faculty will be current Senators and our spouses. We will have 3 days to get to know each other, to try to teach the new guys and gals the ropes and to begin to develop new personal relationships that really are needed here to make this place work. I look forward to being a part of doing that this November. But the idea was one of those ideas that came from the National Governors Association.

Again, the NGA and the States are laboratories of democracy. Taking that lesson and applying it here on the national level will have good effect.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 568 submitted earlier today by yours truly.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, 60 years ago, on May 8--or May 14, under our western calendar--Israel declared its independence. On this special day, when Jews and Christians, heads of state, and others around the world celebrate the founding of Israel, I rise for a few minutes to reaffirm our Nation's commitment to Israel's security and the pursuit of a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace in the Middle East.

That is one of the reasons I cosponsored the resolution recognizing Israel's 60th birthday, and reaffirming the close ties between our country and Israel, a nation I have been privileged to visit as a Congressman, as a Governor, as a Senator, and maybe most importantly as a father with a teenage son.

Current events threaten to overshadow the importance, though, of this independence day: Prime Minister Omert is again being investigated. Another round of peace talks appears to have stalled once more. Hamas continues to launch Qassam rockets at Sderot and other towns near Gaza. Suicide bombings continue. Hezbollah has increased military capability, with support from Syria and Iran. The leaders of Iran--the most active state sponsor of terrorism in the world--continue to call for Israel's destruction, while denying that the Holocaust ever occurred.

These are enormous, complex challenges. But after 7 wars in only 60 years, Israel somehow has achieved remarkable--some would say miraculous--success, all the while having to fight for its existence almost every single day.

Today is the day to express our fundamental pride in a number of their successes. For example, Israel's population today is 7.3 million people, more than 9 times the 800,000 who lived there in 1948. Since its founding, over 3 million immigrants have been successfully absorbed.

While Israel is the world capital of Torah learning, it is among the world's leaders in high-tech, medical, and scientific advances. In 1948, there were only two universities; today there are eight. On a per capita basis, Israel's GDP places it in the top tier of all nations. Democratic institutions flourish there. Both Jews and Arabs serve in Israel's Parliament, the Kennesset. Additionally, Israel has an independent, effective judiciary and a free press.

So today I rise to join many of my colleagues in reaffirming the commitment of the United States to Israel's security.

For the people of Israel, to its citizens, our message is simple and clear: We will continue to stand in solidarity with you. We are proud of what you have become.

As I said earlier, I have had the privilege of visiting Israel a number of times--when I served in the House, as a Governor leading a trade delegation, as a Member of the Senate, and perhaps the most special and memorable visit for me was with my teenage son, roughly 3 years ago. We were in Israel on Easter weekend. We actually had the privilege of being on Golgotha, where Christ was believed to have been crucified, and we were there on Easter Sunday. We were privileged to be at the tomb where Christ's body was believed to have been lain, and we placed our hands there on Easter Sunday. What an unforgettable memory. I had the privilege of meeting Prime Minister Shamir, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, Netanyahu, and Shimon Peres, among others. I will never forget being at the home of the U.S. Ambassador to Israel on July 4, roughly 10 years ago--being there and meeting what seemed like half of the leadership of Israel, and any number of prominent Israeli citizens as our guests that day celebrating our independence, our Nation's birthday.

Today, some 10 years later, as we prepare to celebrate Israel's birthday with the Israelis and people all over the world, I want to close with the words of Israeli President Shimon Peres spoken only a few days ago. I know the Presiding Officer has met Shimon Peres before in the number of roles he has played. I have been fortunate to do that as well. I have never met anyone who has a greater gift with the English language than this man.

I want to share these words he said a couple days ago:

Over the past 60 years, we have something that previous

generations of Jews, those who were trampled in the pogroms

and who were burned in the crematoria, did not have. The

soldiers who fell created a miracle unparalleled in history:

the miracle of the state of Israel. . . . For 60 years, they

fought in seven wars that were forced upon us, and that we

won. They enabled us to establish an exemplary society, to be

trailblazers in the world in . . . agriculture, medicine and

defense, to be a peace-seeking people, a democratic state,

and a state that seeks justice.

To that I would only add, may it be so for a millennium or more.

Mr. President, I am happy we are here. Let me ask a question, if I may, of the floor manager, Senator Dodd.

I just walked onto the floor from a hearing we are having in Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Do I understand we have agreement now to proceed to the bill? I don't have an amendment to offer, but I understand we are ready to accept amendments.

That is good news. What did we have for the vote yesterday?

We are wasting way too much time on the floor. I am delighted that we finally have agreement to go to the bill. I thank you and Senator Shelby for leading us here today.

Hurricane season in the Atlantic opens officially on June 1. Today is May 7. That is about 25 days from now--less than a month. Thousands of homes, actually tens of thousands of homes along our coast, from Florida up to New York, probably, and down around the gulf coast, are going to be at risk from flooding from what are likely to be more devastating storms. You don't have to live along one of our coasts to be at risk. Many will recall, earlier this year, parts of Missouri, parts of Illinois faced the worst flood they have seen in decades.

In Government, we are often asked to respond to terrible natural disasters, and we do, providing, among other things, emergency shelter and financial aid for people who lost a lot, maybe in some cases have lost everything. Today, we are being asked to step up before the next disaster strikes by overhauling our Nation's flood insurance program.

I was talking with a member of my staff walking over here about how long ago this National Flood Insurance Program was created. It has been 40 years. As I recall from my Bible study as a youngster, that is about how long Moses led the children of Israel through the wilderness trying to look for the Promised Land.

We have been looking for the ``Promised Land'' with respect to the right balance of premiums, risk abatement, flood mapping--you name it-- we have been looking for the ``Promised Land'' for the National Flood Insurance Program for about 40 years.

For the first 25, maybe 35 years, 37 years of the program, we kind of muddled along. The program pretty much paid for itself but not entirely. There were some efforts back some 20 years ago to actually change the program to try to bring it into the 21st century, and we ultimately were not successful.

About almost 3 years ago--remember the story of the Red Sea, the children of Israel going through the Red Sea in hot pursuit by the Egyptians? The Israelis made it through and the Egyptians did not, as I recall. About 3 years ago, as to the National Flood Insurance Program, we did not make it through the ``Red Sea.'' In fact, we did not make it through Katrina. In fact, the program was engulfed by water, by floodwaters, and to the tune of about $20 billion. That is the amount of money FEMA had to borrow from the Treasury in order to try to write this program. Now we are spending more money. The program is marginally self-supporting. We have a huge interest payment to make on it, the $20 billion loaned by the Federal Government.

So, in any event, enough of my Biblical analogies today. But actually it is not a bad one. We need to find the ``Promised Land.''

I am encouraged today by the debate on this bill. It is a good bill. It was worked on a year ago in the Banking Committee. It was reported out. It got through the House, got through the Senate, and died. We cannot let that happen again.

But when the flood insurance program was established some 40 years ago, it was established as a three-pronged program involving three things: One, insurance; two, mapping, flood maps; and, three, smart land use.

Today, that same flood insurance program provides insurance to more than 5 million property owners across America.

Before Hurricane Katrina, as I said earlier, the flood insurance program was marginally self-supporting. But the now famous 2005 hurricane season, which included Katrina--not only Katrina but other big storms as well--caused the folks at FEMA to go out and borrow $20 billion from the Treasury. When the Treasury lends $20 billion to FEMA, they do not say: Here, take $20 billion tax free or interest free.

You have to pay the interest. The interest on that debt eats up a big part of the premiums paid by those 5 million property owners.

For 20 years prior to Katrina, the flood insurance program needed to be reformed. It needed to be overhauled. This week, finally, at long last, we can do that, and I hope we will.

Some 20 years ago, I was in the House of Representatives, a Congressman and a member of the House Banking Committee. At that time, Hurricane Hugo was bearing down on the east coast. I was part--along with some of my other Banking Committee colleagues in the House--of an effort to overhaul the National Flood Insurance Program two decades ago.

At the time, we were concerned about a couple matters. We were concerned about the low participation in the flood insurance program. We were concerned that too few people were participating. That meant too big a risk, in my book, for the homeowners as well as the Federal Government, which often bore the cost.

At the time, I proposed to increase participation by requiring mortgage lenders to escrow flood insurance payments, just like they escrow payments for homeowners insurance.

In addition to the low participation rate, we were also concerned that a small percentage of properties had been responsible for more than one-third of all claims, costing roughly $200 million each year to rebuild or repair properties.

To help correct this, our proposal back then included a call for floodproofing or removing from the program high-risk properties, while reserving a small amount of funds collected from the flood insurance premiums to pay for this.

In addition, in 1988, 1989, we sought to limit new construction in coastal areas that were quickly eroding. Our proposal also sought higher risk-based premiums for those who lived in the most vulnerable locations.

In 1989, a bill to reform the flood insurance program passed both the House and the Senate. It was not as far-reaching as the original proposal I and others worked on. I called it at the time ``flood insurance reform lite,'' but it was, nonetheless, a step in the right direction. But, unfortunately, that modest bill never made it to the President's desk, and for almost another 20 years the flood insurance program has continued pretty much as it was--broken and in need of repair.

Last year, the Senate Banking Committee, under the leadership of Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby, approved a truly comprehensive flood insurance reform bill. This is not ``flood insurance reform lite.'' This is the real deal. There is nothing ``lite'' about it.

Unfortunately, the bill we approved was reported out, came to the Senate floor and stalled and was withdrawn. I think I said earlier our legislation a year ago passed the House and Senate. I was thinking about 20 years ago. That legislation passed the House and Senate, only to die, as I recall, in conference. This flood insurance reform initiative started last year made it to the Senate floor and stalled out.

Today, the Senate has the opportunity to breathe new life into this badly needed legislation. It is imperative we seize the day or, as we say in Delaware, carpe diem: seize the day.

Where are we today? Today, almost 3 years after Hurricane Katrina, and almost 20 years since our attempts in the late 1980s, we have another chance to put the National Flood Insurance Program on solid footing.

So what are our main concerns in 2008? Well, the low subscription rate, for one. The relatively small number of properties that continue to flood year after year is another. And the subsidized premiums that do not reflect the vulnerability of many properties insured under the program remain a big concern.

We need legislation that will require us to better consider where we build

and rebuild in this country, how we build, and how we allocate risk.

The bill that is before us today, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2008, is a bipartisan bill, reported unanimously out of the Senate Banking Committee about a year ago.

I wish to take a moment, if I can, to highlight some components of this bill, some of the major aspects of this bill.

The devastating 2005 hurricanes resulted in FEMA, as I said earlier, borrowing almost $20 billion from the Treasury to pay flood claims. That is more than the flood insurance program has paid out in its entire history. In order to pay their claims, Congress increased FEMA's statutory borrowing authority from about $1.5 billion to some $20 billion. Annual interest on this debt owed by FEMA to the Treasury is about $1 billion a year.

In order to pay the interest on the current debt, flood insurance premiums would have to increase significantly. To prevent that, this bill takes the step of forgiving $20 billion of debt owed by FEMA to the Treasury. This bill also requires that FEMA set aside in a reserve fund an amount equal to 1 percent of all insurance in force to serve as a financial buffer for future disasters. This bill mandates that more property owners be required to purchase flood insurance, including those who live behind levees and dams and property owners in the 100- year flood plain.

Homes in flood plains are in greater danger of flooding, even if there is a levee. Families need to be protected whether the levee works or not. This bill requires that property owners pay the actuarial rate.

No longer will vacation homes and businesses be allowed to pay a subsidized rate, as they have been under the program for years. This is a fair and needed change. Why should vacation homes and businesses pay less than the residents who sit adjacent to them?

Perhaps, most importantly, this bill will compel FEMA to modernize its flood maps. Technology now allows the creation for exact detailed flood maps. Because many of these maps are now decades old, we do not even know who is in danger of flooding and who needs flood insurance in many cases. This has to change. Under this bill, it will.

Again, this bill is a bipartisan product. It seeks to move the flood insurance program to the 21st century before the next ``Katrina'' strikes.

We have been joined on the floor by Senator Shelby. I know it is something that is near and dear to his heart. He and I actually served on the House Banking Committee a few years ago. I think he may have actually come to the Senate by the time we were working on this legislation in the House at the time. I know this is something he cares a lot about, and he has been heavily involved in shaping this legislation that is before us today. I especially commend him for the good work he has done.

But for almost 20 years I have worked, along with a bunch of my colleagues, to make some meaningful reforms--badly needed meaningful reforms--to the flood insurance program.

Katrina exposed the problems with this program. Actually, we were aware of them before that time, but it showed the problems for what they are. Now it is time for us to roll up our sleeves and finally fix this program.

Abraham Lincoln used to say: The job for Government is to do for people what they cannot do for themselves. This program is a good example of that. People cannot go to the private sector--homeowners, businesses cannot go to the private sector--and get the kind of flood insurance this legislation provides. This is taking Lincoln's admonition to do for the people what they cannot do for themselves and actually put it into law. It has been part of the law for 40 years. We can do better, and we need to do better with respect to this program. That was driven home very clearly in the summer of 2005.

Going back to my Old Testament example, it has been 40 years since this legislation was passed. For 40 years, those children of Israel were following Moses, trying to find the Promised Land. We have been looking for it too in terms of actually the right kind of language, the right kind of legislation, the right kind of law to meet the insurance needs for folks--businesses, homes, and residents--who face the danger of floods. It has taken us 40 years to get it right. This is an effort I have been involved in for 20 of those years.

Looking out across from the ``mountaintop'' today, I see the ``Promised Land,'' and I see the ``Promised Land'' written on a piece of paper that we are going to be voting on today and tomorrow. My hope is a couple days from now--if we do not finish this legislation today-- we are going to pass it and we are going to send it over to our friends in the House of Representatives and they will take it up and move it expeditiously.

We can do good for the taxpayers of this country who are literally having to underwrite the cost of this program, and they should not be doing that. We are going to better protect the folks whose businesses and homes are at risk, and we will do it in a way that harnesses common sense, harnesses economic forces and market forces. That will be a very good result.

Mr. President, I yield back the floor.

Mr. President, today I congratulate Dover Air Force Base and all the men and women who serve there for winning the Commander In Chief's Installation Excellence Award for 2008.

This prestigious award honors military installations for their outstanding service and dedication, and exemplary support of their missions. In the 23 years that this award has been given, Dover Air Force Base is the first Air Mobility Command to ever win this award.

This is a great honor not only for Dover Air Force Base, but for all of us in Delaware who are enormously proud of the base and all the dedicated men and women who serve there.

This highly coveted award recognizes the excellent working, living and recreational facilities for those men, women and families stationed at the base.

For Dover and for Delaware this means winning it all, like winning the Super Bowl or winning the NCAA championship. It is like a home run with the bases loaded. I could not be more pleased or proud of the men and women serving at Dover.

I am honored that our Delaware facility serves as a national example of how quality installations enable better mission performance and enhance the quality of life for military men and women and their families by providing quality working, housing and recreational conditions.

I would also like to recognize the other winners of this year's award: Fort A.P. Hill, Bowling Green, VA; Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, San Diego, CA; Naval Base Coronado, San Diego, CA; and Defense Supply Center Richmond, Richmond, VA.

Once again, it is my honor to congratulate the men and women of Dover Air Force Base for their service and dedication.

Mr. President, today I commend detective Ronald Garland of the Delaware State Police High Technology Crimes Unit.

Just more than 1 year ago, Detective Garland was assigned to a case involving Internet predators taking advantage of children.

Inspired by his sense of urgency to protect young children, Detective Garland worked late nights and weekends, often without compensation, sifting through voluminous computer data.

Today, we honor him for his exhaustive work to help identify 10 suspects and to coordinate their arrests with local law enforcement agencies. His great efforts ultimately lead to the prosecutions of these culprits in Federal court.

Detective Garland's concern for the children in our community and his willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty has garnered our great respect and admiration.

I salute Detective Garland as a hero for keeping our children safe, and I urge others to follow his brilliant example. His determination and meticulous investigative work are truly commendable.

Detective Garland is truly a hero for the State of Delaware and for our entire Nation and its children.

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

Mr. President, there has been a fair amount of discussion here on the floor today about what to do with respect to rising costs of gasoline and a discussion about what we should do in response to this runup of prices. I heard the Presiding Officer speak earlier today--I thought with passion and with wisdom--on an appropriate course of action. I wish to mention a few things that I think we ought to do.

No. 1, we should be investing tax dollars in basic research and development to make a reality the lithium ion battery that is going to provide power for a flex-fuel plug-in hybrid vehicle called the Chevrolet Volt over the next 24 months or so, a vehicle that will run for 40 miles on a charge of its battery and use auxiliary power on board the vehicle to raise fuel efficiency well beyond that, maybe as high as 70, 80 miles per gallon. That is what we ought to be doing, and we are.

Another thing we ought to be doing is using the Government's purchasing power to help commercialize the new technologies. Whether it is flex-fuel plug-in hybrids, whether it is very low emission diesels, whether it is fuel cell-powered vehicles, we should be using the Government's purchasing power to bring them to the marketplace. And we are doing that too. This year, there is a requirement that 70 percent of the cars, trucks, and vans the Federal Government purchases, both on the civilian side and on the military side, have to be advanced- technology vehicles.

That includes vehicles purchased by the Postal Service.

We also ought to be providing tax credits to encourage consumers to buy highly energy efficient hybrid vehicles, highly efficient, low- emission, diesel-powered vehicles when those are produced and when they come to the marketplace. And we are doing that. That is part of our law. We provide a tax credit for folks who buy highly energy efficient hybrids and very low emission diesels, a tax credit that is worth up to close to $3,500 per vehicle. When the Chevrolet Volt or other flex-fuel vehicles, plug-in hybrids come on the marketplace in the next couple of years, we should provide an even greater tax credit to encourage American consumers to purchase those.

Several years ago, we voted here in this Chamber to create a commission. We create a lot of commissions around here. But this was an infrastructure commission, a transportation infrastructure commission. It was part of our major 5-year, 6-year bill that we pass every so often on transportation projects, a lot of it roads, highways, and so forth, but transit is included in there too.

When we passed the last bill, several years ago we said we want to create this commission, and we want the commission to go out and look at our infrastructure needs, transportation infrastructure needs across the country, quantify those for us and tell us what you think it is going to cost to bring our roads, highways, bridges, and transit systems to a state of good repair, and tell us how you think we ought to pay for those improvements. That commission was formed, worked hard for a year or so, and then came back to report back to us earlier this year as to how bad the situation is and what it is going to cost to fix it. They came back and said: We need to spend, to bring us out of the 20th century and into the 21st century, something like $225 billion a year--$225 billion a year; I think that is what they suggested--over 50 years, over the next 50 years. They called for actually increasing the gasoline tax by I think a nickel a year for 5 years, 6 years, something like that.

We have seen suggested to us a number of ideas for providing for a holiday for the gasoline tax, to suspend collecting the gasoline tax in this country, maybe for the summer. Now we are hearing from people: Let's extend it not for 3 months over the summer but for 3 months beyond that--which, ironically, would take us through the election, just past the election.

Let's think about that. In a day and age when we know our roads, highways, bridges, and our transit systems are falling further and further out of a state of good repair, making our transportation system and our economy even less efficient, we know we are not raising enough money to begin to catch up with the backlog, much less to address the new needs. The notion of diminishing the revenues that are available to try to improve our transportation system suggests to me that we are focused more maybe on the election than we are on the needs of our country.

A friend of mine used to say: Leadership is staying out of step when everybody else is marching to the wrong tune. Leadership is staying out of step when everyone else is marching to the wrong tune.

I used to say, when I was Governor of Delaware: Things worth having, whether it is health care, whether it is education, whether it is transportation--roads, highways, bridges--if they are worth having, we ought to pay for them. If we are not willing to pay for them, we should not have as many of them.

I mentioned a few minutes ago how we are providing tax credits to encourage consumers in this country to buy more energy-efficient vehicles. Wonder of wonders, the big three are beginning to produce them. After years of building these behemoths and the gas guzzlers, Ford and Chrysler are actually displaying and engineering and selling vehicles that Americans ought to be buying. The quality is vastly improved over what it was 10 or 20 years ago. I will mention a couple of them.

GM sells hybrid vehicles, not just the big SUVs like the Tahoe and the Yukon but also midsized sedans like the Saturn Aura and the Chevrolet Malibu, both of which were actually ``Cars of the Year'' this year and last year. Ford has a number of hybrid products on the road as well, not just the Escape but another as well. Chrysler joins the parade this summer by launching the hybrid Dodge Durango and the hybrid Chrysler Aspen. I understand from a friend of mine who is driving the Chrysler Aspen that in the city it is getting about 22 miles a gallon and on the highway it is expected to get close to 30 miles a gallon. Is that where we want to be and need to be? No, but that is a huge difference over the vehicles it replaces. Chrysler is launching, this fall, in the 2009 model year, very low emission, highly energy efficient diesel-powered vehicles.

We are, through our Tax Code, encouraging Americans not just to buy Toyota Priuses and Hondas but to buy hybrids, low-emission diesels that are manufactured by Ford, Chrysler, and GM. They are making them and we ought to buy them, and in doing that we begin to reduce the demand for oil that threatens to engulf us.

I ride the train back and forth most days. I live in Delaware, and I go back and forth. As my colleague, the Presiding Officer, knows, I go back and forth almost every night to Delaware. A strange thing is going on with respect to passenger rail ridership in this country.

I used to serve on the Amtrak board when I was Governor of Delaware, and every year we would see ridership go up by a couple of percentage points. We would struggle, try to raise money out of the fare box to pay for the system and the expansion of the system. Well, the first quarter of this fiscal year, ridership at Amtrak is up 15 percent. Revenues are up by 15 percent. People are starting to realize that maybe it makes sense to get out of our cars, trucks, and vans and take the train or take transit. Transit ridership is up again this fiscal year more dramatically than it has been in some time.

Americans are beginning to literally buy homes in places that are closer to opportunities for transit--for rail, for bus, for subways, for the metro systems. As we have seen the drop in home prices across the country--in some cases, very dramatic--among the surprises, at least for me, is to see housing prices stable and in some cases actually going up in places where people can buy a home and live and get to work or wherever they need to go to shop without driving to get there.

I don't know how gullible we think the American voters are to suggest to them that we are going to have this holiday on gas taxes, Federal gas taxes, for 3 months or for 6 months, maybe to get us through the next election, and then when the elections are over we will go ahead and reinstate the gasoline tax to what it has been even though in doing that we might be depleting further the money available for transportation improvements. I don't know how foolish we think the American voters are. They are a lot smarter than that. They are a lot smarter, maybe, than we give them credit for being.

I think in this country people are crying out for leadership. They are calling out for Presidential leadership, whether it is from our side of the aisle or the Republican side. People want leaders who are willing to stay out of step when everybody else is marching to the wrong tune, and I would suggest that the wrong tune is to suspend the Federal gasoline tax and at the same time not replace the dollars that would otherwise go into the transportation trust fund to fix our dilapidated, our decaying transportation system. Voters in this country deserve better leadership from us. I am determined, I am committed to making sure we provide and pay for that.

Before I close, there are a lot of good ideas for things we ought to do. I mentioned, tongue in cheek, that we ought to provide more R&D investment for a new generation of lithium batteries for plug-in hybrid vehicles. I say, tongue in cheek, we ought to use the Government purchasing power to commercialize advanced technology vehicles. We are doing that. I said with tongue in cheek we ought to provide tax credits to encourage people to buy highly efficient hybrid vehicles and very low diesel-powered vehicles that are efficient. We are doing that.

There other things we need to do too. We need to invest in rail service. We can send from Washington, DC, to Boston, MA, a ton of freight by rail on 1

gallon of diesel fuel. I will say that again. We could send from Washington, DC, to Boston, MA, a ton of freight by rail on 1 gallon of diesel fuel. But we as a government choose not to invest in freight rail and, frankly, to invest very modestly in passenger rail. It is a highly energy-efficient way to move people and goods.

One of my colleagues spoke a little bit ago and talked about why, as has Senator Dorgan, at a time when gasoline prices and fuel prices are so high, when the cost of a barrel of oil is 120 bucks a barrel, we are buying oil and putting it in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when we are almost up to 100 percent capacity. That is a good question. It is foolish for us to continue to buy as much oil as we are right now to further drive up prices. We should stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as long as prices are at this level. One of my colleagues raised the question of speculators. If you go back a year ago, almost a year ago from today, the cost of a barrel of oil was something akin to $60, $63 a barrel. The price today is about $53 more than that. We have seen an increase of probably 75 percent in the price of a barrel of oil from last year to this. As somebody who studied some economics when I was in school, I believe in the law of supply and demand. But the law of supply and demand is not driving up the price of a barrel of oil from roughly $65 a barrel a year ago to almost twice that today. Speculation is going on that I don't fully understand. Maybe others do, but I don't. But I know something beyond the law of supply and demand is driving these prices of oil through the roof.

The investigative committees in this Congress, along with the Government Accountability Office and the administration, need to be all over that. Find out what is causing it and how we can stop it. It is difficult for the Congress. We write a lot of laws. I don't know how we can repeal the law of supply and demand, but more than the law of supply and demand is in effect in driving up oil prices.

Some have said: Why don't we have a holiday for the gas tax for this summer or for 3 months or 6 months and replace that with some kind of windfall profit tax on the oil and gas industry. I would suggest, if we are going to take away some tax advantages enjoyed by the oil and gas industry, the smarter thing is for us to use the revenues that would be generated in that way to extend the soon-to-be-expiring tax credits for the production of electricity from wind, solar, geothermal. Those tax credits expire at the end of the year. Businesses, individuals who are thinking of putting in place systems, small and large, to provide for alternative energy need some certainty. They need to know what the Tax Code is going to be. The sooner the better. To be fiscally responsible, we can't extend the tax credits without paying for them. The extension of the tax credits reduces revenue to the Treasury and makes the deficit bigger. We need to pay for it. I would suggest, if we look carefully at some of the tax credits enjoyed by the oil and gas industry, we could probably find something there that is not fair or reasonable or productive. I suggest we use those revenues, not to offset the revenues that would be lost from suspending the Federal gasoline tax until after the election but to use those revenues to make sure we extend tax credits for renewable energy, wind, solar, geothermal, and so forth.

I will have a chance to come back later in the week and talk about this some more. Sometimes we underestimate the wisdom of the voters. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said: If you tell the American people the truth, they won't make a mistake. I will do my dead level best to make sure, during the course of the debate on this notion of waiving the gasoline tax or having a holiday on the gasoline tax until after the election, I am going to make sure, I hope with a number of my colleagues, the American people understand the truth and the full picture and that they will make the right decision. Hopefully, we will too.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish today to honor this year's Delaware winners of the Prudential Spirit of Community Award in recognition of their exemplary volunteer service. Congratulations to Anna Schuck of Wilmington, Matthew Waldman of Delmar, Alexandra Browne of Wilmington, and Taylor Folt, also of Wilmington.

I strongly believe that volunteerism is one of the cornerstones of American society. As shown on numerous occasions, volunteering is not only good for the community; it is an enriching and rewarding experience for the volunteer, as well. Anna, Matthew, Alexandra and Taylor all exemplify this spirit of involvement and giving back to their communities. They serve as models of selflessness and examples of how rewarding volunteering can be both personally and to the community they serve.

The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards was created by Prudential Financial and the National Association of Secondary School Principals to inspire and encourage youth volunteerism. Since being founded in 1995, these awards have honored more than 80,000 young volunteers at the local, State and, national levels.

Delaware winner Anna Schuck founded the H.U.G. Club, for ``Helping the Underprivileged Globally,'' at her school, coordinating fundraising events including ``Rock Uganda,'' a series of seven concerts. Her efforts helped to raise $14,500 to provide necessities for a school in Uganda.

Middle school winner Matthew Waldman has participated in a variety of volunteer activities, including a charity antique show, bell ringing for the Salvation Army, and a Humane Society walk. Matthew has also organized dances instead of birthday parties, asking attendees to donate food and other items instead of bringing gifts.

High school Distinguished Finalist Alexandra Browne spent 2 years coordinating events and fundraisers, recruiting volunteers and overseeing other logistics as chair of her school's Relay for Life fundraising event. The event, which raised more than $60,000, donates to cancer research, education, and patient support.

Middle school Distinguished Finalist Taylor Folt spent a month of her summer vacation teaching English and American History to students in India, as well as helping them with maintenance tasks around their campus.

Congratulations to this year's honorees, Anna, Matthew, Alexandra, and Taylor, who personify the spirit of giving back. These outstanding young volunteers are an inspiration to me and, I hope, to many others throughout Delaware.

Will the Senator yield for a moment?

The Senator is leaving herself out and Senator Inhofe. On behalf of all of us who have been anxious for this day--to see this technical corrections bill put together and have the result we have had, I thank the Senator for dealing with the competing forces and getting the job done. Someone said it was ugly, but it is beautiful in the end. It is going to be good for the folks in all of our States. We worked together in a bipartisan way, and I am grateful for that.

While we are talking as in morning business, I wish to continue the detour, although I may take a little different direction.

As the Chair and my colleague from Montana probably know, each year our military bases in this country go through a competition in which Air Force bases are evaluated against other Air Force bases, and naval installations against other naval installations, Marine Corps against others, Army installations against other Army installations.

For 23 years or so the Air Force has been comparing their bases in a friendly competition called the Commander in Chief's Installation Excellence Award. During that period of time, it is my understanding that no mobility command, no airlift base, if you will, such as Dover, has ever been honored as the best of the best.

Yesterday I was visited here on Capitol Hill by COL Steve Harrison, who is the active-duty wing commander for the Dover Air Force Base, and he gave me this letter announcing the good news, that Dover Air Force Base has been selected for this high honor.

As an old naval flight officer, I remember often my squadrons on the naval bases where I was located participating in ORI exercises, operational readiness exercises. This is not an ORI. This is a competition which digs in deep and looks at things other than how well you fly your airplanes and meet your readiness requirements and meet your mission, although that is part of it.

This is a competition that also involves how you care for your people; what kind of workspaces do you provide for the folks who are on your bases, the uniformed, nonuniformed personnel? How do you look out for the families of those military personnel? How well do you think outside the box in trying to address the problems and challenges you face? What kind of commitment do you have to innovation in the delivery of the service you provide to support our military forces?

There are over 100 Air Force installations throughout this country. To have been chosen as the one that is believed to be most worthy of receiving this award this year is a matter of great pride, not only for the men and women who wear the uniform at the base, not only for the civilians who work there, and for the families, not only for the Air Force retirees in our State--and there are a lot of them who served at Dover Air Force Base--not only for the folks who live in Dover, the civilian population in central Delaware, this is a matter of pride for all of Delaware.

We have one active-duty installation, actually active duty and a reserve wing at Dover Air Force Base. We have an Air Guard installation up north in our State that we are very proud of. They fly C-130s. But this one, Dover Air Force Base, is very special to the people in our State. They fly C-5 aircraft, which are among the largest aircraft in the world. To be from a little State, and to be the home of one of the biggest aircraft in the world, gives us bragging rights that little States do not often get.

We have C-5B aircraft, about 18 of those at our base. We are getting a new squadron, a squadron of brand new C-17 aircraft that will complement our C-5s. The C-5s will be modernized in the years to come.

Dover Air Force Base has not only wonderful people, a terrific tradition and reputation, but will also have the new C-17s and maybe the first modernized C-5s. We will be ready to go to work and do our job.

Among the things pointed out in the recognition of Dover Air Force Base is

that they have secured, I think in the last year or so, October 1, last fiscal year, October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007, among other things, they have secured some roughly $50 million in milcon projects. I hope our delegation, Senator Biden, Congressman Castle and I, was helpful in that process. We are grateful to our colleagues for the support of that funding.

During that period of time, we opened a brand new air freight terminal that cost, over several years, about $77.5 million. The efficiencies that will flow from that new cargo-handling facility will actually pay for that facility within 2 years. Now, whenever companies are looking for a way of a return on investment, the idea that you can get a return on investment in 5 years or maybe even 10 years is not deemed very bad. We will realize a return on this investment for our new cargo-handling facility, our air freight terminal, within 2 years of bringing it on line.

What we have done at the base in terms of privatizing the housing and providing enlisted and officer personnel with better housing for themselves and their families is something we greatly appreciate. Also, in the Air Force, they conduct roughly every 400 or so days an inspection called an isochronal inspection. The isochronal inspections that are now being provided for C-5 aircraft take place not only for the air mobility command C-5S but for those that are in the Air Reserve components and the C-5s that are part of the Air National Guards are all done at Dover Air Force Base.

The good news is not only are they done at Dover, because they are done at the Air Force base with people who know how to do this work, trained to do it, they are able to greatly reduce the amount of time it takes to produce the isochronal inspection--not to diminish the quality, the thoroughness of that inspection, but to reduce the time. Since time is money, we are saving some money there for the taxpayers.

Dover Air Force Base provides over one-quarter of all the Department of Defense airlift requirements. They have for some time. With the new cargo-handling facility coming on line, we expect to see that number go up. I understand in the last year or so, the last fiscal year, they completed more than 20 antiterrorism and force protection initiatives.

So to the team at Dover Air Force base that very much is a team, the active-duty wing, the Reserve wing, which works seamlessly together in providing airlift capabilities for our country and around the world, this old naval flight officer salutes you on a job well done. On behalf of every single Delawarean, congratulations and God bless. Keep up the great work.

Madam President, I wish to bring to the attention of my colleagues a speech that my good friend and fellow Delawarean Joe Biden delivered yesterday at Georgetown University. In his remarks, Senator Biden eloquently laid out a foreign policy vision for Democrats and outlined what is at stake for our country in the years ahead. I urge my colleagues to read Senator Biden's speech, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to encourage our colleagues to support the passage, hopefully later today, of the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008, the legislation that has been on the Senate floor for the better part of a week now.

I like to think of this legislation not in isolation but as the third piece, if you will, of a series of steps that have been taken to try to stabilize our economy, to restore confidence in our economy, and to infuse liquidity into our financial system.

The first was really a series of steps taken by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve has acted in an extraordinary way, not just in monetary policy and trying to lower the Fed funds rate but also in encouraging Federal banks to act and now investment banks to take advantage of the discount money, to borrow money when they need it, for the Federal Reserve to be willing to take and swap, if you will, highly liquid Treasury securities for very illiquid mortgage-backed securities that a lot of our banks are holding in their portfolios, allowing those swaps to take place to infuse liquidity into the banking system to encourage banks to begin lending money again.

The Federal Reserve is involved, as we all know, with JPMorgan Chase to engineer their takeover of Bear Stearns to prevent it from going into bankruptcy and probably creating a domino effect that would have brought down other financial entities and maybe made a bad situation even worse.

Those are some of the things the Federal Reserve has done. The Presiding Officer is different, he is not as old as me, but I have never seen the Federal Reserve take these kinds of steps as we enter into a period with this kind of uncertainty. But that is the first series of things that has been done, needed to be done, and is being done by the Federal Reserve. I applaud their action.

The second piece is the stimulus package we voted on and debated here a month or two ago and passed. Sometimes when stimulus packages are agreed to by Congress and the President, it takes so long to debate the package that by the time the effect actually takes place, we are coming out of the recession and it can have the overstimulative effect providing inflationary pressures. In this case, I think what has happened is the Congress and the President agreed in a timely way on our stimulus package, and it will have a modest effect on our economy, probably in the second half of this year. Some have said it will raise gross domestic product by as much as 1.5 percent by the second half of the year. I think the most important thing that came out of the adoption of the stimulus package was to send a clear signal to people, taxpayers and others, businesses, that around here, when the chips are down, Democrats and Republicans, Congress and the President can still agree on a series of actions to help boost the economy, to give the economy a little bit of a jump start.

The third piece in this process is the legislation before us this week and last. I call it a housing recovery package. There are a number of elements to it that are meritorious. I wouldn't oversell this package. This by itself is not going to save the day and prevent all foreclosures and bring the housing market back overnight or within a couple of weeks or months. But it is a third of a series of steps that will be helpful. It is going to be followed within the next maybe 2 months with a handful of other steps that I will talk about in a few minutes. Let me talk about some of the elements I think are most beneficial in this housing recovery package that is before us today. The centerpiece is FHA modernization.

The Federal Housing Administration was created about 75 years ago. It was born during the Great Depression. Out of the FHA came the possibility for home ownership for a lot of people who otherwise would never have become home buyers. People wonder, where did we get the 30- year fixed rate mortgages. They were a creation of FHA, a legacy of FHA. As recently as 6, 7, 8 years ago, probably 15 to 20 percent of mortgages were guaranteed or insured by the FHA, 15 to 20 percent. Last year the number was about 5 percent. We dropped, in roughly half a dozen years, from 15 to 20 percent of home mortgages insured by FHA to last year about 5 percent.

Where did those mortgages go? Where did people go for financial help to buy a home? A lot of them went to places they should not have gone. A lot of them ended up being induced or seduced and convinced to use a different kind of a financing. They used exotic adjustable rate mortgages, some of them with no money down, no principal payments for an extended period of time. Some of these exotic adjustable rate mortgages called for very low interest, seductive teaser rates which may have been 2, 3, 4 percent at the beginning and would later go up by reset within a couple of years to be 7, 8, or 9 percent. A lot of folks ended up signing on to this deal and didn't realize there is a penalty for trying to refinance out of an adjustable rate mortgage, making it very difficult. I suppose the borrower and maybe the mortgage broker or the lending institution that was involved, everybody expected housing prices to continue to go up; they had for years. As long as housing prices continue to rise, everybody comes out of the hole. If somebody is unable to make payments, they sell the house, do it for profit and pay off their mortgage. Not many people thought about what happens if prices, instead of going up, all of a sudden come down. They have come down, and in some places they have come down a lot.

Part of our legislation is designed to encourage people to take a second look at FHA. For folks, especially first-time home buyers or people who have less than perfect credit, the FHA in the past has been their avenue to become homeowners. We wanted to make sure it is an option that is there for the 21st century.

Without getting into a whole lot of detail, let me say, of all the pieces that are part of this bill, the most important one is FHA modernization. I will mention a couple of those elements that I think are helpful. One of those takes the FHA loan limit starting at

the end of this year to $550,000. Instead of being $420,000, it takes it up to $550,000. In Delaware, you can get a perfectly good house for $420,000. In some places in New Jersey one can get a perfectly good house for $420,000. In some places in New Jersey you probably can't. A lot of places in California, Florida, Connecticut, home values are such that for $420,000, which is the FHA loan limit that will be in effect next January 1, you can buy a cottage, but if you want to think about buying a three-bedroom house with a garage and a bathroom, you can forget about buying anything close to that for $420,000. What we want to do is address the needs in high-cost housing areas so that FHA will still be relevant in those States, as well as in States that have more modest housing costs.

The second element of this bill that is good is that the bill seeks to streamline the bureaucracy of FHA. We hear a good deal about that from banks and from realtors, that the bureaucracy is inappropriate for the 21st century. We have streamlined it. We do that in the context of this legislation.

Another element that I believe is helpful is, we are going to make more available counseling assistance to people who need it as they are looking for a place to buy and to consider their options. There is a new pilot credit scoring program that will be created. It is designed to increase access to credit for borrowers who may have a history of making required payments on time but haven't established a sufficient credit rating to enable them to be considered as serious home buyers.

Those are some of the pieces of the FHA modernization portion of this bill. It is maybe the most important thing we are going to do.

A second important element of this bill deals with community development block grants. We appropriated this year around the country, I want to say, roughly $4 billion to communities, State and local governments, moneys they can use to help develop their communities. We want to make sure that some additional moneys--in this case, another roughly $4 billion--might be made available to State and local governments to help communities that have been hit hard by foreclosures and delinquencies. The money could be put to use in many communities around the country.

A third element of this bill that I believe has merit deals with housing authorities. Housing authorities currently are able to issue tax-exempt revenue bonds. The proceeds of those tax-exempt revenue bonds are used in probably every State in the country to allow people to become first-time home buyers and to realize a low interest rate. They do this with moneys raised by tax-exempt revenue bonds. The proceeds of these same bonds can be used by housing authorities to build multifamily, affordable housing as well. The proceeds of these bonds cannot be used, though, to assist in refinancing of subprime loans. With this legislation, we say you can do that, too. State and local housing authorities can use the proceeds of these tax-exempt revenue bonds. In fact, we allow them to issue another $10 billion worth and a permissible use is to help folks to refinance out of these subprime loans that they have gotten themselves into.

Another element of this bill is actually one offered by our colleague Senator Isakson from Georgia. He has been good enough to let me advise some changes in his earlier proposal. Let's use the situation here. We have 100 desks here, and we will assume for this example that these are not desks but homes in a community. Maybe there are two or three of these homes where the families have run into trouble and cannot keep up with the mortgage payments. The homes have gone into foreclosure and they are decaying, the grass is growing, the shrubbery is not cut, trash not removed. Those homes are destroyed and beginning to decay, and they bring down the value of the other homes in the community. Senator Isakson suggested that we allow a tax credit to be used for someone who will come in and buy a home in foreclosure and live there. He proposed that that person be provided by the U.S. Treasury a $5,000 tax credit. To buy a foreclosed home and to agree to live there, $5,000 for year 1, $5,000 for year 2, $5,000 for year 3, is a pretty expensive proposition. That would certainly get people's attention and encourage them to buy homes in foreclosure, but it is a serious hit on the Treasury.

I urged him--I am sure others did as well--to make the proposal a little more modest. What he has done, I think prudently, is to say, in the same situation, a home in foreclosure, to encourage people to come in and buy homes in foreclosure so they don't bring down the values of other properties, that they will get a tax credit but year 1 is $3,500 and year 2 is another $3,500; $7,000 in all as a tax credit from the Treasury to the person making that purchase. It is more modest. There is an impact on the Treasury, but it is not nearly as great as would otherwise have been the case. It is a good proposal.

Another idea in this legislation that makes a lot of sense deals with people who are in some distress--maybe they have lost their job, they have sickness in the family, they are finding it difficult to pay their bills, they are getting behind on their mortgage payments. They are not sure what to do, and sometimes they end up turning to people who take advantage of them, shysters who take advantage of them. And rather than helping them with their problems, to work their way through it, they take advantage of the distressed homeowner.

There are nonprofit entities. They work under a broad umbrella of something called the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation. The shorthand title is NeighborWorks. And the idea there is to have these nonprofits provide counseling assistance. They are not trying to take advantage of home homeowners in distress. They want to help them find the best option for themselves and their family. We provided, I think through HUD's budget, about $200 million initially. That money has been used. Under this legislation we provide about another $100 million, maybe more. I think an amendment by Senator Murray would take that up a bit higher. The idea is to make sure that when people are in trouble and they turn to someone for help, they will turn to someone who is really going to help them. This is a good proposal as well.

Senator Reed of Rhode Island has offered an amendment that has been made part of the package that seeks to address complex paper disclosure. When you buy a house, you have all these papers. You sit down with a realtor. It is pretty confusing stuff, even for people who are pretty smart. Senator Reed has come up with some suggestions that would protect a person who is going through the forms, trying to understand what they are signing on to. Without going into a lot of detail, his ideas have a great deal of merit and are part of the package and ought to be.

As to another element of the package--I say this as a veteran who served in the Navy during the Vietnam war and came back; they had to protect us--to protect others who have served in our Armed Forces since, we have something called the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act.

The idea is to try to make sure our soldiers and sailors-- particularly when they are deployed overseas--and their families are not taken advantage of. We have given them, if you will, a break in making sure they are not taken advantage of by those who are, for example, lenders who loaned money to them.

Right now, the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act--say I am deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. I come back from my year or 15-month deployment. My home cannot have been foreclosed on. My family and I live in the home, and we had a hard time making our mortgage payment. Maybe I gave up my regular civilian job and took a much lower paying job, was called up for Active Duty in the military, and I have been unable to keep up with my mortgage payments.

Under the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act, my home could not be foreclosed on for at least 3 months while I am away and for 3 months from when I come back from that deployment. This legislation would extend that by an additional 6 months. I would be protected for 9 months, my family would be protected for 9 months, after my return to, hopefully, get back on our feet to be able to meet our financial obligations.

Also, this provision provides returning soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines with 1 year of relief from increases in mortgage interest rates. Where these adjustable rate mortgages are resetting, the military personnel get an extra year.

The final part of this provision is that the Department of Defense is required to establish a counseling program to ensure veterans and active servicemembers can access assistance if they have seen financial difficulties. Again, the idea is for folks who are in distress--in this case, military personnel--who are homeowners, that they could actually get access to advice from people who have the best interests of the veterans at heart.

Those are some of the provisions, not all of the provisions. There are other provisions dealing with standard property deductions and to allow folks who do not itemize to take a standard deduction--$500 for single filers, $1,000 for joint filers. It is in this legislation.

There is an extension of net operating loss carry-back that will help some of the homebuilders who are in trouble. There were concerns raised. I think Senator Gregg raised the concern yesterday--and there are other concerns about it as well--that the cost to the Treasury is considerable. The cost over 10 years, I am told, is about $6 billion, so it is not inconsequential. But we also know among the companies that are undergoing real distress right now are those that build homes. This is designed to try to extend some relief to them.

Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho and I have offered an amendment which has been accepted by both Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby on behalf of the majority and minority sides that tries to help homeowners who are in distress in another way. A lot of people do not know in this country we have something called the Federal Home Loan Banks. There are 12 of them across the country. Together they make up the Federal Home Loan Bank system. A primary job they have is to raise money they then turn around and lend to smaller financial institutions, principally for home ownership, to make home ownership more affordable.

Delaware is in the Pittsburgh Federal Home Loan Bank region. A lot of financial institutions--banks, savings and loans--work with the Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh. They get loans, if you will, below market-rate loans, from the Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh.

But one of the requirements under Federal law is these Federal Home Loan Banks have to contribute 10 percent of their net income into an affordable housing fund. The affordable housing fund is used by local entities, local financial banks, local financial entities, banks, thrifts, in order to provide home ownership opportunities for, in a lot of cases, first-time home buyers or low-income home buyers. It is a good program. We use it a lot in my State. It is used to leverage money from State and local governments. It is used to leverage money from nonprofits, from for-profits, from banks. It is a real good thing.

The problem with this affordable housing program fund is none of the moneys in this program can be used to help subsidize or refinance-- somebody who is in one of these adjustable rate mortgages that is resetting. They need to refinance and get out of it and maybe get into a 30-year fixed rate mortgage. This is affordable housing money. It is compiled. It is built up. It is about a third of a billion dollars this year. It cannot be used to help folks refinance out of a mortgage they have no business being in. This amendment that has been accepted will allow that to take place.

My friend, Senator McCaskill of Missouri, along with Senator Kohl and myself, has offered an amendment. I understand it has been accepted, and we are grateful for that. That amendment seeks to protect folks who have taken advantage of reverse mortgages.

One of the nice things about being a homeowner with equity in your home, in a lot of cases when you reach an older age and maybe your home is paid off, you ought to be able to live off the equity of your home for the rest of your life. In some cases, people who are in that situation do not get very good advice, and they are duped into making investments with the equity of their home in ways that really do not help the homeowner trying to live off the equity of their home for the rest of their life. It helps them less than maybe someone who is a scoundrel trying to take advantage of them.

So Senator McCaskill's amendment, that Senator Kohl and I have joined in sponsoring, allows HUD to use a portion of the mortgage insurance premiums collected under this program to adequately fund counseling and disclosure activities. So the idea there is to make sure people have good advice. If you think about it, that is a theme of almost every element I have talked about in this bill. Many of the elements of this bill are designed to make sure that consumers, homeowners, purchasers have access to good advice, someone who is going to be there for them and not take advantage of them.

I said this housing recovery package is the third step so far of three steps we need to take. The first step is action by the Federal Reserve; the second step, our stimulus package; the third step is our housing recovery package; a fourth step, that I hope will follow in the next month or two--certainly before we get to the Memorial Day recess-- is when the Senate Banking Committee takes up another measure that will consider a Hope proposal, one that Senator Dodd and Congressman Frank have been working on that has a lot of merit to help people, families whose mortgage is underwater; that is, they owe more than the value of their property, find a way to get out of that situation.

The lenders, the investors, the homeowners themselves will probably take a little bit of a financial haircut, but by doing that they would be able to stay in their homes and maybe end up with a little bit of equity in their homes in the end.

A number of us--Senator Martinez and I and Senator Schumer and Senator Jack Reed--have been very much interested, along with some of our colleagues, in trying to make sure we have a strong independent regulator for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks. That ought to be part of our next package. We need to license mortgage brokers to make sure they have the kind of training and the kind of regulatory structure under which to operate, to make sure the appraisals that are written on a lot of homes are actually worth the paper on which they are written.

So there is a lot that can be done and should be done, and my hope is we will have the opportunity to take those up, have hearings as appropriate in the Banking Committee, and mark them up before the Memorial Day recess and literally have them on the Senate floor to debate by the Fourth of July. That would be good for our country, and that would be the fourth step, if you will, to help stabilize our economy, to begin to restore some confidence in our economy, especially in the housing sector of our economy, and to make sure we put some liquidity back into our financial system and our banking system where it is needed.

But the last thing, and maybe the most helpful, it would do is to clearly demonstrate to folks around this country that this place still works, that Democrats and Republicans can find common ground, work with the administration, and do what is in the best interests of our country, our citizens, and our families.

None of what is done in the legislation that is before us today is designed to reward bad behavior. For people who have been borrowers and bought homes as a speculator, where they were interested in buying it to watch the price go up, to simply flip it, flip the house, and take advantage of these exotic adjustable rate mortgages to do that, to work the system, and to look for some short-term profit, we are not interested in helping.

With all due respect, we are not interested in borrowers who have misbehaved or mortgage brokers or investors who have misbehaved. That is not what this is about. This initiative is to restore confidence in the system, liquidity in the system, and to say to people: The system-- our legislative system, our political system--still works, and it works for the interests of people who need our help.

That said, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the Honorable Thurman G. Adams, Jr., Delaware's longest serving State Senator.

Senator Adams was first elected to Delaware's 19th senatorial district in Sussex County in 1972. He served as senate majority leader from 1999 to 2003, when he was elected President Pro Tempore of the senate by his colleagues.

When I was Governor of Delaware, I worked closely with Thurman on many issues. He serves as chairman of the Senate Executive Committee, which considers gubernatorial and judicial appointments. Thurman has a keen understanding of the important role Delaware plays as a worldwide corporate center and has been a consistent champion of Delaware's judiciary. Thurman has also been a strong advocate of public safety issues, sponsoring legislation to establish Delaware's ``Enhanced 911'' emergency telephone system. As owner and president of his own feed and grain agribusiness, T.G. Adams, and Son, Inc., Thurman has worked for the interests of Delaware's farming and business communities. He is a leader in such issues as highway and local roadway improvements, education accountability, and the growth of Delaware Technical and Community College's Owens Campus in Georgetown.

Thurman has a long history of civic and community service. Prior to being elected to public office, he served as chairman of the Governor's Highway Safety Committee and a member of the Delaware State Highway Commission. Active in his community, he has held such positions as director of Milford Memorial Hospital and the Medical Center of Delaware, director of the Baltimore Trust Company for 27 years, president of Harrington Raceway, chairman of the Union United Methodist Church Administrative Board, and president of the Eastern Shore Grain Dealers Association.

The recipient of awards too numerous to list, Thurman was most recently awarded the Liberty Bell Award, presented by the Delaware State Bar Association in recognition of significant contributions to the community by a nonattorney, and the Silver Good Citizenship Award of the Delaware Chapter of the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution. He also received the University of Delaware's Medal of Fame Distinction and the ``Wall of Fame'' Award.

As his record shows, Senator Adams has a strong commitment to the State of Delaware. Born and raised in Bridgeville, he attended Bridgeville High and later graduated from the University of Delaware. He returned to Bridgeville where he built a successful business and raised his family. Thurman was a devoted husband to his wife Hilda, to whom he was married to for nearly 50 years. Senator and Mrs. Adams raised three wonderful children whom any parent would be proud to call their own. No stranger to tragedy, Thurman lost his beloved wife to cancer in 2002 several years after the death of their son Brent. Despite these heartbreaks, Senator Adams remains devoted to his children, seven grandsons and three great-grandchildren.

I have known Thurman Adams for many years. On a personal note, I remember fondly stopping by their summer home for lunch following the annual Fourth of July parade in Bethany Beach and enjoying immensely food and fellowship with him and his family. I can also attest to his expert egg-tossing skill, having been at the receiving end of his smoothly delivered toss at the Delaware State Fair Governor's Day celebration. We have enjoyed many times together both personally and professionally, and we have shared times of deep sorrow, as well.

I am proud to congratulate my longtime friend and colleague on reaching this impressive milestone. The people of Delaware, and especially residents of the 19th District, are certainly well-served and fortunate to have been represented by such a man as Thurman Adams. Delaware is a far better place in which to live and work because of his stewardship and his leadership.