Jim Bunning

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the bill. We are in an energy crisis. Don't let a 10 percent drop in oil prices fool you. We are in for a long battle with energy costs and America will need to step up if we want to keep driving our cars, flying our jets, and fueling our economy. But this bill before us today isn't about lowering prices. it is about finding someone to blame so Americans don't blame the Democrats for failing to act in Congress. Democrats need a scapegoat because under their watch America has become more addicted to oil than ever and gas prices have more than doubled. They don't want to solve your problems. They don't want to face the environmental lobbyists who don't care how much Americans pay for energy as long as it doesn't come from oil and coal. They want to find someone to blame. They have blamed oil companies, Republicans, the Middle East, and the military. Today it is energy speculators. I say the time for scapegoats and politics is over. Americans don't want excuses or even someone to blame--Americans want solutions. They want to be able to afford to drive their truck to work every day. They don't want to worry about turning on the air conditioner or how much it is going to cost to heat their homes this winter. Back home in my State of Kentucky I have seen how much these prices are hurting families. I know many people who moved farther out into the suburbs to get a bigger yard and more for their real estate investment. Now those same people are stuck using $4.50 gasoline for their workday commute. Another community in eastern Kentucky is fighting to keep local bus service running to their senior center. Many older Americans rely on bus and shuttle services to get out of their homes and are being cut off from their community services because of high prices. There are even places that have gone to a four-day school week to cut back on the cost of busing students. These people want solutions for energy prices, not more politics. The best way to address high prices is to get more fuel on the market. America has domestic energy resources that we only need to open up. I have supported bills and amendments that would expand offshore drilling, start coal-to-liquid fuel production, encourage alternative sources of jet fuel, expand cellulosic biomass fuels, and many other issues. Facing these issues is what Congress should be working on. For example, I think one part of our solution should be more offshore drilling. More domestic oil means less we have to buy from the Middle East, lower transportation costs, a more stable supply, and therefore lower prices. So why have the Democrats in Congress stopped us from acting on this one issue? If it is because of the environment, I say we will make sure any new drilling is the cleanest and safest in the world. If it is because we are not sure what to do with the Federal revenue, I am ready to discuss it and develop a compromise. What is the problem with letting individual States choose whether or not to drill offshore? Even if it takes a decade to get to full production, we have to start somewhere. Congress should at least have the debate and vote on the issue. But every time we try to address even one energy production issue, we are stopped in our tracks and blocked from offering amendments. I am tired of watching this Democrat-led Congress do nothing. The energy crisis has gone on long enough. We can talk all day about who to blame and make up excuses, but that won't bring down energy prices. Instead, we find ourselves discussing another bill that tries to blame someone rather than address the problems of domestic production and supply. The other side is selling you a bill of goods when they say this legislation would impact energy prices. I hear they have a great deal for you on a bridge in Brooklyn too. This bill will undermine legitimate hedging activities and threatens the liquidity of the commodities marketplace. Futures markets make it possible to buy and sell things at a specific price and date in the future. These markets allow participants to offset risk of price changes to those willing to take risks. This legislation would also make us citizens subject to foreign rules and regulations related to energy trading. Understanding U.S. laws will not be enough, as energy traders will be required to consult with foreign boards of trade and will be subject to the regulations made by foreign governments. This bill would also encourage traders to use foreign markets that do not have as many regulations and take American jobs and business activity with them. But my principal concern with this bill is that it asks a Federal regulator, the CFTC, to wade into the marketplace and make a determination of what is and what is not legitimate trading activity. Let me explain how this works. How many Americans stock up on an item when they see a good sale at the grocery store? I know I do. Or maybe some people wait to buy in bulk with buy one get one free coupons. While we don't resell our groceries to someone else, this simple act of timing our purchases or varying how much and when we buy is similar to what traders do in the commodities markets. Now imagine the Government used this same legislation to regulate grocery shopping that has been proposed for the energy markets. It would mean the Government would keep track of all your purchases and determine whether you were a legitimate or non legitimate grocery shopper. Do you want the government penalizing you if they feel you are overbuying a certain product? Buy too many hot dogs in 1 month and the Government could impose limits on your purchases or keep you out of grocery stores altogether. While this legislation isn't going to regulate grocery stores, this bill is the beginning of more government regulations that will limit your options. Maybe next Congress will regulate the precious metals market and determine that buying gold jewelry is a non legitimate purchase, penalizing Americans who want to buy jewelry. Or will the government say that collecting shotguns is a non legitimate purchase that increases the cost of shotguns, allowing it to limit sales to gun collectors? Allowing the Government to over regulate any market is a recipe for disaster that puts Americans' freedom at risk. In America, we are proud of our open markets and lack of government interference. We need the already established rules to stop illegal activities such as price manipulation and cornering markets, but we do not need new regulations that prohibit normal market activities, such as buying and selling commodities as an investment or as a price hedge. I will support efforts to make the markets as transparent as possible. Information allows traders to most efficiently allocate resources and make sure prices actually reflect supply and demand. But I find it unreasonable to on the one hand say the market needs to be more transparent so it can work efficiently, and then on the other mandate new requirements and regulations that will clog the market and prevent it from working normally. The bottom line is that this legislation will not bring down energy prices. However, there is something Congress and America can do about prices--we can produce more of own energy. I strongly believe that America should use every resource it has to produce energy. Our dependence on Middle Eastern oil is worse than simply paying too much at the pump; it is a threat to national security. Every gallon of fuel we make from biomass, domestic oil and gas, and coal is a gallon of fuel we don't have to buy from the Middle East. It is just that simple. We need a Manhattan Project for energy in America. The greatest minds we have should be working on ways to produce alternative fuel, capture and use carbon emissions, produce clean electricity, and improve oil and gas production. We should agree to take politics out of clean energy and ensure that government programs are technology and feedstock neutral. Too often I see tax incentives and programs that pick and choose what technology or process America should use. To support all these alternative technologies, we need to change the way government spends money. I think we should pick performance-based goals--like zero emission alternatives to oil--and let the marketplace decide the most efficient way to achieve it. If you can produce an environmentally sound transportation fuel, we should not care whether it comes from coal or switch grass. If you can produce a megawatt of clean energy, we should not care if it comes from waste heat on a paper mill or from underground geothermal. By opening up our options, we will get more for the Government dollar and America will see results faster. I believe the most important alternative fuel technology is coal-to- liquids. We are sitting on a huge coal reserve that we can turn into diesel for our trucks and aviation fuel for our planes. And our military can no longer rely on imported oil from the Middle East. The Air Force has tested this fuel, and it burns cooler and cleaner than conventional fuel. It has less pollution as well. And I know that with the right government incentives and carbon capture technology, we can make coal-to-liquid fuel with less greenhouse gases than oil-based fuels. Kentucky coal can help bring down the price of oil, provide a secure fuel for our military, reduce pollution, and create jobs. While new domestic production will go a long way to bring down prices, we should also think about conservation efforts. There are the simple things like turning off lights we don't use and more important measures like the increased fuel economy standards Congress passed. But there are other ways to reduce fuel use using technology. For example, we have a company in Kentucky that produces retrofit kits to reduce diesel fuel use while trucks are idling. The answer to America's energy problems is more domestic production, clean technologies, and conservation. We have the resources and know- how to make clean energy, but for the last few decades our government regulations have held us back. We should not find more ways to over regulate our markets--we should vote now to open up domestic production and pursue promising alternative fuel technologies that will actually bring down the prices of oil and gas at the pump for the American people.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I have an amendment I wish to talk about, and I will be glad to offer it now. I see the chairman on the floor. If he wishes to make a statement, that is fine.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 5073, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the President's emergency plan for AIDS relief. However, the bill that is before us today--the so-called PEPFAR reauthorization bill--is a far cry from our original proposal to combat AIDS in Africa. PEPFAR is one of our most successful foreign assistance programs. Since enactment in 2003, it has provided lifesaving treatment to 10 million people afflicted by HIV/AIDS, including children orphaned by AIDS. It has prevented 7 million new HIV infections and is on track to support treatment for an additional 2 million people. This is a successful program, and I am proud to have supported it. Through PEPFAR, the United States continues to be a leader in international assistance. With our generosity, we have created strong partnerships in countries where 5 years ago AIDS threatened to destroy entire generations. I wish to see us remain a leader in this effort, and it is because of this that I am concerned about the substantial changes made in the program in both the House and Senate reauthorization bills. These are not small changes made to a program to increase authorization levels or the number of patients treated in a bill; these are substantial changes that would jeopardize the success of the program as well as compromise the integrity of America's foreign assistance. Aside from tripling the current funding levels, which I will address in a minute, the focus of the bill seems to be less on prevention and treatment of AIDS and more on development assistance. I am not opposed to development assistance, but I do not believe an emergency global AIDS bill is the place to address issues such as water sanitation and/or the inheritance rights of women. It detracts from the focus of the bill and shifts away funding from the core components of the program: treatment and prevention. They are what have made PEPFAR successful. I oppose any efforts to weaken them or to needlessly shift money away from them to other lower priority programs. This is why I was shocked and disappointed that both the House and the Senate committee-passed bills removed the AIDS treatment and prevention mandates. Why would you remove language in a Global AIDS bill that would require the money to be spent on the treatment and prevention of AIDS? Is it not the purpose of the bill to prevent and treat AIDS? Two months ago, I had the opportunity to meet with several doctors and patients from Uganda. Through their firsthand account, I could see how PEPFAR dollars, when used wisely, can combat the spread of AIDS and be used to provide lifesaving treatment. One of the women I met with told me how PEPFAR saved her life. Through the program, she was able to treat this deadly disease in a way that enabled her to live a normal life. She now has a job and provides for her four children. In speaking with her, I was not only struck by her conviction for life but her insistence that I continue to work to strengthen the reauthorization of PEPFAR. Like me, she knew the changes made to the program could severely weaken its effectiveness and jeopardize its future success. This woman is a living example of how PEPFAR can be successful if implemented as the program originally intended. Through her conviction, I, along with several of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, worked to fix this bill. We were able to make some improvements, such as restoring a treatment mandate that is still lower than the current program levels--but many problems still exist. When so many Americans are facing economic problems at home, I have a hard time needlessly tripling the funding for this program. This is not the level requested by the administration. This is not even the level that the Congressional Budget Office says can be spent down by PEPFAR organizations within 5 years. This is $15 billion more than that. To put that in context, this is triple the amount of money needed to fund the reauthorization of our domestic health care program for children, which is called SCHIP. I know many Kentuckians would like to see this program reauthorized. This is reckless spending, plain and simple. We owe it to the American taxpayer to be better stewards of their tax dollars. We should know where our taxpayer dollars are going--or not going--as in the case of Senator DeMint's amendment on abortion. We should also prioritize our funding for global AIDS. We need to ensure that these funds reach the neediest countries and not those that can afford their own space and nuclear programs, such as China and Russia. At a time when China is tripling--I say tripling--their defense budget and manipulating their currency, I have a hard time spending billions of dollars in China to provide funding for treatment that we could use at home for our own AIDS programs. Unfortunately, this is another example of how the so-called PEPFAR reauthorization bills have gone so far outside the original intent of the program. This is why I am offering my amendment. The Bunning amendment simply reauthorizes the current program for another 5 years, while also continuing to fund the development of a malaria vaccine. It maintains our original commitment to support the global fight against HIV/AIDS. I urge my colleagues today to join me in my support for the current PEPFAR Program. I ask them to support my amendment so we can ensure that this program continues to be successful within the original scope of the program as intended by Congress and by the President. Madam President, before I yield the floor, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I would like to try to respond to all these statements made since I offered my amendment. It seems that when we get a good program going in the Congress, one that is funded properly for the first 5 years, we try to expand the program and expand the program, and actually, in this expansion, we have differentiated the mission of the program. The mission of the program originally was to fight infectious AIDS and AIDS-related things in every area of the world we could find them. It was something the United States wanted to do. This bill before us doesn't do that. It takes away a lot of the mandates that we had to fight infectious HIV and AIDS in areas of necessity. Instead, it puts it into the Global AIDS Fund at the United Nations. The Global AIDS Fund at the United Nations, unfortunately, is just in the first year, and then you have unlimited sums in years 2, 3, 4, and 5. There is no transparency at all in that Global AIDS Fund at the United Nations, and we all ought to reexamine and reauthorize this bill as it was originally proposed. Then we could go on and fight AIDS around the world in countries that need our assistance. I beg my colleagues, think it over very seriously and vote for my amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I would like to pay tribute to a friend and great American Senator who, fittingly, left us on the Fourth of July--the same day as two of our Nation's Founders: Thomas Jefferson and John Adams--at the age of 86. In terms of a U.S. Senator, Jesse Helms was a heavyweight. Jesse Helms was relentless in his fight to defend the ideals that embody America. And no matter what policy Jesse Helms was defending during a debate, everyone could agree on one thing: you always knew where he stood and that he was a man of his word. A devoted and outspoken conservative, his principles of small government and individual freedom served as an international microphone for American creed during the Cold War and beyond. While Jesse's political life was open to everyone, I had the distinct honor of knowing him on a personal level. In 1998, after serving in the U.S. House of Representatives for over a decade, I came to the Senate and was quickly greeted by Senator Helms--apparently Senator Helms knew a conservative when he saw one. As someone who shared many of the same philosophical views as Jesse Helms, we would often discuss contentious issues that arose before the Senate. During these moments I realized that, behind his hard public image, Jesse Helms was one of the most compassionate and sincere men I had ever met. This affectionate and friendly attitude brought out the southern gentleman whom we all loved. I will miss Senator Helms's political leadership, but I am happy his impact on our country lives on. Mary and I send our thoughts and prayers to his wife Dot and their family as they mourn for their loss and remember an extraordinary life. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I would like to introduce a bill to rename the ``Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site'' in the State of Kentucky as the ``Abraham Lincoln Birthplace Historical Park.'' In 1809, Abraham Lincoln was born at Sinking Spring Farm, near Hodgenville, Kentucky, making him the first President to be born outside the original Thirteen Colonies. A century later, in 1916, the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site was established to protect over 100 acres of this enshrined area. In 1811, the Lincoln family moved from Sinking Spring Farm to Knob Hill Farm, Kentucky, until Abraham Lincoln was nearly 8 years old. At the age of 51, Abraham Lincoln wrote, ``My earliest recollection is the Knob Creek place.'' While at Knob Hill, Abraham Lincoln learned to talk and assume household duties, helping his family gather wood and water. It was also at Knob Hill, during his boyhood years, where Lincoln first saw African Americans being taken south along the Louisville-Nashville Turnpike, part of the old Cumberland Road, to be sold as slaves. Only 50 years later, Abraham Lincoln would successfully lead his Nation through its worst crisis to abolish slavery. There is an inspiring climb from modest beginnings to the highest office in the land, along with a relentless spirit through the most distressing time in the history of our Nation, which opens us to the life of Abraham Lincoln. As someone who is proud to share the same birth State with Abraham Lincoln, I believe there is a credible desire in Kentucky to continue the education and promotion among our citizens, particularly the young, to understand and appreciate his righteous leadership. It is difficult to name another person who has displayed the qualities and character of the U.S. as much as Abraham Lincoln.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I would like to introduce a bill to rename the ``Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site'' in the State of Kentucky as the ``Abraham Lincoln Birthplace Historical Park.'' In 1809, Abraham Lincoln was born at Sinking Spring Farm, near Hodgenville, Kentucky, making him the first President to be born outside the original Thirteen Colonies. A century later, in 1916, the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site was established to protect over 100 acres of this enshrined area. In 1811, the Lincoln family moved from Sinking Spring Farm to Knob Hill Farm, Kentucky, until Abraham Lincoln was nearly 8 years old. At the age of 51, Abraham Lincoln wrote, ``My earliest recollection is the Knob Creek place.'' While at Knob Hill, Abraham Lincoln learned to talk and assume household duties, helping his family gather wood and water. It was also at Knob Hill, during his boyhood years, where Lincoln first saw African Americans being taken south along the Louisville-Nashville Turnpike, part of the old Cumberland Road, to be sold as slaves. Only 50 years later, Abraham Lincoln would successfully lead his Nation through its worst crisis to abolish slavery. There is an inspiring climb from modest beginnings to the highest office in the land, along with a relentless spirit through the most distressing time in the history of our Nation, which opens us to the life of Abraham Lincoln. As someone who is proud to share the same birth State with Abraham Lincoln, I believe there is a credible desire in Kentucky to continue the education and promotion among our citizens, particularly the young, to understand and appreciate his righteous leadership. It is difficult to name another person who has displayed the qualities and character of the U.S. as much as Abraham Lincoln.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I congratulate Ms. Bailee Carroll Mayfield on receiving the American Veterans, AMVETS, scholarship award. The AMVETS National Scholarship Committee has awarded Ms. Mayfield a $4,000 scholarship after competing successfully against nearly 200 applicants. AMVETS has recognized Ms. Mayfield as an outstanding high school senior exhibiting academic excellence, promise and merit. The AMVETS organization awards only six scholarships per year. Each scholarship is awarded to a high school senior who is the child or grandchild of a United States veteran, and is seeking a postsecondary education. Ms. Mayfield plans to utilize her scholarship at Eastern Kentucky University to pursue a career in psychology. Ms. Mayfield has proven herself to be an exemplary student, rightfully receiving the AMVETS Scholarship Award. She is an inspiration to the citizens of Kentucky and to students everywhere. I look forward to seeing all that she will accomplish in the future.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I want to speak directly to the folks at home right now. In the last few days, we have heard Senators say that we are in a historical crisis that requires action by the Federal Government. Supporters of this bill say it directs relief to homeowners who desperately need it, and deserve it. But they are trying to sell you on the cover of a book without letting you see what is inside. I like to know what kind of product I am buying before I open my wallet. As U.S. Senators, we have a responsibility to dig through any piece of legislation before we open up your pocketbook. This bill is over 600 pages long. I have seen portions of it in the Banking Committee and the Finance Committee, but for the first time we are seeing the whole package here on the Senate floor. I am not buying it, and I do not think you, your children, and your grandchildren should have to either. Let me tell you why. This bill puts you, the taxpayer, at risk. It creates a new, permanent tax on mortgage business done by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That tax threatens the solvency of those institutions and permanently punishes the shareholders, many of which are institutional investors such as pension funds. The tax also reduces the amount of capital these GSEs can provide to the mortgage lending system in a moment of serious liquidity issues in the market. Furthermore, the FHA is already projecting losses of over $4.6 billion from existing loans, which will wipe out 22 percent of its capital reserves. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that participants in the FHA refinancing program will re-default at a rate of 35 percent. That is more than one out of every three loans refinanced through the program. We are putting more bad loans on an already broken program that can't handle the risks it currently has. Is that a good idea? Of course not. The author of this bill says it does not put the taxpayer on the hook. That is just not true. First, the tax on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be paid by ordinary Americans, either through higher costs for future mortgages or through lower share prices in their retirement accounts. Is that fair? No. Second, taxpayers are on the hook for any losses beyond what is being taken from the GSEs. Supporters of this legislation say that will not happen, but even their own numbers show just how likely it is for this program to be bankrupt in a few years. The CBO score for losses only fits within the GSE tax set aside for the program because they assume less than a third of the refinancing authority is used. I think time will prove all those assumptions wrong. The real question in my mind is when will we have to bail out FHA and who is going to pay for it? This bill not only creates a dangerous new tax, but also uses that revenue to fund housing initiatives off the books of the Federal Government. Under this bill, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be assessed $500-800 million annually by the Federal Government. At least for the first year, that money will be used to cover the inevitable losses to the FHA from a bailout program for irresponsible and undeserving lenders and borrowers. The balance of that money will pay for a permanent slush fund for housing causes that will end up benefitting partisan groups, some of whom have recently had workers indicted for voter fraud. Additionally, there is an extra $150 million in counseling funds for these partisan groups, with even less accountability attached to those funds. Another provision that has received little attention is $4 billion in emergency spending to buy foreclosed homes. That is nothing more than a gift to the banks, who by definition are the ones who have foreclosed homes to sell. These funds will have the perverse effect of increasing foreclosures because banks know there is going to be a willing buyer. And if these tax and spend policies weren't enough, this bill vastly increases an already overreaching Federal bureaucracy. It nearly doubles the size of the FHA. It assigns important decisionmaking responsibilities with regard to this program to a board created of various agency heads, not Congress. It creates a new trust fund for ``affordable housing'' that is permanent and mandatory, outside the normal appropriations process. It requires loan originators to participate in a National Mortgage Licensing System and Registry. If you are a fan of big government, this bill definitely delivers. But I am only skimming the surface. Unfortunately, it gets much worse. Make no mistake--this bill is a huge bailout for our Nation's lenders. The bill's author has said this bill is going to help the everyday man. Let's take a closer look and see what you think. The FHA program created by this bill refinances borrowers who have defaulted on their mortgages into government-insured loans. Just how much of those loans does the government insure? One hundred percent. By creating this program, this bill limits how much lenders can possibly lose through mortgage transactions. When you invest in a business venture or in the stock market does the Federal Government cap your losses? No. But when it comes to big banks this bill willingly transfers downside risk of future losses right to the FHA and you, the American taxpayer. As I said before, CBO estimates at least one in three mortgages refinanced under this bill will default again. Therefore, we have put in motion a scenario where taxpayers take the hit rather than the lenders who made that loan to a risky buyer who bought a house he could not afford, with a mortgage he could not afford. That is a bailout for the lender any way you slice it. Probably the most glaring flaw is that the bill offers no way to keep out irresponsible and undeserving borrowers. In fact, borrowers are not required to show that they did not lie on their original mortgage application. To qualify for the bailout, borrowers get to sign a piece of paper saying they did not lie the last time they signed for a mortgage. This bill subjects the FHA to another wave of fraud that these no-documentation loans experienced in the primary market. Borrowers who have not demonstrated an ability to pay can get a bailout because there is no requirement that borrowers have made any timely payments on their original mortgage. There is no income cap on eligibility for the program. As written, this bill would allow homeowners with houses valued at up to $550,000 to qualify for a bailout. In my county in Kentucky, which is one of the most expensive in the whole State, the median home price is $270,000. So this bill would give a bailout to people with homes valued at twice the median price. The American people are compassionate and often willing to help those in need. But I do not think giving a bailout to anyone who owns such an expensive home is fair to the average American. If you recall from the economic stimulus debate, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle vehemently opposed rebates for ``rich'' taxpayers. Now when it comes to bailing out banks that made risky loans, all income classes of borrowers can qualify. The list of problems goes on and on. Mortgage professionals, people who by definition should have known better, can qualify for the bailout. People who defaulted on government loans before can come back to the trough. People who drained all the equity in their homes to buy flat screen TVs and new cars can qualify. This seems to me like a surefire way to set a program up for failure at a time when the FHA is reporting record losses. The tax division of this bill also is flawed in several respects. In particular, it includes a $9.8 billion tax increase on small businesses that the Senate Finance Committee has never held hearings to review. This credit card reporting provision will result in a vast increase in paperwork for credit card companies and in millions of confusing and possibly misleading notices sent to the IRS and taxpayers. Another provision that needs more work is the new limitation on the gain exclusion for the sale of a second home. This provision applies to any second property owned by the taxpayer, including an investment home. That means that taxpayers who lose their principal residence and move into a vacation home or investment property will also lose the benefit of gain exclusion. Is that the drafter's intent? This legislation has not been well thought out. That scenario should be excluded, and I have no doubt it would have been if this bill had followed the normal course through the Senate Finance Committee. There are a few provisions in this bill which are worthwhile and needed. Most importantly, the bill creates a strong new regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress has been trying to pass such a bill for years, and it is sorely needed and worth passing on its own. But the proponents of the bailout are holding those needed reforms hostage to get their bailout. I and many others hoped to offer amendments to try to mitigate the damage this bill could do. Unfortunately we have been blocked from doing so. On a bill of this magnitude that is irresponsible and unacceptable. One of my amendments would have made refinancing more affordable for the vast majority of homeowners by allowing them to write off interest points paid on a home mortgage in the year paid. For no good reason, the Tax Code requires homeowners to treat points differently, depending on when they are incurred. If they are incurred in an original purchase financing, the points are deductible, just as they would be under my amendment. If they are incurred in a refinancing, the points can only be deducted ratably, over the life of the loan. The difference is so significant that it will affect the ability of millions of homeowners to afford refinancing. The whole idea of bailing out people who took a gamble and lost is an irresponsible way to spend the taxpayers' money. I do not think the people back in Kentucky sent me to Washington to bailout speculators, Wall Street executives, and people who drained the equity in their homes to buy flat screen televisions and new cars. This bill is simply the wrong kind of housing policy for Congress to be engaging in and is fatally flawed. Even the sponsor of the bill has admitted on the Senate floor that he is not even sure it is going to work, but he hopes it will. As the most deliberative body in the world, I think we can do better. In fact, we owe it to our grandchildren to do better. Who is going to bail them out when FHA is left with $300 billion in bad debt? On behalf of the people of Kentucky, this Senator is not buying this bailout bill.

Mr. BUNNING

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

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

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

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I make this motion to refer the House message on the housing bill to the Banking Committee so the Senate can have all the facts about who will benefit from this legislation before we go forward. As anyone who has looked at the 631 pages of the substitute text can tell, this is a very serious piece of legislation. Hundreds of billions of dollars are on the line under the various parts of this bill. One part of this bill alone is a $300 billion refinancing program for problem mortgages. That part of the bill will open the door of the FHA to borrowers who have defaulted on their mortgages. I question the wisdom of that program. But for the moment, I want to focus on who will benefit rather than the losses the taxpayers will face. The supporters of this bill say borrowers will benefit and lenders must take a loss on the loan before it can be refinanced. But that is not the whole truth. Lenders are already facing losses on these loans, so moving a loan into the program puts an end to the bleeding, and the FHA assumes the risk of all future losses. What that means is the lenders and others who hold mortgages are going to dump their worst $300 billion of mortgages on the FHA, without requiring so much as a thank-you to the taxpayers. If we are going to give such a large gift to the big banks and the investment houses, we should at least know to whom we are sending it. Some of the lenders who are blamed for creating this housing crisis stand to benefit the most. For example, I read in the morning Wall Street Journal that one lender, Countrywide Financial, could benefit to the tune of $25 billion. That is a large gift from Congress to a private company, especially one that has been identified by some as the leader of the mortgage madness and has written more than 10 percent of the total of the most risky loans. Does that make sense to anybody? Does that make sense to my fellow Senators? I don't think so. Some may question that $25 billion figure. The truth is, no one in this Senate knows what the real number is. That is my point. The American people deserve to know who is going to benefit from this bill before we pass it. That is why I make this motion to refer the bill to the Banking Committee so that the committee can assess which banks and lenders will benefit and by how much. I make this motion with the full knowledge that it is going to take 59 fellow Senators to realize that the 631 pages of this substitute have just appeared before us yesterday. I continue to press my motion. I now yield to my good friend from South Carolina, Senator DeMint.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I want everybody to see this bill--631 pages. This is the substitute bill out of the Banking Committee. This bill never came through the Banking Committee. This is a substitute bill. No one saw this bill until 5 p.m. last night--631 pages. My good friend from New York has made many good points about the bill that we did discuss in the Banking Committee, and you know about it. But this is a brandnew substitute that has new provisions, and no one has had a chance to go through them. I am saying that this bill ought to be sent back to the Banking Committee and examined to make sure all those wonderful things the Senator from New York has said are true. That is the reason for my motion to refer. I yield all of my time back.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Thank you, Madam President. I am here on the floor today because this mandatory cap-and-trade bill represents the greatest threat to the American economy I have seen since my fellow Kentuckians first elected me to represent them in 1986. We have had 30 years to address the energy crisis in America. In 1974, we got the first shot across the bow, and the balance of power in the world shifted from the oil consumers to the oil producers. We looked at domestic production and alternative fuels. But when the crash in the 1980s came, so did our investment in future sources. But what is the biggest achievement of this Congress? Stopping 70,000 barrels of oil from going into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We could have had a million barrels a day right now from Alaska if President Bill Clinton had signed our legislation to open ANWR in 1995. What about the need for clean nuclear energy? Thanks to the majority leader and environmental groups, we have spent decades working on Yucca Mountain and still do not have the waste reserve we need for a strong nuclear energy industry. The last thing America needs today is another energy mistake. The reason this climate change legislation is on the floor today is simple: It is fear. The Democrats in Congress want you to be afraid. They want you to be afraid that manmade emissions will cause massive hurricanes, raise sea levels, prolong droughts, and kill off endangered species. I am not standing here telling you we should not protect the environment or that manmade carbon emissions have not increased. I am telling you that carbon emissions are a function of economic growth and technology. It means jobs, cars, and energy. When I look at these emissions, I do not know what role they play in overall climate change relative to other natural effects such as solar radiation. For a minute, let's say the carbon issue needs immediate action. What will we get from passing this legislation? If all the world's industrial nations were to completely comply with familiar or similar ambitious goals, the climate change would be seven one-hundredths of 1 degree Celsius cooler in 20 years. Such a small change occurs naturally all the time. From Sun spots to forest fires to volcanic activity, nature does much more on its own day to day. So what is the point of the climate change bill? The Democrats in Congress want you to pay more for energy so you drive less, buy smaller cars, and use less electricity. They are telling Americans they know better and want the Government to manage their money for the good of the environment. This bill would raise $5.6 trillion for the Government over the next 40 years. Let me say that again: $5.6 trillion. This money does not magically appear in the Government coffers; it comes out of your pockets. The supporters of this bill will try to tell you it comes from oil companies, utilities, or any number of other people. But they are just straw men. That is not how our economy works. American consumers are going to get stuck with this bill. It means natural gas prices doubling. It means gasoline prices 30 to 40 percent higher--and it costs $4 a gallon for regular unleaded gasoline today--than they would have been. It means electric costs between 40 and 120 percent more. In my home State of Kentucky, the average family will spend $324 more for electricity every year, $133 more for natural gas, and $397 more for their gasoline. That is per year. So I want everyone in America to take a look at your last month's bills. Can you afford to double your natural gas bills, add a dollar for every gallon of gasoline you buy, and add $50 to the average electricity bill? Many of us cannot do it. Now, think about paying that money every month, every year, for the next 40 years. That is your share of the $5.6 trillion Uncle Sam will take because of this legislation. What will happen to all of the money you send to us here in Washington? Under this bill, there is a $5.6 trillion cost over 40 years, and the Government will spend it on new programs, $566 billion to the States--back to all 50 States--$237 billion for wildlife, $342 billion to foreign countries--figure that one out. I cannot. Let me make it clear: Democrats and the environmentalists are trying to scare Americans into adopting legislation that will take money out of their pockets to pay for new Government programs that could decrease global thermal temperatures by seven one-hundredths of 1 degree over 20 years. And these changes are only estimates. They are not backed by conclusive evidence. Respected scientists disagree about the true effect increased emissions will have in coming decades. Just 20 years ago, some of these same scientists came to the Capitol warning us of an ice age. Can you believe that? Twenty years ago. If this tax-and-spend plan based on incomplete science does not sound bad enough, it only gets worse. Based on several studies, nearly 4 million Americans will lose their jobs because of this legislation. A cap-and-trade program would force many industries, such as steel, automotive, aluminum, cement, and others, to take their jobs to other countries where energy costs are lower and environmental regulations are looser. Let's look at the airlines as an example of what could happen to American jobs because of this bill. Based on current projections, the airline industry expects to pay $62 billion for jet fuel in 2008. That is $20 billion more than they paid last year, or about a 50-percent increase. Let's look at this chart I have in the Chamber. In response to this price shift, eight airlines have gone completely out of business in the last 6 months and another is operating in bankruptcy. Eight are out of business. Thirty cities lose service, and 9,000 jobs are eliminated. To make it worse, the Democrats in Congress have stopped efforts to address this crisis in the airline industry. I have proposed incentives for coal-to-jet-fuel facilities that would produce clean-burning aviation fuel with carbon capture technology at less than half of the current cost of oil: $65 a barrel. If we had invested in alternative jet fuel technology, maybe we could have saved the thousands of jobs that are now in jeopardy. Think about what you would feel if you were laid off because of high oil prices or if you had to choose between the grocery store and filling your truck with gasoline. Now imagine your congressional representative deliberately voted to make things worse. It is not just about American jobs and dollars and cents. America could bring its greenhouse gas emissions to zero and it would not reverse the growth in worldwide emissions, thanks to rapid expansion in China and India and other developing countries.

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

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

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate the American Business Women's Association, ABWA, which will be holding their 2008 National Women's Leadership Conference in Covington, KY. For nearly 60 years the ABWA has identified and addressed the needs of working women. Local ABWA chapters continuously contribute to the professional development of their members through educational programs, along with charitable opportunities, networking, and scholarships. The national scholarships sponsored by ABWA have helped thousands of women meet their educational goals. With several Kentucky and Ohio chapters and networks sponsoring this year's conference, over 1,000 women from around the country are expected to attend. In addition to meeting distinguished speakers, members will attend seminars and workshops on professional development, industry trends and techniques to improve their job skills. By improving the lives of women for more than a half century, the American Business Women's Association has proven itself to be an exemplary professional development organization. I congratulate the ABWA for its success in supporting the dreams of working women and welcome their national conference to Kentucky.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I congratulate Ms. Carrie Lierl on placing first in Kentucky for the 21st annual National Peace Essay Contest State-level competition. Sponsored by the United States Institute of Peace, the National Peace Essay Contest asks American high school students to write an analytical essay on a topic chosen by the Institute's board of directors. This year's topic was on the relationship between natural resources and international conflict. An independent panel of experts judges each essay and a winner is chosen from every state, plus one from U.S. territories and one from among American students living abroad. In addition to placing first in Kentucky, Carrie will receive a $1,000 college scholarship and is currently competing for national scholarship awards of up to $10,000. On June 22, 2008, Carrie will join fellow essay winners from around the country in an all-expense paid weeklong seminar in Washington, DC, to participate in embassy briefings, and conflict resolution simulations, while meeting with officials from Congress, Federal agencies, and experts and practitioners from various organizations. Ms. Lierl has proven herself to be an exemplary student, representing the Commonwealth of Kentucky at the 2008 National Peace Essay Contest. I look forward to seeing all that she will accomplish in the future.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize May as National Foster Care Month. I salute the thousands of families in Kentucky and throughout the country who serve as foster parents, along with those who expand their families by adopting a child from the foster care system. Unfortunately, not every child finds a home. In 2005, more than 24,000 foster children reached their 18th birthdays without being adopted. As these young adults aged out of the foster care program, they faced many of life's challenges without the family support and encouragement that many of us take for granted. With over a half million children currently in our Nation's foster care system, it is imperative that we do all that we can to ensure that they are able to join the families they so desperately need and deserve. From my home State of Kentucky, Chris Brown is a testament to the importance of adoption. Chris entered foster care at the age of 11, after the death of his mother. He spent more than 2 years in foster care before being adopted. At the age of 13, Chris was adopted by his Big Brothers, Big Sisters mentor, Dave Brown. Chris thrived in his adoptive home, and was presented with opportunities he would not have had otherwise. Through the support of his adopted family, he was able to attend Northern Kentucky University, where he majored in psychology. Now married and with a family of his own, Chris has dedicated his career to social work, using his talents and skills to give back to the community. Chris's story demonstrates how an investment in just one child can pay off for an entire community. The care provided by foster homes and foster families is of great value. Raising awareness about the number of foster children in America, and making it easier for families to adopt is crucial to guaranteeing that America's foster children have the resources and support they need to succeed. Chris Brown is an excellent example of how a child can thrive and develop in a loving family. National Foster Care Month reminds us of our obligation to America's youth. I commend all those who love and accept into their homes those children needing a home.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I congratulate Ms. Katelyn Bowles and Ms. Riley Miller on receiving the Prudential Spirit of Community Award. Sponsored by Prudential Financial and the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the Prudential Spirit of Community Award recognizes middle and high school students who perform outstanding community service at the local, State and national level. Each year, two students are chosen as State honorees from each of the 50 States, and the District of Columbia. Ms. Bowles, a senior at Montgomery County High School in Mount Sterling, KY, has been recognized as one of the Commonwealth top youth volunteers. She spearheaded a campaign to renovate the Mount Sterling C&O Train Depot, an integral part of the community tradition. By initiating a business plan between Future Business Leaders of America members and local government agencies, Ms. Bowles successfully secured $200,000 in grants for the project, including $153,000 from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. Additionally, she managed to recruit fellow high school students to help with much of the renovation, scheduled to be completed next year. In addition to being chosen as a State honoree, Ms. Miller, an eighth grader at Drakes Creek Middle School in Bowling Green, KY, has been selected as one of America's top 10 youth volunteers. She is recognized for her outstanding efforts in raising $50,000 for childhood cancer research over the past 3 years. Having lost two younger brothers to leukemia, raising money for cancer research is a particularly important mission for Ms. Miller. Last year alone, Ms. Miller managed 29 lemonade stands with over 200 volunteers across Bowling Green, raising $19,000. This incredible feat demonstrates her exceptional dedication, organizational skill, and enormous capacity for leadership. Ms. Bowles and Ms. Miller have proven themselves to be exemplary students and volunteers, deserving of the Prudential Spirit of Community Award. They are an inspiration to the citizens of Kentucky and to student leaders and community volunteers everywhere. I look forward to seeing all that they will accomplish in the future.

Mr. BUNNING

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

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, in recent polling, close to 80 percent of the American public have told pollsters the Nation is on the wrong track. We have enormous problems to solve. The American people know it, and we should be working together to solve those problems. But this budget, written behind closed doors and in secret by a partisan group of Senators, will do nothing to close the gulf that is keeping us from the people's business. Maybe that is by design. Majority Leader Reid recently explained that Senator Clinton recommended to him that the Democrats should have a Senate ``war room.'' The war room is up and running today, churning out falsehoods, such as claims that Republicans have staged 71 filibusters--a claim now disputed by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Who are the Democrats at war with? Just as my good friend, General Petraeus, began to make progress reversing the insurgency in Iraq, the leadership of the Senate decided to wage a different kind of war--a war on Americans who do not share their vision of the future. The vision Democrats would promote, to the exclusion of all others, is laid out in this budget document before us. It begins with more tax enforcement. Everybody should abide by the law and pay the taxes they owe. And I support our new IRS Commissioner. But the notion that we can save anywhere near the amount proposed by Senator Conrad is nonsense, and he should know it. The only way to collect that revenue would be to toss out the procedural rights American taxpayers now enjoy. These rights are critical because they assure fair and evenhanded enforcement by the IRS. The Government will lose far more revenue than Senator Conrad proposes to save if the public loses confidence in the fairness of our tax system. His own colleagues in the House are not serious about this either. If they were, the House would not have voted on party lines to stop audits of a handful of wealthy Americans under audit by the IRS who claim to be Virgin Islands residents. What is the IRS to make of this mixed message? The next part of the Democratic vision is predictable: more taxes. In order to achieve balance, the Democrats' budget assumes $1.2 trillion in additional revenue compared to today's baseline. Has anybody asked the 80 percent who think we are on the wrong track whether they would raise taxes on 116 million Americans? At least 43 million American families will pay $2,300 more per year in Federal tax for the spending in this budget proposal. Finally, and most significantly, the Democrats' plan on entitlement reform is to stay the course. Senator Domenici, the former chairman of the Budget Committee, told Budget conferees yesterday that he fears for our future and the future of our children and our grandchildren. Having 35 grandchildren, I share his concerns. As any ship's captain knows, when you are heading for the rocks, it is time to change course. Staying the course is the wrong policy and the wrong message, and I am disappointed my colleagues have been unwilling to work with me and with the President to turn the ship of state in the right direction with this budget document. Please--the American people are watching--let's do what is right and reject this partisan document and write a budget we can all be proud of. I yield back. I suggest the absence of a quorum.