Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 17, 2008, at 10 a.m.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 17, 2008, at 10:30 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his comments. I agree completely with him that the circumstances have reached a point that we need to change direction, and we need leadership that will move us from the policies of the past to deal with the economic problems that we currently confront. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I can proceed as in morning business.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I commemorate the 10th anniversary of Kojo Nnamdi broadcasting on the American University's WAMU 88.5. Over the course of the last decade, based on his skills as an interviewer and his keen insight, Nnamdi has grown into a national treasure and one of the most respected broadcasters in the National Capital Region. ``The Kojo Nnamdi Show'' features 2 hours of news, political issues, and social trends of the day in a magazine program format. It is hard to remember a time before Kojo Nnamdi was part of the WAMU 88.5 broadcasting family, but it was just 10 years ago, in 1998, when Nnamdi left his host position at WHUT-TV's public affairs show ``Evening Exchange'' to become the host of WAMU's radio program ``Public Interest.'' He replaced former host Derek McGinty, filling a vibrant radio talk show slot that can be traced back to 1977 with Fred Fiske. The program officially was renamed ``The Kojo Nnamdi Show'' in September 2002. Nnamdi was born Rex Paul in Guyana. He came to this country in 1967 to attend college. He began broadcasting in 1973 at WHUR-FM and chose his radio persona based on the Akan word for Monday--Kojo--and Nnamdi Azikiwe, a fellow journalist and the founder of modern Nigerian nationalism who was the first President of Nigeria. Nnamdi's global perspective and inviting demeanor have made his radio program a must-do for both regional and national leaders. Each weekday, he challenges his guests and call-in audience alike to explore a variety of current and emerging topics relevant to our daily lives. As good a listener as he is an interviewer, Nnamdi opens our consciousness to new ideas. He is so highly skilled that the Washington Post has called him, ``maybe the best interviewer in town.'' Locally, Nnamdi has become one of the foremost experts on the political and social scenes of Annapolis, Richmond, and Washington, DC. On Fridays, 1 hour of his show is renamed ``The Politics Hour'' while he opens his airwaves to the region's elected officials, community activists and local leaders. I personally have looked forward to joining Nnamdi for his show time and again. As Kojo Nnamdi enters his second decade broadcasting at WAMU 88.5, I take great pride in joining with countless others in our community and across the Nation in congratulating him on this milestone. I listen with anticipation for his next topic and his next guest who will help open our minds and further our dialog.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution promoting increased investment in preventive health and public health. Our Nation's annual health expenditures have reached the astonishing total of $2.2 trillion, or approximately $7,000 for each American. Our health expenditures also represent 16 percent of the gross domestic product. That's a higher percentage of GDP than any other nation as well as a higher amount per capita. But what are we getting for our health care dollars? Rankings from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, consistently show the United States ranking far behind most other industrialized countries in overall health status, in infant health as measured by infant mortality rates, and in life expectancy. And if we examine the distribution of expenditures, it becomes apparent that we are dedicating the lion's share of resources to a few, chronic diseases, such as diabetes, and hypertension. From 1987 to 2000, while our overall health care spending doubled, spending on strokes nearly quadrupled and spending on hypertension rose from $8 billion to $23 billion a year. Chronic diseases are the leading cause of preventable death and disability, and are responsible for more than 1.7 million deaths each year. They are particularly costly for publicly-funded insurance programs, accounting for 96 cents of every Medicare dollar and 83 cents of every Medicaid dollar. Project HOPE has estimated that by the year 2050, nearly half the population of the United States will develop at least one chronic disease if we do not act. But analyses also show that of the money spent on health care, fewer than 4 cents of every dollar are dedicated to public health and prevention. We need to prioritize public health and preventive approaches if we are to have a healthier America. We already know that early detection can save lives, reduce costs, and result in a more efficient health care system for all of us. One prominent example is colorectal cancer screening. Colorectal cancer is the number two cancer killer in the United States. This year, an estimated 148,000 new cases will be diagnosed and more than 52,000 Americans will die from the disease. The risk of colorectal cancer begins to increase after the age of 40 and rises sharply at the ages of 50 to 55, at which point the risk doubles with each succeeding decade. Despite advances in surgical techniques and adjuvant therapy, there has been only a modest improvement in survival for patients who present with advanced cancers. The good news is that colorectal cancer can be prevented, and is highly treatable when discovered early. Most cases of the disease begin as non-cancerous polyps which can be detected and removed during routine screenings--preventing the development of colorectal cancer. Screening tests also save lives even when they detect polyps that have become cancerous by catching the disease in its earliest, most curable stages. The cure rate is up to 93 percent when colorectal cancer is discovered early. We must also promote changes in lifestyles, community-based interventions, to improve our health status. This means encouraging and enabling proper nutrition, increasing our level of physical activity, supporting smoking cessation programs for those who smoke now, and educating youth about the dangers of smoking. Trust for America's Health has just released a report entitled ``Prevention for a Healthier America.'' Among its conclusions is that ``an investment of $10 per person per year in community-based programs to increase physical activity, improve nutrition, and prevent smoking and other tobacco use could save the country more than $16 billion annually every five years . . . a return of $5.60 for every $1. Of the $16 billion, Medicare could save more than $5 billion, Medicaid could save more than $1.9 billion, and private payers could save more than $9 billion.'' It is clear that to make a real difference in America's health status, and to produce a far more efficient health care system, the answer is to use our health care resources more wisely. That means investing in the clinically-based and community-based interventions that will prevent the serious, chronic illnesses that are draining our health care resources now. Finally, Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Clinton for joining me in introducing this resolution. Her knowledge of and expertise in health care are unparalleled, and I am very appreciative of her support. I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce The Harriet Tubman National Historical Park and The Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park Act. I am joined by Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Schumer as original cosponsors. The woman, who is known to us as Harriet Tubman, was born Araminta, Minty, Ross approximately 1822 in Dorchester County, Maryland. She spent nearly 30 years of her life as a slave on Maryland's eastern shore. As an adult she took the first name Harriet, and when she was 25 she married John Tubman. Harriet Tubman escaped from slavery in 1849. She did so in the dead of night, navigating the maze of tidal streams and wetlands that are a hallmark of Maryland's Eastern Shore. She did so alone, demonstrating courage, strength and fortitude that became her hallmarks. Not satisfied with attaining her own freedom, she returned repeatedly for more than 10 years to the places of her enslavement in Dorchester and Caroline counties where, under the most adverse conditions, she led away many family members and other slaves to their freedom. Tubman became known as ``Moses'' by African-Americans and white abolitionists. She was perhaps the most famous and most important conductor in the network of resistance known as the Underground Railroad. During the Civil War, Tubman served the Union forces as a spy, a scout and a nurse. She served in Virginia, Florida, and South Carolina. She is credited with leading hundreds of slaves from those slave states to freedom during those years. Following the Civil War, Tubman settled in Auburn, New York. There she was active in the women's suffrage movement, and she also established the one of the first incorporated homes for aged African- Americans. In 1903 she bequeathed the home to the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church in Auburn. Harriet Tubman died in Auburn in 1913 and she is buried there in the Fort Hill Cemetery. Slaves were forced to live in primitive buildings even though many were skilled tradesmen who constructed the substantial homes of their owners. Not surprisingly, few of the structures associated with the early years of Tubman's life still stand. The landscapes of the Eastern Shore of Maryland, however, remain evocative of the time that Tubman lived there. Farm fields and forests dot the landscape, which is also notable for its extensive network of tidal rivers and wetlands. In particular, a number of properties including the homestead of Ben Ross, her father, Stewart's Canal, where he worked, the Brodess Farm, where she worked as a slave, and others are within the boundaries of the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. Similarly, Poplar Neck, the plantation from which she escaped to freedom, is still largely intact in Caroline County. The properties in Talbot County, immediately across the Choptank River from the plantation, are today protected by various conservation easements. Were she alive today, Tubman would recognize much of the landscape that she knew intimately as she secretly led black men, women and children to their freedom. In New York, on the other hand, many of the buildings associated with Tubman's life remain intact. Her personal home, as well as the Tubman Home for the Aged, the church and rectory of the Thompson Memorial AME Zion Episcopal Church, and the Fort Hill Cemetery are all extant. In 1999, the Congress approved legislation authorizing a Special Resource Study to determine the appropriateness of establishing a unit of the National Park Service to honor Harriet Tubman. The Study has taken an exceptionally long time to complete, in part because of the lack of remaining structures on Maryland's Eastern Shore. There has never been any doubt that Tubman led an extraordinary life. Her contributions to American history are surpassed by few. Determining the most appropriate way to recognize that life and her contributions, however, has been more difficult. Eventually, the Park Service came to realize that determined that a Park that would include two geographically separate units would be appropriate. The New York unit would include the tightly clustered Tubman buildings in Auburn. The Maryland portion would include large sections of landscapes that are evocative of Tubman's time and are historically relevant. The Special Resource Study will be finalized and released later this year. The Harriet Tubman National Historical Park and The Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park Act The legislation I am introducing today establishes two parks. The Harriet Tubman National Historical Park includes important historical structures in Auburn, New York. They include Tubman's home, the Home for the Aged that she established, the African Methodist Episcopal AME Zion Church, and the Fort Hill Cemetery where she is buried. The Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park includes historically important landscapes in Dorchester, Caroline and Talbot counties, Maryland, that are evocative of the life of Harriet Tubman. The Maryland properties include about 2,200 acres in Caroline County that comprise the Poplar Neck plantation that Tubman escaped from in 1849. The 725 acres of viewshed across the Choptank River in Talbot County would also be included in the Park. In Dorchester County, the parcels would not be contiguous, but would include about 2,775 acres. All of them are included within the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge boundaries or abut that resource land. The National Park Service would not own any of these lands. The bill authorizes $7.5 million in grants for the New York properties for their preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration of those resources. The bill authorizes $11 million in grants for the Maryland section. Funds can be used for the construction of the State Harriet Tubman Park Visitors Center and/or for easements or acquisition of properties inside or adjacent to the Historical Park boundaries. Finally, the bill also authorizes a new grants program. Under the program, the National Park Service would award competitive grants to historically Black colleges and universities, predominately Black institutions, and minority serving institutions for research into the life of Harriet Tubman and the African-American experience during the years that coincide with the life of Harriet Tubman. The legislation authorizes $200,000 annually for this scholarship program. Harriet Tubman was a true American patriot. She was someone for whom liberty and freedom were not just concepts. She lived those principles and shared that freedom with hundreds of others. In doing so, she has earned a nation's respect and honor. That is why I am so proud to introduce this legislation, establishing the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park and the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce The Harriet Tubman National Historical Park and The Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park Act. I am joined by Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Schumer as original cosponsors. The woman, who is known to us as Harriet Tubman, was born Araminta, Minty, Ross approximately 1822 in Dorchester County, Maryland. She spent nearly 30 years of her life as a slave on Maryland's eastern shore. As an adult she took the first name Harriet, and when she was 25 she married John Tubman. Harriet Tubman escaped from slavery in 1849. She did so in the dead of night, navigating the maze of tidal streams and wetlands that are a hallmark of Maryland's Eastern Shore. She did so alone, demonstrating courage, strength and fortitude that became her hallmarks. Not satisfied with attaining her own freedom, she returned repeatedly for more than 10 years to the places of her enslavement in Dorchester and Caroline counties where, under the most adverse conditions, she led away many family members and other slaves to their freedom. Tubman became known as ``Moses'' by African-Americans and white abolitionists. She was perhaps the most famous and most important conductor in the network of resistance known as the Underground Railroad. During the Civil War, Tubman served the Union forces as a spy, a scout and a nurse. She served in Virginia, Florida, and South Carolina. She is credited with leading hundreds of slaves from those slave states to freedom during those years. Following the Civil War, Tubman settled in Auburn, New York. There she was active in the women's suffrage movement, and she also established the one of the first incorporated homes for aged African- Americans. In 1903 she bequeathed the home to the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church in Auburn. Harriet Tubman died in Auburn in 1913 and she is buried there in the Fort Hill Cemetery. Slaves were forced to live in primitive buildings even though many were skilled tradesmen who constructed the substantial homes of their owners. Not surprisingly, few of the structures associated with the early years of Tubman's life still stand. The landscapes of the Eastern Shore of Maryland, however, remain evocative of the time that Tubman lived there. Farm fields and forests dot the landscape, which is also notable for its extensive network of tidal rivers and wetlands. In particular, a number of properties including the homestead of Ben Ross, her father, Stewart's Canal, where he worked, the Brodess Farm, where she worked as a slave, and others are within the boundaries of the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. Similarly, Poplar Neck, the plantation from which she escaped to freedom, is still largely intact in Caroline County. The properties in Talbot County, immediately across the Choptank River from the plantation, are today protected by various conservation easements. Were she alive today, Tubman would recognize much of the landscape that she knew intimately as she secretly led black men, women and children to their freedom. In New York, on the other hand, many of the buildings associated with Tubman's life remain intact. Her personal home, as well as the Tubman Home for the Aged, the church and rectory of the Thompson Memorial AME Zion Episcopal Church, and the Fort Hill Cemetery are all extant. In 1999, the Congress approved legislation authorizing a Special Resource Study to determine the appropriateness of establishing a unit of the National Park Service to honor Harriet Tubman. The Study has taken an exceptionally long time to complete, in part because of the lack of remaining structures on Maryland's Eastern Shore. There has never been any doubt that Tubman led an extraordinary life. Her contributions to American history are surpassed by few. Determining the most appropriate way to recognize that life and her contributions, however, has been more difficult. Eventually, the Park Service came to realize that determined that a Park that would include two geographically separate units would be appropriate. The New York unit would include the tightly clustered Tubman buildings in Auburn. The Maryland portion would include large sections of landscapes that are evocative of Tubman's time and are historically relevant. The Special Resource Study will be finalized and released later this year. The Harriet Tubman National Historical Park and The Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park Act The legislation I am introducing today establishes two parks. The Harriet Tubman National Historical Park includes important historical structures in Auburn, New York. They include Tubman's home, the Home for the Aged that she established, the African Methodist Episcopal AME Zion Church, and the Fort Hill Cemetery where she is buried. The Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park includes historically important landscapes in Dorchester, Caroline and Talbot counties, Maryland, that are evocative of the life of Harriet Tubman. The Maryland properties include about 2,200 acres in Caroline County that comprise the Poplar Neck plantation that Tubman escaped from in 1849. The 725 acres of viewshed across the Choptank River in Talbot County would also be included in the Park. In Dorchester County, the parcels would not be contiguous, but would include about 2,775 acres. All of them are included within the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge boundaries or abut that resource land. The National Park Service would not own any of these lands. The bill authorizes $7.5 million in grants for the New York properties for their preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration of those resources. The bill authorizes $11 million in grants for the Maryland section. Funds can be used for the construction of the State Harriet Tubman Park Visitors Center and/or for easements or acquisition of properties inside or adjacent to the Historical Park boundaries. Finally, the bill also authorizes a new grants program. Under the program, the National Park Service would award competitive grants to historically Black colleges and universities, predominately Black institutions, and minority serving institutions for research into the life of Harriet Tubman and the African-American experience during the years that coincide with the life of Harriet Tubman. The legislation authorizes $200,000 annually for this scholarship program. Harriet Tubman was a true American patriot. She was someone for whom liberty and freedom were not just concepts. She lived those principles and shared that freedom with hundreds of others. In doing so, she has earned a nation's respect and honor. That is why I am so proud to introduce this legislation, establishing the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park and the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, Dr. Michael Morgan is a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and a Congressional Science Fellow sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. As a native of Baltimore, Dr. Morgan earned his undergraduate degree as well as his doctorate from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has also completed post-doctoral studies at Texas A&M University. Dr. Morgan has been an invaluable member of my staff since October, 2007. His fellowship ends in late August and he will return to his teaching duties then. The AAAS Fellows Program has been the source of skilled science advisers for many years here on Capitol Hill. Rarely, however, has the program made such a timely placement. With his expertise in atmospheric sciences, Dr. Morgan was especially well-equipped to advise me on global climate change issues. As the Environment and Public Works Committee held a number of oversight hearings on climate change last year, Dr. Morgan provided careful analysis of witness testimony as well as probing questions. When Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Warner advanced their landmark legislation, America's Climate Security Act, few offices could rely on the expertise that Dr. Morgan lent this Senator. And when Ms. Boxer brought the legislation to the floor, Dr. Morgan had convinced me that a broad- based science program of monitoring and analysis was needed. Although blocked from offering my scientific monitoring amendment on the floor, Dr. Morgan has provided us with a solid framework that I intend to see as part of climate change legislation considered next year. In addition to his expertise on atmospheric science issues, Dr. Morgan provided comprehensive support to me on the full range of issues that came before the Environment and Public Works Committee. Of special note has been his work on bills to control harmful mercury emission and another bill to simplify and automate the tracking system for hazardous wastes in this country. Dr. Morgan has been an integral part of the Projects Team in my office and a valued friend and colleague to my permanent staff. As he prepares to return to his academic duties, Dr. Morgan goes with my sincere thanks and best wishes.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Reserving the right to object, if the time comes out of what is allocated to the Republicans, I have no objection. There is additional time to the Republicans already allocated.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I know it is unusual that the Senate would be here on a Saturday, in a voting session, but I am pleased that we are here because at last we are going to have a chance to vote on final passage of H.R. 3221, the housing legislation that is so important to the people of this country. I first wish to thank Senators Dodd and Shelby for the manner in which they have handled this legislation. It has been handled in a bipartisan manner, the way it should be. They have been extremely patient. This bill has been on the floor on numerous occasions. There have been many opportunities for all of us to offer our suggestions on this legislation. It has been one of the most open bills we have had. I know there are some on the other side of the aisle--my colleague from South Carolina--who raise certain objections. There are some who would like to see this matter further delayed. I understand that. In the other body, Republicans have decided to vote against this legislation by a 3-1 margin. That is their prerogative. And there are some in this body who believe the status quo is acceptable. They do not believe we should be aggressively trying to help the people of our communities in the housing crisis. Well, I disagree with that, and I think the majority of this body disagrees, and it is important for us to provide the tools necessary to deal with the housing crisis in this country. Every day that we wait, 8,500 more foreclosures are here in America--8,500 people are in danger of losing their houses every single day. So, Mr. President, I am sorry we didn't get this legislation done earlier, but I am pleased we are here today to complete this legislation and to send it to the President for his signature. We all know the current status of our economy. We know that people around this Nation are having a difficult time dealing with their everyday costs--dealing with energy costs, dealing with health care costs, and, yes, dealing with their housing expenses. We know that the trigger to the current downturn in our economy was caused by the housing market. So it is important for us to pay special attention to the housing market as we try not only to help families who are struggling to keep their homes and keep communities strong but also to help our economy. This is true in each one of our States. In Maryland, in the second quarter of 2008, we saw a 130-percent increase in foreclosures. In my own State, 1 out of every 243 households is in some stage of foreclosure. This is a crisis affecting millions of people in our Nation. Maryland now ranks 16th in the Nation on foreclosures. The problem is continuing. There are subprime mortgages that are out there with adjustable rate mortgages that will be coming due during 2008 and 2009, and we will see more and more foreclosures. So we need to act to try to prevent those foreclosures. I know there have been some who have said: Well, look, this was a free market and people made their own decisions. But I can tell you of communities in my own State where homeowners were steered into subprime mortgages--homeowners who could have qualified for standard mortgages, but because of the way the fees were arranged, they were steered into these subprime products and are now in danger of losing their homes. So we need to do something. I want to first acknowledge that there have been many groups that have stepped forward. Nonprofits in my State and around the Nation have tried to do what they can, and I applaud them for their actions. A lot of the people involved in the nonprofit housing sector have tried to help through counseling and other means, and that is laudable. In my own State, I applaud the efforts of our Chief Judge Bell, who has called upon the lawyers of Maryland to attend training sessions to offer pro bono services to help homeowners who are in danger of losing their homes. I think that is what the bar should be doing, what lawyers should be doing, and they are stepping up to try to help. We also see State and local governments doing what they can to try to help in the housing market, and even private companies have stepped up to try to restructure loans so that people can stay in their homes. All of that is what should be happening, and I applaud the efforts of the private sector and local governments. But the Federal Government should be a full partner in this effort, and I think H.R. 3221 moves us in a direction toward accepting that responsibility. The bill helps current homeowners on the brink of foreclosure. It will provide $180 million for financial and legal assistance to homeowners who are in danger of losing their homes, which I think is very important. The legislation provides for counseling services to help counselors deal with individuals who are in danger of going into foreclosure on their properties. It also helps with refinancing. It is estimated that 400,000 people in this country will benefit from the provisions of this legislation that allow for refinancing of their loans. Some have said this is bailout. It is not a bailout. The loans are going to be bought at market value. Investors are going to lose part of their investment on these refinancings, as they should. It is not a bailout. And the homeowners who take advantage of it, it is to help them stay in their homes. If they sell their homes, part of the profits need to be returned. So it is a fair way to keep people in their homes, recognizing the fact that it is not only the individual homeowner who loses but the entire community loses when a house is foreclosed upon. I am particularly pleased with the provision in this legislation dealing with first-time homeowners. Several months ago, I talked to Senator Baucus about a housing credit for first-time home buyers to help more people become engaged in buying and selling homes. We know that 40 percent of home buyers are first-time home buyers, and by helping first-time home buyers, we help the housing market and we help the economy. I think the provision in this bill that will provide a $7,500 credit or an interest-free loan will help. It is targeted to moderate-income families, and it is temporary. It needs to be used in the next year. It is reasonable from the point of view of helping people get back into the housing market, and I thank the committee for including that provision. This legislation also deals with the credit crunch--the availability of mortgage money for those who need to buy homes. The FHA modernization will help, and the reverse-mortgage provisions that seniors use. Seniors who have lived in their home for many years have a lot of equity in their home. They need the cash out of their house in order to stay there, and reverse mortgages help them obtain the resources they need to deal with their health care and to deal with quality-of-life issues. This bill modernizes the reverse-mortgage provisions, providing strong consumer protection provisions for our seniors. We all know about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provisions and how we have tried to strengthen the regulatory system. I think that is what we should be doing. We are giving the Secretary of the Treasury the flexibility and authority that he needs in order to make sure we don't have a crisis in this country by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae not being able to carry out their stated mission. I am also pleased that the $11 billion for local mortgage bonding authority remains in this bill to help local governments deal with the availability of low-income housing. The legislation also includes improvements to the CDBG funds by $4 billion, of which $89 million will be available to the people of Maryland. These are for the communities that are directly affected and have large numbers of foreclosed properties. This provision will allow the local governments to be able to buy foreclosed properties and turn them back and make them available for moderate-income families through home ownership and rental. There is a provision in the bill that deals with veterans, through our VA home loan program, to prevent foreclosure and increase home ownership. Lastly, there are provisions in this bill to help us in the future with better mortgage disclosure rules and nationwide loan originator licensing and registration. The bottom line is, it increases the tools available in our toolbox to deal with vulnerable families who are in danger of losing their homes, it provides the financial wherewithal so that we can keep credit available for people to buy and sell homes, and it is a message and action to help our economy in these very difficult times. I am pleased we are able, at last, to vote on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this very important bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, is there equal distribution of time to be added to the majority?

Mr. CARDIN. I think people are expecting a vote at 11. There is time on the Republican side, so I object.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, as long as it comes out of the Republican time, there is no objection.

Mr. CARDIN. I plan to speak for about 10 minutes.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I do not believe that the provisions of title VI, subtitle A of S. 3297, corresponding to the National Capital Transportation Amendments Act of 2007, constitute a ``congressionally directed spending item,'' but out of an abundance of caution, I certify that neither I nor my immediate family has a pecuniary interest in the provisions of title VI, subtitle A of S. 3297, consistent with the requirements of paragraph 9 of rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, first, let me thank the assistant majority leader, the Senator from Illinois, for his comments. I was listening intently to his message, which I think is one that is very important for this Nation. The Senator talked about the fact that there is a significant amount of land currently available for drilling, and for reasons that are a little bit unclear, the oil industry has decided not to drill in those areas. He also expressed his confusion, as I do, as to why the Republicans have come forward and said: Let's talk about the energy issue, let's do something about it. But when it comes time to vote as to whether we can proceed on a bill that is important for our energy needs, the Republicans seem to vote against that so we cannot proceed. We had a bill before us that would have dealt with renewable energy sources and would allow us to deal with solar and wind and biomass and biodiesel. The Republicans refused to allow us to move forward on that, requiring the 60-vote threshold so we could not move forward on a major bill dealing with renewables, which is clearly an important part of an energy policy for this Nation. We had the Consumer-First Energy Act, legislation that would have brought forward a way to deal with the immediate cost of energy. The Republicans refused to allow us to proceed, used the filibuster to block that legislation that would have dealt with issues such as the oil cartel and the anticompetitive procedures they use to control supply and price of oil or to deal with price gouging or to look at ways we could take some of our resources and put them into renewables so we have a policy for the future or to deal with oil speculators. But, no, the Republicans used the filibuster to prevent a full debate on the floor of this body to talk about the energy policies of this country. So I return to the floor to tell Marylanders and the people of this Nation we need to do something about this. Marylanders are hurting today. I have talked about this before on the floor. I can take you to some homes of seniors who are making a very difficult judgment not to use air-conditioning this summer during these oppressive days, which may very well jeopardize their health, because they do not have the money to pay for their utility bills. They are making these tough decisions today in my State and States around the Nation. I could give you examples of independent truckers who are located in Maryland who do not have the money to fill their trucks with fuel because of the high cost of gasoline. They don't know what they are going to do, whether they will be able to stay in business. I can tell you of small business owners I have met who tell me they don't have any alternatives. They have to use their cars for business. They have to fill up the car with gasoline, and they can't afford to do it. They are using their personal credit cards, the most expensive way to borrow money, because of the high cost of gasoline. They are looking to us to do something so they can stay in business. I could take my colleagues to families who have to make tough judgments as to whether they can fill their gas tanks with gas or buy groceries because of the high cost of gasoline. I met with people from the nonprofit community. We had people in from Meals on Wheels, volunteers who deliver food to people who can't get out of their homes and depend upon a nonprofit in order to get meals. In these tough economic times, there is more and more demand for their services, but their volunteers can't afford to fill their tanks with gasoline. They are doing on it their own, because we are asking them to pay the extra cost of the fuel. They are having a tough time being able to carry out their nonprofit mission, which will put more pressure on governmental services. The list goes on and on as to why we need to deal with the energy crisis now and why we should have dealt with it before but for the filibusters Republicans have used. The Republican answer to this problem seems to be to drill. Let me take up that issue for a moment. Most recoverable offshore oil and gas is currently open to drilling. Today most of our offshore oil areas are open to drilling. According to the Minerals Management Service, 79 percent of recoverable oil is currently open to drilling and 82 percent of recoverable natural gas is currently open to drilling. According to the Department of Interior, only 21 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf is actually in production. My friend from Illinois gave the numbers: 68 million acres of the 90 million acres of the Outer Continental Shelf are not in production today. There is plenty of area available for drilling, but the oil industry has chosen not to drill in those areas. Instead they keep on mentioning ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That is a pretty sensitive environmental area. We all know that. We know the risks involved in drilling in ANWR. It would represent .6 percent of the world's supply. The National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, which has been set aside for oil exploration, currently has available but not in production more oil reserves than are in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. So this isn't a point about where we have oil, we need to drill in order to get it. We have oil available. But the oil industry has chosen not to do this. According to the Energy Information Administration, projections in the Outer Continental Shelf access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil or natural gas production prices before 2030. The reason is we don't have a lot of oil in the United States. If we include all of the oil reserves, we have 3 percent of the world's reserves. We use 25 percent of the world's oil. We have 3 percent of the world's known reserves. So even if we produce at maximum capacity, we will not have a major impact on the pricing of energy. It is for that reason I want to show this chart showing remarks from T. Boone Pickens, who said: I have been an oilman all my life, but this is one emergency we can't drill our way out of. . . . He goes on to point out: . . . But if we create a new, renewable energy network, we can break our addiction to foreign oil. If we produce every drop of oil we have in the United States, we are still going to be dependent upon foreign oil. We have to break our dependency on foreign oil. As Mr. Pickens points out, either in the short term or long term, oil is not the solution to our energy problem. Having said that, I do believe we need to produce oil where we can. I am baffled as to why the oil industry is not using the 79 percent of currently leased area to produce more oil that would certainly be part of the solution to the energy problem. We can't drill our way out, but we certainly should produce what we can. Maybe this chart helps explain why the oil industry is not drilling where they can. The blue line represents the price of gasoline, showing when it was about $1.50 a gallon, going up to now where it is close to $4 a gallon. The red line represents the profits of the oil industry. It is amazing. As gasoline prices go up, oil profits go up. These are quarterly profits. So one might suspect that the oil industry is not exactly interested in bringing down the cost of gasoline. Their profits go up, as the costs go up. Maybe that helps explain some of the reason why production is not at the maximum capacity we currently could have. Let me urge my colleagues as to what we should be doing. In the short term, we need to look at a lot of different alternatives. Again, I am for producing what we can in an environmentally sensitive way, but I urge my colleagues to consider S. 3268, the excess speculation bill. Let me try to make this clear. We are dealing with what is known as index speculation. These are speculators who never take the product. They are allocating a part of their portfolio to oil futures. It is an investment for them. It is not a commodity transaction. These are not airline companies or trucking companies that do want to buy futures in oil because they need that for their business. They are going to take the product because they need the product. These are pure speculators. According to Michael Masters, a hedge fund manager, index speculators added to the supply equal to China's increase in demand of oil over the past 5 years. That is a dramatic amount of activity in the marketplace. It is equal to 70 percent of all the benchmark crude trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange; 70 percent is in index speculators. Just 7 years ago it was 37 percent. So we see the dramatic increase over the historic levels of commodity trading. My friend from Illinois indicated that perhaps oil should be at $60 a barrel. Masters says $60 to $75 a barrel, if Congress fixed the loophole in index speculation. Edward Krapels, an energy security analyst, says it is 50 percent of the pump price. I am not an economist. I don't know what it is. But I do know this is something we can do, and it could have an immediate impact on the price of gasoline at the pump. That is what my constituents are asking us to do. This is something we should do. We should not let speculators add to the price. S. 3268 reins in index speculation. It provides higher margin requirements for those who speculate, more disclosure. This is common sense. Let's get this done. If we are looking for other things we can do to help in the short term, let me encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to withdraw their objections to the bill Senator Sanders has introduced that would add resources to the LIHEAP program. That is for energy assistance for low-income families. If we are looking for who has been hurt by the energy crisis, it is low-income families throughout America. Let's do something to help them. Let's target our relief to those who have been disadvantaged as a result of what has happened to energy prices. These are some things we can do that can have some impact in the short term. I must tell my colleagues, I hope we don't leave this debate without talking about what we need to do in the long term so we don't come back to this issue. I would hope that in the 1970s we would have learned our lesson, with long gasoline lines, and done something for energy security in America. But we need to become energy independent. We need to become energy secure. We need to do this for national security reasons. I need not remind my colleagues that we have committed our Armed Forces because of the vulnerability of America to oil. So for national security, we need to become energy independent. We need to become energy independent for our environment. Global climate change is real. Using less oil, fossil fuels will make us a cleaner country and will help our environment. It is something we should be doing. We came close this year to moving forward on a global climate change bill. We should do that for the sake of our environment and our energy policy. What we have learned over the last several months is that when we don't control our energy, when we are dependent upon other countries for our energy needs; i.e., oil, overnight we can see a huge increase in the price of energy which can have a devastating impact on our economy. I don't know what the right price is for energy, but I do know if we controlled our own energy sources, our economy would make that judgment, not some country halfway around the world that decides how much oil will be available to the U.S. consumer. For all those reasons, we need to become energy independent. One way we can do that--and we have all agreed--is to be more efficient in the use of energy. Last year we came together and increased the CAFE standards. If we had done that 10 years ago, the energy savings today from an increased CAFE standard on an annual basis would equal three times the amount of oil we could get from ANWR at maximum production. Energy efficiency works. It has to be part of our energy policy as we move forward. Yes, we have to deal with alternative and renewable sources. We have to deal with biofuels and wind and solar. I also believe we need to have responsible use of nuclear power. I think that is an important part of an energy policy that makes us energy self-sufficient. We can do that. We need a national commitment. We made that type of commitment, as we did before, when our national security was at stake during World War II. We can do it again. We can be equally successful. I have an offer to my colleagues. On behalf of the people of Maryland and of the Nation, let's get together on this. This is a national priority. It should not be a partisan issue. This is an issue Americans are asking that we deal with, that we become energy independent, that we do what is responsible in the short term to help those who have been victimized by the extreme increase in energy costs. Let's work to do that. Let's take out the profits of the speculators. Let's deal with those who have been victimized and then work together to develop an energy policy for America that will truly make us energy independent so that we can control our security, our economy, and be good international citizens on the environment. We can do all of that by working together and putting America's interests first. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Yes. I think he was seeking to finish on his amendment. And then the Senator from Louisiana was supposed to follow the Senator from New Hampshire. So the proper order would be to allow the--

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl be recognized for up to 5 minutes for debate only, and that following his remarks, Senator Klobuchar be recognized to speak for up to 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. CARDIN. That is fine.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no second- degree amendments be in order to the Gregg amendment.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today we consider one of the most important international assistance bills of the 110th Congress. I refer to S. 2731, the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008, or better known as the PEPFAR Reauthorization Act. Originally created in 2003, PEPFAR was funded at $15 billion dollars. At the time, this was the single largest bilateral program ever created to address a disease. President George Bush should rightfully be commended for creating an innovative program designed to support HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and care programs. I also wish to commend the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden and Senator Lugar, for their persistence and hard work on bringing this bill to the floor of the Senate for today's vote. The nature and extent of the HIV/AIDS epidemic varies from country and region. In some countries in East Asia, the AIDS rate is less than 1 percent, while in some Sub-Saharan African countries the rate is more than 20 percent. In fact, two-thirds of all people infected with HIV, some 22.5 million, live in Sub-Saharan Africa. When we look at the health care infrastructure of most Sub-Saharan African countries, we find little technology, personnel, or physical structures. Most, if not all, of these nations are ill prepared to address the epidemic. AIDS has destroyed many African families, leaving an estimated 11.4 million children without one or both parents. Many elderly grandparents are left to care for the children, draining their meager resources and energy. There are many cases where orphans are denied inherited land and cattle and ultimately left to fend for themselves. With anecdotes such as these, it is vital that we pass S. 2731 to continue our efforts to combat AIDS. S. 2731 would require the President to establish a 5-year strategy to fight HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria. S. 2731 will also intensify prevention, treatment, and care programs and include groups particularly vulnerable to the disease such as women and young girls. S. 2731 will also boost funding for research, public-private partnerships, and reinforce vaccine development. I have consulted with an organization in my home State of Maryland called Jhpiego. Jhpiego is affiliated with Johns Hopkins University Hospital and has performed tremendous work in Africa to build the health care infrastructure in Sub-Saharan Africa. Jhpiego has found through its programs that African health care workers need greater preservice training in order to bolster national, in-country efforts to fight AIDS. For this reason, I worked with the chairman and ranking member of the committee to include language to include preservice training and capacity building within the overall funding strategy of this legislation. As the PEPFAR Program matures, it is my hope that so too will the skills and numbers of the cadre of African health workers engaged in the effort to reduce the prevalence of HIV/AIDS. My other amendment allows for the inclusion of American land grant colleges and universities and historically Black colleges and universities to participate in programs to increase the technological and teaching capacity of African professional institutions to prepare their students for careers in public health. As the United States further engages the global fight against HIV/AIDS, I believe sustainability and African leadership are imperative to insure a full and respectful partnership and one that will be mutually beneficial to America and the states of Sub-Saharan Africa.

Mr. CARDIN. Would the Senator yield for a moment?

Mr. CARDIN. I think it was the intention to allow the Senator from New Hampshire to finish on his statement. How much time does the Senator from New Hampshire need to respond?

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, the Fair Deal for Volunteers Act. In today's economic climate, Americans need relief from sky-rocketing oil and gas prices. This applies to everyone, including people who engage in much-needed volunteer work. My bill will provide immediate relief for volunteers serving our elderly, poor, frail, and at-risk Americans. It gives the Internal Revenue Service authority to change the mileage rate--currently set by statute at 14 cents per mile--for calculating the deductible cost of operating a vehicle for charitable purposes. We can't let an out-of-date mileage rate exacerbate the pinch at the pump for volunteers who selflessly provide so many vital goods and services in every community across America. I'm pleased that the senior Senator from Maine, Senator Snowe, and my colleague, the senior Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, are original cosponsors of this bill and I thank them for their support. The Internal Revenue Code does not fix a rate for individuals who are required to use their own vehicle for work, or for individuals taking a mileage deduction for moving purposes. The IRS is able to increase the deduction amount for these purposes to reflect the current economic climate and dramatically higher fuel prices. This is exactly what the IRS recently did. As of July, the IRS modified the standard mileage rates for computing the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business, medical, or moving expenses. The revised standard mileage rate for business purposes increased from 50.5 cents per mile to 58.5 cents. For medical and moving expenses, the IRS increased the rate from 19 cents per mile to 27 cents per mile. I think the Nation's volunteers who travel on behalf of charitable organizations deserve an increase in their mileage rate, too. My bill gives the IRS flexibility in setting the rate so that volunteers for charitable organizations could be given the same tax benefit accruing for moving, medical, and business expenses. In today's climate of increasing food and fuel prices, this bill will help relieve some of the pressure on charitable organizations and their volunteers. Take Meals on Wheels, for example. This organization delivers nutritious meals and other nutrition services to men and women who are elderly, homebound, disabled, frail, or otherwise at-risk. The services Meals on Wheels provides significantly improve the recipients' quality of life and health, and often help to postpone institutionalization. Over the past year, there has been nearly a 20 percent increase in fuel and food prices, coupled with reduced government funding and fewer donations across the country. Nearly 60 percent of the estimated 5,000 programs that operate under the auspices of the Meals on Wheels Association of America have lost volunteers, in large part because it is too expensive for the volunteers to drive back and forth. Nearly half the programs have eliminated routes or consolidated meal services. About 38 percent of the programs have switched to delivering frozen meals, and about 30 percent are cutting personal visits from 5 days a week to one. In Maryland, the Central Maryland Meals on Wheels has experienced an increase of 7 percent in food costs and suppliers are charging higher delivery fees. The cost to fill up the vans with gas has increased. Fuel costs averaged $72,538.70 in fiscal year 2007; this year, the costs have jumped to $86,790.63. This is an organization with volunteers serving over 3,100 elderly, disabled, frail and at-risk Marylanders. Its volunteers deserve relief from high gas prices just as much as people who use their car for work or for medical purposes or for moving. Throughout the United States, Meals on Wheels served over 3 million people and more than 250 million meals in fiscal year 2006. This is just one of thousands of charitable organizations. We need to encourage and support the Meals on Wheels volunteers and all other volunteers who need their cars to help their neighbors and communities. The Fair Deal for Volunteers Act will do just that, and I hope my colleagues will support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.