Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the concurrent resolution, as amended, be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, large numbers of mortgages acquired by the Government under this proposal are going to need to be modified. Large numbers of mortgages are going to need to be refinanced. If it becomes useful to hire outside companies that have the expertise and technology ready to work with borrowers and financial institutions to modify or refinance mortgages, it is important that the Government have the authority to do so. Is it your understanding that Treasury, the FDIC, or whomever Treasury selects to manage the residential mortgage loans the Government purchases, has the authority to enter into contracts with private companies on a competitive basis to facilitate loan modifications or facilitate refinancings, should the Government decide to do so?

Mr. LEVIN. Does Treasury have the authority to transfer the servicing rights to any modified or refinanced loan?

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator. Amendment No. 5687

Mr. LEVIN. As Treasury implements this new program, it is clear to me from reading the definition of financial institution that auto financing companies would be among the many financial institutions that would be eligible sellers to the government. Do you agree?

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator. It also seems clear from the definition of troubled assets that, should the Treasury Secretary, after consulting with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, determine that purchasing auto loans would promote financial market stability by opening up the market for car sales, that Treasury has the authority to make such purchases, so long as it transmits that determination to Congress.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, our Nation's economy is in crisis, the likes of which we have not seen since the 1930s. For years, we have traveled a disturbing path: foreclosures and unemployment are up while median income and purchasing power are down. CEO pay has skyrocketed while regular Americans are suffering. Economic growth has slowed because tight credit has forced businesses large and small to put investments for the future on hold while they focus on making sure they have capital to buy inventory or even make payroll. But in just the last few weeks, we have seen something even more startling appear on the horizon: our current path ends at a cliff, and if we do not take quick action to change the course of our economy, we could go over the edge. The reasons we are at this cliff are many. The path we have traveled has been marked by an appalling lack of oversight by the regulators of the marketplace. Wall Street has run amok with greed while the Bush administration and others urged them on in the name of deregulation. As in the runup to the Great Depression, our free markets are running wild. We have reduced capital requirements, removed the authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate swaps, and speculators took over the majority of some commodity trading, like oil. Still, echoing Roosevelt's opponents in the 1930s, some opponents of government stabilization actions argue that the kind of rescue plan before us today--and regulation of the practices that brought us here--threatens the freedom of our markets and our people. The opposite is true. In a free country, we need to have stoplights and cops to maintain order, keep everyone safe, and give everyone fair treatment and fair opportunity. The same is true of a free economy: when stoplights and cops are replaced by a drive to achieve total deregulation, the country is left with an absolute mess--and that is what we face today. Cops have been taken off the beat in our financial markets; stoplights to put a hold on free markets running wild have been dismantled; and now, regular Americans are suffering, and face even more dire consequences. There is plenty of blame to go around, and the excesses that continue to surface as this unfolds will no doubt be shocking. In the immediate term, however, the most pressing issue is how we turn our unstable economic situation around to avoid an even more dire result. If we fail to take action, pensions and savings could quickly be decimated by a wrecked stock market, and Americans could suffer with significant job losses and less ability to buy everything from groceries to a new car or house. Small businesses and even large ones are likely to see their access to capital further reduced, home mortgages could become even more difficult to acquire or refinance, foreclosures could further skyrocket, and auto and student loans could be much more difficult to get. Construction jobs would likely disappear, automakers would cut back even further on production and lay off workers, and retail and service jobs would be cut. Retirees who are counting on a 401(k) or other type of pension would see their nest eggs shattered. If the stock market crashes, investments--even those made years or decades ago in supposedly ``safe'' assets--would be drowned. It is clear to me that we cannot allow our Nation's economy to fall off this cliff. We need to take action before it is too late. Doing nothing is not an option. But it is with reluctance that I will vote for this rescue plan because it is not entirely clear that it will unlock enough credit and stop enough foreclosures to turn things around. It is also evident that this plan only includes the first steps towards getting regulatory cops back on the beat to make sure our markets are not allowed to continue running wild. But there also is no better alternative at this time, so I will vote for this plan with the hope that allowing the Government to buy up a significant portion of the troubled assets that are weighing down banks and other financial institutions will unlock enough capital to restore flexibility and credit to businesses and consumers, before Americans suffer even greater consequences of our current course. In addition, if done right, the Government can use this plan to purchase, modify, refinance, and resell mortgages that are based on accurate home values, have fair, longer-term repayment terms that homeowners can meet, and will return mortgage repayment rates to their historic high levels of dependability and profitability. If that is how this program is carried out, it can avert a disaster. Unlocking credit and restructuring mortgages will also help soothe investor concerns and, therefore, protect pensions, savings and investments. I could not have supported the original plan sent to Congress by the Bush administration. It did nothing to protect taxpayers or provide any oversight. It also did nothing to address the core of the problem, which is the foreclosure crisis. I think, however, that we in Congress have decided that if taxpayer dollars are used to clean up the financial mess, the administration is going to have to accept taxpayer safeguards and taxpayer oversight. Congress has done significant work to add in some of the needed taxpayer protections, and to make sure that this plan is grounded in helping regular Americans. Among other safeguards, this rescue bill provides the government, and thus the taxpayers, with options to acquire an equity stake in companies that take advantage of the program. By doing so, the government is providing some financial protection to taxpayers. The bill also includes limits on executive compensation for entities that take advantage of government assistance, though, like other provisions, the effectiveness of these provisions will depend upon how well they are implemented. The bill also imposes needed internal controls and oversight provisions to make sure this unprecedented power and amount of money is used responsibly. These controls include immediate public reporting of the assets purchased, including the price paid; GAO audits of those financial reports; and Inspector General oversight to prevent fraud, favoritism, waste of taxpayer dollars, and abuse of power. In addition, a special House-Senate oversight panel will be established to track this program and ensure that taxpayer interests are protected. These protections are important. Still more important is that Congress revamp oversight and regulation of our financial markets to prevent future financial disasters like this one. There are other provisions in the bill that are particularly important that I want to mention. I am pleased that this bill, in sections 109 and 110, requires the Treasury Department to maximize assistance for homeowners and encourage mortgage service providers to minimize foreclosures so as to keep families in their homes. Rampant foreclosures are at the core of this economic crisis, and a recovery can only come when the housing market turns around. This effort to limit foreclosures will be bolstered when the Federal government holds, owns or controls mortgages or mortgage backed securities. As the owner of loans that are at risk to be foreclosed upon, the government can consent to modifications, and can rework mortgages so that the homeowner can continue to make payments. Homeowners, communities and taxpayers generally will be better off than if these mortgages go into foreclosure. It should be noted that foreclosure mitigation measures will become much more difficult to enforce when the government buys mortgages that have been securitized and divided up into smaller parts. In these cases, section 109 requires Treasury to coordinate with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and other Federal entities that hold troubled assets to attempt to identify opportunities for the acquisition of classes of troubled assets. This will enable Treasury to improve the loan modification and restructuring process. All of the homeowner assistance and foreclosure mitigation programs included in this bill set worthy goals, but they could be stronger. Rather than encouraging servicers to modify unaffordable loans, the United States should undertake a systematic effort to minimize foreclosures, and the Treasury's efforts should be built around that principle. I would also like to have seen a similar requirement in any mortgage-related asset that the United States resold to the private sector. Unfortunately, such a carry-forward provision is not included in the final bill. I also support the bill provisions in section 108 that require Treasury to issue regulations or guidelines to ``manage or prohibit'' conflicts of interest. One conflict of interest that deserves special attention involves companies that service residential mortgages. These companies make a stream of revenue from servicing the loans. They may not specialize in loan modifications or refinancing. If a mortgage loan is refinanced through FHA or otherwise, the loan servicer may lose the business. For that reason, some loan servicers may have a conflict of interest when it comes to implementing the bill's policies promoting loan modifications and the HOPE for Homeowners Program. Therefore, in addition to companies that service loans, the Treasury Department should consider hiring companies who have the experience and technology to modify and refinance loans with and without FHA insurance. These companies need to be committed to working with borrowers to develop a loan that they can pay, and the companies need not be worried about servicing the modified or restructured loan. I am assured that the Treasury Department has the authority to accomplish this. Another important bill provision limits purchases of troubled assets to ``financial institutions'' which are ``established and regulated under the laws of the United States.'' We cannot afford to bail out offshore hedge funds, foreign banks, and sovereign wealth funds that purchased high risk mortgage-backed securities and other high risk investments to obtain high returns. I am relieved that we are focusing our efforts on U.S. institutions subject to U.S. regulation. I am also pleased that many state and regional banks, auto finance companies and other off-Wall Street entities will be eligible for participation in the troubled asset relief program. These entities are hurting, and their financial stability has a direct impact on American consumers; they should have access to this new market for otherwise illiquid assets. Furthermore, under this bill, the Treasury Secretary has the authority to purchase troubled assets that are not mortgage- related, so long as, after consulting with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, he or she determines that doing so would promote financial market stability. While this final bill is miles ahead of the Bush administration proposal sent to Congress, I am disappointed that it does not contain a number of additional taxpayer protections I advocated. Those missing protections included limits on the types of assets that could be purchased, requirements for contract competition, policies to minimize foreclosures, and regulation of credit default swaps. One of the taxpayer safeguards I advocated, for example, was to limit the bail out to purchasing troubled mortgages on ``real estate located in the United States.'' That limitation was not, however, included in the final bill. Its absence means that, as currently written, Treasury is able to purchase troubled mortgages on real estate located in Germany, Japan, China, anywhere in the world where U.S. financial institutions bought mortgages. That doesn't make sense, and I don't know why this basic limitation was left out of the bill. We can't afford to bail out mortgages or mortgage-backed securities on real estate in other countries, and I hope we won't. Another problem is that the bill does not require that competition be used to select the contractors who will manage the hundreds of billions of dollars in troubled assets that will be purchased under this act. A prior draft version of the bill stated that the Secretary ``shall solicit proposals from a broad range of qualified vendors interested in performing the work.'' That language disappeared from the final bill. The American taxpayer is left hoping that the Bush administration or the next administration will not continue the Bush administration's prior record of awarding huge, no-bid contracts to a favored few. Finally, I am disappointed that the bailout bill does not restore the authority of the United States to regulate one of the prime culprits responsible for this financial disaster, credit default swaps. Credit default swaps are a type of financial derivative typically used to insure payment of a debt obligation. Some companies, such as AIG, issued them to the debt holder in place of insurance policies to assure payment, while others used them like short sales, betting on whether an unrelated company will fail to pay its debts. These bets, called credit default swaps, are primarily responsible for the Federal bailout of AIG, they are the focus of an ongoing SEC investigation into market manipulation, and they continue to threaten U.S. financial market stability because so many financial firms have credit default swaps on their books. Eight years ago, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 prohibited the Securities and Exchange Commission from regulating all types of swap agreements, including credit default swaps. As a result, a completely unregulated $60 trillion credit default swap market has developed with no capital requirements like insurance companies have, no disclosures, no safeguards, and no oversight by any federal agency. The statutory bar against regulating swaps is a prime example of the deregulatory policies that landed American taxpayers in this $700 billion mess. It is a prime reason why financial institutions are afraid to lend to each other--no one knows who has how many credit default swaps outstanding, with which counterparties, involving how much money. Yet this bill fails to address this problem. At a Senate hearing on September 23, SEC Chairman Christopher Cox testified that the credit default swap market ``is completely lacking in transparency,'' ``is regulated by no one,'' and ``is ripe for fraud and manipulation.'' He stated that the SEC's lack of regulatory authority over swaps is a ``regulatory hole that must be immediately addressed,'' warning that otherwise ``we will have another crisis on our hands.'' Chairman Cox stated: ``I urge you to provide in statute the authority to regulate [credit default swap] products to enhance investor protection and ensure the operation of fair and orderly markets.'' Three days later, on Friday, September 26, SEC Chairman Cox repeated his warning and the need for SEC regulation: ``[I]t is critical that Congress ensure there are no similar major gaps in our regulatory framework. Unfortunately, as I reported to Congress this week, a massive hole remains: the approximately $60 trillion credit default swap market, which is regulated by no agency of government. Neither the SEC nor any regulator has authority even to require minimum disclosure. I urge Congress to take swift action to address this.'' Congress should have heeded that call and addressed the problem in this bill. This bill should have repealed the existing statutory prohibition and given the SEC general authority to regulate swap agreements. Such a provision would have closed the swaps regulatory loophole, while giving regulators and Congress additional time to determine what specific regulation might be appropriate. But neither this nor any other provision to regulate credit default swaps, or swaps in general, was included. It is a missed opportunity that we can only hope does not come back to haunt us. I hope the next Congress will address this issue as part of an effort to strengthen regulation. A final provision in the bill that was added at the last minute may also come back to haunt the American public. Section 132 authorizes the SEC to suspend the generally accepted accounting rule that requires publicly traded corporations to report the fair value of their assets in their financial statements. If it were to suspend this accounting rule, the SEC would strike a blow against honest accounting. Such suspension could essentially allow corporations to inflate their asset values by reporting something other than their fair market value--presumably allowing them to use instead historical data, mathematical models, best estimates--who knows? In a blink of an eye, corporations would have stronger balance sheets than they do now, essentially cooking their books with the approval of the SEC. It is an approach that echoes the excesses of the Enron debacle. The bill seems to prompt the SEC to allow this fantasy accounting at the very time that financial institutions are leery of lending money to each other, under the mistaken impression that artificially inflated balance sheets will encourage lending. But allowing inaccurate financial reporting, with inflated asset values, will not increase confidence in the markets and it will not unlock credit. As far as I know the SEC has never reached into the generally accepted accounting principles to suspend a particular rule, and I hope it doesn't start now. It would be a terrible precedent. And to the extent that including this provision in this economic stabilization bill was an effort to convey Congressional approval of that approach, I would like to make it clear that I oppose suspension of Financial Accounting Standards Board Rule 157. Honest accounting, using fair market values, is essential to resolving the financial disaster that now threatens our markets. The financial mess we are in is the result of 8 years of inadequate regulation of U.S. financial markets by the Bush administration. It is long past time to strengthen market oversight. The regulatory gaps are everywhere. Unfortunately, due to the urgency of adopting this legislation, many much-needed reforms were simply not included in the rescue plan. In 2004, the SEC voluntarily weakened the net capital rule that establishes capital reserves for securities firms. We need to restore the net capital rule that was weakened in 2004, and resulted in securities firms over-borrowing. Another glaring problem is the absence of regulation of the more than 8,000 hedge funds that use American markets. They don't even have to register with the SEC. Still another problem is the weak regulation of credit rating agencies, including the failure to resolve the conflicts of interest inherent in these agencies' rating the securities of the firms that hire them. Weak accounting rules that allow companies to hide their liabilities and over-value their assets continue to undermine investor confidence. We must also take action, as I have already mentioned, to regulate credit default swaps and other derivatives that financial institutions have loaded up on with little or no disclosure, regulation, or oversight. The collapse of credit card securities is another crisis waiting to happen due to abusive practices, excessive interest rates, growing debt, and the lack of credit card reform. There was talk early on of this bill setting an expedited schedule for addressing these and other financial regulatory issues, but nothing was included in the bill. I am pleased that the Senate has chosen to include in this legislation its tax extenders bill, which the Senate passed separately last week. With regard to tax incentives for advanced and alternative energy technologies, the extension of many critical existing tax incentives--including those for wind, solar, biomass, and alternative fuels production and infrastructure--will facilitate the development and commercialization of all of these technologies. I am particularly pleased about the inclusion of a new tax credit for plug-in hybrid and all-electric vehicles, which is essential not only to the development of these technologies but also to consumer acceptance and widespread use of these vehicles. In addition to the energy tax provisions, tax extenders, and the adjustment to the alternative minimum tax, the legislation before us now also includes the important provisions of the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act. Mental health parity is about basic fairness and equity. Individuals suffering from mental health illnesses deserve access to adequate and appropriate health care. I have spoken previously about the significance of addressing this issue, and I am glad that Congress is righting this wrong. I hope the House will accept this package. In conclusion, I will vote for this rescue package with many qualms but with the hope that it will prevent even greater harm to our economy and hard working American families. It is clear that a financial regulatory overhaul should be one of the first priorities of the next President and the new Congress.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support H.R. 2095, the Amtrak reauthorization bill, which was passed by the House of Representatives and is expected to pass the Senate today. I believe the economic strength of our Nation and the State of Michigan is dependent on our transportation infrastructure. Reliable passenger rail service is an important component of that infrastructure. I have been a strong supporter of Amtrak and have voted repeatedly to give Amtrak the funds it needs to continue to operate safely and effectively. I am a cosponsor of the Passenger Rail Investment & Improvement Act which reauthorizes and increases funding for Amtrak, the national passenger rail system. A version of that bill is included in the package we are voting on today. Also included in this legislation are important railroad safety improvements designed to avoid tragic rail crashes such as the recent horrible collision between a commuter train and a freight train that killed 25 people in California. Federal investigators have said that a collision warning system could have prevented that crash. This legislation would require that new technology to prevent crashes be installed in high-risk tracks. In addition, it would limit the amount of hours train crews can work each month. Both the funding and the safety components of this bill are urgently needed to ensure the viability of our nation's passenger rail transportation system in the years to come. A healthy and adequately funded Amtrak benefits Michigan and the nation as a whole. Amtrak service in Michigan includes the Pere Marquette which provides daily service between Grand Rapids and Chicago, the Wolverine which provides daily service between Pontiac/ Detroit and Chicago, and the Blue Water which provides daily service between Port Huron and Chicago. Amtrak gives travelers and commuters more transportation options, relieves crowding on highways and in airports, and reduces oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. This legislation would strengthen Amtrak by authorizing $13 billion for Amtrak over 5 years and require oversight, management, and accounting improvements. This legislation is long overdue as Congress has not passed Amtrak legislation since 1997. Unfortunately, in 2005, bipartisan attempts by the Senate to improve and modernize Amtrak's operations were blocked by Republican leadership in the House of Representatives. That same year, President Bush actually proposed sending the railroad into bankruptcy, and in other years he has proposed killing off Amtrak service by underfunding the railroad. In the interim, Amtrak has been muddling through with barely enough funds to keep operating and certainly not enough funding to significantly improve service or expand into new towns and cities. This bill would address past neglect and improve our Nation's passenger rail system. An improved national passenger rail system means people who are accustomed to commuting in their cars will be able to rely on train service, reducing congestion and stress for those who choose to continue to drive and offering an alternative for those who would prefer to take the train. Those who take the train will be able to relax while someone else does the driving. Improved Amtrak service also provides people who do not drive or do not have access to cars with a viable transportation alternative, especially for medium-distance trips. Rather than relying on friends and family to drive them from place to place, these people will be able to depend on Amtrak for their middle-distance transportation needs. This is especially important for elderly individuals who were once accustomed to driving but, because of age or illness, have become unable to drive safely. For example, two grandparents who live in Michigan and who no longer drive will be able to more easily visit their grandchildren in Chicago because of Amtrak's improved service in Michigan. Amtrak's train service is important to the cities and communities of Michigan because it reduces congestion on the roads, reduces pollution and commuting stress, and because it improves middle-distance transportation alternatives for the citizens of Michigan. Also important for Michigan and other States, this legislation establishes a $1.5 billion grant program for the construction of high- speed rail projects in any of the 11 designated high-speed rail corridors, one of which is the Midwest High-Speed Rail Corridor, also known as the Chicago hub corridor. This grant program would assist Michigan in the development of its portion of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative which includes making investments in high-speed rail capabilities in the Chicago-Detroit corridor. I support this bill because it provides a much needed boost to Amtrak and makes and important commitment to preserving and strengthening our national passenger rail system.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this consolidated appropriations bill includes three important Fiscal Year 2009 appropriations bills, the Homeland Security appropriations bill, the Military Construction and Veterans appropriations bill, and the Defense appropriations bill. In addition, this bill includes funding for a number of other important programs, including nutrition and home energy assistance programs to ensure those most vulnerable who rely on these programs do not lose access to them. Today many families are hurting from the current economic downturn and the rising food and energy costs. This bill includes additional funding for both the Nutrition for Women, Infants and Children, WIC, program and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, CSFP, which provide assistance to children, low-income working families, and seniors. It is of vital importance that we continue these food programs for our Nation's least fortunate and most vulnerable. I am pleased that the bill contains significant additional funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. This bill includes a total of $5.1 billion for LIHEAP, which is double the amount of funding provided in fiscal year 2008 and will serve an additional 2 million households and increase the average amount available per household. LIHEAP is a critically important program that was created to help low-income families, elderly individuals on a fixed income, and the unemployed pay their energy bills. Even before recent and projected increases in energy prices, Michigan--like other States--started off with less funding in the current fiscal year than was required to meet the need. There have been significant efforts over the last couple of years to provide full funding for the LIHEAP program--consistent with that authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005--but these efforts have been thwarted by an administration unwilling to support this program at the necessary level. Therefore, I am particularly pleased today that the administration finally has joined the Congress in supporting this vital lifeline for many Americans. This additional funding for LIHEAP is critically needed particularly as we head into the winter months. These funds need to be put quickly and directly into the hands of individuals who need them the most, which will both provide a vital safety net to these families and seniors and provide a benefit to the economy. Studies have shown that every LIHEAP dollar distributed generates up to 5 dollars of economic activity, thus helping to stimulate the economy. I am also pleased that this legislation includes a significant increase in funding for the Department of Energy's weatherization assistance programs, providing close to $500 million for this program in fiscal year 2009. The Bush administration has consistently reduced funding for weatherization assistance in previous years and even proposed to eliminate it completely this year. But instead of decimating the program as proposed by the administration with, the increase provided in this bill, Congress will more than double the assistance provided by the Federal Government and help to weatherize an additional 100,000 homes. Congress has changed eligibility rules under the Pell Grant Program in order to afford more students larger grants. As a result, the Pell Grant Program will require a funding boost from this year's funding to ensure each student's 2009-2010 Pell grant award level. The bill includes $2.5 billion above 2008 to prevent cuts in the Pell Grant award to students midway through the year. I am particularly pleased that this appropriations bill includes funding to support up to $25 billion for loans to auto manufacturers and suppliers for retooling of facilities to produce advanced technology vehicles and their component parts. These loans were authorized as part of the 2007 Energy bill to assist companies in moving swiftly toward advanced technology. Since that time, the need for access to capital has become increasingly urgent due to the state of the economy and significantly changed market conditions. In the midst of all the economic dark clouds that are in the sky, this is a significant bright spot that will help domestic manufacturers in moving forward with the advanced technology that we all want to see. The U.S. automotive manufacturing industry is facing huge challenges. They face a sputtering global economy, the economic downturn here at home, the credit crisis here at home, and the challenge of meeting new fuel economy standards that Congress enacted last year. The future viability of the auto industry depends on whether they are able to produce advanced technology vehicles that will reduce our consumption of oil and greenhouse gas emissions, be affordable for the average American, and ultimately save consumers money at the gas pump. The funding that is part of this legislation will support loans that will be fully repaid with interest to the Federal Government and will not cost the taxpayers anything beyond the administrative costs. The benefit to the American people is that it will help to bring these advanced vehicle technologies more quickly into the marketplace and it will ensure that these vehicles and components continue to be manufactured in the United States by American workers for many years to come. In the near term, the availability of these loans for auto manufacturers and suppliers in my home State of Michigan and other auto manufacturing States will help ensure that we maintain existing auto and supplier jobs and stem the decline in American manufacturing. Success in the area of advanced technology vehicles--such as hybrids, clean diesel, and plug-in hybrids--is critical to the future of Michigan-based auto manufacturers and suppliers and those in many other States. Most of these technologies were invented by our companies here in the United States, and we need to keep manufacturing them here and continue to lead the world in automotive innovation. These loans will help our companies stay competitive in the global marketplace. It is important to note that the loan program is open to all automakers and suppliers to retool their facilities to produce these vehicles and components. Some may be more in need than others--but it is open to everyone with a qualified technology. I want also to emphasize that these loans are available to suppliers and component manufacturers independently to develop and manufacture many of the technologies that will be assembled into advanced technology vehicles--technologies such as lightweight materials, batteries and battery systems, fuel cells, and other components that offer tremendous potential to improve fuel economy. It is a significant accomplishment to have funding for these loans included in this appropriations bill. The next step in this process is for the Department of Energy to establish regulations to implement this program, and it is essential that it happen quickly. We need these regulations completed expeditiously in order to get money out the door to the manufacturers that need it to move forward with advanced technology vehicles and components. The legislation significantly increases resources for border security, including $30 million for border interoperability demonstration projects. In 2007, I authored the legislation that established the International Border Community Interoperable Communications Demonstration Projects on the northern and southern borders. These projects will address the interoperable communications needs of police officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, National Guard, and other emergency response providers at our borders. The bill also provides valuable funding for our first responders, rail and transit security FIRE Act grants, and SAFER grants. The Defense appropriations section of the bill supports the operational needs of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and the ongoing transformation of the military. Small and large businesses and universities across State play a critical role in ensuring that our Armed Forces are equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Especially in the areas of vehicle technologies, robotics, energy and manufacturing research and development, Michigan continues to lead the way. The bill includes approximately $354.1 million for Army research on combat vehicle and automotive technologies. This includes work on systems to protect Army vehicles against rocket-propelled grenades, improvised explosive devices and explosively formed projectiles; advanced materials for combat and tactical vehicle armor; more efficient engines; fuel cell and hybrid electric vehicles; unmanned ground vehicles; computer simulations for vehicle design and training of Army personnel; and technology partnerships with the automotive industry. This research is performed and managed by the Army Tank and Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Command, TARDEC, and its National Automotive Center, NAC, both located in Warren, MI. TARDEC is the leading laboratory for research and development of advanced military vehicle technologies for the Department of Defense, DOD. The bill also includes funding for the programs of the Army's TACOM Life Cycle Management Command, LCMC, in Warren. TACOM LCMC is the Army's lead organization for the development and acquisition of ground vehicle combat, automotive and armaments technologies and systems. TACOM LCMC-managed systems include the Abrams main battle tank, Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Stryker Armored Vehicle, Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle, and all Army tactical vehicles, such as the HMMWV, FMTVs, and the Army's next generation of combat vehicles, known as Future Combat Systems. There are nine military construction projects included in the MILCONN/VA division of the bill for Michigan, including $68.5 million for the Detroit Arsenal in Warren. These funds are crucial for the needed construction and renovations necessary to accommodate the more than 1,000 personnel who will be transferred to the Detroit Arsenal. This bill will also provide much needed improvements at Camp Grayling, the Army Reserve Center in Saginaw, and Selfridge Air National Guard Base.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the House amendment to S. 3001, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. This bill was voted out of the Senate Armed Services Committee by a unanimous vote back in April. Last week, the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 88-8. Over the last week, we have worked around the clock to reconcile the Senate and House versions of the Defense authorization bill. The compromise version of the bill--the House amendment to S. 3001--has now been approved by the House by on overwhelming bipartisan vote of 392- 39. The bill that we bring before the Senate today contains many provisions that will improve the quality of life for our men and women in uniform, give them the tools that they need to defend our nation, and provide critical reforms to improve the operations of the Pentagon. First and foremost, the bill would provide critical support to our men and women in uniform. For example, it would increase military pay by 3.9 percent--a half a percent more than the President requested; provide continued authority for the payment of enlistment and reenlistment bonuses, accession and retention bonuses for service members with critical skills or assigned to high-priority units, and other special bonuses and incentives needed to reward our troops and ensure that we can recruit and retain the people that we need in our military; authorize funds for military family housing and military construction projects needed to ensure that our troops have the housing that they deserve and our military has the facilities it needs for the national defense; and protect members of the military, family members and retirees from any increase in TRICARE fees, premiums, deductibles and copays. The bill would increase the end strength of the Army, the Marine Corps, and the Army National Guard, to help reduce the incredible stress on our troops. It would also establish and extend critical authorities needed by the Department of Defense in our current operations. For example, the bill would provide DOD the authority to use funds for quick-turnaround construction projects needed to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; extend DOD's authority to provide ``train and equip'' funds and ``stabilization and security assistance'' so essential to the well-being of our troops; provide $1.5 billion for the Commanders' Emergency Response Program, CERP, which commanders on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan consider the highest priority for protecting U.S. forces; and provide funding for critical initiatives, including $2.2 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization's, JIEDDO's, ongoing efforts to defeat the threat of improvised explosive device, IEDs. At a time when thousands of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are deployed around the world and our all-volunteer military is straining to meet the requirements of two ongoing conflicts while remaining prepared for other contingencies, these are steps that we simply must take. When our men and women in uniform are in harm's way, there is nothing more important. The bill also includes a number of measures to ensure the proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars. It would also ensure that the Iraqis use their own oil revenues rather than U.S. tax dollars to pay for large infrastructure projects and for the training and equipping of the Iraqi military. At the beginning of the Iraq war, then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz testified that Iraq would be able to ``finance its own reconstruction'' through oil revenues. That has not proven to be true. To date, the U.S. taxpayers have paid approximately $48 billion for stabilization and reconstruction activities in Iraq. While the Iraqi government has generated more than $100 billion in oil revenues since the war began, it has spent only a small fraction of that amount on its own reconstruction. The Iraqi government now has $80 billion at its disposal to fund large scale reconstruction projects. Under these circumstances, it is inexcusable for U.S. taxpayers to continue to foot the bill for projects that Iraqis are fully capable of funding themselves. Other provisions of the bill would help improve the management of the Department of Defense and protect taxpayer dollars. For example, the bill would institute improved cost controls for the acquisition of major weapon systems; require program managers to incorporate energy efficiency requirements into the performance parameters for such systems; establish new ethics standards to prevent personal conflicts of interest by contractor employees who perform acquisition functions on behalf of the Department of Defense; and establish a new database of information regarding contractor integrity, ensuring that this information is available to acquisition officials making key contracting decisions. I am disappointed that procedural obstacles in the Senate precluded us from considering a package of more than a hundred amendments, which would have taken further steps to support our troops and improve the management of the Department of Defense. Where it was possible within the scope of the House and Senate bills, we tried to include eleme nts of these amendments. Unfortunately, many of these important amendments were beyond the scope of the two bills and will have to be deferred until next year. I am also disappointed that we were unable to adopt provisions addressing the administration's excessive reliance on contractors to perform functions that should be performed by the uniformed military or by civilian federal employees. For example, both the Senate bill and the House bill included provisions that would have precluded the use of contractor employees to perform inherently governmental functions in an area of combat operations, or to conduct interrogations of detainees. Unfortunately, these provisions drew a veto threat, so we had to limit ourselves to a Sense of Congress expressing our views on the issue. When this bill was under consideration in the Senate, we spent a great deal of time and effort discussing how best to provide public visibility for our funding decisions, including earmarks of funds authorized in the bill. Historically, our funding tables have been included in report language, rather than in bill language. In Executive Order 13457, the President stated his view that such funding decisions should be ``included in the text of the bills voted upon by the Congress and presented to the President.'' Unfortunately, the Government Printing Office informed us that incorporating our funding tables into bill language would have added three full days to the time required to prepare a bill for floor consideration in the Senate and the House--even if GPO did not have other high priority work to accomplish at the same time. This delay would have been in addition to the day and a half it would have required for the committee staff to prepare the funding tables in a form that could be processed by GPO, and to ensure the accuracy of GPO's work. With only a few days left for the House and the Senate to consider the bill before the end of this year's session of Congress, we determined that placing the funding tables into bill language was not an option that was available to us. Instead, we have incorporated the tables into the bill by reference--an action that has the same legal effect. To ensure public visibility of all of the funding decisions in the tables, the tables have been posted on the websites of both the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Armed Services Committee. This is in addition to the posting on these websites of separate transparency tables which--as required by the Rules of the Senate and the House of Representatives--provide information about each funding item requested by a Senator or a Member of Congress. As of today, almost 200,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are deployed far from home, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait and other theaters of operations around the world. After more than 6 years of war, our military, particularly our ground forces, are severely stressed. Too many of our troops are worn out, their families are tired of repeated deployments, and our equipment is being used up. We need to enact this bill to improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform. We need to enact this bill to give them the tools that they need to remain the most effective fighting force in the world. Most important of all, we need to enact this bill to send an important message that we, as a nation, stand behind them and appreciate their service. At a time when our men and women in uniform are sacrificing so much for our country every day, it is surely not asking too much for our colleagues to agree to enact this bill so we can provide our troops the support that they need and deserve. I urge my colleagues to support the House amendment to S. 3001--the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, first, let me thank the Presiding Officer. This is a bittersweet moment for me. This will be the last time the Senator from Virginia and I will be standing here and celebrating the passage of a Defense authorization bill. We stood together in support of these bills and the men and women of our Armed Forces for 30 years. In this particular case--there have been previous examples of this, but this is perhaps the most dramatic one--we would not be standing here with a bill in hand now going to the White House but for the courage of the Senator from Virginia. I will not go into all the details as to how that came about, but it is because of his commitment to the men and women in uniform that we have a bill. We would not have a bill this year except that he took the steps which he was determined to take as a Senator of this Nation--not just of Virginia--to support the men and women in uniform. So on behalf of 25 committee members, 45 committee staff members, 2.3 million Active Duty and Reserve members of the military and their families, I offer a heartfelt thanks for them for a job always well done by the Senator from Virginia. I will have more to say about the Senator from Virginia also next week. But for the time being, let me say this: In the future, when we cannot seem to find our way out of the difficult situations that a bill of this magnitude and complexity get us into, people will say: Well, what would John Warner have done? That will be the question we will ask. When we ask that question, the right answers will follow. I thank my dear friend.

Mr. LEVIN. Well, Madam President, the men and women of this Nation would be grateful to John Warner if they knew him, had that honor of knowing him. They have been benefited by him even though they will never know him. Maybe as a 17-year-old sailor back in 1945, the last thing in his mind was that he would ever be a Senator. There is something about this Nation that makes it possible for men and women-- in this case a man such as John Warner--to rise to the very top of the respect of his country men and women. It has been a true pleasure and honor to serve with him. I, again, will have more to say about that next week. But I, again, wish to thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Congress needs to take action to stimulate the slumping economy in ways that create jobs and help average middle- class Americans. So I am pleased that today the Senate is voting on a second economic stimulus package of $56.2 billion aimed at creating jobs and helping people suffering from higher prices at the pump and at the grocery store, reduced State services, high unemployment, home foreclosures and otherwise feeling the economic pain in their daily lives. We clearly need more economic stimulus, especially in States like Michigan. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill. Importantly, this package includes a much needed unemployment extension. In August, Michigan's unemployment rate rose from 8.5 percent to 8.9 percent. The Nation's unemployment rate also increased by .4 percent, to 6.1 percent, the highest since 2003. These are very hard economic times. Unemployment rates are rising and since January 2001 we have lost 3.686 million manufacturing jobs nationally and 253,800 manufacturing jobs in Michigan. Since 2000, we have lost more than 450,000 jobs in Michigan across all industries. The unemployment insurance extension which was signed into law on June 30 as part of the supplemental war appropriations bill included a 13-week extension of UI benefits for all States. Since then, workers who started receiving the 13-week extension in mid-July under the current program will have their benefits cut off starting October 5. This means that an estimated 42,600 workers in Michigan will be cut off in October, and 775,000 workers across the Nation. By the end of this year, the number of individuals who would have exhausted their unemployment benefits will rise to 58,000 in Michigan and 1.1 million nationally. The unemployment insurance extension included in this economic stimulus package is essential. This extension will ensure that hard working Americans have an additional 7 weeks as they continue to find jobs. In high unemployment States like Michigan, these States will receive an additional 13 weeks. We must ensure that those individuals who have lost their jobs and are looking for work, during a time when industries are losing jobs and the price of food and energy are rising, are not also struggling to put food on their table, pay their utility bills, and cover their mortgages. With States facing billions of dollars in shortfalls in revenue collection, they are forced to cut health care, education and other important programs that average people depend on. This bill will help States facing shortfalls by providing $19.6 billion to reduce the State's share of Medicaid costs by increasing the Federal share by 4 percent. The bill also includes $10.8 billion for building and repairing highways, bridges, mass transit and airports. I have been calling for additional infrastructure spending because infrastructure investment creates jobs and promptly puts people to work. This type of investment strengthens our economy and it gives us better roads and safer bridges. President Bush had opposed providing infrastructure funding as an economic stimulus claiming there is a lag time to get infrastructure projects going and Federal funding could not be spent fast enough to spur the economy in the short term. But there are plenty of ready to go projects in Michigan and other states that can put people to work right away. Infrastructure spending for projects that are ready to begin construction could immediately create high-paying jobs in the short term. Once built, the new infrastructure would enhance economic output over the long term. Investment in transportation, water and sewer projects, navigational systems, and other public infrastructure projects that are ready to go will create jobs and provide the means for future economic growth. Specifically, Michigan has at least $263 million of transportation projects that could be started this year. The Great Lakes navigational system also faces a backlog in construction and operations and maintenance projects. The Army Corps of Engineers estimates $62 million could be used this year to address the backlog in dredging projects to help ensure that shipping--one of the lowest cost ways to transport supplies to industry and products to customers--is not impeded. The Economic Recovery Act includes $100 million for Army Corps of Engineers dredging projects to address this backlog and to ensure that channels are dredged for energy shipments and other raw materials. Great Lakes coal trade for the year totals about 24 million tons, fueling electric utilities and manufacturing plants. In total, Great Lakes vessels transport about 115 million tons of cargo each year, fueling our Nation's industries and manufacturing plants. This funding is critical for ensuring these shipments can continue to flow. The bill also would provide $600 million for the Environmental Protection Agency's clean water State revolving fund, which provides funding to States for low-cost loans for sewer projects. This money could be used immediately in Michigan, which has 20 sewer projects that are ready-to-go, and could use $55 million this year. I am pleased that the stimulus package contains a significant increase in funding for the Department of Energy's weatherization assistance programs, providing an increase of $500 million over what is already proposed to be included in the continuing resolution for fiscal year 2009, providing a total of close to $1 billion for this program. The Bush administration has consistently reduced funding for weatherization assistance in previous years and even proposed to eliminate it completely this year. But instead of decimating the program as proposed by the administration, the stimulus package will more than triple the current level of funding assistance provided by the Federal Government and help to weatherize an additional 300,000 homes and support more than 8,000 existing jobs. This stimulus package also includes over $700 million to continue to help our Nation's homeowners and renters, many of whom are experiencing the real impacts of this housing crisis first hand. The increased funding to implement the recently-passed Housing and Economic Recovery Act, funding for legal assistance to families whose homes are in foreclosure, and housing assistance to renters who are being displaced by foreclosure included in this bill would provide much needed relief to those caught in the middle of this crisis. In addition, this bill would provide additional funding to assist the FBI in their investigation of the rising claims of mortgage fraud throughout this country. The cost of operating and maintaining public housing has been rising and public housing agencies need additional funding to address critical and urgent safety, security and energy-related needs. This bill includes funding to address these needs that will prioritize rehabilitating vacant rental units in order to meet increasing demand for affordable rental housing. The stimulus package includes an additional $300 million for advanced battery research and development and battery manufacturing. This funding is critical if the U.S. is to develop the components needed for advanced technology vehicles and if we are to remain competitive in the global marketplace. There is a strong push here and in other countries to develop a lithium ion battery suitable for vehicle applications at affordable cost. Significantly more Federal investment is required--as much as triple the amount being spent now--if we are to meet this challenge in the U.S. Over time, Japan and other Asian governments have invested significantly more money in battery technology and have supported their manufacturers in bringing these technologies to the market. Most of these technologies were originally invented here, but the manufacturing has been done overseas because these other countries more vigorously support their manufacturing base. We need a similar strong commitment in the U.S.--both in exploratory research and development and in development of advanced battery manufacturing capabilities--to ensure that the next generation of technology is built here in America. The additional $300 million included in the stimulus will take a giant step in the right direction. This legislation also includes valuable funding for law enforcement and border security. It includes $490 million for Byrne grants to support State and local police and $500 million for the COPS hiring grant program, which will put 6,500 new officers on the street across the country. Further, the bill includes $776 million for border construction at CBP-owned inspection facilities at land border ports of entry. Mr. President, with the economic crisis on Wall Street looming before us Congress must act to help people on Main Street now more than ever. The bill before us does this and I will vote for it.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, a recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine examined the link between the presence of guns in the home and the chance of suicide. The article, written by Dr. Matthew Miller and Dr. David Hemenway, entitled ``Guns and Suicide in the United States,'' illustrates a direct correlation between having a loaded firearm in a home and the success rate of suicide attempts. According to the article, in 2005, the most recent year mortality data are available, suicide was the second leading cause of death among Americans 40 years of age or younger. More than half of all suicides in the United States are carried out by a firearm. An average of 46 Americans per day committed suicide with a firearm in 2005, accounting for 53 percent of all completed suicides. Many of the attempts made at suicide are both impulsive and fleeting. There is often a very short window between the time a person decides they are going to attempt suicide and the time they follow through with the attempt. These attempts are often made drastically, in reaction to a specific event. However, as the initial reaction to the event subsides, so often does the urge to attempt suicide. This is illustrated by the fact that more than 90 percent of the people who survive a suicide attempt, do not go on to die by suicide. Unfortunately, those attempt suicide using a firearm are rarely fortunate enough to survive and thus have an opportunity for reconsideration. Suicide attempts that involve drugs or cutting have a much lower mortality rate. The article cites over a dozen studies that have found that there is between a two and ten times greater risk of suicide in a home with a firearm than without. These risks do not only increase for the gun owner but also for the gun owner's spouse and children. The simple fact is that guns increase the chance of suicide. Suicide prevention is a national problem that demands our attention and commitment. Congress must do its part by taking such steps as ensuring gun manufacturers supply trigger locks and closing the loopholes that allow young people easy access to guns.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have the distinct honor of rising today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of a true Michigan success story, the founding of General Motors Corporation. It was 100 years ago this month that a man named Billy Durant who, after years in the horse- drawn carriage business, founded General Motors in Flint, MI. Durant had taken the helm at a small motor car company called Buick, and, in September 1908, incorporated it into General Motors. Under his stewardship, Buick became the best-selling brand in the world, affording Durant the opportunity to buy a number of other small companies including Oldsmobile, Cadillac, and the company that would eventually be known as Pontiac. Later he started Chevrolet and brought it into General Motors as well. Over the century that followed its incorporation, GM would become the largest company in the world, driven by the goal articulated by Alfred Sloan, president of GM in the 1920s and 1930s, to build ``a car for every purse and purpose.'' In that pursuit, the company time and again originated innovations that continue to benefit consumers to this day, ranging from the closed-body car, 1910, to the electric starter, 1912, to mass-produced automatic transmissions, 1940, to pollution controls, 1963, to airbags, 1973, to the catalytic converter, 1974. But the intertwined nature of the company with this nation's economic growth extends far beyond innovative technological contributions and even beyond balance sheets and metrics for economic growth. You can ask just about anyone, ``What's the heartbeat of America?'' And years after that slogan last passed across our television screens, people still know the answer is Chevrolet. And of course many Americans heeded the good advice to ``See the USA in your Chevrolet.'' Cadillac has become a ubiquitous synonym for quality. The Pontiac GTO defined an era of muscle cars. The legendary ``409'' block engine became an American icon. During the Second World War, GM provided more than $12 billion of goods to support the Allied effort, more than any other company. The company also played critical roles in the navigation system that sent Americans to the moon for the first time, and designed and built the lunar rover, which was used by astronauts to travel around the Moon in subsequent trips. Today, GM employs more than 250,000 people, and in 2007 sold nearly 9.37 million cars and trucks. And its next century is filled with promise. As the GM marketing team has noted, in 2008 we are in the middle of an American revolution. The company that helped to make Michigan the arsenal of Democracy is working on fuel cells that can make help break our democracy's dependence on foreign oil. The company that invented the electric starter is going to be a leader in bringing a plug-in hybrid, the Volt, to consumers. The company that brought consumers the first automatic transmission is striving to bring consumers the first zero-emissions commute. I offer my congratulations to the entire GM family on 100 remarkable years, and wish them all the best in keeping the pedal to the metal for 100 more.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, energy prices are on a roller coaster, taking American consumers and the American economy on an unpredictable, expensive, and damaging ride. Just over a year ago, a barrel of crude oil sold for $70 a barrel. In less than a year, the price doubled to nearly $147. Last week, that same barrel of oil cost $91, a price drop of $56 over a few months. Just in the past week crude oil prices have jumped from about $96 per barrel to $130 per barrel and then back to $106 per barrel. No one knows whether, by the end of the year, the price of oil will stay around $100, drop lower, or climb back up. The huge price spikes we experienced can't be explained by changes in supply and demand; about half the trading in oil futures results from speculation as to whether oil prices will rise or fall by traders without any interest in actually using the oil they are buying and selling. The natural gas, gasoline, and heating oil markets have also seen huge price swings. The prices are up, they are down, they are unpredictable--making it impossible for many businesses and consumers to afford even basic goods and services. The sky-high oil and gasoline prices in effect for the last year are taking a tremendous toll on millions of American consumers and businesses. Speculation--not supply and demand--is keeping prices high, and our economy is forced to respond to erratic price changes. Unless we act to protect our energy markets from excessive speculation and price manipulation, the American economy will continue to be vulnerable to wild price swings affecting the prices of transportation, food, manufacturing and everything in between, endangering the economic security of our people, our businesses, and our Nation. Congress should act now to help tame rampant speculation and reinvigorate supply and demand as market forces. Today, I am introducing legislation, along with Senators Bingaman and Harkin, that represents our collective effort to enact the strongest and most workable measures to prevent excessive speculation and price manipulation in U.S. energy markets. It will close the loopholes in our commodities laws that now impede the policing of U.S. energy trades on foreign exchanges and in the unregulated over-the-counter market. It will ensure that large commodity traders cannot use these markets to hide from CFTC oversight or avoid limits on speculation. The bill will strengthen disclosure, oversight, and enforcement in U.S. energy markets, restoring the financial oversight that is crucial to protect American consumers, American businesses, and the U.S. economy from further energy shocks. More specifically, this legislation would make four sets of changes. It will require the CFTC to set limits on the holdings of traders in all of the energy futures contracts traded on regulated exchanges to prevent traders from engaging in excessive speculation or price manipulation. Since we closed the Enron loophole this year all futures contracts must be traded in regulated markets. It would close the ``London loophole'' by giving the CFTC the same authority to police traders in the United States who trade U.S. futures contracts on a foreign exchange and by requiring foreign exchanges that want to install trading terminals in the U.S. to impose comparable limits on speculative trading as the CFTC imposes on domestic exchanges to prevent excessive speculation and price manipulation. It will close the ``swaps loophole'' by requiring traders in the over-the-counter energy markets to report large trades to the CFTC, and it would authorize the CFTC to set limits on trading in the presently unregulated over-the-counter markets to prevent excessive speculation and price manipulation. It will require the CFTC to revise the standards that allow traders who use futures markets to hedge their holdings to exceed the speculation limits that apply to everyone else. My Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations' investigations have shown that one key factor in price spikes of energy is increased speculation in the energy markets. Traders are trading contracts for future delivery of oil in record amounts, creating a demand for paper contracts that gets translated into increases in prices and increasing price volatility. Much of this increase in trading of futures has been due to speculation. Speculators in the oil market do not intend to use oil; instead they buy and sell contracts for crude oil in the hope of making a profit from changing prices. According to the CFTC's data, the number of futures and options contracts held by speculators has gone from around 100,000 contracts in 2001, which was 20 percent of the total number of outstanding contracts, to almost 1.2 million contracts, which represents almost 40 percent of the outstanding futures and options contracts in oil on NYMEX Even this understates the increase in speculation, since the CFTC data classifies futures trading involving index funds as commercial trading rather than speculation, and the CFTC classifies all traders in commercial firms as commercial traders, regardless of whether any particular trader in that firm may in fact be speculating. There is now, as a result, 12 times as many speculative holdings as there was in 2001, while holdings of nonspeculative or commercial futures and options is up but three times. The greater the demand there is to buy futures contracts for the delivery of a commodity, the higher the price will be for those futures contracts. Not surprisingly, therefore, this massive speculation that the price of oil will increase, together with the increase in the amount of purchases of futures contracts, in fact, helped increase the price of oil to a level far above the price that is justified by the traditional forces of supply and demand. In June 2006, I released a subcommittee report, ``The Role of Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices: A Need to Put a Cop on the Beat.'' This report found that the traditional forces of supply and demand didn't account for sustained price increases and price volatility in the oil and gasoline markets. The report concluded that, in 2006, a growing number of trades of contracts for future delivery of oil occurred without regulatory oversight and that market speculation had contributed to rising oil and gasoline prices, perhaps accounting for $20 out of a then-priced $70 barrel of oil. Oil industry executives and experts have arrived at a similar conclusion. Late last year, the President and CEO of Marathon Oil said, ``$100 oil isn't justified by the physical demand in the market. It has to be speculation on the futures market that is fueling this.'' Mr. Fadel Gheit, oil analyst for Oppenheimer and Company describes the oil market as ``a farce.'' ``The speculators have seized control and it's basically a free-for-all, a global gambling hall, and it won't shut down unless and until responsible governments step in.'' In January of this year, when oil first hit $100 per barrel, Mr. Tim Evans, oil analyst for Citigroup, wrote ``the larger supply and demand fundamentals do not support a further rise and are, in fact, more consistent with lower price levels.'' At the joint hearing on the effects of speculation we held last December, Dr. Edward Krapels, a financial market analyst, testified, ``Of course financial trading, speculation affects the price of oil because it affects the price of everything we trade. . . . It would be amazing if oil somehow escaped this effect.'' Dr. Krapels added that as a result of this speculation ``there is a bubble in oil prices.'' The need to control speculation is urgent. The presidents and CEOs of major U.S. airlines recently warned about the disastrous effects of rampant speculation on the airline industry. The CEOs stated ``normal market forces are being dangerously amplified by poorly regulated market speculation.'' The CEOs wrote, ``For airlines, ultra-expensive fuel means thousands of lost jobs and severe reductions in air service to both large and small communities.'' As to reining in speculation, the first step to take is to put a cop back on the beat in all our energy markets to prevent excessive speculation, price manipulation, and trading abuses. With respect to the futures markets, the legislation we are introducing today requires the CFTC to establish limits on the amount of futures contracts any trader can hold. Currently, the CFTC allows the futures exchanges themselves to set these limits. This bill would require the CFTC to set these limits to prevent excessive speculation and price manipulation. It would preserve, however, the exchanges' obligation and ability to police their traders to ensure they remain below these limits. This legislation would also require the CFTC to conduct a rulemaking to review and revise the criteria for allowing traders who are using the futures market to hedge their risks in a commodity to acquire holdings in excess of the limits on holdings for speculators. Another step is to give the CFTC authority to prevent excessive speculation in the over-the-counter markets. In 2007, my Subcommittee issued a report on the effects of speculation in the energy markets, entitled ``Excessive Speculation in the Natural Gas Market.'' This investigation showed that speculation by a hedge fund named Amaranth distorted natural gas prices during the summer of 2006 and drove up prices for average consumers. The report demonstrated how Amaranth had shifted its speculative activity to unregulated markets, under the ``Enron loophole,'' to avoid the restrictions and oversight in the regulated markets, and how Amaranth's trading in the unregulated markets contributed to price increases. Following this investigation, I introduced a bill, S. 2058, to close the Enron loophole and regulate the unregulated electronic energy markets. Working with Senators Feinstein and Snowe, and with the members of the Agriculture Committee in a bipartisan effort, we included an amendment to close the Enron loophole in the farm bill, which Congress passed this past spring, overriding a veto by President Bush. The legislation to close the Enron loophole placed over-the-counter-- OTC--electronic exchanges under CFTC regulation. However, this legislation did not address the separate issue of trading in the rest of the OTC market, which includes bilateral trades through voice brokers, swap dealers, and direct party-to-party negotiations. In order to ensure there is a cop on the beat in all of the energy commodity markets, we need to address the rest of the OTC market as well. Previously, I introduced legislation, S. 3255, along with Senator Feinstein, the Over-the-Counter Speculation Act, to address the rest of the OTC market not covered by the farm bill. A large portion of this OTC market consists of the trading of swaps relating to the price of a commodity. Generally, commodity swaps are contracts between two parties where one party pays a fixed price to another party in return for some type of payment at a future time depending on the price of a commodity. Because some of these swap instruments look very much like futures contracts--except that they do not call for the actual delivery of the commodity--there is concern that the price of these swaps that are traded in the unregulated OTC market could affect the price of the very similar futures contracts that are traded on the regulated futures markets. We don't yet know for sure that this is the case, or that it is not, because we don't have any access to comprehensive data or reporting on the trading of these swaps in the OTC market. The legislation introduced today includes these same provisions to give the CFTC oversight authority to stop excessive speculation in the over-the-counter market. These provisions represent a practical, workable approach that will enable the CFTC to obtain key information about the OTC market to enable it to prevent excessive speculation and price manipulation. These provisions are also included in the legislation introduced by the majority leader and others, S. 3268, to stop excessive speculation. Under these provisions, the CFTC will have the authority to ensure that traders cannot avoid the CFTC reporting requirements by trading swaps in the unregulated OTC market instead of regulated exchanges. It will enable the CFTC to act, such as by requiring reductions in holdings of futures contracts or swaps, against traders with large positions in order to prevent excessive speculation or price manipulation regardless of whether the trader's position is on an exchange or in the OTC market. The bill we are introducing today, unlike S. 3255, gives the CFTC the authority to establish position limits in the over-the-counter market for energy and agricultural commodities in order to prevent excessive speculation and price manipulation. The CFTC needs this authority to ensure that large traders are not using the over-the-counter markets to evade the position limits in the futures markets. Earlier this year I introduced legislation with Senators Feinstein, Durbin, Dorgan and Bingaman, S.3129, to close the London loophole. This loophole has allowed crude oil traders in the U.S. to avoid the position limits that apply to trading on U.S. futures exchanges by directing their trades onto the ICE Futures Exchange in London. The legislation we introduced also was incorporated into the legislation to stop prevent excessive speculation introduced by the majority leader, S. 3268. These provisions are now included in the legislation we are introducing today. After this legislation was first introduced, the CFTC imposed more stringent requirements upon the ICE Futures Exchange's operations in the United States--for the first time requiring the London exchange to impose and enforce comparable position limits in order to be allowed to keep its trading terminals in the United States. This is the very action our legislation called for. However, the current CFTC position limits apply only to the nearest futures contract. Our legislation will ensure that foreign exchanges with trading terminals in the U.S. will apply position limits to other futures contracts once the CFTC establishes those limits for U.S. exchanges. Although the CFTC has taken these important steps that will go a long way towards closing the London loophole, Congress should still pass this legislation to make sure the London loophole stays closed. The legislation would put the conditions the CFTC has imposed upon the London exchange into statute, and ensure that the CFTC has clear authority to take action against any U.S. trader who is manipulating the price of a commodity or excessively speculating through the London exchange, including requiring that trader to reduce positions. The legislation we are introducing today also includes a number of provisions in the majority leader's bill, S. 3248, that require a variety of studies, investigations, and reports designed to improve the transparency and regulation of the energy markets. It also provides authorization for the CFTC to hire an additional 100 employees to oversee the commodity markets it regulates. On September 11, the CFTC issued a ``Staff Report on Commodity Swap Dealers and Index Traders with Commission Recommendations.'' The legislation we have introduced embodies several of the CFTC's recommendations to improve the transparency and regulation of swap dealers and commodity index traders. These recommendations include: develop and regularly publish reports on the activity of swap dealers and commodity index traders; more accurately assess the type of trading activity in the CFTC's weekly reports on commercial and noncommercial trading; review whether to eliminate the bona fide hedge exemption for swap dealers and create new limited risk management exemption; provide additional staff and resources for the CFTC. Our legislation also is consistent with CFTC Commissioner Chilton's dissenting views on the CFTC's recommendations. In his dissent, Commissioner Chilton requested that Congress provide: ``specific statutory authorities to allow the Commission to obtain data regarding over-the-counter transactions that may impact exchange-traded markets; ``specific statutory authorities to allow the Commission to address market disturbances or violations of the Commodity Exchange Act, based on the data received regarding over-the-counter transactions;'' and authorization and appropriation for 100 additional employees. Our bill provides the CFTC with the statutory authorities requested by Commissioner Chilton and authorizes the requested employees. In summary, the legislation we are introducing today will give the CFTC ability to police all of our energy commodity markets to prevent excessive speculation and price manipulation. This legislation is necessary to close all of the loopholes in current law that permit speculators to avoid trading limits designed to prevent the type of excessive speculation that has been contributing to high energy prices. We hope our colleagues will support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a bill summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Levin pertaining to the introduction of S. 3577 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, energy prices are on a roller coaster, taking American consumers and the American economy on an unpredictable, expensive, and damaging ride. Just over a year ago, a barrel of crude oil sold for $70 a barrel. In less than a year, the price doubled to nearly $147. Last week, that same barrel of oil cost $91, a price drop of $56 over a few months. Just in the past week crude oil prices have jumped from about $96 per barrel to $130 per barrel and then back to $106 per barrel. No one knows whether, by the end of the year, the price of oil will stay around $100, drop lower, or climb back up. The huge price spikes we experienced can't be explained by changes in supply and demand; about half the trading in oil futures results from speculation as to whether oil prices will rise or fall by traders without any interest in actually using the oil they are buying and selling. The natural gas, gasoline, and heating oil markets have also seen huge price swings. The prices are up, they are down, they are unpredictable--making it impossible for many businesses and consumers to afford even basic goods and services. The sky-high oil and gasoline prices in effect for the last year are taking a tremendous toll on millions of American consumers and businesses. Speculation--not supply and demand--is keeping prices high, and our economy is forced to respond to erratic price changes. Unless we act to protect our energy markets from excessive speculation and price manipulation, the American economy will continue to be vulnerable to wild price swings affecting the prices of transportation, food, manufacturing and everything in between, endangering the economic security of our people, our businesses, and our Nation. Congress should act now to help tame rampant speculation and reinvigorate supply and demand as market forces. Today, I am introducing legislation, along with Senators Bingaman and Harkin, that represents our collective effort to enact the strongest and most workable measures to prevent excessive speculation and price manipulation in U.S. energy markets. It will close the loopholes in our commodities laws that now impede the policing of U.S. energy trades on foreign exchanges and in the unregulated over-the-counter market. It will ensure that large commodity traders cannot use these markets to hide from CFTC oversight or avoid limits on speculation. The bill will strengthen disclosure, oversight, and enforcement in U.S. energy markets, restoring the financial oversight that is crucial to protect American consumers, American businesses, and the U.S. economy from further energy shocks. More specifically, this legislation would make four sets of changes. It will require the CFTC to set limits on the holdings of traders in all of the energy futures contracts traded on regulated exchanges to prevent traders from engaging in excessive speculation or price manipulation. Since we closed the Enron loophole this year all futures contracts must be traded in regulated markets. It would close the ``London loophole'' by giving the CFTC the same authority to police traders in the United States who trade U.S. futures contracts on a foreign exchange and by requiring foreign exchanges that want to install trading terminals in the U.S. to impose comparable limits on speculative trading as the CFTC imposes on domestic exchanges to prevent excessive speculation and price manipulation. It will close the ``swaps loophole'' by requiring traders in the over-the-counter energy markets to report large trades to the CFTC, and it would authorize the CFTC to set limits on trading in the presently unregulated over-the-counter markets to prevent excessive speculation and price manipulation. It will require the CFTC to revise the standards that allow traders who use futures markets to hedge their holdings to exceed the speculation limits that apply to everyone else. My Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations' investigations have shown that one key factor in price spikes of energy is increased speculation in the energy markets. Traders are trading contracts for future delivery of oil in record amounts, creating a demand for paper contracts that gets translated into increases in prices and increasing price volatility. Much of this increase in trading of futures has been due to speculation. Speculators in the oil market do not intend to use oil; instead they buy and sell contracts for crude oil in the hope of making a profit from changing prices. According to the CFTC's data, the number of futures and options contracts held by speculators has gone from around 100,000 contracts in 2001, which was 20 percent of the total number of outstanding contracts, to almost 1.2 million contracts, which represents almost 40 percent of the outstanding futures and options contracts in oil on NYMEX Even this understates the increase in speculation, since the CFTC data classifies futures trading involving index funds as commercial trading rather than speculation, and the CFTC classifies all traders in commercial firms as commercial traders, regardless of whether any particular trader in that firm may in fact be speculating. There is now, as a result, 12 times as many speculative holdings as there was in 2001, while holdings of nonspeculative or commercial futures and options is up but three times. The greater the demand there is to buy futures contracts for the delivery of a commodity, the higher the price will be for those futures contracts. Not surprisingly, therefore, this massive speculation that the price of oil will increase, together with the increase in the amount of purchases of futures contracts, in fact, helped increase the price of oil to a level far above the price that is justified by the traditional forces of supply and demand. In June 2006, I released a subcommittee report, ``The Role of Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices: A Need to Put a Cop on the Beat.'' This report found that the traditional forces of supply and demand didn't account for sustained price increases and price volatility in the oil and gasoline markets. The report concluded that, in 2006, a growing number of trades of contracts for future delivery of oil occurred without regulatory oversight and that market speculation had contributed to rising oil and gasoline prices, perhaps accounting for $20 out of a then-priced $70 barrel of oil. Oil industry executives and experts have arrived at a similar conclusion. Late last year, the President and CEO of Marathon Oil said, ``$100 oil isn't justified by the physical demand in the market. It has to be speculation on the futures market that is fueling this.'' Mr. Fadel Gheit, oil analyst for Oppenheimer and Company describes the oil market as ``a farce.'' ``The speculators have seized control and it's basically a free-for-all, a global gambling hall, and it won't shut down unless and until responsible governments step in.'' In January of this year, when oil first hit $100 per barrel, Mr. Tim Evans, oil analyst for Citigroup, wrote ``the larger supply and demand fundamentals do not support a further rise and are, in fact, more consistent with lower price levels.'' At the joint hearing on the effects of speculation we held last December, Dr. Edward Krapels, a financial market analyst, testified, ``Of course financial trading, speculation affects the price of oil because it affects the price of everything we trade. . . . It would be amazing if oil somehow escaped this effect.'' Dr. Krapels added that as a result of this speculation ``there is a bubble in oil prices.'' The need to control speculation is urgent. The presidents and CEOs of major U.S. airlines recently warned about the disastrous effects of rampant speculation on the airline industry. The CEOs stated ``normal market forces are being dangerously amplified by poorly regulated market speculation.'' The CEOs wrote, ``For airlines, ultra-expensive fuel means thousands of lost jobs and severe reductions in air service to both large and small communities.'' As to reining in speculation, the first step to take is to put a cop back on the beat in all our energy markets to prevent excessive speculation, price manipulation, and trading abuses. With respect to the futures markets, the legislation we are introducing today requires the CFTC to establish limits on the amount of futures contracts any trader can hold. Currently, the CFTC allows the futures exchanges themselves to set these limits. This bill would require the CFTC to set these limits to prevent excessive speculation and price manipulation. It would preserve, however, the exchanges' obligation and ability to police their traders to ensure they remain below these limits. This legislation would also require the CFTC to conduct a rulemaking to review and revise the criteria for allowing traders who are using the futures market to hedge their risks in a commodity to acquire holdings in excess of the limits on holdings for speculators. Another step is to give the CFTC authority to prevent excessive speculation in the over-the-counter markets. In 2007, my Subcommittee issued a report on the effects of speculation in the energy markets, entitled ``Excessive Speculation in the Natural Gas Market.'' This investigation showed that speculation by a hedge fund named Amaranth distorted natural gas prices during the summer of 2006 and drove up prices for average consumers. The report demonstrated how Amaranth had shifted its speculative activity to unregulated markets, under the ``Enron loophole,'' to avoid the restrictions and oversight in the regulated markets, and how Amaranth's trading in the unregulated markets contributed to price increases. Following this investigation, I introduced a bill, S. 2058, to close the Enron loophole and regulate the unregulated electronic energy markets. Working with Senators Feinstein and Snowe, and with the members of the Agriculture Committee in a bipartisan effort, we included an amendment to close the Enron loophole in the farm bill, which Congress passed this past spring, overriding a veto by President Bush. The legislation to close the Enron loophole placed over-the-counter-- OTC--electronic exchanges under CFTC regulation. However, this legislation did not address the separate issue of trading in the rest of the OTC market, which includes bilateral trades through voice brokers, swap dealers, and direct party-to-party negotiations. In order to ensure there is a cop on the beat in all of the energy commodity markets, we need to address the rest of the OTC market as well. Previously, I introduced legislation, S. 3255, along with Senator Feinstein, the Over-the-Counter Speculation Act, to address the rest of the OTC market not covered by the farm bill. A large portion of this OTC market consists of the trading of swaps relating to the price of a commodity. Generally, commodity swaps are contracts between two parties where one party pays a fixed price to another party in return for some type of payment at a future time depending on the price of a commodity. Because some of these swap instruments look very much like futures contracts--except that they do not call for the actual delivery of the commodity--there is concern that the price of these swaps that are traded in the unregulated OTC market could affect the price of the very similar futures contracts that are traded on the regulated futures markets. We don't yet know for sure that this is the case, or that it is not, because we don't have any access to comprehensive data or reporting on the trading of these swaps in the OTC market. The legislation introduced today includes these same provisions to give the CFTC oversight authority to stop excessive speculation in the over-the-counter market. These provisions represent a practical, workable approach that will enable the CFTC to obtain key information about the OTC market to enable it to prevent excessive speculation and price manipulation. These provisions are also included in the legislation introduced by the majority leader and others, S. 3268, to stop excessive speculation. Under these provisions, the CFTC will have the authority to ensure that traders cannot avoid the CFTC reporting requirements by trading swaps in the unregulated OTC market instead of regulated exchanges. It will enable the CFTC to act, such as by requiring reductions in holdings of futures contracts or swaps, against traders with large positions in order to prevent excessive speculation or price manipulation regardless of whether the trader's position is on an exchange or in the OTC market. The bill we are introducing today, unlike S. 3255, gives the CFTC the authority to establish position limits in the over-the-counter market for energy and agricultural commodities in order to prevent excessive speculation and price manipulation. The CFTC needs this authority to ensure that large traders are not using the over-the-counter markets to evade the position limits in the futures markets. Earlier this year I introduced legislation with Senators Feinstein, Durbin, Dorgan and Bingaman, S.3129, to close the London loophole. This loophole has allowed crude oil traders in the U.S. to avoid the position limits that apply to trading on U.S. futures exchanges by directing their trades onto the ICE Futures Exchange in London. The legislation we introduced also was incorporated into the legislation to stop prevent excessive speculation introduced by the majority leader, S. 3268. These provisions are now included in the legislation we are introducing today. After this legislation was first introduced, the CFTC imposed more stringent requirements upon the ICE Futures Exchange's operations in the United States--for the first time requiring the London exchange to impose and enforce comparable position limits in order to be allowed to keep its trading terminals in the United States. This is the very action our legislation called for. However, the current CFTC position limits apply only to the nearest futures contract. Our legislation will ensure that foreign exchanges with trading terminals in the U.S. will apply position limits to other futures contracts once the CFTC establishes those limits for U.S. exchanges. Although the CFTC has taken these important steps that will go a long way towards closing the London loophole, Congress should still pass this legislation to make sure the London loophole stays closed. The legislation would put the conditions the CFTC has imposed upon the London exchange into statute, and ensure that the CFTC has clear authority to take action against any U.S. trader who is manipulating the price of a commodity or excessively speculating through the London exchange, including requiring that trader to reduce positions. The legislation we are introducing today also includes a number of provisions in the majority leader's bill, S. 3248, that require a variety of studies, investigations, and reports designed to improve the transparency and regulation of the energy markets. It also provides authorization for the CFTC to hire an additional 100 employees to oversee the commodity markets it regulates. On September 11, the CFTC issued a ``Staff Report on Commodity Swap Dealers and Index Traders with Commission Recommendations.'' The legislation we have introduced embodies several of the CFTC's recommendations to improve the transparency and regulation of swap dealers and commodity index traders. These recommendations include: develop and regularly publish reports on the activity of swap dealers and commodity index traders; more accurately assess the type of trading activity in the CFTC's weekly reports on commercial and noncommercial trading; review whether to eliminate the bona fide hedge exemption for swap dealers and create new limited risk management exemption; provide additional staff and resources for the CFTC. Our legislation also is consistent with CFTC Commissioner Chilton's dissenting views on the CFTC's recommendations. In his dissent, Commissioner Chilton requested that Congress provide: ``specific statutory authorities to allow the Commission to obtain data regarding over-the-counter transactions that may impact exchange-traded markets; ``specific statutory authorities to allow the Commission to address market disturbances or violations of the Commodity Exchange Act, based on the data received regarding over-the-counter transactions;'' and authorization and appropriation for 100 additional employees. Our bill provides the CFTC with the statutory authorities requested by Commissioner Chilton and authorizes the requested employees. In summary, the legislation we are introducing today will give the CFTC ability to police all of our energy commodity markets to prevent excessive speculation and price manipulation. This legislation is necessary to close all of the loopholes in current law that permit speculators to avoid trading limits designed to prevent the type of excessive speculation that has been contributing to high energy prices. We hope our colleagues will support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a bill summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, while this is far from being a perfect bill, I am pleased that the Senate is finally taking up this package of ``tax extenders'' after repeated filibusters of this effort by the minority. I am a strong supporter of advanced and alternative energy technologies and believe that the tax incentives included in this bill are an essential component of bringing these technologies to the commercial market place. We need a balanced energy strategy that includes energy from a broad array of sources--renewable technologies such as solar, wind, and biomass, as well as more conventional sources such as clean coal and natural gas. We also need to reduce our consumption and dependence on petroleum by promoting expanded use of advanced, more fuel-efficient vehicle technologies and alternative fuels such as ethanol and other biofuels. Critical to the success of all of these advanced and alternative energy technologies are tax incentives, which will both spur development of these technologies and make them accessible and affordable to consumers. The energy tax extender package was a long time in coming. The Senate considered it first in June 2007, again in December 2007, and then multiple times in this calendar year. This package extends many critical existing tax incentives--including those for renewable production of electricity from wind, solar, and biomass; it extends existing tax credits in the area of alternative fuels production and alternative fuel infrastructure; and it extends tax incentives for energy efficient appliances and residential home energy improvements. The package also includes new tax incentives for plug-in hybrid vehicles, small residential wind investments, and carbon capture and sequestration technologies. This package of energy tax provisions will take important steps forward to develop and commercialize all of these technologies. Renewable technologies such as wind and solar are becoming more economical every year and our manufacturing sector can play a major role in the production of these technologies. Extension of these tax credits is critical to the development of these technologies and critical to our manufacturers ability to commit to projects that will utilize these technologies. Similarly, extension of the tax credit for alternative fuel pumps for ethanol and natural gas, and extension of tax credits for production of ethanol and other biofuels are essential to both the production and distribution of these fuels. I am particularly pleased to see in this package establishment of a new tax credit for consumers for plug-in hybrid and all-electric vehicles. All of our auto manufacturers are working to develop new vehicle technologies that will use advanced batteries and will draw a greater percentage of their power from electricity. These technologies will revolutionize the way in which we drive and the distances that we can go without refueling. But the development and commercialization of these technologies are also expensive. Therefore, these tax incentives are key not only to the development of these technologies and but also to consumer acceptance and widespread use of these vehicles. This bill also provides help to those affected by the numerous floods, tornadoes, and severe storms that occurred this summer in the Midwest. I am pleased that those individuals and businesses that suffered losses this past June in Michigan's declared disaster areas will be eligible for these benefits. I am also glad that this bill extends the research and development tax credit. At a time of increasing globalization, America's prosperity depends more than ever on its capacity for innovation. For decades, our Nation's leadership in basic and applied research has led to discoveries that have dramatically improved living standards and given rise to new industries that have in turn created millions of high paying jobs in engineering, research and technology. Other countries are well aware of the significant economic benefits that flow from R&D activities, and many have created strong tax incentives designed to increase levels of local R&D and attract R&D investment from around the world. Particularly for large multinational corporations, the question is often not whether to invest in R&D, but where. I hope that in the near future we can cement our commitment to this incentive by making the R&D credit permanent. There are a number of other good policies that I am pleased are in this bill, including the IRA rollover provision which allows individuals over the age of 70\1/2\ to donate up to $100,000 from their individual retirement accounts to qualifying charitable organizations on a tax-free basis. This provision has contributed to a considerable increase in IRA donations to eligible charities across our country. Unfortunately, the provision was only temporary, and it expired at the end of 2007. I am also glad that this bill extends the critically important adjustment to the alternative minimum tax. Relief from the AMT is needed to avoid imposing an unintended tax increase on millions of middle income families. But in order to have money for other priorities, AMT relief should be done without busting the budget. I wish that the amendment that would have paid for this provision had been adopted. There is another part of this bill that deserves mention: the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act. This critical piece of legislation will address inequities between health insurance coverage for medical and surgical benefits and coverage for mental health and substance abuse disorders for group health plans with more than 50 employees. Under most health insurance plans, beneficiaries of mental health or substance abuse services do not receive the same level of coverage as medical and surgical services. An earlier piece of legislation, the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996--title VII of Public Law 104-204-- sought to address this issue by providing limited parity for mental health coverage under employer-sponsored group plans. While the 1996 parity law prohibits insurers from establishing more restrictive annual and overall lifetime limits on mental health coverage than for other health coverage, it is far from adequate. For example, the Act did not require that mental health benefits be offered as part of a health insurance package. Additionally, it did not require parity in copayments or deductibles for mental health services nor does it require health plans to cover a minimum number of inpatient days or outpatient visits. As a result, many health plans have found ways to discourage the use of mental health care by setting higher copayments and deductibles, or by lowering limits on the number of hospital days and physician visits for which they would pay. Under this new legislation, if such a group health plan provides both medical and surgical benefits as well as mental health or substance abuse benefits, the plan's requirements and limitations must not be more restrictive as applied to mental health or substance abuse benefits. For example, if such a plan provides out-of-network coverage for medical and surgical benefits, then it must also provide parity in out-of-network coverage for mental health or substance abuse disorder benefits. If the change leads to increases in cost for a particular plan, the legislation establishes a procedure whereby an employer can apply for 1-year exemptions. Mental health parity is about basic fairness and equity. Individuals suffering from mental health illnesses deserve access to adequate and appropriate health care. I am glad that Congress is righting this wrong. My concerns with this bill are not over what is included, but rather what is not. The main dispute in the long drawn-out battle over these extenders has been whether we could do this in a way that is fiscally responsible, so that we do not leave our children and our children's children to foot the bill. I am troubled by the fact that this bill pays for only $42 billion of the $161 billion 10-year cost of extending these incentives. Some of my colleagues argue that Congress should just add the $62 billion cost of the AMT fix to the deficit and leave it at that. But while taxpayers are given necessary relief, if we don't pay the cost, but merely increase the debt, the burden is shifted to our children and grandchildren. Paying for these extenders does not need to be controversial, and we do not need to raise taxes on the middle class. It is estimated that the use of offshore tax havens by tax dodgers robs our Treasury of more than $100 billion in revenue each year, leaving honest taxpayers to foot the bill. Last year I introduced the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, S.681, which would provide important tools to combat offshore tax abuses and would bring in a significant amount of that lost revenue. I will continue to fight to enact that bill and other commonsense measures to close tax loopholes.

Mr. LEVIN

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