[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 185 (Wednesday, December 5, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14759-S14763]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          THUD APPROPRIATIONS

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as I was saying, Secretary Paulson has 
been complaining about the need for mortgage counseling, and he said:

       For this public outreach campaign to be successful, there 
     must be enough trained mortgage counselors to answer the 
     phone when homeowners call. The administration requested 
     funding for NeighborWorks America and other nonprofit 
     mortgage counseling operations in its budget. But the 
     appropriations bill has yet to be finalized; Congress needs 
     to get it done quickly.

  That was not me, that was Secretary Paulson. We can do that right 
now. In fact, we could have done it last month. We are trying 
desperately to send this bill in its final stages that includes 
critical investment in housing counseling to the White House, just as 
Secretary Paulson said he wanted us to do.
  The bipartisan conferees on this bill agree that the amount the 
President asked for was too low to meet the demand for housing 
counseling, given the size of the problem. Congress acted. We increased 
it substantially. But even though every Republican conferee on our bill 
signed onto that plan, we are now being blocked from sending it to the 
White House. I only wish the Senate Republican leadership would follow 
the words of Secretary Paulson and Secretary Jackson about the need for 
this urgent initiative.
  Yesterday's Washington Post published an article on our $200 million 
housing counseling initiative. I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record the Washington Post article.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Dec. 4, 2007]

                   Nonprofit Groups Take Center Stage

                            (By Renae Merle)

       In the middle of his speech yesterday on the 
     administration's efforts to fix the mortgage crisis, Treasury 
     Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. paused to carefully spell out 
     a toll-free telephone number that troubled homeowners can 
     call for help.
       The hotline is not staffed by government officials or 
     mortgage lenders. Rather, the calls are answered by consumer 
     counselors from nonprofit groups, which are taking an 
     increasingly high-profile role in helping borrowers with 
     mortgage problems.
       The groups are acting in some cases as a buffer between 
     lenders and homeowners. Legislation is pending before 
     Congress that would tap NeighborWorks America, a national 
     nonprofit group, to distribute $200 million to local 
     counseling centers. In October, the Neighborhood Assistance 
     Corporation of America, often a vocal critic of mortgage 
     lenders, signed a deal with Countrywide Financial, the 
     nation's biggest mortgage lender, to help restructure loans 
     for struggling Countrywide clients.
       However the administration addresses the mortgage crisis, 
     ``they are going to need the nonprofit community,'' said 
     Kenneth D. Wade, chief executive of NeighborWorks.
       His group is training new housing counselors and plans to 
     double its counseling staff by next month. ``We think every 
     consumer needs a mortgage adviser,'' he said.
       Nonprofit organizations around the country are already 
     seeing a soaring demand for their services. St. Ambrose 
     Housing Aid Center in Baltimore, which usually sees about 700 
     families a year, says it has met with almost 2,000 so far 
     this year.
       At the National Foundation for Credit Counseling, where 
     about half the counselors at its member agencies focus on 
     housing issues, President Susan Keating says: ``We are very, 
     very busy.''
       Government and mortgage industry officials don't often 
     agree on what caused the mortgage crisis, what its impact 
     will be, or how to cure it, but they all say that reaching 
     homeowners before they go into foreclosure is difficult.
       If a homeowner with an adjustable-rate mortgage that is 
     about to reset, or one who is behind in payments receives 
     mail from his lender offering help, the homeowner responds 3 
     to 5 percent of the time, according to Hope Now, a new 
     alliance of mortgage industry and nonprofit organizations. If 
     the offer comes from a community group, the response rate is 
     about 25 percent. About 50 percent of homeowners who go into 
     foreclosure do so without ever contacting their lender.
       ``If we are to make a difference, that number has to be 
     reduced,'' Paulson said.
       The best hope, many think, may be through the nonprofit 
     community. The toll-free number Paulson touted--888-995-
     HOPE--has seen a spike in volume, to 3,000 calls a day from 
     300 a year ago.
       There are 180 consumer counselors from six nonprofit groups 
     answering those calls. That will increase to 250 by the end 
     of the year, according to the Homeownership Preservation 
     Foundation, which manages the hotline.
       With an estimated 2 million adjustable-rate mortgages 
     scheduled to reset in the next two years, even that likely 
     will not be enough. ``We are definitely not going to be 
     stopping at 250,'' said Tracy Morgan, a spokeswoman for the 
     foundation, which is largely financed by the mortgage 
     industry.
       The counselors focus on diagnosing the homeowners' 
     problems, then direct them to a local community group for 
     help or guide them through a call with their lender. The 
     initial call usually lasts about 45 minutes as the counselor 
     puts together a detailed budget analysis and creates an 
     action plan for the homeowner, according to the foundation. 
     That could include getting a second job or reducing spending. 
     The foundation does not charge homeowners for the service.
       In a separate program, the Neighborhood Assistance 
     Corporation of America acts as a go-between, working out 
     deals with lenders on behalf of borrowers. Under its deal 
     with Countrywide, the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of 
     America has restructured about 200 loans.
       Like many nonprofit groups, it has seen demand for its 
     services climb in the past year and attributes most of the 
     increase to homeowners with adjustable-rate mortgages. To 
     keep up with demand, the organization is opening five offices 
     around the country and is hiring about 30 employees a month.
       ``This is just the beginning. It is going to get far 
     worse,'' said Bruce Marks, the group's chief executive.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this article describes the importance of 
nonprofit housing counseling agencies and all they can do to help keep 
our mortgage holders in their homes.
  Finally, I wish to say this: In the recent days, the storms in my 
State of Washington highlight how critical and important this bill is. 
Devastating mud slides and floods in my State of Washington and the 
State of Oregon have swamped out homes and washed out roads all across 
our States. It has been devastating. Families are hurting. People 
cannot get to work. People cannot get to where they need to go. Many of

[[Page S14760]]

our roads are closed, including a 20-mile stretch of Interstate 5, a 
major artery connecting Seattle and Portland, which will be closed 
through Thursday, possibly longer, and the floods have virtually 
isolated communities across the Pacific Northwest. My heart goes out to 
all these families who have been affected.
  We are going to be feeling the effect of this storm you have been 
watching on television for days, weeks, possibly months. That is not 
just because it caused serious damage to our roads and bridges. The 
closure of I-5 forced cars and trucks traveling from Seattle to 
Portland to detour all the way to the Tri-Cities. That is a drive that 
not only takes 4 hours longer, but it means our drivers have to go 
across a high mountain pass, not once but twice, to get to Portland. 
Think about the effect that is going to have on our businesses and our 
economy.
  The impact of that storm reinforces how important transportation 
infrastructure is to every single one of us. We need to make those 
investments in our roads, in our bridges, in our airports, in our 
railways because one rain storm, one bridge disaster, one airport 
disruption can have huge impacts on our families and our economy 
throughout the region and throughout the country.
  I am deeply disappointed the Republican leadership has said no. This 
is a bill that has passed the conference committee, passed the House, 
and it has one more step to make it to the President. It has bipartisan 
support. There is no reason we cannot finish this business, send it to 
the President, and get one of the critical appropriations bills done 
that he has been yelling we have been holding up. It is here. We are 
ready. We are waiting for a response.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I hear the distinguished Senator from 
Washington and other Members on that side of the aisle complain about 
their inability to get things done. But I have to remind them, here we 
are on December 5, 2007. We have been operating on a continuing 
resolution because the majority has failed to pass and send to the 
President 11 appropriations bills. We are not doing the basic work 
Congress is supposed to do to keep the lights on, to keep the 
Government working. Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CORNYN. I will not yield.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I think the Senator from Washington made a point to show 
the Senator from Texas is incorrect.
  Mr. CORNYN. I will reclaim my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has the floor.
  Mr. CORNYN. I will be glad to respond to the distinguished Senator 
after I conclude my remarks.
  The fact now is that we have before us an effort--a misguided 
effort--to protect 23 or so million Americans from a middle-class tax 
increase. We know health care providers and physicians are going to be 
subjected to Draconian cuts in their reimbursement rates. We know our 
intelligence community needs a permanent solution to the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act, which will expire in February. And we 
know that instead of providing the funding to our troops that they need 
in order to protect us and our allies in the global war on terror, we 
are seeing strings attached, other qualifications insisted upon by the 
other party, which have impeded and slowed down and, indeed, to this 
point stopped our ability to fund our troops.
  I wish to particularly, though, focus on the tax increase that, as a 
result of the inaction of the majority--the so-called alternative 
minimum tax--is going to take place unless we find some way to work our 
way through this issue without a tremendous tax increase on other hard-
working Americans.
  If there were ever a misnomer for a tax, this would be it because for 
an increasing number of Americans the alternative minimum tax is 
neither alternative, nor is it minimal.
  Congress, it should be remembered, created the AMT almost 40 years 
ago in response to the testimony of the then-Secretary of the Treasury 
that 155 taxpayers paid zero Federal income tax on their 1967 tax 
returns. Unfortunately, but I guess predictably, this tax, created to 
target the very rich, the 155 who paid no taxes, has now grown to cover 
roughly 6 million people today and will grow to cover roughly 23 
million people next year unless action is taken. It has, in the 
process, grown to cover more and more taxpayers and now will capture 
unsuspecting middle- class taxpayers by surprise unless Congress acts. 
This is because, unlike the regular income tax, the AMT is not indexed 
for inflation. This means that over time, economic growth and inflation 
have caused a steady increase in the number of middle-income taxpayers 
who will get hit by the AMT. Working parents who have children and 
qualify for deductions and credits under the standard tax system get a 
rude awakening when they discover they are subjected to the alternative 
minimum tax, which literally cancels out many of these deductions. This 
will add unnecessary complexity to the Tax Code and increase tax 
compliance costs and complicate taxpayers' decisions.
  In recent years, Congress has enacted temporary fixes to prevent the 
AMT from hitting millions of taxpayers with a higher tax bill. While 
this solution is not perfect, it did at least limit the reach of the 
AMT.
  Now, the Senate has considered legislation on five different 
occasions that would have either eliminated the AMT or greatly scaled 
it back. In one instance, not a single member of the majority party 
voted to fully repeal the AMT, and only one Democrat supported a 
proposal that would have rolled the increase in the AMT back to rates 
that took place under President Clinton. Of course, history tells us 
that President Clinton himself vetoed the bill that would have 
eliminated the AMT back in 1999.
  We know the majority leader has now filed cloture on H.R. 3996, known 
as the Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007. Note, Mr. President, the 
title, ``Temporary Tax Relief.'' While the bill provides limited 
temporary relief for taxpayers, it, at the same time, permanently 
increases taxes on America's entrepreneurs and makes it more difficult 
for the United States to remain competitive in the global capital 
market. In other words, it makes taxpayers pay for the mistake Congress 
made 40 years ago when it created the AMT.
  The bill makes fundamental changes to the laws affecting the taxation 
of partnerships. These partnerships have successfully encouraged the 
pooling of capital, ideas, and skills in a manner that promotes 
entrepreneurship and risk-taking, and, not to be overlooked, jobs. The 
bill raises taxes on capital formation in the United States and will 
increase the cost of and thus decrease the availability of capital to 
businesses throughout the country. The bill will severely handicap a 
vibrant and growing part of the U.S. economy in terms of our global 
competitiveness.
  International competition for capital is a driving factor for 
business. At a time when many of us are raising concerns regarding the 
competitiveness of U.S. capital markets and pointing out that our 
economic competitors are doing everything they can to emulate the 
success of our capital markets, the last thing we should want to do is 
to put the United States and U.S. businesses to a disadvantage by 
increasing taxes on capital formation and driving investment dollars 
away to other markets. We simply can't afford for the Senate to tax 
long-term investments in a way that puts America at a competitive 
disadvantage.
  Many on the other side would argue that any AMT relief should be 
``paid for'' by raising revenue in order to neutralize the effect of 
the AMT cut. They say they can't just fix the AMT because it is revenue 
they have already anticipated. This is a revenue which, in fact, they 
need to fund the ever-increasing growth of the Federal Government, 
unfortunately demonstrated by pork-laden appropriations bills and a 
bloated budget. At every turn throughout the year's appropriations 
season, we have seen the majority push for more and more spending. 
Threatened with a Presidential veto, they have dared the President to 
veto these bloated spending bills, only to find us in the mess we are 
in today.
  Those on the other side of the aisle have been counting on the 
increased revenue from the AMT to fund their growth of the Federal 
Government.

[[Page S14761]]

They seem to consider the mistaken growth of the AMT to be some kind of 
windfall profit, and, in fact, they seem to have forgotten where the 
money comes from in the first place. We all should know it comes from 
hard-working American taxpayers, families, people in my State of Texas 
who already pay their fair share of taxes and can't afford to bear the 
burden of the Government's mistakes. So rather than fix the AMT and 
protect taxpayers from this unwarranted and unexpected tax increase, my 
colleagues would prefer to replace the AMT revenue with a new tax under 
a new name. I have to tell you that this kind of shell game is a too 
typical Washington approach.

  Instead of figuring out ways to keep the hands of Washington 
bureaucrats in the pockets of taxpayers, this Congress ought to 
continue to do all it can to protect millions of middle-class taxpayers 
from a tax that no one ever intended for them to have to pay in the 
first place. Taxpayers already work for 4 months out of the year to pay 
their local, State, and Federal taxes. The last thing Congress should 
be doing is increasing the number of days American taxpayers work for 
Uncle Sam instead of for their families.
  What is worse, Congress's inability to provide timely AMT relief will 
also cause unnecessary delays in processing tax returns and getting 
refunds to taxpayers who are entitled to them. The IRS Oversight Board, 
an independent board created by Congress as part of the IRS 
Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, told Congress just last month 
that a delay threatens the IRS's ability to process returns and issue 
refunds in a timely manner and will impose a significant burden on 
taxpayers. But that is where we find ourselves today as a result of the 
mismanagement of our agenda.
  According to the IRS governing Oversight Board, delaying the filing 
season by just 2 weeks would delay the processing of 6.7 million 
returns, putting a hold on $17 billion in refunds owed to hard-working 
American taxpayers. If the tax season is delayed by 1 month, this would 
delay 40 million returns from being processed, and $87 billion in 
refund checks owed to taxpayers would remain in the Federal Treasury. 
This is real money to real Americans, and the political games 
surrounding it ought to end. We should not be using the AMT relief as 
hostage to be exchanged for tax-and-spend policies and the growth of 
the Federal Government. Taxpayers can't afford it and neither can the 
American economy.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if I understand the Senator from Texas 
correctly, he is essentially complaining that Congress has not passed 
legislation to prevent the alternative minimum tax from going into 
effect for American taxpayers for calendar year 2007. I think that is 
basically what he is saying. I might say, Mr. President, there is not 
one Senator on the floor who disagrees with that--maybe one or two, but 
this Senator wants to fix AMT so Americans do not have to pay an 
additional tax in calendar 2007 when they are preparing their tax 
returns next year. I daresay virtually every Member on this side of the 
aisle has that same belief. We do not want to force that additional tax 
on Americans for all the reasons he correctly stated; namely, this was 
a provision which was enacted in the code back in the early 1960s 
intended to ensure--I think there were 200 only, very wealthy Americans 
who were not paying income taxes and who should pay some income taxes. 
That was the genesis of the alternative minimum tax. Unfortunately, as 
has been stated by many speakers, it was not indexed, so over the years 
more and more middle-income taxpayers have had to pay this additional 
tax, and frankly, ironically perversely, the most wealthy Americans 
have escaped.
  So this alternative minimum tax does not do what it was intended to 
do. It was not a tax on the most wealthy because basically the capital 
gains provisions in it are so low, the net effect is the basic rate is 
26 percent for the first $75,000 and 28 percent just above, and so it 
affects taxpayers who make between $75,000 and $500,000. That is who it 
hits. We want to repeal that for 2007. Virtually every Senator here 
wants to repeal that for 2007. We are trying to do it. We are trying to 
get that enacted--the repeal for 2007--so taxpayers don't pay it.
  What has happened? We are being blocked. We are being blocked. Just 
as the Senator from Washington was trying to get an appropriations bill 
up, she was blocked in her effort by the other side of the aisle. Just 
as the President of the United States says: Congress, do your work, do 
your work, pass appropriations bills, he is, in effect, instructing his 
minions here to do the opposite--to block. That is what is happening.
  The Senator from Texas, I would daresay--and it is a presumption to 
say this--would probably vote against efforts here on the floor to 
bring up a way to fix AMT. There is a cloture motion pending right now, 
Mr. President. It is basically on the House-passed bill to fix AMT. The 
leader offered a couple suggestions. What are they? One is, well, if we 
can't do that, let's take up the measure proposed by myself and the 
ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley. What does it 
provide? It basically says: Okay, repeal AMT. We have the AMT patch 
unpaid for, 2007. In addition, we have to pass these so-called tax 
extenders for 1 or 2 years and pay for it. Nobody seems to complain 
about that; the complaint is whether the AMT should be paid for. We are 
willing, myself and Senator Grassley, to bring up and advocate the 
passing of that legislation. Blocked. We couldn't get consent to bring 
that up. Not paying for AMT but paying for extenders blocked.
  Well, Mr. President, I have another suggestion. In fact, it was even 
mentioned by our leader. Let us bring up AMT not paid for alone. Will 
the Republicans object to that? So far, they have. I am waiting. Where 
is the Republican Party? Do they or do they not want AMT fixed in 2007? 
What could be easier? Bring it up--alone, unpaid for. Where are they? 
Why don't they accept it? What is going on here, Mr. President? What 
could be easier? What could be more appropriate? What could be more 
Republican? Lowering taxes, unpaid for. No, they do not want to do 
that, either, which is a good indication to me that what is really 
going on here--what is really going on here--is that side of the aisle 
will do whatever is possible to prevent the Congress from even passing 
legislation that is very good for the American people.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Will the Senator from Montana yield for a question?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I will be glad to yield.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Montana, within 
the extenders package is the deduction of the State sales tax 
extension, something that has been granted by Congress for the last 7 
years to a number of States that were, prior to a few years ago, not 
able to deduct their State sales tax. That is very important to people 
in my State. We need to have this extender passed. I wish to ask the 
Senator from Montana if that is one of the issues that is being blocked 
now by the Republicans as they object to going to this package because 
as we come up on the end of the year, as families are looking at what 
to purchase for Christmas, this is something extremely important to 
them. If this is not going to be extended, it will impact their incomes 
at a critical time, when we are facing rising gas prices, the cost of 
our mortgages, and people are worried about everything else.
  So I would ask the Senator from Montana, is the State sales tax 
deduction part of that extension that is now being blocked?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I say to my dear friend from Washington that it is part 
of the extender package that is in there. So if that were extended this 
year and that would go into effect, the good people of the State of 
Washington would not have to pay that.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from Montana. It is very important 
to our State and a number of other States--I believe Texas and other 
States here. I hope the Republicans don't continue to block this so we 
can indeed make sure our constituents are taken care of.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate that. I may also say I suspect--I am only 
guessing here--the objection from the other side of the aisle is in 
part mischievous. Senators from the other side of the aisle wish to 
force some votes on some other measures which are not apt at this 
moment. What are they? President Bush's tax cuts, extending the tax 
cuts, extending the 2001 tax cuts. Some

[[Page S14762]]

Senators on the other side want to force a vote on that. That doesn't 
expire until 2010. This is 2007; AMT applies to 2007. We have to act 
now. This isn't 2010.
  Others wish to vote on the 2003 tax cuts, which expire--when? Again, 
2010. Not now; in 2010.
  I see my time is expiring. I strongly urge people to focus on what is 
going on here--not the rhetoric, just look at the facts. The facts are 
that I, as chairman of the Finance Committee, am willing and do 
advocate bringing up legislation to repeal the alternative minimum tax 
as it applies to taxpayers for 2007. There are various ways to do it. 
One is the House-passed bill. If that doesn't work, we will do the 
measure proposed by myself and Senator Grassley, which is AMT, not paid 
for, but the tax extenders paid for. If that doesn't work, I am even 
willing to go so far as to see AMT alone, not paid for. That is where 
we should be and what we should do.
  Finally, I don't know if I am known as a partisan guy. I think I tend 
to be perceived as somebody who tries to work things out, tries to be 
pragmatic, tries to get things done, not flail in a partisan manner, 
not engage in flowery rhetoric for the heck of it, getting headlines, 
and so forth. There comes a time when you have to call it like it is, 
say it like it is. That is what I am trying to do. I am trying to be 
practical and pragmatic here by calling it, saying what is going on 
here, and that is, despite the cries from the other side, despite the 
cries from the White House for Congress to fix AMT, they themselves, 
behind the scenes, indirectly, are blocking it. They are blocking it. 
They are saying one thing and doing something else.
  As my father used to tell me, it is deeds, not words. They have the 
words but they also are blocking the deeds. I hope very much they 
change their minds and allow us to pass legislation here to fix AMT, 
because it is up to them to let us do it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Georgia is on the 
floor. I know it is our custom to take turns on each side of the aisle, 
but I ask his indulgence. I have to chair a subcommittee hearing at 
2:30. Unless he has a scheduling conflict, if he would allow me to go 
first, I would appreciate it.
  Mr. ISAKSON. As a Bears fan, I will be happy to relinquish the time 
to the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you. We need all the help we can get.
  Mr. President, what I have heard this afternoon on the floor of the 
Senate is nothing short of incredible. The Senator from Washington came 
to the floor and asked to bring an appropriations bill up for us to 
consider. Have you noticed how much business we are doing around here? 
The answer is none. So there is nothing to conflict with it. We have 
plenty of time. Shouldn't we earn our paycheck today by doing 
something? The bill she wanted to bring is an appropriations bill and 
it is a conference report that has been signed by every Democrat and 
Republican--bipartisan. Everybody is agreed on it.
  She asked to bring it to the floor to consider it, and there was an 
objection from the Senator from Texas. Senator John Cornyn objected.
  Senator Murray tried to explain what was in this bill, how important 
it is. He didn't waiver. He said that is it, we object to considering 
this bill.
  Eventually she yielded the floor to Senator Cornyn who stood up and 
said, Do you know what is wrong with this Senate? We are not 
considering any appropriations bills. Just minutes before it was 
Senator Cornyn of Texas who objected to considering an appropriations 
bill. That is a matter of record.
  But beyond that procedural experience, look what was in that bill. It 
is not just--just?--transportation and housing and urban development; 
$200 million is in there for housing counselors across America. What 
are they going to do? They are going to try to help families work 
themselves out of this mortgage foreclosure crisis we are facing. This 
money is desperately needed. Senator Murray worked to put it in the 
bill so people would have a helping hand to save their homes when they 
are facing foreclosure.
  How big an issue is this? Mr. President, 2.2 million Americans face 
foreclosure on their mortgages. If they go forward with those 
foreclosures, 44 million American homes will lose value.
  You see, the mortgage crisis is not just your neighbor's problem, it 
is your problem. If that house on your block is foreclosed upon, the 
value of your home goes down. That is a fact. So 44 million homeowners 
across America are waiting to see if this Government will do anything.
  Senator Murray comes to the floor and tries to move the bill to do 
something. The Republicans object.
  I tell you, this is an issue that strikes home in Illinois. Cook 
County, where Chicago is located, has the second highest number of 
foreclosures of any county in America--56,000 mortgage foreclosures. As 
a result, two out of three homes in Cook County, IL, will lose value. 
This is a crisis. It is not only a housing crisis, it has put our 
economy in a tailspin. We are trying to move and act and do something 
about it, and the Republicans say no. No, we don't want to do that.

  That is unfortunate. It is unfortunate for the homeowners who need a 
helping hand. It is unfortunate for their neighbors who do not realize 
that this kind of effort by the Republican Senators is not in the best 
interests of America or its economy.
  It troubles me as well because this bill includes money to rebuild 
the bridge near Minneapolis, the one that came crashing down, with 
deaths involved and real concern across America about the quality and 
safety of our infrastructure. Senator Murray, on this bill, on a 
bipartisan basis, puts money in--$1 billion, is it?--for bridges across 
America, including the bridge in Minneapolis.
  I would beg Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota to speak to Senator 
Cornyn of Texas and ask him to take his hold off this bill, to stop 
objecting for the good of his own home State of Minnesota and for all 
of our States. I hope Senator Cornyn of Texas will reconsider his 
position; will remove his objection to this bill; will let us move to 
this appropriations bill in a timely fashion.
  This is not the only time we have run into this. Senator Conrad of 
North Dakota was here a moment ago, begging for the farm bill to come 
to the floor. Every 5 years we have a new farm bill. It takes a lot of 
work to put it together. It is a very important bill to Illinois and 
almost every State, and the Republicans have stopped it in its tracks. 
We waited here on this floor for 2 weeks and did nothing because the 
Republicans refused to reach an agreement on moving this bill forward. 
The Senate rules are written so that even a minority party can stop 
business. Senator Conrad said, let's agree on a list of amendments. You 
can have yours, we will have ours, but let's get going, let's get to 
work. And the Republican answer is no.
  It is not the first time. Fifty-six times so far this year, the 
Republicans have filibustered, stopping debate, stopping legislation, 
stopping attempts to make America better--56 times.
  You might say, I am sure that goes on every day, doesn't it? No. The 
record in the Senate is 61 filibusters over a 2-year period of time. 
The Republican Senators this year are about to break the record for 
filibusters in one Congress in 1 year. It tells you what they are all 
about. It is not doing the people's business. It is not trying to solve 
the housing crisis, dealing with the farm issues. It is about stopping 
the business on the floor of the Senate. They are using that 
opportunity and that authority to do that.
  I want to correct the Record. Staff just advised me that Senator 
Specter and not Senator Cornyn was directed on behalf of the Republican 
leadership to object to the earlier bill. I want to make it clear and 
apologize to my colleague Senator Cornyn--we are friends--and I 
misrepresented his position on that because it was, in fact, Senator 
Specter of Pennsylvania speaking on behalf of the Republican 
leadership, Senator McConnell of Kentucky, who objected to the 
transportation bill. I hope the Record reflects that, and my apologies 
to Senator Cornyn for mentioning his name improperly.
  But the position still stands. A Republican leadership position, 
directed to stop the appropriations bill, and

[[Page S14763]]

then Republicans coming to the floor saying, Isn't it a shame we can't 
move appropriations bills.
  The last thing I want to mention is the alternative minimum tax. This 
will affect 19 million Americans if we don't change it. Some are in 
higher income categories. Many are not. We want to make sure we correct 
this problem and move forward with it. I think the responsible thing to 
do is, if you are going to cut a tax, either raise another tax or cut 
spending. I think that is responsible. Republicans reject that. They 
say we want to cut taxes and we don't want to pay for it. We want to 
add to the deficit and it is OK, and they can prevail because we don't 
have 60 votes. It takes 60 votes to accomplish something here on the 
Senate floor of controversy.
  So what we offered to them is their way of looking at the world. We 
will let you cut this tax and not pay for it, just add to the deficit, 
the old Republican way of doing things. You prevail. You win. And their 
answer? No, we won't even let you go to the bill under those 
circumstances. It is pretty clear; it is a question of blocking and 
intransigence.
  In addition to the fact that the Republicans are blocking the farm 
bill, an attempt to deal with the mortgage crisis in America, bridge 
building for the State of Minnesota and all other States, and dealing 
with the alternative minimum tax, it is pretty clear they want this 
Congress to end without any accomplishments. They had a do-nothing 
Congress which cost them control in the last election. They are 
determined to do everything they can to make sure we do nothing in this 
Congress.
  Sadly, the message to the American voters is we need more votes. If 
you want real change in Congress, we need more Senators to come to this 
floor who want to accomplish things, rather than stop things and block 
things. That is what we have seen repeatedly here, this day and every 
day during the course of the session. I had hoped a handful of 
Republican Senators would stand up and say: Enough. We have a 
responsibility to the people of this country, a responsibility that 
goes beyond our party responsibility. We need to pass a farm bill, we 
need to do something about the housing crisis, we need to give real tax 
relief to American families.
  We are still waiting for those voices, and I hope they will come to 
the floor and accomplish that. In the meantime, we will continue to 
make our offers to the Republican leadership, to find a responsible way 
to move forward. I hope they will accept this opportunity and I hope we 
can get something accomplished. It is clear, as this empty Chamber 
passes hour after weary hour doing nothing, the American people are fed 
up with it. I think they are fed up with it enough to want real change 
in the next election.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.

                          ____________________