[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 186 (Thursday, December 6, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14839-S14840]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      SNOWSPORTS OUTREACH SOCIETY

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the work of 
the Snowsports Outreach Society, SOS Outreach, based in Vail, CO, which 
is dedicated to providing outdoor recreation and confidence-building 
opportunities to underprivileged youth.
  The snow sports industry is an essential part of Colorado's 
lifestyle, economy, and image. Colorado's mountainous terrain and 
world-class resorts have set the standard for the ultimate experience 
in sliding on snow. As a skier, I understand the importance of this 
outdoor activity--in all its forms--

[[Page S14840]]

for its health benefits as well as the recreation economy of Colorado 
and the country's ski resorts.
  SOS Outreach complements the benefits of snow sports by providing 
dynamic programs to 2,500 youth in need nationwide. During the current 
season, 2,000 Colorado participants will be enrolled in a 7-year 
curriculum. I am proud to recognize the work that they do to grow the 
sport and promote positive self-esteem in their participants.
  Now celebrating its 14th anniversary, SOS Outreach was founded in 
Vail, CO, in 1993. SOS Outreach is a grassroots, 501(c)(3) 
organization. Through the work of its founder and executive director, 
Arn Menconi, and former director of snowboarding for Vail Resorts, Ray 
Sforzo, a charity was developed that appealed to the mountain resort's 
desire to build the community by serving underprivileged youth.
  SOS Outreach first introduced youth to the benefits of outdoor 
recreation during the 1995/1996 season when they taught 40 youth 
snowboarding. They were provided with one day of free lessons, 
equipment, and lift tickets. Since their first season, SOS Outreach has 
partnered with mountain resorts, youth agencies, foundations, 
corporations, and individual donors to expand its nationally recognized 
curriculum and serve over 7,500 youth. SOS Outreach is further 
leveraging their partnerships to expand their programs and include 
skiing. Over 7,000 program days will be provided at 29 resorts across 
the country, 13 in the State of Colorado.
  SOS Outreach provides participants with a high-quality, resilience-
based program that positively impacts a participant's self-esteem and 
ability to participate positively within their communities; supports 
underserved youth through adult mentorship; and encourages personal 
character education through SOS Outreach's five core values: courage, 
discipline, integrity, wisdom, and compassion.
  SOS Outreach would not be successful without the substantial support 
of the following individuals and organizations. I would like to 
recognize and thank each of them for sustaining such a program in 
Colorado:
  Bill Jensen and Kara Heide of Vail Resorts; Ken Gart and everyone at 
Specialty Sports Venture; Chris Ryman of Booth Creek Ski Holdings; 
Colorado Mountain Resorts for their donation of lift tickets, lessons, 
and rental equipment; Harry Frampton and Ceil Folz of the Vail Valley 
Foundation; Robert Veitch of the Harold W. Shaw and Mary Louise Shaw 
Foundation; Linda Childers of the Daniels Fund; William Hybl of the El 
Pomar Foundation; Bill Cotton of Optic Nerve Sunglasses; Robert 
Marcovitch of K2 Inc.; Mike West of 686; Wendy and Mike Carey of 
Seirus; Chaos Hats; Ride Snowboards; Salomon Sports; Sutherland 
Foundation; Bob Hernreich; Kay and Craig Tuber; to the staff of SOS 
Outreach: Arn and Anne Menconi, Michelle Hartel, Jon Garrou, Seth 
Ehrlich, Jody Link, Thersa Bisio; and the hundreds of adults that give 
of themselves to be positive mentors to these young people.
  Mr. President, I wish to recognize SOS Outreach for its work and 
extend my wishes for its continued success.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I object to the unanimous consent 
agreement to pass S. 2338, the FHA modernization bill.
  The Senate has twice attempted to pass a complex and critical 
mortgage reform bill without the opportunity for debate or amendment. I 
certainly understand the importance of this issue, which is why I 
believe the bill must be afforded time for proper scrutiny and debate 
by the Senate. It is naive, irresponsible and reckless for the Senate 
to claim it can fix this national challenge by rubberstamping our 
approval for this legislation without the opportunity to improve the 
bill through amendments.
  More importantly, however, this bill is not the proper response to 
the housing crisis. This bill increases the availability of government-
backed mortgages, adding a liability to the taxpayer of $1.6 billion in 
government-backed loans. This bill greatly increases the loan limit 
which the government may insure, while simultaneously decreasing the 
down payment requirement for borrowers. This only makes taxpayers 
liable for billions of dollars in loans that may default. The solution 
to the mortgage crisis is fewer risky loans, not more.
  Proponents of the legislation have argued that this bill is a low-
risk way for the government to prevent future subprime foreclosures. 
However, this bill only creates more opportunities for borrowers to 
receive government-backed loans, increasing the liability on American 
citizens, but not preventing the possibility of delinquency or default.
  According to a recent analysis by the Wall Street Journal, many 
subprime borrowers are not delinquent because they cannot afford 
increasing adjustable rates, but because they cannot afford their 
initial rates in the first place. The Wall Street Journal states:

       It is true that many subprime borrowers were sold a toxic 
     mortgage by unscrupulous mortgage brokers. However, the 
     primary reason for the spike in subprime delinquencies so far 
     is that many subprime borrowers have taken on more debt than 
     they can pay back using any reasonable interest rate.

  It would be unconscionable to shift this burden on to the Federal 
Government, especially at a time when our national debt stands well 
over $9.1 trillion, or $30,132 per citizen.
  Sixty-one economists from universities and think-tanks from across 
America released an open letter to the U.S. Congress advising against 
``excessive new regulations or federal interventions'' to deal with 
credit repricing in the subprime mortgage market. The letter warns: 
``Legislation to create new underwriting standards will reduce 
competition and restrict consumer access to credit. Additionally, 
efforts to bail out or shore up lending institutions create a moral 
hazard that would slow the adjustments required in the marketplace. . . 
. These [bail out] proposals would fundamentally alter the workings of 
the mortgage market, leaving consumers with fewer choices when seeking 
to buy a home and potentially increasing taxpayer exposure for bad 
loans.''
  The American people agree that making government-backed loans more 
available is not the right response. According to a survey conducted by 
Harris Interactive on behalf of the National Taxpayers Union, NTU, when 
asked which statement most closely reflects their views of allowing 
Federal agencies to increase the size of the loans they can insure and 
reduce downpayment requirements, 66 percent of respondents answered 
that ``these proposals are nothing more than a taxpayer-funded bailout 
of banks and lenders that provided and profited from these risky 
loans.'' Furthermore, 60 percent of respondents said taxpayers would be 
most negatively affected if the government were to bail out the 
subprime mortgage market.
  I do believe the Senate should debate this issue, and examine what 
can be done to keep borrowers from defaulting and ensure that Americans 
are able to stay in their homes. I believe lenders must take 
responsibility for their loans, including full disclosure about the 
terms of the agreement and the possibility of default, and borrowers 
must be responsible for the agreement into which they enter. Mortgage 
brokers, real estate agents and other lenders should be transparent 
with their lending conditions and must be accountable for full 
disclosure to borrowers. However, I do not believe it is the job of the 
government to bail out default mortgages and loans and it is not the 
proper role of the government to insure loans with taxpayer dollars.

                          ____________________