[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 33 (Thursday, February 28, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1364-S1376]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NEW DIRECTION FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT AND THE RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY CONSERVATION TAX ACT
OF 2007--MOTION TO PROCEED
cloture motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion,
which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 340, H.R. 3221.
[[Page S1365]]
Harry Reid, John D. Rockefeller, IV, Russell D. Feingold,
Max Baucus, Charles E. Schumer, Kent Conrad, Patty
Murray, Amy Klobuchar, Jeff Bingaman, Richard Durbin,
Mark L. Pryor, Carl Levin, Edward M. Kennedy, Patrick
J. Leahy, Bernard Sanders, Debbie Stabenow, Byron L.
Dorgan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call is waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate on the
motion to proceed to H.R. 3221, a bill for the New Direction for Energy
Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act and the
Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007, shall be
brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Byrd), and the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), and the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison),
and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 46, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 35 Leg.]
YEAS--48
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--46
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Reid
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wicker
NOT VOTING--6
Byrd
Clinton
Coburn
Hutchison
McCain
Obama
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). On this vote, the yeas are
48, the nays are 46. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn
not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I now enter a motion to reconsider the
vote by which cloture was not invoked on the motion to proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I now move to proceed to H.R. 3221, the
housing stimulus legislation.
This motion is debatable; is that right, Madam Chair?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is pending.
Mr. REID. Madam President, everyone here within the sound of my voice
should understand a minute ago there was a big victory. The people on
Wall Street are high-fiving. They won again. The big banks won again.
Mortgage bankers won again.
There are a few losers out there, such as millions of consumers,
millions of people whose homes are going into foreclosure or about to
go into foreclosure. They lost. But there has been a victory. There has
been a victory. Anyone within the sound of my voice who does not
understand what took place should understand what took place.
I had one of my Democratic Senators walk over to me and say Well,
they are doing that because you filled the tree. That is wrong. It is
not true. In fact, it is quite the opposite. I said: What do my friends
have to lose by allowing us to proceed to legislate on this most
important piece of legislation, housing stimulus? If, in fact, they do
not like what happens with the legislating aspect of this--there are 49
of them--they would not give us cloture on the bill. But why not
attempt to legislate this?
I indicated I have been told there are Republicans who wish to offer
amendments. I, before this vote took place, said I think it is a good
idea what they want to offer. One of them was by Johnny Isakson--a tax
credit for housing purchases, a pretty good idea. I may not agree on
the $5,000 number; maybe it would be $4,000. But I think it is a pretty
good idea he came up with.
I said Mel Martinez, who before coming to the Senate was a member of
the President's Cabinet as HUD Secretary, has an idea about appraisal
oversight and independence. I think it is a pretty good idea. He should
be able to offer that amendment.
I do not agree with what Senator Specter wants to do; that is, to
change the bankruptcy provision. But he should be able to offer that.
So any guise of not feeling that they are going to be treated fairly
is a misdirection. Again, as has happened for such a long time since we
took the majority--I recognize we have a slim majority, and it makes it
very difficult to legislate, especially on the other side, when
virtually everything is stopped.
On the last stimulus package we had, we got something from the House
that had a rebate to individuals. We thought that should be changed, so
we added, out of the Finance Committee, a lot of good things in that
legislation. We added 21.5 million seniors, 250,000 disabled American
veterans, and many of the things that are in the housing stimulus
package.
It was defeated, and there were editorials written--obviously, my
Republican friends pay no attention to them--that said it was the wrong
thing to do, that the Republicans stopping our vision of what the
stimulus package should be was wrong and not good for the country.
Well, I hope all those editorial writers understand what took place
here. This was a very narrow piece of legislation we have been trying
to move forward on--very narrow. It had five provisions in it, one of
which the President called for in his State of the Union Message--
revenue bonds--and the water has been carried over here by Senator John
Kerry.
We had a provision in this stimulus package that called for more
money for counselors to deal with people who are losing their homes.
They are out of money again. I do not think it is too outlandish to
have mortgage counselors be able to sit down and talk to people about
their homes.
We had a provision in here for CDBG moneys to go back to communities
to work on homes that are being foreclosed upon. I think that is a step
in the right direction.
We had a provision in this legislation that dealt with having these
documents people deal with when they are buying a home more
transparent. That came from Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island--a very
nice piece of legislation.
Finally, we had in this piece of legislation something that I think
is extremely important; that is, a piece of legislation, which makes up
part of this, which says that if you have a home that is being
foreclosed upon, you should be able to go to bankruptcy and see if you
can work something out on that. The bankruptcy judge would be able to
work with you.
Right now it is against the law to do that. If you have a primary
home, and you want to buy a ranch to go play with on weekends or
someplace on the beach, and you decide you run out of money later, you
can go in and work with the bankruptcy court to try to refinance and
readjust those loans--but not your primary residence. So my friend,
Senator Durbin from Illinois, has been working on this for a long
time--it did not come about in the last week or two--saying people who
are about to lose their primary residence should be able to have the
auspices of the bankruptcy court to try to work something out. It is
limited in time and scope--a very good piece of legislation; not a
shotgun, a rifle shot.
Georgetown University did a study, and they said Durbin's provision
would not raise the interest rates a fraction of a hundredth of a
percent--nothing, it would not affect it at all.
So I am at a loss--well, that is not true because it is obvious why
it is being done. The stall is still on. The stall is still on. There
is no reason in the world we should not be moving forward to try to
work something out on
[[Page S1366]]
a housing stimulus package. It is simply unfair what my colleagues have
done. At the last count, there was one Republican who voted to move
forward on this legislation. There could be more, but I saw one.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I listened with a certain level of
incredulity to my good friend the majority leader discussing the vote
we had a few moments ago. Of course, this was a measure not crafted by
the Banking Committee led by Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby. I am not
certain whether Senator Dodd was consulted. I am fairly confident
Senator Shelby was not consulted.
We know there is widespread opposition to the so-called cram-down
provision, and we know that almost everybody in America, apparently,
with the exception of one study at Georgetown that I heard my good
friend the majority leader quote, believes it will drive up interest
rates for all Americans in order to presumably benefit some Americans.
This is the kind of thing that happens when you have a hastily
concocted political exercise, which it strikes me we just went through.
Now, the way to legislate in a body such as the Senate is to come up
with a fair process for consideration. In fact, I offered it prior to
the vote, I say to my good friend the majority leader, that we would go
to the measure, take up five amendments on each side, and have a normal
legislative process leading to actually making a law rather than trying
to create an issue. So we are still very much interested in seeing what
we can do in this area.
The majority leader mentioned the Isakson amendment. There is a lot
of support on this side of the aisle for the Isakson amendment. I know
there are conversations between Senator Carper and Senator Martinez
that could conceivably lead to a bipartisan proposal that would enjoy
support on both sides of the aisle. The way to achieve something such
as that is through the consultative process that we frequently engage
in around here when we are serious about legislating. So I would
reiterate to my good friend the majority leader that I am open to any
discussions for a unanimous consent agreement that gives both sides an
opportunity to have their ideas considered.
We all know the Nation's economy is slowing. We all believe there is
an appropriate role for the Government to play in trying to lessen that
decline in the economy, and we are happy to try to work on a bipartisan
basis to achieve a result, and that opportunity is still before us. Now
that the box has been checked on the other side, maybe we can get
serious now about trying to do something that will actually make a
difference. I stand ready to talk to my good friend the majority leader
about that at any time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The majority leader is
recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I don't know how to say this other than say
it the way I feel. It is an insult to me to say I would bring a bill to
the floor without talking to my chairmen. One thing I pride myself on
is that when I took this job, I gave every one of my ranking members
then, now my chairs, the absolute authority to run their committees,
and I would not interfere with their committees.
Mr. McCONNELL. Would the majority leader yield?
Mr. REID. No. I want the record to reflect I would never consider
putting a piece of legislation on the floor without talking to my
chairmen. I talked to Senator Dodd, I talked to Senator Leahy, I talked
to Senator Baucus about what was going to be in this. So that is so
farfetched that it is hard for me to conceive of how my friend could
say that.
Mr. McCONNELL. I didn't say it. I did not say it. That is why I was
trying to get the majority leader to yield. I said I don't know whether
you consulted with your chairmen. I am fairly confident you didn't
consult with the ranking member, so my remarks don't need to be
corrected since I didn't say it.
Mr. REID. Well, we will get the remarks and let the record speak for
itself.
I would also say this: Yes, we have Georgetown, and we have a friend
of mine whom I served in the House of Representatives with who is
former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, a Republican, and a
card-carrying conservative--Jack Kemp--who thinks what we are doing is
very good; in fact, he has written about it. This isn't something we
threw together in 5 minutes. Most of this stuff was in the stimulus
package they voted down before.
So the economists support what we are doing. It will not increase the
bankruptcy provision of my friend, the senior Senator from Illinois; it
will not increase the interest rates, this bankruptcy thing. We all
know that. This piece of legislation is so important.
When my friend, the Republican leader, said he wanted five
amendments--listen to the boundaries of the amendments--having to deal
with housing and the economy, well, that is pretty wide-ranging. I told
everybody who was within the sound of my voice, if we wanted to offer
five amendments to this piece of legislation or any other piece of
legislation, the Republican leader, rightfully so, would like to see
what that amendment would say. I said the same applies to the
Republicans. You can't have it both ways. If, in the process of trying
to work something out it doesn't work out right, they have the ultimate
big hammer here, and that is cloture. Two steps: One that we haven't
used very much, except in the last year since we have gotten the
majority, which is a motion to proceed and cloture on that. We didn't
get that. It is too bad. But had we been able to do that, we would have
gone immediately to legislating on some of the things that I think are
important.
I am very troubled about the normal legislative process. We haven't
been in the normal legislative process for some time now, and I am
anxious to do everything I can to move forward on this piece of
legislation. It is obvious that my friends do not want to. I am sorry
about that. But anyone who said this has been a hastily concocted
political exercise is wrong.
Mr. SCHUMER. Would my colleague from Nevada yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I wish to ask my colleague from Nevada:
Wouldn't it be true that the ambit the minority leader asked for would
allow the other side to automatically have amendments on, say, renewing
the President's tax cuts, or undoing what happened with the estate tax,
and repealing the entire estate tax; nothing to do with this housing
bill? That is my first question.
My second question is: If the minority leader showed the majority
leader five amendments that were within the confines of this
legislation--ideas such as the Isakson idea or the Martinez idea or
others such as that--that he would willingly go along and we would come
to the floor and debate the amendments and move the bill forward but
that the parameters the minority leader has asked for would allow us to
debate the whole--everything but the kitchen sink and bring up all
these old saws that we have been through again; isn't that correct?
Mr. REID. I would say to my friend, I indicated I don't like what
Senator Specter is trying to do with this bill. He has an absolute
right to offer that, and he should be able to do that. What he wants to
do basically is have a Durbin line--basically strike the provision on
bankruptcy. I don't like that. But it is in keeping with what this
legislation would be. The parameters I don't like have to do with
housing and the economy. Now, try that one on.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, asking another question, that could mean
renew the Bush tax cuts until 2025. That could be within the ambit of
what the minority leader asked for; is that correct?
Mr. REID. That is true. I don't know how much more I can telegraph my
punches. I said--you were present, Senator Durbin was present, and
Senator Murray was present when we met with scores of press people
today. They said: Are you going to allow amendments? I said: Yes, happy
to have amendments. Talk about telegraphing my punches.
One of my Democratic colleagues--I will mention his name because he
would not care--Senator Carper from Delaware, he said: Here are some
amendments they might want to offer. How do you feel about that? Fine.
I want to legislate to deal with the housing crisis. We have a housing
crisis. I have one in Nevada, you have one in Illinois, you have one in
New York, you
[[Page S1367]]
have a real big one in Michigan, and California has 25 percent of all
the foreclosures in the country. Everyplace in America has a problem
with that.
We could stimulate the economy. I defy anyone to say that what we are
doing would not stimulate the economy.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, one more question to the leader: Has the
minority leader shown the five amendments to us he wishes to offer, or
he just sort of wants a carte blanche, more or less?
Mr. REID. I am the one who suggested the amendments that I have heard
the Republicans want to offer. The answer is, no, I have not seen a
single amendment. I didn't start talking about amendments this morning.
When I moved to this piece of legislation, I told the distinguished
Republican leader, let's work something out on amendments. The original
number of five came from me.
Mr. SCHUMER. Is it a pretty fair assumption that what the minority
leader is doing, maybe for himself, maybe for others in his caucus, is
he wants an opportunity to get off the housing debate and go on to the
old saws we always hear from them on, such as the estate tax, Bush tax
cuts, and other things not relevant to this bill? Would that be a
reasonable assumption, given the minority leader's actions?
Mr. REID. Yes. I say to my friend, things that have done so much good
for our economy--so much good for our economy. We are upside down with
red ink on everything.
So the answer is: Yes. We need more tax cuts, we need more money
spent on wars around the country, around the world.
I don't know of anybody who thinks the economy is doing very well.
Even today we had the President say things are not good, but we are not
in a recession. I think the economists would totally disagree.
Mr. DURBIN. Would the majority leader yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I will yield.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to ask the majority leader to
reflect on what has happened this week: the routine motion in the
Senate the motion to proceed--in other words, to start considering a
measure--we have tried to do that three times this week.
Is it not true that the Republican minority has engineered efforts to
stop a vote on changing the policy on the war in Iraq, has stopped a
vote on having accountability in a report on the war on terrorism; and
through the Chair I would ask, now with this measure has stopped an
effort to try to bring some relief to the 2.2 million Americans
from States all over who face foreclosure on their mortgages?
I would ask the majority leader, reflecting on what has happened this
week, is this not a continuation of what we went through all last year
when the Senate Republicans broke the record in the Senate with 62
filibusters?
Mr. REID. In 1 year. They broke a 2-year record in 1 year, and this
is ongoing.
This is an extremely perplexing situation in which we find ourselves.
For my friend, the distinguished Republican leader, to stand and say
that it was incredulous what I had done. Incredulous? I am trying to
legislate. I have a piece of legislation out here which has five
provisions in it. Everyone knows what those five provisions are. No
tricks, no filling the tree, let's work something out on amendments,
and that is incredulous?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before the majority leader leaves and others
leave, the majority whip, let me point out that just as these
presentations were made, we had a long discussion, we had two caucuses,
the Senate Democratic caucuses--not unlike when the Republicans have
their conference every week--to talk about the various provisions. In
fact, I made the presentation briefly before the caucus 2 weeks ago
involving these various ideas. There were a lot of other ideas. There
was an exclusive list in terms of what we could do in order to generate
a new level of optimism in our economy mostly related to the housing
crisis which is the epicenter of this problem.
So I want the record to reflect that as the chairman of the Senate
Banking Committee, I know the chairman of the Finance Committee and the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, were all involved
in those discussions, as were others who had various other ideas as to
whether to include them in a package, other amendments. This obviously
was work in progress, but it is important that the record reflect that
there was an ongoing conversation about this.
Mr. REID. Will my friend yield for a question?
Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.
Mr. REID. I think the Senator would acknowledge there were things I
wanted to put in this bill and he said it is not the right time to do
it. I accepted his jurisdiction of the Banking Committee, and I called
him and said, OK--I didn't say Mr. Chairman--I said OK, Chris, we will
not put them in there. We had full consultation.
I am very proud of my chairs. The three whom I talked about are some
of the best legislators this country has ever had. Chris Dodd is
certainly one of those. I feel this Senate and this country are in good
hands with Senator Dodd as chairman of that committee. I like his
ranking member. Senator Shelby and I served in the House together. He
is a fine man. I say to my friend from Connecticut, to his credit--that
is the Senator from Connecticut--he said: I don't have this thing or
two worked out with Dick Shelby yet. I think it would be better if we
not do it. So I, harping on this--and perhaps it doesn't call for an
answer, but I admire and respect the work this Senator does in the
Foreign Relations Committee, in the Banking Committee now as chair. He
is a top-notch Senator.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the leader very much for that, and
he is absolutely correct. In fact, he raised an issue, and I said I
haven't talked with Senator Shelby and that is the reason he graciously
acquiesced to my desire to keep a certain matter out of the committee
proposal until we had an understanding. That is the way this body
functions well, so you have to have that kind of relationship. You can
make two choices. You can propose things and throw them out there in
the hopes that something may happen, but usually they don't because you
haven't bothered to consult, or you can do it the other way, which is
slower, more deliberate, more frustrating in some ways, but ultimately
you produce products people can support.
I wish to point out that in the last year, the Banking Committee
marked up some 17 pieces of legislation and had 35 hearings. Of those
17 pieces of legislation, 7 of them have become law. There were only
two negative votes cast against all those provisions because Richard
Shelby, the Senator from Alabama, the former chairman of the committee,
and I worked those matters out in a way so our colleagues, almost
unanimously in every case, were able to support us.
I intended to actually speak before the cloture vote and was unable
to do so with the time constraints.
I want to express, if I can, over the next few minutes, my concerns
about where we are economically in this country, as chairman of the
Banking Committee. Today we had, once again, the Chairman of the
Federal Reserve Board in front of the Banking Committee. Chairman
Bernanke was before the committee reporting, as the law requires, on
monetary policy. The conversation was not limited to that, as you might
imagine. It covered the housing issues, foreclosure issues, as well as
other questions under the jurisdiction of the Federal Reserve Board, as
well as matters of concern to both Democrats and Republicans. Several
weeks ago, we had Chairman Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson,
as well as Christopher Cox, Chairman of the SEC, before the Committee
to discuss with us a wide range of issues covering the economy of our
Nation.
We have had hearings on a number of issues affecting the very
question before us. A lot of this data has already been laid out by
others, but it is worth repeating to give a sense of the magnitude of
the problem. It is not exaggeration or hyperbole to suggest that we are
in perilous times economically. This is not a normal downturn or sort
of a problem that might go away in the next 6 or 8 months in the
absence of us taking action.
Let me say, I am a great believer in market forces. Almost a year
ago,
[[Page S1368]]
when this problem first emerged, as the new chairman of the Banking
Committee, I convened the members of the committee along with the
stakeholders involved in the housing crisis in the committee room of
the Banking Committee. Senator Richard Shelby, to his credit, was there
as we listened to the stakeholders talking about what could be done
absent legislation being passed, absent new regulations being
formulated, in order to keep people in their homes who are facing
foreclosure, and to minimize the problem of a growing number of
economic dislocations as a result of this housing crisis.
We were urged back in May, absent any legislation, to let the
marketplace work to develop a solution. For this Member, this is the
ideal solution, when it can work. I don't believe you have to jump in
with bills or regulations if the market can, in fact, provide answers.
So we sat back and said, ``let the market work.''
To some extent, the market did work--it flushed out many of the bad
operators. Unfortunately, what has not happened is that the
stakeholders have not really done what I thought they were going to do,
which is aggressively endeavor to help those people who are in trouble
and facing delinquencies or are on the brink of foreclosure to keep
people in their homes. This was not about helping investors. It was the
owner-occupied homes we were concerned about.
Regrettably, I am here to tell you that a year later the number of
people helped out by that request has been minimal. I will share the
statistics of how small a number we are talking about. While the
Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson, whom I respect, still pursues
and persists as he did again today, that this Hope Now Alliance effort
may work, this Member is less than optimistic about that having watched
the process fail to work for the past year, as the problem got larger.
Today, the situation continues to deteriorate, and it is not limited to
housing. That is the point I want to make at the outset.
There is a contagion effect that is spreading to other parts of the
economy. So while I am disappointed that cloture was not invoked within
the last hour, my hope is that the leaders would give us another
opportunity in the coming days, before we go into that March recess,
the Easter/Passover recess, to actually be able to put something
together to present to our colleagues that might enjoy the bipartisan
support that this issue deserves. So I appeal to them this evening, in
addition to talking about the problem, to give Senators Shelby, Baucus,
Leahy, Specter, and Grassley, the ranking Republicans on the respective
committees, a chance to pull some things together in the next several
days and present that to our colleagues to see if we cannot do
something about this issue. I make that plea this evening, and I am
prepared to do whatever I can to try to accommodate many various ideas.
That is not to suggest that everything will be adopted, but it is
worthy of this body's time to address itself to this issue.
The statistics I am about to share with you, I think, make the case
more eloquently than anything I could say this evening about the
perilous circumstances in which we are operating today. The economy
slowed to a crawl at the end of last year. Economic growth was six-
tenths of 1 percent. The data that we have received so far this year
indicates the problem is going to get worse in 2008. The country lost
jobs in January. That is the first time in 4 years that happened.
Credit card delinquencies are on the rise as consumers find themselves
increasingly unable to tap into the equity of their homes to help pay
down their credit cards and other bills.
To put that into perspective, the median income of Americans is
around $48,000 a year, I believe. Consumer debt, revolving debt, on
average, is $9,300 and growing. Savings rates are negative. So in
addition to the Federal deficit, we should talk about consumer debt in
this country, which is growing. People's ability to resolve that
growing debt problem has been significantly affected as a result of the
loss of value in homes.
Lastly, inflation increased by 4.1 percent last year, the largest
increase in 17 years, driven mainly by the rising cost of energy, food,
and health care as well. Industrial production is flat, and we have
been hemorrhaging jobs in the manufacturing sector. Our national
economy is clearly in deep trouble. I don't enjoy saying that. That
worries me.
One of the things I admire about Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the
Federal Reserve Bank, is that he has been very clear about the problem.
While we may not like to hear it, I am sure others would like him to
paint a rosy picture about all of this. I think he is doing a good job
as Chairman of the Federal Reserve in laying out clearly to the
administration and Members of Congress the seriousness of this problem.
He is judicious in his choice of words. He doesn't engage in alarmist
language. If you listen carefully to what he is saying, it is not
substantially different than what I am saying.
We are in perilous times economically, and we need to spend time on
these issues in this body. We are charged with that by the American
people. This issue demands our attention. I hope we can come back to it
in the coming days.
The epicenter of this economic trouble is the housing crisis. In
fact, the current housing market is the worst since the Great
Depression. That is not hyperbole, Mr. President.
For example, this first chart is titled ``Annual Change in Home
Value.'' It indicates what home values have done over the last 8 years,
from 2000 to 2008. In 2000, home values increased by almost 5 percent;
in 2001, another 7 or 8 percent; and then another 8 percent; and in
2005 in excess of 10 percent; and then the price increases slowed in
2006. Then, for the first time nationally--not regionally--in 2007 we
see declining values. In 2008, we expect to see an even deeper
decline--in excess of 10 percent.
Mr. President, this is the first time since the Great Depression that
home values have declined nationally. All of us are familiar with
regional declines. We saw that in the late 1980s. But this is the first
time that we have seen an annual drop in home values on a national
basis. It is worthwhile to note that. It is a major concern. While many
of us have experienced home price drops in our regions or local
markets, 2007 was the first year since data has been kept that the U.S.
had an annual decline nationwide on housing prices.
Case-Shiller data, released earlier this week, showed a 20-percent
decline in home prices from the fourth quarter of 2006 to the fourth
quarter of 2007, the steepest decline ever recorded.
Mr. President, these words I am using ought to put this in
perspective and give some indication of how serious this is. These are
the steepest declines ever recorded by this data.
A recent Moody's report forecasts that home values will drop in 2008
by 10 to 15 percent.
In 2007, as a whole, single-family home sales fell 13 percent. New
home sales fell in excess of 40 percent--actually, 40.7 percent year
over year in December, the weakest performance in 27 years. In January,
home sales fell to their lowest levels in 9 years.
The inventory for existing homes for sale jumped by 5.5 percent in
January alone and stands at over 4 million units, almost double the
number in January of 2005. This is equal to over 10 months of supply.
The ongoing glut of unsold homes means that home prices will continue
to fall into the future. These are record numbers, in the last number
of years.
We have not seen the worst of it, unfortunately. There are over 1
million borrowers with subprime and other exotic mortgages who are over
60 days delinquent. With about 1.8 million subprime ARMs, valued at
about $500 billion resetting to higher rates in the next 18 months,
there is no doubt that this problem is going to deepen.
As a result, I will put up the second chart of official data. This
says ``New Homes Entering into Foreclosure.'' These are important
numbers. Already, when I gave you the title of this, you began to see,
obviously, what is happening in the fourth quarter of 2007. These
numbers begin in the second quarter of 2005. I know it is hard to see.
The first number is the second quarter of 2005. The numbers run from
then to the fourth quarter of 2007, just ending a few months ago. You
can get some idea of the homes entering foreclosure in this country.
Again, it is in record numbers.
[[Page S1369]]
We are experiencing historic highs in both the rate of new
foreclosures and the percentage of all loans in foreclosure, according
to the Mortgage Bankers Association.
Mark Zandi, an economist at Moodys.com, estimates that 3 million
loans will default between 2007 and mid-2009, of which 2 million will
end in foreclosure sale. Over 23 percent of subprime loans are now 60
days or more delinquent in foreclosure. Those are huge numbers.
In January alone, Mr. President, foreclosures were up 57 percent, and
bank repossessions were up 90 percent from January 2007, according to
RealtyTrac data. There are currently 1.4 million families in
foreclosure.
The third chart I want to show you gives you some idea of the
magnitude of this in terms of dollars and cents. It is called
``Foreclosures: Impacts on Families.'' At least 2.2 million families
are losing their homes. That is a staggering number. We always see
every year that there are some foreclosures. Now we are talking about
numbers that are unprecedented. The loss in home equity in the
neighborhoods is over $165 billion. There will be a net loss of home
ownership and wealth especially for African-American and Latinos
families. This is a significant problem.
The fourth chart says ``Adjustable Rate Mortgages Currently Scheduled
to Have Interest Rate Reset.'' I think everybody knows what I am
talking about here the reset under what is called an ARM is an
adjustable rate mortgage.
As an aside, ARMs can be a very attractive and valuable product for
certain consumers. Frankly, these mortgages were marketed to too many
people who, could not handle ARMs. I don't want ARMs to become a bad
word, because they can be valuable for certain consumers in certain
economic categories. But for many people they are dangerous.
Mr. SALAZAR. Will my friend yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. DODD. Certainly.
Mr. SALAZAR. I thank my friend. I was trying to figure out a speaking
order because a number of Senators want to speak. I ask my friend about
how much longer he expects to go.
Mr. DODD. Another 10 minutes.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
the Senator's remarks, he be followed by Senators Alexander for 5
minutes, Wyden and Smith for 10 minutes, followed by Senator Casey for
5 minutes, and followed by Senator Salazar for 10 minutes, and Senator
Casey following Senator Salazar for as much time as he may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what happens under ARMs is that there is a
teaser rate, which is very low. You lure people in with the teaser
rate--and I am now talking about people who should not be in ARMs.
Then, after the teaser period ends, the rate rises to the much higher
fully indexed rate. What happens, of course, at a teaser rate, many
people may be more than capable of meeting that obligation. Many
mortgage brokers are marketing these products without being honest and
forthright about what the fully indexed rate will be, and what the
borrower's financial responsibility will be.
It is also important to state that borrowers have a responsibility as
well as lenders. But in too many cases, those borrowers were being
lured into situations that the brokers fully well knew that the
borrowers were never going to be able to meet.
What are we looking at in this chart is the number of loans facing an
interest rate reset, which means, when these higher rates kick in. We
talk about resets occurring along the way. This chart is specifically
designed to describe the reset problem.
Adjustable rate mortgages are currently scheduled to have interest
rate resets, and the dollar value of mortgages that will reset is in
the billions of dollars, to give some sense of the magnitude of the
problem. This problem will last far beyond 2008. As this chart shows,
even after the current subprime wave washes over us, we will face
serious problems with interest-only and option-ARM resets for the next
4 years. In short, the problem is growing; not going away, but growing.
The crisis affects more than the families who will lose their homes.
There will be an increased demand for social services, police, fire,
and other services that ameliorate the impact of increases in
foreclosed and abandoned property. You don't have to have a Ph.D. in
housing to know the negative ripple effects on the community of
abandoned and foreclosed properties that are sitting on the market. The
value of neighboring homes, even if the neighbor is currently doing
everything right, you don't have to be an expert in real estate to know
that if your next-door neighbor or people on your street have an
abandoned property, that it causes the home that you have taken care
of, that you have done everything right by, to decrease in value.
Beyond the obvious impact of the foreclosure problem, there is a
domino effect that is growing. Yet State and local governments have
fewer resources, as we know, because as we have property foreclosed and
not paying taxes, we find again the property taxes which most
communities rely on for social services, police, fire, and the like
also decline. That is what I want to show on this chart, the
foreclosure impact on neighborhoods beyond the individual home.
Property values for each home within one-eighth mile of a foreclosed
house dropped by an average of $5,000. This was a study done in
Chicago. I see my friend from Tennessee, Lamar Alexander. I was talking
with him about this a day or so ago. If you take a square block, which
is roughly one-eighth of a square mile, when one foreclosure occurs in
that area, then the property value of every other home on that city
block, even though every other home is current in its mortgage
obligations, taxes and the rest, the home values decline almost
immediately by $5,000. That is the study.
Again, it is bad enough to lose the one property, but what is
happening to everyone else in that neighborhood is they are also
suffering. That is what this number is designed to show.
The result of that is that somewhere between 44 and 50 million homes
adjacent to subprime foreclosed property will lose value if the problem
persists, and localities are going to lose--the estimates are somewhere
from $4.5 billion and $5 billion in property taxes and other tax
revenues as a result of foreclosed properties. The effects go far
beyond the individual who is adversely affected by these issues.
Unfortunately, we are seeing the contagion spread beyond the mortgage
markets to the capital markets as a whole, both in the United States
and globally. Yet as the Federal Reserve chairman acknowledged at a
Banking Committee hearing this morning, our country is in a worse
position to deal with the fallout of the housing and financial market
crisis we are experiencing than we were after the tech bubble burst
that put us into the recession of 2001.
Former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Alan Blinder puts it like this:
. . . the mortgage foreclosure problem grows and new
strains in the financial system keep popping up like a not-
very-funny version of whack-a-mole.
That is from a New York Times story of last week.
Many economists call this a negative feedback loop. It works like
this: Homeowners, saddled with abusive mortgages that never should have
been made and which they cannot afford, are forced into foreclosure at
historic rates, forcing new homes to be sold into a marketplace already
glutted with unsold homes. The rising supply pushes down home prices
further, putting more borrowers under water and at risk, even borrowers
with prime mortgages. Homeowners who can afford to pay their mortgages
are seeing the equity they have built over the years evaporate before
their eyes. According to Martin Feldstein, the chairman of President
Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors, every 10-percent fall in home
prices cuts household wealth by $2 trillion and household spending by
$100 billion.
Let me repeat that. According to Martin Feldstein, every 10-percent
fall in home prices--and we are watching that this year already and the
estimates are for next year maybe as high as 15 percent--every 10-
percent decline cuts household wealth by $2 trillion and household
spending by $100 billion.
[[Page S1370]]
So if Moody's current estimate is correct that home prices will drop
by 10 to 15 percent this year, household spending will fall by $100
billion to $150 billion, and household wealth will fall by $2 trillion
to $3 trillion this year alone.
These losses do not stop with families who have lost their home
equity. The securities backed by these loans, both subprime and
increasingly by other higher quality mortgages, get downgraded, as we
know, forcing banks and securities firms who own these securities to
set aside billions of dollars against real or potential losses.
These write-downs, as they are called, and increased loss reserves
reduce the ability of these institutions to lend any money, whether for
mortgages or commercial loans, even to hire quality borrowers. Worse,
the uncertainty about what the future might bring and what the subprime
mortgage-backed securities might be worth are forcing these banks to
hoard their capital against potential future disaster.
As a result, as Paul Ashworth, an economist with Capital Economics,
in London said:
Rather ominously, borrowing costs for even most
creditworthy of firms have started to rise.
As we know, homeowners who can still get mortgages have seen these
rates rise. Banks are tightening their standards for both credit cards
and commercial real estate loans, and home equity loans are being
pulled as home prices declined, forcing families to find alternative
means of financing their children's education, home repairs, and other
activities.
Let me point out, we saw in this morning's newspapers that the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania--I see my good friend Bob Casey from
Pennsylvania--it was pointing out the difficulty that could occur this
year with student loans. The State of Michigan last week reported a
very similar situation.
So, once again, while we are talking about a housing crisis, we are
already getting stories that student loans may not be as available for
this year as they have been. This is now going beyond the issue of what
happens with someone who gets their property foreclosed. It now could
very well reach into the critical issue of student loans which are
absolutely essential for middle-income working families so their
children have an opportunity for higher education. That is how serious
this problem is.
Businesses, universities, and public entities are finding it harder
and harder and far more expensive to roll over their existing debt or
to get credit at all. For example, we saw recently how the major Wall
Street houses, from Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs to Citigroup and
Merrill Lynch, have refused to commit capital to the auction rate
market, a market that was supposed to allow investors to sell their
debt each week via auction that sets interest rates. As a result, many
auctions are failing, saddling high-quality entities with absurdly high
interest rates.
Two weeks ago, for instance, the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey was forced to pay 20-percent interest on its debt because their
auction failed. Student loan programs, I mentioned a moment ago, in
Michigan and Pennsylvania have also shut down--shut down, Mr.
President.
Since last August, we have seen this negative feedback loop continue
its downward spiral despite repeated rate cuts and other actions taken
by the Federal Reserve and international central bankers intended to
stem this tide. The result is a crisis of confidence that has serious
implications for our country. Again, let me quote Professor Feldstein,
who served as President Reagan's top economic adviser:
The principal cause for concern today is the paralysis of
the credit markets. The collapse of confidence in credit
markets is now preventing that necessary extension of credit.
The decline of credit creation includes not only the banks
but also the bond markets, hedge funds, insurance companies
and mutual funds. Securitization, leveraged buyouts and
credit insurance have also atrophied.
The catalyst of this downward economic spiral is the housing crisis,
and the face of this housing crisis is the historic increase in
foreclosures. Therefore, in my view, any serious effort to address our
economic woes must include an effort to take on the foreclosure crisis.
We have to begin there. If we do not deal with that issue, then we are
flirting around with disaster, in my view, and avoiding the central
question. So we must do something to slow the tide of foreclosures
overcoming many of our citizens, and we need to give our local
officials the tools and resources to cope with the increases in
foreclosed properties.
In doing so, we will help break the downward cycle that is pushing
our economy toward a recession if we are not already in the middle of
one.
By acting, we can bring some certainty where today only uncertainty
exists. We can help restore the confidence of consumers and investors
that is absolutely indispensable to economic progress in our Nation.
There are some steps we have taken in the housing sphere already.
Working closely with my friend, Senator Richard Shelby, the ranking
member of the Banking Committee, and the administration, we were able
to pass the FHA reform legislation. We have started working with the
House to resolve our differences. My hope is that within a few days,
Senator Shelby and I will be able to present to you a package that has
been passed by both Houses.
I am committed to work with Senator Shelby and the administration to
pass a government-sponsored enterprise regulatory reform bill so that
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks can expand
their efforts to help people stay in their homes.
The committee has held extensive oversight hearings on the problems
that plague the housing markets, including a hearing on January 31 to
look at the foreclosure issue. And there will be more hearings to come.
I do not contend that S. 2636 will solve all the problems. The bill,
unfortunately, did not receive the necessary cloture votes. But it is a
start, and it will help in a number of ways that were talked about.
I see my colleagues are anxious to speak as well. We heard about the
provision on bankruptcy reform, which I support, about some tax
provisions that would have made some difference, and I will leave the
record to describe what other proposals are included, including the
counseling provision that Senator Schumer, myself, and others have
championed for a long time to help consumers, as well as community
development block grants for cities to acquire and rehabilitate
foreclosed properties.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed
for 2 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, obviously we are not going to get to this
bill tonight. My hope would have been that, at this hour, we would have
been debating amendments and ideas included in that package. That did
not happen. That is no reason for this not to go forward in the future,
however.
As I said at the outset of these remarks, I know all of my colleagues
care about this issue. This is one of those moments when we have
nothing less than the highest obligations to deal with this crisis. We
ought to have enough ability to deal with this crisis, with the talent
that exists in this Chamber, putting aside the ideological debates that
go on here all the time. We will be indicted in the public's mind if we
do not step up and address this issue. Ultimately if we do create the
opportunity and ability to step in and do what needs to be done to
address this situation, the blame will fall right here and the burden
will fall on the taxpayers of America. We will be indicted, and should
be, if we do not have the wisdom, the ability, the courage, the
intestinal fortitude to step up to craft ideas that can make a
difference.
My final plea this evening is to the leaders--and I know the majority
leader feels as passionately about this as I do--and that is to set
aside whatever else we are dealing with for a number of days to give
those of us, as he has, and the responsibility of the committees
involved to bring together a collection of these ideas to this Chamber
and then set aside the necessary time over several days to debate them
thoroughly as to how we ought to proceed and to present the American
public with a series of notions and proposals that I think could make a
difference on this issue.
[[Page S1371]]
I do not claim clairvoyance. I do not claim the result would be
perfect. But I think the very act of acting has its benefits, putting
aside whether we do all the things the American people would like us to
do. The idea that the Senate, the Congress of the United States is
stepping up to do something for the people who, at this very hour, are
hanging by their collective fingernails wondering whether everything
they saved and put aside for their lives is going to be lost in the
coming days. There are millions and millions of people adversely
affected.
It is not just the foreclosures. We are talking about 44 million to
50 million homes being adversely affected because we did not have the
intestinal fortitude, wisdom, and desire to step up and make a
difference, then we ought to be indicted.
So, Mr. President, I stand ready and prepared, as I know many others
do, to sit down and work out a series of proposals to bring up before
we depart here in 2 weeks for the Easter and Passover break to get this
job done. And that is my offer this evening. I know I speak for Senator
Shelby and for the members of my committee, who care deeply about this
issue as well, that we will do anything and everything we have to do to
assist in this effort.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I stayed so that I could respond to not
just the words but the spirit and the tone of the remarks of the
Senator from Connecticut. He and Senator Shelby, and their committee,
are in the best position to help make sure we do our job between now
and the upcoming recess, and on behalf of the Republican leader, I wish
to say that is our goal.
Looking back just to the end of last year, this Senate was able to
take up an energy bill, have a principled debate--including an argument
about taxes--and come to a result. And we took a step--increasing fuel
efficiency standards for the first time in 30 years--that, according to
a top expert at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, will do more than
anything else Congress could do to reduce our dependence on foreign
oil.
Then we took up the economic stimulus legislation, and it was a
smaller package than almost any of us would have preferred, because we
had different points of view, but we agreed on it. We had a vote that
kept out $40 billion in additional spending which that side wanted and
this side largely didn't, but we came to a result, and the President
signed it into law.
We did the same thing on intelligence, with a very difficult issue,
liberty versus security, and how do we balance that. We had a
Rockefeller-Bond proposal on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
that finally got 68 votes, and we sent it to the House.
That is three straight. Now here comes housing. There is no reason we
can't have a result here. I think all that we are saying on this side
is that while the Democratic proposal may be a good start, we think it
needs a lot of work. We do not, for example, want to put into law a
proposal that many feel might turn home mortgages into junk bonds. We
have some ideas in addition to those which have been proposed that we
would like considered.
There seems to be no reason in the world why the majority leader
could not sit down with the Republican leader and say: Let's see if we
can agree on a limited number of amendments. And we respect the fact
that largely the Democratic side will want to pick its amendments, and
we hope you will respect the fact that largely we would like to pick
our amendments. Now, there is some negotiation there. It can't all be
done out here tonight. But I think the point we would like to make is
that there are 49 Republican Senators. We want to be a part of this
solution, as we were in energy, as we were in with economic stimulus,
as we were with intelligence, and we intend to be with housing as well.
And we look to the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Dodd, and
to the ranking member, Senator Shelby, and to Senators Grassley and
Baucus on the Finance Committee to help us get to that position early
next week.
My colleagues will hear us on this side talking a lot about a pro-
growth economic plan that goes beyond just housing--we believe in lower
taxes, and we want lower health care costs and lower energy costs, and
we want to implement the America COMPETES Act. We want a strong robust
economy, and housing is a part of it. So there are some larger issues
we might want to take up as part of the housing debate. Just which ones
are appropriate ought to be something we could discuss and work out.
So I appreciate the spirit of the Senator's comments. Our spirit is
that we have 49 Members on this side of the aisle, and we would like to
have our ideas included. We don't like the idea of just sending a bill
up and saying: OK, here it is, let's vote it up or down. The majority
leader said that really wasn't his intention, so maybe there is a
misunderstanding, and maybe that can be cleared up over the weekend and
we can get back to doing our job on housing, as we have done with the
energy, economic stimulus, and intelligence bills.
So I thank the Senator for his excellent remarks and his spirit, and
I look forward to working with him.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a minute, I
don't want to interrupt, because I know others want to be heard, but I
listened very carefully to what the majority leader said earlier, and
he did an eloquent job of explaining this himself, but I want the
record to reflect this as well.
I think the only concern the majority leader had, and I say this
respectfully to my friend from Tennessee, was that he asked what these
other amendments might be, which is a very legitimate request--not to
suggest he has the right to decide the outcome of them but merely what
they would be. That is the job of the majority leader, obviously. To
say we have five amendments and you have to wait until we get to them
to tell you what they are obviously makes his job very difficult, if
not impossible.
Just as the leader laid out what the bill was and what we would be
offering, I think, in fairness, in order to move this along--and I
don't want to get bogged down in this because this is how we can get
lost in the weeds of all of this, but I think, in fairness to the
majority leader, he felt as though it was not right to be denied the
right to know what the various amendments would be. Not to say he would
agree with them--as he said, he doesn't agree with the amendment being
offered by Senator Specter--but he has the right to offer it, and he
would respect that.
So if we are going to do this, it is important for the leaders--and I
am not a leader here, but the leaders need to sit down and see how the
place operates and how it is going to function.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, we have other Senators wanting to
speak, and these will be my last comments. I don't disagree with that.
I think we all know what needs to happen here. We don't want the
majority leader picking all our amendments.
Mr. DODD. Of course not.
Mr. ALEXANDER. And you didn't say you wanted to. So apparently,
somehow, it didn't get through as clearly as it might have. Maybe we
didn't hear it well or maybe it wasn't said as clearly.
The Republican ideas, some of which we think are very strong, such as
the Isakson amendment, for example, which has a lot of appeal, we want
to make sure those ideas are included in the debate, and when that
right is respected, we think we can have a good bill.
So hopefully the majority leader and the Republican leader will have
a chance to discuss that, and the chairman of the Banking Committee and
the ranking member will help with that process as well.
Mr. DODD. We hope so. And let me just say for the record, as someone
who is familiar with the Isakson proposal, I think it has very
meritorious qualities to it, and I think that might enjoy some very
strong support.
Mr. President, I again yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Lewis And Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Area
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I was prepared to come to the floor tonight
and ask unanimous consent that the
[[Page S1372]]
Senate proceed to take up and pass the Lewis and Clark Mount Hood
wilderness legislation, and I am very pleased that my colleague from
our State, Senator Smith, was prepared to join me this evening. We were
going to tackle this issue which is so important to the people of our
State in a bipartisan fashion.
Oregon's Mount Hood is a cherished State treasure. There is statewide
consensus in every corner of Oregon that this protection is essential,
and Senator Smith and I have worked for a great many years trying to
move this legislation forward. It has passed the relevant Senate
committee, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and the two of
us had hoped tonight to pass this legislation by unanimous consent.
Regrettably, my colleague has been informed by the Senator from
Oklahoma that he would not let us go forward with this legislation
tonight. I greatly regret this. The people of our State are waiting.
They have been waiting many years for this. They have understood that
Senator Smith and I have tried to approach this not just in a
bipartisan way but in the most inclusive way we possibly could, working
with environmental concerns, timber concerns, and the concerns of local
officials and scientists. We have had scores and scores of citizens'
groups involved in this effort.
Our constituents just don't understand how a piece of legislation
that has all of this consensus behind it and all of the energy and
passion that Oregonians have brought to it, cannot pass tonight and be
done quickly so that this legislation could pass the Senate and go to
the other body where our colleagues, particularly Congressman
Blumenauer and Congressman Walden, have also put in many hours, in a
bipartisan way, to try to get this legislation enacted and sent to the
President.
The reality is that the people of our State want this State icon
protected and not held hostage. I am very interested in working with
our colleague from the State of Oklahoma. I want to try to address any
concerns he may have. I am perplexed as to what those are because we
can't get any specifics as to what they actually are.
I think that at this time I would like to yield to my colleague from
the State of Oregon for his remarks and perhaps just wrap it up briefly
afterward. But I think it is unfortunate tonight, when both of Oregon's
Senators wanted to pass this much needed legislation, that we couldn't
go forward when there is such strong bipartisan support.
Mr. President, with a reservation so I can wrap up briefly, let me
yield to my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, for his remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Wyden. Many
may wonder why we are down here and talking about this piece of
legislation, and it is, in short, because Mount Hood is more than just
a mountain in our State, it is the icon of our State. It is a place of
remarkable beauty. It is a place where a vast majority of our citizens
wish to have the greatest legal protections for its preservation. For
this generation and for all time to come, obviously wilderness is the
highest form of legal protection for any piece of public land.
In the course of coming to this place, Senator Wyden and I have had
many meetings with constituents, received countless pieces of mail in
support, and have appreciated the intensity of feeling about this from
a whole range of interests. This bill is the work of compromise. This
bill does not shortchange a vital industry of our State, which
obviously I am speaking of timber. Timber production is vital to our
country. Timber production is vital to the economy and the jobs of
thousands of Oregonians.
So we, Senator Wyden and I, have engaged in a lot of give-and-take.
We worked with our colleagues in the House, who have similar
legislation. We are anxious to get this to them so that this heartfelt
demand from our citizens of Oregon can be realized.
In saying all of this, I don't expect the citizens of Oregon to
understand the arcane rules of the Senate. The fact is, they are rules
based upon honor and one's word, and it is a fact that Senator Coburn
has indicated to me his objection to this piece of legislation. So out
of respect for him, out of honoring both the letter and the rules of
the Senate, we are not offering this even though we are disappointed
that we cannot offer this. We would not do that with him being absent
from the Senate, but we do commit to him to continue working on any
substantive objection he may have to try to resolve what those may be.
I would note that the Republican side of the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee voted unanimously for this piece of legislation. So
this is nothing that is extreme. This is something completely unique to
Oregon and certainly something within the range of values that
Oregonians feel toward the environment. I also note that the Bush
administration, as far as I know, is now on board with this piece of
legislation. So this has broad support.
It is still a work in progress, obviously, with our House colleagues,
but we do not offer it tonight out of respect for our colleague from
Oklahoma. We simply want to talk about it, to let the people of Oregon
know we are working on it, that we are on the job and anxious to get
this to a final result so that Mount Hood, which is definitional of the
beauty of our State and the values that we put on the environment, can
enjoy the legal protection that comes with a wilderness designation.
Again, we have included the logging community, we have included the
recreation community, we have included the environmental community.
This is the work of compromise, which is the essential ingredient to
getting anything through the Senate.
So we will continue the effort. We will continue to work with our
colleague from Oklahoma. And I thank Senator Wyden for his passion on
this issue and the way he and I have worked together to resolve, it
seems like 100 different little issues, to try and come to this point
of compromise that does satisfy the demands of so large a swath of the
people of Oregon and provide this level of protection to an icon which
is the beauty of Mount Hood.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. I know colleagues are waiting. I am going to wrap up very
briefly. I commend my colleague from Oregon for an excellent statement.
The fact is, this legislation has been a labor of love for the people
of Oregon. They have been involved in scores and scores of meetings in
communities all across the State. And all they want to do is protect
these scenic areas as Lewis and Clark first saw them.
The fact is, it has taken years longer to pass this legislation
through the Senate than it took Lewis and Clark to get to Oregon. And
that is why Senator Smith and I have indicated we hope to get any
further concerns that my colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma, or any
other Member of the Senate has, because I certainly do not think this
is a partisan issue.
When you have legislation like this that seeks to protect almost
126,000 acres and more than 79 miles of wild and scenic rivers on nine
free-flowing rivers, including some of the most pristine and treasured
areas of our State, all of the people who are going to visit this area,
Oregonians and non-Oregonians alike, they are not going to see this as
an exercise in partisan politics. They are going to see this as Lewis
and Clerk saw this: in effect, protecting the very special parts of
Oregon that are a treasure to our State, that are a treasure for the
people of the country.
And as Senator Smith indicated, our doors are open. We want to
proceed with this legislation in the Senate just as quickly as we
possibly can. Our colleagues in the other body are waiting for it. That
is what it is going to take to get the Senate and the other body to
work together, and get it sent to the President of the United States. I
wish we were getting it done tonight. Senator Smith has indicated so as
well. I do not think there is any reason it did not get done tonight,
for all practical purposes. But we are going to continue to work in
good faith with all the Members of the Senate, and we hope to be back
on this floor very soon to see this critically needed legislation
advance and get passed by this body.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Tribute to Myron Cope
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, thank you very much. I rise tonight to
speak
[[Page S1373]]
about a distinguished Pennsylvanian whom we lost this week. I will be
speaking a little bit later about housing and the housing crisis in our
economy.
I wanted to speak first tonight about a man who is known all across
our State and indeed beyond the State but especially in Pittsburgh. I
speak of Myron Cope who died this week at the age of 79. He was, in
fact, a legendary Pittsburgher and the voice of the Pittsburgh Steelers
for an unprecedented 35 years.
He died yesterday at the age of 79 in a nursing home in Pittsburgh
where he was being treated for respiratory problems and heart failure.
He is known for so much. He is probably best known for his quirky
catch phrases and creating the well-known, world-renowned ``terrible
towel'' of the Pittsburgh Steelers, which so many people know was a
symbol that was twirled at Steelers games as a good luck charm and has
developed into an international symbol of Pittsburgh Steeler pride.
Steeler's president, Art Rooney, said it best in a story yesterday
when he said:
His memorable voice and unique broadcasting style became
synonymous with Steeler football. They say imitation is the
greatest form of flattery and no Pittsburgh broadcaster was
impersonated more than Myron.
Art Rooney said it well. Not many people know that Myron Cope was an
announcer by accident. He spent the first half of his professional
career as one of the Nation's most widely read freelance sports
writers, writing for Sports Illustrated, the Saturday Evening Post, on
subjects and athletes as wide and as diverse as Muhammad Ali, Howard
Cossell, and Roberto Clemente, the legendary Pittsburgh Pirate baseball
player.
The Associated Press did a story about Myron's passing. And it talked
about how he became so popular with the Steelers that they did not try
to replace his unique perspective when he retired. Instead they
downsized from a three-man announcing team to a two-man booth because
of his unique perspective.
I will not try to imitate his voice. Many do; I will not try it
because I cannot do it well. But the Associated Press said this about
Myron:
To Cope, an exceptional play rated a ``Yoi!'' A coach's
doublespeak was ``garganzola.''
That is Myron Cope's language for various things. We could go on and
on tonight about all of those terms that he came up with, ways he
described winning and losing and the aspects of a football game. But I
will leave it to others to try to imitate his voice.
But we are thinking of him tonight and thinking of his family and his
legions of fans.
I ask unanimous consent that the Associated Press story by Alan
Robinson be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From The Associated Press, Pittsburgh, Feb. 27, 2008]
Steelers' Former Radio Announcer Myron Cope Dies
(By Alan Robinson, AP Sports Writer)
Myron Cope, the screechy-voiced announcer whose colorful
catch phrases and twirling Terrible Towel became symbols of
the Pittsburgh Steelers during an unrivaled 35 seasons in the
broadcast booth, has died. He was 79.
Cope died Wednesday morning at a nursing home in Mount
Lebanon, a Pittsburgh suburb, Joe Gordon, a former Steelers
executive and a longtime friend of Cope's, told The
Associated Press. Cope had been treated for respiratory
problems and heart failure in recent months, Gordon said.
Cope's tenure from 1970-2004 as the color analyst on the
Steelers' radio network is the longest in NFL history for a
broadcaster with a single team and led to his induction into
the National Radio Hall of Fame in 2005.
Even after retiring, Cope--a sports talk show host for 23
years--continued to appear in numerous radio, TV and print
ads, emblematic of a local popularity that sometimes
surpassed that of the stars he covered.
Beyond Pittsburgh's three rivers, Cope is best known for
pioneering the Terrible Towel, the yellow cloth twirled by
fans as a good luck charm at Steelers games since the mid-
1970s. The towel is arguably the best-known fan symbol of any
major pro sports team, has raised millions of dollars for
charity and is displayed at the Pro Football Hall of Fame.
``You were really part of it,'' Steelers owner Dan Rooney
told Cope in 2005. ``You were part of the team. The Terrible
Towel many times got us over the goal line.''
An announcer by accident, Cope spent the first half of his
professional career as one of the nation's most widely read
freelance sports writers, writing for Sports Illustrated and
the Saturday Evening Post on subjects that included Muhammad
Ali, Howard Cosell and Roberto Clemente. He was hired by the
Steelers at age 40, several years after he began doing TV
sports commentary on the whim of a station manager, mostly to
help increase attention and attendance as the Steelers moved
into Three Rivers Stadium.
Neither the Steelers nor Cope had any idea how much impact
he would make on a five-time Super Bowl champion franchise
that, within two years of his hiring, would begin a string of
home sellouts that continues to this day.
Cope became so popular that the Steelers didn't try to
replace his unique perspective and top-of-the-lungs vocal
histrionics when he retired, instead downsizing from a three-
man announcing team to a two-man booth.
``He doesn't play, he doesn't put on a pair of pads, but
he's revered probably as much or more in Pittsburgh than
Franco (Harris), all the guys,'' running back Jerome Bettis
said. ``Everybody probably remembers Myron more than the
greatest players, and that's an incredible compliment.''
Cope and a rookie quarterback named Terry Bradshaw made
their Steelers debuts on Sept. 20, 1970.
Just as Pirates fans once did with longtime broadcaster Bob
Prince, Steelers fans began tuning in to hear what wacky
stunt or colorful phrase Cope would come up with next. With a
voice beyond imitation--a falsetto shrill that could pierce
even the din of a touchdown celebration--Cope was a man of
many words, some not in any dictionary.
To Cope, an exceptional play rated a ``Yoi!'' A coach's
doublespeak was ``garganzola.'' The despised rival to the
north was always the Cleve Brownies, never the Cleveland
Browns.
He gave four-time Super Bowl champion coach Chuck Noll the
only nickname that ever stuck, the Emperor Chaz. For years,
he laughed off the downriver and often downtrodden Cincinnati
Bengals as the Bungles, though never with a malice or
nastiness that would create longstanding anger.
Many visiting players who, perhaps upset by what Cope had
uttered during a broadcast, could only laugh when confronted
by a 5-foot-4 man they often dwarfed by more than a foot.
During the years, it seemed every Steelers player or
employee could tell an offbeat or humorous story about Cope.
He once jammed tight end Dave Smith, fully dressed in
uniform and pads, into a cab for a hectic ride to the airport
after Smith missed the team bus for an interview. He talked a
then-retired Frank Sinatra into attending a 1972 practice in
San Diego to make him an honorary general in Franco Harris's
Italian Army fan club. He took a wintertime river swim in
1977 to celebrate an unexpected win, and was sick for days.
Cope's biggest regret was not being on the air during
perhaps the most famous play in NFL history--Franco Harris's
famed Immaculate Reception against Oakland in 1972, during
the first postseason win in Steelers history.
Cope was on the field to grab guests for his postgame show
when Harris, on what seemingly was the last play of the
Steelers' season, grabbed the soaring rebound of a tipped
Terry Bradshaw pass after it deflected off either the
Raiders' Jack Tatum or the Steelers' Frenchy Fuqua and scored
a game-winning 60-yard touchdown. As a result, play-by-play
man Jack Fleming's voice is the only one heard on what has
been countless replays over the years.
``He ran straight to me in the corner, and I'm yelling,
`C'mon Franco, c'mon on!,' '' said Cope, who, acting on a
fan's advice, tagged the play ``The Immaculate Reception''
during a TV commentary that night.
Remarkably, Cope worked with only two play-by-play
announcers, Fleming and Bill Hillgrove, and two head coaches,
Noll and Bill Cowher, during his 35 seasons.
Cope began having health problems shortly before his
retirement, and they continued after he left the booth. They
included several bouts of pneumonia and bronchitis--he smoked
throughout his career--a concussion and a leg problem that
took months to properly diagnose. He also said he had a
cancerous growth removed from his throat.
``Wherever I go, people sincerely ask me how my health is
and almost always, they say `Myron, you've given me so much
joy over the years,' '' said Cope, who also found the time to
write five sports books, none specifically about the
Steelers. ``People also tell me it's the end of an era, that
there will never be an announcer who lasts this long again
with a team.''
Among those longtime listeners was a Pittsburgh high school
star turned NFL player turned Steelers coach--Bill Cowher.
``My dad would listen to his talk show and I would think,
`Why would you listen to that?' '' Cowher said. ``Then I
found myself listening to that. I (did) my show with him, and
he makes ME feel young.''
Mr. CASEY. In conclusion, I want to say that Myron Cope was a
familiar voice to every Pittsburgher and football fan alike, and his
persona will live on in the hearts of Pittsburghers and Steelers fans
for generations to come.
It is a sad day and really a sad week for Pittsburgh and for
football. He will
[[Page S1374]]
be dearly missed. And today we honor his legacy. Tomorrow I will be
honored to introduce a resolution honoring Myron Cope.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate this
evening to express my extreme disappointment that the Senate is not
moving forward today to address the housing crisis which is causing so
much pain for people all over this country, from the Presiding
Officer's wonderful Sunshine State of Florida, to the western shores of
California, to most of the States across the country.
We know there is a lot of pain because of the housing crisis that
America finds itself in today. To be sure, I am proud of the work that
this Chamber did a few weeks ago when we pushed through the economic
stimulus package to provide tax rebates and to provide some incentives
for businesses to invest in equipment to make sure that we are keeping
our economy from going into the ditch.
But let there be no doubt, let there be no doubt anywhere in America
today that the housing market is in crisis and American home ownership
is becoming a nightmare to the homeowners of America. And so it is, in
my view, incumbent upon this Chamber, incumbent upon the President of
the United States, incumbent upon us, to try to move forward, to try to
ease some of the pain and to make sure that what is the primary cause
for us being in the kind of economic instability that we find ourselves
in today, is something that we address, and that is the housing crisis
that America faces.
On this chart, you will note that the statistics indicate what is
happening across America that is bringing so much pain to the people
who own homes in all of our States. This morning in one of our Finance
Committee meetings where we had a hearing, we heard from the real
estate industry, including those who are owners of commercial real
estate and those who build our homes across this country. Those who are
building our homes, the National Association of Home Builders, their
vice president and a witness today at our Finance Committee hearing
said what they are seeing in the housing market is the worst they have
seen since the Great Depression.
Now, the Great Depression brought not only the economy of the United
States, but the economy of the world, basically, to its knees, flat on
its face. And it took that ``greatest generation'' to stand up this
economy again.
So they are telling us, these people who build our homes in America,
that this is worse than anything that they have seen since that Great
Depression. But Moody's, the economic group, in testimony that they
provided to one of our committees in the Senate not long ago, talked
about how we have not yet reached the trough, the bottom of the housing
crisis that we are going into. Yet we have a filibuster underway that
is keeping us from moving forward and addressing this housing issue.
I do not get it. I do not understand it. If you look at where we are
today in terms of what is projected to be the trough with respect to a
number of these metrics that we have on this chart, the first of those
is the decline in housing values across America.
What this chart shows is that it is projected that housing values
will decline, on average across America, by over 15 percent. Now, when
you talk about that kind of decline in home values, it is not just a
pain that is affecting those homeowners whose houses are in
foreclosure, it is a pain that is being felt by the neighborhood, by
the communities, by millions of people who own homes. It is a
significant decline in home value.
When you look at home sales projected, home sales will be down to a
level of 40 percent across the country. So when we get down to the
bottom of the trough in housing starts, there is no end to it. The blue
line here shows what happened in the 1980s when we had a similar kind
of drop in the housing industry, where housing starts went down to 55,
58 percent in that decline.
The economists now project that it is going to be a 60-percent
decline with no end in sight. So we do have a housing crisis on our
hands. We have a crisis, a housing crisis on our hands. It is important
that this Senate do something about it. So I would appeal to the
Republican leader, to our own leadership, that we figure out a way of
moving forward.
I believe that the legislation that Senator Reid introduced, the 2008
Mortgage Foreclosure Act, was a very good step in the right direction,
and we should have had an opportunity to move forward with that
legislation and to try to figure out ways of improving upon that
legislation.
I am still hopeful that as this day goes on, as Friday goes on, as we
come into next week, we will be able to pivot it over to address this
very substantive and real issue that is causing so much pain to the
people of America.
It is causing pain to the people of my State. When you look at this
chart, produced by the Center for Responsible Lending, it tells you
what is happening in my State of Colorado.
As to foreclosures which now are rampant across our State, 1 in 376
homes in Colorado is in foreclosure. We have not seen the end of it. By
the time the teaser rates, the adjustable rate mortgages adjust
themselves over the next 2 years, there is a projection that there will
be 49,923 homes in foreclosure in the State of Colorado, 49,000 homes
in foreclosure.
So, yes, people who are losing their homes obviously are going to go
through a lot of pain. To go from a point where you are a homeowner to
a place where you are in the street, obviously, is going to create a
hospital of pain to those families that are part of these 50,000 people
who are going to be affected by foreclosure.
This is not just a foreclosure issue. Because of what is happening,
and every American homeowner is seeing this today, the pain spreads
from those foreclosures to other homes in the area, and those people
are also going to see significant declines in their values.
The spillover impact in the State of Colorado tells us that 748,652
homes are going to have values that decline because of the foreclosure
situation. So this spillover impact is going to affect almost 40
percent of all of the homes in the State of Colorado. So it is a
problem that is causing pain to, let's say, 3 million of the people who
live in my State. So it is not just a foreclosure problem, but because
of the spillover impact that we are going to see.
In my State of Colorado, when we look at the decrease in home values,
when you accumulate that number, it is going to be a $3.2 billion
impact. This is much more than about just foreclosure. It also is about
the pain to homeowners who are seeing the price of their homes decline
over time. It goes beyond those who are having their homes foreclosed
upon and ending up in the streets. It goes beyond those people with the
pride of home ownership who are seeing the values of their homes
decline. It also goes to the industries and people who work in the home
industry.
This article which came out of the Rocky Mountain News talks about
what is happening with construction in the State of Colorado and
Metropolitan Denver. The headline says it all, ``Metro Home Building
Drops 34 Percent in '07 Permits and May Cost Up to 10,000 Jobs.'' We
have hundreds of thousands of people who work in the home construction
business, not only in my State but throughout the Nation. Many of those
people who work in that industry are finding themselves today
unemployed because of the housing crisis, a 34-percent drop in the
number of housing starts, so there is lots of effects going on in our
State.
My view is that Senator Reid did exactly what he should have done as
our majority leader. He said we had moved forward, worked closely with
the President and the House of Representatives to pass an economic
stimulus package which was significantly improved over what the
President and the House of Representatives had proposed. He felt,
correctly, that we should now pivot from that issue to working on some
of the longer term economic issues affecting our Nation. Certainly one
of those top priorities should be housing. I believe we also should
move on and deal with another aspect of a major national agenda, to
make sure we are putting more into developing a new energy future for
America. But today the issue is housing. That is what the majority
leader attempted to pivot to today with the Foreclosure Prevention
[[Page S1375]]
Act of 2008. That legislation had probably the support of most of the
Members with respect to at least 90 percent of the substance included
in the legislation, such as $10 billion over 3 years for mortgage
revenue bonds to help families refinance their homes, $10 billion over
3 years. That was a bipartisan amendment that came out of the Finance
Committee, sponsored by Senator Kerry and Senator Smith, a bipartisan
amendment where I don't think there would have been people in this
Chamber who would have stood up and said no. We could have helped the
families of America deal with the housing crisis by providing them the
refinancing opportunities with that kind of investment.
There is $200 million for credit counseling. It seems to me that most
people have said the best thing to do is to get the homeowner and the
financial institutions together, find out for the homeowner what the
options are, and then get them to do a modification of their loan so
they can stay in their home. That is what this legislation would have
provided, $200 million for credit counseling. I don't know who would
have disagreed with that concept. This legislation would have allowed
$4 billion for community development block grants, CDBG grants, because
there are some places in our Nation where the number of foreclosures is
affecting those communities in a very negative way. Just as in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, my good friend Senator Casey will know
those areas where you can drive down the street, and you can see homes
that are in foreclosure, block by block by block. What this investment
would have done, $4 billion in community development block grants, is
helped those communities, those neighborhoods that are suffering the
most.
This legislation also included other provisions that were good for
the business community. Through the leadership of Senator Conrad, an
amendment I helped cosponsor in the Finance Committee, we would have
included in here a net operating loss carryback provision so that
losses from 2007, 2008, and 2009 could be carried back for 5 years.
That is an important provision for those who have been involved in the
home building industry or those who are in other industries who are
suffering the economic tough times we are in today. It would have given
those businesses a kind of shot in the arm to create a robustness and a
new future for them as they try to weather the difficult times.
In addition, the legislation would have required simplicity and
transparency in mortgage documents. It would be a furtherance of truth
in disclosure documents so that consumers, in signing up for a loan,
would know exactly what it was they were signing up for. Those
provisions would have been relatively noncontroversial.
Then what is it that has been raised as a reason to oppose us moving
to address the housing crisis here in the Senate? The provision that
says we should allow homeowners to modify their loans under very
limited conditions with respect to home ownership. There was a sense
from some Members on the other side that maybe that was going too far,
maybe there were ways in which we could have worked to deal with that
issue and some modifications that would address some of their concerns.
But as written, as proposed, we tried to put some rails around it. We
tried to say that the only ones who could take advantage of that
provision were those who were home occupants. You had to be occupying
the home before you could avail yourself of those provisions. You had
to meet certain strict financial conditions so that there would be a
showing of need before you could take advantage of that provision. You
would have to be approved by the bankruptcy court. At the end of the
day, you would have had a modification of a loan that would probably
have been agreed to between the lender and the homeowner, if the
homeowner wanted to stay in the home.
I am not an expert in bankruptcy law. It seems to me that under
chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, you can discharge almost any debt
with certain limitations that are set forth in the code. There are
other provisions of the Bankruptcy Code--as I recall, chapter 13--that
say you can avail yourself of the bankruptcy court in order to modify
your debt. If you want to pay back your debt in some way but you don't
have the means, chapter 13 allows you to reorganize your debt by asking
the bankruptcy court to allow you to pay your debt over a longer period
under other terms that a bankruptcy court might impose with respect to
the repayment of the debt. But it is not a debt forgiveness. If you are
a homeowner today and you happen to own a vacation home and you have a
debt on the vacation home, you can go to the bankruptcy court and
modify your loan. If you happen to be a homeowner today and you own a
recreational vehicle or some kind of a yacht and you owe a debt against
that, you can go to the bankruptcy court and have the court modify your
loan under a chapter 13 proceeding. You can do it with respect to any
asset. But under the current Bankruptcy Code, you are not allowed to do
that with respect to your home. It makes no sense to me in particular
because of the kinds of rails and constraints that we put around this
legislation as it was crafted.
I hope that we as a Senate, in addressing the pain that homeowners
are feeling today, can move forward to provide a solution to help us
weather these tough times. That is our duty and our responsibility. We
as a Senate need to be judged by a very simple reality: Results matter.
Stalling or looking away from a problem and pretending it doesn't exist
doesn't work anymore. There needs to be a focus on dealing with the
problems the American people are carrying on their backs today.
Certainly the housing crisis is one of those burdens they are carrying
with significant pain.
I hope the voices of the American public, the voices of those who are
in home ownership, will rise so that tomorrow or on Monday we can
figure out a way of moving forward to putting together a solution on
the housing crisis that is affecting us in America today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator from Colorado
outlined for us, a great recitation of the challenges we have in the
Senate on this issue of the housing crisis and our economy. It is
important to point out where we are today. We are here tonight talking
about legislation which did not move forward today for one very simple
reason: because the other side of the aisle chose to stop it, as they
have done on a number of fronts. I was thinking today about when we
reflect upon the housing crisis that grips so many communities and
families, a couple of weeks ago we were debating a stimulus package and
a similar thing happened. We did get legislation passed and the
President did sign it. That was largely a positive development. But
what we didn't get done--because, again, the other side stopped us;
they blocked, obstructed our ability to put unemployment insurance and
food stamp assistance in there, which economists tell us are the best
ways to stimulate the economy.
Here we are again on housing, at a time when we had a piece of
legislation which would provide some light--in fact, I would argue
substantial light--to the darkness that many families face with regard
to foreclosure. It would provide some measure of relief to the pain
families feel when they lose their home. It would provide some help and
assistance with the trauma, the economic trauma that the loss of a
house can visit upon a family. That is what we are talking about, doing
our best in the Senate to provide some help for families.
We want to do a couple of things with this legislation which we know
is the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008. Our majority leader, Senator
Reid, and the members of the Democratic Caucus set it out fairly
specifically, a couple of basic things this legislation would have
done. First, it would have continued what we started in the end of last
year, foreclosure prevention counseling dollars to give money to
organizations around the country that are certifiable experts at this,
organizations such as La Raza, which the Presiding Officer knows. We
know also of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now,
known by the acronym ACORN. They are headquartered in Philadelphia.
These are organizations which understand what a lender has to deal with
but, more importantly, deal
[[Page S1376]]
with borrowers when they are borrowing money, when they are dealing
with the difficulty and the complexity of borrowing money. These
organizations would have helped even more than they are helping now
with $200 million more of counseling money. That is not going to happen
because of what the other side did. They blocked that money by blocking
this legislation.
One of the best vehicles on housing and on stimulating activity and
also providing some measure of relief is to say to our housing finance
agencies across the country, organizations at the State level that are
expert at this, we are going to allow you to do what you do best, to
get money into the system and to allow people to borrow money for the
cost of a house. That won't happen now because of what the other side
of the aisle did.
Another provision in this bill, as Senator Salazar mentioned in
detail, was the bankruptcy provision which simply says that if a
bankruptcy judge can deal with your second house or with all kinds of
matters that come before that judge in bankruptcy, the bankruptcy judge
ought to be able to help you restructure your mortgage in bankruptcy so
you can dig yourself out of not just a foreclosure problem but can dig
yourself out of bankruptcy. The other side said no to that.
Finally, they said no to communities across the country with regard
to community development block grant money. They said no to them as
well. For billions of dollars which were in this bill, they said no to
those communities across the country. It is important to understand
what they on the other side said no to today. We have to understand
that when we talk about this issue, it is not just a house and a
family, as important as that is. We are talking about keeping families
in their homes, helping them with their foreclosure problem, their
crisis that they could be in the middle of or about to enter into. We
are also talking about communities, neighborhoods.
The chairman of the Banking Committee--I know the Presiding Officer
is a member of the committee--outlined in detail what happens to a
community when one house goes down or a number of houses go down. We
know about the details.
What we should do is be very clear about our priorities: keeping
people in homes, helping communities, and stimulating the economy, but
also to make the record clear about why we are not moving forward. The
other side stopped us, as they have done again and again.
Now we have to move forward. Now we have to figure out in a
bipartisan way how best we can get some elements of this legislation to
continue. We cannot sit back and say: Well, we are having a dispute
here and we can just let this die. We cannot.
We have to do everything we can now, as Senator Dodd said very well
tonight, to move this forward, to make sure we are doing everything
possible to keep people in their homes, to stimulate our economy, and
to protect and nurture our communities and our neighborhoods. I think
we can do that, but we have a long way to go. I hope it is a bipartisan
effort. We have to make that hope into a realty.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________