[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.

                          ____________________