[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 35 (Monday, March 3, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1439-S1440]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             HOUSING CRISIS

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, last week the Senate squandered an 
opportunity to bring timely help to homeowners rather than propose a 
bipartisan plan targeted at those most in need. Our friends on the 
other side proposed a plan that would have helped some by increasing 
monthly mortgage payments on everyone else who owns a home. They 
checked the political box, knowing their plan wouldn't have broad 
bipartisan support. Then we walked away from the problem, leaving it 
unaddressed. It is my hope this week to bring our friends back to the 
table so the two parties can work together on addressing a crisis that 
did not go away over the weekend. America's economy is indeed slowing. 
A lot of families are struggling, and we need to work together without 
any more political posturing to help families most in need without 
harming other families or our long-term economic health.
  Last week, Republicans proposed a variety of measures aimed, first of 
all, at helping those who need it most. The Treasury Department is 
already working on a number of major lenders to see what can be done by 
keeping certain mortgages from driving families from their homes. 
Republicans support these efforts to help families, not bailouts for 
banks and speculators who are losing money on a bad financial bet.
  Many families that are making their payments on time are worried 
about the value of their properties going down, or of the crime rate 
going up in places where the foreclosure rate is high. To help them, 
Republicans are proposing a major tax credit for people who buy 
foreclosed homes in hard-hit areas, provided they intend to live in 
them.
  State and local housing financing agencies are well-positioned to 
help families that are on the verge of foreclosure. That is why the 
Bush administration has proposed that State and local entities issue 
$10 billion in tax exempt bonds and then use the proceeds to refinance 
mortgages that are most at risk.
  The centerpiece of the Democrat plan to aid struggling homeowners is 
to let bankruptcy judges refinance the terms of their mortgages. This, 
as I have indicated and as the Chicago Tribune editorialized over the 
weekend, might temporarily help some. But it would also lead to higher 
monthly mortgage payments for everyone else.
  In California, where the housing crisis is most acute, mortgages for 
families that are making their monthly payments on time would 
potentially go up by nearly $4,000 a year. Homeowners in New York and 
some other States would potentially see payments go up by nearly 
$3,000. Homeowners in Oldham County, KY--to bring it home to my State--
would see their monthly payments go up $2,100 a year.
  It is not fair to penalize those who do make their payments in an 
effort to help those who can't. This is a principle Republicans are 
proud to defend.
  Republicans believe the best way to ensure the long-term economic 
well-being of all homeowners and to create new opportunities for future 
homeowners is to stimulate the economy, help people keep their jobs, 
and to help workers keep more of what they earn.
  That is why, in this economy, the Senate should act quickly to remove 
any fear that families have about paying the looming AMT tax. We know 
we will patch the loophole that puts this target on the backs of 
millions of middle-class taxpayers. Let us reject the political 
posturing and patch it now, without raising taxes, so families have one 
less thing to worry about.
  In this economy, the Senate should also remove any uncertainty about 
the future status of tax credits that have helped millions of American 
families over the last few years.
  We should extend the child tax credit which saves 44 million families 
an average of about $2,500 annually.
  We should extend a ban on the marriage penalty so young couples don't 
get hit with a tax just for wanting to start a family.
  We should extend the research and development tax credit, which is 
one of the most effective tools we have in keeping America at the 
leading edge of technology and in creating and retaining high-paying, 
high-quality jobs.
  We should extend renewable energy and energy efficiency tax credits, 
which are a proven incentive for increasing the use of wind, solar, 
biomass, and other alternative forms of energy and a sure way to lower 
our dependence on foreign sources of energy. And we should do this too 
without raising taxes.
  Next week, as we debate the budget resolution, we will see very 
clearly the vision our friends on the other side have for America's 
economy--a vision of higher taxes, so Washington can spend more of 
Americans' tax dollars, more regulation, and more litigation.
  At a time of economic uncertainty, this approach would be a grave 
mistake. In the coming weeks, Republicans will offer a different vision 
based on a strategy for maintaining our Nation's long-term economic 
strength and competitiveness.
  This is a debate we obviously are anxious to have.
  Hopefully, as the majority leader indicated, we will have an 
opportunity to revisit the housing issue with some kind of agreement 
that is fair to both sides and gives us an opportunity to actually 
accomplish something in this important area.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, you can't bring back to the table someone 
who never left. My friend, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, 
says he would hope we would come back to the table. We never left.
  Procedurally, we have a unique situation here where you have to move 
to proceed to a piece of legislation. In years past, it was fairly 
easy, just move toward it, and then you got into a position at that 
time where you started legislating. If people wanted to offer 
amendments, they would do that. But since we have gotten into the 
majority, the Republicans basically have prevented us from doing that.
  Our legislation is so concise and direct, so easy to understand. The 
President has tried to work through the Treasury Department. They have 
come up with a couple things that deal with less than 3 percent of the 
people in trouble, less than 3 percent, and it is all voluntary.
  Our legislation has five issues. Our plan helps families keep their 
homes by increasing preforeclosure counseling funds. What does this 
mean? We, in our last legislation, put $200 million in that legislation 
to allow people to have counselors. They help a great deal. The reason 
we did that, in a time of foreclosure, panic around this country, the 
President cut funds, for example, in Nevada, for these nonprofit 
counselors, by 70 percent. You should be increasing them. He cut them. 
That money is gone. Our legislation calls for more money to keep people 
in their homes so they can have some counseling.
  Our legislation expands refinancing opportunities for homeowners 
stuck in bad loans. President Bush, in his State of the Union Message, 
called for a proposal to allow a process to go forward where you would 
have bonds to work on homes that were being foreclosed upon and homes 
that would soon be foreclosed upon. We support that. That is in our 
bill.
  Our legislation provides funds to help the highest need communities 
purchase and rehabilitate foreclosed properties, CDBG moneys going to 
these communities that really need to do something about these homes.

[[Page S1440]]

  Our legislation helps families avoid foreclosure in the future by 
improving loan disclosures and transparency during the original loan 
financing process--something Jack Reed has advocated for some time.
  Finally, it amends the Bankruptcy Code to allow home loans on a 
primary residence to be modified, only in certain circumstances with 
very strict guidelines.
  Those are the five things. If the minority was serious about doing 
something with this legislation, they could offer amendments. If they 
don't like the bankruptcy provision, which they profess not to, let 
them move to strike it, let them move to modify it in some way. If they 
don't like any of these other four provisions--money for counselors, 
making it more transparent--let them offer amendments to strike them. I 
can't advocate strongly enough that if they don't like what we have, 
they can move to change it.
  I have people on my side who would like to improve our bill. We can 
offer amendments. As I said, we can offer three, five on each side. It 
seems fair. But sadly, when the press conference was held last week on 
the Republicans' proposal to take care of the housing crisis, they want 
to lower taxes and they want to have tort reform.
  To talk about our budget expending more taxpayers' dollars, we need 
only go back and look at how I started my remarks today. Today, we will 
spend $400 million on the war in Iraq, borrowed money. We don't have 
enough money under the present standard to have more than one person 
looking at the consumer safety commission--toys, for example, that come 
into this country. So we are willing to work. We are willing to 
legislate. It has been extremely difficult with 72 filibusters so far 
this Congress. But maybe today will bring a new day. Maybe we can move 
to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is a bipartisan piece 
of legislation, by the way. I would hope after that we don't have to 
use up the 30 hours. We can start this afternoon offering amendments on 
this legislation, doing opening statements. But maybe if we spend a 
couple days on this legislation, we can spend the rest of the week--if 
the Republicans finally decide what they want to do on the housing 
stimulus package--and finish that before we start the budget battle 
next week.
  I thank the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Washington Post just this morning--
and I think we can all stipulate the Washington Post is not exactly a 
mouthpiece for Republicans or conservatism--began their editorial 
related to the housing issue this way:

       It's much easier to identify well-intentioned housing 
     policy proposals that might make a situation worse than to 
     craft ones that will help. An example is the Democratic plan.

  This is the Washington Post this morning taking a look at the 
proposal my good friend, the majority leader, discussed extolling the 
virtues of.
  Now, look, there is a great opportunity to make matters worse. A good 
way to avoid that is to continue the discussions we can have not 
actually out here on the floor but the kind of discussions we have 
every day about a process for getting some kind of bipartisan approach 
on this bill.
  I noted with interest that my good friend, the majority leader, the 
other day had his chart up with 72 filibusters on it. He is setting a 
record of his own, voting to cut off debate the first day a bill or 
resolution reaches the floor more than any previous majority leader, 
Republican or Democrat. During the first session of the 110th Congress, 
Senator Reid filed cloture on the same day a bill or resolution was 
introduced nine times. This is three times more than Majority Leaders 
Frist, Daschle, Lott, Mitchell, and Byrd ever did in a first session of 
Congress and nine times more than in the first session of the 109th 
Congress.
  Among these 72 Republican filibusters--and I guess, by the way, the 
vote this afternoon, which is probably going to be close to unanimous, 
will also make the list of filibusters and make it 73--includes 
Democratic filibusters--for example, Senator Dodd's filibuster of the 
FISA bill last year; Democrats' filibuster of the McConnell-Stevens 
troop funding bill last November; Democrats' filibuster of Judge Leslie 
Southwick. Cloture motions that were filed by Republicans in an effort 
to end Democratic obstruction are also included. In fact, on more than 
half of the 72 Republican filibusters, Senate Democrats either voted to 
filibuster or voted with Republicans. On five of the filibusters, the 
vote was unanimous. On four of the filibusters, Democrats nearly 
unanimously voted against cloture themselves. Half the votes described 
as filibusters were actually successful votes where cloture was invoked 
and the bill was actually moved forward.
  So if we are going to talk about this kind of thing, we at least need 
to get our facts right. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but 
they are not entitled to their own sets of facts. Those are the facts 
related to times in which we have had cloture votes in this 110th 
Congress.
  So, Mr. President, back on the issue of housing, I think the best way 
forward, obviously--even though the Washington Post this morning is 
suggesting maybe we should delay for a while and see whether the 
administration's efforts produce some positive results--I think the 
best way forward in the Senate, as always, is to sit down and talk 
about some kind of process for going forward. I think the majority 
leader and I can do that as we do every day on every issue. I would 
look forward to having further discussions with him on how we might go 
forward and maybe come up with a bipartisan housing bill that will 
actually improve the situation.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the 72 filibusters are Republican 
filibusters, not Democratic holds of any kind, like Southwick, like 
FISA.
  I would say this: Of course, Democrats voted many times with 
Republicans to invoke cloture on motions to proceed. We had no choice. 
The purpose of the filibusters on motions to proceed is to slow things 
down here. Once cloture is invoked, then they wait for 30 hours, and we 
can try to do something else after that.
  Now, I am told--I learned right here today--that it will be near 
unanimous that people vote to go forward on consumer product safety. 
Why couldn't we have, Friday, avoided this vote and just moved to the 
bill today? That is what has ordinarily been done in the past. The 
reason we hold the record for moving forward on cloture is because we 
have had so many objections on so many things, such as the motion to 
proceed, which has caused us to waste huge amounts of time.
  Now, as to the merits of the Washington Post and various newspapers, 
Mr. President, we have newspapers all over the country, including the 
New York Times, which say we should do something on housing. They even 
support our provision dealing with changing the Bankruptcy Code to help 
people who are in such a desperate situation.
  So if the Republicans want to do something on the housing crisis, we 
are ready to work with them. If they want to do something on consumer 
product safety, why don't we start legislating and by consent move to 
it right now. We can avoid the vote this afternoon. We do not need the 
vote this afternoon. We should not have had to file cloture on it in 
the first place. It is a tremendous delay. We could have legislated on 
this Friday afternoon, all day Monday morning.
  We are willing to work with the minority. I hope there is a new day, 
that we do not have to go through all these procedural hurdles every 
time. But we have had no opportunity to legislate the old-fashioned way 
here because every step of the way has been procedurally blocked. That 
is why it has been necessary that we file cloture 72 times on 
Republican filibusters.

                          ____________________