[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 103 (Friday, June 20, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5921-S5928]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMERICAN HOUSING RESCUE AND FORECLOSURE PREVENTION ACT OF 2008--Resumed
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the House
message to accompany H.R. 3221.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A message from the House of Representatives to accompany
H.R. 3221, an act to provide needed housing reform and for
other purposes.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On Page S5921, June 20, 2008, the Record reads: A message from
the House of Representatives to accompany H.R. 3221, an act moving
the United States toward greater energy . . .
The online Record has been corrected to read: A message from the
House of Representatives to accompany H.R. 3221, an act to provide
needed housing reform and for other purposes.
========================= END NOTE =========================
Pending:
Reid (for Dodd-Shelby) amendment No. 4983 (to the House
amendment striking section 1 through title V and inserting
certain language to the Senate amendment to the bill), of a
perfecting nature.
Bond amendment No. 4987 (to amendment No. 4983), to enhance
mortgage loan disclosure requirements with additional
safeguards for adjustable rate mortgages with an initial
fixed rate and loans that contain prepayment penalty.
Dole amendment No. 4984 (to amendment No. 4983), to improve
the regulation of appraisal standards.
Sununu amendment No. 4999 (to amendment No. 4983), to amend
the United States Housing Act of 1937 to exempt qualified
public housing agencies from the requirement of
[[Page S5922]]
preparing an annual public housing agency plan.
Kohl amendment No. 4988 (to amendment No. 4983), to protect
the property and security of homeowners who are subject to
foreclosure proceedings.
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the
motion.
The 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
concur in the amendment of the House, striking section 1 and
all that follows through the end of title V, and inserting
certain language to the amendment of the Senate to H.R. 3221,
the Foreclosure Prevention Act, with amendment No. 4983.
Harry Reid, Christopher J. Dodd, Daniel K. Inouye, Jeff
Bingaman, Max Baucus, Patty Murray, Mark L. Pryor,
Barbara Boxer, Benjamin L. Cardin, Sherrod Brown, Jon
Tester, Bill Nelson, Bernard Sanders, Maria Cantwell,
Tom Harkin, Frank R. Lautenberg, Charles E. Schumer.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur
1 hour after use of leader time on Tuesday, June 24, the mandatory
quorum be waived, and that occur no later than 11 a.m. on that day.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am sorry. I have to revise my request. I
thought we were reconvening at 9:30 a.m. We are not coming in until 10.
I will restate the request.
I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur 1 hour after the use of
any leader time on Tuesday, June 24, with the mandatory quorum being
waived.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.
High Gasoline Prices
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, there is no doubt that the subprime
mortgage crisis is a timely and important issue, and it is a worthy
topic for the Senate to have taken up. There is also little doubt that
the single most important issue facing Americans at the moment is the
high price of gasoline at the pump.
Indeed, it would be difficult to find a single American who has
escaped the painful effects of the recent record spike in gas prices
and who is not eager for Congress to do something about it. That is why
I was so concerned to hear the Democratic nominee for President say
last week he was not as concerned about high gas prices as he was about
the fact that they rose so quickly. He would have preferred a ``gradual
adjustment,'' as he put it, to the sudden shock we all got.
More concerning, not a single Democrat in the Senate has come forward
to distance himself or herself publicly from his words.
The message of the junior Senator from Illinois was clear: High gas
prices don't concern him as much as they concern most people. By
allowing his comments to stand, congressional Democrats are being
equally clear they agree with him.
The fact is, on the issue of lowering gas prices, congressional
Democrats have had very little to say. There is a commonsense response
and that is to increase supply at home in a limited, environmentally
responsible way.
America floats on top of an ocean of untapped oil reserves three
times the size of Saudi Arabia's. As an immediate response to high gas
prices, common sense dictates we should be moving immediately to
increase our own massive domestic supplies and add American jobs in the
process. In the short term, there is only one answer to high gas
prices, and that is more American energy now.
Looking ahead, there is no doubt something needs to be done about
demand. But while congressional Republicans have a solution to the
problem, our friends on the other side have shown a stubborn
unwillingness over the years to do much at all about increasing
domestic supply, and the result of yesterday's inaction is the strain
American families are feeling today in the form of record-high gas
prices.
By failing to address supply, even with gas prices at $4 a gallon,
congressional Democrats are telling the American people $4-a-gallon
gasoline is acceptable, that they should get used to it. Kentuckians
are not interested in getting used to $4-a-gallon gas and neither am I.
Congress has the power to do something about high gas prices, and we
should. Americans are looking to Washington for action. What they are
getting instead from Democrats in Congress is a lecture on ``gradual
adjustments.'' Americans do not need a lecture; they need relief.
While Americans grow increasingly frustrated with gas prices,
Democrats in the House of Representatives are showing where their
priorities lie. Among other legislative business this week, they
scheduled a vote on whether to ban the interstate sale of monkeys.
House Democrats also recently took up resolutions commemorating
National Plumbing Industry Week and the International Year of
Sanitation. These resolutions are important, no doubt, to some. Yet
none of them will do anything to lower gas prices.
Americans frustrated about high gas prices are wondering why
Democrats in Congress are talking about monkey trade, and I don't blame
them. It is time Democrats took the issue of high gas prices as
seriously as the American people do. It is time Democrats in Congress
join with the Republicans and get serious about lowering $4-a-gallon
gas and lessening our reliance on Middle Eastern oil.
Unanimous-Consent Request--Federal Election Commission Nominees
Mr. President, I have indicated to my good friend, the majority
leader, it was my intention to ask consent that we go ahead and confirm
the FEC nominees. This agency has been essentially dysfunctional for
most of the year because of disputes over the membership. I have given
him notice that I would like to do that. I did not wish to surprise
him.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that today, at a time to be
determined by the two leaders, the Senate proceed to executive session
under the following order: that the Senate begin consideration, en
bloc, of the following Federal Election Commission nominations:
Calendar No. 306, Steven T. Walther; Calendar No. 624, Cynthia L.
Bauerly; Calendar No. 625, Caroline C. Hunter; Calendar No. 626, Donald
F. McGahn; and the nomination of Matthew S. Petersen, PN1765, which is
to be discharged from the Rules Committee; provided further, that there
be 1 hour of total debate on the nominations, en bloc, with the time
divided equally between the chairman and the ranking member of the
Rules Committee. I further ask unanimous consent that at the expiration
or yielding back of time, the nominations be confirmed, en bloc, the
motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be
immediately notified of the Senate's action, and, finally, the Senate
return to legislative session.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we are very
close to being able to accept this. I think the consent agreement is
appropriate. I think the times laid out are what we need. But I have a
Senator who still has one more conversation with one of the nominees.
He has been diligent. He has met with almost every one of them. He has
one more. That person is in Europe now, and he has agreed to do that by
telephone. So, in the next couple days, he will do that.
I have every belief that very early next week we should be able to
complete these nominations. A number of these people have been very
patient. They have been hanging on, basically living off their savings
or their wife's work, whatever the case might be, but they have not
been working because, as the Republican leader said, it has been
nonfunctional, they have been out of work.
I think we can get this done very quickly. It is very important. It
is important for Democrats and Republicans. We need a body there that
questions can be submitted to, especially in the midst of this
Presidential election and all the other elections going on around the
country.
Based on what I have said, Mr. President, I object.
[[Page S5923]]
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to hear the majority
leader shares my concern that we do not have a fully functioning
Federal Election Commission. In fact, yesterday, the Democratic nominee
for President called the system broken. Today is another example of the
broken system.
This battle has been going on for more than 2 years, believe it or
not, starting with the recess appointment of very well-qualified and
well-respected experts in this field. The three recess appointments
expired at the first of this year, and two nominees have ultimately
withdrawn, citing the need for gainful employment, both well qualified,
but one, having been unfairly and falsely maligned, ended up
withdrawing.
So here we are today, after an April 29 commitment by the majority,
that a review of new nominees would be simple and a commitment to
speedy review. I know that is what the majority leader hoped to
accomplish but, in fact, here we are still.
Let me be perfectly clear, we have gone out of our way, willing to
confirm nominees who many on our side believe are completely misguided
on the matter they would be regulating. But in the interest of
obtaining a fully functioning FEC, it has always been my belief that
the Democrats pick their nominees and we pick ours. I can't recall ever
having made a Democratic nominee for the Federal Election Commission
``controversial,'' but that seems not to be the case when Republicans
pick nominees. They are frequently demonized and declared unqualified.
Nevertheless, we are where we are, and hopefully we can get this done
as rapidly as possible. There always seems to be a snag, and the snags
always seem to be on the other side. I know this is something the
majority leader is not happy about. He has just indicated he wants to
move forward, and it is my hope we can get this done as rapidly as
possible.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
an article citing the Democratic National Committee's intent to file
yet another frivolous lawsuit next Tuesday--one that was dismissed once
before--against the FEC, citing their failure to act on a matter
related to Senator McCain.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the only way the DNC can maintain this
suit is if there is a nonfunctioning FEC. Thus, in order for the DNC's
already failed lawsuit to go forward, this package must be objected to,
and they have done just that.
I hope this continued delay of getting a fully constituted FEC is not
related to the fact that the DNC is trying to, we think, file a lawsuit
on Monday. Those are the kinds of shenanigans which I don't think we
ought to export from the campaign to the Senate. In the Senate, it
strikes me we have an obligation to get this Federal Election
Commission reconstituted and functioning, not to try to give one
party's national committee or another some kind of advantage in a
pending lawsuit.
So I am encouraged by the majority leader's desire to get these
nominations completed. I know we are not having votes Monday, but we
are in Monday. It strikes me that Monday would be a very good time to
get these nominees confirmed, if, in fact, we can't do it later today
if the snag the majority leader indicated could be cleared up. I know,
because he has just said, he shares my view that we ought to get this
job done, and I think the best time to do it would be today. The second
best time to do it would be shortly after we convene on Monday.
Exhibit 1
DNC TO AGAIN FILE SUIT ON MC CAIN'S MATCHING FUNDS
(By Jonathan Martin) June 17, 2008
The DNC will today announce that they intend to file a
lawsuit next week in U.S. District Court to spur an FEC
inquiry over whether John McCain illegally withdrew from the
federal financing system.
The committee first issued a complaint to the FEC in
February, but in April a federal judge ruled that, even
though the FEC lacked a quorum, they still could convene
before the end of the 120 days they're given to examine
complaints.
Now, with those 120 days expiring on June 24th, the DNC is
acting again in hopes a judge will compel the FEC to act on
their complaint, as is allowed by law.
At issue is whether McCain locked himself into spending
limits in the primary by putting up anticipated matching
funds as collateral for the loan that helped keep his
underfunded campaign alive at the end of 2007.
Democrats hope to puncture a hole in McCain's good
government image by pressing the issue while Republicans
dismiss it as totally groundless.
First, though, the FEC needs to have sufficient members to
form a quorum. With one nominee having withdrawn from
consideration last month, the Senate appears to be finally
ready to confirm additional commissioners in the next few
weeks.
Honoring Our Armed Forces
Lance Corporal Justin D. Sims
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a young man
from my home, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, who gave his life in the
performance of his duty as a U.S. marine. On April 15, 2006, an
improvised explosive device detonated under LCpl Justin Sims's humvee
as he patrolled Al Anbar Province in Iraq. The Covington, KY, native
was 22 years old.
For his valor in uniform, Lance Corporal Sims received several
awards, medals, and decorations, including the Sea Service Deployment
Ribbon, the National Defense Service Medal, and the Purple Heart.
At a young age, Lance Corporal Sims had found what many Americans
twice his age are still searching for: his life's calling. Justin's
family members agree that even as a child, he aspired to serve his
country in uniform.
His mother Alma Sims commented that:
On 9/11, he was a junior in high school. He said, ``I'd go
now if they would take me.'' You would think he was bred to
be a Marine. From 4 and 5 years old, his favorite movie was
Tour of Duty. The Marines was all he talked about.
Perhaps Justin was influenced by his grandfather Coleman Luster, an
Army veteran. Justin admired his grandfather's service, if not
necessarily how he chose to serve.
Alma remembers:
Papaw and Justin would joke around. Justin would say,
``Army was the best thing back then, but the Marines rule
now.'' Justin looked up to Papaw. They were real close. My
dad would always tease me, ``You did great raising your boy.
Let's see how these girls go.''
These girls were Justin's four sisters, all younger than he was.
Justin was a kind and caring older brother, and with Alma being a
single parent, he made sure to spend a lot of time with his sisters to
make things easier for his mother.
Alma said:
He would take my four girls to school each day whenever I
had to go to work early. I told him, ``You don't need to do
that because I have a sitter.'' But he insisted on taking
care of them. You would think that him being 11 years older,
he wouldn't want anything to do with them. It was just the
opposite. If there was snow on the ground, he would take all
the girls out sledding. There was no hill too large for him.
Justin started ROTC in the eighth grade and participated at Holmes
High School. He was a marksman with State honors for his ROTC rifle
unit and participated in sharpshooting competitions all over the
country. Neighbors recall seeing young Justin practicing how to twirl
his rifle in front of his house. Once he tried to teach one of his
sisters, then only 8 years old, how to twirl the rifle. She ended up
with a big dent on her forehead.
Alma says:
We still laugh about that today because they told me she
had fallen.
Justin graduated from Holmes High School in 2003 and later that year
enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps. He was eventually assigned to the
3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine
Expeditionary Force, based out of Camp Lejeune, NC.
Before he left, however, while still in his senior year at Holmes,
Justin worked after school at a restaurant.
There, he met a young woman named Leah, who only worked at the same
restaurant for a week but kept hanging around to see her friends.
Alma recalls:
He started flirting with her, then told her he was going to
ask her out.
Justin Sims and Leah Matt-Sims were married on December 26, 2004,
after changing the date a few times because of Justin's uncertain
deployment schedule. The happy couple found time
[[Page S5924]]
to honeymoon in Kentucky before Justin returned to Camp Lejeune.
Alma recalls:
When he came back from his first tour, I said, ``How many
people do you know can say, `I have protected the United
States'?'' He would say, ``And I do it with pride.'' He
considered it an honor to be a Marine and to serve his
country.
As a marine, Justin would periodically return to Holmes High School
and speak to students in the ROTC Program. He deployed for his second
tour of duty, this time in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, in March
2006.
Alma said:
I told him before he left for his last tour, ``I have a bad
feeling.'' He said, ``If something would happen to one of my
brothers, I would never forgive myself. It would drive me
crazy for the rest of my life.''
At a memorial service for Justin held at Holmes High School in
Covington, the mayor announced that on that July 4th, the city would
dedicate the Justin Sims Memorial Park. It is the same park where Alma
and her daughters would go every Sunday and write letters to Justin
when he was at boot camp.
Our prayers are for the Sims family today after the loss of this
dedicated marine. We are thinking of his wife Leah; his mother Alma;
his father Beechie; his stepmother, Linda Gregory; his sisters Tia
Bryars, Briana Bryars, Tiffani Sims, and Maliesa Jones; his
grandmother, Mae Luster; and many other beloved family members and
friends. Justin was predeceased by his grandfather, Coleman Luster.
Mr. President, Justin's mother Alma tells us:
I miss talking to him every day, but I believe God has a
bigger job for him in heaven.
Those who knew Justin, whether as an ambitious boy in Covington or a
dedicated warrior in Iraq, would surely agree. I want the Sims family
to also know that this Senate celebrates the life of LCpl Justin D.
Sims, and we honor his sacrifice on behalf of our Nation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wish to respond to a couple of issues.
First, on the Federal Election Commission, I wish to underscore that
we would have a functioning Federal Election Commission today if the
Republicans had accepted our offer before Memorial Day. What was that
offer? There was one that was held over, but we agreed to confirm the
four FEC nominations before Memorial Day. The Republicans objected
because they weren't ready with their new nominee. We offered assurance
that the new nominee would be taken care of very quickly, and we have
followed through on that. They rejected our offer. They wanted to wait
until the new nominee came. We waited. Nevertheless, when the new
nominee came, we waived a hearing on a markup. And the reason we did
that is that it was what we said we would do, even though they turned
down a functioning Federal Election Commission--the Republicans. We
said: OK, if that is what you want, a full FEC rather than those five,
that is fine. We will go along with that. Now we have a Senator, Mr.
President--which I think is very appropriate--wanting to talk to those
nominees, and he has done that. There is one to go. That person is in
Europe, and he will do that just as quickly as he can.
Again, I underscore the fact that we would have a fully functioning
Federal Election Commission today if the Republicans had accepted our
offer before Memorial Day. But we are where we are. We can do a lot of
finger-pointing, but we are where we are.
We believe in the Federal Election Commission. I wish it were more
powerful than it is. I wish it could do more than it does. But
certainly we should do everything we can to give them the tools they
need to function, and one of the things they need to function is
members for the Federal Election Commission. Right now, there aren't
any.
As I said, we will work very hard. I have talked to the Senator this
morning to make sure that is the only problem he had, and he has said
that is the only problem he has. With the time difference, it has been
somewhat difficult to set up the phone call within the last 24 hours,
but that will be done.
So, Mr. President, the Federal Election Commission will be taken care
of within a matter of days, but the fact that it is not functioning now
is not our fault.
Let me just say a couple of things about the comments regarding
Senator Obama by my friend, the Republican leader.
It seems there is a lot of effort being made to divert the focus from
the issues at hand. The issue at hand is that we offered on this floor
a bill that would do something about gas prices. We have focused on the
subsidies to big oil. And the subsidies are huge, costing the American
people billions of dollars. We have focused on the fact that there is a
bipartisan move in this body to do something about OPEC. That focus was
brought by Senator Kohl of Wisconsin and Senator Specter of
Pennsylvania. They believe very strongly that OPEC should be subject to
the antitrust laws of this country. That is part of our legislation. We
also said there should be a windfall profits tax, and we believe there
should be something done with the speculation that is taking place. So
we offered legislation to that effect, and the Republicans turned down
even being able to debate that legislation.
In addition, we have now pending an issue that is extremely
important. I think it is in the top one, two, or three issues facing
America today; that is, renewable energy. Renewable energy. We have
offered a reasonable piece of legislation to give a 6-year tax credit
to solar--and there are other issues in that legislation--that will
radically change how we gather our energy. We are told that there are
hundreds of thousands--not thousands or tens of thousands but hundreds
of thousands--of jobs waiting to be funded. If this bill passed, that
would take place forthwith. Would all 100,000 go to work today? No. But
thousands of them would go to work within a matter of a month or two,
and it would keep building.
We have before this body, as part of the record, about 400 companies
that have signed on to our legislation. Virtually all the Fortune 500
companies--Fortune 400, whatever it is--have signed on to this and say
this is the way to go.
What is the holdup of our legislation? It is the Republicans. What is
the holdup, Mr. President? They have become addicted to red ink. It is
as if they are addicted to one of the illegal drugs, but this is red
ink. They are addicted to it.
When President Bush took office, the price of gasoline was $1.46 a
gallon. Now, in Las Vegas, it is $4.47 a gallon. The average around the
country is approaching $4.10 a gallon.
The problem with our legislation, according to the Republicans, is
that we want to pay for it. Oh, gee whiz. You mean we don't want to
borrow more money to do something? No, we want to pay for it.
When President Bush took office, not only was the price of gasoline
at $1.46 a gallon, but there was a surplus over the next 10 years of
about $7 trillion. We are now approaching $10 trillion in debt this
country owes.
The so-called pay-fors for renewables on these tax extenders are--for
example, we all know the abuses, what these companies have done
offshore. There is one little island over there where there are 50,000
companies that are cheating the Federal Government, in my opinion. What
we have done is said, OK, the hedge fund operators should not be able
to use that as a way to hide their money and not pay taxes. Listen to
this: The hedge fund operators agree. They say it is unfair: We agree
with what the Democrats are trying to do, to pay for these renewables.
We have tried and will continue to try to focus attention on the fact
that we have long-term needs and short-term needs because energy is a
problem.
Let's talk about offshore. I was fortunate last night--I got home
before 9 o'clock. As I was eating my little bowl of soup before going
to bed, there was a wonderful program on television about offshore
drilling. They had a map. On that map they showed all the places people
and companies can drill right now, some 58 million acres. That is a lot
of acres, 58 million acres. But they are not drilling there. They have
made a decision not to drill. Not because there is no oil there, they
have made a business judgment not to drill.
I would say this about the offshore: Our great country is so
fortunate to
[[Page S5925]]
have all the natural resources that we do have, but one of the natural
resources we do not have is oil. Counting ANWR and all the offshore
potential, we have about 3 percent of the oil reserves in the world; 97
percent of the oil is someplace else. We cannot produce our way out of
our problems. Can we do a better job of producing? Yes, I believe we
can. We can get more out of that percentage.
Let's talk about offshore a little more. The President of the United
States came out 2 days ago saying: I want Congress to do something
about offshore drilling. Listen to that. With the sign of a pen he can
do something about it himself. President Clinton, with an Executive
order, took certain areas offshore so that we couldn't drill there.
President Clinton did that. President Bush has the ability himself to
change that with a signature. But he didn't do that, did he? No,
because he worried about Jeb Bush, his brother, who is totally against
offshore drilling. Why wouldn't he do this himself? Why would he pass
the buck to us?
I realize Congress controls the ability to take care of a lot of the
offshore stuff, as we did last year, allowing drilling on the gulf
coast, offshore. We expanded that because we thought it was the right
thing to do. President Bush and Republicans need not lecture us on
energy. They are the ones who got us into the problem we have now.
I close by saying that John McCain is a person who is an expert on
offshore drilling. Why? Because he has taken both positions. He said,
until 2 days ago, we should not be able to drill offshore, and he
switched his position--the ultimate flip-flop. The next thing I am
waiting for him to do is--right now, the election in Alaska is tied
between McCain and Obama. One of the big reasons is John McCain is
opposed to drilling in ANWR. I guess the people of Alaska expect
Democrats to be opposed to it, but they don't expect Republicans to be
opposed to it, and McCain has been for a long time. Is he going to do
one of his flip-flops on ANWR? Don't be surprised.
John McCain doesn't have the temperament to be President. He is wrong
on the war, and he is wrong on the economy.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia is
recognized.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I would inquire as to what is the
current business before the Senate?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion to concur in the House
amendment is the current business.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily
set aside the pending amendment so that I may call up amendment No.
5008, which is filed at the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will
object, I want to explain to my colleagues who may come over, who are
desirous of bringing up amendments also, Senator Sanders has expressed
a strong desire to have an amendment considered regarding LIHEAP, the
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. There is some difficulty
with that. Obviously, there is some objection on the other side to that
coming up.
Out of respect to Senator Sanders, who could not be here this
morning, I object to any effort to set aside the pending amendments
before that matter is resolved.
I say that respectfully to the Senator from Georgia, as well as
others who may come here to do exactly that. We will be moving forward
on legislation. Today we will entertain debate and discussion on this
bill but will be constrained from going forward in the absence of a
larger agreement that would allow Senator Sanders to bring up his
amendment. So I object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, if I might respond quickly, it is
unfortunate we are in this situation. I commend the chairman, as well
as the ranking member, for coming up with a pretty good piece of
legislation to address a critical issue. It is unfortunate because we
are not allowed to move ahead with amendments, that we are stuck in
this quagmire.
I know it is not the desire of the chairman to do anything other than
move forward with amendments, amendments that are germane to the
particular bill. Unfortunately, the amendment of the Senator is not
germane to the pending business before the Senate. My amendment is. I
think there are others who have amendments they want to bring up.
I know it is not the fault of the chairman we are not allowed to move
forward, but I certainly hope that by the time we get back next week we
can do so and take up amendments that are critically important to the
issue at hand and that we can remove those amendments that are not
germane because it is a very critical piece of legislation.
It is a good bill, and my amendment is a good amendment. I hope we
are able to address it shortly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from Pennsylvania
is recognized.
Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I wish to speak as in morning business. I
ask consent to do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
world refugee day
Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise today to recognize June 20 as
World Refugee Day, a day designated by the United Nations General
Assembly to highlight and celebrate the contribution of refugees
throughout the world. World Refugee Day has evolved into an annual
commemoration marked by a variety of events in over a hundred
countries, including in my home State of Pennsylvania.
I am proud to note that, since the mid-1970s, more than 100,000
refugees from more than 30 nations have made Pennsylvania their home,
enriching the cultural diversity and strengthening the economy of the
Commonwealth. Over time, most have succeeded in adjusting to life in
Pennsylvania and the majority have naturalized as U.S. citizens and
actively participate in local community life.
This day gives us an important opportunity to pause and appreciate
the grave humanitarian situation refugees face worldwide. Forced to
flee their homes and having lost everything, these people have
immediate needs including shelter, food, safety, and protection. But
they also have basic human rights--the right to seek asylum, the right
not to be returned to a country where they fear persecution, the right
to work, and the right to send their children safely to school.
Between 2001 and 2005, the international community witnessed a
decline in the number of refugees worldwide. Unfortunately, this trend
has reversed. By the end of 2007, there was a 115 percent increase over
just 2 years in the number of refugees under the responsibility of the
United Nations High Commission for Refugees--UNHCR. We are now talking
about a staggering 11.4 million refugees worldwide. The number of
internally displaced people worldwide is also up, from 24.4 million to
26 million.
Among refugees, Afghans and Iraqis account for nearly half of all
refugees under UNHCR's care worldwide. Much of the increase in refugees
in 2007 was a result of the volatile situation in Iraq. It has been 5
years since the fall of Baghdad, and Iraq and her neighbors are in the
midst of a humanitarian crisis that threatens the stability of the
Middle East.
Wherever one stands on the future of the U.S. combat presence in
Iraq, we have a moral responsibility to those innocent Iraqis who have
been driven from their homes and fear for their lives and their
children's lives every day. Violence and sectarian conflict are an ever
present reality in Iraq, driving away anywhere from one to two thousand
Iraqis from their homes every day.
The numbers are sobering. One in five Iraqis have been displaced. The
UNHCR estimates more than 4.7 million Iraqis have left their homes,
many in dire need of humanitarian care. Of these, more than 2.7 million
Iraqis are displaced internally, while more than 2 million have fled to
neighboring states, particularly Syria and Jordan. In 2006, Iraqis
became the leading nationality seeking asylum in Europe.
I witnessed firsthand the challenges facing Iraqi refugees last
August when I spent time in Jordan meeting with United Nations and
International Organization for Migration personnel. I can report that
Iraqi refugees throughout
[[Page S5926]]
the region have become increasingly desperate and have nowhere to turn.
Since the beginning of the crisis, the Iraqi government has proven to
be unwilling and unable to respond to the needs of vulnerable Iraqis.
While the government has access to significant oil revenue, it is
divided along sectarian lines and lacks both the institutional capacity
and the political will to effectively address the growing crisis.
Sectarian militia groups like the Mahdi Army are quickly filling this
vacuum to provide services. The largest ``humanitarian'' organization
in Iraq today is the Sadrist movement affiliated with anti-American
Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr, whose programs provide shelter and food
to hundreds of thousands of Shiites in Iraq.
The international community, including the United States, has been
largely in denial over the magnitude of the humanitarian crisis. Until
recently, the conversation was always dominated by talk of
reconstruction and development rather than addressing the basic, urgent
needs of ordinary Iraqis. The United Nations only just issued a common
humanitarian appeal for Iraq.
Now, we here in the United States have a moral responsibility to do
right by the millions of Iraqis who have been driven away from their
homes, particularly for those who have risked their lives to assist our
country.
In 2007, Congress agreed to provide resettlement benefits for special
immigrants from Iraq and Afghanistan who helped the United States,
helped us, and to increase from 500 to 5,000 the number of special
immigrants from Iraq we will admit into this country. Both measures
passed the Senate by unanimous votes.
The American people have responded with their customary generosity
and caring spirit in welcoming these Iraqis into our Nation. I am proud
to note that my home State of Pennsylvania has been a leader in helping
to resettle our Iraqi allies. The city of Erie, PA, alone has resettled
about 90 Iraqis during this fiscal year. But the overall progress in
resettling our courageous Iraqi allies has been frustratingly slow due
to Government bureaucracy and logjams. Along with colleagues from the
Senate and the House, I sent a letter to President Bush today
questioning the progress the administration is making on processing
resettlement claims for Iraqis who have worked for us and whose lives
have been placed in great danger as a result of such service for us.
There is also the larger issue of dealing with the millions of Iraqi
refugees in the Middle East. Iraqi refugees are overwhelming the basic
infrastructure of Iraq's neighbors, especially Jordan, Syria, and
Lebanon, raising troubling concerns about the region's stability and
shifting sectarian balances. As Refugee International notes, the Iraqi
refugee crisis is essentially exporting Iraq's instability to its
neighbors.
Beyond the obvious humanitarian and moral dimensions, this crisis has
grave implications for our national security interests, our U.S.
national security interests, in the Middle East.
It is time for us to acknowledge the humanitarian crisis in Iraq that
is spilling over into neighboring countries. We must firmly demonstrate
our commitment to resettling Iraqi refugees and working with other
governments in the Middle East and in Europe to provide humanitarian
assistance and support.
The Iraqi Government must accept responsibility to care for all--
all--of its citizens and the international assistance needed to improve
its capacity to do so in a just manner.
Let me conclude by saying how impressed I am, as are all Americans,
and I continue to be so impressed by our brave men and women who have
served in Iraq and Afghanistan and have returned home to advocate that
more be done to help Iraqis and those who are in Afghanistan who are at
risk, particularly those who have risked their lives in service to the
United States of America. Let us in Congress follow their example and
keep fighting to help those in the world who are most in need. After
all, that is the great legacy of this country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Extending Renewable Energy Tax Credits
Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I plan to ask for unanimous consent in a
moment, but I would like to say a couple of words about what I am going
to ask for.
We had a vote in the Senate on the renewable energy bill the last
time we had the housing debate. That vote was 88 to 8 in favor of the
Clean Energy Tax Stimulus amendment. This was the amendment that I
offered with Senator Cantwell and others. It included extensions of tax
credits for solar, geothermal, fuel cells, wind, and many other forms
of renewable energy. At a time when we are looking for more green
energy in the United States, it is the right thing to do. This body
spoke very strongly with an 88-to-8 vote. We rarely ever have votes
like that around this place. I believe it is important for us to move
forward with this important piece of legislation.
The Democrat majority has been attempting to deal with renewable
energy tax credits on other bills. While I appreciate those efforts, we
have to make sure this bill is actually signed into law. It was part of
the housing bill last time. I believe the housing bill has the best
chance of any major piece of legislation to become law this year.
The bottom line is, do we want the renewable tax credits extended and
signed into law? I think this is the best vehicle we can possibly have
to ensure that.
Right now, the Democrat majority has been bringing to the floor--as
they did a few days ago--extenders legislation that has many
objectionable items that the President said he would veto. All of the
tax extenders, which both sides support, were coupled up with some very
objectionable items, including a $1.3 billion tax earmark. You know, we
are talking about earmarks around this place; there is a $1.3 billion
tax earmark in that bill. There are also other very objectionable
special interest projects and tax increases that are in that bill. For
these reasons the President said he would veto it. These reasons are
also why the Republican minority has been objecting to what the
Democrats have been trying to do.
So I ask our colleagues, let's join together the way we did before in
an 88-to-8 vote to extend the renewable tax credits. Let's bring more
green energy to the United States. Let's bring more jobs to the United
States. This is good economic policy. It is also good energy policy. We
have already recognized that in the Senate. So let's join together
again on this amendment, and allow this amendment to be voted on so
that we can get this amendment signed into law this year.
I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending
amendment so that I may call up amendment No. 5020 which is filed at
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, I will repeat what I said a
moment ago. Senator Sanders of Vermont is unavoidably absent this
morning. He has wanted to bring up the low-income energy assistance
program. While it is not germane, it is relevant, obviously, to the
subject matter of the bill--home heating. But there is objection on the
Republican side for that amendment to be considered. As a result, he is
objecting to any unanimous consent request to lay aside the pending
amendment. So there is a reason that I will momentarily object.
Let me also say for clarity that the very provision the Senator from
Nevada has raised here, the renewable energy program, was part of the
extender bill last week. Obviously, any bill like that is going to have
pieces you like and pieces you don't like. I have rarely seen a piece
of legislation around here that had the unanimous support of everyone.
Nonetheless, we had an opportunity to deal with that piece of
legislation, and because we couldn't get cloture on it, that was
rejected by the Republican minority. They did not want that bill to
come up, so we did not debate it at all. An opportunity to deal with
the very provision that enjoyed such broad-based support could have
been part of that and gone down to the President for his signature.
So on this bill here, while I have supported this proposal--it was
part of the earlier housing bill--until we resolve the matter dealing
with low-income energy assistance, then, at the request of the Senator
from Vermont and the leadership here, I will object to any effort to
set aside the pending amendments.
[[Page S5927]]
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. ENSIGN. I am deeply disappointed. I think this is an important
piece of legislation. I hope the Senator from Vermont, who is a
cosponsor of the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act, will reconsider. There
are serious objections to what he is trying to do, obviously, on this
side. And I will say he does not have the kind of support that this
amendment enjoys. This amendment was supported by a vote of 88 to 8 in
the Senate. This is an amendment that should be allowed to go through.
It should remain part of this bill. We should put away the partisan
squabbling and get this bill done. I hope that while we are
negotiating, we can make sure this amendment becomes part of the final
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I wish to take a few minutes, if I may,
and sort of review the events of yesterday, a historic day here in many
ways in that we were able to bring up a rather comprehensive housing
proposal, thanks to the work of Senator Shelby, my colleague from
Alabama, the former chairman of the Banking Committee and my ranking
member, along with 17 other members of the committee, Republican and
Democrats, on a vote of 19 to 2 out of the Banking Committee, that
brought forth the final piece of this housing package for the
consideration of our colleagues.
I heard repeatedly mentioned yesterday that this was a large bill. It
is. It is 660 or 670 pages. And the question was raised about how we
had not had a chance to see this bill. I remind my colleagues that you
have already voted for two-thirds of that bill because they are
previous matters we have considered on two separate occasions, with
some very minor, minor but significant changes, but not voluminous in
their quantity. So the greater part of this legislation has already
been examined and debated extensively on this floor. The remaining
piece, the one that came out of the committee 19 to 2, was voted out of
the committee about a month ago--a little more than a month ago--and
has been the subject of significant reporting as to what it included.
It is very similar, I might point out, to what was adopted by the other
body. So this is a moment where we have had ample opportunity.
If you do not hear it on the floor, go back home and listen to your
constituents talk about foreclosure problems. As I pointed out
yesterday, we are now averaging 8,427 filings for foreclosure on a
daily basis in the country. So every single day in this country, more
than 8,000 people, between 8,000 and 9,000 people are in the process of
losing their homes. There are 1.5 million of our fellow citizens who
have already lost their homes over the last year or so, and with resets
of adjustable rate mortgages coming up in July, the estimates are those
numbers will explode even further. In fact, it is been reported by
Credit Suisse and the Mortgage Bankers Association that as many as one
out of every eight homes in America could be in foreclosure if we do
not come up with some means by which we can address this issue.
The economic crisis we face in our country has at its heart the
housing crisis, which has at its heart the foreclosure crisis. The
problems are exacerbated, are expanded, obviously, by the rising costs
of gasoline and health care, higher education, the fact that now more
than 300,000 jobs in the last few weeks have been lost in this country,
unemployment rates are rising, and inflation is beginning to creep up.
This issue of getting our Nation back on its feet economically,
restoring confidence and optimism of the American people, particularly
when it comes to the most important asset most Americans will ever
have, which is their homes--nothing we can do is more important to the
stability of our neighborhoods, our communities, and our families, than
making it possible for people to be able to maintain and own their own
homes.
That is the heart of what we are trying to do. That has been the
effort over the last number of weeks, with the passage of two previous
pieces of legislation and the adoption now, I hope, in the coming days,
of this comprehensive bill.
Let me review the bidding, if I can, as to what is in this bill. And
the efforts that were made yesterday to strip out all of this were
soundly defeated by margins that we rarely see in a body such as this
that is so equally divided, 51 to 49. But, again, thanks to the
leadership of both Democrats and Republicans, the leadership of the
majority leader, Harry Reid, as well as the cooperation of the minority
leader, we were able to get to this bill, we were able to address these
underlying questions and then vote overwhelmingly to reject the efforts
that would have stripped this legislation of its heart.
We have a strong regulator in this legislation. This has been an
effort which has been sought over the last 6 or 7 years. Yet we have
been unable to deal with the problem of the government-sponsored
enterprises, principally Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are critical
to the liquidity that is needed in our housing markets. Yet we also
know that those institutions have been losing billions of dollars as a
result of the housing crisis. A strong regulator is necessary and some
additional reforms to make sure that these GSEs, these government-
sponsored enterprises, particularly Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, will be
on a sound footing. This bill does that, and we were able to achieve
that through the cooperation I mentioned a moment ago. That is
absolutely essential if we are going to have any hopes at all of
stabilizing the housing problems.
We establish in this bill a permanent affordable housing program, not
a temporary one, not for 1 or 2, 3 or 5 years, but a permanent
affordable housing program.
I cited yesterday the statistics of the millions of Americans who are
finding any kind of shelter further and further from their grasp
economically. Today when you discover that you have people literally
spending more than 50, 60, or 70 percent of their income on rental
housing and, in some cases, when you talk about people who are
disabled, the SSI payments, in fact, don't even equal the cost of the
housing they are in today, we need to have a program that provides
affordable shelter.
Decent, affordable shelter has never been a partisan issue. In fact,
60 years ago, the administration of Harry Truman brought together
Democrats and Republicans in 1948 and insisted upon the issue of
affordable shelter for all Americans. Over the years, Democrats and
Republicans, conservatives, liberals, moderates have all worked
together on this issue. As I was growing up, the man who was called Mr.
Housing was a guy named John Sparkman, a Senator from Alabama, the same
State as my ranking member from Alabama, Mr. Shelby. John Sparkman was
Mr. Housing.
Through the 1950s and 1960s, as a Member of this body, he fought year
after year to see to it that we would have affordable, decent shelter
for all Americans. We began to slip over the last 15 or 20 years, as
fewer and fewer dollars are being invested in affordable shelter for
Americans.
In this piece of legislation, as a result of the efforts of our
colleague from Rhode Island, Jack Reed, along with others, we now will
have a permanent, affordable housing program in America that will not
require any tax increases. The support of that program will come from
the resources coming out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the GSEs. So
for the first time in a long time, if ever, we will have a consistent
and reliable source of support for decent, affordable shelter for
Americans. That is a part of this bill.
The legislation also includes the HOPE for Homeowners Act. It will
help at least 450,000 of our hard-working families save their homes.
Again, this idea is not new. It was tried years ago, back in the 1920s
and 1930s during the Great Depression, the last time, I might point
out, that we had a significant housing crisis such as the one we are in
today.
Back in those days, the Congress, working with Franklin Roosevelt,
crafted a program that had the Federal Government actually purchase
highly distressed, troubled mortgages and then put those families back
on their feet by a fixed-rate mortgage they could afford. That program
actually produced a surplus for the American Government of some $16
million. We don't have a program like that, but it is similar. Instead
of actually purchasing distressed mortgages, we are insuring them by
insisting that the
[[Page S5928]]
lender reduce the amount they are asking for and settle on a fixed-rate
cost that the borrower can afford. Therefore, the lender does not lose
everything. It costs them in order to take this arrangement, but the
borrower also gets to stay in their home, and they end up paying that
insurance and also contributing back to the cost of the program.
The Congressional Budget Office has examined this idea which is
temporary, voluntary; you don't have to be in it if you don't want to.
We are trying to create a structure to allow people to end up with a
mortgage they can afford and, for lenders who worry about losing
everything, an opportunity to get something back out of this rather
than losing all their resources. It is estimated by the Congressional
Budget Office that this program could actually save American taxpayers
$250 million. That is their estimate of what we may actually have
coming back as a result of this effort.
This has been a bipartisan proposal--a bicameral one, for that
matter. The House has adopted a very similar program in their bill.
There was an effort to strip this program out of the bill yesterday.
Our colleagues voted 77 to 11 to reject such an effort. We don't get
votes like that often, but I commend my colleagues, Democrats and
Republicans, for sticking with an idea that was recommended to us by a
broad consensus on the political spectrum. So it was very important. We
had strong votes yesterday for the regulatory reform for GSEs. The
effort to strip out the affordable housing program was soundly defeated
as well. The amendment relative to the HOPE for Homeowners Act was also
resoundingly defeated.
We are on the brink of adopting the most comprehensive piece of
housing legislation in a long time, and it is not coming any too soon
either. As I have reported, when you have more than 8,000 people every
day slipping into foreclosure, with already a million and a half, and
some estimates are those numbers will explode in the coming weeks and
months, it is a timely decision for Congress to do everything we can to
restore confidence and optimism, to keep people in their homes, and to
get our economy back on a sound footing. We will not do that in the
absence of dealing with the housing crisis.
Again, I commend my colleague from Alabama. I thank him immensely for
his work. I thank the leadership, principally our majority leader, for
making it possible for us to get to this moment where we could adopt
this legislation. My hope is that the other body, the House of
Representatives, will consider what we have done, how difficult it is,
and how precariously close we have come to having this matter blow up
on us on at least several occasions in the last several days. We need
to send this package to the President for his signature. He is
threatening a veto. I hope he doesn't do that. It would be a great
tragedy to have the President decide to veto this legislation.
I am told the reason he wants to veto it is because we include money
for the Community Development Block Grant Program, some $3.9 billion.
That is an emergency effort. The reason we have that is because our
mayors, county supervisors, and Governors already have foreclosed
properties, many of them in their communities. These moneys are
exclusively to be used for the rehabilitation of these homes so they
can be resold, to make them more attractive and available so we can
revitalize neighborhoods that have been affected by foreclosure.
I have pointed out on many occasions in the past while debating these
bills, if you end up with one foreclosure on a city block, the value of
every other home on that block declines immediately by more than 1
percent. Crime rates go up by at least 2 percent in those
neighborhoods. You start losing value in other homes, even if they are
not on the market. We know today we have some 15 million homes where
the debt exceeds the equity. Despite efforts over the years to increase
that equity, to become part of retirement and deal with a family
crisis, such as a higher education cost, many families now are living
in homes where the debt on the mortgage exceeds the value of the house.
That is an unhealthy situation. We need to do everything we can by
cleaning up where foreclosed properties exist and getting them back on
the market.
Let me commend Senator Baucus of Montana and Senator Grassley of
Iowa, chair and ranking member of the Finance Committee, the tax-
writing committee. Part of this bill includes provisions to deal with
mortgage revenue bonds, to deal with a tax incentive approach to take
foreclosed properties and encourage homeowners who would move into them
to buy them. We need to do everything we can to allow this market to
get back on its feet and moving.
That is a quick brief of what this bill includes. Again, it is a very
good piece of legislation. It is not perfect. If I were writing it
myself, it would look different, as I am sure it would if each Member
could write the bill. But we serve in a body of 100 Members. We must
work with a body that has 435 Members down the hall. Of course, we must
work with the White House. That is how our system works. You don't get
to write these things on your own. You have to work with people with
whom you may have fundamental disagreements in order to resolve those
disagreements, to find common ground, and then craft ideas that can
make a difference for the American people who depend upon us.
That is what we have done with this bill. It is a sound, reliable,
strong piece of legislation that will make a difference for the
American people and, particularly, families fearing they may lose the
most important and valuable asset they will ever have, the family home.
What a difference it can make to a family to have that house in which
to raise their family and feel secure that the home they are living in
and raising their children in will be theirs and not be lost through
foreclosure.
We are hopeful this legislation will be adopted in the early part of
next week, and the President will sign it into law. What a greater gift
on Independence Day, as we break for a week to go back to our
respective States, than to have the President sign into law a piece of
legislation that would allow the American people to enjoy a certain
amount of independence as well in living in their homes without fear of
foreclosure.
I urge my colleagues to continue to be supportive of this effort, and
I thank those who have been responsible for bringing us to this point.
____________________