[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.

                          ____________________