[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 105 (Tuesday, June 24, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5975-S5983]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     AMERICAN HOUSING RESCUE AND FORECLOSURE PREVENTION ACT OF 2008

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 
3221, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant 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.

  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 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.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will now be 1 hour of debate equally divided between the two leaders or 
their designees prior to the vote on the motion to invoke cloture.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. SHELBY. I yield the Senator from Idaho 10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho is 
recognized.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside 
temporarily the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 5009 to 
delay for 1 year the merchant card reporting requirement.
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside 
temporarily the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 5010, my 
amendment to strike the merchant card reporting requirement.
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside 
temporarily the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 5002.
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside 
temporarily the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 5003, my 
amendment to eliminate the FHA reverse mortgage cap.
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, I am frustrated 
that we have not been allowed to call up germane amendments for the 
past few days. This is a substantial piece of legislation and Senators 
should have had the opportunity to have up and down votes. I have filed 
four amendments and I would like to talk briefly about two of them that 
deal with the merchant card reporting requirement.
  In an effort to find revenue offsets, I am concerned that Congress is 
rushing to adopt a flawed merchant card reporting proposal that 
establishes a new tax compliance burden on small business and does not 
provide enough time to develop and implement this new system. Little is 
really known about the true costs of this proposal and the Finance 
Committee hasn't had an opportunity to have the IRS demonstrate in a 
hearing that the information collected could be used in a meaningful 
way to drive tax compliance.
  The merchant card reporting proposal would require that the 
institution that makes the payment to the merchant--payment 
facilitator--for a payment card--both credit cards and debit cards--
report annually to the Internal Revenue Service--IRS--the name, 
address, and aggregate amounts of payments for the calendar year of 
each participating merchant. Additionally, the payment facilitator or 
the electronic payment organization must validate the taxpayer 
identification number--TIN--of the participating merchant. If the 
number does not match, then the payment facilitator or the electronic 
payment organization must withhold 28-percent from the merchant.
  This unprecedented level of reporting to the Federal Government will 
likely impose substantial implementation costs that will be passed on 
to many compliant small business taxpayers. Small business owners will 
also have to ensure that their records conform with the additional 
information reported by the merchant card processor. This is an 
additional compliance step, which will add to the already high cost of 
tax compliance for small business owners, who currently spend on 
average over $74 per hour to meet tax paperwork and compliance burdens 
that already exist.
  The structure of the merchant card system does not make complying 
with the proposal feasible in a couple of years. Merchants are not 
currently identified in systems by social security numbers or taxpayer 
identification numbers. Instead, merchants are generally assigned a 
merchant identification number. If implemented, this proposal would 
require institutions to spend several years trying to match merchants 
to social security numbers of taxpayer identification numbers.
  I appreciate the fact that the underlying legislation extends the 
effective date for reporting to December 31, 2011, and the effective 
date for backup withholding to December 31, 2012. However, I do not 
believe this provides enough time to make the changes to existing 
systems and processes, build and test new reporting systems, perform 
taxpayer identification number matching, and hire and train the 
personnel needed to implement and comply with the new reporting 
requirements.
  In addition, a higher dollar reporting threshold is necessary to 
eliminate reporting on casual sellers rather than persons engaged in 
business, and it should be granted to all payment settlement entities.
  My preference would be that we strike this section until we identify 
the costs to business, the total costs of implementing the new 
reporting regime with the IRS, and the ability of the IRS to use the 
information in a meaningful way to close the tax gap. If that amendment 
is defeated, then the Senate should provide an additional year to 
implement this system. But as I indicated, we will not have an 
opportunity to vote on these amendments or other amendments that other 
Senators want to bring because we have been stopped from calling up 
germane amendments as we move forward on this legislation.

  As I indicated, I also tried to bring up several other amendments--an 
amendment to reduce the $300 billion loan authority to $68 billion, 
which is the number that CBO expects the FHA refinancing program to 
actually utilize, and the number that was used to

[[Page S5976]]

calculate the score of the new program. Yet we will not be allowed to 
match the projections to the reality of the legislation.
  I also asked permission to bring up my amendment, No. 5003, to 
eliminate the FHA reverse mortgage cap, something which this Senate 
floor has already voted to do and which was in the FHA modernization 
legislation that this Senate has already passed. Yet it is now not 
included in this legislation, and we are not going to be given an 
opportunity, once again, to include it.
  There is important material in this legislation that needs to move 
forward, but the legislation also contains serious flaws. I am 
concerned that the process we are following has not allowed this Senate 
to truly work its will on this legislation as it moves forward.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I will suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided, 
charged against each side equally.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set 
aside the pending amendment so I may offer amendment No. 5020.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.


                           Amendment No. 5020

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I am sorry to see objection has been 
raised. This is the amendment that we are trying to get brought up on 
the housing bill that passed with an 88-to-8 vote in the Senate the 
last time we were considering the housing bill. This is the tax bill 
that will extend the renewable energy tax credits for the United 
States. It includes solar, wind, geothermal, and many other forms of 
renewable energy that are so important at this time of high energy 
prices in the United States. It seems absolutely ridiculous to this 
Senator that with an amendment that passed 88 to 8 in the Senate, one 
of the few bipartisan actions we have taken for a long time around 
here, that there would be objection to adding it onto this bill.
  So over the next couple of days, I want to let the managers of this 
bill know that there are some procedural things that can go on so it is 
going to take them a little more time to get this bill done than they 
would otherwise have liked to have done.
  I alert them this Senator will be exercising his full rights to try 
to get this renewable energy tax credit put on this bill.
  So it is a critical piece of legislation. It is not only critical to 
get it done, it is critical to get it done soon, because a lot of jobs 
in the United States are going to be lost if these contracts cannot be 
let out for a lot of the projects in renewable energy across the 
country. There are a lot of people out there right now, whether they 
get their financing put together or not, who are looking to see if the 
Senate will extend the renewable energy tax credits.
  This is an amendment Senator Cantwell and I have worked on together. 
We are pushing this any way we can to get this thing done. I applaud 
her for her efforts. But it is absolutely critical that this body act 
at a time when we can create jobs, we can produce more green energy for 
the United States, and we can become less dependent on foreign sources 
of energy.
  This is a small part of the energy package but an important part of 
the energy package that we need to put together. We are going to 
continue to work on this.
  I see my colleague from the State of Washington, Senator Cantwell, is 
on the floor. I will yield the floor so she can make some comments.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington is 
recognized.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I actually applaud the Senator from 
Nevada in trying to move this amendment onto this bill. I say that 
knowing some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle are frustrated, 
but the American people are frustrated with the high costs of energy. 
They want us to be doing all we can to try to help alleviate those 
energy bills that are going to be affecting them not just this summer 
but next winter as they see higher home heating bills.
  The Senator from Nevada and I are trying to say to our colleagues, it 
is important not to have this energy legislation tied up in a larger 
bill that is not currently moving before we adjourn for the July 
recess.
  We are already seeing jobs being canceled, projects being canceled, 
people laid off, and generation not being ready to be put onto the grid 
to help assist with high energy costs, particularly in the area of 
natural gas.
  The underlying amendment Senator Ensign and I are talking about 
giving tax credits to individual homeowners so they can make 
improvements to their homes, and it can result in more than a 20-
percent savings in their heating bills this winter. Those are 
improvements, I guarantee you, we need to be making because many people 
in the Northeast are not going to be able to afford the high energy 
costs they are going to be seeing.
  In addition, it puts additional megawatts onto the grid, not just in 
2008, 2009, but for many decades to come. We need to diversify off the 
high costs of natural gas. The point is that natural gas costs are 
continuing to rise with other pressures. We need to diversify off of 
natural gas and coal as the primary source for our electricity grid. 
The fact is this produces and saves about $20 billion in natural gas 
because of the production we would get onto the electricity grid. We 
need to be doing this now.
  We already know the result of our delay, that we have cost jobs in 
America, projects have been canceled, people have been laid off. We 
already know it is costing us in lost time and investment to stimulate 
our economy, and now we know it is also going to cost us in higher 
energy rates to our consumers. So I am for any plan that will get this 
energy legislation untangled from other bills and actually approved by 
the House and the Senate. My colleague and I are willing to work across 
the aisle and across the Rotunda with people who have any ideas how to 
get this done--either paid for or not paid for.
  But we simply cannot stand here today and say this is a vehicle that 
should move without trying to put this housing and energy package 
together, since it is the underlying bill, and we do think it is 
stimulative to the economy.
  I say to my colleagues that the return on investment of this 
investment in energy is a far greater ROI than some of the other 
stimulative activities we have done. So if we want to be true to our 
consumers' anxiety about the high cost of energy they are seeing, not 
only in gasoline but what they think is coming ahead, then we need to 
move. We need to stop holding up good energy legislation while we are 
trying to use it to get other legislation.
  I hope we can pass this bill out of the Senate before we leave for 
the July recess.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, for a number of months now I have been 
trying, with the help of both Democrats and Republicans, to bring a 
LIHEAP bill onto the floor. The reason for that

[[Page S5977]]

is, with the energy crisis we are now facing and the cost of home 
heating fuel and electricity escalating, there is no doubt in my mind 
that both in warm-weather States this summer and cold-weather States 
next winter, there are going to be people struggling for their lives.
  Without air-conditioning, people--old people, frail people, sick 
people--are going to have a hard time when the temperature gets above 
100 degrees. What we are seeing all over this country are unprecedented 
numbers of homes being shut off from electricity because people cannot 
pay their bills.
  We remember some years back, in Chicago, hundreds and hundreds of 
elderly people died from heat exhaustion because of the heat in their 
apartments. We must not allow that to happen again.
  LIHEAP, of course, pays electric bills to help people keep their air-
conditioning on when the temperature becomes very high. Clearly, in my 
State of Vermont and throughout the whole northern tier of this 
country, there is great fear right now--I should tell you that--not 
just about $4.10-a-gallon gas prices today--people worry about that, 
but they worry about what is going to happen next winter when the price 
of home heating fuel is soaring.
  So I have tried, and will continue to try, working with people in a 
bipartisan manner to get a vote on the floor. The simple truth is, we 
have a lot of support from Republicans and Democrats, progressives and 
conservatives. People understand the significance of this issue. We are 
going to do our best to get a vote on the floor as soon as we possibly 
can.
  In the last couple months, we have had large numbers of Republicans 
and Democrats coming together on bipartisan legislation. We are going 
to keep up that effort.
  So I wished to mention to my friends this is an issue of great 
importance, I believe, to the American people all over this country. 
People are fearful about what happens when the weather goes down below 
zero, and people are worried about what happens when the temperature 
goes up over 100 degrees.
  In this country, we do not want to see people dying of heat 
exhaustion and we do not want to see people freezing to death. With the 
cost of home heating fuel soaring, electricity soaring, we have a moral 
obligation to significantly expand LIHEAP funding. I will continue to 
do my best to make sure, finally, we get a vote on the floor of the 
Senate to do that.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I understand I have 6 minutes; is that 
correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, let me make a couple observations.
  First of all, I see my colleague from Vermont in the Chamber. I, once 
again, commend him for his strong interest--a shared interest I have--
in the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and our effort to, 
one way or another, get to this matter, given the importance of this 
issue to all of us.
  Let me, if I can, review the bidding a little bit as to where we are. 
This morning, there are two new reports out that relate directly to the 
subject matter that is before the Senate: the housing crisis, which is 
at the heart of the economic crisis; the foreclosure issue is, of 
course, the heart of the housing issue.
  As I pointed out over the last number of days, we now have a 
staggering number of foreclosure filings on a daily basis in the 
country. The latest report shows that 8,427, on average, filings for 
foreclosure are occurring on a daily basis--not on a weekly or monthly 
basis. But every single day in this country between 8,000 and 9,000 
people are filing for foreclosure on their homes. This is obviously a 
statistic that is deeply troubling and an indication of broader 
problems in our economy.
  In fact, this morning, one report has the consumer confidence levels 
at the lowest since they have been recorded in 1967--40 years. People's 
anticipation about the future, about the well-being of their children 
or their grandchildren, their ability to own a home, to raise a family, 
to be able to meet their obligations, to be able to retire with 
dignity, to be able to afford higher education--all these things 
working families in this country historically, for the most part, have 
been optimistic and confident about, today, are showing the lowest 
level in 40 years.
  So the issue we are grappling with is not one that is necessarily 
going to guarantee we are going to right the problems overnight, but it 
is a reflection that this body--made up of Democrats, Republicans, and 
Independents--can, in fact, come together and do something constructive 
and positive at the epicenter of our economic problems.
  That is the opportunity we are going to have in a few short moments, 
to decide whether to go forward and adopt legislation that would allow 
us to begin to put a tourniquet on the hemorrhaging of foreclosures in 
this country with the adoption of the HOPE for Homeowners Act, to be 
able to do something about the government-sponsored enterprises and to 
see to it we have a strong regulator, and to establish, for the first 
time ever, a permanent affordable housing program.
  There is a lead story in the New York Times this morning that talks 
about families who have had their children going to four and five and 
eight different schools in a school year in some cases because they 
have had to move out of rental properties as the costs have moved up. 
So the affordable housing issue, while it is not directly related to 
the foreclosure crisis, does deal with the issue of affordable, decent 
shelter in this country. The fact that families are having to move as 
frequently as they do and their children are having to go to as many 
different schools in a year as they do because of the cost of housing 
is a problem we address with this legislation as well.
  There is nothing that is as important as this bill for the country at 
this moment. That is not to say there are not other issues we ought to 
be grappling with. But there is a great danger we will miss the 
opportunity of doing something about housing in this country.
  The Case-Shiller index now indicates--and I quote them this morning:

       The S&P/Case-Shiller home-price indexes, a closely watched 
     gauge of U.S. home prices, show price declines continued to 
     get steeper in April, with prices in every region surveyed 
     now showing year-over-year drops.

  Those predictions indicate we may have as much as a 30-percent 
decline in home values. That is evaporating the long built-up equity 
people have acquired as a result of purchasing their homes and holding 
on to them.
  So that idea of selling your home one day after your children are 
grown to provide for your long-term security, to deal with the cost of 
higher education, to deal with an unpredictable health care crisis that 
could emerge--today we have almost 15 million homes in this country 
where debt exceeds equity, and those numbers are predicted to grow 
steeper and steeper, as the Case-Shiller report this morning indicates.
  So the level of optimism, the declining value of homes, and the 
serious problems in rental housing--all this is contributing to the 
most serious economic crisis we have had in decades.
  What Senator Shelby and I and the other 19 members of our committee 
have tried to do is to put together, on a bipartisan basis, with a 19-
to-2 vote out of our committee--not a highly divided committee, having 
held almost 50 different hearings over the last year as to what we 
ought to do to get our hands around this issue--our best recommendation 
to the Members of this body. Those of us on the committee, working 
together--all 21 of us on this committee--have tried to fashion and 
cobble together a proposal that deals with the heart of this issue.
  So with the remaining minutes we have to debate this subject matter 
before the vote at around 11:15--in the next 5, 6 or 7 minutes--I urge 
my colleagues to join with us. We are not telling you what we have 
written is perfect. We are not telling you it is going to solve all the 
problems. If it does nothing more than to restore some

[[Page S5978]]

confidence the American people ought to have in their Congress, that in 
itself will be an achievement.
  Beyond that confidence and optimism, we think we have recommended 
some specific ideas that can very well begin to treat the problem of 
growing foreclosures, declining values in our homes, and the spread and 
contagion effect this is having on student loans, municipal finance, 
corporate finance, and the rest, in our Nation and around the world as 
well. This issue is going beyond our own shores.
  So we urge our colleagues to join with us, and over the remainder of 
today, as these various amendments are offered, to keep our eye on the 
ball. The idea is to get a bill done, to work out our differences with 
the other body, and then to give a bill to the President of the United 
States, I would hope, by the Fourth of July, by Independence Day. What 
better gift on independence could we give the American people than a 
sense that this, their Congress of the United States, can come 
together, despite political differences, and craft legislation to make 
a difference for our country.
  I urge the adoption of the motion when the question is asked.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama controls 
the remaining time.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the clerk will 
call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I believe all time has been yielded back. We 
are prepared to move forward.


                             Cloture Motion

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, pursuant 
to rule XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The bill 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.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory 
quorum call is waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on the motion to concur in the House amendment striking 
section 1 and all that follows through the end of title V, and 
inserting certain language to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3221, the 
Foreclosure Prevention Act, with amendment No. 4983, shall be brought 
to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from 
Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Colorado (Mr. Allard), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), 
the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Inhofe), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 83, nays 9, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 155 Leg.]

                                YEAS--83

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--9

     Barrasso
     Bond
     Bunning
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Kyl
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Allard
     Brownback
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Inhofe
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 83, the 
nays are 9. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, for the knowledge of all the Senators here, 
we are trying to wrap up a number of items today. Today is Tuesday. We 
have to get out of here by Friday or Saturday, we would hope, at least. 
We have a lot to do. We need to complete what we are working on now, 
the housing legislation. We have a number of issues we are trying to 
work out on judges. We also have to confirm the FEC nominees. We hope 
to do that later today. We have FISA that we have to work out. We have 
a supplemental appropriations bill. We have the doctors fix on 
Medicare. We have the tax extenders. We are working on all these 
things, so a lot of balls are in the air. I hope Members would be 
cooperative and try to work through this.
  The Republican leader talked to me today, I have spoken to the 
manager on our side on the housing legislation, and he has spoken to 
the other manager, Senator Shelby--I haven't had that opportunity--and 
what we are trying to work out on that is, apparently, there are a 
number of Senators who asked that consideration be given by the 
managers to having a finite number of housing-related matters, reviewed 
by the two managers. That is something we are trying to do to see if we 
can work out something to speed up the work we are doing on the housing 
bill. I hope we can do that. If we have the cooperation of Members, we 
can do that. If people dig in their heels and say we are not going to 
do that, we might be in a situation where we don't finish the housing 
legislation. That would be a shame, but that is certainly possible. 
There is the potential to still have a number of other cloture votes on 
the housing legislation. So we are trying to work that out. I hope we 
can do that. The two managers I talked about before have experience and 
understand what we are trying to do.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 
minutes as in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            Oil Exploration

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, fellow Senators, I have spoken 
extensively over the past several months about the growing threat of 
our dependence on foreign oil. Two weeks ago, we were reminded of the 
threat by new trade deficit numbers showing a $4.4 billion deficit 
increase in just 1 month as a result of growing oil prices and growing 
oil imports. Last week, the Wall Street

[[Page S5979]]

Journal reported that six Arab economies took in $400 billion in oil 
and gas revenues last year alone. The Journal also reported that 
petroleum-producing states are investing more of their oil wealth at 
home, triggering an investment and spending boom in the Middle East.
  But as our reliance on foreign oil grows, 85 percent of our offshore 
acreage in the continental United States is still off limits for 
leasing, as are 62 percent of onshore oil reserves. Let no one tell you 
that we have plenty of American acreage leased for energy development 
because compared to the rest of the world, we are falling behind, and 
it is making us poor and poorer and poorer. Since the Senate last voted 
on my proposal to increase production, it was estimated that America 
likely sent about $50 billion overseas to import oil.
  What is particularly troubling to me is that after rejecting a 
proposal I submitted on behalf of myself and 20 other Senators to open 
new areas for production, the majority has come up with excuse after 
excuse for not taking any action.
  First, without any evidence to back them up, they claimed that price 
gouging was the reason for high prices. At the same time, they said 
high prices were not caused by supply-and-demand issues, they told 
America that we must stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
because the 70,000 barrels a day that went into it were raising the 
price of gas. Suspending the SPR fill is something I have supported, 
but I also said we need to do much more. It alone is practically 
nothing. Unfortunately, advocates of this SPR suspension in the 
majority rejected a proposal to open areas of production that would 
bring online more than 2 million barrels of oil a day.
  Now the other side has apparently settled on an argument that first 
originated with the Wilderness Society. They claim oil companies are 
sitting on their leases and that if those companies just developed in 
those areas, we would not need to open new areas. If only that were 
true, Mr. President. The other side is now saying the oil companies 
must use it or lose it when it comes to their leases. They propose 
adding a tax on companies to punish them for not producing fast enough.
  This Wilderness Society argument demonstrates a fundamental lack of 
understanding of how we explore for oil and gas in this country, and 
the fact that this argument originates with a group that has led four 
major lawsuits in the last 4 years to prevent development in the very 
same area speaks to how disingenuous it really is. Part of the reason 
it takes so long for companies to produce is because groups such as the 
Wilderness Society keep throwing up roadblocks. They know it; we know 
it.
  Today, I am going to tackle this idea that companies are choosing to 
sit on their leases, and I will debunk that once and for all.
  First, let's consider the logic. Companies are paying a lot of money 
for the right to explore on a lease and are given a short period of 
time to produce oil. With the cost of oil now at $135 a barrel, why on 
Earth would a lessee intentionally sit on a lease and choose not to 
make money on it? Why would a company pay money essentially to rent a 
tract of land and then not use it?
  I have heard the claim that 41 million acres are leased on the Outer 
Continental Shelf and of that acreage, 33 million acres are not being 
produced. The use of this statistic shows a fundamental lack of 
understanding of the long, risky procedure and process that begins even 
before bidding on a lease and hopefully ends with production. The other 
side is saying that unless oil is literally coming out of the ground on 
an acre, it doesn't count, even if that acre is being explored or is in 
the process of getting environmental permits or in any other part of a 
process that is very long and tedious. Additionally, the use of this 
argument by groups who consistently go to court to prevent developing 
on existing lease areas speaks volumes about the intent here.
  Congress currently restricts access to 574.2 million acres of OCS. In 
actuality, it is clear by any measurable assessment that the majority 
in Congress is sitting on far more oil than the oil companies 
themselves. Let me repeat that. It is clear by any measurable 
assessment that the majority in Congress is sitting on far more oil 
than the oil companies themselves.
  Let's focus on offshore Federal leases for a moment. Simply examining 
the number of acres leased and the number of acres producing during a 
snapshot of time is deceptive. There are many different steps for 
producing oil and gas. At any given moment, a lease may not be 
producing, but it is active and under development. In the 5, 8, or 10 
years that a company holds a lease--and they are given a specific 
period of time--environmental assessments could be underway, lessees 
could be trying to secure permits, the leasing agency could be 
challenged in litigation, and the lessee could be reviewing seismic 
data. In fact, any number of preproduction processes could be underway. 
These take time. These require experts. These cost money.
  I do not hear critics suggest that we speed this up or that we waive 
or shorten environmental requirements--and I am not suggesting that 
either. But critics do want to impose new costs on U.S. producers under 
the guise of ``speeding up leases.'' This tax and spend solution to a 
supply and demand problem makes no sense. And, once again, the other 
side proposes a solution that threatens our competitiveness with 
nationalized oil companies who are after the same commodity around the 
world. My friends on the other side of the aisle are fond of saying 
that we can't drill our way out of the problem--and they are right. But 
my message back to them is that we can't tax our way out of the problem 
either, and that is exactly what they keep proposing to do.
  Second, there are many up-front costs that leaseholders take on to 
acquire an oil and gas lease. Bonus payments and pre-production rental 
payments often cost millions of dollars and these capital investments 
are only being made for the ultimate development and production of oil 
to return a profit on investment. Simply put, if oil is not produced 
from a lease, companies lose money on it.
  Third, using these acreage numbers to claim that companies are 
``sitting on'' $135 oil simply ignores the historical fact that simply 
because you lease lands does of necessarily mean that you are able 
technically or economically to produce on them--or even that there is 
oil under your lease. Hence the term: ``exploratory well.''
  Ironically, some of the very same people who are arguing that these 
leases are not being developed also opposed an inventory of new areas 
that would clearly speed the development process when they are opened.
  To suggest that companies are not diligently developing their leases 
on the American deep sea is to simply ignore the facts. Over the past 
decade, more than 100 new discoveries have been announced and since the 
passage of the Deepwater Royalty Relief Act 13 years ago, offshore oil 
production has increased by 535 percent. Over the past months, three 
major sales for OCS oil and gas leases have taken place and together 
raised more than $9 billion in federal revenues. Under the oppositions 
argument--that is a lot of money companies are paying to sit on leases.
  I have had the opportunity to review the data provided by one company 
that holds leases--BP. BP has 124 leases that are actively producing. 
Those are the only ones that the majority is counting when they give 
you their statistics of producing leases. But BP also has 459 leases 
that are in the exploration phase, So 65 percent of BP's leases are 
under exploration so that BP can produce from them in the future, yet 
the majority would have you believe that BP is ``sitting on'' those 
leases instead of actively working toward producing on them. This is 
about as deceptive an argument as I have ever heard. It is either 
totally deceptive or it is absent knowledge and information--which is 
impossible. This information is readily available.
  We have severely limited our access to the American deepwater, and 
the situation is only getting worse. In 1982, nearly 160 million acres 
of land were being leased for exploration. Today, its less than 40 
million. Why? Because we are running out of available land and we are 
restricting access to our own resources in favor of foreign oil. 
According to the MMS, only 2.4 percent of the total offshore acreage is 
currently being leased and about 85 percent of our continental offshore 
is under moratorium. As we debate about the use of

[[Page S5980]]

43 million acres available for development, we must recognize that 
Congress has placed 574.2 million acres under moratorium--and the 
majority has supported continuing to do so. Only 6 percent of total 
lower--48 OCS is currently leased. This does not demonstrate a lack of 
progress in the deepwater, it demonstrates a lack of progress on energy 
policy in Congress.
  The American people have had enough with excuses and they are looking 
for leadership. Two-third of Americans are asking us to produce 
American oil, but the majority in the Senate is blocking it. I urge my 
colleagues to look at the facts and take action.
  There is no question in my mind that the excuse that is being used is 
that we cannot drill our way out of the crisis. I submit that is not 
the issue, whether we can drill our way out of the crisis. The issue is 
whether we can produce more American oil or oil alternatives so we 
spend less overseas and keep more of our money at home. We are spending 
ourselves broke. We are spending ourselves into economic oblivion by 
sending so much of our resources overseas every day, every month, every 
year, for the acquisition of crude oil from foreign countries.
  I have an editorial from the Albuquerque Journal of Sunday past 
called ``It Takes Black Gold To Get to Green Future.'' It states:

       With all due respect to Al Gore, there is an urgent, new 
     ``inconvenient truth.'' Unless Congress acts quickly to 
     expand domestic oil supplies, the nation could face economic 
     destruction long before it sees the environmental fallout of 
     global warming.
       For decades it has been easy for most Americans to dodge 
     the truth about our foreign oil dependence and to just keep 
     driving--but $4-a-gallon gas has finally snapped the trance. 
     Reality is sobering. The United States has put its economic 
     survival in the hands of unstable foreign powers and volatile 
     commodities markets. At any time, a major disruption in 
     foreign supply could bring the enormous, transportation based 
     U.S. economy to a standstill.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent the editorial and a Washington 
Post editorial called ``Drill Deeper'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Albuquerque Journal, June 22, 2008]

               It Takes Black Gold To Get to Green Future

       With all due respect to Al Gore, there is an urgent new 
     ``inconvenient truth.'' Unless Congress acts quickly to 
     expand domestic oil supplies, the nation could face economic 
     destruction long before it sees the environmental fallout of 
     global warming.
       For decades it has been easy for most Americans to dodge 
     the truth about our foreign oil dependence and just keep 
     driving--but $4-a-gallon gas has finally snapped the trance. 
     Reality is sobering: The United States has put its economic 
     survival in the hands of unstable foreign powers and volatile 
     commodities markets. At any time, a major disruption in 
     foreign supply could bring the enormous, transportation-based 
     U.S. economy to a standstill.
       The U.S. trade deficit jumped to its worst level in more 
     than a year in April, driven primarily by oil imports. Not 
     only does this empower anti-American regimes, it siphons off 
     money consumers could be spending or saving or investing.
       ``I have never been more frightened for America's future 
     than I am right now;'' Sen. Pete Domenici said last week, 
     urging Congress to remove the ban on off-shore drilling and 
     open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil companies.
       President Bush--in a speech laced with counter-productive 
     partisan rhetoric--called on Congress last week to open up 
     several domestic oil fields that have been off-limits since 
     the 1980s. ANWR could yield 27 billion barrels; the Atlantic 
     and Pacific coasts contain 17 billion barrels, and the Gulf 
     Coast could produce another 72 billion. There is strong 
     evidence this can be done in an environmentally responsible 
     way.
       Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has so far 
     ignored polls that show a majority of Americans rallying 
     around calls for domestic drilling. He continues to argue 
     that the answer to foreign oil dependence lies in wind, solar 
     and nuclear technologies. The inconvenient truth, however, is 
     that climate-friendly technologies will take decades to 
     develop. We look forward to the day when we can all plug our 
     green cars into an electrical grid powered by something other 
     than coal.
       Until then, we're going to have keep buying gas. Even if we 
     achieve a dramatic 20 percent reduction in oil consumption, 
     some experts estimate that oil will still cost $200 a barrel 
     by 2012. So here's another inconvenient truth: New drilling 
     isn't about returning to cheap gas. It's about economic 
     survival.
       The United States needs to organize a Manhattan Project for 
     alternative energy, addressing the threats from both global 
     warming and foreign dependence. We need to vigorously pursue 
     those, along with a crash course in conservation.
       These are monumental undertakings, and to succeed they must 
     transcend party lines or individual egos. Sen. Jeff Bingaman 
     was on-target Wednesday when he faulted President Bush for 
     injecting ``election-year politics'' into the Rose Garden 
     speech. As chairman of the Senate energy committee, Bingaman 
     will be a key player on both fronts of the effort to chip 
     away at America's-dangerous level of dependence on foreign 
     oil.
       The way ahead is not easy. Fuel costs are impacting food 
     and retail prices. Truckers are parking their rigs. School 
     bus operators and closing up shop. Airlines are laying off 
     thousands and perhaps are heading for prices that will put 
     air travel out of reach for the middle class. The idea of the 
     family flying to Disneyland, for example, would be out of the 
     question. Even a family vacation by car could look like a 
     luxury.
       Americans have never backed down from a challenge, however. 
     Once we know the truth, no matter how inconvenient it may be, 
     we like to get to work. In this case, the work involves a 
     drilling rig, and the self-confidence to use it.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, June 22, 2008]

                              Drill Deeper

       If there is a silver lining in the price of gasoline 
     shooting past $4 a gallon, it's that it has sparked an 
     intense debate in the United States about its energy 
     security--or lack thereof. President Bush and Sen. John 
     McCain (R-Ariz.) have given the impression that relief for 
     drivers lies in off-shore drilling and the construction of 
     nuclear power plants. In fact, those solutions wouldn't 
     produce results for years. But if this level of passion and 
     debate continues through the fall election and is followed up 
     by action, the nation will be better off.
       Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican Party nominee for 
     president, kicked things off last Tuesday when he reversed 
     himself in a speech to a Houston audience and announced that 
     the moratorium on drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf 
     that has been in effect since 1981 should be lifted. He got a 
     Rose Garden assist the next day from Mr. Bush, who called on 
     Congress to allow states the option of drilling off their 
     coasts to tap the estimated 18 billion barrels of oil 
     underneath. On Wednesday, Mr. McCain said that if elected 
     president he wanted 45 nuclear reactors built by 2030 ``with 
     the ultimate goal of 100 new plants to power the homes and 
     factories and cities of America.''
       The mantra from the Democratic Party--from the presumptive 
     presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), on down--has 
     been a variation on ``We cannot drill our way out of this 
     energy crisis.'' Considering that the U.S. is estimated to 
     have 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, that's certainly 
     true. But it if is acceptable to drill in the Caspian Sea and 
     in developing countries such as Nigeria, where environmental 
     concerns are equally important, it's hard to explain why the 
     United States should rule out careful, environmentally sound 
     drilling off its own coasts. Like Mr. McCain, we do not 
     support drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 
     which Mr. Bush advocated Wednesday. That pristine area, with 
     its varied and sensitive ecosystems, should be preserved.
       Washington has done a poor job of telling the public that 
     energy security will be achieved not from one source 
     overnight but from many over years and that there are no easy 
     solutions and no cheap ways to break this nation's dependence 
     on oil. There will be trade-offs and sacrifices that have yet 
     to be considered. So far, the focus has been on biofuels, 
     solar power and wind energy. But all this talk of drilling, 
     squeezing oil out of shale, as Mr. Bush proposed, and pushing 
     for more nuclear power is a welcome widening of a larger and 
     necessary discussion.

  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming is 
recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I will return the discussion to housing. I 
do thank the Senator from New Mexico for his comments on energy. I know 
from traveling around Wyoming last weekend, the biggest thing on 
everybody's mind is $4-plus gas. I got a lot of comments on ways it 
could be fixed. What we are working on right now, of course, is fixing 
housing.
  I am going to discuss the Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform 
of 2008. That is what we just had the vote on. I do not support this 
legislation.
  I opposed this legislation in the Senate Banking Committee and I 
continue to oppose it today. As the national housing market continues 
to suffer from falling home sales, housing starts, and skyrocketing 
foreclosure rates in some parts of the country, the Senate has an 
opportunity today to restore confidence in the principles of good 
government to our economy. These principles include limiting taxpayer 
liability, ensuring a sustainable housing market in the future, and 
preventing a Federal Government bailout of big

[[Page S5981]]

banks that made unaffordable loans or investors who made bad 
investments. Unfortunately, the bill ignores these principles and 
ignores irresponsible actions at the expense of responsible homeowners 
and hard-working taxpayers.
  This bill contains a title called ``The HOPE for Homeowners Act.'' 
The program included in this title would create a $300 billion taxpayer 
loan guarantee program.
  Let me repeat that. It would create a $300 billion taxpayer loan 
guarantee program--taxpayer guarantee program--doubling the size of the 
Federal Housing Administration. This expansion will be accomplished by 
taking the worst performing and the most risky loans made by banks, 
shifting 100 percent of the liability of foreclosure onto the American 
taxpayer. The loans I am talking about have made a lot of press in the 
past few months--adjustable rate, interest only, low documentation or 
no documentation; loans that in many cases the lender made with no 
regard for the borrower's ability to repay.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 35 percent of these 
loans will default, placing a huge liability on the FHA and ultimately 
the taxpayer for guaranteeing these loans. Even FHA Commissioner Brian 
Montgomery believes this is a dangerous proposition. On June 9 he 
stated:

       The FHA is not designed to become Federal lender of last 
     resort, a mega-agency to subsidize bad loans.

  But that is exactly what this bill does. In past years, banks 
continued to make record profits by pushing these unaffordable 
mortgages. Investors, homeowners, bankers, and realtors bet heavily on 
the tidal wave of ever increasing home prices. If a rate adjustment 
made monthly mortgage payments unaffordable, homeowners and mortgage 
investors could count on home equity to bail them out. In other words, 
the value of the price of the home would go up sufficiently to cover 
the costs homeowners could not. As the Senate's only accountant, I can 
tell you this practice does not make good financial sense. It is 
completely unsustainable. However, most of industry ignored the warning 
signs and continued to make record profits from unaffordable loans.
  Now these same banks and investors are in trouble. They have 
discovered that unaffordable mortgages can be, shockingly, 
unaffordable. Complicating this matter is that the housing market cycle 
is now on a downswing and people can no longer rely on home equity 
loans to bail them out of a mortgage rate hike. Banks and speculators 
now expect Congress to reward this irresponsible behavior with a 
taxpayer bailout. They expect the Federal Government to turn its back 
on responsible lenders and borrowers and renters waiting to become 
first-time homeowners, and support those groups that have pushed our 
housing market into decline with bad loans and bad investments. This 
bill is a Federal Government bailout and that is why I oppose it.
  I will also note there are separate provisions of the legislation I 
do support. A separate title of this bill would create a new regulator 
for the government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 
and the Federal Home Loan Banks. This world-class regulator will have 
the authority necessary to ensure that these entities are adequately 
capitalized and are operating safely within the secondary mortgage 
market.
  The GSEs, government-sponsored enterprises, are the most important 
factors in our mortgage market and play an increasingly influential 
role in our global credit markets.
  The regulators created by this legislation must support the housing 
market by allowing Freddie and Fannie to buy and securitize mortgages, 
thereby increasing credit at lower rates and restoring investor 
confidence. While I continue to oppose the affordable housing trust 
fund included in the bill, I support a strong regulator that will allow 
the secondary mortgage market to operate more effectively, to the 
benefit of our economy.
  I support the deliberate and safe conversion of the GSEs into the 
jurisdiction of the new agency included in this legislation. It is past 
due. As these massive entities are brought under new supervision, I 
trust the transition will be done in a way that ensures that no 
disruptions occur in our housing and our credit markets.
  There are also several tax provisions that are important to Wyoming 
and the Nation. Currently, Wyoming receives approximately $2 million 
per year in low-income housing tax credits to encourage developers and 
contractors to develop affordable rental housing projects. This bill 
will provide a temporary 2-year increase of approximately $50,500, a 
2.5-percent increase to the Wyoming Community Development Authority. It 
will also increase access to the Mortgage Revenue Bond Program, another 
helpful tool for Wyoming housing infrastructure development.
  Unfortunately, the good provisions of this legislation are not enough 
to outweigh the bad ones. Pushing liability onto the Federal Government 
by bailing out irresponsible lenders and investors is not good 
government. I cannot support a bill that puts reckless investors and 
lenders ahead of hard-working Wyoming taxpayers.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut is 
recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to take a couple of minutes, if I 
can. We had a very strong vote again this morning on the housing 
proposal. I thank my colleagues. This morning I believe that vote was 
83 to 9 to invoke cloture, to begin the 30 hours of debate on this 
aspect of the bill.
  I would remind my colleagues, going back a little bit to the end of 
last year on the FHA modernization bill, the Senate voted 94 to 2, in 
December of 2007 on the Foreclosure Prevention Act in April, we voted 
84 to 12; then the government-sponsored enterprises, HOPE for 
Homeowners vote out of committee, which included the affordable housing 
program, as well as the GSE reform and the HOPE for Homeowners, passed 
19 to 2 in our committee, an overwhelming vote on a controversial bill 
involving substantial resources and ideas to deal with the housing 
problem.
  Then late last week, we had amendments to strike the affordable 
housing program. That was defeated 77 to 11. An amendment basically to 
stop or cut out the HOPE for Homeowners Act was defeated 69 to 12.
  The point I make with these votes is it is quite clear that this 
body, both Democrats and Republicans, believes it is important that we 
craft and move forward with a major housing bill. I cited earlier this 
morning in the discussion the two recent reports dealing with consumer 
confidence and the value of homes in America.
  The value of homes in America reported by the Case-Shiller Index, 
which is the most respected index on home values in our country, has 
reported yet further decline in housing values. In fact, Professor 
Shiller has predicted we may have as much as a 30-percent decline in 
home values. That would be the most significant drop nationally since 
the Great Depression, to the point where now we have millions of homes 
where the equity in the homes is exceeded by the debt. Of course, for 
families, that home ownership has not only been a stable environment 
for them and their families, but it has also been a source of wealth 
creation; that is, building up the equity in that home to provide for 
the retirement years, where that home can be sold and the value, the 
increased equity, can be a source for financial support.
  For many families that has been one source of additional income for 
middle-income families to provide that higher education they promised 
their children since the day they were born. If you work hard, do the 
right things, your family is going to stick with you. When that cost of 
education comes up, for college or community college or a technical 
school, we are going to be there to help you because the equity in our 
home is going to give us some additional cash to make that possible.
  Let me tell you what it is like for that family today, those 15 
million homes across our country where that debt exceeds equity. They 
turn to that child and say: We can no longer do it because our 
financial obligations exceed the value of our house because it has 
declined because of the foreclosure crisis, where more than 8,400 homes 
are filing for foreclosure every single day in the country.
  So we have done what we can in our committee, and our colleagues have

[[Page S5982]]

supported these ideas. The HOPE for Homeowners Act, the GSE reform, the 
affordable housing ideas have been embraced by overwhelming majorities. 
So what we need to do today, if we can, is to come over. The amendments 
have been suggested. I want to work out as many amendments on housing 
as I can. There are some we can work out and accept. Some I will not be 
able to accept, obviously, working with Senator Shelby and others who 
are involved. But we need to get this done.
  If we go again into the middle of July--and just remember that if we 
take next week off, which we do, we will go back to our respective 
States. While we are back there walking in our parades and celebrating 
Independence Day, every day we are there, somewhere between 8,000 and 
9,000 of our fellow citizens, on Independence Day, will be filing 
foreclosure on their homes. So we may leave here Friday or Saturday 
without having gotten this done, but as you are flying back home and 
visiting your States and celebrating Independence Day, remember if we 
did not get this done many more Americans are going to be paying an 
awful price.
  So I urge my colleagues with amendments, give us a chance to work 
these out. For those who want to offer amendments that are not directly 
related to this but are terribly important, I do not minimize it. I beg 
your indulgence to spare us the opportunity of having to engage in that 
debate on this bill. That does not minimize the importance of your 
idea. But if you put it on this bill and it is not paid for, the House 
will reject it, and you will lose both ideas--both your idea and this 
idea that we are trying to move forward. So some discipline is needed, 
some understanding is needed. This is the issue of the hour. This is 
the problem that is causing so much depression in terms of people's 
aspects of their future.
  That report this morning about consumer confidence is so alarming. 
That, more than anything else, is what I worry about: the optimism and 
confidence of our fellow citizens. It is at the lowest since data has 
been collected on consumer confidence. It is at a 40-year low; 40 years 
have transpired since the confidence and optimism of our fellow 
citizens have been as low as it is today.

  We bear responsibility more than anything else to offer a future, 
some hope for our fellow citizens and people who count on us. I think 
this housing proposal gives us a chance to do that. It is not going to 
solve everyone's problems, but it can make a difference in saying to 
the American people: We hear what you are saying, and we are doing 
something about it.
  I have often cited historically those first 100 days from March of 
1933 to June of 1933, the beginning of the Franklin Roosevelt 
administration when the country was in a deep depression, millions had 
lost their jobs, homes were being foreclosed. In that 100 days, there 
were a lot of ideas that were posed to get us back on our feet again. 
Many of them never went anywhere; some did.
  The most important thing, more than anything else that the Congress 
or the President achieved in those 100 days, was the American people 
saw a government that had rolled up its sleeves and gone to work on 
their behalf. That, more than anything else, was what was needed in 
those days to give people a sense of hope and optimism and confidence 
that their Government, their President, their Congress was going to 
work on their problems and give them a chance to have a better day. And 
that is as much as what is needed today.
  We need to demonstrate to the people of this country who have lost an 
awful lot of faith in almost everything but certainly in ourselves 
here, that we can get something done, that we can put aside differences 
and make a difference in their lives. That is the opportunity that 
Senator Shelby and I are offering to our colleagues in the remaining 
hours of this debate.
  So we need your help to come over and bring people together so we can 
wrap this up and send a bill to the House which, hopefully, they can 
accept. I am confident they will. Not that they are going to agree with 
everything that we have done, but I believe Barney Frank, the 
Congressman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Financial Services 
Committee; Nancy Pelosi, the distinguished Speaker of the House--they 
get this, they understand this. They understand the difficulties we 
have over here procedurally to deal with things, to deal with matters 
that are different from the House of Representatives.
  But they also understand we basically embrace three of the major 
concepts: HOPE for Homeowners, affordable housing, GSE reform. That is 
the centerpiece of what we are trying to achieve. The Presiding 
Officer, as a member of the Banking Committee, has been tremendously 
helpful, and I thank him for it, as well as other members of the 
committee, putting aside our own specific ideas of how we would do this 
to come up with a product that could be embraced by 19 of our 21 
members of that committee to bring the bill forward as we have today, 
with the added provisions that have been included in this bill.
  So we urge our colleagues to come over. Senator Shelby and I are more 
than happy to entertain ideas. Where we can accommodate them, we will 
do so. If we cannot, we will be candid and tell them that we cannot. 
There is always another day, but we cannot deal with every bill and 
every idea that people have been waiting for on this bill. We urge our 
colleagues to do that.
  I ask unanimous consent that the time while the Senate is in recess 
for the conference lunches count under the time postcloture.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DODD. With that, we have had a strong vote. I say this to my 
colleague from Alabama, through the chair, that 83-to-9 vote, not to 
mention 94 to 2 on modernization; 84 to 12, the various votes on other 
matters late last week--all indicate the strong willingness on the part 
of our colleagues, the overwhelming majority here, to get something 
done on this issue. That is the best news of all. Now we need to come 
to closure.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I want to pick up on a few things that the 
Senator from Connecticut has been talking about. We got a vote a few 
minutes ago, I believe 83 to 9, on cloture on this bill.
  Last week we had three or four well-debated amendments offered by 
various Senators, and they were overwhelmingly rejected, huge votes.
  Where are we now? We have worked on this a long time. We have GSE 
reform in here, which I have worked on for 5 years on the Banking 
Committee, as Senator Dodd recalled, and the Presiding Officer, a 
member of the Banking Committee and very involved in the Banking 
Committee.
  This is a very complicated piece of legislation in this title dealing 
with GSEs, which we have come a long way with. Everybody here knows, I 
believe on both sides of the aisle, that the GSEs provide a lot of the 
mortgage funds, most of them today. But they do need to be well 
regulated. They also need to be well capitalized, considering the risk 
and so forth, the implicit guarantee of the Federal Government.
  I have been told recently that their debt, that Freddie Mac and 
Fannie Mae debt, exceeds the debt of the United Kingdom and France 
together. I do not know if that is exactly right. But if it is, that is 
over $5 trillion.
  So we need to get this done. We need to make sure the GSEs survive. 
We want to make sure GSEs are properly regulated, and we can do it 
here. Another part of the title of this bill is dealing with housing, 
as the Presiding Officer knows. This is going to give a lot of people 
in America an opportunity to refinance some mortgages. It will not save 
everybody. It should not save everybody.
  But there is no specific bailout for any specific mortgage company or 
banks, as somebody alluded to last week--none of that. The chairman of 
the committee, the Presiding Officer, as a member of the committee, and 
I, as a Senator, we would not have that. We would not vote our support 
for anything like this. But we will create conditions to let people 
refinance their mortgages, assuming they can work this out, assuming 
the lender would rather take a haircut--you know, less money than a 
foreclosure.

[[Page S5983]]

  The last thing a lender as a rule wants is a foreclosure because the 
house is vacant in the neighborhood. Senator Dodd was talking about 
that. We do not need four or five vacancies in the neighborhood and the 
house run down, weeds growing instead of the lawn trimmed.
  Everybody knows what that does to the value of their neighbors' 
property.
  Housing is important. What we are trying to do--and one can see the 
votes we have been getting--is fashion something that will give a lot 
of people a better opportunity to finance their home, as well as to 
regulate the GSEs in a meaningful way. Most of the Members of the 
Senate know that.
  If somebody has an amendment, they ought to come down here. I know we 
can debate this for 30 hours under the rules--I believe that is right--
after cloture.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SHELBY. We are that close to passing a meaningful piece of 
legislation. We would like to pass it. We would like the House to pick 
it up quickly--either agree to it, amend it, or whatever, and get it to 
the President. The sooner, the better.
  This is not a perfect piece of legislation, but overall it has a lot 
of good things in it. I certainly urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________