[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.
____________________