[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 113 (Thursday, July 10, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6513-S6521]
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 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 amendment No. 5067 (to the motion to concur in the 
     amendment of the House adding a new title to the amendment of 
     the Senate), to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 5068 (to amendment No. 5067), of a 
     perfecting nature.


[[Page S6514]]


  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will be 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 
10 minutes each, and with the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, 
controlling the final 10 minutes.
  The Senator from Wyoming.


                                 ENERGY

  Mr. ENZI. I will be using some of the first of the Republican 
minutes. I thank the leader for his comments on energy. I too think we 
can get together and solve a huge problem for this country.
  I do want to make a clarification on the Republican bill that was put 
up. I do not want anybody to think that was comprehensive. The leader 
mentioned some things that were left out. I have got a number of 
matters that were left out of that bill that should be in there, except 
what we have a tendency to do in this body is to lump everything into 
one big bill. If a few people do not like this part and a few people do 
not like that part, then pretty quickly we cannot get a majority. So we 
need to do things in a smaller way. This will make a huge difference in 
the price of gasoline. The Republican bill would make a huge difference 
in the price of gasoline. But it is a package that we thought everyone 
could come together on. And somehow we are going to have to do that in 
this body if the United States is going to progress.
  We can bring down the gas price Goliath if Democrats and Republicans 
will work together to pass legislation that will help America find more 
oil as we use less. Actually we have to do both. If we increase the 
supply and we cut demand, we will beat this giant problem. If we use 
less and we find more, we will beat this giant problem.
  I had the privilege of traveling around Wyoming last week during the 
July 4 home work period. There is no question that gas prices are the 
No. 1 topic on everyone's mind. In Wyoming the rising price of gasoline 
and diesel fuel hits us hard, because our cities and towns are spread 
out and we are often forced to drive tens if not hundreds of miles to 
get groceries and to go to work. I am personally as concerned as are my 
constituents with the rising price of gasoline. I get angry when I fill 
up my vehicle and I am charged more than $4 a gallon for gas. I am 
skeptical when I hear the oil industry is making record profits and 
CEOs are taking home huge pay packages.
  Well, what can we do about that? Increasing taxes will not produce 
any more oil. It would raise the price of gas further, and probably 
drive production off our shores, so we would be paying for oil from 
other places.
  We do have a plan that would reduce gas prices. I have cosponsored S. 
3032, the aptly named Gas Price Reduction Act of 2008. It recognizes 
that the biggest problem we face is the problem of supply and demand.
  Right now America does not produce enough energy to meet our Nation's 
energy needs, but with increased efforts and innovation we could. We 
need to produce more domestic energy while we use less in the future. 
We need more American oil from American soil.
  By developing more American energy as we work to conserve our usage, 
we will secure America's energy future. In order to do that, though, we 
have to have agreement from the other side of the aisle that we do want 
to develop more energy sources. We do not have that agreement yet. I do 
not know how much longer those on the other side of the issue can hold 
out against their constituents who are hurting from the higher gas 
prices, but I hope it is not long. We need to get something done now.
  The bill I am cosponsoring is not perfect. It does not include 
everything I would like it to include. But it is a start. That is what 
we need, a start. We need to start doing something now to improve our 
Nation's energy situation. We need to stop playing ``gotcha'' politics 
and start coming together to start finding solutions. Congress should 
be addressing high energy prices by looking for solutions that produce 
more American energy while we reduce our usage. That is what those in 
control of both Houses of Congress do not seem to understand at this 
stage.
  The continued rise of gas prices is going to put an end to the dog-
and-pony show eventually, and when the dog-and-pony shows ends, and we 
stop playing ``gotcha'' politics, we need to start to take a look at 
our Nation's energy policy.
  We need to come together to increase our energy supply. We need to 
look at the energy situation in steps. Instead of trying to pass 
massive bills that have provisions a number of Members can't support, 
we should work on passing smaller, consensus bills. We need to put 
partisan differences aside to figure out what we can do to improve our 
energy situation. How do we lower gas prices? We find more, as we use 
less. We increase our oil supply, as we each seek to cut back the 
amount of gas we use. Increasing supply by getting more American oil 
from American soil while at the same time conserving will lessen our 
demand and bring prices down. We have choices to make. Do we meet this 
challenge head-on by finding more oil, using less, putting our back and 
our brains into the task of developing better ways to use what we have, 
or do we do what many would have us do and say it is too late or that 
it is the oil companies' fault or they blame the Government and look to 
lawyers to solve our problems?
  I have listened to my colleagues criticize the speculators who are, 
in theory, driving up oil prices. As the Wall Street Journal pointed 
out, Congress always needs a political villain and speculators always 
end up tied to the whipping post when people get upset about prices. We 
have an energy problem, but instead of looking at what we can do to fix 
the problem, we continue to play the blame game. My colleagues don't 
mention that the so-called speculators are often pension funds or 
airlines that want to stay in business and stabilize future fuel 
prices. My colleagues often fail to mention that for every person who 
is making money in the futures market, there is a person losing money.
  Major oil consumers need some certainty in this volatile market so 
they use the futures market to hedge their bets. They can't get 
certainty from Congress that we will produce more energy, so they need 
to find it somewhere.
  I am cosponsoring the Gas Price Reduction Act. I am cosponsoring 
clean coal measures. I am advocating American oil production and 
refining. I am also pushing to renew important tax credits for wind and 
solar power so that we can use more renewable energy. I am not ready to 
let the greatest Nation on Earth sink into poverty because we were not 
willing to help ourselves.
  I am also counting on the innovation of the American people. 
Americans are the most innovative people in the world. If they face a 
challenge, they will come up with solutions. I was part of the rocket 
generation. Sputnik went up when I was in junior high. Our generation 
figured out how to get a man on the Moon. We had the computer 
generation, and we have led the computer world. Then cell phones were 
the next generation. Now we need the energy generation. We need the 
kids to invent clean ways, better uses, and more production. It can be 
done in a good way.
  We are in the situation we face today because we haven't acted for 
years. We did not get in the situation overnight, and we won't get out 
of it overnight. What we can do is work to make the situation better. I 
am committed to working with colleagues to do just that. Let's stop 
playing the blame game and start working together to get things done. 
Moving forward with the Gas Price Reduction Act or, if not that 
specific bill, then parts of it, is what we have to do to bring prices 
down. If we don't move now, we may not be able to afford the gas so we 
can move into the future.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for talking about 
the energy situation and the price of gasoline. I have traveled my 
State hard. I know Senator Enzi knows his State like the back of his 
hand. He goes to every place in it repeatedly and talks to average 
people. They are hurting.
  Look at the numbers. In 1 year, over the last year, the average 
family drives 24,000 miles a year. The average family

[[Page S6515]]

is paying $105 a month more for gasoline for their automobiles than the 
previous year. You go back over, since 2003, it is $217. That is a new 
expense they never had before, and 60 percent of that money is sent 
abroad to purchase oil that we utilize because 60 percent of our fuel 
comes from abroad. It totals $500 to $700 billion in a wealth transfer 
each year now. It is unbelievable. T. Boone Pickens said it is the 
greatest wealth transfer in the history of the world and it is 
adversely affecting our economy, not just the fact that the family has 
less money now to take care of other needs. It has to go to gasoline so 
people can commute to work, in large part, I would submit, by the 
failure of this Congress to act.
  I have been speaking on these issues ever since I came here. I have 
been pointing out the need for increased production consistently. We 
produce off my coast in Alabama substantial amounts, but 85 percent of 
our offshore production is now blocked.
  We need to do this. We are talking about $105 more a month out of the 
family budget, so they can't purchase items with this money. It is 
rippling through the economy. It is not a ripple; it really is a 
tsunami.
  Let me point out some of the things in recent magazines and recent 
newspaper articles. Here from the New York Times yesterday:

       High fuel costs lead AirTran to cut 480 jobs. AirTran 
     announced it would eliminate 480 pilot and flight attendants' 
     jobs, joining a growing list of airlines that have cut their 
     workforces in the face of high fuel prices.

  The cost of jet fuel has risen 92 percent this year, which is almost 
double in 1 year.
  Here is the New York Times of July 8:

       Markets decline even as oil pulls back a little bit.

  The price dropped just a little.

       Wall Street, which has been hurtling stocks lower for the 
     past few weeks, remains fearful that consumers are trimming 
     their spending to pay for gasoline. With consumer spending 
     accounting for more than two-thirds of [U.S.] economic 
     activity, a pullback would create big ripples.

  Boy, I tell you, they are reducing spending; $105 less a month they 
have now to spend on other items because they are having to spend on it 
gasoline.
  Here is the Wall Street Journal the day before yesterday:

       Stock Drop Spooks Currency Investors: Oil Prices Still Key.
       . . . Janet Yellen [Federal Reserve Bank member], who made 
     surprisingly worrisome comments about inflation.
       ``The continuing rise in oil and commodities has certainly 
     raised the inflation risk.''

  It is just every day. Does anybody not understand this? I have to 
tell you, I have to say, and I have spoken about this several times, I 
am utterly disappointed in my Democratic colleagues for having no plan 
whatsoever to deal with this problem. It is just not a plan. I am 
willing to discuss how we can work together. I am not wedded to every 
single issue, I would say. I am willing to consider anything that will 
work. But I will tell you that the Democratic leader made a speech down 
here, and they offered a policy that proposes these things:
  Tax the oil companies; that would make us feel better. It might even 
be a good policy to raise revenue, perhaps. But it is not going to 
increase oil production to tax the people who do it. When you tax 
something, you get less of it. People cannot pass a law to repeal the 
law of supply and demand. You tax it, you will get less of it.
  No. 2, they want to prosecute, pass a law to empower the FTC to 
prosecute stations for price gouging. We already have a law that allows 
the FTC to do that. They say the gas stations are not prosecuting. They 
want to go prosecuting after speculators. Speculators are able to 
operate and be successful. I don't defend them. They are out to make a 
buck any way they can. They are able to do that because we have a 
demand for oil that is greater than supply. I think it is 86 million 
barrels of oil demand a day at this point and 85 supply. So they are 
able to maneuver in that thing and play this game and make themselves 
some extra money. But if we got the supply up and our demand down, they 
wouldn't be able to do this. They couldn't do it when we had $10-a-
barrel oil a decade or so ago.
  They want to sue OPEC. OPEC, what do they do? OPEC meets to decide 
the amount of oil they want to produce essentially, and that creates 
the shortages that are driving up the price. Eighty percent-plus of the 
oil in the world today is not held by oil companies. It is held by 
nation states, many of them hostile to the United States. OPEC meets to 
set the price by controlling the supply. They are reducing and not 
producing the oil that they could if this was a real free market. They 
are manipulating the market. OPEC meets to decide how much they are 
going to tax the consumers of the world and, in particular, how much 
they are going to tax us.
  I have to tell you, it is a dramatic thing that is happening. I am 
told that it costs less than $10 a barrel to produce oil from the sands 
of Saudi Arabia. Yet they are selling it for $140 a barrel. This is the 
kind of wealth transfer that is damaging our economy. It is hurting 
this Nation. It is something we have to confront with real policies 
that will work, and there are some.
  I happened to catch Jack Welch, former CEO of GE, on one of the 
morning talk shows not long ago. They were dealing with this question 
of Senator Obama and many of our colleagues here who say: Don't drill 
in Alaska; it might take 10 years. It wouldn't take quite that long, 
but they say 10 years. You shouldn't drill off the coast; that will 
take 10 years. Really, drilling off the coast, you begin to get 
production. They drill off my coast in Alabama right now, but there are 
other areas with lots of reserves. It would take 3 years, 5 years to 
get production.
  This is what Mr. Welch said. He said: It is amazing to me that a 
person who aspires to be the President of the United States would say 
he is not going to take a policy today that won't have an impact for 5 
years. Think about it. He went on to say: A President should be 
thinking 5, 15, 30 years down the road. We need to be doing the things 
that serve our long-term national interest. Just because it would take 
some time to have this go forward, we should not delay taking action.
  The matter is pretty serious. A Wall Street Journal article by Gerald 
Seib, executive editor, notes that there are three problems with the 
high prices of oil. One is that, of course, it impacts the family 
budget. The second is that the high prices weaken our Nation's economic 
independence because we owe so much money for it. Thirdly, the money is 
enriching countries, many of which are hostile to the United States.

  So I think we are at a point in time when we need to get together, 
Republicans and Democrats, and recognize that we face a problem that 
challenges our family budgets, that we have, in effect, taxed the 
American people, or allowed them to be taxed, by over $100 more a month 
in 1 year alone, that we can make a difference and bring those prices 
down--certainly stop the continuing increase. But we have to do 
something. There are things we can do.
  I will say, as a person who has been able, a few times, to go fishing 
on the gulf coast, we go out and fish under oil rigs because that is a 
good place to fish, and it is clean and there is no oil out on the 
water. They are very careful about that.
  We have approximately 51 billion barrels or more of recoverable 
reserves in the Gulf of Mexico. That is a lot. We use, as a nation, 5 
billion barrels a year, and 3 billion of that is imported. If you 
replaced that 3 billion, that would be 17 years right there just from 
offshore production in the Gulf of Mexico. We have 85 percent of our 
reserves still blocked. We have had production that is still being 
effective off the coast of California before that was blocked. None has 
been expanded since, in decades, and none, really, off the Atlantic 
coast. But there are reserves out there. States such as Virginia are 
talking about maybe that would be a good way to produce additional oil 
and serve the national interest.
  We have the opportunity to produce oil from shale. There are 1.8 
trillion barrels of oil in shale rock. Perhaps 800 billion of that is 
recoverable, experts tell us. We are using 5 billion a year, so that is 
100 years or more from shale rock. I am told they can produce that at 
less than the current world price, keeping wealth at home, producing 
our energy at home, not sending that abroad.
  I will tell you, one of the greatest potential breakthroughs that 
could help us with global warming emissions and

[[Page S6516]]

other areas is hybrid automobiles, particularly a plug-in hybrid. I 
strongly believe we should--my time is up.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 1 additional moment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to 1 additional 
minute?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will conclude by saying that nuclear 
power produces no emissions into the air. We need to expand it. We are 
at 20 percent now in our Nation. We have not built a plant in 30 years. 
France has 80 percent. We could plug in our cars at night, charge those 
batteries with clean nuclear electricity, and run back and forth to 
work. That is within our grasp right now.
  Those are the kinds of things we need to be talking about: expanding 
wind, expanding biofuels, expanding the production of our existing 
resources, keeping American wealth at home, ending this incredible 
transfer of wealth.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. President.


                          Unifinshed Business

  Mr. President, I, too, want to talk about high gasoline prices, but I 
want to talk about other unfinished business this Senate has not taken 
care of. Fortunately, we do have one positive development; that is, 
yesterday we passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--after 
145 days had lapsed. So that is a good thing. But we have unfinished 
work to do.
  For example, the Colombian Free Trade Agreement--it has been 597 days 
that our American farmers and manufacturers have been disadvantaged by 
tariffs on goods sold here in America. For my State of Texas, there is 
$2.3 billion a year that is charged in tariffs for our exports when 
they are imported into Colombia, when Colombian goods bear no similar 
tariff when their goods are imported into the United States.
  Then there is the matter of judicial nominees waiting for a vote--
some as long as 742 days.
  Then, finally, on the matter of gasoline prices, it was about 808 
days ago when Speaker Pelosi said that if she and other Democrats were 
put in charge, they would come up with a commonsense plan for bringing 
down the price of gasoline at the pump. Well, that was when gasoline 
was about $2.33 a gallon. Now gasoline averages $4.10 a gallon, and we 
are still waiting for that commonsense plan to bring down the price of 
gasoline at the pump.
  Increasingly, Americans are squeezed by the high cost of gasoline. Of 
course, it is driving up everything from food prices to competing with 
people's ability to pay for their housing, their health care, 
transportation, and, obviously, the tax bite, where State and local and 
Federal taxes take up a huge amount. About 111 days of income is used 
just to pay for that tax burden.
  But what we need to do, I firmly believe, is to find more domestic 
energy as we use less. What do I mean by that? By using less, we need 
to conserve, we need to be more efficient. America consumes about 20 
percent of the world's oil supply, and unfortunately, about 60 percent 
of that we import from foreign sources. We are literally held hostage 
by groups such as OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting 
Countries, countries such as Venezuela and Hugo Chavez and others that 
are charging us about $140 a barrel for oil. Of course, that oil is 
used to make gasoline at refineries.
  But my constituents in Texas are very worried about the failure of 
Congress to act by removing the impediments or the moratoria on 
developing what is about 85 percent of our natural resources here at 
home. That is what I mean by finding more while we use less.
  For example, Debra, from Lovelady, TX--a town of roughly 600 people, 
just a ``Texas mile'' north of Houston--recently wrote me this letter. 
She said:

       I am a school teacher in a small rural East Texas school, 
     so my income is very limited. I drive almost 30 miles one way 
     to work each day as do many of my family and neighbors. We 
     have chosen to stay in small towns for the ``everyone is 
     family'' feeling they still give, but it makes it harder to 
     live with the cost of everything rising.

  She said:

       The rising price of gasoline is limiting everything I do. I 
     will not make a trip to town unless it is for my monthly 
     shopping needs or to go to church. There will be no summer 
     trips for me this year as I do not see a way to afford 
     driving anywhere.

  She concludes:

       I know there are vast resources America could tap into. . . 
     . Please look into exploring the energy resources we already 
     have in America.

  Well, I believe Debra speaks for a lot of people in this country now 
as they see their prices go up, as it is driving commodity prices up, 
such as food costs. They are finding it harder and harder to make it, 
even if they do have a job, even if they have an income.
  I believe it is past time for Congress to respond by removing the 
impediments to domestic production. That is why I cosponsored the Gas 
Price Reduction Act of 2008. That act can be summed up, as this chart 
says: Find more and use less. It opens up offshore and shale oil 
deposits for exploration so America's energy producers can gain access 
to Federal lands. This also will create jobs right here in America, 
which is something I would think we would want to do. In a time when we 
are talking about economic stimulus, about concern for the economy, 
don't we want to create more jobs here in America rather than having 
those jobs created in places such as Saudi Arabia or Mexico or Canada 
or Venezuela?
  At the same time, this bill increases research and development 
initiatives and for battery-operated plug-in hybrid technology. I think 
it is hard for many of my constituents in Texas, with the long 
distances they have to drive, to imagine a day when they will be 
driving a battery-operated hybrid car, but I do predict the day is 
coming, and companies such as General Motors and other car 
manufacturers, in 2010, will begin selling these plug-in hybrid cars 
that you can literally plug into a wall socket at night and recharge 
the battery and then drive about 40 miles on that battery before you 
have to get a generator to recharge the battery to provide you 
additional range. This is in our future. Right now we have about 240 
million cars on the road, and the average age of those cars is about 9 
years. So obviously it is going to take a long time--about a decade--
before we can transition from the kinds of gas guzzlers and cars that 
we drive now to something that provides an additional alternative.
  I think we are beginning to see some cracks in the intransigence of 
many in Congress to preventing additional domestic production. I know 
there are a number of Senators, a fabled group called the Group of 10, 
the Gang of 10--5 Republicans, 5 Democrats--who are meeting to try to 
come up with a bipartisan alternative. I applaud that effort. It is 
really important because, as we all know, nothing happens around here 
unless it is on a bipartisan basis. I think it is very important, as I 
saw the Democratic whip say that he was not opposed to more exploration 
and production.
  I would invite those who are worried about exploration and production 
here in America to fly into DFW Airport where you can see gas wells 
being drilled into the Barnett shale right there from your airplane as 
you land or as you take off. It is being done using modern drilling 
technology which is compatible with the safety and security of the 
neighbors as well as a good environment.
  We need to act in a bipartisan fashion on real energy solutions--a 
combination of conservation and energy production. It will be good for 
America's economy and our energy policy, as well as our national 
security. Find more, use less.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority time has expired.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  (The remarks of Mr. Feingold pertaining to the introduction of S. 
3237 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today, I rise to express my support for 
the Housing and Economic Recovery Act.
  The housing crisis in America has reached critical proportions. In 
Auburn, WA, Michelle was a single mom with an income that made it very 
difficult to find an apartment she could afford. Like so many people, 
she searched desperately to find a roof to put over her children's 
heads. The search is not easy. The search is not fair. But for the 
hundreds of thousands

[[Page S6517]]

of Americans that need affordable housing today, the search is a 
reality.
  The number of renter households jumped by nearly 1 million last year, 
according to a Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies 
Report. And monthly rents are reaching record highs. Last year, they 
climbed to an all time sky high of $775.
  We are faced with a fundamental supply and demand problem: a 
ballooning renter population and a diminishing supply of affordable 
housing.
  This is a problem that requires a real solution. And today, I am 
proud to say that we have taken action to put people like Michelle in 
the homes they so desperately need and deserve.
  This action did not come without the hard work of many people. I 
especially want to commend Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, Senator 
Grassley, and their staffs. Because of their hard work, we have 
included in this comprehensive housing and economic recovery package a 
set of provisions that encourage the development of affordable rental 
housing by expanding and improving the low-income housing tax credit. I 
also want to recognize the tremendous leadership of House Ways and 
Means Committee Chairman Rangel, who has long been an advocate for 
affordable housing and a champion of the tax credit program.
  Because of current conditions in the financial markets, the 
development of many affordable housing options has come to a screeching 
halt. And for the hundreds of thousands of homeowners that must now 
turn to rental housing, the homes they could afford are diminishing at 
an alarming pace.
  I knew this was a critical problem that needed a solution. Many of my 
colleagues, including Senators Kerry and Smith, agreed. We worked 
together to ensure that the tax title of this bill contains the 
provision that will extend the reach of two of our most successful and 
broadly supported Federal housing programs: the Housing Bond and Low-
Income Housing Tax Credit Programs.
  We now have the best cumulative version of what the Senate and House 
independently approved.
  The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program was created as part of the 
Tax Reform Act of 1986 and made permanent in 1993. Designed as a 
public-private funding partnership, largely administered by the States, 
this program built its way into the history books as the most 
successful production program in existence.
  These tax credits have created 2 million homes for families in need--
homes with restricted rents for terms of at least 30 years that would 
have otherwise been impossible.
  In fact, in April 2007, Michelle from Auburn, WA, moved into one of 
these homes created by tax credits. She is thriving and able to provide 
for her children. Without tax credits like these, I am unsure where 
Michelle and her family would be.
  We are building opportunity out of this past success and passing this 
opportunity on to the Americans who need it.
  This will work now to increase the number of affordable choices 
available to our neighbors in need. State agencies award housing tax 
credits to housing developers, who turn the credits into construction 
funds by selling them to investors. These funds allow developers to 
borrow less money and pass the savings on to renters in the forms of 
lower rental rates.
  A classic ``win-win'' situation.
  By extending the reach of this program in the tax title of this bill, 
we give States the flexibility they need to develop housing credit 
properties in hard-to-serve, often rural, areas; we give investors 
needed AMT relief for housing bonds, housing credits, and 
rehabilitation credits; and we give our vulnerable neighbors, like 
Michelle, the homes they need.
  It is critically important that Congress's response to the housing 
crisis not leave out those in need of affordable rental housing. I am 
proud of this legislation and am anxious to see it enacted into law.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that we are at last moving 
closer to enactment of much-needed housing legislation.
  The foreclosure situation in my State of Michigan continues to be 
dire. In 2007, there were more than 103,000 foreclosures. According to 
the data released recently by RealtyTrac, there were nearly 13,000 
Michigan foreclosure filings in May alone, a 25 percent increase from 
the previous month. That is one foreclosure filing for every 353 
households, which puts our State's foreclosure rate at the fifth 
highest in the Nation. Nationwide, filings are up nearly 50 percent 
compared to this time last year, with one in every 483 U.S. households 
receiving a foreclosure filing in May.
  Sadly, we all know that homeowners facing foreclosure are not the 
only ones being impacted by this crisis. Property values have plummeted 
in many areas, due in part to the glut of abandoned and foreclosed 
homes. Lost property values moreover translate into decreased State and 
local revenue from property taxes, creating a shortfall in revenues and 
reducing the budget available for valuable State and local programs and 
services.
  Our Nation's broader economic woes can also be traced back, at least 
in part, to the foreclosure crisis. There is a long chain of investors, 
lenders, and financial markets relying on American homebuyers to pay 
what, in many instances, are shaky home loans. Because of the record 
defaults on these loans, credit remains tight.
  Throughout this crisis I have received wise counsel from many experts 
on foreclosure prevention and housing matters. Earlier this year I 
hosted a series of roundtable meetings in Michigan communities with 
leaders from local and State government, as well as organizations who 
are in the trenches working with families facing foreclosure, to 
discuss practical ways to help homeowners and protect our economy from 
further damage. Many of the ideas discussed at those roundtables are 
included in this legislation.
  I have also had the benefit of advice from Bernie Glieberman, 
chairman of the board of the Michigan State Housing Development 
Authority, and member of the board of the Michigan Housing Trust Fund 
and Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies policy 
advisory board. Long before the committees started crafting this 
housing bill, Bernie brought to my attention the idea of increasing 
tax-exempt bonding authority to enable State housing agencies to help 
struggling homeowners acquire more affordable mortgages. I am pleased 
that this bill will bring this additional bonding authority to 
fruition. I am confident that the Michigan State Housing Development 
Authority, MSHDA, and other State housing agencies across the Nation 
will put it to good use. These tax-exempt bonds will help agencies like 
MSHDA raise the funds needed to refinance homeowners from adjustable 
rate mortgages into affordable fixed-rate mortgages, as well as provide 
loans for first-time homebuyers and finance the construction of multi-
family residential housing.
  This bill has a number of other provisions that will help alleviate 
the suffering caused by the foreclosure crisis. Arguably the most 
important provision in this bill is the HOPE for Homeowners program, 
which will enable the Federal Housing Administration to provide 
groundbreaking new refinancing options to distressed borrowers. Through 
this temporary new program, the Federal Housing Administration, FHA, is 
authorized to insure up to $300 billion in 30-year, fixed-rate 
mortgages. I applaud the work of Senator Dodd and others of our 
colleagues in putting this FHA refinancing proposal together. It is 
based on the successful Home Owner's Loan Corporation that was 
implemented by President Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression 
to issue new loans to help homeowners in default.
  It is important to note that this new program is not an investor or 
lender bailout. FHA will only insure loans at 90 percent of the current 
property value, which in most cases is significantly less than the 
original loan amount. Investors and lenders who choose to take 
advantage of this program must, therefore, be willing to take a hit. 
They will likely be willing to take this loss, however, because it will 
be less than the losses associated with foreclosure. Also, this is 
hardly a windfall for distressed borrowers, as some are claiming. Those 
who sign up for the FHA insured loans will share their new equity and 
future appreciation with FHA by paying a premium--3 percent initially, 
1.5 percent annually thereafter--for the FHA loan. They are also 
required to give a portion of the

[[Page S6518]]

equity from sale proceeds for this home back to FHA. I am pleased to 
note that this program, which is estimated to help nearly 400,000 
homeowners nationwide, will not cost taxpayers money; in fact, it is 
expected to net $250 million.
  Not only does this bill take significant steps to help keep families 
in their homes, it provides immediate help toward rehabilitating 
blighted neighborhoods. The nearly $4 billion in CDBG-like funding 
provided through this bill will go to areas of the country with the 
highest foreclosure rates and number of filings. Michigan stands to 
receive almost $170 million through this provision, and the funds could 
be used to restore an estimated 6,000 properties. Inclusion of these 
neighborhood stabilization funds will help protect more homeowners from 
going ``underwater,'' and I urge Members in the House to support 
keeping this provision in the final bill.
  Our economic crisis is exacerbated further by the fact that we are a 
nation at war. Our brave and dedicated soldiers should not have to 
return to U.S. soil to find that, facing foreclosure action, they no 
longer have a home. I am pleased that this bill will delay foreclosure 
action for returning soldiers and also provide them 1 year of relief 
from increases in mortgage rates. The bill also provides additional 
homeownership opportunities for veterans through increases in the VA 
loan guarantee amount. There is also funding for home modifications for 
veterans with service-related disabilities.
  In addition to the provisions in this bill that help alleviate the 
suffering of the many families in dire straits, this legislation will 
help stimulate the slumping housing market and help to ease the broader 
economic slowdown.
  One key provision of this bill is a 1-year, $8,000 tax credit 
available for first-time homebuyers. The homebuyer would repay the 
money over time, similar to an interest-free loan. I have heard from 
realtors, prospective buyers, home builders and many others who believe 
this would help reduce the existing stock of vacant housing.
  The availability of quality, affordable housing is critical to the 
economic health of America. This legislation would help create 
additional affordable rental housing and increased homeownership 
opportunities for low-income families by creating a new Housing Trust 
Fund and a Capital Magnet Fund. These funds, which would be provided as 
grants to States, would greatly help those who need it most because the 
funds are required to be used primarily for the benefit of low-income 
families. The bill also provides incentives to spur development of 
affordable housing property by the private sector through increases to 
current programs such as the Low Income Housing Tax Credit.
  It is not enough to simply alleviate the Nation's present suffering 
and get us back on track for the time being. Congress has a 
responsibility to do what it can to ensure that a housing crisis of 
this sort does not happen again. To that end, this bill contains a 
number of provisions aimed at helping homeowners avoid foreclosure and 
reforming major Federal players in the housing market: the Federal 
Housing Administration and the housing government-sponsored 
enterprises, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
  As I observed during the roundtable discussions I hosted in Michigan, 
many counselors are doing good work on the ground to try and help 
families avoid foreclosure. However, foreclosure prevention counselors 
are overwhelmed, and a lack of funds is tying the hands of local groups 
trying to help keep families on track. This bill would provide $150 
million for pre-foreclosure counseling and $30 million for legal 
services to help keep people in their homes.
  This bill also establishes a new, independent regulator for the 
housing Government Sponsored Enterprises, GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac. Through capital standards, audits and other internal controls, 
this regulator will oversee the safety and soundness of these financial 
giants who play such a key role in our housing markets.
  I am pleased that this bill also incorporates long-awaited 
legislation to modernize and expand the Federal Housing Administration. 
These reforms will help provide access to homeownership to families in 
higher cost areas who have not been able to take advantage of the FHA 
program in the past, by raising the FHA loan limit. It will also 
provide counseling for first-time homebuyers as well as homeowners who 
are having trouble making their mortgage payments through FHA, and 
improve the FHA loss mitigation process to help struggling homeowners 
stay in their homes.
  Finally, many blame predatory lending practices, at least in part, 
for the excessive number of irresponsible loans made to subprime 
borrowers. In response, this bill amends the Truth in Lending Act, 
TILA, to, among other things, require that borrowers be informed of the 
maximum monthly payments possible under their loan, and ensure full 
disclosures are provided no later than 7 days before closing so 
borrowers can shop for another loan if they are dissatisfIed with the 
terms. In order to discourage unscrupulous behavior, statutory damages 
for TILA violations have been increased 10-fold, from current rates of 
$200 and $400 to $2,000 and $4,000, respectively.
  I support this comprehensive housing legislation, and am confident 
that, once enacted, it will provide much-needed relief to many 
struggling homeowners in Michigan and across the country. Addressing 
the foreclosure crisis will require a team effort among Federal, State, 
and local governments, community and neighborhood organizations, and 
lenders, brokers, and borrowers. This bill recognizes that fact. It 
provides an opportunity to help keep struggling families in their 
homes. It provides an opportunity to help restore our housing markets 
by keeping declining property values stable. It will protect 
neighborhoods from a glut of vacant homes. I will continue to work with 
my colleagues to get this bill passed, and, if need be, to overcome a 
Presidential veto. This legislation cannot come too soon.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, the Senator 
from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, we are nearing the end of a long debate in 
the Senate dealing with what some people call the housing bill, but as 
we know, it is more than housing. One of the big titles in it deals 
with the reform of the government-sponsored enterprises--GSEs commonly 
known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as the Federal Home Loan 
Bank Board.
  We know that we are in a housing crisis in this country. We have a 
lot more houses than we probably need right now, and we have a lot of 
people who are going to be facing foreclosure. So, working together 
with Senator Dodd and our staffs, we have tried to come up with a plan 
to give thousands of people an opportunity for some relief. It is not a 
Government bailout. It is not taxpayers' money. It gives them an 
opportunity--assuming a lender is about to foreclose on someone--to get 
together with someone else who has borrowed money and say: Look, if you 
can get this refinanced through the FHA modernization plan, if we can 
do that and we can cut down on the value of the mortgage--take a 
haircut, so to speak--this is better than a foreclosure.
  Lenders know the worst thing in the world for them is foreclosure. 
Borrowers know that too, because it is a dangerous game people play. 
Going back to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac situation, we know they 
play a huge role--a central role--in our housing, but we also know that 
together they owe a little over $5 trillion; $5 trillion in debt, and 
they are thinly capitalized because they are government-sponsored 
enterprises. They have the implicit guarantee of the taxpayer--the U.S. 
Government, basically. I have no reason to believe we would let them go 
under because there is a lot at stake. The way to keep them from 
getting in worse financial shape is to create a strong regulator that 
will monitor them closer than they have been in the past to make sure 
they have adequate capital.
  With Senator Dodd's 28 years and my 22 years on the Banking 
Committee, we have 50 years. In our combined 50 years on the Banking 
Committee, we have seen financial debacles. We have seen good times and 
bad times. What we are trying to do is prevent as many headaches and 
hardships as we can, not only to homeowners but ultimately to the 
American people by reforming GSEs. I hope this is a big first step 
today.
  I wish to take a minute to commend my colleague, Senator Dodd, 
chairman

[[Page S6519]]

of the Banking Committee. As I enjoyed my 4 years serving as chairman, 
I also enjoy working with Senator Dodd and his staff. I wish to commend 
his staff as well as my staff, our Republican staff on the Banking 
Committee, including Bill Duhnke, Mark Oesterle and others, for all the 
work they have done here, night and day, and it is not over yet.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first let me thank my colleague from 
Alabama, Senator Shelby. He makes it sound like Methuselah this morning 
referring to those years we have served together in the Senate, 
combined years of service. I have been a member of the Banking 
Committee since my first day as a Member of this body in January of 
1981. I have served under and with a lot of different people on that 
committee, going back to Bill Proxmire of Wisconsin, who was the 
ranking Democrat in those days; Jake Garn, who was the chairman of the 
Banking Committee in 1981, the Senator from Utah. Over the years, 
Senator Riegle, Phil Gramm, and Paul Sarbanes, of course, chaired the 
committee, as well as, of course, Senator Shelby.
  This is an important moment for this body. We have a severe housing 
crisis in the country. I don't need to keep repeating that. All Members 
recognize it. When we go home and talk to our constituents, as we did 
over the last week or so, we see that this problem is not going away. 
We were hoping that somehow the market would be taking care of all of 
this and by now we would be seeing that proverbial light at the end of 
the tunnel, but the only light we see is the light of a train coming. 
Unless we act promptly, we are looking at a situation that will only 
get worse.
  Our legislation is not the salvation of every problem. I wish to make 
clear to my colleagues that what Senator Shelby and I and the other 19 
members of our committee have done is to fashion some proposals that we 
think will make a significant contribution to the issue, maybe the most 
important one being a sense of optimism and confidence that this 
Congress of ours, despite the narrow margins that split us as two 
parties in this body, can actually work together to get something done.
  There is a growing fear in the country--in fact, more than growing--
that we are incapable of doing much here; that we can't seem to get 
much done because of the partisan divide. This bill argues strenuously 
against that conclusion. By a vote of 19 to 2, this committee marked up 
this piece of legislation.
  We have now been on the Senate floor debating this because of the 
very difficult parliamentary situation we are presented with as a 
result of what the House of Representatives sent us, so we have spent 
this much time on this legislation. However, I think we have a very 
good product reflected by the votes that have occurred over the last 
several weeks. I think the lowest vote total on any single proposal 
that has been either offered or suggested has been something like 77 
votes, showing that an overwhelming majority of people are supporting 
this committee product, and we appreciate that as members of the 
Banking Committee.
  So this action is coming none too soon. Today the RealtyTrac reported 
that over 250,000 families went into foreclosure in the month of June. 
That is a 53-percent increase over last year. We all throw these 
statistics around rather easily in this Chamber, but numbers, while 
staggering, are faceless and nameless. Behind every one of these 
numbers, that 250,000, that 53-percent increase, is a mother, is a 
father, is a family, and children whose lives have been unalterably 
changed for the worse because they are going to lose their home. They 
are going to lose their home.
  Just imagine, if you will, those who have not been in that situation, 
what it would be like to wake up this morning and know that you have a 
foreclosure notice on your home, that you can't meet your obligations 
and you have to face your children, you have to face your spouse, you 
have to face your coworkers, and you have to find some other place to 
live. Mr. President, 250,000 people went through that in the month of 
June, 1,500,000 over the last year, and we are still here debating this 
bill and whether we can do anything to make a difference in people's 
lives.
  What is happening today is a tragedy, a significant tragedy for these 
people, for their neighbors, for their communities, and for our 
country. The cover story in this week's issue of Business Week is 
entitled ``The Home Price Abyss: Why the Threat of a Free Fall is 
Growing.'' I think the article sums up very well the threat we are 
trying to address with this legislation.
  Let me quote from it:

       The risk to the financial system and the economy is that 
     the price drop, which is already horrifying, will start 
     feeding on itself.

  It goes on to say:

       When home values fall low enough, hard-pressed homeowners 
     become less able or less willing to keep paying their 
     mortgages. That forces lenders to repossess homes and then 
     dump them back on the market at fire sale prices, which 
     depresses further the prices in those neighborhoods and leads 
     to even more foreclosures.

  When we consider the role home equity has played in supporting 
consumer spending, we can see that this vicious cycle can create a 
disaster. We have already had hundreds of thousands of job losses and 
the like. I think we all recognize we have a responsibility to act.
  Today, we have an opportunity to pass the Housing and Economic 
Recovery Act of 2008, which will help us begin to address this crisis 
and the larger economic turmoil. I wish to add that we would have liked 
to have considered other amendments. Other colleagues had ideas to add 
to this bill. Because of a handful of Members who don't want any more 
consideration, we are forced into this situation. A number of 
amendments had been worked out between Democrats and Republicans, but 
we cannot even offer those. That is the situation. I regret that 
because there were some good ideas, frankly, that could have been added 
to the bill as it leaves here. But that is the situation. Candidly, we 
cannot wait longer, having gone weeks going through the parliamentary 
rigmarole on the floor of the Senate.
  I will sum up again the legislation we are about to pass and send on 
to the House. The bill establishes the Hopeful Homeowners Act to assist 
at least 400,000, maybe 500,000 families to keep their homes and 
stabilize their neighborhoods. It does so after asking both lenders and 
borrowers to make financial sacrifices. It does so at absolutely no 
cost to the taxpayer. It creates a new class of regulation for Fannie 
Mae and Freddie Mac.
  You can look in the Wall Street Journal of this morning if you doubt 
whether we should act or we can wait longer. The headline is: ``U.S. 
Mulls Future of Fannie, Freddie.'' If you think we ought to wait longer 
to try to get something better out of the bill, consider what we may 
have happen to these GSEs, which are critical to providing stability in 
the housing market. The world-class regulator, which is something we 
tried to do over the last 7 years, is finally done in this bill on a 
bipartisan basis. Recent news makes it clear these entities need a 
strong regulator to ensure they are viable and healthy institutions.
  The bill raises the loan limit from $417,000 to as high as $625,000, 
so the GSEs can play a more active role in stabilizing the housing 
market. I wish to point out that this loan limit is considerably higher 
than what was included in the committee-passed bill. Senator Shelby, to 
his credit, and I agreed to do this in an effort to accommodate the 
interest of the other body, the House. And also the people who live in 
higher cost States, the higher numbers will be important for them to 
get relief as well from the bill.
  Treasury Secretary Paulson said passing this legislation is the most 
important thing we can do to address the housing crisis. The bill 
modernizes the FHA program, raising the loan limit from $362,000 to 
$625,000. The FHA proved its value in the current crisis. It continues 
to be a stable source of mortgage credit, while many other lenders have 
failed. This bill will make sure FHA is available to even more American 
families.
  To give you some idea of how this affects people, by raising these 
limits to the $625,000 level from $417,000, we will now cover 85 
percent of the American population and 98 percent of the counties in 
America. The other 2 percent are the very high-cost counties. My

[[Page S6520]]

State has one of them, and several other States across the country do 
as well. But 85 percent of the American people are potentially covered 
by this bill, and 98 percent of the counties will be covered by the 
numbers we have raised from $417,000 to $625,000. When people tell you 
we are not reaching enough, we have reached about as far as you can 
reach if you are interested in helping those who may face more serious 
problems.
  The bill includes a permanent affordable housing fund, financed by 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that will provide tens of thousands of 
affordable housing units in the future. Let me say, about this part of 
the bill, the GSE reform will be long lasting and important. The HOPE 
for Homeowners Act is temporary; it doesn't exist after 3 or 4 years. 
Maybe the most important thing we will do is the affordable housing 
issue in this bill. No new tax money required. The money will come out 
of the GSEs. We know, as a matter of fact, that we have built very few 
affordable housing units in this country over the last number of years. 
And particularly those people losing their homes will have a hard time 
finding rental units. This is a permanent bill on affordable housing, 
and there is a means to pay for it without adding to the taxpayers' 
costs. It is one of the most important long-lasting features of the 
bill. In the long term, that bill will make a huge difference for 
millions of people.
  Seventeen million people today spend half their disposable income on 
their houses. If you are on SSI, in fact, housing costs exceed the 
monthly benefits you get today under SSI. For millions of people in 
this country, that affordable housing provision can be very important 
in the long term.
  The bill includes a new protection for elderly homeowners taking out 
FHA-insured reverse mortgages so they are not deceived into using the 
proceeds from the loans to buy expensive and needless insurance 
products. These are provisions that were incorporated by Senator 
McCaskill, and we thank her for it. There is a new mortgage broker and 
lender licensing requirement that was added by Senator Martinez and 
supported by Senator Feinstein from California. That will begin to 
address many of the abuses of the mortgage process that have been 
perpetrated by brokers.
  In addition, the bill includes improved disclosure requirements that 
were added by Senator Reed of Rhode Island and Senator Bond of Missouri 
as well. Because of the effort of Senators Kerry, Coleman, Akaka, 
Cornyn, and Sanders, the bill expands the availability of VA housing 
programs. It includes a number of provisions to help returning veterans 
save their homes from foreclosure and provides new housing benefits to 
disabled vets as well.
  In an amendment adopted on the floor prior to the recess, we added 
language by Senator Kohl of Wisconsin to create protections against 
foreclosure scams, and we reduced paperwork burdens on certain small 
public housing authorities, thanks to the amendment by Senator Sununu.
  This legislation includes $3.9 billion in emergency community 
development block grant funds. This is a controversial provision. I 
know some Members have raised concerns about it. I think all of us 
recognize that when we talk about a national crisis, with problems of 
foreclosures having a devastating effect in our States, obviously, 
resources locally, with property taxes declining for police and fire, 
and the like, our mayors and county officers are finding themselves 
further hard-strapped to meet their obligations. We thought an infusion 
of community development block grant money, targeted specifically to 
those communities that face high foreclosure rates, would be of benefit 
to them to help them rehabilitate their communities and the foreclosed 
homes and get them back on the market. This is still in the bill.
  I have been warned by Members of the other body that this provision 
will have to come out. I know some Members want to strike it. It is 
going to stay in the bill that is going to the other body. They object 
to it because they don't have a pay-for in it, and we do here. We call 
it emergency funding, as we do when we have hurricanes or other natural 
disasters occurring. This is similar to a natural disaster. If you are 
one of those 250,000 families who, in the month of June, lost their 
homes--whether by flood or by hurricane, believe me, it is a disaster. 
They lost it because they got lured into deals they could not afford or 
because there was a scam or deceptive practices going on. Don't try to 
tell that family they have not faced a disaster. It is not a natural 
one, but nonetheless it is a disaster. The idea that we cannot provide 
additional funding to mayors and county executives to help out 
communities is something I am troubled by. It may come out of the bill 
when it comes back. I urge them to look hard at this and try to find a 
funding source.

  I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 or 10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am going to object, and I will explain 
why. We have a committee hearing we are working through this vote, and 
so I do object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DODD. I will yield that time to my colleague from New Jersey.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey is 
recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut for 
his leadership. I rise to express my disappointment that it appears 
that the managers' package is being blocked by one or two of my friends 
on the other side of the aisle. This package includes, among other 
important provisions, my amendment, offered by family and children 
organizations across the country, to help children who are the silent 
victims of the housing crisis.
  My amendment authorizes $30 million in additional funding into the 
existing McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Program to support children 
directly impacted by foreclosures. There are about 2 million children 
in this country, including 50,000 in New Jersey and over half a million 
Latino children nationwide, who will be directly impacted by the 
foreclosure crisis, placing them at risk of poor school performance, 
behavior problems, and other challenges as well.
  While we provide lower interest rates supporting the homebuilding 
industry and reform mortgage lending practices, several children's 
organizations and educational organizations have asked for this 
amendment as a modest way that our Nation can support the nearly 2 
million children who are suffering the consequences of decisions made 
completely outside their control.
  The foreclosure crisis is damaging our economy. Let us not forget 
that the children who have no say, no ability to make a difference in 
their lives, are the real victims of this crisis and, even worse, they 
are the silent victims. It is not fair these children get lost in the 
paperwork or in the politics of one Member, and they deserve our full 
support.
  This amendment was being cosponsored by several colleagues. We worked 
with Senator Enzi, who had original jurisdiction, along with Senator 
Kennedy, to get the language right. We appreciate Senator Shelby having 
it in the managers' package. If that cannot move forward, these 
children will be left unprotected. That is a disgrace.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has expired.
  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 
     disagree to the amendments of the House, adding a new title 
     and inserting a new section, to the amendment of the Senate 
     to H.R. 3221, the Foreclosure Prevention Act.

  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 disagree to the amendments of the House, adding a new title 
and inserting a new section to the amendment of the Senate to H.R. 
3221, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory 
under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), 
the Senator from Massachusetts

[[Page S6521]]

(Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 84, nays 12, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 170 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     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--12

     Barrasso
     Bond
     Bunning
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Clinton
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 84, the nays are 
12. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Cloture having been invoked on the motion to disagree to the two 
remaining House amendments, the motion offered by the majority leader 
to concur with an amendment to the first such House amendment falls.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, under an order entered yesterday with 
respect to Executive Calendar Nos. 665 and 666, I now ask unanimous 
consent that upon conclusion of the cloture vote with respect to the 
House message to accompany H.R. 3221, regardless of the outcome, the 
Senate proceed to executive session to consider the nominations as 
provided for under the conditions and limitations of the previous 
order; further, that upon conclusion of the debate or yielding back of 
time on the nominations, the nominations be set aside until 2 p.m. 
today, at which time the Senate then proceed to vote on confirmation, 
as specified in the previous order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, I have 
been advised by Senators Dodd and Shelby that they likely will be able 
to finish their work on the housing bill today.
  We have also pending a cloture vote tomorrow morning on the PEPFAR 
bill. I have had a conversation with the Republican assistant leader 
and we kind of know where we are on this issue. We could, with consent, 
move that vote up today or do it in the morning. Whatever, we on this 
side would be satisfied to do it today.
  I have had a conversation with Senator Biden, who has helped a great 
deal on this piece of legislation, and he said he was going to confer 
with Senator Lugar to see if the last kinks can be worked out. Frankly, 
that is doubtful. So we can either have that cloture vote in the 
morning or this afternoon, and we await the word of the minority as to 
what they wish to do on that issue.

                          ____________________