[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 114 (Friday, July 11, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6585-S6595]
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 motion to disagree to the two 
amendments of the House 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.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The senior Senator from Wyoming is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Would the Senator from Wyoming yield for a unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. ENZI. I would.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the 
Senator from Wyoming concludes his remarks that I be recognized.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                              Aids Relief

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I have been waiting to speak and listening 
to the Senate leader. I have to say, I am a little disappointed. In the 
20 minutes' worth of remarks, I did not hear anything that would bring 
the two sides together. Instead, I saw wedges being driven in there. 
This is not the time when we need wedges. That is the reason the public 
opinion of Congress is at an alltime low. There are things we need to 
get together on. That is one of the things I am going to talk about 
now.
  I rise to express my support for the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde 
United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and 
Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008.
  That is a mouthful, so we are referring to it as PEPFAR, which stands 
for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which is something 
we passed several years ago that has made a significant difference in 
the world. Simply put, this legislation is proof of the fact that the 
United States continues to put its money where its mouth is on all 
these terrible diseases; that is, leading the best way by example. By 
so doing, we are encouraging other countries to do their part and help 
to ease the devastating toll of these diseases on the less fortunate.
  In 2003, the Congress passed and the President signed into law the 
first global AIDS bill. I remember when the President addressed us in 
the State of the Union speech that year and announced he wanted $15 
billion to go into solving the AIDS problem worldwide. I think it was 
actually a shock on both sides of the aisle. But we went to work and we 
worked together and we got a plan that has been in effect.
  We made an aggressive commitment to work with other governments to 
help them take action and to try to

[[Page S6586]]

control the spread of HIV/AIDS in their country.
  When we began our work on this bill and started to discuss the need 
for a program that would address the spread of HIV/AIDS overseas, many 
had doubts that we could reach the goals we had set. There were some 
who thought we were reaching too far too fast and that we could never 
come close to making the kind of impact to which we had committed 
ourselves.
  Fortunately, we have succeeded beyond what many thought was possible. 
Since the program has been implemented, our community outreach 
activities that were designed to begin the process of prevention by 
education have reached nearly 61.5 million people. Although there is 
still much more to be done, we are finding that we have turned the 
corner from the fear and frustration that was so prevalent in the past 
to a brighter avenue of hope and the promise of an even better 
tomorrow.
  When I visited Africa in March, I was able to see the progress that 
has been made over the years. While we have not reached all the goals 
we set back then, we are coming closer to them day by day. My recent 
visit to Africa reminded me of what I saw when I first visited that 
continent about 5 years ago. During the first visit, I learned a great 
deal about diseases such as AIDS and how the culture of the nations we 
visited had a great impact on how the diseases spread.
  HIV is a great problem because it can lie dormant for many years 
while it is being transmitted. It was clear back then that solving the 
problem would take more money. It would take in-country leadership and 
the political will to solve the problem before it became totally 
unmanageable. That is where we were headed. I am pleased to say I got 
to meet with several of the First Ladies of the African countries who 
have banded together, 51 of them banded together to work together as a 
network to solve this problem. They are doing a phenomenal job in 
Africa, and they are working with our First Lady; I am pretty sure that 
they talk to our First Lady and our First Lady talks to the President. 
The President, this year, said: We need to double our effort.
  We have the framework in place. We can do it. We need to do it. That 
is what this bill is about, doubling our effort. The solution began 
with making simple changes to the resources available to each 
community, things we take for granted, such as a safe and secure water 
supply, as well as nutrition programs, about basic buildings, and the 
people who have the training that communities need to maintain these 
facilities.
  That all happens over here. It does not happen over there. Back then 
we had the treatments to keep AIDS patients functioning for years. What 
we needed to do was provide these treatments and be sure they were 
being properly used.
  Our hope during that time was that we could keep mothers alive long 
enough to raise their children. Our greatest hope was that we could 
keep everyone alive long enough for a cure to be found.
  As we toured those countries, we witnessed a treatment that was 
designed to prevent a mother's AIDS infection from being passed on to 
her newborn baby during birth, because of birth. There is a pill the 
mother could take and a liquid that can be administered to the baby 
immediately after birth that had a 95-percent success rate.
  The treatment only costs $2.50 per birth. The problem was that most 
deliveries don't take place in hospitals. Only the difficult ones take 
place in the hospital. So how do you distribute the medication to these 
expectant mothers so it would be available during birth, which is the 
critical time for preventing transmission? Of course, anybody who was 
carrying that pill would be labeled HIV-positive, and that was creating 
another set of problems because of the stigma attached to the disease. 
In addition, other relatives would try to steal the pill because they 
thought it was a wonder drug that would prevent them from catching 
AIDS.
  As we traveled through Africa, one aspect of the disease I will never 
forget had to do with the economies of these nations. In each one, the 
fastest growing business was funeral parlors and coffin makers. In 
Namibia, since they did not have enough wood to go around, people were 
saving newspapers so they could make coffins out of papier mache. That 
was 5 years ago.
  Since my visit to Africa and passage of the PEPFAR bill, we have 
accomplished things that many thought impossible. In 2003, only 50,000 
people living with HIV/AIDS in Africa were receiving treatment from 
U.S.-funded sources. Today, we are treating over 2 million. That is a 
significant accomplishment and a great leap forward from where we were 
back then. Although each success is important, they remind us of the 
work that still needs to be done. There are now 33.2 million people 
living with HIV/AIDS compared to 29 million in 2001, but the growth has 
slowed dramatically. The statistics are alarming, but they also show we 
are making an impact. As the old adage says so well: We have only begun 
to fight. And fight we must, for AIDS is a battle we cannot afford to 
lose--not today, not tomorrow, not ever. Looking back, the PEPFAR bill 
gave us an important foundation from which to work so we could take 
what was designed as an emergency aid plan and make it a sustainable, 
long-range effort that would continue to be effective until these 
diseases are relegated to the medical history books.
  In the original bill, we set challenging goals for treatment, for 
care, and for prevention. We made treatment the No. 1 priority for the 
funding we were able to provide. We also established a comprehensive 
approach to prevention. Today, we are discussing the reauthorization of 
this program and a renewal of our commitment to continue to make a 
difference throughout the world. As I said, I went to Africa in March, 
and I have seen the progress we have been able to make on this vitally 
important issue. We have made a start. This bill continues the work we 
have begun.
  We have a good bill before us, because Senators Biden and Lugar spent 
long days and nights working on it to ensure it reflects what Members 
on both sides of the aisle see as the important issues that must be 
addressed. This bill has been through the whole process. This bill 
expands on the structure of the current law's policies to ensure that 
the money follows the patients and does not get lost in the 
administrative structure of the programs these funds support. It 
continues to focus on treatment by requiring that more than half of the 
funds be used for that purpose. It also provides for a complete 
accounting of all funds provided to the global fund.
  In addition, it calls for a balanced approach to prevention so that 
abstinence and ``be faithful'' programs receive funds equal to that of 
other prevention programs. Other efforts it will fund will help to 
increase the capacity of the health care systems in the affected 
countries, ensure that all drugs purchased for the program are safe and 
effective, and begin the process of developing a framework for the 
long-range stability of these programs. Finally, it will encourage the 
countries receiving this assistance to develop their own independent 
and sustainable programs to address the health care needs of their 
people.
  When passed, the new edition of PEPFAR will establish even more 
challenging goals for the treatment, care, and prevention of these 
diseases by tying the increase in funding to a corresponding 
realization of the goals we have established in the bill. In addition, 
as the cost of treatment goes down, the treatment goals increase 
proportionately. This will ensure we will be treating the greatest 
number of people in the most cost-effective manner possible. Senators 
Coburn, Burr, and I worked with Senators Biden and Lugar, and many 
other Members, to ensure this bill would reflect the principles and 
goals that have been shared by us with the interested Members of the 
Senate. I commend each Member for their dedicated work and the hard 
work that has resulted in the successful development of this third way.
  This bill is a good piece of legislation. I urge all colleagues to 
support its passage and send a message to all nations that are 
receiving AIDS assistance from America that we will continue to stand 
by their side in the great fight. Our commitment to ridding the world 
of all these diseases in our lifetime will never weaken or waiver. This 
is something that is appreciated in the countries in which we are

[[Page S6587]]

working. It is something they know America is doing for them. It is 
making friends in other parts of the world. I hope we can keep this 
process going. I urge everyone to vote for cloture this evening.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The senior Senator from Michigan.
  (The remarks of Mr. Levin pertaining to the introduction of S. 3255 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')


                         Oil Contracts In Iraq

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned by the apparent lack 
of a clear and consistent U.S. policy on the entering into of oil deals 
in Iraq in the absence of Iraqi national hydrocarbon legislation. 
Unfortunately, that hydrocarbon legislation, which would ensure 
equitable distribution of oil revenues among the Iraqi people, and 
enable increased oil production and long-term foreign investment, 
remains stalled in the Iraqi Assembly. Continued failure by the Iraqi 
Government to pass national hydrocarbon legislation, a political 
benchmark which was set by the Iraqis for themselves, risks fracturing 
the country and jeopardizing hard-fought gains.
  Last September, Hunt Oil Company, an American firm, was the first 
company to sign a production-sharing contract with the Kurdistan 
Regional Government, or KRG. The KRG has now apparently signed 
approximately two dozen such contracts with international oil 
companies, all of which have been condemned by the Iraqi national 
Government. Iraq's Oil Minister has called these deals ``illegal'' and 
the State Department's May 2008 report on Iraq indicates that progress 
on national hydrocarbon legislation has been ``complicated by the KRG's 
pursuit of oil contracts'' and is now ``at a standstill.''
  Administration officials have stated publicly and in letters to me 
that U.S. policy strongly discourages oil production-sharing contracts 
between private companies and regional governments in Iraq, including 
the KRG. However, representatives from Hunt Oil Company have indicated 
that they specifically asked about U.S. policy regarding such deals in 
meetings with State Department employees prior to Hunt Oil signing 
their production-sharing contract with the KRG and were told ``there 
was no policy, neither for nor against.'' I am concerned that if a 
policy discouraging contracts with regional governments was in place 
prior to the signing of Hunt Oil's contract with the KRG, that it was 
not adequately understood or communicated by State Department employees 
in their interactions with Hunt Oil and other international oil 
companies seeking to do business in Iraq.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter I wrote to the 
President's National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley, and his response 
to me on this issue be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                     Washington, DC, June 5, 2008.
     Hon. Stephen J. Hadley,
     Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, 
         National Security Council, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Hadley: I write to you in regard to Hunt Oil 
     Company's decision to sign an oil production sharing contract 
     (PSC) with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) on 
     September 8, 2007, and the official U.S. government policy 
     relating to such deals. The KRG has now signed more than 25 
     PSCs with international oil companies, several of which are 
     subsidiaries of U.S.-based companies.
       The PSCs signed between international oil companies and the 
     KRG run directly counter to our goals for reconciliation in 
     Iraq and risk fracturing the country over the management of 
     Iraq's oil industry and distribution of oil revenues. As you 
     know, Iraq's Oil Minister has called PSCs like the one signed 
     by Hunt Oil ``illegal.'' Furthermore, the State Department's 
     May 2008 report on Iraq states that progress on the national 
     hydrocarbon legislation ``is at a standstill'' and its 
     prospects for passage have been ``further complicated by the 
     KRG's pursuit of oil contracts.''
       While the State Department report also indicates ``the 
     United States continues to discourage the KRG from signing 
     oil contracts until negotiations on a national oil law are 
     completed,'' I am concerned that U.S. policy has not been 
     clearly and consistently communicated to oil companies who 
     have signed or may be considering signing PSCs with the KRG, 
     including U.S.-based companies like Hunt Oil.
       In response to reports of contacts between Hunt Oil 
     employees and State Department representatives prior to the 
     company signing a PSC with the KRG on September 8, 2007, I 
     sent a series of letters to Hunt Oil and Secretary Rice 
     regarding the nature of these contacts and whether U.S. 
     officials expressed opposition to such a deal prior to its 
     signing. The responses I received from the State Department 
     and Hunt Oil starkly contradict one another.
       In response to a letter I sent to Hunt Oil Chief Executive 
     Officer Ray Hunt, I was provided an email from Hunt Oil's 
     General Manager for Mideast Exploration David McDonald to 
     another Hunt Oil employee dated September 28 in which he 
     detailed meetings he had with State Department Regional 
     Reconstruction Team (RRT) representatives on June 12, June 
     15, and September 5, 2007. Of the June 15 meeting, Mr. 
     McDonald states that he ``specifically asked if the USG had a 
     policy toward companies entering contracts with the KRG'' and 
     was told ``that there was no policy, neither for nor 
     against.'' Mr. McDonald also states, ``There was no 
     communication to me or in my presence made by the 9 state 
     department officials with whom I met prior to 8 September 
     that Hunt should not pursue our course of action leading to a 
     contract. In fact there was ample opportunity to do so, but 
     it did not happen.''
       On the other hand, the State Department in a letter to me 
     stated ``Hunt Oil apparently first expressed its interest in 
     signing an agreement with the KRG to RRT staff in the meeting 
     on September 5, 2007. RRT staff explained U.S. Government 
     policy against signing deals with the KRG to Mr. McDonald.''
       The clear inconsistency between the State Department and 
     Hunt Oil in their accounting of the meetings leading up to 
     the company's signing of a PSC with the KRG is deeply 
     troubling. Hunt Oil says that they were never told about a 
     U.S. policy against signing deals with the KRG. The State 
     Department says that Hunt Oil was told of such a policy on 
     September 5, three days before the deal was signed.
       I believe the administration should request Hunt Oil, and 
     other U.S.-based oil companies, to withdraw from any PSC they 
     have signed and to advise the KRG that they are doing so in 
     order to facilitate the passage of national hydrocarbon 
     legislation. I also believe that the administration should 
     clearly define and disseminate a policy relating to the 
     signing of oil deals with the KRG.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Carl Levin,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                                              The White House,

                                     Washington, DC, July 4, 2008.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Levin: Thank you for the opportunity to 
     reiterate the Administration's policy regarding oil 
     production sharing contracts with the Kurdistan Regional 
     Government (KRG).
       United States policy strongly discourages oil production 
     sharing contracts between private companies and regional 
     governments in Iraq, including the KRG, prior to the 
     enactment of national hydrocarbon legislation authorizing 
     such contracts. This policy is embodied in a cable to the 
     United States Embassy in Baghdad dated August 3, 2006. I 
     understand that you have been provided with a copy of this 
     cable. The United States Government also has announced this 
     policy publicly.
       To implement this policy, the United States has been in a 
     position to request companies, including U.S.-based 
     companies, not to enter into any oil contracts with regional 
     governments in Iraq and to advise those companies of the 
     legal and political risks of doing so.
       You have asked the United States to request that U.S.-based 
     oil companies withdraw from oil production sharing contracts 
     already signed with the KRG. The Administration shares your 
     view that it would have been better had these contracts not 
     occurred. We do not believe, however, that seeking the 
     termination of oil contracts between the KRG and private 
     companies based in the United States would substantially 
     advance efforts to resolve the impasse with the KRG on 
     national hydrocarbon legislation in Iraq. Oil production 
     sharing contracts between U.S.-based private companies and 
     the KRG constitute only a small number of the approximately 
     two dozen oil production sharing contracts to which the KRG 
     is a party.
       The United States continues to encourage both the KRG and 
     the national government of Iraq to resolve their differences 
     and to agree on national legislation that will allow 
     companies to pursue opportunities with a clear legal 
     framework across Iraq.
       Please let me know if we may be of further assistance 
     regarding this matter.
           Sincerely,

                                            Stephen J. Hadley,

                                    Assistant to the President for
                                        National Security Affairs.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on a related issue, recent reports indicate 
the Government of Iraq is now in negotiations with five Western oil 
companies for no-bid ``technical service'' contracts at existing oil 
fields. When

[[Page S6588]]

asked about these contracts on June 19, 2008, Secretary Rice said:

       The United States Government has stayed absolutely out of 
     the matter of the awarding of Iraqi oil contracts. It's a 
     private sector matter.

  However, subsequent reports indicate that State Department employees 
advised the Iraqi Government on the drafting of these technical service 
contracts. These reports were followed on July 1 with news that Iraq 
intends to award contracts to develop six oil fields and two natural 
gas fields, with or without the passage of national hydrocarbon 
legislation.
  These contracts would seem to circumvent the national hydrocarbon 
legislation currently under consideration in Iraq and could risk 
further complicating what are already delicate negotiations. I am 
concerned by the administration's silence on these contracts and the 
message our reported involvement in drafting the no-bid technical 
service contracts sends to the Iraqi Government about the importance of 
passing national hydrocarbon legislation. I am sending a letter to 
Stephen Hadley today asking him about U.S. policy with regard to these 
service and development contracts and expressing my concern that such 
contracts might harm negotiations on national hydrocarbon legislation. 
I ask unanimous consent that this letter also be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                    Washington, DC, July 11, 2008.
     Hon. Stephen J. Hadley,
     Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, 
         National Security Council, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Hadley: Thank you for your July 4, 2008, response 
     to my previous letter. However, I remain concerned about the 
     signing of oil deals in Iraq in the absence of national 
     hydrocarbon legislation and the lack of a clearly stated U.S. 
     government policy regarding such deals.
       Published reports indicate that the Government of Iraq is 
     in negotiations with five Western oil companies for no-bid 
     ``technical service'' contracts. These reports were followed 
     on July 1st with news that Iraq intends to award contracts to 
     develop six oil fields and two natural gas fields.
       These contracts would appear to circumvent the national 
     hydrocarbon legislation currently under consideration and 
     risk further complicating what are already delicate 
     negotiations. Furthermore, continued failure by the Iraqi 
     Government to pass national hydrocarbon legislation, a 
     political benchmark set by the Iraqis for themselves, risks 
     fracturing the country.
       I am concerned by the Administration's silence on the 
     potential signing of technical service and oil field 
     development contracts by the Iraqi government prior to 
     passing national hydrocarbon legislation and would appreciate 
     your response to the following questions:
       1. Is there an official U.S. policy with regard to the 
     technical service contracts currently under negotiation by 
     the Iraqi Government?
       2. Is there an official U.S. policy with regard to the oil 
     field development contracts being considered by the Iraqi 
     Government?
       3. Is it the Administration's view that the technical 
     service contracts or the oil field development contracts 
     under consideration by the Iraqi Government will complicate 
     efforts to pass national hydrocarbon legislation? If so, have 
     you expressed these concerns to the Iraqi Government or to 
     oil companies seeking to do business in Iraq?
       Thank you for your prompt assistance in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Carl Levin,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The senior Senator from New York is 
recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to briefly discuss the 
turmoil in the financial markets, especially with regard to Fannie Mae 
and Freddie Mac. Let me be clear, Fannie and Freddie are too important 
to fail. Their fundamentals, as they look now, provide no reason to 
think they will fail. We all know how important they are.
  These two institutions are the foundation of the mortgage market, and 
we fully stand behind them and their crucial role. Without Fannie and 
Freddie, housing markets would come to an utter standstill and our 
economy, shaky as it is, would sink much deeper. Therefore, we should 
take all necessary steps to ensure affordable home ownership for 
millions of American families, and that includes preserving the 
essential role Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play.
  Our Nation is caught in the middle of one of the most severe housing 
downturns since the Great Depression, so it is not surprising that the 
two institutions that guarantee $5 trillion worth of mortgages for 
families across America are now facing real significant challenges. But 
the markets' overreaction over the past 2 days is more based on 
psychology than reality.
  Over the past few days, Treasury Secretary Paulson, James Lockhart, 
the GSE's primary regulator, the Federal Reserve, and Chairman 
Bernanke, and leading Senators, including both parties' candidates for 
President, have all clearly stated their confidence in Fannie and 
Freddie and the Government's commitment to keeping those institutions 
safe and secure.
  That commitment has not changed and will not change.
  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are well capitalized. They are actually 
holding capital in excess of their current requirements.
  In these volatile markets--in these volatile markets--share price is 
not the most reliable measure for judging Fannie and Freddie and will 
not dictate the responses by the regulators. Rather, the regulators are 
more closely watching the performance of Fannie's and Freddie's bonds 
and how their yields compare to U.S. treasuries. Right now, Freddie and 
Fannie bonds are trading closer to treasuries than they were in March 
after the Bear Stearns collapse, and that is a reassuring signal.
  The stock markets may be overreacting, but the regulators should not 
and will not. I have talked to them on a regular basis today, and I can 
assure Americans in the markets that they are very much on top of this 
problem, they are looking at it in a careful, thoughtful, but 
nonpanicky and nonrush way.
  We do not believe the regulators will be forced to act, but if they 
are, it is not a choice between inaction or full-blown receivership 
because there is more than one way to shore up Fannie and Freddie, if 
necessary. There are countless intermediate steps that regulators could 
take before ever having to entertain a Government takeover.
  The regulators are preparing for worst-case scenarios. But developing 
contingency plans does not mean that disaster is around the corner. By 
simply being prepared, the Government can restore confidence that these 
institutions will remain safe and secure and continue to function in 
their essential role as the cornerstone of the mortgage markets for 
decades to come.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The junior Senator from Alabama is 
recognized.


                  Air Force's KC-X Tanker Competition

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to take a few moments to talk 
about the Air Force's KC-X tanker competition. There was a House 
hearing on that matter this week, and a number of our colleagues have 
spoken on it. I have discussed it on the floor a couple of times.
  As you will remember, that contract was awarded to the Northrop/EADS 
team back in February, after a competition that the Air Force 
adjudicated. That team--the Northrop/EADS team--plans to build a new 
tanker, which our military desperately needs, in my hometown of Mobile, 
AL. It is important to the people of Alabama, and they are watching it 
very closely.
  However, Boeing objected to the decision. They protested. They cited 
100 concerns with the Air Force's award--more than 100. The Government 
Accountability Office, whose duty is to review such complaints, did so 
and concluded that out of the 100-plus complaints, only eight elements 
of the protest had merit. So it was then up to the Department of 
Defense, after the GAO report was issued, to decide how it would 
address GAO's concerns. That is the way the system works, and every 
bidder has that opportunity. The DOD was not legally bound to accept or 
acknowledge these criticisms. They legally could have gone forward with 
the process and affirmed their own decision and gone forward with it. 
However, Secretary Gates considered the matter carefully. He announced 
that in order to ensure this selection process is totally fair, 
transparent, and beyond reproach, that the Secretary would order a 
``limited recompetition'' of the contract. This new competition will be

[[Page S6589]]

personally overseen, he said, by the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Mr. John Young, and Mr. Young 
will be advised by a completely new Source Selection Advisory 
Committee.
  Secretary Gates announced he will amend the original solicitation and 
allow both Boeing and Northrop Grumman to submit revised bids. The 
amended contract will address each of the eight complaints that were 
upheld by GAO. Wisely, I think, it ignored the extraneous issues that 
some have raised over the past few months, such as WTO disputes or 
industrial base matters.
  So let me repeat, each of the concerns raised by the GAO would be 
addressed, but political considerations here in Washington, the 
Secretary said, will not affect this process.
  So as the Secretary said in his press conference yesterday:

       Industry, the Congress and the American people all must 
     have confidence in the integrity of this acquisitions 
     process. I believe the revised process will result in the 
     best tanker for the Air Force at the best price for the 
     American taxpayer.

  I think that is what Congress asked of him, and that is what he has 
committed to do.
  The GAO affirmed the Secretary's decision yesterday in testimony 
before the House Armed Services Committee. Daniel Gordon, the Deputy 
General Counsel for the GAO--I think he headed the team or supervised 
the team at GAO--said that, based on the Department of Defense press 
conference earlier this week, ``it certainly sounded to me like 
Secretary Gates was acting in good faith to implement the 
recommendations'' made by the GAO. This expedited process, it is hoped, 
can lead to a new source selection soon.

  There are some additional points I wish to make to respond to those 
who say the GAO's decision suggests a preference for one aircraft--for 
the Boeing aircraft. In other words, some have contended that their 
decision indicated that GAO was suggesting that a wrong decision was 
made. Others have suggested that this report should, therefore, invite 
the Congress to somehow take over this competition, which I submit 
would be unprecedented and unwise since we are not aircraft engineers, 
we are not pilots, we are not responsible for managing these aircraft, 
nor are we capable of making the final decision about which aircraft is 
the best.
  So I would make these points: No. 1, the GAO did not say Boeing 
should have won the competition at all, nor did it say the award should 
now be sole-sourced to Boeing or any other contractor. GAO said clearly 
when they released their decision:

       Our decision should not be read to reflect a view as to the 
     merits of the firm's respective aircraft. Judgments about 
     which offeror will most successfully meet the governmental 
     needs largely is reserved for the procuring agencies, subject 
     only to such statutory and regulatory requirements as full 
     and open competition and fairness to potential offerors.

  This point was reinforced yesterday in testimony before the House 
Armed Services Committee by Mr. Daniel Gordon, who is the deputy 
general counsel for the GAO:

       We found serious errors in the procurement process that 
     could have affected the outcome of, again, what was a close 
     competition. But our legal decision does not say anything 
     about the merits of the Boeing's or Northrop's proposed 
     tankers.

  Point 2: When it comes to capability, the Northrop Grumman plane is 
still the superior choice for our warfighters, I would submit, based on 
the analysis, and I would make these points--ultimately, that would 
have to be decided by the professionals, not this Senator.
  I would just make these points as a push-back to some of the comments 
my colleagues have raised. First, I would note that the A330, the 
Northrop aircraft frame, is a more modern airframe than the Boeing 767. 
The first 767 flew in 1982. The A330 was first built in 1998, some 16 
years later. It is a much more modern airframe.
  No. 2: I would note that no one disputes that the A330 can carry and 
offload more fuel, the primary job of a refueling tanker. The Air Force 
judged that one Northrop plane could do more refueling more efficiently 
than one Boeing plane, and the GAO upheld that finding.
  The GAO did criticize the Air Force for giving Northrop ``extra 
credit'' for their superior refueling capability. However, they noted 
that this extra credit was not in keeping with--in a legal sense--the 
language of the original request for proposal. They did not say the Air 
Force shouldn't place a premium on refueling capability. Mr. Gordon of 
GAO said yesterday:

       There was an objective. Northrop exceeded it by quite a bit 
     and Northrop got all the extra credit. We have no opinion, we 
     have no view on whether it was a good idea.

  Well, I would suggest that giving a refueling tanker credit for its 
refueling capability would seem like a good idea to me, if the Air 
Force wants the best aircraft for their men and women in uniform.
  Further, I would note that in addition to carrying more fuel, the GAO 
also agreed with the Air Force and their finding that the larger boom 
envelope of the Northrop KC-45 would make it easier and safer for 
pilots to refuel.
  In addition, because the A330 is a more capable refueler than the 
767, the Air Force predicts they will ultimately have to buy 22 fewer 
aircraft if they go with the Northrop team. At today's prices, the 
sticker price of 22 aircraft is $4.3 billion. That is without factoring 
in manning those aircraft and maintaining them over the years.
  The GAO acknowledged in their report and in their testimony yesterday 
that the A330 can carry more cargo, more personnel, and conduct more 
aeromedical evaluations. They said:

       We see no basis to conclude that the Air Force's evaluation 
     that Northrop Grumman's aircraft was more advantageous in the 
     airlift area is unreasonable.

  The GAO further found no fault with the Air Force's conclusion that 
the Boeing proposal was more risky in certain areas and that their past 
performance on--by the Boeing team--on similar contracts was 
``marginal.''
  So what did the GAO ultimately say about the Air Force's decision? 
They certainly said the decision was flawed from a procedural 
perspective, but they also said the Air Force picked a plane that could 
carry and offload more fuel more efficiently and in a more desirable 
way for pilots.
  The main fuselage compartment of the aircraft is not where the fuel 
is stored. It is in the wings. So these aircraft have a tremendous 
capability of helping airlift personnel and equipment to a distant 
battlefield. They found that the plane's secondary mission--airlift--
could be accomplished more effectively by the Northrop aircraft.
  Finally, the GAO agreed that the Northrop plane was lower risk and 
that Boeing had marginal past performance.
  Point 3: We need to maintain a fair and competitive process. The fact 
that we chose to compete this contract--that Congress ordered a 
competition for this aircraft--directed it rather than sole-sourcing it 
to Boeing or any other company, as some would have preferred, has been 
hugely beneficial to our military and to our taxpayer. Boeing's 
preferred sole-source leasing plan or scheme that got through this 
Congress, or this Senate, would have had us leasing 100 767s for $23.5 
billion. So we would lease them for $23.5 billion, or $235 million a 
copy.

  Now, thanks to this very competitive and aggressively conducted bid 
competition, thanks to fair and transparent procedures, the military is 
going to own 179 superior aircraft for $35 billion, or $195 million a 
copy. That is a win for the taxpayers and a win for the military.
  As Secretary Young said yesterday in his testimony before the House 
Armed Services Committee:

       I see no benefit, in my experience across the acquisition 
     enterprise, setting this aside. Sole sources limit our 
     flexibility in negotiating prices. We achieve the best value 
     through a competitive source selection of a single source who 
     has bid in a competitive environment and offered us hopefully 
     an excellent deal.

  So these words should induce caution in those of my colleagues and 
some of our Senators who have introduced legislation that would, in 
effect, sole-source this contract to Boeing. The result would be 
inferior planes for our military and clearly inflated costs for the 
taxpayers.
  As important as the principle that we should have a competitive 
process for defense contracts is the principle that the military 
ultimately--and not the

[[Page S6590]]

Congress--should be in charge of making meritorious, objective, and 
fair decisions on who should be the winner of a contract.
  As Secretary Young said yesterday in his testimony:

       Grounded in the warfighter's requirements and the pursuit 
     of the best value for the taxpayer, the Defense Department is 
     the only organization that can fairly and knowledgeably 
     conduct this competition . . .

  Isn't that true?

        . . . The Defense Department does not care which tanker 
     wins the competition. The Defense Department's sole objective 
     is to get the required capability for the men and women who 
     serve this Nation at the best price for the taxpayer.

  I certainly think that is correct. I certainly think that is correct.
  I will conclude by saying, after the collapse and quite a bit of 
embarrassment and actual criminal prosecutions of the sole-source lease 
plan that occurred--and we are all aware of how that occurred--Congress 
required a competition. By definition, a competition assumes that there 
will be bidders, and there are only two potential bidders in the world 
for this kind of aircraft. And if you are going to have a competition, 
it needs to be fair. Both bids should be objectively evaluated on the 
merits of the product they have offered. If that is so, I think the 
American taxpayer will be the winner in the end. I will just say to my 
colleagues, I have advice. I believe the Northrop team presented the 
best aircraft, but I don't know. I am not an expert. So I would urge my 
colleagues to resist any political pressures that might be brought to 
bear or interests that they may have in infecting this process with 
politics. Let's let them make the best decision. That is what I have 
said from the beginning, and that is what I have said throughout this 
process. That is what I believe is the only right position we can take.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.


                              Job Training

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is poised to 
pass this critically important legislation that will help address the 
foreclosure crisis our Nation is facing and take necessary steps to 
bolster our flagging economy. We have all seen the far-reaching effects 
the housing crisis is having on our economy, and in my view it is 
incumbent upon us to examine any actions we might take to reduce 
foreclosures and steady our Nation's housing markets.
  My home State of Connecticut has pursued an innovative approach to 
help people facing foreclosure on their homes. In a bill passed 
recently by the Connecticut General Assembly and signed by the 
Governor, $2.5 million was devoted to a job training fund targeted at 
people facing foreclosure. Guiding this new initiative is the idea that 
if people have access to job training, they may be able to find higher 
paying jobs that would allow them to keep their homes and avoid 
foreclosure. This program will be run by The WorkPlace, Inc., Southern 
Connecticut's workforce development board, and Capital Workforce 
Partners, North Central Connecticut's workforce board that serves 37 
municipalities, both of which have done a tremendous job in Connecticut 
helping to train people for better jobs over many years. I think that 
this is an important idea that merits study as the Congress continues 
to consider how to help hardworking families weather the current 
economic storms. As the Chair of the Subcommittee on Employment and 
Workplace Safety and a great champion of job training programs, I would 
welcome any thoughts on this matter from my distinguished colleague 
from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Banking 
Committee, and thank him for his leadership on this legislation. As the 
chairman knows, I have been a long-time advocate of our Nation's job 
training programs as an effective tool to help people get the skills 
they need to secure family-wage jobs, improve their quality of life, 
and keep our communities healthy and competitive. In fact, I believe 
that giving workers the opportunity to grow their skills is one of the 
critical elements of our Nation's economic security. That's why I 
fought for the passage of the Workforce Investment Act in 1998 and will 
continue to push for its reauthorization and increased funding levels 
for its job training programs. Workforce boards around the country, 
including those in my home State of Washington, administer great job 
training programs that help millions of Americans get off unemployment 
rolls or out of low-paying, dead-end jobs.
  I think the program that my colleague described sounds like an 
initiative that is certainly worth study. Indeed, any ideas that could 
help even more people avoid the economic turmoil and emotional hardship 
foreclosures cause for themselves and their families should be 
considered.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Washington for her comments and 
for her leadership on this issue. I also would ask the Senator from 
Washington if it is her understanding, as it is mine, that workforce 
boards administer programs that train workers for jobs in cutting-edge 
industries such as renewable energy and energy efficiency.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his question. 
We believe now, as we did when we passed the act into law, that for 
training to benefit working families and their communities, it must 
respond to the skills needs of thriving industries that lead to family-
wage jobs. An example of this is the green jobs sector. Innovative 
States, such as my own State of Washington, are leading the expansion 
of career opportunities in the green economy, making sure that 
opportunities are readily available for workers to acquire the skills 
to qualify for these good jobs. In fact, Washington State set a new 
goal to increase the number of clean energy jobs to 25,000 in the next 
12 years and committed to finance the necessary training. Innovative 
workforce boards across the country increasingly are providing training 
for green collar jobs that will be critical in meeting the demands of a 
low-carbon economy and providing workers with quality jobs. And 
Congress also is taking action. As a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, I supported the recent passage the Labor/Health and 
Human Services bill; we reported that a greater training investment 
needs to be made in areas such as renewable electric power, biofuels, 
energy-efficiency assessment and environmentally sustainable 
manufacturing and directed the Secretary of Labor to competitively 
award community based job training grants in these areas. All of these 
programs will be instrumental in developing the skilled domestic 
workforce necessary to maintain our Nation's competitive edge.
  Mr. DODD. l look forward to working with the distinguished senior 
Senator from Washington on this idea and hope that we continue to 
explore fresh ideas to help lift our Nation out of this housing crisis.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I support the Housing and Economic Recovery 
Act of 2008. I appreciate the leadership of Chairman Dodd and Ranking 
Member Shelby in developing a comprehensive bill that will meaningfully 
address the housing crisis in our country. Working families are losing 
their homes. Credit access has been drastically reduced. Affordable 
housing options for our constituents are severely limited.
  Hawaii's foreclosure rate increased by more than 88 percent last 
year, for a total of 1,270 families who had their homes foreclosed. The 
results for the first part of 2008 are even more troubling, with a 
foreclosure rate in April representing a 218 percent increase over the 
same month in 2007. Comparatively, Hawaii has not suffered as much as 
other States. However, foreclosure statistics do not reflect pending 
delinquencies for those families struggling to make payments or those 
with resetting adjustable rate mortgages. Additionally, falling home 
prices can lead to homeowners having to sell at a significant loss due 
to an unexpected transfer or a loss of a job, especially under current 
economic conditions.
  This much needed bipartisan legislation will help protect homeowners 
across the country, prevent foreclosures, increase the supply of 
affordable housing, and assist our Nation's veterans. This legislation 
will modernize and improve the Federal Housing Administration, FHA, to 
provide homeowners with additional access to fixed rate mortgages. 
Additional resources will be provided by this bill for housing 
counseling to assist homeowners in finding solutions to their difficult 
situations. Mortgage disclosures

[[Page S6591]]

will also be made more meaningful to consumers by this legislation.
  The bill creates a new affordable housing trust fund and a capital 
magnet fund to increase access to affordable housing. These efforts are 
so important because we have such a shortage of affordable housing in 
my home State of Hawaii. According to the National Low Income Housing 
Coalition's 2007-2008 Out of Reach report, Hawaii ranks as the most 
expensive housing jurisdiction in the country. We must act to provide 
additional resources to help build and preserve affordable housing 
units for working families.
  I also appreciate the inclusion of a provision that is derived from 
my legislation, S. 2768. This corrects an oversight in the Economic 
Stimulus Act of 2008 and extends the temporary home loan guaranty 
increase to veterans so that more of them can realize the dream of home 
ownership.
  The VA Home Loan Guaranty was part of the original GI bill in 1944. 
It provided veterans with a federally guaranteed home loan with no 
downpayment. This landmark legislation made the dream of home ownership 
a reality for millions of returning veterans. More than 25 million 
veterans and service members are now eligible for VA home loan 
guarantees.
  The amount of the home loan guaranty was last adjusted by the 
Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2004. The maximum guaranty amount 
was increased to 25 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit 
determined under Section 305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage 
Corporation Act for a single family residence, as adjusted for the year 
involved. Using that formula, because the Freddie Mac conforming loan 
limit for a single family residence in 2008 is $417,000, VA will 
guarantee a veteran's loan up to $104,250. This guaranty exempts 
homeowners from having to make a downpayment or secure private mortgage 
insurance.
  The newly enacted Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, however, temporarily 
reset the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHA home loan guarantee limits 
to 125 percent of metropolitan-area median home prices, without 
reference to the VA home loan program. This had the effect of raising 
the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac limits to nearly $730,000, in the 
highest cost areas, while leaving the VA limit of $417,000 in place. 
This important group of Americans may benefit from an increased home 
loan guaranty in this time of economic uncertainty.
  This legislation would also increase benefits for specially adapted 
housing for disabled veterans. Increases in housing and home adaptation 
grants have been infrequent. Unless the amounts of the grants are 
adjusted, inflation erodes the value and effectiveness of these 
benefits, making it more difficult for beneficiaries to afford the 
accommodations they need. This provision would go a long way in making 
certain that specially adapted housing benefits meet the current needs 
of America's veterans.
  We must enact this essential legislation to help homeowners remain in 
their homes, ensure access to credit, create more affordable housing 
opportunities, and provide much needed improvements to veterans' 
housing benefits.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I support the Housing and Economic 
Recovery Act because it contains a number of provisions that will 
assist communities in Wisconsin and around the country as they continue 
to respond to the foreclosure crisis. Many housing analysts say that 
the foreclosure crisis and its drain on our economy could get worse 
before it gets better. With more than 2 million American families 
facing foreclosure, Congress must act both to help those Americans 
going through foreclosure now as well as to help prevent Americans from 
facing foreclosure in the future. While not perfect, this bill contains 
both reactive and proactive provisions that should help States, local 
communities, and American families as they deal with the foreclosure 
crisis and its effects on our Nation.
  Last month, the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard 
University released its annual report, ``The State of the Nation's 
Housing.'' This report looks at a variety of housing statistics, 
including figures related to affordability issues and foreclosures. The 
report indicates just how grim the housing situation in our country is 
right now. According to the report, ``the number of homes in 
foreclosure proceedings nearly doubled by almost one million by the end 
of 2007.'' While the foreclosure rate in my State of Wisconsin is not 
as high as in other parts of the country, Wisconsin's foreclosure rate 
also continues to grow. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has compared 
foreclosure rates in 2008 and 2007 and reported that for the first half 
of this year, the foreclosure rate in Milwaukee County increased by 
over 40 percent when contrasted with 2007's foreclosure rate. 
Additionally, the Capital Times recently reported about the substantial 
increase in foreclosures throughout Wisconsin over the past few years, 
noting that ``foreclosures have more than doubled from 2005 to 2008.'' 
I also continue to hear from housing advocates about the individual 
families' stories behind these foreclosure statistics and about the 
rising number of foreclosures in urban, rural, and suburban parts of 
Wisconsin. With foreclosures continuing to rise, Congress has a duty to 
act. Although there are provisions in this bill that I have serious 
concerns about and hope to see changed, on balance, this housing 
package represents a step in the right direction.
  Last month's report from the Joint Center for Housing Studies at 
Harvard also highlights the problem of affordability of housing and 
notes that there are over 17 million families whose housing costs 
consume more than half their income. I continue to hear about the lack 
of affordable housing, both for renters and homeowners throughout 
Wisconsin. Some housing analysts have also said that the lack of 
affordable housing helped to contribute to the growth in subprime 
lending and nontraditional mortgage products in recent years as 
families increasingly struggled to meet rising housing costs. I am 
pleased that this Senate bill addresses the lack of affordable housing 
in this country by creating a housing trust fund financed by resources 
from the Government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 
Over the past few years, I have heard from a number of housing 
advocates throughout the State of Wisconsin about the need to create a 
national affordable housing trust fund to supplement the affordable 
housing work that is going on at the local, city, and State level. 
Hundreds of affordable housing trust funds have been created throughout 
the country, including in the city of Milwaukee, and help finance the 
rehabilitation, production, and preservation of affordable housing. 
These trust funds not only create affordable housing, but they can also 
create good-paying jobs and help bring stability to our communities.
  In the fall of 2006, I introduced the Affordable Housing Expansion 
and Public Safety Act, which among other things called on Congress to 
create a national affordable housing trust fund with the goal of 
supplying affordable housing units and sufficient income targeting to 
address the housing affordability burdens faced by extremely low-income 
and very low-income families. I am pleased this legislation we are 
considering takes the first steps toward the creation of a national 
housing trust fund and contains deep income targeting to benefit 
extremely low-income and very low-income families. Research shows that 
these families often face the most severe housing cost burdens and have 
a difficult time finding affordable housing whether they live in urban, 
suburban, or rural communities. I commend Senators Reed and Dodd for 
working to ensure this provision was included in the legislation and I 
hope that the final housing package sent to the President will retain 
this provision.
  I have also heard from advocates in Wisconsin in strong support of 
the nearly $4 billion that is included in CDBG funding to States and 
local communities hard hit by the housing crisis. These funds can be 
used to buy and redevelop foreclosed upon homes with the intention to 
sell, rent, or redevelop these homes. This provision was also included 
in the Senate Foreclosure Prevention Act that this body passed in April 
of this year and, at that time, I noted that the flexibility of the 
CDBG program will allow States and local communities to use this 
funding in a way that best fits the indiviaual needs of their States 
and communities. I am

[[Page S6592]]

pleased that the Housing and Economic Recovery Act retains the 
requirement that 25 percent of the CDBG funds included in this bill be 
used to redevelop foreclosed homes for families or individuals whose 
income is at 50 percent of the area median income or less. This 
targeting will help ensure that those most in need are not left out of 
the Federal assistance provided in this legislation. I am disappointed 
that the President has issued a veto threat over this provision of the 
legislation given its broad support from housing advocates and State 
and local governments.
  This provision would provide much needed assistance for a number of 
States, including Wisconsin. According to the Center for American 
Progress, the CDBG funds in the bill will bring Wisconsin $57.2 million 
in direct funds for housing assistance and restore over 1,815 
properties. The Senate has designated this funding as emergency 
funding, and while I would prefer to see this CDBG funding fully 
offset, this critical funding is needed in our communities now. The 
Senate will soon be sending this bill back to the House of 
Representatives, and I urge my colleagues in the other body to offset 
this CDBG funding rather than strike it out of this package entirely.

  I also support the provisions in this bill providing increased 
funding for mortgage counseling programs as well as provisions that 
enhance mortgage disclosure requirements. These provisions were also 
included as part of the Senate Foreclosure Prevention Act that this 
body passed in April, and I am pleased the provisions were kept in as 
part of this current package. Reports indicate that the mortgage 
counseling dollars are a cost-effective use of Federal dollars and 
increased funding will provide even more families with the necessary 
assistance to try to reach workable solutions with their lenders in 
order to remain in their homes. The enhanced mortgage disclosure 
requirements included in this legislation will help future borrowers 
who are taking out their first mortgage or refinancing their existing 
mortgages better understand the terms of their loans and how much they 
can expect to pay every month. There are a number of reports indicating 
that some borrowers were misled into troublesome loan products and 
these enhanced disclosures will help to prevent some of these egregious 
practices from happening in the future.
  This legislation also contains a regulatory overhaul of the 
Government Sponsored Enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well 
as the Federal Home Loan Bank system. Congress has been working to 
overhaul the regulatory structure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for 
years in response to the accounting scandals at the two GSEs in 2003 
and 2004. This legislation creates a single regulator for the GSEs that 
will help to oversee the stability of the GSEs, including setting up 
management standards for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. More effective 
oversight of the GSEs is needed and should this legislation be enacted, 
Congress must closely follow the implementation of these substantial 
GSE reforms to ensure the reforms are effective.
  This comprehensive housing package includes the FHA Modernization Act 
which has already passed the Senate twice--once as a stand-alone bill 
in December of last year and earlier this year as part of the Senate 
Foreclosure Prevention Act. The Federal Housing Administration is an 
important Federal agency providing expanded access to the housing 
market for homeowners by offering mortgage insurance to families 
throughout the country. There is bipartisan support for modernizing the 
FHA to help the agency better assist homeowners in today's housing 
market. As with the GSE reforms contained in this bill, I will monitor 
the implementation of the FHA reforms to ensure that these reforms 
truly benefit low-income and middle-income homeowners who are the very 
homeowners the FHA and the GSEs are supposed to serve as part of their 
affordability missions.
  Another piece of this legislation is the Hope for Homeowners Act, 
which will establish a new Federal Housing Administration program that 
will allow homeowners facing foreclosure to refinance their mortgages 
into an FHA-insured mortgage. It is important to note that this 
voluntary program is not permanent and contains a sunset ending the 
program in 2011. While this program is certainly not perfect, the 
Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the program could help 
400,000 of the over 2 million homeowners facing foreclosure stay in 
their homes. This program should be given a chance to work with careful 
oversight from Congress, the FHA, and HUD to ensure that borrowers and 
lenders are not taking advantage of the program. The Hope for 
Homeowners program contains a number of provisions to help ensure that 
the program is targeted to borrowers facing foreclosure, rather than 
speculators who gambled on the housing market. For example, the 
borrower has to certify to the Federal Government that he or she has 
not defaulted on his or her mortgage intentionally or provided untrue 
information to obtain a mortgage. The legislation also specifies that 
the Hope for Homeowners program is only available to mortgages that 
cover an owner-occupied primary residence, and not speculators who own 
multiple homes. Lenders will also have to agree to write down the value 
of the existing mortgages to be no more than 90 percent of the current 
value of the property. Finally, the borrowers will have to share any 
future equity and appreciation in their homes with the Federal 
Government if the borrower decides to sell his or her home or refinance 
his or her mortgage.
  This bill is not perfect. I have some concerns related to certain 
provisions in the bill that I hope can be addressed in ongoing 
negotiations with the House of Representatives.
  For example, I am disappointed that this bill does not include 
Senator Durbin's legislation which would have removed a provision in 
bankruptcy law that prevents mortgages on primary residences from being 
modified during bankruptcy. According to advocates, the Durbin 
legislation could help approximately 600,000 individuals or families 
remain in their homes. We tried to pass this legislation as an 
amendment to the Senate Foreclosure Prevention Act in April, but, 
unfortunately, the amendment met with stiff resistance in the lending 
community. Due to the complex nature of the foreclosure problem, we 
need to enact a wide range of legislative proposals to help families 
facing foreclosure, and the Durbin legislation is an important part of 
any legislative response. I voted for Senator Durbin's stand-alone 
legislation in the Judiciary Committee, and I hope the Senate can move 
this proposal forward in the coming weeks and months.
  We also need to address predatory lending practices that have taken 
place around the country and ensure that such abuses are not repeated. 
Senator Dodd has introduced a predatory lending bill that should serve 
as the foundation for comprehensive predatory lending legislation. 
Predatory lending practices and abusive subprime lending practices have 
contributed to one of the most significant challenges to our national 
economy in years and in order to more effectively address these 
challenges, Congress should pass predatory lending legislation this 
year.
  As foreclosure rates continue to grow in Wisconsin and around the 
country, Congress must address the problems associated with increased 
foreclosures. Subprime lending and rising foreclosure rates are 
complicated issues to unravel and any response, whether legislative or 
regulatory, will bring with it a set of consequences, some intended and 
some unintended. As this legislation moves forward, Congress and the 
relevant Federal agencies must monitor its effects and consider whether 
modifications are necessary. This package of reforms and new programs 
will likely not correct all of the subprime and foreclosure problems 
our country continues to face. But a number of the provisions in this 
bill will provide some help for families, local communities, and States 
as our country continues to respond to these serious housing issues, 
and I hope the House will pass and the President will sign this bill 
into law quickly.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The assistant majority leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, later this afternoon the Senate will be 
voting on two measures. One is the housing bill. We have been working 
on it for months. The object behind this bill is to find some relief 
for the thousands of people who will lose their homes today and every 
day.

[[Page S6593]]

  About 7,500 Americans will have their homes foreclosed on today, and 
that has been repeated over and over. We are reaching a housing crisis 
in this country. It not only affects those who are losing their homes; 
it affects those of us who live nearby who make our mortgage payments 
and watch the value of our homes go down because somebody in the 
neighborhood lost their home, had to put it up for auction, sold it at 
less than what they wanted to just to get out of the deal. So we need 
to do something about this housing crisis, not just for the good of 
those families affected by foreclosure and those living nearby but for 
the housing industry, which is an important part of our economy.
  This housing bill has been around for several weeks. This week alone 
we had two Republican filibusters slowing down this bill. If there has 
ever been a time when we shouldn't slow down, when we should move 
forward with dispatch, it is now. With the state of our economy, with 
the number of people unemployed, with the costs that a lot of families 
are facing, this Senate ought to put politics behind, stop these 
filibusters, move these bills forward, and give our best efforts to try 
to solve some of the problems facing our country.
  The second bill we are going to be voting on is called the PEPFAR 
bill. This is a bill which relates to a program announced by President 
Bush.
  Now I am on the Democratic side of the aisle. I have sure had my 
differences with President Bush. However, I can remember his State of 
the Union Address when he stood up and said: I think the United States 
should lead the world in fighting the global HIV/AIDS epidemic. I 
jumped out of my seat to applaud because he was right. I supported the 
President every year when he came in asking for more money so we could 
work around the world to deal with the scourge of HIV/AIDS, 
tuberculosis, and malaria. After the first 5 years, the President came 
back and said: We need a new program, one that takes into account what 
we are doing around the world and what we need to do in the future. I 
think he was right.
  We basically had two programs going at once, and we were 
participating more in one--the PEPFAR Program--which was the 
President's emergency program to deal with this problem. It was the 
direct aid of the United States to countries around the world--some 15 
different countries--where we provide assistance in dealing with HIV/
AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. There is a separate endeavor called 
the Global Fund, and that really engages the whole world and the rest 
of the world. We participate in that too. We are part of it.
  A lot of people may say: Well, with all of the problems in the United 
States, why are we spending all of this money overseas? It turns out to 
be a small fraction of our budget but a very important investment. 
First, that money spent defines who we are. America is a caring nation. 
When we read about tragedies around the world, whether it is a 
hurricane or an earthquake or some other disaster, our people rally to 
help.
  We always have. I am proud of that. I think it says a lot about who 
we are. There are a lot of people trying to paint an image of America 
around the world that is very negative, an image most of us here don't 
even recognize. For a lot of people in the world, all they ever hear is 
bad news about the United States.
  This is part of the good news about the United States. President 
Bush's initiative to deal with the global AIDS crisis is the right 
thing to do. It explains who we are and what American values are. It 
brings the expertise we have in our country to other countries around 
the world who are, frankly, struggling with a very slow economy or 
backward economy, and a lot of people are in trouble.
  When I first went to Africa a number of years ago, I wasn't looking 
for a global AIDS epidemic, but I could not avoid it. In every country 
there I visited, I would see more and more people who were doomed to 
die because they had been infected--young people, mothers and fathers 
with children by their side, who knew death was the ultimate result of 
this disease. There was no place for them to turn. At that point, there 
weren't any drugs--at least not available to these poor countries. All 
they were doing was trying to keep people as strong as they could for 
as long as they could to avoid the fatal onset of these diseases.
  Things have changed. They have changed because of the PEPFAR program 
of President Bush, the global fund program. We are taking therapies now 
and medications that have kept Americans infected with HIV alive for so 
many years and sharing them with countries around the world. President 
Bush comes before us now with this proposal, S. 2731, which wants to 
reauthorize the global AIDS program. I think it is a good idea. I am a 
cosponsor. It is a bipartisan bill, led by Senator Biden, a Democrat 
from Delaware, and Senator Lugar, a Republican from Indiana. It is a 
bipartisan bill. This bill has been stopped on the floor of the Senate 
for months. A handful of Senators don't want this bill to move forward 
for a variety of reasons. If they disagree with this bill, if there is 
something they wish to change, let them offer an amendment about the 
bill.
  But it turns out, yesterday, when we confronted these Senators and 
said: What is your problem? What is the amendment you want to offer, 
they want to offer amendments that have nothing to do with the global 
AIDS crisis, nothing to do with this bill. That, to me, is unnecessary 
and unfortunate. We are delaying the passage of this important 
lifesaving legislation so some Senators can offer amendments that have 
nothing to do with the subject matter.
  I hope they will reconsider. In fact, the Senate being in session 
this late on a Friday is unusual. We are usually back home by now. But 
we are here, having spent the whole day waiting for a vote at about 
5:20 because one particular Senator--Senator DeMint of South Carolina--
objected to moving forward with the vote on this bill either this 
morning or on Monday. So 100 Senators--at least those of us who are 
still here--wait patiently for this vote and hope to get home to our 
families this evening or maybe even tomorrow. I hope we pass the bill. 
We need 60 votes to do it. If all Senators are present, there are 51 
Democrats and 49 Republicans. Even with all the Democrats supporting 
the President, we need nine Republicans to make this a bipartisan bill, 
and we should.
  The Presiding Officer, Senator Brown of Ohio, has focused a large 
part of his congressional career in the House and in the Senate on the 
issue of tuberculosis. He has traveled all around the world and has 
seen the scourge of the disease and what it has meant to these 
different nations. We can treat it effectively. If we fail to treat it 
effectively, it can get complicated and very challenging--this 
multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, which we read about in the newspapers 
once in a while and is extremely difficult to treat.
  If a person in a developing country is developing tuberculosis, and 
we can spot it and treat them with very low-cost medicine immediately, 
we can cure it. If we fail, their condition can worsen and the disease 
can worsen and more people can be subject to it.
  We don't live in a world where public health problems are isolated. 
The public health problem in Africa today could be the same public 
health problem in America 2 weeks from now. All it takes is an airplane 
ride. We have seen that happen before. So when we treat these diseases 
overseas, we are not only speaking of our values and who we are, we are 
doing something that is right when it comes to the area of public 
health.
  Critics of the bill have said it goes too far. Let me give you one 
illustration. They argue, for example, we should not be including in 
this bill--directed at HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria--nutrition 
programs. They are wrong. I went to an area of Nairobi, Kenya. It is a 
slum area, where about 600,000 people are living in very abject 
circumstances. It is called Canberra. If you saw the movie ``The 
Constant Gardener,'' I believe it was broadcast--or at least filmed in 
this slum. They have all the problems you can imagine--public diseases 
and health problems. Of course, HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis are found in 
this slum area. They took me to a section on the outskirts where there 
were mothers with small children, families. The kids were playing in 
this courtyard-like area and the

[[Page S6594]]

mothers were sitting on benches. Most of the mothers looked like they 
were about to die. I said: Why didn't these mothers, who are suffering 
from HIV/AIDS, get the drugs they need? They said: Well, they did. 
Unfortunately, these mothers were suffering from malnutrition. They 
don't have enough food. They give the food to the kids. Because they 
don't have enough food to eat, the drugs cannot work. Their systems are 
so compromised because of their weakness and malnutrition that the 
drugs don't work.
  So to say we are going to send drugs to that slum in Nairobi, Kenya, 
to cure HIV/AIDS but not food to feed the patients is self-defeating. 
We would not achieve our goal of saving lives and giving those kids the 
parents they need for the rest of their lives. A nutrition program is 
an important part of this effort.
  I hope this bill will pass this afternoon, or at least move forward, 
but we need 60 votes for that to happen. We have to come together and 
put politics aside. I hope those who wish to offer a variety of 
amendments relating to other things, and not directly to global AIDS 
and HIV, will save those battles for another day. I want them to save 
those battles because that mother in Nairobi is fighting a battle right 
now; she needs our help. President Bush understands that. Senator 
Lugar, a Republican leader, understands that, Senator Biden understands 
that, and the Senate should too.
  It is, to me, a bit embarrassing that we have waited this long to 
bring up this bill of such critical importance to so many millions of 
people around the world. It is our chance this afternoon to do what is 
right and move it forward. The sacrifice we have made to stick around 
and not be with our families this evening, as we hoped to be, is worth 
it if, at the end of the day, we can pass this important motion, move 
the legislation forward for a vote early next week.
  I salute the occupant of the chair for his leadership on the issues 
of tuberculosis and many other areas of public health. I know you feel 
this is the right thing to do. A small investment now can make a big 
difference in lives around the world. I hope our colleagues will share 
that view this afternoon when we vote on the motion to proceed to this 
bill, which is President Bush's plan to deal with the global AIDS 
crisis.
  I yield the floor and 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. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to take a couple of minutes before 
the vote occurs in the next 10 minutes or so to thank, first of all, 
the majority leader for his tireless efforts to see to it that we stuck 
with this housing bill. I know it has been a number of days since we 
began this debate on the housing issue.
  Regrettably, because of a handful of people who oppose the bill, 
which is certainly their right, we have been held up from going to 
final passage. We could have passed this bill yesterday. We could have 
passed it last week. We have had overwhelming votes in favor of this 
housing proposal. Yet, as is the right of any individual Senator or 
small group of them, they can use every parliamentary vehicle available 
to them to delay any consideration.
  The tragedy is, the difference between passing this bill yesterday 
and today, another 8,000 to 9,000 families are filing for foreclosure, 
and every day we delayed over the last 2 or 3 weeks of considering this 
bill--just remember that every day we could have passed this bill, 
somewhere between 8,000 and 9,000 families began the process of losing 
their homes.
  While we cite these numbers over and over--53 percent increase, 
values go down, 1.5 million have lost their homes--somehow they glaze 
over the reality of what is happening with a family. Imagine, if you 
will, as I said yesterday, that you had to go home this evening and 
tell your children, your family: We are going to have to lose our home. 
We have to pack up. I am not sure where we are going. I am not sure we 
will find anything. But we are about to lose the home that was our 
dream, the ability to raise our family here, to accumulate equity to 
pay for college for our children, maybe pay for health care costs, 
unexpected costs that arose--everything that families use with the 
greatest and most important asset that most will ever acquire, and that 
is their home.
  Over the last year and a half, 1.5 million people have fallen into 
the category of losing their home. The economic effects, of course, 
have been staggering. They go far beyond, obviously, what happens to 
individual families, as tragic as that is.
  This bill, which Senator Shelby, I, and 19 other members of the 
Banking Committee--Democrats and Republicans--put together and brought 
to the floor on a vote of 19 to 2, deals with the foreclosure crisis by 
providing some hope for allowing people to stay in their homes at rates 
they can afford. Lenders will have to take a substantial cut from what 
they otherwise would be getting. Borrowers will have to pay insurance 
to the FHA. They have to live in that home. It is not for speculators. 
It is for a limited amount of time, but it gives them a chance to stay 
there. We also provide for modernization of FHA, as well as reform of 
government-sponsored enterprises.
  Today, as people watched the economic news of the country, we know 
that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, these great mortgage lenders that are 
responsible for more than 50 percent of the mortgages in the country, 
have had a tough day. The good news is they stabilized at the end of 
the day, and rightfully so because these institutions, despite what 
some have said, are on a sound footing. They are adequately 
capitalized. In fact, they have more capital than Federal law requires 
and they have access to it. I am glad to report that things seem to be 
stabilizing when it comes to the government-sponsored enterprises.
  We also include an affordable housing program and, of course, 
community development block grant money.
  Senator Max Baucus and Senator Chuck Grassley deserve great credit 
for what they included in the tax package--mortgage revenue bonds, 
first-time tax relief for people who buy foreclosed houses, along with 
tax provisions that will be a real asset to begin to let us come out of 
this economic crisis, the worst we have had in years in this 
country. In fact, the loss of value in our homes now is some of the 
worst we have seen in decades in our Nation.

  So shortly we will have a chance to once again vote on this bill and 
then send it to the House of Representatives. I had a good conversation 
with Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts a little earlier this 
afternoon about this bill, and while there is some disagreement about 
what we are doing in the Senate bill, my hope would be--and I will make 
this plea to our colleagues in the other Chamber--that they would be 
willing to accept this Senate bill. I know there are provisions in 
there they do not necessarily agree with, but I think on the 
fundamentals there is basic agreement about the value of what we have 
done here. I am hopeful they will accept that. They may not, and send 
us back an alternative idea, but I hope before they did that they would 
sit down with Senator Shelby and me and try to work out those 
differences so we could have one more pass at this before sending it to 
the President for his signature.
  Again, I am very grateful to the majority leader, very grateful to 
Senator Shelby and his staff for the wonderful work they have done in 
working with us in order to bring us to the point of finally adopting 
this legislation. It is not the final stop, but it is a major stop in 
getting this bill done, hopefully in the next several days, and getting 
it to the President for his signature. It will not solve every problem. 
But for those who said this Congress could not come together in a 
bipartisan fashion to do something responsible about housing, this bill 
does that.
  For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the motion in the 
vote that will occur momentarily, and let us move on with our ability 
to solve this major economic crisis, the heart of which is the 
foreclosure crisis.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

[[Page S6595]]

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly for 1 or 2 minutes, 
because I know we are voting right at 5:21, and I will be done well 
before that.
  First, I thank Senator Dodd for his very important and incredibly 
effective work on housing. That is such a huge issue, and we need to 
pass that today, and we will in a couple of minutes.
  Secondly, I thank Senator Durbin for his comments on PEPFAR and how 
important that is for our place in the world and as a humanitarian 
effort. I have spent time in prisons in Moscow, in Siberian prison 
camps, and in Haiti in Dr. Farmer and Dr. Kim's clinic, and I have seen 
how tuberculosis ravages bodies, especially when it is combined with 
HIV. Most people in Africa who die from HIV actually are dying from the 
tuberculosis bacteria. I would add it is even more crucial and 
devastating when this TB evolves into multidrug resistant TB or, even 
worse, a newer form, a more virulent, more deadly TB called excessive 
drug resistant TB.
  I urge this body to pass the housing bill, and to have particular 
focus on the PEPFAR legislation, supported by the President. I 
appreciate the President's input and work on this. It is very important 
for our country and for our place in the world.
  I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the call of 
the roll begin now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to 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 clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from 
Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the 
Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), the Senator from Washington 
(Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson), the Senator from 
Illinois (Mr. Obama), the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), and the 
Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester) are necessarily absent.
   I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from 
Vermont (Mr. Leahy) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard), 
the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Bunning), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman), the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Texas (Mr. 
Cornyn), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig), the Senator from South 
Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the 
Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. 
Hagel), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez), the 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. 
Murkowski), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), the Senator from 
Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from Lousiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Further if present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. 
Coleman) and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have 
voted ``yea.''
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Bunning), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), and the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``nay.''
  The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 5, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 173 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Sununu
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--5

     Barrasso
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Kyl
     Thune

                             NOT VOTING--32

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bunning
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kennedy
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Vitter
  The motion was agreed to.

                          ____________________