[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 66 (Friday, May 1, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4999-S5011]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             HELPING FAMILIES SAVE THEIR HOMES ACT OF 2009

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 896, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 896) to prevent mortgage foreclosures and 
     enhance mortgage credit availability.

  Pending:

       Dodd-Shelby amendment No. 1018, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Corker amendment No. 1019 (to amendment No. 1018), to 
     address safe harbor for certain servicers.
       Vitter amendment No. 1016 (to amendment No. 1018), to 
     authorize and remove impediments to the repayment of funds 
     received under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
       Vitter amendment No. 1017 (to amendment No. 1018), to 
     provide that the primary and foundational responsibility of 
     the Federal Housing Administration shall be to safeguard and 
     preserve the solvency of the administration.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut is 
recognized.


                                Schedule

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in the absence of the majority leader, who 
will be here a little later, I have been asked to say that following 
leader remarks, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 896, a bill 
to prevent mortgage foreclosures and enhance credit availability. We 
hope to reach an agreement today on a finite list of amendments--the 
leader does.
  We have been working at that, I can say to the Presiding Officer, so 
we can complete the bill on Tuesday.
  There will be no rollcall votes today. Senators should expect the 
first vote on Monday to begin at approximately 5:30 p.m. Senators 
should note we could have more than one vote Monday evening.
  With that, I see my colleague from Oklahoma.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be considered 
speaking in morning business for as much time as I consume.

[[Page S5000]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                       EPA's Endangerment Finding

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am on the floor to express some concerns 
I have concerning Guantanamo Bay and the efforts of some people, for no 
reason that I can understand, who want to close it. However, before 
doing that, another matter is happening right now.
  On Friday of last week, the administration set in motion a ticking 
timebomb with its release of an endangerment finding for carbon dioxide 
and five other greenhouse gases. The ruling proposes that carbon 
dioxide is a dangerous pollutant that threatens the public health and 
welfare, and therefore must be regulated under the 1970 Clean Air Act.
  This so-called endangerment finding sets the clock ticking on a vast 
array of regulations and taxes on small businesses throughout America 
that would be devastating. They claim, at least for now, to attempt to 
organize the chaos by limiting it to motor vehicles, which is a bad 
enough option considering the state of the auto industry to which we 
are all so sensitive with what is happening. Any attempt to stretch the 
Clean Air Act to regulate these gases illustrates a kind of game of 
Russian roulette this administration is playing with the American 
economy. We start with the auto industry. I can assure you, it is not 
going to end up there.
  They are presenting policymakers with a false choice: Using an 
outdated, ill-equipped, economically disastrous option under the Clean 
Air Act or, to pick another bad option, cap and trade.
  What they are saying is we are either going to find this endangerment 
finding, which will allow us to go ahead under the Clean Air Act 
provisions of 1970, or we are going to then start something that would 
be almost the same thing as cap and trade, except it will be done 
through the Executive and it will be done through the Clean Air Act 
amendments so we will have no control of it, in terms of doing it 
through legislation. As you know, there are several cap-and-trade 
schemes that are up there.
  Last Friday, a week ago today, the Wall Street Journal, in an 
editorial, commented on this false choice. I agree with them. I will be 
quoting now from the Wall Street Journal, a week ago today. They said:

       Still, why confine the rule only to cars and trucks? By the 
     EPA's own logic, it shouldn't matter where carbon emissions 
     come from. Carbon from a car's tailpipe is the same as carbon 
     from a coal-fired power plant. And transportation is 
     responsible for only 28 percent of U.S. emissions, versus 34 
     percent for electricity generation. Ms. Jackson is clearly 
     trying to limit the immediate economic impact of her ruling, 
     so as not to ignite too great a business or consumer 
     backlash.
       But her half-measure is also too clever by half. By finding 
     carbon a public danger, she is inviting lawsuits from 
     environmental lobbies demanding that EPA regulate all carbon 
     sources. Massachusetts and two other states have already sued 
     in federal court to force the EPA to create a NAAQS for 
     CO2.

  We have gone through a NAAQS process with particulate matter and we 
know how that works.
  For further background on this matter, let me explain. The history 
behind the EPA's endangerment finding dates back to 1999, when the 
International Center for Technology Assessment, joined by Greenpeace, 
the Green Party of Rhode Island, Earth Day Network, and 15 other 
organizations--far leftwing organizations, I might add--filed a 
petition with EPA, demanding it regulate greenhouse gas emissions from 
new motor vehicles. These groups urged the EPA Administrator to reduce 
the effects of global warming by regulating the emissions on greenhouse 
gases for ``new motor vehicles.''

  In the landmark Supreme Court case of Massachusetts v. EPA, they 
successfully argued that auto emissions were causing global warming, 
which in turn was eroding the coastline of Massachusetts. The remedy, 
they said, was to control greenhouse gas emissions from cars. All this 
begs the obvious question: What effect would EPA regulation of tailpipe 
emissions actually have on global temperatures?
  In recent testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee on the 
climate impacts of regulating carbon emissions, Dr. John Christy of the 
University of Alabama--that is at Huntsville--found that such 
regulations would be ``an undoubtedly expensive proposition'' and would 
have ``virtually no climate impact.'' Christy calculated this using the 
IPCC climate models. Let's keep in mind that is the United Nations 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that has been very biased in 
this whole thing and actually started the whole issue, the concept that 
anthropogenic gases--CO2, methane--are causing climate 
change or causing global warming.
  Christy calculated, using the IPCC climate models, that even if the 
entire country adopts these rules, the necessary impact would be at 
most one-hundredth of 1 degree by the year 2100.
  Further, he said:

       Even if the entire world did the same, the effect would be 
     less than 4/100 of a degree by 2100, an amount so tiny we 
     can't even measure it. . . .

  This is what Dr. John Christy has said. It is almost exactly the same 
thing as back during the Clinton administration, when we had Al Gore as 
Vice President. He called upon someone to put together--at that time we 
were coming this close to ratifying the Kyoto convention. He said: We 
want you to do a study and say if we were to ratify the Kyoto 
convention and all other countries that are developed nations would do 
the same thing, how much would it reduce the temperature in 50 years.
  They did the study and found out it was 7/100 degrees Celsius. They 
tried to hide that thing, but we did find it. That is exactly the same 
thing Dr. Christy said here, what he discovered and testified to last 
week.
  Once the EPA makes a finding that greenhouse gases endanger public 
health and welfare under the Clean Air Act, who specifically would be 
affected? As EPA's Advance Notice for Proposed Rulemaking makes clear--
that is taking place right now--it makes it clear that an endangerment 
finding would lead to regulations covering nearly every facet of the 
American economy.
  In reading through comments filed in the regulatory docket, one is 
struck by how broadly the Clean Air Act would apply once an 
endangerment finding is made--especially previous sources that have 
never come under control of the Act. EPA received thousands of public 
comments from various industries and groups that expressed concern and 
outright opposition--on issues of cost, competitiveness, jobs, and 
administrative complexity--to greenhouse gas regulation under the CAA.
  The following excerpts, taken from comments filed by the ANPR--the 
American Association of Housing Services for the Aging--speak for 
themselves.

       The members of AAHSA . . . help millions of individuals and 
     their families every day through mission-driven, not-for-
     profit organizations dedicated to providing the services that 
     people need, when they need them, in the place they call 
     home. Our 5,700 member organizations, many of which have 
     served their communities for generations, offer the continuum 
     of aging services: adult day services, home health, community 
     services, senior housing, assisted living residences, 
     continuing care retirement communities and nursing homes.
       AAHSA opposes regulation of greenhouse gases under the 
     Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act is not suited to regulate 
     greenhouse gases, as the EPA administrator and several other 
     federal agencies have opined. In addition, if the EPA 
     regulates greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, many 
     AAHSA members could be subject to costly and burdensome Clean 
     Air Act programs. For example, health care facilities with 
     51,000 square feet or greater would be subject to the 
     Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting 
     requirements. This would require such facilities to get a PSD 
     permit prior to new construction or modifications . . . 
     Finally, there is also the possibility that health care 
     facilities would need to obtain Title V operating permits 
     from the EPA one year from when greenhouse gases become 
     regulated, which would add to the already stressed budgets of 
     nonprofit health care facilities.

  Here is another one--Family Dairies USA. This is testimony just a 
week ago.

       Family Dairies USA is a dairy cooperative with 3600 members 
     located in a six state area in the Upper Midwest of the 
     United States.
       Our members are involved in production agriculture, meaning 
     that a majority of them produce the corn that feeds the cows 
     that produce the milk which feed the Nation. We are opposed 
     to current regulations relating to greenhouse gases under the 
     Clean Air Act as it relates to production agriculture.

  Now, this would be of interest to any of the Members who are from 
agricultural States such as my State of Oklahoma. I am quoting now from 
this organization:


[[Page S5001]]


       Title V requires that any entity emitting more than 100 
     tons per year of regulated pollutant must obtain a permit in 
     order to continue to operate. EPA has no choice but to 
     require those permits once an endangerment finding is made.

  In other words, they have to do this. This is not something that is 
an option.

       USDA, [the U.S. Department of Agriculture,] has stated that 
     an operation with more than 25 dairy cows emits more than 100 
     tons of carbon and would have to obtain permits under Title V 
     in order to continue to operate if greenhouse gasses are 
     regulated.
       Title V is administered by the States, and permit fees 
     (tax) vary from state to state. EPA sets a ``presumptive 
     minimum rate'' for permits, and that rate is $43.75 per ton 
     for 2008-2009. For states charging $43.75 per ton, the cow 
     fee (tax) for dairy would be $175 a cow.
       The cow tax would impose a significant added cost for our 
     dairy farmers that cannot easily be absorbed . . . Imposition 
     of the tax will cause many operators to go out of business 
     and would likely raise prices.

  Obviously, it would. That is quoting from Family Dairies USA.
  Mark Magney, president of Magney Construction:

       We are a mid-sized construction firm--

  This is testimony from last week--

     we employ 30 full time staff and have been in business since 
     1994. We primarily engage in the construction of water and 
     wastewater treatment facilities throughout the upper Midwest. 
     We believe the Clean Air Act is ill-suited for regulating 
     greenhouse gas emissions, and that the EPA should not move 
     forward with the proposed rule or other regulation of 
     greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Doing so 
     could easily delay, if not halt, all future building and 
     highway construction.

  New construction and renovation are vital to our economy and to the 
future improvement of our environmental performance of our Nation's 
infrastructure and must be allowed to continue.
  This is serious because right now we are looking at reauthorizing the 
Transportation bill. The last time we did it was 2005. That was a 
$287.4 billion bill for a 5-year reauthorization. Now we are up for 
reauthorization in 2009, and we are right now trying to figure out what 
to do about America's infrastructure. What we do not need is to have 
this additional regulation increase the cost of construction of the 
roads and the bridges that are so desperately needed.
  According to Peter Glaser, a national legal expert on the Clean Air 
Act, an endangerment finding will lead to new EPA regulations covering 
virtually everything, including ``office buildings, apartment 
buildings, warehouse and storage buildings, educational buildings, 
health care buildings such as hospitals, and assisted living 
facilities, hotels, restaurants, religious worship buildings, public 
assembly buildings, supermarkets, retail malls, agricultural 
facilities, and many others.''
  An array of new development projects could be delayed, perhaps for 
several years, causing ``an economic train wreck.'' This conclusion was 
supported recently by the Heritage Foundation's Center for Data 
Analysis, which found that EPA's new carbon regulations would destroy 
over 800,000 jobs and result in a cumulative GDP loss of some $7 
trillion by 2029.
  The administration and other groups have recently argued that these 
are only scare tactics and that no one is asking EPA to do this. They 
argue, in fact, that EPA has already figured out ways it can avoid 
sweeping in small sources of CO2. That is what they always 
say. ``Well, this is just the big guys, not the little guys.'' I think 
we all know better.
  However, when Republicans on the EPW Committee asked the 
administration's nominee who is set to head the office where the 
endangerment finding and regulations following it will be proposed, how 
they plan to manage this, we have not gotten a straight answer yet. I 
know this because I am the ranking member on the EPW Committee, and we 
are going through the nomination and the confirmation process.
  I have been very cooperative. I certainly supported Lisa Jackson and 
others, even though I do not agree with them philosophically. But we 
are not getting straight answers because no one wants to get out on 
that limb. They do not want to admit we are going to regulate 
everything if this comes along.
  Our reason to question is not based on scare tactics. Staff uncovered 
some comments in the proposed record that argued quite differently. The 
Conservation Law Foundation, in their comments on EPA's Advanced Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking--that is what we are in the middle of now, on 
greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act--did ask EPA to 
regulate such sources. Moreover, both groups asserted that EPA is 
required by law--it is not optional but required by law--to apply the 
PSD program to sources emitting above 100 to 250 tons per year. No 
exceptions to that. Pretty scary.
  The Center for Biological Diversity argued:

       While it is uncontroversial that EPA should prioritize the 
     largest pollution sources first, one of the reasons that the 
     NSR program will be such an effective tool for reducing 
     greenhouse gas emissions is that it applies to a wide variety 
     of sources that will emit in excess of the applicable 
     statutory threshold of 250 or 100 tons per year.

  So they are admitting this is the case. They argued:

       As a threshold matter, the asserted belief of EPA officials 
     that the statutory requirements are burdensome or not 
     ``efficient'' as they should be simply does not excuse the 
     agency from following the law. The EPA has no authority to 
     weaken the requirements of the statute simply because its 
     political appointees do not like the law's requirements.

  But can't EPA just invent new thresholds?

       Several of the suggestions that EPA has advanced are 
     outside the scope of its authority. The EPA has no authority 
     to set higher greenhouse gas major source cutoffs and 
     significance levels.

  That is something that is pretty scary. I think what we need to 
understand is that we are looking at the United States of America. I 
have been on this floor now for 9 years, starting way back when we were 
considering ratification of the Kyoto Treaty. And I have to say, at 
that time I was the chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee. Republicans were a majority and I was chairman. I assumed 
that manmade gases, anthropogenic gases, CO2, methane, were 
causing global warming because that is what everybody said, until the 
Wharton School of Economics came out with the Wharton Econometric 
Survey.
  In this survey they found--they answered the question: What would it 
cost if we in the United States signed the Kyoto Treaty and lived by 
its emissions requirements?
  The range was between $300 and $330 billion a year. After all of 
these things our new President has been doing with the big spending and 
a $3.5 trillion budget and tripling the public debt in the next 10 
years, we do not think about $300 billion being that much, but it 
really is. We are talking about $3,000 a family in my State of 
Oklahoma. Actually, it exceeds that.
  So I thought at that time, if there is some doubt as to the science, 
we better find out about it because if we are going to sign that 
treaty, that is what it is going to cost people in America. We started 
checking. We found a lot. The whole thing started with the IPCC from 
the United Nations. They would love nothing more than to have some big 
global tax and not have to be accountable to individual countries. 
Maybe that was not their motive, I don't know.
  I do know this: We started looking at the science only to find out 
many of the people who were the leaders in other countries--names come 
to my mind such as David Bellamy from the UK. He was with Al Gore 10 
years ago marching up and down the streets saying: Global warming is 
going to kill everybody. Now he is one of the premiere scientists in 
the UK. He is now actually on my side in terms of being skeptical as to 
the science.

  The same thing is true with Nir Shaviv in Israel, with Claude Allegre 
in France, a very well known socialist, one with whom I do not agree on 
anything except his new position which has now refuted this idea that 
greenhouse gases are caused--that global warming is caused by manmade 
gases. So with all of those changes, I suggest any of my colleagues 
here who would like to see documentation, I have my Web site 
inhofe.senate.gov. On this Web site we cite all of the over 700 
scientists who were on the other side of this issue and have now joined 
the skeptics list.
  The reason they are trying to regulate greenhouse gases under the 
Clean Air Act is because they know they cannot get it passed in this 
Chamber. In the House it probably would get passed.

[[Page S5002]]

The House has never had occasion to debate this issue. They have not 
had it. We have had it four times. We had it in the Kyoto Treaty, we 
had it in the McCain-Lieberman bill, the Warner-Lieberman bill, and we 
had it in the Sanders-Boxer bill.
  If we stop and look at the trend, more and more of my colleagues are 
realizing now that the science is not there, but the economics is 
there. If we look at what happened back in 2005, 2005 I chaired the 
committee, so it was my responsibility to defeat it. That was the 
McCain-Lieberman bill. We had, at that time--it was going to be about a 
$340 billion tax increase for the American people, and we debated it 
for 5 days, 10 hours a day. I stood right here at this desk for 50 
hours, and we could only get two or three Senators to come down and 
participate and help me on my side. But we defeated it because people 
did not want to have to go home and explain to people that on dubious 
science they are passing this huge tax increase.
  Then we fast-forward to 2008. In 2008, it was totally different 
because that was the Warner-Lieberman bill that was even a more 
aggressive bill in terms of its emission requirements. MIT had a value 
of that somewhere around $366 billion a year. So that would be another 
huge tax increase.
  What happened in that 3-year period? In 2008, it did not take 5 days 
to defeat it, it happened in 2 days. There were 23 Senators who came 
down and helped me on the Senate floor. Why are so many people 
concerned about this, so many Senators and House Members, about getting 
into this issue? They will vote right, but they do not want to talk 
about it because they have huge amounts of money--moveon.org, George 
Soros, Michael Moore, they put in--what I call the Hollywood elitists, 
they put in millions of dollars a year and consequently there are a lot 
of Members who are afraid of this issue.
  But there are only 39 votes at most. They need 60 votes. It is not 
going to pass. Since this is not going to pass the Senate, they are 
going to try to do as much as they can under regulations and provisions 
of the Clean Air Act.


                             Guantanamo Bay

  Mr. President, just briefly I want to share my findings. I only wish 
every Member of the Senate would take the time to go down to Guantanamo 
Bay and spend some time down there because if they do they would come 
back asking the question: Why in the world would we close this prison?
  Even media that has been very unfriendly--the liberal media would 
like to close anything having to do with the military or having to do 
with prisons--came back and said: Wait a minute, there is a premiere 
facility down there. There has never been a documented case of any kind 
of waterboarding, any kind of torture. The conditions of the detainees 
down there are such that everyone down there understands they are being 
treated better than they should be treated.
  Did you know we actually have one doctor or medical practitioner for 
each two detainees down there? Let's keep in mind who they are. These 
are detainees. They are not prisoners of war; they are terrorists. Many 
of them have killed a lot of Americans. They are down there right now.
  Anticipating that there might be a problem keeping that facility 
open, we are down now to 245 detainees in Gitmo, 245. Of the 245--I 
believe this is about a week old, but I think it is still accurate--
there are 170 of them who cannot be sent back to their countries 
because their countries would not repatriate them. They will not allow 
them to come back.
  Of the 170, some 110 are rough, tough guys. We are talking about 
Khalid Mohammad, who is the instigator of 9/11. We are talking about 
some really bad guys. So the position that the Obama administration 
first took, and this came out during the inaugural address, and I 
agreed with him at that time, he said:

       Well, we would like to close it, but we want to wait and 
     make sure we can take care of adjudicating and take care of 
     these detainees in some other facility.

  That was pretty responsible. I disagreed that we should close it 
because it is one of the few good things we have. We don't get many 
good deals in America. That has only cost us $4,000 a year since 1903. 
Name another bargain like that.
  Now the alternatives are this: If they close it and don't do anything 
to handle how they will adjudicate these cases, they could end up in 
our court system. I am not a lawyer. I am one of the few nonlawyers in 
this Chamber. We know the rules of evidence are different in a tribunal 
than in a court case. Very likely, it would be almost impossible to get 
a conviction. Consequently, a lot of these guys could be turned loose.
  Right now, half the States have passed something in their 
legislatures--my State of Oklahoma has--saying we don't want any 
terrorists loose in the United States. They even proposed that there 
are 17 areas in America where we could detain these people. One of them 
happens to be Fort Sill in Oklahoma. I went down to that facility. 
Sergeant Major Carter, a young lady who is in charge, was saying: I 
spent 2 years in Gitmo. Why in the world would we close that down? We 
can't handle that kind of thing. We don't have the same kind of 
facilities here.
  The arguments are not real in terms of any kind of abuse. They have 
better medical care than they have ever had before. By their own 
statements, it is better food than they have ever had before. Besides, 
there is no place else. If we look at what they are doing and the 
alternatives, we really don't have a choice. If only people in this 
Chamber and likewise in the House would recognize that we are going to 
have to come up with some kind of an alternative before we close it 
down. We spent $12 million. It took 12 months to build. I can't 
remember the name, but it is a courthouse in Gitmo. That is where they 
handle the tribunals. The rules of evidence are such that they can't do 
it in our court system. They have already shut that down, so they are 
not trying these people now. They should be, but they are not. There is 
no place else. It is not just the 245 who are there, but, with the 
escalation of what we are doing in Afghanistan--I was there last week--
I can assure my colleagues, there will be more detainees who will come 
in. We will have to figure out something to do with the rest of them. 
There is no place else.
  I only wish that anyone who is supporting the position of closing 
Gitmo would answer two questions. First, why? What is the possible 
reason for closing it? No. 2, what are we going to do with the 
detainees if we do?
  I yield the floor and express my appreciation to the Senator from 
Connecticut for giving me the time this morning.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the pending business before the Senate is S. 
896, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act. I would like to take a 
few minutes and review the provisions of this bill that Senator Shelby 
of Alabama and I have offered in the form of a substitute. It is 
similar to the original bill, but there are some changes. We have been 
told there are somewhere in the neighborhood of a dozen amendments, 
maybe a little less, that our colleagues have proposed. We are trying 
to work out a finite list of amendments, to consider them on Monday, 
with the hope of getting to conclusion of this bill either by Monday or 
Tuesday--Monday may be a little optimistic but by Tuesday to be able to 
complete work before moving on to other business.
  This is a very important piece of legislation. Many of our residents 
and citizens are deeply concerned about the foreclosure problems. I 
have repeated the numbers over and over. I suspect many people are 
aware, but 10,000 people a day run the risk of losing their homes 
through default or the auction process. Those numbers have not been 
shrinking at all. In fact, there are estimates that the numbers may 
actually increase.
  We have tried over the last 2 years any number of steps to reduce and 
mitigate the foreclosure problem, including inviting the major lending 
institutions to step up and voluntarily talk about mitigation. That 
process began as early as the late winter of 2007 and the spring of 
2007. Regretfully, those institutions did little or nothing to try to 
mitigate this problem.
  In fact, the previous administration refused to accept the magnitude 
of the problem, despite overwhelming evidence, even in early 2007, that 
the foreclosure issue was going to mushroom

[[Page S5003]]

far beyond early predictions. Of course, that is exactly what has 
happened.
  Today, most analysts tell us that while there are a lot of elements 
that contributed to the present condition the economy is in, no one 
disagrees that a major source of economic hardship began with the 
residential real estate market. This problem will not be solved until 
we get to the bottom of it. While there are a lot of other issues to 
talk about, and we are doing that, until this issue of keeping people 
in their homes at rates and mortgages they can afford is resolved, this 
problem will persist.
  The legislation Senator Shelby and I offer, along with the support of 
committee members--and I note the Presiding Officer is a very 
distinguished member of the committee--is to try to offer some relief. 
I will explain briefly the provisions of the bill. I invite my 
colleagues to review it and, hopefully, be supportive on Monday or 
Tuesday when we try to reach final passage.
  We expand the ability of the Federal Housing Administration and rural 
housing to modify loans. Servicers of the Federal Housing 
Administration and rural housing do not have the same ability to modify 
these Federal Housing Administration or USDA loans as they do for non-
Government loans they service. Our legislation authorizes the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture to give these servicers the opportunity and incentive to 
participate in the Obama Loan Modification Program or to otherwise 
modify the loans in ways that are not presently available to distressed 
homeowners, including reducing interest rates, reducing principal, or 
stretching out the terms of these Government-insured loans. This is a 
major provision of the bill. To be able to provide the FHA and USDA 
with the authority to expand these opportunities can bring a tremendous 
amount of relief to people under those programs.
  Secondly, we expand the access to the HOPE for Homeowners Act. This 
was legislation we adopted last summer. The legislation makes a number 
of changes to the HOPE for Homeowners Program to make it more user 
friendly and effective, including the option to lower fees, 
streamlining borrower certification requirements, giving the Secretary 
of Housing and Urban Development limited discretion to determine the 
amount and the distribution of future appreciation. It bans 
millionaires from the program and allows for incentive payments to 
servicers and originators who participate in the program.
  The HOPE for Homeowners Act that passed overwhelmingly here, while 
the intentions for the bill were high, the reality is, the bill didn't 
even come close to achieving the goals those of us who crafted it 
thought it would. We have listened to a lot of people over the last 
number of months as to what could be done to make the proposal more 
effective and efficient to reach more people. The proposals I have 
mentioned were the ideas we have accumulated that we believe, and 
others believe, should make the program far more effective. It will not 
solve all the foreclosure problems, but it will be a major step in the 
right direction.
  Thirdly, the bill creates more enforcement tools for the Federal 
Housing Administration to eliminate bad lenders. The bill empowers the 
Secretary of HUD to expeditiously drop lenders that break Federal 
Housing Administration rules, including, one, by authorizing the 
Department of Housing to go after lenders that break the rules but then 
withdraw from the program to avoid enforcement actions. We put a stop 
to that. We crack down on the misuse of FHA insurance issued on 
mortgages originated through unapproved third-party entities, and we 
authorize HUD to impose penalties on entities that misuse the Federal 
Housing Administration Ginnie Mae designations, another important 
housing program.

  Fourth, this bill provides a safe harbor for servicers who modify a 
loan consistent with the Obama plan or refinance a borrower into a HOPE 
for Homeowners loan. This is a somewhat controversial provision because 
we end up having a contest between investors and bankers.
  The problem is simply this: Even as more and more homeowners have 
fallen behind in their loans, the response of loan servicers has been 
inadequate to the issue. In part, their reason for not responding is 
because they fear they will be sued by investors or competing interests 
for doing so. The House of Representatives passed a very broad safe 
harbor provision, very similar to the one our colleague from Florida, 
Senator Martinez, offered and passed by a voice vote in this body as 
part of the Senate-passed stimulus bill several months ago. The 
provision was dropped in conference. The safe harbor provision in this 
bill is much more narrowly drawn than was the proposal by Senator 
Martinez. I thank him for it. He was very creative in offering the 
idea, but there were concerns raised that it was too broad, that we 
should make it more narrow in its application. So as to not 
disadvantage investors where they have a legitimate complaint and 
provide a safe harbor for those who don't deserve it, the safe harbor 
we crafted is much more narrowly drawn than the House provision or the 
one that passed the Senate in order to ensure that only servicers that 
provide modification consistent with the Obama plan get the benefit of 
the safe harbor.
  In addition, this bill ensures that the HOPE for Homeowners 
refinances are covered as well. That will not satisfy all of the 
investor community, but it is far better than what was in the House 
bill or previously authored.
  The fifth provision of this bill authorizes an additional $130 
million for foreclosure prevention activities. We owe a special thanks 
to the majority leader, Senator Reid, for its inclusion. He has been 
consistent over the months that I have been involved in these issues 
since becoming chairman of the Banking Committee 2 years ago, along 
with Senator Schumer and others, about providing additional resources 
for counseling. This bill provides these additional moneys. We have 
found in the past that where consumers are aware of what is available 
to them and they get advice as to how to proceed, we are able to reduce 
the problems of people losing their homes. Once you are in the 
foreclosure legal web, it is very difficult to help people. Once you 
are in that court setting, it is hard. So the goal is to try to catch 
individuals who qualify for some assistance, who would qualify for some 
relief before they end up in the legal bureaucracy. That is why 
counseling services have been so valuable over the last number of 
months, because they have been overwhelmed by the amount of work.
  I know in my case, the head of my office in Connecticut, who has been 
with me for many years, literally every morning he arrives at work, he 
has e-mails--30, 40, 50 a day--from constituents seeking help because 
they fear they are about to lose their homes. I know other 
congressional offices as well as, of course, counselors are also being 
inundated with requests for help. Obviously, getting good counseling, 
good solid advice, is important. Senator Reid has provided a very 
valuable contribution to this legislation with this proposal.
  The sixth provision of this bill extends the $250,000 deposit 
insurance level for 4 years. Presently, that level would expire at the 
end of this year under an agreement reached earlier with the 
Chairperson of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Most people 
are aware that normally deposits are insured up to $100,000 per 
account. However, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act increased 
coverage through the end of this year. This legislation extends the 
higher deposit insurance limit for banks, thrifts, and credit unions to 
the year 2013.
  Deposit insurance has been a stabilizing force in our banking system 
since its inception in 1933. It is worth noting that the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation originated in the Depression years. There 
were three things done at that time that had as much to do with the 60 
years of relative stability in our economy. One was the formation of 
the Securities Exchange Commission, which played a very valuable role 
in beginning to govern those markets and to prohibit or limit some of 
the wildcatting that went on that created in good part the Depression 
of the 1930s.
  Secondly was Glass-Steagall, which has been controversial with the 
separation of commerce and banking. We have begun to blur those lines. 
I was

[[Page S5004]]

involved in that effort back a number of years ago when we dealt with 
the Community Reinvestment Act. Like everyone else in this Chamber, I 
suspect if we were all asked if we could have anything back and redo, I 
wish that was one we could go back and revisit. Candidly, it seemed 
reasonable at the time, the firewalls. But, frankly, I think we could 
have done a little more to protect and separate those activities.
  Third, in addition to the SEC and Glass-Steagall was the FDIC, the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation--the run on banks. The very day 
Franklin Roosevelt took office in March of 1933--do not hold me to this 
number, but something like 5,000 banks declared a holiday, and there 
was a substantial run. People were frightened they were going to lose 
the savings they had accumulated, the deposits they had invested or put 
in these banks.
  The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, providing that insurance 
to people that their accounts would be protected in an economic 
difficulty, had as much to do, if anything, in providing the kind of 
stability we have seen over the years. But that level of $100,000 has 
been around for a while. I forget how long, but it goes back several 
decades--well, 1980. My good friend and colleague in the Chamber, 
Jonathan Miller, tells me it has probably been since the 1980s for the 
$100,000, maybe even earlier. So there has been a desire to move this 
level up with good cause, even in the absence of the predicaments we 
are in.
  So for those reasons, we raised it. I, for one, would have preferred 
we almost make it permanent--the $250,000--but others wanted to 
restrain this by the amount of time, and I respect their judgment. So 
there was a debate whether it should be 1 year or permanent. We settled 
on 4 years. My sense is, we are not going to roll this back in 4 years; 
it is going to be at least $250,000.
  So for those out there who are concerned about whether there is 
enough certainty in all of this, while I know they would have preferred 
a permanent increase, when you are serving with 99 other colleagues 
here and you are trying to get things done, you have to make some 
compromises. So the chairman would have liked it permanent, some of my 
good friends in this Chamber wanted far less than that, and we settled 
on 4 years. That is the reason that timeframe has come up.
  This is going to be tremendously important. The significant extension 
of the increase in deposit insurance will be especially helpful to 
smaller financial institutions in our respective States that are 
worried there would be a run from these institutions, including 
community banks that derive 85 to 90 percent of their funding from 
deposits.
  So to the community bankers across the country that rightly have been 
disappointed that every time we talk about banks, we fail to 
distinguish between the more conservative, responsible activities of 
our community bankers across the country and the activities of other 
financial institutions that have had far less than that level of 
responsibility--so to our friends in the community banking system 
across the United States: We heard you on this. Many of you would have 
preferred a permanent raising. I agree with you about that, but this is 
the best I could do with this bill. It will not roll back, in my view. 
Eventually, I think we will make this permanent. For the time being, it 
is 4 years.
  By helping community banks protect and grow their deposit bases, this 
legislation contributes to the effort to improve the availability of 
capital for lending. That, of course, affects small businesses, 
microbusinesses, and our constituents across the country. So while this 
is seen as some security and stability, particularly in the community 
banking system, this also is very important to small businesses and 
investors and depositors as well. That is why this legislation needs to 
be seen in the full context of those who will benefit from it--not only 
those facing foreclosure but obviously businesses that need borrowing, 
need that capital to stay alive, let alone try to expand and grow 
during these difficult times.
  The eighth provision of this bill increases the permanent borrowing 
authority for both the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the 
National Credit Union Administration. The bill increases the permanent 
borrowing authority for the FDIC from $30 billion to $100 billion. It 
has been since the 1990s--I think 1991, if I am not mistaken, was the 
time we settled on the $30 billion. It has been since then that there 
has been--actually long before this economic crisis--a desire to raise 
that borrowing authority level. So in this bill, we raise the authority 
from $30 billion to $100 billion. In the credit unions, we raise it to 
$6 billion.
  We establish temporary additional borrowing authority from the $100 
billion to $500 billion in the case of the FDIC and from $6 billion to 
$30 billion in the case of the National Credit Union Administration, to 
which the regulators may gain access only with--by the way, you only 
get beyond that $100 billion with the FDIC or beyond the $6 billion if 
you are part of the National Credit Union Administration if you are 
able to get the following agreements: The regulators may gain access 
only with a two-thirds vote by the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation or the National Credit Union Administration, a two-thirds 
vote by the Federal Reserve Board, and agreement by the Secretary of 
the Treasury, in consultation with the President of the United States. 
Again, you have to have a two-thirds vote by the Federal Reserve Board, 
a two-thirds vote by the FDIC or National Credit Union Administration, 
approval by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the 
President of the United States. I hope my colleagues would feel those 
are enough safeguards that you would not find regulators being able to 
raise those amounts without going through some significant hoops, and 
the circumstances would have to be such that these various offices 
would agree.
  FDIC--Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation--Chairman Sheila Bair has 
said that the temporary authority would allow the FDIC to reduce the 
special assessments on banks by as much as 50 percent, increasing 
lending by as much as $75 billion.
  Again, going back to our banking community and their concerns about 
assessments, the fact that we are doing it, reducing those assessments 
by as much as 50 percent, is no small achievement. Again, it is real 
relief. By doing so, there is the likelihood these institutions can 
provide additional lending because those assessments will not be too 
high, which helps small businesses and borrowers across the country. 
Again, it is not unlike raising insurance levels.
  We think these provisions will also make a great contribution to 
getting lending going again. The one thing we all hear from our 
constituents over and over again is: We are having a hard time 
accessing capital. So we hope these provisions will provide some 
additional relief in that area.
  The ninth provision of this bill stretches out the payment of 
assessments to rebuild the bank, thrift, and credit union deposit 
insurance funds to 8 years. This is a very important provision. Again, 
it goes and relates to the last two provisions I talked about because, 
again, while we think we are providing some relief in terms of the 
amount of assessments, over what period of time you have to pay them is 
also a critical issue for these smaller lending institutions. By doing 
what I have just suggested--stretching it out to 8 years--community 
banks and credit unions will be able to devote more of their resources 
to making loans in the communities they serve.
  This provision is especially important for credit unions because of 
the way their deposit insurance system is structured; otherwise, these 
institutions would have to rebuild their fund in 1 year, which could 
lead to a severe reduction in lending. So it is a major provision for 
both community banks and credit unions but particularly in the case of 
credit unions.
  The 10th provision of the bill improves the FDIC's systemic risk 
special assessment authority. Again, it is related to the last three 
provisions I have mentioned. The Government's recent use of its 
systemic risk authority benefited large bank holding companies and 
their nonbank affiliates, shareholders, and creditors as well. Yet to 
recover any losses from systemic risk, the FDIC may now only charge 
banks and thrifts themselves. Obviously, this would unfairly burden 
community and other traditional banks, particularly

[[Page S5005]]

those with few or no nonbank activities.

  What we have done in this bill would allow the FDIC, with the 
Treasury Secretary's concurrence, to directly assess bank holding 
companies if they stand to benefit from the Government's actions and 
correspondingly to reduce the cost to our community banks. Again, this 
is a major provision. It is a technical one, maybe, to many, but again, 
since a lot of these institutions do not have any nonbanks--and 
therefore run the risk in the absence of this provision--they could end 
up being assessed for those charges. This would allow the Secretary of 
the Treasury and the regulators to seek those assessments for the 
institutions that ought to be assessed since they are the ones 
benefiting from that program.
  So these provisions, while they are technical in nature, I say to my 
colleagues--and they are not the kinds of issues you can explain 
necessarily in a quick sentence before a townhall meeting--let me tell 
you, they are very important. Are they going to solve the economic 
crisis? Absolutely not. Are they going to make a difference? 
Absolutely. Absolutely. So while this bill does not get the same degree 
of notoriety that others have, it is a critical component to getting 
our economy moving again.
  For those of you who have heard--as I have heard over and over--from 
our community bankers, our community small businesses: Where is the 
lending, we think this bill, while it is not going to cause a floodgate 
to open in terms of lending, it lifts a lot of those barriers and 
restraints that people have otherwise felt when it comes to lending 
practices.
  So do some of these community banks and thrifts and credit unions 
benefit as a result of this? Yes, they do. But let me remind you, when 
they do, the borrowers, the homeowners, the small businesses who are 
desperate for that lending, that capital, or to mitigate foreclosure, 
are a direct beneficiary of this legislation. So this is a bill where 
literally both the lending institutions and the borrowers are direct 
beneficiaries, and one of the reasons I think it is so important we try 
to adopt this as quickly as we can.
  My hope is that on Monday or Tuesday we will be able to handle a few 
of these amendments, some of which have nothing to do with this bill. 
We have to deal with the TARP money and others things, and I appreciate 
people's concerns about that issue. But let's not miss an opportunity 
now to get this right.
  If this bill becomes loaded down with a lot of other amendments--and 
I am always hesitant to speak for the majority leader, but in my 
conversations with him, he has indicated he is not going to spend 
forever on this. We will come back to it--recognizing that at some 
point, whether it is later this summer or next fall or maybe next 
winter, we could come back to this, I think that would be a tragedy 
because I think we can get this done. Senator Shelby and I have worked 
hard on a bipartisan basis to put this legislation together. We have a 
very good Banking Committee that has worked on this legislation as 
well. And I think we would miss an opportunity not to get this done.
  So to my colleagues who would like to bring up a lot of other 
issues--and I do not question their motives or sincerity behind those 
ideas that have little or nothing to do with this--I would urge 
restraint or we may run the risk of losing an opportunity to get this 
bill done.
  There are a lot of other matters before this body that the leader has 
to get up for consideration. He cares deeply about this issue, as I 
have evidenced by the fact that he has contributed directly to this 
bill. But he also has other matters that deserve our attention. He has 
provided me the opportunity, along with Senator Shelby, to get this 
bill done. Let's not miss this opportunity.
  People talk about bipartisanship, working together. That is exactly 
what Senator Shelby and I have done with our respective staffs to 
produce this product. It is not exactly everything Senator Shelby would 
agree on. It is not everything I would agree on. But together we feel 
this is a product that deserves the support of our colleagues.
  Let me, lastly, if I can, suggest to you that there are a number of 
very diverse groups that support our efforts. The Center for 
Responsible Lending is a strong advocate of this bill. The Credit Union 
National Association supports this bill. The Independent Community 
Bankers Association strongly supports this bill. The National Consumer 
Law Center supports this legislation. The American Bankers Association, 
the National Association of Consumer Advocates supports this bill, the 
Financial Services Roundtable, and the Housing Policy Council. To those 
who think this is just another list of organizations, let my remind 
those who are not familiar with these organizations, that is a very 
diverse list. You do not normally find consumer groups and the American 
Bankers Association, community bankers and the Center for Responsible 
Lending all agreeing on a bill. Yet that is exactly what has occurred 
with this legislation. So if you have any doubts about the importance 
of it, I would invite my colleagues to contact any of these 
organizations and ask them how significant this bill is.
  Technical, it may be, in nature, and yet it is these technical 
corrections and improvements which can make a difference in the lives 
of our fellow citizens who are anxious--to put it mildly--that we step 
up and get the job done, get our economy moving again, restore our 
optimism and confidence as a people, and provide the kinds of steps 
that will move us in that direction.
  Mr. President, lastly, I ask unanimous consent that letters of 
endorsement from various organizations I have just recited be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      Credit Union


                                         National Association,

                                   Washington, DC, April 30, 2009.
       Members of the United States Senate: On behalf of the 
     Credit Union National Association (CUNA), I am writing in 
     support of the Dodd Substitute Amendment to S. 896. CUNA is 
     the largest credit union trade association, representing 
     nearly 90% of America's 8,000 state and federally chartered 
     credit unions and their 92 million members.
       CUNA strongly supports the Dodd amendment, which includes a 
     number of provisions aimed at helping credit unions continue 
     to help their members weather the financial crisis and 
     maintain member confidence in credit unions. We appreciate 
     Chairman Dodd's willingness to work with us to address credit 
     unions' concerns. We encourage you to support the Dodd 
     amendment when it is considered later this week. Credit 
     unions consider this a critical vote.
       The Dodd amendment would extend until the end of 2013 the 
     increase in deposit insurance coverage ($250,000) for the 
     National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) that 
     Congress enacted on a temporary basis as part of the 
     Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. This provision 
     is an important step that will help maintain member 
     confidence in credit unions.
       The Dodd amendment also includes a number of provisions 
     aimed at helping credit unions manage the impact of the 
     financial crisis on the credit union system. Even though 
     credit unions use strong underwriting standards to make loans 
     to their members and keep most of their mortgages in 
     portfolio, no financial institution is immune from the 
     current economic situation. Corporate credit unions, which 
     provide payment, settlement, investment and other services 
     for natural person credit unions, have been particularly hard 
     hit by the economic maelstrom.
       On March 20, the National Credit Union Administration 
     (NCUA) placed two corporate credit unions--U.S. Central and 
     Western Corporate Federal Credit Union (Wescorp)--into 
     conservatorship. The losses at the two corporate credit 
     unions were created by declines in the value of mortgage-
     backed securities in which they invested. Although these 
     securities were originally AAA-rated and appeared prudent 
     when the investments were made, market developments proved to 
     the contrary. Despite these investment losses, the payment 
     and settlement services provided by these corporate credit 
     unions continue to be offered on a very sound basis.
       The credit union system itself is covering the losses on 
     these corporate credit union investments by way of a 
     significant NCUSIF insurance assessment on all federally 
     insured natural person credit unions. Under current law, 
     credit unions must replenish their NCUSIF deposits equal to 
     1% of their insured shares on an annual basis and are also 
     subject to premium charges when the fund drops below a 1.2% 
     equity ratio. While credit unions expect to pay for the 
     corporate credit union problem themselves, they would like to 
     spread the losses over time, as banks are permitted to do for 
     their insurance costs under current law.
       The Dodd amendment would increase NCUA's borrowing 
     authority from Treasury from $100 million to $6 billion, with 
     the ability to borrow as much as $30 billion in exigent 
     circumstances through December 2010. The amendment also 
     establishes a Temporary Corporate Stabilization Fund that

[[Page S5006]]

     would also help NCUA to spread out credit unions' insurance 
     costs over seven years. Spreading these costs over multiple 
     years means that credit unions can use the funds, that 
     otherwise would have been used to pay the assessment 
     immediately, to make credit available to their members. CUNA 
     strongly supports both the additional borrowing authority for 
     NCUA as well as the establishment of the Temporary Corporate 
     Stabilization fund.
       Time is of the essence. We appreciate the Senate's timely 
     consideration of the Dodd amendment and hope it will be 
     enacted expeditiously.
       On behalf of America's credit unions, thank you very much 
     for your consideration. Please support the Dodd amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Daniel A. Mica,
     President & CEO.
                                  ____

                                                   April 30, 2009.
     Hon. Christopher Dodd, Chairman,
     Hon. Richard Shelby, Ranking Member,
     Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby: We write to 
     express our support for two provisions of S. 896 that would 
     remove significant obstacles to economically rational loan 
     modifications. One would explicitly allow servicers to modify 
     loans where the modification results in a net benefit to the 
     investors as a whole. The other would make homeowners whose 
     loans are insured or guaranteed by FHA, VA or USDA eligible 
     for the same type of affordable loan modifications that other 
     borrowers may receive under the Administration's modification 
     program. The foreclosure problem is so severe that multiple 
     responses are needed, including these two. These amendments 
     are modest, tightly drawn provisions that provide the 
     incentives or authority needed to avoid preventable 
     foreclosures.
       New projections of foreclosures on all types of mortgages 
     during the next five years estimate 13 million defaults. 
     Right now, more than one in ten homeowners is facing mortgage 
     trouble. Nearly one in five homes is underwater. With the 
     housing sector responsible for one in eight U.S. jobs, the 
     flood of new foreclosures will contribute to the growing 
     unemployment rates, further constrict consumer spending, and 
     severely reduce tax revenues at all levels of government.
       Servicer safe harbor. Currently, foreclosures continue to 
     outpace the rate at which servicers are modifying loans, and 
     affordable modifications are particularly scarce for loans 
     that have been securitized. Servicers cite as one of the main 
     reasons for the lack of affordable modifications their 
     concern about being sued by investors if they modify too 
     aggressively--both because of restrictions in their contracts 
     with investors and because many modifications may advantage 
     one tranche of investors over another, even when benefiting 
     investors as a group. A ``safe harbor'' is needed to allow 
     servicers attempting to do the right thing the cover to make 
     economically rational modifications that benefit the 
     investors as a whole.
       The servicer safe harbor provision in S. 896 is narrowly 
     drawn, addressing modifications alone, and not origination 
     issues, fraud or any other issue. It provides a safe harbor 
     only for modifications that are affordable in accordance with 
     Treasury guidelines, and only those where the net present 
     value of the modification exceeds recovery through 
     foreclosure, according to Treasury's prescribed calculations. 
     So its effect will be to prevent ``tranche warfare'' and 
     other obstacles from standing in the way of sound, 
     economically rational modifications.
       Voluntary modifications on FHA/VA/USDA loans. A second 
     needed provision addresses modifications of FHA, VA and USDA 
     insured and guaranteed loans. While private label securities 
     are at the heart of the foreclosure crisis, 10 percent of 
     seriously delinquent loans are government loans. There are 
     currently two significant obstacles to modifying these loans 
     when homeowners can no longer afford monthly payments, often 
     due to lost income in today's struggling economy. First, 
     servicers bear all the cost of modifying these loans, which 
     serves as a disincentive to modification. Second, servicers 
     have no statutory authority to offer more aggressive 
     modifications in line with the Administration's HAMP program. 
     The relevant provisions would address both of these problems 
     by offering servicers incentives to modify government loans 
     and giving them the authority to place borrowers in the same 
     types of affordable modifications available to homeowners 
     whose loans aren't insured or guaranteed by FHA, VA or USDA.
           Sincerely,
     Center for Responsible Lending,
     National Association of Consumer Advocates,
     National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income 
     clients).
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                        Federal Credit Unions,

                               Arlington, Viginia, April 30, 2009.
     Re Support Dodd-Shelby Substitute to S. 896.

     Hon. Christopher Dodd,
     Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard Shelby,
     Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby: on behalf of 
     the National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU), 
     the only trade association exclusively representing the 
     interests of our nation's federal credit unions, I am writing 
     in support of your proposed substitute amendment to S. 896, 
     the ``Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009.'' NAFCU 
     welcomes this important piece of legislation and would like 
     to offer a few comments regarding the bill.
       NAFCU urges the adoption of the corporate credit union 
     stabilization fund proposal recently released by the National 
     Credit Union Administration and contained in the amendment. 
     We also applaud the adoption of a longer time frame regarding 
     the repayment of the National Credit Union Share Insurance 
     Fund (NCUSIF). By lengthening the repayment terms to 8 years, 
     Congress ensures credit unions will be able to focus more of 
     their resources to making loans that will strengthen the 
     economy, rather than having to divert resources to rebuild 
     the NCUSIF. These changes will relieve pressure on natural-
     person credit unions from pending NCUSIF premiums and allow 
     them to provide consumer and small business loans to help the 
     economy. We would also support extending the repayment period 
     for the corporate stabilization fund from the proposed seven 
     years to eight years.
       While NAFCU is pleased to see an increase in emergency 
     borrowing authority for the NCUSIF to $30 billion, we would 
     urge the Senate to adopt a higher initial borrowing authority 
     of $10 billion. This change is long overdue, since the 
     current level of $100 million was established in 1971, and 
     has not been modified for the growth of credit unions and 
     their member deposits over time. While NCUA's initial request 
     for borrowing authority was only $6 billion, we believe more 
     prudent action would be to enact an amount of $10 billion, 
     since the $6 billion figure would only cover what is 
     currently known to be needed for the present corporate credit 
     union crisis, and does not cover additional amounts that may 
     arise. This new amount of $10 billion would not preclude the 
     NCUA from only borrowing $6 billion, but rather it would 
     allow them the flexibility to deal with the current 
     situation. The extended emergency borrowing authority of $30 
     billion will help ensure the NCUA has the tools it needs 
     should a new crisis emerge in these difficult times and is an 
     important addition to the legislation.
       Finally, as part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization 
     Act of 2008, Congress increased the coverage on FDIC and 
     NCUSIF insured accounts to $250,000 through December 31, 
     2009. This change serves to maintain public confidence in 
     insured depository institutions in the current economic 
     environment. The proposed amendment would extend the higher 
     insurance level for four more years to 2013. While this 
     extension would ease confusion many credit unions and their 
     members already have about the pending sunset on December 
     31st, we believe that this new level should be made 
     permanent.
       NAFCU thanks you for your time and consideration regarding 
     these matters. Should you have any questions or require any 
     additional information please do not hesitate to contact me 
     or Brad Thaler, NAFCU's Director of Legislative Affairs, at 
     703-522-4770.
           Sincerely,
                                              Fred R. Becker, Jr.,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____

                                           Housing Policy Council,


                            The Financial Services Roundtable,

                                   Washington, DC, April 30, 2009.
     Re Support for S. 896.

     Hon. Chris Dodd,
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, 
         Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard Shelby,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban 
         Affairs, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Dodd and Senator Shelby: we are writing in 
     support of your legislation, S. 896, the ``Helping Americans 
     Save Their Homes'' Act. The Financial Services Roundtable and 
     its Housing Policy Council believe this legislation will help 
     at-risk homeowners stay in their homes and make government 
     and private sector foreclosure prevention efforts more 
     effective.
       Mortgage servicers are working hard to assist troubled 
     homeowners and prevent foreclosures whenever possible. 
     Private sector efforts are providing 250,000 workouts for 
     troubled homeowners each month. However, difficult conditions 
     in the housing market and the overall economy are causing 
     hardship for more homeowners. Additional support for loan 
     modifications and other foreclosure prevention efforts are 
     needed and this legislation will provide it.
       The Helping Americans Save their Homes Act will provide 
     additional tools to help at-risk homeowners. Two of the most 
     important provisions in the bill are:
       Expanding Access to the HOPE for Homeowners (H4H) Program. 
     This legislation makes a number of needed changes to the Hope 
     for Homeowners Program to make it more accessible and 
     attractive for homeowners and lenders to utilize.
       Providing a safe harbor for servicers that modify a loan 
     consistent with the President's Making Home Affordable plan 
     or refinance a borrower into a HOPE for Homeowners (H4H loan. 
     This legislation will provide additional protection to 
     mortgage servicers who provide loan modifications to

[[Page S5007]]

     borrowers consistent with the standards in the President's 
     Making Home Affordable loan modification program. This 
     protection, consistent with the goal of protecting investors' 
     interests will promote more streamlined loan modification 
     efforts.
       We also support the legislation's efforts to increase FHA's 
     ability to eliminate bad lenders from the program. In 
     addition, we support the authorization of additional funding 
     for foreclosure prevention counseling and for advertising to 
     educate borrowers and prevent mortgage scams. Counseling for 
     homeowners and combating scams are critical part of the 
     industry's HOPE NOW Alliance foreclosure prevention efforts 
     and the provisions of this bill will provide more support to 
     non-profit counselors to enable them to assist homeowners and 
     to educate homeowners to help them resist mortgage rescue 
     scams.
       The Financial Services Roundtable and Housing Policy 
     Council strongly support this important legislation and we 
     urge the Senate to approve it. Thank you for considering our 
     views.
           With best wishes,
                                                   John H. Dalton,
                                                        President.
                                                   Steve Bartlett,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____



                                 American Bankers Association,

                                   Washington, DC, April 30, 2009.
     Hon. Chris Dodd,
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard Shelby,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban 
         Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Dodd and Senator Shelby:  I am writing on 
     behalf of the members of the American Bankers Association in 
     strong support of your substitute amendment to S. 896, the 
     Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, which will 
     soon be considered by the Senate.
       The substitute provides the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Corporation (FDIC) with a much needed increase in its 
     borrowing authority, extends the period for the restoration 
     of the FDIC's deposit insurance fund from five to eight 
     years, and provides a temporary extension (through 2013) of 
     the FDIC's $250,000 deposit insurance limit.
       The amendment also will make it easier for servicers to 
     modify loan agreements. It improves the Hope for Homeowners 
     Program to make it more accessible for lenders and better 
     able to help homeowners avoid foreclosures.
       ABA urges the Senate to pass this important legislation 
     without extraneous amendments, and we look forward to working 
     with you to have it enacted into law as quickly as possible.
           Sincerely,

                                              Floyd E. Stoner,

                           Executive Vice President, Congressional
                                        Relations & Public Policy.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield 
the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 15 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


             honoring foreign service officer brian adkins

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, today is Foreign Affairs Day. Each year, as 
part of this special day, the American Foreign Service Association and 
the Department of State honor Foreign Service personnel who have lost 
their lives while serving our Nation overseas in the line of duty or 
under heroic or other inspirational circumstances. This year's Memorial 
Plaque Ceremony honors the life and service of Brian Adkins from 
Whitehall, OH, a Foreign Service officer who died on January 31, 2009, 
while serving in Ethiopia.
  Brian, who would have turned 26 on February 2, 2009, joined the State 
Department in 2007 after receiving multiple degrees from George 
Washington University. Brian was quickly recognized for his 
intelligence and linguistic skill in seven languages, and the State 
Department assigned Brian as a consular officer to Addis Ababa, 
Ethiopia, in the summer of 2008. Immersing himself in the language and 
culture of the region, Brian dedicated his time to building a greater 
understanding of American values in the region and to helping Americans 
abroad.
  Outside of his service, Brian entertained his family, friends, and 
coworkers as an accomplished violinist and cook. He was also a devoted 
Catholic who spent much of his free time volunteering and giving his 
time to those in need.
  It is with great pride that we honor Brian Adkins and his family 
today. We have lost a talented and committed civil servant whose 
exceptional life serves to remind us of the importance and meaning of 
public service.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. President, for the first time in a long time, there is clear and 
widespread consensus that to improve the health of Americans and the 
strength of our Nation, we must act quickly and responsibly to reform a 
health care system that has failed far too many of our citizens.
  The millions of uninsured, 45 million or so, and the tens of millions 
more underinsured Americans and the thousands of businesses struggling 
to compete globally with rising health insurance costs expect us to 
find a path forward.
  With our Nation spending in excess of $2 trillion annually on health 
care, with too much of our citizens only a hospital visit and a pink 
slip away from financial disaster, we cannot afford to squander this 
opportunity. We cannot settle for simply marginal improvements. 
Instead, we must fight in this Chamber for substantial reforms that 
will significantly improve our health care system.
  That is why this week 15 of my colleagues and I sent a letter to 
Chairman Kennedy of the HELP Committee and Chairman Baucus, the 
chairman of the Finance Committee, making the case for giving Americans 
a health insurance option not controlled by the health insurance 
industry.
  We must preserve access to employer-sponsored coverage for those who 
want to keep their current plan, but that is clearly not enough. Again, 
we want to preserve access for those Americans who have their own 
employer-sponsored plan, if they decide to stay in that plan, giving 
Americans a choice to go outside that with a private or public health 
insurance plan and a good policy and good choices.
  At a time when too many Americans are struggling to pay health care 
costs, a public plan option--it is only an option--will make health 
insurance more affordable.
  The report released this week by Consumers Union found that 30 
percent of the underinsured have out-of-pocket costs of $3,000 or more 
for a single year.
  A Health Affairs study similarly found that one-quarter of 
underinsured people have deductibles of $1,000 or more. It is estimated 
that half of all personal bankruptcies are caused, at least in part, by 
unpaid medical bills or illnesses.
  A public plan option would limit out-of-pocket costs such as high 
deductibles and large copayments and would not abandon people. At a 
time when too many of our rural citizens are struggling to find 
quality, affordable health insurance, a public plan option will ensure 
access in rural and underserved areas. Too often rural communities are 
largely ignored by the private insurance market that targets the much 
more profitable large metropolitan areas with more consumers.
  Private plans too often neglect sparsely populated rural areas. 
Instead, a public plan would be consistently available in all markets, 
ensuring that rural areas and our rural people are not left stranded. 
At a time when too many Americans are losing their jobs--and therefore 
losing their employer-sponsored health insurance--a public plan option 
will ensure portability and ensure continuity of coverage.
  A public plan would ensure that those facing employment changes: Loss 
of job, downsizing, plant closing, moving out of the country, whatever, 
that those facing unemployment changes, those people would have a 
choice to have quality, affordable coverage backed by the strength and 
the reliability of the Federal Government.
  A public plan, therefore, would not disappear when an American loses 
their job or when a marriage ends or when a dependent becomes an adult. 
At a time when too many Americans simply do not have stable, reliable, 
adequate, affordable health insurance, a public plan option is vital to 
ensuring the consumers have another choice.
  Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance plan 
which would work to close the gaps in our

[[Page S5008]]

patchwork health coverage system. There are many ways to design a 
public plan option for uninsured Americans and for underinsured 
Americans. I stand ready to work with Chairman Baucus and Chairman 
Kennedy. I stand ready to work with Senate and House colleagues on how 
best to design this public plan option as part of our overall health 
reforms.
  Health reform must include checks and balances, including private 
insurance and a public insurance option for the Americans we serve.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Casey-Leahy-
Specter-Gillibrand amendment to S. 896, the Helping Families Save Their 
Homes Act.
  Last year, Congress included $4 billion in the Housing and Economic 
Recovery Act of 2008 for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed 
homes and residential properties, which was a crucial step toward 
helping neighborhoods and communities recover from the devastating 
foreclosure crisis. In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 
Congress again recognized the value of the neighborhood stabilization 
program and the grants that go with it, known by the shorthand NSP 
grants, by providing another $2 billion, this time in a competitive 
grant program. When a program has that much support and is so widely 
recognized as doing good, we want to make sure we give the 
beneficiaries of the program as much flexibility in using resources to 
help our constituents as we can. That is what this amendment is about, 
to provide that kind of flexibility.
  The amendment allows grantees to use up to 10 percent of neighborhood 
stabilization program funds for foreclosure prevention activities. That 
is, of course, defined by the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development. Predatory lending and the subprime mortgage crisis created 
a wave of foreclosures that has swept the country since 2006. Many 
communities, however, fear a second wave that will result from the 
severe loss of jobs in the economic downturn and the loss of value in 
homes. Borrowers unable to make monthly payments due to unemployment 
will not be able to refinance their homes because they have plummeted 
in value as a result of the housing market meltdown. My amendment would 
offer more flexibility to grantees to use these funds for this purpose.
  I urge my colleagues, as we consider housing legislation this week 
and next, to be mindful that the foreclosure crisis is not over. 
Foreclosure filings nationwide ballooned in March 2009, up 45 percent 
from a year ago, and in Pennsylvania we have had a total of 4,943 
foreclosure filings in just the 1 month of March. The Durbin amendment 
that was voted on yesterday, which was unfortunately defeated, would 
have saved 1.7 million homes from foreclosure.
  If we will not give borrowers the tools they need to save their 
homes, at least we can continue to provide resources to State and local 
governments, community organizations, housing counselors, and the 
thousands of attorneys who volunteer their time and expertise to 
helping homeowners and families in need.
  I will continue to fight for funding for housing counseling and legal 
services to help families. I am grateful to Senators Dodd and Shelby 
for the underlying legislation which I believe is a step in the right 
direction.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Senator Harkin in pertaining to the introduction of 
S. 953 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Roxana Saberi

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have come to speak about the subject of 
energy, but before I do that, I wish to speak about the issue of Roxana 
Saberi and the fact that she sits this morning in a 10-foot by 10-foot 
cell in Evin Prison just outside of Tehran, Iran.
  Let me describe, as I have previously done so, this young woman. This 
is a picture of Roxana Saberi. She was born and raised and educated in 
Fargo, North Dakota. Her father came to this country from the country 
of Iran about 35 years ago. As a result, Roxana, born and raised in 
this country, is an American citizen. However, her father was an 
Iranian citizen and has Iranian citizenship. Thus, this young woman is 
considered an Iranian citizen as well.
  Let me tell you a bit about her. She was an all-star scholar, an all-
star athlete. She graduated from high school in Fargo, North Dakota. 
She got a bachelor's degree. She competed in the Miss North Dakota 
Pageant and was Miss North Dakota. She competed in the Miss America 
Pageant and was one of the 10 finalists in the pageant. She went to 
Northwestern University and got a master's degree at Northwestern 
University. She then went to Cambridge, England, and in Cambridge 
received a master's degree in international studies. She worked for a 
television station in North Dakota in the middle of all of that. Later, 
she went to Iran because she was very interested in her heritage. While 
in Iran, she reported for National Public Radio and BBC in England. She 
reported for those entities and many others.
  At the end of January of this year, she was arrested by the Iranian 
authorities and put in prison. She was arrested, presumably for 
purchasing a bottle of wine. They threw her in prison. She was there 
incommunicado, unable to communicate with anyone for a good long while. 
She was later told her arrest was not for purchasing a bottle of wine 
but, rather, for reporting without a license--being a reporter and 
reporting without a license.
  She was finally allowed about a 1-minute telephone call to her 
parents in the United States. Then she was allowed to see an attorney. 
Then they held a very brief, closed-door trial in Tehran, Iran and 
found her guilty, sentencing her to eight years in prison for 
espionage.
  The Iranian Government went from purchasing a bottle of wine which 
justified her arrest and detention in prison, to reporting without a 
license, to espionage, and to an 8-year prison sentence. Today, Roxana 
Saberi sits in a 10-foot by 10-foot cell with two other women in that 
prison.
  I visited this week with the Swiss Ambassador to Iran, who came to 
this country and stopped in to see me. The reason I mention the Swiss 
Ambassador is because we do not have an embassy in Iran nor do we have 
an ambassador there. We do not have diplomatic relations with this 
country, so the Swiss Embassy is our protectorate. So we have an 
intercessor. They have been working with us to talk with the Iranian 
officials.
  This is an unbelievable miscarriage of justice and needs to be 
rectified. The fact is, the Iranian officials should understand that 
they have detained this young journalist and thrown her in prison. They 
have charged her with espionage and sentenced her to eight years in 
prison, thus the spotlight of the world is on them. Their credibility 
is at stake.
  I hope the Iranian officials will do the right thing: release her 
from prison and allow her to leave the country of Iran. It is past 
time, long past the time for them to make the right judgment. They have 
made a number of wrong judgments in recent weeks and months. This young 
woman has been in prison since the end of January. It is a complete 
miscarriage of justice. For them

[[Page S5009]]

to charge her with being a spy and find her guilty of espionage is 
almost unbelievable. They know better than that. I call on the Iranian 
Government to release her from prison and allow her to leave the 
country of Iran.
  Most governments in the world have now communicated with the country 
of Iran about this case. I hope we will not have to be talking about 
this case much longer. I hope the Iranian authorities and its 
Government will do the right thing.
  Roxana Saberi should not be in prison. She is a very accomplished 
young woman who was in the country of Iran because she treasured her 
heritage. Because she was in Iran, she was apparently arrested on what 
I believe are trumped-up charges and has been sentenced in a way that 
completely defies any reasonable sense of justice.
  Again, my hope is Iranian officials will begin to do the right thing 
and do it very soon. I call on them to release this young woman from 
prison and allow her to leave the country of Iran.


                             Energy Policy

  Mr. President, I wish to talk about energy policy. There are so many 
different issues we confront in this country, and we have been 
leapfrogging from one issue to another. We have a very serious 
financial crisis and financial collapse in this country. We have seen, 
month after month after month, 600,000, 650,000 people losing their 
jobs, in an economy that has substantially collapsed, and we are hoping 
now is at bottom. We are hoping we will begin to rebuild once again. 
But when we talk about 3.7 million people having lost their jobs just 
since this recession began. This is a very serious situation.
  So the financial crisis that is one issue. On top of that, day after 
day we hear of other significant challenges--a crisis now that might 
turn out to be a pandemic dealing with swine flu, and requiring the 
U.S. Government to move very quickly to address that. I just described 
one issue in Iran. The reality is that we have a country that wishes to 
build a nuclear weapon and imprisons innocent young women. Further, 
there are concerns about North Korea and their actions in recent weeks. 
We have no end to challenges. We are trying to figure out what and 
where we go with respect to Afghanistan and Pakistan. What do we do 
about Iraq? How do we address the issue of terrorism? There is no end 
to the issues we face.
  I have been in both Afghanistan and in Iraq and that region dealing 
with, not only the internal issues of both countries which are very 
difficult, but the issue of terrorism in the region is something very 
important to us.
  My point is that we are working on many issues and all of them 
critically important. But let me describe one issue that, if something 
catastrophic happened some night about midnight, would put this country 
flat on its back. That concern is energy and our unbelievable 
dependence on foreign energy.
  Let me put a chart up that shows oil consumption. This is a chart 
showing the top oil consumers in the world. At the top of the chart is 
the United States. The next largest is China and so forth. We put 
little straws in this planet and suck oil out. We suck 85 million 
barrels of oil every day out of the Earth--85 million barrels a day! 
One-fourth of it is needed for the United States. Think of that: One-
fourth of everything that is taken out of this planet in the form of 
oil is needed in this country. We have an unbelievable appetite for oil 
to turn into energy.
  Another statistic: Of the 21 million barrels a day that we use in the 
United States, nearly 70 percent comes from outside our country. We are 
70 percent dependent on oil supplies from outside of our country. 
Another statistic: Nearly 70 percent of all the oil that we use is used 
in the transportation sector. We get behind a steering wheel, put the 
key in the ignition, get the seat real comfortable, put whatever we are 
going to put in the cup holder, and away we go using oil. As I said, 70 
percent of that which we use is used in transportation, and nearly 70 
percent of that which we use comes from outside our country.
  Think through for a moment: If somehow terrorists interrupted the 
supply of oil to this country or were able to destroy one of the major 
supply lines or one of the major facilities in Saudi Arabia or 
elsewhere, then we would be in very significant difficulty. This 
demonstrates how we are unbelievably dependent on oil.
  I think we are going to continue to use oil, natural gas and fossil 
fuels in our future for a long time. We are going to need to use them 
differently by decarbonizing them and have less CO2 emitted, 
but the fact is we are going to continue to use fossil energy. Much 
more importantly, how do we, even as we continue to use that oil, make 
the U.S. less dependent on that oil which others produce? Well, the way 
we do that, it seems to me, is to define a different kind of energy 
future. To decide that, we are going to produce renewable energy and 
that we are going to do so by maximizing the production of renewable 
energy domestically. If we are producing a lot of energy from the wind 
and a lot of energy from the sun, or biomass or other alternatives, it 
means we need to import less oil. That is a fact.
  We are going to have a lot of debates, and it wasn't too many months 
ago on the floor of the Senate that we had folks coming with big signs 
that said: Drill, baby, drill. Drill, baby, drill. The whole notion was 
you have to drill more. Well, you know what, I am for drilling more. It 
makes sense to me.
  By the way, if you are going to drill more, the place you would go, 
it seems to me, is in the eastern Gulf of Mexico--where you have 
substantial opportunities to achieve more production. The only area 
that has been newly opened in the Gulf of Mexico in recent years is 
something called lease 181, which four of us, myself, Senator Bingaman, 
then-Senator Talent, and Senator Domenici introduced legislation to 
open. It got narrowed some, but we got it done, and that became law. 
They had a lease sale, and we now have the opportunity to get some 
energy from lease 181, which is a reasonably small area in the eastern 
gulf.
  My point is: We should drill more. Let us drill where it makes sense 
and add to our stock. But the fact is, that in itself will not solve 
our problems. Senator Voinovich and I introduced legislation in recent 
weeks called the National Energy Security Act of 2009. It is bipartisan 
and addresses a wide range of issues of things we have to do to address 
this energy issue. Right now, in the authorization committee of the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, we are beginning to write a new 
energy bill as well, and I am pushing very hard to include those kinds 
of provisions in a new energy bill that will, I hope, come to the floor 
of the Senate reasonably soon.
  Here are the kinds of things this represents--the achievements I 
think we have to strive for in a new energy bill. It is what we have 
included in the National Energy Security Act. Number 1, reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil; Number 2, increase domestic production--and 
that is not just oil but production of all sources of energy--Number 3, 
electrify and diversify our vehicle fleet because as I indicated, 70 
percent of our energy is used in transportation; and by doing this we 
can move toward an electric drive future with respect to vehicles, and 
then even beyond that, hydrogen fuel cells with respect to the long-
term future--Number 4, create a transmission superhighway; and, Number 
5, train the energy workforce of tomorrow.
  The transmission superhighway is a critical part of this because we 
don't have a transmission superhighway similar to the interstate 
highway system in this country. We have a transmission system that is 
kind of like an old inner tube with patches on it. Much of it is old, 
with some new, but it does not have a transmission capability that 
connects all of America. What we need to do is maximize the potential 
of renewable energy.
  How do we do that? Well, the wind blows especially hard from Texas to 
North Dakota. What you need to do is to capture that wind energy and 
move it to where it is needed. For example in North Dakota, while it 
can produce a lot of wind energy--the Department of Energy calls it the 
Saudi Arabia of wind--North Dakota doesn't need the additional wind 
energy. But if it can produce it, it must move it to where it is 
needed. From Texas to California, in the heartland of our country, 
where you can produce a lot of energy from the wind, you need to have a 
modern grid that connects it to areas of the country that can use, and 
must have, the product of that wind energy.

[[Page S5010]]

  I mean, this is simple. You take energy from the wind and, through a 
turbine, turn it into electricity. You can do a lot of things with it, 
but most notably you would put it on a grid and move it to where it is 
needed. Or you can, through electrolysis, separate hydrogen from water 
and store a hydrogen fuel from it.
  This is an example of an interstate transmission system. We have all 
seen these. Actually, there are new technologies now that would allow 
it to be put underground and perhaps would be much more efficient and 
much less costly. But anyway, if you don't modernize the transmission 
grid and create a superhighway of transmission capability connecting 
all of America, you cannot possibly maximize wind energy or solar 
energy or biomass or others. You can't possibly do it. If we can get a 
bill to the floor of the Senate that is tepid or halting with respect 
to how we want to do this, or even whether we want to do it, we can 
talk until we are blue in the face. But we will not have done this 
country any favors in maximizing the production of renewable energy.
  I mentioned a transmission system. The transmission system is 
necessary for wind and solar energy, and so on. Most of us now 
understand what this wind energy means. I know it was a fanciful idea 
not too many years ago to talk about getting energy from the wind, but 
with the new technology with respect to the turbines, you can put a big 
old tower up and some very large blades and you can grab energy from 
the wind and produce electricity. Once you put that tower up, you can 
make a few adjustments here or there, but for the next 30 years, you 
are going to be getting wind energy for virtually nothing. I understand 
we have to talk about maintenance, but understand that wind is free.
  By the way, free energy comes from sun as well. As we know, the wind 
comes from different warming trends of the Earth, the sun shines all 
the time and has an unbelievable amount of energy that it focuses on 
the Earth, both in solar energy and wind energy. We need to harvest it 
and we need to take advantage of it with solar cells and a whole range 
of different approaches using solar and wind energy.
  The only way it will work, however, is if we have, as I said, an 
interstate transmissions system. This system has three components to it 
that make it controversial: Who is going to plant it? Who is going to 
site it? And who is going to pay for it? Now, let me give a statistic. 
In the last 9 years, we have produced 11,000 miles of natural gas 
pipeline in this country, moving natural gas all around the country. 
During those 9 years, we have been able to build only 640 miles of high 
voltage transmission lines. Let me say that again. We have built 11,000 
miles of natural gas pipeline, and during the same period we could only 
build 640 miles of high voltage transmission lines.
  Why is that? It is because it is hard to build transmission lines. 
Nobody wants them to cross their interstate transmission lines. Talking 
about interstate now. They have proven very difficult to build because 
you have several different jurisdictions that have to give approval and 
a good many of them simply say, ``Not in my back yard. Take a hike.'' 
We have to address those issues. Is it controversial? Sure it is. But 
if we don't address it, I guarantee you this country can talk and talk 
and talk about moving toward more renewable energy, but we will never 
get there. We will not get there. Now, if we do that--move toward more 
renewable energy and put it on transmission lines to move it where it 
is needed--it will allow us to move toward an electric drive future for 
our vehicles, which I think is very important.
  I have often mentioned my first vehicle as a young kid was an 
antique--a 1924 Model T Ford. It is interesting--I will not tell the 
whole story about my Model T Ford--but I restored it in 2 years as a 
young teenage kid. I loved to do that stuff. When I got it running 
again, got it painted and all fixed up, it was a car that was 
serviceable, right? It was running. The Model T ran. The interesting 
thing about vehicles is that everything--everything--in a vehicle has 
changed since they made a Model T--everything. It doesn't matter what 
you talk about--tires, the radiator, the spark plugs, you name it--it 
has all changed. There is now computer capability. But the one thing 
that hasn't changed is the gas tank. The gas tank on that car that was 
built nearly a century ago is the same as the gas tank on the current 
vehicle. You filled it the same way as you do now: You looked for a gas 
pump, drove up there, stuck a hose in the tank and started pumping.
  Nothing has changed about the way we fuel vehicles. But we have to 
change that. If 70 percent of our oil is used in the vehicle fleet--in 
transportation in this country--then we have to decide if we are going 
to be less dependent on Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and Venezuela and Iraq 
and so on, and change the way we fuel vehicles.
  Here is a picture of an electric drive vehicle. I don't quite know 
the form, but we have electric drive vehicles on the road today. There 
is much more sophistication in the development of these vehicles. In my 
subcommittee, I put in $2 billion in the economic recovery program for 
grants for battery technology because we want to lead the world in 
battery storage. That is part of the key to an electric drive future. 
We want to lead the world in storage capacity.
  Some of the electric vehicles, perhaps--whether you have plug-in 
vehicles, plug-in hybrids, there are all kinds of different 
approaches--will run on batteries, and when the battery runs a bit low, 
there will be a tiny engine someplace that starts and provides some 
additional charging for the battery. There are all kinds of different 
approaches, but the fact is we need to move in this direction, and I 
believe we will. But it will happen only if we decide as a country to 
embrace the policies that allow us to do it, and that is substantial 
additional development of renewable energy--the capability of building 
an interstate transmission system and getting it done with high voltage 
wires. If we do all that, we can change our energy future. That is a 
fact.
  I mentioned a few moments ago about drilling. The fact that I want to 
maximize renewable energy doesn't mean I don't want to produce what we 
need to produce, and that is additional oil and natural gas, and 
continue to use coal as we decarbonize the use of coal. But in the 
legislation Senator Voinovich and I have introduced, we open the entire 
eastern gulf for expansion of drilling. This is a very important area 
where there is substantial additional opportunity for drilling. It is 
now closed, by the way. This little area, lease 181, is the area we 
opened, the four of us, by legislation in recent years. That is the 
only area that has been opened. We need to do this, and we need to 
demonstrate we are serious about energy and all forms of energy.
  I have talked a lot about production and then moving it to where it 
is needed. Conservation is critically important, and in the legislation 
we have introduced, we have substantial conservation capability as 
well. But the fact is, when you save a barrel of oil, it is the same as 
producing a barrel of oil. I believe we have great opportunity to 
conserve.
  While I am speaking, there are a whole lot of folks who left their 
homes to go to work today. They have all kinds of appliances plugged 
in. It is true at this point that the toaster is not pushed down, 
toasting bread, you know. Many of the appliances are not actually 
triggered, but they are still using some energy because they are 
plugged into the wall. At midnight and 2 o'clock and 4 o'clock in the 
morning, almost every home is still heating water. You tell me the name 
of somebody who is going to shower at 3 a.m. The whole country is 
heating water at 2 a.m.--for what? The point is, we can do a lot more 
and do it a lot better through conservation. That deals with the issues 
of smart grid and smart metering and a whole range of issues of that 
type.
  If someone wonders whether all of this is important, I want to show 
you this black spot on the map. This is a map of the United States of 
America, and the lights show where electricity is used at night. You 
can see the population centers. But over here, there is one big black 
hole. That is because it is August 14, 2003, and 50 million people lost 
their electricity. Do you see that? Ohio to New York, 50 million 
Americans discovered the switch they used to flick up doesn't yield any 
energy, the toaster they used to push down doesn't produce any energy; 
no energy at all,

[[Page S5011]]

and all of a sudden you have a huge dark spot for 50 million Americans. 
If you wonder about the importance of this, I am talking about the 
reliability of a system for something we take advantage of every single 
day.
  We are drafting a bill right now in the Energy Committee, and there 
is a great deal of disagreement about a renewable energy standard 
requirement that at least 15 percent of electricity is produced from 
renewables. That should not be controversial at all. In fact, I think a 
couple dozen states have gone way beyond the Congress on this issue. 
That should be a slam dunk, but it is not.
  Building a transmission system--we are going to have a lot of 
opposition. But no country gets where it wants to go unless it sets a 
course. There is an old saying: If you don't care where you are, you 
are never lost. This country has to set a course and say: Here is where 
America wants to head for a decade. If, at the end of that decade, we 
are not less dramatically dependent on foreign oil for this country's 
energy needs, we are going to be held hostage for a lot of interests 
around this country. We need to do this, we need to do it right, and we 
need to do it soon.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator from the State of 
Alaska, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be 
rescinded.
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________