[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16550-16570]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     AMERICAN HOUSING RESCUE AND FORECLOSURE PREVENTION ACT OF 2008

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to concur with respect 
to H.R. 3221, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A message from the House of Representatives to accompany 
     H.R. 3221, an act to provide needed housing reform, and for 
     other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House of 
     Representatives to the amendment of the Senate to the 
     amendments of the House to the amendment of the Senate to the 
     bill.
       Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House of 
     Representatives to the amendment of the Senate to the 
     amendments of the House to the amendment of the Senate to the 
     bill, with amendment No. 5103, to establish the effective 
     date.
       Reid amendment No. 5104 (to amendment No. 5103), to change 
     the enactment date.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 11 a.m. shall be equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees.


               Recognition of the Acting Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will take the leader time, if Senator 
McConnell is not here.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Further, that the remaining time on the Republican side be 
allocated as follows: Senator DeMint, 20 minutes; Senator Hutchison, 5 
minutes; Senator Domenici, 7 minutes; Senator Shelby, 7 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a question for the distinguished 
Republican whip.
  You are going to take the minority leader's 10 minutes prior to the 
11 o'clock vote?
  Mr. KYL. No, Mr. President. I would take not to exceed 10 minutes 
right now.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am happy to ask consent that the Senator 
have that, but he is not entitled to leader time. If he wants an extra 
10 minutes, that is fine with me.
  Mr. KYL. I am not requesting an extra 10 minutes. Following my 10 
minutes of remarks now, the other time is allocated to complete the 
total of the Republican time, the time allocated to our side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                                 Energy

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, we are engaged in a somewhat rare Saturday 
session this morning. One might ask, what is the purpose for this 
session? In addition to voting on important housing legislation, the 
other vote the Senate will cast today is a very important vote. It is 
whether we are going to end our discussion and our effort to deal with 
America's biggest challenge on the domestic front--namely, the high 
price of gasoline and high price of fuel, which drives prices of 
everything else--or whether we will move on to other matters, other 
matters that are, at least in the eyes of the American people, far less 
important than dealing with this important energy crisis. There is no 
question that the American people believe our biggest challenge right 
now, a challenge that should be faced up to by Congress, is dealing 
with high gas prices. The Democratic majority would like to move on.
  The second vote we have this morning is to move on, to move off of 
the energy and gas price debate and to move on to another bill. If that 
is unsuccessful, then next week they intend to move on to something 
else. Republicans will say no. We need to stay here and complete our 
work on this important gas price reduction legislation, and we should 
not leave here until we act.

[[Page 16551]]

  Yesterday, the Washington Post had a somewhat critical editorial of 
the Democratic majority's position in the House and Senate. The title 
of it was ``No Drilling, No Vote.'' It begins:

       Why not have a vote on offshore drilling? There's a serious 
     debate to be had over whether Congress should lift the ban on 
     drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf that has been in 
     place since 1981.

  It concludes:

       If drilling opponents really have the better of the 
     argument, why are they so worried about letting it come to a 
     vote?

  That is our view. Why shouldn't we have a vote?
  The Republican leader came to the floor earlier this week and asked 
unanimous consent that we consider six or seven amendments, the very 
first one of which was to enable us to drill offshore. The majority 
leader objected to that request. It is fairly obvious that the 
amendment or something like it would pass because there are Members on 
both sides of the aisle who appreciate the fact that the first thing we 
should do to resolve this crisis is to have more American production. 
Republicans don't believe this is the only solution. Nobody believes 
drilling solves the problem. But most experts would agree it is the 
biggest first step, the one thing we could do that would make the most 
difference. We believe it is important to produce more and use less, 
meaning, to produce more by offshore drilling in the deep waters off 
the Gulf of Mexico, to take advantage of oil shale we have available, 
the vast resources in Alaska, and other resources that are American 
resources that can solve this American problem and get us off 
dependence on foreign oil.
  There are other sources for electricity. We support increased nuclear 
production, wind, solar, and coal gasification and liquefaction. We 
also support more conservation. That is the ``use less'' component, 
including being able to transport ourselves in automobiles that use 
battery technology. The Democratic bill, on the other hand, deals with 
one subject: it puts the blame on so-called speculators and says that 
is where we should solve the problem. Not one drop of oil would be 
produced, not one bit of natural gas would be produced by the 
Democratic legislation.
  Republicans agree that the CFTC, the regulatory body, needs more 
resources. It demonstrated its ability to work by announcing this week 
that it is going after some people who are trying to manipulate the 
market. We agree that they need all of the funding and employees to do 
their job as possible, but clearly, it is not the answer to the 
problem.
  Here is what is happening. The market looks out a few months and 
says: What will the supply be; what will demand be? What it has seen is 
that demand is increasing dramatically, and it sees supply either flat 
or declining. It sets the price accordingly. It sets the price going 
up. My colleague John McCain is right: When the market sees we are 
serious about increasing production, market prices will go down 
accordingly.
  We have American energy. We need to free it up for the American 
people. But the Democrats' game here is a very cynical one: Let's just 
have two amendments. Let's have a face-off between a Democratic 
proposal and a Republican proposal. It is the same old politics. 
Neither side wins, and that is the way it is set up. The American 
people lose.
  Republicans have a better idea. Let's work on a bill one bite at a 
time. If it is too tough to do this in one giant swallow, then let's 
build consensus from the bottom up with people on both sides of the 
aisle agreeing to the components of the legislation. We can do this in 
a bipartisan way, and we can do it within a week. But until we get 
somewhere on gas prices, we shouldn't quit and move on to something 
less important in the eyes of the American people.
  I ask unanimous consent that, at the conclusion of my remarks, a 
short statement be printed in the Record that deals with the 
contribution of a weak dollar to high oil prices.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. KYL. This makes the point that there is a direct connection 
between the weak dollar and the high oil prices Americans are having to 
pay at the pump. It makes the point that if the dollar were stronger, 
it would take fewer dollars to buy the same amount of gasoline. That is 
something additional we can do. That is primarily not a congressional 
matter but a matter for the Federal Reserve and the Department of the 
Treasury, primarily the Federal Reserve.
  All of these are ways we can deal with the problem of the high cost 
at the pump. We need to address all of these issues. But until we have 
addressed them, we should not move off of the legislation and take up 
something that is less important. The only exception to that is the 
housing bill we will vote on next. We have complete agreement to do 
that. Then when that is concluded, we will move back to the energy 
debate we have been having, the debate on how we can reduce the cost of 
gasoline at the pump. The American people expect us to do that, and we 
should complete that work before we leave for our August recess.

                               Exhibit 1

                  S. 3268 ``Stop Oil Speculation Now''


              A Weak Dollar Contributes to High Oil Prices

       At $124 a barrel, oil prices are still close to record 
     highs, and the weakness of the American dollar has a lot to 
     do with it.
       Often the increase in oil prices can be attributed to 
     political turmoil in the Middle East or a significant supply 
     issue (as occurred after Hurricane Katrina). While these are 
     factors today, there is another reason you could see an 
     increase in the price at the pump.
       Since January 2007, while oil prices have more than 
     doubled, the American dollar's value has decreased by 
     approximately 13 percent. As the economy has slowed, the 
     Federal Reserve has dropped the Federal Funds rate numerous 
     times over the past year--a total reduction of 3.25 
     percentage points since January 2007. Dropping the interest 
     rate is meant to stimulate the U.S. economy, but it also 
     weakens the dollar.
       The American dollar is the currency used by the 
     Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the 
     conglomerate of oil producing nations that sets global oil 
     prices. Thus, any fluctuations in the value of our dollar are 
     reflected in the price of oil.
       As our dollar falls in value relative to the euro, yen, or 
     price of gold, the price of oil goes up. Since oil is priced 
     using the American dollar, what Americans pay for oil will 
     increase to compensate for this change.
       At the same time, however, other nations are shielded from 
     the same oil price increase because their own currencies are 
     more valuable than the dollar. European and Asian countries 
     (among others) are importing their oil for significantly less 
     than what Americans are paying. Europeans pay just 79 euros 
     for a barrel of oil while Americans pay more than $124. 
     Returning the U.S. to a ``strong dollar policy'' would 
     greatly reduce the price U.S. consumers pay for oil.
       Confidence in the value of the U.S. dollar is also vital to 
     American financial competitiveness. A weak dollar makes 
     investment in foreign markets more attractive, particularly 
     for those who seek to diversify their portfolios as our 
     economy slows. Further dollar weakness could precipitate a 
     dramatic shift of money from domestic to foreign markets.
       The key idea to understand here is that the value of our 
     American dollar is an important consideration to the investor 
     and consumer confidence. Without this confidence, our economy 
     will have a difficult time avoiding recession.
       So these are several reasons why it is in our nation's best 
     interest to support a stronger U.S. dollar. Economist David 
     Malpass wrote in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, ``A 
     strong, stable currency is itself one of a country's most 
     valuable fundamentals, not a byproduct of other fundamentals. 
     Our fundamentals haven't been nearly as bad as the dollar's 
     seven year slide. More likely, the weak dollar trend is 
     itself a bad economic fundamental, masking health 
     elsewhere.''


         The Federal Reserve Should Focus on Fighting Inflation

       There are two things that can be done to better the dollar. 
     First, the Federal Reserve should switch its focus from 
     maintaining economic stability to fighting inflation. In 
     periods of slower economic growth the Federal Reserve 
     traditionally responds by reducing short-term interest rates, 
     but that can exacerbate inflation, which has increased 
     substantially--growing at 4.9 percent in June from the same 
     time a year ago.
       Note that while the dollar has fallen, the euro remains 
     relatively strong because the European Central Bank (ECB) has 
     not only refrained from lowering interest rates due to their 
     concerns about global inflation but actually raised their 
     target interest rate to 4.25 percent on July 3rd.

[[Page 16552]]

       The Federal Reserve needs to follow the ECB's lead and 
     resist the political pressure to cut interest rates in order 
     to stabilize the value of the dollar.
       The second thing would be for Congress to begin to make our 
     current, relatively low, tax rates permanent.
       Our currency is the foundation for our economy; without a 
     strong dollar our economy will not be able to achieve the 
     stability that is necessary to control oil prices or the 
     economy.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, at this moment in the U.S. Capitol, there 
are scores, if not hundreds, of employees at work. It is unusual for 
most of them to be here on a Saturday, but sometimes it is necessary. 
It is unusual for the Senate to be in session on a Saturday, but 
sometimes it is necessary. One can certainly argue that when the United 
States is facing a serious issue, we should be at work, whether it 
requires our being here on Saturday, Sunday, or all the days of the 
week. That is what we were elected to do.
  Certainly, the housing bill, which is before us now, is a matter of 
grave concern to many of us who see across America foreclosures that 
are taking away the homes of many American families and affecting the 
value of millions of other homes. But this could have been done 
yesterday. In fact, it could have been done weeks ago.
  Six different times, the Republicans initiated filibusters to stop 
this housing bill--six different times. They have set all the records 
in the Senate for filibusters, and they applied six of them to the 
housing bill.
  To add insult to injury, they added a day of session, a totally 
unnecessary day of session for which we are meeting this morning. This 
could have been sent to the President yesterday. He could have signed 
it, bringing some assurance and confidence to consumers across America 
that maybe this housing crisis can be put behind us and this economy 
can move forward. But one Senator, the Senator from South Carolina, 
insisted that the Members of the Senate all stay here today.
  It is the second time in 2 weeks he has taken away a day of our lives 
with our families. This time the Senator from South Carolina is going 
to be here for the vote he has asked for, and I think that is good. It 
certainly is his right to do that.
  You say to yourself: There must be some matter of great moment that 
would have him keep the entire Senate here for an extra day, cause us 
to ask scores, if not hundreds, of people to come and work that extra 
day. Well, what is that issue? The issue is whether we are going to put 
some language in to limit or prohibit two Federal agencies--Fannie Mae 
and Freddie Mac--from having lobbyists on Capitol Hill. It is a good 
issue. I might even vote with him on this issue. But to think he would 
hold the Senate for another day, make us open this session and bring 
all those people to work for this amendment on a bill which we know 
must pass, which the President has urged us to pass, is hard to 
understand.
  It is his right to do it. It is any Senator's right to do it. But 
there comes a point when you step back and say: We can fight this 
battle another day. This is not a life-or-death issue. This is not an 
issue that has to be decided on this Saturday or else.
  But we are here. We are here to face this issue, deal with the 
housing bill, which I hope will pass. President Bush initially opposed 
this bill. The President said there were provisions in here he could 
not accept. But then there was a serious concern across America as to 
whether these critical agencies--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are 
involved in standing behind almost half the mortgages in America--were 
being threatened.
  I got a personal call from Secretary Henry Paulson, our Secretary of 
the Treasury, at home last week. He said: We have to do something. This 
is an emergency. I said to Secretary Paulson: I think you are right. I 
may not agree exactly with your approach, but there comes a time when 
we have to rise together, on a bipartisan basis, and deal with a 
serious crisis. This could be a crisis if we do not act.
  I said to him: Would you urge the Republican Members of the Senate to 
have the same sense of urgency in passing this housing bill that I hear 
in your voice? He said he would try. Well, he was not very successful. 
Six different times the Republicans have tried to stop this housing 
bill with a filibuster and now have dragged us into a Saturday session 
here to slow it down again.
  But today, with any luck, it will pass, and finally we will send it 
to the President's desk. The President said he is prepared to sign it. 
This is too serious an issue for him to stand in the way. I am glad the 
President has made that decision. I do not think it is going to turn 
around the American economy, but we know the housing crisis certainly 
started us on the skids that are leading us toward a recession. There 
are much bigger issues in our economy that need to be resolved even 
beyond housing.
  The simple fact is, the overwhelming majority of Americans are 
worried and angry--worried about their own financial situation. They 
have seen the values of their homes plummet. They have seen their 
retirement savings diminished by a stock market that is unpredictable. 
They know the cost of gasoline is taking more money out of their 
wallets and credit cards every single week. A trip to the food store is 
a little more expensive than it used to be. It costs more money to put 
those kids through school. And if you get stuck with medical bills now, 
it could break the bank and empty your savings account.
  That is the reality of life in America today. The Bush economic 
policy has failed. This notion that we can somehow give tax breaks to 
the wealthiest people in America and prosper as a nation never did make 
sense and has resulted in the mess we have today. This notion that we 
can wage a war and spend $12 billion to $15 billion a month for almost 
6 years now and not suffer some problems in America as a result never 
made sense. It does not make sense today. Each month the administration 
adds that money to the deficit, piling up more debt on America's kids, 
debt that is currently financed by foreign governments that step in and 
buy America's mortgages. What a legacy: an economy that is so weak that 
people are worried and even angry; a prospect of more of the same, 
unless there is a real change in Washington; and when it comes to the 
Senate, a slowdown. Let's slow it down with six filibusters when it 
comes to a housing bill. Let's make the Senate meet on a Saturday. 
Let's keep them in. Let's try to slow this down even more. That is the 
Republican approach. It is not a good approach.
  I think there are Republican Senators of good will who understand we 
can do better. Let me point out one: Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama. 
He stepped up. As the ranking Republican on the Banking Committee, he 
and Senator Chris Dodd, our Democratic chairman, worked together to get 
this bill done. I salute him and all who helped him bring this bill to 
the floor. That is the kind of bipartisan spirit we need: that sense of 
urgency, that sense of bringing the bill to the floor to do something 
for our Nation. I wish his voice had prevailed in the Republican 
conference and all those filibusters had not taken place and this 
unnecessary Saturday session had not taken place. But the decision was 
made by the leadership to allow this to go forward, and that is their 
decision.


                                 Energy

  Mr. President, I will say a word about what Senator Kyl addressed on 
the energy package. It is hard for me to understand how my friend from 
Arizona--and he is my friend--could stand here and suggest we have 
stopped the Republicans from offering their solution to deal with 
America's energy crisis. We did not. Senator Kyl knows we said to them: 
Put together your package and bring it to the floor. We will do the 
same. Let's have two competing ideas. Let's debate them. Let's give 
them the same vote. And then let's decide.
  That is what we are supposed to do, isn't it? We are elected, on a 
bipartisan basis, to try to solve problems. With 51 Democrats and 49 
Republicans, things have to be done on a bipartisan basis

[[Page 16553]]

for most important issues. But Senator Kyl and Senator McConnell, on 
the Republican side, rejected that. They said: No, we want to start an 
amendment process. Let's see how this unfolds. Let's bring out seven 
amendments to start with and you can bring out whatever you want and 
let's talk it over and let's go through the debate. Unfortunately, that 
would have led to nothing because we have a deadline facing us. Coming 
in just a few days, we are going to break for our August recess. We 
could have been mired down in the debate with an endless number of 
amendments and nothing would have happened.
  The American people want something to happen. They want us to deal 
with this energy crisis, and they understand simply saying we are going 
to drill for more oil, on its face, does not make sense. The United 
States, in all of its oil reserves we can identify and think of, has 
about 3 percent of the world's supply of oil. But we are big oil 
consumers in this country. We consume 25 percent of the oil produced in 
the world each year. Mr. President, 3 percent available, 25 percent 
consumption.
  As T. Boone Pickens, now the patriarch, I guess, of energy policy, 
said: We can't drill our way out of this problem. T. Boone Pickens is 
an oilman. He knows we need more. We need responsible exploration and 
production. We need to use the land we have already leased. We need to 
tell the oil and gas companies that are reporting record profits: Get 
to work, find those sources of oil that you already think are there in 
this leased Federal land, and go after them. Do it in a responsible 
way. Do not pollute our beaches and do not pollute our Nation. Do it in 
a sensible and responsible way. I think all of us would endorse that. I 
hope that is what the Republicans stand for too.
  But it is not enough. We need conservation and fuel efficiency. We 
need cars and trucks that get much better miles per gallon. We need to 
be thinking about the buildings that are being constructed and the 
lives we lead and how, in small and large ways, we can change our 
energy consumption without compromising our economy. We need to be 
thinking about renewable, sustainable sources.
  It breaks my heart that three different times we brought to the floor 
this energy tax extender, which would create tax incentives for more 
renewable, sustainable energy--wind power, solar power, the kinds of 
things that do not pollute, do not create global warming but do create 
electricity and energy for families and businesses in America's 
economy--and we lost it. We could not bring enough Republican votes 
forward to vote for it three different times.
  A major company in my State came to visit me, a man from this company 
this week, who said: I am facing bankruptcy if you don't accept the 
responsibility of extending these tax credits. I believed you when the 
Congress said: We need a new American energy policy. I invested my 
hard-earned money in it. I am employing people around the country. We 
are building these wind turbines. Why don't you do your part and extend 
this tax credit?
  But, unfortunately, we have not been able to rally the Republican 
votes that are necessary to do it. We will have another try at it this 
week. I hope they will reconsider their position and think--forward 
think--about the energy policy of this country. That is the reality. If 
we can start bringing down gas prices and stabilize them, if we can 
start looking ahead to new sources of energy, if we can start creating 
new companies, new technology, new jobs, new opportunities, then we 
clearly will have a better future in the 21st century.
  I wish to help--and I am sure everyone in the Senate does--these 
families deal with the reality of energy costs. We can do it.


                                 LIHEAP

  Mr. President, we are going to have a LIHEAP bill later today. This 
is a bill for the poorest in our country, the elderly, the disabled, 
people who cannot afford to pay their utility bills in the summer and 
the winter, and we give them a helping hand. Let's extend that too.
  For goodness sakes, these folks are barely getting by at the moment. 
We ought to give them that helping hand. Today, we will have a chance 
to vote on it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning.
  I have a parliamentary inquiry: Who in this Senate has the last word 
on when votes are scheduled?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The scheduling is done by the 
leadership, and typically it is done by unanimous consent involving 
both the majority leader and the minority leader.
  Mr. DeMINT. But the majority leader has to agree. And further 
parliamentary inquiry: Is it not true that the majority leader 
scheduled two votes today by filing cloture earlier this week when 
these would ripen today?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the rules of the Senate, the 
cloture motions do ripen today.
  Mr. DeMINT. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. DURBIN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Will the Senator yield for an 
inquiry?
  Mr. DeMINT. I would like to proceed with my time, if I could. I thank 
you. Certainly, the majority whip will have his say again when we are 
through.
  The Democratic majority leader announced to all of us about a month 
ago that we would be here this weekend because there were some bills he 
wanted to get through. And so those Americans looking in who are not 
that interested in all our procedures and carrying on here--the 
majority leader scheduled that there would be two final votes today, 
Saturday. He told us, as Republicans, we could have no amendments on 
these bills, and then he demanded that we give unanimous agreement that 
we move those votes he had scheduled back to Friday or even Thursday. 
Now, they are complaining about a Republican who has no authority when 
we schedule votes, complaining that somehow I scheduled these votes 
today. I guess a lot of Members are naive and believe that. But I do 
not think Americans buy it.
  I know a number of folks are disappointed we are here on Saturday and 
not somewhere else. But I am not worried about how disappointed Members 
of Congress are. I know Americans are very disappointed, not that we 
are here on Saturday but that we are not working every day of the week, 
24 hours a day, to address the major issues in this country.
  They are disappointed, and we know they are. In fact, Americans think 
less of this Democratic Congress than Americans ever have of any 
Congress in history. And it is not just the Democrats. I am very 
disappointed myself. I came here--I came to the House 10 years ago--
with great hopes that I could be a part of addressing major issues 
facing our country and create a generation of opportunity by helping 
Americans and helping freedom work for everyone.
  I have been disappointed that it has been increasingly obvious that 
the Democrats are so controlled by a few interest groups--the union 
bosses, the plaintiffs' lawyers, environmental extremists--that they 
are afraid to allow their Members to take votes that would tell 
Americans where they stand because they do not want to offend these 
interest groups.
  Now, I am equally critical of Republicans because I have been 
disappointed in them as well because many of them have lost sight of 
what we believe, what we came here for, and have lost the courage to 
fight for it. So many times the scenario of bills that are coming 
through here is: In order to check the box, Republicans agree to add 
Democratic policy that continues to expand Government.
  The Senator from Illinois has complained about these filibusters. 
Again, it is these mysterious procedures that we have in the Senate 
that he remarkably calls filibusters: when they put a bill on the floor 
and then they file a motion to cut off debate; and when we

[[Page 16554]]

do not agree to cut off debate, they call that a filibuster.
  Americans should know, in this Congress, 855 bills have passed in 
secret--no vote, no amendment, no floor debate. Ninety-four percent of 
everything we have passed in the Senate has gone by what they call 
unanimous consent. Now, some of these are legitimate unanimous consent 
bills--naming a post office and other things.
  Americans should also know this housing bill has major implications 
not only for spending but for government taking control of private 
sector businesses, taking ownership of private property, putting the 
taxpayer on the line for billions and possibly more. They wanted this 
bill passed in secret, by unanimous consent, without anyone knowing 
what is in it. I want to talk about what is in it.
  Last week, we had a $50 billion foreign aid bill that they wanted 
passed by unanimous consent, in secret. When some of us step up and 
say: No, this is too important; we need to bring it to the floor and 
maybe have an open debate and allow a few amendments, that is what the 
Senator from Illinois calls a filibuster. This is no way to do 
business, but it is the way this Congress has gotten America in so much 
trouble today.
  As I speak about a few issues, I wish to keep one issue in front of 
everyone, because as bills come through here, there is always 
justification: It is a farm bill; we have to vote with the farmers. It 
is a veterans bill; we have to vote for veterans. It is a housing bill; 
we have to vote for homeowners and homebuilders and realtors. We should 
consider what our own Congressional Budget Office and the 
administration is projecting. Beginning right now, in 2008, the 
expansion of debt in America is going to do more to hurt our economy 
and hurt everyday Americans than anything we are doing here. Yet we 
never even talk about things we could cut, wasteful programs we could 
fix. What we talk about is basically appealing to interest groups by 
passing one thing after another that is designed to attract 
constituencies and votes and campaign contributions from different 
groups.
  Yes, I am disappointed, and I know Americans are too.
  As we talk about the energy debate--and again, I will criticize 
Republicans and Democrats, but when it comes to this one, there is no 
issue clearer in terms of who has restricted the supply of American 
energy over the last 20 years. This has clearly been a partisan issue: 
the Democrats responding to extreme environmentalists, going back to 
President Carter's years when he cut off the development of nuclear 
energy, the recycling of nuclear waste. President Clinton vetoed, a 
little over 10 years ago, the development of oil reserves in Alaska. 
Democrats voted almost unanimously to stop us from developing our oil 
and natural gas reserves in this country. Like the old Steve Erkle of 
``Family Matters,'' now they are standing here and saying: Did I do 
that? They are trying to blame big oil and speculators and George Bush 
and everyone but themselves, but on this issue there is probably 
nothing clearer of how this Congress has caused America a huge problem, 
and now they are saying we are going to save America.
  The Democrats will not allow an open debate and open amendments, as 
is the tradition of this Senate. They will not allow their Members to 
take votes on drilling and deep sea exploration in America or a 
separate vote on developing the oil shale in this country or expediting 
the development of our nuclear capabilities. They won't allow these 
amendments to come to the floor for the reasons I have already 
mentioned. They don't want Americans to know where they stand, and they 
want to appease the extreme environmentalists. They are trying to have 
it both ways. That is why we are stuck in doing nothing here, because 
instead of doing what the Senate has done for literally centuries, we 
are here trying to protect Democrat Members so they don't have to take 
the tough votes.
  I wish to use one quote from my distinguished colleague from 
Illinois, because he is suggesting that he wants an open debate when, 
in fact, we are not allowed to pick our own amendments. Please be 
clear. The Democrats are not allowing Republicans to offer our own 
amendments. They want to select one amendment for us and say that is 
our bill, and now that we want a full debate, they are saying we won't 
take their generous offer.
  The Senator from Illinois said in March:

       My good friend, the late Congressman from Oklahoma, Mike 
     Synar, used to say: If you don't want to fight fires, don't 
     be a firefighter. If you don't want to stop crime, don't be a 
     policeman, and if you don't want to vote on tough issues, 
     don't run for Congress.
       I agree with him.

  States Senator Durbin.

       I don't like facing tough votes, but it is a part of the 
     job. You ought to at least have enough confidence in your 
     beliefs to cast that vote and go home and explain it.

  The Senator has even indicated that the one vote I would like on my 
amendment to this housing bill he might support. Yet he won't allow me 
a vote--not this week, not next week, not in September. I offered to 
allow the majority to schedule this vote any time, not attach it to the 
Housing bill, not slow it up 1 minute. The housing bill could have gone 
to the President on Thursday, but they are so afraid of voting on an 
amendment that would cut off campaign contributions to Democratic 
colleagues and cut off the lobbying of the organization we are talking 
about bailing out that they will not allow a straight-up vote so 
America can see where they stand.
  This Congress is the Steve Erkle Congress. If you go back during the 
Congress and see what we have done even before--well, think of the big 
amnesty bill that was pushed through here. Only a few of us looked at 
the bill. We discovered that how it was promoted was not true. It would 
not control our borders. It would not create a workable immigration 
system. Basically all it did is reward people who came here illegally. 
But by letting the American people know what was in the bill--putting 
it on the Internet, talking to bloggers, radio talk shows and holding 
the bill through a debate period--Americans rose up and said: No. We 
figured you out, Congress, and we are not going to do it. Millions of 
Americans stopped this Congress from passing that amnesty bill.
  Millions of Americans are standing up as we make them more aware of 
the thousands of earmarks to special interests and friends back home 
that this Congress spends most of the year doing instead of addressing 
priorities. Americans are standing up. They are on to Congress, and we 
are going to keep pushing the Democratic majority to do something about 
this wasteful spending.
  In a few years, the same people who had voted time after time to 
spend the Social Security surplus on other things--and believe me, it 
has been 100 percent on the Democratic side. I have offered an 
amendment to stop the raid on Social Security and the Democrats have 
stood up every time and voted it down, so there is not one dime of 
money saved for Social Security because of Democratic spending. In a 
few years, those Democrats are going to be standing up blaming someone 
else. This time it might not be big oil or the speculators, but they 
will be calling for an investigation, because in less than 10 years, 
the money coming in for Social Security is not going to be enough to 
pay the benefits. My Democratic colleagues will be calling for an 
investigation: Who stole the money from the trust fund? They will be 
hoping the American people forget how they voted.
  We see the same thing on health care every day. They complain about 
the uninsured Americans, but when I put a bill on the floor that would 
allow individual Americans to at least do what businesses do and deduct 
the cost of their health insurance as we allow businesses to do, every 
Democrat voted against that, because they don't want Americans to own 
health insurance. They want the Government to take over health care. So 
at every point we try to expand health insurance, they try to kill it.
  I could go on and on about this dysfunctional, disappointing 
Congress, but

[[Page 16555]]

I guess I should move to housing and talk a little bit about the bill 
that is on the floor today.
  Could I inquire how much time I have remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina has 
5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DeMINT. Well, I better move quickly here. Again, this is a bill 
they want to pass in secret with very little debate. I have asked for 
one amendment--one amendment to stop the lobbying.
  This is not a good chart, but hopefully I can make the point. This is 
the taxpayer at the top. This is Congress. This is Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac. Years ago, Congress created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as 
private sector organizations that were supposed to help the mortgage 
industry and help people buy homes. Certainly it did, but Congress was 
supposed to watch them because we gave them monopoly status. They 
received huge tax breaks so no one in the private sector could compete 
with them, so they grew and grew. The idea was that this Congress would 
pass the reforms and provide the oversight so that Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac would not get out of control, because effectively when we 
formed them, we told the markets and the American people the taxpayer 
was going to guarantee they would not lose money.
  What happened is they stopped these reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac and over the last 10 years they spent nearly $200 million in 
political contributions to Senators and Congressmen, spreading money 
all around Washington. A lot of think tanks that are supposed to be 
watchdogs are not watchdogs to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because they 
have spread so much money around.
  Now as we ask the American people to come in and put their money into 
the pot to hold up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the one gesture of good 
faith as a Congress we could ask is: Hey, that is a conflict of 
interest. We can't have the people who are supposed to watch over these 
organizations getting money from these organizations. At least if we 
are going to ask the American taxpayer to be on the hook for billions, 
possibly trillions of dollars, let's stop this. So I said that is all I 
want, one amendment, 15 minutes of debate, and then you can have your 
housing bill, even though it is a terrible bill. They said no. They 
said no. We are going to keep Members here Saturday to keep you from 
having your amendment.
  There are a lot of problems with this bill, but it doesn't matter. 
Here it is. It is almost 700 pages. Not one Senator has read it. There 
are lots of little goodies stuck in there. There is one we found, an 
earmark on page 616 that overturns an IRS ruling where low-income 
housing--which is supposed to be for the general public and not 
discriminate--that they can discriminate for social organizations such 
as art colonies. Then we find an organization, Artspace, that develops 
low-income housing and gives it to these artistic colonies, one of 
their board members happens to be the executive director of the Fannie 
Mae foundation.
  Folks, this bill needs to be aired out for weeks, if not months. They 
want to rush it through. We kept them here on Saturday so the American 
people could find out a little bit more about what is in it. But no 
matter what is wrong with it, most of the Members of this Senate are 
going to come in and vote for it and check the box and go home and say 
they did something about housing. I am afraid they may compromise the 
future of America as they do it.
  I am sure I am about to run out of time. I know this is a lost cause 
and I am not going to stop this bill, but I am disappointed, the 
American people are disappointed, and what we have done by keeping the 
Democrats and the Republicans here today is maybe give Americans a 
little more time to see what this Congress is doing to their future.
  With that, Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and 
yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois is 
recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, after hearing the Senator from South 
Carolina, it is time we initiate an investigation. I think we ought to 
call the Sergeant at Arms Office. Something terrible has happened here. 
Apparently, the pages on the Republican side of the aisle are not 
distributing the Congressional Record to the Republican Members. The 
Senator from South Carolina says we are about to vote on a secret bill 
that no one has seen. Clearly, the pages have failed to put the 
Congressional Record of July 23 at the desk of the Senator from South 
Carolina, because if they did, the Senator would find the bill in its 
entirety printed in the Congressional Record.
  I am sure the Senator knows this is no new bill. This bill has been 
around since April. The Senator has had ample opportunity to read his 
so-called secret bill.
  This is terrible that they aren't distributing the Congressional 
Record on the Republican side of the aisle. We have to look into this, 
as the Senator says he has evidence of 855 secret bills--again, a 
failure to deliver the Congressional Record to the Senator from South 
Carolina. Every single one of those bills, I say to my colleague, is 
printed in the Congressional Record for him to take home and to read--
to read on the plane back and forth to South Carolina. It is all there.
  I am sure the Senator from South Carolina has been overlooked because 
we have something called hotline. Under the hotline, every Senate 
office is called before every bill is brought to the floor, and any 
Senator can stop the bill, put a hold on it. Every Senate office is 
called. For some reason, on the Republican side, the cloakroom is 
obviously not calling the Senator from South Carolina.
  They are trying to get something past him, secret bills. It is a 
shame. It should be looked into. The Senator is not getting the 
Congressional Records, the hotline calls, and is being overlooked by 
his Republican conference. That isn't fair. We need to look into this. 
For the rest of the Senate--99 other Senators--this is on our desk 
every day, the Congressional Record, printing out every bill in its 
entirety for us to read, if we want to, or ask our staff to. A hotline 
call is made over and over every day to let you know a bill might come 
to the floor. It is not a secret process. The Congressional Record is 
not classified. It is open to the public. It is published so everybody 
can read it. It is available on the Internet.
  So I say to the Senator from South Carolina, let's lift the veil of 
secrecy and let's start delivering the Congressional Record to his desk 
every day so he can keep up with the Senate and know what is going to 
be debated and voted on. The Senator has kind of avoided the obvious. 
The reason we are here today--and we could have been with our 
families--is because the Senator from South Carolina insisted on it. We 
tried to get our work done in a way so Members could get back to their 
families. We could have done it yesterday. The Senator from South 
Carolina objected. He has a right to do that. That is why we are here 
today. Let's not beat around the bush about that.
  In terms of quoting former Congressman Mike Synar, I stand by that. 
We didn't tell the Republicans what they had to offer on the Energy 
bill. We said put in your package what you want to put in your package. 
Bring your drilling amendment, your oil shale amendment, your amendment 
for nuclear power, and all of that was refused. That was refused. We 
weren't writing a single word of any Republican amendment. That was 
your right as a Member of the Republican conference to do that. I 
certainly hope that, incidentally, the Senator from South Carolina, who 
talked about his amendment on lobbying, would share a copy with us. 
Right now, it is a secret amendment. The Senator has not shared it with 
us. We asked for copies of it. I hope maybe he will share that with us.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina is 
recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I advise the Senator from Illinois that I 
have been to the floor asking unanimous

[[Page 16556]]

consent to offer this amendment, which has been available all week. It 
is in the cloakroom. The amendment is simple and available. I remind 
the Senator that when bills appear in the Congressional Record, it is 
after they have passed. As far as the hotlines that come through late 
at night, I get many calls at the airport from my staff, when we are 
leaving at the end of the week. That is when these bills go through, 
and they want to pass them by unanimous consent. Often a copy is only 
available in the cloakroom. Members have not read them. We are all used 
to doing business that way, and it is a problem when we start talking 
about major policies and billions of dollars of money that is spent--
certainly on a bill such as this. We may make it available for a few 
days, so it is not to say it wasn't available, but I know not one 
Member of the Senate has read it all and seen the special provisions 
that have been stuck in it.
  I ask unanimous consent--to clear up what the Senator from Illinois 
has said--that next week, when we come back, we have a free and open 
debate and that the Republicans and all Members be allowed to offer 
their amendments, without restriction from the Democratic side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DeMINT. That is what I thought. There is so much doublespeak 
here. They are saying one thing to the cameras and to America and 
another thing here. We are not allowed to offer our amendments.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico is 
recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the order 
on the floor? Have we agreed on time? And I think there is some order 
for speeches.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican time has been 
divided. The Senator from New Mexico will be granted 7 minutes. The 
majority time has not been divided, and there are 32 minutes remaining 
on the majority side.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Who is to speak next on the rotation?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is no specific order. It is 
an allocation of time to individual Senators.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Would the Senator from Maryland wish to speak now?
  Mr. CARDIN. I plan to speak for about 10 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Then I will take our 7 minutes now.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I also have 5 minutes under the 
previous order, is that correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes, the Senator has 5 minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to follow 
Senator Domenici on our side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have some remarks I think are very 
pertinent to what is going on in the Senate regarding energy for the 
American people. I wish to have answered a couple of the statements the 
Democratic whip stated regarding these amendments. I don't have time 
now, but I will soon.
  Suffice it to say we don't have a chance to offer amendments. Anybody 
who says the Republicans are free and open and have an opportunity to 
offer amendments is not reading the Record. The majority leader has 
fixed it so we can't. I rise to speak about a great amendment for the 
American people that will be pushed aside because the majority leader 
has short-circuited the so-called Energy bill. This amendment gets at 
the heart of what we have been saying we need to do: Find more, use 
less.
  Republicans believe we have a supply-and-demand imbalance, and the 
amendment I speak about this morning attacks the core of the problem. 
Republicans want to act on the No. 1 issue facing the American people. 
We want to act now. We have a great quantity of American resources on 
the Atlantic and Pacific offshore coasts, and so the first part of the 
Coleman-Domenici amendment--which we would have sent to the desk, and 
it could have been pending and we could vote on it, but it is out of 
order because the majority leader has seen to it that it is out of 
order. This Coleman-Domenici amendment would have allowed coastal 
States in those areas to open the waters within their offshore 
boundaries for leasing 50 miles out. Fifty miles out could not do 
damage to the sea, the shores, or to the coastal areas the people want 
to use for their daily lives. You could not even see the activity 50 
miles out.
  The States would receive 37.5 percent of the revenues from this 
production, which could mean literally billions of dollars. When we 
passed the Gulf of Mexico Security Act of 2006, we opened deep sea 
areas containing more than 1.25 billion barrels of oil and nearly 6 
trillion cubic feet of natural gas. This will provide domestic energy 
for millions of Americans, and it is roughly estimated to provide up to 
$400 million for the Gulf Coast States over the next 10 years, and tens 
of billions of dollars over the coming decade. When the Atlantic and 
Pacific States see this money rolling into these coastal States, they 
will be clamoring for more energy, more revenues, and for the good-
paying jobs this great energy enterprise will bring.
  Our amendment is clearly a positive on several fronts. The American 
resources on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts contain 14 billion 
barrels, at a minimum. I say ``a minimum'' because we have not been 
prudent enough, I say to fellow Senators, to spend money to inventory 
it in an appropriate way--the coastal planes areas--to see how much is 
there. We know there is a lot. But the estimates are old estimates and, 
in every case, these old estimates have been very many times wrong. We 
have had much more in resources than the old estimate would indicate. 
Now, the 14 billion barrels is more than we have imported from the 
Persian Gulf over the last 15 years. If people wonder if there is any 
oil, it is 15 years of importation from the Persian Gulf will be found 
in these offshore waters. That is a minimum. That is the old estimate, 
which was done decades ago under old technology.
  That is why I have also filed an amendment that provides $500 million 
in funding to pay for a real inventory of our national resources 
offshore. The American people could hardly believe that we are in 2008 
with modern technology and we don't know how much oil and natural gas 
is ours, belongs to our people, which we could use. We don't even know; 
we haven't bothered to find out.
  A few months ago, the people of Brazil set out to explore and develop 
their own coastal resources. Like us, they knew they had oil offshore. 
Like us, they didn't know exactly how much. Well, in April, one company 
started drilling from exploratory wells in a deep water area off of the 
coast of Rio de Janeiro. To their surprise, they found as much as 33 
billion barrels of potentially recoverable oil. Just like that, 
overnight, Brazil took control of its energy dependence by finding 33 
billion barrels of oil. In the words of one of the great energy 
experts, Daniel Yergin, who I am proud to say is a friend:

       Five or six years ago, nobody really thought there was a 
     huge supply off of Brazil. Now people are saying this could 
     be as big as the North Sea.

  To put that quotation into perspective, the North Sea has provided as 
much as 6 million barrels per day at its peak. Perhaps our amendment 
could do the same for our people. But we may never know because the 
majority leader refuses to address the most important issue in America 
in a serious way. For some reason I can't understand, there remain a 
number of Democrats--
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator used 7 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute to finish.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, is there equal distribution of time to be 
added to the majority?

[[Page 16557]]


  Mr. DOMENICI. Surely.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the second part of the amendment 
addresses the issue of using less. We have all heard about electric 
cars, and we know if we can get these batteries up to where they will 
do 100 miles before they need to be recharged, we will have electric 
batteries sprouting up all over America. That will save crude oil. 
Without a doubt, we will have established an excellent approach to 
America's energy future.
  All we need is for our majority leader--he belongs to the Senate--to 
be fair and let the Republicans have a vote on behalf of America. Why 
do they fear votes in this regard?
  I yield the floor and thank the Senate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.


                                Housing

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the 
housing bill that's before the Senate.
  Like all of my colleagues, I am concerned about the current housing 
crisis.
  The American people are anxious that the equity they have paid into 
their homes may not provide the financial security that home ownership 
once guaranteed.
  Worst of all, many homeowners across the Nation, struggling with 
higher energy and food costs, are at risk of losing their homes through 
foreclosure.
  The legislation before us has positive aspects--including modernizing 
the Federal Housing Administration to provide better, fixed rate 
lending options to those who previously resorted to risky subprime 
loans.
  This will expand homeownership.
  I am pleased that the bill also includes assistance for first-time 
homebuyers and property tax relief for current homeowners.
  The standard deduction for property taxes, included in this bill, 
would be $500 for single filers and $1,000 for joint filers and that is 
important.
  I am also pleased that the bill before us provides some reforms for 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
  With a new, independent regulator, I hope we can prevent some of the 
irresponsible behavior these enterprises have engaged in over the last 
few years.
  But, it is how we are responding to that irresponsible behavior that 
will ultimately lead me to vote in opposition to this bill.
  I am troubled by the inclusion of an unlimited U.S. Treasury credit 
line for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, including the authority for the 
U.S. Government to purchase stock in these private companies without 
the necessary intervention in their governance.
  With our anticipated action today, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will 
have the full faith and credit of the United States.
  However, they have demonstrated spending habits that should not be 
underwritten by American taxpayers.
  Furthermore, I am concerned that with this new authority we will set 
a dangerous precedent and provide incentives for other private 
financial institutions to ignore risks in the future.
  Privatize profits for socialized risk to a slippery slope.
  This addition to the previous bill we passed will increase the 
statutory limit of the current national debt to $10.6 trillion, an $800 
billion increase.
  We could improve this bill substantially if individual Senators were 
allowed to offer amendments on which the Senate could vote.
  But we are being prevented from doing that.
  Senator DeMint has introduced a commonsense amendment to prevent 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from lobbying Congress or making political 
contributions.
  According to The Politico:

       Over the past decade, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spent 
     nearly $200 million on lobbying and campaign contributions.

  These activities shouldn't be allowed to continue.
  I would support the DeMint amendment.
  I also believe that we need checks on executive compensation and 
perks at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with this kind of infusion of 
taxpayer backing.
  In 2003, the CEO of Fannie Mae, who left during an investigation of 
accounting irregularities, was paid $20 million.
  In 2007, the current Chairman of Freddie Mac pocketed nearly $19.8 
million.
  Considering that this bill permits the Federal Government to become a 
shareholder in Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac--and thus, operated with U.S. 
tax dollars--that level of pay is simply unacceptable.
  The U.S. Senate can, and should, spend time debating these issues and 
improving the bill instead of rubberstamping additions that pose a 
taxpayer liability of billions, and maybe trillions.
  But instead, the bill is being rushed through the Senate without the 
careful consideration and deliberation it deserves.
  This is irresponsible.
  While I think it is important to restore confidence in Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac, and alleviate the housing crisis in our country, I think 
we should do better. I cannot support the housing bill in its current 
form.
  I have supported this bill twice before when it came through the 
Senate without the keys to the Treasury being handed to Freddie and 
Fannie.
  With this addition and without adequate reforms to protect taxpayers, 
it is a step too far.
  This bill may ultimately create more problems than it solves.
  Newspapers across the political spectrum, from the Wall Street 
Journal to the Washington Post, have questioned the desirability of a 
GSE bailout.
  The Washington Post editorialized that the bill would ``potentially 
increase the very risks [the] plan is intended to mitigate,'' and asked 
``wouldn't it be wiser to revamp the whole GSE structure, rather than 
construct an increasingly elaborate apparatus to address--or conceal--
the fact that it no longer works very well?''
  There are potentially 800 billion reasons why we ought to take our 
time to consider this bill.
  I think we should help alleviate the housing crisis, but the American 
taxpayers have the right to expect a serious, long-term solution rather 
than a quick fix that puts them on the hook today and keeps them there 
tomorrow.
  Although I support many of the provisions in this bill, and supported 
previous versions the Senate considered, I will vote against this bill 
due in large part to these enormous taxpayer liabilities that this 
institution will not have the ability to amend.
  If this bill does become law, we should not abandon our oversight 
responsibility to ensure that any actions taken by the Treasury will be 
fair and responsible to America's taxpayers, homeowners, and financial 
institutions.
  We owe the taxpayers our vigilance.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more 
minute for both sides.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. CARDIN. Reserving the right to object, if the time comes out of 
what is allocated to the Republicans, I have no objection. There is 
additional time to the Republicans already allocated.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will not take from my colleagues' 
time, but I would like to offer that there be an additional minute for 
the Democratic side as well.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, as long as it comes out of the Republican 
time, there is no objection.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is not what the request is. 
The Senator from Texas is requesting additional time for herself and 
for the Democratic side.
  Mr. CARDIN. I think people are expecting a vote at 11. There is time 
on the Republican side, so I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 1 minute 
be taken from leader time on the Republican side.

[[Page 16558]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, newspapers across the political 
spectrum, from the Wall Street Journal to the Washington Post, have 
questioned the desirability of a GSE bailout. The Washington Post 
editorialized that the bill would ``potentially increase the very risks 
the plan is intended to mitigate'' and asked: ``Wouldn't it be wiser to 
revamp the whole GSE structure, rather than construct an increasingly 
elaborate apparatus to address--or conceal--the fact that it no longer 
works very well?''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
at this point the Wall Street Journal editorial of July 24.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, July 24, 2008]

                     Housing Bill Hammers Taxpayers

       Combine a housing meltdown with election-year politics and 
     the results were not going to be pretty. Add a crisis in 
     confidence in Washington's favorite quasipublic companies and 
     what we're getting is a rout for taxpayers, especially those 
     who kept their heads during the housing mania.
       The House yesterday passed a housing bailout by 272-152. 
     The White House has thrown its reservations overboard and is 
     begging to sign this boondoggle, despite the less-than-veto-
     proof majority. A few brave souls in the Senate are 
     threatening a filibuster, which is where the last hope lies 
     for stripping the most egregious and expensive provisions 
     from this monster.
       Even conservative estimates by the Congressional Budget 
     Office say the cost for this bailout will run to $41.7 
     billion, with $16.8 billion offset by higher taxes. No one 
     has any idea of the real cost. The most expensive provision 
     gives the Treasury temporary authority to pour money into 
     Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The CBO says this could cost $100 
     billion, or it could cost ``nothing.'' So it threw a dart at 
     the wall and assigned a $25 billion price tag to the Fan and 
     Fred bailout.
       Likewise, the bill's $300 billion to refinance and insure 
     distressed loans through the Federal Housing Administration 
     will supposedly cost just a few billion dollars. That assumes 
     few homeowners and lenders will sign up for the program 
     because lenders will have to take a 10% haircut to be 
     eligible. If no one needs this program, why is it there? If 
     lenders do take advantage, they're bound to dump their worst 
     loans on the feds. So as with the Fan and Fred bailout, the 
     FHA guarantee will be either superfluous or much more 
     expensive than we're led to believe.
       Alongside these big-ticket items, we suppose the $4 billion 
     tax credit for first-time home buyers, or the $4 billion in 
     ``community development'' pork grants, or the $180 million 
     for housing counseling are merely routine outrages.
       On the other hand, the kid-glove treatment of Fannie Mae 
     and Freddie Mac is very much worth worrying about. On the 
     floor of the House yesterday, Democrats argued that this bill 
     was the least Congress could do ``for the people,'' given the 
     way the government had ``helped'' Bear Stearns. The cost 
     borne by Bear Stearns was having its shareholders all but 
     wiped out and half its employees pink-slipped. Countrywide 
     was likewise sold at a fire sale price. Not so these two 
     government-chartered giants.
       Fannie and Freddie may well be too big to fail, as Treasury 
     Secretary Hank Paulson keeps reminding us. That is true in 
     large part because they were allowed--no, encouraged--to grow 
     like Topsy while Congress shielded them from oversight. At a 
     minimum, the cost of a lifeline ought to include some 
     accountability and assurance they cannot get into such a fix 
     again. Instead what we have is a promise that Fannie and 
     Freddie will pay us Tuesday for an explicit taxpayer 
     guarantee today. The Treasury will get unlimited authority to 
     recapitalize the mortgage giants, effective immediately, 
     while a new regulator will have to run a gauntlet of 
     confirmation and Congressional hazing over the companies' 
     portfolios of mortgage securities the way a Supreme Court 
     nominee has to handle Roe v. Wade.
       This delay will give Fan and Fred time to consolidate their 
     political position and fend off attempts to shrink them to a 
     less risky size. At the same time, the $600 million 
     ``affordable housing'' fund that the bill would skin off the 
     hide of the two firms gives Washington a permanent stake in 
     preserving their dominant market position. If Fannie and 
     Freddie can't be brought to heel politically now, when weeks 
     ago their very survival was in doubt, not even a newly 
     empowered regulator will have any hope of reducing their 
     claims on the public fisc once the dust settles.
       Mr. Paulson might have kept an eye on the taxpayer's 
     interest here by insisting that any money put into the 
     companies come with some upside, as the Chrysler bailout in 
     1979 did. Instead we are left to trust that Mr. Paulson or 
     his successor will have the political nerve to resist the 
     companies and their friends on Capitol Hill. Any money given 
     to Fannie and Freddie should have been conditioned on 
     receivership, including clearing out the management and 
     boards that made this mess.
       Mr. Paulson argues that the new regulator will have the 
     Federal Reserve's clout behind it, adding firepower to its 
     ability to rein in the not-so-dynamic duo. But the Fed is 
     also subject to Congressional sway, and no Fed Chairman is 
     going to risk losing his running room on monetary policy to 
     corral Fan and Fred.
       For proof of how powerful they remain, even in their 
     straitened circumstances, look no further than Majority 
     Leader Harry Reid's refusal even to allow a vote on an 
     amendment proposed by South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint to 
     bar the two from lobbying in the future. Senator DeMint has 
     threatened to filibuster if his amendment isn't aired. By 
     itself, the antilobbying provision won't save the taxpayer 
     from Fan and Fred, but it's a start.
       Democrats are rushing this bill through because of the 
     favors for Fan and Fred and new spending for left-wing 
     activists like Acorn. But the reluctance of many Republicans 
     to look out for taxpayers is harder to comprehend. They'll 
     get little credit this year for letting the majority 
     Democrats say they did something for ``housing,'' and GOP 
     voters will blame them for rescuing the irresponsible.
       Meantime, the White House and Treasury are betting that 
     this bill will put a floor under the housing market and buoy 
     bank stocks, and thus avoid a deeper financial downturn. The 
     rescue will only delay a housing market bottom, and it may or 
     may not help bank stocks. The one certainty is that taxpayers 
     are assuming a huge new risk.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, there are 800 billion reasons why we 
ought to take our time to consider this bill. I think we should help 
alleviate the housing crisis, and I think most of this bill is good and 
solid, but it adds to the regulatory burden.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I hope we will take time to consider 
it better.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I know it is unusual that the Senate would 
be here on a Saturday, in a voting session, but I am pleased that we 
are here because at last we are going to have a chance to vote on final 
passage of H.R. 3221, the housing legislation that is so important to 
the people of this country.
  I first wish to thank Senators Dodd and Shelby for the manner in 
which they have handled this legislation. It has been handled in a 
bipartisan manner, the way it should be. They have been extremely 
patient.
  This bill has been on the floor on numerous occasions. There have 
been many opportunities for all of us to offer our suggestions on this 
legislation. It has been one of the most open bills we have had.
  I know there are some on the other side of the aisle--my colleague 
from South Carolina--who raise certain objections. There are some who 
would like to see this matter further delayed. I understand that. In 
the other body, Republicans have decided to vote against this 
legislation by a 3-1 margin. That is their prerogative. And there are 
some in this body who believe the status quo is acceptable. They do not 
believe we should be aggressively trying to help the people of our 
communities in the housing crisis. Well, I disagree with that, and I 
think the majority of this body disagrees, and it is important for us 
to provide the tools necessary to deal with the housing crisis in this 
country. Every day that we wait, 8,500 more foreclosures are here in 
America--8,500 people are in danger of losing their houses every single 
day. So, Mr. President, I am sorry we didn't get this legislation done 
earlier, but I am pleased we are here today to complete this 
legislation and to send it to the President for his signature.
  We all know the current status of our economy. We know that people 
around this Nation are having a difficult time dealing with their 
everyday costs--dealing with energy costs, dealing with health care 
costs, and, yes, dealing with their housing expenses. We know that the 
trigger to the current downturn in our economy was caused by the 
housing market. So it is important for us to pay special attention to 
the housing market as we try not only to help

[[Page 16559]]

families who are struggling to keep their homes and keep communities 
strong but also to help our economy.
  This is true in each one of our States. In Maryland, in the second 
quarter of 2008, we saw a 130-percent increase in foreclosures. In my 
own State, 1 out of every 243 households is in some stage of 
foreclosure. This is a crisis affecting millions of people in our 
Nation. Maryland now ranks 16th in the Nation on foreclosures. The 
problem is continuing. There are subprime mortgages that are out there 
with adjustable rate mortgages that will be coming due during 2008 and 
2009, and we will see more and more foreclosures. So we need to act to 
try to prevent those foreclosures.
  I know there have been some who have said: Well, look, this was a 
free market and people made their own decisions. But I can tell you of 
communities in my own State where homeowners were steered into subprime 
mortgages--homeowners who could have qualified for standard mortgages, 
but because of the way the fees were arranged, they were steered into 
these subprime products and are now in danger of losing their homes. So 
we need to do something.
  I want to first acknowledge that there have been many groups that 
have stepped forward. Nonprofits in my State and around the Nation have 
tried to do what they can, and I applaud them for their actions. A lot 
of the people involved in the nonprofit housing sector have tried to 
help through counseling and other means, and that is laudable. In my 
own State, I applaud the efforts of our Chief Judge Bell, who has 
called upon the lawyers of Maryland to attend training sessions to 
offer pro bono services to help homeowners who are in danger of losing 
their homes. I think that is what the bar should be doing, what lawyers 
should be doing, and they are stepping up to try to help. We also see 
State and local governments doing what they can to try to help in the 
housing market, and even private companies have stepped up to try to 
restructure loans so that people can stay in their homes. All of that 
is what should be happening, and I applaud the efforts of the private 
sector and local governments. But the Federal Government should be a 
full partner in this effort, and I think H.R. 3221 moves us in a 
direction toward accepting that responsibility.
  The bill helps current homeowners on the brink of foreclosure. It 
will provide $180 million for financial and legal assistance to 
homeowners who are in danger of losing their homes, which I think is 
very important. The legislation provides for counseling services to 
help counselors deal with individuals who are in danger of going into 
foreclosure on their properties. It also helps with refinancing. It is 
estimated that 400,000 people in this country will benefit from the 
provisions of this legislation that allow for refinancing of their 
loans.
  Some have said this is bailout. It is not a bailout. The loans are 
going to be bought at market value. Investors are going to lose part of 
their investment on these refinancings, as they should. It is not a 
bailout. And the homeowners who take advantage of it, it is to help 
them stay in their homes. If they sell their homes, part of the profits 
need to be returned. So it is a fair way to keep people in their homes, 
recognizing the fact that it is not only the individual homeowner who 
loses but the entire community loses when a house is foreclosed upon.
  I am particularly pleased with the provision in this legislation 
dealing with first-time homeowners. Several months ago, I talked to 
Senator Baucus about a housing credit for first-time home buyers to 
help more people become engaged in buying and selling homes. We know 
that 40 percent of home buyers are first-time home buyers, and by 
helping first-time home buyers, we help the housing market and we help 
the economy. I think the provision in this bill that will provide a 
$7,500 credit or an interest-free loan will help. It is targeted to 
moderate-income families, and it is temporary. It needs to be used in 
the next year. It is reasonable from the point of view of helping 
people get back into the housing market, and I thank the committee for 
including that provision.
  This legislation also deals with the credit crunch--the availability 
of mortgage money for those who need to buy homes. The FHA 
modernization will help, and the reverse-mortgage provisions that 
seniors use. Seniors who have lived in their home for many years have a 
lot of equity in their home. They need the cash out of their house in 
order to stay there, and reverse mortgages help them obtain the 
resources they need to deal with their health care and to deal with 
quality-of-life issues. This bill modernizes the reverse-mortgage 
provisions, providing strong consumer protection provisions for our 
seniors.
  We all know about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provisions and how we 
have tried to strengthen the regulatory system. I think that is what we 
should be doing. We are giving the Secretary of the Treasury the 
flexibility and authority that he needs in order to make sure we don't 
have a crisis in this country by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae not being 
able to carry out their stated mission.
  I am also pleased that the $11 billion for local mortgage bonding 
authority remains in this bill to help local governments deal with the 
availability of low-income housing.
  The legislation also includes improvements to the CDBG funds by $4 
billion, of which $89 million will be available to the people of 
Maryland. These are for the communities that are directly affected and 
have large numbers of foreclosed properties. This provision will allow 
the local governments to be able to buy foreclosed properties and turn 
them back and make them available for moderate-income families through 
home ownership and rental.
  There is a provision in the bill that deals with veterans, through 
our VA home loan program, to prevent foreclosure and increase home 
ownership.
  Lastly, there are provisions in this bill to help us in the future 
with better mortgage disclosure rules and nationwide loan originator 
licensing and registration.
  The bottom line is, it increases the tools available in our toolbox 
to deal with vulnerable families who are in danger of losing their 
homes, it provides the financial wherewithal so that we can keep credit 
available for people to buy and sell homes, and it is a message and 
action to help our economy in these very difficult times. I am pleased 
we are able, at last, to vote on this legislation, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this very important bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama is 
recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent to use 5 minutes of the time 
allotted to the Republican leader.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, first, I appreciate particularly the 
work of my colleague, the senior Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby, who 
has, for quite a number of years, fought to improve oversight of the 
GSE, the Fannie and Freddie agencies that are so dominant in our loan 
market.
  I am pleased, finally, now that we are in a crisis and the warnings 
he has raised for years, along with Senator Sununu, Senator Allard, and 
some others, that they now are willing to accept some significant 
oversight over these tremendously large institutions while, 
unfortunately, placing the taxpayers at risk.
  So I think, all in all, with the crisis we are facing, I am inclined 
to support this legislation; although I am not, in general, happy we 
are in this circumstance.


                                 LIHEAP

  I would like now to direct my remarks to the LIHEAP legislation. I 
think it is a curious thing. I know a lot of Members on our side, who 
are so frustrated about the inability to have a real debate about 
energy, will vote against the LIHEAP bill and going forward to it 
because they want to stay on energy legislation, in general.
  I would suggest, however, the legislation that has been offered by my 
colleague from Vermont is bad policy. It

[[Page 16560]]

is not good. We ought not to support it. Fundamentally, it does this: 
It subsidizes the burning of more fossil fuel. That is an invariable 
law of economics, that which you subsidize you get more of. We are 
told, particularly by our green members--so many of them do come from 
the Northeast--that we ought to reduce fossil fuels. Yet we have a 
piece of legislation that subsidizes, to a dramatic degree, fossil fuel 
use.
  We had a little debate during the Presidential dustup in which we 
discussed cutting taxes on gasoline because the price of gasoline had 
doubled. People agreed that was bad public policy. This is worse. This 
is collecting tax money from various Americans and is giving it to 
others so they can buy more fossil fuels. I do not think that is good 
policy.
  Second, it is the second LIHEAP bill we have had. The first one was 
$2.5 billion. We have done that one. Now we want to do another $2.5 
billion that is unpaid for. It is a $2.5 billion direct increase to the 
debt of the United States of America. We are spending like drunken 
sailors, and that is unkind to drunken sailors.
  We have already passed a $150 billion stimulus package to help people 
with higher costs and difficulties, and we sent out checks for that. We 
passed a $60 billion GI bill expansion. We passed a $50 billion foreign 
aid package for disease in Africa. We have added $14 billion to the 
Medicare fix. We are heading to this bill, this housing bill, that is 
going to cost and others.
  We are going to more than double the deficit this year. We have to 
learn to say no. We cannot do everything we would like to do. The 
deficit last year was $177 billion. It is going to be $450 to $500 
billion this year. That's unbelievable. We have to get serious about 
spending in general.
  Also, the argument has always been this is for high heating oil 
prices. Well, I would suggest there is probably no more polluting, no 
more CO2-creating fuel than fuel oil. It is a low-grade 
fuel. It is not the best kind of thing. Maybe we ought to be talking to 
our friends and colleagues who oppose so much drilling and production 
of oil and gas, perhaps we should begin to talk about how solar or wind 
could deal with their problems.
  But I suspect, when it comes to their own neighborhood, they know 
solar and wind are not so easily done and would actually be more 
expensive than heating oil.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent for 1 
additional minute. I do not see another colleague here.
  I would note that for these reasons, I think it is bad public policy. 
I ask my colleagues to vote against it on the merits and also because 
we need to continue to talk about producing more energy for America; 
keeping American wealth at home and not continue to transmit $700 
billion a year of our wealth to nations around the world, often who are 
hostile to our national security interests.
  I reserve the remainder of our time on this side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who seeks recognition? The Senator 
from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. How much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 22 minutes.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 7 
minutes and that the remaining 15 minutes be reserved for Senator Dodd.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the Senator from Alabama said that what 
the LIHEAP legislation is about is subsidizing fossil fuels. No, that 
is not accurate. What the LIHEAP legislation is about is keeping people 
alive in Alabama, in Arizona, in Texas, in Vermont, in Maine, and all 
over this country. The Senator from Alabama should know that people are 
dying this summer, when the heat gets to 110 degrees and when electric 
rates are soaring and they do not have the money to pay those electric 
bills.
  The Senator from Alabama and others should know the CDC, the Centers 
for Disease Control, have made it very clear that more people die from 
extreme heat exposure and exposure to the cold than all other natural 
disasters combined.
  Let's be clear what we are voting on this morning. When the Senator 
from Alabama and others say: Well, we are spending money trying to keep 
the elderly and the sick and children alive when the weather gets 20 
below zero, we are. I will vote for those proposals, rather than 
hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 
percent.
  I will vote to make sure people in Vermont do not freeze in the 
winter, while we give tax breaks to ExxonMobil that enjoys 
recordbreaking profits. That is what we are talking about, priorities. 
Do we keep the old and the sick and kids alive when the weather gets 
cold or when the weather gets very hot or do we spend money on people 
who make huge campaign contributions? That is part of what this debate 
is about.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I have the floor. I will not yield.
  Some other people are saying what we should be talking about is 
energy policy. Well, of course, we should. The energy policy of this 
country is way out of whack. We are spending $700 billion a year 
importing foreign oil. We need to move to sustainable energy. We have 
not moved to energy efficiency. There is an honest debate about where 
and how much drilling should take place. But that is not what this 
debate is about.
  Since 1981, we have had LIHEAP. It has been supported in a bipartisan 
manner from everybody from President Bush on down. It is a program that 
has worked. What everybody in this Chamber understands is the price of 
home heating oil is soaring, the price of electricity is soaring, and 
the people will become sick and die and be forced to leave their homes 
if we do not significantly expand LIHEAP funding in order to make sure 
they can pay their bills.
  Let me reiterate to my friend from Alabama or anybody else: This is 
not a cold-weather State bill. Am I worried about what is going to 
happen in Vermont this winter? You can bet on it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Who gets the benefit?
  Mr. SANDERS. I believe I have the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont has the 
floor.
  Mr. SANDERS. In Philadelphia, PA, in June, 17 people died from heat 
exhaustion. In Arizona, over the years, hundreds of people have died 
because they lack the ability to stay cool in the summer.
  This legislation is supported by the AARP because they understand, 
the largest senior group in America, what will happen to older 
Americans if it is not passed.
  This legislation is supported by the National Governors Association 
because they know the financial problems facing States and the need for 
the Federal Government to act. This legislation is supported by the 
Southern Governors Association because they know what hot weather does 
to peoples' health, especially the old and the sick when they cannot 
stay cool.
  What we are dealing with is literally a life-and-death situation. 
People in the hot-weather States will die when temperatures get to be 
115 degrees, and they cannot afford the electricity to stay cool with 
air-conditioning.
  People will die in the Northern tier when the weather gets 20 below 
zero, and they cannot afford the high cost of home heating oil or gas.
  The American people are sick and tired of all the partisanship which 
is going on. Every Member of the Senate can write a press release 
telling their constituents why they voted no. But you know what, I do 
not think the people are going to believe you. If we have enough money 
for tax breaks for ExxonMobil, we have enough money in this country to 
make sure people do not freeze to death and that people do not die of 
heat exhaustion.

[[Page 16561]]

  I hope we can come together while we disagree about other aspects of 
energy policy. I hope we can finally come together and go back home, 
whether it is to the South or the North, and tell the American people, 
we understand what high energy prices are doing to them. We are going 
to stay with you. We are not going to let the most fragile people in 
our country, the most vulnerable people in our country, suffer 
unnecessarily when we know how to help them.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut is 
recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, let me commend 
our colleague from Vermont for his eloquence and his passion this 
morning on a subject that, as he says, ought to unite all of us, 
regardless of geography or political party.
  I would be remiss if I did not recognize, as well, that the Presiding 
Officer today has been a champion of this issue during his tenure in 
the Senate. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his passion about 
this issue as well.
  In the quarter of a century that I been here, as the Senator from 
Vermont has pointed out, this issue has been an issue that has not 
divided us along these lines. There have been those who, from time to 
time, have opposed low-income energy assistance but, by and large, this 
is a matter that has enjoyed broad bipartisan support.
  While we are in the depths of the summer today, and there are those 
who are wondering what we are talking about, we talk about home heating 
oil and gas for the winter, we are only days away from those 
temperature changes.
  Of course, for those who live in our southern States, the issue of 
heat exhaustion is something they live with all the time. And low-
income energy assistance, as the Senator from Vermont points out, cuts 
across all geographical lines. It is the basic necessity. You cannot 
survive without it. Over the years, we have been able to do something 
to support it.
  So I urge our colleagues, when the vote occurs later this morning on 
this issue, that we join on this matter and support the effort to 
provide for that low-income energy assistance.
  I commend my colleague from Vermont, who has been patient about this 
issue over the last number of weeks. My hope is it will be supported. I 
hope we do on low-income energy assistance what we have done on 
housing.
  I note the presence of my colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby. I 
wish to begin my remarks by thanking my friend from Alabama. I thank 
him and our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, on the Banking 
Committee.
  The Presiding Officer and others, by a vote of 19 to 2, we came out 
of our committee back in March on a housing proposal. We have worked 
closely together over these last number of weeks in order to bring us 
to this moment, which I wondered if it would ever occur, given the 
number of times we have voted on this matter since March.
  But in about 30 minutes, we are going to have a chance to finally 
decide whether this Congress is going to do something about the growing 
economic problems, basically founded and anchored in the foreclosure 
crisis of our Nation, that has now spread far beyond residential 
mortgages.
  It is long overdue that this Congress respond. We are about to do so 
in a bipartisan fashion. Given the vote yesterday of 80 to 13, it is an 
indication of this what this body can do when we are determined to work 
together to make a difference.
  So I wish to thank--I see my colleague from Georgia--Senator Isakson 
and others who have done a terrific job in packaging this proposal. If 
each one of us could write this alone, it would be different. We serve 
in a body of 100 Members. We need to work together to develop final 
products. This is an example of what can happen when that occurs.
  I am pleased we are finally ready to pass the Housing and Economic 
Recovery Act of 2008 and send it to the President's desk for his 
signature. This has been a long and arduous process. It started when 
Leader Reid, who has been remarkable and marvelous in this process, 
Leader McConnell, Senator Shelby and I, announced on March 31 that we 
were going to put together a bipartisan housing stimulus bill that 
would address the growing housing crisis. Not much more than 24 hours 
later, Senator Shelby and I, along with Senators Baucus and Grassley, 
brought the first version of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act to 
the floor where it received an overwhelming vote of 84 to 12. We 
continued to work over subsequent months to expand and improve the 
legislation so it would more thoroughly address the growing foreclosure 
and financial crisis. This is the product we present to our colleagues 
this morning.
  This action is coming none too soon. Earlier this week data was 
released showing that home sales hit a 10-year low, falling 2.6 
percent, over twice as much as what had been expected. Home prices 
continue to fall. The Census Bureau reported that foreclosures 
contributed to a record number of vacant homes in the second quarter. 
Merrill Lynch reports that June numbers show we now have 11 months of 
inventory of single-family homes. That is a 23-year high.
  RealtyTrac reported yesterday that forecloses in the second quarter 
more than doubled from a year earlier and jumped nearly 14 percent from 
the previous 3 months. As you have heard me say over and over, every 
day between 8,000 and 9,000 of our fellow Americans are put into 
foreclosure. There have been a record number of bank seizures as well. 
This is happening in the United States. It simply ought to be 
unacceptable to every single one of us.
  Bill Gross, the CIO of PIMCO, one of our largest investment funds, 
estimates our economy will face nearly $1 trillion in mortgage losses 
when it is all said and done. Martin Feldstein, who served President 
Reagan as chief economist, wrote in the Wall Street Journal in March:

       The 10 percent decline in house prices has cut household 
     wealth by more than $2 trillion, reducing consumer spending 
     and increasing the risk of a deep recession.

  This is a staggering loss of wealth we are seeing, coming at the very 
same time, as the Senator from Vermont has pointed out, that food 
prices, gas prices, health care, and education costs are rising. We are 
experiencing the worst of all possible worlds. Wealth is declining, the 
source of wealth creation, and costs are rising simultaneously. 
Moreover, when we consider the role that home equity has played in 
supporting consumer spending, we see the danger a vicious downward 
cycle could create, an economic disaster for our country.
  Don't let yourselves be dulled by nameless and faceless statistics 
either. Behind each one of these numbers I have recited, there is a 
family--a mother, a father, children trying to grow up, facing 
unemployment, losing their homes, wondering what the future holds. So 
when we talk about the numbers, about how important this data is, pause 
for a minute, when deciding whether to support this bill, and remember: 
Behind every one of those numbers there is an American family who this 
morning is wondering whether their Congress can do anything at all 
about the problems they face.
  In about 30 minutes, we will have an answer for that, I believe, an 
overwhelming one, that says: We are on your side. We want to make a 
difference to keep you in your homes and get back on your feet again. 
That is what this is all about--not the numbers but the faces. Those 
families are counting on us. In the face of these daunting challenges, 
I believe we all have a responsibility to act. That is what we are 
going to do this morning by passing this bill.
  Let me quote again Mr. Gross of PIMCO, who wrote this past Thursday:

        . . . the omnibus housing/GSE bill now placed before the 
     Congress and the President is the best way to begin the long 
     journey back to normalcy [in this country].

  I believe that to be the case. Treasury Secretary Paulson said the 
passing of this legislation is the most important action we can take to 
address the housing crisis.
  This legislation will not perform miracles. I want the American 
people to

[[Page 16562]]

have a realistic expectation as to what we are about to do. But as 
others have said, it is a step--I hope and expect an important step--
toward putting our Nation on the road to economic recovery. Let me sum 
up the legislation very quickly before turning to my colleague from 
Alabama.
  The bill establishes the HOPE for Homeowners Act to help at least 
400,000 to 500,000 families stay in their homes. It does so after 
asking both lenders and borrowers to make financial sacrifices, and it 
does so at absolutely no cost to the American taxpayer.
  The bill creates a new world-class regulator for Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks. Recent news makes it clear 
these entities need a stronger regulator to ensure they are viable and 
healthy institutions, able to provide credit in times of stress such as 
we are experiencing today. It also raises loan limits from $417,000 to 
a high of $625,000 so the government-sponsored enterprises can play an 
even more active role in stabilizing the housing market.
  At the request of Secretary Paulson, the legislation includes standby 
authority for the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase the stock or 
debt of the housing GSEs only if he finds such action is necessary to 
keep the financial markets stable and mortgage credit flowing. It is 
our strong expectation that creating this authority will make it 
unlikely that it will ever be needed. As I have said, the GSEs have 
significantly more capital than is required by law. They continue to 
have open access to the debt markets, and their holdings consist 
primarily of 30-year fixed rate mortgages.
  The bill modernizes the Federal Housing Administration program, 
raising the loan limits from $362,000 to $625,000 so that 98 percent of 
the counties in the United States and 85 percent of the population will 
have access to this important program. FHA has proved its value in the 
current crisis, as it has continued to provide a stable source of 
mortgage credit even while many other lenders have failed.
  The bill includes a permanent, affordable housing fund financed by 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that will provide tens of thousands of 
affordable housing units. I tip my hat to the Presiding Officer, who 
has been a tireless champion on behalf of affordable housing. With the 
work of Senators Shelby and Reed, we have a permanent, affordable 
housing program, the first time ever in our history. The bill includes 
new protections for elderly homeowners taking out FHA-insured reverse 
mortgages so they are not deceived, as many have been, into using the 
proceeds from these loans to buy expensive and needless insurance 
products. These provisions were incorporated from a bill introduced by 
our colleague from Missouri, Senator McCaskill.
  The bill includes a new mortgage broker and lender licensing 
requirement added by Senator Martinez, with strong support from Senator 
Feinstein, that will begin to address the many abuses of the mortgage 
process perpetrated by brokers. In addition, it includes improved 
disclosure requirements added by Senators Reed and Bond. Because of the 
efforts of Senators Kerry, Coleman, Akaka, Cornyn, and Sanders, the 
bill expands the availability of the VA housing program and includes a 
number of provisions to help returning veterans save their homes from 
foreclosure, and provides new housing benefits to disabled veterans. 
The legislation includes $3.9 billion in emergency Community 
Development Block Grant funds for areas hard hit by foreclosures, to 
help them purchase and rehabilitate these homes and put them into 
productive use. As the Boston Globe wrote in an editorial earlier this 
month:

       The major beneficiaries [of this provision] would be the 
     urban homeowners to pay their mortgages diligently yet face 
     declining property values, crime, and blight associated with 
     a rash of foreclosures near their homes.

  This body has repeatedly provided emergency funds to communities 
ravaged by floods, hurricanes, and natural disasters. The foreclosure 
crisis is every bit as much of a disaster. This is an emergency equally 
deserving of these funds.
  Finally, the bill includes $150 million in new counseling money. 
Housing counselors have been our troops on the frontline, working with 
troubled borrowers and lenders. These funds, which were included at the 
request of Senator Murray, along with Senator Schumer, will result in 
tens of thousands of American families being able to keep their homes.
  Let me close by saying again this legislation is the product of 
tireless collaboration in the Senate and the other body, the House of 
Representatives, with the work of Barney Frank and his colleagues on 
the Financial Services Committee and, of course, the administration, 
particularly Secretary Paulson and his staff, to help develop solutions 
that will strengthen our economy, restore confidence in our financial 
markets, and provide urgently needed relief to American families 
struggling to make ends meet. Such an outcome could not be possible 
without the full support and leadership of my colleague and ranking 
member, Senator Shelby. Every vote we have taken on this bill, from the 
19-to-2 vote in committee to yesterday's 80-to-13 vote on cloture, has 
been strongly bipartisan. The American people can take some pride in 
this institution for our willingness to work together through these 
difficult issues to get such a good outcome.
  Finally, legislation of this magnitude takes hours and hours of staff 
time to work out. There is never going to be an adequate expression for 
Senator Shelby and me to thank our staffs on the Banking, Housing and 
Urban Affairs Committee. They have been remarkable, beginning with the 
Senate staff director, Shawn Maher of my office, along with Jonathan 
Miller, Amy Friend, Roger Hollingsworth, Aaron Klein, Julie Chon, Jenn 
Fogel-Bublick, Sarah Kline, Kate Szostak, and Drew Colbert; legislative 
counsel Laura Ayoud and Rob Grant; Senator Shelby's staff--Bill Duhnke, 
Mark Oesterle, Peggy Kuhn, Jim Johnson--and from Senator Reed's staff, 
Kara Stein.
  I thank Senator Harry Reid lastly, our majority leader, for his 
diligence, patience, and determination. We have been through six 
cloture motions, delay after delay after delay by a handful of Senators 
who were determined to do everything they could procedurally to stop us 
from getting to this moment. I thank immensely the majority leader, and 
his staff as well, for their tireless support of this effort.
  Again to my colleague from Alabama, I tip my hat. He is a good man to 
work with, and I thank Senator Shelby.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the final 
passage of H.R. 3221, the legislation before us Senator Dodd and others 
have been talking about. This legislation contains numerous provisions 
that address a wide variety of issues associated with the housing 
crisis. Many of them, in fact, were previously considered and passed by 
the Senate in earlier versions of this bill right here on the floor. I 
wish to highlight a few of these important provisions now.
  As the Presiding Officer well knows, because he is an important 
player in this and a very important member of the Banking Committee, 
this final package contains the same mortgage refinance program 
included in the earlier bills. This is a temporary, voluntary program 
within the Federal Housing Administration to back FHA-insured mortgages 
to distressed borrowers. It requires both mortgage lenders and 
borrowers to give up some of their financial interest in order to 
participate. The mortgage lender must agree to reduce the principal 
balance of the loan, which we also call a ``haircut.'' The loan 
refinancing arrangement must also bring the loan-to-value, LTV, ratio 
on the new loan to no greater than 90 percent of the property's current 
appraised value. Borrowers must accept an equity-sharing requirement 
and forgo a percentage of any future profits on the sale of their 
homes.
  While I would prefer a completely free market solution, at least this 
program is designed to keep the taxpayer from bearing the cost, 
something I

[[Page 16563]]

fought hard for in the Banking Committee. We have included a separate 
funding stream that carries on in perpetuity to cover any costs that 
may arise.
  This package also includes measures which modernize the FHA program. 
But by streamlining and expanding it, we hope the program can make 
safe, fixed-rate mortgages more readily available to home buyers in the 
United States.
  The legislation also includes a first-time home buyer tax credit of 
$7,500. I believe this should serve as an additional incentive to 
potential first-time buyers who may be waiting to purchase a home. The 
tax credit, combined with the greater availability of sustainable 
mortgages, should encourage buyers and help invigorate the housing 
market.
  While I support this bill, there are a number of provisions in it 
with which I am very concerned. If it had been my decision alone, I 
would not have included them. While crafting legislation requires a 
great deal of give and take, one thing we should not compromise is our 
obligation to conduct continuing oversight of the programs we enact. 
Our responsibility to the taxpayers requires that we continue to 
closely track the funds we are providing. We should not tolerate the 
waste or misuse of a single tax dollar. It is my hope that my friends 
who demanded additional spending are as enthusiastic about accounting 
for tax dollars as they are about spending them.
  The bill coming back to us from the House does contain a set of 
entirely new and significant provisions. These provisions were added at 
the request of Treasury Secretary Paulson, who determined that such 
measures were needed immediately as a result of the rapidly 
deteriorating financial condition of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
  The legislation provides, as the Presiding Officer knows, the 
Secretary with temporary authority to purchase debt or equity of the 
GSEs when he, the Secretary, determines that such action is required to 
stabilize the financial system, protect taxpayers, and prevent 
disruptions to the mortgage markets.
  I recognize the unprecedented nature of the authority this 
legislation provides to the Secretary of the Treasury. It is not 
something I agreed to without a great deal of consideration. In my 
estimation, however, the risks of not providing the authority 
ultimately outweigh the risks of extending it. I said recently I feared 
we were sitting on a financial powder keg. I think a lot of people 
realize that.
  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, independently and together, represent 
considerable risks to the financial system. They each hold portfolios 
in excess of $700 billion. They each guarantee more than $2.5 trillion 
in mortgages. Their debt is held as regulatory capital by hundreds, if 
not thousands, of American financial institutions. They serve as 
counterparties on derivatives contracts with hundreds of firms, located 
domestically and abroad, in amounts in the trillions of dollars.
  For years, I have argued on the Banking Committee that these 
entities, due to their size and their reach in the financial markets, 
pose a risk to the global financial system. I have also argued that 
such systemic risk requires the appropriate regulatory framework to 
prevent total financial calamity should one of the firms face a crisis.
  Unfortunately, over the years, my calls for regulatory change were 
not only unheeded but were rebuffed. Consequently, we were denied the 
chance to put a strong regulator in place when it could have made a 
difference. But we are where we are today.
  What has happened in the meantime seems to be the inevitable result 
of our failure to act. Indeed, when it became clear that both of the 
GSEs were on dangerous financial ground, it was no surprise to me that 
the Secretary asked for such a substantial grant of power and 
authority. Entities of such size and risk can only be helped by the 
commitment of a massive amount of resources.
  Upon the passage of this bill, such resources will be available, if 
necessary. I hope they will not be necessary.
  It is unfortunate it took the near collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac to convince a number of my colleagues that these entities do indeed 
pose a systemic risk to the U.S. and global economies. Nevertheless, I 
am pleased this legislation now acknowledges and addresses that reality 
in statute by giving the Federal Reserve a role in advising the new 
regulator on risks to our financial system.
  Although the Fed's role, as the Presiding Officer knows, is 
temporary, it is now well established that the systemic risks the GSEs 
pose are permanent. That debate is basically over. The only question 
now is to whom the Congress assigns that responsibility in 18 months.
  Since beginning the process of developing this legislation, I have 
believed the most important aspect of the bill is that it establishes a 
strong independent regulator for the GSEs. Intervening events have 
further confirmed my belief.
  We have provided this new regulator with enhanced powers and 
additional authority so it has the tools necessary to ensure the GSEs 
are properly regulated. In doing so, I believe we are taking a very 
important step to prevent a repeat of the crises that enveloped Fannie 
Mae and Freddie Mac.
  We find ourselves at the end of a long legislative road. The time for 
the debate has ended, and it is now time to vote.
 Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the Senate has been in session all 
week and held one vote Tuesday and two votes this morning--all 
procedural votes. We have considered a bill this week concerning the 
number one issue in America today--the price of energy. Instead of 
allowing a full debate on the bill and, most importantly, a full 
opportunity to allow amendments to actually open up supplies and 
provide Americans with options, the Democratic majority has closed 
debate and prohibited any opportunity to amend the bill.
  Now, the Senate Democratic Majority, after wasting an entire week, is 
engaged in a stunt to keep the Senate in session this weekend in some 
false demonstration they are serious about now addressing the issues 
that concern Americans.
  Tomorrow, the Senate is expected to vote on a massive housing package 
that continues to grow as it has been amended going back and forth 
between the House and Senate. At this point, this bill proposes raising 
the national debt limit to $10.6 trillion, an $800 billion increase. 
The bill continues to contain $3.8 billion in community development 
block grants to allow government entities to purchase foreclosed houses 
and creates an affordable housing fund which simply funnels funds to 
groups like La Raza and ACORN. The legislation allows the FHA to take 
on up to $300 billion in troubled mortgages into the taxpayer-backed 
program. In the bill, the value of an eligible loan under the FHA 
bailout is $550,000. The nationwide average value of a home is roughly 
$200,000. Someone with a $550,000 mortgage pays approximately $3,300 a 
month on housing alone, assuming a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage at a 
6.35 percent interest rate. That comes to $39,600 per year in mortgage 
payments alone. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, average 
per capita income in the U.S. for 2007 was $38,600. Therefore, someone 
with a $550,000 mortgage will be spending around $1,000 more on their 
house alone than an average American makes in an entire year.
  The Congressional Budget Office warned that 35 percent of the loans 
refinanced through the program will eventually default anyway. It is 
simply bad policy to put taxpayers on the hook for borrowers who took 
on more than they could afford and lenders who made bad loans to begin 
with. It's entirely unacceptable to have the government put taxpayers 
on the hook for someone who qualified for a loan more than two or three 
times what the average American can afford. The American taxpayer, and 
taxpayers in Oklahoma, should not be put in the position where they are 
ultimately responsible for the irresponsible decisions of others, and 
they certainly should not be put on the hook for relatively well-off

[[Page 16564]]

individuals not to mention large companies who made poor financial 
decisions.
  I have previously opposed holding American taxpayers responsible for 
the decisions of others, and will not attend the vote tomorrow since I 
would vote ``no'' and request this statement appear in the Record prior 
to the vote tomorrow morning on the housing message from the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to 
highlight the tax piece of the housing bill that is before the Senate 
today. From the beginning, Chairman Baucus and I had a goal. We wanted 
to develop a bipartisan tax package that responded to the needs of 
Americans facing difficulty in the housing market. Up until the last 
stage of this journey, in terms of the process, we met that goal. 
Unfortunately, at the last stage of the process, when the last House 
amendment was developed, a bipartisan process became a Democrats-only 
process. That is unfortunate. It is not the way we have done business 
in the past. Hopefully, it won't become a pattern.
  Mr. President, this bill, with one exception, complies with the 
Senate Republican conference principles on use of revenue raising 
offsets. This bill contains new tax policy. The new tax policy is 
offset with revenue raisers that a bipartisan majority in the Senate 
consider improved tax policy. The main one would put in place a 
reporting regime on credit card payments to merchants. It is a Treasury 
tax gap proposal. The other significant revenue raiser would clarify 
the home sale exclusion rules where second homes, usually vacation 
residences, are involved.
  The one exception deals with a reversal of a sound international tax 
policy reform. Back in 2004, Congress passed and President Bush signed 
a major bipartisan business tax reform bill. The centerpiece proposal 
in the international tax reform area was a restoration of the Finance 
Committee position from the 1986 Tax Reform Act on the treatment of 
interest for the purposes of the foreign tax credit. It took us 18 
years to get back to the proper treatment of interest. This reform was 
due to take effect a few months from now.
  The proposal in the bill before us delays this important reform by 2 
years. It also cleverly haircuts the reform by 70 percent in the year 
the reform would become effective. The House has offered this offset 
for several bills. It is currently in play on the House extenders bill. 
It is also in play on the House trade adjustment assistance, TAA, 
proposal. In the prior stages of this legislation, it is the only 
offset on which I have expressed opposition. I offered up other offsets 
which, in my view, represented good tax policy. They were rejected by 
either the House or the Senate. I respected the reservations of the 
House and Senate Democrats on revenue raisers they could not accept. My 
reservations with this policy were discarded at the final stage in the 
Democrats-only negotiation.
  The revenue grab trumps policy in this instance. The tax increase/
spending increase pay-go imperative is more important than getting the 
tax policy right. The revenue raised is used mostly for new spending on 
community block grants. So here we go again. Propose suspect tax policy 
to feed the insatiable appetite for new social spending.
  Now, why am I so opposed to the worldwide interest revenue raiser? My 
opposition rests in the bad tax policy this proposal represents.
  Starting in 2009, the interest allocation reform will lower the 
chance of double tax that arises under current law from the artificial 
allocation of interest expense to foreign income, even when the debt is 
incurred to fund domestic investment. The current rules actually 
penalize domestic manufacturers that compete in global markets by 
making it more likely they will be double-taxed on their foreign 
income.
  Several companies have spoken to my staff about the negative 
ramifications this delay will have on them. These companies are just 
starting to grow their businesses beyond the U.S. borders. The delay of 
this important international reform will make it more costly for these 
companies to expand into these markets. If these companies cannot grow 
beyond the domestic economy, they will be unable to compete in the 
global marketplace.
  It is long been said that the American dream is to own your home. 
Unfortunately, the subprime crisis has turned that dream into a 
nightmare for many Americans. The tax relief in this bill aims to 
restore the American dream. This package goes some distance to restore 
that dream, but in the journey this legislation took a wrong turn. The 
bill goes backward on a bipartisan international tax reform. That is a 
sorry development. It does not bode well for future efforts at 
international tax reform. How reliable are proposals from the other 
side if they are reversed a couple of years later when the pay-go beast 
growls for more revenue for more spending?
  Mr President, there are a lot of good proposals in the tax policy 
portion of the bill. Unfortunately, in the late stages of its 
development, it took on a more partisan character.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, T.S. Eliot wrote: ``Home is where one 
starts from.''
  And that is true of the tax provisions of this housing bill, the 
Housing Assistance Tax Act. They start with home. They start with 
trying to help hardworking American families to stay in their homes. 
That's where we start.
  The tax provisions in this bill provide housing relief to homeowners 
and stability to the housing market at a critical time.
  For most Americans, their home is their biggest asset. Homes 
represent about a third of household net worth.
  But housing is losing its role as a source of family wealth creation. 
Nationally, since April of last year, home prices have fallen by more 
than 15 percent. This decline in home values is the largest that 
America has seen in 20 years.
  In addition to declining home values, homes sales have slowed, as 
foreclosures have risen. As of May 2008, sales of new single-family 
houses were about 40 percent below where they were a year before.
  Foreclosures are at their highest rate in at last three decades. In 
June, 1 in every 501 households was at some stage in the foreclosure 
process. Since January 2005, bank seizures have risen 171 percent. The 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that 2.8 million foreclosure 
proceedings could be initiated in the next 4 years. About 1.1 million 
of these homeowners will ultimately lose their homes through 
foreclosure.
  Behind every foreclosed property, there is a family. There is a 
family losing its home and there is a community left behind.
  Another part of our housing story is the crisis in the housing 
finance system. The Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly 
known as Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, 
known as Freddie Mac, are government sponsored enterprises, or GSEs. 
These GSEs provide critical financial support to the housing market.
  These GSEs are market-makers in America's secondary mortgage market. 
They help to replenish the money supply for mortgages. They help to 
make money available for housing purchases. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 
own or guarantee about half of America's $12 trillion mortgage market. 
They support about 70 percent of new mortgages.
  The subprime mortgage crisis and ensuing home value declines have hit 
these GSEs particularly hard. Freddie Mac lost 73 percent of its value 
in New York trading this year. Fannie Mae lost 66 percent. Combined 
losses at the companies could run into the billions of dollars. These 
financial troubles have eroded confidence in the housing finance 
system. This threatens to destabilize the mortgage market vital to 
ordinary homebuyers.
  These are only some of the housing challenges facing American 
families today. Congress and the Senate Finance Committee, which I 
chair, recognize the importance of these matters. That is why we have 
taken action to

[[Page 16565]]

alleviate the negative consequences of the housing crisis.
  In the bill before us, we curb the rising costs of owning a home by 
creating a nonitemizer property tax deduction for tax year 2008. 
Currently, homeowners are allowed to deduct local real estate property 
taxes from their Federal tax returns only if they itemize. According to 
the Joint Committee on Taxation, more than 28 million taxpayers pay 
property taxes, but do not itemize. This bill would provide millions of 
home owners who claim the standard deduction with an additional 
standard deduction for state and local real property taxes. The maximum 
amount that may be claimed under this provision is $500 for an 
individual, or $1,000 for joint filers.
  The nonitemizer deduction would benefit people with low incomes. It 
would benefit those who have already paid off their mortgages and thus 
do not have a reason to itemize. It would benefit young families just 
starting out. And it would benefit senior citizens. The Congressional 
Research Service estimates that about 130,000 property-tax payers could 
benefit in my home State of Montana alone.
  This bill would help to reduce the excess supply in the housing 
market due to declining home values and rising foreclosures. It would 
do so with a refundable first-time home buyer credit. The bill would 
give first-time home buyers a refundable tax credit equivalent to an 
interest free loan of 10 percent of the purchase price of a home, up to 
$7,500.
  The provision applies to homes purchased between April 9, 2008, and 
July 1, 2009. Taxpayers receiving this tax credit would need to repay 
to the government any amount received under this provision. They could 
pay it back in equal installments over 15 years. The credit begins to 
phase out for taxpayers with adjusted gross income in excess of 
$75,000, or $150,000 in the case of a joint return.
  This first-time home buyer credit will provide significant, immediate 
stimulus to get potential homebuyers into the market and into homes. 
And it will help to get homebuilders, and the housing industry, back on 
track. The short-term nature of this credit is also critical because it 
would avoid over-subsidizing the housing industry in the long run.
  This bill would help current homeowners to avoid foreclosures with a 
temporary increase in mortgage revenue bonds. Under current law, there 
is a national limit on the annual amount of tax-exempt housing bonds 
that each state may issue. Many States have reached their limit. This 
bill would increase this national limit in 2008 to allow for the 
issuance of an additional $11 billion of tax-exempt bonds to provide 
loans to first-time home buyers and to finance the construction of low-
income rental housing.
  The bill would also temporarily allow qualified mortgage revenue 
bonds to be used to refinance certain subprime loans. Mortgage revenue 
bonds are a form of tax-exempt bond issued by States to help provide 
financing to first-time home buyers. These bonds would result in 
mortgages with lower interest rates than conventional loans, making 
them more affordable for lower income borrowers.
  This bill would encourage the rebuilding of the low-income housing 
industry with a temporary increase in low-income housing tax credits. 
The low-income housing tax credit program helps finance the development 
of affordable rental housing for low-income families. The credit is the 
largest source of Federal funding for the construction and 
rehabilitation of affordable rental housing.
  Under current law, there is a State-by-State limit on the annual 
amount of Federal low-income housing tax credits. This limitation is 
currently set at $2 for each person living in the State. States with 
small populations are provided with a special set-aside. Our proposal 
would increase this limitation in 2008 and 2009 by an additional 20 
cents for each person residing in the State. And it would increase the 
small State set-aside by 10 percent.
  This low-income housing tax credit enhancement could help to meet the 
needs of low-income families who have been displaced from their homes 
by foreclosure. More generally, the credit can assist low-income 
neighborhoods that have shortages of moderately priced rental housing. 
It could provide a boost to some distressed communities.
  This bill also includes reforms to real estate investment trust, or 
REITs. REITs can be corporations, trusts, or associations. They invest 
in real estate. And they elect to be taxed under a special tax regime, 
instead of under the tax rules for corporations.
  REITs are subject to complex rules that can limit the ability of 
these businesses to adjust to changing market conditions and to manage 
risk. The bill would liberalize these rules by clarifying that REITs 
can earn foreign currency income associated with real estate 
activities. The bill would increase the permissible size of REIT 
investments in taxable REIT subsidiaries. The bill would modify the 
REIT safe harbor for dealer sales. And the bill would extend the 
special rules for lodging facilities to health care facilities.
  My colleagues and I have worked long and hard to craft this response 
to our nation's pressing housing woes in a fiscally responsible way. 
This bill has achieved bipartisan and administration support. I believe 
that this bill will strengthen homes at a time when help is needed. The 
tax provisions work to bring stability to the housing marketplace for 
every homeowner. I am proud to be a part of this effort.
  This bill starts with the American home. It starts with trying to 
help hardworking American families to stay in their homes. Let's finish 
this bill and start helping to protect those homes today.
  Finally, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rangel and I have asked 
the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the 
public a technical explanation of the bill. The technical explanation 
expresses the committee's understanding and legislative intent behind 
this important legislation. It is available on the joint committee's 
Web site at www.jct.gov.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 
2008 will meaningfully address the housing crisis in our country. I 
appreciate the leadership of my friends, Banking Committee Chairman 
Dodd, and Ranking Member Shelby, in developing this vital legislation. 
Too many families are losing their homes. Not enough working families 
have access to affordable housing options or are able to secure credit. 
This legislation protects homeowners across the country, prevents 
foreclosures, increases the supply of affordable housing, and assists 
our Nation's veterans.
  This act will modernize and improve the Federal Housing 
Administration, FHA, to provide homeowners with additional access to 
fixed rate mortgages. Additional resources will be provided by this 
legislation for housing counseling to assist homeowners in finding 
solutions to their difficult situations. Mortgage disclosures will be 
made more meaningful to consumers by this act.
  My home State of Hawaii has a severe shortage of affordable housing. 
Hawaii ranks as the most expensive housing jurisdiction in the country 
according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition's 2007-2008 Out 
of Reach report. This bill creates an affordable housing trust fund and 
a capital magnet fund to increase access to affordable housing. These 
additional resources help build and preserve affordable housing units 
for working families.
  I also appreciate the inclusion of provisions that would assist 
veterans and servicemembers during this housing crisis. I especially 
appreciate the inclusion of a provision that is derived from my 
legislation, S. 2768. This corrects an oversight in the Economic 
Stimulus Act of 2008 and extends the temporary home loan guaranty 
increase to veterans so that more of them can realize the dream of home 
ownership.
  The VA Home Loan Guaranty was part of the original G.I. bill in 1944. 
It provided veterans with a federally guaranteed home loan with no down 
payment. This landmark legislation made the dream of home ownership a 
reality for millions of returning veterans. The amount of the home loan

[[Page 16566]]

guaranty was last adjusted by the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 
2004. The maximum guaranty amount was increased to 25 percent of the 
Freddie Mac conforming loan limit determined under section 305(a)(2) of 
the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act for a single family 
residence, as adjusted for the year involved. Using that formula, 
because the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit for a single family 
residence in 2008 is $417,000, VA will guarantee a veteran's loan up to 
$104,250. This guaranty exempts homeowners from having to make a down 
payment or secure private mortgage insurance.
  The newly enacted Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, however, temporarily 
reset the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHA home loan guarantee limits 
to 125 percent of metropolitan-area median home prices, without 
reference to the VA home loan program. This had the effect of raising 
the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac limits to nearly $730,000, in the 
highest cost areas, while leaving the VA limit of $417,000 in place. 
This important group of Americans may benefit from an increased home 
loan guaranty in this time of economic uncertainty. I am hopeful that 
this increased guaranty limit will assist those veterans and 
servicemembers who are struggling to purchase a home during this time.
  The bill also authorizes a financial education and prospective 
homeownership counseling demonstration program, which I helped develop 
with my colleagues Senators Menendez, Carper, and Dodd. This program 
will help working families prepare for purchasing a home. We must 
provide greater financial literacy opportunities to empower families to 
make better informed financial decisions. I will work with my 
colleagues to secure the necessary funding so that the Department of 
the Treasury can effectively implement and evaluate this demonstration 
program.
  Mr. President, this essential legislation helps families remain in 
their homes, expands access to credit, creates more affordable housing 
opportunities, provides much needed improvements to veterans' housing 
benefits, and authorizes a prospective home ownership counseling 
financial literacy demonstration program.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise today with good news and bad 
news for the American people. The good news is that the Senate is 
poised to pass legislation providing badly needed relief for millions 
of American families in their darkest days: families who stand on the 
verge of losing their homes. The bad news is that this critical 
assistance will come only after long, needless delay due to obstruction 
and political gamesmanship by some members of the Republican minority 
in this body.
  For too many people in this country, times are as tough as they have 
ever been. With millions of Americans mired in the subprime loan 
crisis, families across the nation stand just one lost job, one medical 
expense, one credit card penalty fee, or one car accident away from 
losing the roof over their heads. Last month, over a quarter of a 
million homes received a foreclosure notice--that's up over 50 percent 
from the same period last year. In my State of Rhode Island alone, a 
State with a population of around 1 million people, over 3,800 homes 
were in foreclosure in the first quarter of this year alone.
  The collapse of the subprime mortgage market has left financial 
institutions in ruins, left families struggling, and left our economy 
vulnerable to even more widespread damage, especially as the cost of 
energy rises. For the first time in generations, Americans now face the 
prospect of leaving to their children a life with fewer opportunities 
and greater uncertainty than we inherited from our parents. Our 
children deserve better.
  Democrats in the Senate and the House of Representatives have worked 
with Republicans to craft a bipartisan measure that will offer the 
assistance millions of families need to weather the housing crisis 
today and the reforms necessary to prevent a future housing market 
implosion. This legislation would authorize the Federal Housing 
Administration to provide up to $300 billion in mortgages to distressed 
homeowners. This program will help over a million homeowners replace 
their subprime high-rate, low-quality mortgages with quality loans at 
reasonable rates. In addition, our housing rescue measure would 
modernize the FHA to permit it to insure a greater number of quality 
mortgages. For many homeowners and homebuyers, FHA-backed mortgages are 
the only alternative to the subprime market.
  The housing rescue package also includes $150 million for foreclosure 
prevention counseling and $4 billion for communities to buy and restore 
foreclosed and abandoned properties. Moreover, the bill mandates new 
disclosure requirements to ensure that future homebuyers are not 
tricked into mortgages with rates that can change unexpectedly.
  This disclosure provision, like so many other elements of this 
landmark housing bill, was authored by my senior Senator from Rhode 
Island, Mr. Jack Reed. Senator Reed, who serves on the Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, has been among the leading voices 
in the Senate on this issue, working to combat predatory lending and 
other tactics that disadvantage consumers. Senator Reed also fought to 
ensure that this housing bill includes an affordable housing trust fund 
that will produce and rehabilitate homes for low-income families, many 
of whom have been priced out of the housing market. It will literally 
bring thousands of families out from the cold, and I congratulate 
Senator Reed for his tireless efforts to see this important assistance 
written into the law of the land.
  I am gratified that we are able to finally pass this critical 
legislation, and that President Bush has finally come to his senses and 
dropped his longstanding veto threat. This bill represents long-needed 
and long-awaited relief for American homeowners, and I urge President 
Bush to sign this legislation without delay as soon as it reaches his 
desk.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote for this final version of 
the housing package, but I do so with significant concerns about the 
new provisions added to the housing bill which bail out the mortgage 
giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I certainly agree that these two 
private corporations play a critical role in the housing market. 
Indeed, there are powerful arguments that they are too important to let 
fail, but I regret that the proposed bailout failed to include 
provisions to more adequately protect taxpayers and to better ensure 
the behavior of Fannie and Freddie will not be repeated.
  Let's not fool ourselves. Fannie and Freddie are not innocent victims 
in this financial crisis. They were key actors in creating the mess we 
have been asked to clean up. Instead of bringing their considerable 
housing expertise to bear by reining in inappropriate home loans, as 
economist Dean Baker has noted Fannie and Freddie ``continued to make 
loans in bubble-inflated markets, thereby supporting purchases at 
bubble-inflated prices.''
  Well the bubble has burst and Congress has been handed the mop. 
Certainly there will be imperfections in any package we enact to 
address the collapse in the housing market. In attempting to help those 
who truly were innocent victims we are likely to benefit some who we 
would otherwise prefer to be fully subject to the discipline of the 
marketplace. That may be unavoidable. But this new Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac bailout provision isn't an example of providing unintended 
benefits through secondhand financial effects; this is a direct bailout 
of bad actors. The companies' shareholders and the highly paid 
executives they employ are being held harmless for their ruinously 
damaging decisions.
  The administration and other proponents of these new authorities have 
insisted that they may not have to be used. I very much hope that will 
be the case, and that taxpayers will not end up having to bail out 
these two private corporations.
  This legislation does create a new, independent regulator for Fannie 
Mae and Freddie Mac. This regulator will be

[[Page 16567]]

authorized to exercise more oversight of Fannie and Freddie, modify 
Fannie and Freddie's capital standards, and take other actions to 
ensure the safety and soundness of Fannie and Freddie. I hope this new 
regulator will ensure additional reforms of Fannie and Freddie in order 
to better protect American homeowners and taxpayers in the future.
  There are provisions of this bill I strongly support and I am pleased 
that these provisions will be signed into law shortly. This legislation 
creates a national housing trust fund which will provide funding to 
produce, preserve, and rehabilitate affordable housing throughout the 
country. I have heard from housing advocates throughout my State of 
Wisconsin about the need to create such a housing trust fund and in 
response to that feedback, I introduced the Affordable Housing 
Expansion and Public Safety Act of 2007. My legislation called on 
Congress to create a national affordable housing trust fund and the 
bill we are about to pass takes the first steps toward creating such a 
trust fund. Hundreds of housing trust funds have been created around 
the country at the State and local level, including recently in the 
city of Milwaukee. The enactment of this national housing trust fund 
will help to support the important work of providing affordable housing 
to American families in Wisconsin and throughout the country. Safe and 
secure affordable housing is becoming harder to obtain for our most 
vulnerable families and this housing trust fund takes a significant 
step toward making such affordable housing easier to obtain.
  I also support the provision of almost $4 billion in emergency CDBG 
funding to states and local governments to help purchase abandoned or 
foreclosed upon homes in our Nation's local communities. This funding, 
which is offset, will help local communities improve the quality of 
neighborhoods that have been hard hit by foreclosures. I have heard 
from local government officials in communities like Milwaukee, West 
Allis, and Madison about the importance of addressing the increased 
number of foreclosed upon homes in Wisconsin's communities. While 
Wisconsin has not been as hard hit as other States, foreclosures are on 
the rise in the State and in some parts of Wisconsin they are 
concentrated into certain census tracks. One foreclosure in a 
neighborhood is bad enough, but when you start to have four or five 
foreclosures in one neighborhood, this can lead to other negative 
consequences like increased crime, vandalism, and theft. Providing 
States and local governments with the resources to buy and rehabilitate 
these properties will go a long way to improving our Nation's 
neighborhoods and the livelihood of hard working families.
  This legislation is far from perfect, but in the end I will support 
this measure despite this new bailout provision. The potential collapse 
of these two mortgage giants poses too great a risk to the housing 
market, and with it to millions of families whose home value represents 
a significant portion of their life savings. But I regret the authors 
of this provision--both in the administration and here in Congress--did 
not also include provisions to better protect taxpayers and to ensure 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not repeat their disastrous mistakes of 
the past few years. I very much hope such reforms will be a high 
priority for a new Congress and a new President next year.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today, the Senate will pass the now-infamous 
housing package for the last time. Each time this legislation has come 
before the Senate, it has been loaded with more taxes, more spending, 
and more liability for American taxpayers. As much as I oppose this 
legislation, I am relieved it is not headed back to the House so 
Members could add even more tax-and-spend provisions. This bill is a 
perfect example of how Congress can take a problem and make it worse. 
If it is worth reacting to, it is worth overreacting to in the Senate. 
Unfortunately, Americans will be paying for this particular 
overreaction for years to come, and the bill's implications will be 
much larger than we can even imagine now.
  The first way Americans will be on the hook is through the HOPE for 
Homeowners Act contained in this bill. This program will create a $300 
billion Federal loan guarantee program to bail out bad real estate 
investments and banks that made interest-only, no documentation loans. 
How will they do this? By shifting 100 percent of the liability of 
foreclosure onto the American taxpayer. Taxpayers could be paying for 
this provision for the next 30 years.
  The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates that this $300 
billion program will only cost $68 billion. The CBO claims that few 
banks will use the program because it requires them to take a 10-
percent cut in the mortgage principal. But to quote a Wall Street 
Journal article from July 24, 2008:

       If no one needs the program, then why is it there? If 
     lenders do take advantage, they are bound to dump their worst 
     loans on the feds . . . the FHA guarantee will either be 
     superfluous or more expensive than we are led to believe.

  I would like to submit the full article for the Record.
  Second, this legislation taxes the government-sponsored enterprises 
nearly $1 billion per year over the next 10 years to cover initial 
losses stemming from this bailout, and in later years, to fund liberal 
activist groups posing as affordable housing advocates. This tax will 
be levied on companies struggling to stay solvent and keep our markets 
operational. Such a theory could only fly in Washington: tax a company 
in order to save it.
  While Congress is taxing these companies into insolvency, it is their 
investors who are paying the price. Over the past month, concerns about 
passing this bloated bailout and tax bill have contributed to a drop of 
80 percent in the stock price of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Americans' 
pension funds, 401(k) accounts, and other investments have taken a huge 
hit because Congress wants to micromanage the housing market. To date, 
Congress's action has only led to more market volatility and stock 
selloffs as investors wait to hear the next bad idea devised by 
Congress to fix our Nation's housing market.
  I, along with several other Senators, have sent a letter to 
Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Cox asking him to comment 
on the impact this proposal will have on investors. As the agency 
charged with the mission of investor protection, I am very interested 
to hear the Chairman's opinion about this special tax Congress will 
levy on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Investors should not have to 
calculate the risks of Congress taxing their investments to death.
  Finally, as if American taxpayers weren't squeezed enough, a recent 
proposal by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson would allow the Federal 
Government to use taxpayer money to purchase Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae 
stock. This is potentially the biggest threat to taxpayers in the 
entire legislation because no one knows how much this will cost. I 
listened as Secretary Paulson urged the Senate Banking Committee to 
provide his agency with an unlimited authorization to buy stock. This 
is a blank check to the Federal Government, written against the 
taxpayer's account. Shockingly, the House voted for this proposal on 
July 23, 2008, and the Senate voted for it today.
  The same Wall Street Journal article published on July 24 noted that 
the Paulson proposal:

     could cost $100 billion, or it could cost nothing. So the CBO 
     threw a dart at the wall and assigned a $25 billion price tag 
     to the Freddie and Fannie bailout.

  It is astounding how easily some Members of Congress can vote to give 
away taxpayer's money by the billions, especially when we do not even 
know how many billions of dollars we are giving away.
  I continue to urge, in the strongest sense, for Members to vote 
against this legislation. Congress had the opportunity to pass sensible 
reform for the government-sponsored enterprises years ago that would 
have avoided this mess. Unfortunately, some Members have decided 
instead to fund mortgage bank bailouts, allow taxpayer money giveaways, 
and erode the public's confidence in our markets even more than it 
already has. A vote against this legislation is a vote to protect 
American

[[Page 16568]]

taxpayers and to prevent a further erosion of confidence in the 
American marketplace.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the sluggish national economy and the 
rising cost of housing is a one-two punch that is keeping affordable 
housing out of the reach of too many Vermont families. It is important 
that during these times of economic hardship we do more--not less--to 
help struggling families make ends meet. I am pleased that today, after 
months of delay, the Senate is set to act on final passage of the 
Housing and Economic Recovery Act, H.R. 3221, a responsible bill to 
strengthen our economy, restore confidence in our financial markets, 
and provide urgently needed relief to American families who are 
struggling to make ends meet.
  Under the Bush administration's watch, unregulated mortgage 
originators were given financial incentives to sell risky, 
unaffordable, subprime mortgages to vulnerable borrowers. As these 
adjustable rate mortgages reset to higher rates, the number of families 
unable to afford their payments and threatened with foreclosure is 
skyrocketing.
  Foreclosures have climbed in my home State of Vermont and, while 
subprime mortgages are not the largest driver, the mortgage foreclosure 
crisis will still have severe costs for homeowners, not only in direct 
costs but in its effect on home values and declining property taxes. 
According to the State of Vermont Department of Banking, Insurance, 
Securities and Health Care Administration, for the first quarter of 
2008, well over 400 new foreclosures have been filed in Vermont, which 
is a 30-percent increase over those filed in last year's first quarter. 
If the current trend holds, Vermont is facing about 1600 this year.
  Several urgent housing-related issues have become prominent already 
this year. The most visible issue is the prevalence of subprime loans 
and growing mortgage default and foreclosure rates, affecting an 
estimated 2 million homeowners. Congress has responded with a reform 
package to change the way in which the lending and home-buying industry 
is regulated and to assist borrowers who are facing default and 
foreclosure. These proposals address several of the problems spawned by 
a housing foreclosure crisis that has threatened America's hard-working 
families, their communities, and our local and national economies.
  I recognize that this bill is not a perfect solution. However, I also 
believe the housing crisis and market instability demand action. Ending 
the foreclosure crisis is vital to the American economic recovery. This 
package will help prevent another crisis of this magnitude, stop 
foreclosures before they begin, and preserve for future generations the 
American dream of home ownership.
  Homes that have been foreclosed upon and are sitting unoccupied lead 
to declines in neighboring house values, increased crime, and 
significant disinvestment. To ensure that communities can mitigate 
these harmful effects of foreclosures, the package provides $3.92 
billion to communities hit hard by foreclosures and delinquencies. 
These supplemental community development block grant, or CDBG, funds 
will be used to purchase foreclosed homes, at a discount, and 
rehabilitate or redevelop the homes to stabilize neighborhoods and stem 
the significant losses in house values of neighboring homes.
  It has always been a priority of mine to help make housing more 
affordable, and I have worked over the years--as I will do in years to 
come--to bring the resources into Vermont to make that happen. That is 
why I worked with Senators Sanders, Baucus, Snowe, Thune, and 
Whitehouse to successfully include a provision that applies an all-
State minimum of 0.50 percent to the supplemental CDBG funds provided 
to States to buy up and rehabilitate foreclosed properties to ensure 
smaller States like Vermont receive a portion of the help. This will 
result in roughly $20 million coming to Vermont to help with 
foreclosures in our communities.
  Now that the President has lifted his veto threat and after months of 
delay tactics by the minority, the Senate is ready to pass a 
responsible bill to address the worsening foreclosure crisis, which is 
the root of the broader economic crisis. By helping Americans keep 
their homes and their home equity, we are restoring stability to the 
housing market and helping businesses and communities hurt by this 
crisis not only recover, but also create new jobs. The Housing and 
Economic Recovery Act will help prevent another crisis of this 
magnitude, stop foreclosures before they begin, and preserve home 
ownership for future generations.
  Each day this bill has been stalled, nearly 8,500 new families filed 
for foreclosure--on top of already accelerating foreclosure filings 
that were 53 percent higher in June than in the same month last year. 
The time for delay has passed. It is about time that we send this bill 
to the President for his signature into law so we may begin to deliver 
solutions that are in the best interest of the American taxpayer and 
the U.S. economy.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the minority has 
2 minutes left; is that right?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend, do you intend to use 
that?
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I will yield it back.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on our side, it is my understanding we have 
1 minute, plus my time; is that right?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Fifty-four seconds, plus the 
leader's time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
New York, Mr. Schumer. No, he doesn't want it. OK. That is unusual.
  I wish I had the words to express adequately my appreciation for the 
work done by the chairman of the committee and the ranking member of 
the committee. Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby have done a remarkable 
job under tremendously difficult circumstances to get where we are 
today. They were for this piece of legislation before Fannie and 
Freddie got into big trouble because they knew and they could see the 
problems with the housing industry. The fact that Fannie and Freddie 
got into trouble only made it more imperative that these two managers 
of this legislation move forward more rapidly. They have overcome 
tremendous obstacles.
  We have had seven cloture votes on this housing bill. I do not know 
if in the history of this country we have ever had a single piece of 
legislation with that many cloture votes, but we had them on this bill. 
These two very fine legislators--one from the State of Connecticut, 
with a totally different economy, different political base than that of 
the State of Alabama--worked together for the good of the American 
people. I so admire and appreciate the work they have done under, I 
repeat, very difficult circumstances.
  For most Americans, yesterday, Friday, was an ordinary summer Friday. 
But for about 8,500 families, it was a terrible day because, when they 
got their mail, there was a foreclosure notice or, when they opened 
their door, they found on their door a notice of foreclosure or, when 
they opened the door on Friday, there was someone at the door serving 
papers on them, moving the legal process forward--foreclosure notices. 
But they joined, yesterday, 8,500 who received their notice the day 
before and the day before that and the day before that and the day 
before that and the day before that.
  During the process of this legislation moving forward, that we should 
have passed fairly quickly--within, at the most, a week--hundreds of 
thousands of people received foreclosure notices. Well, 8,500 families 
will not receive their foreclosure notices today or tomorrow but only 
because the courthouses are closed for the weekend. On Monday, the 
drumbeat of foreclosure will continue.
  In Nevada, 1 out of every 43 families who have a home now have their 
home in foreclosure. It is almost the same in Arizona and almost the 
same in California and almost the same in Florida.

[[Page 16569]]

There are only two States in the country that do not have the problem, 
one of which is the State of Alabama.
  But for families who face each day with trepidation because of a 
foreclosure concern they have, hoping a notice has not arrived, in some 
fashion--but knowing it may soon--a foreclosure notice is something 
that is a terrible day in their lives. But today, this Senate will 
deliver some rare and much-needed good news for people who own homes 
throughout America. Not only will it help those people who own homes 
but neighborhoods, communities, States, local governments and servicers 
and lenders.
  We are on the verge of passing a bipartisan housing bill that will 
help rebuild communities, safeguard future housing meltdowns, and, most 
importantly, help at-risk families keep their homes. Because of the 
work in this legislation dealing with Fannie and Freddie, the financial 
community in America will be stabilized.
  It has taken far too long to reach this point where we are today. We 
have talked about that. The housing bill was introduced in February and 
work began in the fall of last year.
  Now, I have already talked about Senators Dodd and Shelby. During the 
process of working to get legislation that they thought was appropriate 
to bring before this body, they both received pressure from their 
respective caucuses, from editorials: Why aren't they doing something 
more rapidly? They wanted to bring something to the Senate that would 
pass. They wanted to work with the House on something that would pass 
both bodies and be signed by the President. So, again, I underscore the 
great legislative work these two gentlemen did.
  Not only have we had seven cloture votes but we have had Presidential 
veto threats. Thank goodness those threats have been withdrawn.
  As some Republicans have continued to stall, families have continued 
to lose their homes. And note I said ``some'' Republicans, not all 
Republicans in the Senate. But today, at long last, a ray of hope--a 
chance to turn the page on the housing crisis and begin a new chapter 
that gives more families a chance at the American dream of responsible 
home ownership.
  Now, we are going to move--after we complete legislation on this 
housing bill--to LIHEAP. We would not have the opportunity to vote on 
this most important measure, this energy legislation, but for one 
Senator, a Senator from the sparsely populated State of Vermont, Mr. 
Bernard Sanders. It is because of his advocacy for months and months 
that we are going to have an opportunity to vote on this. He has worked 
on legislation. We have Republicans who support and have agreed to 
support his legislation. We are going to move to proceed to that.
  Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle have expended 
countless hours of floor time and many barrels of ink talking about the 
need to do something about energy prices. While they have endlessly 
talked, the Democrats have been proposing comprehensive solutions.
  Yesterday, Republicans refused to join us in a bill to stem the 
excessive speculation by Wall Street traders who artificially bid up 
the price of oil for their own profit. That was a plan Republicans had 
claimed to support previously. It was part of their legislation. When 
it came time to take action, the monied interests of this country 
backed the Republicans down from doing the right thing.
  When we offered the Republicans a vote on the very thing they claim 
to want more than anything--offshore drilling--they passed on that. 
They said no.
  Now, Democrats are proposing improvements to the LIHEAP program. This 
is yet another bipartisan opportunity to help Americans cope with our 
energy crisis.
  This is something that is a crisis that has been here for a while. 
Listen to what George Bush, the President of the United States, said. 
This is a quote:

       First and foremost, we've got to make sure we fully fund 
     LIHEAP, which is a way to help low-income folks, particularly 
     here in the East, pay for their high--high--fuel bills.

  A direct quote from President Bush.
  This legislation assists senior citizens, low-income families, and 
those who are disabled to afford to heat their homes in winter and cool 
them during excessive periods of heat in summer.
  There are not many States like Nevada. In the southern part of the 
State, in Laughlin, NV, it is not unusual for the temperature to hit 
120 degrees. In the northern part of the State, in places such as 
Owyhee, it is the coldest place in the Nation on many occasions. It is 
not unusual at all for it to be 20 degrees below zero. These ranges in 
temperature indicate that if you are old, if you are disabled, if you 
are poor, you have trouble paying for the fuel costs to cool your home 
to survive or to heat your home to survive. People who have 
temperatures above 100 degrees know how important it is to keep their 
home cool, and people who are freezing know how important it is to keep 
their house warm.
  Since 2001, Americans are paying three times as much for heating oil 
and twice as much for propane. As these energy costs have skyrocketed, 
these LIHEAP proposals we have talked about have been hamstrung. These 
programs are not there to provide the necessary assistance. As the 
winter months are growing near, this problem will exacerbate. It will 
grow worse.
  This legislation has rightly earned bipartisan support, as I have 
talked about, with at least a dozen Republican cosponsors of the 
Senator's legislation. It is regrettable Republicans could force us to 
waste valuable hours on a cloture vote on proceeding to this 
legislation--even allowing us to debate the matter. It is unimaginable 
Republicans might choose to block us from passing this worthy 
legislation for which President Bush said: ``First and foremost, we've 
got to make sure we fully fund LIHEAP, which is a way to help low-
income folks, particularly here in the East, pay for their high--high--
fuel [costs].''
  Well, it is not only folks in the East. It is folks in the West and 
Midwest and all over this country. I hope they will not stall this. 
They say they want to legislate on energy. They had the chance 
yesterday. They did not take that. They have a chance again today. We 
will soon see what they choose to do.
  If Republicans choose to join us in passing LIHEAP, we will welcome 
their votes, certainly, with open arms. But if they choose to block 
this legislation, they will have to shoulder the burden of millions of 
low-income families, senior citizens, and those with disabilities who 
are struggling and suffering to pay their ever-rising energy bills.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that the vote now occur that is 
scheduled for 11 o'clock.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
question is on agreeing to the motion to concur in the amendment of the 
House to the Senate amendment to the House amendments to the Senate 
amendment to the bill H.R. 3221.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second? There 
is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper), 
the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. 
Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from 
Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Delaware (Mr. Carper) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Colorado (Mr. Allard), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the 
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from North Carolina 
(Mr. Burr), the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole), the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Inhofe), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from 
Virginia (Mr. Warner).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Bunning) would have voted ``nay.''

[[Page 16570]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 72, nays 13, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 186 Leg.]

                                YEAS--72

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

                                NAYS--13

     Barrasso
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Kyl
     Thune
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Allard
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burr
     Carper
     Dole
     Graham
     Harkin
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Murray
     Obama
     Warner
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to concur 
having been agreed to, the motion to reconsider is considered made and 
laid on the table. The motion to concur with an amendment is withdrawn.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know everybody is concerned about what is 
going to happen tomorrow and Monday. We won't know until after the next 
vote is cast. Within an hour or so after the final vote, all of the 
offices will know what will happen either tomorrow and/or Monday. We 
will have more definite information after the next vote.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am aware of and sympathize with families 
and individuals in Utah and around the country who, through no willful 
neglect or bad intentions of their own, are in very difficult 
circumstances as a result of turbulence in the housing market. Others 
in the housing industry who have also acted with prudence and good 
faith have also been caught up in the difficulty. We have had many 
votes on housing legislation over the past several months, and I have 
supported measures that I thought would help improve the current 
situation.
  I also understand that housing is a significant sector that affects 
the broader economy. A stable housing market would go a long way to 
instilling confidence. My expectation is that the housing sector will 
stabilize and I hope that it does so with as little exposure as 
possible to taxpayers.
  Our last vote on the substance of the Foreclosure Prevention Act took 
place on July 11. The bill then went to the House of Representatives, 
and the House made a few changes and one major addition to the bill. It 
added what some have called a bailout for the government sponsored 
enterprises, GSEs.
  Before the addition of the GSE provisions, we had a comprehensive 
bill that was the product of lengthy, bipartisan negotiations. It had 
provisions aimed at correcting some of the current problems, avoiding 
future problems, and providing incentive for positive activity in the 
housing market. Given the bipartisan nature of the bill, it contained 
many provisions that I support, including tax deductions and 
incentives.
  However, this last addition to the housing bill, which we voted on 
for the first time today, combined with my other reservations, was more 
than I was willing to support. The CBO estimates that there is ``a 
greater than 50 percent chance that the government would provide no 
financial assistance to the GSEs over the next 17 months.'' I hope the 
chances are greater than that, but this section of the bill accounts 
for well over half the cost of the bill. It has the potential, perhaps 
slight, of costing well into the hundreds of billions of dollars.
  To touch on a couple other points of concern, this bill will delay 
the allocation of worldwide interest expensing rules that I championed 
in 2004. The delay was included to ``pay'' for other provisions of the 
bill. I am not sure that the tradeoff is static, and the same can be 
said of so many other efforts to offset spending by delaying or 
suspending tax incentives.
  Finally, this bill will help some people who deserve it, but it will 
likely also help many irresponsible lenders, brokers, borrowers that do 
not. The bill now appears to be headed to the President, and he appears 
to be ready to sign the bill, in spite of his own reservations.
  The housing market will recover. Again, I hope that it does so sooner 
than later and at the least cost possible to taxpayers. I expect that 
we will come away from the current situation better able to avoid 
similar problems in the future.

                          ____________________