Floor Statements

Mr. President, we are going to resume consideration of the housing legislation. There will be 2 minutes for debate equally divided between the proponents and opponents of the amendments. The Senate will proceed to vote in relation to the Voinovich amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Landrieu amendment. I have been told those two amendments will be modified. I think they will be approved.

I would say to all Members of the Senate, I have spoken to the Republican leader. We have a cloture motion ready to file sometime this afternoon. If we can, we will come up with a consent agreement that we can have a time for final passage on this bill on Tuesday. Before doing that, we would have to know what amendments are going to be offered. We would have to have a finite list of amendments so we knew that. We will all be in communication with the Republican leader. We will either go cloture or we will go with a consent agreement to finish on Tuesday. There has been a good debate on this bill. There will be managers available all afternoon to offer amendments that Senators want to offer. We will be available here on Monday. People can offer amendments. So there is plenty of time to offer amendments on this bill.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, Senator Dodd is going to be here, as will Senator Baucus, for offering of amendments. It is my understanding there are a number of tax related amendments that will be offered. Senator Ensign, Senator Bill Nelson, and Senator Snowe have amendments.

For the benefit of Members, I wish to lay out generally what the plan is for next week. We will have no votes on Monday. That has been long scheduled. The Republican leader and I will work out what is going to happen on Tuesday. There are a couple alternatives. I discussed it briefly this morning.

I have a cloture motion waiting to file. Whether we do that or not, I will consult with my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Kentucky. What we might try to work out is having a finite list of amendments and have a time certain to complete work on this bill on Tuesday sometime.

Mr. President, I appreciate my friend's advice and will follow it.

I will also say this about next week. We can work Tuesday, and we can work Wednesday. Thursday the Pope will be in Washington, DC, and will say a mass. It is my understanding that mass will begin at 10 a.m. There will be a lot of traffic problems. There are a huge number of people expected to be at that mass, so we will have a window so Members and staff who wish to attend the mass will be able to do so. It will not be for all day, but I assume we will all work with those who know the

schedule better. We will have a window on Thursday, but we will have to work into Thursday afternoon and Thursday evening on other issues.

On Friday, there is a long-scheduled Senate Democratic retreat in Richmond, VA.

That is the general view of next week.

I will be happy to yield.

It is not next week?

I had a couple of my Catholic friends come to me today and say: We have to have some time off. That is a week from Thursday. That is like an eternity in the Senate. Everybody is going to have to work all day Thursday, I hate to break the bad news to you. I guess I have said enough.

We will work with everyone's schedule so it is compatible with the Pope's a week from Thursday.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk to the substitute amendment.

Mr. President, I now send to the desk a cloture motion on the bill itself.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the substitute amendment No. 4387 occur at 2:15 p.m., Tuesday, April 8; further, that the mandatory quorums for both motions be waived.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate

proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business for the filing of a cloture motion on the motion to proceed to S. 2739, and once this has been done, the Senate then return to H. R. 3221.

Mr. President, I ask that we move to proceed to Calendar No. 616, the Forest Service, Departments of Interior and Energy resources bill, and send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required under rule XXII be waived.

I now withdraw the motion.

Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, if he chooses to make any remarks, the Senate will adopt the motion to proceed to H.R. 3221 and Senator Dodd or his designee will be recognized to offer a substitute amendment on his behalf and that of Senator Shelby. Following opening statements by Senators Dodd and Shelby, Senator Durbin will be recognized to offer an amendment related to bankruptcy.

Mr. President, I understand there are five bills at the desk due for a second reading.

Mr. President, I object to further proceedings regarding these bills en bloc.

Mr. President, the Senate is evenly divided: 51 Democrats, 49 Republicans. Is the bill that is going to be the subject matter of the housing debate perfect? It is not perfect. But with the Senate as evenly divided as it is, we have to work on a compromise basis. We are not going to get everything we want. The Republicans are not going to get everything they want.

I was interested to see people in the press today telling us how they could have done a much better job on this work Senators Dodd and Shelby have done. I am satisfied with what we have. Is it everything I want? Of course not. If I were a dictator, I would come up with a different bill. But I am not. The Senate is such that everyone's rights are protected. When you have a body that is so evenly divided, with the procedures we have in the Senate, there has to be compromise.

I admire and congratulate Senators Dodd and Shelby for working this out to the point where we are. I have complimented them on a number of occasions. The last time I did it was last night, indicating what good work they have done.

But, also, to get this bill where it is now, we needed cooperation from other people: for example, those who run the Finance Committee-- Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley. There are some tax measures in this housing bill, and they had to sign off on that. They did that. Their staffs worked hand in hand with the Banking Committee staff, and we have their product.

I look forward to a good debate on this legislation. There will be amendments offered to take provisions out of the bill. There will be amendments offered to put provisions in the bill. That is the way it should be. I would hope that people would be willing to have relatively limited time. We wish to move forward on this bill as quickly as we can.

At this stage, I have had a number of conversations with the Republican leader as to what we hope can be accomplished in this bill. I think at this time it is far too early to talk about timelines and when, in fact, we are going to get it done. We do know there is an emergency out there and we need to do it as quickly as we can. I applaud the bipartisan work, as I have indicated. I think we need to continue this effort of bipartisanship. I think it is critical to do this, to complete this action on this important legislation, and in an expedited manner.

I have not had the chance privately to ask the Republican leader--and I normally do not do this--but I will violate my own rules today and ask the Republican leader if he could agree to a unanimous consent to provide for housing-related amendments only.

Mr. President, we have an extremely important hearing that is going to start at 10 o'clock or thereabouts, being conducted by the two managers of this bill. The assistant leader, Senator Durbin, has agreed to manage this bill until these two good men can complete enough of their work at the hearing to come back and manage the bill. Senator Durbin is experienced, and he will handle things extremely well, as well as anyone could do that. I appreciate his stepping in. He had his own schedule, and he set that aside to work on this bill. I appreciate that very much.

Mr. President, we have an interesting situation. We have a substitute amendment that has been laid down. We have worked hard to get it here. We started on the bill at 9:30 this morning. It is now 2 o'clock. We have one amendment that has been laid down. I even tried to arrange a vote on a resolution honoring the 4,000 Americans who have been killed in Iraq. We can't even get that up for a vote. I don't know what is going on. We are going to work through this. I asked for a consent agreement that any amendments that would be offered would be related to the housing bill. No, we can't do that yet. I realize the majority we have is very slim, but we do have the majority and that gives us certain rights. I am going to exercise those rights.

I would like to have a housing bill. I think it is important to the country. I hope the American people see what we have put up with now during the last 15 months. Every step of the way is a struggle. We are not able to legislate. We are constantly trying to figure a way procedurally to get past the minority, which is still upset about the November 2006 elections. That is what this is all about. We are in the majority, as slim as it might be, and they have to get over this. Let us work together. We want to work. We want to pass things. My friend has offered an amendment.

Let's vote on it.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Does the Senator from Massachusetts realize that today, this day in April, April 3, 2008, almost 8,000 people will be pushed out of their homes because their foreclosure has been completed? They are gone--8,000 today and 8,000 tomorrow. Now, foreclosures usually don't happen on weekends; it is during the week. So this week, 5 times 8,000 is 40,000 people, approximately, who will be out of their homes while we have been here this week. If we don't get something done today, we will start tomorrow, and there will be another 8,000. Is the Senator aware of that?

Will the Senator yield for another question?

Did the Senator hear me when I said we have asked for an agreement that the only amendments that will be offered on this bill are relating to housing? Is he aware that they said no deal? And is the Senator aware that Senator Durbin had offered an amendment at approximately 10 o'clock this morning, and there have only been four speakers, with not long speeches, and that we are not voting because of the speeches, because they are gone? Is the Senator aware that I said: Okay, how about voting on a resolution offered by the Senator from Massachusetts that honors the lives of 4,000 Americans who have been killed in Iraq? Is he aware that we could not get a vote on that?

Mr. President, will my friend yield?

Mr. President, progress in this body is sometimes very hard to come by, but progress has been made. I appreciate Senator Kennedy coming to the floor. As those of us who have such affection and love for him know, once in a while he raises his voice. As a result of raising his voice, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:45 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote on the adoption of S. Res. 501, honoring the sacrifice of the members of the U.S. Armed Forces who have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan; that upon adoption of the resolution, the preamble be agreed to, with no intervening action of our debate; and that no amendments be in order to the resolution or the preamble.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator yielding.

Madam President, we are in a situation that is hard for me to comprehend, but that is where we are. We have an amendment pending, the Durbin amendment, and we cannot get a vote. That is unfortunate.

We have been told by the minority they want a 60-vote threshold. I cannot understand--there are a lot of people who have been in the Senate a lot longer than I have. But I do not know where we came up with a 60-vote deal.

We should legislate. If someone on the minority side would offer a motion to table and that motion fails, they still are protected with the 60-vote margin. I do not understand why we cannot move forward on this legislation. It appears we cannot. It appears we cannot.

It appears we have legislated our hearts out to try to arrive at a bipartisan arrangement. Let's go back and start at the beginning.

Madam President, we offered a Democratic package. In good faith, Senators Dodd and Shelby, along with the Finance Committee chair and ranking member, came with a package for us. If you look at it, the only thing taken out of the Democratic package was the bankruptcy amendment. Many other provisions were changed drastically, but that was the only one that was taken out.

Senator Durbin has offered to send it to the bill. During the negotiations, Senators Dodd and Shelby knew we on this side of the aisle wanted that bankruptcy amendment in the bill, so the minority would have to take it out. But negotiating in good faith, and recognizing that a legislator is someone who needs to be able to compromise, in the presence of Senator Dodd we agreed to take that provision out.

That is where we are. We are not going to agree to a 60-vote margin. It is unfair. It is unfair that every time someone thinks they may lose, they want a 60-vote margin. I do not comprehend that. It has not been that way until the recent minority came into power, or lack of power, whatever the case may be.

Today about 8,000 people will be told: You are out of your home forever. Someone else owns your home. Foreclosure is over with--Friday, tomorrow, another 8,000 people. Because of our inaction today and tomorrow, that is 16,000 people. Fortunately, foreclosure finalizations do not occur on weekends. That is standard law around the country. So we come back Monday. It is a nonvote day that has been scheduled for several months. That will be another 8,000 people. Now we are up to 24,000 people and their families. I don't know how many it would add up to, but their families are out. So if on some phantom matter of principle the Republicans are going to say: You are going to have to get 60 votes on this, then I guess we will not have a bill. I ask my friends who have been in the Senate much longer than I why we have to do that.

I think we are in an impossible situation. I admire, I have said many times, the good work done by Senators Dodd and Shelby. I have also said the substitute amendment that is before us is far from being perfect. I have had members of my own party say: Why did you give up on that or why did you add that? For example, Senator Shelby, why did we raise the downpayment to 3.5 percent? It was a compromise. The House wanted 1 percent. People over here wanted 6 percent. We compromised. The whole substitute before us is a compromise. Legislation is the art of compromise. I would be satisfied if we walked out of this Chamber today with just the substitute amendment as having been agreed upon.

Some think we have done too much for certain segments of society and we haven't done enough, on my side, for the middle class. ``Other side'' people think we have done far too much, that we should back off. Government is involved in this too much.

I repeat, that is what legislation is all about. It is compromising. The American people are waiting for us to act. Someone please explain to me, I say to my friend, the Republican leader, why do we need to have 60 votes on every amendment that comes along? We have another amendment sponsored by Senators Feinstein and Martinez. There are some people who are concerned about that. They don't like it. It is a licensing provision. All kinds of special interest groups have weighed in on this. Should we have 60 votes on that? Senator Schumer has been somewhat aggrieved at both me and Senator Dodd because of a provision in here for counseling that is not $500 million. It is $100 million.

It was a compromise. Our bill had $200 million. Senator Schumer wanted $500 million. But do we need to have 60 votes on that? If that is the case, we would not get 60 votes on anything.

There may be a point that there are so many amendments offered that I would consult with the Republican leader and say: Well, maybe we need to file cloture on this bill. We have been here since 9:30 this morning on this bill, and we have not had a single vote.

Again, through the Chair, I ask the distinguished Republican leader, why can't we move forward and try to dispose of, affirmatively or negatively, the Durbin amendment?

Madam President, I apologize. I was interrupted. Did the Senator make a suggestion? What was that?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I say to my friend from Georgia, we vote in a very hurried fashion lots of times. It is a wonder we do not make more mistakes. I have done the same thing the Senator from Georgia has done. You should not be embarrassed. It happens all the time. I am glad the Record reflects your feelings. We know your feelings on this issue.

Madam President, I had the good fortune in 1982 to be elected to the House of Representatives, one of the biggest thrills of my life. As a result of that, I have made some very good friends. One of the people who came in that class of 1982 was Richard Durbin of Illinois.

What everybody here witnessed was an act of unselfishness. Senator Durbin procedurally moved to table his own amendment. That is unheard of in the Senate. He did that in an effort to move this along. He knew where the votes were. I want the Record to be spread with the fact that this is a fine legislator, a good human being. The people of Illinois are so fortunate to have this man who cares so much about people. In front of all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, I express my appreciation to Dick Durbin for doing something that is unheard of here, something very unselfish, for which he gets no credit.

Yes.

I say to my friend, I am always very short in my speeches. But we will have to talk to Senator McConnell. I am happy to set a good example and have about a minute and a half.

Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 3221, the legislative vehicle for the housing bill, postcloture. The Republican leader and I will visit in just a few minutes. The staffs and Senators Dodd and Shelby worked through most of the night, and I think a lot of progress was made this morning. I am hopeful and confident we can get to this legislation quickly.

Mr. President, I have another topic about which I feel inclined to say a few words.

Mr. President, the U.S. Army will soon say farewell to one of its most honorable officers, COL Michael P. Barbero. The colonel will retire after 26 years of service to the Army and to the Nation. For the last 5 years, I have come to know him as Chief of the Army's Senate Liaison Office.

Throughout his career, Colonel Barbero has always put the well-being of our soldiers and our country first. Of primary concern to him and his team at the Liaison Office has been helping soldiers, Guard and Reserve, navigate the bureaucracy to solve the problems that can be common to a soldier's life.

Sometimes this has meant guiding them through the bureaucracy to access Government benefits for their families. Sometimes it has meant dealing with a family emergency during deployment. Sometimes it has meant helping whistleblowers who report fraud or abuse that needs further investigation.

No matter what the challenge, Colonel Barbero always treated our citizen soldiers who seek help from Congress with care, fairness, and the respect they deserve.

As Senate minority and majority leader, I had the privilege to ask the Army to support my foreign travel. For the last several years, Colonel Barbero was a central part of these efforts. He handled high- profile and sensitive congressional delegation visits that I led to Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Georgia, Ukraine, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Colombia, Mexico, and Guatemala. These missions were successful because of the careful planning of Colonel Barbero and his excellent team.

On these long trips, I also came to know Mike Barbero as a person, not as a soldier. He is a gourmet chef. He remembers birthdays and makes sure there is a cake--even when it means the cake is packed on dry ice and stored for 6 days on an airplane.

I also learned he is a loving father and husband. In sacrifice for his service to our country, his wife Vicki and his daughter Mary and son Michael have not seen as much of him as probably they wanted.

Our loss with his retirement will be his family's gain, and, hopefully, they will soon get their father back for all the ball games and school events that his duties here have required him to miss.

We in the Senate honor the service and contributions of COL Michael Barbero.

Always thinking of his soldiers and the interests of the Army and the Nation he loves, Colonel Barbero is an example for generations of officers to come.

So on behalf of all my colleagues who know this good man, I thank him for his outstanding service and wish him well in the next chapter of his life.

I appreciate my distinguished friend allowing me to speak for a minute.

I just completed a meeting with the Republican leader, Chairman Dodd, and Ranking Member Shelby. We have an agreement in principle as to what we are going to move forward on. The two managers of this most important legislation are now in the process of drafting the principles into legislative language. The staffs worked most of the night to get where we are today. I am not going to go into any detail as to what has been accomplished, but it is a robust package addressing the issues, some of which were just addressed by my friend from Florida. We will come back at 5 o'clock. They think they can have the language drafted by that time. It would be a substitute for the House-passed bill that we are working off of. At that time, we would hope that there would be some discussion of the substitute, that that would be agreed to, and then we would start amending that. Either people want to take things out of it or add legislative measures to it. I think we are moving forward. This is good news for the American people, and I am confident we can process it fairly rapidly.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the matter that we have to lay down as a substitute is done. The staff is reading it over. They found a couple mistakes. It happens on a bill this big, an amendment this big. So rather than have more time spent tonight treading water, we are going to lay this amendment down in the morning. We are going to come in at 9:30. Senators Dodd and Shelby have a very important banking hearing. It has been scheduled for quite some time. But Senator Durbin has agreed to manage the bill for Senator Dodd, and the Republicans will have someone here also. It is my understanding, after initial statements are made on the bill, we are going to go back and forth on amendments. Senator Durbin will lay down an amendment. That will be our first one--not a lot of time on that. Our second amendment would be with Senators Schumer and Murray. The third amendment will be Senator Feinstein. It is a bipartisan amendment. I believe it is Senator Martinez.

As I indicated to staff, of course, following the first Democratic amendment, there will be a Republican amendment, if there is one. Following the second Democratic amendment, there will be a Republican amendment. We will try to move through this as expeditiously and as well intentioned as we can. The progress that has been made in the last 24 hours is very significant. We have a piece of legislation that now has very important FHA modernization in it. It is not what everyone wants, but it is a good piece of legislation.

Senators Dodd and Shelby have agreed the limit would be $550,000. There would be a 3.5 percent downpayment. There are other things in it that banking minds can describe better than I.

There is the CDBG funds to assist communities devastated by foreclosures. That would be $4 billion. We would provide preforeclosure counseling for families in need. In the underlying bill, the so-called Reid amendment, we had $200 million. That has been reduced to $100 million. There will be efforts made to increase that. As I understand, that is what Senators Schumer and Murray intend to do. We have a combination of pieces of legislation that have been put together in one amendment. It is bipartisan. It started with the Jack Reed disclosure transparency legislation, and others had ideas on how to improve that. That is what Senators Dodd and Shelby have done.

It lengthens the time a lender must wait before starting foreclosure on a servicemember by some 3 months, which is important during this time of Iraq and Afghanistan. It raises the loan guarantee amount for VA-backed loans in high-cost areas. There is a standard property tax deduction; of course, what the President called for in his State of the Union Address, the mortgage revenue bonds to purchase used or foreclosed-upon homes; the extension of net operating loss carryback, extremely important to homebuilders. There is a tax credit for the purchase of homes in foreclosure. This is the Isakson amendment that has been talked about for several weeks now. The two managers of the legislation have modified the original Isakson proposal to have $3,500 for 2 years in succession, a total of $7,000. It will be for buyers of foreclosed homes.

This is the package. It would be great if the Presiding Officer and I and Senator Salazar could just say: OK, this is done. This is great, because it is bipartisan. Let's go home tonight, having done this. We can't do that. That is

the way the legislation is. But I think it is a tremendously important bipartisan package that we have. I commend and applaud the work to this point of Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby. They have done very good work. Their staffs worked most all night. And, of course, they have worked all day. Senators Shelby and Dodd were on the telephone last night at midnight trying to work things out. So I appreciate their good, hard work. They have been long-time legislators. As I mentioned, when Senator McConnell and I suggested they come up with a bipartisan package, they are experienced legislators. They both had extensive service in the House of Representatives before coming here. I feel we are in a good spot to be able to deliver a package that will go toward helping Main Street. We helped Wall Street.

We are all glad Bear Stearns was taken care of. But now it is our opportunity to take care of people on Main Street. They deserve that. I am convinced it would be the right thing to do.

As I indicated, we are going to come in at 9:30 tomorrow. I hope this gives everyone an outline of the legislation. I apologize, as I have to do often, that we were not doing more proactive stuff on the floor, but every minute that we were on the floor in the quorum calls or people giving speeches on what they thought should be done with housing or other issues, the staffs and Senators Dodd and Shelby were working very hard to get us to the point where we are tonight.

I ask unanimous consent that we now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak for a period of up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 498.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I understand there are five bills at the desk, and I ask for their first reading en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask for a second reading and, in order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request, all en bloc.