Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. On behalf of Senator Feingold, I call up amendment No. 1032 and ask that the amendment be modified with the changes at the desk; that upon modification, the amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. Amendment No. 1038

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, briefly, let me thank my colleague from South Carolina. The reason I oppose this amendment is because we ought to have the flexibility. It is not a mandate. Today, the Treasury has the right to be able to convert preferred shares to common shares. There is a reason for that. The markets react in terms of real capital to common shares, not preferred shares. Preferred shares are a form of debt. If you are trying to get capital into lending institutions, which is critical to be able to provide loans, you need to have capital. Common shares allow you to make that determination. Secondly, on the upside for taxpayers, and TARP money coming back, there is a greater likelihood we will benefit if we have common shares. I am not advocating that kind of conversion, but you ought to have the flexibility to move from preferred to common. You may want to bifurcate that in some of these tranches. The Senator's amendment would prohibit that in any case. I think that is the wrong move to make. I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, 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. DODD. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. DODD. I understand what my colleague from Rhode Island is talking about, but I must say our colleague from Oklahoma is making a lot of sense. He often does so. Who has jurisdiction over this? Does it depend upon the Federal property, where it is located? Which of the committees?

Mr. DODD. People say debates here don't have an effect on anybody. I will make a commitment to you as chairman of the Banking Committee, I will work with you on this.

Mr. DODD. I am intrigued by what the Senator is saying. I suspect a lot of other people don't disagree with what he is driving at here. We need to pull some people together to see if we might get something done. At this late hour of the night I might not be listening to this debate were I not chairing the committee and managing the bill on the floor, but my colleague from Oklahoma I think has raised a very valuable point and it is worthy of our consideration and I would like to sit with him and see if I can't help.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise and offer my support for the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island that repeals the requirement for the Secretary of the Treasury to liquidate warrants under repayment of obligations under the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The Senator from Rhode Island I think has laid out the rationale for this, but the point is under existing law it was rather restrictive and required a specific action without consideration of what the values may be. What the Senator is suggesting is moving from a ``shall'' requirement to a ``may'' gives flexibility, which is exactly what we have been arguing for today in a number of these amendments, giving flexibility dealing with preferred and common shares--flexibility. Some of the other amendments earlier reflect on this flexibility, which is critical. These warrants change over time. It doesn't suggest by holding back you will necessarily get a better value. It doesn't mean by releasing them earlier you will do better. It is obviously a judgment call and you want to give people the opportunity to make the judgment calls. The beneficiary of all of this ultimately will be the American taxpayer and that is ultimately what we are trying to achieve. I think my colleague has once again offered a very wise and worthwhile amendment to this bill. It strengthens it, in my view. I thank him for it. I don't know if there is any objection to this at all.

Mr. DODD. As soon as that happens, we will move this along and see if we can't get this agreed to. Amendment No. 1036 I want to mention a few words about the amendment offered by Senator Kerry from Massachusetts and Senator Gillibrand from New York and Senator Reid from Nevada, if I may. This is a very good amendment. My hope is my colleagues will support it. We offered an amendment on earlier legislation dealing with rental properties that were affected under the Government-sponsored enterprise. Under that legislation, we prohibited those properties from evicting tenants who were current in their rental obligations when a property was foreclosed or purchased by a new buyer, the thought being, if a tenant is current in their obligations, they should not be evicted unless they are on a month to month, in which case at the end of the month the landlord would have that right. But if there are leases of longer duration, these tenants ought to be respected under the contracts they have. I can say in my own State of Connecticut, we do not have a great supply of affordable rental stock. This is not unique in my State. I think this is true in most States. As you are watching more and more foreclosures occurring and as people lose their homes, the demand for rental stock is increasing. The cost of it is prohibitive. In the State of Connecticut--I believe these numbers are correct--I think you need an hourly income of close to $21 an hour to afford the average two- bedroom apartment. Obviously that could fluctuate to some degree, but that gives you some idea of the cost, and that is close to three minimum wage jobs, in effect, in a day to pick up that kind of income. It is important that we do what we can to protect people in this situation. That is exactly what Senator Kerry does, in that the measure requires at least 90-days' notice for all renters in federally related housing, but would honor the full term of any existing lease unless a new owner will occupy the home. The amendment also amends the housing voucher statute to preserve section 8 contracts at foreclosure. These provisions would be in effect during the foreclosure crisis, sunsetting at the end of December 2012. This is a very worthwhile proposal. We are protecting an awful lot of good people out there. Frankly, I am somewhat perplexed that there are those who object to this. It seems to me it would be in the interests of a new owner to want to keep people in paying rents, current in those obligations, rather than evicting them and beginning another process unless they are looking for some extremely--higher rents coming in. But it seems to me, given the amount of people out of work, given the declining value of properties, you are probably acquiring these properties at a lot less cost than the previous owner may have had which means the rents you would have to secure wouldn't have to be as expensive to maintain it. At the very hour people are worrying about where they are going to live--we just heard a discussion by Senator Reed about homeless families. The largest increase in homeless families is children in our country. Again, imagine that family tonight--10,000 tonight, as there were last night, as there will be tomorrow night and every night--who has discovered they are in such default their home is on the auction block or has been lost. That is a pretty compelling moment to know you have lost your home. It further compounds that problem by not knowing where you are going to live, where you are going to take your family--showing up tonight and looking at your children and suggesting you are going to move, going to have to find a different place to live. What Senator Kerry is saying here, at least for tenants who are in good standing on their properties, they should not be affected because the property ended up in foreclosure through whatever rationale that may have happened to the landlord. It seems to me, putting people out on the street is not what we ought to be doing at a time such as this. Whatever your views are about whether these programs are working as effectively as they should, I think all of us agree the innocent who are being confronted with these decisions should not be left in a more precarious position than they are already in, and that is exactly what would happen in the absence of the Kerry amendment, the Kerry- Gillibrand-Reid amendment. Once again the majority leader, Senator Reid, has taken a strong position on these matters and is making a difference, as he has, by allowing these matters to come up and being as supportive as he has of the various efforts we are making here to complete this work. I thank Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, his colleagues Senator Reid of Nevada and Senator Gillibrand of New York, for offering this idea. It is one deserving of our support and will make a real difference. People have asked whether this bill is going to make a real difference for real people. This amendment makes a real difference for real people, and is exactly what we ought to be doing. These were not the people who caused the problems they are in. These are the victims of what is occurring. If we care about what is happening to them, this is a wonderful way to say we understand it, we are stepping up and making a difference in their lives. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I am going to make a series of unanimous consent requests dealing with modifications. On behalf of Senator Reed of Rhode Island, I call up his amendment No. 1039 and ask that the amendment be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. DODD. On behalf of Senator Grassley, I ask unanimous consent that his amendments Nos. 1020 and 1021 be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. DODD. On behalf of Senator Boxer, I call up amendment No. 1035.

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DODD. On behalf of Senator Schumer, I call up amendment No. 1031 and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. DODD. On behalf of Senator Kerry, I ask unanimous consent that his amendment be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend my friend from Iowa. He has been a consistent advocate over the years for transparency and accountability. I am pleased to work with him on these amendments. I am fairly confident the committee will accept these amendments as part of the underlying bill. It strengthens what we are trying to achieve. I regret we couldn't arrange to do that this evening while the Senator was here, but there are other powers that my colleague and I are well aware of that need to make sure they pour over everything before we go forward. I thank him for his counsel and his advice and this recommendation.

Mr. DODD. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no further amendments be in order to S. 896, and that on Wednesday, May 6, following a period of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 896, and proceed to vote in the order listed on the pending amendments, with no amendment in order to any amendment listed; that prior to each vote, there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that after the first vote, any succeeding votes be limited to 10 minutes each: Senator Reed of Rhode Island No. 1039, as modified; Boxer No. 1035; Casey No. 1033; Grassley No. 1020, as modified; Coburn second degree No. 1042; Reed of Rhode Island No. 1040, as amended, if amended; Kerry No. 1036, as modified; Schumer No. 1031, as modified; Grassley No. 1021, as modified; provided further, that upon disposition of the listed amendments, the substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; the bill be read a third time, and the Senate then proceed to vote on passage of the bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have a series of unanimous consent requests to make. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, May 5, at 9:45 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate office building.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 5, 2009, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.