Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I have no objection.

Mr. DODD

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thought I might take a couple of minutes toward the close of the day and share with my colleagues where we stand on the matter of the housing proposal we have been on since the middle of last week. I wish to again thank Majority Leader Reid. Without his leadership, we would not be here. We would not be in a position to actually do some things that are critically important to work our way out of this mess our country is in when it comes to the foreclosure crisis, the problems Americans are facing, not to mention the contagion effects that are moving this issue beyond housing into other aspects of our economy. It was Majority Leader Reid who reached out to the Republican leader, suggesting we try to get together, Democrats and Republicans, on a compromise proposal to move to and then deal with other issues where we could, where there was some consensus, to then be able to meet with the other body to see if we couldn't resolve outstanding questions dealing with the issue of housing and foreclosure. As I have said over and over for the last week since Senator Shelby and I spent that 24 hours we were given--not a great deal of time, considering the number of issues involved in this question--to come back with a package that represented Democrats' and Republicans' common points on this question, there were a lot of issues Democrats wanted, that I wanted, there were issues Republicans wanted that the other side was not willing to agree to, and that was the charge we were to avoid, to come back with a package on matters we could agree on, which is not always easy in a Senate that is divided 51 to 49, where the margins are narrow and the differences are significant. But nonetheless, we did that. This package includes positive provisions. One, we are going to get an FHA modernization bill. That has been kicking around for a long time. We took those loan limits from, I think it is $362,000 up to $550,000. There were some 19 States that would have been excluded from the FHA program or at least parts of States that would have been excluded, such as California, my own State of Connecticut, candidly, Massachusetts, New Jersey, many States, New York. There are pockets in these States where even the average cost of a home is higher. So the loan limits went up. FHA modernization does other good as well, an important point. The issue of counseling, last year we appropriated $42 million nationwide for counseling services to deal with the housing crisis-- hardly enough to deal with the demands people had on counseling. Senator Bond and I offered an amendment last year and got $180 million for counseling services which we thought contributed, and it did, to assisting groups across the country, nonprofits to work with those facing foreclosure or in highly distressed mortgages to work out those differences. I would have liked to have added $200 million more to the counseling program. That is a proposal Senator Murray, who cares deeply about this issue, Senator Schumer, who cares about the issue, and others wanted to bring up. When we sat down to negotiate that issue, there was little or no appetite for any additional money in the counseling area. So we compromised between the 200 and zero and came up with $100 million. I would have liked more. But again, we were directed and asked by the leadership to try to develop a set of consensus ideas. Again, there may be other amendments--there was on this--to add additional funds to it. We provided money for community development block grants to assist communities that have a lot of distressed properties or foreclosed properties. I have made the case over and over what this can do to a community and neighborhood. When you have a single foreclosed property, the value of every other home in that neighborhood or the surrounding area can decline in value immediately. What you don't need is more supply out there. Right now we are overloaded with supply. It is one of the reasons why the market is not doing as much in correcting this problem, because of the oversupply of housing. So when we do what we can to clean up housing, to get it back on the market and hopefully get people into that housing, it not only benefits the people who get to purchase a home, but it also does a lot to increase the value of the surrounding homes, not to mention, of course, stabilizing a declining property tax base, which supports police, fire, social services, all the other issues that are adversely affected when you have a foreclosed property or properties in your neighborhood or community. So that was a major achievement in this bill. I would have liked some additional funds for community development block grants. It is a very good program. It works very well. To target these resources into that area is something we can applaud in this legislation. We also have offered some tax credits for people who move into foreclosed properties. It is a 2-year deal. It involves about $3,500 a year in tax credits. The idea is to get this property back on the tax rolls, to get people into the property so, again, you stabilize neighborhoods before you end up with further declining values and erosion in these areas, blight, all the other problems that happen. How big a problem can that be? Let me tell you how big that can be. I have one community in my State that I have talked about where there are 6,000 foreclosures in a city of 100,000 people. Let me tell you what that looks like in a city. Imagine if you end up with 6,000 boarded-up properties in a city of 100,000 people or less. Obviously, the value of every other home in that city is going to be adversely affected. So while people said: I don't think you ought to be providing a tax credit to get owner-occupied people into these homes, well, you can make a case for that, but I think we all benefit if we can get someone into that property, clean it up. That is taxes coming into the community. The value of surrounding homes I think are benefited from it. So again, I think that is a good provision. It was offered here. It has to be foreclosed property. You have to live in the house for a period of time. It doesn't invite speculation or involve new properties. It is foreclosed properties. We also had a number of provisions to deal with veterans. Again, I thank Senator John Kerry, Senator Dan Akaka of Hawaii, Senator Coleman, among others, Senator Sanders of Vermont. All had ideas on how we could assist our men and women in uniform who are facing not only the difficulty of being in the military service today, potentially serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also facing potential foreclosures. We have done a lot in this bill to make sure they are not going to be adversely affected. It may not seem like much or a lot of people, but the fact that we could do something to help mayors and local governments with foreclosed properties, as well as providing some way for people to get into these homes, is a positive step, not to mention the FHA modernization, the mortgage revenue bonds, $1.6 billion, not exactly a small amount of money, designed specifically to get people into fixed rate affordable mortgages that they can work out. That is going to be a tremendous asset to people. There are some related matters we probably have to deal with in the Tax Code so it could be even more potent, but it is a major accomplishment in this bill that is something we can applaud again and celebrate as being very helpful. In fact, this is the $10 billion in mortgage revenue bond authority included in this proposal. There are other provisions in the bill. Frankly, there are some that go too far. I am the first to admit it. But I was asked to try to put something together. In doing so, I wished to have a provision in here that I cared deeply about and that is the home preservation idea, where we could forestall the ability of people. In the ultimate situation, where you provide money to mayors to clean up, why not stop foreclosure in the first place. I have talked about it since January. There is, I think, sort of a growing constituency that understands this and has offered some ideas on how to be supportive. But I couldn't get my own idea in this bill as the negotiator. I tried to convince my good friend from Alabama and others this was a provision I thought we ought to have in this bill. He has some very legitimate questions about it. A good set of hearings probably will accomplish it. This Thursday, we are going to have a hearing on this idea and other ideas in the Banking Committee and a hearing the following week as well because we would like to have a couple hearings on it. My hope is that at the conclusion, we can have a markup and, along with some other provisions the Presiding Officer is aware of, as a member of the committee, we can bring back as a package, hopefully, in a bipartisan way, that we can move through this Chamber that will contribute some answers to this economic crisis that has as its center the foreclosure crisis. My own provision is not part of this package as much as I wanted it and argued for it. But I couldn't get it included at all. So there are things I would have liked to have had in this bill that are not here. There are some things in this bill that I think go too far. I will be the first to admit it. But I have learned over the years that if you wait for the perfect, you don't get much. In this body with 100 Members, with very different views on a lot of these matters, you do your best. Particularly when you are divided 51 to 49, it is hard to develop that kind of consensus. But that is what it is, and that is how you get legislation passed. You begin to have to move on it. That is why I am urging my colleagues and I am grateful for the vote on cloture. I don't like to cut off debate for anyone on matters where certain amendments may not then survive a postcloture motion. But we need to come to some closure on this. I would say to the Presiding Officer as well that there are about 15 or 20 amendments that are going to be worked out, I think, that various people have offered in addition to what is in the core provisions here that we are working hard on, the adjoining staff, to try to accommodate where we can. So in addition to the core provisions, there are other ideas that have come forward that we hope to have included in this final product that we can produce, hopefully, by tomorrow. But we are pretty much done with the debate. We have debated this a lot. People know or can find out whether their amendments are germane or survive postcloture or would avoid an objection being filed against them. If that is the case and they want to come over and let Senator Shelby and me talk about them and listen to people's ideas, it is still possible some additional ideas can be included. I have been told there are some people who are just going to object to anything that comes up. I would wish that would not be the case, but that is a right Members have. They have the right to object to anything because it takes unanimous consent to bring up these matters. If you do not get the consent, it does not come up. So I know the Democratic leader, working with the Republican leader, is trying to convince those Members who have blanket objections to anything to remove those objections and to allow some of these ideas to come up to be considered as part of this package. We then have to go through the process of meeting with the other body. Congressman Barney Frank, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee of the House, is working on a similar package or related package. I am never going to get there to work out some differences, some of the different ideas that may become a part of this legislation, if I do not leave here. We cannot solve this problem by talking to ourselves. We are going to have to sit down and talk with people who have different points of view on this if we are going to come up with some common answers. So that is sort of the status of play here at 6:30 this evening. There is no reason why we need to exhaust 30 hours. There is a lot of other work to be done in this body on other matters. This is not the only issue that is before this Congress. So my hope would be that tomorrow morning, for those who have additional ideas who want to come over, for those who are waiting to see if we can get some answers, that we do that. I am prepared to spend the time to try to work things out where we can and to say to those where we cannot work it out: I am sorry, I cannot accommodate every Member who has an idea on this bill. Beyond that, we need to come to closure and move on. My hope would be we would not have to wait until 9 p.m. tomorrow night to arrive at that point. I am more than happy to yield back time under the 30 hours, as I am confident Senator Shelby would be, but we do not want to do that without giving our colleagues an opportunity to be heard on these matters. So I will urge colleagues in the morning, if they would come over and bring their ideas or at least if they have amendments to bring them up. We can vote on some of these. Some may carry, some may not, but allow us to move forward and have a final vote on this package and then go back to work in the committee to bring out these additional ideas we have been talking about, as well as to get to a conference with the other body to try to resolve what is in this bill and what they will offer themselves. With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Kohl and Carper as cosponsors to amendment No. 4489, as submitted by Senator McCaskill.

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, 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 resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 505, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. What is the pending amendment, Mr. President?

Mr. DODD. The Senator from Maryland wishes to speak.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me say to my colleague from Pennsylvania, I appreciate the substance of the idea he has offered and, of course, the amendment by Senator Durbin as well. I will not belabor my colleagues with the history of why it is that provision exists. There were about 10 or 12 of us who strenuously objected to the bankruptcy reform bill. So I had problems with that bill across the board. I will not go into all that here. Let me try and frame this again. The majority leader, back about a week or so ago, talked with the Republican leader about the possibility of us breaking this logjam that existed, where nothing could even be debated on the housing issue. So the idea was Senator Shelby and myself were designated by our respective leaders to try to come up with a consensus package of ideas, one Republicans and Democrats, by and large, could support to come out with as a core, and from that other amendments would be offered and added along the way, and if there was consensus, we would try to add those. It is a complicated process, but it was the only way we were going to move beyond the gridlock that was allowing no debate whatsoever. I am in the position, obviously, of trying to accomplish what our leader is trying to achieve--and he should and I applaud him for it--of trying to get us moving on this issue. We are losing 8,000 people a day in foreclosure and the country and the economy is suffering terribly and we were in gridlock on this issue. There are some very meritorious ideas. Those who have been in this position of managing legislation, of trying to get it through, know from time to time you are confronted with substantively agreeing with what a colleague is offering but find yourself in the position of where, to move the product along, you do not agree at that particular time to deal with the issue for a variety of reasons.

Mr. DODD. Let me finish the thought. The idea is we are watching the legislation, quite candidly, because it is a tax bill, with which Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus are dealing. All of a sudden, we found ourselves dealing with other issues. That is not to say this is one. This is one that could clearly relate to the subject matter. There are others dealing with energy policy and the like. It is one of the few vehicles that may move. So I understand the frustrations people may have about putting something on this bill. The fact is, we could be here endlessly and fail to get a housing bill--albeit short of what I would like or others would like--to get us to a conference with the House to do something about this issue. We can stay the rest of this week or next week and debate a variety of amendments or try to get moving to get something accomplished. That, I believe, is the motivation behind the majority leader, and I will let Senator Shelby talk for the minority leader. That is the general thought. That is not to suggest these other ideas do not have merit or do not have value, including the idea promoted by the Senator from Pennsylvania. There is a reason why the leadership is responsible for trying to move product through here that may not include every idea everyone has that they would like to see added to legislation. My hope is cloture will be invoked, that we can go forward, and there can be amendments in postcloture, and if they are germane and deal with the issues at hand, then we will try to accommodate them and, where we have consensus, add them and come to some closure and move forward. This is not the end of the debate. This is not the end of ideas. We will have hearings this week in the committee. We have proposals we are going to bring up in our committee in markup in the next couple weeks, and we will be back on the floor with other ideas directly related to this subject matter. We are merely trying to move this subject along to achieve some of the results involved. I admire what the Senator is trying to do. He and I have worked on a lot of issues over the years and certainly this idea. As my colleague from Alabama knows, when Senator Durbin's amendment was offered, I told my colleagues this is one area where I am going to be supportive of that effort to deal with primary residences. I agree with what my colleague wants to achieve, but there are other considerations we are trying to accomplish with this legislation. I will be happy to respond to a question.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have been notified that at least one Member, on the side of my good friend from Pennsylvania, will object to any process going forward. So maybe he can spend some time in his conference lunch to convince some of his colleagues to be more supportive of some of these ideas. This is not a crumb, let me say to my colleague from Pennsylvania. The idea we are modernizing the FHA is critically important. The fact we have money in here for disclosure, we have resources for counseling, the fact we are getting resources back to the States, $4 billion to assist them as they try to deal with the problems in their local communities, the fact we are providing some tax support for people to move into foreclosed property so we don't add to the supply is critically important as well. These are some very solid ideas. There are some provisions in the bill, I will be the first to admit, frankly, had I written this all by myself without having to deal with other people who care about some of these issues, I would not have included. This is far more than a crumb in terms of trying to deal with this issue. More needs to be done, but the suggestion somehow that the community development block grants, counseling, disclosure, and modernization of the FHA and raising loan limits and the like are insignificant is to fail to understand what is in this bill. More can be done, I do not disagree. But the suggestion that what we have done falls into that category is a vast exaggeration in terms of what we have been trying to accomplish, and more will be done with this issue as well.

Mr. DODD. Agreed.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Pennsylvania, what was done in the Bear Stearns-JPMorgan Chase issue, I would argue alternatives may have been available. In the final analysis, what was done that Sunday night to allow the merger of Bear Stearns with JPMorgan Chase--and this is the conclusion, I think, unanimously of our committee, having had a hearing on it--was probably the right decision, given the alternative of bankruptcy of Bear Stearns and what could have happened on that Monday had the action not been taken by the Fed, the Treasury, and the New York Fed. That is one separate issue. It is a legitimate point to say, shouldn't we do something where we can help out communities and individuals and to get this economy moving in the right direction. I made that case for a year now, not just in the wake of Bear Stearns. We had our first meetings on this matter in March of last year trying to get something done. I am not going to take a backseat to anyone who discovered this issue in the last couple days and how much they care about it. I have been at it for 13 months, trying to get things moving in this area. We are doing some things here. My colleagues know very well what objections there have been to doing anything in this area: Let the market take care of it; the problem has been contained; no further problems. Quite the contrary. We are now down to the business of doing something about it, and I regret we are not accommodating everyone on every idea they have the moment they want it considered. We are doing our best, Senator Shelby and I and members of the committee, to come out with something. Four weeks ago, we couldn't do what we are doing now. We couldn't even debate the issue, I say to my colleague from Pennsylvania. I am suggesting to the Senator from Pennsylvania this bill does a lot more than provide crumbs. It goes to the heart of very significant issues that need to be dealt with. There are other matters that need to be dealt with. As my colleague knows, I agree with him about what bankruptcy courts can do with primary residences. I also understand the history of the seventies, why that provision was included, but I believe the times have changed, and under this fact situation, we ought to allow a bankruptcy judge to be able to modify that agreement to allow that individual to stay in their home. I thought Senator Durbin was right with his idea. The Senator from Pennsylvania has a more modest idea in this area and may attract a few more votes than the 36 we got with Senator Durbin's amendment. So I am willing to support that, but the idea of trying to come to some closure is also important so we can move on, get with the House, resolve some of these matters, and come back. That is what this chairman is trying to accomplish. That is what we were doing last week when we were directed to do so by the leaders of our respective parties.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we will be happy to consider it. It is a matter under the proper jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, of which the Senator is a member, and it is not in the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. That is one of the other issues we face. If he is unable, as a leading member of that committee, as a former chairman of that committee, to have that adopted by his committee and come forward, we certainly would consider it. I point out we only had 36 votes for the Durbin amendment. I regret that. We only had 12 of us who opposed the bankruptcy reform bill for 6 years around here. Those matters we widely endorsed and supported, including the efforts, as my colleagues may recall, that I tried to do with credit card companies that are gouging the public on a daily basis. So I will take a back seat to no one in my determination to get far better reforms out of the bankruptcy proceedings in the country, and we will certainly do our best. But I want to be realistic with my colleague as well. Unfortunately, the Senator from Pennsylvania and I don't represent a majority in this body when it comes to that issue. The realities are that we only have about half of us who seem to agree with the two of us on this matter.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. I know there have been a number of other amendments, Mr. President, and I have just been informed that objection will be expressed on every amendment, I guess, that is being offered by a Member of the other side on this matter. So I would inform my colleagues where we stand procedurally. We are going to have our caucus luncheons where, I am sure, this will be the subject of some discussion as we try to move forward, but, again, I thank Senator Reid, the majority leader. He has a thankless job when it comes to these issues, and he asked Senator Shelby and I to try to do our best to come up with a consensus package. Granted, now the subject matter has become of great interest to everyone, and it should, and we have tried to do just that, to put together a consensus package--not an easy thing to accomplish in this body, but we tried to do that. Again, we will try to move forward with other ideas that we can incorporate through our committee and others. Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas wants to be heard on this matter as well, and I thank her for her patience. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will ask for 2 additional minutes, if I can, to respond to my colleague from Arkansas. First of all, I agree with her totally about the value. Over the many years I have been a long-time supporter of these legal services offices and the job they do on behalf of people all across the country, particularly in rural America, and the difference they make. So I am in complete agreement with her about the value of this approach. I would inform her that the regular order would be asking consent, after cloture has been invoked, to bring up the matter she wants to bring up. It is a tax matter and one that would require the consent of the chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member. So it is a matter where we are leaving it up to that jurisdiction to respond. So I want to be careful. I don't know how Senator Baucus feels about that. I don't want to put words in his mouth at all. I suspect he has the same sort of reaction as I do, and it is a positive one. I am grateful for my colleague's understanding the situation we are in, trying to accommodate as many ideas as we can and to move from here to the next stage and deal with other aspects of the legislation. We couldn't have gotten here without the majority leader insisting, and really with the minority leader, to come together and allow us to bring up this package. So there are a lot of very good ideas and ones I applaud and welcome, but in the interest of trying to move forward, we are not going to be able to accommodate all of them. I am not suggesting that will happen in this case, but I again appreciate her recognition that what we are trying to accomplish and deal with here is difficult. It is serious. As she points out, we have a lot of people suffering every single day--I have been making that case for 12 months--and we haven't been able to have a debate about this subject until last week. So to the extent that we have gotten that far along, that is some achievement. I hope now that we are in the debate we can do some valuable and worthwhile works that will make a difference, and her suggestion contributes to that. So my hope is we will be able to accommodate this in the package as well.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, April 9; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for use later in the day, the Senate then proceed to a period of morning business for up to 60 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each and the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 3221, and that all time during any morning business, recess, or adjournment of the Senate count postcloture.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaty transmitted to the Senate on April 8, 2008, by the President of the United States: Amendments to the Constitution and Convention of the International Telecommunication Union (Geneva, 1992), (Treaty Document No. 110-16.) I further ask unanimous consent that the treaty be considered as having been read the first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed, and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the offering of the three amendments, the Senator from Louisiana be recognized.

Mr. DODD

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

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