Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I will yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, what is the pending business?

Mr. SHELBY. I yield 1 minute, at this point, to the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Isakson.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I wish today to honor Kathryn Tucker Windham, who is celebrating her 90th birthday on June 5, 2008. In Alabama, one of our greatest treasures is our history, which is often best learned through the stories told by others. Alabama is lucky to have one of the world's best storytellers, Kathryn Tucker Windham, who shares her memories and observances of our State's social history in a way unlike any other. Kathryn can tell stories about graveyards and ghosts, cooking or recipes and the Gee's Bend quilters that provide her listener with a unique view into life in the rural South. Born in Selma, AL, Mrs. Windham grew up in Thomasville, where she began her writing career at the age of 12 working for the Thomasville Times, a local weekly newspaper. After receiving her bachelor's degree from Huntingdon College in Montgomery, AL, Kathryn became one of the first women to cover the police beat for a major daily newspaper in the South at the Alabama Journal. She also worked as a reporter, photographer, and State editor for the Birmingham News and as a reporter, city editor, State editor, and associate editor for the Selma Times-Journal, where she won Associated Press awards for her writing and photography. Kathryn is also the author of 24 books and is a playwright. She is widely recognized for storytelling abilities in classrooms, historical meetings, and storytelling events across Alabama. In addition to her writing career, Mrs. Windham worked as the community relations coordinator for the area agency on aging, which serves 12 rural counties in southwest Alabama and promoted statewide war bond drives during World War II. Mrs. Windham's work in radio brought her a new level of notoriety, as she is now a favorite contributor to National Public Radio's program, ``All Things Considered.'' Her tales about life in the rural South tell listeners more about our region than is widely known and have included stories about rumors of people who could kill a rattlesnake by spitting, a hailstorm in Thomasville that was supposed to have knocked the eyes out of goldfish in a pond, or the frog houses Alabama children make with cold mud. Quoted in a 1999 article for Current magazine, Windham said of her storytelling, ``It preserves a part of our Southern history maybe, our heritage. We need to know where we came from.'' I could not agree with her more. Kathryn Tucker Windham will leave an important legacy as a trailblazing female journalist and a chronicler of life in Alabama that I greatly admire. I join Kathryn's three children, Kathryn Tabb Windham, Amasa Benjamin Windham, Jr., and Helen Ann Windham Hilley, and her two grandsons, David Wilson Windham and Benjamin Douglas Hilley in wishing Mrs. Windham a happy 90th birthday. Mrs. Windham is a special and unique lady, and I wish her the very best.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I want to respond to the Senator from Oklahoma and commend him for his efforts in this area. What Senator Dodd and I and other Members, including the Presiding Officer at the moment, who is involved in banking issues and insurance, and so forth, know is that this flood insurance program is bankrupt, as does the Senator from Oklahoma. It is not working. And what we are trying to do is move it toward an actuarially sound basis. The Senator's suggestion is something I think we ought to consider as we move along down the road because we want to make sure nobody beats the system. In other words, the more people who are involved in the flood insurance program, proper mapping is going to mean lower premiums to everybody. And the problem, in the long run, as we have catastrophes, tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes--well, in this case floods and water--that the insurance would take care of it rather than thinking, as the Senator from Oklahoma says: Well, I do not have to insure you; the Government, the taxpayer, the people will take care of me in the end. I think that is what we are trying to prevent. I think the Senator from Oklahoma has a very good point. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from South Carolina for bringing up his amendment. I think it is something we should consider in conference. Senator Dodd had a colloquy about it on the side on the floor a few minutes ago. At the end of the day, what we are interested in is a more actuarially sound flood insurance program, one that will make more sense after a lot of mapping goes on around the country that will broaden the program and not perpetuate subsidy over and over for four or five sales or four or five generations where property is sold. The Senator from South Carolina is on the right track. I assure him I want to pursue this in conference. Amendment No. 4710 Withdrawn

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I oppose the Vitter amendment. The purpose of the Dodd-Shelby bill is to increase the actuarial soundness of the flood insurance program. This amendment by Senator Vitter would undermine greatly that effort. The amendment would extend flood insurance subsidies, crowd out private markets, and lead to larger program losses down the road. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Dodd and me in opposing the Vitter amendment.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I oppose the Vitter amendment No. 4273. Most homes mapped into the mandatory coverage areas will only see limited increases in their premium rates. Homes or properties mapped into the higher risk areas should pay higher rates to match the reality of higher risk. Out-of-date maps that have vastly underclassified risk need to be updated, and delay in requiring property owners to pay their full freight is an extension of the inadvertent subsidies provided by inaccurate maps. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Dodd and me in opposing the Vitter amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by Senator Landrieu, my friend from Louisiana, which would allow the mandatory purchase provision for areas behind levees and dams to be eliminated. Currently, the flood insurance program suffers from a $17 billion deficit, mostly as a result of payments made to individuals living behind manmade structures such as levees and dams. The fact that people behind manmade flood protections do not have to purchase flood insurance clearly sends the wrong message. As we all know now, flood protections sometimes fail. Telling people they need not protect themselves from the risks associated with those failures provides a false sense of security. Keep in mind that all of these individuals will be required to pay a rate that reflects the risk associated with living behind flood mitigation devices. Currently the rates behind many of these structures would suggest an individual homeowner would pay approximately $316 for coverage up to $350,000. That is less than $1 per day for full flood protection; $1 dollar a day. This bill eliminates the entire debt associated with this program that is owed to the Federal Government, but it also demands that in the future people begin to pay a fair price for the risk associated with living in high-risk areas. This amendment would require that we undertake a study as to the effect of requiring insurance behind manmade structures. I believe we have learned all we need to know about the risk associated with living behind manmade flood protection devices. The insurance premium takes into account the real risk properties face. Levees fail. They fail all the time. They do not eliminate all risk. Flood insurance protects people against unforeseen risk. These amendments do not recognize that fact. A prudent course is risk-based premiums for everyone at risk. I strongly oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments. I rise in opposition to the Wicker amendment that the Senator from Mississippi offered earlier and has spoken to. I recognize that property casualty insurance availability and affordability is a serious concern in some parts of this country, perhaps all parts. The addition of wind coverage, however, to the financially insolvent flood insurance program is not the solution to this problem. I think we should put this amendment into context. According to the Insurance Information Institute, this amendment would add an additional $10 trillion to $12 trillion in exposure to the bankrupt Federal flood program, as well as annual Federal program deficits that could reach $100 billion or more. Just think about it. On this, in the Banking Committee, we have had no hearings. We have established no record. We have no understanding in any way, shape, or form as to what the true consequences of the Wicker amendment could be--nothing at all. Perhaps we should consider this amendment in the context of flood insurance. The National Flood Insurance Program does not charge actuarial rates for anyone within the program. There are direct subsidies to many homeowners and indirect subsidies to all others because the underwriting criteria do not accurately depict the risk. The program is currently bankrupt and has no ability to pay back its $17 billion debt obligation at this point. With a model such as this, I am not convinced that another Government-managed insurance program will well serve the American taxpayer. There are other considerable flaws to the approach contemplated by the Wicker amendment. Private insurers minimize exposure to catastrophic risk through diversification. The Wicker amendment would concentrate the risk. It provides no ability for reinsurance, retrocessional insurance, or any other means to diversify and lay off risk. In addition, the Federal wind coverage would face operational challenges that have not been addressed through the Wicker amendment. The flood program currently takes advantage of efficiencies created by the use of public and private resources. No private insurance company would ever sell or solicit a policy that would directly compete with itself. Therefore, the wind portion of this insurance will be marketed, underwritten, and serviced directly by the Federal Government, if you will. This will add significant administrative costs and bureaucracy to the process of claims handling. The capital markets have begun to show strong willingness to underwrite the risks associated with natural disasters. New innovations, such as catastrophe bonds and sidecar agreements, have been created recently. By allowing more Federal Government involvement, many of the innovative techniques for transferring risk will be crowded out in the marketplace. While there are some parts of the country where insurance coverage problems have occurred, most of the property casualty insurance market is functioning well in this country. In order to fully understand the problems associated with coverage lapses, I believe we must work to understand the root causes of the problem so we can debate solutions and address the problem without hindering the rest of the market itself. Our legislation creates a commission intended to provide us much of the necessary information we need to understand the problem of catastrophic risk. For instance, the commission would study ``the current condition of, as well as the outlook for, the availability and affordability of insurance in all regions of the country.'' It would also consider ``catastrophic insurance and reinsurance markets and the relevant practices in providing insurance protection to different sectors of the American population,'' as well as many other issues directly relating to the cost and availability of insurance for wind damage. Given the potential exposure to the taxpayer, I believe we owe them a better process. At a minimum, Mr. President, I think we need to further study this problem prior to committing the resources of the American taxpayer.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Vitter amendment and oppose it very strongly. The goal of flood insurance legislation is to move the program to more actuarially sound prices. This amendment would undermine that goal. The Vitter amendment would add significant new liabilities to the program without ensuring the necessary premium increases to cover such liabilities. I want to remind my colleagues that we are forgiving in this bill nearly $20 billion of debt incurred as a result of failures of the flood insurance program to date. The changes we are making are an attempt to ensure that taxpayers never have to pay off such a debt ever again. This amendment runs contrary to that goal, making it much more likely that we will be back bailing out the program in the near future. Furthermore, there are currently numerous private insurance carriers providing flood coverage for losses that exceed the maximum amounts provided by the Federal program. In other words, unlike basic coverage, where no private insurance exists, there is a private insurance market available for additional coverage. While I recognize this insurance is expensive, that is because it is actuarially priced. The premium is commensurate with the risk. This program was designed to address the fact that the market stopped providing primary flood insurance coverage. It was not intended to socialize risks that were otherwise being handled by private markets. The only reason to increase the coverage limits of the program is to crowd out risk-priced private insurance to provide socialized subsidized insurance. I believe it is largely due to the existing subsidies that this program has such problems. We do not need to add more subsidies at this time. For all these reasons, I oppose the Vitter amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the managers' amendment. It is a bill that combines the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2008 with the Catastrophic Commission Act of 2008 that Senator Dodd has just outlined. Senator Dodd and I worked very closely to develop this important legislation in the Banking Committee, which the Senate Banking Committee, by the way, unanimously passed last year. The legislation places the national flood insurance program on a stronger financial footing because it requires those living and working in areas vulnerable to flooding to assume more of the financial risk, as it should be. The bill also addresses many other structural and fiscal weaknesses in the program itself. In addition, the managers' amendment creates a commission to study the current market for catastrophic insurance. The results of this commission should provide Congress with a factual basis for future legislative action, if we deem it necessary. To fully appreciate the need for significant reform of the national flood insurance program, we must first consider the program's history. The flood insurance program was established in the Congress in 1968 to provide policyholders with some insurance for flood-related damage. The intent of the program was to generate enough revenue through premium dollars to prevent taxpayers from paying for flood-related losses during an average flood loss year. At the inception of this program, Congress included explicit subsidies for business properties and homes known as preflood insurance rate map or pre-FIRM structures. It was determined that it was not fair for the owners of such structures immediately to pay actuarial prices because they received no notice regarding the new mandatory purchase rules. That said, it was also believed that many, if not all, of the pre- FIRM structures would quickly become ineligible for the subsidies. For this reason, Congress never included a subsidy elimination mechanism. This oversight has had significant financial consequences for the current flood insurance program. More than 40 years later, a large number of these properties still receive explicit subsidies. Many of these properties have made the greatest claims on the program after suffering repetitive losses. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has valued the explicit subsidy for grandfathered homes at $1.3 billion per year. There are other key factors beyond the poorly designed financial structure of the program that need to be addressed. For example, the size of the program has expanded exponentially since its inception. In 1978, 10 years after the program started, the program had 1.4 million policyholders and $50 billion in risk exposure. Today there are more than 5 million policyholders and over $1 trillion in risk exposure. Finally, the maps used to determine the rates for the program are largely out of date just about everywhere. Antiquated maps do not represent accurately the risk that covered structures face. Without up-to-date maps and, hence, an accurate risk assessment, price is simply reduced to guesswork. Often these guesses have been too low, and the taxpayers have been forced to make up the difference, oftentimes to very wealthy people. This program currently generates $3 billion in premiums, spends roughly $1 billion on administration, and has a liability exposure of more than $1 trillion. Let me repeat that. The program has a liability exposure of more than $1 trillion. In fact, the financial deficiencies of the program are so great that the Government Accountability Office placed it on a list of high-risk programs because it does not generate enough money to cover its liabilities. Furthermore, Robert Hunter, who is recognized as one of the key individuals in getting the program started, has stated: The integrity of the program [must be] restored . . . [or] consideration must be given to ending this . . . hopelessly administered program. Mr. Hunter was with the Consumer Federation of America for many years. Mr. Hunter's prescription for restoring the program's integrity is requiring greater mitigation efforts and moving toward actuarial soundness. This is what we have attempted to do today. I recognize that reforming the flood insurance program presents the Congress with difficult choices. We could end the program, we could dramatically increase fees on program beneficiaries, or we could do nothing. Each of those choices would be unacceptable. That is why Senator Dodd and I have crafted a bill that addresses what we believe are the most significant financial weaknesses of the program without dismantling its core features. We struck a realistic balance between the needs of the program's beneficiaries and the taxpayers on the hook for the program's shortfalls. The legislation before us strengthens the program by immediately eliminating subsidies on vacation homes, businesses, and severe repetitive-loss properties. It then paves the way for eliminating all subsidies in the future. It proceeds in such a way, however, that recognizes immediate elimination of all subsidies is not prudent because flood maps will not be updated for some time. To address the mapping deficiencies, the bill creates stringent standards that the program must use to complete the map modernization process. Once we have the most accurate and up-to-date flood mapping possible, homeowners will better understand and mitigate their risks. The program will also transition to more accurate pricing. In addition to eliminating subsidies, the bill requires State-chartered lending institutions to maintain flood insurance coverage for all mortgages located within the 100-year flood plain. It increases enforcement tools available to bank regulators at both the Federal and State levels by requiring escrow of flood insurance premiums throughout the life of the mortgage. The civil monetary penalties that regulators may levy against lenders for failure to comply are also increased. The bill creates a mandatory reserve fund to cover the cost of unusual events. This provision is intended to limit future reliance on the American taxpayer. The bill requires a rulemaking to ensure that the ``write your own'' carriers are being reimbursed solely for their expenses. Finally, the legislation creates a commission that Senator Dodd outlined earlier to study the effects of natural disasters on our insurance system. The commission must report its findings within 9 months. Some have suggested that we should add wind insurance coverage to the already bankrupt Federal flood insurance program. I remind my colleagues of certain facts: The Insurance Information Institute estimates that by adding wind as a covered peril, the program will take on an additional $14 to $19 trillion worth of risk exposure. In addition, a Towers-Perrin report indicates that adding wind coverage to the flood program could lead to an additional annual program deficit as high as $1 billion. Both of these studies point out exactly why we should have a complete understanding of all of the facts before we even contemplate expanding the Federal Government's role as an insurance provider. Before I conclude, I will take a moment to recognize Senator Bunning for all of his efforts to reform this program for the past several years. As Senator Dodd did, I also recognize Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island and his staff for their efforts to create accurate and up-to- date flood maps which are essential for this program in the future. Lastly, I thank my colleague, Senator Dodd, chairman of the committee, and his staff for their efforts in crafting this bipartisan legislation. I repeat something I said earlier: Reform of the program involves tough choices. We must make these tough choices, however, if this program is going to survive. For the good of the program beneficiaries and the taxpayer, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SHELBY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Dodd for all of his cooperation and his leadership on the Banking Committee and on the Senate floor, and I want to associate myself with his remarks, thanking the staff of the Senate and also the staff of the Banking Committee, including my staff and his. It is good to work together where we can in the Senate. And when we do, we get a lot of work done. Mr. President, when crises such as the one we are now facing come about, the American people expect us in the Senate to act in an expeditious and an appropriate manner. I think this is what we have been doing the last couple of weeks. Senator Dodd and I, at the direction of our respective leaders, Senator Reid, the majority leader, and Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, have invested a considerable amount of time in drafting a bipartisan and balanced piece of legislation that is focused on addressing the growing number of foreclosures nationwide, which Senator Dodd just mentioned. In an effort to maintain that balance and to preserve our bipartisan agreement, we were not able to agree to a number of amendments, some of which I believe have a great deal of merit, and I want to touch on some. It is my hope that Senator Dodd and I can continue to work closely on a number of those, such as the need for meaningful GSE reform, as well as a mortgage broker and banker licensing bill. Senator Hagel introduced an amendment on GSE reform that I believe may represent the foundation for a very promising approach to addressing a very complex but critical set of issues. I stand ready to work with Senator Dodd at any time to reach an agreement on meaningful GSE reform. Senators Feinstein and Martinez introduced an amendment on mortgage broker and banker licensing that I hope also lays the foundation for further action by the Banking Committee, headed by Senator Dodd. There are other provisions that are not in this bill and that I could not support. These included the bankruptcy provision, or so-called cram-down, as well as an unprecedented expansion of the FHA guarantee to hundreds of thousands of homeowners who find themselves underwater on their mortgages and stretched beyond their means. Mr. President, when we began consideration of this bill, I said the following: While we are in agreement on the measures contained in this bill, there is a line that we should not cross. That line is represented by a taxpayer-funded bailout of investors or homeowners that freely and willingly entered into mortgages that they knew or should have known they could not afford. With that in mind, I intend to examine closely any proposals to further expose the American taxpayer to the risks freely incurred by individuals or investors. I understand that Chairman Dodd intends to hold additional hearings on just such a proposal. I intend to work closely with him to ensure that all facets of this approach are examined thoroughly before we expose those who made prudent financial choices to the risks created by those who didn't. First and foremost, I believe our primary responsibility is to the American taxpayer. In our zeal to help those who find themselves in financial difficulty, we must make sure that we do not do more harm than good. This bill does include a number of provisions that deserved my colleagues' support, and that they supported. The bill makes the necessary changes in the FHA program so that it can meet the needs of today's mortgage marketplace. The FHA language provides protections for the American taxpayer, who ultimately bears the financial risk of the program. The FHA title provides immediate help to the marketplace by reforming the Federal Housing Administration, allowing it to provide greater liquidity and thereby enhancing the options available to America's homeowners. The bill also provides additional funding for foreclosure prevention counseling--Senator Dodd has spoken on this--which will help homeowners stay current on their mortgages and be able to remain in their homes. That is our goal. This is an area in which I hope to work closely with Senator Dodd over the coming year. I believe we must conduct thorough oversight to ensure that this money is being spent properly and effectively. Should additional funds be necessary, I believe they can be provided during the normal appropriations process. In order to prevent a repeat of the current housing crisis, the bill also increases the disclosures made to consumers obtaining mortgages, which I think is very important. I believe giving consumers more information so they understand what they are doing and the ability to understand the choices they are making will help them avoid making the pitfalls and bad decisions many uninformed consumers made in the past. To protect our soldiers, sailors, and airmen, the bill extends additional consumer protections and provides those returning from combat a chance to get back on their feet before they face any type of foreclosure proceeding. Mr. President, in an effort to provide communities with the ability to clean up the damage caused by the foreclosures that have already occurred, we have included funding to allow States and communities to buy up and repair foreclosed residences through the Community Development Block Grant Program. Attached to this funding is a requirement that any profits from the sale of properties must be used to buy and repair additional properties. I believe that reuse of this funding in this manner will maximize the impact of these dollars and minimize the possibility that funds will be wasted or profits inappropriately pocketed. The bill also contains a number of tax-related provisions prepared in a bipartisan fashion by the chairman and ranking member on the Finance Committee. Mr. President, this bill also includes a managers' package that contains a broad range of provisions offered by 13 separate Senators. Chairman Dodd and I worked closely to come to agreement on including this group of provisions that, I believe, strengthens the core bill. The first group of provisions touch upon a number of veterans and military service personnel housing programs. These measures provide greater resources, flexibility, and options for veterans and military personnel to help meet the particular challenges they face in regards to their housing needs. The managers' package puts to greater use assets in the Home Loan Bank system to help bring additional resources to the effort to deal with current conditions in the housing market. The package includes additional consumer protections for senior citizens who participate in the FHA-insured reverse mortgage program. The package requires enhanced scrutiny of loan originators participating in the FHA program, which should better protect the solvency of the taxpayer backed mortgage insurance fund. The package also ensures that funds are not used to provide inappropriate benefits to private entities by prohibiting the use of funds in cases where eminent domain is used to benefit private parties. Finally, the managers' amendment protects taxpayers by requiring that any profits made from the sale of rehabilitated homes that are not reinvested in the program are recaptured and returned to the Treasury. Mr. President, I believe this is a focused and targeted piece of legislation that will address in an appropriate manner a number of the difficulties we are now facing in the housing market. While there are a large and growing number of homes entering foreclosure, we must remember that the vast majority of homeowners are living within their means and making their mortgage payments. While some would argue that we have a responsibility to aid those who find themselves under water on their mortgages or unable to afford their increasing payments, I would argue that we also have equal responsibility to those who have made prudent financial decisions. We must not forget them as we seek to help others. Mr. President, the eve of an election year can be a very difficult time to reach consensus on just about anything. When we are able to come together, it is incumbent upon us to seize that opportunity and move forward. Mr. President, I think this is a good bill overall, and I was pleased to see the vote of the Senate just a few minutes ago. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, this afternoon in the Senate, I wish to take a minute to commend the Senator from Louisiana for her work on these amendments and her concern for her people. Senator Dodd and I have talked to the Senator from Louisiana and others about our package. The Presiding Officer is a member of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee who knows we have done the best we can to craft a bill which is focused on bringing relief to those areas affected most by the growing rate of foreclosures. We realize this will not be a panacea, but it is a good first start. Because we were stalled, as the Presiding Officer knows, on the floor, and what we are trying to do is make a breakthrough. The success of this effort we have been working on for a second week now, I believe, will depend a great deal on whether the funds made available in this bill make it to their intended designation. We can help to ensure a degree of success by keeping it focused on the foreclosure market. The Presiding Officer talked about that, as did the Senator from Louisiana. Chairman Dodd and I worked closely with Senator Reid and Senator McConnell, our respected leaders, to draft a targeted bill designed to address the problems caused by the recent turmoil in the national housing markets. Our goal was to provide resources to deal with the recent foreclosures and try to prevent additional foreclosures. In other words, this bill was put together in the context of the current conditions of the national housing market. I recognize, as I said a minute ago, Senator Landrieu's concern and others' concern regarding the housing issues, particularly hers in Louisiana. I believe we need to address those, some of them, outside this particular legislation. I know the Presiding Officer right now is very involved in the Banking and Housing Committee, and we are going to continue to address this problem. I think we have to.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I object.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Congressman William Dickinson, who passed away on Monday, March 31, 2008. Bill was a skilled legislator and a personal friend, and along with the entire State of Alabama, I mourn his passing. William Dickinson was born on June 5, 1925, in Opelika, AL. He served in the United States Navy during World War II and as a Major in the United States Air Force Reserves. In 1950, he obtained a law degree from the University of Alabama. He then practiced law for 2 years. In 1952, Bill began his career as an elected official, serving as a judge in city, juvenile, and circuit courts in Lee County. After his successful career as a judge, Bill was an executive for the Southern Railway. Bill also served on the Opelika Board of Education. When Bill was elected to Congress in 1964, most of his constituents had never before been represented by a Republican. Nevertheless, Bill was elected to 14 consecutive terms in office and was a pivotal force in Alabama's change into a two-party State. While in office, Congressman Dickinson accomplished a great deal for his district, the State of Alabama, and our Nation. He worked tirelessly for the 13 counties in his congressional district, particularly on military matters. As ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Bill was able to protect and strengthen the military bases in Alabama. He was a steamroller in military funding issues for the Air War College at Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, and Gunter Annex in Montgomery, AL, and also further south in Alabama at Fort Rucker, where Army helicopter pilots go through their training. His exemplary work in this area improved both the economy of our State and the security of our Nation. Bill's work for the military also extended to the national level. He was very influential in the rearming of America during the Cold War, working to stop the spread of communism and providing the military with the programs and equipment they needed during the Vietnam war. Bill is credited both with the creation of the Aviation Department in the Department of the Army and for the Apache Attack Helicopter program. In fact, Bill was nicknamed the ``Father of Army Aviation'' due to his advocacy on behalf of those issues. His work garnered the attention of the American Conservative Union, which presented him with the Statesman Award; the Army Aviation Association of America, which awarded him with its Congressional Appreciation Award; and the Association of the United States Army, which presented William with the Distinguished Service to Soldiers award, among others. Bill is loved and will be missed by his wife Barbara, his four children and his five grandchildren. He was an inspiration to many and will be remembered for his service to our Nation. I ask the entire Senate to join me in recognizing and honoring the life of our colleague, Congressman William Dickinson.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, this morning I am pleased to join my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Senator Dodd, in supporting the pending amendment. When a crisis such as the one we are now facing arises, I believe the American people expect us to provide effective and timely solutions. Chairman Dodd and I have worked together to develop a package of targeted measures intended to help stabilize and strengthen the housing and the financial markets. We chose not to pursue partisan goals here. Instead, we are focusing our efforts on achieving the best possible results in a bipartisan fashion. I commend the chairman for his willingness to work with me in this manner. The amendment before us provides immediate help to the marketplace by reforming the Federal Housing Administration, allowing it to provide greater liquidity and thereby enhancing the options available to America's homeowners. It also provides additional funding for foreclosure prevention counseling, which will hopefully help many homeowners stay current on their mortgages and be able to remain in their homes. In order to prevent this situation from repeating itself, the amendment increases the disclosures--this is very important-- disclosures made to consumers when they obtain mortgages and close their loans. I believe that giving consumers; that is, buyers, more information and greater ability to understand the choices they are making will help them avoid the pitfalls and bad decisions many underinformed consumers made in the recent past. To better protect our soldiers, sailors, and airmen, the amendment extends additional consumer protections and provides those returning from combat a chance to get back on their feet before they face foreclosure. That is the least we can do. In an effort to provide communities with the ability to clean up the damage caused by the foreclosures that have already occurred, we have included funding to allow States and communities to buy and repair foreclosed residences. Attached to this funding is a requirement that any profits from the sale of properties must be used to buy and repair additional properties, similar to a revolving fund. I believe that reuse of this funding in this manner will maximize the impact of these dollars and minimize the possibility that funds will be wasted or profits inappropriately pocketed, as has been the case in the past. The amendment before us also contains a number of tax-related provisions prepared in a bipartisan fashion by the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley. I believe this is a focused and targeted piece of legislation that will address in an appropriate manner a number of the difficulties we are now facing in the housing market. There is no doubt that we are experiencing serious economic stress in communities across the Nation. As I said in the beginning of my remarks, the American people expect us here in the Senate to provide effective and timely solutions. But I would caution my colleagues here that while we are in agreement on the measures contained in this bill, there is a line that I believe we should not cross. That line is represented by a taxpayer-funded bailout of investors or homeowners who freely and willingly entered into mortgages that they knew or should have known they could not afford. Nor should we be using taxpayer dollars to bail out financial institutions that also contributed to this problem. Chairman Dodd and I will shortly be attending a Banking Committee hearing in the Senate where we will be examining that very question in relation to the Bear Stearns situation. While there are a large and growing number of homes entering foreclosure, I believe we must remember that the vast majority of homeowners are living within their means and are making their mortgage payments. While some would argue that we have a responsibility to aid those who find themselves underwater on their mortgages or unable to afford their increasing payments, I would argue, on the contrary, that we also have a responsibility to those who have made prudent financial decisions and those who may be looking to enter the housing market for the first time. There is a large group of Americans who see falling home prices not only as an opportunity to buy for the first time but also as an opportunity to move up. We must not forget them in our zeal to do something here. Recently, I received a letter from an individual stationed in Japan. I think he very effectively makes the case for the other side of the housing market, and I would like to share this with my Senate colleagues. I will read it into the Record: Dear Sir: While I'm not a resident of your State of Alabama, I would like to share my opinion with you on a very important issue. My wife and I are very concerned with the direction government policy seems to be taking on the debate over the ``housing crisis.'' I am an employee of the Department of Defense and I am serving overseas in Japan. Before we came here, we lived in Washington, DC, an area with a very high cost of living. From the very first paycheck I received we have been saving every month for an eventual down payment on a home. We could not afford to purchase a home in DC or anywhere near DC and were unwilling to take on an alternative mortgage with 100 percent financing. As such, we rented. When my tour is up in Japan we will probably be going back to Washington and we hope to buy a home. We have worked hard, saved hard, and will be putting down a 20 percent down payment on the home with a 30 year fixed mortgage. An important factor in our being able to purchase a home is how much the market has softened. House prices are dropping because the market was incredibly inflated. Yes, people are losing their homes to foreclosure, but more often than not they shouldn't have been in those homes in the first place. I have very little sympathy for someone who took out two risky mortgages to cover 100 percent of the cost of a home that they could not afford. And the letter goes on: In fact, I would consider it an absolute slap in the face to see my tax dollars being spent on people to allow them to stay in the home they can't afford when I have been saving for years to get into the home that I hope I can afford. The letter goes on: I recognize that much of the debate centers around predatory lending practices, and people being duped into a mortgage they didn't fully understand. I feel for those people. I really do. But there must come a point when people take responsibility for their actions. If you didn't read your mortgage before you signed, you made a big mistake, and now are going to pay for it. It is not the Federal Government's job to save people from the natural consequences of their actions. The letter reads on: As you look for a solution to the current situation please consider the position many of us are in. We work hard, we save, and we buy a home we can afford. Do you really want to punish us by using our tax dollars in a bailout for those who got in over their heads? Do you want to reward poor fiscal discipline and encourage people once again to bite off more than they can chew knowing that Uncle Sam is going to come to the rescue? I believe that people like me are very much in the majority in this Nation. But the media attention isn't going to focus on us. It doesn't make for good TV. They are going to focus on the family that is losing their home because of ``corporate greed.'' No mention will be made of the family that simply wanted more than they can afford and now has to pay the price. Please be an advocate not only for fiscal discipline and responsibility in the government, but in each and every American as an individual. I think that is a good letter. I believe these are wise words, and I believe they are words that I hope we can keep in mind to encourage my colleagues as we work through this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, Senator Dodd and I agreed to provide an additional $100 million for foreclosure counseling. This is already in addition to the $180 million provided for the same purpose earlier. It is my strong belief that we should conduct some due diligence on the money we have already provided to ensure that it is being spent properly and, most importantly, that it is actually helping people. In the interest of reaching an accommodation, I agreed to provide an additional $100 million. It is in the amendment. This brings the total spending for counseling for 2008 up to $280 million, an amount that represents a $238 million increase from last year. That is a lot of money. If there is a gap between what we have provided and what is needed, that need can be addressed through the normal appropriations process. I think a point of order has already been raised. I hope it will be sustained.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise before you today to express my sincere appreciation for the men and women of a C-130 Hercules crew out of Pope Air Force Base, NC. MAJ Paul Pepe, 1LT Robert Davidson, 1LT Robert Gillis, Staff Sergeant Adam Monroy, Captain Kaly Godfrey, SSgt Kyle Anderson, SSgt Charles Jones, and CPT Jessica Kehren were responsible for transporting me and three of my congressional colleagues from Baghdad, Iraq, to Amman, Jordan, the night of August 30, 2007. Approximately 5 minutes into the flight, I looked out of my window and noticed flashes of light coming from the ground--our aircraft was taking on surface-to-air rocket fire. The C-130 Hercules crew immediately began taking evasive maneuvers to successfully defeat the three rockets fired at the aircraft. Throughout the incident, our crew remained calm and professional. I could not have been prouder of the way they worked together to safely avoid a very dangerous situation. Our warfighters face threats in Iraq and Afghanistan every day. While I know this type of danger was not new to them, the incident enhanced my already deep appreciation for the danger they face on a daily basis. For their actions, the crew was recently awarded the Air Mobility Command's 2007 Field of Aeronautics and Astronautics Aviator Valor Award. The award is given for a conspicuous act of courage or valor performed during aerial flight during either combat or noncombat. Without question, the C-130 Hercules crew is most deserving of this high honor. The training and extensive preparation that our crew undoubtedly went through at Pope Air Force Base has paid dividends. These men and women performed a stellar job without showing even the slightest bit of apprehension. I know my colleagues on the flight would agree; our military is fortunate to have this crew serving our nation in such a fine manner.

Mr. SHELBY

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

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I will ask a question. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for 10 minutes.