Requiring a Report Setting Forth the Global Strategy of the United State to Combat and Defeat Al Qaeda and Its Affiliates--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

REQUIRING A REPORT SETTING FORTH THE GLOBAL STRATEGY OF THE UNITED STATES TO COMBAT AND DEFEAT AL QAEDA AND ITS AFFILIATES--MOTION TO PROCEED -- (Senate - February 28, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

FORECLOSURE PREVENTION ACT OF 2008

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I have two topics to address, the first on the bill that Senator Grassley and I have on HGH, to keep it out of the hands of people who don't need it, but I will wait a few minutes on that. We are hoping that maybe we can get clearance on the other side of the aisle. I have talked to both of these Senators who have objections, but I will talk about housing first.

We are now on our housing stimulus bill. It is called the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008. It was offered by Senator Reid, but Senator Reid had consulted, of course, with all of the relevant committee chairmen--Senator Dodd, chairman of the Banking Committee; I am chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing of the Banking Committee; Senator Baucus on the Finance Committee; Senator Leahy on the Judiciary Committee--and this is a carefully thought-out, modest, balanced package that aims at the bull's eye of our economic crisis, which is housing.

Make no mistake about it, unless we address the housing crisis, we are not going to be able to clear up this economy. In fact, unfortunately, the inverse is true. If we don't address the housing crisis, the likelihood of this economy plummeting into a rather deep recession is large. So there is an urgency to addressing this housing crisis.

The voluntary measures President Bush has supported, that Secretary Paulson--a man I have great respect for--has tried to put together, have not worked. That is a general and broad consensus, that it has not worked at all. The need to do something is greater than ever. Over 2 million people are likely to have their homes foreclosed upon in the next few years. That, of course, damages them greatly, but it also damages the financial institutions that hold the mortgages, estimated at each foreclosure to cost the mortgagor, or mortgagee, the financial institution, over $60,000.

It hurts the people who live around them. Because what has been shown is that if there is a foreclosure within one-tenth mile of your home, your housing value goes down about .8 percent. And it hurts the overall economy, because when people are not in their homes, or even people who are in their homes and who have fully paid their mortgage but they find their housing values declining, they spend less. The housing crisis is directly related to the fact that this Christmas season was the lowest spending Christmas season in about 7 years.

Then we have another problem also emanating from the housing crisis, and that is the credit crunch. We have a severe credit crunch occurring in our country today. All kinds of financial instruments are not being bought and sold. They do not have a market and there is a freeze. People are afraid to move. As a result of this credit crunch, our markets are frozen.

The Port Authority of New York, one of the most stable institutions in this country--it owns the airports, it owns a lot of the bridges--gets a steady, regular stream of income. No one believes it is ever not going to pay its bonds. Yet it had to pay 20 percent on temporary bonds because the markets are so frozen.

I heard from my roommate in that little house we live in, George Miller of California, that the East Bay has a similar authority, and the East Bay of San Francisco had to pay about 17 or 18 percent. So this is a nationwide problem.

We have problems with student loans now. I read in today's paper that the Pennsylvania Student Loan Authority is no longer lending. So this is spreading way beyond housing, and it relates to a fear that we have not evaluated credit properly.

We have to do something about it. The package that has been put together and offered by the Democratic majority has five pieces--five easy pieces--that should be acceptable to everybody.

It includes two kinds of tax changes: raising the cap on mortgage revenue bonds, so that States can issue more of these bonds and help homeowners get refinanced; and it also includes what is called the loss carryforward, so home builders and others in the housing area, who are not able to actually go forward because they have losses, carry forward those losses and build homes again.

It also contains another $200 million for mortgage counselors. This is a provision I originated with Senator Casey and Senator Brown, because we need someone on the ground to help those about to go in foreclosure to avoid it, particularly those who have the financial means to do it. Over 60 percent of the people who will potentially be foreclosed upon have that ability. We did allocate $180 million in the omnibus bill, with Senator Murray's leadership. We went to her, and she was great, and put it right in. But of that 180, 130 has already been spent. It shows you the great need. We always predicted 180 wouldn't be enough. This is another modest amount--200.

The fourth provision is money for CDBG, Community Development Block Grants, to go to the cities so they can buy foreclosed homes, they can buy vacant lots, and prevent the whole neighborhood from going down the drain because of the foreclosure crisis.

And, finally, the bankruptcy provision which my friend and colleague Senator Durbin has authored, which I support, would say that homeowners, when they go into bankruptcy, can use their primary residence as part of the workout, which now, for some arcane reason, they are not allowed to do.

These are five modest provisions that can do a lot. But, unfortunately, there are some on the other side, including the White House, who are sticking to the status quo. They say, don't do anything. The Government should not be involved. They have ideological handcuffs on. The Government not being involved? That is reminiscent of the 1920s or the 1890s. It sounds like William McKinley or Herbert Hoover. That is no longer the economics the vast majority of Americans live by today. No Government involvement when someone's house is about to be foreclosed upon?

Earlier this week we saw status quo on the war in Iraq. Now we are beginning to see status quo on the mortgage crisis. The American people are crying out for change on the war in Iraq and on housing. And it is so regrettable that so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and it is so regrettable that the President, ensconced in the White House, is talking status quo when 75 percent of the people in America want a change in the direction in this country.

We can certainly debate that change. There are different prescriptions for it. But almost no one says status quo except, it seems, the minority in this body, the minority in the other body, and the President: The status quo, do not have the Government be involved, have these voluntary programs which do virtually nothing.

It is not going to work. So I would urge my colleagues to support us in this housing program. Senator Reid has said he will allow amendments if we have changes in the housing program. I am not talking about whether we should debate the estate tax or debate Bush's tax cuts but real changes in these programs, modifications or additions. I heard my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson, who has a proposal for a $5,000 credit for new home buyers. That is something that I would look at seriously. We can come together and have what unfortunately now has become a good, old-fashioned debate on this issue that affects us and come up with a consensus piece of legislation.

So, please, do not block the bill. Do not stand there with your arms crossed and say: Do nothing. There are 2 million homeowners about to go into foreclosure. There are 50 million homeowners whose home values are declining. There are 300 million Americans who see the economy hurdling south, all of them crying out for us to do something.

The one thing on which there is a consensus, and there may be a broad consensus on what to do, that although I think there may be in our bill, but the one thing everyone agrees on is do not just stand there and do nothing. Yet my colleagues across the aisle, when we vote on this housing measure, who will try to block it with another filibuster, they are saying: Do nothing.

I don't think that is wise policy. Frankly, I don't think that is wise politics. I am sort of surprised because when we offered the package, we did it in the best of faith. And Senator Reid has offered to allow amendments that are germane amendments to be debated to show that we do not want to say our way or the highway, but we did want to move forward on housing.

To repeat, the need to do something is real. Housing is the bull's eye of our economic problems. We can do things that almost everyone agrees will do some good. To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, please, please, please, join us. We want to work with you and come up with a package that will turn our economy around, and the housing market and the other markets as well.

I am going to briefly ask to put us into a quorum call so I can discuss with some of the folks on the other side of the aisle whether we can move forward on the HGH bill.

Mr. GRAHAM. Would the Senator yield?

Mr. SCHUMER. I will yield.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

HGH

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise in support of a very straightforward bill that will keep the dangerous human growth hormone, now known throughout the Nation as HGH, out of the hands of people who don't need it and toughen penalties on those who sell it illegally.

First, I thank my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, for joining me in recognizing the importance of this issue. I also commend the district attorney in Albany, David Soares, for his hard work in uncovering a major multi-State HGH ring last year and helping to bring this issue the recognition it requires.

I was going to come to the floor originally and ask unanimous consent to move the bill because it had been blocked. A hold had been put on by my some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I have now come to an understanding as to whom the people are, the two. Each of them has said they want to work with us to try and get the bill moving by early next week. So I will not ask unanimous consent. I know it doesn't move the clock forward, which I would like to do in hopes that we can come to a negotiation and get this bill passed early next week.

There is widespread support for this legislation, people such as Major League Baseball, the NFL, the U.S. Olympic Committee, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. This bill is good for every parent, every coach, and every young athlete who cares about kicking drugs out of sports for good. The widespread growth of human growth hormone in Major League Baseball has put a cloud our national pastime. But if is there is a silver lining in that cloud, it is the opportunity that recent scandals have presented to do something positive about the problem. ``Dangerous opportunity,'' the Chinese say, and that is true in this case. That is what our bill does, change danger into opportunity. Change danger into something good, getting rid of HGH for those who should not have it.

No one disputes that HGH has some important medical uses--adults with AIDS, children with serious kidney disease can benefit from small, carefully administered doses of HGH. But in the wrong hands, HGH can lead to serious problems. Some of the worst side effects include cancer, heart disease, gigantism, impotence, menstrual problems, and arthritis.

As we remember, last year, former Senate majority leader George Mitchell did an excellent report on the use of drugs in professional baseball. One of the main themes was about the widespread abuse of HGH. The report says that because HGH is hard to detect through testing, it is very attractive to athletes. Kids look up to their heroes. They model their behavior after them. They want to be just like them. According to a Columbia University study cited in the report, athletes are second only to parents in the extent to which they are admired by children. So if a sports star says it is OK to illegally take steroids, HGH, or other performance drugs, it is almost certain children will follow. We have to make sure dangerous substances can only get to the small number of people who need them.

That is exactly what the bill Senator Grassley and I have put together does. It adds HGH to the list of schedule III controlled substances, placing it alongside anabolic steroids in the eyes of the law. Congress did a similar thing with andro, another potentially dangerous performance enhancer in 2004. Adding a substance to schedule III creates a formal recognition that even though a drug has some medical use, it may lead to dependence. HGH fits this bill. Right now it is only illegal to distribute HGH to a person where there is no medical need for the person to get it. Adding HGH to schedule III adds in illegal manufacture and possession, along on with other serious crimes to the list. Penalties will be tougher. Someone could face up to 10 years in jail and serious fines for breaking the law. Most importantly, schedule III drugs must be regulated closely. This means that all legitimate manufacturers, distributors, and practitioners would have to register with the DEA. They would have to keep data and records on how they make, sell, and dispose of the drug.

HGH needs to be placed alongside other serious substances like it. One more youngster who starts using HGH and other performance-enhancing drugs is one too many. I welcome a debate with anyone who might want to disagree with that point. I hope we can come to agreement and pass by unanimous consent this important legislation.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I, too, rise in support of this outstanding bill. The bottom line is, despite what the President said today, most Americans feel we are in an economically difficult times. The President says we are not in recession. The President doesn't think we are going in recession. For most, the debate is not whether we are or will be in recession but how deep it will be.

So the bottom line is very simple: We have to do something about this economy. There is no better way to turn the economy around, to prevent the recession from being long and deep, than dealing with the housing market because housing is at the center of the economic problems we have today. Housing is the bull's-eye at which we should aim if we want to rectify the economy.

The proposal before us is a good one. It has five important measures. They are modest, but they are thoughtful, and they are aimed right at where the problem is.

Now, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are probably going to block our proposal. They are becoming the ``Dr. No'' of this Congress. We have a crisis; everyone knows housing is at the heart of the crisis. No one believes the administration's voluntary ideas have worked. Yet we are hearing we shouldn't do anything that is governmental. That makes no sense.

Early this week we heard stay the course on the war in Iraq. Now we hear stay the course in terms of the economy. Don't you hear it? The American people want a change in course, a change in direction. We are trying to present that to them in a nonconfrontational way, in a way we had hoped and thought would be bipartisan. Because when we put this proposal together, we realized there were a couple of provisions--particularly the bankruptcy provision--that others objected to, but the rest of the provisions seemed quite unobjectionable. Yet here we are hearing, for instance, from the administration that we don't need more housing counselors because we have already allocated $180 million. That was our proposal. In fact, I originated it and had good help from Senator Brown and Senator Casey and then Senator Murray, who helped put it into the omnibus bill. But of that $180 million, $130 million is gone already. It shows you the need. Do we need some more mortgage revenue bonds? Many States are tapped out and cannot help mortgagors, even if they wanted to. Loss carry forwards will help those who build homes move forward for getting out of the housing recession. Yet the administration and most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to just say no.

My colleague from Georgia has a very interesting proposal that I would certainly entertain. What we ought to be doing on this bill is having a debate, offering amendments relevant to housing--not the future of the country and not whether we should extend the President's tax cuts or the estate tax; that is irrelevant to this bill--but having a debate on provisions such as those in our bill, debate on the provisions such as the ones from the Senator from Georgia and come up with a product that can help move us forward. Instead, all we hear from the minority leader is no, no, no, no.

The economy is in a degree of serious trouble. The housing market is at the core of that trouble. There are 2 million homeowners who will be foreclosed upon, most of whom through no fault of their own. Those foreclosures will help bring the economy further down. Why don't we do something careful, targeted, modest, and not terribly expensive?

The only thing I hear from the President anyway is: Well, Government shouldn't be involved. That is the reasoning of maybe McKinley, maybe Hoover but certainly not Republicans in the post World War II era. All of a sudden, we are having a throwback to these earlier days. Unfortunately, if we adhere to that kind of thinking, the boom and bust cycles that have plagued the American family will continue.

So I urge this administration to change its mind. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who seek a degree of bipartisanship to reach out to us and work with us. We will modify our provisions, change some, maybe even drop one or two to get a good product. Please don't just say no. Please don't say the only thing we should debate is the same thing we have debated before: whether we should extend the President's tax cuts. We have been there, done that. We have new problems and we need a new direction. This bill begins to provide it. I hope my colleagues will support it.

I yield the floor.

Source