New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act and the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007

Floor Speech

NEW DIRECTION FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT AND THE RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY CONSERVATION TAX ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - April 03, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am going to make a brief opening statement because I know the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, would like to take the floor and has to go to a committee meeting. I am going to stay here to manage this bill while Senators DODD and SHELBY are off to a Banking Committee hearing with the head of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Bernanke.

The rules of the Senate are written so that virtually any Senator can stop the train. It is a strange way to do business around here, but it is the way we have done it historically. The so-called filibuster is where a Senator can take to the floor and say: Stop. I don't want this to go forward.

Literally, that interrupts the proceedings of the Senate until that Senator yields the floor or is persuaded by an agreement to cooperate with the progress that is needed.

This bill is critically important for America. It is relating to our housing crisis--and it is a crisis. We proposed, on the Democratic side, a housing stimulus bill that had five or six component parts and that I thought was a good, fair, and important piece of legislation. It included a provision that may have been one of the major provisions of that bill I had authored related to the Bankruptcy Code. It turns out this was the most controversial part of the Democratic housing stimulus package. It drew more fire than anything else. There were other provisions even the President objected to, but it seemed like most of the opposition was directed at my amendment, which I will describe.

There came a time this week, though, where we were going to return to the bill with the controversy associated with it--this Democratic stimulus package--where an opportunity presented itself. Senator Shelby from Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Banking Committee, approached Senator Dodd, the chairman, and suggested we try to work this out. In fact, that effort was undertaken with the blessing and approval of both HARRY REID, the majority leader, and Senator McConnell, the Republican leader. A lot of hard work went into the compromise. The staff, as usual, had to burn the midnight oil to get this bill ready--not just the Banking Committee but also the Finance Committee. The end result is the substitute amendment that is pending before the Senate at this moment.

I will tell you, as I walked through this substitute amendment, this compromise, this effort, I found there was a glaring omission--my amendment was gone. The bankruptcy amendment I offered on the original bill had been stripped from it. I wasn't surprised. There was a genuine effort and undertaking to find common ground between Republicans and Democrats. Clearly, there was opposition to my proposal. I had an option at that point, as a Senator--and every Senator has this option--to stop the train, to hold things up, and say that is the end of the story. I have seen it done, where some Senators have made a career by being obstinate, saying nothing will happen until I get my way. Sometimes they prevail but not always. The net result is an elongated Senate process and a lot of wasted time.

Those who follow the Senate proceedings on C-SPAN may be familiar with the so-called quorum call, which basically means nothing happens but for a clerk who, every 5 or 10 minutes, reads a name to remind people we still have a pulse in the Senate. But that is a delay, it is a lack of effort, and it is a waste of time. So I made the decision not to use my right as a Senator to stop this bill. I thought that would have been selfish, self-centered and, honestly, didn't serve the purpose we are all trying to serve. All I asked in return was to be able to offer this amendment. All I ask my colleagues, in return, is to give me a vote. I don't know if I can prevail. It has substantial opposition. I wish to give my point of view, state my case for the amendment, and I welcome those who are opposed to do the same.

In fact, I am prepared to do something that is rarely done on the floor of the Senate today. I am prepared to stand here and debate my amendment. I welcome those who oppose it, and I would debate it on the merits of what I have to offer. You don't see that much anymore in this great deliberative body. People give their speeches and leave. I will stick around and I will be prepared to debate the merits of it and then I will accept the decision of the Senate as to whether this amendment should be included in the package.

All I ask is that, in good faith, those who oppose the amendment give us a timely debate and a vote. Let's not drag this out forever. There are Members on both sides of the aisle who would like to offer their amendments. I wish to say, at the outset, I will not be unreasonable in the debate time I ask for. I hope we can reach an agreement where we can actually have a complete debate and vote on this amendment by 12:15 today. I am prepared to do that. As I said, whatever the decision of the Senate, I accept it. Let's move forward.

When I ran for the Senate--I left the House of Representatives--I did it because I respected this institution. I knew so many fine people who served here, and I looked forward to the possibility that on the floor of the Senate we could engage and debate on the issues of our time, and those following debate in the gallery or through C-SPAN would hear both sides of the debate and form their own opinions and feel like we were doing our job. Let's do that on this amendment.

On the bankruptcy amendment I have offered with Senator Reid, let's have that kind of debate.

I am going to yield now to the Senator from Oklahoma at this point and ask unanimous consent to reclaim the floor after he completes his remarks.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, pending before the Senate is an amendment to the housing bill, which I offered earlier and on which I have asked the Republican side to consider a unanimous consent request so that we can debate and vote on it still this morning. I hope they will consider that in a timely manner. I am prepared to offer an equal amount of time to both sides of the aisle on the substance of this amendment and then accept a vote at 12:15.

We have proffered this unanimous consent request, and I hope, in the interest of time and fairness, that the Republican minority will accede to this request, or if they wish to modify it, let us know as quickly as possible.

Here is what this amendment is all about. We have 2 million people about to lose their homes. These are people who bought a home with a subprime mortgage. A subprime mortgage usually meant some exotic brew of terms for a mortgage which didn't exist traditionally or historically. It might be an adjusted rate mortgage where you pay a low interest rate on the front end and then, after 1 year, 3 years, or 5 years that interest rate would go up. There were even mortgages offered that were interest only, so that people were paying low monthly payments of interest but not retiring the debt on the house. The principal debt remained the same. The theory was that as long as the value of real estate was going up in America, you couldn't go wrong. No matter what deal you signed up for to get into a house, if the house was going to appreciate in value, don't worry about it.

There were also people who took that mortgage on their home and consolidated a lot of other debts they had on cars and other things, home improvements, and put it all in that mortgage so that they had a mortgage debt that was actually greater than the current value of the home.

These so-called subprime mortgages were being written right and left. In the old days, going back to when I first bought a home, there used to be pretty close scrutiny of your credit record. They used to require 10 percent of the value of the home as a downpayment, or 5 percent. You had to pay points; in other words, thousands of dollars at the closing. It was pretty tough in those days.

Well, the whole climate of home lending changed with the subprime mortgages. More and more people moved into homes. The values of homes were mushrooming, and it looked as though we were just riding the crest of a wave. Well, guess what happened. The wave crested and started to fall. And when it fell with the subprime mortgages, a lot of people were hurt. The so-called adjustment of the mortgage took place and an affordable monthly payment became unaffordable. All of a sudden, the low interest rate blossomed into a much larger interest rate. Or perhaps a family stumbled--somebody lost a job, a divorce, a serious illness in the family--and with that stumble, they missed a few payments.

Well, now, add this up into a nation of 300 million people, and we end up with 2 million folks who face the prospect of losing their homes. Now, a lot of people say, well, isn't it a darned shame. But why did they sign up for those crazy things to start with? They should have used better judgment. They should accept their medicine at this point and maybe they will be a little smarter the next time around.

If it were that easy, we could write it off as the moral hazard of making a bad decision, of irresponsible borrowing. But it turns out to be more significant. Two million people losing their home in a nation of 300 million doesn't sound like much, but 2 million people losing their home will affect the value of homes around them.

What is the value of my home in Springfield, IL? Well, if you ask an appraiser or realtor, they will say: I don't know, but I will tell you what I will do. I will look at other homes in the neighborhood that have gone for sale--comparable sales, comparable values. So they look up and down the block and around the block, in the neighborhood, and look at what homes are selling for, comparing them to my home, and they come up with a valuation on my home.

Well, if down the block and around the corner a home was foreclosed upon--in other words, the people were forced out of the home, there was a forced sale of the home, and it was sold for less than fair market value--that value will be calculated into the appraisal of my home. The experts tell us that 2 million people losing their homes in America will drag down the value of 44 million homes. It is a ripple effect.

As the value of homes declines, more people face the reality that the mortgage principal, the amount they owe on the mortgage, is greater than the value of their home.

The shorthand term they use is, you are ``underwater.'' Your mortgage value, your mortgage principal is greater than the value of your home, so you can't borrow against the value of your home anymore. You are already in debt over the value of your home. That is the third ripple.

Then there is the fourth, the mentality of buyers across America. This is the one that troubles me the most. For over 70 percent of people in America, if you ask them are they going to buy a home, and they say no, when you say: Can't you get a mortgage, they say: Yes, we can get a mortgage. Why won't you buy a home? They say: I don't think it is a good investment.

Seventy percent of people in America today say buying a home, real estate, is not a good investment. Why? They are afraid the $500,000 home today will be worth $450,000 next year--not a smart deal.

As long as this mentality is out there, the housing industry is flat. That doesn't hurt just your realtors and your developers, it hurts homebuilders, skilled craftsmen, people who supply homes--from those who are gardeners and do the landscaping, to furniture--you name it. All of these related industries are slowing down into this recession which Mr. Bernanke finally conceded yesterday may be on the horizon. That is why addressing this home crisis is important--not just for 2 million people who had the mortgages, but if we do not deal with those 2 million people losing their homes, it is going to have a dampening effect on our entire economy. It is going to hurt all of us.

A recession is a period of time in which businesses fail, jobs are lost, consumer confidence is low, the economy slows down. It happens in a free market economy. But you do not want it to go on too long because it can have a long-term negative impact.

What we are trying to do today is to pass a bill to breathe some life back into the housing industry and housing market in America. The bill is good, and it has a lot of good provisions. I am happy to support it. I think there are things in this bill which will be of value to us as a nation. I think virtually every one of them has some impact, some positive impact. But there is not a single one of them that will have the positive impact of the amendment I offer. Here is what the amendment says.

Currently--now--if you find you cannot pay your bills and you still have a job, you can go into chapter 13 in bankruptcy. You go to the bankruptcy court and say: I am in a mess. I am in over my head. I have more debt than I can take care of. Will the bankruptcy court work with my creditors so I can have an arrangement to pay off my debts? I would have to change the terms of some of the debts, but at the end of the day I will get out of this mess.

The bankruptcy court takes a look at it and decides whether it is going to work. You may be dreaming. You may not even have a chance. Your creditors may not want to cooperate. So this chapter 13 is just an effort to try to help people get out of this mess.

We think about 600,000 people facing mortgage foreclosure will take this option and go to bankruptcy court. If they go into the bankruptcy court and try to work out their debts and keep their homes, they have a problem. Under current bankruptcy law, you cannot modify the terms of the mortgage on your home. In other words, at the end of the day, you are still stuck with that same subprime mortgage that may have toppled you in the first place. The reason I offer this amendment and the reason I want to change that one provision is because it is fundamentally unfair.

If I walk into a bankruptcy court and I own a farm and I say I cannot make my farm payments, my mortgage on my farm, the bankruptcy court has the legal authority to change the mortgage terms on my farm or on my ranch or on my vacation condo--I don't own one--or on the big boat I just bought and on which I can't make the payments. The bankruptcy court can change every single one of those, but it cannot change or modify the mortgage on your home. Why? Of all of the things in the world they can change, why not that?

It turns out that by tradition it has never happened. So I bring the amendment and propose the court be given that authority.

The group that is opposed to this, screaming bloody murder, is none other than the mortgage bankers, the same people who brought us the subprime mortgage mess. They do not want to see the terms of their subprime mortgages changed in court. And they say: If you change them, interest rates will go up.

What I did, working with that industry, is say: I will apply this to a narrow group of people, the most limited group I can find that still has some impact on this issue, and I will narrow the discretion of the bankruptcy court. So listen to where this amendment takes us.

First, you have to qualify to go into court. We changed the law sometime a few years ago. To qualify to go into bankruptcy court you have to have a certain income; you have to go through certain processes and disclosures--even credit counseling. All that is required before you can walk into the court.

Second, this only applies to your home. I don't want a person walking in saying: I bought 100 acres down in southern California and I need help--no way. Just your home.

Third, it only applies to existing mortgages as of the date of the enactment of this bill. A mortgage you enter into after the day this bill is enacted would not apply.

Fourth, the court can only reduce the principal on the mortgage--the amount that you owe--no lower than the fair market value of the home. You protect the lender. If you go through foreclosure and have an auction, it can sell for a lot less than fair market value. So fair market value is the bottom line.

Fifth, the interest rate the bankruptcy court can impose can be no lower than the prime rate plus a premium for risk.

Sixth, the term of the mortgage can be no more than 30 years.

And then, seventh--and we did this saying to the banking industry: What more can you ask? If in the next 5 years you sell that home and it has appreciated in value, any increase in value over the fair market value as of the date of the bankruptcy goes to the lender, not to the owner. What more can we do to protect these bankers--fair market value on one end, any appreciation in value on the other end. And they still oppose it.

I hope my colleagues in the Senate will take a look at this. The credit unions support this because they don't get

into the crazy loan business that some of these mortgages did. A group that includes the AARP, groups all across America, consumer groups, they understand this is only reasonable. The New York Times has editorialized in favor of it. I think this is an approach which will help a number of people. It is narrow and focused. It is limited in its scope, and it is really directed toward giving people another chance to stay in their homes. They still have to pay the mortgage. They don't get off the hook, but they can stay in their homes.

Stabilizing the housing market, stabilizing your neighborhood and my neighborhood, breathing some life back into this housing industry, that is the way to turn this recession around. This amendment I offer on the Bankruptcy Code will help more people than all of the provisions combined in the rest of this housing act. This reaches a lot of people. Hundreds of thousands could qualify. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to please consider this amendment.

Mr. President, at this point I see two of my colleagues on the Senate floor, Senator Smith of Oregon and Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, and I would like to yield to them for whatever periods they would like to speak and then reclaim the floor on my amendment.

Mr. President, let me make a unanimous consent request that when the two Senators have completed their remarks I be recognized again on my amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SPECTER. I do.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if I could very briefly, because I know others are here to speak, I would like to distinguish, if I can, three or four approaches where we differ between us.

The first element that is important--and I wish to make sure it is clear for the record--my amendment gives to the bankruptcy court the authority to modify the mortgage. But under your amendment, or your approach, the ultimate decision on whether a mortgage is going to be modified still has to be approved by the lending institution; is that not correct?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I answer the distinguished Senator from Illinois through the Chair by saying that is correct. My bill does allow for the modification of the principal sum but only where the lender is in agreement. I do not do that to give the lender control of the situation. I do that to avoid having a principle established where lenders in the future will be unwilling to loan money for mortgages if they think the bankruptcy court has the authority to reduce the principal over their objection. But if the lender agrees to it--and I think it is important because the bankruptcy court would not have the authority to reduce the principal unless there is the provision I have by obtaining the lender's agreement.

But the principle that the Senator from Illinois seeks to reduce the principal sum, I think, is sound, so long as you do not destroy the ability of the lender to control it so as to not discourage future lenders. So my answer is yes.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for only two or three more questions.

I might acknowledge the fact that currently those lenders can renegotiate the terms of a mortgage without a bankruptcy court and that giving them the last word is going to diminish, I believe, the likelihood that they would agree to anything by the bankruptcy court.

I might also say that under chapter 12 bankruptcies and on farm loans a few years ago, we gave this authority to the Bankruptcy Court and the lenders said: Oh, interest rates will go up, and they didn't.

But I wish to ask this specific question. My amendment limits these modifications to mortgages that are subprime mortgages, and the Specter bill, S. 2133, says these modifications would apply to any type of loan, even prime fixed rate mortgages. Is that not correct?

Mr. SPECTER. It would apply only as long as they are variable interest rate mortgages.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to also ask the Senator from Pennsylvania, through the Chair: Is it true that the Senator limits the application of his modification of mortgages by the Bankruptcy Court to families earning less than 150 percent of State median income, which would be somewhere in the range of $60,000 to $70,000 a year in most States--annual income of most States--and would not cover those, for example, in the State of California and other States where they have higher incomes and higher mortgages?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois is correct. It may be that my proposal is too modest in that respect. I am not in concrete on that specific provision because I think that could be modified to accommodate different markets without dealing with the underlying principles I am concerned with.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator for yielding.

I might say to the Chair, I have spoken to the Senator in the hopes that we can bring this to a vote. I have spoken to the minority leader, Senator McConnell, and he has said there are other Members who wish to come to the floor to speak on this amendment, and I hope they will. There is no point in dragging this out indefinitely. There are many other amendments that are going to be offered and I wish to bring this to a vote.

I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for yielding for a question.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN. Yes.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I acknowledge that the Senator is correct that this modification of a mortgage on a primary residence would be a change in bankruptcy law. I ask the Senator from Texas, is he aware that in the 1980s we created chapter 12 bankruptcy for farms and created the opportunity for the bankruptcy court to modify mortgages on family homes and farms, and at the time the banking industry said the same thing about that change as they have about my amendment--that it would raise interest rates? Is the Senator aware of the fact that there was no significant increase in interest rates on farms as a result of the creation of chapter 12 bankruptcies?

Mr. CORNYN. I accept what the Senator says. I have no reason to dispute it. I, frankly, have no knowledge of it. I know that currently we have roughly 2 percent of the mortgages in America that are in foreclosure proceedings. While there is undoubtedly a serious problem, I don't think this is the right solution to it. I said that some estimates are that it would increase interest rates by 1.5 percent on mortgages. On a $122,000 mortgage in Texas, it would increase annual costs about $1,500. So I must oppose it.

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a further question?

Mr. CORNYN. I will.

Mr. DURBIN. Is the Senator aware that my amendment limits the modification of mortgages in bankruptcy to those on primary residences, existing as of the date of the enactment of this law, and that it would not apply to any future mortgages and would not have an impact on future mortgages, those that are going to be issued. So the credit industry is saying: We are afraid this is going to apply to everybody. There is a limited application of a narrow class of people who would be eligible.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the clarification. I also note that the tendency in Washington and in Congress, and the Federal Government generally, is for things to get bigger rather than to contract. So while I appreciate the clarification, I am not consoled by the current limitation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I certainly will.

Mr. DURBIN. Through the Chair, I am happy to be a cosponsor of the Senator's amendment. The last point she made is the one I found almost nothing short of amazing: that the largest banks that are involved in the mortgage business, and the realtors who are involved, obviously, in these transactions are resisting Senator Feinstein's amendment that would provide some basic standards for the licensure of mortgage brokers. That is the point I would like to make, through the Chair, to the Senator from California. I continue to wonder why these noble professions are protecting the bottom feeders of our economy, those who are preying on people such as the Simmons.

I have stories in Illinois I can tell that will match each one of the Senator from California, where there is basic exploitation of people by those who mislead people in terrible financial circumstances, people of limited experience and education who are trying to understand the complexity of mortgages and closings and interest rates and all of the matters that have to be understood well.

I ask the Senator from California, Madam President, does she have the support of any financial institutions or any of these professions that should be in support of State licensing of these mortgage brokers?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Let me answer that. Not to the best of my knowledge. Let me also say--and perhaps I do, but I will find out--let me also say Citibank and even the California real estate establishment want exemptions. Well, I am not willing to give exemptions. I say for shame if this is the way you want to practice your business. It is not acceptable.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from California.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Missouri for his statement. He made reference to something which I thought was so obvious. Senator JACK REED of Rhode Island had an amendment to the original bill, and since Senator Bond is an attorney, and the Presiding Officer is an attorney, and I have been one in the past, we know what happens at a real estate closing. You give people a stack of papers and you turn the corners and say: Keep signing until you are finished. If someone has the nerve to ask: What am I signing? Nine times out of ten, it is going to be dismissed by the realtor or the lawyer in the room: Oh, it is another Federal form required by law. Just sign it. Everything is fine.

At the end of the day, let's be honest. No one has read all of those forms. No one understands all those forms, particularly those who are borrowing money. But the fine print in those forms is going to dictate their lives, and they do not even know it. How many of us take the time to carefully read the back of our monthly credit card statement? Not me. And the print is so fine, even with these glasses which I have all over my house, I can't keep up with it and understand it.

So what Senator Jack Reed proposed was that there be a cover sheet to the disclosing documents which says: You are borrowing X number of dollars, the interest rate is X, the monthly payment will be X, the interest rate can increase to X number, your monthly payment can increase to a certain amount, and there is or is not a penalty for repaying your mortgage. Pretty simple, right? Well, you ought to see what the financial institutions did to Jack Reed's very simple proposal--one that made sense.

The reason it caught my attention is it amends the Truth in Lending law in America. I have kind of a special attachment to this, because the first person I ever worked for on Capitol Hill was Senator Paul Douglas, who tried to pass the Truth in Lending Act for 18 years. He was fought by the banks and never succeeded. He left Congress in 1966, and Senator William Proxmire of Wisconsin passed it.

It was, I am sure, a good-faith effort for better disclosure at closing, but the law is so complicated, so arcane, that at the end of the day it did not serve the ultimate purpose Senator Douglas sought. So I was anxious to read what the banking institutions would agree to as part of the compromise bill before us. I hope my colleagues will take a few minutes and go to section 501 of this bill and try to make sense out of this. What I described to you, in Senator Jack Reed's proposals, I could explain at any town meeting in Illinois--any Senator could--and people would say: Sure, why shouldn't we know this? We might have avoided some of the problems we have today if the borrowers actually knew what they were getting into.

Try to make sense out of what the financial institutions agreed to in this bill. I have read through it. I don't get it. I mean, it does try my patience that at this moment in history, with so many people facing mortgage foreclosures, we do not have an appetite in the Senate to change the basic laws and rules to have more oversight and avoid this happening again.

If it is uncomfortable for us to be plowing through all this legislation, think about how uncomfortable it is for 2 million homeowners facing the loss of their homes.

Senator Feinstein was here a few moments ago, talking about these homeowners in her State. I have met them in my State. They are in Missouri, they are in Iowa. These are unsuspecting people, many of them retired, many of them with limited experience and education, drawn into complicated loans that have traps every time you turn. If you reach a situation where you have lost a job, where you have a serious medical bill, where something has occurred here, you could lose your home. A lifetime of savings could be gone.

That isn't right. I understand people have to accept responsibility for their actions, but you know a lot of these people are being preyed upon, they are being deceived. I have seen it happen. I have talked to the families back in Illinois. We had a chance, with this bill, to put a very important and simple provision in, on which the Senator from Missouri spoke. We didn't do it. I might say, I see the Senator from Iowa, and I don't want to take any additional time, but I wish to say through the Presiding Officer: We convened this morning at 9:30. My amendment, which is pending, has been on the floor for virtually 3 hours now--almost 3 hours. I have stayed that entire period of time to entertain any questions or to engage in any debate related to this amendment.

There have been a lot of speeches about other issues. I don't wish to be critical of my colleagues. I have done the same thing. They have issues that are important to them relating to this bill and other subjects. That is their right.

I tried to get an agreement that at 12:15 we would vote on my amendment, up or down, win or lose; let's debate it and vote on it. I asked the Republican minority leader and he said: Too soon. Other Members want to come and speak to this amendment. I don't want to foreclose anyone's opportunity to speak on the floor for or against this amendment, but why are we wasting this time? That is my question. This is an important bill. There are a lot of very important amendments. Let's get on with it. Three hours should be enough for this amendment. It is way too much. We could have debated this thoroughly in a matter of an hour. Unfortunately, a lot of Members have not come to the floor.

There should reach a point where the minority leader says to his colleagues: You had your chance. Now let's vote. That is kind of the normal consequence in life--you snooze, you lose, whether you are in the Senate or not. So I encourage those who support or oppose my amendment, come to the floor. I am here. Let's have something unprecedented, a debate, an actual debate in the Senate, where I say something and someone challenges it or they say something and I challenge it. Wouldn't that be exciting? C-SPAN might advertise that is going to happen on the floor of the Senate, it is so rare.

I am ready. I hope, if the Senator from Iowa is here on my amendment, that we can be engaged in a debate shortly.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.

Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the Senator--I don't question what he has said, but after that, in the 1980s, we created a new chapter in bankruptcy, Chapter 12.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Now you are getting personal.

Mr. DURBIN. That is why I wish to make this point. Because we said that when it came to the so-called cramdown or modification of mortgages, we would make an exception and the exception would apply to the homes of farmers and their farm property. We said if they go into bankruptcy, they can have the mortgage on their farm home crammed down or modified.

At the time, the banking industry said this is a terrible decision because we are going to have to raise interest rates on farms. You are going to regret this. We did it anyway, and there was no significant increase in interest rates.

I would like to ask, through the Chair, whether the Senator from the great agricultural State of Iowa objects to cramming down mortgages on farm homes under Chapter 12.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I am glad to answer that. First, let me explain why I said he is getting personal. I am the author of that Chapter 12 bankruptcy provision. I am going to address it very soon. So if you would listen, I think I will answer your questions. I appreciate what you are saying and, in fact, I anticipated that, and I hope I am ready for it. I am sure it is going to be difficult to satisfy the Senator from Illinois, though.

The amendment of Senator Durbin will not only increase interest rates on mortgages and make home ownership more expensive for everyone, many experts tell us this proposal will also have an adverse impact on financial markets because of difficulties and uncertainty in valuing the mortgages that back up securities. In addition, innocent investors would be hurt. So the Durbin amendment would cause other adverse impacts beyond higher costs of home loans.

Proponents of this amendment, particularly the cramdown provisions, argue that primary residences should be crammed down in bankruptcy just as second homes, family farms, and boats are. But there are good reasons why primary homes are treated differently from these other things.

First, interest rates and downpayments for vacation homes are significantly higher than for primary homes. If we are to start treating primary homes the same as vacation homes, I am told that then interest rates are certain to rise to the same level of second homes where cramdown is permitted.

Second, Chapter 12, referred to by the Senator from Illinois, only applies to very small commercial farming and ranching operations, not all farms and not all ranches. There are very specific requirements that need to be met in order to be able to file under Chapter 12. So we are not talking about the same number of loans that could be eligible under the Durbin amendment. I would be glad to give some statistics on that, but I am going to wait and see if the Senator from Illinois is satisfied.

Actually, I will give these numbers now because I think they are significant at this point. According to the USCOURTS.GOV Web site, the Federal courts Government Web site, for fiscal year 2006 there were only 348 Chapter 12 filings; in fiscal year 2007, there were only 361 Chapter 12 filings. This would compare to what, at least I believe, you are saying are possibly at least 600,000 filings under your amendment.

Moreover, it took Congress over two decades to make Chapter 12 a permanent part of the Bankruptcy Code because people were concerned about the possible negative consequences to allowing cramdown for family farms. Chapter 12 was initially only enacted as a temporary provision.

In addition, I would like to say that the definition of family farm which can file under Chapter 12 is very limited. In fact, Chapter 12 only applies to a limited number of farms--those that have less than $3.2 million in debt; debt has to arise out of the farming operation; 50 percent of income within the last 3 years has to come from farming income; and 80 percent of the assets in the estate have to be related to farming operations. Those are some of the requirements.

So probably Chapter 12 ended up, quite frankly, being a lot more narrow than maybe I originally intended. But I think it is working.

Finally, I want to go to the cramdown that is allowed for boats, because boats are like cars: their values diminish rather than increase, which is very different from real estate, where values are expected to rise over the long term.

Proponents of Senator Durbin's amendment argue that the way the amendment is now drafted, only a very limited number of loans will qualify for cramdown in bankruptcy. Now, while the amendment does attempt to limit the scope of the legislation from how it was originally drafted when Senator Durbin introduced his bankruptcy proposal as a stand-alone bill--that was probably soon after he had talked to me about it several months ago--the reality is that the language still is extremely broad. Cramdown and other loan modifications are available for many loans, both nontraditional and subprime as defined by Senator Durbin's amendment, made before the amendment's effective date. That is, of course, a lot of loans. Since there is no sunset date in the amendment, borrowers could file for bankruptcy and still get this cramdown relief years and years from now.

Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator, through the Chair, if he is aware of the fact that this only applies to mortgages, subprime mortgages on a primary residence that had been entered into as of the date of the enactment of legislation, not to any future mortgages of any kind?

Mr. GRASSLEY. So then you are saying my statement was wrong?

Mr. DURBIN. I am saying your statement should be modified.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I am looking at my staff because I am not a lawyer. My staff would disagree with you that my statement is inaccurate. But I will not go into that now.

Furthermore, according to the Durbin amendment, subprime loans are defined to be any loan with an interest rate of 3 to 5 percent over the Treasury yield rates for comparable loans. It is my understanding that this definition could include prime loans and home equity lines of credit, which would encompass a large number of loans.

The cramdown provision is just one of several problematic provisions in Senator Durbin's amendment. The amendment will increase bankruptcy filings, something I really do not think we should encourage. We should be doing everything we can to keep people out of bankruptcy. It ought to be very much a last resort, particularly because filing bankruptcy in and of itself hurts a consumer's credit rating. I think we can all agree that bankruptcy should be a last resort and one should not file for bankruptcy unless it is absolutely necessary. The amendment will increase mortgage interest rates and downpayments for other homeowners and potential home buyers. The Durbin bankruptcy amendment will inject greater risk into and negatively impact our financial markets.

I would like to be clear: I want to help homeowners weather the storm just as much as the next Senator. I want to support constructive solutions to help homeowners meet their obligations so they do not lose their homes. In fact, I have worked very hard with other Senators to craft tax provisions that I am soon going to address that are currently contained in the underlying housing proposal before us. But I am concerned that the Durbin bankruptcy amendment we are considering right now--if we adopt that, we are going to pass legislation that would do a great deal of harm. I am concerned about the possibility of the amendment helping some, but hurting many others. I am not alone in my concerns. Many experts agree that the Durbin bankruptcy cramdown proposal is problematic and could have serious adverse consequences. So I am asking my colleagues to vote against the Durbin bankruptcy amendment.

I said that I am the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. I now wish to give a short statement about some of the tax provisions. I may have to be more specific when we get into debate on this, so this is kind of a preliminary notice of where the committee is coming from. First of all, as usual, I find it very necessary to thank Chairman Baucus for his courtesy and hard work in the legislative effort. Our goal was to develop a bipartisan tax package that responds to the needs of Americans and, in particular, the housing market.

Americans are struggling to keep their homes and their jobs. As economic conditions continue to worsen, it is appropriate that Congress act to enact tax laws that address the housing problem. After all, the housing problem is at the root of the current economic turmoil and anxiety that people have.

Last year, we responded to the call for help. Congress enacted the Mortgage Debt Relief Act of 2007 which was signed into law by the President. This law excludes from income discharges of indebtedness incurred by taxpayers to acquire homes. It also extends the tax deduction for mortgage insurance premiums.

Earlier this year, Congress acted at lightning speed to enact a stimulus package that delivers additional relief to American taxpayers. As a result of that legislation, Treasury will be sending out rebate checks in a few weeks that will give the economy a much needed boost.

We have carefully balanced this tax relief package being considered today on the floor. It addresses the housing downturn but is limited so as to ensure that it helps the problem and does not simply create new problems. We are mindful that any relief that benefits one sector of the public does not do so at the expense of another sector. The other sector is the taxpaying population that carefully managed their family budget, especially as it is related to housing costs. Taxpayers bear the burden of a bailout of these risky mortgages that went south. So it is important that we have a compassionate view that recognizes taxpayers possibly picking up some of the tab.

Once again, the Senate is stepping in to help Americans in distress. The tax relief package helps encourage home ownership and encourages the basic businesses that are tied to the housing industry to recover some losses. Keep in mind that those businesses create jobs. More jobs means a stronger economy.

In 2002, Congress passed a stimulus bill that provided some of the very same relief that is contained in this bill. In 2002, Congress passed, with overwhelming support, a provision to extend the net operating loss carryback. This provision passed without controversy. Hopefully, there will be no controversy this time. Then, again, earlier this year the Senate Finance Committee passed a similar provision to extend the net operating loss carryback once again, with overwhelming support by the committee.

Relying on our successes in the past, we have included similar provisions in this bill. However, the net operating loss provision in this bill is even more conservative than the relief offered in the past. Instead of a 5-year carryback, this proposal offers a 4-year carryback. This provision, of course, is a no-brainer. It helps the very industries suffering from this housing downturn and will help Americans continue to be employed.

This bill also offers a tax credit to help people buy homes that are in foreclosure. These homes are depressing home values in the marketplace. It is important that this inventory is moved so as to help retain home values.

This bill also increases the cap on mortgage revenue bonds to give people in distressed loans additional options for refinancing. This is not a bailout for homeowners; this is a provision that helps enable people to keep their homes and to pay mortgages.

As we proceed on this bill, I am asking everybody to keep in mind what I said at the beginning: We need to address the housing downturn, but we need to show restraint. We need to limit the relief so that it eases the problem, but does not create new ones. We need to be considerate of the many Americans who worked hard to save and buy homes and who will ultimately pay the price for this relief, if the relief is used, and we expect it will be. They should benefit, too, in that any targeted relief will, in fact, give the economy a boost and not be a drag on the economy, drag it down even further. We want to keep people employed, and particularly the taxpayers who were conservative in their financial plans should not be harmed as a result of this.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Iowa. He and I are friends. We have worked together and continue to work together on many issues. We have profound disagreements on some issues, but we have managed to maintain our friendship regardless.

We had the responsibility for a number of years of dealing with the Bankruptcy Code. I will say to my friend from Iowa, for a man who is not an attorney, I was always impressed by his knowledge of the issues and his ability to articulate his position effectively whether his opponents were attorneys or not. So I thank you very much for your comments today. I respect very much your point of view, although I disagree with the conclusions.

The purpose here is not to send people to bankruptcy court, it is the opposite. Going to bankruptcy court these days is not a trip to Disney World. It is a problem. You have to go through credit counseling, you have to gather all of your documentation, walk into a courtroom, usually with a lawyer, and be prepared for a pretty tough ordeal. And then, if you successfully complete the bankruptcy, you carry that stigma with you for years. Whenever you want to apply for a loan, one of the questions asked is: Have you ever filed for bankruptcy? So I do not believe people are gleefully jumping at the chance to go to bankruptcy court. For most of them, it is an embarrassing experience, it is a humbling experience, and it is one they want to avoid.

The purpose of this bankruptcy provision is to avoid that experience. Here is the problem: If banks today, if mortgage lenders today were jumping forward to renegotiate these mortgages, we would not be standing here in this debate. They are not. People are in a position where they are about to lose their homes, and these mortgage institutions are not responding.

I will give you an example. A woman named Carol Thomas in Peoria, IL, retired as a drugstore clerk, spent her lifetime in that very basic job, retired with her husband, who worked at a factory. They bought a little home in Peoria. After they retired, her husband got sick. He could not climb the stairs anymore. She wanted to keep him home as long as possible and knew he could not get upstairs to the bedroom, so she went looking for another house, a smaller house but one floor. She found one near where she lived, and she ended up buying the house.

Unfortunately, the medical bills got the best of them. She ended up needing some money to pay off medical bills. Now, this is the No. 1 reason people do file bankruptcy in America: medical bills. But to avoid bankruptcy, she thought: Maybe I can borrow more money on my home. She got ahold of one of those mortgage lenders. And this is why I support Senator Feinstein's effort to license these mortgage brokers. She could not have received worse advice. This poor woman who was no business expert, no college graduate, just a hard-working woman who deserves a decent retirement, was advised to consolidate her debts in her new mortgage. They brought together all of the debts she had and lumped them into a new debt on her home. They were so unscrupulous and so deceptive that they brought into this package of consolidated loans a zero-percent loan she had from the city of Peoria for home improvements. Can you imagine? This woman was paying off that home-improvement loan with zero percent, and this unscrupulous mortgage broker and lender ended up putting that debt into her home where she was paying interest on it now. Thanks so much for the help for Mrs. Thomas.

It did not take but a year for the bottom to fall out. The reset came in. Her husband has since passed away. She was trying to get by on meager savings and Social Security. Her mortgage payment doubled, and there she stood, about to lose her home and her retirement, thinking about going back to work to save the home.

That is when she showed up at that little gathering I had to talk about this issue. It is a heartbreaking situation. She said to me ahead of time, before the press conference got started: I hope I do not cry. I said: Just be as strong as you can. And she did not cry.

She contained her emotions but almost lost it when she talked about her husband and what he went through. She then said: I don't know which way to turn. I call this mortgage company.

I will not give their names here because there is a good ending to this.

She said: I call the mortgage company and they say to me, you clearly can't make these payments, so just stop making payments.

So she said: I didn't send in the monthly payment which would have exhausted my savings. Then they sent me a notice and said: You are in default. You are facing foreclosure. I can't win. I follow their instructions; they tell me they are going to foreclose.

She had some counselors helping her, and the counselors said to me: Would you call the mortgage institution and see if you can talk to them?

So I did. I called and left a message for the vice president of this major company. If I gave their name, it would be recognized instantly.

I said: Please give this woman straight advice and figure out if there is any way she can stay in her home. Within 24 hours this vice president said: We will take care of it. Ms. Thomas can stay in her home, new interest rate, much lower percent interest rate, and she is OK. Don't worry about it.

Why did she have to go through that? Why did I have to make that call? Do Senators have to get on the phone, all 100 of us, and call on behalf of 2 million home owners to get this straightened out? I had to make that call because that mortgage company wouldn't step up and do that until somebody pushed them. I didn't have any threat I could hang over their head other than the embarrassment to their company of not helping this poor woman out. But they finally did it. Why did I have to make that phone call? Why did she have to go through month after month of being beaten up by people on the phone giving her conflicting advice?

That is why this is needed, not so that Carol Thomas and people such as her end up in bankruptcy court but so that the mortgage lenders know if they will not sit down and work with people, those folks may end up in bankruptcy court and the bankruptcy judge may modify the terms of the mortgage. If they know that is coming, they might sit down and talk to Carol Thomas or somebody before it reaches that point.

Some of my colleagues may have been listening or on the Senate floor earlier when my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, told his story. Isn't this a great story? Irene Hernandez of Lawrence, MA, a mother trying to raise her children, ends up over her head with a mortgage. They come in and tell her that since she has defaulted, they are going to have to foreclose on her mortgage and toss her out of the house.

They say: Your $210,000 house is now only worth $99,000. So we are going to toss you out and we are going to sell your house for $99,000.

Irene Hernandez says: I will buy it. I can pay a mortgage on $99,000. You know that. I have been paying this mortgage. So why don't you let me buy it?

They said: No. You are disqualified. You are disqualified because you defaulted on a mortgage with our company.

You think of these cases, and you wonder what is going through the minds of these financial institutions. Here many of them have created this subprime mortgage mess which was a catalyst for this recession, which we are sadly heading into according to Mr. Bernanke, and these same mortgage bankers still rule the debate in the Senate. Doesn't this tell you a great story about this institution; that the mortgage bankers responsible for this mortgage foreclosure crisis are telling people: Don't vote for that Durbin amendment. We are opposed to that. And Senators say: That is what mortgage bankers say, and that is where I am going to be.

We have a responsibility beyond the special interest groups that line the hallways in nice silk suits. We have a responsibility to a lot of people like Carol Thomas and Irene Hernandez. These are hard-working people who deserve a break. Many of them were exploited, deceived. They deserve a chance. That is all I am asking. The vast majority of them will never end up in bankruptcy court, will never have the benefit of this proposal. But some of them will. Some of them are going to be able to keep their homes because of this.

I cannot imagine what it would have meant to my family when I was raising them if I thought I was going to lose my home--not only the embarrassment of it, the uncertainty of where they would go, but moving out of the neighborhood, changing schools, leaving their friends. That is something we should not just look on as a routine occurrence in life. It is something they will never, ever forget. That is why this bill is important.

I have been on the Senate floor now for 3 hours and 10 minutes with my amendment. I have invited every Senator who wants to come to this floor to oppose or support this amendment to come on down. The Senate floor is empty but for the Presiding Officer, whom I thank very much for being here. There have been three Senators on the other side of the aisle who have come to speak against my amendment. When I asked the Republican minority leader if we could schedule this for a vote up or down, let's have the decision of the Senate, he said: Senators want to speak. Well, good. That is appropriate. There should be speeches, and I hope even debate. But I have to urge my colleagues, if they believe there is a sense of urgency about the housing crisis, please come to the floor. Please join us in a conversation for or against the provision.

I respect Senator Grassley of Iowa who opposes my provision. I respect the fact that he came to the floor and expressed his point of view and submitted to a question or two. For some who don't follow the Senate, this is a rare occurrence. A Senator actually allowed another Senator to ask a question. We have reached the point where we just come down to the floor and read speeches and finish the speeches and leave the floor. That is unfortunate. It would be better for the debate, for the Senate, and for people following it to hear both sides of the story, to hear me defend my amendment and those who are critical of it express their point of view. It doesn't happen much. It should happen more. I hope it will happen soon.

I am going to renew my request of the Republican leader after the lunch period which many Senators now are involved in to try to bring this to a vote. I think we have given Senators over 3 hours to come to the floor, and exactly three Republicans have come to speak to this amendment. If it is one an hour, then we have 46 more hours to go because there are 49 Republican Senators. That is unfortunate. It is unnecessary. I hope those who do come to the floor will read this amendment carefully.

The argument that this change in the bankruptcy law is going to raise interest rates is one that cannot be sustained. When I asked Senator Grassley about the provision relating to farmers' homes being allowed to be treated this way, he said it was a limited number of farmers who have filed for bankruptcy. He is right. But if the principle is sound for a farmer's home, why is it not sound for a person living in town? If a farmer can go into court and ask the bankruptcy court to change the terms of the mortgage so that they can stay on the farm, why is this inappropriate when it comes to those living in town? The principle is the same, and the principle is sound.

It is true that chapter 12 bankruptcies for those facing agricultural shortcomings are restricted, but so is this provision, restricted to those who qualify for bankruptcy; to those who have a primary residence, a home at stake; for existing mortgages, as of the date of enactment of this law, not after; to provide, as well, that the mortgage terms can only be reduced for the principal to fair market value, no lower; that the interest rate on the new mortgage modification cannot be lower than the prime rate plus a premium for risk; that the term of the new mortgage modification cannot be more than 30 years; that we protect the lending institution; if the property appreciates in value over the next 5 years after the bankruptcy, any appreciation in value goes to the lender, not to the owner of the property. We have put all of these provisions in there. We keep narrowing it down to what I think is a very discrete group of people. It is not prospective. It does not apply to things in the future.

Once every 60 years or so we have a housing crisis in America. I am glad it doesn't occur more often. To respond in a temporary, focused, and narrowly gauged way is appropriate. I think it gives people a fighting chance.

I have taken the floor most of the morning. I know my colleague from Louisiana is here and has a very important statement to make regarding this bill and her region of the country. I thank Senator Landrieu for being such a strong advocate for the State of Louisiana and for their recovery from Hurricane Katrina.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BROWNBACK. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DURBIN. I have two questions. I know the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, wishes to speak on an unrelated issue. First, I wish to ask the Senator from Kansas, through the Chair, on the issue of uncertainty: Is the Senator from Kansas aware that on this amendment I am offering, I have narrowed the class of people eligible for this benefit, which would be modification of mortgage in Bankruptcy Court, to those who first qualify to go into Bankruptcy Court which, in many instances, requires credit counseling; secondly, that they must be talking about property that is their primary residence, not a piece of real estate they happen to own; third, that it be subject to a mortgage which is a subprime mortgage, not a prime rate mortgage; and fourth, that it has to be a mortgage that exists as of the date of the enactment of this legislation and none in the future? Also, that if there is to be a modification of the mortgage, it can be to a principal level no lower than the current fair market value; that the interest rate imposed by the court be no lower than the prime rate plus a premium for risk; that the term of the modification of the mortgage can be no more than 30 years, and that if within 5 years of bankruptcy the property is sold at a price higher than the fair market value at the time of bankruptcy, all of the proceeds will go to the lender--not to the owner, but to the lender?

I say to the Senator from Kansas that every time the banking and financial institutions came to me and said: It is too uncertain, too many people could benefit from this, every time they did that I would narrow this more and more and more. I would further say to the Senator from Kansas that if we are talking about a limited group of people who fit the description I have given here, how can you project this to have an impact on real estate mortgages of 1 and 2 percent into the future?

The last time we dealt with this issue in Congress was 30 years ago. The last time we had a housing crisis was 60 years ago. It isn't as if we are meeting every 6 months to change the law on mortgages and bankruptcy. I ask the Senator: How much more can I do to deal with his concern and the stated concerns of the banking industry about uncertainty?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, responding to my colleague through the Chair, a couple of things. I appreciate that the Senator has narrowed this down from when he started, because he started with a much broader amendment; no question about it. I think what the Senator has done is advisable and good.

The base of the concern remains then the same, that now you have narrowed this in on a smaller class that you are going to raise the interest rates on because of the uncertainty that is going to be conducted there, or the likelihood of this having impacts on the mortgage marketplace and reducing their ability to get these houses on the market, which could further depress the prices on those houses. I think this is first do no harm. I appreciate that the Senator has narrowed this and he has narrowed it substantially.

I would also point out--and it was 1978 when we did the overall--we took up bankruptcy reform. We did that within the last 5 or 6 years where we had broad bankruptcy reform, and this sort of provision could have come forward in that bankruptcy reform at that point in time. I voted against that bankruptcy reform. I didn't think that overall was the way to go and that again was based on the experience I had in dealing with bankruptcy.

I appreciate the Senator's efforts. I think the basic issue he is introducing here continues to be the same even if it is within a narrow marketplace.

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for one more question?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes.

Mr. DURBIN. I wish to ask the Senator from the great farming State of Kansas if, in his private practice experience with bankruptcy, he ever dealt with a chapter 12 bankruptcy involving farm real estate and whether he believes that the change in the bankruptcy law in the 1980s, which allowed cramdown or modification of the mortgages on farm homes, was unreasonable; whether he believes that the banking institutions which fought that chapter 12 bankruptcy saying it would raise interest rates 1 or 2 percent on farmers--and it didn't turn out to be the case--whether we ought to believe those financial institutions again today when we talk about using the same provision--or a similar provision, I should say--as chapter 12 to deal with the current housing crisis? Did the Senator from Kansas feel it was unfair to allow cramdowns or modifications of mortgages in farm bankruptcies in his own State under chapter 12?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if I could respond to my colleague through the Chair, again in my limited background--I have actually taught agricultural law and written a book on it. It is not very good. I doubt my colleague has read it. I would recommend this chapter of it for him if he wishes to read it.

In the provisions that were done at that time before either of us were in the Senate, what you were doing was taking business bankruptcy reorganizations and allowing for farm application because it was a different business type of setting that was taking place. It did introduce risks that are even still factored in today, because this is a provision that is allowed within it.

Now, as I mentioned earlier, over a period of time as markets get adjusted to these, they say: Well, OK, this factor is only going to happen in this series of cases. Or they looked at lower end income clients and they said this is a more likely situation where we are going to see this taking place. Therefore, we are not going to loan to this guy, or it only goes to a bank that is willing to get into a more aggressive loan position and is desirous to do it. So it does have those impacts.

But what you were doing with that chapter reorganization during the farm crisis was taking a business reorganization and allowing for the differences in agriculture which are substantial. Now you are getting into the basic housing market with this. This isn't a business reorganization; this is a housing market issue, and you are introducing the very factors I talk about--in a limited fashion; I appreciate that greatly. I think it is less harmful potentially than the original design of the Durbin amendment. I appreciate your heart on it. It is going to have an introduction of factors of uncertainty and will drive interest rates up, and it will drive lenders out in this situation. That is what will happen. I don't think we should go that route.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, before I yield the floor, as I see Senator Kennedy is here and wishes to speak, I wish to make a point for the Record.

We introduced this amendment 4 hours ago. I have come to the floor, and but for a brief period off the floor, to entertain any debate on this amendment. In 4 hours there have been four Republican Senators who have come to the floor, one each hour, to oppose this amendment. At this rate, with 49 Republican Senators, in 45 hours we should be able to close this amendment and vote on it. I say that facetiously.

I hope those who have an interest in the amendment will come forward and that we can schedule it for a vote. I have asked repeatedly for that. I don't know what more I can do other than be here and be available for any debate they want to take place.

This is a critically important bill. There are several important amendments, and I think mine might be one of them. But if Members won't come to the floor and debate it, apparently they either don't have an interest in the amendment or the bill. I hope they will seriously consider coming to the floor in the very near future.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. I have been a Senator for a number of years and have visited Iraq and Afghanistan on three separate occasions. I try my best to meet with as many of our soldiers as possible--but, of course, focus on those from Illinois--to sit and eat lunch with them and talk about the Cubs, the White Sox, the Bears, the Bulls, the news back home. The thing that haunts me--and I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for reminding me--the thing that haunts me are the frequent conversations where they say: Does anybody know we are still here? Does anybody back home know what we are going through? It really is heartbreaking to think that these men and women are risking their lives every day while we go about our safe, secure, normal, daily routine and how little focus we put on this war and the men and women who are fighting it for us and particularly those who have given their lives.

We have lost almost 150 soldiers in Illinois. I took an inspiration from the Senator from Massachusetts and said I was going to send a note to every family in Illinois who loses a soldier. I thought after a year or two that task would have been completed. After 5 years, it is not. Sadly, in our State and every other State we are still losing lives. The fact that the Senator from Massachusetts would take the time to come to the floor today as a solemn reminder of what this means to us, should mean to us, and what it means to these families is something I deeply appreciate.

Last week or so, the New York Times had a front-page story talking about the lives that had been lost just last year, with color photographs of all the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who were among the casualties. There were six or eight personal stories of their lives. I took the time to read it carefully to try to absorb what was happening to these men and women and their families.

I think I can speak for the Senator from Massachusetts. We have cast between us thousands of votes on the floor of the Senate, myself in the House of Representatives as well. I cannot think of another vote more profound and more important than the vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq in October 2002. Senator Kennedy and I joined 21 of our colleagues in voting against that authorization to go to war. At the time, it was not the most popular vote, but it turned out to be the right vote. Not to take anything away from these brave men and women who have given so much for our country, but this war may be the most fatal foreign policy mistake of the modern era, and we continue to pay for it every day in American lives and blood and treasure and in our reputation and safety in the world.

The fact that the Senator from Massachusetts would take some time--even a brief period of time--to remind us is something that should be done and I am glad is being done. I know this will receive an overwhelmingly unanimous vote of support, as it should. We all want to be on record. But I hope that also, the next time this matter comes up for a debate about the policy of this war in Iraq, some of our colleagues who want to just continue this indefinitely for years and years will reflect on how many more American lives will be sacrificed if that happens. That is the sad reality of where we are.

The Senator could not, because his stack of papers would be dramatically larger, include the names of all those who have been seriously wounded or injured in this war. They deserve our thanks and our recognition as well. Many of them will carry scars for a lifetime. Some are very visible scars and some not visible. They are struggling with lives, facing blindness, burns and amputations, traumatic brain injuries, and post-traumatic stress disorder. I visit these veterans hospitals and see those veterans of past wars who are still paying the price today, alive--maybe barely alive--but paying the price for their service.

I hope beyond the resolutions we will have the resolve to make sure we keep our word to these veterans, that when they come home they will receive the best medical care, they will receive our help to continue their lives, to go to school or to own a home. When I read about the percentages--half the homeless people in America are veterans--when I read that the unemployment rate among returning veterans is so high, it is a grim reminder that those who have given the most often receive the least when they come home.

I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I hope I can add my name, along with many others, as a cosponsor of this resolution and thank him for his leadership on this important issue.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, earlier, when I was speaking to Senator Kennedy's resolution, I made reference to a New York Times article. It is an article from Tuesday, March 25. It tells in a very graphic way the correspondence of fallen soldiers and the circumstances they faced in Iraq before they died. As I mentioned before, I read this article in its entirety and was moved by it.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this New York Times article so my colleagues and others have an opportunity to read it as well.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source