American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 - Continued

Floor Speech

AMERICAN HOUSING RESCUE AND FORECLOSURE PREVENTION ACT OF 2008--Continued -- (Senate - July 10, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

TRIBUTE TO JOSEPH DUNN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the late Senator Paul Simon was my closest friend in politics. He was my boss for several years, and he is the reason I am in the Senate today.

Paul Simon used to like to tell the story about Meriwether Lewis, half of the fabled exploration team of Lewis and Clark. In the story--a true story--Meriwether Lewis returns to his hometown after helping lead the historic journey of the uncharted West to the Pacific coast. At a dinner in his honor, Meriwether Lewis tells the people of his hometown:

Patriotism is not words, it's work. It's what we do.

Paul Simon believed that, and he surrounded himself with others who shared that belief. Patriotism is not words, it is works.

For Joseph Dunn, that was the creed of his political faith. Most people in the Senate have not heard of Joe Dunn, but if you care about social and economic justice and the survival of small towns, small businesses, and family farms, you would have liked him. If you live in southern Illinois, there is a good chance your life is better today because of Joe Dunn.

Joe was the quintessential smalltown American. He loved his family, his church, and his community. For 15 years, he, too, worked for Paul Simon in the House, then in the Senate. For most of that time, he was Senator Simon's downstate director in Illinois.

When Senator Simon retired in 1996, Joe took a salary cut to work for the ICCS, the Illinois Coalition of Community Services. It is a nonprofit organization whose motto is ``helping communities help themselves.'' Two years later, Joe became its director.

ICCS works with people in struggling communities in southern Illinois, mostly small farm belt and coal belt towns that have been losing jobs and residents for a long time. ICCS helps residents in those towns identify their community's specific challenges and strengths and work together for a better future.

As a friend wrote:

Joe believed there was no community without assets, no individual devoid of talents. He spent his life working in partnership with these communities and individuals, taking advantage of their assets and talents. He was a kind, sweet, thoughtful, passionate man.

Last Friday, on the Fourth of July, Joe Dunn's caring heart stopped. He suffered a fatal heart attack while he was exercising at home. Joe was 55 years old. Joe learned the meaning of patriotism from his mother Johanna and his father Ben, a World War II POW and survivor of the Bataan Death March.

Joe learned about community growing up in Gorham, a small town in the Mississippi River Bottoms of southern Illinois bordering on the Shawnee National Forest. This is how Joe described his hometown last year:

The median household income of Gorham is a mere $22,750. Kids have to be transported at least 12 miles to school. Most residents who work must travel an average 34 miles to their jobs. But in spite of this and the fact that you cannot buy either a loaf of bread or a gallon of gas there, Gorham remains.

Joe went on to say it is not unique.

The isolation that poverty has brought to Gorham affects many, many other small communities in Illinois.

Joe asked:

What can residents in such towns do to combat their isolation? They must organize ..... and be willing to work very hard to keep their sense of community intact. ..... [T]hey must also organize and join with the voices of others to let our legislators and other decisionmakers know that [residents of small towns] have the same human rights as residents of more prosperous and affluent Illinois communities.

Joe Dunn was committed to the notion that America should be a land of opportunity for all, not just for some, and he spent his life working to improve the lives of others. He worked tirelessly to better the lives of people living in poverty by changing public policy and providing creative community solutions.

Like Paul Simon, Joe believed government could be a force for good. At Eastern Illinois University, where Joe earned a degree in political science in 1975, he was the student senate speaker. He was a political natural. He knew how to build and use political power. But he used his political and organizing skills to serve others, never himself.

He brought joy wherever he went. His laughter was warm, his humor was quick but never mean. Joe always had a smile on his face.

Joe was born with a condition that left him with a pronounced limp, but he was so full of energy that you quickly forgot he had any physical limitations, and he had so much faith in the ability of everyday people to change their lives so the people with whom ICCS were working forgot about their supposed limitations.

Under his leadership, ICCS helped dozens of communities create community development programs, neighborhood cleanup and rehabilitation programs, community policing programs, and volunteer community libraries. Joe helped establish afterschool programs and school and summer lunch programs that fed tens of thousands of young people in my State. He helped create new partnerships between community and faith-based groups, and new bridges between generations.

Before joining Senator Simon's staff, Joe worked for the Illinois Farmers Union-CETA, and he coordinated summer youth programs in four southern Illinois counties. He was a member of the Governor's Rural Affairs Council, the Illinois Poverty Summit Steering Committee, the Illinois Collaboration on Youth and the Service Learning Task Force of the Illinois State Board of Education and the Steering Committee of the Alliance of Communities for Faith and Justice.

Through these programs, and the people he inspired, Joe's work will live on.

Days before he died, Joe sent some friends an e-mail that ended with these words:

By the way, happy 4th of July, and remember that one of the most patriotic things we can do is strengthen our communities.

He was a profoundly good man who made life better for many people and a great friend of mine. I can't tell you how many times we worked together on projects in communities around our State. We had this common political heritage in Paul Simon. It rubbed off, I hope, on me but certainly on Joe Dunn. I knew Joe was going to live up to those values, those Simon values that inspired so many of us over the years.

What a tragedy it was to learn of his passing on the Fourth of July. When Kappy Scates in my downstate office contacted us, it was hard to believe. Joe was too young, too alive, too necessary. But now he is gone.

In closing, I wish to extend my deep condolences to Joe's family, especially his wife Tempa; their daughters Abby and Katie, and the two grandchildren Joe loved so much, as well as his many friends. Joe Dunn has left his legacy in my State of Illinois. His caring heart may have stopped on the Fourth of July, but his caring for the people of my State will not end.

REPUBLICAN FILIBUSTERS

Mr. President, I listened a minute ago to the Senator from Texas talking about energy, and I thought to myself: Doesn't he remember that a few weeks ago we brought energy bills to the floor and we asked him and the Republicans to join us in a bipartisan effort to deal with the gasoline prices in this country? Is he suffering from political amnesia? Has he forgotten that we tried unsuccessfully over and over to get a bipartisan group of Senators to start the debate he is begging for today?

I took a look at some of these rollcall votes to try to remember who was on which side when it came to bringing up the issues, and here we have, for example, a vote on June 10 of this year--June 10, not that long ago, less than a month ago--and we were trying to bring up the basic tax credits for energy development in this country--something that is about to expire and that we want to make sure will go forward. Unfortunately, we were stopped. On these tax extender votes of June 10, 2008, we needed 60 votes to go forward. We had 50 votes.

I looked to see what Republicans joined us in this effort. There were three. The Senator from Tennessee, Senator Corker, Senator Smith of Oregon, and Senator Snowe of Maine, which led to a total of 50. We needed 60. The Senator from Texas, unfortunately, voted against starting that debate.

So he comes to the floor today and says that we surely can't leave for the August recess until we start a bipartisan debate. Sadly, on June 10, he voted against a bipartisan debate on tax extenders.

But that wasn't the only time that day he voted against a debate on energy policy. I don't wish to single him out, but he came to the floor and made the speech, and I will make it clear that many others joined him. We brought up a bill that wasn't just an extension of tax incentives so companies could start building more wind turbines and research into renewable and sustainable sources of energy. It went further. In fact, I think it was a very balanced and proactive effort to bring down gasoline prices and to try to take control of an element that is not only hurting families and businesses but our economy. We came forward with the Consumer-First Energy bill, and we said we want to debate this on a bipartisan basis.

Here is what it said. First, we are going to roll back the $17 billion in tax subsidies that we are giving the oil companies. Listen, they are turning in and reporting the biggest profits in their history. They don't need subsidies from Federal taxpayers. We could put that money to better use. What if we gave consumers across America a helping hand in paying for gasoline? What if we gave independent truckdrivers several thousand dollars to defray the expenses they are running into trying to fuel their rigs and make a living? I would rather put $17 billion in that kind of tax relief than in tax relief to ExxonMobil. But that is what we are doing. So the bill said, let's change that.

The bill also said we were going to impose a 25-percent windfall profit tax on these oil companies to let them know the sky is not the limit when it comes to profit taking. There is a point where the Federal Government will take that money back for consumers, for investment in renewable and sustainable fuels.

We also wanted to suspend oil shipments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for the rest of the year. Why do we keep buying this expensive oil, taking it off the market and sinking it in the ground, making it more expensive for our economy? It doesn't make sense.

We also had a provision to protect consumers from price gouging. I am afraid that is going on here. This bill gave the President the authority to declare an energy emergency and set aside excessive price increases.

We also set limitations on oil market price speculation. Most people understand that is part of the issue. We had it in our bill.

We had a clear message to OPEC by allowing enforcement actions against companies that collude to set the price of oil and natural gas.

Well, that was the bill. Those were the provisions. They could have made a difference. But in order to get that bill to the floor and to start debating it, we needed 60 votes. That is what the Senate requires, 60 votes. So we called it for consideration on June 10, 2008, and we had 51 votes. The following 6 Republicans joined 45 Democrats. Coleman, Collins, Grassley, Smith, Snowe, and Warner. The Senator who was just on the floor, who says we shouldn't go home in August without debating a bipartisan measure, voted not to debate a bipartisan measure on June 10, 2008.

We tried again on June 17. We believe it is important. We tried to bring up these tax extenders again to encourage the kind of investment that is necessary. Well, unfortunately, again we couldn't get 60 votes. We had 52. Republicans voting with Democrats: Coleman, Collins, Corker, Smith, and Snowe. Sadly, the Senator who spoke on the floor was not among those voting to go forward on June 17. On three separate occasions he refused to vote to start the debate on this energy issue, and now he is complaining that we should be starting the debate on the energy issue.

Well, I hope he will reconsider his previous votes, and I hope he will join us in a bipartisan effort to go forward. But I must say that if we are going forward on this bill and others, then the policy and strategy of the Republican Senators has to change. This chart shows we have had 82 Republican filibusters so far in this session of Congress.

Now, people say: Is that a lot? How many do you expect? In the history of this Senate, there have never been more than 57 filibusters in a 2-year period. So far, in a little over a year, we have had 82 Republican filibusters. What is a filibuster? A filibuster is using the Senate rules to stop the debate on a bill, to stop the debate on an amendment or a nomination. Any Senator can stand and do that, and then you have to wait 30 hours and see if you can get 60 votes together to overcome that Senator's filibuster.

Well, we have 51 Democratic votes. When you do your Senate math, you find out we need nine Republicans to join us to move forward on anything. Eighty-two times the Republican Senators have stopped debate on issue after issue. On the three separate occasions that I have made reference to, when the Democratic majority of 51 tried to get 9 Republican Senators to join us in a bipartisan debate to bring down gasoline prices, to talk about investment in renewable and sustainable fuels, they refused. They give us just a few Senators. Coincidentally, most of them are up for reelection. They give us a few, but never enough to reach 60. That has been their strategy. That is the Republican strategy, the strategy of opposition to debate and moving forward.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield for a question?

Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Washington.

Mrs. MURRAY. I appreciate the Senator yielding. I have been listening over the last hour, as we have heard our colleagues from the other side come and excoriate us for not allowing them to bring a bill to the floor on energy and assailing the Senators on this side for prohibiting them from doing that.

That was astonishing to me because, as the Senator from Illinois knows, I have been coming to the Senate week after week and saying how much I pay for gas when I go home. It is now up to $4.45 a gallon that I paid last Sunday. I have been a part of this majority that has tried to bring a bill to the floor to deal with renewable energy, to try to deal with the issue of speculation, and to try to deal with a number of issues. How many times now have we been blocked from bringing an energy bill to the floor to deal with these gas prices?

Mr. DURBIN. In the last 6 weeks, we have been blocked three different times by the Republicans, who refuse to give us the necessary 60 votes to bring the bill to the floor--something they are now complaining about. Some of the Senators complaining the loudest voted against having a bipartisan debate on an energy bill.

I guess they think the Congressional Record is written in disappearing ink; that we don't have a permanent record here of their votes. We do. We know where they have been. We know how they have voted.

I wish to say something else for the Senator from Washington, and I am sure she will agree. They come and argue that the Democrats are against domestic exploration for oil. That is not true. I don't know of a single Democrat, I don't know of a single Senator who is against domestic exploration and production of oil. In fact, as the Senator from Washington knows, we have 68 million federally owned acres that we lease to the oil companies for exploration and production of oil and gas.

Mrs. MURRAY. Well, Mr. President, if the Senator will once again yield, didn't we do a bill several years ago to actually add 8 million acres to that, to allow more drilling?

Mr. DURBIN. Yes. So we had the 68 million, and we added the 8 million just a year ago--in the Caribbean, if I am not mistaken--in offshore drilling. So there is this pool of opportunity for the oil and gas companies. They must be opportunities because they are paying us, the Federal Government, a lease. They believe there could be oil and gas there. But when you ask the question: Well, how much are they drilling of that 68 million, it turns out about a fourth of it. A fourth of it.

So you have some 34 million acres offshore of Federal land available to the oil companies, and they could be drilling it right now.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if the Senator will continue to yield, if I am not incorrect, I believe that 68 million doesn't include the additional millions of acres off the shore of Alaska that they also are allowed to drill in and that they currently aren't drilling in.

Mr. DURBIN. That is right. I don't know the exact number in Alaska, but there are a significant number of acres, millions of acres available off Alaska where they can be drilling.

So I would say to the Senator from Washington, if they have so many millions of acres available for drilling, why is it that they are making the argument that they don't have any opportunities here for drilling and exploration? I think it is, frankly, because they have no other answer.

What it boils down to is that for 8 years we have had two oilmen at the highest levels of Government in America. When you do the math, 8 years, divided by two oilmen, equals $4 gas. That is what we are paying.

I wish to thank Senator Whitehouse for inspiring me. I helped him with the mathematical equation on this, but it was his inspiration that led to that last statement. I would say that is part of the problem. Any President looking at the mess in our economy and the hardship imposed on American families and businesses would have called the oil executives in a long time ago. Not this President. He used to be in the same fraternity. He was in the oil business. Many of them believe this is the way it works; this is the market at work.

If this is the market at work, we better take a look at the market because it is destroying America's economy--cutting back on airlines, reducing the number of flights, reducing the number of employees. All that tells me is that we need some leadership. Leadership will not be served by Senators coming to the floor, who voted to maintain filibusters, and then beg us to start a debate.

That is what it is all about. They had their chance and they didn't join us.

I would say at this point, before I yield the floor, we need to tackle this issue. There is no more important issue facing America today. We need exploration. We need to have investment in new opportunities. We need to be aggressive. We need to move right now.

We need, for example, to move to a point where we are not putting oil into SPR, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but actually taking it out and selling it and the proceeds will be used to not only bring down the price of oil in that sale but the proceeds are used to help American consumers, families, and business get through this energy crisis we face as a nation. We have to stop this indefensible subsidy of American oil companies at a time when they are reporting the highest profits in history. Put that money back into the economy for the right investments. We need a windfall profits tax to stop what is going on there, excessive profit-taking at the expense of the people who get up and go to work every day, and stop the price gouging and speculation that is leading to higher prices for oil and gasoline. This is the kind of initiative we need.

That was included in the bill on June 10 which the Senator from Texas voted not to take up and not debate. I want to take it up. I am ready to do that at any time the Senator from Texas wishes.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source