Floor Statements

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, I wanted to make a brief statement today on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's consideration of S. 692, a bill to ensure that a valuable collection of historical papers pertaining to President Franklin Roosevelt, known as the Grace Tully Archive, can be transferred to the Roosevelt Presidential Library in Hyde Park. NY.

The Grace Tully Archive is considered the most important collection of documents and memorabilia related to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt currently in private hands. The collection was directly given to and/or gathered by FDR's personal secretary for decades, covering both his private and public career as Governor of New York and President. The donation of the collection to the Roosevelt Presidential Library has been supported by the National Archives--NARA--and described as a matter of ``overwhelming public interest.''

The acting Archivist of the United States, Adrienne Thomas, wrote to Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins about this bill earlier this month, and I will ask that a copy of that letter be printed into the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

After Grace Tully died in 1981, her collection was sold into private hands, and it has since changed hands several times. The current private owner obtained the collection in 2001 from a well-known New York rare book dealer in a widely publicized sale.

Although no previous claims had been made after other sales, the Archives stepped forward in 2004 to make a claim of ownership to certain specific documents contained in the larger Tully collection. They claimed that certain documents were ``Presidential papers'' and should have originally been given to the Archives, not Grace Tully yet the laws governing such documents and the establishment of Presidential libraries was not passed until after the death of President Roosevelt. So there are some legal ambiguities. But for several years, this dispute over the ownership of a small portion of the collection has prevented the donation of the entire collection.

Both sides wish to avoid litigation, since the collection is being donated to the FDR Library anyway indeed, the collection is already at the Roosevelt Library in sealed boxes waiting for the matter to be resolved. Both sides prefer that the matter be solved via Federal legislation that will clarify the ownership issue and ensure that the Archives and the American people receive this important historical collection.

Since the papers are already at the FDR library, my bill seeks only to clarify the ownership issue in order to facilitate the completion of the donation of a collection of immense value to historians. The current owner of the collection will have to abide by current tax rules governing such donations, including obtaining appropriate appraisals. All my bill seeks to accomplish is to allow the donation to move forward without the time and expense of litigation.

Last year, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee also reported out this bill, but it was stalled by year-end disputes over unrelated unanimous consent requests. Since there is no objection to this bill, I am hopeful that the Senate can take it up and pass it unanimously very soon, so the gift of the papers can be completed this year.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous cnsent to have the letter to which I referred printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for yielding. There are two issues I wish to address. The first will be this bill, in particular, the gift card title in the Credit Card Act. Secondly, I wish to speak a little bit about the NTSB hearings on flight 3407 which, as my colleagues know, crashed outside Buffalo and Clarence with a tragic result.

First, before I get into the substance on gift cards, I wish to commend Senator Dodd, Senator Shelby, and all the members of the Banking Committee for doing an excellent job on this bill. The bottom line is we need good, strong, tough regulation on credit cards. The days when disclosure was enough are over. I happened to believe that once and worked hard for disclosure measures. There is something called the ``Schumer box'' that is on all credit card solicitations applications because it puts in large letters the interest rates. Back in the old days, that worked. Every credit card, even though interest rates were 6, 7, 8 percent, was at 19.8 percent, but you couldn't find that out. So when people signed up for a credit card, they had no idea what interest rate they were paying. Once the box got on the solicitations, on the applications, interest rates came down. Good old- fashioned American competition began to work.

But in recent years--maybe they just got smarter or maybe they got more desperate for profits--credit card companies have found a way around disclosure. A person believes they are signing up for one rate, but then in the fine print, basically, if you wake up out of bed, the rate goes higher--much higher. We have gotten letters and heard stories from people who were on a 7-percent fixed rate and it went up to 23 percent overnight.

If it is on a future balance, that is fine. You can get another credit card. But it isn't. These rates go up on existing balances. Let's say you have a $4,000 balance, which is the average for American families with credit cards. Calculate it. You go from 7 percent a month on $4,000 to 23 percent on $4,000, and that is a difference of hundreds of dollars a month. These days, with the economy the way it is, with families struggling to make ends meet, a couple hundred dollars a month is the difference between being able to survive and perhaps going bankrupt; being able to survive and not being able to provide some of the basic necessities.

The legislation before us stops all those practices. The frustration, I must say, on both sides of the aisle, with the practices of the credit card industry is mounting. I would say to those in the credit card industry: Unless you get your act together, there may be other amendments and bills you will not find to your liking. It is about time to be responsible. I understand the banking industry is in tough times, and we all hope they will recover, but to recover by taking advantage of consumers is unfair, unwise, wrong, and we aim to stop it with this legislation.

The provision I wish to address specifically is one that I worked on with the Presiding Officer. We are both sponsors. The Senator from Colorado has done great work on this legislation, and I wish to thank him for his assistance as we move it forward. I also wish to thank, on this particular issue, both Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby, who walked the extra mile. I think it shows that if you work hard at legislating, and you are willing to compromise, it pays off. The original bill the Presiding Officer and I put in was tougher than the proposal here, but the proposal here is good and strong. It makes a huge difference between what exists now--which is virtually nothing--and what will become law, and it is something I think everyone can be proud of.

I also wish to thank those in the consumer industry. As do I, as well as the Presiding Officer, they wanted a stronger bill, but they understood that when you legislate, you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Getting something strong is better than getting nothing, even if you would have preferred something stronger.

Well, we are all familiar with gift cards. In many ways, they are the perfect present. You get the opportunity to choose whatever you want the most. When you get a gift card, it is great. You can think of 15 different things you want and decide which one you want to buy. You can go to the store, pick out what you want, and get it without spending a dime of your own money.

We have all opened that gift from Aunt Edna and wished she had spent the money on a gift card instead of that sweater you are never going to wear. I, for one, am not very good at picking out gifts. So gift cards are a boon to me, not only as a recipient but as somebody who gives gifts because I can buy the gift card, and I can breathe a sigh of relief that my family member or friend will have something they want instead of something I have chosen that they might not want at all, which often happens when I choose gifts. I guess I am a little like Aunt Edna.

Gift cards are a very good thing, and we don't want to snuff them out or limit their extent.

But what most people do not realize is that these gift cards often come with hidden fees and short expiration dates. After a period of time that can be as short as 6 months, the issuer begins charging value off the cards, reducing their value and depriving recipients of their gifts. That means if your mom or aunt or friend did their holiday shopping early, by the time April or May rolled around, you could be slowly but surely giving your gift card back to the bank piece by piece by piece.

Consumers usually pay a high fee when you buy the card, sometimes as much as 20 percent of the value. Well, on top of that, the recipient of the cards faces other charges such as monthly maintenance fees, dormancy fees or even a separate fee for each time the card is used. That is not fair. It is not fair when you get a gift card, say, at Christmastime and you say: I will save it until June to buy something I can use in the summer, and you go to the store and the gift card doesn't have the whole value on the card. That is not right. It is not fair. Frankly, it is not what the giver signed up for when he or she bought that card and gave it to you in a gesture of friendship or love.

For years, issuers of these cards have used fees to make hefty profits, largely on the backs of consumers, but with this legislation we are going to ensure that recipients are protected and can use their cards free of these duplicitous fees for a reasonable period of time.

First, the bill ensures that no fee can be charged unless there is no activity on the card for 12 consecutive months from the date on which the last charge is imposed. Let me explain. If you purchased the card the week before Christmas and give it to your child, parent, spouse on Christmas Day, for a whole year, until next Christmas, that card doesn't decline in value one penny. That is a very good thing and very much needed. During that year, if you use the card once but don't use the whole value--let's say it is a $50 card and you buy something for $22--the 12-month period starts again so you have plenty of time to use the card.

Second, the bill will require the Federal Reserve to determine a fair amount for the fees and set a minimum balance above which fees can't be charged. So the issuers aren't charging people exorbitant rates to use their cards and aren't taking up the entire value of the cards with these fees. If, for instance, the gift card is for $50 and they charge you $5 a month, within 10 months, the gift card is useless. It is my view the fee will not be more than $1 or $1.50 when the regulator sets it, and it will give the gift card a much longer life. Of course, we are leaving it up to the Federal Reserve.

We are also letting them set a minimum balance. My guess is it will be $15 or so, above which the fee doesn't bite in, so the gift card will last a lot longer.

Fourth, the bill ensures that gift cards have expiration dates of at least 5 years from the time they are issued. It is simply unfair to cancel the gift totally after 6 months or even a year. So now the gift card stays in existence for 5 years.

I believe this legislation makes gift cards fairer, better, and even happier gifts to give during the holiday season, for birthdays or an anniversary. I encourage people to use the gift card.

One other point I think is very important. This legislation, for the first time, will make sure that so-called open loop cards--the kind which can be used anywhere and that you get as a holiday present--will be regulated at all. There has been no regulation before. Consumers Union, U.S. PIRG, the National Consumer Law Center, and the Consumer Federation of America all support the actions we are taking on this issue. We have heard from one of the biggest gift card issuers that they, too, are comfortable with this bill because we are making commonsense changes to this business to ensure that consumers can get a fair deal and that issuers can continue to offer these valuable products. The bottom line: You get a gift card, you know it is going to have its full value for at least a year, with no expiration date, no monthly fee that takes a chunk off the gift card. It means what you are giving the recipient is getting, nothing less.

At the end of the day, the reason this bill has been so important to me and to the Senator from Colorado, who worked so hard on it with me and others, is we want to protect consumers who purchase these products as gifts for their friends and loved ones. Consumers who purchase or receive a $50 gift card should get $50 in value without having to pay excessive fees.

Continental Connection Flight 3407

Mr. President, I want to speak a little bit about the conclusion of the NTSB hearings that occurred this week in reference to Continental Connection Flight 3407.

We all know what happened on that flight. On February 12, 2009, the lives of family members, many of whom live in western New York, changed in a tragic and dramatic way when they lost their loved ones on a Buffalo-bound flight from Newark Airport.

I met with some of these family members on Tuesday--nine family members who lost loved ones on that flight. First, I have to express my respect and admiration for these family members. It was a little less than 3 months ago that they lost a husband, a wife, a child, a parent, or a fiance, and there is a huge hole in their hearts. Yet they were down in Washington making sure that a thorough investigation was done to determine why flight 3407 crashed, and then to continue working to see that corrective measures were taken on all other flights, so that what befell their loved ones would not happen to others. It was an act of bravery, courage, strength, fortitude, generosity, and compassion. The people in that room--and we had some heartfelt moments together-- were saintly. They were trying to light a candle amidst the darkness that enveloped their lives. I felt for them when we met, as I feel for them today.

The crash of flight 3407 in Clarence, NY, claimed 50 lives and serves as a tragic reminder that our Nation's aviation industry is not immune to tragic incidents.

The 3-day-long hearings at NTSB have revealed some very disturbing suggestions into what may have caused the crash of the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 airplane.

First, I am troubled by the reports that the Colgan pilots of the Dash 8 were not adequately trained in the operation of the ``stick- pusher''--the instrument installed in aircraft like the Dash 8 that prevents an aircraft from stalling. The stick-pusher is not demonstrated in pilot flight training simulators, and experts believe that the pilots are missing out on important hands-on training.

Suffice it to say that when the flight flew over Clarence, just before it crashed, the pilots may not have been adequately trained to deal with what was happening.

Colgan maintains that the FAA does not require this kind of simulator training. Today, I have written to Secretary Ray LaHood and asked that he reevaluate FAA's approval of airline training curricula.

We have also learned that the pilots of flight 3407 were not properly rested before their flights. It is obvious why. The young copilot of the flight lived in a suburb of Seattle, and her salary was $16,000 a year. She flew across country, tired, sleeping in an empty pilot seat, if she could--no stop, no rest, and then boarded the flight to Newark that she was copilot of on its way to Buffalo. It seems that it may be--I hope not, but it seems like it--that some commuter airlines both underpay and overwork their pilots to save costs. There is an unfortunate possibility that they could put safety second, with cost cutting first. That just cannot be. That has to change.

The second thing I am doing is urging the FAA not only to look at the number of hours that a pilot can fly--they have regulations for that-- but the conditions which a pilot who begins a flight has endured previous to the flight, so that they are alert and rested as their tenure for that day or that few days begins.

The airline industry is evolving. What we are seeing is more and more smaller commuter airlines, and the FAA is not keeping up. The FAA needs to crack down on issues of pilot rest, compensation, and training, especially with these young airlines that seem to be prioritizing issues of saving money. They should be making priority No. 1 the issue of safety.

For the last 8 years, the FAA has had ineffective leadership with one goal: to cut costs. The head of the FAA--I met her and had arguments with her--seemed to take direction almost all the time from the OMB. All of us believe we should cut costs in this Government--I certainly do--but not when it comes to safety. I believe that the FAA, which requires the small commuter airlines to observe the same regulations as the larger airlines, hasn't kept up enforcing the rules with so many of the commuter airlines out there.

The crash investigation also initially suggested that icing conditions may have affected the aircraft. A bright light was shed on the fact that the NTSB and the FAA have differing recommendations as to how a pilot should handle an icing situation, and that the NTSB first asked the FAA to adopt the NTSB's recommendations 12 years ago--to no avail.

For this reason, I, along with my colleagues Senator Rockefeller and Senator Dorgan, called for an official GAO investigation into what specific roles the NTSB and the FAA should be playing in aircraft icing prevention, and why such a lag exists between the time the NTSB makes a recommendation and the FAA formally adopts it. It seems to me--these are just my observations--that the NTSB does put safety first, and I sometimes wonder if the FAA is always doing that.

The GAO has informed us that they are in the process of forming an investigatory team for our request and will begin to pursue answers soon.

In conclusion, I cannot say enough how humbled I am by the work of all of flight 3407's family members. It is a tribute to their loved ones' lives that they are in Washington to advocate for aviation safety. I assured them, as we talked and prayed together, that I would do everything I could to make sure we get to the bottom of what happened on flight 3407, and then take whatever corrective action needs to be taken to prevent future flights such as 3407 from crashing.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I also rise today in strong support of the Agricultural Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act of 2009, also known as AgJOBS.

The distinguished Senator from California has already eloquently explained what the AgJOBS bill is, what it seeks to accomplish and why America needs this Congress to pass AgJOBS as soon as possible.

I simply wish to briefly explain to the people of my home State of New York--as, their Senator--and to all of the American people, as chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, why I support AgJOBS and why I think they should support AgJOBS too.

Simply put, the status quo in our agricultural industry is unsustainable.

What is the status quo? All around my home State of New York, and across the country, family farmers are trying to do the right thing and operate lawful and successful farms.

Virtually every family farmer I have met in my travels across New York has aggressively tried to hire Americans to work in their nurseries, orchards, farms, and vineyards.

For instance, my friends in the Long Island Farm Bureau can tell you that more than half of their members pay more than $12-$15 per hour per worker, and actively seek to hire American workers, often arranging buses to recruit Americans into Long Island to work.

But what these family farmers are finding is that--even in this bad economy, even if they offer Americans twice or sometime three times the minimum wage and provide benefits--American workers simply won't stay in these jobs for more than a few days.

Why don't Americans want to stay in many of these agricultural jobs? Let me share with you the description of the working conditions for agricultural workers as provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in their 2008-2009 Occupational Outlook Handbook. Here is their description:

Much of the work of farmworkers and laborers on farms and

ranches is physically strenuous and takes place outdoors in

all kinds of weather.

Harvesting fruits and vegetables, for example, may require

much bending, stooping, and lifting. Workers may have limited

access to sanitation facilities while working in the field

and drinking water may also be limited.

Farm work does not lend itself to a regular 40-hour

workweek. Work cannot be delayed when crops must be planted

or harvested or when animals must be sheltered and fed.

Long hours and weekend work is common in these jobs. For

example, farmworkers and agricultural equipment operators may

work 6- or 7-days a week during planting and harvesting

seasons.

Many agricultural worker jobs are seasonal in nature, so

some workers also do other jobs during slow seasons. Migrant

farmworkers, who move from location to location as crops

ripen, live an unsettled lifestyle, which can be

stressful.

Farmworkers risk exposure to pesticides and other hazardous

chemicals sprayed on crops or plants.

This is certainly not the description of a life most Americans would want for themselves, much less for their children. And so what the family farmers in New York experience is that even when Americans take these jobs, the vast majority quit after only a few days.

So who is stepping in to take many of these difficult agricultural jobs? Immigrants who need these jobs to support the families they left behind in their native country.

But the vast majority of the immigrants working in agricultural jobs are undocumented. For this reason, family farmers are often required to choose between hiring undocumented workers or going out of business.

AgJOBS solves this problem in a way that is fair to everyone.

AgJOBS requires current undocumented agricultural workers to pay a fine, pay their taxes, undergo thorough background checks, and legalize their status in order to keep their jobs. If these workers refuse to legalize their status, or have any kind of criminal record, they will be deported.

AgJOBS provides America's family farmers with access to legal workers and removes the burden on farmers to perform the role of Federal immigration enforcement officials.

But just as importantly, AgJOBS places increased penalties on farmers who hire illegal aliens and places penalties on farmers who provide poor working conditions for their employees. This will make it far likelier that Americans who want these jobs will stay in these jobs for longer periods of time.

For this reason, AgJOBS is supported by hundreds of agriculture, business, labor, religious, and ethnic affinity groups.

It is my profound belief that Americans are pro-legal immigration and anti-illegal immigration, and will support policies that are consistent with this basic principle.

AgJOBS fits this description. It severely penalizes farmers who will continue to hire illegal immigrants and who choose to exploit their workers. But it also provides farmers with the ability to hire Americans and legal immigrants who will take these jobs.

The current situation is simply untenable. Every day, American farms are closing and America has to import more and more food from abroad because it is far cheaper to buy foreign food than it is to produce food here.

For every farmworker job we lose to another country, America loses three to four other American jobs in packaging, processing, supplies, equipment, and other related sectors.

Failure to pass AgJOBS will continue to result in devastating consequences for our economy.

In New York alone, the Farm Credit Association of New York estimates that if AgJOBS is not passed, New York State could lose in excess of 900 farms, $195 million in value of agricultural production, and over 200,000 acres in production in agriculture over the next 24 months.

Finally, our national security is threatened when we no longer are able to ensure that we can sufficiently feed our people with American food. Without AgJOBS, we place our Nation's food security at risk from those who might seek to do harm to America.

This situation can and should be remedied. AgJOBS provides the remedy, and I am therefore proud to be an original cosponsor of AgJOBS and strongly support its passage.

Mr. President, I also rise today in strong support of the Agricultural Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act of 2009, also known as AgJOBS.

The distinguished Senator from California has already eloquently explained what the AgJOBS bill is, what it seeks to accomplish and why America needs this Congress to pass AgJOBS as soon as possible.

I simply wish to briefly explain to the people of my home State of New York--as, their Senator--and to all of the American people, as chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, why I support AgJOBS and why I think they should support AgJOBS too.

Simply put, the status quo in our agricultural industry is unsustainable.

What is the status quo? All around my home State of New York, and across the country, family farmers are trying to do the right thing and operate lawful and successful farms.

Virtually every family farmer I have met in my travels across New York has aggressively tried to hire Americans to work in their nurseries, orchards, farms, and vineyards.

For instance, my friends in the Long Island Farm Bureau can tell you that more than half of their members pay more than $12-$15 per hour per worker, and actively seek to hire American workers, often arranging buses to recruit Americans into Long Island to work.

But what these family farmers are finding is that--even in this bad economy, even if they offer Americans twice or sometime three times the minimum wage and provide benefits--American workers simply won't stay in these jobs for more than a few days.

Why don't Americans want to stay in many of these agricultural jobs? Let me share with you the description of the working conditions for agricultural workers as provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in their 2008-2009 Occupational Outlook Handbook. Here is their description:

Much of the work of farmworkers and laborers on farms and

ranches is physically strenuous and takes place outdoors in

all kinds of weather.

Harvesting fruits and vegetables, for example, may require

much bending, stooping, and lifting. Workers may have limited

access to sanitation facilities while working in the field

and drinking water may also be limited.

Farm work does not lend itself to a regular 40-hour

workweek. Work cannot be delayed when crops must be planted

or harvested or when animals must be sheltered and fed.

Long hours and weekend work is common in these jobs. For

example, farmworkers and agricultural equipment operators may

work 6- or 7-days a week during planting and harvesting

seasons.

Many agricultural worker jobs are seasonal in nature, so

some workers also do other jobs during slow seasons. Migrant

farmworkers, who move from location to location as crops

ripen, live an unsettled lifestyle, which can be

stressful.

Farmworkers risk exposure to pesticides and other hazardous

chemicals sprayed on crops or plants.

This is certainly not the description of a life most Americans would want for themselves, much less for their children. And so what the family farmers in New York experience is that even when Americans take these jobs, the vast majority quit after only a few days.

So who is stepping in to take many of these difficult agricultural jobs? Immigrants who need these jobs to support the families they left behind in their native country.

But the vast majority of the immigrants working in agricultural jobs are undocumented. For this reason, family farmers are often required to choose between hiring undocumented workers or going out of business.

AgJOBS solves this problem in a way that is fair to everyone.

AgJOBS requires current undocumented agricultural workers to pay a fine, pay their taxes, undergo thorough background checks, and legalize their status in order to keep their jobs. If these workers refuse to legalize their status, or have any kind of criminal record, they will be deported.

AgJOBS provides America's family farmers with access to legal workers and removes the burden on farmers to perform the role of Federal immigration enforcement officials.

But just as importantly, AgJOBS places increased penalties on farmers who hire illegal aliens and places penalties on farmers who provide poor working conditions for their employees. This will make it far likelier that Americans who want these jobs will stay in these jobs for longer periods of time.

For this reason, AgJOBS is supported by hundreds of agriculture, business, labor, religious, and ethnic affinity groups.

It is my profound belief that Americans are pro-legal immigration and anti-illegal immigration, and will support policies that are consistent with this basic principle.

AgJOBS fits this description. It severely penalizes farmers who will continue to hire illegal immigrants and who choose to exploit their workers. But it also provides farmers with the ability to hire Americans and legal immigrants who will take these jobs.

The current situation is simply untenable. Every day, American farms are closing and America has to import more and more food from abroad because it is far cheaper to buy foreign food than it is to produce food here.

For every farmworker job we lose to another country, America loses three to four other American jobs in packaging, processing, supplies, equipment, and other related sectors.

Failure to pass AgJOBS will continue to result in devastating consequences for our economy.

In New York alone, the Farm Credit Association of New York estimates that if AgJOBS is not passed, New York State could lose in excess of 900 farms, $195 million in value of agricultural production, and over 200,000 acres in production in agriculture over the next 24 months.

Finally, our national security is threatened when we no longer are able to ensure that we can sufficiently feed our people with American food. Without AgJOBS, we place our Nation's food security at risk from those who might seek to do harm to America.

This situation can and should be remedied. AgJOBS provides the remedy, and I am therefore proud to be an original cosponsor of AgJOBS and strongly support its passage.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, May 13, 2009, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on ``Problems for Military and Overseas Voters: Why Many Soldiers and Their Families Can't Vote.''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Lynden Armstrong at the Rules and Administration Committee on 202-224-6352.

Mr. President, first, I wish to salute, praise the chairman of our Banking Committee, Chairman Dodd, for doing a great job on this bill. I thank him for the good work he has done, and so many others who have worked long and hard on this legislation; Senator Shelby as well.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. President, we are asking for a simple change that in no way affects the amendment, in no way affects whether it is going to cost anything. The purpose of the underlying amendment is to ensure that tenants of multifamily housing across the country benefit from the same attention and support of this Government as single-family homeowners will.

We have literally millions of tenants--millions--who, because the homes which they rent are foreclosed, are in very bad shape. They can be removed from their homes. Their homes can deteriorate. Once a home is in foreclosure, often it is not kept up. This is not just in big cities such as New York but around the country. In fact, States such as Tennessee and so many others are on the list which I listed of 15 States that are most affected because it affects not only big multiple dwellings but garden apartments and other residential units. It is unfortunate that the objection is going to stand in the way of helping these tenants.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. President, I appreciate that.

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

Mr. President, I will not offer my amendment at the moment. We are still trying to negotiate it. But I want to discuss an amendment I will offer, hopefully, with agreement. That is an amendment that would require the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of HUD and other housing-related Federal agencies, to develop a program to address the rising defaults and foreclosures in multifamily properties.

The program is necessary because the same excesses that occurred in the single-family mortgage market also occurred in the multifamily mortgage market, leading to buildings that are significantly overleveraged with rent rolls that are unable to support basic operational expenses and maintenance. The tenants of these buildings had absolutely no input into the misguided decision of the owners and lenders who mortgaged the property beyond supportable levels, but they are the ones who will face the consequences of this investment and foreclosure, as owners are unable to meet monthly payments and maintain the properties.

In New York City alone, it is estimated that 60,000 units of multifamily housing are at risk of disinvestment and foreclosure. We have similar problems in smaller ways in many upstate cities as well. We have seen buildings in New York where in order to make the loan underwriting work, lenders estimated tenant turnover rates that would double or triple the neighborhood average, rent increases that were not even legal under local law, and expected maintenance costs that were actually less than half of what the owner spent in previous years. This kind of basic underwriting malpractice has left tens of thousands of families in New York State and other States vulnerable. We are not the only ones. New York has the eleventh highest multifamily delinquency rate in the country, according to a recent Deutsche Bank report.

The 15 States with the highest multifamily delinquency rates are not concentrated just in the Northeast or on the west coast. This is a truly national problem. I ask my colleagues to listen because their State may be among the one-third, or close to it, the 15 out of 50. They are Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Texas, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Connecticut, Oklahoma, New York, Kentucky, Missouri, and Mississippi.

While I am strongly supportive of the administration's efforts to help families across the country obtain loan modifications and other financing options, a similar effort to protect tenants of multifamily properties must be made. It must be made in a way to protect the tenants first and foremost and not let the developers and the investors, who did all the wrong, get away with wrongs.

Housing experts in New York have begun to examine options to assist these buildings. There are a number of different ways that might be effective in addressing this problem. So the bottom line is, we need Federal expertise, leadership, and support to help determine the best course of action and implement a program across the country to ensure that innocent tenants do not have to pay the price for the poor decisions of landlords and lenders.

This should be an easy amendment to support. I am not asking for any new money. We are certainly not asking to bail out any of the bad actors or even giving specific directions to the Treasury Department to take this approach or that one, although I have talked to the Secretary of HUD about this problem and, in fact, we worked on some problems related to this when he was the head of the HPD, the housing department in New York City.

What we are doing in this amendment is simply asking the Congress to direct Treasury to examine this problem and develop a program to address it in whatever way they determine best. My hope is that the Treasury will consult with HUD. It is unfair that tenants of multifamily rental buildings are being left out in the cold while single-family homeowners receive focused attention from their agencies. Single-family homeowners should but so should those in multiple developments.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that once the Senate resumes consideration of S. 896 on Tuesday, May 5, the time until 10:50 a.m. be for debate with respect to the Corker amendment No. 1019, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Dodd and Corker or their designees; that at 10:50 a.m., the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment, with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to a vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 126, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 5; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that the Senate resume consideration of S. 896, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009; further, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow for the weekly caucus luncheons.

Mr. President, Senators should expect rollcall votes in relation to amendments prior to the caucus recess.

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

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to a truly inspiratioal New York figure, Dr. Joel M. Levy, on the occasion of his retirement from the YAI/National Institute for People with Disabilities Network, NIPD, after 40 years of dedicated leadership of the organization.

Over this time, Dr. Levy has spearheaded the development of YAI/NIPD from a small and struggling agency into one of the Nation's leading providers of service for people of all ages with developmental and learning disibiities. In particular it is at the forefront of understanding and treatment of autism.

He has played a pivotal role in leading the social revolution which has transformed the landscape of the disabilities field and which has dramatically improved the lives of thousands upon thousands of individuals and families.

Dr. Levy's tireless efforts have created countless opportunities for those with developmental disabilities to experience greater independence, productivity, and joy through community living, meaningful employment, and volunteer activities. Furthermore, he has ensured that persons with disabilities have access to quality health care, in turn promoting their physical, mental and overall well-being.

And of great importance, Dr. Levy has positioned YAI/NIPD as an internationally acclaimed professional organization renowned for its conferences, training materials, research, and publications in this field.

In the course of his distinguished career he has clearly created a Place of Hope for all people with developmental and learning disabilities and their families.

I feel privileged on behalf of all New Yorkers to have this opportunity to salute and commend the outstanding achievements of Dr. Levy.

Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from Oregon on some excellent remarks. I thank him for being so steadfast in working toward this issue. He has spoken up many times at meetings and caucuses about it.

I rise in support of this amendment that would alter the Bankruptcy Code to allow bankruptcy judges to modify primary home mortgages. By now we are all familiar with the problems. Too many people borrowed too much money from too many banks that were too willing to lend. There is plenty of blame to go around. Now millions of American families are facing foreclosure over the next few years as a result of exotic mortgage products such as 2-28s, pay-option ARMs, and interest-only loans that disguise the full cost of home ownership. We have been pushing banks to do loan modifications for more than 2 years now and, frankly, we don't have much to show for it.

While I am optimistic the administration's plan will produce a significant improvement in modification efforts, it is also certain there will be intransigent servicers and investors who will try to block the process, to squeeze every last cent out of a home, even if that means it is costly for their family, their community, and the country at large.

We have offered lenders and servicers plenty of carrots, but it is unfortunately clear we also need a stick. The reason the programs in the past have largely not worked is it was just carrots and no stick. We need both. That is what the legislation gives us, leverage to push servicers, lenders, and investors to act in the best interests of the economy as a whole.

This amendment to the bankruptcy law is so important because of the changes the mortgage industry has undergone in the past few decades. It used to be that when one wanted a mortgage, they would go to their local bank where they would lend the money and collect payments for 30 years. That meant if one ran into trouble, they had a familiar friendly face to turn to, someone who knew them and their family and who had an interest in helping work out the mortgage payments so they could stay in the home. It also meant the bank had an interest; one entity had an interest in the whole mortgage. It wasn't chopped up in so many pieces. That is what has happened.

Over the past two decades, with the growth of securitization, it has all changed because the mortgage has been divided into pieces, sold off to investors around the world. They are often difficult to identify and impossible to contact. Their primary concern is squeezing every last cent out of the mortgage loan, whatever the impact on families, on homeowners. That means if the best outcome for even one of those investors is foreclosure, a homeowner is not likely to get the help he or she needs to stay in their home.

One other point that is vital: It may be that there are 40 investors who each have a piece of the mortgage. It may be that 39 of them have an interest in a loan modification. But if that one intransigent investor, who probably got the highest rate of interest because he or she took the most risk, says no, the whole process comes to a halt--not only bad for the poor homeowner but bad for the other 39 investors. It is bad, most of all, for the economy as a whole. It is not that one intransigent investor might say: Look, I will lose all my money if there is a loan modification. If I sit and wait for 5 years, then maybe housing prices will come up to where they should be and I will get my money back. In the meanwhile, the economy goes down the drain for everyone, because the more foreclosures there are, the lower housing prices get. The lower housing prices get, the less likely banks are to lend. The less likely banks are to lend, the less money is in the economy. The recession gets worse and worse and worse.

It is not only a problem for the homeowner when there is an intransigent bondholder who will not yield; it is a problem for the other investors who will lose money in foreclosure.

It is a problem for the neighbors of the homeowner whose property values are going to decline and for the country as a whole since our housing markets are already inundated by a glut of unsold homes, driving down home prices and destabilizing the financial sector.

How do you get that intransigent bondholder to the table? Well, there is a contract. We cannot break a contract by law. But the one place in the U.S. Constitution where a contract can be modified is bankruptcy court. Bankruptcy courts are the only constitutional way to overcome the securitization contracts and restore some power to the homeowner himself or herself.

Moody's Economy.com estimates without this amendment 1.7 million loan modifications that would have happened will not occur. These figures show that 1.25 million homeowners whose servicers are unwilling or unable to help them will not have the protection of the bankruptcy courts, and almost half a million homeowners who would have gotten modification offers will not because servicers or investors will calculate that a foreclosure is worth more to them than a modification.

The proposal is the result of weeks and weeks of talks that never yielded compromise that we hoped for. I see my colleague from the State of Illinois, Senator Durbin, in the Chamber, who worked so long and so hard on this

issue and deserves all of our thanks. He was in the middle of trying to get this done. Senator Dodd and myself tried to help but to no avail. It is clear that parts of the mortgage industry were never interested in meeting us halfway. As the negotiations went forward, they moved the goalposts back and back and back. And when concessions were made that were well beyond what anyone thought, they walked away because they never wanted to deal.

Hindsight is wonderful. It is unclear if those who entered the discussion--at least some of them--ever entered in good faith. But the industry stakeholders, who obviously have the most to lose, ought not hold total sway. Just because they walked away from the table does not mean we cannot vote our conscience on a proposal that would help preserve the American dream for millions of families and get our economy going again.

What makes me so eager for this proposal to pass, and why I worked long and hard, is that as much as I want to help individual homeowners--and, believe me, I do--our economy is at risk. Millions who might rent or have paid their mortgage could lose their jobs, and it all comes down to this proposal. Because if we decrease foreclosures, we will find a floor to the home market, which will then allow banks to lend, which will then get our economy going. It is like the knee bone; to the thigh bone; to the hip bone. Foreclosures are connected to the housing market; the housing market is connected to the health of banks; the health of banks is connected to the economy.

So when President Obama announced his foreclosure prevention plan, it included lots of lucrative incentives to lure banks to participate, but it called for some tough medicine: this bankruptcy proposal. And both are needed. We need carrots and sticks. The President's housing plan will not be as effective if parts of it are sacrificed for political expediency. Loan servicers should not get to accept the parts of the President's plan they like and reject others. That was never the deal.

To reject this proposal is to provide only sweeteners and no stick to get banks, servicers, and investors to modify troubled loans. The bottom line is fewer homes will be saved for American families. The defeat of this amendment would be a sad day for homeowners, for the housing market, for financial institutions, and for the overall economy. Allowing that to happen is unconscionable.

I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. We have an opportunity to make a major dent in the housing crisis and prevent further declines in home prices.

Let's understand, once again, the housing crisis remains at the core of our economic problems. As long as home prices continue to decline-- and without this legislation they are far more likely to--our economy remains at grave risk of further contraction. We cannot let this opportunity slip by.

I yield the floor.