Floor Statements

Mr. President, I again rise to urge my colleagues, particularly from the other side, to join us in passing an extension of unemployment insurance, to stop blocking a program that is so necessary to every person in this country, not just those who are losing jobs but those who are fearful their jobs might be taken away.

This is a national issue, an emergency. It requires attention and action now, not weeks from now. For the last several weeks, we have been trying to get an agreement to proceed. Last week, Leader Reid justifiably filed the first of what could be three cloture motions that some on the other side would insist we must proceed through until we can enact this important effort and benefit for 15.1 million unemployed Americans.

Everyone in Congress, regardless of party affiliation, is concerned about jobs. There is no unemployment crisis just in red States or in blue States or in purple States or any color States. This is a nationwide problem. It requires a nationwide solution, and one of the first steps is simply extending unemployment benefits for the people who are running out of these benefits or who may, in fact, lose their employment and need these benefits.

We have to create jobs. That is the ultimate solution to the current economic crisis. We must have a sustainable and robust recovery. We are receiving some encouraging signs. It is estimated that when the gross domestic product for this quarter is reported, it will be about 3 percent, the first time GDP since the second quarter of 2008. But positive GDP is not the answer for people who are looking for work unsuccessfully. They need the benefits of extended unemployment compensation.

This legislation is very straightforward. It ensures that out-of-work Americans can provide for their families, can stay in their homes, and can maintain a sense of dignity while they continue to search for employment in a very difficult market.

Not only is it simply the right thing to do because it demonstrates some degree of recognition of the extraordinarily difficult situation facing so many in this Nation, but unemployment compensation insurance helps to aid the economy. You don't have to be an economist to understand that getting money to people who will spend it quickly on basic necessities spurs demand and helps prevent further erosion of the economy. Yet my colleagues on the Republican side continue to ignore the urgency of the situation.

As stated, last week the distinguished majority leader had to file a cloture motion to proceed to the House-passed unemployment insurance extension. This is unprecedented.

Congress has acted eight times--in 1958, 1961, 1971, 1974, 1982, 1991, 2002, and 2008--to establish temporary programs that provided additional weeks of unemployment compensation benefits beyond regular unemployment compensation and any extended benefits.

Let's take a moment to look back at the recent unemployment insurance extensions under both Democratic and Republican administrations.

President George Herbert Walker Bush signed an unemployment insurance bill into law that passed the Senate with near unanimous support. Not once, but twice--in November 1991 and February 1992, when the unemployment rate was 7 percent and 7.4 percent, respectively. And we are at a much more serious moment in our economic history today than those years ago.

In July 1992, President Clinton signed an unemployment insurance bill into law that passed with unanimous support in the Senate. The unemployment rate was 7.7 percent.

In March and November 1993, President Clinton signed two more bills into law that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. The unemployment rate was 7 percent and 6.6 percent, respectively.

In the 1980s, President Reagan signed an unemployment insurance bill into law that unanimously passed a majority Republican Senate. The unemployment rate was 8.8 percent. Months earlier, it was double digits.

These past votes, under Republican and Democratic Presidents and majorities of both parties in the Senate, demonstrate the nonpartisan nature of extending unemployment insurance when the economy is weak and unemployment is high. It is that simple.

In fact, further reinforcing this notion is that the national unemployment rate has now risen to 9.8 percent and may not stabilize until next summer--much higher than the preceding incidents in which, on a bipartisan basis, under Republican and Democratic Presidents, we moved expeditiously to extend unemployment benefits.

Nearly 2 million Americans will exhaust their benefits by the end of the year, but as I speak on the Senate floor, hundreds of thousands of Americans have already exhausted their benefits.

Mr. President, 3,800 Rhode Islanders will benefit immediately from a Federal extension, a majority of whom have already exhausted their benefits going back, in some cases, several months. Hundreds more in my State exhaust their benefits each passing week.

So why are the Republicans sidetracking this legislation? Let's take a look at the list of amendments.

We all, as Senators, have a right to propose amendments, but when they are proposed simply to delay and not to constructively advance an issue, we have to look very skeptically at the amendments. There is an amendment concerning ACORN on which we have already voted. This seems to be just an attempt to delay not an attempt to responsibly legislate.

It is my understanding that Majority Leader Reid has made many offers to the other side of the aisle so that the Senate can proceed to the immediate consideration of this critical legislation. It is disappointing these offers have been rejected.

This bill is about stabilizing our economy. It is about helping Americans who, through no fault of their

own, cannot find work. It is about this body, the Senate, taking action on behalf of people.

I urge immediate consideration of this extension. I hope we can pass it tonight rather than be forced to another series of pointless and political cloture motions.

I want to briefly mention another proposal related to this issue that is important to consider which would help in this terrible crisis of unemployment.

I have introduced the Keep Americans Working Act to strengthen and expand work share programs. These are programs in which 16 States, at the moment, pay a portion of unemployment benefits if the employer keeps the person on the payroll but reduces their hours to reduce costs and continues to pay their benefits--their pension and health care.

So far this year, approximately 137,000 layoffs have been averted in States that have this program. We have a breakdown of the 16 States. In 2008, 58,000 Americans were taking advantage of the work share program. They would work for 3 days a week, for example, and they would be off 2 days. They would receive unemployment compensation pro rata for those 2 days. The employer would keep benefits flowing, in terms of health care. They would have valuable workers not sent away from the firm but still engaged in productive activities.

I visited a firm in Rhode Island that has this program. It is wildly popular with not only the workers but also with the managers. In Rhode Island, we have jumped from 2,800 last year to 5,400 this year, and it is rising.

When I was at this plant, one of the workers said: This is the only way I can keep paying for my mortgage; this is the only way I can keep paying for the food we put on the table for our children. And the plant manager said: This is the only way I can keep a valuable worker so I can keep producing. I think it is a program that deserves close attention. This program in Rhode Island has helped many people avoid being completely laid off, and it has also helped the drain on the unemployment compensation fund because paying a pro rata share is a much better deal for the fund than paying the full benefits when someone is laid off completely.

There are 16 States, as indicated here. They rank from Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, and Washington. Again, this program is not a one-State, one- region, one-area program. This is a national program which I hope can be emulated by the other States. It is a win-win, and I hope we can move forward and take up this legislation as a complement to what we are proposing in the extension of unemployment benefits.

The real key, though, ultimately is to get the jobs flowing again, and that is something we have to work on. That is something on which we have made some progress but not sufficient progress. We can't rest until there is confidence again that throughout this land people have a job, they feel confident they can keep it, they can provide for their families, and they can contribute to this great Nation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I simply wish to rise and acknowledge the wise words of a good man and a good Senator in the great tradition of Ted Kennedy.

I thank the Senator, for his work, his commitment, and his dedication. With his help, we will complete the work Senator Kennedy started.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise again to urge my colleagues, particularly my colleagues on the Republican side, to put aside their amendments so we can move immediately and pass an extension of unemployment insurance benefits.

We are facing a crisis of employment throughout this country. We are seeing people who are exhausting their benefits. The need is now. The time is now. We must act now.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have already exhausted their unemployment benefits, including 3,500 Rhode Islanders. Unfortunately, this number is growing every day. These people are out of work, without an employment check or paycheck, with jobs remaining scarce.

It is important to recognize how we got here. A $236 billion Federal surplus accumulated in the 1990s under President Clinton and handed to President Bush evaporated in 2000 due to President Bush's unsound and excessive tax cuts which cost nearly $1.8 trillion and failed to spur sustainable economic expansion and were targeted to the richest Americans, not middle-income Americans. Indeed, most working Americans actually ended up less well off as the median income for families fell by $2,000 from the year 2000 to the year 2007. Let me say that again. In the period of the Bush administration, with the huge tax cuts which he proposed as being the key to our economic recovery and our economic progress, incomes of middle-income Americans fell, they didn't rise. Incomes of the very richest Americans rose dramatically and continue to rise.

In addition, the Bush administration praised the doctrine of inadequate supervision of our financial markets, a lack of adequate risk assessment by financial institutions throughout not only the United States but the world, and they combined that laissez-faire attitude toward regulation of Wall Street with very costly and unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result of these profligate policies, President Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit upon taking office. This is on top of an unprecedented set of circumstances facing our Nation both at home and abroad--the virtual collapse of the financial markets in September, the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. With regard to Afghanistan, the same inattention the Bush administration showed toward regulation they showed toward our efforts in Afghanistan, and today we face a crisis of the first order there.

Today, we are in a serious situation. Through decisive action, which I will credit began under President Bush last September but particularly carried out through the stimulus package, we are responding to this economic crisis. But economists of all persuasions tell us we are in a very difficult and challenging moment. Unlike the 1980s and prior economic downturns, they do not expect a traditional V- shaped recovery--a quick decline and then a fairly rapid ascent to normal economic performances. In fact, economists are predicting that job gains will not be manifest until next year. It always seems to be the situation that employment numbers lag behind other indicators,

including economic growth and availability of credit, and this lag is particularly challenging today because it means people are out of work and unfortunately may stay out of work into next summer and beyond.

There have been some signs of recovery. The last time the Dow hit 10,000 was October 2008, and we recently have seen it headed up in crossing 10,000. It is no longer in a meltdown, but we are far from a full, sustainable recovery.

Wall Street is one indication, but it is not the indication most Americans look to in terms of their own family's welfare. The most important aspect of a family's welfare is steady, dependable, rewarding employment, and that is the challenge we face today. People are concerned about jobs. Many Rhode Islanders with jobs are coping with reductions in hours and earnings, while those without jobs are tirelessly looking for work in a labor market that is worsening, and jobs simply aren't there.

We have a particularly dire situation in Rhode Island. There are 74,000 unemployed in my State. That is a big number, but it is much bigger in terms of my State of Rhode Island. We are the smallest State in the Union. With a population between 900,000, and 1 million, 74,000 unemployed people is a huge amount. It translates to 13 percent unemployment. If you look at the underemployed, if you look at those who have dropped out of the labor force, it is probably much higher. If you look at subcategories--teenagers, for example, much higher; minority communities, much higher. As a result, there is a growing frustration and too often a desperation gripping the people of Rhode Island.

A key component of stabilizing the economy is ensuring that Americans without jobs can continue to support their families, and that is at the heart of our unemployment compensation program. This compromise legislation which I helped craft along with Leader Reid, Chairman Baucus, Senator Shaheen from New Hampshire, Senator Durbin, and others, strikes a careful balance. It is completely offset. It helps unemployed workers across the country by providing all States with an additional 14 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits. It also continues the historical precedent and sound policy of recognizing that workers in the hardest hit States such as Rhode Island have even greater challenges finding work and are in the greatest need of assistance. Rhode Island and other States with unemployment rates at or above 8.5 percent would get an additional 6 weeks of benefits, for a total of 20 weeks. This provision will help more than 25 States, including South Carolina, Tennessee, and Michigan.

Unfortunately, the other side of the aisle, instead of permitting us to take up the bill quickly, is blocking legislation to extend unemployment insurance.

First they argued that they needed to see a CBO score, even though this legislation has been scored by CBO and, again, it is fully offset. It is quite obvious it is fully offset.

Now my colleagues on the other side are delaying passage of this measure by offering a range of amendments that are not related to unemployment benefits. It is my understanding that the junior Senator from Nebraska is offering an amendment with respect to ACORN funding. This amendment not only has nothing to do with extending the benefits to jobless Americans, but it has already been considered on several occasions. In fact, I joined the Senator in passing his amendment to the Transportation appropriations bill just the other week.

Another of our colleagues wants to extend the $8,000 new homeowner tax credit which costs an estimated $16.7 billion. This is a worthy effort, but in the context of trying to get aid immediately to unemployed workers, I don't think it is the best use of our time.

It is counterintuitive to delay an extension of unemployment insurance with these types of amendments. Again, the homeowner tax credit is something I support. It is something we should do. It is something we should consider paying for also. But now is the time to deal with the most obvious crisis: people without work, running out of benefits, facing a desperate situation. They are falling behind in mortgage payments, accelerating another aspect of our problem--the crisis in foreclosures. They need this extension. Debating amendments that send messages but don't provide help for working Americans is not what we should be doing.

I wish to underscore the urgency we are facing. People are exhausting their benefits. They are receiving nothing. They still have to provide for their families. In Rhode Island, 3,500 people would benefit immediately from a Federal extension, a majority of whom have already exhausted their benefits going back, in some cases, several months. Thousands more Rhode Islanders will see their benefits end unless we act. These families need this help to stay afloat, to pay their bills, to stay in their homes. It is truly ironic that the Republican Party is delaying an extension of unemployment insurance to the middle class, yet in the past they have had no problem supporting huge tax cuts skewed toward the wealthiest Americans.

It is my hope we can work together. This is not a Rhode Island problem alone. It is not a Democratic problem or a Republican problem. I have been joined--and I wish to thank my colleague from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, for working on this, because South Carolina is feeling the effects of this recession. Every part of this country, with very few exceptions, is feeling this problem. I again urge that we pass this measure.

In addition, we should recognize that there is one other aspect we should consider; strengthening and expanding work-share programs, which allow employers to cut-back hours rather than lay people off if the employer maintains pension and health benefits. In turn, employees receive a proportionate unemployment insurance benefit for those hours reduced. It has been very effective in Rhode Island--averting nearly 5,000 layoffs in the first eight months of this year.

I urge immediate consideration of this extension, and I hope we can pass it this week.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I commend Leader Reid and Chairman Baucus for the work they have done to get this bill to the floor. I also commend Senator Shaheen for her valuable contribution to moving this forward.

I am disappointed, to say the least, that we cannot move this legislation quickly. There are millions of Americans who are looking at the prospect of losing their unemployment compensation, others who have already lost it and, frankly, millions who may be working but, sadly, may qualify shortly for unemployment compensation.

As my colleagues have pointed out, there are six job seekers for every job. This unemployment crisis will continue, and the least we can do is to provide people with some support while they look for jobs and try to maintain their families.

One point I wish to make--which should be very clear--is that this legislation is fully paid for. This is not something that requires a CBO score in order to determine how it is used and what the cost will be and how it will be paid for. It is paid for by a continued extension of the FUTA surtax for a year and a half--through 2010 and the first six months of 2011. So this is responsible legislation as well as critically important legislation.

Again, as my colleagues indicated, this legislation will provide an additional 14 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits throughout the country. But as we have done on numerous past occurrences, it will recognize that even though there is pain everywhere, the pain is not distributed equally. There are States, such as my home State, where the unemployment rate is extraordinarily high. It is a critical need in Rhode Island where the unemployment rate is nearly 13 percent. So for those States, there will be an additional 6 weeks, for a total of 20 weeks, for all States with an unemployment rate of 8.5 percent or above.

This has to be done quickly, because as we speak there are 5.4 million Americans who have been unemployed for 6 months or more. There are signs that the economy may be recovering--credit markets, equity markets--but the unemployment markets still remain, unfortunately, in a deep decline. We are trying all we can do to reverse that, but in the interim we have to be able to give people a chance to simply get by, and that is what this does.

We are poised to pass this, and this unnecessary delay is not only inappropriate but inexcusable. This is something that affects every State in the country and it affects people who have worked hard all their working lives and now face unemployment, many for the first time. The psychological shock is great. Add to that the financial reality that they can't pay their bills, they can't pay the mortgage, and that adds another problem which I think cries out for immediate action, not waiting for a score from CBO, not waiting to see if there is something ancillary to this that could be attached. This is a time and a moment to meet the needs of the American public, to do so responsibly--and we have because it is fully offset--and not to delay. I urge the speedy passage of this critical legislation. I hope Leader Reid will be prepared to make a UC the next time we are convened and that at that time this measure can be passed unanimously.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I recognize the 125th anniversary of the U.S. Naval War College. The Naval War College was established on October 6, 1884, in Newport, RI, to provide an advanced course of professional study for both military officers and civilians. The mission has evolved over the years to include developing strategic and operational leaders, helping the Chief of Naval Operations define the future Navy, strengthening maritime security cooperation, and supporting combat readiness.

The Naval War College serves as a center for research that develops advanced strategic, warfighting, and campaign concepts for future deployment of maritime, joint, and combined forces. The Naval War College works closely with the Navy Warfare Development Command and the Chief of Naval Operations Strategic Studies Group in developing and analyzing national security issues. Through the Naval Command College and the Naval Staff College, naval officers from around the world come to prepare for high command responsibilities, and to learn about the U.S. Navy's methods, practice, and doctrine. The Naval War College also supports combat readiness among the U.S. Navy's commanders through operational planning, analysis, and war-gaming to respond to changing operational environments.

Some of our Nation's greatest military and civilian leaders have attended the Naval War College including FADM Chester Nimitz, the Commander of the Pacific Fleet during World War II; RADM Alan Shepard, the first American in space; Ambassador Christopher Hill, the current U.S. Ambassador to Iraq; and Marine Corps GEN James Cartwright, the current Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Indeed, even our two combatant commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq, GEN Stanley McChrystal and GEN Raymond Odierno, are both graduates of the Naval War College.

I am proud of the talented men and women who have made the Naval War College the strong institution it is today, and I congratulate the entire Naval War College community on this important milestone.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise in support of a swift extension of the unemployment insurance benefits to help jobless people throughout this country.

Last week, we learned that the economy had shed 263,000 jobs in September and the unemployment rate increased to 9.8 percent. I grant this is a remarkable change since the first of the year when 700,000 jobs or more were being lost. Still, that is very small comfort to those people who are losing their jobs and others who are losing their benefits if we fail to act swiftly and extend unemployment benefits for additional weeks.

This is the particular case in my State of Rhode Island. We are looking at a 12.8 percent unemployment rate. There are thousands who have already exhausted their unemployment benefits, and there are another 4,500 who are estimated will lose their benefits before the end of the year. This is an extraordinary number of people who are out of work, and they are finding incredible difficulty in securing jobs.

I ask that my colleagues come together in support of an extension of the unemployment insurance benefits. The House overwhelmingly passed this legislation on a bipartisan basis. I have introduced legislation here, along with Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

This is not a partisan issue. The job losses in this country are across the Nation. They are affecting working families and people who have spent their whole lives working hard, and now they face a huge crisis--without a job--and they are facing uncertainty in the future, health care issues, tuition for college, and those things families struggle with every day.

In addition, unemployment insurance is one of those features of support that actually increases demand, accelerates the economy. The effect of unemployment insurance for each dollar is more than a dollar of economic activity generated. At this time, we are trying to jump- start the economy and move it forward and give it momentum so it doesn't falter and fall back. Unemployment insurance provides not only individual assistance, but it also assists the economy.

We are in the most severe economic downswing since the Great Depression. We have to go ahead and help people who need it and based on their work. That is one of the other values of unemployment insurance. These people are our colleagues and friends and neighbors who have worked and now they are without work. They desperately want to work. In the interim, before they are able to find a job, they need us to provide some minimal support and also to ensure that our economy continues to move forward.

I urge all my colleagues to follow the lead of the House so that, on a bipartisan basis, we can extend unemployment insurance for millions of Americans.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I commend Senator Merkley, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Reid of Nevada for their eloquent and accurate description of the situation that faces several States.

Throughout this country, there is a crisis in unemployment. But in States such as Michigan, Oregon, Nevada, and Rhode Island, it is a catastrophe--over 12 percent unemployment.

As my colleague pointed out, that is just the official number. That number does not include those who have lost their job, but not filed their official employment status. That number does not include those people who are looking for work and not finding employment. It is a situation that is extremely difficult on the individuals and families of Rhode Island.

We are engaged in a very serious debate about health care reform. There seems to be a consensus that the status quo will not work. Yet our proposals to change it are dismissed without appropriate response in terms of alternatives. Our colleagues in the minority are simply saying the status quo is bad, but it is good for us.

We have to make changes, and we have to make those changes that recognize not only the inefficiencies in our medical care system but also the overall economic system.

One of the impetuses for this reform is not just access and affordability of health care, it is the economic future of the country. Again, in States such as Rhode Island, Michigan, Oregon, and Nevada, this is an issue that is incredibly important.

We understand that some States have taken a much more aggressive approach to their Medicaid populations. In recognition of our costly health care system, they have tried to enroll as many people as they could. They recognize a higher level of poverty, one that I think is going to be recognized in federal reform initiatives. But effectively, these States, unless they are given some help, will be punished for being ahead of their colleagues, for trying to extend health care coverage before the Nation was ready to do that. In that sense, we have to also recognize the need to support the Medicaid Program and also support particularly those States that are in this economic catastrophe.

As Senator Whitehouse pointed out, we routinely come together and recognize the special needs of regions and States--wildfires in California, agricultural disasters throughout the middle

of the country and elsewhere, the great crisis of Katrina. To say now that we cannot recognize something as extraordinarily important, such as health care, to several States, including my own of Rhode Island, is, I think, neglecting what we do here on a relative routine basis.

The other fact is that some of the criticism directed at proposals that have been made in the Finance Committee have been made by Governors who simply say you cannot shift the burden to us, and that is particularly the case in Rhode Island. We are facing a significant crisis in State funding. If we give them a responsibility without resources at a time of this great unemployment crisis, it would add a further burden. We would be, I think, not only disadvantaged by the economic situation but, as I suggested before, punished for a good deed, which is to try and incorporate more people into our Medicaid system.

We have to support the Finance Committee's approach. In fact, I thank the Finance Committee and Senator Baucus for considering this issue. This is critical. Again, we all wish we would be in a situation where unemployment could confidently be seen in the future as not a factor to support the States, but we know it is going to be.

The support the chairman and the members of the Finance Committee have given is appropriate. I strongly support it and urge my colleagues to do so, as well.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Preserving Homes and Communities Act of 2009. I thank Senators Durbin, Whitehouse, and Merkley for joining me as original cosponsors of this bill. In the last year the Federal Government has taken decisive action and devoted substantial financial resources to shoring up financial markets, averting a potential national and global financial meltdown. However, the current foreclosure crisis continues to pose a threat to the wellbeing of individual families, local communities, and the broader economy. We must take similarly aggressive actions to stabilize the housing markets.

Despite efforts to forestall the current crisis, the number of foreclosures is alarming. A reported 1.5 million properties were in the foreclosure process during the first 6 months of 2009, on pace to surpass last year's foreclosure filings by more than a third. Meanwhile, economist Mark Zandi suggests that the number of mortgages in default could rise to 4 million this year.

The situation in my own State of Rhode Island is particularly dire. Moody's Economy.com reports that 22 percent of Rhode Island mortgages are underwater, and the State has the highest rate of foreclosure starts in New England. More than one in eight mortgages are at least one payment past due, suggesting that the situation may be getting worse. Indeed, as foreclosures dipped nationally in August, they continued to rise in Rhode Island.

These numbers are more than statistics. They represent children uprooted from schools, life savings evaporated, and families faced with the daunting prospect of starting over. For communities, these numbers can translate into cycles of blight, disinvestment, and crime that weaken neighborhoods and damage the property values of the families struggling to retain their homes.

This did not happen overnight. As we all know, during the past several years, housing prices in cities and States around the country far outpaced any increase in wages. Some families stretched themselves financially to become homeowners, but many others were steered towards alternative or exotic mortgage loan products to purchase their homes. However, as home prices have declined, many people who took out these and other exotic loans are now finding they owe more than the value of their property and that they cannot sustain the sharp monthly payment increases their alternative mortgages require.

However, as unemployment has risen, so has the number of foreclosures among homeowners with more traditional mortgages. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, more than a third of the overall increase in the start of foreclosures in the second quarter was attributable to prime, fixed rate loans. More and more households are finding that even with a fixed rate mortgage that they could afford in normal times, they are just one pink slip away from losing their biggest investment.

I am introducing the Preserving Homes and Communities Act to address this crisis. First, it establishes a new mortgage payment assistance program to help homeowners who, with temporary financial assistance, would be able to hold onto their homes. Specifically, it authorizes $6.375 billion in formula funding to enable states to offer grants or subsidized loan funds to qualified families who have suffered significant decreases in income. My bill outlines requirements to ensure that states will carefully steward Federal dollars by evaluating applicants' prospects for future employment, targeting middle class homeowners, prohibiting payments that reward predatory lenders, and capping maximum loan or grant amounts. Yet the criteria are flexible enough that states can design programs that will most effectively meet local needs.

My bill also takes aim at the slow progress that servicers and lenders have made in implementing the administration's foreclosure prevention programs. A September report on the Home Affordable Modification Program indicated that just 12 percent of eligible homeowners with delinquent mortgages had been granted trial modifications. Too many homeowners are waiting too long--weeks, months, or longer--to get answers to their loan modification applications. In the meantime, they are still subject to costly foreclosure proceedings that can make it more difficult for them to eventually qualify for assistance.

The Preserving Homes and Communities Act creates an incentive for lenders to more quickly evaluate whether homeowners qualify for modifications by requiring that homeowners be evaluated for a loan modification that conforms with the Administration's programs before a bank can initiate foreclosure. It also states that homeowners who qualify must be offered a modification. My bill prevents costly fees from piling up while qualified homeowners wait to be granted more affordable mortgages, and no longer will homeowners be left out in the cold if their particular loan servicer chooses not to participate in the government program. And if lenders fail to follow the rules, this bill will allow homeowners to use servicers' noncompliance as a defense to foreclosure. The bill also places prudent

limits on the fees that homeowners can be charged--particularly foreclosure-related fees.

My legislation provides $80 million as an incentive for more States and local governments to create strong mediation programs, an additional tool to help homeowners facing foreclosure. Mediation programs allow homeowners and servicers to meet, face to face, to try to find an alternative to foreclosure. These programs have shown promise in several state and local settings for helping homeowners avoid foreclosure, and this legislation will provide matching funds to help establish new mediation initiatives. This bill also sets aside $5 million for the creation of a Federal database on defaults and foreclosures to improve oversight of public and private efforts to sustain homeownership.

Finally, we know that these tough economic times are impacting renters as well. Competition for already-scarce affordable housing has increased. With the poverty rate at its highest level in 11 years, more individuals and families with limited incomes are at risk of homelessness. For this reason, the Preserving Homes and Communities Act uses proceeds from the warrant provisions I crafted for the financial rescue package to capitalize the National Housing Trust Fund. These warrant provisions are allowing taxpayers to benefit from the upside of our investments in faltering financial institutions. My view is that some of these returns from providing a firmer foundation for our financial institutions would be put to good use by providing a firmer foundation for affordable housing in our country. The National Housing Trust Fund, which I worked to establish in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, will enable the building, preservation, and rehabilitation of affordable housing.

I am introducing the Preserving Homes and Communities Act because when homes get foreclosed on, it does not just affect individual borrowers and lenders. Whole neighborhoods pay the price. Housing industry experts estimate that for every foreclosure within an eighth of a mile of a house, two and a half city blocks in every direction, the property value of surrounding homes drops by about 1 percent.

I believe that the Federal Government has a role to play in ensuring that millions of Americans, including neighbors who avoided risky loans and have sacrificed and saved to pay their bills on time, are protected from further declines in property values and the blight of abandoned homes.

This legislation is targeted relief that will help more families keep their homes and protect communities from even greater losses. The Preserving Homes and Communities Act will set us on the path to stabilizing the housing sector as a foundation of lasting economic recovery. I hope my colleagues will join me and Senators Durbin, Whitehouse, and Merkley in supporting this bill and other foreclosure prevention efforts.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Preserving Homes and Communities Act of 2009. I thank Senators Durbin, Whitehouse, and Merkley for joining me as original cosponsors of this bill. In the last year the Federal Government has taken decisive action and devoted substantial financial resources to shoring up financial markets, averting a potential national and global financial meltdown. However, the current foreclosure crisis continues to pose a threat to the wellbeing of individual families, local communities, and the broader economy. We must take similarly aggressive actions to stabilize the housing markets.

Despite efforts to forestall the current crisis, the number of foreclosures is alarming. A reported 1.5 million properties were in the foreclosure process during the first 6 months of 2009, on pace to surpass last year's foreclosure filings by more than a third. Meanwhile, economist Mark Zandi suggests that the number of mortgages in default could rise to 4 million this year.

The situation in my own State of Rhode Island is particularly dire. Moody's Economy.com reports that 22 percent of Rhode Island mortgages are underwater, and the State has the highest rate of foreclosure starts in New England. More than one in eight mortgages are at least one payment past due, suggesting that the situation may be getting worse. Indeed, as foreclosures dipped nationally in August, they continued to rise in Rhode Island.

These numbers are more than statistics. They represent children uprooted from schools, life savings evaporated, and families faced with the daunting prospect of starting over. For communities, these numbers can translate into cycles of blight, disinvestment, and crime that weaken neighborhoods and damage the property values of the families struggling to retain their homes.

This did not happen overnight. As we all know, during the past several years, housing prices in cities and States around the country far outpaced any increase in wages. Some families stretched themselves financially to become homeowners, but many others were steered towards alternative or exotic mortgage loan products to purchase their homes. However, as home prices have declined, many people who took out these and other exotic loans are now finding they owe more than the value of their property and that they cannot sustain the sharp monthly payment increases their alternative mortgages require.

However, as unemployment has risen, so has the number of foreclosures among homeowners with more traditional mortgages. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, more than a third of the overall increase in the start of foreclosures in the second quarter was attributable to prime, fixed rate loans. More and more households are finding that even with a fixed rate mortgage that they could afford in normal times, they are just one pink slip away from losing their biggest investment.

I am introducing the Preserving Homes and Communities Act to address this crisis. First, it establishes a new mortgage payment assistance program to help homeowners who, with temporary financial assistance, would be able to hold onto their homes. Specifically, it authorizes $6.375 billion in formula funding to enable states to offer grants or subsidized loan funds to qualified families who have suffered significant decreases in income. My bill outlines requirements to ensure that states will carefully steward Federal dollars by evaluating applicants' prospects for future employment, targeting middle class homeowners, prohibiting payments that reward predatory lenders, and capping maximum loan or grant amounts. Yet the criteria are flexible enough that states can design programs that will most effectively meet local needs.

My bill also takes aim at the slow progress that servicers and lenders have made in implementing the administration's foreclosure prevention programs. A September report on the Home Affordable Modification Program indicated that just 12 percent of eligible homeowners with delinquent mortgages had been granted trial modifications. Too many homeowners are waiting too long--weeks, months, or longer--to get answers to their loan modification applications. In the meantime, they are still subject to costly foreclosure proceedings that can make it more difficult for them to eventually qualify for assistance.

The Preserving Homes and Communities Act creates an incentive for lenders to more quickly evaluate whether homeowners qualify for modifications by requiring that homeowners be evaluated for a loan modification that conforms with the Administration's programs before a bank can initiate foreclosure. It also states that homeowners who qualify must be offered a modification. My bill prevents costly fees from piling up while qualified homeowners wait to be granted more affordable mortgages, and no longer will homeowners be left out in the cold if their particular loan servicer chooses not to participate in the government program. And if lenders fail to follow the rules, this bill will allow homeowners to use servicers' noncompliance as a defense to foreclosure. The bill also places prudent

limits on the fees that homeowners can be charged--particularly foreclosure-related fees.

My legislation provides $80 million as an incentive for more States and local governments to create strong mediation programs, an additional tool to help homeowners facing foreclosure. Mediation programs allow homeowners and servicers to meet, face to face, to try to find an alternative to foreclosure. These programs have shown promise in several state and local settings for helping homeowners avoid foreclosure, and this legislation will provide matching funds to help establish new mediation initiatives. This bill also sets aside $5 million for the creation of a Federal database on defaults and foreclosures to improve oversight of public and private efforts to sustain homeownership.

Finally, we know that these tough economic times are impacting renters as well. Competition for already-scarce affordable housing has increased. With the poverty rate at its highest level in 11 years, more individuals and families with limited incomes are at risk of homelessness. For this reason, the Preserving Homes and Communities Act uses proceeds from the warrant provisions I crafted for the financial rescue package to capitalize the National Housing Trust Fund. These warrant provisions are allowing taxpayers to benefit from the upside of our investments in faltering financial institutions. My view is that some of these returns from providing a firmer foundation for our financial institutions would be put to good use by providing a firmer foundation for affordable housing in our country. The National Housing Trust Fund, which I worked to establish in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, will enable the building, preservation, and rehabilitation of affordable housing.

I am introducing the Preserving Homes and Communities Act because when homes get foreclosed on, it does not just affect individual borrowers and lenders. Whole neighborhoods pay the price. Housing industry experts estimate that for every foreclosure within an eighth of a mile of a house, two and a half city blocks in every direction, the property value of surrounding homes drops by about 1 percent.

I believe that the Federal Government has a role to play in ensuring that millions of Americans, including neighbors who avoided risky loans and have sacrificed and saved to pay their bills on time, are protected from further declines in property values and the blight of abandoned homes.

This legislation is targeted relief that will help more families keep their homes and protect communities from even greater losses. The Preserving Homes and Communities Act will set us on the path to stabilizing the housing sector as a foundation of lasting economic recovery. I hope my colleagues will join me and Senators Durbin, Whitehouse, and Merkley in supporting this bill and other foreclosure prevention efforts.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I, along with Senator Leahy, introduce the Health Professions and Primary Care Reinvestment Act, which seeks to enhance the training and education of primary care providers and establish a new system for evaluating and analyzing primary care workforce programs funded by Title VII Health Professions Education and Training grants.

In 1963, in response to an impending physician shortage, Congress passed and President Johnson signed the Health Professions Educational Assistance Act into law. Qualified educational and medical institutions became eligible for grants to support primary care curriculum and faculty development, and scholarships and loans to train individuals in certain primary care health professions.

The country is, once again, facing a physician shortage. However, this time, the shortage is one component of a larger system-wide crisis.

The Health Professions and Primary Care Reinvestment Act takes an important step toward providing our primary care providers with the necessary resources for better coordinating care, integrating treatment options, and communicating with patients. It also would enhance the evaluation and analysis of programs funded by Title VII grants in an effort to ensure that funding is appropriately allocated.

The Title VII program deserves a robust evaluation and restructuring and I believe that the provisions set forth in the Health Professions and Primary Care Reinvestment Act will accomplish that goal. My colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee agreed and voted to include similar provisions in the Affordable Health Choices Act, which was reported out of the Committee on July 15, 2009.

We must continue our efforts to reform our health care system. In doing so, we must not forget about the important need to ensure an adequate workforce to care for patients. I look forward to the full Senate considering these vitally important reforms.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I, along with Senator Leahy, introduce the Health Professions and Primary Care Reinvestment Act, which seeks to enhance the training and education of primary care providers and establish a new system for evaluating and analyzing primary care workforce programs funded by Title VII Health Professions Education and Training grants.

In 1963, in response to an impending physician shortage, Congress passed and President Johnson signed the Health Professions Educational Assistance Act into law. Qualified educational and medical institutions became eligible for grants to support primary care curriculum and faculty development, and scholarships and loans to train individuals in certain primary care health professions.

The country is, once again, facing a physician shortage. However, this time, the shortage is one component of a larger system-wide crisis.

The Health Professions and Primary Care Reinvestment Act takes an important step toward providing our primary care providers with the necessary resources for better coordinating care, integrating treatment options, and communicating with patients. It also would enhance the evaluation and analysis of programs funded by Title VII grants in an effort to ensure that funding is appropriately allocated.

The Title VII program deserves a robust evaluation and restructuring and I believe that the provisions set forth in the Health Professions and Primary Care Reinvestment Act will accomplish that goal. My colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee agreed and voted to include similar provisions in the Affordable Health Choices Act, which was reported out of the Committee on July 15, 2009.

We must continue our efforts to reform our health care system. In doing so, we must not forget about the important need to ensure an adequate workforce to care for patients. I look forward to the full Senate considering these vitally important reforms.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.