Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Kennedy and Senator Bond in introducing the Arthritis Prevention, Control and Cure Act, which makes a national commitment to find new ways to prevent and treat arthritis, and care for the patients that suffer from it. Many people do not know that arthritis is the leading cause of disability in the U.S. As many as 46 million Americans, including almost 300,000 children, live every day with the pain of arthritis. Not only does this disease affect the health and quality of life of millions of Americans, arthritis also costs our Nation's economy an estimated $128 billion annually in visits to physicians, surgeries and missed work days. By the year 2030, an estimated 67 million Americans will suffer from the debilitating pain and limited mobility caused by arthritis. It is past time that we came together to find a cure for arthritis and invest in the scientific research needed to conquer this disease. Specifically, the Arthritis Prevention, Control and Cure Act would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, to implement a National Arthritis Action Plan that includes grants for the coordination of research and training, education and outreach, and grants to States and Indian tribes to support comprehensive arthritis control and prevention programs. I am especially pleased that this legislation would also increase support for efforts to address juvenile arthritis. While there are almost 300,000 children suffering from pediatric arthritis in the U.S., there are only 200 pediatric rheumatologists in the country to treat them. There are 9 States that do not have even one doctor trained specifically to treat these children. This legislation will provide loan repayment to physicians who agree to practice pediatric rheumatology in underserved areas--so children do not have to travel to another state just to see a doctor. The bill would also allow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to coordinate and expand programs related to juvenile arthritis, collect data and develop a National Juvenile Arthritis Patient Registry. I hope that my colleagues will join me, Senator Bond and Senator Kennedy, as well as the Arthritis Foundation, the American College of Rheumatology, and the American Academy of Pediatrics in support of the Arthritis Prevention, Control and Cure Act, to take a critical step forward in helping millions of Americans living with this devastating disease.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I was listening to what my colleague, Senator Barrasso, said about the Environmental Protection Agency, and I know it is a little bit off the work Senator Dodd is doing, but I hope he won't mind if I take about 3 minutes to respond. I think what is so interesting is that under the Bush administration, the Environmental Protection Agency drafted the endangerment finding. They found that pollution in the form of greenhouse gas emissions--this is the Bush administration--was absolutely an endangerment to the American people. That is the Bush administration. You may say: Gee, why didn't I hear about that? I will tell you why. The EPA sent that endangerment finding, that proposed endangerment finding, over to the White House, and it was labeled, as you get your e-mails, ``proposed endangerment finding.'' There was advice immediately from the lawyers over at the Bush White House not to open the endangerment finding--not to read it, not to look at it, not to consider it, not to open it because, they said, once it was open, it was in the public domain and the public would learn that, indeed, climate change is an endangerment to the people of this country. We are talking about extreme weather events. We are talking about organisms that do not live in cold waters, but when the waters get warm, they carry disease to our kids. We saw a case in Arizona where that happened: organisms that never lived in these rivers and streams are now living there. Heat stroke. And that is not to mention the issue of the rising waters, that is not to mention the national security issues, and that is not to mention the fact that the way out of this economic mess is to say: We are going to look at this challenge and we are going to respond to it in a way that will create clean jobs, in a way that will lead us out of this morass and lead us to economic prosperity. Anyone who has read Thomas Friedman's book ``Hot, Flat, and Crowded'' knows that the country that gets on top of this issue of clean energy and clean energy jobs will lead the world. So for my colleague to get up and say: I am holding up the Obama nominees--that is the party of no. That is the party of no, no, no. They want to keep this information from the American people. Then they talk about lawsuits and the rest. Well, the fact is that the old EPA was sued repeatedly by community groups and environmental groups because they weren't following the law, and every single time, they lost. So the Supreme Court comes down on the side of cleaning up pollution. I am not afraid of lawsuits because the fact is, the people will win the lawsuits. My message to the EPA is very simple. It is very different from Senator Barrasso, who is holding up qualified nominees--Republicans. They are Republicans they are holding up whom President Obama wants to put into his circle of advisers on the environment. This one particular woman I believe served, Senator Dodd, your State for Republican Governor Rell, and they are holding her up. They are holding her up. Why? Because they want to continue being the party of no. No, don't open up the endangerment finding; no, don't trust the people with the information; no, don't think about making polluters pay; no, we are not going to go to clean energy and clean jobs and all the prosperity that will come forward with that. It is a sad day. My friend and I, John Barrasso and I, are very good friends. We like each other. We work together when we can. But on this one he will admit and I will admit we do not share a common view. My view is that science should dictate what we do on the health front and the revival of this economy should dictate what we invest in here, so we invest in these high technologies and we create good, clean jobs. I am very sad to hear that my friend will be holding up, and saying no, to some good people. I understand his point of view. He has every right to do it. But I hope we will file a cloture motion and I hope we will be able to say to the party of no: Please, there was an election. President Obama won. He deserves to have the people in place that he thinks will give him good advice. If you do not like the advice, then legislate against it. But don't hold up good people. They are doing it every day. The party of no, no, no, no. The American people want us to work together for their benefit and the benefit of their children and their grandchildren. My message to the EPA is do not be bullied into not doing your job. The endangerment finding you have made provisionally is very close to the same endangerment finding the scientists made under George W. Bush. The difference is, this administration is not going to hide it from the American people. We are going to look at it and we are going to figure out a way to respond to it in such a manner that jobs will be created, exports will be created, technologies will come to the fore. To the party of no, I say look inside yourself. The days of the old energy are coming to an end. They are too polluting, they are too costly, they are subject to the whims of foreign dictators. I remember when George W. Bush went over and kissed the Saudi prince--I was a little surprised at that--begging, begging Saudi Arabia: Oh, please, please, let us have more oil. And the price went up and up and up. Frankly, it was not until the Democrats here demanded that there be some remedy for price fixing--it was not until then that the prices started going down, because there was manipulation. We know that. I am disappointed that Senator Barrasso, an important member of the Environment Committee--this is the Environment Committee he is from. It is not the polluting committee. Let's get on with our work. Let's do what is right for the health of the American people. Let's do what is right for the workers in America. Let's develop the technologies. Let's not stand up here, hold decent people up, don't let them get a vote, stop them because you are a little angry that, yes, you did lose the election; and yes, times are changing; and yes, you have to recognize that Lisa Jackson is not Stephen Johnson--who came from a pesticide background, for God's sake. One thing I found as I look at this administration that I admire--and I do not agree with every single thing they do or say--but I have to say this, they are putting people in place who care about the issue they are supposed to care about. You remember what happened over there with, ``Brownie, you are doing a great job at FEMA,'' and we had Hurricane Katrina. Brownie had come from the Arabian horses industry. That was his expertise. Stephen Johnson, EPA, came from a pesticide background. That was his background to head up the Environmental Protection Agency. Then you had others. You had Spencer Abraham, a nice man. He voted to eliminate the Department of Energy when he was a Senator, and he got to be put in charge of--you got it--the Department of Energy. I have a great committee I am privileged to chair, but I am distressed that we have to file cloture and stop a filibuster on perfectly well-qualified people, some of whom are Republicans, who are being stopped here by my friend. It is discouraging. But I am optimistic and I know we will get these important nominees through, even though we have to take the time to fight a filibuster and file cloture and get 60 votes. I am convinced we can do it--in closing-- because the American people do not want us to be the party of no, no, no. They want us to be the Senate that is going to bring about positive change for the American people. I say to Senator Dodd, thank you for your indulgence here.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will be offering two amendments, one of which is going to be second-degreed by Senator Ensign, a friendly amendment we have worked with him on. So we will have a vote on that amendment. Then the final vote on the other Boxer amendment can be a voice vote without problem. But these are two amendments that are very important to the financial security of the country. One deals with the toxic asset purchase program, the other one deals with making sure our people can actually renegotiate their mortgages if they are in trouble. I will start with that one first. It seems like common sense if you have a mortgage on your home, you ought to know who holds the mortgage. But in today's real estate market, where the original lender often sells the loan to another entity, you can lose track and not know who actually owns your mortgage. So we are doing a very simple amendment--and I thank Senator Dodd and staff, because they have worked so closely with us to draw this up in a good way. It is very easy: When your mortgage is sold or transferred, the homeowner must be informed who owns that mortgage. This is the way it used to be years ago. I remember many times receiving those notices but suddenly it stopped happening. I want to give you the example of James and Mary Meyers, who took out a high-rate home loan with Argent Mortgage in 2004. Because the loan violated the truth-in-lending laws, they later attempted to exercise their Federal rights to cancel the loan. But the servicer, who happened to be Countrywide at the time, refused to identify who owned the loan. So by the time the Meyers discovered that the current noteholder was Deutsche Bank, the deadline for canceling the loan had passed. The court dismissed the Meyers' claim, even though it found that there were grounds, legitimately, for the Meyers to cancel the loan. So this kind of hide-and-seek situation has real-life ramifications. It certainly does with the President's plan now that says, if someone has a mortgage that is under water, they can renegotiate, they have a chance. But if they do not know who holds the mortgage, it is a hollow kind of plan. We know that current law does require homeowners be informed when the servicer of their loan has changed. That is in the law. And Federal law does require that the servicer tell the homeowner the identify of the person holding their mortgage. But servicers routinely ignore requests from homeowners for information on the noteholder. So this is pretty simple. Simply put, it is worth saying, if someone new is holding your mortgage, the servicer has 30 days to inform you as to who that person is. While servicers are required to disclose this information, there are no penalties in the law for noncompliance and no remedies for a homeowner faced with a recalcitrant servicer. The law has also failed to protect homeowners because there is no specific requirement that servicers identify the agent or party with the authority to act on behalf of the note holder. The Boxer amendment provides borrowers with the basic right to know who owns their loan by requiring that any time a mortgage loan is sold or transferred, the new note owner shall notify the borrower within 30 days of the following: the identity, address, and telephone number of the new creditor: the date of transfer; how to reach an agent or party with the authority to act on behalf of the new creditor; the location of the place where the transfer is recorded; and any other relevant information regarding the new creditor. To be clear, the amendment does not require borrowers to receive a notification every time a mortgage backed security with a slice of their mortgage changes hands. Those are transactions between investors and do not involve a change in ownership of the physical note. This amendment only provides transparency and gives borrowers an additional tool to fight illegitimate foreclosures or to negotiate loan modifications that would keep them in their homes. I do not understand why we have to have a vote on this. I know Senator Dodd has signed off on this. It is a very important amendment. I will read into the Record a list of those supporting this. It is a whole list of consumer groups. I want to list who has endorsed this amendment: the National Consumer Law Center, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, Consumer Action, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, the National Association of Neighborhoods, the National Council of La Raza, and the National Fair Housing Alliance. This is a very narrowly targeted amendment with little cost to the industry. But the benefit to homeowners and communities would be absolutely enormous. So it is a simple amendment, common sense. I hope we will have an overwhelming vote for it. I want to make my statement at this time, and however the chairman wants to dispose of the amendment, if it is accepted by voice, that is fine with me. But if we have to do to a rollcall because we cannot clear it, I ask that we have a rollcall vote. Amendment No. 1038 The second amendment I will be offering is one that Senator Ensign will be offering a second-degree amendment to. It is a very friendly second-degree amendment. Again, I thank the Banking staff on both sides of the aisle for working with us--Senator Dodd, in particular--to make this a very good amendment. What we are basically saying is, as we go into a new program which is the Public-Private Investment Program, which basically says that when we take toxic assets off the books of the banks, we want the private sector to come in and give a value to those assets, we do not want the Government doing it. The private sector plays a very important role. What Senator Ensign and I believe is very important, and Chairman Dodd has agreed, is to make sure it is a very clean process, and there is not a process for collusion between the parties, and no chance to defraud, frankly, the taxpayers. How could that happen? Hypothetically, you can have a bank that is trying to unload a toxic asset. They want the most they can get for it. They can go to a private party and say: Hey, between us, bid a little bit more for this toxic asset, we will give you a kickback later. They could not call it that. We will take care of you later. That is clearly a no-no. You cannot do that. Under the Boxer-Ensign language, that would not be allowed. The Treasury would put forward regulations to make sure it is not allowed. We would give the TARP inspector general $15 million to perform audits of selected recipients so we can make sure we are following up with audits and making sure there is no collusion. We would guarantee there is access to financial data from the Public- Private Investment fund that is necessary to perform these audits, and we would require regulations that are very clear, so that--listen to this--the private sector cannot use money they have borrowed from other Federal programs to pump into the system. They might be able to use some loans, but we do not want 100 percent of that money being recycled again. In other words, they could take a loan from the Government, then they go buy an asset, and all of the money being used in the program is Government money. The Boxer-Ensign amendment, which is endorsed by Senator Dodd, and I believe Senator Shelby, I believe has been signed off by both. If I misspeak, I am sure I will be told that. It is a very ``good government'' amendment. It essentially says as we begin to buy these toxic assets from the banks, we are going to make sure there is no collusion, no fraud, no conflict of interest. We are going to give the inspector general the ability to get the information he or she needs to go in, perform an audit, and keep this program clean. The last thing taxpayers want is another scandal that revolves around these banks and all of the things they did before. So this is an important amendment. At this time, I think I have explained both of my amendments. I await hearing from the chairman as to a time to come back and speak for perhaps a minute to generally summarize both of them. Again, my deepest thanks to Senator Dodd. He has worked so hard. Without his help, we could not be at this point on both these important amendments.

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, if the Senator could amend that to say Senator Boxer will be called on to talk about a couple of amendments following his remarks, I would really appreciate it.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator. Guantanamo Bay

Mrs. BOXER. It turned blond.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, my understanding is we are ready to go on the Ensign second-degree amendment. So is it not appropriate for me to send the Boxer amendment to the desk at this time?

Mrs. BOXER. I call up my amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I wished to respond to Senator Reid and ask a question to the chairman. I have another amendment that has to do with simply letting a homeowner know when his mortgage has been sold. We have objection on the other side. I wished to make it clear to everyone, I am willing to take that on a voice vote and not have to go through a recorded vote. I wished to make that comment. I hope Senator Shelby and his side will allow us to move forward on that.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, there is now 2 minutes equally divided on the Ensign amendment; is that correct?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am here to say this is a very friendly amendment to the underlying Boxer amendment. I hope everyone will support it. I am very proud of the work we did in a bipartisan way. I thank our staffs for doing this. It is a very significant amendment. What we are saying is, as we begin this new program, this Public- Private Partnership to buy toxic assets from the banks, Senator Ensign and I wish to make sure there is no collusion in the dealing, that there is no conflict of interest as this goes by. We wish to make sure the inspector general has the funding required to audit this program in a timely fashion. I am very pleased we have had this bipartisan coming together because we were a little bit far apart. But we worked hard for actually a couple weeks on this. I urge everyone to vote for the Ensign-Pryor-Boxer second-degree amendment, and then we will move for adoption of the Boxer amendment, as amended. I yield back the time. I do not see Senator Ensign here, but I know he believes very strongly in this second-degree amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this is a good day for those of us who want to see this environment protected because we have before us an excellent nominee, Thomas Strickland, to be Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. Many of us know Tom, and we know he has the experience and the expertise to be an exceptional--an exceptional--Assistant Secretary of the Interior. He has an outstanding record of service in the public sector. In the 1980s, he was then-Colorado Governor Richard Lamm's chief policy adviser, and he had extensive experience dealing with the Interior Department and Federal agencies on all natural resource issues. I say to the Presiding Officer, I think, as my colleague knows so well, one-third of Colorado is in Federal lands, and the actions taken by the Federal Government in Washington have a profound impact on the State. So Tom's experience with public lands issues from that State's point of view will give him a valuable perspective as he works with State and local governments to make sure their needs are being met, their voices are being heard. The people of America can be comfortable in that because Tom comes to this work very much through a State lens. From 1985 to 1989, Tom was the head of the Colorado Transportation Commission, and he served as U.S. attorney for Colorado from 1999 to 2001. On a personal level, Tom Strickland has a passion for the outdoors, and he has a commitment to public lands. All of us know that when we think about America, we think about our Constitution and we think about how proud we are of the freedoms we have. We also think about ``from sea to shining sea.'' We think about this amazing--amazing--gift we have been given. We must protect the environment, the parks, the rivers, the marshlands, the streams, the wildlife that rely on these assets. So in Tom Strickland, we have someone who gets it all. He understands the need to preserve our magnificent parks and open spaces, but for the benefit of the people. In the late 1980s and 1990s, he led an initiative called Great Outdoors Colorado which directed State lottery moneys to the acquisition of public lands for parks, open space, and conservation. This great achievement has left Colorado with a lasting legacy of public lands for future generations--with $600 million invested and 600,000 acres protected in State parks, open space, and wildlife. Mr. President, a lot of times you will hear people say: Well, there is too much land--too much land--in open space. There is too much land that has been conserved. A lot of our friends on the other side of the aisle sometimes express that view. But what I want to tell them here today is, from my own experience in my own State--and I am sure our Presiding Officer, who is sitting in the chair, would corroborate this--the beauty we have in our States is a magnet for tourism, which is one of the largest businesses we have in the West and, frankly, throughout our Nation. People want to come and not look at congested highways. That is not why they come. They do not come to America to see, frankly, offshore oil rigs. They come to America to see the beauty--this God-given beauty of our Nation. I think Tom Strickland totally gets that. We certainly do live in a nation that is blessed with magnificent parks and spectacular wildlife refuges in all 50 States. In my own State--and I can tell you, people come from far and wide to see the wildlife refuges in San Francisco Bay and San Diego and our national parklands such as the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Point Reyes National Seashore, and Yosemite National Park. I will tell you, Mr. President, the first time I stepped onto the parklands at Yosemite, I was awestruck. And all of you know I am not usually at a loss for words. But I was. I was overwhelmed with God's gift. We just need to appreciate this, and we need people in places of authority who appreciate this and who do get the connection between a clean and healthy environment and the physical health of our people; between a beautiful, clean, healthy environment and tourism and recreation and fishing and all the things that add so much value--dollar value and also just value to the spirit and value to the soul. Today, our parks and our refuges are threatened by budget shortfalls, maintenance backlogs, and other impacts. Because of the Endangered Species Act, we have saved some of America's iconic species, including the bald eagle. But there is much more to be done. Over 300 Fish and Wildlife Service positions have been eliminated since 2004. Funding shortfalls have limited public access. What is the point of all this beauty if the public cannot get access because we are so stressed in our budget? We have had reduced law enforcement in the parks, and we have seen threatened wildlife. Recent funding in the President's stimulus bill that we passed here will help to address some of the immediate needs, and I am so pleased about that. But a long-term solution is needed. If I can say, the long-term solution to this lack of interest in the last 8 years in our resources--this neglect of our resources--the first step, it seems to me--we will say the second step because the stimulus package was the first step--the second step is putting someone in charge of these treasures who really gets it, who really understands. When Mr. Strickland came before our Environment Committee, he impressed me with his understanding of these challenges, and he made a commitment to address them. During his nomination hearing, he pledged to uphold the commitment made by President Obama to restore scientific integrity by being--and I quote him--``open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions.'' Those are his words. So he is not coming there to just wake up one morning and say: Oh, I think I want to save this particular species because I like it. He is going to come there and talk to the scientists and make sure we are doing all we can to preserve and protect our heritage at the time when we have to take action because the scientists have pointed the way. Tom Strickland's nomination enjoyed strong support in the Environment and Public Works Committee. I believe he is an excellent choice to provide the strong leadership we need so we can oversee our unique and irreplaceable treasures. Sometimes when I need inspiration I read from different religions, and one of the quotes I read was written by a rabbi in the eighth century. I am not quoting it exactly, but the paraphrase is this--it is God saying: Please respect what I have given you because once you ruin it, it cannot be replaced. That is the essence of it. So it is not as if we have a do-over. If we lose these incredible assets--whether it is an endangered species such as the bald eagle or we lose the beauty of a clean-running stream because coal ash just leaked and covered it all up and there is no more stream--you really cannot get in there and do anything about it. So we need someone like Tom Strickland who has the experience--who has the pragmatic experience to seek that balance we need, that balance all of us need in this society between, yes, clean, sustainable development, but also sustaining the magnificent open spaces that, frankly, people who came before us--and as I look at the Presiding Officer, it is a very moving moment because we think of Congressman Udall, whom I worked with, who did so much to teach us about our obligation. Now we have two Senators Udall. What a spectacular thing that is. I think Tom Strickland comes before us today from Colorado with this background that we need to say: Thank you, Tom, for running--not give him a hard time about confirming him. This should be an overwhelming thank-you. Tom Strickland, thank you for doing it. Thank you for working so hard. Thank you for putting your name out there. Yes, you take the hits, but today I think you are going to get the votes. I am going to get down there in the well and make sure Tom Strickland is, in fact, confirmed.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I hope we can have this vote shortly. At this time I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be divided equally during the quorum calls between the two sides.

Mrs. BOXER. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair, and before my colleague leaves the floor--and I have only 10 minutes, because of all the responsibilities we all have. I have to be somewhere in 15 minutes--I am here to stand with you, Senator Durbin, in your courageous effort to stop thousands and thousands of homes from foreclosure and, frankly, to get to the bottom of this economic recession. We know, because economists have told us, that the problems we are facing all start with the fact that we have had a collapse in the housing market. And, my friend, what you have done is you have taken on the special interests in a way that is very clear. I can only say that I hope when the votes are counted, the people who serve in the Senate do the right thing and support the Durbin amendment. Mr. President, I stood on the floor of the Senate when we debated the Foreclosure Prevention Act a year ago--a year ago--and I described how hard the foreclosure crisis was hitting this Nation, in particular my State of California, the largest State in the Union. And as we know, what happens in California, good and bad, spreads throughout the country. They say when California sneezes, everybody else gets a cold. The truth is we are having great problems in California, starting with the housing crisis. I am sorry to say that a year later, after I stood here and said this is a crisis we must address and must address in a far-reaching way, the situation is bad and, frankly, it could well get worse. If we turn our back on the Durbin amendment, it will surely get worse. Foreclosure filings were higher in 2007 than they were in 2006. They were higher still in 2008. And they are at a pace that is going to have them go even higher in 2009. One year ago, when I stood on this floor, we were expecting then 2 million homes to be lost to foreclosure over the course of the crisis. Now that number is expected to be over 8 million homes. If we turn our back on the Durbin amendment, what we are essentially saying is: Oh, the status quo is fine. It is all working out. The Durbin amendment is a very moderate amendment. It basically says if a bank and a borrower don't sit down and try to renegotiate a mortgage and reach an agreement on how they can restructure that mortgage so the borrower can stay in the home--and the restructuring is very clear; it should be about 31 percent of income--if that effort is not undertaken and the borrower files for bankruptcy, the judge can look at how to restructure that mortgage. I do not understand how anyone could vote no on this, except if they are dancing to the tune of the banks. Let me say this: I work with the banks in my State. I respect them, when they are doing the right thing, when they are acting in the public interest, when they are lending to people who deserve to have those loans, when they are not redlining, when they are being fair. I support them wholeheartedly. Oftentimes they are very good neighbors and they donate to charities in the counties, in the communities, in the State of California. But when they are wrong, they are wrong. For them to not work with Senator Durbin and to walk out of the room when he has modified his proposal in such a way that it is so reasonable? As Senator Durbin has said: When someone goes into bankruptcy the judge can look at everything, all of their assets--their second homes, their furniture, their cars. But they are prohibited from looking at that first and, by the way, most important asset--the home residence. Why? Because banks over the years have said we do not want our books to look worse, we don't want to take any losses, and we are not willing to budge. This is a crisis. All of the fallout in the financial sector comes down to the fact that there were entire new instruments created around the value of a home: derivatives, all kinds of paper, all kinds of insurance--all on top of a home. So when the home goes, it goes. The house of cards falls. That is what has happened and one of the reasons is these foreclosures. We can stop a lot of these foreclosures if we adopt the Durbin amendment. My State is having a very hard time. We can see the number of seriously delinquent homes in my State going up here on this chart. This is 2008. All the way up here is over 8 percent and the actual foreclosures at over 4 percent. This is, in many ways, a virus that is spreading. What happens when a home is abandoned and no one cares about it because many times the banks let it go? Frankly, the mortgage is held by so many people that nobody makes sure the home is kept up, that the pool doesn't become a hazard in the community. We have pictures I showed the last time of a vacant pool being used by kids as a skateboard park. That was probably one of the better things that was happening in the neighborhood. Homes are being looted. The value of the next-door home goes down and the crisis continues to spread. Look at what is happening in my State. One out of every 24 homes in Merced has filed for foreclosure. In Stockton, 1 out of 27. Riverside- San Bernardino, 1 out of 28. Modesto, 1 out of 29 homes. When you go to these beautiful areas of my State, 1 out of 27 homes in Stockton has filed for foreclosure. In Bakersfield, 1 out of 37; Vallejo, 1 out of 37; Sacramento, 1 out of 47. It goes on and on and it is getting worse, and the Durbin amendment will help us. Why? These are just numbers. There are families in these homes, obviously. If they have a chance to restructure their mortgage, then they might well want to use the opportunity to do so in a bankruptcy court. We all know that our home--those of us who have been fortunate enough to buy a home--in many cases is our biggest asset. When that home goes down in value, that is bad enough. But when we are in a mortgage that suddenly ticks up and we cannot afford to stay in our home and we suddenly lose our job and have to take a job that is a lower paying job, because of the ramifications that this is having on the economy, we are in trouble and our families are in trouble. At the end of March, Californians experienced 363,891 foreclosures since 2007. Think about it, more than 300,000 of our families have experienced foreclosure since 2007. We had 6 of the top 10 and 13 of the top 20 metro areas with the worst foreclosure rates. Today we have another opportunity to help stem this crisis. If we miss this opportunity, it is our fault and we should be judged on this vote. That is how strongly I feel. The bill before us makes changes to the HOPE for Homeowners Program, such as reducing fees and administrative requirements to make the program more attractive to lenders and borrowers. It provides a safe harbor against lawsuits to protect servicers who participate in the mortgage modification program. That is all good and it is helpful. But the one piece that is missing is the Durbin amendment, which would allow borrowers at risk of foreclosure to receive assistance from the bankruptcy court in restructuring their loans so they can keep their families in their homes. I have met children who have said they cry themselves to sleep every night because they think they are going to lose their home, and their home is their castle. For us to turn our back on the Durbin amendment for some rationale that, when stripped away, comes down to ``because the banks don't like it,'' would be a travesty of justice for these children. I believe had Senator Durbin's proposal been passed last year we would have saved hundreds of thousands of homes nationwide. It is as simple as that. We are saving vacation homes. We are saving automobiles. We are saving all these other assets which a bankruptcy judge can in fact restructure. But the main thing we should be saving, the residential home, is not allowed to be brought up in bankruptcy unless we agree to the Durbin amendment. I have to say, Senator Durbin is a great negotiator. I have served with him in Congress since the 1980s and I know he listened to the bankers. I know he changed and modified his amendment consistent with what they said and consistent with President Obama's housing affordability plan. Again, the borrower cannot seek a modification through bankruptcy unless the borrower has gone to the lender and said let's negotiate. If that doesn't bear fruit, then they can bring it into the bankruptcy court. President Obama's housing plan gives great incentives to lenders to make loan modifications. But his plan also included the contingency that a borrower could seek relief through bankruptcy if all else fails. This is a critical additional incentive to ensure that lenders and, frankly, borrowers do the right thing. It says a borrower and a lender must sit down and try to resolve the mortgage problem before the borrower can go to court. We believe, even with the changes that Senator Durbin made, 1.7 million homeowners could have their homes saved. Let's think about it--1.7 million homeowners. Almost 2 million homeowners. That is larger than the populations of some of our States. We can help 1.7 million homeowners. We have allocated trillions of dollars to reduce the threat to the financial system posed by toxic assets. That was the hardest vote I had to make in my lifetime. It was hard. I lost sleep over that vote. But I was told by Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson that the whole financial system could collapse around us, we would lose capitalism, we would lose our free market system, we would be in panic, and I voted yes to trillions of dollars, because I am very worried. I shouldn't say trillions--hundreds of billions. How do we look ourselves in the mirror if we have voted billions, hundreds of billions of dollars to save the banks, even though we know some of them have taken advantage of that, and companies such as AIG have taken advantage of it, and they have given these huge bonuses to people who do not deserve them? We know what a nightmare that is. But how do we do that in the name of saving the financial system and turn our backs on homeowners, middle-class people who are suffering because of the fallout of these bad financial decisions? If we bow to the banks on this amendment, I personally think it is a stain on this Senate, a stain that cannot be rubbed out. This is an amendment that is fair. This is an amendment that is modest. This is an amendment that has been negotiated. Senator Durbin has done everything in his power to reach agreement. What remains is a very modest amendment. I will close by again explaining it. The Durbin amendment basically says that when homeowners are in trouble and at risk of losing their home and going into bankruptcy, if those homeowners reach out to the lender and they sit down and try to renegotiate a package on those mortgage payments, if they do it in good faith but it doesn't work out, then and only then can a homeowner go to bankruptcy court and ask the judge to please help and restructure their mortgage. That passes every test of fairness. That passes every test that you would say an amendment should pass: fairness, justice, pragmatic, listening to both sides. I am here filled with hope that we can send a message today to the American people that we stand on the side of our families. Yes, we will work with the banks and try to get them to do the right thing. Dick Durbin has done so. But if they are stubborn and they will not agree, and because they are stubborn and they will not agree, it means this housing crisis will continue to deteriorate, I have to say I am going to be very sad if this Durbin amendment does not pass. This is the time to act. I said it a year ago. I predicted worse things would happen. I didn't do it out of whole cloth. We have the economists in our office, in our State, who see this. We need to act now or we will be back here in a year with the Durbin amendment. It will fly through here and people will say, and I predict: Gee, I was wrong. Let's not go there. Let's do this. It is the right thing to do. It makes this bill strong and it does what the President intended when he originally sent us his housing rescue plan. Mr. President, I want to say, although he is not on the floor, to our leader on this, Dick Durbin, how much I respect him and admire him. I know the courage it takes to stand up to the special interests. He has done it in behalf of the families of Illinois and this great Nation. I hope he will prevail on this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent the time be equally divided on the quorum call.

Mrs. BOXER. I now suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the 94th Anniversary of the Armenian genocide. Ninety-four years ago today, the Ottoman Empire--now modern-day Turkey--began the systematic destruction of the Armenian people. Armenians were driven from their homes and villages, marched to their deaths in the deserts of the Middle East, and slaughtered in cold blood. Before it was over, approximately 1.5 million Armenians lost their lives in the first genocide of the 20th century. Recently, the Armenian and Turkish Governments announced important progress toward achieving the full normalization of relations between their two countries. I support this effort, and am hopeful that this process will lead the Turkish Government to finally acknowledge the irrefutable truth of the Armenian genocide and also to greater peace and prosperity for the people of Armenia. As President Barack Obama has said, ``The Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence. The facts are undeniable.'' There is no need for further study or debate because we must never legitimize the views of those who deny the very worst of crimes against humanity. On this solemn anniversary, we remember those who were lost in the Armenian genocide, while honoring the survivors and their descendants who have done so much to make America and the world a better place. I am personally grateful that so many of those individuals have chosen to call California home. We also take pause to acknowledge that such crimes are continuing today. There is perhaps no more fitting example than the genocide that is raging in the Darfur region of Sudan. Since 2002, the Sudanese Government has attempted to exterminate the African Muslim population of Darfur with horrific acts of brutality. Villages have been burned to the ground, innocent women and children slaughtered by helicopter gunships, and rape has been used as a tool of genocide. What happened to the Armenians is genocide. What is happening today in Darfur is genocide, even though the Government of Sudan denies this. Genocide is only possible when people avert their eyes. Any effort to deal with genocide--in the past, present or future--must begin with the truth. By acknowledging the truth of the Armenian genocide, we can end the phony debates and strengthen our ability to stand up against mass killing today.