Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I speak today in support of S. 1315, the Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007. Our service men and women as well as their families make enormous sacrifices for our freedom. In return, Congress has an obligation to spend the money and create the programs necessary to provide quality, comprehensive health care services, mental health counseling, disability compensation, pay increases, better education benefits, and more. That responsibility grows daily with so many of our troops fighting overseas. I am proud of what this Congress has accomplished to date. We passed a Defense authorization bill that will enhance wounded soldiers' health care and rehabilitation benefits as well as streamline the physical evaluation process. Last year, this Congress provided the largest increase in veterans' spending in this country's history. This February, the Senate passed and President Bush signed the economic stimulus package that would provide stimulus checks to more than 250,000 disabled veterans and to the survivors of disabled veterans. We passed a housing stimulus package on April 10 that had several benefits for veterans including increased limits on the VA Home Loan program and authorization for the VA to provide increased adapted housing grants to disabled veterans. As a member of the Budget Committee, I am happy to report that this year's budget puts us on track to provide our veterans adequate support in the coming fiscal year. The resolution would provide $48.2 billion to help ensure that the Veterans Health Administration within the Department of Veterans Affairs can provide the highest quality care for all veterans. But our work is far from done. S. 1315 contains several critical benefits improvements to ensure that veterans young and old have what they need to provide for their families and lead full, productive lives. Provisions in S. 1315 would improve life insurance programs for disabled veterans, expand the traumatic injury protection program for active duty servicemembers, extend for 2 years the monthly educational assistance allowance for apprenticeship or other on-the-job training, and provide individuals with severe burns specially adapted housing benefits. These are important benefits and services that mean a great deal to the nearly 500,000 veterans living in Maryland and to veterans around this country. But, for 8 months now, members of the minority party have kept the Senate from even debating S. 1315 because they oppose a provision in the bill that would extend certain VA benefits to elderly Filipino veterans, residing in the Philippines, who fought alongside U.S. troops during World War II. Drafted by our Government, hundreds of thousands of Filipino soldiers served with honor in some of the most dire circumstances of the war. These Filipino veterans were promised veterans' status and were even considered United States veterans until that status was taken from them by Congress in 1946. Restoration of that status rights a wrong committed decades ago. And it is a correction we don't have many more years to make. We should grant these former soldiers full status and the limited pension rights contained in this bill so that they can live out their remaining years in dignity and peace. I know that some Senators may disagree with me on this issue. That is their right. But I regret that they have made it so hard for us to consider this important bill. I hope the Senate will be able to vote on final passage soon. We owe that much and so much more to this Nation's veterans. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today is April 15, the day when millions of Americans are hurrying to file their income tax forms to meet the midnight deadline. Many of my colleagues have spoken today about the need to make more effective and responsible use of Federal tax dollars, and I agree that we must do so. One place to start is with the IRS's own private debt collection program. Today, the Washington Post reported that the Internal Revenue Service's use of private debt collection agencies is expected to cost taxpayers more than $37 million this year. Throughout our Nation's history, the Federal Government had always assumed responsibility for tax collection. But in 2004, through legislation that I opposed, Congress gave the IRS authority to use private debt collection companies to collect undisputed tax debts of less than $25,000. The companies also would receive a 25-percent commission on all receipts. Although the stated goal was to improve the efficiency of tax collections, it is clear that this plan is not working. In fact, even before Congress adopted this approach, former IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti estimated, in a 2002 report to the IRS Oversight Board, that if Congress were to appropriate an additional $296 million to hire more compliance employees, the agency could collect an additional $9.47 billion. In other words, every dollar spent on collection would net $31. But rather than increase the number of IRS employees, Congress ignored Commissioner Rossotti's advice and instead spent scarce taxpayer funds to privatize IRS functions, with dismal results. In March 2008, Nina Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate, reported to Congress that the program actually is losing money. Testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee, Ms. Olson said that the IRS is losing at least $81 million a year by using private debt collection companies. The IRS spent $71 million to start the program and it spends $7.65 million annually to operate it, plus on average $4.6 million in commissions that are paid to the private collectors. Despite using aggressive tactics, the companies have collected only $49 million, little more than half of what it has cost the IRS to implement the program. By contrast, Ms. Olson testified, and I quote, ``if the program did not exist and the IRS instead allocated $7.65 million in appropriated funds to its automated collection system, ACS, function, the return on investment would be vastly greater. IRS data shows that the average return on investment for the ACS program is about 20:1, which would mean that an expenditure of $7.65 million would generate annual revenue of $153 million.'' Ms. Olson then recommended that the private debt collection initiative be terminated. I concur. The privatization initiative is also putting millions of Americans' personal information at risk. I do not believe that Americans want private collection agencies tio have access to their sensitive, personal information that should only be reserved for the Federal Government and the qualified, trained, accountable personnel who work at the IRS. The Ways and Means Committee recently considered legislation that would repeal the IRS's authority to use private debt collection agencies. The Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act was reported out of committee in a bipartisan vote. My distinguished colleague from North Dakota has introduced similar legislation that would prohibit the IRS from using private debt collection companies, and I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of that bill. The private debt collection program also has generated considerable confusion among taxpayers. Under the rules of the program, collectors cannot say they are working for the IRS or that they are calling about a tax matter without first receiving proof of a taxpayer's identity. This has led to numerous complaints from consumers who have received calls from collectors, pressing them to provide Social Security numbers and other personal information without first identifying the purpose of the call. Citizens are justifiably fearful of being scammed, and so they refuse to provide the companies with any information. By any measure, this program is not working. Mr. President, the private debt collection experiment has failed. Tax collection is a fundamental responsibility of Government, and Congress should provide the IRS with the staff and other resources needed to fulfill this responsibility, not enrich private companies at the expense of American taxpayers. Today on April 15--Tax Day--millions of Americans are rushing to file their taxes before the midnight deadline. Many are writing checks to the IRS, and so it is an appropriate time to reconsider the millions of dollars they are spending on the private debt collection program. It is time for this body to pass Senator Dorgan's bill and end this inefficient use of taxpayer dollars.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I first thank my colleague from South Carolina for acknowledging that the process that was used on this technical corrections bill was a very open process, one in which all the changes were open for public review and scrutiny, well identified, and a process in which any Member or any person could evaluate the merits or demerits of what we were attempting to do. Second, let me point out that this is a technical corrections bill-- and I am going to respond to one of the projects specifically that the Senator from South Carolina has talked about--but that it is a normal process when we pass a large bill to go through a technical corrections process in order to correct mistakes that were made or clarify or, as priorities change, to deal with the regions to make sure the Federal programs are properly targeted to the needs. This is a technical corrections bill. Third, let me point out that the regions have come to us to ask for clarifications or modifications of projects within the area, not increasing the costs. I thank the Senator from South Carolina for pointing out that this legislation does not increase costs; in fact, it will save some money. I appreciate him pointing that out. So we are in agreement on all those points. We are going to save money. It corrects mistakes that were made, and it deals with regional priorities that have been requested of us, consistent with prior authorizations of Congress. I point out one project, and that is the maglev project. I do not want to debate the merits or demerits of the maglev project because I do not think that would be appropriate on a technical corrections bill. But where the Senator from South Carolina is incorrect is that this is a technical correction of prior actions of Congress. It provides contract authority. That is what we intended to do in the SAFETEA-LU Act. So this is not anything new in maglev. The areas that are involved were the same areas that were previously identified. It does not expand the project and makes technical corrections as far as contract authority. What the Senator from South Carolina is debating is the merits of maglev, and this is the wrong bill on which to debate that. By the Senator's own admission, this is a technical corrections bill, and we should just be talking about whether the language is what was intended by Congress in its previous actions, and clearly it was, to make sure we do it right based on previous actions. I hope the Senator from South Carolina will heed his own advice; that is, let's make the technical corrections bill deal with those types of issues. And I am afraid his amendment would not. As now explained to us, he wants to eliminate some of these projects, and that is not the purpose of a technical corrections bill. I can understand Members being concerned about that approach. I am proud of the work of the committee. The committee did identify those--and it is relatively few when you consider how many authorizations are in the SAFETEA-LU Act--to clarify and, in some cases, to make typo corrections and things such as that. It is vitally important to move this bill forward so we can move forward on vital transportation projects that affect every one of our States. I urge our colleagues to support the committee and support the process, the very open and fair and transparent process that was used by the committee in developing the changes that are in this legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I intend to speak for a few minutes on behalf of the committee in response to the comments made by the Senator from South Carolina. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Georgia then be recognized for up to 5 minutes to talk as in morning business and then followed by the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, will the chairman yield?

Mr. CARDIN. We were prepared to vote. They wanted more time in order to get enough support to get that nominee out of the committee.

Mr. CARDIN. I thank the chairman. I say to the Senator, I want to compliment you for the fairness in which you have conducted the confirmation process. It is interesting, on the most controversial nominee we had, the vote was delayed at the request of the Republicans.

Mr. CARDIN. I say to the Senator, I think you have been abundantly fair in scheduling these hearings. You mentioned Judge Haynes's confirmation. I happen to oppose that nomination, but I have made no efforts at all to delay the consideration of that nomination, which has been true, I think, of all the members on our side.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Catharina Haynes to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have carefully reviewed Judge Haynes's confirmation hearing record. I asked Judge Haynes several questions in writing after her confirmation hearing in February. I voted against her nomination in the committee last week, and I want to explain to my colleagues my reasons for voting against her today. Let me begin by saying that I do admire Judge Haynes's commitment to public service. She was elected to the bench in 1999 as a judge, 191st Judicial District Court, in Dallas County, TX. She was reelected to the bench in 2002 and lost her reelection bid in 2006. She now serves as a partner at Baker, Botts in Dallas, TX. However, no one is entitled to a circuit court judgeship. In the vast majority of cases, these courts are the final law of the land for the States in their circuit when it comes to interpreting complex Federal statutes and our Constitution. These judges have lifetime appointments and are second only to Supreme Court Justices in terms of their power and authority. In reviewing her background, experience, confirmation hearing record, and her written responses to additional questions I posed to her, I am not convinced that Judge Haynes is qualified for this position. I start with the starkest fact about Judge Haynes's record: By her own admission, Judge Haynes has never written a single judicial opinion. In response to the Judiciary Committee questionnaire asking for her opinions as a judge, she stated that she had none. She wrote that ``[a]s a state district judge in Texas, I wrote orders (a few with explanations), jury charges and findings of fact/conclusions of law, but I did not write `published opinions' or `unpublished opinions'.'' A nominee for circuit court judge should have experience in writing substantive judicial opinions. Judge Haynes does not have this requisite experience. Judge Haynes, by her own admission, has very little experience with criminal cases. According to her response to our committee questionnaire, she stated that her percentage of practice in civil proceedings was 100 percent, and the percentage of her practice in criminal proceedings was 0 percent. She also responded that as a judge in Dallas County, TX, she heard civil cases, and her docket included almost exclusively civil cases. A nominee for circuit court judge should have broad experience in both criminal and civil cases. Her lack of any meaningful criminal law experience does not give me confidence that she has a sufficient understanding of the criminal justice system and the rights of defendants. Judge Haynes, by her own admission, did not write opinions. Rather, she wrote orders. Given that circuit court judges are often the final say on the law of the land in a given circuit--due to the low rate of granting certiorari by the Supreme Court--a circuit court judge has an unusual amount of authority and decisionmaking power. We do not have any meaningful track record on which to judge Judge Haynes's views on substantive legal issues such as civil rights, civil liberties, worker's rights, reproductive freedom, environmental protection, consumers' rights, employees' rights, or separation of powers. Judge Haynes does not meet my test for Federal judicial nominees since she does not have the requisite experience for a Federal appellate judge. Finally, I want to talk about diversity. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which includes Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, presides over the largest percentage of minority residents, 44 percent--which includes African-American and Latino citizens--of any of the regional circuit courts of appeal in the country outside of Washington, DC. Mississippi has the highest African-American population--36 percent--of any State in the country. Louisiana has the second largest African-American population--32 percent--of any State in the country. It is disappointing that none of President Bush's nominations to the Federal bench in this circuit were African Americans. Only one of the Federal judges that now sits on the Fifth Circuit is African American. As Chairman Leahy stated at Judge Haynes's confirmation hearing, it was the Fifth Circuit judges who took a lead role in tearing down Jim Crow society in the South and in implementing the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Indeed, the best known of these judges were four judges called the ``Fifth Circuit Four'' or simply ``The Four'' by opponents of civil rights, in a reference to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Burke Marshall, the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division under President Kennedy, told The Nation in a 2004 interview that ``those four [Fifth Circuit] judges, I think, have made as much of an imprint on American society and American law as any four judges below the Supreme Court have every done on any court . . . If it hadn't been for judges like that on the Fifth Circuit, I think Brown would have failed in the end.'' The Brown decision and its progeny paved the way for equality in transportation, employment, and so many other areas in the South. The Fifth Circuit decisions on civil rights issues in the 1950s and 1960s affirmed by the Supreme Court helped to lay the groundwork for Congress to enact national legislation to prohibit discrimination throughout the United States, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Mr. President, I recall the history of the Fifth Circuit because I want to impress upon my colleagues the importance of this circuit in the history of the country and the importance of this circuit today. We are still struggling today to guarantee civil rights to Americans today regardless of race. Too many Americans are still disenfranchised and unable to vote due to deceptive campaign practices targeted at scaring away minority voters. Too many Americans still face employment discrimination or unequal pay. Too many Americans are still treated differently because of the color of their skin. These judges serve for lifetime appointments and will decide some of the most fundamental legal and constitutional questions for the Fifth Circuit residents in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. I am not convinced that Judge Haynes has either the experience or the proven track record on protecting civil rights and equal rights under the law for this position. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee for his remarks, which I find encouraging. I look forward to working with him and with my colleague from Nevada on this matter.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, in a short while, the Senate will be voting to approve H.R. 3221, the Foreclosure Prevention Act. It is a good bill with some good provisions; namely, $10 billion for mortgage revenue bonds, $4 billion for community development block grants, and $200 million for foreclosure prevention counseling. I regret, however, that we missed two opportunities to make it even better. The first missed opportunity was our failure to adopt Senator Durbin's provision regarding bankruptcy. I am still mystified why a bankruptcy judge can reduce the principal or modify the mortgage loan terms on a vacation home but not on a primary residence. The second missed opportunity, in my estimation, was our inability to adopt an amendment Senator Ensign and I offered to establish a $7,000 nonrefundable tax credit for first- time homebuyers. I regret that the Parliamentarian ruled our amendment out of order and we never had a chance to vote on it. The amendment Senator Ensign and I offered was timely, targeted, and temporary: eligibility for the credit would be phased out for single filers whose adjusted gross income, AGI, is between $70,000 and $90,000; for married couples filing a joint return, eligibility for the credit would be phased out if their AGI is between $110,000 and $130,000. These phase-out levels are identical to the phase-out levels contained in the District of Columbia's first-time homebuyers' tax credit. The credit would be available only for the purchase of a primary residence made within 1 year of the date of enactment. We need to encourage prospective buyers to get off the sidelines and back into the market. An important segment of that population--39 percent nationwide--consists of first-time homebuyers. Recently, first- time homebuyers have accounted for 65 to 67 percent of sales in Baltimore. The District of Columbia had a similar tax credit and it worked. Through the end of last year, first-time homebuyers who purchased a home in the District were eligible for a $5,000 tax credit. The credit helped 3,000 to 4,000 people become home owners each year, and it boosted buyers' interest in neighborhoods where home ownership rates lagged. I think this amendment, if adopted, would have made a good bill better. I hope the House will incorporate a first-time homebuyers' tax credit provision in its version of this bill.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, today the Senate takes an important step forward in celebrating and commemorating one of our Nation's most important emblems and historic periods. Included in the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 is legislation that I authored, the Star- Spangled Banner National Historic Trail Act. I am proud to be joined by cosponsors of the original bill, including Senators Mikulski, Warner, Webb, and Kennedy. This land and water trail of almost 300 miles covers parts of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia to commemorate the events leading up to the writing of the ``Star-Spangled Banner'' during the Chesapeake Campaign of the War of 1812. The trail traces the following major events: the arrival of the British fleet on the Patuxent River; the landing of the British forces in Benedict, MD; the sinking of the Chesapeake Flotilla at Pig Point in Prince George's County and Anne Arundel County, MD; the American defeat at the Battle of Bladensburg; the siege of the Nation's Capital and the burning of the U.S. Capitol and the White House in Washington, DC; the route of the American troops from Washington through Georgetown, the Maryland counties of Montgomery, Howard, and Baltimore, and the city of Baltimore to the Battle of North Point; and the ultimate victory of the Americans at Fort McHenry on September 14, 1814. The National Park Service will administer the trail and coordinate the efforts of public and private entities on trail administration, planning, development, and maintenance. Fort McHenry will be the lead park unit for trail operations. The land routes would follow existing public roads, along which British and American troops traveled. Over time, the routes will be marked on the ground and at water access points. In cases where the original routes have been lost to development or other causes, they could be interpreted through waysides as appropriate and feasible. The bill requires the Secretary to encourage public participation and consult with landowners, Federal, State, and local governments on the administration of the trail. The bill prohibits land or interest in land outside the exterior boundaries of any federally administered area from being acquired for the trail without the consent of the owner. The trail will open new economic opportunities for many Maryland communities, including Calvert County, our Port Towns of Prince George's County, and Baltimore City. More importantly, the Star- Spangled Banner National Historic Trail will guide Americans on a path that will help them understand the events that lead up to the epic battle at Fort McHenry in Baltimore Harbor. At the fort, the garrison flag was flown on September 13 and 14, 1814, during the Battle of Baltimore. As the routed British ships sailed out of Baltimore Harbor on the morning of the 14th, lawyer Francis Scott Key was inspired to write the patriotic and defiant words of a poem that became the rallying cry for Americans who had fought their first war as a united nation. The poem was set to music and the song became the national anthem in 1931. The ``Star-Spangled Banner'' was given to the Smithsonian Institution in 1907 by the grandson of the commander of Fort McHenry, LTC George Armistead, so that it could be preserved and displayed for the public. While the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History is currently closed for extensive renovation, its reopening this summer will showcase the Banner in an impressive new exhibit. Mr. President, every day across the country, Americans salute the American flag. The Senate recites the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag every legislative day. In sports arenas and countless other venues, we salute the flag daily. Today, I salute the work of the Senate in passing the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail as part of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008. Through this legislation, millions of visitors will be inspired with the history of this iconic object and its significance during this important period of American history.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, first, let me compliment and thank the assistant majority leader, the Senator from Illinois, for his consistent comments with regard to the U.S. role in Iraq. He has made it clear that the U.S. interest has not been served by these last 5 years, that we have lost our focus on the war on terror. As he pointed out, we have real concerns, internationally, about terrorism, and we have been distracted, particularly in Afghanistan, because of the focus on Iraq. He pointed out very clearly that the United States has invested so much--the lives of our soldiers, the cost to the taxpayers, those who have come back wounded. And what have we done this for? These soldiers deserve the right mission: that we concentrate on dealing with the war against terror, that we have the Iraqis take responsibility for their own country, particularly in the midst of civil war. A lot of this is just Iraqis fighting Iraqis--Shiites fighting Shiites for power--and the United States has sustained fighters on both sides, in some cases. This is so counterproductive to U.S. interests. I congratulate the Senator and thank him for continuing to bring out these issues. We hope in the next 10 months there will be some changes. We also understand we have to transition to a different mission, considering the type of sacrifices that have been made by our troops and the taxpayers of this country. I thank him very much for his leadership. Madam President, I was part of the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday when General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testified before our committee. When I had the time, I started to thank, on behalf of the people of Maryland, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker and all the soldiers and all the diplomats who have served in Iraq. They have served with great distinction. I am humbled by their skills and sacrifices. I acknowledge the tremendous sacrifices that have been made by their families. But I must tell you, they deserve the right mission, what is in the best interests of the United States. How should we judge that progress? It is an interesting point, as to whether we have made satisfactory progress in Iraq. Let me go back to January 10, 2007, when the President brought forward his ``New Way Forward in Iraq.'' His own words were that: If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home. One of the reasons for the surge was to reduce our troop levels. But if we look at the presurge troop levels, it was 132,000 Americans; at the height of the surge last July, 160,000; and today, we have more than 140,000. We learned yesterday that General Petraeus believes we will be at that 140,000 level for the indefinite future, that there cannot be a commitment made at this stage to reduce our troop levels below 140,000. So at the end of the day we have more troops in Iraq rather than less. The President stated in that same speech: Over time, we can expect . . . growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. As a result of that, benchmarks were established--not by the Congress, benchmarks were established by President Bush and his administration with the Iraqi Government. When you look at the progress we have made--let me use General Petraeus's comments that he made: No one [in the U.S. or the Iraqi government] feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the areas of national reconciliation or in the provision of basic public services. Only 3 of the 18 benchmarks have been satisfactorily met. The circumstances on the ground in Iraq are unsatisfactory. Iraqis are not getting the basic services they need. I questioned Ambassador Crocker, and following up questions that I posed to a panel we had last week before the Foreign Relations Committee, a panel of retired generals, experts in this area, and that was: Can you name a national leader in Iraq who is willing to step forward to provide the type of leadership, make the necessary concessions so that you can have a government in Iraq that has the confidence of its people? Because that is what we need to make the political progress. No one could mention a person's name. Ambassador Crocker said--and I used the examples of South Africa and Northern Ireland, where you had people willing to step forward--Ambassador Crocker said: There is no Nelson Mandela in Iraq. What an understatement that was. That was the understatement of our hearing. We seem to be changing our goals as to what is success or what we are trying to achieve, what is in the best interests of America, what type of government we want in Iraq. Well, our expectations certainly have changed there. There is no expectation that we will have the type of strong national government that has the confidence of all the ethnic communities. We have changed the expectation as to what that Government in Iraq's relationship will be with Iran. We seem to acknowledge that it may, in fact, strengthen Iran. There is no agreement now that we need to reduce our troop levels--certainly by the administration's mission. They want to maintain the troop level at the current level with no commitment to reduce it. There is certainly no expectation to reduce the cost to U.S. taxpayers. We are going to get a supplemental appropriation asking for more money from the U.S. taxpayers. We certainly have not focused on the major dangers against terrorism. If we did, we would be concentrating on Afghanistan, not spending so much effort in Iraq. The current situation yesterday was characterized by our experts as: fragile, uneven, reversible. We went through the current flare-ups in Basra and Baghdad where Shiite are fighting Shiite, a fight for power within Iraq with U.S. soldiers in the middle of that power struggle. We went through the influence of Iran and that the U.S. soldiers' presence may, in fact, be generating more support for Iran within Iraq. So let's take a look at the facts: The United States is supporting warring parties within Iraq. The fact is, over 5 years, over 4,000 soldiers have died, American soldiers; 30,000 American soldiers have been wounded. I have visited them. I know these are life-changing injuries they will have to live with for the rest of their lives. Six hundred billion dollars and still counting of U.S. taxpayer money has been spent. This is a difficult mission for us to maintain. Look at our military. Our military is stretched. Look at our National Guards. I know what is happening in Maryland and our National Guard. They are serving with great distinction, but they are exhausted, and we need them in Maryland. Look at our economy. We are losing jobs here in America. One reason is we are so focused on spending money in Iraq, we are not investing in our own country. Look what is happening on our fight against terrorism. Prior to our invasion of Iraq, there was no al-Qaida presence in Iraq. Now we have hundreds of thousands of troops, American and Iraqis, and a couple thousand al-Qaida, according to General Petraeus. We are not focused on the war against terror, we are focused on a power struggle within Iraq, which should not be our focus. We need to do a better job in Afghanistan, but yet we are stuck in Iraq. We have no plan to draw down American troops. I find that unacceptable. That is not in the best interests of this country. Let me mention one more aspect of what has happened in Iraq. This is factual: the number of displaced people, nearly 5 million now, nearly 5 million displaced; 2 million in neighboring countries. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker acknowledged that one of the reasons why violence in Baghdad is down is that the communities, the neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed and people have left. They do not want to be in a violent neighborhood. They have left. But they are displaced. What is going to happen to them? Nearly three million in Iraq alone. The United Nations High Commission on Refugees has said it is not safe for them to go back to their neighborhoods. What is going to happen? If we are talking about a solution for Iraq, we have got to take a look at the refugees. This is a humanitarian concern, it is a security concern, it is also a concern about stability in the region. Let me give you one example. Jordan has now an extra 8 percent of its population as a result of refugees; an 8-percent increase. Now, if you used the same numbers in America, that would be 24 million, 24 million people coming to our country. Think about the stability of the region. Well, my position has been clear. I have opposed the war since its inception. I opposed giving the President the right to use our military more than 5 years ago. I have opposed the manner in which this war has been conducted. But we are where we are. We cannot reverse history. Where do we go from here? Well, we have 10 months left in this administration, 10 months to go, and the status quo is not what we need. We need to change course in Iraq, focus on the war on terror, rebuild and restrengthen our military. We have got to do that and stop spending $12 billion each month in Iraq at the expense of priorities right here at home. That is what we need to do starting immediately. We should not wait until the next election. We should start doing this today. We need to change our mission. Our mission should be U.S. soldiers fighting terrorists, not refereeing community fights, neighborhood fights; American troops protecting our interests and helping transition the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own security. We should draw down the U.S. troops, bring them home. The status quo is not acceptable, that is, 140,000 U.S. troops remaining in Iraq. There was bipartisan recognition that the status quo is unacceptable. Several of our most distinguished Republican members of the Foreign Relations Committee made it clear that the status quo is not acceptable, yet this administration is trying to maintain the status quo for the next 10 months. I hope we can change that. Public opinion is against the status quo. We know that. What we need is a surge in diplomacy. We need other countries that have a direct interest in what is happening in Iraq to step forward. We need to engage international organizations, the United Nations and the OSCE. We have to have the Iraqis step forward and take responsibility for the security of their own country. They have oil. We need the Iraqis to pay for the costs of their own defense. The American taxpayers should not be doing this. One more thing I should talk about that we do not need: We do not need President Bush and the Iraqi Government negotiating a long-term security plan without Congressional approval. That would only restrict the options of the next administration or future Congresses. We should never allow that to happen. The world has an interest in a safe and secure Iraq, but in working toward that end, we cannot ignore other competing needs around the world and at home. We need a more thoughtful approach that will bring our troops home, refocus our resources on al-Qaida, and Afghanistan and Pakistan, step up diplomatic efforts, and internalize the effort to bring stability to that country and to the Middle East. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I can offer an amendment.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw that amendment for a moment so we can make sure everyone has copies of it. I will use this time now to speak on the amendment, and then I will offer it when I have completed.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, the amendment I will be offering shortly, along with Senator Ensign, is an amendment that would try to help the housing market itself. It would provide a tax credit, a temporary tax credit just for this next year, for residential home purchases. It is for someone who is using the house as their primary residence. It would be a $7,000 credit spread out over 2 years. It would be aimed at trying to get people to buy homes today. As I am sure you are aware and as has been explained on this floor, there is a glut on the housing market. There are so many homes that people are trying to sell, and potential buyers are reluctant to come in to purchase a home because they don't know whether the value will go down. They are waiting. They are sitting it out. It was the housing market that triggered our current downturn in the economy. We need to pay attention to the housing market in order to get our economy back on track. The intent of this amendment is to get more interest by home buyers so they will buy homes today knowing that the Government, through a tax credit, is covering some of their risks and making it more affordable for them to be able to buy a home. That is exactly what this amendment would do. Senator Ensign and I have crafted this amendment so it is temporary. It is available only for the next year. We have crafted it so it is targeted. It only applies to first-time home buyers, those who are most in need. In the Nation, approximately 35 percent of those who buy homes are first-time home buyers. In my own city of Baltimore, it is closer to 65 percent. So it is a large number of people who are potentially in the market, but they are the most reluctant--those who do not own homes today are the most reluctant to come in and buy a home because of the uncertainty in the market. It is targeted in that it only applies to those of limited income, middle-income families. It uses the same dollar limits that are currently used in the District of Columbia tax credit that has been so successful in encouraging families to buy homes within our Nation's Capital. About 3,000 to 4,000 individuals every year take advantage of the tax credit we provide for the residents of the District to buy a home. This credit, which is temporary and which is targeted, which is aimed at middle-income families, which is aimed at first-time home buyers, which is aimed at getting more interest among consumers into our housing so we can try to help our economy--I think it is the right complement to the legislation that is before us. The legislation before us is aimed at trying to help people to be able to find mortgages. It is aimed at dealing with homes that are in foreclosure, trying to allow people to stay in their homes, and allowing local governments to have more ability to deal with refinancing homes for those who have subprime mortgages. I have already talked on the floor about this issue. It is aimed at trying to get better advice to people who may be buying homes, and it also has a tax credit. I acknowledge Senator Isakson, who has worked on that. It deals with distressed properties. I would also like to acknowledge that my colleague, Senator Stabenow, has been a longtime proponent of tax credits to stimulate home buys. This amendment is aimed at generating more interest in home buys so we can help bring our economy back to recovery. I thank my colleague, Senator Ensign, for his input in helping to craft this amendment and his cosponsorship of it. I urge our colleagues to consider that. Mr. President, I now offer that amendment.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me say to my colleague again from Nevada, the two of us did work together very closely in the other body, and now it is a real pleasure to serve together in this body. It is a great honor. I think the comments the Senator has made about home ownership are so important. Home ownership is critically important to our country. We know where there is home ownership, schools are better, the crime is less. One of the statistics I found very interesting was a study in Chicago that there was a distinct relationship in a neighborhood between the number of foreclosures and the rise of violent crime. This is an issue that should involve all of us. I also wish to thank Senator Dodd. He has done a great service to our Nation in being able to bring forward a bill that has bipartisan support. That is not easy today; it is very difficult. We now have the opportunity to move forward. I was explaining to Senator Dodd that one of my constituents a little bit earlier this evening said: You know, we are so encouraged that Democrats and Republicans could come together on a housing bill, that there is now hope we can act quickly. What he said to me is interesting. He said: You know, there are a lot of good things in this bill. I think I could have done it better. There are some things I would like to have seen in there. But what I like is you are able to move, you are able to get something done. It is a real signal to this country that Congress is engaged on the housing crisis and wants to do something to help that person who today is in danger of losing his or her home because of a foreclosure, or is in danger of walking away. One of the things I found amazing is 50 percent of people walk away from their homes; they do not even try. This bill will give them hope that the Government is on their side. It can provide some additional financing, it is going to provide some additional help and counseling, it is going to provide an opportunity for that person to maintain the American dream. The American dream is about being able to succeed in this country. The most visible sign is owning a home. A lot of people are going to lose their homes as a result of this recession. This legislation will make it possible for more Americans to save their homes. The amendment Senator Ensign and I are offering is a way in which we believe, I think our colleagues believe, that this body has a responsibility to help build our economy. One of the ways we can do it is by encouraging more home ownership. This amendment, by providing a tax credit, is saying: The Government is on your side. Go now, buy a home, we will help you hedge against the potential risk and make it a little more affordable for you to own a home. I encourage my colleagues to accept that amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN. I yield.

Mr. CARDIN. That is correct.

Mr. CARDIN. The Senator is correct.

Mr. CARDIN. Let me thank again the Senator from Connecticut. The circumstances in Baltimore, in Maryland, in June we ranked 40th in the Nation in foreclosures. We now rank in the teens, 18th in foreclosures. The number of foreclosures in communities where we never thought we would see foreclosures is recordbreaking. That is not the type of records we want to have. So as the Senator knows, it not only affects that homeowner who is going to potentially lose his or her home, it affects every house in the community. I was talking with some of the housing authority people, some of the people from the nonprofit community who work with these neighborhoods, and the cost to the neighborhood is staggering when you have foreclosed properties. So we are going to have to do something about that. But it would be a lot better investment that we prevent the foreclosures for those who are financially able to stay in their homes. I think that is what your legislation does. I applaud you for that. Every person we can keep in the home who can afford to stay there will benefit many more people in that community. By the way, it is good for local Government. It will help their property tax revenues. It is good for local governments; I think it will reduce their costs. I think it is a win-win situation. So I congratulate you for bringing forward a bill we can act on quickly, in order to save homes for people who otherwise are likely to lose their homes and to strengthen neighborhoods that would otherwise be suffering as a result of those foreclosures. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN. I now yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for his statements and leadership on this issue. I serve on the Judiciary Committee with him. I thank him for bringing forward this proposal. I think it is critically important to a large number of homeowners who find themselves in bankruptcy that they get the help the bankruptcy courts were designed to create. It was to take a look at the financial ability of the person going into bankruptcy, to take a look at their assets and to make a fair arrangement for the creditor and the debtor. But the bankruptcy courts today cannot do that in regard to your primary residence. As my colleague points out, if it is your boat and you have a chattel mortgage on it, they can work that out. If it is your vacation home, they can make accommodations. But for your principal residence, they cannot do that. That makes no sense at all, and I thank my colleague for bringing this forward. I think it is a critical part of the legislation before us, and I look forward to supporting the effort to make sure that stays in the legislation. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago I visited a Baltimore neighborhood, Ednor Gardens. That is near the Memorial Stadium, the old stadium where the Baltimore Orioles and Baltimore Colts played, and it is in the neighborhood where I went to high school, Baltimore City High School. It is a middle-class neighborhood, but today there are vacant homes and a lot of ``for sale'' signs. The entire neighborhood is affected by our current housing crisis. Some are in danger of losing their homes. Obviously, that is the most dramatic impact all of us hear and we want to do something about. We do not want to see people lose their homes. It was James Truslow Adams who first coined the term ``the American dream'' in his book ``The Epic of America'' in 1931. He talked about the American dream as the opportunity to achieve in this great Nation, that every family should have that opportunity. The most visible sign of achievement is owning your own home. It is devastating if you lose your home. Many Americans are in danger of losing their homes today because of the housing crisis. It not only affects individual homeowners who could lose a home through foreclosure or the inability to pay the mortgage and they just walk away from their home, but it affects every home in that neighborhood. There is a Chicago study that shows a single foreclosure, just one foreclosure in your neighborhood, will have the immediate impact of reducing your property value by about 1.5 percent or about $3,000, on average. The U.S. Conference of Mayors pointed out that the current decline in home values across the Nation reflects a loss of value of over $1.2 trillion, having a major impact on property tax revenues of local governments. The whole community is affected by the housing crisis, not just the individual homeowner who may lose his or her home. If you happen to live in a home that you need to sell--you move, there is a change of life and you need to deal with putting your house on the market; maybe you have a contract to buy another house and you plan to sell your house--I tell you, the housing market is not good today; you are affected by the housing crisis. It is hard to find people who are willing to buy a home. They are concerned about declining values. Everyone is affected by this housing crisis. Home ownership is critically important to the safety of our neighborhoods. Study after study shows that where you have a large percentage of home ownership, you have better schools and you have less crime. That was actually documented in that Chicago study I referred to earlier, where they showed there was a direct relationship between foreclosures in a neighborhood and the increase of violent crime in a neighborhood. I have heard many people say: Isn't this the problem of people who entered into mortgages they should not have entered into or bought homes they should not have bought or couldn't afford? In some cases, that is true. In many cases, it is not. But the declining economy and the housing crisis affects all of us. We have a responsibility to help and to do something that is positive for our economy and the housing crisis. This is not an isolated situation, what was happening in this Baltimore neighborhood. In Maryland, the foreclosures have increased-- since June, where Maryland ranked 40th in the Nation, doing fairly well competitively, to now 18th in the Nation in the number of foreclosures. There was a 39-percent increase in foreclosures in the last quarter in the State of Maryland. The Mortgage Bankers Association tells us that nationally the third quarter of 2007 was not only a record for the number of foreclosures, it was the highest ever recorded in the number of foreclosures in this country. Nationally, it is estimated that 2.2 million subprime mortgages, entered into between 1998 and 2006, are in jeopardy of foreclosure during the next 2 to 3 years, representing $160 billion of potential loss of wealth. The National Realtors Association has told us that home sales have dropped for the sixth consecutive month. Home prices are down, and they quantitated it, between February 2008 and February 2007, a decline of 8 percent. Our economy is hurting. It is not just the homeowner. Let me just give one example. Housing starts are down. New housing starts are clearly down. It is difficult to see investors moving forward building new residential homes when we have a glut on the market of existing homes. What does that mean? I was talking to some people who work at the light truck transmission facility located in White Marsh, MD--General Motors. They are in danger of losing jobs because the people who work in the building sector, building of homes, use light trucks, and they are not buying as many light trucks because business is down. This is affecting jobs in Maryland and jobs in each one of our States. The bottom line is that Congress needs to act. We need to act quickly. The Fed acted quickly to protect Wall Street. We have to act quickly to protect Main Street. There is a lot of question as to whether the Fed did the right thing for Bear Stearns. They acted quickly. We have middle-class communities, middle-class families who are in danger of losing their homes if Congress does not act quickly. We need to act quickly to help middle-class families who are caught in this economic downturn. I am proud to have cosponsored provisions included in this underlying bill we are talking about. It is a very important bill. It includes provisions that I believe will really help the people in our States. First, it provides counseling services--$200 million. We can help another half a million families get counseling. One of the figures I find shocking is that for about half of the vacant homes we have today, people have just walked away from their mortgages, walked away from their homes. They have not even tried to work out their financial problems. They have not sought counseling. They have not talked to the mortgage company. They have not made any effort to try to save their home. They think there is no possibility. In reality, there may be possibilities. We should be providing the wherewithal so that people who are in a distressed situation can get the counseling help they need. When I had my gathering in the Baltimore neighborhood, there were representatives from the different counseling services that are available to the people of Baltimore--Healthy Neighborhoods, St. Ambrose Housing Aid Center. These are people who have found the number of people seeking help doubling and tripling since the middle of last year. They are being overwhelmed today by people seeking help. They need a Federal partner. They asked me specifically whether this part of the legislation can be enacted quickly. They need the help to keep the centers open and expand the centers. Remember, I said half the people are not seeking counseling. If the number of people who could use counseling actually stepped forward, there would not be the counselors available to handle this. That is why it is very important for the Federal Government to be a partner in providing adequate counseling, independent information to homeowners as to what their options may be. The second provision of this bill allows for the refinancing of subprime mortgages by giving our local revenue authorities additional revenue bond help from the Federal Government--$150 billion--so that they can be more actively involved. We know we have a credit crunch. Everybody knows that. You can't find mortgages today. You can't find ways of financing. This will help, by using revenue bonding authority with very little cost to taxpayers. I say that because in many cases the local revenue bonding authority, operating under the State, will be able to go in and purchase a distressed mortgage at market value. Market value is less than its full value. The person who made the loan is going to get a fair value for their investment. It is going to be a lower value than they want, but it is a fair value. We are not bailing out the investor. What we are doing, then, is giving the homeowner an opportunity to have that mortgage refinanced through the State revenue bond authority at a fair amount, at a fair return, allowing that homeowner to stay in his or her home, protecting the home for the family--not protecting the investor, not protecting the person who made the loan, but protecting the homeowner. That is what we should be doing. That certainly is a tool I hope all of us will support, and we need to get that done quickly because of the credit crunch. There is a lot of talk about whether individuals went into this with full knowledge of the problems. Let me tell you, there have been a lot of people who have been victimized by the practices that are out there. There are many people who could have gone into traditional mortgages who went into subprime mortgages. It is particularly true in minority communities. Between 2005 and 2006, 50 percent of all the mortgages sold in the African-American community were subprime--50 percent to African Americans; 40 percent to Latinos. My point is this: There were neighborhoods that were targeted for subprime mortgages that could have qualified for traditional mortgages. These individuals have been victimized. I think allowing our revenue bonding authorities, our local housing authorities, to be able to do more to restructure those mortgages is the right thing for Congress to do. I hope we will provide block grant authority, to give block grants to communities that have been impacted by foreclosures. As I said earlier, if you have a foreclosure in a community, the entire community is impacted by it. We need to do something to help it. I was very impressed when I talked to people at St. Ambrose when they explained to me that when you have a foreclosed property, the house deteriorates and the neighborhood needs help. A Federal block grant to the community will allow it to get the housing in the condition it needs in order to put new home buyers into these houses. That is another very positive thing we can do to help communities. The legislation provides the relief from bankruptcy that my friend, Senator Durbin, talked about, a provision I strongly support. I don't need to go through all the provisions he went through, but it is targeted to residential mortgages that are in bankruptcy, it is targeted to mortgages that are currently in existence, targeted to those who can financially afford a refinancing structure. It is targeted in that if there is a resale and money that comes in that would have the lender held harmless, the money goes first to the lender. All this is targeted relief to provide some degree of equity in a mortgage proceeding between mortgages that are taken out for our vacation homes and our large boats and those that are for residential mortgages. As Senator Durbin pointed out, a bankruptcy judge can adjust the mortgages for your vacation home and your chattel mortgage on your boat but cannot, today, on your residential mortgage. That makes no sense at all, and we should certainly include that provision. There are provisions in this bill that will provide disclosure so, moving forward, homeowners have much more information before they enter into a mortgage. I wish to refer to another provision I intend to offer as an amendment to the underlying legislation when we get an opportunity, and that is to provide a tax credit for first-time home buyers. I think we need to do something to stimulate the housing market from the point of view of more people willing to come out to a buy a home. Senator Durbin pointed out that today there are people reluctant to buy a home, who want to buy a home, but they are worried that the value may decline. If we give a tax credit, put money on the table, I think it is much more likely that individuals will want to take advantage of that. You do that and you help stimulate the economy with the exact sector that triggered the economic downturn, the housing market. Let's get the housing market reenergized. Let's put a tax credit out that helps home buyers buy a home in these distressed times. Now, the legislation that I am going to propose is going to be targeted; it is going to be for principal residences only. I think that is what we should do. It will be middle class. We will have an income cap so it goes to those who need the help. It will be first-time home buyers. Today, it is estimated that 40 percent of our market is first-time home buyers. In Baltimore City, we know about two-thirds are first-time home buyers. So it is to go to that part of the market that needs the help, that we need to get back into the market. It is temporary. It will expire in 2008 because we want people moving now, going back into the market now. This is not a new concept. It has been used in the Nation's capital. We provided a tax credit that has helped 3,000 to 4,000 home buyers a year. I think it was a good policy for the Nation's capital. I think it is a good policy now for our country on a temporary basis. I do acknowledge there are several of my colleagues who are interested in this legislation who have a slightly different approach. I hope we can come together, as Senator Stabenow has been interested in a housing credit for many years. Senator Isakson has come forward with his proposals. I hope we all will be able to work together to bring forward a tax credit proposal that can help stimulate our economy. We need to act now. Two months ago, in a bipartisan action in this body, we passed the economic stimulus package. We did it quickly. That is what we needed to do. Well, we need to show the same commitment on the housing crisis. We need to work in a bipartisan manner to help middle-class families save their homes and to help our economy. I urge my colleagues to take up quickly this legislation. Let's consider the amendments. Let's move forward. There are too many homeowners in our States who are depending upon us to act quickly for us to delay. I yield the floor.