Jeff Merkley

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise to address amendment No. 570, offered by Senator Wyden, regarding closure of the Umatilla Chemical Depot. It is an amendment on which I am proud to partner with him. This is a very important issue to my home State of Oregon. We have a situation where 20 years of planning have gone forward to arrange for the final transition of this chemical depot based on the recommendations of the Base Closure and Realignment Commission. Indeed, the BRAC Commission, as it is known, noted: On completion of the chemical demilitarization mission in accordance with treaty obligations, close Umatilla Chemical Depot, Oregon. This was language that was specifically done to recognize that the chemical depot had to complete its work dismantling the chemical weapons stored there according to the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty. That treaty had a deadline of April 29, 2012, and thus it wasn't clear that the work would be done within the 6 years outlined for most of the BRAC's work. So they changed the language from ``close the Umatilla Chemical Depot'' to ``on completion of the chemical demilitarization mission in accordance with treaty obligations.'' So since this has been a discussion for so long, with the community working so hard with so many stakeholders in order to put the plans together to transition this base to a productive civilian role, it came as a complete shock recently when the community was notified by the Army that, despite the specific language that accommodated the treaty deadline of April 2012, they were going to rule that the transfer under the BRAC legislation could not be completed because it was an exception--even an exception written into the law--to the initial 6 years. It was quite a shock because a local reuse authority has been formed and has been working hard with representatives from all local stakeholders to make sure this base is transferred in a way that creates the best possible economy and best use of this land. It has been a complicated task. It has been an earnest effort. This is not the time for the Army to change the rules, digging up a clause and misapplying that clause, ignoring the exception written into the law, and claiming that this work done over all this time doesn't matter. That is why I am so delighted to join with Senator Wyden in putting a clarification into statute that says, yes, what the original legislation said with an April 2012 deadline recognizing our treaty obligations must be honored and the BRAC process must be honored for the best use of this land in the community.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Alexa Damis- Wulff be granted floor privileges for the balance of the day.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask for 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise to address an issue of fairness for our National Guard soldiers. They serve with honor and bravery at home and abroad. They have earned the respect and admiration of an entire Nation with their incredible sacrifices over the last decade. We must not forget they have also, in addition to our respect and admiration, earned their compensation and their benefits. To take back a veteran's compensation after she or he has fulfilled the requirements for it is unthinkable. Yet that is exactly what is happening around the country in regard to National Guard bonuses. Let me share the story of PFC Chelsea Wells. This story is emblematic of the struggle many men and women in the National Guard are facing today. I thank Congressman Walden for bringing this situation to the public's attention and to my attention. I add my voice to his to call for fairness for PFC Chelsea Wells and for all other members of the National Guard. Private First Class Wells is from my home State of Oregon, where she has served in the Oregon National Guard for the last 3 years. In 2007, she enlisted as an intelligence analyst in response to the needs of the Army. At the time when she signed her enlistment document, she signed an additional document that stipulated she would receive a $20,000 bonus for enlisting in a critical Military Occupancy Specialty or MOS. That agreement, which was also signed by the enlisting official at her processing station, also stated she would receive the first half of her bonus upon completion of her initial training and the second half after 36 months of service. As planned, Private First Class Wells received that first $10,000 upon completion of her initial training. However, when her 36 months of service was completed, the second half of the bonus was nowhere to be seen. In fact, it was denied. Following an inquiry from Congressman Walden, the National Guard stated the payments had been denied because her specialty was not on the critical skills list at the date of enlistment. However, the very document Private First Class Wells signed--also signed by the enlisting official--very specifically listed her Military Occupancy Specialty, 35F, as indeed being a critical skill specialty. I have that document here: ``Annex E to Defense Department Form 4, Non-prior Service Enlistment Bonus Addendum.'' It says the purpose of this form is ``to explain and confirm obligation and to ensure that agreement to these conditions is a matter of record.'' The entire point of this document is to ensure that there is a clear understanding in regard to eligibility for bonuses. This document says on its list of eligibility--and this section is signed by the soldier: I am enlisting into a critical skill MOS under the 6x2 or 8XO enlistment option and will receive a NPS Critical Skill Bonus (50/50 payment.) That means 50 after initial training and 50 at the end of 3 years. At the end of this document, it has section IX, ``Certification by Service Representative,'' and this is in regard to the enlisting official, the recruiting officer. It says: I certify that I have witnessed the reading and signing of the above agreement and the signature appearing is that of the applicant. I have verified the soldier meets the eligibility requirement of NGR 600-7, paragraph 2-3, and the applicant's MOS/unit is currently eligible for an enlistment cash bonus. I think that is pretty clear. The story gets even worse. Not only is our own military saying they are not going to award the second half of the bonus, but they want her to return the first half because, apparently, they made some kind of mistake in between the recruiting officer and the higher-ups. I must say any individual should have the right to a reward that he or she was contractually owed. And there are no individuals who deserve their reward more than our brave men and women in uniform who have already made so many sacrifices, large and small, to ensure the security and safety of our Nation. Private First Class Wells upheld her end of the bargain. She signed this enlistment document in good faith. She answered the call to serve when she was needed, and she served with honor for the full term. Now we must uphold our promise to her and to other National Guard veterans who find themselves being punished due to a dispute that was no fault of their own. They signed these documents in good faith, with the certification of the listing officer that they were indeed eligible. What is absolutely clear is that whatever dispute there may be between the listing officers and authorities higher up the chain, that is not Chelsea Wells' fault. She served in good faith under a very clear document, and we owe her and all the National Guard soldiers who are being pursued in the same fashion the bonuses that were promised to them. We ask a tremendous amount of those who serve. Now is when we should be giving back, not asking for more. Asking a soldier to give back money they have received under a document they signed in good faith and fulfilled in good faith is 100 percent unacceptable. I and my colleagues from the State of Oregon call on the National Guard today to resolve this matter and to make sure this wrong is made right. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privileges of the floor be extended to Conner Myers, an intern in my office, for the balance of the day.

Mr. MERKLEY

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

Mr. MERKLEY. I rise today to talk about the significant financial challenges our Nation faces. It will come as a surprise to no one that the topic of greatest concern is jobs, jobs in partnership with how we manage our deficit and our debt so as to put America on a firm financial footing down the road, put American families back on a firm financial footing. My mailbox is full from families who have a lot of concerns about the Republican plan for cutting programs that serve working Americans. It is a host of programs that are affected, but I pulled a couple letters to bring with me. One is Linda writing from Canby, OR. She is a parent of a disabled young adult. She writes: My daughter, Nicole, has cerebral palsy and other medical issues. She is dependent on my husband and I for her total 24/7 care. Medicaid is essential because it helps her with medical and dental needs and her mobility. If Medicaid is cut or reduced, many of the disabled will be forced to live in nursing homes or institutions, which as we both know would not be cost effective. Please vote against cuts to our Medicaid system. Trudy from Keizer, OR, writes a very similar letter about her grandson diagnosed with Asperger's. The mail goes on and on from citizens who are working-class Americans, have fundamental jobs, often with modest to no health care. They have children and they have grandchildren who will be profoundly affected by the choices we make on health care, the choices we make on education, and the choices we make in terms of creating jobs here in America. So this debate has enormous import for the success of our families, and in the context of that importance, we need to understand how we got to the point we are right now. So let's start with a 10-year view of what has happened. These statistics might come as a surprise to many of you because they are a little bit out of synch with some of the rhetoric we hear on the floor of the Senate. Over the last 10 years, from 2001 to 2011, we have had a revenue decrease of 18 percent. So revenue has decreased by nearly one-fifth. On nondefense spending, you will see no bar here either negative or positive; the change has been zero over a 10-year period, zero change. Those are the programs that affect working America, programs that affect unemployment, programs that affect food support, nutritional support, Head Start Programs, health care programs, and training programs so that people can get better jobs. Then over here we have defense spending up 74 percent. Well, that is interesting because these three bars tell the story of decisions made during the 8 years of the George W. Bush administration. Over here on revenue, we have breaks that were granted to the best off in our society and that have been fought for vigorously--the extension of those breaks--by some of my colleagues across the aisle. Breaks for the best off and revenues down over that 10-year period. Over here we have the fact that decisions were made for two wars not funded by the American people. That is an anomaly in our history. When we go to war, we raise the funds to pay for it, but not during the irresponsible 8 years of the George W. Bush administration. So it is not a surprise that we now have a deficit problem and that we now have a debt problem because concrete decisions were made. And these are only part of the story. The rest of the story is that deregulation of mortgages, leading to a vast tsunami of predatory mortgages on working Americans turned into securities that poisoned financial houses throughout the United States and, for that matter, throughout the globe, also contributed to blowing up the economy and driving down the revenue. So concrete decisions from those 8 years have placed us where we are. How do we address this shortfall? Well, let's start by looking at how the Republican budget has been laid out with three principal points. The first is to end Medicare as we know it. Well, this plan to create a voucher system in lieu of Medicare is one that, frankly, terrifies every senior citizen in America and every citizen who knows they will be a senior citizen, who knows they have been paying for years into a program with administrative costs that are far more efficient than the general insurance market. But the goal of the Republican plan is to dismantle that efficiency and throw people into the highly inefficient private insurance markets with a voucher that does not rise proportionately with health care costs. I don't think destroying the very successful program to provide Medicare and health care for our seniors is where we should be going. The second part of the plan is to do roughly $4 trillion in cuts to programs for working Americans. The third is to protect all of the programs for the best off in our society, the benefits for the best off. I think most citizens understand that when we come to a time of national challenge financially, everyone should participate. There shouldn't be the sacred cows for the very best off while the workers are asked to pick up even more of the burden. In fact, let's take a look at a chart that displays how this functions. The average tax rate in America is 20.7 percent. Let's take the richest 400 in America. The top 400, their average tax rate is 18 percent. Now, why do the richest 400 get the lowest tax rates? That is what Americans have a right to know. Why is it that the Republican plan is asking to cut programs for working America while protecting the bonus benefits for the best off in our society? These richest 400 earn over $270 million per year--not collectively; that is their average income. Well, wouldn't all of us love to be in a situation where we earn even a fraction of $270 million a year. And that structure, while reflected here for the top 400, is really a structure for the best off of a high array--a 5- to 10-percent array of the best earners in America. So those three points--end Medicare as we know it, replaced with a voucher program, cut programs for working Americans, and protect programs for the best off--that is the Republican plan. The chair of the Senate Budget Committee came to the floor this week with a very different plan, and that plan has the same savings the Republican plan has. Let's take a look at that. Under this plan, the budget framework includes the same amount of deficit reduction as the House Republican plan--in fact, actually a little bit more reduction: $4 trillion versus $3.9 trillion. So both plans get towards the same objective of fiscal responsibility, but they go about it in very different ways. First, the Conrad plan tosses away the Republican plan to end Medicare as we know it. The second thing it does is it puts all spending programs on the table. So let's turn to that piece of the structure. Here we have the Republican plan, and it is all in direct spending cuts, touching none of the programs for the best off that have been carefully embedded in the Tax Code. Now, every American understands this game: You can fund a project with a $10,000 grant or you can give a $10,000 tax credit that is in the Tax Code or you can give a tax deduction that is worth $10,000, also in the Tax Code--three different ways of accomplishing the very same objective. But the Republican plan is to say: Wait. Let's only do the first of those three strategies because the second and third strategy we have utilized to create the programs for the best off in America, and we don't want to touch those. We want to place this burden on working Americans. Well, the Conrad plan says: That is not right. There needs to be a conversation about fairness. We know those best off pay the lowest tax rates compared to working Americans, as I just showed in that previous chart--just 18 percent. So the Conrad plan says: Let's take 50 percent of that effort to close the deficit and do it in direct spending, and let's take 50 percent by closing tax loopholes, cutting tax subsidies, cutting tax earmarks, and promoting fairness. I came to the floor last week to talk about the bluegrass boondoggle. Now, that is not a lot of money in terms of the overall challenge we face as America--$120 million over 10 years--but to a working American $120 million is a lot. That was a special provision inserted not for companies but for the owners. It was to the individual Tax Code for the richest Americans, millionaires and billionaires who own thoroughbreds. They get a special break the rest of America doesn't get. There is program after program such as that, inserted for the best off. The Conrad plan says all of this spending, whether it has been in the appropriations bill or it has been in the tax bill, is going to be examined. That is a fundamentally fair approach. Let's look at that in a little more detail, look at what the Conrad budget does in terms of fair rates for the middle class. First, it provides the alternative minimum tax protection for the middle class. Second, it continues tax reductions for the middle class that we have currently. Third, it cancels the bonus breaks for the millionaires and billionaires. That is basic rate fairness. In addition, it says let's take on those special tax subsidies and tax earmarks that my colleagues across the aisle have been so proud of inserting into the Tax Code to protect the best off in society. Let's examine them and if they do not meet the fundamental test of creating employment, contributing to fairness, and being more important than other programs compared against each other, then they should be eliminated. In addition, let's take off on those offshore tax havens. There are so many setups in which companies have essentially false addresses in the Caribbean so they can transport their profits to a place where they pay no taxes. Those tax havens, in combination with abusive tax shelters, need to be ended. These are all part of tax fairness and taking on this very important challenge we have in terms of our national deficit and our debt and taking it on in a manner that strengthens the programs that need to be strengthened. You will find the Conrad budget, in contrast to the Republican budget, says let's invest in education. We are in a knowledge economy world. We must invest in education if our economy is going to thrive and our children are going to be successful. The Conrad budget, in contrast to the Republican budget, says let's invest in infrastructure. We are falling behind in terms of supporting infrastructure. China is spending 10 to 12 percent a year. Europe is spending 5 percent a year. America is spending only 2 percent and that is barely enough to repair our existing infrastructure. In fact, sometimes those repairs are falling short. I know our county officials and city officials will be glad to provide us with a list of how short we are. The third area is the Conrad budget invests in energy. Why is energy so important? Because currently we are spending $1 billion a day, sending it overseas, basically as a result of our addiction to oil. When you send $1 billion overseas for oil, you do three things. The first is you create a danger to our national security because of the dependence for our energy on governments in the Middle East and other places around the world that do not share our fundamental interests. The second is you create jobs overseas spending that money rather than creating jobs here in the United States. Let's spend that $1 billion a day here in the United States of America on red, white, and blue American-made renewable energy. Not only does our security improve but in addition we create the jobs here in the United States. Third, by ending our addiction to oil we contribute to addressing the carbon pollution challenge faced around this globe rather than being part of the problem ourselves. Let's not adopt a budget plan that ends Medicare as we know it and replaces it with a voucher program, that savages programs for working Americans, and that protects the programs for the best off in our society. Let's instead invest in energy, invest in education, invest in infrastructure, and obtain the same impact on our deficit but do it in a manner that builds our economy and builds American families. That is the type of program that Trudy from Keizer, OR, wishes to see, Linda from Canby, OR, wishes to see, and workers throughout the United States want to see because they know we should have a plan that creates jobs and builds the success of our families rather than doing the reverse.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be extended to Britta Lakting and Lucy Kissel.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. I thank my colleague from New York, and I appreciate those 3 minutes. So horseracing may have been called the sport of kings, but that doesn't mean owners of horses--those millionaires and billionaires supporting those horses--need royal tax treatment. As long as these tax subsidies are preserved, the richest and best off will remain in the winner's circle, while working families don't even get a chance to compete. There is no doubt that closing this loophole alone isn't going to solve our deficit problem, but it is a good place to start because, otherwise, we are going to cut $126 million from Head Start or $126 million from Medicare for our seniors or programs that help retrain laid-off workers. Giving ``triple crown'' treatment to millionaires, while workers are put out to pasture is not right, and it is not the American way. I have proposed searching through the Tax Code to find wasteful tax subsidies and eliminate unnecessary giveaways. This year is the right time to start. No one program should be singled out. We should set a series of standards and test each tax program against those standards on whether they create jobs, whether they make a stronger economy, whether they take America forward, and whether that $126 million spent in this category or that is more important to the Nation than other cuts we might be entertaining. Those are the tests that need to be applied in a thoughtful and thorough manner. It is time to stop walling off the programs for the wealthy and well connected while attacking programs that make working America go forward in a stronger fashion.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, we are involved in a very important national debate about our finances, our deficits, our debt, investments in our economy, including the creation of jobs, and how we take on those problems in the most effective manner to build a strong financial foundation for our Nation going ahead and a strong set of opportunities for families to thrive. In the course of this debate, there has been a very interesting development that merits our attention, and that development is this: Some of my colleagues across the aisle have, over time, chosen to put key programs for the wealthy and well connected not in an appropriations bill but in tax legislation. There are advantages to doing so. With appropriations, programs have to be defended year after year. It has to be reviewed in committee. It may have to go through an authorization process as well as an appropriations process. But if a program for the wealthy and well connected is placed in the Tax Code, then, unless a sunset clause has been instituted, that program is a gift that keeps on giving, unexamined in the course of the standard appropriating process. By putting these programs for the wealthy and well connected into the Tax Code, some of my colleagues across the aisle have said that as a result, there is an additional advantage. We can claim these programs are off-limits, and we can claim that if anyone seeks to examine these programs for the wealthy and well connected, they are seeking to ``raise taxes,'' and we will scare the American citizens into revolt against that effort to examine these sacred cows. I think this attitude, quite frankly, underestimates American citizens. American citizens understand very well what is up. They understand there is an effort to put programs for working Americans in legislation where it has to be authorized regularly, where it has to go through the appropriations process annually, but the programs for the most wealthy and well connected are put over here behind the fence where they don't have to go through that process, and then they say those are sacred cows and we can't touch them. There is a big difference between fighting for fairness for working Americans and fighting to defend the benefits for the best off in our society. This is a debate that must be on the floor of the Senate. It was in 1976 that I came here as an intern to Senator Hatfield. As it turned out, I was assigned to the Tax Reform Act of 1976. In that assignment, I was reading all the mail from Oregon. Then, as the debate came to this Chamber, I would meet Senator Hatfield at the elevator doors, just outside these double doors to the Chamber. Of course, in those days we didn't have a television camera in the Chamber, and in those days we didn't have e-mail to communicate. So staff members would line up and meet their Senators coming off the elevator and brief them about the debate: What were the ups and downs, what were people back home saying, what type of vote it was, whether it was an up-or-down vote, a motion to table, and so on and so forth. Then I would run up to the seats for the staff to observe the debate, and then I would come back down when the next vote on an amendment came up. That review in 1976 was a tough discussion, because anytime we talk about cutting a program, anyone who benefits from that program is very upset. But there was an understanding on both sides of the aisle that we owed it to the American taxpayer to spend every dollar in the best possible fashion, and, therefore, there could be no fence walling off programs for some for consideration, while the programs for others merit full examination. Everything needed to be talked about. Everything needed to be weighed as to the value it provided. Again in 1986, a decade later, an even larger effort--a major effort--was undertaken to examine every tax program, whether it was one that benefited people here or people there, to weigh it in the context of our fiscal responsibility to the Nation. It was Senator Hatfield from Oregon who was head of the Finance Committee and who led that debate on the floor of the Senate. I emphasize that Senator Hatfield was a Republican. Republicans back then believed in fiscal responsibility. They didn't believe in setting off one part of the Tax Code for the wealthy and well connected that would never be examined again, while the programs for working Americans were on the table. No. They looked at everything across the entire spectrum. So here we are not in 1976, not in 1986 but in 2011. It has been a quarter century since we have had a serious review of the programs embedded in the Tax Code. I must say we have every reason to examine every program funded, whether through the appropriations code or the Tax Code, because we face serious financial circumstances. It is in this context that I would have expected to hear the echoes of 1986-- that every program is up for examination and every program is going to be tested against a rigorous set of circumstances to say it is the best use of our dollars. But, instead, my colleagues across the aisle take the position of putting up a very high fence around the tax provisions for the wealthy and well connected, saying their No. 1 goal is to protect those provisions. Programs for seniors are on the table. Dismantling Medicare is a Republican plan. Programs for those who don't have enough food to eat are on the table. Unemployment has been on the table. Funding for the infrastructure we need to rebuild our country is on the table, but this set of sacred cows is not, this set of sacred programs for the wealthy and well connected. Quite frankly, that is wrong. That must change. We must bring that debate to the floor of the Senate as our colleagues did a quarter century ago, as our colleagues did 35 years ago. So when it comes to these programs, there must be no sacred cows and there must be no sacred horses. This chart says ``running away with our tax dollars.'' One of the tax programs my colleagues across the aisle are insisting be walled off from examination is a special writeoff for thoroughbred racehorses. Yes, racehorses. This is the bluegrass boondoggle which allows millionaire and billionaire racehorse owners to write off the cost of their horses in an accelerated manner, reducing the normal 7-year period to just 3 years. This bluegrass boondoggle will cost U.S. taxpayers, over the course of the coming 10 years, $126 million, according to CBO estimates, after modeling the impact of this tax provision. This is equivalent to us writing a check over this coming decade for $126 million. This is equivalent to a grant program. This is equivalent to subsidizing a loan program. No program, simply because it is in one bill--the tax bill--rather than in another bill-- an appropriations bill--should be off-limits. Horseracing may have been called the sport of kings----

Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. President. Is there a 10-minute rule in effect?

Mr. MERKLEY

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

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, we have had a lot of discussion on the floor of this Chamber about the challenge of our deficit and our debt, and these are indeed very important issues. It is important to remember exactly how we got here because it was only one decade ago that we were running large surpluses at the conclusion of the Clinton administration. In fact, these surpluses were so large that economists were starting to argue over just what would we do if we paid off our entire debt. Didn't there need to be instruments of last resort, of great security, such as Treasury bonds? Didn't we need to preserve some deficit or debt in order to have that instrument available to stabilize society? Well, would it not be great to have that debate now? I remember being absolutely thrilled that we were going to turn over a debt-free America to our children. But what ensued? President Bush had a different view. He said: You know what. Let's spend these surpluses we are generating and do breaks for the best off in our society. Let's take and establish a new, major program--Medicare Part D--and not pay for it. Let's embark on wars around this planet and not raise funds to pay for them. The result of that was that those tremendous surpluses were reduced to huge deficits in short order. Indeed, the 10-year projection went from a $5 trillion surplus to a $5 trillion shortfall. It is why some folks call President Bush the $10 trillion man--because he managed to do $10 trillion worth of damage to our economy. But that was only the beginning because then there was deregulation of the mortgage industry which resulted in predatory lending, liar loans, teaser rates that exploded after 2 years, and kickbacks allowed to the originators so that they didn't even have any sort of fair presentation to families negotiating the most important financial instrument in their lives--their home mortgage. The meltdown that came from that extraordinary regulatory abuse resulted in another $5 trillion in debt. So that is how we got there. Now we have a certain pattern we see on this floor in which Members of this Chamber--many of the Members across the aisle stand up and say: We want to protect the programs for the best off, but we want to cut the basic programs that serve working Americans in our Nation. Quite frankly, I think they have it exactly backward, and if you think I am making this up, let's just review recent history. The December deal on the continuing resolution--this increased our debt by $\1/2\ trillion, and virtually every Member across this aisle voted for it. I voted against a $\1/2\ trillion increase. And a big chunk of that $\1/2\ trillion increase in our debt was there because of the insistence on providing the continuation of the President Bush breaks for the best off in our society. Now, I don't know how one can rise and talk about cutting our investment in infrastructure in America. I don't know how one can rise and talk about cutting support for those who are needing to get food from food banks and at the same time be defending bonus breaks for the very best off in our society. The December deal wasn't an anomaly because it has happened repeatedly. We had a vote on oil and gas subsidies for the most powerful five companies in our economy, five very large oil and gas companies. Instead of getting rid of an anachronistic provision that was put there when the cost or the value of a barrel of oil was very low and the oil industry said it needed to have some support, instead of cutting that, many in this Chamber voted to continue it, continue this break for the most powerful corporations, a break that was designed for a very different period of time when oil wasn't $100 a barrel but was a fraction of that--$20 a barrel. No, these aren't the only two recent cases. We have the attack on Medicare. Indeed, we have the plan that has been widely supported by my colleagues across the aisle, both in this Chamber and across the building, in which they say: Let's end Medicare as we know it because we need to save money, and we are going to do it on the backs of seniors, but we are not going to take a look at the breaks we voted in over the last quarter century for the best off in our society. Well, this systematic plan works like this because these breaks for the best off have been done through the Tax Code, and every American understands that whether you give somebody $5,000 in the Tax Code or you give them a $5,000 grant, it is exactly the same thing. We had that debate over the ethanol subsidies just recently. Everyone understands it is exactly the same thing, but by putting these programs for the wealthy and well-connected in the Tax Code, now my colleagues are rising to say: We will not touch those programs because they are in the Tax Code. Now, if they were in the appropriations bill, then we would be willing to talk about it, but because we were clever enough to put them in the Tax Code, no, they are off limits. This is a sophisticated way of saying that the programs for the wealthy and well-connected in America are off limits, but the programs for working families are the ones we are going to cut. It is those programs for the hungry, it is those programs for the unemployed, it is that health care program for our seniors, it is the investment in infrastructure that will build America--those are the ones we will cut. My colleagues and citizens of the United States, we must have a national debate, a debate that doesn't employ this type of smoke and mirrors to try to protect the programs written for the wealthy and well-connected while attacking the programs for working families. That is unacceptable, and I and others will rise on this floor and point it out time and time again, that using that simple ruse by saying only the appropriations bills on the table but not the tax bill is unacceptable. I am going to tell you that it must not be that we make our kids' education more expensive by diminishing Pell grants, that we make our parents' health care more expensive by obliterating Medicare as we know it, that we impoverish the future of this Nation by not investing in our infrastructure, while continuing to defend the programs that were developed for the best off, the wealthy, and the well-connected over the last 25 years and saying those are off the table. They must be on the table. We must fight for an America that works for working Americans.

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 10 minutes and that Senator Collins be recognized for up to 10 minutes following my remarks; further, that following Senator Collins' remarks, the Senate recess until 5:30 p.m.

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

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. I object.

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment, and I call up amendment No. 427.

Mr. MERKLEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I reserve the right to object. I ask the Senator if he can hold off for a moment. We wish to consult with the chairwoman.

Mr. MERKLEY. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise to speak to amendment No. 428 on the regulation of mortgage servicing. We spend a lot of time in Washington talking about many topics but often not getting to the issue most important to American citizens; that is, getting them back to work, creating jobs. Creating jobs should be the paramount concern of every person in this town. We are not going to get job growth going again until we deal with the housing crisis that started this recession and that is blocking our recovery. Three years ago, our economy was nearly destroyed by a combination of high-risk, high-cost subprime mortgages and reckless bets on Wall Street. Since then we fixed many of those problems in subprime mortgages. We have ended three of the key predatory practices. One of those was undocumented loans, otherwise known, commonly, as ``liar loans,'' where the information was fictionalized. Then we had the prepayment penalty. It was a steel trap in which a mortgage document would lock people into a loan with an exploding interest rate and would prevent them from being able to get out of that loan. We knew from a Wall Street Journal study that 60 percent of the families in these predatory loans with the steel trap prepayment penalties qualified for regular, ordinary, fully amortizing 30-year prime loans. That leads us to the third point, which was the undisclosed bonuses, otherwise known as steering payments or kickbacks, that were paid to mortgage originators when they steered families from the prime loan with a fair interest rate and 30-year amortization into the predatory subprime loan with an exploding interest rate and a steel trap prepayment penalty. It is good that we ended those practices for the future. But for the families who have been caught up in the flood of foreclosures, it is as though we rebuilt the levees but we have not done anything to take away the water that is still flooding their living rooms. Just last week, new reports, the Case-Shiller Index, showed that home prices have reached their lowest level since 2002. If home prices are that low, it is also hard to build new homes. Indeed, a recent report said the number of new homes being built each month had reached the lowest level since 1965--that is almost 50 years ago. Simply, our economy is not going to recover until our housing market recovers. A home is the single biggest investment that most families make, and it is the key to their financial success. It is often the key to happiness in retirement. In addition to the impact on millions of families--and we are looking at the possibility of 5 to 8 million more families facing foreclosure stemming from this predatory lending crisis that melted down our economy in 2008 and 2009--in addition to the impact on those families, it has an impact on our communities. When there is an empty house on the street, it pulls down the value of every other home on that street by as much as $2,000 to $5,000 per home. That further drives down prices, which means more foreclosures, more families underwater, less confidence in the recovery, more inclination to hold onto every dollar rather than to spend in our economy, so the consumer spending is suppressed and our GDP is directly linked, both to the amount of money invested--and we know many companies around America are sitting on vast sums rather than investing them--and on the amount of money families spend. These things all tie together, whether our economy is going to succeed or remain in its current paralyzed shape. Often it is important to take these big numbers and translate them to individual stories. I would like to share today a story about Tim Colette and his son in my State of Oregon. We received this article from Economic Fairness Oregon. It is titled, ``A Homecoming With No Home.'' I will read the first paragraph. Mr. Colette says: My biggest problem now is, my son comes home from the military in August and my home is being foreclosed on in 18 days. He's been hit by an IED, people shooting at him and he just wanted to come home and sleep in his room in his bed and be safe for 15 days . . . and I told him I'd make that happen. I don't know how yet, but I will. Mr. Colette shared his story with Oregon lawmakers in a recent hearing on foreclosure reform, and I thank him for sharing his story. For Tim and countless others, it did not need to be this bad. We have a program in America called the Mortgage Modification Program, or HAMP, Housing Affordable Modification Program. That program has not worked very well. Indeed, it is a voluntary program. It has been more or less a nightmare for the families who have been applying. Often a servicer will encourage families to apply because they make more money when a family is behind on their payments than when they are current on their payments. So often the servicer will say: You know, you probably qualify. What you need to do is stop making your payments for a period of 3 months or maybe 6 months or what you need to do is cut your payments in half and that will show financial distress and you will qualify for this program. So the family follows those directions, understands they are in the process of getting a modification, and then it turns out the servicer has a different story to tell, often saying: You know what. Your credit score is not very good because you have only been making half payments for 6 months. So, you know what, you don't qualify after all, and you owe us a lot of money. If you do not pay us, we are foreclosing. That is the nightmare of a program that was supposed to help families but has often hurt families. Mr. Colette's story is one of these stories of going through the difficulty of this program. He bought his home in 2006. At the time it seemed like a great investment for him and his son, especially considering that he was in a position to put down more than $100,000 as a downpayment. It is a situation that very few families can emulate. He was able to afford his mortgage payments quite easily within his income. But when Wall Street's bad bets sparked the national recession, everything changed. He lives in one of the hardest hit areas of the State of Oregon, Deschutes County, and the construction industry dried up overnight and therefore his business, his construction business, dried up overnight. He called his mortgage servicer to begin the mortgage modification process, and he did what the bank asked him to. At the time the bank extracted partial payments, actually for years, on the false hope that Tim could receive a long-term fix. So month after month his equity, that original $100,000 downpayment, was siphoned away. It was siphoned away through bank fees, it was siphoned away through declining property values, until there was nothing left. Had his request for a modification been processed promptly, either he would have been approved or denied. If he would have been approved, it would have been great. It would have locked in his payments, and he could have continued with that fine financial foundation. If he had been denied, he would have had the ability to say: I have to make a decision then. Do I put this home up for a short sale? Do I put it up on the market and try to sell it for what is owed to the bank? He would have had some savings left over to pick up and start over. Tim did all that was right and he played by the rules, but he is in a precarious position today. In just 9 weeks, his son, serving our country overseas, will come home. Let's hope it is a homecoming with a home, not a homecoming without a home. This amendment does three important things: The first is, it establishes a single point of contact so when a family talks to their servicer they do not have to start from scratch every single time, explaining their story. With that single point of contact there will be somebody who has a coherent file. So often, each time a family talked to a different person at the servicer, that person had lost the file or lost key papers in the file or was sent additional information that had been requested but did not put it into the file. So a single coherent point of contact. Second, this amendment ends the dual track on which servicers proceed to pursue foreclosure at the same time they are talking to the customer about a modification. Very simply, this amendment would set aside that dual track, that foreclosure track, until they make a decision. They can make it over a longer period of time, over a shorter period of time, but until they make the decision and tell the customer, they set aside the foreclosure track. That would reduce a lot of the stress, a lot of the confusion, a lot of the enormous frustration that families face. The third point in this amendment is that it requires a third-party review before a servicer sends a home into foreclosure. That simply guarantees that the law has been followed, that there was a coherent examination of the paperwork and a foreclosure is in order at the same time a modification has been approved or a foreclosure is in order at the same time a modification is on the verge of being approved or that a foreclosure doesn't proceed because a document is missing from the file. Connecticut and Maine have such a program, and it has kept 60 percent of the families who would otherwise be out of their houses in their houses. So three basic, fundamental reforms. I wish to thank my Republican cosponsor, Olympia Snowe, who stepped forward on behalf of homeowners across this Nation to say yes to fairness. I also thank the other dozen or so Senators who in the last day have signed up as cosponsors. Many of them have been real champions in their States, and some of them have worked very hard on these issues, including Senator Reid and Senator Whitehouse. In fact, I would note that Senators Akaka, Blumenthal, Durbin, Inouye, Levin, McCaskill, Sanders, Shaheen, Whitehouse, and Wyden, and I imagine many more will join us. I encourage my colleagues to support fundamental fairness: single point of contact and a foreclosure dual track and have a third-party review so that homeowners get a chance, like Mr. Colette, to stay in their homes. Thank you, Madam President. Amendments Nos. 411 and 412 En Bloc