Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask my colleague from West Virginia if he might yield to me 5 minutes.

Mr. President, first, I thank my distinguished colleague and our great leader from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, for yielding. Unfortunately, at the end of session, there are many needs that intercede.

We have just heard that the hold on a bill will be lifted. I want to get it moving so it can get over to the House before they leave. Once again, the Senator from West Virginia is not only gracious and capable, but he has been kind to me from the day I came to the Senate, and it is something I will always treasure. I thank my friend.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Leahy-Schumer substitute to H.R. 2640, the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. I have just been told a hold which had been placed against this bill is about to be lifted.

At its core, this bill does something that has been too long in coming. It gets States critical resources they need to upgrade the mental health and conviction records they use to screen prospective gun buyers.

These records go into the national instant criminal background check system, the NICS, that we rely on to screen for those who should not be allowed to buy guns. It has the support, I am proud to say, of both the Brady organization and the NRA. This was a collaboration that occurred over the last year.

I also thank my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, and my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, because both agreed last night on final language.

Today, millions of criminal and mental health records are inaccessible to the NICS, mostly because State and local governments have noncomputerized or outdated records. Furthermore, the process is spotty, as States are not required by law to turn over all pertinent information that could prohibit a person from buying a gun. As a result, many people who simply should not have guns are allowed to purchase them.

This bill will address that problem. In a word, without affecting a single law-abiding citizen's gun rights, the bill will make America safe.

I started working on this legislation a long time ago in 2002, along with my colleague Representative Carolyn McCarthy. That was when on Long Island, in my State of New York, a gunman who was a paranoid schizophrenic slipped through the cracks of the system and bought a .22 caliber semiautomatic rifle. He then took that gun, walked into a morning service at Our Lady of Peace Church and gunned down its beloved priest and one of its most prized parishioners.

So Representatives Carolyn McCarthy, John Dingell, and I worked on legislation to help improve the background check system. We wanted then, as we do now, to make sure no more dangerous people are allowed to get guns.

Over the years, as it often does, the political process played out. It would pass one House but not the other, and the bill was stalled.

As this has gone on, we have not stopped working and have kept alive the faith this legislation would one day become law. Through it all, every one of us hoped desperately that there would not be another preventable tragedy, another time when the system failed. But on April 16, 2007, our deepest fears came true.

I do not need to recite the facts of what happened at Virginia Tech. Every one of us is aware of the unspeakable horror that took place on the campus last April. We can never know if we could have prevented the shootings. What we do know, however, is that a very dangerous individual with a history of mental illness was allowed to buy two handguns.

It is a shame that we are again called to act on this 5-year-old legislation in the face of tragedy. But now is Congress's moment to take a huge step toward fixing a broken system.

The House passed a bill on June 13, 2007. Around the same time, Chairman Leahy and I began work on a similar bill. As I said before, I thank Chairman Leahy for his leadership in recognizing the importance of this issue. We attempted to pass the bill by unanimous consent. Senator Coburn, as was his right as a Member of the body, held the bill based on concerns he had.

Rather than try to go around our colleague, we worked with him. And I must say, from the beginning, Senator Coburn acted professionally, respectfully, and in good faith.

When it comes to guns, I do not agree with Tom Coburn on much, but he and I sat down at length and worked through our differences on this bill. I can say with full confidence, this bill is something on which both of us can agree.

At the heart of the concerns of my friend from Oklahoma were fears the bill, as originally drafted, could have the unintended consequence of jeopardizing the rights of law-abiding veterans.

This not being a gun control bill, and it has never been our intent to jeopardize the rights of lawful citizens and veterans, we have made changes to address our colleague's concern, and he told me he will lift his hold as a result.

Remember, I was an original sponsor of the Brady bill. I care about seeing the background check process work the right way. I will not support legislation I believe will hurt the system. But today we have a great accomplishment. It is fitting that at the end of this session we are there, proud of the bipartisan process. Chairman Leahy, Senator Coburn, Senator Kennedy, and I came up with a solution last night at about 11 p.m. on the floor. Senators Coburn and Kennedy shook hands, as I watched, and we have come to an agreement. Through all this negotiation, this bill has the backing of both the Brady Campaign to Stop Gun Violence and the National Rifle Association.

So now the hard work is done. We must pass this legislation. We must get it back to the House for them to pass again before they adjourn, and then we must get it on the President's desk to be signed into law. The parents of Virginia Tech families and millions of other Americans, including those at Our Lady of Peace congregation on Long Island are waiting for this moment. We have waited a long time. As citizens and parents, we must do everything to see that we do not have another Our Lady of Peace shooting or another Virginia Tech shooting. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

I will say again this is an example of how the system should work, and in a few moments I will be asking unanimous consent to move the bill forward, but before doing so, I yield my time to my colleague from West Virginia, because they are doing the paperwork, and I thank my colleague from West

Virginia for his courtesy and his kindness.

Madam President, first I extend my holiday greetings, my Christmas greetings, to my colleague and friend, Senator Byrd, as well as to you, Madam President, and my colleagues from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and everyone else in this Chamber. May God give a wonderful year to them and their families.

Madam President, I thank you for your help with this next particular issue.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2640 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent a Leahy-Schumer substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3890, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Biden- McConnell amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the amendment to the title be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the status of the time situation?

Thank you. I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. President, over the past few months, as the subprime crisis has deepened, I have said time and time again we need to act to help millions of American families at the risk of foreclosure to save their homes.

Until now, we have been blocked in those efforts, which is unfortunate. But I do wish to thank my colleague from Oklahoma who, as always, has agreed to this debate, to a discussion of the issue on the merits. He wanted a careful look, wanted his voice heard but did not want to be dilatory for its own sake, and I very much appreciate that. Now I believe we can move this important legislation forward.

The word ``crisis'' gets tossed around a lot in Washington. But make no mistake about it, we are in one. Almost a million Americans have lost their homes due to foreclosure this year alone. It seems each week foreclosures reach a new alltime high.

Some people stand by and say: Do nothing. The administration has said: Well, let the market take care of this by itself. They have come up with various plans where they sort of tie themselves in a pretzel to avoid any Government involvement.

But the fact is, if we are going to solve this problem, one thing we do not need is a bailout, but what we need is rational, smart Government involvement to help those at the bottom work their way out of this crisis which will, in a certain sense, trickle up and reassure the credit markets that things are being done and help the entire economy, because we have a triple whammy in this crisis that spreads outward. First are the more than 2 million homes that could be foreclosed upon in the next year and a half, 2 years. Second are declining housing prices. Because even if you paid your mortgage completely or have never missed a payment and are still paying it, if there are foreclosures in your community or foreclosures even in the country, housing prices decline.

That hurts all of us and hurts the economy then, in the third level, in two ways. One, there is a dampening effect on consumer spending, and, two, there are the credit markets, which are right now frozen.

If people cannot borrow, whether they be companies or individuals, it puts a real damper on the economy. The only way out of this is smart Government involvement--not solely. We need the private sector. But when the administration says they are never, ever going to get the Government involved, they have ideological blinders on, they are in an ideological straitjacket, they hurt those who will be foreclosed, they hurt all homeowners, and they hurt the general economy.

If you talk to people in this country, even conservative Republican business leaders agree we need some careful, rational Government involvement, not a bailout. That is what we are trying to do this morning. The costs of inaction are high. The Joint Economic Committee estimated the spillover from the subprime foreclosure crisis could exceed $100 billion for homeowners, their neighbors, and the local tax base.

On top of the subprime losses, the continuing housing slump could be a massive blow to the economy. Economists estimate a 10-percent decline in housing prices could lead to a $2.3 trillion economic loss at a time when our country cannot afford it.

This legislation is the perfect example of the kind of help Americans are looking for. It is moderate, it is thoughtful, and it is directed at the problem.

First, I wish to thank the two sponsors of this legislation, Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby, as well as my colleagues on the Banking Committee, where this passed 20 to 1, for their support.

It is definitely and desperately needed. It has the support of the administration, one of the few areas where the administration has looked at some kind of moderate Government help. The FHA Modernization Act revitalizes an important Government agency that for years, until the rise of unscrupulous subprime lenders, helped thousands of families across the country achieve the American dream, and now in these troubled times, it can be a source of salvation for those families who were tricked into unaffordable loans.

The bill makes a number of important changes to the FHA program, many of which will make it more competitive with subprime lenders, assure its financial help, and protect borrowers who were taken advantage of.

First, and especially in high-cost States such as mine in New York and my colleague across the river in New Jersey, who will speak shortly on this measure, this is vital. For years, this program has been hard to use in our home State. When you go to a place such as Long Island, where the average home price is over $400,000, more than half the population cannot use FHA. That was never the intent.

The bill also allows FHA to accept lower downpayments. It makes it more attractive to borrowers who could otherwise turn to an irresponsible subprime broker for their loan.

This does entail some additional risk, but the legislation strikes a safe, responsible balance between increasing FHA's competitiveness with those lenders without endangering the program's bottom line.

Finally, the bill expands the eligibility for counseling under the FHA program.

We desperately need counselors. There is another piece of legislation still being blocked by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, sponsored by the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Casey, and the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, and myself, aided by the help of Senator Murray, which will put $200 million into counseling. That is being blocked.

This bill at least will allow the FHA to give counseling to a certain number of people. It is an improvement that not only helps borrowers by letting more of them preserve their homes, but it reduces losses to the insurance funds, which is good for taxpayers as well.

This bill is not a panacea. It is, frankly, a small step--much needed but a small step. There are many more things that have to be done: Money for those who need help in counseling; making sure there is credit for mortgages available, which involves using the agencies, the GSEs such as Fannie and Freddie. Congressman Frank and I have legislation to deal with that. We also need a protector for the future. Legislation Senator Dodd has offered and I have cosponsored and worked with him on for many months would actually prevent this from happening in the future by regulating the small group of mortgage brokers who are unscrupulous, as well as the mortgage lenders, almost all of them nonbanks.

We still have a long way to go, but my hope is, given the magnitude of the crisis, that this first step will not be the last and that this first step represents a coming together of those who are not ideologues, those of us who say, yes, the Government needs to be involved in a smart, careful, and focused way. If that can happen, we cannot solve the subprime crisis, make it go away, but we can greatly mitigate the damage that occurs. We can reassure the markets finally that someone is in charge. The administration is trying to be involved but because of the ideological handcuffs, no Government involvement, and some of their plans get laughed at, and many of their plans are not taken seriously--just about all of them--because they won't deal with the magnitude of the crisis. You have to deal with it head-on.

I am hopeful this is a good first step that will pave the way to other larger and even more necessary steps. I thank Senator Dodd, Senator Shelby, Senator Coburn, and my colleagues on the Banking Committee for their active support and guidance with this legislation.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, under the order governing this bill, I call up the Dodd-Shelby amendment and ask unanimous consent that it be adopted.

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

I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from New Jersey, a member of the Banking Committee who has worked long and hard on the subprime issue.

Mr. President, I would like to yield 5 minutes to my colleague and friend--our majority whip--from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, our remaining time on this and then 5 minutes from the time against the Coburn amendment.

Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Maryland.

Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to a distinguished member of the Banking Committee, the Senator from Delaware.

I yield 3 minutes to someone who has been a genuine leader on this issue, a cosponsor of this legislation--just like you and me, Mr. President--on subprime counseling, the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Casey.

Mr. President, does my colleague from Oklahoma wish to speak?

Mr. President, may I ask unanimous consent to borrow a minute and a half from my colleague from Oklahoma?

I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise in support of my friend and colleague from Illinois, as well as our leader, Senator Reid, about what is going on here. This is unbelievable. What we have, in fact, is the folks from the other side of the aisle are in disarray. Their basic tenet and philosophy which govern them, which they use to govern, which they have used to win elections starting with Ronald Reagan, is falling apart. There is dissension in the Republican Party. There are different wings all over the place. Most importantly, the Republican base which says, basically, shrink Government, get rid of Government, is very far away from where the American mainstream is--not just far away from where Democrats are but far away from the mainstream.

But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have nowhere to go. They cannot put forward a positive program because their positive program is out of date with the needs of 21st century America. So they have come up with a strategy of obstruction: 57, 58, 59, and soon they will set the record in numbers of filibusters--not just obstructing on the most major of issues but on just about everything. Their view is: We can block things and show we count. Well, the rules of the Senate certainly allow them to block anything they want as long as they prevent us from getting 60 votes. That is true, but that is hardly a sign of strength. That is hardly a sign of resoluteness. It is a sign, in my judgment, of weakness, of an inability to do anything positive, and therefore a unity around just being negative.

In 1980, a lot of people felt Government was too big and out of control. In 2008, with our health care system needing help, with our education system needing help, with our energy policy in a shambles, with our foreign policy--I heard my colleague from Texas mention fighting al-Qaida. What percentage of the troops in Iraq are fighting al-Qaida? We all know that is a misstatement of what is going on there. The vast majority of those who are fighting are fighting in the war between the Sunnis and the Shiites. So our present needs in America are different. The world has been hit by a technological revolution. The world has been hit by globalization.

In 2000, we sat astride the globe. We had a budget surplus. We had a prosperous economy. We were respected in the world. Over the last 7 years, under the leadership of President Bush, that has been squandered. That is not just Democrats speaking; that is America speaking. Close to 70 percent of America thinks we are headed in the wrong direction. A majority of not only Democrats but Independents and a near majority of Republicans think we are headed in the wrong direction. But my

colleagues across the aisle, clinging to their base, narrower and narrower, further and further away from the American mainstream and what the American people want, have come up with a policy of obstruction because they can't come up with anything else.

So we come to the floor and ask for reasonable debates on the major issues facing us, whether it be weaning us away from oil and fossil fuels, whether it be improving health care for children, whether it be a change in course in Iraq, which the vast majority of America demands, and they block it, and then they block it again, and then they block it again. My good colleagues from Illinois and from Nevada even brought up the most noncontroversial bill: a registry on ALS. My uncle, who was a well-known obstetrician, the head of Columbia Presbyterian Hospital's Department of Obstetrics, died of ALS. I care about this. I watched him waste away. They blocked that too.

This strategy, which creates a feeling of false strength among my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, is doomed to failure. This strategy, I predict, will help create the demise of even the large minority they have right now.

There will be a Democratic nominee; there will be a Presidential campaign in the summer and the fall. That Presidential Democratic nominee, whoever she or he may be, will be campaigning and saying we need change. We cannot get change unless we increase the number of people who want change in the Senate. Senator X and Senator Y and Senator Z on the other side of the aisle have stood in the way of change, and they will continue to. So put in a new Senator who will vote for change. My Republican colleagues are filibustering themselves out of their seats come 2008. This strategy--short term, narrow, and shortsighted--will not stand because the American people demand change.

I want to talk about one area I have been asked to talk about, the subprime loan crisis. I have said time and time again we need to do something about this crisis. I have been talking about it for a long time. The Bush administration and Senate Republicans have ideological handcuffs on: Government should not be involved, no matter what. If hundreds of thousands of innocent people are losing their homes, no Government. If our financial markets are shaking and quaking, no Government. If housing prices are going down for the first time across America so that even if you fully paid your mortgage, you are suffering from this subprime crisis, no Government, no matter what, no matter the consequences.

Guess what that sounds like. It sounds like the Republican platform of the 1890s or 1920s. I thought we had learned something since then. Government is not the only answer, and it probably should not even be the first answer, in most instances, but it is often the only answer. What we have seen is this administration comes up with the sort of plans and schemes that twist themselves into a pretzel to try to say they are helping with this crisis and avoiding any Government involvement. It hasn't worked. Confidence in our credit markets declines. The number of foreclosures goes up. Housing prices continue to go down. The shame of it all is there are simple solutions.

I will be happy to yield when I finish my remarks.

Now here is what we Democrats are asking for: commonsense solutions, designed to help people save their homes at an absolute minimum cost, designed to curtail the drop in housing prices, designed to restore the faith that Americans, investors, and world investors have in our credit market.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

We are not asking for a bailout; far from it. We are asking for simple things. The simplest thing passed the House with a large number of Republican votes, and it is FHA modernization. President Bush is for FHA modernization. Secretary Paulson came and met with the Finance Committee last week, with Democrats and Republicans-- Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley were there--and urged us to pass FHA modernization. I haven't heard what the objection is, because FHA modernization passed the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee in the Senate by a vote of 20 to 1. We sought to pass the bill on the floor and Senate Republicans objected on November 15. On December 6, we tried again, and again the legislation was blocked. What has happened since November 15 and today, about a month later? Hundreds, probably a hundred thousand, certainly tens of thousands more homes have gone into foreclosure, housing prices have declined further, credit markets are shaky, and the plan that the administration came up with, which assiduously, ideologically, and narrowly avoided any Government involvement, has been widely discredited and has brought no confidence in the credit market. The President's program became even more critical yesterday--the need for the FHA modernization--when it was revealed that the administration's signature subprime program, FHA Secure, activated in November--guess how many borrowers it helped. Hundreds of thousands? Tens of thousands? Thousands? No. It helped 541, when we are expecting 2 million foreclosures in the next 2 years. Helping only a few hundred families and saying you are doing something is incomprehensible.

I hope we will move this FHA legislation. As I said, it is supported by the President and by Secretary Paulson. It is the mildest of measures. It can't be too bad if President Bush is for it. That is not my view, but I am trying to perhaps win over some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This FHA modernization will help in a small way. We have to do other things. The bill Senator Brown, Senator Casey, and I have put in the appropriations bill, with Senator Murray's help, for $200 million to help families get out of foreclosure makes sense. Congressman Frank and I have a bill to help Fannie and Freddie to help with the foreclosures, which is legislation that is needed as well. But at least this is a first step. Yes, it is Government, and if you are a hard right ideologue, I guess you say the ideological purity of keeping Government away from everything is more important than helping innocent victims keep their homes, more important than keeping housing prices stable, more important than keeping our credit markets in good shape.

I hope my colleagues will join me. I hope so for the good of the country, even though I believe, frankly, politically they are marching down a path to oblivion and in the longer run it will help us get a better Senate to get things done--things that the American people demand.

At this point, I make a plea to my colleagues that this rather noncontroversial--if you judge by the breadth of its support-- legislation goes through on FHA modernization.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 481, S. 2338, the FHA Modernization Act of 2007; that the Dodd-Shelby amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Will my colleague yield for a question?

Would my colleague be willing to support a provision to

have a time limit on debate on this bill, with amendments limited to the substance of the bill so we can get the bill done?

Let me discuss that with my colleague and maybe we can move the bill. We are in the closing weeks of the session, so maybe we can agree to a reasonable time limit and reasonable amendments.

I withdraw my unanimous consent request temporarily so I may discuss things with my colleague from Oklahoma.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I may call up my amendment and that the time I use to describe my amendment not be charged against the time for the Senators from New Jersey and Indiana.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to Senator Harkin's substitute amendment to the farm bill. I commend Chairman Harkin, Senator Chambliss, and all the members of the Agriculture Committee for their hard work during the drafting of this farm bill.

I particularly thank the committee for its commitment to making this bill the most fair in our country's history. The committee's farm bill includes all agricultural producers, not just growers of commodity crops. With new programs for specialty growers and expanded protections for dairy and livestock producers, this bill is truly a winner for all parts of the country.

I thank my colleague from Iowa once again, now that he is in the Chamber, for his great work and for being inclusive as he always is.

I am here this morning offering an amendment I believe builds on the spirit of the committee's bill. This amendment increases funding for vital conservation programs that are important to all working farmers. It provides an additional $480 million over 5 years to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP; an additional $65 million over 5 years to the Farmland Protection Program; and an additional $60 million to the Grassland Reserve Program.

To offset these increased payments, the amendment makes small reductions in the Federal subsidies of crop insurance. It increases the cut in administration and operations payments to 4 percent, above the committee's 2 percent, and retains the important snap-back provision Senator Roberts introduced.

The amendment also raises the underwriting gain share to 12.5 percent. That is the level to which the House raised it.

Working farmers are the most important stewards of our natural resources. Farmers and ranchers own 70 percent of the land in the country. They deserve help from the Government preserving these resources because all Americans benefit from them.

I would also like to add, I am in full support of the amendment--I am a cosponsor, in fact, of the amendment--the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, has offered. This amendment is along the same lines, and I will not ask for a vote on it if his amendment succeeds because I think it is an outstanding amendment.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now recess until 2:15 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 11, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct a hearing. At this hearing, the committee will hear testimony regarding the Science and Engineering to Comprehensively Understand and Responsibly Enhance Water Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 11, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, in order to hear testimony on S. 1673, the Promoting American Agricultural and Medical Exports to Cuba Act of 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 11, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in order to hold a classified briefing on Iran.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing entitled ``Meeting the Global Challenge of AIDS, TB, and Malaria,'' during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 11, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room 325 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, Without objection, it is so ordered.

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 11, 2007, at 10 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``E-Government 2.0: Improving Innovation, Collaboration, and Access.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 11, 2007, at 10 a.m., in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Speculation in the Crude Oil Market.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select

Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 11, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in order to hold a closed briefing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Sunshine in Litigation Act: Does Court Secrecy Undermine Public Health and Safety?'' on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Witness list

The Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, United States District Court Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.

Johnny Bradley, Jr., Pachuta, Mississippi.

Robert N. Weiner, Partner, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Washington, DC.

Leslie A. Bailey, Brayton-Baron Attorney, Public Justice, Oakland,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Legal Rights of Guantanamo Detainees: What Are They, Should They Be Changed, and Is an End in Sight?'' on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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

Mr. President, for months since the writing has been on the wall about the depth and magnitude of the subprime loan crisis, I have said time and time again that the Bush administration needs to take off its ideological handcuffs and act quickly to prevent millions of families from losing their homes. To the credit of Treasury Secretary Paulson, he seems to have loosened the administration's ideological handcuffs when it comes to the subprime mortgage crisis. But the burning question is whether this administration's plan, announced today, will go far enough in helping families in need, particularly when it is being announced at the exact same time Republicans in Congress are blocking critical commonsense help targeted toward these same borrowers. The President and Secretary Paulson say they are for FHA reform. Yet, a half hour ago, when Senator Reid asked for it to come to the floor, Republican colleagues blocked the bill. Has the White House stopped sending memos to the Republicans in the House and the Senate? What is going on here?

While I agree with Secretary Paulson that wide-scale loan modifications are key in helping prevent the foreclosure

crisis, I am hearing that the plan being announced will be limited and targeted to only a limited set of borrowers who are at risk of losing their homes. I am hearing that one of my constituents, Mrs. Diaz from Staten Island, a hospital clerk I met as I talked about this issue back in New York, would not be helped by this plan. She and hundreds of thousands of other hard-working families seeking help are unlikely to qualify for the administration's plan. Over 230,000 Americans will have lost their homes due to foreclosure in the second half of this year alone. Just today, foreclosures reached an alltime high, as did the number of Americans who have fallen behind on their mortgage payments. Many of these are people who could afford their homes if not for the dubious subprime loans they received. We know none of those families will be helped in this plan.

The bottom line with the administration's plan is there are too many families that may be left out and too little disclosure and transparency to ensure families that do qualify are being helped. If, as it has been reported, the plan will exclude subprimes with resets before January 1, 2008, then, according to Joint Economic Committee estimates, the plan will not cover 115,000 homeowners who will be foreclosed this quarter, let alone the additional 300,000 to 400,000 whose subprime resets have taken place in the second half of this year. That is already close to half a million not being helped.

It has also been reported that the payment freeze will cover only borrowers who are current in their payments. By definition, this will exclude many of the borrowers who most need help. They could be a couple of months in arrears. With help, they could solve their problems, work out some kind of refinancing. They are out.

Frankly, I am also concerned about how this plan will be implemented. We have heard for the last 6 months from servicers that they have been modifying many troubled loans, but it turns out this is not exactly the case. What is going to change in their calculus now? Do we have confidence that investors won't line up to bring lawsuits and bring this process to a grinding halt before it even begins?

Even if this plan is sound, the devil will be in the details of its implementation. For that reason, it is imperative that the administration gather and make public data from the mortgage servicers and lenders about what they are doing. We can't simply trust; we must trust but verify.

For a solution to the subprime crisis to be successful, it must be transparent enough that all interested parties, including homeowners, investors, and policymakers, can verify that families are being helped. This is even more true when it comes to this administration which has continually told us that the subprime crisis is being contained. Some key information needs to be provided to the public, including the number of mortgages covered by the freeze, the number and types of modifications offered, the number of loans which are refinanced by FHASecure, and the number of loans foreclosed.

We need to get this right now and make sure we do everything we can to make this rescue effort successful because if we wait 3 months, 6 months, a year, the subprime crisis might overwhelm the economy and plunge us into recession. The Joint Economic Committee which I chair estimated that the spillover from the subprime foreclosure crisis could exceed $100 billion for homeowners, their neighbors, and the local tax base. On top of the subprime foreclosure losses, the continuing housing slump could be a massive blow to the economy. Economists such as Robert Shiller, who recently spoke before our committee, estimate that a 10- percent decline in housing prices could lead to an overall $2.3 trillion economic loss at a time when this country can least afford it. What does that mean for Mrs. Diaz and the millions of other families who have lost their homes on the brink of foreclosure or for their neighbors, because their neighbors are worrying too. When our homes are worth less than they were only a year ago, it is difficult to make mortgage payments each month. But when there isn't much in the bank account to pay high energy and health care bills, people get anxious. Instead of easing American anxiety, Republicans in this body and, for too many months, in this administration have ignored that anxiety. While we have been pushing to help American families, they have been nowhere to be found.

There are things we can do beyond what Secretary Paulson has proposed. Senators Brown, Casey, and I, with critical help from Senator Murray, got $200 million in the appropriations bill for housing counseling organizations that can provide help. But instead of enthusiastically lining up behind this funding to help homeowners, the administration is threatening to veto this critical funding which could help loan modification efforts like those being pushed by Secretary Paulson. Instead of letting us pass an FHA reform bill that will allow this critical agency to help refinance troubled homeowners, as we speak, Senate Republicans are blocking progress on this proposal for ideological reasons.

Yes, there are some, both in the White House and on the other side of the aisle, who believe in no Government involvement, let the chips fall where they may. That will hurt millions and millions of innocent people. That could lead to a recession. That is not what the American people want.

I say to the President and to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, take off your ideological handcuffs. Solve this problem that is afflicting America. The American people are not ideologues left or right. They want commonsense, practical solutions to solve this problem. The most frustrating aspect is that we know how to solve this problem in good part, but we are being blocked every step of the way.

Again, Secretary Paulson and the President's announcement is a good first step. For the first time, they are taking off the ideological straitjacket and putting their toe in the water. But now they have to get into the pool. This is not a small problem. This is not something that takes minor and half-baked measures to solve. The American people are waiting. The homeowners on the brink of foreclosure are waiting. But so are their neighbors and so is every business owner in this economy.

I urge my Republican colleagues to take off the blinders, stop blocking assistance to families who will lose their homes unless we act, allow us to pass commonsense measures, and convince this administration not to veto help for American homeowners during this holiday season.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, I want to say a few words about the bill I am introducing, the Wrongful Convictions Tax Relief Act of 2007. My bill would provide much-needed assistance to individuals who have been wrongfully convicted of a crime and subsequently exonerated by clarifiying that State compensation awards are tax-free; and stating that exonerees shall have their first $50,000 of earnings free of federal income and payroll taxes for each year that they were wrongfully imprisoned. The second benefit would only apply to those who have never been convicted of a felony for which they were not exonerated. If they had a conviction prior to their wrongful conviction, they would not be eligible. If they are subsequently convicted, they would lose their eligibility as well.

I want to thank Senator Brownback for offering to be the lead Republican cosponsor of my bill. He and I have worked together on a number of issues now, and I appreciate his willingness to support this legislation.

As my colleagues are surely aware, whatever their political leanings may be, this bill addresses an incredibly timely and important issue. Just 2 days ago, a Federal prosecutor in Jacksonville, Florida dismissed a murder case against a Florida man, based on DNA evidence, exonerating him in a 1994 murder. According to the Innocence Project, this man represents the 209th person nationwide exonerated by DNA testing.

More and more innocent people are regaining their freedom through post-conviction DNA testing. No matter what your view may be of the death penalty; no matter what your view may be of mandatory sentencing laws; no matter how ``tough on crime'' you want to be--surely everyone would agree that when innocent people spend time in prison for crimes that they did not commit, something of value has been taken from them.

In this country, everyone is entitled to a fair trial. Yet for those wrongfully convicted of a crime, our legal system has failed them. Some of the common causes of wrongful convictions include eyewitness misidentification, unreliable or limited evidence tests, and false information presented by informants. Even more sobering, more than a quarter of all prisoners exonerated by DNA evidence had falsely confessed or made incriminating statements, simply to end hours of aggressive interrogation.

Thankfully, advocacy groups such as the Innocence Project and the Justice Project have taken on the challenge of addressing what can only be described as a systemic problem. The Innocence Project at the Cardozo School of Law in New York City has been a tireless leader in overturning wrongful convictions, and has led the charge in using DNA evidence to prove, once and for all, a person's innocence. With new improvements in DNA testing and technology, we can now positively identify or rule out suspects based on DNA evidence left at the scene of a crime. In most wrongful conviction cases, new testing of DNA evidence taken from the crime scene years before points to another perpetrator.

Once released, exonerees face huge and sometimes insurmountable challenges. Multiple studies have shown that upon release, these individuals often have difficulty reentering society. They have lost the prime years of their life, serving time in prison for crimes they did not commit. The vast majority of exonerated individuals entered prison in their teens or 20s, and they stayed there while some of their peers on the outside settled on careers, married, started families, bought homes, and began saving for retirement. They have emerged from prison many years behind, and it is difficult to catch up. Think about how much the economy has changed in just the last 10 years, and think about how difficult it would be to adjust if you had spent that time behind bars.

Shockingly, despite being imprisoned for an average of 12 years, exonerees typically leave prison with less help pre-release counseling, job training, substance-abuse treatment, housing assistance and other services than some states offer to paroled prisoners. Even the basic tasks that seem so unremarkable to you and I, like going to the grocery store, paying bills, and getting to and from work, are huge tasks for someone who has spent so much time in prison. In fact, in some cases, people have lost jobs once their employers find out about their past

conviction, despite the fact that they have been exonerated of the crime. I know that sounds unbelievable, but it's true. You didn't commit the crime, it is proven that you didn't commit the crime, but you still lose your job. Imagine for just a moment if this happened to one of your friends or family members. You would be outraged. The unfairness is heartbreaking.

Certainly we can all agree that these individuals deserve and need support after their release, and lawmakers on both the state and federal level have begun to address the question of compensation for wrongfully convicted individuals. In 2004, Congress passed the Justice for All Act, which I am proud to have cosponsored. This bill, among other things, raised the cap for potential federal compensation awards for wrongful convictions to $100,000. Although the federal compensation has not been claimed, this landmark piece of legislation set a precedent for state compensation laws. As of now, 22 States have followed suit and passed compensation laws as well. But the system is a patchwork. Some States, such as Maine and New York, provide exonerees with a lump sum as the court sees fit, and cap these awards at specific levels. Other States, such as California and Texas, give compensation based on time spent in jail. Only a few States, such as Louisiana, offer compensation to cover costs such as vocational training, medical bills and counseling, to aid re-entry.

We can and should do more. Of all people known by the Innocence Project to have been exonerated through DNA evidence as of August 2007, at least 79--nearly 40 percent--didn't receive a dime to compensate them for their years in prison. Even when someone is awarded compensation, they can wait in limbo for years. More than half of those who did receive compensation waited two years or longer after exoneration for the first payment, forcing them to rely on family, friends, lawyers, and even strangers for shelter, clothing, food and emotional support immediately after their release.

The Federal Government cannot and should not offer cash compensation for those who have been wrongfully convicted by state courts, but we do have the power to address how compensation awards are taxed, and how these individuals are taxed once they try to rebuild their lives. We can help even the playing field across all States by changing the law to ensure that there are some benefits that will be consistent across all 50 States. My bill changes the law in a number of ways to ensure that there are some benefits available to everyone, regardless of which State they call home.

The first change in my bill is more of a clarification than a new tax benefit. If an exoneree does receive a state compensation award, the Federal tax laws are unclear as to whether these awards are taxable. According to the Innocence Project, the Internal Revenue Service has not yet made any attempts to tax these awards, but the concern remains that the IRS could make such a claim in the future. My bill specifically clarifies that any civil damages, restitution, or other monetary awards related to the wrongful imprisonment are excluded from taxable income.

The second change in my bill will help provide much-needed economic assistance to exonerees that are trying to rebuild their lives, but finding it hard to make ends meet. My bill says that, for every year that someone was wrongfully imprisoned and then exonerated, up to 15 years, the first $50,000 they earn each year after their release will be free of Federal income and payroll taxes. For married couples filing jointly, the tax-free amount would be $75,000 per year. Again, the benefit would only apply to those who have never been convicted of a felony. If they had a conviction prior to their wrongful conviction, they would not be eligible. If they are subsequently convicted, they would lose their eligibility as well.

In terms of real dollars, let us take the example of someone earning $20,000 post-imprisonment. In a typical tax filing scenario, my bill will save them nearly $2,800 in income and payroll taxes. This is a real benefit that can make wages go just that much farther--it can pay for a few months' rent, or a community college course, or any number of things that can help this victim return to a productive life.

As my colleagues know, I feel very strongly about justice and fairness. I am not one to shy away from making tough decisions to strengthen our laws, but I also believe that when someone has been treated unfairly by the law, it is our responsibility to provide some help. I sincerely believe that people who have been wrongfully convicted of a crime have had parts of their lives taken from them, plain and simple.

Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on the issue of fair compensation for wrongful convictions. I stand ready to work with Senator Brownback and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, to get this bill enacted next year.

Mr. President, today, I want to say a few words about the bill I am introducing, the Wrongful Convictions Tax Relief Act of 2007. My bill would provide much-needed assistance to individuals who have been wrongfully convicted of a crime and subsequently exonerated by clarifiying that State compensation awards are tax-free; and stating that exonerees shall have their first $50,000 of earnings free of federal income and payroll taxes for each year that they were wrongfully imprisoned. The second benefit would only apply to those who have never been convicted of a felony for which they were not exonerated. If they had a conviction prior to their wrongful conviction, they would not be eligible. If they are subsequently convicted, they would lose their eligibility as well.

I want to thank Senator Brownback for offering to be the lead Republican cosponsor of my bill. He and I have worked together on a number of issues now, and I appreciate his willingness to support this legislation.

As my colleagues are surely aware, whatever their political leanings may be, this bill addresses an incredibly timely and important issue. Just 2 days ago, a Federal prosecutor in Jacksonville, Florida dismissed a murder case against a Florida man, based on DNA evidence, exonerating him in a 1994 murder. According to the Innocence Project, this man represents the 209th person nationwide exonerated by DNA testing.

More and more innocent people are regaining their freedom through post-conviction DNA testing. No matter what your view may be of the death penalty; no matter what your view may be of mandatory sentencing laws; no matter how ``tough on crime'' you want to be--surely everyone would agree that when innocent people spend time in prison for crimes that they did not commit, something of value has been taken from them.

In this country, everyone is entitled to a fair trial. Yet for those wrongfully convicted of a crime, our legal system has failed them. Some of the common causes of wrongful convictions include eyewitness misidentification, unreliable or limited evidence tests, and false information presented by informants. Even more sobering, more than a quarter of all prisoners exonerated by DNA evidence had falsely confessed or made incriminating statements, simply to end hours of aggressive interrogation.

Thankfully, advocacy groups such as the Innocence Project and the Justice Project have taken on the challenge of addressing what can only be described as a systemic problem. The Innocence Project at the Cardozo School of Law in New York City has been a tireless leader in overturning wrongful convictions, and has led the charge in using DNA evidence to prove, once and for all, a person's innocence. With new improvements in DNA testing and technology, we can now positively identify or rule out suspects based on DNA evidence left at the scene of a crime. In most wrongful conviction cases, new testing of DNA evidence taken from the crime scene years before points to another perpetrator.

Once released, exonerees face huge and sometimes insurmountable challenges. Multiple studies have shown that upon release, these individuals often have difficulty reentering society. They have lost the prime years of their life, serving time in prison for crimes they did not commit. The vast majority of exonerated individuals entered prison in their teens or 20s, and they stayed there while some of their peers on the outside settled on careers, married, started families, bought homes, and began saving for retirement. They have emerged from prison many years behind, and it is difficult to catch up. Think about how much the economy has changed in just the last 10 years, and think about how difficult it would be to adjust if you had spent that time behind bars.

Shockingly, despite being imprisoned for an average of 12 years, exonerees typically leave prison with less help pre-release counseling, job training, substance-abuse treatment, housing assistance and other services than some states offer to paroled prisoners. Even the basic tasks that seem so unremarkable to you and I, like going to the grocery store, paying bills, and getting to and from work, are huge tasks for someone who has spent so much time in prison. In fact, in some cases, people have lost jobs once their employers find out about their past

conviction, despite the fact that they have been exonerated of the crime. I know that sounds unbelievable, but it's true. You didn't commit the crime, it is proven that you didn't commit the crime, but you still lose your job. Imagine for just a moment if this happened to one of your friends or family members. You would be outraged. The unfairness is heartbreaking.

Certainly we can all agree that these individuals deserve and need support after their release, and lawmakers on both the state and federal level have begun to address the question of compensation for wrongfully convicted individuals. In 2004, Congress passed the Justice for All Act, which I am proud to have cosponsored. This bill, among other things, raised the cap for potential federal compensation awards for wrongful convictions to $100,000. Although the federal compensation has not been claimed, this landmark piece of legislation set a precedent for state compensation laws. As of now, 22 States have followed suit and passed compensation laws as well. But the system is a patchwork. Some States, such as Maine and New York, provide exonerees with a lump sum as the court sees fit, and cap these awards at specific levels. Other States, such as California and Texas, give compensation based on time spent in jail. Only a few States, such as Louisiana, offer compensation to cover costs such as vocational training, medical bills and counseling, to aid re-entry.

We can and should do more. Of all people known by the Innocence Project to have been exonerated through DNA evidence as of August 2007, at least 79--nearly 40 percent--didn't receive a dime to compensate them for their years in prison. Even when someone is awarded compensation, they can wait in limbo for years. More than half of those who did receive compensation waited two years or longer after exoneration for the first payment, forcing them to rely on family, friends, lawyers, and even strangers for shelter, clothing, food and emotional support immediately after their release.

The Federal Government cannot and should not offer cash compensation for those who have been wrongfully convicted by state courts, but we do have the power to address how compensation awards are taxed, and how these individuals are taxed once they try to rebuild their lives. We can help even the playing field across all States by changing the law to ensure that there are some benefits that will be consistent across all 50 States. My bill changes the law in a number of ways to ensure that there are some benefits available to everyone, regardless of which State they call home.

The first change in my bill is more of a clarification than a new tax benefit. If an exoneree does receive a state compensation award, the Federal tax laws are unclear as to whether these awards are taxable. According to the Innocence Project, the Internal Revenue Service has not yet made any attempts to tax these awards, but the concern remains that the IRS could make such a claim in the future. My bill specifically clarifies that any civil damages, restitution, or other monetary awards related to the wrongful imprisonment are excluded from taxable income.

The second change in my bill will help provide much-needed economic assistance to exonerees that are trying to rebuild their lives, but finding it hard to make ends meet. My bill says that, for every year that someone was wrongfully imprisoned and then exonerated, up to 15 years, the first $50,000 they earn each year after their release will be free of Federal income and payroll taxes. For married couples filing jointly, the tax-free amount would be $75,000 per year. Again, the benefit would only apply to those who have never been convicted of a felony. If they had a conviction prior to their wrongful conviction, they would not be eligible. If they are subsequently convicted, they would lose their eligibility as well.

In terms of real dollars, let us take the example of someone earning $20,000 post-imprisonment. In a typical tax filing scenario, my bill will save them nearly $2,800 in income and payroll taxes. This is a real benefit that can make wages go just that much farther--it can pay for a few months' rent, or a community college course, or any number of things that can help this victim return to a productive life.

As my colleagues know, I feel very strongly about justice and fairness. I am not one to shy away from making tough decisions to strengthen our laws, but I also believe that when someone has been treated unfairly by the law, it is our responsibility to provide some help. I sincerely believe that people who have been wrongfully convicted of a crime have had parts of their lives taken from them, plain and simple.

Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on the issue of fair compensation for wrongful convictions. I stand ready to work with Senator Brownback and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, to get this bill enacted next year.

Mr. President, first, let me thank my colleague from Colorado for, as always, his excellent remarks. One of the many things he does for our Senate and our Democratic caucus in particular is constantly remind us of the problems in rural America. He has a link, coming from a great family tradition in rural America, a farming tradition, a tradition that has gone back centuries. When he speaks on these issues, many of us from more urbanized States listen. I thank him for his courtesy. Not that we don't have great farmers in New York--we do.

I am here to talk on a different subject. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the subprime lending crisis and the plan we are executing to address the foreclosure wave that threatens home ownership and our broader economy. Rampant predatory lending practices across this Nation have left millions of American homeowners stuck with unaffordable and unfair subprime loans. As a result, 2 million families now face the prospect of foreclosure and the loss of their homes over the next 2 years unless we take action. The number is going to get worse because the loans that were made in 2006 and this year, 2007, usually do not reset until 2008 and 2009. Because so many people who accepted these loans--took these loans--were taken advantage of, the interest rate will skyrocket for them. Many of them will not be able to afford it.

Foreclosures entail not only direct costs to the lenders and borrowers but also high spillover costs that are felt by neighboring homeowners, communities, and local governments in the form of lower home values, lost property tax revenue, and increased maintenance costs. A recent report by the majority staff of the Joint Economic Committee estimated that each foreclosure can cost $227,000 in direct and indirect costs. That is astounding. The homes on a street or in a neighborhood that has had foreclosures often go down in value. Even if you are perfectly safe, even if you have already paid your mortgage and have no intention of taking out another one, you are at risk because of this foreclosure crisis, in terms of the value of your home.

The numbers mean that if the housing market slump continues through the next 2 years, as many economists estimate, approximately $103 billion in housing wealth will be destroyed as these homes are foreclosed on; $103 billion in lost wealth at a time when our families can least afford it.

In addition, States and local governments will lose nearly $1 billion in property tax revenue over the next 2 years as a result of the destruction of housing wealth caused by subprime foreclosures. That is $1 billion less funding for public schools and public safety, and that is the direct property tax loss. We are not talking about the other losses States and local governments will see as a result of the broader economic impact of the crisis.

We are not talking about the financial burden that cities and towns all over the Nation will face to maintain vacant properties and to prevent crime near abandoned homes. We are also not talking about cost to the larger economy. When home values go down because of this crisis, consumers spend less. Consumer spending has been the engine of this economy. It accounts for about 70 percent of our GDP. Statistics show when home values go down, consumers spend less. So this is ricocheting from one end of the economy to the other. Again, even if you live in your home and paid off your mortgage, you will be affected by this unless we act.

The frustrating thing is we know what to do here. We cannot make this crisis go away; there is no magic wand. It took years of neglect, years of ideological aversion to even commonsense regulation of the now- unregulated mortgage brokers. But the frustrating thing--frustrating for this Member who has been talking about this for a long time--is we know what to do. This administration, when it comes to the subprime crisis, has remained like an ostrich with its head in the sand, not paying attention. Why? Why don't they see what everyone else sees?

The reason is quite simple. We have ideologues who run this administration. Their view is Government should never be involved. Let the homeowner pay the price. Let the economy pay the price. Because to get the Government involved is bad.

They can't prove that; that is their ideology. If there were ever a time when we needed some thoughtful, careful, moderate but directed Government intervention--not to bail out anybody; those people will pay the price, you read it in the financial pages of the newspapers right now--but to help our Nation out of this crisis at a time when other things such as high oil prices are hitting, makes eminent sense. The time to act is now, while we still have a chance to save these homes and strengthen our floundering housing market.

I am proud to say today that my colleagues, we in the Senate, will have an opportunity to act and take action on two measures that are designed to use the tools of the Federal Government to assist in helping the 2 million subprime borrowers facing foreclosures with alternatives for loan workouts, refinancings, and modifications. I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will agree with us that these actions are urgently necessary. To wait even 3 or 4 months will have this crisis grow in problems for those homeowners whose mortgages go up, for those financial institutions that have the mortgages but, to a far greater extent, to our economy--neighbors affected and consumer spending.

I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join us in helping take the urgent action that is needed now--not next month, not in February but now.

First, we will take action to pass the FHA modernization bill. This legislation makes several important changes to FHA, including adjustments to its downpayment requirements, loan limits, and underwriting standards to give the FHA more flexibility to assist subprime borrowers with safe and sustainable refinancing alternatives before their loans reset to unaffordable rates. With these changes, FHA will be able to rescue tens of thousands of American families from the financial ruin of foreclosure.

The legislation will also make improvements to FHA's counseling and foreclosure prevention programs to ensure that borrowers who have already faced the specter of the loss of their home will not have to go through the ordeal again. The FHA legislation is modest. It has bipartisan support. It has the support of the administration. What are we waiting for?

Second, we are pushing the passage of the PROMISE Act, a bill to temporarily increase the portfolio caps on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by their regulator.

This is legislation I have introduced, along with Congressman Frank in the House. The bill will alleviate the predicted wave of foreclosures by giving Freddie and Fannie 10 percent more balance sheet capacity. But it does not just give them the balance sheet capacity and say: Do what you want with it; we hope some will go to help avoid foreclosures through refinancings.

We say 85 percent of that increase must be dedicated to assisting subprime borrowers who are stuck in risky adjustable rate mortgages. The legislation is based on the premise that in troubled market times like these, when private firms are unwilling or incapable of providing the financing necessary to help subprime borrowers, it is appropriate and necessary for the government-sponsored enterprises to step in and provide liquidity. This is why we have GSEs. They are quasi-private, quasi-public. They have a certain and special responsibility when the Nation's economy is at risk. They are not the same as any private company whose job is to make money for its owners or its stockholders. But at the same time, they have the expertise of

the private sector and the clout of the private sector to get something done in an efficient and directed way.

We have all heard that GSEs are the only game in town when it comes to secondary market trading, due to profound distrust of credit quality and rampant uncertainty about the rating agencies. We have to use the liquidity GSEs provide to target those subprime borrowers in need of a way to save their homes.

What is frustrating is the administration is opposed to this legislation because they do not like Fannie and Freddie. They say: Let the markets take care of this in their own way. That is a lesson that was widely accepted in the 1890s and to some extent in the 1920s, but this is 2007. We know thoughtful, well-thought-out Government intervention, in a careful way, works and is needed. We also know if we do not have it, the booms and busts of the economy and to individuals will be far greater, and starting with Woodrow Wilson and then with Franklin Roosevelt and with Democratic and Republican Presidents alike since World War II, we have learned that at times Government intervention is called for, particularly when the private sector is unable to act. In this case, the private sector is clearly unable to act.

Over the coming weeks, we also plan to pass $200 million in the Transportation-HUD appropriations bill for housing counseling organizations that specialize in foreclosure prevention. Here is another problem. A homeowner, and many of the homeowners who are in foreclosure or about to go in foreclosure, these are homeowners who could qualify for prime loans, but they were taken advantage of by rapacious mortgage brokers. And now they are stuck. But they are not really stuck, they have a revenue stream.

People I have met, Mr. Ruggiero, the late Mr. Ruggiero, a subway motorman; Ms. Diaz, a clerk at a hospital for 35 years with a pension, they have the income. Mr. Ruggiero of Queens, Ms. Diaz of Staten Island, they have the income to refinance. The trouble is there is no one there to help them do it. They cannot do it on their own.

There are no banks. Banks do not do this stuff in good part anymore. There are nonprofits, able, dedicated, capable, knowledgeable nonprofits that could come right in and fill the lurch.

Now, you, Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio, and the Senator from Pennsylvania, and I were able to persuade Senator Murray who, in her wisdom and always willingness to help, put first $100 million, then $200 million into the appropriations bill for housing counseling organizations that can provide this help.

At a cost of as little as a few hundred dollars per borrower, housing counselors can prevent foreclosure that results in economic loss of $227,000 direct and indirect, on average. This is a highly cost- effective investment. We urge the administration not to veto this emergency funding when the Senate passes it. If it is vetoed, and this crisis gets worse, a portion of the blame, a good portion, will be at the President's doorstep, plain and simple.

I hope the President will not veto it. Most everyone who has looked at this legislation says it is needed. If we can do these three things--FHA reform, lifting the portfolio caps for Fannie and Freddie, and money for housing counseling--we will not end the subprime crisis, it is too deep already. But we can abate it, and we can get our country focused on moving again economically and on to so many other problems that face us.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.