Floor Statements

Mr. President, I come to the floor to celebrate the life of a great American, Jack Kemp.

Jack Kemp was many things to many different people. Probably everyone knows the basics about Jack. He was a football player, a Member of Congress, a Cabinet Secretary, and a Vice Presidential nominee. Perhaps he was best known as the coauthor of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts that were the basis of the Reagan economic plan that brought progress out of prosperity and stagflation.

Today's Wall Street Journal said about Kemp:

He was among the most important Congressmen in U.S.

history. He wasn't powerful because he held a mighty post,

and he never served in the House majority. He helped to

transform the Republican Party though he was never its

Presidential standard-bearer. His influence sprang from the

power of his ideas, and from the sincerity and enthusiasm

with which he spread them.

To millions of Americans, he was much more than a football player, Congressman, and candidate. For minorities who suffered from discrimination, Jack was an olive branch from a party that too often ignored them. As a quarterback and as leader of the football players union, he championed the cause of African-American ball players and fought against segregation. For the poor struggling to rise above their circumstances in the inner city, Jack was hope for a better future. He proposed empowering tenets in public housing, offering vouchers for housing and education. For hard-working families who wanted more freedom from Government, Jack was a crusader for their cause. He believed everyone, especially those in inner cities, should have an opportunity to participate in our economy. His idea of enterprise zones has expanded and developed into many different areas of providing opportunities for those caught in circumstances in which they would otherwise have none.

Jack was all these things and more. Today Jack serves as a role model, I believe, for the future of our party. Known as the happy warrior, Jack always focused on the positive.

Don't get me wrong, Jack never shied away from a fight, and I know that in a couple instances. He called out his fellow party members for protectionism and anti-immigration efforts, believing they were wrong for this country and for the opportunities we seek. No matter how big the adversary, whether it was a linebacker or a powerful committee chair, Jack was a fearless fighter. But as a happy warrior, Jack understood the power of the positive.

Today's Washington Post carried an article by Michael Gershon in which he said:

Opportunity, [Kemp] argued, is the most important measure

of economic justice; capitalism is perfected by the broadest

possible distribution of capital; and economic freedom and

political freedom are inseparable.

Jack was well known for saying:

The best way to oppose a bad idea is to replace it with a

good one.

You see, Jack was more about solutions than party labels. It is that pragmatism and willingness to work across the aisle to solve problems that all of us would be well advised to embrace today. As a self- described bleeding heart conservative, there are so many examples of Jack Kemp doing that. Jack worked across the aisle on some of the most important issues of our time, from civil rights to safe housing for all families. It was Jack who, along with the esteemed Dr. Benjamin Hooks, brought to the national stage the scourge of lead paint poisoning which was afflicting children and families in many of our cities, particularly older ones. Exposure to lead, particularly by young children, was causing learning disabilities, behavioral problems, slowing growth, and possibly causing seizures, coma and, in some serious instances, death.

Jack Kemp and Dr. Hooks gave this avoidable tragedy a face and a very powerful voice. Thanks to their advocacy, Senator Mikulski and I launched a $50 million initiative to remove exposed paint in targeted neighborhoods. What started as an idea and a mission is now a more than $300 million program that has helped countless children and their families. But this is just one example of the ideas that Jack, with his tireless advocacy, turned into action to improve the lives of the most vulnerable and needy in our country. Jack's extraordinary life has made a lasting impact on the generations of conservatives he inspired, on the Republican Party, on the national debate, but, most importantly, on the countless lives and communities which have benefited from his powerful ideas being put into action.

To Joanne and the rest of the Kemp family, Linda and my thoughts and prayers are with you. We shall always remember and treasure the memory of Jack Kemp and the great contributions he made.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a copy of the Wall Street Journal piece entitled ``Capitalist for the Common Man'' and the Washington Post column by Michael Gershon entitled ``Head and Heart.''

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

Madam President, I rise today to offer some remarks on the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009.

The housing foreclosure crisis continues to affect families and communities throughout the Nation. I appreciate the good efforts of Senators Dodd and Shelby and the Banking Committee for trying to tackle this crisis. Until we address these issues head-on and remove the toxic assets that have poisoned not only our financial system but the world's financial system, economic recovery will be difficult to achieve. President Obama himself said, when he addressed us in January, that all the other things happening are not going to get us out of the crisis we are in until we get the toxic assets out of the system.

I particularly appreciate the fact that included in the bill is the Dodd-Crapo-Bond bill as an amendment which will strengthen the power of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to go after institutions which are on the verge of failing. To me, that is the direction this administration and the previous administration should have been following but have not.

But there are some troubling aspects of the Government's action in the FHA area, and I am concerned about the implications of some of the provisions in the bill before us. My biggest concern is the health and solvency of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Federal Housing Administration, or FHA. I appreciate the work the managers have done to deal with the fraud issues. I also support Senator Vitter's efforts to raise this issue through an amendment he has offered. I think this amendment goes in the right direction. We might want to work on some of the language, but it gets at the problem.

The bottom line is this: The FHA is a powder keg that could explode, leaving the taxpayers on the hook if Congress and the administration continue to overburden the Government agency. As I stated at a recent Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, the FHA's health and solvency are at high risk. The signs are troubling in many areas: FHA default rates are at their highest level in several years. FHA's economic value has fallen by almost 40 percent over the past year. FHA approval of new lenders has increased by 525 percent over the past 2 years, and there is evidence that some former subprime lenders and brokers have infiltrated FHA to conduct business. That in itself ought to be an alarm bell that goes off. Fraudulent activity in the mortgage industry has put and is at risk of exposing FHA to more risk. FHA has seen a significant increase in foreclosures, which endangers the stability of communities and neighboring homes. The rise in FHA defaults and foreclosures, especially in areas already victimized by subprime lending, threatens to make a bad problem worse. These troubling signs all point to a powder keg that is waiting to explode.

What does this mean for taxpayers? It means, by law, FHA is required to carry a 2-percent reserve or a 50-to-1 leverage rate. If it falls below that statutory level, FHA must raise the premiums it charges to borrowers or Congress must appropriate funds. That means taxpayers footing more of the bill.

I have a message for my colleagues in Congress and the administration: Americans do not want another bailout. The taxpayer credit card is maxed out.

Luckily, HUD is currently being led by a very capable leader, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan. However, he alone cannot fix the longstanding problems with HUD and FHA. The Congress and the administration must not make Secretary Donovan's job harder by placing more risk on FHA until the problems of the agency are fixed or the agency will crash.

I read in today's Wall Street Journal an editorial, which I will ask to be printed in the Record, that says:

In a rational world, Congress and the White House would

tighten FHA underwriting standards, in particular by

eliminating the 100% guarantee. That guarantee means banks

and mortgage lenders have no skin in the game; lenders

collect the 2% to 3% origination fees on as many FHA loans as

they can push out the door regardless of whether the borrower

has a likelihood of repaying the mortgage.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record following my remarks.

Let me reemphasize, because this is important, if we continue to overburden FHA, this powder keg may explode.

I thank my colleague, Senator Vitter, for highlighting the need to make protecting FHA solvency a priority--so taxpayers are not left on the hook. I ask my colleagues to support that amendment.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

[From the Wall Street Journal, May 4, 2009]

Exhibit 1

The Next Housing Bust

Everyone knows how loose mortgage underwriting led to the

go-go days of multitrillion-dollar subprime lending. What

isn't well known is that a parallel subprime market has

emerged over the past year--all made possible by the Federal

Housing Administration. This also won't end happily for

taxpayers or the housing market.

Last year banks issued $180 billion of new mortgages

insured by the FHA, which means they carry a 100% taxpayer

guarantee. Many of these have the same characteristics as

subprime loans: low downpayment requirements, high-risk

borrowers, and in many cases shady mortgage originators. FHA

now insures nearly one of every three new mortgages, up from

2% in 2006.

The financial results so far are not as dire as those

created by the subprime frenzy of 2004-2007, but taxpayer

losses are mounting on its $562 billion portfolio. According

to Mortgage Bankers Association data, more than one in eight

FHA loans, is now delinquent--nearly triple the rate on

conventional, nonsubprime loan portfolios. Another 7.5% of

recent FHA loans are in ``serious delinquency,'' which means

at least three months overdue.

The FHA is almost certainly going to need a taxpayer

bailout in the months ahead. The only debate is how Much it

will cost. By law FHA must carry a 2% reserve (or a 50 to l

leverage rate), and it is now 3% and falling. Some experts

see bailout costs from $50 billion to $100 billion or more,

depending on how long the recession lasts.

How did this happen? The FHA was created during the

Depression to help moderate-income and first time homebuyers

obtain a mortgage. However, as subprime lending took off,

banks fled from the FHA and its business fell by almost 80%.

Under the Bush

Administration, the FHA then began a bizarre initiative to

``regain its market share.'' And beginning in 2007, the Bush

FHA, Congress, the homebuilders and Realtors teamed up to

expand the agency's role.

The bill that passed last summer more than doubled the

maximum loan amount that FHA can insure--to $719,000 from

$362,500 in high-priced markets. Congress evidently believes

that a moderate-income buyer can afford a $700,000 house.

This increase in the loan amount was supposed to boost the

housing market as subprime crashed and demand for homes

plummeted. But FHA's expansion has hardly arrested the

housing market decline. The higher FHA loan ceiling was also

supposed to be tempor- rary, but this year Congress made it

permanent.

Even more foolish has been the campaign to lower FHA

downpayment requirements. When FHA opened in the 1930s, the

downpayment minimum was 20%; it fell to 10% in the 1960s, and

then 3% in 1978. Last year the Senate wisely insisted on

raising the downpayment to 3.5%, but that is still far too

low to reduce delinquencies in a falling market.

Because FHA also allows borrowers to finance closing costs

and other fees as part of the mortgage, the purchaser's

equity can be very close to zero. With even a small drop in

prices, many homeowners soon have mortgages larger than their

home's value--which is one reason FHA's defaults are rising.

Every study shows that by far the best way to reduce defaults

and foreclosures is to increase downpayments. Banks know this

and have returned to a 10% minimum downpayment on their non-

FHA loans.

In a rational world, Congress and the White House would

tighten FHA underwriting standards, in particular by

eliminating the 100% guarantee. That guarantee means banks

and mortgage lenders have no skin in the game; lenders

collect the 2% to 3% origination fees on as many FHA loans as

they can push out the door regardless of whether the borrower

has a likelihood of repaying the mortgage. The Washington

Post reported in March a near-tripling in the past year in

the number of loans in which a borrower failed to make more

than a single payment. One Florida bank, Great Country

Mortgage of Coral Gables, had a 64% default rate on its FHA

properties.

The Veterans Affairs housing program has a default rate

about half that of FHA loans, mainly because the VA provides

only a 50% maximum guarantee. If banks won't take half the

risk of nonpayment, this is a market test that the loan

shouldn't be made.

These reforms have long been blocked by the powerful

housing lobby--Realtors, homebuilders and mortgage bankers,

backed by their friends in Congress. They claim FHA makes

money for taxpayers through the premiums it collects from

homebuyers. But keep in mind these are the same folks who

said taxpayers weren't at risk with Fannie Mae and Freddie

Mac.

A major lesson of Fan and Fred and the subprime fiasco is

that no one benefits when we push families into homes they

can't afford. Yet that's what Congress is doing once again as

it relentlessly expands FHA lending with minimal oversight or

taxpayer safeguards.

Mr. President, today marks day 100 on the job for the Obama administration. Many in the media and commentators will be grading the President on his leadership and policy decisions. As vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I am most concerned about what is shaping up to be the President's failing strategy in national security policy. Unfortunately, the Obama administration's national security policy appears to be in disarray. While the administration is busy trying to decide who from the previous administration, which kept us safe from attacks since 9/11, they should prosecute for those efforts, they don't understand that as far as the American people are concerned, they are the ones on trial now. The President and his team have to answer how they are going to protect the American people. What are they not going to do? What will they do that will be successful?

Don't get me wrong. The President has some high points when it comes to national security, and I applaud him for those. On some very important issues, campaign rhetoric has met national security realities. To date the President has shunned the advice of Code Pink and others and stayed the course in Iraq. As several of my colleagues have said, his initial rollout steps of a new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan are in the right direction, and he has continued strikes against al-Qaida and other terrorists in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. President Obama took appropriate measures, I believe, to prepare for the North Korean missile launch.

Over the last few weeks the Obama administration has faltered. Now we are seeing some national security decisions made on what I fear is politics, not on what is in the best interest of the American people.

Just look at the recent examples. The President has decided to close our terrorist detainee facility with no backup plan. He has decided to release CIA memos on highly classified terrorist detention programs. Now he plans to release photos of alleged detainee abuse.

First, let's talk about the President's decision to close our terrorist detainee facility with no backup plan. The facility at Guantanamo Bay, or Gitmo, doesn't house middle-of-the-road, white- collar criminals. Instead this terrorist detention facility houses deadly combatants who in the past, when released, have gone back on the battlefield to kill Americans. Don't take my word for it. The Department of Defense has confirmed that at least 18 detainees who were released from Gitmo have gone back to the fight. The Pentagon suspects another 43 of doing the same.

Despite confirmation that Gitmo detainees have gone back to the battlefield to kill Americans, President Obama has decided to close Gitmo with no plan on what to do with these terrorists.

The President also has no plan to deal with new terrorists who are captured on the battlefield. Where does he plan to detain them? Does he plan on telling our troops to release them so they can go on killing Americans? This is one of the scariest of Obama's ``ready, fire, aim'' national security strategy points.

I can tell you this: Missourians in my State, and I believe people in most States, will not stand for importing terrorists such as 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to their neighborhoods. They surely do not want a bunch of them housed in secure facilities in their community because al-Qaida has a nasty tendency to launch massive attacks on detention facilities to release their brethren.

Like me, Missourians and all Americans are still waiting for Obama to make the case that his decision to release the detainees at Gitmo is in our country's national security interest.

The President has failed to make the case that the release of these terrorist detainees will make us safer. The President has failed to make the case that the release of these terrorist detainees will not pose a threat to Americans.

It is clear that without having a plan to deal with the current and new terrorists currently at Gitmo, President Obama's decision was not in our Nation's best interest. Instead, this was a national security policy decided for the purpose of appeasing the ACLU and many in the leftwing.

Another national security policy decided for the benefit of the ACLU--and at their request even--was the President's decision to release memos on the CIA's terrorist interrogation program.

While the ACLU was in favor of releasing these memos, President Obama's own CIA Director and the four previous CIA Directors all opposed this foolhardy decision. The decision is a serious blow to our terror fighters and, even worse, to their ability to obtain the intelligence we need to prevent another 9/11.

The release of these memos sends a chilling message to our intelligence community: The CIA better change their mission to ``CYA'' because their Government is not going to stand behind them.

No intelligence operator can feel safe that the legal guidance they are given or the orders they follow from superiors can be counted on to last beyond a single administration. This means our intelligence operators will be worrying about protecting their hides, not their national security mission.

Former CIA Director General Hayden and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey called President Obama's decision a step in the weakening of our intelligence gathering. Regretably, I could not agree more. This politicization and weakening of our intelligence gathering could result in a retreat to the pre-9/11 mentality that led to the tragic intelligence failures that ultimately cost the lives of more than 3,000 innocent Americans.

In addition to weakening our intelligence gathering, the release of the interrogation program limitations and their operating guidelines ties the hands of our terror fighters. During his confirmation hearing, President Obama's own CIA Director purposefully left open the door to future use of interrogation techniques in an enhanced fashion for the high-value detainees who are believed to have vital information who will not talk under normal questioning.

But now that President Obama has officially given al-Qaida the playbook, he has made any future use of these techniques ineffective. He has also told the terrorists that if they, in the course of trying to kill Americans, are captured, they have nothing to fear. They will not be subjected to any more harsh or coercive tactics than we have subjected hundreds of thousands of Americans who have volunteered to be marines, SEALs or pilots.

It is hard to imagine that this administration could make this situation even worse, but last week President Obama managed it. After his decision to release the CIA memos, the President went to Langley and told employees:

Don't be discouraged that we have to admit that we've made

some mistakes and then move forward.

In these few words, President Obama provided valuable propaganda to the terrorists. He told our enemies that our intelligence operators were wrong in what they did, an admission that will be seized upon by our enemies to fuel the hatred of Americans. Is it any surprise that the morale at the CIA has been severely damaged? Our terror fighters need to know whether the President has their back or will stab them in the back.

Unfortunately, the President completely disregarded the damage his decision would have on the CIA. He completely disregarded the damage his decision would have on our ability to get the intelligence we need to stop terrorist attacks. He completely disregarded the ammo his decision would give the terrorists bent on our destruction. Instead of these critical national security concerns, the President's decision was a political one aimed at appeasing the far leftwing.

The President even tried to claim that the ACLU's Freedom of Information Act request made the release of these memos necessary. But the first exemption under the law is for ``classified secret matters or national defense or foreign policy.'' The memos on the CIA terrorist interrogation program certainly meet those definitions. At the very least, President Obama should have made that argument in court. Instead, he handed over a victory--not for national security but for the ACLU.

While many in the media are getting mired in the details of each of these bad decisions, the bigger question is this: What is this administration's strategy for confronting the terrorist threat and keeping America safe? The world did not suddenly become safer when President Obama was elected.

Instead of telling Americans the strategy to keep our Nation safe, the latest Obama administration move has been staging costly glamour shots of Air Force One. I am not sure if everybody has heard about this stunt, but earlier this week the White House decided to update their photos of Air Force One--only they chose to take the photos of the jet at the Statue of Liberty with a fighter jet escort.

Across downtown Manhattan--where the Twin Towers once stood--New Yorkers were panicking. Thousands fled New York skyscrapers. You see, New Yorkers were not told this glamour shot was going to happen. After living through the horrors of the September 11 attacks, New Yorkers, of course, feared that another attack was happening. And 9/11 was fresh in their memories.

While the Obama administration tried to shrug off this incident, I think it is telling. This stunt is a symbol of how far from their minds the attacks of 9/11 are.

In addition to the administration's glamour shot stunt, President Obama's advisers have been busy releasing classified information that only tells the side of the story they want to share. I think everyone knows this, but let me lay out the details.

First, the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, in a letter to the intelligence community, said the interrogations provided ``high value information'' and gave the U.S. Government a ``deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.'' Blair also detailed how Congress was repeatedly briefed on the program. But in the public statement which had to go through White House clearance, these details were left out.

Next: The White House releases the memos that describe in detail the interrogation techniques that were used. But missing--in fact, I assume purposefully redacted--is the information on the lifesaving intelligence we received from these interrogations.

Also, President Obama--and many Democrats in Congress--supported the release of the CIA memos but are now opposing the release of information on what Members of Congress were briefed on the program.

Now, let me get this straight. So the facts about our interrogation program of terrorists--how we do it, and the strict limits on it to avoid torture--are fair game for release, but who and what Congress was told needs to remain secret?

I think the President's advisers got it wrong. You see, it is not supposed to be cherry-picking time in Washington today. Unfortunately, the Obama administration is not above politicizing intelligence.

Message to the administration: Get a new calendar. The election is over. With victory comes responsibility. It is now up to the Obama administration to keep our Nation safe. You are in charge of protecting the American people and stopping terror attacks--I pray with the same success the previous administration did every day since 9/11.

While President Obama failed the national security test at the 100th day mark, the final grade is not in yet. It is up to the President to choose our terror fighters over terrorists, to choose troops over ACLU lawyers, to choose national security over politics.

Protecting our families from terrorist attacks should not be a political issue, it is an American one.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Madam President, I offer my congratulations and gratitude to an extraordinary citizen-soldier from Missouri, LTG Clyde A. Vaughn. Lieutenant General Vaughn's 35-year career with the Army National Guard will draw to a close after completing an impressive 4- year tour as Director of the Army National Guard.

Lieutenant General Vaughn has earned the appreciation of our Nation and the State of Missouri for his extensive commitment to the Army National Guard. He began his distinguished career in 1974 when he was promoted to second lieutenant in the Missouri Army National Guard, beginning a 35-year career of dedication, accomplishments, and vision.

In his most recent position as Director, Lieutenant General Vaughn was responsible for the formulation, development, and implementation of all programs and policies affecting the Army National Guard. Previously, he served as Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for National Guard Matters, at the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon where he helped guide the Nation's response to the 9/11 attacks and transform the Army National Guard from a strategic reserve to an operational force. Prior to his work at the Pentagon, some of his assignments included serving as Senior Army National Guard Advisor for Reserve Affairs, Commander of Exercise Support Command, and Deputy Chief of Staff for Reserve Affairs-National Guard, at United States Army South, Fort Clayton, Panama. He has also served as Chief of Operations Division, at the Army National Guard Readiness Center in Arlington, VA, Deputy Chief of Staff, of the G3 at the Pentagon, and, Deputy Director, of the Army National Guard, at the Army National Guard Readiness Center in Arlington, VA.

His civilian education includes a bachelor of science in education from Southeast Missouri State College and a masters in public administration from Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania. His military education includes graduating from the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS, and the U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania.

General Vaughn received several awards and recognitions for his exemplary service. His many military awards include the Distinguished Service Medal; the Defense Superior Service Medal; the Legion of Merit, with four Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters; the Meritorious Service Medal, with one Silver Oak Leaf Cluster; the Army Commendation Medal; the Army Achievement Medal, with one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster; the Joint Meritorious Unit Award; the Army Superior Unit Award; and various other awards.

He has proven himself to be versatile and fully capable of accepting and mastering the tasks placed before him. His enduring commitment to the safety of Americans is cause for admiration. I offer my congratulations and sincere appreciation to LTG Clyde A. Vaughn for his remarkable achievements in the Army National Guard. He has continually provided an invaluable service to his country, and we thank him for ``showing us'' what a dedicated soldier can do for Missouri and for his country.

Mr. President, today I rise to honor the 65th anniversary of the Exercise Tiger operation and the American servicemen who took part in this exercise. I extend my gratitude to their dedication and service to the people of Missouri and of the Nation.

On April 28, 1944, German Navy ``E'' boats, patrolling the English Channel, attacked eight American landing ships engaged in training operation Exercise Tiger. These operations, organized by the U.S. Army, were undertaken off a beach in Devon, England often patrolled by German ``E'' torpedo boats. With only one English ship to guard the convoy, there was a devastating surprise attack on the American ships ending in multiple ships being sunk.

Of the four thousand men who participated in this critical operation, nearly a quarter lost their life including over 200 men from the 3206th Quartermaster Company located in Missouri. Due to the secrecy of the mission, information on the fatalities was only released after the successful completion of the D-Day invasion.

April 28, 2009 marks the 65th historic anniversary of the WWII Battle of Exercise Tiger and an opportunity to recognize all the men who served and gave their life in that historic battle. I am proud to say that we have renamed U.S. Highway 54 in my home State of Missouri as the WWII Exercise Tiger Expressway, in honor of the sailors and soldiers who paid the ultimate sacrifice. The Missouri Exercise Tiger Army and Navy Anchor Memorial has been built on the Audrain County Court House Lawn in their memory.

The servicemen who participated in the Battle of Exercise Tiger are to be commemorated for their heroic actions. These men were an example for all American soldiers and a credit to the United States as it remains the free and great country that it is today.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the introduction of S. 808, the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act or ``HEARTH'' Act, which I am very proud to cosponsor. The HEARTH Act is a landmark housing bill as it significantly improves Federal programs designed to end and prevent the tragedy of homelessness that afflicts too many American individuals and families.

Before I offer some comments on the bill, I praise Senator Jack Reed for his long-term commitment and hard work on addressing homelessness. Senator Reed has been a longtime leader in housing issues and I value the strong partnership we have had over the past several years. I also applaud his staff, led by Kara Stein, who has worked tirelessly and patiently over the past 8 years on homeless legislation. Further, I would be remiss to not mention the work of our former colleague, Senator Wayne Allard, who also was heavily involved in this legislation before he retired from this Chamber. Finally, I thank Nan Roman of the National Alliance to End Homelessness and Dr. Dennis Culhane of the University of Pennsylvania School of Social Policy and Practice who have provided us invaluable insights and research on homelessness that helped guide our policy work.

Over 20 years ago, the Federal Government took its first major step in addressing the plight of homelessness through the enactment of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, which was later renamed the McKinney-Vento Act after the death of Representative Bruce Vento who was an early advocate of the law. When this comprehensive law was enacted back in 1987, some legislators thought that homelessness was a temporary problem that could be solved in a few years. Unfortunately, this was clearly not the case. Despite billions of private and public dollars spent on the homeless, millions of veterans, families, disabled, and children have and continue to experience the sad tragedy of living without a home.

Fortunately, homelessness is not a hopeless situation. As the former chair and current ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that funds most of the Federal homeless programs, I have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--especially Senators Barbara Mikulski and Patty Murray--to ensure resources were being provided to the appropriate programs. This is an important task and I am proud of being in position to make a difference.

We learned that throwing money at the problem was not going to solve homelessness but that a smarter, more effective approach was needed. Specifically, we learned that providing permanent supportive housing was the key component in solving homelessness, especially those considered to be chronically homeless. Research led by Dr. Culhane found that chronically homeless received housing primarily through regular, long-term use of the emergency shelter system. Serving the

chronically homeless through emergency shelters interfered with their treatment regimen, resulting in costly hospital and jail stays. Further, local emergency systems became clogged with permanent users, reducing their ability to address the more temporary problems of families and individuals who are homeless because of an economic crisis. Moving away from emergency shelter programs to permanent supportive housing has become the most critical change over the past several years and based on recent studies and programs I have seen in my home state of Missouri, it has clearly worked.

To implement this approach, I worked with Senator Mikulski to include a provision, beginning in fiscal year 1999 VA-HUD Appropriations Act and carried every year thereafter, to require that at east 30 percent of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's--HUD--homeless assistance grants be used for permanent housing. Focusing a significant amount of funds towards permanent housing helped reverse the revolving door for the homeless using local emergency systems.

We also learned the importance of gathering data and analyzing the characteristics of our homeless population to design and target funds to programs needed to serve the homeless. The establishment of the Homeless Management Information Systems or HMIS through HUD has now become a critical tool for local continuum of care systems throughout the Nation in addressing their particular homeless populations. Requiring and funding HMIS systems through the VA-HUD appropriations bill was another critical component.

Finally, we learned that despite the involvement of several Federal agencies in serving the homeless, there were gaps in services and coordination was lacking. Again, I worked with my colleagues to reactivate the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness to improve Federal, State, and local coordination of homeless programs. We also required that 25 percent of HUD homeless funds used for supportive services be matched with other funds to expand funding for these needs by encouraging other Federal agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Veterans Affairs to meet their obligations.

The HEARTH Act codifies these important provisions that have been carried in appropriations and builds on our work over the past several years. In addition, the act includes a number of other important provisions that create a new program to assist rural communities help the homeless, increases local flexibility by combining HUD's competitive grant programs, and provides incentives to house rapidly homeless families.

Homelessness is a national tragedy. We are reminded of this tragedy when walking around Washington, DC, St. Louis, and other towns and cities across the Nation. It is my hope that one day, our Nation's homeless will not be worrying about where they will receive their next meal or where they will be sleeping that night. It is an unacceptable situation. But by working together with advocates, the private sector, and government, we can solve homelessness. The HEARTH Act is a prime example of that partnership and advances our ability to end homelessness.

Updating and improving our homeless programs is even more critical as more Americans face the prospects of homelessness due to the economic downturn. The housing crisis has already displaced many families and individuals creating more strain on social safety net and homeless programs.

Again, I thank Senator Jack Reed for his leadership and commitment on homeless issues and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation so it can be enacted as soon as possible.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 931, as Modified

Madam President, I will respond by saying that we on this side would like to have a vote on the point of order on the climate legislation.

No.

Madam President, my amendment shoots with real bullets. It provides a Budget Act point of order for any climate change legislation that brings in more revenue than that set forth in the budget resolution.

So it does--if that will be accepted by voice vote, it is creating a new Budget Act point of order. We would like a vote. But it does have real teeth.

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

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 926 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. President, this amendment provides a new point of order to prevent climate change legislation from raising more revenue than in the resolution, killing jobs in the coal and manufacturing-dependent regions of the United States, such as the Midwest, the Great Plains, and the South.

There is no question climate change legislation will raise trillions of dollars in Federal revenue through its Government auction of carbon allowances.

President Obama said ``electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.''

This new energy tax will kill jobs in energy-intensive sectors such as manufacturing, auto assembly, steel, cement, plastics, glass, and fertilizer.

Experts predicted last year's Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill would have killed 3 million to 4 million jobs. The Northeast and west coast will avoid the full impacts because they rely on lower carbon natural gas to generate electricity. However, climate legislation will hit hard the coal and manufacturing-dependent Midwest, Great Plains, and South.

I ask my colleagues to protect our workers by supporting this amendment.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I wish to honor a fine Missourian, Patrick J. Finneran, Jr., for his distinguished career as well as his record of community activism.

In 1967, Pat graduated from the University of Notre Dame, where he was

an ROTC cadet. Upon graduation he was commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. Marines and reported to the Officers Basic School. Following successful completion of naval flight officer training, Pat was ordered to Vietnam for combat duty with the First Marine Air Wing.

Having served his country honorably, Pat departed from the U.S. Marine Corps in 1987, with the rank of lieutenant colonel. Though leaving the military, Pat remained involved in national defense. He joined the McDonnell Douglas Corporation, which eventually became the Boeing Company, as manager of business development for the AV-8 Harrier Program and later rose to become the president of Boeing's Support Systems Division, Integrated Defense Systems.

Aside from his professional career, Pat has served the State of Missouri and the Nation as a respected citizen. His love of country has shown itself in Pat's two sons, one a Marine Corps major and another with the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agency.

Pat will retire from Boeing on April 1 of this year. From his honorable service as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps to his current post with the Boeing Company, Patrick Finneran, Jr. has always worked to inspire those around him with a sense of duty and pride in their country.

I thank Pat and his family for their service to our Nation, and I wish them all the best in their future endeavors.

I am ready.

About 6 minutes, I would think.

Mr. President, I appreciate the managers giving me time.

We are all concerned about our struggling families and workers during this time of economic pain. We know too many families are struggling to make ends meet, unable to pay their mortgages, bills or debts. They are struggling, out of a job or failing to find work that can support a family.

We should not impose an energy tax on our families and workers, as President Obama proposes through his budget cap-and-trade plan that will cause pain for our families and workers for years and decades to come.

While the President and his supporters say this is a cap-and-trade scheme to cut carbon, it will result in higher costs for makers and users of energy. Those higher energy prices will be passed straight to the consumer, who will feel like they are paying a new energy tax, and that is what it will be. Under the Obama energy tax, Americans would pay more for every time we turn on a light, put gas in our cars or heat our homes.

They also did not include the President's energy tax in their budget, the Democrats will claim. But the leadership keeps reminding us they are prepared to impose an energy tax through the budget reconciliation process. Therefore, it is important we confront what this will mean for our families and workers who would have to pay more for everything from power bills to grocery bills if their budget energy tax plan succeeds.

Higher energy prices will mean many must make a decision between heat or eat. I have in the Chamber this photo of a young girl in a newspaper ad for a low-income housing assistance program. Her family cannot afford the heating bills, thus, the caption: ``I have two coats. One for outside and one for inside.''

For too many families such as this girl's, higher heating bills from President Obama's energy tax will force them to decide between paying heating bills or food bills--heat or eat.

Seniors will face a tough choice too. They already pay too much for prescription drug medicines. Tragically, we know many seniors die during heat waves because they lack air-conditioning.

Higher electricity bills will force seniors on fixed incomes to choose between buying their lifesaving prescription drugs or paying for their lifesaving air-conditioning.

This is a direct impact on senior citizens throughout the Nation.

Many workers will not have a choice when they are told they are losing their family-supporting job. President Obama's energy tax will hit blue-collar workers particularly hard. Many of them depend upon energy-intensive manufacturing to support their middle class way of life. This will be a particularly heavy burden on the Midwest and the South.

Higher energy costs will kill jobs in energy-intensive manufacturing--steel, aluminum, cement, chemicals, plastics, fertilizers, and the pharmaceutical industry.

Green jobs are held out as a solution for some. But far too many will see their future go from blue collars to burgers under the Obama energy tax.

All of us will face more pain at the pump. Higher energy costs imposed on our oil refiners will translate straight to higher gasoline and diesel prices. Families who depend on affordable gas will suffer, truckers who depend on affordable diesel will suffer, farmers who depend on affordable fuel will suffer, and workers who depend on affordable commutes will suffer from an energy tax.

How bad will things be? The President was only willing to admit to the $646 billion he put in his budget. But administration officials in meetings with staff are admitting costs ``two to three'' times that amount or $1.3 trillion to $1.9 trillion to be paid by average citizens.

We have to remember this is only an 8-year total. The President wants his program to run through at least 2050, so the total new energy taxes imposed on families and workers will be much higher and continue.

Sponsors of the cap-and-trade bill we debated and defeated in the Senate last year said it would impose $6.7 trillion in higher energy costs over its lifetime. Mr. President, $6.7 trillion was an outrageous amount of money to impose on families and workers, and the Senate rightfully defeated the proposal. However, we can expect President Obama's energy tax will be even more expensive than $6.7 trillion because of his planned stricter requirements and use of price maximizing auctions.

The $6.7 trillion Lieberman-Warner bill the Senate defeated proposed to cut energy emissions by 70 percent. The President proposes an 80- percent cut.

The $6.7 trillion Lieberman-Warner bill, defeated here, required participation with a mix of no-cost approaches and auctions. On the other hand, the President is proposing a 100 percent use of auctions to set program prices.

What is an action about, after all, but a method to maximize prices? Thus, President Obama's budget energy tax will maximize higher energy prices from climate legislation. That means President Obama will force families and workers to pay even more than $6.7 trillion in higher energy bills.

President Obama's budget energy tax will drive gasoline prices even higher than the $1.40 per gallon EPA predicted for the bill we defeated, the Warner-Lieberman proposal at the $6.7 trillion number.

President Obama's budget energy tax will force electricity bills even higher than the 44-percent increase EPA predicted for the Lieberman- Warner proposal.

President Obama's budget energy tax will cost the average household even more than the $4,377 per year predicted for the Lieberman-Warner bill.

President Obama's budget will cut even more than the 3 million jobs the American Council for Capital Formation predicted for the defeated Lieberman-Warner proposal.

While I think no time is a good time to debate imposing at least $6.7 trillion in new energy taxes, we certainly should not do so now.

That is why I am filing three amendments. My first amendment will require that any climate legislation

passed by the Senate does not cause significant job losses, especially in the Midwest, Great Plains, and the South. My second amendment will ensure that any climate legislation does not increase residential electricity, natural gas or fuel oil bills for homeowners. The last amendment would protect farmers from higher fertilizer and fuel prices.

Senator Thune has filed an amendment to prevent climate legislation from raising electricity or gasoline prices. I strongly support this amendment.

I hope we can protect our families, farmers, and workers by refusing higher energy taxes, and I ask my colleagues for their support.

I thank the Chair and I thank my colleagues.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Crapo amendment which incorporates the Dodd-Crapo bill that I have cosponsored. Every Senator in this Chamber has heard from folks in their own communities who have lost jobs, families whose savings are disappearing, businesses that cannot meet payrolls. Unfortunately, until we solve the root of the economic crisis--our credit crisis-- there will not be real relief or recovery for these struggling families and businesses.

The bottom line is our financial system is not working. It has become clogged with toxic assets. Some call them legacy assets, but they are toxic as well as old. Until they are removed, fear and uncertainty will continue to dominate the markets.

Earlier this week, Secretary Geithner released his long-awaited details on the administration's plan to solve the credit crisis. While Secretary Geithner did not take all of my advice, I am heartened that the administration has finally developed a plan to tackle the most pressing issue facing our Nation and the largest obstacle to economic recovery.

All Americans need this plan to work. Our Nation cannot afford another lost decade such as Japan faced in the nineties. No one wants to doom the Nation's families and workers to a recession any longer and deeper than the one we have already experienced. But before the Government commits trillions more in tax dollars, I hope Secretary Geithner will recognize that he owes the taxpayers some answers to some very important questions.

Unfortunately, under the previous administration and the current administration, there have been too few answers and too many questions for taxpayers about how economic rescue dollars are being spent. Instead, under both Treasury Secretaries Paulson's and Geithner's watch, billions in taxpayer dollars have been thrown down the rat hole, with no clear plan, no end in sight, and no positive return. So now, this week, the taxpayers need to hear how the administration's plan will provide accountability, transparency, and oversight of taxpayer funds.

First, Secretary Geithner needs to tell taxpayers how this plan will protect their hard-earned dollars. Taxpayers have the right to question whether they are getting a fair deal since the taxpayers are taking on the vast majority of the risks under the new public-private investment partnership initiative.

Right now, private investors only stand to lose a small amount with their invested capital, with opportunities for great returns. In other words, are we again privatizing profits but socializing losses? Do we run the risk that this ends up being ``heads they win, tails taxpayers lose''? This plan is dependent on taxpayers subsidizing and excessive leveraging of private resources to purchase these toxic assets. While it is important to encourage private capital, and I believe that is the best solution, we seem to be using the same formula--but this time risking billions of taxpayer dollars--that got us into the present situation. I am concerned that the administration's plan appears to be too generous to Wall Street investors, some of whom contributed to the crisis.

The second point is, what is the ultimate cost to taxpayers? Right now, the administration projects that its plan will initially require $100 billion in taxpayer funds to leverage up to $500 billion in taxpayer dollars. But most estimates show there are about $2 trillion of toxic assets in the system. I believe the taxpayers deserve to know how much Secretary Geithner's plan will really cost them.

Third, the administration and the Treasury Secretary need to explain how he will prevent the rules of the game from changing again. Since the initial rescue of Bear Stearns last summer, the previous and the current administrations have taken an ad hoc approach that has changed and shifted numerous times. This ``adhocracy'' has amounted to throwing billions of good taxpayers' dollars into failing banks, treating the symptoms rather than the cause, with no apparent exit strategy. This ``adhocracy'' has resulted in fear and uncertainty in our markets and has done nothing to hasten the much needed economic recovery. As a matter of fact, one skilled observer, Professor John Taylor, said the lack of certainty has been a great cause in the failure of the markets to respond positively to any of the previous activities.

Is the plan announced this week the one and final approach? Will the administration stick to the plan? And just as important, what about Congress? Will we allow the plan to work or will we come in later and change the rules of the game after they have been set? The administration, and I think we in Congress, must convince Wall Street and Main Street that the rules will not be changed again midgame. What expert after expert has told me, people who are looking at the market, people who want to see the market succeed, what the markets desperately need is certainty in a plan.

Finally, will banks and financial institutions holding toxic assets be willing to participate in the program? Despite what seems to be generous incentives for private investors to purchase the assets, it is not clear whether the banks will be willing to negotiate a fair deal with the Government and the partners. If banks are not willing to participate, then toxic assets will continue to clog the system. If they do not participate, will the administration finally turn to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to resolve these problem banks?

Before closing, I note that we all understand we need to strengthen the ability of our regulators to prevent this kind of systemic failure from occurring in the future, but we need to consider any changes carefully. A critical first step would be our pending amendment which incorporates the Dodd-Crapo bill, S. 541, the Depositor Protection Act, to boost the FDIC's borrowing authority to deal with larger institutions and to prevent further substantial fee increases on good banks.

I heard from smaller, well-performing banks in Missouri that did not participate in the subprime and exotic loans that will bear more costs to cover the failures of the large banks that did. These smaller banks should not have to be a casualty of the mistakes of the larger financial institutions. Will the FDIC use the expanded authority that I hope we will give them to return FDIC premiums to their previous level? We need a diverse banking system. We need a system. There are over 8,000 banks of all sizes in communities and States throughout the Nation. It is my hope that this financial crisis resolution preserves that system instead of allowing it to be dominated by a few ``too large to fail'' institutions.

What else will the Treasury do? How will the Treasury assure these other banks will be strengthened when they are not in the top 20 on which the Treasury seems to focus?

These are just a few of the critical questions about Secretary Geithner's untested, complicated plan. We, on behalf of taxpayers, deserve answers. Taxpayers deserve to hear solutions that will work. It is more important than anything else in solving the economic crisis that we solve the credit crisis.

Our banking and financial system affects every American's standard of living, our ability to create and maintain jobs, and our ability to compete globally. We must tackle the root of this problem--the toxic assets--and lead us out of the economic crisis and help Americans get back to work.

I, like most Americans, am suffering from bailout fatigue. Rightfully so. Taxpayers are fed up over the waste of hard-earned tax dollars and the plans that have wandered all over the lot in the past. Secretary Geithner now has a tough challenge, and that is to convince the taxpayers that this plan is a smart investment that will solve the root of our economic crisis.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Dodd amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I join with my colleague from Pennsylvania in urging my colleagues to give an overwhelming vote to David Kris. I have had the pleasure of working with him on national security matters in my position as vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee. I believe our national security will be well served by Mr. Kris. I wholeheartedly endorse his nomination.

Mr. President, I wish today to honor Jennifer Rothschild, a fellow Missourian, who recently received the Foundation Fighting Blindness' Hope and Spirit Award. This award recognizes the people who inspire all of us because of their ability to see literally beyond their vision loss. The award honors the uniquely human qualities that advance the mission of the foundation, and ultimately, the betterment of society.

Jennifer Rothschild is a remarkable individual who inspires people to rise above their challenges, aspire for the extraordinary, and live life to the fullest just as she has done.

Jennifer lost her slight after being diagnosed with a rare, degenerative eye disease. Retinal degenerative diseases affect more than 10 million people in the United States alone, and millions more worldwide. This loss of vision was more than a turning point for Jennifer who had dreams of becoming a commercial artist and cartoonist. However, she soared above that challenge and found a new path.

Jennifer is now a mother, author, speaker, pianist and role model for all those who face challenges. She carries her story and message of encouragement across the country. In a ``Good Morning America'' interview for her latest of six books, Jennifer said ``If I chose to let blindness be my enemy I would be fighting it my whole life. Maybe this was God's way of giving me a really great gift in a really difficult package.'' It is that optimism and her amazing talent that inspired me the evening she received her Hope and Spirit Award.

I congratulate Jennifer on this latest achievement and look forward to her great work in the future.

Mr. President, I agree wholeheartedly with the warnings issued by my friend, the Senator from New Hampshire, whose service on the Budget Committee has been very valuable, and I hope everyone has taken careful heed of his words for what we need to do in the future.

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

Mr. President, I wish to talk about something that is happening at this moment and a problem we have to solve before we even look at what we do in the future. Like so many others--and I assume the occupant of the chair and all of my colleagues have heard the same thing--the phones in my office in the District of Columbia and across the State are ringing off the hook. Americans are outraged that their hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being used to pay bonuses at AIG. Yesterday afternoon and today, there have been countless press reports about these bonuses paid to some of the same people who may have been responsible for putting AIG into this mess. I agree. I, too, am outraged. It is unacceptable to pay bonuses after the American taxpayer was forced to bail out an institution without reforming it--without reforming it--without demanding any changes.

While I share Americans' fury over this latest idiocy, I am, quite frankly, a little surprised to see the President and his Treasury Secretary so outraged by these bonuses when they had the opportunity to prevent them before they gave AIG the latest installment of taxpayer dollars. That is right, the Obama administration could have refused to pay the remainder of the $170 million in bonuses to failed AIG executives as a condition to providing that company the additional money it sought from the Treasury. Earlier this month, the Obama administration gave AIG another injection of $30 billion of taxpayer funds to keep this failed institution from failing even further. There is a rat hole, and we have thrown $170 billion down it.

At the same time, Treasury Secretary Geithner should have and could have ensured that taxpayer dollars wouldn't be used to pay any of these bonuses, but he didn't. This is another example, I regret to say, of the Secretary's failed leadership. When he was President of the Federal Reserve of New York, he had oversight responsibility over AIG, Citi, and other of the major failed institutions. What was done? Obviously, the answer is ``not much.''

The outrage over the bonuses really, in some ways, kind of misses the point. I believe that capping corporate pay and taking away business and private jets is not enough for the failed executives who got us into this problem. We need to go further. The failed senior executives and the board of directors should have been fired, should have been replaced when the Government first had to step in and rescue the company. Don't throw good money after people who are not running their institutions well.

I can assure my colleagues that if any worker in Missouri or any other State across the Nation drove their company into the ground, they would have been and should have been fired. They wouldn't be receiving a bonus. I believe this double standard for Wall Street versus Main Street is another reason Americans are so mad about how their taxpayer dollars are being used.

What is particularly troubling is that AIG's intention to pay these bonuses had been no secret, and the administration was completely aware of these payments. Now that Americans are outraged about how their taxpayer dollars are being spent, Secretary Geithner and President Obama are suddenly shocked and outraged as well. The real outrage is their ad hoc and knee-jerk reaction to the crisis. The administration's adhocracy amounts to spending billions--that is right, billions with a ``b''--of good taxpayer dollars on the failing banks.

What we really need, as I said last week, is to follow the words of that old country music song: ``We need a little less talk and a lot more action.'' We need to focus on the failing banks and others, and I have laid it out. It is called the American Credit Cleanup Plan. It is really very simple. It uses existing authorities for the banks, existing authorities within the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

There are three main steps that need to be taken: We need to identify failing institutions; we need to remove the toxic assets, protect depositors, and remove the failed leadership; and then return healthy, clean banks or portions of those banks into the private sector and get the Government out of running the businesses. Government doesn't do a very good job of running private business. I hate to say it, but our record in Congress on running our own business is not something one would hold up as an example of good executive management.

Unfortunately, we don't seem to have any executive management in the administration, but we can send the FDIC in to clean up the banks and put the banks back into the private sector--at least in various pieces, whatever is sold off, whatever the market will buy--and let the market judge whether these new institutions, or institutions with these new portions in them, are working. There ought to be discipline in the marketplace. There has been no discipline.

I agree with Americans who don't want to see their tax dollars going to failed executives at AIG or any other failing institution. Our plea is stop throwing good tax dollars at bad banks. The zombies should not be propped up without being cleaned up. We have well-established principles. We need bold action that fixes the root problems and a clear exit strategy in mind such as the American Credit Cleanup Plan. Get in, take out the bad assets, protect the depositor if it is a financial institution, clean out the boards of directors if need be, and put the bank or parts of it back in the marketplace.

It is time the President and the Treasury realize that throwing good

money after bad is not the way to solve this crisis. We saw in the late 1980s and 1990s where prompt action cleaned up the savings and loan crisis. It was actually savings and loans and banks. They went in, cleaned them up, sent them out, and the economy recovered.

Japan tried what we apparently are trying to do now. They spent a decade throwing more Government money at failing institutions, and what did they get? They got a decade of stagnation. There is no reason for that to happen to us when we know how it is done.

I have talked to Bill Seidman, who ran that operation. I have talked with former Chairman Greenspan and the presidents of the Federal Reserve of Kansas City and St. Louis, and they all say the same thing: Get in, clean them up, get the toxic assets out, get the Government out of running the banks and telling them where they spend their money and where they don't. Get them out and the economy will recover because the credit crisis will clear up. Until we do that, we will see more and more wasted dollars.

I have talked with the leadership, and I hope they will bring up a measure I have cosponsored along with the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Senator Dodd, as well as Senator Crapo, to give a line of credit to the FDIC to do its vital cleanup work. They should expand their powers to go after bank holding companies if they are in bad shape. If we can pass that, they will have an additional tool. The FDIC has the basic tools. There is expertise there. Let's use the expertise and clean up rather than flooding these zombies with more dollars.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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