[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 25]
[Senate]
[Pages 33774-33778]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




VETERANS TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY AND HEALTH PROGRAMS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 
          2007 AND VETERANS' BENEFITS ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2007

  Mr. DURBIN. Last month, Mr. President, I came to the floor and asked 
unanimous consent for two bills from the Senate Veterans' Affairs 
Committee--I did not ask that the bills be passed, only that they be 
brought to the floor and considered. I talked to Senator Reid of Nevada 
about this and wanted to give Senator Reid the option to determine the 
amount of time in the debate, in consultation with the Republican 
minority.
  At that time, just as this morning, a Republican Senator--in that 
case, Senator Larry Craig of Idaho--objected. Why? Well, they objected 
because they did not want us to move to issues involving America's 
veterans. I think our veterans deserve to have legislation such as the 
bills I have asked to be considered.
  The first of the two bills is the Veterans Traumatic Brain Injury and 
Health Programs Improvement Act of 2007. That bill would allow 1.3 
million middle-income veterans to enroll for VA health care and 
increase the VA's beneficiary travel reimbursement rate--the first time 
that travel reimbursement rate would be increased in 30 years--to help 
veterans living in rural and remote areas.
  There are programs, as well, for the treatment of veterans with 
traumatic brain injuries, the signature injury of the Iraq war.
  Finally, the bill provides aid for homeless veterans, which is 
especially important at a time when one out of four homeless people you 
see on the streets in America are veterans.
  I asked that this bill be brought up, that we agree on a time limit, 
consider it, and pass it.
  Do you know how many speeches have been given on the floor of the 
Senate by Members on both sides of the aisle about our devotion to our 
soldiers, our men and women in uniform? Do you know how many speeches 
have been given on this floor on both sides of the aisle about how much 
we care and owe to our veterans? I am sure you could fill many 
Congressional Records.
  So if this job is about more than just speeches and is about doing 
something to actually help our veterans, how could the Republicans 
continue to object? Object to helping veterans make it to the VA 
clinics and hospitals? Object to finding ways to eliminate homelessness 
among veterans? Object to the idea of expanding medical care for 
veterans who are the victims of traumatic brain injury?
  If you want to vote against it, so be it. But to not even let us 
bring the bill to the floor for consideration? They did.
  The second bill is the Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act. This 
comprehensive legislation would improve benefits for all veterans, 
especially for those with disabilities, and it would also correct a sad 
historical injustice for Filipino World War II vets.
  Again, I asked for unanimous consent. The Republicans objected. 
However, if the Republican objections are based on substantive 
provisions in the bill, then they should be all the more willing to 
enter into the unanimous consent request I proposed last month and will 
propose again today.
  If we can limit amendments to those that are actually relevant to 
veterans issues, it will give an opportunity for all Senators to come 
to the floor and actually speak to an issue that means so much to our 
soldiers, to our veterans, and all of their families.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate may proceed to 
the consideration of Calendar No. 335, S. 1233, Veterans Traumatic 
Brain Injury and Health Programs Improvement Act of 2007, at any time 
determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the 
Republican leader; that when the bill is considered, the only 
amendments in order to the bill, other than the committee-reported 
amendment, be first-degree amendments that are relevant to the subject 
matter of the bill, and that they be subject to relevant second-degree 
amendments; that upon the disposition of all amendments, the committee-
reported substitute amendment, as amended, if amended, be agreed to, 
the bill, as amended, be read the third time, passed, and the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table; that the title amendment be agreed 
to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that 
any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I 
personally have no objection to the request, but there is objection by 
Senator Coburn on our side. But I believe if the Senator would modify 
the request to include a similar time agreement immediately following 
the time agreement he has requested on this bill to debate and vote on 
S. 2340, the troop funding bill, that we might be able to reach some 
agreement. So I would ask him to modify his request to include that.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, without yielding the floor, would the 
Senator from Texas yield for a question?
  Mr. CORNYN. I would be happy to.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the Senator from Texas, did he attend 
the meeting in room 407, the closed meeting, where Secretary Gates, the 
Secretary of Defense, told us there was sufficient money in the current 
appropriations bill for the Department of Defense to continue the war 
in Iraq until at least the end of February or the middle of March so 
that it was unnecessary to pass the bill, which you have just asked me 
to consider, immediately?
  Mr. CORNYN. Well, Mr. President, responding through the Chair, I 
would say I did attend that meeting, at which time we were told that 
civilian employees at the Department of Defense would, at about the 
middle of December, receive a notice that they would be laid off just 
prior to Christmas because of 60-day notice requirements, and that, in 
fact, the military was only able to sustain the effort in Iraq fighting 
al-Qaida--the same people who killed 3,000 Americans on September 11, 
2001--by moving money from one account to another, causing a lot of 
disruption, increased expense, and a lot of other problems.
  I do not know why our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
after having 63 votes on Iraq so far, attempting to propose surrender 
dates and to countermand the orders of our generals in the field, are 
resisting supporting our troops during a time of war. It is unthinkable 
to me.
  So I am sorry they are continuing to block this necessary funding for 
our troops and putting 100,000 employees at the Department of Defense--
civilian employees--in jeopardy during the holiday season. But I was 
there, and I did hear those comments, in addition to the comments I 
have just added.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask for regular order at this point.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?

[[Page 33775]]


  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, there is objection by Senator Coburn on 
our side. I asked for a modification, and I have not heard an objection 
to that.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is the Senator from Texas raising 
an objection?
  Mr. CORNYN. I have asked the Senator to modify--I have asked 
unanimous consent to modify his request to include a time agreement 
debate, and a vote on S. 2340, the troop funding bill, as a 
modification of his unanimous consent request.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask for regular order, Mr. President.
  Mr. CORNYN. I have not heard an objection to that.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The pending request by the Senator 
from Illinois is before us. Is there objection to that request?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I see Senator Coburn on the floor. I 
believe there is an objection on this side. Perhaps it is appropriate 
to ask Senator Coburn to respond. But let me just say I believe we 
could reach an agreement, a time agreement on both bills if the Senator 
would consider modifying his request. Until we can have a chance to 
discuss that further, there is objection on this side of the aisle.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois has asked 
for regular order. Is there objection to his request?
  Mr. CORNYN. There is an objection, as I explained.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard from the Senator 
from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would ask the Senator to----
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois has the 
floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will respond to the Senator from Texas, 
as he is deserving of a response.
  Look what has just happened. Senator Reid of Nevada has asked for a 
registry for those in the United States afflicted with Lou Gehrig's 
disease. He wants us to at least get the names and identities of people 
who are dying from this disease so that we can start to find treatments 
and cures. The objection came from the Republican side from Senator 
Cornyn of Texas to a registry for patients suffering from Lou Gehrig's 
disease because he insists that we have to also agree to go to a debate 
on funding for the war in Iraq--$50, $60, $70 billion.
  The Senator from Texas conceded my point that we were told by the 
Secretary of Defense there is adequate money to continue this war until 
the end of February or first of March. So to say we have to move to 
this immediately is hardly a compelling argument when those are the 
positions taken by the Secretary of Defense.
  Then I came in with a request--my own unanimous consent request--to 
go to a veterans bill to deal with traumatic brain injury, the 
signature injury of this war in Iraq, and again the Senator from Texas, 
saying he was speaking on behalf of the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. 
Coburn, objected to taking up this veterans legislation to provide 
additional health care to deal with the homelessness problem among 
veterans and to increase the travel rate for veterans living in remote 
and rural areas who have to go to clinics and hospitals far from home.
  I think it is pretty clear: Almost any excuse will do on the 
Republican side of the aisle to object to moving to legislation. I am 
going to give them one more chance.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, one of the bills Republicans are stopping 
is the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, which I 
cosponsored. This is one of the key civil rights bills of this 
Congress, creating new positions at the Department of Justice in the 
Civil Rights Division and in the FBI to strengthen the Government's 
ability to investigate and prosecute race-based murders that took place 
in our country before 1970 and which have gone unsolved. The bill would 
also create a grant program for State and local prosecutors for 
additional resources to pursue these heinous crimes.
  The story of Emmett Till is a legend in America--and a sad legend. It 
was one of the most infamous acts of racial violence in our Nation's 
history. A 14-year-old African American from the city of Chicago, which 
I am honored to represent, was murdered in 1955 when he was visiting in 
Mississippi and allegedly flirted with a White woman in a grocery 
store. His body was found floating in the Tallahatchie River with a 70-
pound gin mill fan tied to his neck with barbed wire. Emmett Till's 
body was returned to Chicago, and his mother, despite her grief, 
insisted that there be a public display of his mutilated corpse. It was 
a transforming moment in American racial history. Friends of mine who 
are African American said that was the moment when they decided they 
couldn't take it anymore.
  Emmett Till's killers were never brought to justice. They were 
prosecuted and acquitted by an all-White jury. In a 1956 magazine 
article, two men confessed to the murder. They said they had committed 
the murder because they ``decided it was time a few people got put on 
notice,'' in their words.
  There were at least 114 race-related killings between 1952 and 1968, 
and in many cases, no prosecutions, no convictions. In recent years, 
there have been a handful of successful prosecutions, but time surely 
is not on our side. These cases are old, and so are the defendants and 
witnesses.
  Congressman John Lewis, one of my personal heroes in Congress, is the 
sponsor of this bill that the House passed by a rollcall vote of 422 to 
2. Here is what he said about the bill:

       The time has come. For the sake of history, for the sake of 
     justice, for the sake of closure, the 110th Congress must 
     pass this legislation.

  The Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act should not be 
controversial. The Senate Judiciary Committee passed an identical 
version by voice vote and no dissent. It has bipartisan support, 16 
cosponsors, and authorizes $13.5 million a year but doesn't appropriate 
it. It will have to go through the regular appropriations process.
  At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
Calendar No. 237, H.R. 923, the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime 
Act, that the bill be read the third time and passed and the motion to 
reconsider be laid on the table without intervening action or debate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. The Senator 
from Illinois had the opportunity to fund this program fully with an 
amendment he voted against that I offered on the Commerce-State-Justice 
bill. The fact is that the Bush administration has already started work 
on this; they have 30 active cases going now. The complaint was there 
wasn't enough money. I offered an amendment, which the Senator from 
Illinois--even the author in the Senate, Mr. Dodd, wasn't even here to 
vote for--to fund at a level greater than what this bill authorizes. 
Instead, we chose earmarks and pork instead of funding this bill. On 
the basis of that--I also agree that we ought to be about this.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will insist on regular order for only 
one point. I would ask unanimous consent that if the Senator from 
Oklahoma or the Senator from Texas wants to express his objection to a 
unanimous consent request, that the time he uses in expressing his 
objection be taken from the leader's time or from the time remaining 
for the Republicans in morning business.
  Mr. COBURN. I have no problem with that.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. So on that basis, do we want to solve the crimes? Yes. 
Did they have an opportunity to fund that? Yes. They chose not to. The 
sponsors of the bill chose not to put the money in.
  What they want is to play bait and switch. There is no question that 
these

[[Page 33776]]

should be adequately funded. The Bush administration started on its 
own, initiated this program on its own in the Justice Department. They 
had an opportunity to vote for the money to fund this. They refused to 
do it--not an authorization, actual dollars. So on the basis of that, I 
object.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will close because I see other 
colleagues on the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Was an objection made?
  Mr. COBURN. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I respect my colleague from Oklahoma. 
There is one simple fact of legislative rule and law that he does not 
express accurately. There is a world of difference between an 
authorization and an appropriation. An authorization gives you 
permission to ask for money to spend. The appropriations bill spends 
the money. This is an authorization bill. It would have to go through 
the regular appropriations process. What he refers to was an attempt at 
appropriating money to the Department of Justice without enacting the 
underlying law. It is totally different.
  Again, for the third time this morning, the Republicans have 
obstructed and stood in the way of bringing up legislation, first 
Senator Cornyn of Texas on a registry for the victims of Lou Gehrig's 
disease, then Senator Cornyn on behalf of Senator Coburn for a veterans 
bill to deal with traumatic brain injury, and finally Senator Coburn of 
Oklahoma objecting to considering even moving to a bill that would deal 
with solving these civil rights crimes which so sadly reflect on a 
period of American history that should be closed in the right way.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York is 
recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. 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.
  Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. 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

[[Page 33777]]

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.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 
5 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. 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.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Under the rules of 
the Senate, when we ask for unanimous consent, as has just been asked, 
are we not saying we will not debate the bill, we will not offer the 
bill for amendments, and that we will take the bill as it is?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The issue is what is specified 
under the request.
  Mr. COBURN. Which is not to debate the bill and not allow the bill to 
be amended. I will be happy to discuss my objections to the bill. They 
are small and deal with reverse mortgages, not conventional FHA, or the 
increased cap or the lower downpayment. I am working hard to try to 
resolve that so we do not hold up this bill.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. COBURN. I am happy to.
  Mr. SCHUMER. 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?
  Mr. COBURN. Yes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. 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.
  Mr. COBURN. I have no objection to that.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I withdraw my unanimous consent request temporarily so I 
may discuss things with my colleague from Oklahoma.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the request is 
withdrawn. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CORNYN. The Senator from New York said he would yield to me at 
the end of his statement.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator from New 
York has expired.
  The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Coburn for his cooperation 
on an important issue with Senator Schumer, something this body needs 
to move on. I thank both Senator Schumer and Senator Coburn. I wanted 
to talk about the same issue this morning for 5 or 6 minutes.
  Thousands and thousands of families in Ohio are struggling to keep a 
roof over their heads during the upcoming Christmas season. My State 
has been in the grip of a mortgage crisis at some level for years, 
which shows no signs of letting up. Ohio is faced with one of the 
highest foreclosure rates in the country. Our largest cities are being 
particularly hit hard. Ohio's six biggest cities are among the 30 
hardest hit in the Nation. It looks as if things may get worse before 
they get better.
  What we do in Washington, or what we fail to do here, will have a 
profound effect on families in Akron, Cincinnati, Toledo, Columbus, and 
Cleveland. It is not just my State's largest cities; it is Portsmouth, 
Lima, and my hometown of Mansfield, Zanesville, Ravenna, and Marion. 
Every day, over 200 families in Ohio lose their homes.
  A month ago, the majority leader, Senator Reid, sought to bring up a 
bill that would modernize the FHA home loan program. Our colleagues on 
the other side objected, claiming they had not had sufficient time to 
read the bill. Mind you, this wasn't a bill written in secret. It 
passed out of the Banking Committee 20 to 1 in September after a long 
process that fully involved the ranking member, Senator Shelby, a 
Republican of Alabama, and all of my colleagues on the Banking 
Committee.
  By making improvements in the FHA program, more families would be 
able to refinance out of their unaffordable subprime loans and into 
fair, more equitable, and affordable FHA loans. As the Wall Street 
Journal found in an analysis published last week, many subprime 
borrowers had pretty good credit when they took out their loans. Many 
should have been in conventional loans, but in too many cases they were 
steered into higher priced loans, loans more profitable for the 
mortgage broker, but more costly, and ultimately disastrously so, for 
far too

[[Page 33778]]

many borrowers, new homeowners. Many of them should be able to take out 
FHA loans that won't have those exploding adjustable rates.
  We all went home for Thanksgiving, and when we came back, Senator 
Reid tried again, and again our Republican colleagues objected.
  President Bush announced last week a plan that may help a small slice 
of the population. He called on Congress to adopt FHA reform. Good for 
him. But what he needs to do is call on his fellow Republicans to stop 
obstructing every single attempt we have tried to help homeowners in 
Ohio and across the country. There may be progress today in the 
conversation between Senators Schumer and Coburn. That is our hope.
  Most of the people who work in the mortgage industry have their 
clients' best interests at heart. They rely on repeat business and 
word-of-mouth advertising. But as the industry has evolved, it seems as 
though more and more market participants are acting in ways that are at 
odds with their clients' interests, all for short-term and sometimes 
huge profits.
  Some mortgage brokers have chosen to prey on the most vulnerable--the 
poor, the elderly, and the family one paycheck away from disaster. 
Their conduct is unforgivable.
  Borrowers who may not have been particularly sophisticated when they 
took out a loan are very likely going to be unfamiliar with how to 
navigate their way out of a bad situation. They are going to need a lot 
of help, and the network of nonprofit organizations across the country 
is going to be of vital importance in providing that help. Congress 
approved $200 million. Senator Schumer and Senator Casey and I worked 
to put that money into the legislation to provide this help. But the 
President has threatened to veto that legislation.
  We also need to do what we can to prevent the situation from getting 
worse. Mortgage brokers and originators have to exercise care in how 
they do business. At a bare minimum, they should be sure a borrower can 
repay a loan, and they need to do so based on real verification rather 
than a wink and a nod.
  Nobody is doing anybody a favor by convincing them to take out a loan 
that will become unaffordable in 2 or 3 years, or that doesn't include 
the payment of taxes and insurance.
  No longer should the dreams of Ohioans and new homeowners across the 
country fall victim to the fine print. No longer should Congress turn a 
blind eye to the despicable practices that victimize our neighbors and 
our communities because foreclosure in one house affects the homes all 
over that neighborhood.
  We have tried to provide tax relief to people who have had some of 
their mortgages forgiven by their lender when they sell their house for 
less than their outstanding loan. Right now, any amount of debt 
forgiven is considered income, slapping additional tax burden on a 
family who has gone through the trauma of losing their home.
  But that provision is imperiled by end-of-year obstructionism as 
well. Not one Republican supported Senator Reid's effort to force an 
end to the Republican filibuster of the tax bill that included this 
provision.
  Everything we have tried to do to help homeowners--from counseling 
funds, to FHA reform, to tax relief--has been blocked by Republicans. 
If President Bush is serious about helping homeowners, he will bring 
this to an end. The people of Ohio have waited too long for relief. 
They need our help. They need it now.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland is 
recognized.

                          ____________________