Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to proceed as in morning business for up to 12 minutes.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, East Asia is a very interesting and challenging area. There are tremendous opportunities. We have great friends there. The potential for trade and better relations continues to grow in many ways, and there are many good things that are happening that we need to pursue in that part of the world, but they are also coupled with some immense challenges. There are some real problems there. Unfortunately, we were reminded of one of those key challenges most recently; that is, North Korea. One of the world's most secretive societies, North Korea has increased its isolation from the rest of the world by continuing to pursue its nuclear ambitions, along with its missile capability potentially to deliver those weapons. As one of the countries still under Communist rule, Supreme Leader Kim Jong-il heads a rigid, state-controlled system where no dissent is tolerated. Its destroyed economy has suffered from natural disasters, poor planning, and a failure to keep up with its burgeoning neighbors-- China and South Korea. North Korea, officially named the ``Democratic People's Republic of Korea''--and that in itself is an oxymoron--maintains one of the world's largest armies, but the standards of training, the discipline, and the equipment are reported to be very poor. The Korean war ended with the armistice of 1953. But when one visits the demilitarized zone, as I did in March of 2006, the tension of the zone feels as if the war has done anything but end. The north has recently fueled the tension by launching six short-range missiles, renouncing the 1953 armistice, and threatening continued attacks on South Korea. After 15 years of negotiations, bilateral and multilateral talks, and a state of affairs worse than when we started, it is time for tougher action, barring all-out war. We hear people say: We want to talk with them, we want to negotiate with them, we need to pass a resolution. The bottom line, as we say in the old country music song: We need a little less talk and a lot more action. Talk has not gotten the job done. We need action. A key to the successful resolution of this difficult situation is our good friend China. China provides as much as 90 percent of the north's energy, 40 percent of its food. Like Russia, it has used its Security Council veto, regrettably, against attempts to isolate Pyongyang. Without its support, its poor neighbor would struggle to survive. And it appears that the North Koreans may be exhausting Beijing's patience. Recent nuclear tests, last month's rocket launch, increasing threats, and the suspected restarting of the Yongbyon nuclear plant have reignited debate about how best to deal with this very troublesome neighbor. Beijing was swift to slap down the recent nuclear test. I hope that was the final straw for China. We need China to play a constructive leadership role and support the Security Council resolution in toughening existing sanctions and implementing them. When you look at the sanctions that have been applied to Iran, sanctions should be applied to North Korea that are at least as tough if not tougher than those on Iran. After all, it is North Korea that has actually tested and detonated a nuclear weapon and fired missiles over Japan and throughout the region. And the North Koreans' continued sabre-rattling could lead to proliferation in the region and alter balances of power. Our friends there may not be willing to see a nuclear North Korea unchecked and unbridled, posing threats to them. We do not need to put our allies and friends in a position where they believe they must have a nuclear counterweight. After 15 years of happy-talk and discouraging attempts during the last months of the Bush administration to turn the six-party talks into two-party talks, the time for tougher action is way overdue. My personal opinion was the two-party negotiations last fall were a tragic mistake. Obviously, they did not stop what has happened since. North Korea poses security and humanitarian challenges to the world and particularly to China's core interests. China's ability to contain North Korea is critical in demonstrating it will provide leadership on the world stage, but it is certainly not fair to ask China to handle it all. This is the world's problem, and I believe we can work together with China and our critical allies in Japan and South Korea to defuse this situation. South Korea's President Lee Myung-bak, unlike his predecessor, has embraced the United States instead of North Korea. He has embraced working constructively within the six-party framework and with the United States, and we certainly ought not to be getting into bilateral negotiations. The six-party talks at the minimum are absolutely essential. South Korea is one of our most important security partners in the region. I was proud last year to support the United States-Korea Defense Cooperation Enhancement Act to strengthen this important alliance. We must take the next step and approve the United States- Korea Free Trade Agreement to further strengthen our economic and strategic partnership. It is in our interest, their interest, and the interest of peace and prosperity in the region. Japan is steadily increasing the role it is playing in international security affairs. We must continue to support these initiatives. Japan and the United States work very closely together on the AEGIS missile defense system, and robust support for ballistic missile defense is now more important than ever. We have seen that these countries have the ability to shoot off missiles. We used to think we have mutually assured destruction. We feared the only place that would be sending missiles at us might be the former Soviet Union. That ain't so. North Korea has shown its ability, and others are working on it. But we have made progress. According to the head of the Missile Defense Agency, LTG Patrick O'Reilly, the United States has fine-tuned its ability to shoot down long-range missiles launched by North Korea, based on a trio of tests mimicking such an attack. At a recent conference at the National Defense University, he went on to say: We have made adjustments to give ourselves even higher confidence, even though we intercepted three out of three times in that scenario. General O'Reilly, in response to a question, said the U.S. ability to hit a specific spot on a target missile had improved ``dramatically'' during the tests. ``So, do I think it is likely that you're going to intercept if somebody launches out there?'' He said, ``Yes, I do. And the basis is those three tests and what we know about the threat. . . .'' I can tell you that President Obama was fully engaged, working with our National Security Council, to be able to use the resources we have at our disposal should a North Korean missile launch have threatened the United States or other of our close allies or our interests. I congratulate him on that. I applaud him for having that in place and being willing to use what was necessary. But unfortunately--and I don't understand why, with the threats we have--President Obama's defense budget reduced funding for more ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California. It scaled back funding for the airborne laser interceptor and canceled further research and development for multiple kill vehicles--all of this at a time when North Korea is increasing its sabre-rattling and Iran is showing no signs of reducing its program and continues to issue threats to Israel and its neighbors in the Middle East. When I visited Israel in December, I went over to talk about intelligence. They only wanted to talk about one thing. They needed missile defense--short-range, medium-range, long-range--because they are looking at weapons coming in, missiles coming into them: short range, potentially ultimately long range. To protect our allies and Israel, we are working with them on the Arrow and certain other programs that I am proud to support that give them that defense, but they are in a position where they are subject to attack, not only from long-range and medium-range missiles but very short-range missiles, and we have to provide them that kind of capability. I hope my colleagues will reconsider the proposed cuts to ballistic missile defense. It is a threat that is here, it is now, it is threatening our allies and, yes, possibly, even the United States. As far as North Korea goes, in addition, I have recently agreed to cosponsor Senator Brownback's North Korea Sanctions Act. The legislation would require the Secretary of State to relist North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism. This requirement could be waived by Presidential certification as provided for in the bill. But we were able to hurt North Korea significantly when we imposed sanctions on the bank, the Bank of Asia, which was handling their transfer of funds. But in a very unfortunate, misguided effort to try to win the friendship of North Korea, we took off those sanctions last year. That was a mistake. This is a challenging area. It is one in which I hope others will pay great attention, and I look forward, when the budgets come before us, to talking about the need for ballistic missile defense. We are seeing that threat. It is being visited on a daily basis on our allies in Israel. It is no time to back away from the tremendous technology we have that could protect us, our allies, and our interests around the world. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the life of Bill Seidman who passed away last week. Bill was a man whose love for his country was matched only by his love for his family. Bill's life is heavily marked with numerous accomplishments in both his personal and professional lives that had a profound impact on many individuals and families who knew him and on those who never knew him. To many of my Senate colleagues, Bill will be most remembered as the man who rescued our economy during the Savings and Loan Crisis in the late 1980's. As the Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, and head of the Resolution Trust Corporation, RTC, he faced down a national economic crisis, the likes of which had not been seen since the Great Depression, and fundamentally changed the way the government dealt with failing banks. In that time of fear and deep economic uncertainty, Bill stood out as the leader who stood on principle, talked straight, and told it like it was. It did not always make him popular and angered those who wanted him to ``toe the line.'' However, it earned him the trust, respect, and credibility of policymakers, government officials, financial industry officials, and millions of citizens all across America. But there was more to Bill than his public service achievements. His accomplishments were so numerous--and his humility so great--that many of them went unnoticed. He served his country during World War II and received the Bronze Star for his service as a communications officer on a destroyer while serving in the invasion of the Philippines, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. He spoke very little about his service during the war, like many of his great generation. Bill earned degrees from some of the finest institutions in the Nation--his undergraduate degree from Dartmouth, a law degree from Harvard, and an MBA from the University of Michigan. Bill was born in Grand Rapids, MI, where he maintained strong roots throughout his life. He began his career there at his family's accounting firm, Seidman and Seidman, and became a respected member of the local business community. But his greatest contribution to Grand Rapids was his role as a principal founder of Grand Valley State University in 1960. He was named the first honorary life member of Grand Valley's board, and the university's Seidman College of Business is named after his father. In 1962, Bill ran unsuccessfully to be Michigan's State auditor general--his only attempt at elected office. He went on to become an economic adviser to Michigan Governor George Romney, and later joined President Gerald Ford's Administration as the Assistant to the President for Economic Affairs. In the early 1980s, he returned to academia as dean of Arizona State University's College of Business. These are just a few of the many things Americans may not know about Bill Seidman--and he accomplished all of this before becoming Chairman of the FDIC, establishing the RTC, and brilliantly guiding America out of the economic wilderness--the role which brought him fame. But with all he had accomplished, Bill never stopped to rest. He went on to author two books, ``Productivity--The American Advantage,'' with Steven Shancke, and ``Full Faith and Credit,'' a memoir of his time at the FDIC and his role in establishing and running the RTC. President Gerald Ford hailed ``Full Faith and Credit'' as ``a fascinating story by a straight talker. The author dramatically tells how the Federal agencies sought to confront the challenge of the banking and S&L crisis.'' In recent years, already well into his eighties, Bill stayed as active as ever, working as CNBC's chief commentator, regularly contributing opinion pieces to major newspapers, serving on numerous boards, and advising top officials--and me--on the current economic crisis. In his most recent piece, published by the Wall Street Journal on May 8, he addressed the staffing and management challenges now confronting the FDIC. In it, he drew parallels between the hurdles that current Chairman Sheila Bair faces and the obstacles he faced in getting the FDIC and the new RTC properly ``staffed up'' to deal with the S&L crisis nearly two decades ago. Bill wrote ``The Resolution Trust Corporation had to handle the assets from failed institutions when I ran it in the aftermath of the savings and loan crisis of 1985-1992. The RTC experience provides a useful guide for what the FDIC has to do now.'' Amen. With the country again facing the same fear and uncertainty that Bill saw during his tenure at the FDIC, he provided what few others could: a brilliant and straightforward voice with years of experience, wisdom, and unquestionable integrity. The loss of his voice simply cannot be replaced. But perhaps what was most remarkable about Bill is that for all of his brilliance, myriad accomplishments and worldwide recognition, there was a deep humility and kindness about Bill that was evident the moment you met him. Although he had the ears of presidents and the respect of the elite, he famously rode his bike to work. When asked about his accomplishments at the FDIC in a 1991 interview, he dismissed them as ``primarily luck.'' But everyone knew better. The passing of Bill Seidman is a loss for all of America. He dedicated his life to his country and his family, and we are eternally grateful. I will especially miss Bill as he and I met in my office just 2 months ago to talk about the RTC and how we could apply those lessons to our current financial and economic crisis. I appreciated his wisdom, guidance, generosity, and the kindness and respect he paid to me. It is my deepest hope that we can all learn from Bill, in not just his expertise on addressing the current financial crisis, but also in the way he treated others with kindness, humility, honesty, and passion. Our hearts and prayers go out to his wife Sally, his six children, his many grandchildren and great grandchildren, and to all of his family. I will truly miss him. It has been my honor today to offer this commemoration on the incredible life of Bill Seidman, and to salute this great American.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I thank the managers of the bill for their good work. Their staffs have done a lot of hard work and put in a lot of time on the credit card bill. Their substitute amendment is a reasonable approach that protects consumers from abusive and deceptive lending practices, while allowing financial institutions to implement reasonable standards to account for credit risk. I rise today to speak on behalf of the modified Durbin-Bond amendment to the Dodd-Shelby substitute. This amendment would clarify the fact that consumers are allowed to receive a discount for purchases using cash, check, or debit instead of credit cards. All of our offices have heard from credit cardholders who are angry and confused about sudden interest rate increases, hidden fees, and obscure rules. Much of the anger and confusion stems from inadequate transparency in the financial system, which we are trying to address in the underlying bill. It is not only individuals and families who are struggling with confusing credit card rules. Over the past several months, I have heard countless complaints Missouri merchants, especially small businesses, who believe they are powerless in negotiating credit card fees that are, in their view, unreasonably high and account for a significant portion of their revenue and may, in some instances, equal their profit. As credit card usage has grown to become the dominant form of payment, these fees have squeezed their financial situation. Small businesses are especially feeling the stress of credit card fees as many of them operate at very thin profit margins. With small businesses being hard hit by the economic downturn and finding more difficulties in obtaining private financing from banks, this ``fees squeeze'' is being felt even more. Small businesses play a major role in our economy by creating jobs and acting as the catalyst for innovation. In order for our economy to recover and sustain growth, and in order for our small businesses to put more Americans back to work, it is critical that their cost burdens be minimized. That is why I have always been a supporter of small businesses and believe their tax burdens must be held down. It is for that reason that I believe action is needed to address the credit crisis by clearing out the toxic assets that clog our financial system. My long-term and strong support for small businesses is the main reason I got involved in the merchant credit card fees last year, and I cosponsored legislation last year by Senator Durbin to address a key component of merchant fees, called interchange fees. Mr. President, these fees are generally set at around 2 percent. They have not decreased. And studies indicate that rates may have increased over time. The Credit Card Fee Act of 2008 aimed at establishing a process to allow small businesses to negotiate so that fees could be set at reasonable rates. It was introduced by us. I have met, along with my staff, countless times with concerned stakeholders, credit card companies, banks who issue credit cards, and large merchants to small merchants. We have even held joint meetings with representatives of both sides. While we gained some understanding, key questions remain. One key question is whether interchange rates are set in a competitive, market driven manner. Despite several months of meetings, we still don't have adequate information to answer that question or whether the fees are reasonable and fair. It was my hope that we would have been able to work out an agreement, but we have not been able to do so. Chairman Dodd has indicated that the issue of interchange fees will have to be addressed another day. He included in the substitute amendment a study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office to provide recommendations and information. While interchange fees will have to wait for another day, I believe we can take some modest, commonsense steps, and that brings us to the Durbin-Bond amendment, which answers a major question that consumers, including me, and small businesses have raised. It answers the question of whether merchants can provide consumers a discount if the consumer chooses to use cash instead of credit. Current law permits cash discounts, but in practice it is difficult, at best, for merchants to offer this option due to confusion about the rules. Our amendment would ensure that cash discounts could be offered to consumers, and it would update the law so consumers can receive a discount for using debit cards, along with cash and checks, when making purchases. It is also important to clarify some misconceptions about our amendment. First, contrary to what some poorly informed lobbyists have said, the language doesn't allow merchants to discriminate between certain brands or types of credit cards. It doesn't allow merchants to cut special deals with certain credit card issuers. This means the so- called ``honor all cards'' rule would be preserved and community banks and credit unions would not be unfairly affected. To be clear, I strongly support our financial institutions that played by the rules and didn't participate in irresponsible and risky lending practices in recent years. That is why I was a strong supporter of the Dodd-Crapo-Bond language that raised the FDIC's line of credit so that community banks did not have to pay higher fees to support the deposit insurance fund. Second, the amendment language doesn't allow merchants to surcharge customers for using credit cards. In other words, the price displayed on products must be honored, and merchants can only provide discounts. Third, and most important, this amendment doesn't harm consumers. In fact, this amendment is structured with most consumers in mind. Consumers will benefit from this provision since they will be given the ability to receive a discount for using less costly forms of payment and preserves the convenience of using all forms of payments. I believe that makes it a win-win for comsumers. Let me be clear so that there is no misunderstanding. This is not an interchange provision. This amendment doesn't allow surcharges. It doesn't give unfair competitive advantage to large banks at the expense of community banks and credit unions. It is not limited to the two largest credit card companies, MasterCard and Visa. Most important, this amendment won't harm consumers and the economy. In fact, the Bond- Durbin amendment is pro-consumer and pro-small business. While we were unable to address interchange, I emphasize that the Durbin-Bond amendment represents a breakthrough. It also represents our good faith effort to work openly and constructively with all concerned parties with the goal of finding common ground on the issue. I continue to hope that stakeholders will make a good-faith effort to provide us hard data and information to help us understand better the interchange issue. I am a strong believer in the private markets. But Missourians and other taxpayers across the Nation, as well as policymakers and experts, have significant questions about our private markets given the credit crisis that is at the root of the economic downturn. We cannot afford to take things at face value. Taxpayers deserve greater oversight on financial and business matters so that taxpayers are not asked to bail out irresponsible businesses, and small businesses do not feel that Government policy is unfairly weighted toward ``too big to fail'' companies. This amendment is a small but important step. It helps Americans save money at the store. It gives American families more choices when they are checking out at the supermarket or cafe. It makes sure small businesses understand the rules and provides them some financial relief. It will provide immediate stimulus, since this is equivalent to a modest but broad tax break. I extend my appreciation to Senator Durbin and his staff for their collaboration and cooperation in developing this amendment. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Durbin-Bond amendment, which is endorsed by small business groups and consumer groups. I thank the managers and I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on behalf of my fellow Missourians, I extend my warmest congratulations to the Community Bank of Raymore for their 30 years of service to the community. Community Bank of Raymore opened its doors on May 15, 1979. As the first chartered bank in Cass County, MO, in 45 years, Community Bank of Raymore takes pride in being an independent community owned bank and is committed to serving its customers financial needs. Starting out in a temporary facility at the current location, Raymore's population was only 3,138 consisting of mostly farm ground. The first bank building was completed in March 1980. The entire community celebrated the open house and accounts began to grow. It was estimated by an FDIC investigator that total deposits would reach 2 million in 1\1/2\ years. This milestone was passed in the first 6 months. Slogans were used such as ``Drive a Mile--Get a Smile'' in 1980 and later as area housing developed the slogan became ``The U in CommUnity is You.'' William R. McDaniel purchased Community Bank of Raymore on October 26, 1992, and immediately became part of the community by hosting Customer Appreciation Days, Open House Celebrations and Chamber Coffees. By 1994 it was time to expand. A new facility was built adding 2,800 square feet to the existing building. In 1998 expansion accompanied the addition of Trust Services in January and the opening of the Peculiar Branch in June. Community Bank of Raymore doubled in size in 2003 going through a 14- month remodel while continuing to serve the needs of their customers. The bank also acquired a mortgage lending officer allowing them to serve area residents with their long-term home financing needs. Many of their employees, directors and customers have been with the Community Bank of Raymore from the very start. The Community Bank of Raymore should be commended for the dedication and loyalty they have earned from the community in which they serve. I am pleased to honor the Community Bank of Raymore on its 30th anniversary.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong support of the Reed-Bond amendment No. 1040. This amendment provides critical and cost-effective tools to reform federal programs that address homelessness. It is identical to S. 808, the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act or HEARTH Act, which I was very proud to cosponsor. The HEARTH Act is a bipartisan bill that builds on and expands programs that have been demonstrated to end and prevent the tragedy of homelessness that afflicts many American individuals and families. Before I offer some comments on the amendment, I praise Senator Jack Reed for his long-term commitment and hard work on addressing homelessness. Senator Reed has been a long-time leader in housing issues and I value the strong partnership we have had over the past several years. I also recognize the work of our former colleague, Senator Wayne Allard, who also was heavily involved in this legislation before he retired from this Chamber. 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. But 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 homelessness. Fortunately, through innovative efforts that focused on permanent supportive housing, we have learned that being homeless is no longer a hopeless situation. As the former chair and current ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that funds most of the Federal homeless programs through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 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. Through this bipartisan partnership, we have protected affordable housing units, boosted resources to help homeless veterans through the HUD-VASH program, and revitalized distressed public housing through the HOPE VI program. In terms of HUD's homeless assistance grant programs, I can confidently say that these funds have been well-spent as demonstrated by the dramatic drop in homelessness. HUD's national data found that between 2005 and 2007 the number of homeless people experiencing chronic homelessness--our most vulnerable and disabled neighbors-- dropped from nearly 176,000 to fewer than 124,000, a decrease of 52,000 or 30 percent. This is clear evidence that through this tried-and-true approach of permanent supportive housing, we can stop the cycle of homelessness. Under the ``housing first'' approach, we learned that providing permanent supportive housing was the key component in solving homelessness, especially those considered to be chronically homeless. Before we implemented the housing first approach, many homeless people were served through the revolving door of local emergency systems, which interfered with their treatment regimen and resulted in costly hospital and jail stays. Local emergency systems became clogged with permanent users, reducing their ability to address the more temporary problems of families and individuals. Putting a greater emphasis and resources on permanent supportive housing has become the most critical change over the past several years. Based on recent studies and results I have seen in my home State of Missouri, it has worked. To implement this approach, I worked with Senator Mikulski to include a provision, beginning in the fiscal year 1999 VA-HUD Appropriations Act and carried every year thereafter, to require that at least 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. That is why we established the homeless management information systems or HMIS through appropriations. This not only ensures that local providers have the information to address their particular homeless populations; it ensures that taxpayer funds are being spent effectively and efficiently. Finally, we learned that despite the involvement of several Federal agencies in serving the homeless, there were gaps in services and coordination was lacking. To address this issue, the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness was reactivated to improve Federal, State, and local coordination of homeless programs. The HEARTH Act codifies these important provisions that have been carried in appropriations and builds on our work over the past several years. It also includes a number of other important provisions that assist rural communities help the homeless, increase local flexibility by combining HUD's competitive grant programs, and provide incentives to house rapidly homeless families. Homelessness is a national walking around Washington, DC, St. Louis, and other towns and cities across the Nation. 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 greatly 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 our social safety net and homeless programs. Before closing, I offer some concerns about the Federal Housing Administration, FHA. As I have repeatedly stated, the FHA is a powder keg that may explode, leaving taxpayers on the hook if Congress and the administration continue to overburden the government agency. That is why I have strong reservations about provisions in the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act that loosen the eligibility requirements for the FHA Hope for Homeowners program. FHA is already showing signs of stress as defaults and foreclosures have been increasing endangering homeowners and communities across the Nation. I also am alarmed by the increasing signs of fraud, which is reportedly rising and at levels comparable or higher than during the subprime boom. With an agency that is understaffed and challenged by long-standing management and oversight problems, the combination of these factors along with a struggling housing market and economy is a recipe for disaster. It is critical that the Congress and the administration recognize these problems and not make HUD Secretary Donovan's job harder by placing more risk on FHA until the problems are fixed or the agency will crash and taxpayers will be footing another multibillion-dollar bailout. While I understand the importance of FHA in many markets where lending is tight, an overburdened FHA does not benefit borrowers, neighbors, and communities if FHA continues to be provide poorly underwritten loans or loans serviced by bad actors. I urge my colleagues, especially Banking Committee Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby, to conduct vigorous oversight of FHA and take additional legislative actions to address the agency's weaknesses. Let me say that again--because this is important--if we continue to overburden FHA this powder keg will explode!

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, keeping the American people safe is the Government's highest priority. Keeping our Nation safe should not be a political issue; it is an American one. That is why I was disappointed when the White House made an early national security decision based on politics and not what is in the best interests of keeping Americans safe. I am talking about the President's plan to close the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay without a backup plan. I have been sounding the alarm over this rash decision since the President announced it in January. But it is not just my side of the aisle, the Republicans, who are questioning the President's decision to close Guantanamo with no plan on how to handle the detainees, the terrorists housed there. Yesterday, Democratic House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey said, ``So far as we can tell there is no concrete program.'' That is my point exactly. This is a classic example of ``ready, fire, aim.'' That is a strategy we cannot afford. I prefer aiming before shooting, which is why I keep calling on the President to tell the American people how his plan to close Guantanamo without any plans right now to deal with the detainees will make our Nation safer. The President needs to honor his pledge of transparency and provide the American people with answers to these questions. How the President answers these questions is even more important now that some of the terrorists could be coming soon to a neighborhood near you. That is right. Some of the terrorist-trained detainees could be coming to American communities. Last week the Obama administration admitted as much. Defense Secretary Gates testified before our Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee that as many as 100 Guantanamo detainees could be coming to the United States. Whether these terrorists are coming to a prison in nearby Kansas or a halfway house in a city in Missouri or any other State, I can tell you this: Americans do not want terrorists in their neighborhoods. That is why, when we put it to a vote, the Senate voted 94 to 3 against importing detainees to American soil, even if that meant deporting them to a maximum security prison. Americans also do not want these terrorists sent back to the battlefield to kill our troops. We know the terrorists detained at Guantanamo have gone back to fight even the ones who were supposed to be less dangerous, less likely to do so. The Pentagon has confirmed that at least 18 detainees who were released have gone back to the fight, and 43 more are suspected of doing the same. There are no easy solutions. So instead of meeting an arbitrary deadline to close Guantanamo Bay, I sincerely hope the White House will reconsider. I hope the President will realize that closing Guantanamo Bay without having a plan to deal with the terrorists currently there and future terrorists captured on the battlefield is not in our Nation's best interest. Closing Guantanamo with no plan, no plan, is one campaign promise that cannot hold up to national security priorities. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado.) The clerk will call the roll.

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

Mr. BOND. I ask to be permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 6 minutes.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it will be an honor to ask that Senator Boxer, the chair of the EPW Committee on which I am proud to serve, be recognized after my remarks are completed.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. 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.''

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND. 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.

Mr. BOND. 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. BOND

Mr. BOND. 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.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. 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. BOND

Mr. BOND. 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. BOND

Mr. BOND. 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. BOND

Mr. BOND. 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

Mr. BOND. 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.

Mr. BOND. No.

Mr. BOND. 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. BOND

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

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