Mike Crapo

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I also rise to discuss President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan, Solicitor General, to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. I agree very strongly with the remarks made by my colleague who has just indicated there is a strong concern about the continuation of a pattern of increasing judicial activism in our country, which we definitely do not need to perpetuate on the highest Court of our land. I appreciate the work that has been done by my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee to examine this nomination and to hold thorough hearings. There is no doubt that Ms. Kagan's educational resume is impressive, with a degree from Princeton and from Harvard Law School. It is unfortunate that the Senate confirmation process has reached the point, though, where nominees are no longer comfortable candidly discussing their judicial philosophy and views on key issues, especially when the nominee herself decries this development prior to being nominated. To date, I have received more than 1,500 letters and e-mails and phone calls from my Idaho constituents, overwhelmingly in opposition to Elena Kagan's nomination. Many of the concerns raised in the correspondence I have received mirror concerns I also have about her nomination. It was my hope, through the committee hearings and questionnaires and in my own personal meeting with Ms. Kagan, that my concerns and those of my constituents could be resolved. As Ms. Kagan stated in her committee testimony, because she has not had prior experience as a judge, my Senate colleagues and I must assess her nomination based on her other career experiences. Therefore, we must evaluate a career that has been focused largely in her role as a policy advocate and political adviser and whether she would carry this political advocacy with her to the Court. I would like to discuss, in that context, some of my areas of concern--first of all, the broad area of judicial activism. I am concerned about Ms. Kagan's background in political advocacy and activism and how her previous statements suggest her willingness to bring that activism to the bench. Rather than pursuing a path of judicial restraint, carrying out a limited role in interpreting the Constitution, Ms. Kagan's writings and testimony suggest that she sees the Supreme Court as a body that must lead the Nation and have the freedom to change the law in response to ``new conditions and new circumstances.'' As dean of the Harvard Law School, Ms. Kagan used her position to lead the school in a direction not based on the law but based on her own personal policy preferences when she denied military recruiters equal access to the students at Harvard Law School, complying with the law only when forced to do so by the Court. It seems that Ms. Kagan has an extremely broad view of the powers of all branches of the Federal Government and does not seem to respect the traditional limits the Constitution places on each of those branches. If the Constitution requires that a certain outcome can only be achieved through the actions of the legislative branch and if the legislative branch fails to take those actions, it does not mean the executive or judicial branch can then have the opportunity to independently take those actions or achieve those policy objectives. I am not convinced Ms. Kagan respects that constitutional separation of power. She has gone so far as to cite Israeli Chief Justice Aharon Barak as her ``judicial hero,'' even though Judge Barak is widely regarded as one of the most activist judges in the world. The Framers of the Constitution wisely, clearly, and intentionally set limits on the powers of the Federal Government. The Framers also set forth a method with an appropriately high threshold for expanding or curtailing those powers. That method for expanding or curtailing the powers of the government is the constitutional amendment process. Judges must respect the limits placed on the government by our Constitution and must not try to circumvent the constitutional amendment process by seeking other opportunities to expand the powers of the Federal Government to meet their own personal policy preferences. I am not convinced Ms. Kagan respects that limit in our Constitution and the responsibility to have limited judicial activism and interpret our Constitution as it was intended. I also have a very specific concern on a specific issue. In fact, this is the same concern I had when we were presented with the President's nomination of the last nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, to our Court; that is, the second amendment right to bear arms--a specific provision in the U.S. Constitution which has been a very controversial and debated provision in recent years in the United States. On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed, in the District of Columbia v. Heller, that the second amendment to the Constitution guaranteed an individual's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense purposes. This landmark ruling finally established that the right to bear arms in the second amendment is an individual right but left open the question of whether this right in the second amendment applies to the States rather than just to Federal enclaves such as the District of Columbia. For those of us who believe in the right to law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, the Court's ruling in Heller marked a new beginning, especially for those who believe the second amendment to our Constitution gives Americans an individual right to bear arms. For too long, many law-abiding Americans were told by their elected representatives and by some courts that the Constitution did not necessarily guarantee an individual's right to own a firearm, denying citizens the right to protect themselves, their property, and their families. Soon thereafter, though, a case entitled McDonald v. Chicago made its way through the court system, in which a Federal district court and a circuit court of appeals ruled that the very severe restrictions on second amendment rights in two Illinois municipalities were constitutional because Heller only applied to the rights of those living in Federal enclaves such as Washington, DC. On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court also overturned that decision, affirming that the 2nd amendment, like most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, is applicable to the States via incorporation principles derived from the 14th amendment. The Court affirmed that individual rights established in Heller did not just apply to those living in Federal enclaves such as Washington, DC; they ruled they also apply to all law-abiding Americans who wish to keep and bear arms for self-defense. It is now firmly established by these two rulings from our highest Court that our Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense purposes no matter where you live. All of this brings us to our nominee, Ms. Kagan, and the question before the Senate with regard to her nomination. Those of us who believe in an individual's right to keep and bear arms have a responsibility to ensure that hostility to the second amendment does not find home in the hands of the Supreme Court. With no judicial record to review, Ms. Kagan invited Senators to glean what we can from the body of her work, her statements, her academic life, and the policies for which she has actively advocated during her career, including her Supreme Court clerkship and her later career in political activism. We took her at her invitation to see how her past reflected her views on the issue of second amendment rights. After discussing this issue with her personally, fully reviewing her past actions in relation to the second amendment, and evaluating her statements before the Judiciary Committee, I am convinced she does not believe the second amendment reserves to all Americans a strong and broad right to bear arms. To cite some well-known examples, as a Supreme Court law clerk, Ms. Kagan wrote that she was ``not sympathetic'' to a challenge to Washington, DC's, ban on firearms. After the Supreme Court struck down certain provisions of the Brady law in Printz v. United States, Ms. Kagan, who was then serving on President Clinton's staff, worked to reimpose those unconstitutional provisions by Executive order, without the approval of Congress and contrary to the ruling of the Court. When the McDonald case came before the Supreme Court, Ms. Kagan, who was then the Solicitor General of the United States, did not even see it necessary to file a brief in support of the second amendment. When asked about her position, Ms. Kagan has stated that she accepts the Heller and McDonald cases as settled law. But she has also made it clear that in her opinion these two cases leave much of the detail as to what this right entails to future court interpretation. This is very similar to what now Justice Sotomayor said when she was before the U.S. Senate for confirmation. As a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, then-Judge Sotomayor ruled on a case that was very similar to and, in fact, was later incorporated into the Chicago case, Maloney v. Cuomo. In that ruling, then-Judge Sotomayor ruled that Heller only guaranteed an individual right to keep and bear arms for residents of Federal enclaves. Her explanation was that Heller answered ``a different question'' than Maloney and relied on a precedent from 1886 to do so. Pressed about Heller at her Senate hearings, Judge Sotomayor stated that she accepted that Heller was now ``settled law.'' Yet when the McDonald case came before the Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor voted against it, joining with the dissenting opinion, stating that ``in sum, the framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of self defense.'' The Supreme Court's decisions in Heller and McDonald were important milestones for establishing the second amendment right to bear arms, but they were long overdue. Countless law-abiding Americans were denied their constitutional rights to keep and bear arms for way too long. It is imperative that the next Supreme Court Justice fully understand and accept and support these rights. I am not convinced that Ms. Kagan does, and that causes me great concern. Similar to now Justice Sotomayor, Ms. Kagan has stated that she accepts Heller and McDonald as settled law. But that does not mean she would not vote to overrule them if an opportunity presented itself. As she herself has said, that also does not define the scope and breadth of this right, which will fall to future Court decisions. A Supreme Court hostile to the Heller and McDonald decisions or a Supreme Court with a narrow view of the right to bear arms protected by the second amendment could severely limit or restrict that right. As I have said, I do not believe Ms. Kagan believes in the strong and broad right to bear arms that I do or that the majority of Idahoans do. These concerns have also been expressed by our ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Sessions, who noted: Ms. Kagan's record regarding the Second Amendment leaves little doubt that she will be hostile to the rights of law- abiding citizens to own and possess firearms. For these reasons--her activist philosophy and her position that I expect we will see on the second amendment right to bear arms--I cannot vote to confirm her to the highest Court of our land. Mr. President, I take the responsibility of confirming Supreme Court Justices very seriously, and my decision was not reached lightly. Judges take an oath to ``administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.'' My review of Ms. Kagan's record gives me reason to question whether she will abide by that standard. Her statements, actions, and writings throughout her public life suggest a vision for the Court that is not restrained by the Constitution but that has a responsibility in being activist in reaching policy goals. As such, I must vote against her nomination to sit on the highest Court in our country. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, today I honor Lewis Monroe Huddleston on the upcoming occasion of his 80th birthday. Mr. Huddleston has spent his life committed in service to his country, his church and, foremost, his family. Lewis was born September 14, 1930, although this apparently has long been a source of discussion in his family. His actual date of birth may be September 13. His mother always swore he was born on September 13, and that all the legal documents, which list his birthday at September 14, were wrong. As one should, I think I will side with Lew's mother on this one and would like to share with you some of the commendable actions of Lew's life. He honorably served our country in the military, entering the U.S. Navy in 1950. He was assigned to the USS Henry W. Tucker as a boatman's mate. His military service took him on reconnaissance missions both in Korea and Red China. He received four medals: Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Korean Service Medal--2-Star--and United Nations Service Medal. Lew was honorably released in 1954, and then headed to the Midwest. He found work in the oil fields there, and one of his jobs took him to Sidney, NE, where he fell head over heels for a lovely young lady, Joyce Sewell. They were married on December 20, 1955, and have built a happy life together in Sidney where they raised three children, Lewis, Jr., Cindy and Shawn, who have given them three wonderful grandchildren. Lew and Joyce built a life committed to family, service to God and service to the community. Throughout his life, Lew has given of himself--first in military service, then to his church and his community. Always involved, he could be heard cheering for his kids at their sporting events or found heading up a DeMolay or Jobs Daughter fundraiser. Not ever characterized as shy, Lew walks into a room of strangers and leave that room as everyone's best friend. Those friends, spread across the country, know that if called upon for help and he will always answer. Even as he approaches his 80th birthday, Lew remains very much involved with his community. Although his children are grown with families of their own, Lew continues to volunteer in the local schools and wherever he is needed. I am honored to number his son Lewis, Jr., and his wife Leslie among my friends. Through them, I have come to know Lew Huddleston as a true patriot, who exemplified that label not only by his military service, but the continued gift he gives every day to family, community and country. Lew, it is individuals like you who are America's true heroes and give the United States its strength. We can never fully repay your contribution. Thank you for your service to our country, and happy birthday.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, today I join my colleague, Mr. Risch, to honor an outstanding woman as she retires from everyday working life. Leanne Medema has spent close to 20 years working on behalf of Idaho's nuclear research industry, and she has been a terrific asset to local contractors as well as to the Idaho congressional delegation over the years. Leanne came to Idaho from Illinois in the early 1990s and helped manage a complex and very public transition with one of the Idaho National Laboratory's facilities, INL, the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant. She has spent 30 years working to improve the working environment of the companies who have employed her. And she has succeeded admirably. She has a personable manner that makes everyone feel comfortable, and she has an unerring sense of how best to resolve conflicts and address other challenges. Most recently, Leanne worked as the protocol officer at the INL, which was a terrific fit. She always handled herself well and dealt with tough situations without ever losing her poise. INL's reputation has increased nationally and internationally, and Leanne's efforts have been essential to the process. She always goes above and beyond to make sure each visitor to INL feels like they are a special guest. We have particularly appreciated Leanne's relationship with our own Senate offices. Her professionalism was always top notch, her knowledge of the INL is superb and her ability to communicate and work easily with others is among the finest we have seen. When schedules are tight and people were stressed, Leanne had the ability to rise above it all and navigate the pitfalls with style, grace and ease. We would be remiss if we didn't mention Leanne and her family and their involvement in the local community. She was an active volunteer with the Idaho Falls Chamber of Commerce serving as co-chair on the Legislative Committee and always did an outstanding job in each of her assignments. As she nears retirement, we join many others in thanking her for her service to her community and the state of Idaho. She has done an outstanding job at the INL, one that will be hard for others to fill. We wish her the best in her retirement, knowing that she isn't one to stay still for long. Thank you, Leanne, and enjoy your future endeavors.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, today I offer tribute to a true leader and advocate for the rights of women and children in my home State of Idaho who deserve protection from abusive relationships. Sue Fellen has been executive director for the Idaho Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence for more than a decade. She is announcing a well-deserved retirement at the end of this month. Her work on behalf of Idaho women, children and family protection is one well worth noting by all Americans who cherish family and personal security and freedom. Sue Fellen's track record of service on behalf of Idahoans will remain long after she leaves active service. While she has headed the state's largest advocacy program to stop violence for 16 years now, she has been working nearly twice that long in other capacities to stop domestic violence and protect families, women and children across Idaho. Sue Fellen began her career to stop domestic violence in the trenches. She was a shelter manager and director for the Women and Children's Association from 1982 through 1993. When she went on to head the Idaho Coalition, she built a statewide network of more than 80 organizations, including law enforcement, prosecutors, health care providers, victim advocates, victim witness coordinators, universities, and other professionals dedicated to preventing domestic violence and assisting victims of violence. She is a trailblazer for Federal legislation protecting women. I know because I worked directly with Sue to pass the first-ever Federal law that recognizes the rights of dating partners in abusive relationships and offered them Federal assistance for the first time. We were able to shepherd that groundbreaking legislation through the Congress and saw it signed into law in 2004. ``Cassie's Law'' was named for Cassie Dehl of Idaho, who died following an abusive dating relationship. Sue Fellen, as a leader of the effort to stop abusive relationships in Idaho, was also a member of the National Network to End Domestic Violence. In her role in Idaho and nationally, Sue helped get the word out that this Idaho legislation should become a national model and I am proud to have partnered with her in these efforts. Sue and I worked with a large group of Idahoans and found the funding and commitment to the first one-stop response center for response, treatment and prosecution in domestic violence and sexual assault cases in Idaho. I am proud to say that the FACES Center--for Family Advocacy Center and Education Services--has now been open nearly 5 years. Sue Fellen and I have worked together on many other Federal issues. Congress has a penchant to want to spend money and on many occasions, leaders in both political parties have seen fit to borrow from the Victims of Crime Act, or VOCA. This fund is replenished by those who perpetrate crime and is intended as an ongoing fund to benefit the victims of crime and family members who need assistance. By working with advocates like Sue Fellen and my colleagues here in the Senate such as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, my friend Patrick Leahy of Vermont, we have been able to keep that VOCA funding intact, and away from being spent on programs for which that money was never intended. I have been proud to partner with Sue and the National Network with other Senate colleagues as we strengthened the Violence Against Women Act, provided improved DNA and rape assistance kits to speed the conviction of assault cases and worked with private partners such as the Liz Claiborne Foundation to broaden the audience for the critical message that domestic and sexual violence should not be tolerated. Not by Congress. Not by men. Not by anyone. Surveys show that, out of the teenagers questioned, more than half, 62 percent, know someone who has been in an abusive relationship with their boyfriend. Two in five know someone who has been put down or called stupid, many of them through the social media on their computers and texts on their phones. One in five between the ages of 13 and 14 know of friends and peers who have been hit, kicked, slapped or punched in anger. These statistics should alarm all of us. I have often said men should not stand by and observe any domestic violence. Thankfully, there are people who do not just stand by. They jump in. They dedicate their lives to improving the safety of women, children and families. They are people like Sue Fellen and I am glad to call Sue my friend and colleague in this effort. Thank you, Sue. You and your husband Sherm, and even your dog Belle, can look forward to a most well-deserved retirement.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 4(g)(3)of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of my amendment and ask for the yeas and nays. I also ask unanimous consent that I have an equivalent amount of time to respond on the amendment before we vote.

Mr. CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. President. This amendment includes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as part of the Federal budget as long as either of these two institutions is under conservatorship or receivership. I wish to thank Senators Gregg, Shelby, McCain, and Vitter, Hutchison, and Corker for cosponsoring this amendment. As I believe my colleagues will recall, several days ago we voted on a broader amendment which would actually have provided some significant coverage of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in this so-called financial regulatory reform legislation we are addressing on the floor of the Senate today. That legislation would have provided a pathway for us to literally stop the bailouts of Fannie and Freddie and move us toward a path of resolving the continued taxpayer exposure to the excesses of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But that amendment was defeated on the floor of the Senate--although I supported that amendment because now, since the amendment has been defeated, there is literally no piece of this legislation before us that addresses the core problem that started the entire collapse in our economy; namely, the securitization of the mortgage industry and the actions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which ran up so many of these toxic assets and helped to spread them throughout the globe. As we debated then, the taxpayer is already on the hook for about $130 billion-plus for the problems Fannie and Freddie caused. Experts tell us, as we move forward, that liability to the taxpayer is likely to reach $380 billion to $400 billion. I personally think those are conservative estimates. When we get the full picture, I think the taxpayers will have been put on the hook for way more than that. This amendment simply says: Let's tell the American public what's happening. Since we lost the fight last week to try to have the bill cover Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and provide an exit strategy for the taxpayers to continue to bail them out, let's at least be open and clear about what we are doing with regard to Fannie and Freddie. The purpose of this amendment is to show the American people the true picture of how much our national debt has increased as a result of the bailout of these two institutions--the bailout which I, again, point out is ongoing, uninterrupted in any way by this legislation. According to the CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf: After the U.S. Government assumed control in 2008 of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--two federally chartered institutions that provide credit guarantees for almost half of the outstanding residential mortgages in the U.S.-- This is his quote now, and because of what happened in the economy, Fannie and Freddie, together with the FHA, account for 96.5 percent of all of the residential mortgages in the U.S. Continuing with the quote: the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the institutions had effectively become government entities whose operations should be included in the Federal budget. What is the Director saying? He is saying that since the U.S. Government has now taken over control and management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the taxpayer is on the hook for all of their debts and excesses, we ought to put it on budget and show the American people what is happening to our debt as a result of it, instead of using the creative accounting that we see here in Washington all the time, where we mount up spending and debt and figure out ways to keep it from showing up in the national debt or in the calculations of our spending. At the end of 2009, per the financial statements, those figures that we are talking about, how much debt is not being reflected in our national debt because we don't choose to count it? Those figures are $774 billion for Fannie Mae and $781 billion for Freddie Mac, for a total of $1.555 trillion, which is out there for which the taxpayer is on the hook, and we have to figure out a way to pay it back. We as a Congress will not tell the American people that in the calculations of our national debt. To put into perspective how large these entities are, their combined total books of business are nearly $5.5 trillion. As I indicated, they are currently run and operated by the U.S. Government. Again, the amendment last week would have put us on a pathway to solve this and take the government out of the business, which should be a private sector business of mortgages. But at least this amendment would put us on record as telling the American people what exposure we are putting them to by not taking those actions. By the way, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that, in the wake of the housing bubble and the unprecedented deflation in housing values that resulted, the government's cost to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will eventually reach, as indicated before, about $381 billion. I think that is too conservative. On May 5, Freddie Mac reported losing another $8 billion in the first quarter and requested $10.6 billion from taxpayers, saying in the same breath they are going to need more in the future. On May 10, Fannie Mae reported losing $11.5 billion, its 11th consecutive quarterly loss, and itself asked for another $8.4 billion more from the taxpayers. That is in addition to the $126.9 billion Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac already cost the taxpayers. Get this--there used to be some limits on this--$400 billion or $200 billion for each institution. Last Christmas--literally on Christmas Eve--the Treasury announced that it was going to lift that $400 billion loss cap on these two companies, creating a potentially unlimited liability, and effectively providing the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, the American taxpayers, for their unlimited debt. Now the limit, instead of $400 billion, which itself is unacceptable, is infinity. We will not even record it for the American people to see. According to a January 2010 CBO background paper titled ``CBO's Budgetary Treatment of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,'' the Congressional Budget Office ``believes that the Federal Government's current financial and operational relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac warrants their inclusion in the budget.'' This isn't just my complaint. The CBO itself has said that now that the status is that the U.S. Government has taken control of the financing of and assumed the debt of the obligations and actions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we ought to recognize they are government entities, and we ought to include them in our budget. That is what we are seeking in this amendment. By contrast, the current administration has taken a different approach by continuing to treat Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as outside the Federal budget, recording and projecting outlays equal to the amounts of any cash infusions made by Treasury into the entities. They are creating the appearance that there is no debt here, no impact on our budget. That is the kind of nontransparency this amendment is aimed at stopping. We are seeking to create some kind of transparency that will at least allow Congress and the public to understand the finances we are now being engaged in and asking the American taxpayers to back. The Office of Management and Budget, in contrast to the CBO, has said in their Budget of the U.S. Government for Fiscal Year 2011: Under the approach in the budget, all of the GSEs' transactions with the public are non-budgetary because the GSEs are not considered to be government agencies. We have the President and the OMB at the White House saying that we don't need to count this in the budget because they are not government agencies. The CBO, however, is saying: Wait a minute, we own them, we run them, we are backing all of their debt, and essentially they are government entities. We can engage in debates about whether Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are Government entities, but the bottom line question is: Who is responsible for their debt? Who is paying for their debt? Nobody denies the answer to that question. It is the U.S. taxpayer. If the U.S. taxpayer is on the hook for their debt--and after what I call the ``Christmas Eve massacre'' of last Christmas--and there is no limit to the amount of that liability, we at least ought to put it on record. CBO has included the GSEs in its budget baseline but does not include their debt in the computations of debt because CBO took a narrow view of the Federal debt. But as CBO's report says: CBO's treatment of the entities' debt does not constitute a statement about whether or not that debt should be considered Federal debt. Figure that out. CBO is saying: We are not going to include this in the debt, even though we think they are government entities and we ought to put them on budget. Their words were ``CBO's treatment of the entities' debt''--meaning not counting it--``does not constitute a statement about whether or not that debt should be considered Federal debt.'' Maybe CBO is saying Congress needs to give us some direction. Whether that is what they are saying, Congress does need to give some direction here, and that is the purpose of the amendment. In light of Treasury's Christmas Eve ``taxpayer massacre'' and the government's decision to back all losses of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we should include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as part of the Federal budget--at least as long as they are in receivership or conservatorship and run and backed up by the American taxpayer. The amendment would also do a few other things. It would reestablish the $200 billion cap per entity and accelerate the 10-percent reductions of the mortgage portfolios, effectively requiring the companies to shrink those portfolios by holding a combined $100 billion from their current levels. This will also limit the losses that taxpayers will face as a result of the blank check given by the administration last December 24. The amendment will also require the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Federal Housing Financing Agency to testify before the Banking Committee each time an additional $10 billion or more in taxpayer funds is provided to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac combined. In other words, the next time, under this amendment, we have a May like this May, where Fannie and Freddie have asked for more than $10 billion of additional taxpayer bailout, we at least ought to have the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, who manage this, come before the Banking Committee and testify as to what is happening, why, and where we are headed. This will provide at least an opportunity for congressional oversight, which is currently totally lacking in the process. All that happens now is that they issue a press release saying we need another $10 billion and they get it--no limits, no caps, no accountability, no counting of the debt, and no explanation to Congress. It seems to me a little transparency and honesty with the American people about what our finances are doing here is appropriate. The amendment is also going to require the Secretary of the Treasury to post on the Treasury Web site, 1, the aggregate portfolio holdings of each enterprise and, 2, a weekly summary of taxpayer funds provided for and at risk for each enterprise. Again, all we are asking is to have the kind of transparency that will allow the American people to understand what the Federal Government is up to with their money. It will also help explain why some of us don't believe the rhetoric about the bill before us today. There is a lot of talk about ending bailouts. There is a lot of talk about ``too big to fail'' is never going to be allowed again in America. There are some provisions in the bill that end some of the bailouts and that go quite a bit of the way down the road toward making it clear that a company cannot get too big to fail, and that we will try to move them into a resolution process if they do fail. It is not ironclad, however, and there is still the possibility that we will see bailouts in the future--something in other amendments we have tried to tighten. But let's not mistake the fact that the biggest bailouts of all are not even addressed in this legislation and are allowed to not only continue unabated but to continue without even telling the American public what the facts are. When I say the biggest bailouts of all, the last numbers I saw, if you take the auto bailout and the financial bailouts everybody heard about, and total them all up, they won't even equal the amount of money being used to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Yet, Fannie and Freddie continue--because the government now owns them--to be untouched by this legislation. It is time for true transparency as we debate these issues of bailouts and too big to fail. It is time for us to address the very core of the problem that caused so much of the economic disruption we are now dealing with--the financial mortgage industry and the securitization of those toxic mortgages. Yet, again, what happens? We are simply asked, as American taxpayers, to pony up with a check for $10 billion here and $8 billion there, and we will continue to grow, unrestricted, uncontrolled, unnoticed, and unidentified, because we won't even put it on record and count it in our own budgeting. It is time for us to include the obligations and the management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in our Federal budget. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment when we get an opportunity to vote on it. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up the Crapo amendment No. 4020.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, as the Senator from Connecticut indicated-- and I appreciate his kind remarks--we have had several votes on the GSE issue. Remarkably, this Senate continues to refuse to deal with Fannie and Freddie, the core issue of the problem on the bill we are debating. Fannie and Freddie are nowhere to be seen in the legislation. Recognizing that the Senate has refused in its votes to allow us to try to focus on Fannie and Freddie, which are the biggest bailouts of all-- in fact, the bailouts of Fannie and Freddie are more in volume and cost to the taxpayers than all other bailouts combined--this amendment simply says: Let's be honest with the American taxpayer and at least put the debt that Fannie and Freddie are now becoming responsible for on our calculations of the national debt. CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf said: After the U.S. government assumed control in 2008 of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--two federally chartered institutions that provide credit guarantees for almost half of the outstanding residential mortgages in the U.S.--the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the institutions had effectively become government entities whose operations should be included in the federal budget. This amendment simply says: Let's put the calculations of debt for which taxpayers are now on the hook, which now totals over $130 billion, which we are told is going to rise to $381 billion, and the debt, which is over $1.5 trillion, of these two institutions that is now on their books, let's put it in our calculation of the national debt. We are not asking to solve the problem in the bill with this amendment. We fought that last week. This simply says let's put it on the national debt. I urge colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, on May 24, 2010, Mountain Home Air Force Base, in my home State of Idaho, will bid farewell to COL John D. Bird, his wife Megan, and their children Blake and Cole. Colonel Bird has been the commander of the 366th Fighter Wing at Mountain Home Air Force Base since February 11, 2009. Colonel Bird is a command pilot with more than 1,700 flight hours in the F-15C, T-37, and T-38. He has been awarded the Legion of Merit, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal with three oak leaf clusters, the Air Medal, the Air Force Commendation Medal with one oak leaf cluster, and the Air Force Achievement Medal. Colonel Bird has given a lifetime of service to his country, to the benefit of us all. The 366th Fighter Wing consists of over 4,800 United States and Republic of Singapore personnel, with 22 squadrons, comprised of a fleet of 86 F-15 aircraft, and under Colonel Bird's command, it excelled in its mission. He oversaw the deployment of 5,286 personnel and 1,507 tons of cargo to 18 different locations around the world, with his squadrons surpassing all theater commander objectives in each location. During Colonel Bird's time as commander, and due to his leadership, the Wing was recognized with 19 individual awards and 9 program awards at the Air Combat Command level and 10 awards at the Headquarters Air Force level. While under his command, the Mountain Home Air Force Base thrived. He oversaw the expansion and enhancement of the Mountain Home Range Complex, with new urban target construction and an increase in training airspace capacity; a family housing demolition project, 3 years ahead of schedule, saving $2.2 million; the construction of 300 new military family housing units; a temporary lodging facility; and a new main gate complex. Colonel Bird's outstanding leadership abilities inspired excellence and achievement in others, and his comprehensive view of the wing's mission within the context of the broader mission of the Air Force and the U.S. military made him a particularly outstanding commander. My staff and I have enjoyed an extremely positive working relationship with Colonel Bird and his staff, which helps to ensure that Mountain Home AFB not only retains critical missions, but is considered for others as it possesses one of the top training ranges in the Nation and has the strong support of the local community and the State. Colonel and Mrs. Bird have been exemplary representatives of the Air Force and good friends to Idaho. They will be greatly missed. On behalf of the State of Idaho, I wish them well as they move back to Washington, DC, where Colonel Bird will work as Chief of the Force Application Division at the Pentagon, and I thank them for their continued service to our Nation and for their time as gunfighters in the great State of Idaho.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I call up a second-degree amendment, which is at the desk.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect to the Landrieu amendment.

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

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, this is a second-degree amendment to the Landrieu-Isakson amendment. It is not a competing amendment; it is an amendment to add additional provisions. I support the material in the Landrieu-Isakson amendment, which deals with the home mortgage market. This amendment has further provisions in the same section of the bill to deal with risk-retention issues relating to the commercial real estate market and other asset classes. According to market analysts and financial regulators, the provisions aimed at the securitized credit market in this bill will undoubtedly impact access to credit for millions of American consumers and businesses. These issues--such as ``risk retention''--are very complicated. The reforms are aimed at the ``residential and subprime'' market, and I am quite concerned that have not been carefully examined for all markets. Additionally, they are have not been reviewed in the context of other moving parts outside the bill, such as changing accounting standards, capital requirements, other regulatory mandates, etc. When combined, these significant changes create a huge amount of ``uncertainty'' in the market, which today serves one of the greatest impediments to new and private lending and investing. The stakes are high. As Treasury Secretary Geithner has stressed, ``no financial recovery plan will be successful unless it helps restart securitization markets for sound loans made to consumers and businesses--large and small.'' Yet, the ``totality'' of regulatory and account changes impact the future viability of these markets. In fact, both market participants and financial regulators agree that the outcome is unclear in both the short and long term. The ``warning signs'' are there and cannot be ignored after comments by the Fed, the OCC, the FDIC, and the International Monetary Fund, among others. As such, we must carefully examine any new mandates to determine the most appropriate and direct way to strengthen our lending markets, and to better serve consumers and businesses, while avoiding negative complications. Such reforms are very important, and it is critical that we get them right. This ``middle ground'' approach has two basic components: First, because ``skin-in-the-game'' is important and can come in many forms, the proposed language improves the existing framework--using the current language and construct in the Dodd bill--and requires the regulators to examine and consider equally which method of ``skin-in- the-game'' is most appropriate: A percent retention; Underwriting standards; strong, standardized and disclosed ``representations and warranties''; Other methods--e.g. a ``third party'' retention for CMBS in the ``Minnick-Bean-Moore-Adler- Campbell-Miller amendment that passed in the House unanimously--or the like. Second, it clarifies existing language in the bill that requires reforms to be considered by ``asset class.'' Under the Landrieu amendment, the regulators shall create the ``qualified mortgage'' framework important to the residential market. Under this secondary amendment, the regulators shall consider the appropriate forms of retention by ``asset class'' and type of loan--as well as risk profile associated with it. This would include allowing the regulators to consider using and strengthening a ``third party'' retention framework that is important to CMBS and CRE market participants. Ultimately, we think such an overall amendment is important because it comprehensively addresses all asset classes, (residential and commercial mortgages, student loans, auto loans, etc.) and helps to have a better format for approaching risk retention. What the amendment does is take the exclusive focus off of just one form of risk retention and allows the regulator to evaluate the best approach to address risk retention by asset class. This still includes a percent retention (if necessary), as well as underwriting standards that actually get at the heart of the loans and even strong and uniform ``representations and warranties''--which are important to the investors--such as pension funds, mutual funds and endowments--who fuel lending in the securitized credit markets. The amendment simply gives important direction to the regulators on structuring reforms by ``asset class.'' This is critical in the context of conflicting rules and proposals aimed at these markets--some of which prejudge or disregard the House and Senate language in this area. Most important, when taken with the Landrieu amendment, it would address and encourage well underwritten loans--including the ``qualified mortgage'' framework--as well as uniqueness of very different markets--such as commercial real estate, auto loans, student loans, etc. And, by avoiding a single asset ``carve-out'' for just ``residential,'' it simply allows the regulators to customize ``skin- in-the-game'' for all asset classes--particularly ones that were not a ``root case'' or ``systemic risk''. This protects consumers and businesses that are struggling to get access to credit. Without ``reinventing the wheel'' on the Dodd bill, this approach provides important reforms, while avoiding negative complications concerning capital, liquidity and credit availability--particularly in the commercial real estate market, which faces challenges and has a very different structure. Such an approach is crucial for business and consumer credit, and for an overall economic recovery. And, for that reason, it is supported by lenders of all sizes and in all markets, commercial borrowers who have been active on this issue, and investors who fuel lending and are seeking certainty and confidence. Lastly, some of the language in this bill, particularly related to the commercial mortgage market, passed the House Financial Services Committee unanimously, as offered by Representatives Minnick, Bean, Adler, Moore, Campbell, and Miller. I urge all my colleagues to accept this amendment as an addition to the Landrieu-Isakson amendment, not a change of it, to help us address more than simply the issues dealing with the residential real estate market but also, and most important, the commercial real estate market and other asset classes.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman's remarks and willingness to work on this amendment. We are both trying to get at the same thing. I believe we can work out the questions with regard to the language so we can move forward in a fashion that will help us to address these problems to make sure the ultimate objective, on which we all agree--namely, making sure we have confidence in the quality of the assets that are utilized in securitization--is achieved. I welcome that opportunity and look forward to working with the chairman.

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

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I stand today to discuss the McCain amendment as well. We have had a lot of debate about the financial regulatory legislation before us. A lot of the debate has focused on the content of the bill, with concerns being raised by some such as myself about whether we truly are ending too big to fail and truly are ending bailouts and whether we are going too far in creating yet again a big government response to an issue that needs to have a more effective response rather than more government, a response that will hammer Main Street, not Wall Street, and create yet again another big expansion of government in this Congress. We have seen way too much of that in way too many parts of our economy so far, and some of us are concerned about that. But what I want to talk about today is what is noticeably absent in the bill; that is, the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, our government-sponsored entities--actually, our government-managed entities now--and the fact that these entities are at the core of the financial crisis we are dealing with and yet are not even touched by this legislation. Americans remain rightly outraged that their tax dollars were used to bail out irresponsible Wall Street firms and auto companies. I have voted against these bailouts, and I have been working with my colleagues to make sure we do not set the stage for yet more government bailouts. The most expensive government bailouts of all, however, will be those of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--the largest housing lenders that purchased home loans, packaged them into investments, and then guaranteed them against default. I think a little history of how we got to where we are is appropriate. Congress chartered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to provide access to home financing by maintaining liquidity in the secondary market. According to Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute: Their implicit, or assumed, government backing enabled them to drive all competition out of the middle-class housing sector, permitting Fannie and Freddie to acquire over $5 trillion in mortgages, which they either held in portfolios totaling approximately $1.5 trillion or securitized as mortgage backed securities. Continuing his quote: In pursuing their mission to support low and middle-income housing--also called affordable housing--Fannie and Freddie assumed the credit risk on almost 11 million subprime and other high-risk mortgages and contributed substantially to the growth of a housing bubble. When the bubble began to deflate in 2007, they began to suffer huge losses. But I want to go back and talk a little bit about the history before 2007, when it became evident to everyone what was happening to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in our housing markets, because it did not just become known then. As my colleague, Senator Sessions, has already mentioned on the floor today in his earlier remarks, the Banking Committee was heavily engaged in reviewing this issue for several years leading up to this, as was the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight at HUD and the Fed and a number of other analysts. Senator Sessions quoted a letter. I believe it was from then-Chairman Greenspan of the Fed, who noted we needed to put focus on Fannie and Freddie then--this was back in the 2004 to 2005 timeframe--and that if we did not establish much tighter regulatory control over Fannie and Freddie, their excesses were going to create systemic risk that would put the taxpayer in extreme jeopardy. The committee itself focused very heavily on this same dynamic. In May of 2006, we had established legislation that would have, had it been able to be passed on the floor of this Senate, created a strong, new regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and begun the process of setting the right capital standards and the right regulatory environment in which we could control this excessive growth and set the process in place for us to take Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac into receivership or into trust if they eventually failed, as it began looking as if they would. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight completed a multiyear special examination of Fannie Mae and issued a report describing OFHEO's findings and recommendations in May of 2006. OFHEO found the following: Fannie Mae senior management promoted a false image of the enterprise as one of the lowest risk financial institutions in the world. A large number of Fannie Mae's accounting policies and practices did not comply with generally accepted accounting principles. Fannie Mae had serious problems of internal control, financial reporting, and corporate governance, resulting in Fannie Mae overstating reported income and capital. Between 1998 and 2004, Fannie Mae senior management deliberately and intentionally manipulated accounting to hit earnings targets so that senior management maximized the bonuses and other executive compensation they received. Fannie Mae's board of directors failed to be sufficiently informed, to act independently of its chairman and other senior executives, and to exercise the requisite oversight over the enterprise's operations. And then the final finding of the report: Despite rapid growth and changing accounting and legal requirements, Fannie Mae senior management did not make investments in accounting systems, computer systems, other infrastructure and staffing needed to support a sound internal control system, proper accounting, and GAAP-consistent financial reporting. Again, as a result of these findings and of an increasing awareness of the threat that was being posed by the excesses at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Banking Committee, on which I served then and still serve, developed legislation to address these very excesses and to create the kind of regulatory structure in which we could control these problems. Along with 26 of my colleagues, in May of 2006 I signed a letter to then-majority leader Bill Frist and to the chairman of the Banking Committee then, Senator Richard Shelby. In the letter, we stated: We are concerned that if effective regulatory reform legislation for the housing-finance government sponsored entities is not enacted this year-- Remember, this is 2006-- American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole. Therefore, we offer you our support in bringing the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act (S. 190) to the floor and allowing the Senate to debate the merits of this bill, which was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. I might note that when we debated this bill back in 2006, it came out on a straight party-line vote from the Banking Committee--all the Republicans voting for it, all the Democrats opposing it. As history shows us, we never were able to get that bill to the floor because although we had 55 Republican votes, it takes 60 votes to move legislation on the floor of the Senate in the face of filibusters, and that bill was filibustered. We were not able to get the additional support to get it past the filibuster. I would like to quote from a recently written editorial about this chapter of the Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac history. Peter Wallison, in an April 20, 2010, editorial in the Wall Street Journal, wrote: One chapter in this story took place in July 2005, when the Senate Banking Committee, then controlled by the Republicans, adopted tough regulatory legislation for the GSEs on a party- line vote. . . . The bill would have established a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie and given it authority to ensure that they maintained adequate capital, properly managed their interest rate risk, had adequate liquidity and reserves, and controlled their asset and investment portfolio growth. These authorities were necessary to control the GSEs' risk- taking, but opposition by Fannie and Freddie--then the most politically powerful firms in the country--had consistently prevented reform. He goes on to say: The date of the Senate Banking Committee's action is important. It was in 2005 that the GSEs--which had been acquiring increasing numbers of subprime and Alt-A loans for many years in order to meet their HUD-imposed affordable housing requirements--accelerated the purchases that led to their 2008 insolvency. If legislation-- And this is the key part of the editorial-- along the lines of the Senate committee's bill had been enacted in that year, many if not all the losses that Fannie and Freddie have suffered, and will suffer in the future, might have been avoided. What happened was the bill was stalled. Fannie and Freddie collapsed. When it became evident the losses were going to occur, there was a rush on the floor of the Senate to get back to that bill, and in 2008 the bill passed--after the horse was out of the barn. At least, though, we did get it passed in 2008, and Fannie and Freddie were taken into conservatorship. Where are we now? The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that in the wake of the housing bubble and the unprecedented deflation in housing values that resulted, the government's cost to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will eventually reach $381 billion. As we talk on this floor about bailouts, this is the biggest bailout of all. It exceeds, in fact, all of the other bailouts together, by far. Yet it is unlimited. I mean that literally. Last Christmas Eve, in what was considered by many to be a Christmas Eve taxpayer massacre, the Treasury Department announced it was lifting the $400 billion loss cap on these two companies, creating a potentially unlimited liability and effectively providing the full faith and credit of the government to support their debt. To date, the Federal Government has already provided about $126 billion to $130 billion to Fannie and Freddie. As I just indicated, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that will ultimately top $380 billion, and many believe that is a conservative number--direct taxpayer bailouts that are not even mentioned in this bill. It reminds me of the fight back in 2005 when we were trying to get the legislation to reform Fannie and Freddie passed then, and here we are knowing what we need to do--seeing these bailouts, knowing the American taxpayers want those bailouts to stop--and we are being resisted in trying to bring an amendment just to add Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--GSE--reform to the bill. Last week, Freddie Mac announced it had lost $8 billion, as others on the floor have just said, in the first quarter and has requested another $10.6 billion to add to this mounting bailout. As the government has pledged more and more money to cover these companies' losses, it has assured the public that planning is underway for overhauling these firms so that the bailouts will end. In December, the administration said it expected to release a preliminary report on how to remake Fannie and Freddie around February 1. But February 1 has come and gone, and no plan has been provided, and now we are being told it will be another year before the government proposes how to restructure these firms. Eighteen months after they were seized to prevent their collapse, the companies remain wards of the state in what has become the single costliest component of bailouts in our financial system. In September of 2008, the Federal Housing Finance Agency placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into that conservatorship I talked about, which allows the regulator to establish control and oversight of a company to put it in a sound and solvent condition. Since being placed in conservatorship, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have actually become a bigger part of the market, which will make reform of them even more difficult. Last quarter, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were responsible for funding two-thirds of all U.S. home loans. That is primarily because there is nobody else able to play in the markets these days, except for these government--now completely government--controlled and financed entities. When you add in the Federal Housing Administration, the U.S. Government is behind 96.5 percent of all loans. What we have seen here is literally another government takeover. We have seen the government take over in the health care industry. We have seen the government take over in the auto industry. We have seen the government takeover of AIG and the insurance industry. We have seen the government take over in multiple parts of our financial industries and a greater government takeover being proposed in this bill. Yet we have the literal government control and management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac going unabated and unaddressed in the legislation that is before us. What does the legislation do? The longer Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are allowed to operate in their current role--as political rather than business entities--the greater the financial losses will be for taxpayers and, frankly, the greater the risk they will simply continue endlessly in government control and government management, with the government managing yet one other big part of our economy perpetually. That is why the McCain amendment requires the current conservatorship of the companies to end in the next 2\1/2\ years and begin the process of shrinking their portfolios. If the companies are not viable at the end of that period, they would be placed into receivership, which is a form of bankruptcy restriction. Without a hard deadline, I am very concerned Congress will not act and, just like back in 2005, we will find gridlock here in the Senate stopping us from moving forward and be left with a nationalized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The amendment would also reestablish the $200 billion cap and accelerate the 10-percent reductions of the mortgage portfolios, effectively requiring the companies to shrink those portfolios by holding a combined $100 billion from their current levels. This will also limit the losses taxpayers will face as a result of the blank check given by the administration in lifting all caps on December 24 of last year. It also includes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as a part of the Federal budget as long as either institution is under conservatorship or receivership. This is going to show the American people the true picture of how much of our national debt has increased by the bailout of these institutions. As an aside here, as most people probably did not realize, the Senate Budget Committee recently acted on a proposed budget for the Congress this year. We were supposed to have declared and created a budget for us to operate under months ago, but because of, I think, an unwillingness to literally put it out there--how much money this government is spending--the committee and the Senate have not acted on a budget yet. But the Budget Committee actually did finally act on one. I didn't vote for it. It is more spending--trying to spend ourselves into prosperity again as the last budget was--but at least we acted. In that Budget Committee process, I brought forth an amendment to require that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debt be added to our national debt calculations. Why would I do that? According to the Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf: After the U.S. Government assumed control in 2008 of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two Federally-chartered institutions that provided credit guarantees for almost half-- and by the way, as I indicated, now it is two-thirds-- of all the outstanding residential mortgages in the United States, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the institutions had effectively become government entities whose operations should be included in the Federal budget. So here we have the Director of the Congressional Budget Office saying we run these companies, we are financially backing these companies, we should at least include them in our budget. The purpose of my amendment then--and the same language that is in this amendment on the floor today--is to include in the debt calculations of the budget resolution the debt obligations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This allows the American people to see a true picture of how much our national debt has been increased by the bailout of these institutions. At the end of calendar year 2009, per the financial statements, those figures are $774 billion for Fannie Mae and $781 billion for Freddie Mac, for a total of $1.555 trillion of debt. That is debt the United States holds today that is not being disclosed to the American public as part of our debt because of our interesting budget procedures. To put into perspective how large these entities are, their combined total books of business are nearly $5.5 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that in the wake of the housing bubble and the unprecedented deflation in housing values that resulted, the government's cost to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as I indicated earlier, will eventually reach $381 billion, and that estimate may be too optimistic. I also already mentioned that last Christmas Eve the Treasury lifted the cap. We actually had a cap so that the taxpayer was at least protected at $400 billion. Last Christmas Eve--and I told my colleagues earlier some called it the ``Christmas Eve Taxpayer Massacre''-- Treasury lifted that cap so there now is no limit to the amount of debt we will assume and pay for as taxpayers as a result of this bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. According to a January 2010 CBO background paper entitled ``CBO's Budgetary Treatment of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,'' CBO: believes that the Federal Government's current financial and operational relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac warrants their inclusion in the budget. By contrast, the administration has taken a different approach by continuing to treat Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as outside the Federal budget, recording and projecting outlays equal to amounts of any cash infusions made by Treasury into the entities. The Office of Management and Budget of the U.S. Government fiscal year 2011 states: Under the approach in the budget-- This is the President's budget-- all of the GSEs' transactions with the public are nonbudgetary because the GSEs are not considered to be government agencies. So we have the administration saying they are not considered to be government agencies, and, therefore, we aren't going to consider their debt and their financing, and we have the Congressional Budget Office saying they should be. CBO has included the GSEs in its budget baseline, but does not include the debt in its calculations because of their narrow view of how to calculate the Federal debt. In light of all these facts, I think it is evident that we need to have transparency and we need to start telling the American people exactly what it means, that we have taken Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into receivership, and that we are not going to put their finances in the Federal budget. Going back to what the amendment we are debating here today does, in addition to putting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the budget, it establishes a Senate-confirmed special inspector general within the Government Accountability Office with responsibility for investigating and reporting to Congress on decisions made with respect to the conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and this special inspector general would provide quarterly reports to Congress. There is no one politically accountable to the public for the operation of these multitrillion-dollar entities since the President has yet to nominate anyone to officially run the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the Office of Special Inspector General. The office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program has done a good job to inform the public and Congress about TARP, and we should follow this model with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is not credible to say we are protecting the taxpayer and fixing mortgage financing and do nothing about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Let me conclude by reading from a couple of editorials. If you scan the news today about this issue, you will see editorials across this country. I think one of them said ``the silence on this issue is deafening.'' Others have said there is a huge hole in the legislation. The title of another one: ``Congress Remains Missing In Action on Two Key Causes of the Financial Crisis.'' I wish to read from one of the Wall Street Journal editorials on May 6 of this year. In part it says: One sign that the White House financial reform is less potent than its advertising claims is that it doesn't even attempt to reform the two companies at the heart of the housing mania and panic--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So we are glad to see that yesterday GOP Senators John McCain, Richard Shelby, and Judd Gregg introduced a Fannie and Freddie reform amendment. Going on, it says: The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission spent yesterday focusing on financial leverage using Bear Stearns as an example. But Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were twice as leveraged as Bear and much larger as a share of the mortgage market. Fan and Fred owned or guaranteed $5 trillion in mortgages and mortgage-backed securities when they collapsed in September of 2008. This is a quote that has been read on the floor before, but it is exactly applicable. Again, quoting the editorial: Reforming the financial system without fixing Fannie and Freddie is like declaring war on terror and ignoring the al- Qaida. Unreformed, they are sure to kill the taxpayers again. Only yesterday-- this was on May 6-- Freddie said it had lost $8 billion in the first quarter-- which I have already mentioned. Going on to another editorial, this one also in the Wall Street Journal by Robert Wilmers--and I quote just a part of it: At the end of 2009, their total debt outstanding--either held directly by their balance sheets or as guarantees on mortgage securities they'd sold to investors--was $8.1 trillion. That compares to $7.8 trillion in total marketable debt outstanding for the entire U.S. Government. The debt has the implicit guarantee of the federal government but is not reflected on the national balance sheet. The public has focused more on taxpayer bailouts of banks, auto makers and insurance companies. But the scale of the rescue required in September 2008 when Fannie and Freddie were forced into conservatorship--their version of bankruptcy--was staggering. To date, the federal government has been forced to pump $126 billion into Fannie and Freddie. That's far more than AIG, which absorbed $70 billion of government largess, and General Motors and Chrysler, which shared $77 billion. Banks received $205 billion, of which $136 billion has been repaid. Fannie and Freddie continue to operate in the red, with no end in sight. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that if their operating costs and subsidies were included in our accounting of the overall deficit--as properly they should be--the 2009 deficit would be greater by $291 billion. The point is simple. This bill is alleged to be focused on trying to solve the problem of bailouts. We will hear Senators on this floor say day in and day out that this bill will end bailouts and stop too big to fail. Yet the two largest enterprises which were at the core of the financial crisis are exempt from the provisions of the legislation. They are not even mentioned in the legislation. Apparently, they are too big to fail, because we in this Senate will not put them into a track of being resolved properly. As I indicated earlier, I am concerned that the same outcome is going to happen now that happened back in 2005 and 2006 when we tried before their collapse to put some restraint into place, and that we will not act, the net result of which will be that we will, in effect, nationalize Fannie and Freddie and have a huge portion of our Nation's mortgage market be run by the government. The McCain amendment will simply give us a track to move forward to stop that result from happening, and I encourage all of my colleagues to consider strongly supporting this amendment. If we don't, then I don't think we can honestly call this a bill that truly ends the bailouts in our country. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Idaho's Winter Olympics athletes. Just a few days ago, our country's Olympic champions were at the White House to meet with President Obama, who marked the great success of the American 2010 Winter Olympic team. The American team made an outstanding showing by winning a record 37 medals, more than any single country ever in the Winter Olympics. With six athletes, Idaho's team made an impressive contribution to this performance, even adding to the medal count. The Idaho team includes freestyle/aerial skier Jeret Peterson, of Boise; Alpine skier Hailey Duke, of Boise; Biathlon skier Sara Studebaker, of Boise; cross country skier Morgan Arritola, of Ketchum; Alpine skier Eric Fisher, of Middleton; and snowboarder Graham Watanabe, of Sun Valley. Jeret Peterson won the silver medal for freestyle skiing/aerials with the successful completion of his signature move, the ``Hurricane,'' which includes an amazing three flips and five twists all in a single jump. The U.S. Olympic team also includes several other athletes with ties to Idaho: freestyle skier Emily Cook, from Massachusetts, who trained at Bogus Basin in her youth and is friends with Jeret Peterson; Freestyle skier Patrick Deneen, from Washington, who skied at Silver Mountain near Kellogg in his youth; snowboarder Elena Hight, from California, who lived in Boise when young and learned to snowboard at Bogus Basin; bobsledder Nick Cunningham, from California, who was a track star at Boise State University; and snowboarder Nate Holland, from California, who grew up in Sandpoint, Idaho, where he learned to ski at Schweitzer Mountain. I offer my sincere and well-deserved congratulations to Idaho's 2010 Winter Olympics athletes. Simply making the U.S. Olympic team is an amazing achievement in itself. It takes a lifetime of hard work, dedication and practice. It is truly a great accomplishment and they have made Idaho proud. I look forward to seeing each of them again at the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, and hope to see even more Idahoans join them to represent our great State.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, the two health care bills, the one the President has already signed into law plus this one we are considering will spend another $2.6 trillion over the next 10 years. In order to pay for it, one of the things that these bills include is over $600 billion in new taxes. The President has pledged there would be no taxes on the middle class, and he defined that to be anybody who makes less than $200,000 as an individual or $250,000 as a couple or a family. All this motion to commit does is say: Let's take those taxes out of these bills. There are 73 million Americans who fall squarely in the middle class who make less than $200,000 a year as an individual or $250,000 as a couple who will pay the burden of these taxes if we do not make this change. It is time for this Congress----

Mr. CRAPO. To help the President keep his pledge.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Per this colloquy, Senator Risch and I will follow up with the FAA that it is the clear intent of the Senate for the FAA to halt its consolidation of the Boise TRACON until after the new board completes its recommendations for realignment.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee have created an Air Traffic Control Modernization Board and tasked it with reviewing and evaluating the Federal Aviation Administration facility and service realignment proposals. The Idaho delegation has been raising serious concerns with the FAA's proposed transfer of the Boise Terminal Radar Approach Control, TRACON, for several years. Despite the years of requests for transparency and detailed cost and safety data, the agency has failed to clearly demonstrate that the radar transfer would result in improved air traffic control services for Boise air traffic users. In fact, the evidence that the Idaho delegation has seen continues to indicate that services would be diminished and efficiency and operational costs could also be impacted. The Idaho delegation requested the Department of Transportation's Office of the Inspector General to initiate a study of the costs associated with this radar transfer. In addition we have asked the Air Traffic Safety Oversight Service, AOV, to determine whether FAA safety risk management procedures have been followed in the proposed move. The Idaho delegation remains unconvinced that physically relocating the radar would be cost effective and question the assumptions that have driven the FAA's proposal. Because these concerns have not been adequately addressed, we believe the consolidation should be halted until the new Air Traffic Control Modernization Oversight Board completes its recommendations for realignment. As I read the new section 308 language, the bill will halt the consolidation of the Boise TRACON into the Salt Lake City TRACON until after the board completes its recommendations for realignment even though the FAA has sent an article 46 notification to move the Boise TRACON to Salt Lake City. At this point, I ask to have printed in the Record a letter from the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, NATCA, that agrees with this position. The letter follows. National Air Traffic Controllers Association, AFL-CIO, Washington, DC, March 18. 2010. Dear Senators Crapo and Risch: We write today to thank you for your continued leadership in the U.S. Senate on behalf of the air traffic controllers in Idaho. As you know, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association has a strong track record of support of consolidations that do not compromise safety. Unfortunately, the FAA has failed to collaborate with the controller workforce during its most recent round of facility and service realignments, including the agency's intentions to remove local radar services from Boise. Your support for the controllers in Idaho during this dispute has been critical and has not gone unnoticed. The language in Section 308 of the substitute amendment to H.R. 1586, legislation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, will protect the Boise TRACON and the city's air traffic control facilities from the FAA's current plans to transfer these services to Salt Lake City despite the FAA's Article 46 notification of its intent to move forward with the proposed transfer. This language will ensure the local radar services will remain at Boise until the Air Traffic Control Modernization Oversight Board's recommendations are complete, or with the full participation of and collaboration with the air traffic controllers at Boise. Similarly, we at NATCA will not move forward with negotiations with the FAA on the Boise TRACON transfer without full cooperation with the Idaho Congressional Delegation and other key stakeholders. Full collaboration will ensure that this and all future ATC facility and service realignments will only be considered if the proposals serve the public good by improving safety, efficiency and service. The inclusion of this provision in the substitute amendment is a direct product of your tireless efforts to compel the FAA to work collaboratively with the air traffic controllers and other vital aviation stakeholders in Boise. On behalf of the air traffic controllers in Boise and throughout the country, we want to thank you for your continued leadership on this issue. Sincerely, Patricia Gilbert, National Executive Vice President. Mark Griffin, President, Boise NATCA Local.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, during two votes this morning, I was unavoidably absent and unable to cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: No--The motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the House message to accompany H.R. 2847, the HIRE Act. No--The motion to concur with the House amendments to H.R. 2847, the HIRE Act.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, today I wish to take note of a great international internship program that is now celebrating its 11th year. I am proud to be involved for a 4th year in the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Programme, UCWIP, an exchange program in which outstanding college students from Australia's top universities compete to serve as interns for the U.S. Congress. This program has been bringing the Washington internship experience to students from Australia for more than 10 years. In addition to working in congressional offices, the program provides students with a number of other opportunities and activities including visits to U.S. historic sites, visits to government agencies and education events. This semester Benjamin Watson, a student from the University of Western Australia, is spending a couple of months in my office, helping me serve Idaho constituents. But students from the Uni-Capitol Washington Programme can be found throughout congressional offices, working for both the House and the Senate. I asked Ben to share his thoughts about this program, and he said, ``The UCWIP has truly been a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Working in Senator Crapo's office has given me an insight into the workings of the world's most influential democracy, adding a practical element to my studies in politics and law. My internship has given me the chance to interact with interesting people and understand the processes and procedures of U.S. Congress, within the friendly and welcoming environment of Senator Crapo's office.'' Ben has been a great addition to my intern staff for the spring semester, and has spent many hours helping keep my schedule and activities running smoothly. His efforts are much appreciated. And I am sure that the other offices that have participated in this program feel that way toward the work of those assigned to their offices. I cannot conclude without recognizing the efforts put into this program each year by its director and founder, Eric Federing, who spent a number of years working on Capitol Hill himself. After he visited Australia a number of years ago, he determined to find a way to introduce the U.S. Congress to the students he met. He has done such great work in sharing his enthusiasm and experiences with so many Australian students. More than 100 students have made the long journey from their universities in Australia to Washington, DC, to take part in this program. In addition to the work opportunities provided on Capitol Hill, Uni-Capitol Washington also expands the yearly experience to include some of America's historical sites and famous landmarks, including Gettysburg and New York City. It has been an honor to participate with this program, and I look forward to continuing my association with the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Programme next year.