Veterans Traumatic Brain Injury and Health Programs Improvement Act of 2007 and Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007

Floor Speech

VETERANS TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY AND HEALTH PROGRAMS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2007 AND VETERANS' BENEFITS ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - December 12, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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 They cannot put forward a positive program because their positive program is out of date with the needs of 21st century America.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

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

In 2000, we sat astride the globe. We had a budget surplus. We had a prosperous economy. We were respected in the world. Over the last 7 years, under the leadership of President Bush, that has been squandered. That is not just Democrats speaking; that is America speaking. Close to 70 percent of America thinks we are headed in the wrong direction. A majority of not only Democrats but Independents and a near majority of Republicans think we are headed in the wrong direction. But my colleagues across the aisle, clinging to their base, narrower and narrower, further and further away from the American mainstream and what the American people want, have come up with a policy of obstruction because they can't come up with anything else.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

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

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

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.

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

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

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

I hope we will move this FHA legislation. As I said, it is supported by the President and by Secretary Paulson. It is the mildest of measures. It can't be too bad if President Bush is for it. That is not my view, but I am trying to perhaps win over some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This FHA modernization will help in a small way. We have to do other things. The bill Senator Brown, Senator Casey, and I have put in the appropriations bill, with Senator Murray's help, for $200 million to help families get out of foreclosure makes sense. Congressman Frank and I have a bill to help Fannie and

Freddie to help with the foreclosures, which is legislation that is needed as well. But at least this is a first step. Yes, it is Government, and if you are a hard right ideologue, I guess you say the ideological purity of keeping Government away from everything is more important than helping innocent victims keep their homes, more important than keeping housing prices stable, more important than keeping our credit markets in good shape.

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

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

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

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Under the rules of the Senate, when we ask for unanimous consent, as has just been asked, are we not saying we will not debate the bill, we will not offer the bill for amendments, and that we will take the bill as it is?

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The issue is what is specified under the request.

Mr. COBURN. Which is not to debate the bill and not allow the bill to be amended. I will be happy to discuss my objections to the bill. They are small and deal with reverse mortgages, not conventional FHA, or the increased cap or the lower downpayment. I am working hard to try to resolve that so we do not hold up this bill.

Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield for a question?

Mr. COBURN. I am happy to.

Mr. SCHUMER. Would my colleague be willing to support a provision to
have a time limit on debate on this bill, with amendments limited to the substance of the bill so we can get the bill done?

Mr. COBURN. Yes.

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

Mr. COBURN. I have no objection to that.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source