viable option because it would deny our constituents representation and our votes on a very wide array of -- of public issues. so -- there will be an amendment on divestiture or blind us trust or mutual funds, that's another question. the main point i wanted to make is there's a lot of regulation on the executive branch now. the ethics rules requirements and guidance put forth by the office of government ethics and at the agencies are really extensive. i know a volume of pages of law isn't everything, but it says a lot. there are six pages in the senate code of conduct today cover conflicts of interest while there are hundreds literally of pages of rules and requirements governing such conflict of interest situations for the executive branch.

the amendment offered by the senator from alabama as drafted would require that the annual filingings of over 300,000 rear civil servants an managers be accomplished on the internet. and that's a lot of people, and a lot of work to be done to process and handle those. so -- but i understand the intention of senator shelby. i think it's a good intention. senator wyden has a similar amendment, and i'd like to work with them and i know senator collins would as well to see if we can come to some meeting of the minds that would allow us to achieve the purposes that we all have in the underlying bill, which is to -- to build confidence in our government and its integrity. ms. collins: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you,

mr. president. mr. president, i support the intent of the amendment offered by the senator from alabama. i think that he's right, that we need parity as much as possible in the disclosure requirements. i also believe that he's correct that those disclosure reports should be online so that they are easily accessible. so the intent of his amendment is one that i whole heartedly support. like senator lieberman, i do have some questions about the universe of federal employees who would be covered by the senator from alabama's amendment. we have been working successfully with the senator from kentucky, who first brought up this issue of parity, to make sure that the

scope of the coverage is appropriate. it seems to me that one way to solve these issues is to use a similar scope as we've agreed on with senator paul in the amendment that senator shelby has brought forth. then we would have a certain consistency, we vetted the universe of federal employees that should be covered, and that seems to be -- to me to be very appropriate and relatively easy fix to this issue. but i do want to emphasize that i agree with senator shelby that those federal employees should be required to file in the same time frames as members of congress, and their staffs, and that certainly those reports should be aches online --

accessible online. thank you, mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thanks. across the nation, americans wonder if washington is working for them. congress' approval rate as we know so well is an abysmal 13%, 12%, different surveys, but not very good. one factor contributing to this distrust is the sense elites in washington are using their positions to get ahead financially. members of congress have the privilege and the honor of being elected to serve the public.

unfortunately, some elected officials have used the information they've acquired through service to the public and i might put "service to the public" in quo tailgates marks to enrich their stock holdings. that's wrong. that's why i appreciate the work that senator gillibrand and senator lieberman and senator collins are doing in this legislation. how many articles do we have to read about the appearance of impro bite on the investment decisions of law. and their staff? a "washington post" article in june of 2010, taxpayers for commonsense said in this article by being on a committee with a particular jurisdiction, they, member of congress, members of the senate, are in a better position of influencing the performance of their investments or at least appearing to have that ahe ability. i think perhaps some do, i don't know that but i do know the appearance to the public is that members of the senate are in a position to enrich

themselves on a variety of issues and investments. "the washington post" article on december, 2010, the project on government oversight, this was a year, 13, 14 months ago, this article, it's a problem that will come back and say it's ludicrous i would think of my stocks, that they only think about the nation's interests and that of their constituents. the problem is, we can't know. that's exactly right, we can't know. here is a "usa today" editorial from just yesterday. if lawmakers were really concerned with ethics, they'd put their equity holdings in blind trusts so they wouldn't have the obvious conflict of interest that comes from setting the rules for the companies they own. banking committee members wouldn't invest in financial institutions, armed services committee members wouldn't invest in defense contractors, energy committee members wouldn't invest in oil companies. these stories simply don't

reflect well on the world's greatest deliberative body. most of us think these investments don't affect our decisions here. they probably don't. but isn't it time we held towfers a higher standard? that's what the stock act is about. senator merkley and i want to go further than that. the senate is considering the stock act which clarifies that the insider trading laws apply to congress the same way they apply to the rest of the country. but the stock act applies only to insider trade. very important but that's only a small part of this city's problem. senator merkley and i proposing putting the people's interest first, an amendment to the stock act, it would require all senators and their senior staffs, probably legislative director, most --, direct, their chief of staff, all senators and senior staff subject to financial disclosure, top-paid people to sell individual stocks, divest themselves of individual stocks

that create conflicts of interest or place all of those individual stock investments in blind trust. no one is required to avoid equities, could still invest in mutual funds, broad-based mutual funds or exchange rated funds. this rule would be similar -- we've already done had this in a limited way here. similar to steps already taken to address financial conflicts of interest. senate ethics rule 37.7 requires committee staff making more than $25,000 a year to, quote, divest himself or herself of any substantial holdings which may be directly affected by the actions of the committee for which that person works unless the ethic committee approaches an alternative arrangement. the armed services committee requires all staff and dependents to divest themselves of companies doing business with the department of defense and energy. the committee does permit the use of blind trusts.

that's virtually every stock frankly. the stiewb federal rules, federal criminal law generally prohibit employees, their spouses and children from owning stock in companies they regulate. all senator merkley and i are saying is members of the senate should hold themselves to the same standard that we require of committee staff. we tell committee staff they can't do this. and executive branch employees. why should we be allowed to do this? if we think this is a sacrifice, which it really isn't, mr. president, ultimately, let's remember that while media net -- median net worse of all americans dropped 8% from 2004 to 2010, median net worth of congress juched 15% over that period. it's not a judgment of my colleagues, it's simply what we should do, what the public would want us to do. some argue that selling our stock will make us lose touch with the rest of society. that thinking falls on deaf ears for most americans. why should members of the senate vote on the oil issues while

they own oil stock,. appearance matters. right now the american people do not trust that we're acting in the nation's best interests far too often. i'll close with this and then senator merkley. public service is a privilege, folks, around washington are paid pretty well or very well for what we do. we take these jobs seriously, we should take them seriously, we should look at them as the privilege they are to serve in the greatest deliberative body in the world and get to serve in my state, 11 million people, senator gillibrand's state, 15 million people, something like that. and senator merkley's, ifg -- millions of people we serve and a privilege to do it. no reason our colleagues need to be buying and selling stocks in multimillion dollars portfolios. when asked about the fact the armed services conflict of interest rules apply only to staff and to d.o.d. appointees,

jordan england said i think congress should live by the rules they impose on other people. in the state of the union the president said let's limit any elected officials owning stocks in industries they impact. everything we do in this body, almost everything we do, committee hearings, floor sessions, calls to agencies, affect businesses and the profits businesses make or don't make. that's why senator merkley and i are introducing this amendment. it's simple, direct, the public should expect nothing else. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, i'm delighted to rise today in support of the stock act and in support of amendment 1481 that my colleague from ohio has put forward to address the fundamental issues of conflict of interest that reside here in our body. let me start with the defining principle, that is there should not be one set of rules for members of congress and a

different set of rules for ordinary americans. i think the citizens of the united states of america in every state understand that principle. everyone else if the country has to abide by rules that say they cannot profit in the stock market from privileged information. there is no reason that those rules should not apply to members of congress. the members of congress at any given time can hold access to immense amounts of information, from previews of economic forecasts, from advance knowledge of events affecting major employers in their state to classified defense information that might have implications for example on the oil market. all of this information under the right circumstances can provide insider knowledge of which ways the markets are likely to move. so i am delighted that this body has voted overwhelmingly to move forward with the stock act. it would make clear that trading on congressional knowledge is no

more acceptable than any other form of insider trading, and it would also make financial disclosures for members of the senate searchable online, and that also is very important in the principle of transparency. these are important steps, but they do not go far enough. let us remember that insider trading is extraordinarily difficult to define and extraordinarily difficult to prosecute. where did you get that information and what did truly motivate you to make a particular trade in a stock? and because of that, when the conflict of interest exists, we have stepped forward to say that this must be addressed. we ask members of the executive branch to take and put aside their individual stocks in situations where the conflict arises. we ask our staff members to set aside and divest themselves of their stock when conflict of

interest arises. we applaud the fact that partners in law firms dealing with cases set aside and divest themselves of stock when the conflict of interest arises. but somehow we have not seen fit to look and have the debate about our own activities. my colleague put it very well when he said why should we allow members of congress to hold oil stocks and then be voting on issues affecting oil companies? why should folks be able to invest in renewable energy companies and then be fighting for tax credits to benefit renewable energy companies? why should we allow members to hold stock in pharmaceutical companies and then be deciding on issues such as whether or not we should have competition in the pricing of pharmaceuticals for medicare? it's a direct conflict of interest. and any member of this body who says i never even gave a passing

thought to the impact on my several hundred thousand dollars investment in x., y. and z., i must say i honor their thought, but it doesn't address the issue about us as an institution, because no one else outside these walls will believe that you didn't think a little bit about that impact on your personal financial portfolio when you voted for that tax credit or you voted for that policy that made your investment worth a lot more than it would have been otherwise. the people in america are far ahead of us on this. during january, i had seven town halls and the stock act came up several times, and i asked for feedback. i said how many folks here believe that congress should live by the same rules of insider trading that everyone else in america lives by? and, you know, there wasn't a person who raised their hand in support that we should have a

separate set of rules for congress. and then i asked the question do you think we should go further? should members not be allowed to hold stocks, individual stocks given that they are making decisions that affect the values of stock. and again, universal support that the congress should address this conflict of interest in the same way that we have addressed it for the executive branch or for our staff members. so the citizens of this country understand this. the amendment that senator brown is championing and that i am partnering to support has three advantages. it directly prevents conflict of interest, and that's a good thing. second, it eliminates the appearance of impropriety. it gives americans confidence that we're addressing issues not with a thought to our personal financial status, and that is a

good thing. and the third is it's very straightforward to enforce. it's not like insider trading that's difficult to define and difficult to prosecute. it's very clear cut. you get rid of your individual stocks. you hold broad mutual funds. you hold your investments in a blind trust. these are reasonable options. so for these three reasons, the members of this body should debate this. i know many do not agree. a number have come up to me and said that they are almost offended by the notion that we would address conflict of interest in this body. i invite them to come to the floor and converse on this. yes, it's a long-standing senate tradition, but there has been a lot of long-standing senate traditions that didn't work well for the u.s. senate at our place in helping to shape the laws of this nation. we have changed many of those

things and we should change this. i encourage my colleagues to support the amendment that senator brown has put forward and i applaud him for doing so. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. [inaudible] the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i would just briefly explain. we narrow the amendment to only discover those who disclose, which means people pretty much making over $120,000 or so. it confirms with the disclosure requirement under the stock act, so we wanted to -- our concern is top staff in major decision-making positions and sitting united states senators. that's our target, that's our concern, and we wanted to conform it with provisions that senator gillibrand has put in her legislation subject to the stock act. thank you, mr. president. i appreciate senator merkley's

input and involvement in helping with this investment and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: and i ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that -- i ask unanimous

consent to call up amendment number 1500. the presiding officer: is there 0,? without objection -- without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. inhofe for himself and mrs. hutchison, proposes amendment number 1500. at the end of the amendment insert the following: "prohibition on unauthority earmarks --" mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the officer without objection. mr. inhofe: i would like to ask unanimous consent that senator susan collins be added as -- withdraw that request. mr. president, today i'm -- i understand that senator toomey is going to be introducing an amendment that will -- it is quite an oversimplifying to say it that way, but it would make permanent the temporary ban on earmarks. and i think this is something that we have talked about and talked about and talked about on

this floor. in fact, the last time we talked about the amendment to do -- to put a moratorium on earmarks, my conservative rating of number one in the united states senate moved to number 20 because i was telling the truth, not demagoguing an issue. the problem we have is this: when the -- when we -- the house of representatives first of all came up some time ago -- two years ago -- with doing away with perms, putting a moratorium on earmarks. then they define what had that moratorium was and defined an earmark as ash i -- in a certaie rule and said, it is any kind of an appropriation or authorization. here's where the problem is, because everybody is upset with the process that's taken place by democrats and republicans on the floor of the senate. and i won't name names, but i think most of the members know the ones that i'm talking about.

many of them are the members of the appropriations committee where they'd sit down during thn appropriations bill and swap out deals, favors, get things for their state and this is the type of thing that is wrong. and it shouldn't take place. but i'm reminded -- i have to remind my friends here that we have a constitution of this country. article 1, section 9, of the constitution makes it very clear that we -- those of in this chamber and in the house chamber across the hall -- have a primary constitutional responsibility and that is to authorize and appropriate. that's what article 1, section 9, says we're supposed to be doing. if you go back and you study what justice storey, back in 1833 talked about, he kind of made the interpretation of that -- of the intent of the constitution insofar as what our duties and the president's were. he said, very clearly, that we are doing this because if the president has the power to do the appropriating or if you want

to call it earmarks, you can call it earmarks -- appropriating or authorization, that's too much power in the hand of one person. so it's very specific that our founding fathers want to make sure that the president doesn't do this. so what happens today? today we get a budget from the president, which is taking place as we speak. my purpose for being here is to articulate how things are working today and how they have worked up until the moratorium language came into effect. the president sends a budget to congress. then that's supposed to go to authorizing committees. i'm on authorizing committees. one is environment and public works. one is the senate armed services committee. the senate armed services committee is staffed with experts in areas of missile defense, in areas of national defense, in areas of strike vehicles, in areas of lift

capacity -- all of the areas that are in his budget -- or along with every area of national defense. but here's the thing: these are experts and so new england advise us as we have our meet -- these are experts and so they advise us as we have our meetings, the defense bill, the ndad as we did just a couple of months ago and we come up with how we think we should be spending the money to defend america, within the parameters of the president's budget. i am going to give you an example. a couple of years ago before there was any discussion on the moratorium, the president had in his budget $330 million to go to a launching system -- it was called a bucket of rockets. it was a good system, something that we need, something that would be very helpful to have. but with the limited resources we have and the fact that we had -- we're fighting a war on fromn

two fronts at the time, we made a determination in the senate armed services committee that $330 million would be better spent if we bought six new f-1 f-18-e and f models. wufnght reasons for that is that the president in his budget did away with the only fifth 46 generation model that we had. this was in his first budget and he's talking about delaying the f-35, which is one that we -- the joint strike fighter, which is going to be necessary to have. so he made that decision. and that was made with -- by the majority of the members of the senate armed services committee. it had nothing to do with whose home state makes the f-18. none of that made any difference. it is just that we can do a lot more to defend america by having six new f-18's than we could the launching system called a bucket of rockets. now, if you do that today,

that's an earmark. they'll say, well, that wasn't in the president's budget. i have to remind everyone, it wasn't matter whether the president of the united states is a democrat or a republican. the president is the guy that designs the budget. a lot of people don't know that. it is not the democrats, not the republicans, not the house, not the senate. it is the president. so when he designs this budget, he makes a determination as to how he thinks everything should be spent. and if we say that we cannot do authorization and appropriation, then that is -- then that would be called an earmark and there's a ban on earmarks. now, what i'm -- the reason i kind of talk around the barn a long ways on this issue is because i have an amendment. that amendment that i have just now brought p for consideration is amendment number 1500. what that does is it merely says, it defianc defines an ears an authorization. there aren't going to be any earmarks in the with way that t

people think of earmarks. but we will be doing our duty. and i feel very confident that we're going to be able to get this past. several of the individuals here very responsibly have talked about this. for example, senator toomey said yesterday on the floor that there are -- that there ought to be some -- some earmarks ought to be funded but they ought to be funded with transparency and in an honest way to evaluate by an authorizing committee. so here's the author of the ban on earmarks agreeing that we need to -- if you go through an authorization process, ph it isl right to fulfill our constitutional function of appropriating and authorizing. senator coburn, my junior senator, said it is not wrong to go through an authorization process where your colleagues can actually see it. it is wrong to hide something in a bill. agreed. we all agree on that. that was a year ago he made that statement. senator mccain, who by the

way, i introduced this amendment and in a bill form last year -- he was my cosponsor. we introduced it together. and that was merely change the definition of an earmark as an appropriation or spending that hasn't been authorized. senator mccain had said, some of those earmarks are worthy. if they're worthy, they should be authorized. that's the whole issue. i can understand some democrats wanting to do away with congressional earmarks, because if they do that it goes right back to obama. if i were in a position where i felt that president obama or any other president could do a better job of appropriating money, that would be another motivation to do this. but for a responsible conservatives who believe in what the constitution says, this is a very easy solution to the problem. the amendment will be brought up. and i don't know yet, i suppose

i could talk and find out just what our timing is going to be. but the amendment that i've offered simply bans any congressional earmark that is not first authorized. if we do this, instead of an outright ban, we will reserve our ability to keep the president's power in check. i would hope that many of my colleagues go back and read what our founding fathers had in mind when they talked about the article 1 of the constitution. and i think that they would find that they made it very clear that we don't want to have -- we want to have a separation of those powers so you don't have either the house and the senate or the presidency doing everything. instead we should follow the constitution. so that's what my amendment's all about. i'll be looking forward to bringing it up. i think it probably will be considered today, and i look forward to that. with that, i'll yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from new york is recognized. mrs. gillibrand: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: we have an incredibly important opportunity here to do something so basic, so commonsense to, begin restoring the faith and trust that the american people have in this institution. and we have a responsibility to do it right, to show without question, without any ambiguity that all members of congress, their staff and federal

employees play by the exact same rules as everyday americans. the american people deserve to know that their lawmakers' only interest is in what's best for the country, not their financial interests. members of congress, their family, their staff and federal employees should not be able to gain any personal profit from information that they have access to that ordinary americans don't, whether it's trading stock or making inside real estate deal, it is simply not right. nobody should be above the rules. the commonsense bill before us would finally codify this principle into law as it should be. chairman lieberman, ranking member collins, scott brown and their committee members and staff have crafted a very strong bipartisan bill with teeth that is narrowly tailored and targeted to ensure that we achieve this very common goal. because of this bipartisan work,

last night this chamber came together in what has become nearly an unprecedented fashion these days and voted almost unanimously to begin debate on this sorely needed legislation. as we continue the debate here, i urge my colleagues, let's focus on the specific task at land. let's show the american people that we can come together and get this thing done to begin to restore their trust in us. if there are ideas to make the bill stronger, let's debate them. but let's not get bogged down in the politics as usual with nongermane side issues that will prevent us from swiftly moving on an up-or-down vote the american people expect of us. we're already starting in a strong position with our colleagues in the house. this stock act legislation is very similar to legislation introduced by my colleague in the new york delegation, congress woman louise slaughter and congressman tim walls. i want to stand them for their

long-standing advocacy and focus and leadership on this issue. our bill, which has received the support of at least seven good-government groups, covers seven very important preupbls. first, members of congress, their families and staff and federal employees should be barred from gaining any federal profit on the basis of knowledge gained through their congressional service or from using knowledge to tip off anyone else. this bill will for the first time establish a clear fiduciary responsibility to the people that we serve. this simple step removes any present doubts as to whether the s.e.c. and the cftc are empowered to investigate and prosecute cases involving insider trading of securities from using this nonpublic information. it also provides additional teeth. such acts would also be in violation of congress's own rules to make it clear this activity is inappropriate and subject members to additional disciplinary measures by this very body. second, members should be

required to disclose major transactions within 30 days to make this information available online for their constituents to see, providing tkapltically dramatically improved oversight and accountability. we should be able to agree these reports should be available in the light of day and not stored in some dusty back room. i should note the committee heard experts testifying during a senate hearing that reducing this reporting requirement to 09 days was not good enough. the committee listened to these experts carefully and the bill has been strengthened and has the 30-day proposal, a sea change of report requirements of a yearly reporting requirement on a paper document. some critics say this bill is unnecessary and already covered under current statutes. i have spoken with experts tasked in the past with the investigations of this nature, and they strongly disagree. we must make it clear as day and unambiguous that this kind of behavior is illegal.

president obama asked us in his state of the union, send him the bill, he'll sign it right away. we should not delay. this is the time to act. let us show people who send us here that we can come together and do the right thing. let's show them that we know they deserve a government that's worthy of them. we have an opportunity to take a step toward restoring some of the faith that's been lost in washington and in this institution. i urge my colleagues to seize this opportunity. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from california. a senator: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator is recognized. mrs. boxer: i call up amendment 149 and ask for its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from california, mrs. boample for herself and mr. isakson proposes

amendment numbered 1489 to amendment numbered 1470. at the end add the following, section 9, requiring mortgage disclosure, section 102-a-4-a of the ethics and government act of 1978, 5 u.s.c. is amended by inner ising after spouse the following, except that this exception shall not apply to a reporting individual report described in section 101-f-9. mrs. boxer: i'm sure listening to that it's hard to understand what this is all about so let me just take a moment. i want to first thank senators lieberman and collins for all their hard work on this and i want to thank senator gillibrand for writing the stock act, and i -- i come to the floor as the chairman of the ethics committee with an amendment that we wrote

together, senator isakson and i who is a the vice chair of the committee. it's a bipartisan amendment and i don't think it should be troublesome in any way. this amendment actually comes from a bill that senator isakson and i wrote together after the countrywide fiasco. if you want to recollect that unhappy issue, it was a situation where countrywide had set up a v.i.p. program and they literally targeted members of congress, the house and senate, to put them into this program and never really told the members of congress that there was this program and yet it went forward. and because there's no rule that personal mortgages be shown on the disclosure form, all of this

was quite a shock when it all came out. so what we're saying is we want to improve the disclosure requirement on home mortgages. right now if it's at your own personal home, you don't have to show the mortgage and this would correct that. it would mean that you have to show the date the mortgage was entered, the balance and a range, the interest rate, the terms, the name and address of the creditor. so it's -- it's an omission but actually it's a pretty glaring omission in our financial disclosure requirements, because, again, of the countrywide example. we don't want to have a situation because we're not allowed to get better treatment than anyone else, and the fact that we didn't disclose these mortgages, it -- it was quite

a -- a story when it came to light that there was this special v.i.p. program at countrywide. so this legislation is -- this amendment addresses this omission. it requires members of congress to make a full and complete disclosure of all the mortgages on their personal residences. again, right now, this requirement is in place for mortgages that you may have on investment properties but not on your personal properties. and it would include members of congress and their spouses as well. in his state of the union address, the president spoke about the deficit of trust between washington and the rest of the country. i don't know that, you know, this amendment is going to cure all those problems but i do think it shows that we're ready to learn from a bad experience, which was the countrywide experience. and so i think the boxer-isakson amendment and the underlying bill are sensible steps toward

rebuilding our nation's faith in government. again, the rules are already clear that we are not permitted to get any financial arrangements that are better than they are for any other constituent. and so i think by this disclosure, we're saying that even in our own personal mortgages, we have to be aware of this and i think that this listing is -- is called for and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying legislation. i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll of the senate. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from maine is recognized. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the call be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. the senator is recognized. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i just want to comment briefly on the amendment that has been proposed by the senator from california to the legislation written by senator brown. senator gillibrand has a similar bill as well. and i want to explain to our colleagues what the state of the current law is which i think would be helpful. under the ethics in government act of 1978, there is an exemption from disclosure for mortgages secured by real property that are the personal residence of the reporting individual or his spouse. now, under the liability section of that same report, which we

now file annually, liabilities in excess of $10,000 must be reported that are owed by the member, the spouse or the dependent child to any one creditor during any time during the reporting period. so credit card debts, for example, are reported, other kinds of loans are reported. mortgages held on investment properties, properties, for example, that are rented are reported. the exemption only goes to the personal residence of the member and/or the member's spouse. i'm unclear and need to get clarification from senator boxer

and also the office of government ethics whether her amendment would extend the new disclosure requirement that she is proposing to executive branch employees or whether it would only apply to the legislative branch. as i read her amendment, it looks like it only applies to the legislative branch and perhaps only to members. so i would ask through the chair if the senator from california could clarify for me mr. she -- this is just truly an informational question -- whether she's intending this new requirement to apply to congressional staff and whether she's intending this new requirement to apply to executive branch members who are

currently required to file an annual financial disclosure form? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: well, thank you very much, senator collins, for that question. senator isakson and i, as chair and -- and vice chair of the ethics committee, are applying this to the members of congress. that's because the scandal that took place with countrywide involved the members of congre congress. we are not including staff in this. and it also applies to more than one residence, because some of our members have seven homes, six homes, four homes, two hom homes. and if you have mortgages on any of those properties, you would now have to disclose those. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank the senator from california for clarifying that issue and answering my question.

i guess my question -- my further question would be, why would we only apply it to members of congress and not apply it to members of the executive branch? for example, i would argue that if there are conflict-of-interest issues or allegations of a sweetheart deal for mortgages that might be revealed by this disclosure, that that would apply equally to, say, treasury officials. in fact, even more so to treasury officials. or bank regulators. as it would members of congressmencongress -- members . so i would wonder if the senator's intent is to make sure that members are not getting sweetheart deals on their mortgages, which obviously no member should be receiving a

sweetheart deal on a mortgage, why that same logic would not apply to executive branch officials, particularly since arguably they have far more direct influence and jurisdiction and regulatory authority over financial institutions than do members of congress? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i would be happy to, you know, go on as a cosponsor to senator collins if she wants to take on the additional burden of, you know, moving this idea forward. i don't have any problem with it. the point is, i'm here -- and i've been very open about it -- because i know what i'm talking about when it comes to members of congress, because as chair of the ethics committee, i don't oversee treasury, i don't -- this is not my role, this is not my expertise, and i'm very humble about that. and i did see what happened he

here, along with, i would say, every member of the ethics committee and senator isakson. this is a bipartisan amendment. and we know what we're talking about. and we're saying, there was a problem and members were congress were courted by countrywide. did they court other people? i don't really know. but if there's some proof that they did and there's a need to go and -- and cover them with a similar amendment, i'd be happy to work with my colleague on that. but i'm not going to change this particular piece of legislation because i know what i'm talking about here. i know how to fix this. i know that we have made a big mistake and i kneel that it is our job to clean up our own business, and our own business, when it comes to this, is not good. would i look to like over, you know, at what the bush administration did or what the obama administration is doing or what other administrations will do?

i'm happy to do that. but i am here to address our house -- our house, clean it up, act as, you know, a role model. and i don't have any problem with supporting another piece of legislation. maybe there is -- maybe there's a problem over there. i don't frankly know what their ethics rules are. i know what our ethics rules are and i know that we have made a glaring omission when members here may have three, four, five, six, seven houses, they may have two, three, four, five six mortgages and they never have to show them. so let's clean it up. if my friend feels there's need for another amendment, i'm happy to look at it. but senators -- senator isakson and i are doing something we've long wanted to do. this is not something we just made up. we've had a bill for a long time doing exactly this. and this is a moment we'd like to get it done. the presiding officer: the

senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i apologize if i cut the senator from california off -- okay, mr. president, the reason i'm raising this issue -- and i realize that the senator from california has not had the misfortune that i've-being constantly on the floor listening to the debate on this bill, but a major issue that we have been grappling with is parity in the rules. so this issue has not just come up with regard to the senator from california's amendment. it has come up over and over and over again. so i'm not in any way singling out the senator from california to raise this issue. this has come up on every single issue that we have been tackling

on the floor. which is, if we're going to have more disclosure for the legislative branch, shouldn't we have the exact same or comparable disclosures for high-ranking executive branch officials? so the issue i raised, i want to assure the senator from california, is by no means unique to her amendment. it has come up over and over again, and indeed the first amendment that we were supposed to have voted on last night was an amendment by senator paul making clear that this bill applied to the executive branch and then senator shelby had an amendment to make sure that there was online disclosure by the executive branch. so this is an issue that has

permeated the entire debate on the stock act and is not unique to the issue that's been raised by the senator from california. thank you, mr. president. california california mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: for that. my understanding is, and i hope to stand corrected by the senator from maine if i'm wrong and the senator from new york, that the whole idea behind the stock act, the bill is written by senator gillibrand, a bill written by senator brown, did not deal with the executive branch. so i thought the whole notion behind this was for us to clean up our act, clean up our act over here. that's the best way i think to proceed. now, i have no problem if my colleague wants to write an amendment, she her servings on this particular issue and if she can make the case that it's been

shown that v.i.p. loans were given to members of the executive branch, whether under george bush or barack obama, and i think in the years she's looking at, it would have been under bush, because those are the years that the countrywide scandal took place. if my friend has information for me that shows that members of the bush administrationer ow t - or the obama administration got special treatment from the countrywide scandal, i would like to know about it. i don't know anything about that at this time. if my friend feels it would be a good thing to do to offer a separate amendment covering certain members of the executive branch, i am happy to look at it. but, you know, it really strikes me as bizarre that this has become an issue here. it sound like what's going on here from the republican side is all of a sudden they want to turn attention over to the

executive branch rather than focus it on, you know -- on us, which i think is critical. but i'm happy to look at any amendment that deals with abuses that you can show me were occurring over on the executive branch side during those years that countrywide was doing its damage, and i'd be happy to support an amendment. but i think we should keep this amendment clean. i think this amendment should be clean because we are looking at a particular ethics rule, and we are essentially cutting out a loophole which mass allowed colleagues here to -- has allowed colleagues here to not have to list their personal residences when in fact we know some of them got special treatment. i yield the floor. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the snr from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, first of all, let me make the point to the senator from california, i'm a cosponsor of

the stock act. i cosponsored senator brown's bill, so it is not as if i don't think that legislation is needed in this area. i am a cosponsor of this bill and have commended him for his work on this. but the fact remains that in our committee markup, the bill was changed. i know the senator was distracted when i answered that question. the bill was changed to extend to the executive branch in committee. it's in the bill that's before us now. so the senator was misinformed in that regard. the bill was changed to make very clear that the insider trader -- insider trading prohibition applied to the executive branch and that executive branch members have a

duty to their agencies, the government. we make that explicit. that was changed in committee. so the senator is not correct that the bill that was brought to the floor only applied to congress. it does not. it applies to the executive branch. the second point i would make is, you know, this is not a partisan issue. we have bills on both sides of the aisle. we have amendments on both sides of the aisle. and, indeed, we have disclosure amendments that apply to the executive branch coming from both sides of the aisle. senator wyden has a disclosure amendment that is similar to senator shelby's. we're working with both of those offices right now to try to work those out. so this -- i don't know how ths all of a sudden became a partisan debate or a debate

about the bush administration or anything. this is a debate about good government and how we can best assure the american people that, regardless of whether public officials are in the executive branch or the legislative branch, that they are putting the public's interest ahead of their private interest and that they are not profiting from insider information, nonpublic information, that is not available to the public, which they are using inappropriately, if in fact that is even happening, for personal gain. so, i did want to clarify that the bill, as reported from committee, does apply to the executive branch as well as the legislative branch; that the

statement made by the senator was inaccurate in that regard, and that we have amendments on both sides of the aisle that we're working on right now to extend the disclosure requirements, reporting requirements to the executive branch. and those are amendments coming from both democrats and republicans. i would like to yield at this point -- mrs. boxer: mr. president? ms. collins: -- to the senator from massachusetts. the presiding officer: the senator from maine has the floor. well, she can't yield. i would like to have the floor now. she can't yield to another colleague except if it's for another question. i would like to have the floor, since the senator just said i was incorrect, and i would like to correct her, if i might. the presiding officer: the senator from california is recognized. mrs. boxer: thank you. what i said was, when these bills were introduced, they were directed at the congress. that's what i said. that's how the bills -- i talked

about the bills. i didn't talk about what wrents's went on with -- i didn't talk about what went on with aiming it, et cetera. so i will repeat what i said is accurate. both mr. brown's bill and ms. gillibrand's bill were talking about the congress. what i also want to say, if my colleague wants bipartisan, she should be happy with this amendment since it's coming from senators boxer and isakson, the chairman and the vice-chairman of the ethics committee. now, we did not investigate the executive branch and countrywide is going after the people in the bush administration and the obama administration. we don't have that information. if she has information that shows there's been sweetheart deals over there, i certainly want to know about it. and, as i said, if my colleague wants to offer a first-degree amendment that broadens this, i'm happy to look at it, because if i -- tab it ca if it can be e

that there's been abuses over there from the mortgage companies going after these folks over there, i'm happy to agree to that. i would have to take it to senator isakson because he is in fact the coauthor and also i have to point out that this same amendment that i offered was put forward in a bill by senator cornyn in 2008. so there is a lot of interest on this. but i am a person that likes to know what i'm talking about. i try very hard. and i don't know if there's been abuse from the mortgage companies over to the executive branch, but i know for sure there has been a big problem here with colleagues getting sweetheart deals, and i want to put an end to it. if my colleague wants to strengthen my amendment, she can offer a second-degree. if she can prove to me that there's been abuse and there's problem and ther there's not enh protection, i'm happy to support

it. but i guess i'm a little taken aback as i come here in a bipartisan spirit to offer a bipartisan amendment and have kind of been the subject of some weird sort of attack for not going far enough with my amendment of and i find it just bizarre to be totally frank, and i will continue to stay on the floor until i understand what this is all about. maybe i have nothing to do with it. if i said something wrong, i'd like to know what it is. but i'm offering in good faith a bipartisan amendment that's a no-brainer that comes straight out of the countrywide scandal that we studied here in a bipartisan way in congress, and we are moving to correct the problems that we know exist. if there are more problems out there, my friend has proof of that, she can prove it to us, i'm happy to support a first-degree to this amendment. and i yield the floor. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i do not know why the senator from

california, first of all, is assuming that i'm somehow opposed to her amendment. i have not said that. what i raised was a very legitimate question of asking whether she had considered extending it to the executive branch. then her response seems to be an attack that if i have information that there are problems and sweetheart deals in the executive branch, i should prove them. i'm not making allegations here. i don't make unsubstantiated allegations against individuals. what i was trying to tell the senator from california is that the issue of the scope and applicability of this bill has come up over and over again. it came up in committee.

we changed the bill in committee to make it clear that the prohibition against insider trading and a duty applied to the executive branch as well as to the legislative branch. i have not criticized her amendment in any way. i asked a series of questions about the scope of her amendment because this issue has come up repeatedly, repeatedly on both sides of the aisle. it came up in committee during our markup. it's come up on the senate floor repeatedly as far as what the disclosure requirements should be and to whom should they apply. i am the one who is baffled by the response of the senator from

california, since i have not indicated any opposition whatsoever to her amendment. i have merely brought up the fact that the issue of the scope of this bill has come up repeatedly, so i was curious why she chose to have such a narrow bill rather than applying it to executive branch officials who file the same kinds of disclosure. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, we can go back and forth a hundred ways to sunday. i thought i explained why senator isakson and i have a narrow bill. we're trying to fix a problem that we know exists. we feel very strongly that for the good of the senate, in particular because this is the body we serve in, we love it. we want to make it strong and appreciated and not deride it. that we had a scandal that

touched this body. we had an investigation, thorough. it took a long time to get to the bottom of it. we uncovered the fact that country wide had a ask the sweetheart deal and they were aiming it at members of congress. we have crafted this amendment to respond to what we know is a problem. i'm not in the business of coming down here and legislating on things that i might guess are a problem. or, gee, maybe i can throw out a fishing net and cash everybody in it. -- and catch everybody in it. if there's a problem elsewhere, i'm happy to support my colleague if she would like to broaden this. i'm not against it. but i'm saying for senator isakson and for me, we have offered an amendment that cures a very simple problem, that ethics rules as they are today allow senators and members of congress to avoid showing the mortgages they hold on personal

residences. now if the same thing exists in the executive branch, i don't know about that. i am dealing with an amendment here, and so is senator isakson, that we know about. so if the senator asks again why is our amendment narrow, let me again answer it in another way. we are curing a narrow problem but a problem that exists. we're not throwing out some big, you know, fishing net to catch everybody in it that we don't know about. and we think this will make the congress a better place. we really do. because there are members that have two, three, four and five homes. they may have two, three, four and five mortgages. and we think it's important to the public to know that. but again, i hope my colleague from maine supports this. i don't know if she does. if she doesn't oppose it, that's

a good start. so i hope she supports it. and if she feels she can make it stronger, she should offer a first-degree amendment, let me take a look at it, let me whether it -- let me see whether it's necessary, let me see whether there is reason to do it. and i can surely tell her i'm very open to broadening it. but the reason it is crafted the way it is is it's dealing with a problem that we're not guessing exists. we know it exists, where there have been abuses before, and we're trying to cure that problem. and i thank her for her patience. and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts is recognized. mr. brown: mr. president, thank you, mr. president. i enjoyed that back and forth very much and appreciate the spirit in which the amendment was offered. for the record, i wrote the original bill. it is my bill. senator gillibrand filed a bill. we went through the committee process. the original intent of the bill was to deal with insider

trading. it applied to all federal employees. not just congressional, but all federal employees. it's an insider trading bill. in the spirit of what we've been trying to do in the last day and a half is to address issues equally to eliminate all appearances of impropriety for any branch of government to not play by the same rules as the american people would play by. so every single amendment that's come through this chamber right now has not only been expanded to cover obviously us here in the senate and the house of representatives, but also equally to the executive branch. so if this amendment is going to have any chance of passing, i can assure you, i will not support it unless it specifically also applies to the executive branch. if she wants to amend it or modify it to include that, then it will have a good chance of passing. if not, then i'll do my best to prohibit it because it needs to be applied to everybody. for us to come and say that we

need to come up with proof that somebody's doing something or not doing something, it's no different than what we're trying to do in the insider trading bill. there's been no one brought to court and found criminally responsible. we're dealing on inference and reference and innuendo. that's why we're trying to reestablish the trust with the american people to do something that wouldn't traditionally have been done but not for a "60 minutes" piece. so if we knew of something happening in the mortgage industry, great. let's let us apply it across the board, not exclude a group of federal employees for some particular political reason. once again, if she wants to amend it, great. if not, i'm going to do my best to make it amended so we can have it apply equally if we're going to ultimately take it up. and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president sph the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: it it is a form

they filled out now. they have to add one more line. executives are part of the equation. it is a good idea. i'll leave it at that. mr. president, i would like to speak in morning business. i rise today to speak about the stock act. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. begich: stock act is stop the outrageous pay for fannie and tprepld act. the bill -- and freddie mac act. our bill comes in the aftermath of a series of events that began last november when reports surfaced that the federal housing finance agency, fhfa, approved nearly $13 million in bonuses for ten executives at the enterprise -- that enterprise that supervises fannie mae and freddie mac. in response, senator thune and i spearheaded a bipartisan letter signed by 58 other senators to the fhfa acting director, edward

demarco, and treasury secretary timothy geithner. we expressed outrage over these pay levels. almost three months after the letter was sent the pressure was on. government regulators were cutting the pay of executives they hired to replace the departing heads of fannie mae and freddie mac. also in response to our efforts, house finance services committee chairman spencer baccus introduced legislation suspending these bonuses and limiting future compensation packages for fannie and freddie employees. in november his committee passed the bill by a vote of 52-4. the begich-thune stock act is a commonsense approach to address the outrageous wall street-like bonuses and paid that have occurred at fannie mae and freddie mac for far too long and which continue to occur to this day even after billions in taxpayer bailouts. i want to make it clear, this

bill will not change the life much for nonexecutives. the everyday, hardworking americans at fannie and freddie, their pay structure will stay almost as it is today. they are not the target. however, it will change the life for executives like peter federico, who earned $2.5 million in 2010 and had a target compensation of $2.6 million in 2011. this at the same time he was gambling with struggling homeowners would be unable to refinance their high interest mortgages to record-low interest rates. this is unacceptable, unethical, and i know that this body will not tolerate it. here's how ou legislation works -- how our legislation works. it simply places fannie mae and freddie mac employees on the same pay scale as financial

regulators at the fdic and at the s.e.c. a pay scale long established in federal law. the pay scale called the financial institutions reform recovery and enforcement act. this is the pay scale that we are basing our legislation on. under our approach -rblgs fannie mae and freddie mac employees can't be paid more than employees of other financial, federal financial regulatory agencies. right now the highest-paid person under this pay scale makes $275,000 a year. this is our pay cap. while this is a lot of money, it isn't any more than what the cops, as we call them, on the financial beat make to ensure that the ordinary americans are protected and get a fair shake. our legislation also stops any future bonus payments that go beyond the cap established in this legislation. also, any already granted bonuses that have not yet been

paid will be stopped. any money in excess of the cap we have established will be used to pay down the national debt. finally, our bill requires that fannie and freddie salaries be made available to congress and the public through the senate banking committee and the house financial services committee. i'm aware of the criticism of this bill, and i would like to address that. senator mccain offered an amendment yesterday that freezes bonus pay. i support senator mccain and his efforts. in fact, i cosponsored this very same amendment the last time it was offered. many of you have asked me why our bill does not freeze bonus pay. our bill is based on a broad-based approach that looks at the entire pay structure within fannie and freddie mac. while it tackles the huge bonuses and pay policies for executives at fannie and freddie, we believe that the everyday employees earning modest salaries should be occasionally rewarded for outstanding work. so it ensures that they get the

small bonuses that may be effective for them. but to clarify, these would be modest bonuses that never exceed the pay cap established in this bill. i've also heard the concern that fannie and freddie won't be able to attract the right kind of talent that can't pay people multimillion-dollar compensation packages. i hate to state the obvious here. fannie and freddie have proven the opposite. they paid executives outrageous compensation and yet still failed by alaskans and all americans. they needed hundreds of billions of dollars to taxpayer bailouts and still ended up in conservativeship. this sends an unsettling message to millions of hardworking people who are struggling to make ends meet. they have taken alaskans' tax dollars in the form of bailouts. yet when my constituents in fairbanks or juneau needed help

to avoid foreclosure or refinance their loans, fannie and freddie often turned their backs. i offer this advice who say fannie mae and freddie mac need to earn millions, whatever happened to the notion that is honorable calling to work on behalf of your friends and neighbors? there are lots of dedicated, hardworking professionals at fannie and freddie who believe in that notion, and they are doing their absolute best to help american families afford the american dream of owning and keeping their homes. the begich-thune bill makes sure that this hard work continues and that their bonuses at fannie and freddie come to work every day not with visions of dollar signs, but instead with a clear eye of doing what's right for all americans. mr. president, i urge all members to support this commonsense bipartisan bill. senators tester, mccaskill,

baucus, blunt, grassley, hoeven, enzi, and scott brown, senator scott brown already have joined senator thune and me as original cosponsors. i want to thank them for their support. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: mr. president, i want to thank the senator from alaska for his explanation of what's been going on as far as executive comp with fhfa. thank you very much for that. mr. president, i would ask consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment number 1492. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report. the clerk: -- mr. tester: 1492. the clerk: the senator from montana, mr. tester, proposes amendment numbered 1492.

mr. tester: i ask unanimous consent that the reading be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator from montana is recognized. mr. tester: i ask this amendment be set aside and ask consent to call up amendment 1503. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from montana, mr. tester, proposes amendment number 1503. mr. tester: i ask consent that the reading be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized to speak for up to five minutes. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. tester: i'm pleased to offer this amendment with senator cochran and i ask unanimous consent that he be added as a cosponsor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: this is a straightforward amendment. it requires candidates for the senate, challengers and incumbents, to file their quarter early campaign reports electronically. anyone seeking a presidency or a spot in the u.s. hourts is required to submit -- house of representatives is required to

submit electronically now. but senators or would-be senators are not. right now senate candidates drop off a hard copy of their filing report with the secretary of the senate. someone from the f.e.c. comes over and takes reports over to the f.e.c. to make copies. and then finally, the copies are put online. now, these documents often run hundreds of pages in length. the f.e.c. estimates it wastes about $250,000 of taxpayer money each year just to make those copies and put them online. now, it might not sound like a lot of money in washington, d.c., but the idea of spending a quarter million dollars on an outdated process represents what's wrong with washington, d.c. americans deserve to know how much money candidates raise and from whom, and they deserve to be able to access that information in real time. it is not just the constantly occurring process that folks should be angry about. the process of making copies and posting the documents online

takes weeks. it's not just a waste of time. it's bad for the democratic process. campaign finance data filed right before a general election is not available to the public until the following february, long after the election has already taken place. since the citizens united ruling, folks aren't able to tell who is funding third-party advertisements. it's hard enough to know who is spending the money on third-party advertisements. the least we can do is to make sure that folks have better access to the information about who is giving to the candidates. my bill from the last congress had strong bipartisan support, 14 democrats, six republicans. five of the cosponsors are members of the homeland security committee. i especially appreciate and want to thank the republican manager, senator collins -- a real manager of the stock act, senator collins for being a supporter of that original bill.

mr. president, we have an opportunity to do something that cuts government spending. it adds more transparency and accountability to the elections process. i would urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. with that, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. lieberman: mr. president if. the presiding officer: the senator from con don't mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. mr. president, i have a motion to make but i just wanted, for the information of our colleagues, say that productive

work is going on to try to reach a final list of amendments to the stock act and to have an agreement as to which will come up for a vote and to have that, obviously, be a bipartisan agreement. so we're making progress and i hope we can continue to do that. at this time, i would ask unanimous consent that the senate recess from 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. so that all senators can attend a classified briefing. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair, and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business. officer withouthe presiding offt objection. mr. barrasso: thank you. i come to the floor as a physician who's practiced med snin wyoming for about a quarter of a century to give a doctor's second opinion about the health care law. and i was thinking last week, sitting in the house chamber when the president was giving his state of the union, about something he said. he said -- quote -- "we will not go back to an economy," he said, "weakened by outsource, by bad debt and by phony financial profits." let me repeat cht he promised not to go back to an economy weakened by phony financial

profits. and that's why, mr. president, today -- in the next hour or so -- the house of representatives will answer the president's call and they will agree. they will vote to repeal the class act, a program that is the perfect example of phony financial profits. let me explain further. president obama's health care law established the class act, a brand-new federal long-term entitlement program. class pays a stipend to individuals enrolled when they are unable to perform daily living activities and the the issue is that to qualify for the benefits, an individual would have to pay a monthly premium for five years before the federal government starts to pay out any benefits. well, sounds great. but not so fast. it turns out that the math for

the program doesn't add up, and it will not work. the worst part about it is that the administration has known from the very beginning that this program and the entire -- and the president's entire health care law was built 0 on phony financial profits. specifically, the obama administration hid behind a congressional budget office estimate showing that this program would reduce the deficit by $70 billion over a ten-year period. these savings were entirely mythical. and they came from premiums collected over the first five years. and during that time, the president isn't required or even allowed to pay out individual benefits. over its first ten years, this program would have collected $83 billion in premiums and pay out only $13 billion in benefits.

but then instead of holding on to those $70 billion in excess premiums collected to pay for future expenses, nope, the washington democrats used it as an accounting gimmick, a budgetary trick to pay for the president's health care law. adding insult to injury, washington democrats then tried to claim the same $70 billion could also be used to pay down the deficit. talk about phony financial profits. this is the very practice used by the president that the president now objects to. the good news is that the administration finally admit the late last year that the class act was a complete failure and they couldn't make it work. the bad us? that the phony financial profits continue. just because the program won't

go forward doesn't mean that the costs of the president's health care law don't go forward, because they do. now the american people are stuck. they are stuck with the bill, and it is a much more expensive bill than the one that they had been promised and the one that they expected. in fact, just yesterday the nonpartisan congressional budget office reported that the health care law is now likely to cost $54 billion more than expected between 2012 and 2021. as "politico" says -- the up in "politico" says, "the big change that makes the law more expensive is the obama administration's decision not to implement the class act, which means that the government will not collect the $76 billion in premiums over the next ten years." well, i applaud the house for taking the lead on this. and voting to repeal the class act. and i call on president obama and my colleagues in the senate

to do exactly the same thing. senate majority leader reid should bring h.r. 1173, the fiscal responsibility in retirement security act, to the senate floor for a vote. this bill will repeal the class act so that the american people have a clear understanding of the costs of the president's health care law. it is time to end the phony financial profits in the president's health care law. these phony financial profits that continue to burden our economy and our nation. and it's time to finally find out if the president truly does believe in fairness, because if he does, he will repeal the class act and make it clear that he has the same accounting standards for washington that he has for the private sector. washington should not be able to cook the books.

and to make the president's health care law look more financially sound than it really is. the american people are sick of phony financial profits, and they are demanding fairness in the public sector as well as the private sector. that is why i will continue to come to the floor and continue to fight each and every day to repeal and replace the president's broken electri heale law. replace it with a patient-centered plan, a plan that allows americans to get the care they need from a doctor that they want at a price they can afford. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that we go into recess at this point, as planned. i'm sorry. i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that we go into recess at this time. the presiding officer: without objection. recess:

tomorrow morning, president obama will participate in the 16th annual national prayer breakfast. expected to speak around 80 in eastern. more live here on c-span2. also tomorrow, chairman ben bernanke is scheduled to talk about the economy before the house budget committee. watching that live starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern over on the c-span three. president obama today outlined a new mortgage proposal the withheld polers underwater on mortgages refinanced their homes with lower interest rates. housing and urban development

secretary sean donovan discuss the plan with reporters at the white house this afternoon. >> is this for me? a little early for valentine's day. thank you all for being here, ladies and gentlemen. as you probably noticed, we do closely watch the president's remarks. all about the initiative to help responsible homeowners. the secretary of housing and urban development who is spearheading these initiatives for the presidents and can describe them to you in detail and take your questions. with that and turn it over to the secretary. >> obviously i will be brief here and leave plenty of time. there are a number of pieces the

president talked about today. most importantly he talked about the families who have been playing by the rules, doing everything right, paying their mortgages on time and have been not been able to benefit from the trades. there's strong administrative action as part of our we can't wait effort across the administration we take very important steps to open up the financing for fannie mae and freddie mac are worse. but today we still have too many families, a family that just like them is paying their bills, on some of the mortgage, and only because they have of fannie mae or freddie mac mortgage, able to lower their bills by an average. and as a result help not only

themselves, their neighborhood, but also the economy more broadly. other families who are in exactly the same position and responsible end yet because they don't have a fannie mae or freddie mac fha mortgage, they have been unable to benefit from the lowest interest rates. as the president said in his state of the union, we need to get back to american values that are about everybody being responsible complying by the same set of rules, and everybody having their fair shake. if they are doing the right thing and be responsible. that is the fundamental. making sure that those families than any family doing the right thing can benefit from record low interest rates that we have today. the second main point that he made was about needing strong, clear rules of the road for our businesses are going to operate going forward.

and so he announced a homeowner bill of rights to make sure that when a family is making the single most important economic decision of their lives, purchasing a home, that they will get a fair, simple, transparent state with no hidden fees, clear explanations on a single short form of what they're signing up for without conflicts of interest and not only when they buy their home, as they pay their mortgage overtime, mortgages will recall serviced by the institution after they bought the home they can expect to be treated fairly and transparently as well there is no more lost the port will they're trying to get help. no more foreclosure notice while they are negotiating with their service there because they have

lost their job or had a medical emergency. and a very clear right of appeal where they may be going through a foreclosure if there were treated wrongly or wrongly foreclosed on. those are the simple straightforward principles that was the other major piece. he also mentioned that there are other pieces. any questions or comments? lets take questions. >> thank you. is there anything in the plan that the president outlined today that actually requires? is the demonstration is writing more favorable conditions? >> well, in the end it's very important. with the president wants to do this but the power in their hands to make a decision.

none of fannie mae or freddie mac home. they have the choice to prepay. they can exhaust, but they can't refinance. the bank will have no ability to say no and homeowners. do we get this program established, families have the power in their own hands to get a new loan and therefore pay off their existing loan, and services could not say no. there is no way that they can stop the family from being able. >> all the banks -- >> that's correct. holding back those families from refinancing, they don't have an option. refinance their loans today because their under water. i give them an option by giving them that path and allow them to do that. banks can't stop that because loans are prepaid will.

every family has the ability. >> already seeing record losses. require movement of government resources. >> let me take that question on two levels. first of all, there is recognition. economists on all sides have recognized that broad scale refinancing is one of the most important things that we do, not only families in the housing market, but also the economy. so the average, $3,000 in the bucket. every year they pay their mortgage would boost consumer spending. also has the effect of making easier for families to pay their mortgages and therefore reduce

as a result. and so the broad recognition, this would be good for the housing market and the economy. by the way, fannie mae and freddie mac, because of the skill of their portfolio, improvements in housing market would be did for the taxpayer as well. improves the value of all the investment. so that's just on a broad basis their reason we propose this. smart economic housing policy. specifically as i said before, think it's right that a family that is doing the right thing arbitrarily because they happen to have a mortgage is in the fannie mae or freddie mac or fha mortgage, they do not have the ability to benefit. and so what we have designed your is the smart cost-effective plan to be able said to those.

end of want to get -- three specific ways that we would ensure that this will not harm the fha or taxes. first of all, this will be available to homeowners other current on the mortgage. so these are families, just think about it. the crisis that we have been through, families that are underwater. and yet they have done the right thing and pay their bills. first of all, these homeowners. second, you reduce their payment by up to $50,000 a year. second, proposed a fully paid for, a potential default that we believe would come. we believe that the toll that cost is about five to $10 billion in total, which would be offset by the big fees

that the president is proposing. frankly, we believe this morning , those who are responsible should also be responsible for making sure that the damage is repaid. the very institutions that made many of these mortgages cause much of the damage we're trying to prepare and up to participate in helping to solve it. we think it's a good source. third and finally, you design this in a way to make sure that fha would be protected by opposing a completely separate insurance fund, separate from all of the other loans that fha -- ibibio standalone firewall for the other portion of fha and designed in a way that the most deeply under water, the riskiest borrowers would not be able to come into the program without action by the people who currently hold and to make them safer. so all of those give you

confidence that not only protect the fha, but frankly it would be good for tax members broadly because it would help to improve the value of the investment. >> mr. secretary, the administration first. 2010. >> i believe that's correct. >> what he's talking about. >> in the budget. it continues to be a proposal to the president has the believes is the right thing to do. i think broadly speaking we believe its housing policy. if congress believes that there are other ways that we should look at paying for this i think we would be open to discussion as the president has done. we are open to have to talk to congress about the best way to make sure it's covered. what we will ensure, and that is

the principle of the bank fee, is that there should be a contribution contributed to this crisis to make sure that the cost of this is fully covered. >> why you think it would be more, a better chance. >> on the housing secretary. i believe the politics in the discussions about what is possible in congress. >> why not let the housing market. >> well, put yourself in the shoes of a family that is -- the president describes. you have done everything right. pager mortgage. whether you're in florida and nevada, california, all right there in falls church virginia,

done everything right, and because it's your responsibility , financial restitution is, investors, others, seeing the value drop by 25%, by two-thirds or 75%, and you know that if somebody else loses their home as soon as that foreclosure sun goes up your home loses five to 10,000. and so what we've seen is particularly in the hardest hit 80, a spiral of declining prices because of the number of properties that are coming on the market, and there is no question, if you look at the economics in the housing market, buying all standard metrics we've reached a level of prices

that is important. the fundamental economics. and so there is a grave risk. these neighborhoods, that we let that the viral continue and continue to harm families, neighborhoods in a dramatic way. the second thing as insane, we should not sit on our hands. we know we can help those families to be able to refinance, do better, and help the economy. and we have evidence that the things we have done have actually made a difference. the president's proposal today. we have efforts to recall the reds. and others that we announced today that try to take this shadow inventory, the number of homes that are sitting vacant in neighborhoods that have been hard hit, that are dragging down everybody's property, we want to make sure that there are options

for those sums to be renovated and to be used, oftentimes as rental houses. it is a smarter thing. the market and for the neighborhood to convert those. and we step back and look creatively at what we can do. but we realize is that fannie mae and freddie mac, we control half of all the bank owned properties and we could be more creative working with communities, working with the profit companies, working with local officials to try to ensure that those are contributing to the problem, sitting in the market. rentals, could be renovated, construction. all of those things have been effective already. on average are we have made those you have seen 75 percent of those neighborhoods, we have

seen the rates. two-thirds of those neighborhoods, relative. so we have tools that we know work, and we are not going to sit on our hands watching middle-class homeowners who have done the right thing led by the rules get hit by a strategy this says we're going to stand by and watch. >> they have to sit on their hands because congress is dead on arrival. you couldn't get that two years ago. why shouldn't this proposal today in an election-year not look like it's an effort, politically motivated effort to reach out on homeowners and see battle ground states. the mortgage foreclosure issue like arizona, florida, except.

>> election-year politics to others. let me talk about the facts and the economics and the housing issues. >> you don't want to talk about the politics, them went will any of it help anybody. >> the question. let me try and answer. in the president last fall, there were steps that we needed to take for fannie mae and freddie mac borrowers refinancing. congress to do that. senators boxer and isaacs and produced the bill. i think we will see broadcast across the political spectrum. and does look that economists and other housing analysts. from march zande to a whole range better more on the left. this is one of the things that folks believe. and by the way, we are not just.

most of the steps that the president as discussed today, whether it's the steps with properties, audio properties, those steps that we can take. the steps to have already taken to help fannie mae and freddie mac borrowers. this tester will take to help borrowers to refinance. the bill of rights, and i could go on. all of these are steps that we can take. we are taking them because he can wait for congress. >> the president held up a sheet of paper today. when is that going to happen, somebody gets a mortgage? >> now that the cfpd has a director and has taken on the powers it is moving forward quickly to issue those him. let me be clear. >> what she did paper. >> miraculous, is a list? >> look, one of the things i him

recognize, this is important thing about the cftc that is missed. before the siepi be their were eight different federal agencies to including had that had authority over the home buying process and the mortgage process. by consolidating those, and specifically both had and fed have control over those forms. there were conflicting rules far more complicated than they should be. cfpb is simplifying and making more understandable this process barley by consolidating the authority of agencies. and this is one of those things, is good for homeowners, but it's also good for lenders, and it's one of those things that brings together her a broad spectrum right and left for things that we would simplify and improve te workplace.

>> my last point, october. fannie and freddie mortgages since october. >> in total, and the program is called harp, says it was first introduced in 2009, homeowners refinance. the changes that the president called for more then implemented later. there were specific details released later. those changes began to go into effect just in november. that's right. tussaud were clear, he gave his job speeds and called on the administration to work with fannie mae and freddie mac. worked on those through the fall , and they were implemented starting in december. and so already, and so close on loans, but they have only been in place.

folks in actually get those loans. >> over 2009, three years ago. 9 million people stave off foreclosure. 1 million. so why should the american people have confidence that this was actually going to work? >> to be clear, the portion of pitbull was that it would help forge a 5 million homeowners. that was one portion. as the presence of this morning, while a significant step, we have made full progress. this is one example. 5 million families have had mortgages modified says the president took office to of foreclosures are down by ellis 15%. foreclosure down by almost 50%. so we made progress. the president also said kamal were not as a stopping point. we have been disappointed that we have not been able.

frankly, specifically on this refinancing program will we found after we all hold out is that there were many barriers out in the market for people to be able to participate. problems on the first loans, but many second loan. and frankly lenders were willing to let those families refinance. so we went out and negotiated with lenders and we got their approval automatically. that was important. mortgage they were standing in the way of those families. there's a whole series of barriers out in the market. one of the problems we have that the very complexity that led to the crash also made it harder. uni negotiated. make changes to allow more families to finance.

what that means is that there are now about 11 million additional. with fannie mae or freddie mac mortgages, they have the opportunity, if they choose to, to refinance. >> at the top that basically the president's plan work, you're going to sell. they can't say no to refinancing how do you actually -- can't say no. >> you misunderstood. >> okay. >> single-family loans in this country, any homeowner already has the right. if you $000,000 it's a $250,000 house you can go and pay off your mortgage today. the issue is you can't get a new 300,000 alone. what this plan would do, the way

it breaks down this barrier is to allow them to refinance, get a new loan that allows them to pay off. the nothing the existing lender can do. are not changing that law. the existing linda today can't stand in the way of family paying off their loans. >> have that thousand dollars lane route to bail out? >> they're going to go get a new loan, and that new loan -- >> okay. this is where you're right now. >> no. what they would do is they would refinance to a new fha loan, and that will allow them to pay off. that is overdue. >> thank you. the housing industry has expressed concerns that the department was set up the residents to move. could actually windup. is there any concern about that?

>> what i would say, and i would draw down the work that we have been doing. this sort of status quo that we have federal enforcement agency including hud, state attorney general, local agencies his top private investors all been disparate disconnected place their enforcement actions against these institutions. and just like how servicing, the potential outcome, would have ended up with 50 different sets of rules around the foreclosure process-. these enforcement actions dragging on for a decade or more. what we're trying to do is to

bring together the various pieces for the securitization problem some new and coordinate an improved intimation sharing so that we could get to a coordinated. meanwhile of believe it will help us with more significant justice for homeowners or harm to, i also have the potential as the president's said in this ciy union to turn the page that's exactly what think we have been working to achieve in the service industry. and in that sense certainty and clarity that is holding back lending.

well with the new cloud as well. >> i know understand the impact on the market. how they are approaching loans but it might have a negative impact. >> luck. clearly there needs to be accountability. where mistakes were made there will be penalties. there will be restitution that these to be paid for homeowners there aren't. having a disparate set of actions that are pursued independently just as they were on foreclosure, it's a disconnected way. a cloud of uncertainty on these institutions, and we need more clarity.

and, again, this is part of why the home owner bill of rights is really aimed. no more race to the bottom. no more institutions falling to the cracks because they have multiple regulators that have different rules. the single, clear set of rules about how mortgages are serviced, who's responsible, and frankly, that will not only be for homeowners in the housing market more broadly. it will also be for investors because they will now decide where the owner mortgage, who's in charge of making decisions that when a homeowner gets in trouble. good for homeowners and communities. also for investors and markets. >> thank you. so there is a provision asking banks are now, 140%.

how the woodwork and why banks would agree to back and in terms of the robo signing, do you know what they will be finalizing? >> i'm not going to comment on the servicing settlement. all will say is that we're making progress. i didn't know documents had been shared with the attorneys general. they are making decisions as we speak. a number of them have already announced. it will be finalized. to go to your other questions, i mentioned earlier, you want to make sure we are instituting corrections so that the very risky as loans, and institutions need to take responsibility for those and to bear some of the cost of them. in situations where you have a

deeply underwater loan, with a house may be worth only half what the mortgages, there is increasing evidence that makes good economic sense for a political entity to write down because it lowers the likelihood of default is essentially. and so in that case we would work with congress to set limits like hundred and 40% specified that would ensure that we are not taking -- that we are minimizing risk to take those loans. >> regulate that essentially. it will work voluntarily. >> wellcome congress could give us, could give us legislation that gives us the ability to set that obviously. but that is one of the ways that we are.

the protecting the fund. the only other thing i would say , there are other options as part of this effort that every important. one of the things that the record low interest rates that we have today, one of the powers is the ability for a homeowner to choose either refinance to take their same at lower payments all but also he goes back to paying off the mortgage more quickly. and almost any homeowner that is below that loans available, if they choose to take their savings and put it into reducing their principal was shorting the length of the loan, almost everyone of them gets back above water and then rebuild than five

years. and that is something that we would want to encourage. so what we would do, we are proposing, the closing costs for those refinances be eliminated where a homeowner chooses to allow their savings back in to reducing equity. and we think that that could be an important part using the power of low interest rates to help families get back above water more quickly. as i said, there is an upset. that principle reduction. there be fewer foreclosures. >> the question. can you create a one page mortgage? could you sit with the tons of was? >> exactly what the timeline is. another of already begun to work on it.

in his speech. there are well along. they began to work on this. left the agency. i don't have an exact date for you. >> taking the service, obviously several beer retreaded do with this problem over the past year. they try and use fha. none of them really work that well. so fundamentally different about this program. even if we could get it. that would suggest, every other effort. >> look. and i talked earlier about many of these efforts, many people as we had originally hoped. you go to start to any of those

more than a million families who have had their fha mortgages modified, for example, lost mitigation efforts and have been able to stay in their homes, in the number of the almost 5 million families. the other efforts. if you talk to the african-american or latino homeowners who are able to buy a home last year, i think it's fair to say that without fha, without the programs that we have had in the impact of the have had, this housing crisis would be much, it's worse. so we did, we were pulling this market back from the press of this for 30 straight months of house price decline to house press is actually rising for the first year. so we have made a real impact. they are part of that and never reached millions. i think it's fair to say that

while not all of those efforts have been successful, there has been a real impact. you could go talk to those families about the impact. specifically on this effort, refinancing is something that middle-class homeowners have been doing the right thing, i fundamentally believe it's a choice they want to make. whether it's million homeowners who have already participated, or the hundreds of thousands of fha home owners who already refinanced their mortgages using the financing program that we haven't even offered. so we believe there is great demand. frankly, it's a fundamental fairness issue for families of the play by the rules and done the right thing. pay their bills to be able finance have. that incentive, being able to save his something that we believe families will cease.

>> the other part is that another competing. as he said, as the president said, it's anticipated. we expect similar results this time. the very helpful. >> the barriers that we have run into have been resistant from banks, market barriers. i talked with the the number before on second lanes, on private mortgage insurance. those of the types of barriers that stop programs from reaching as many homeowners as they could have reached before. and, again, families will choose it is up to families to said they want to refinance. but today because of the work that this administration is done

, working with and pushing the private, second lanes will be automatically resource. private mortgages to transfer that mortgage insurance. that would meet the barrier. another barrier with fees and costs of refinancing committing an appraisal, for example, that is the majority of these that would use an automated system which eliminates the cost. and so many of the barriers that tested in the way, they have been socked down to the hard work of my staff and many others across the administration to remove those barriers that there. for the changes that we announced with other programs will allow. >> just one more.

to pick that up, i think you set homeowners now. when it was down as h.f. a was adamant about saying this is only going to reach a million more borrowers. those roadblocks have been removed to help legislation. your estimate is it to be 11 million. >> so we're talking about is two different -- how many homeowners are under water the potentially benefit. that's the sort of pool of eligible borrowers versus how many will actually choose. those are two very different things. ultimately they choose a value and refinance. so the changes that have already been announced, it's part of our

we can't wait effort. it would reach -- would make eligible a significant portion of those 11 million. but there remain -- and to be clear, those 11 million are fannie mae or freddie mac bars that are under water. there are some additional barriers including homeowners that are above or did not get some of the same changes that were done for underwater borrowing. we believe that we ought to a take away the remaining barriers to allow the 11 million to be eligible. but then there are about three and a half million borrowers who don't have a loan with freddie mac or fha, because as i said happen not to be -- have a loan that has matured by one of those

entities, they may have no ability to refinance. those three and a half million, the additional ones that create the proposal the president made today to open up. >> of we were saying several months ago, the changes that have been made, how many people might be reached now. >> this is one of the things i was very important. the american people who value. they want to be able to choose or refinance their mortgages. ultimately they have to make an individual personal decision. whether they learn about this program, we can't control completely those choices, and so what i don't want to do is speculate the but exactly how many of those homeowners those

used to refinance. weather, you know, for whatever reason. what i can tell you is less said earlier. we think they ought to have the opportunity because they have been playing by the rules, they ought to have a chance to choose have option. they don't have that today. >> speaking about the eligible homeowners, the ones who gave, is in the big part of the problem, isn't that the big drag on the market? can refinance because they can make the payments helping those books, and is in that part of a? >> there is no question that there are significant challenge this for folks that have not

been able to keep up with their mortgage payments. and increasingly, because unless , they get a terrible loan products and more and more that unemployment or underemployment. and so what i would say about that, one of the best housing policies is the jobs policy. the more the weekend did the american jobs act passed, and all the steps the president is calling for all the jobs front, that will help the housing market. second of all, and as i said earlier, we have been able to help almost 5 million families. the number of people falling is down by almost 50 percent from where it was when the president came into office, so we are making progress. there is more that we can do,

and one of the things that is part of this effort the president talked about today, another we can't wait action. we came out fha and extended the forbearance that we provide. if you get of homeowners @booktv holder that lost their jobs, obviously it will be tough. and so we changed our policy. we can provide instead of 34, a sort of bridge time. we don't require payments. we were extending that up to 12 months. today about half of unemployment's bills are more. and so it's a different. we want to adjust their policy. what we have seen is that we took those executive actions, and the rest of the market, the recently announced their policies for 12 months. today as part of this

announcement squills fargo and bank of america have agreed to extend their forbearance policy twelvemonth's as well. that is an important. second on friday it was announced that we are making changes to our modification program that would allow more bars, credit card or medical bills. and some other changes in the eligibility for that. we do have efforts. i would just come back. somehow this refinancing issue. and if he talked to across the political spectrum, they believe , and we believe the president believes that broader scale refinance is one of the most important steps for these families to put $3,000 more year

but also to help more broadly because we are spending obviously a critical rate double what helps accelerate the recovery. and so the announcement today on refinancing is, in fact all one of the most important. >> have very much appreciated. thank you. >> thank you. >> congressional quarterly rise the republicans are excited to heed the call for the financial institutions for mortgage refinancing plans. here is the president's in fairfax, virginia. >> the president of the united states. >> thank you. thank you. hello, everybody.

thank you so much. thank you, everybody. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you so much. everybody. have a seat. it is great to be back. [applause] thank you for having me. last week in my state of the union i laid out my blueprints for an economy that is built to last. i want to assure you, i am not going to go over the whole thing again this morning. [applause] that was a long speech. and not going to repeat the

whole thing. but i do want to talk about some of the issues that i discussed last week because louvre we put forward was one that focused on restoring what it focuses this country's greatest strengths. american manufacturing, energy, skills and education for american workers so that we can compete with anybody around the world this 21st century economy, and most importantly american values of fairness and responsibility, fairness and responsibility. [applause] [applause] now, we know what happened because we have just seen it.

we saw what happened over the past because we stray from those values. when it comes to the massive housing bubble we have heard so many people. millions of families have the right and irresponsible thing, home that they could afford, mortgage, make payments each month. they were hurt badly by other people. or not playing by the same rules . not taking the same care, not acting as responsibly. they knew could not afford the mortgage. and buyers who bought homes and made things affordable. the package of those mortgages

and trade in its the profits knowing that there were helping the house of cards. it was wrong. it was wrong. the worst economic crisis of wildlife. and it has been the single biggest thing from our recovery. the crushing debt is kept millions from spending. a lack of building demand has kept hundreds of thousands of construction workers idle. everybody involved, folks to make windows, stained carpet, they have all seen it. the challenge is massive and in scope. we have a multibillion-dollar housing industry.

and economists will tell you how we can take all sorts of statistics turn gdp to consumer confidence. but what is at stake -- what is at stake for the statistics , it's personal. now, have been saying that this is a maker break for the middle-class. this housing crisis, what it means to be middle-class america. the place where we invest our nest eggs, where we raise our family. the place where we plant roots, community. the place where we build memories. it's personal. it affects so much of how people feel about their lives, about the economy.

we need to do everything in our to repair the damage and make families will again. everything we can. [applause] now, the truth is it's going to take more time than any of us would like for the housing market to fully recover from this crisis. this was a big problem. and it had a big effect. home prices started a pretty steady decline about five years ago. government can't fix the entire problem. but it is wrong for anybody to suggest the only option for struggling responsible homeowners is for the housing

market hit bottom. [applause] i refuse to accept that, and so these people. more than 10 million homeowners across the country right now who, because of an unprecedented move of home prices and no fault of their own are bowing more on the order is the -- board is in their homes are worth. the house is under water. homebodies have fallen. in places like las vegas one half of all homeowners are under water. so it's going to take a while, but there are actions we can

take right now to find some relief for folks who are in response -- are responsible and have done the right thing making their payments on time. already thanks to the outstanding work in part of my secretary of housing and urban development, sean donovan, who is here today. [applause] there he is. good looking guy. [applause] the housing plan we lost a couple years ago has helped nearly 1 million responsible homeowners refinance their mortgages. saving an average of $300. $300. but albion this, the programs we

put forward have not worked in the way that we hoped. not as many as we want. mortgage rates are as low as they have been half a century. usually homeowners refinance their mortgages. so a lot of money. this time too many have not been able to take advantage. falling prices pushed them out of the market. they're under water. the new have all the fees involved. a lot of people just said, you know what, even though i would like to the banks decide being real encouraging. it allows more families to participate. today we're doing even more. the main reason i'm here today.

as i indicated in the state of the union, i am sending congress a plan that will give every responsible homeowner in america a chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage by refinancing at historically low rates. [applause] no more red tape. no more runaround from the bank. and a small fee on the largest will make sure it doesn't add to our deficit. i want to be clear, this plan will not help the neighbor down the street bought a house he cannot afford and then walked away and left a foreclosed home

behind. it's not designed for those who act irresponsibly. but you can help those who acted responsibly. is not going to help those who bought multiple homes just to speculate and put the house and make a profit. it can help those who acted responsibly. this plan will do is help millions a responsible homeowners make the payments on time and find themselves trapped under halted by falling home values. you are eligible for refinancing . under water on your mortgage. homes of your own. you will be able to refinance. you will be able to save hundreds of dollars to put back in your pocket. or you can choose the savings which will help most underwater

homeowners cutback. now, to move this part of the plan we're going to need congress to act. were going to need kendis. i hear some murmuring in the audience. we are not just going to wait for congress. we're going to keep building a fire wall that led this crisis, led to this crisis in the first place. there are things we can do administratively. there will help responsibly. [applause] already we have set up official

tax counts. i asked my attorney general to investigate the kind of activity when the package risky mortgages. that has happened. that task force is wrapping up its work as we speak. we're going to keep at it and hopefully hold blog accountable and help restore consumer confidence in the market. then we're going to turn the pages of recklessness that hurt so many hard-working americans. [applause] today i am also proposing a bill of rights, one straight forward set of common sense rules to the road that every family does that they can count on.