UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C.  20549

                                    FORM 10-K

     [X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
         EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

     For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007

     [ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
     EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

     For the transition period to __________ from _______________

     Commission file number of issuing entity: 333-139817-09

                           GSR Trust 2007-HEL1
          (Exact name of Issuing Entity as specified in its Charter)

                       GS Mortgage Securities Corp.
     (Exact name of registrant (depositor) as specified in its Charter)

                     Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company
             (Exact name of sponsor as specified in its Charter)

                                                      REMIC-I  26-0190950
                                                     REMIC-II  26-0190974
                                                     REMIC-III 26-0191014
                   New York                           REMIC-IV 26-0191036
           (State or other jurisdiction                  (I.R.S. Employer
         incorporation or organization                Identification Number)
               of issuing entity)                        of issuing entity)

          c/o Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
          1761 East St. Andrew Place
          Santa Ana, California                                  92705
 (Address of principal executive offices                     (Zip Code of
         of issuing entity)                                issuing entity)

            Issuing Entity's telephone number, including area code:
                               (714) 247-6000

          Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
                                     None.

          Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
                                     None.

     Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned
     issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  Yes [ ]  No[X]

     Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file
     reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.  Yes[ ] No[X]

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports
     required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
     Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period
     that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
     subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes [X]  No [ ]

     Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to
     Item 405 of Regulation S-K (Section 229.405 of this chapter) is not
     contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the
     registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements
     incorporated by reference in Part III of the Form 10-K or any amendment
     to this Form 10-K.         Not Applicable.

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated
     filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller
     reporting company.  See the definitions of "large accelerated
     filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2
     of the Exchange Act.  (Check One):

      Large accelerated filer [  ]  Accelerated Filer [  ]
      Non-accelerated Filer [X] (Do not Check if a smaller reporting company)
      Smaller reporting company [  ]

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as
     defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).  [  ] Yes  [X] No

     State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common
     equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at
     which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked
     price of such common equity, as of the of the last business day of
     the registrant's most recently completed second fiscal quarter

     Not Applicable.

     DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

     See Item 15(a).

                                     PART I

     ITEM 1.  Business.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 1A.  Risk Factors.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 1B.  Unresolved Staff Comments.

     None.

     ITEM 2.  Properties.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 3.  Legal Proceedings.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 4.  Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.

     Not Applicable.

                                     PART II

     ITEM 5.  Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder
     Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 6.  Selected Financial Data.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 7.  Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
     Results of Operations.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 7A.  Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 8.  Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 9.  Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and
     Financial Disclosure.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 9A.  Controls and Procedures.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 9A(T).  Controls and Procedures.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 9B. Other Information.

     None.

                                     PART III

     ITEM 10.  Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 11.  Executive Compensation.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 12.  Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management
               and Related Stockholder Matters.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 13.  Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and
               Director Independence.

     Not Applicable.

     ITEM 14.  Principal Accountant Fees and Services.

     Not Applicable.

              ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE ITEM FOR REGULATION AB

     Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB, Significant Obligors Pool Assets
     (Financial Information).

     No single obligor represents 10% or more of the pool assets held by the
     issuing entity.

     Item 1114(b)(2) of Regulation AB, Significant Enhancement Provider
     Information.

     The consolidated audited financial statements of MBIA Insurance Corporation
     (Commission CIK No. 0000814585) as of December 31, 2007 and 2006 and for
     the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, included in the
     Annual Report on Form 10-K of the MBIA Inc. filed with the Securities
     and Exchange Commission by the MBIA Inc. on February 29, 2008
     (Commission File No. 001-09583) are incorporated by reference herein.

     Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB, Certain Derivative Instruments.

     No entity or group of affiliated entities provides any derivative
     instruments or other support for the certificates within this transaction
     as described under Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB.

     Item 1117 of Regulation AB, Legal Proceedings.

     Legal Proceedings Regarding Residential Capital, LLC

     Residential Funding Company, LLC, the master servicer and
     seller, along with GMAC Mortgage, LLC, the subservicer for Residential
     Funding Company, LLC, are subsidiaries of Residential Capital, LLC
     ("ResCap").  Pursuant to a Form 10-K and a Form 10-Q, filed by ResCap
     on February 27, 2008 and November 8, 2007, respectively (Commission
     File No. 000-51438; CIK No. 0001332815), ResCap stated that it is
     subject to potential liability under laws and government regulations
     and various claims and legal actions that are pending or may be
     asserted against it.  ResCap stated that in addition to the legal
     proceedings described below, it is a party to various legal proceedings
     arising in the ordinary course of its business, some of which purport to
     be class actions, and that a final outcome in any of these legal
     proceedings, if unfavorable, could have a material adverse effect on
     its business, reputation, results of operations or financial condition.

     ResCap stated that its subsidiaries were involved in the following legal
     proceedings:

     Kessler.  This putative class action was consolidated for settlement
     Purposes with five other cases, all alleging that the plaintiffs obtained
     second-lien mortgage loans from either Community Bank of Northern Virginia
     or Guaranty National Bank of Tallahassee and that they were charged
     interest rates and fees violating the Pennsylvania Secondary Mortgage
     Loan Act.  Plaintiffs additionally claim that the banks were not the
     actual lenders, but rather that the banks "rented" their banking charters
     to affiliates for the purpose of facilitatingthe assessment of "illegal"
     fees.  They further allege that the affiliates either split the fees or
     kicked back the fees in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
     Act ("RESPA"). Plaintiffs sought to hold ResCap's subsidiary liable
     primarily on the basis that the subsidiary was an assignee of the mortgage
     loans.  In December 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Western District
     of Pennsylvania gave its final approval to a proposed $41.1 million
     settlement for all six cases, inclusive of attorney fees.  The settlement
     contemplated payment to approximately 44,000 borrowers nationwide.  A
     group of seven plaintiffs' class action counsel ("Objectors") appealed
     the settlement in part on the grounds that the underlying litigation did
     not address possible Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") or Home Ownership and
     Equity Protection Act ("HOEPA") claims.  In August 2005, the U.S. Court
     of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the district court's approval
     of the settlement and remanded the matter to the district court to
     determine whether such claims were "viable".  The parties and the
     Objectors then briefed the issue of the "viability" of the TILA and
     HOEPA claims within this particular litigation.  In July 2006, the
     parties amended the proposed settlement to address the Third Circuit's
     concerns, and in October 2006, the trial court held that the purported
     TILA and HOEPA claims were not viable. In November 2006, the parties
     filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement, as amended.
     In late March 2007, the parties and the Objectors attended a hearing
     before a court-appointed magistrate to present arguments pertaining to
     the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed amended settlement. On
     July 5, 2007, the magistrate issued an advisory opinion ruling that the
     proposed modified settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate."
     Following an October 9, 2007 hearing, the trial court on January 25,
     2008 entered an order: (1) certifying the nationwide settlement class;
     (2) preliminarily approving the modified settlement; and (3) ordering that
     the settling parties give notice of the modified settlement to the
     settlement class, along with a new right of opt-out.  If the settlement
     is not finally approved or is otherwise undone as a result of opt-outs
     or objections, ResCap's subsidiary intends to vigorously defend against
     these claims.

     Santiago. This putative class action was filed against ResCap's subsidiary
     In June 2002 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
     Of Pennsylvania.  Plaintiffs assert violations of Section 8(b) of RESPA
     based on the alleged collection of "unearned fees for settlement services"
     composed of an $85 tax service fee, a $20 flood certification fee, and a
     $250 funding fee.  The putative nationwide class consists of "all persons
     who, on or after January 1,1995 - paid fees for tax service, flood
     certification, and/or underwriting."  In September 2003, the district
     court dismissed plaintiffs' causes of action under RESPA as to all three
     fees for failure to state a claim.  Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court
     of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal as
     to an alleged overcharge concerning the funding fee, but reversed the
     district court's dismissal as to alleged additional charges for further
     proceedings, including discovery and motions, on both of these RESPA
     issues and ancillary state law claims.  After filing an answer to the
     claims denying the allegations, ResCap's subsidiary conducted preliminary
     discovery in conjunction with court-supervised mediation. As a result of
     that mediation, an agreement was reached to settle part of the claims on
     a class basis with all of the other claims to be dismissed on an
     individual basis.  The settlement provides for a total payment of
     $625,000 to be split evenly between the class and plaintiffs'counsel.
     The settlement was finally approved by the court on August 7, 2007.
     There were no objectors.  Plaintiff's counsel has been paid and 81,965
     settlement checks (in denominations of either $14.40 or $2.00) have been
     distributed to class members.  Any funds remaining after one year will be
     paid to charity.

     Murray.  This putative statewide class action was filed against ResCap's
     subsidiary in the United States District Court for the Northern District
     of Illinois in March 2005.  Plaintiff's counsel alleges that ResCap's
     subsidiary, in sending a "pre-approved offer" to the plaintiff, accessed
     the plaintiff's credit report without authorization from the plaintiff
     and without a "permissible purpose" under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
     ("FCRA") since the material allegedly did not qualify as a "firm offer
     of credit."  It also alleges that the material failed to make FCRA
     required notices and disclosures in a "clear and conspicuous" manner.
     Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties for an allegedly willful violation
     of the statute.  Class certification was denied by the district court,
     but that decision was reversed on appeal and the matter remanded to the
     district court for further proceedings, including amended cross-motions
     for summary judgment as well as a renewed motion for class certification.
     On April 10, 2007, the district court certified a narrow class limited
     to those residents of Will County, Illinois who received the mailer in
     question during the fall of 2004 and who can be identified from any
     available mailing list.  The district court also granted in part and
     denied in part each of the parties' summary judgment motions, opining
     that the mailer in question did not constitute a firm offer of credit,
     entering judgment in favor of ResCap's subsidiary on the clear and
     conspicuous disclosure issue, and finding a genuine issue of fact with
     respect to whether the alleged violation of FCRA could be said to be
     willful.  On June 5, 2007, ResCap's subsidiary filed a motion for
     reconsideration on the willfulness issue based upon the U.S. Supreme
     Court decision in Safeco Ins. Co., et al. v. Burr, et al.  Upon
     reconsideration, on July 2, 2007, the district court vacated its
     order certifying the class and granted ResCap's subsidiary's motion
     for summary judgment on the willfulness issue, entering judgment on
     behalf of ResCap's subsidiary.  Plaintiffs have filed an appeal, which
     ResCap's subsidiary intends to vigorously contest.

     Parthiban.  The putative class action was filed against ResCap's subsidiary
     in the United States District Court for the Central District of California
     in August 2005.  This litigation seeks to recover for essentially the same
     conduct alleged in Murray although for a later class period and on behalf
     of a putative nationwide class that excludes any residents of Will County,
     Illinois.  The district court granted ResCap's subsidiary's motion to
     dismiss in part, striking four counts seeking declaratory and injunctive
     relief, and permitted the case to go forward on the same "firm offer of
     credit" claims present in Murray.  (The plaintiff has voluntarily withdrawn
     her "clear and conspicuous" disclosure claims.)  On June 28, 2007, while
     a class certification motion was pending and summary judgment motions had
     not yet been filed, the parties reached a settlement agreement in
     principle.  The court preliminarily approved the settlement on September
     13, 2007 with respect to a settlement class of 1.4 million members, each
     of whom is to be offered a free credit report and one year of free credit
     monitoring.  ResCap's subsidiary agreed not to contest an award of class
     counsel's fees up to $1.1 million. As the hearing on final approval
     continued on January 7, 2008, the court approved the settlement and
     awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $967,700.

     Mitchell.  This putative class action lawsuit was filed against ResCap's
     subsidiary on July 29, 2003 in state court in Kansas City, Missouri.
     Plaintiffs assert violations of the Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act
     ("SMLA"), Mo.R.S. Section 408.233, based on the lenders' charging or
     contracting for payment of allegedly unlawful closing costs and fees.
     The relief sought includes a refund of all allegedly illegal fees, the
     refund of interest paid, and the discounted present value of interest
     to be paid in the future on active loans. The plaintiffs also seek
     prejudgment interest and punitive damages.

     ResCap's subsidiary is an assignee.  The plaintiffs contend that ResCap's
     subsidiary is strictly liable for the lender's (Mortgage Capital
     Resources Corporation) alleged SMLA violations pursuant to the assignee
     provisions of HOEPA.

     The Mitchell case involves approximately 258 Missouri second mortgage
     loans made by Mortgage Capital Resources Cororation and assigned to
     ResCap's subsidiary.  The Plaintiffs and the class sought approximately
     $6.7 million in actual and statutory damages plus prejudgment interest,
     attorney's fees and expenses.  The plaintiff's counsel sought a
     contingent fee of approximately 40% plus litigation expenses. In
     addition plaintiffs will seek prejudgment interest and punitive damages.

     The parties participated in a mediation in August 2007 without success.
     Mortgage Capital Resources Corporation is currently in the process of
     being liquidated in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  ResCap's subsidiary terminated
     its relationship with Mortgage Capital Resources Corporation in early
     May 2000.  The case went to trial in state court in Kansas City, Missouri
     beginning on December 3, 2007.  On January 4, 2008, a jury verdict was
     returned that ResCap's subsidiary pay $4.3 million in compensatory
     damages and $92 million in punitive damages.  ResCap's subsidiary
     intends to appeal and to vigorously contest the punitive damage award.

     Federal Trade Commission.  The Federal Trade Commission has been conducting
     a review of certain business practices of one of ResCap's subsidiaries,
     including its servicing and lending operations.  On September 26, 2007,
     the FTC informed ResCap by letter that they believe there is statistical
     evidence that some of ResCap's subsidiary's lending practices may violate
     certain fair lending laws.  On November 9, 2007, the FTC provided ResCap
     with information regarding how they conducted their analysis.  ResCap
     evaluated the data and provided the FTC with its written response on
     January 8, 2008.  ResCap believes that it has conducted its business in
     compliance in all material respects with applicable fair lending laws.
     If the FTC is able to establish that a violation of the fair lending laws
     has occurred, they may seek an injunction prohibiting future violations,
     require ResCap's subsidiary to change its lending practices or impose
     fines and other monetary penalties, which could be substantial.

     Legal Proceedings Regarding MBIA Insurance Corporation

     Pursuant to a Form 10-K filed by MBIA Inc. ("MBIA") (CIK No.: 0000814585;
     Commission File No.: 001-9583), parent of MBIA Insurance Corporation
     ("MBIA Insurance"), the note insurer, on February 29, 2008 (the "February
     29th Announcement"), MBIA stated that in November 2004, MBIA stated that
     it received identical document subpoenas from the Securities Exchange
     Commission ("SEC") and the New York Attorney General ("NYAG") requesting
     information with respect to non-traditional or loss mitigation insurance
     products developed, offered or sold by MBIA to third parties from
     January 1, 1998 to the present. While the subpoenas did not identify
     any specific transaction, subsequent conversations with the SEC and the
     NYAG revealed that the investigation included the arrangements entered
     into by MBIA Insurance in 1998 in connection with the bankruptcy of the
     Delaware Valley Obligated Group, an entity that is part of the
     Pittsburgh-based Alleghany Health, Education and Research Foundation
     ("AHERF").

     According to the February 29th Announcement, MBIA stated that on March 9,
     2005, MBIA received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
     Southern District of New York (U.S. Attorney) seeking information related
     to the agreements it entered into in connection with the AHERF loss.
     Thereafter, MBIA received additional subpoenas, substantively identical
     to each other, and additional informal requests, from the SEC and the
     NYAG for documents and other information.

     In addition, according to the February 29th Announcement, on August 19,
     2005, MBIA stated that it received a "Wells Notice" from the SEC
     indicating that the staff of the SEC was considering recommending that
     the SEC bring a civil injunctive action against MBIA alleging violations
     of federal securities laws "arising from MBIA's action to retroactively
     reinsure losses it incurred from the AHERF bonds MBIA had guaranteed,
     including, but not limited to, its entering into excess of loss agreements
     and quota share agreements with three separate counterparties."
     According to the February 29th Announcement, on January 29, 2007, MBIA
     announced that it and its principal operating subsidiary MBIA Insurance
     (together with MBIA, the "MBIA Companies") had concluded civil
     settlements with the SEC, the NYAG, and the New York State Insurance
     Department ("NYSID") with respect to transactions entered into by the
     MBIA Companies in 1998 following defaults on insured bonds issued by AHERF.

     The terms of the settlements, under which the MBIA Companies neither admit
     nor deny wrongdoing, include, but are not limited to:

     A restatement, which was completed and reported in MBIA's third quarter
     2005 earnings release, of MBIA's GAAP and statutory financial results for
     1998 and subsequent years related to the agreements with AXA Re Finance
     S.A. and Muenchener Rueckversicherungs-Gesellshaft, as discussed in
    "Note 2: Restatement Of Consolidated Financial Statements" in the Notes
     to Consolidated Financial Statements of MBIA Inc. and Subsidiaries
     included in MBIA's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
     December 31, 2005 (the "2005 10-K") in Part II, Item 8 and "Restatement
     of Consolidated Financial Statements" in Management's Discussion and
     Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations in Part II,
     Item 7 in the 2005 10-K;

     Payment of penalties and disgorgement totaling $75 million, of which
     $60 million will be distributed to MBIA shareholders pursuant to the
     Fair Fund provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and $15 million
     will be paid to the State of New York. MBIA accounted for the $75
     million in penalties and disgorgement as a charge in the third quarter
     of 2005;

     The MBIA Companies' consent to a cease and desist order with respect
     to future violations of securities laws;

     A report by MBIA's independent auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP to
     MBIA's Board of Directors, the SEC staff, the NYAG and the NYSID
     concerning MBIA's accounting for and disclosure of advisory fees and
     the assets of certain conduits; and

     Retention of an Independent Consultant to review and report to the SEC,
     the NYAG and the NYSID on the evaluation previously undertaken at the
     direction of the Audit Committee of MBIA's Board of Directors by
     Promontory Financial Group LLC of MBIA's controls, policies and
     procedures with respect to compliance, internal audit, governance,
     risk management and records management; MBIA's implementation of
     Promontory's recommendations; MBIA's accounting for and disclosure of
     its investment in Capital Asset Holdings GP, Inc.; and MBIA's
     accounting for and disclosure of its exposure to the US Airways 1998-1
     Repackaging Trust and any other transaction in which MBIA paid or
     acquired all or substantially all of an issue of insured securities
     other than as a result of a claim under the related policy.

     In addition, according to the February 29th Announcement, MBIA stated
     that it was named as a defendant in private securities actions
     consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern
     District of New York as In re MBIA Inc. Securities Litigation; (Case
     No. 05 CV 03514(LLS); S.D.N.Y.) (filed October 3, 2005). Joseph W.
     Brown, MBIA's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Gary C. Dunton,
     MBIA's former Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and President, Nicholas
     Ferreri, MBIA's former Chief Financial Officer, Neil G. Budnick, a
     former Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of MBIA and Douglas
     C. Hamilton, MBIA's Controller were also named as defendants in the suit,
     as were former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer David H. Elliott
     and former Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
     Treasurer Juliette S. Tehrani. According to the February 29th Announcement,
     the plaintiffs asserted claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities
     Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated
     thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The lead plaintiffs
     purport to be acting as representatives for a class consisting of
     purchasers of MBIA's stock during the period from August 5, 2003 to
     March 30, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The allegations contained in the
     lawsuit included, among other things, violations of the federal
     securities laws arising out of MBIA's allegedly false and misleading
     statements about its financial condition and the nature of the
     arrangements entered into by MBIA Insurance in connection with the
     AHERF loss, and about the effectiveness of MBIA's internal controls.
     The plaintiffs alleged that, as a result of these misleading statements
     or omissions, MBIA's stock traded at artificially inflated prices
     throughout the Class Period.

     According to the February 29th Announcement, the defendants, including
     MBIA, filed motions to dismiss this lawsuit on various grounds. On
     February 13, 2007, the Court granted those motions, and dismissed the
     lawsuit in its entirety, on the grounds that these claims are barred by
     the applicable statute of limitations. The Court did not reach the
     other grounds for dismissal argued by MBIA and the other defendants.
     The plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the United States Court
     of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The plaintiffs argue that the
     dismissal should be reversed on several grounds. The appeal has been
     fully briefed. No date for arguing the appeal has been set. MBIA
     announced that it does not expect the outcome of the private
     securities litigation to have a material adverse affect on its
     financial condition, although the outcome is uncertain and no assurance
     can be given that MBIA will not suffer a loss.

     In addition, according to the February 29th Announcement, certain current
     and former officers of MBIA and certain members of MBIA's Board of
     Directors were named as defendants in a shareholder derivative action
     filed in the Supreme Court of New York, Westchester County on November 9,
     2005: Robert Purvis, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant MBIA,
     Inc. v. Joseph W. Brown, Neil G. Budnick, C. Edward Chaplin, David C.
     Clapp, Clifford D. Corso, Gary C. Dunton, Claire L. Gaudiani, Daniel P.
     Kearney, Laurence H. Meyer, Debra J. Perry, John A. Rolls, and Ruth M.
     Whaley (Case No. 20099-05) (the "Purvis Litigation"). The plaintiff
     asserted claims for the benefit of MBIA to redress injuries suffered
     by MBIA as a result of alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
     named defendants in connection with MBIA's accounting for certain
     transactions, including the AHERF loss. In addition, the plaintiff
     alleged that the officer defendants were unjustly enriched as a result
     of such alleged breach. The lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice on
     December 21, 2006, pursuant to court order and an agreement among all
     parties.

     According to the February 29th Announcement, certain current and former
     officers of MBIA and certain current and former members of MBIA's Board
     of Directors have been named as defendants in a shareholder derivative
     action filed in the United States District Court, Southern District on
     April 24, 2006: J. Robert Orton Jr., Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal
     Defendant MBIA, Inc. v. Joseph (Jay) W. Brown, Gary C. Dunton, Neil G.
     Budnick, Nicholas Ferreri, Douglas C. Hamilton, Juliette S. Tehrani,
     Richard L. Weill, David H. Elliott, Claire L. Gaudiani, Daniel P.
     Kearney, David C. Clapp, John A. Rolls, C. Edward Chaplin, Debra J.
     Perry, Laurence Meyer, Jeffrey W. Yabuki, Pierre-Henri Richard,
     William H. Gray III, Freda S. Johnson and James A. Lebenthal
     (Case No. 06 CV 3146) (the "Orton Litigation"). In the February 29th
     Announcement, MBIA stated that the plaintiff asserts claims for the
     benefit of MBIA to redress injuries suffered by MBIA as a result of
     alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, insider trading, abuse of
     control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, unjust
     enrichment and violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 by some or
     all of the named defendants in connection with alleged false statements
     in MBIA's financial statements arising from improper accounting for
     certain transactions, including agreements to reinsure the AHERF loss.
     The lawsuit seeks relief on behalf of MBIA that includes disgorgement
     of certain compensation granted to such officers, unspecified damages,
     restitution of profits and compensation, legal costs, an order directing
     MBIA to implement certain governance procedures and other equitable
     relief. According to the February 29th Announcement, the lawsuit was
     dismissed with prejudice on September 18, 2007, pursuant to court order
     and an agreement among the parties.

     In addition, according to the February 29th Announcement, on January 11,
     2008, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit against MBIA and
     certain of its officers, Schmalz v. MBIA, Inc. et al., No.08-CV-264,
     was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
     of New York, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The
     plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who purchased MBIA
     stock between January 30, 2007 and January 9, 2008. The complaint
     alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Among other things, the complaint
     alleges that defendants issued false and misleading statements with
     respect to MBIA's exposure to losses stemming from MBIA's insurance of
     CDOs and RMBS, including its exposure to so-called "CDO-squared"
     securities, which allegedly caused MBIA's stock to trade at inflated
     prices. Defendants' deadline to respond to the complaint has been
     extended pending the resolution of lead counsel status and the
     possible filing of an amended and/or consolidated complaint.

     In addition, according to the February 29th Announcement, MBIA stated
     that it has received subpoenas or informal inquiries from a variety of
     regulators, including the SEC, the Securities Division of the Secretary
     of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and other states' regulatory
     authorities, regarding a variety of subjects, including disclosures made
     by MBIA to underwriters and issuers of certain bonds, the Warburg Pincus
     transaction, MBIA's announcement of preliminary loss reserve estimates
     on December 10, 2007 related to MBIA's residential mortgage-backed
     securities exposure, and disclosures regarding MBIA's CDO exposure,
     MBIA's communications with rating agencies, and the methodologies used
     by rating agencies for determining the credit rating of municipal debt.
     MBIA is cooperating fully with each of these regulators and is in the
     process of satisfying all such requests. MBIA stated that it may
     receive additional inquiries from these or other regulators and expects
     to provide additional information to such regulators in response to
     any inquiries with respect to these or other matters in the future.

     According to the February 29th Announcement, MBIA stated that on February
     22, 2008, another putative shareholder class action lawsuit against
     MBIA and certain of its officers, Teamsters Local 807 Labor Management
     Pension Fund v. MBIA Inc. et al., No. 08-CV-1845, was filed in the
     United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
     alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The allegations of
     the Teamsters complaint are substantially similar to the allegations of
     the Schmalz complaint, except that the class period in the Teamsters
     complaint runs from October 6, 2006 to January 9, 2008. MBIA has not
     yet responded to the Teamsters complaint, but anticipates that it will
     be consolidated with the Schmalz complaint and responded to in that
     context.

     In addition, according to the February 29th Announcement, MBIA stated that
     on February 13, 2008, a shareholder derivative lawsuit against certain
     of MBIA's present and former directors, and against MBIA, as nominal
     defendant, Trustees of the Police and Fire Retirement System of the City
     of Detroit v. Clapp et al., 08 CV 1515 (the "Detroit Complaint"), was
     filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
     New York. The gravamen of the Detroit Complaint is similar to the
     aforementioned Schmalz and Teamsters class actions, except that the
     legal claims are against the directors for breach of fiduciary duty and
     related claims. The board has formed a special litigation committee to
     evaluate the claims in the Detroit Complaint.

     MBIA stated in the February 29th Announcement that there are no other
     material lawsuits pending or, to the knowledge of MBIA, threatened,
     to which MBIA or any of its subsidiaries is a party.

     Item 1119 of Regulation AB, Affiliations and Certain Relationships and
     Related Transactions.

     GMAC Mortgage, LLC is an affiliate through common parent ownership of
     Residential Funding Company, LLC, the servicer.

     Item 1122 of Regulation AB, Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria.

     a) See Exhibits 33 and 34.

     b) Material instances of noncompliance:

        Homecomings Financial, LLC ("Homecomings") assessed compliance with
        the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the four-month period
        ended April 30, 2007 and identified the following material
        noncompliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Item
        1122(d)(4)(x)(C) of Regulation AB applicable to Homecomings during
        the period ended April 30, 2007.  Certain refunds resulting from
        payoff transactions were not returned to the obligor within 30
        calendar days of full repayment of the related pool asset, as
        required by criteria 1122(d)(4)(x)(C).

        GMAC Mortgage, LLC ("GMACM") assessed compliance with the Applicable
        Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 and
        identified the following material noncompliance with the servicing
        criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(2)(vii)(C) and (D) of Regulation
        AB applicable to GMACM during the year ended December 31, 2007.
        Certain custodial account reconciliations were not reviewed
        within timelines outlined in GMACM's policies and procedures, as
        required by criterion 1122(d)(2)(vii)(C).  Certain custodial accounts
        had reconciling items which were not resolved within 90 calendar days
        of original identification, as required by criterion 1122(d)(2)(vii)(D).

     Item 1123 of Regulation AB, Servicer Compliance Statement.

     See Exhibit 35.

                                      PART IV

     ITEM 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules.

     (a) List the following documents filed as a part of the report:

         (1) Not Applicable.

         (2) Not Applicable.

         (3)

        Exhibits 4.1, 4.2, 10.1 and 10.2 were filed as part of the Registrant's
        Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 8, 2007 (Commission File No.
        333-139817-09)and are incorporated by reference herein.

        4.1 Amended and Restated Trust Agreement, dated as of April 17, 2007,
        among GS Mortgage Securities Corp., as depositor, Wilmington Trust
        Company, as owner trustee and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company,
        as indenture trustee, certificate registrar and certificate paying
        agent.

        4.2 Indenture, dated as of April 17, 2007, between GSR Trust 2007-HEL1,
        as issuing entity and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as
        indenture trustee.

        10.1 Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of April 17, 2007, among
        GS Mortgage Securities Corp., as depositor, GSR Trust 2007-HEL1, as
        issuer, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as indenture trustee,
        Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company, as seller and Residential Funding
        Company, LLC, as original loan seller and servicer.

        10.2 Administration Agreement, dated as of April 17, 2007, among
        GSR Trust 2007-HEL1, as issuing entity, Deutsche Bank National Trust
        Company, as indenture trustee, Wilmington Trust Company, as owner
        trustee and GS Mortgage Securities Corp., as depositor.

        Exhibit 31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

        Exhibit 33.1 Residential Funding Company, LLC's Annual Report on
        Assessment of Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 33.2 Deutsche Bank National Trust Company's Annual
        Report on Assessment of Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 33.3 Wells Fargo Bank, National Association's Annual Report
        on Assessment of Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 33.4 Homecomings Financial, LLC's Annual Report on Assessment
        of Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 33.5 GMAC Mortgage, LLC's Annual Report on Assessment of
        Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 34.1 Attestation Report on Assessment of Compliance with
        Servicing Criteria for Residential Funding Company, LLC's Report
        (Exhibit 33.1) for Year End December 31, 2007

        Exhibit 34.2 Attestation Report on Assessment of Compliance with
        Servicing Criteria for Deutsche Bank National Trust Company's Report
        (Exhibit 33.2) for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 34.3 Attestation Report on Assessment of Compliance with
        Servicing Criteria for Wells Fargo Bank, National Association's
        Report (Exhibit 33.3) for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 34.4 Attestation Report on Assessment of Compliance with
        Servicing Criteria for Homecomings Financial, LLC's Company's Report
       (Exhibit 33.4) for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 34.5 Attestation Report on Assessment of Compliance with
        Servicing Criteria for GMAC Mortgage, LLC's Company's Report
        (Exhibit 33.5) for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 35.1 Residential Funding Company, LLC's Annual Statement
        of Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 35.2 Homecomings Financial, LLC's Annual Statement of
        Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 35.3 GMAC Mortgage, LLC's Annual Statement of Compliance
        for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 99.1 was filed as part of the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
        MBIA Inc. (Commission CIK No. 0000814585) filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission by MBIA Inc. Company on February 29, 2008
       (Commission File No. 001-09583) and is incorporated by reference herein.

        Exhibit 99.1 Consolidated audited financial statements of MBIA
        Insurance Corporation as of December 31, 2007 and 2006 and for the
        years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005.

     (b) See (a) above.

     (c) Not Applicable.





                                      SIGNATURE

          Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused
          this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
          thereunto duly authorized.


                               By: GS Mortgage Securities Corp.,
                                          as Depositor

                                      By:  /s/Michelle Gill
                                           Michelle Gill
                                           Vice President
                                          (Senior Officer in Charge of
                                           Securitization of the Depositor)






     Date: March 31, 2008

     EXHIBIT INDEX

     Exhibit Document

        Exhibits 4.1, 4.2, 10.1 and 10.2 were filed as part of the Registrant's
        Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 8, 2007, (Commission File No.
        333-139817-09) and are incorporated by reference herein.

        4.1 Amended and Restated Trust Agreement, dated as of April 17, 2007,
        among GS Mortgage Securities Corp., as depositor, Wilmington Trust
        Company, as owner trustee and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company,
        as indenture trustee, certificate registrar and certificate paying
        agent.

        4.2 Indenture, dated as of April 17, 2007, between GSR Trust 2007-HEL1,
        as issuing entity and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as
        indenture trustee.

        10.1 Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of April 17, 2007, among
        GS Mortgage Securities Corp., as depositor, GSR Trust 2007-HEL1, as
        issuer, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as indenture trustee,
        Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company, as seller and Residential Funding
        Company, LLC, as original loan seller and servicer.

        10.2 Administration Agreement, dated as of April 17, 2007, among
        GSR Trust 2007-HEL1, as issuing entity, Deutsche Bank National Trust
        Company, as indenture trustee, Wilmington Trust Company, as owner
        trustee and GS Mortgage Securities Corp., as depositor.

        Exhibit 31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

        Exhibit 33.1 Residential Funding Company, LLC's Annual Report on
        Assessment of Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 33.2 Deutsche Bank National Trust Company's Annual
        Report on Assessment of Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 33.3 Wells Fargo Bank, National Association's Annual Report
        on Assessment of Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 33.4 Homecomings Financial, LLC's Annual Report on Assessment
        of Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 33.5 GMAC Mortgage, LLC's Annual Report on Assessment of
        Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 34.1 Attestation Report on Assessment of Compliance with
        Servicing Criteria for Residential Funding Company, LLC's Report
       (Exhibit 33.1) for Year End December 31, 2007

        Exhibit 34.2 Attestation Report on Assessment of Compliance with
        Servicing Criteria for Deutsche Bank National Trust Company's Report
        (Exhibit 33.2) for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 34.3 Attestation Report on Assessment of Compliance with
        Servicing Criteria for Wells Fargo Bank, National Association's
        Report (Exhibit 33.3) for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 34.4 Attestation Report on Assessment of Compliance with
        Servicing Criteria for Homecomings Financial, LLC's Company's Report
       (Exhibit 33.4) for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 34.5 Attestation Report on Assessment of Compliance with
        Servicing Criteria for GMAC Mortgage, LLC's Company's Report
        (Exhibit 33.5) for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 35.1 Residential Funding Company, LLC's Annual Statement
        of Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 35.2 Homecomings Financial, LLC's Annual Statement of
        Compliance for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 35.3 GMAC Mortgage, LLC's Annual Statement of Compliance
        for Year End December 31, 2007.

        Exhibit 99.1 was filed as part of the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
        MBIA Inc. (Commission CIK No. 0000814585) filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission by MBIA Inc. Company on February 29, 2008
       (Commission File No. 001-09583) and is incorporated by reference herein.

        Exhibit 99.1 Consolidated audited financial statements of MBIA
        Insurance Corporation as of December 31, 2007 and 2006 and for the
        years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005.