Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate the achievements of Dr. Bruce Grube, an educator and leader whose impact extends far beyond the confines of any college campus. After serving since 1999 as the 11th president of Georgia Southern University in Statesboro, GA, Dr. Grube has announced his retirement set to commence at the end of this month.

Prior to his ten-year tenure at Georgia Southern, Dr. Bruce Grube gained a wealth of experience serving at multiple schools across the country. Not only was he the president of St. Cloud State University in St. Cloud, Minnesota, but he was also the provost at California State Polytechnic University in Pomona and Colorado State University in Pueblo. In the classroom, Dr. Grube earned the admiration and respect from colleagues and students alike, imparting his knowledge as a professor of political science on countless undergraduates. As an undergraduate himself, Dr Grube attended the University of California in Berkeley, earning a Bachelor of Arts degree. He followed his studies with a PhD in Government from the University of Texas in Austin.

In the larger community, Dr. Bruce Grube has been a prolific public speaker at national conferences and has been published in myriad academic journals, including The Journal of Politics and The American Political Science Review. He is an active member in community, national, and international organizations including Sigma Alpha Epsilon, Phi Kappa Phi, Phi Beta Delta, and the Golden Key Honor Societies, to name a few. In addition, Dr. Bruce Grube participates in an array of professional associations including the American Association for Higher Education, the American Association for State Colleges and Universities, and the American Association of University Administrators, among others.

Dr. Grube's upcoming retirement can only be described as bittersweet. During his tenure as President at Georgia Southern University, enrollment increased 22.7 percent to a record 17,764 students. Two colleges were founded during his term; the College of Information Technology and the Jiann-Ping Hsu College of Public Health. Various new degree programs were initiated. For example, it is now possible to receive a Bachelor of Science in Information Technology, a Masters of Public Health, a Doctorate in Psychology, or partake in the web-based Masters in Business Administration program. He also began extensive academic, housing, athletic, and administrative renovation projects totaling more than $150 million.

Dr. Bruce Grube will continue as a professor of Political Science for the 2010-2011 academic year and as a mentor and consultant to up-and- coming university presidents within the University System of Georgia. However, his time as president of Georgia Southern University will not be forgotten.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am.

Madam Speaker, what this motion to recommit does is it moves to strike the congressional bicycle program.

When I came to Congress 17 years ago, we actually had a congressional ice program. I want you to imagine, every day 435 offices would get a bucket of ice delivered to them, even though we had ice machines in our refrigerator. It was a long-standing tradition and we couldn't get rid of it. It cost $375,000 a year. Finally we got rid of it.

Not to be outdone, it seems this Congress has started a bicycle program so our staff could have an opportunity to ride a beautiful bike like this. I want to tell you, these are beautiful bikes, not just because they are a pleasant blue color. But I am a bike rider. I ride a bike to work. I take this carbon footprint stuff seriously. I also don't like to pay $2.70 a gallon. So I ride my bike, but I pay for mine with my own money.

Now, these bikes, you don't have to pay for them. You just have to sign up. The problem is, last year $200,000, this year--the chairman would like me to show my colors here. I am a bike rider, and I take it seriously. Mr. Jackson and Mr. Lewis, we would love to have you in our caucus.

To get 30 bikes, we have spent $200,000. But only a small number of people have signed up for this, and last year they were only used 186 times. That calculates to $330 a ride.

Now, it is important to give staff employees benefits, and that is why this bill increases the salary allowance. We give them Metro cards. They have a health care plan and a fitness center. They have Federal holidays. They have nurses on the premises. They have a Thrift Savings Plan. There are a lot of good things we do and should continue doing for employees. But the bike program is so silly.

Why is it silly? It is not available, except for on weekdays from 8 to 5. So when I have an employee come to work, I expect them to be working, not riding bikes provided for by hard-working taxpayers.

These bikes are deluxe bikes. You can't quite see them. There is a nice seat, a very nice cushiony seat. They have lights. They have speedometers. I can tell you these bikes don't have any speed to them at all. I ride a road bike. I know. I could take one of these easily. But they have a speedometer, in case they do get up to five miles per hour. Nice thick tires. And you can't quite see them, but they have a mud flap. Now, you know you can't be serious with a bike unless you have a mud flap on it.

I want people to be riding bicycles, but I don't think it is fair for taxpayers in this economy to be spending $300,000 for a silly congressional bike program that is not used.

And, by the way, how bad is it? I would challenge you to do this: Check the Web page out and ask them how to get a bike, and it can't even accurately tell you where to go. It tells you to go to the Fitness Center. You call the Fitness Center, and they say, no, you have to go to First Call. You call First Call and you wait in line. That is where you get your sandwiches and meeting rooms and everything else. You have to be in line for that.

I went over, by the way, to see those bikes. Lots of dust is on them. They are sitting all by themselves in the corner of the parking lot, Ride me, ride me, please, somebody. No, you don't get that opportunity, because you can't sign up for it.

But, again, I want my employees to be working between 8 and 5, and on the

weekend, if they want to ride a bike, they ought to pay for it with their own money. Again, if this program was practical, it would be available to them on the weekends, but it is not.

It is a silly program and it revisits the days of the congressional ice-delivery program. Like the congressional ice-delivery program, it was a good idea, a good intention gone bad.

We need to strike this, put it to rest and say, you know what? We tried it. Let's don't be stupid and continue trying it. Let's accept this language and move the bill and get rid of the congressional bike program.

I would like all of you folks to sign up for a bike program, but not this one. Bring your own bike at your own expense.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I stand in support of this amendment and certainly appreciate the gentleman for introducing it. But I wanted to talk specifically about the Guantanamo Bay prison and why that's important because I strongly believe that if we did not have it, we would need to invent it. It is that important to American security. Mr. Lungren has talked about it a little bit.

We have had about 500 prisoners there who have been processed and released and sent back to their countries either to be detained in their countries or to be watched by host countries. Twelve percent of those have actually gone back into combat, which is disturbing. But we have had 500 prisoners move in and out. We have got about 240 left, and they're the worst of the worst. These are folks who were basically caught in an act of war trying to kill American citizens.

Our foreign allies, particularly those in Europe, who have given so much criticism about closing Guantanamo Bay, none of them have opened up their doors and said, hey, we'll take these Sunday school teachers and Boy Scouts, because they know that they're not Sunday school teachers and Boy Scouts. So I think that not closing down Guantanamo Bay is the right thing to do. But I also wanted to talk about the points Mr. Lungren made about the Miranda rights of prisoners.

Prior to 9/11, America generally treated acts of terrorism as breaking the law. Case in point: the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the USS Cole. These were not seen as acts of war. Therefore, the perpetrators of those crimes got lawyers. They had Miranda rights. They had all the courtesies of the U.S. Government, the U.S. justice system. That is not what we need to be doing right now. After 9/11 we realized that these acts of terrorism weren't just tactical but strategic acts of war, and therefore we have moved over to let's treat soldiers as they are, war criminals.

Mr. Lungren had mentioned that the assassins of Abraham Lincoln were tried by a military tribunal. It's the same situation when President Roosevelt was President: we found six Nazi spies on Long Island, and I believe five of them were actually executed, the sixth one cooperated, but it was all through a military tribunal. So what is it that President Obama sees that President Lincoln and President Roosevelt and really all our entire U.S. judicial history, all the judges have signed off on it? Why is it that suddenly we want to go over to Afghanistan and Iraq and give Miranda rights to prisoners of war?

I thank the chairman.

Therefore, the first thing they're going to be trying to say is, I am not going to say anything until you give me a lawyer. And then they're going to come home to America and they're going to be all lawyered up. It's going to cost taxpayers money. It's going to hurt our investigations and interrogations. We're not going to be able to get the intelligence that we need, the background information that will prevent future terrorist attacks.

There was a lot of criticism by this administration about the Bush- Cheney administration, but I will say one thing about it: during 9/11, and I think those of us on the floor, most of us, were here then, we felt assured that we

would have another attack on American soil. That did not happen. And I remember those dark days. We all felt like there would be another domestic attack. That was prevented, in part, because of what we were able to find out from prisoners who were being held and detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

So I wanted to make those points, Madam Speaker, and I thank the gentleman for yielding the floor.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans stand for health care reform, and there are a number of things that we think should be a part of it.

Number 1, we want good intelligence. We want high technology so that Americans can figure out what are the best procedures, who are the best doctors, who are the best providers, and what are the best prices. We think we should take advantage of all the IT that is out there.

Number 2, we want medical savings accounts. We believe that the market should be put into action so that people can save money and be incentivized to put some of that money in their pocket if they don't spend it by the end of the day.

Number 3, we don't believe that health care decisions should be made by insurance companies, HMOs or Washington bureaucrats.

Number 4, we believe there should be less frivolous lawsuits. We certainly want to protect the tort laws in America, but we don't want frivolous lawsuits.

Number 5, we believe the patient-doctor relationship should be preserved and that we should not have a Brit- ish-, Canadian- or German-style centralized government planning where the doctor-patient relationship is destroyed.

The icon on the left, Al Gore, spent millions of dollars, of course of other people's money, talking to everybody about global warming. And it was embraced with great passion by the left, global warming, global warming, global warming. But then when their own scientists peeled off and said it doesn't look like it's going to quite trend the way we think it is, what did they do? They pivoted. Well, they just mean climate change in general. I say that as somebody who rode his bike to work today, 49 degrees in the middle of May. I guess the global warming just isn't panning out the way it should be.

But not to be bothered by it, the left is going to continue with their cap-and-tax proposal, reducing emissions to 80 percent of what they were in America in 1910, when we had 92 million Americans. And what's it going to cost you taxpayers? $1,500 a household, because do you think your good old friendly utility and gas company is just going to absorb this new tax on them? Of course not.

Businesses aren't going to pay taxes over the long run. It's a function of cost, which is going to be passed on to the consumer; $1,500 per household, and they're going to exclude nuclear energy which is good enough for four out of five houses in France but not here in the Obama administration and the America that they want it to be.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, one of the smartest things that the President did once elected and all the campaign rhetoric was out of the way, he went ahead and continued the Bush-Cheney policy in the Middle East, primarily by reappointing Secretary of Defense Gates and recognizing that the surge, in fact, worked, basically kept the plans for Iraq and Afghanistan on track, including a new surge in Afghanistan.

There was one sharp deviation from the Bush doctrine that Mr. Obama did not choose to follow, and that was his idea of closing Guantanamo even though the Guantanamo prison has proved to be effective. And we had lots of testimony from people who are in the military and security that these very bad actors need to stay in an island off continental America. That's why we Republicans in committee offered the Wolf amendment that says that if you're going to transfer the Guantanamo prisoners, that we should have the Nation's governors approve the transfers to their States before it happens.

Also that a threat assessment should be done. Now to their credit, the majority party did put in some language that says the President shall submit to Congress in writing a comprehensive plan before October 1, and we're happy about that. But what this plan does not do, it does not require a risk assessment.

Releasing the detainees to American soils could cause problems, and we would also like to see the security assessment include what its impact could be on the safety of American citizens. Also it does not require notification to Congress, governors, State legislators or local communities. We believe that much courtesy should be done. And it does not require the consent of the State governor.

Why is that important? It's interesting to note that when the President was recently in Europe, trying to ask them to take some of the Guantanamo prisoners, they all declined. All the European, all the EU countries want us to close it, but they won't take any of these prisoners. What does that say?

I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I must say that if I had just arrived here from out of town, I would think I was in a college literature class listening to Orwellian doublespeak at its best and examples thereof.

When they talk about investments, this new big government order, that really means tax increases and increases in spending. When they talk about bold, swift action, that means more ``big government'' power grabs. When they talk about probusiness regulation and modernization of energy, that is just more government dictating to the private sector. When they talk about rebuilding America and new modern job creation, those jobs are coming from the government. Those are government jobs. They talk about health care reform. That is just plain old socialized medicine.

And then they talk about cutting the deficit, but they don't tell you it is their own deficit. If the gentleman from Massachusetts can tell me what the deficit is today, as I sit here and listen, then all I have to do is divide that by half. But that is not true at all. What you are doing is increasing spending and then, based on some phony ``we're going to grow the government next year by 4 percent, then we're going to cut the deficit,'' come on, guys, that doesn't sell and you know it.

And we hear over and over again this is George Bush, Dick Cheney, Halliburton, Blackwater, and everybody else's fault but the Democrat Party. But who has been in charge for 2 years? It was you guys, that under your watch, $29 billion spent on AIG; $200 billion last year on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; $168 billion for a stimulus bill last year, a year ago; $85 billion going up to $140 billion for AIG in September; $700 billion in October for Wall Street; and then, just in January, $790 billion for a stimulus bill followed by a $410 billion omnibus bill which had over 9,000 earmarks--which the new President was going to cut every earmark out and not accept any.

At what point are Democrats going to go ahead and admit, you own the House, you own the Senate and the White House? This stuff all happened under your watch. Get over George Bush. You are now in charge.

And I want to say this, as an Appropriations Committee member during the period of time when George Bush was President and we were in the majority----

We never had one appropriation bill that spent enough money for you guys. And you know it. And the records show it in the appropriations debate over and over again; it didn't spend enough money.

So now we are hearing that your fiscal discipline--I just think it is laughable to think about this--your budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much. We will be borrowing more money from the Chinese. Indeed, the new Secretary of State's first trip was over to China to say, please continue to lend us money. The deficits that go on will never fall below $500 billion. But I understand you are going to jack up spending so you can say you have cut it in half, and that's the way you want to do business.

Tax increases; $1.5 trillion in tax increases. And a lot of it will fall on the backs of farmers and small businesses, the very people you have the nerve to say that you are trying to help. And the total spending outlay of $3.5 trillion in the year 2010.

This budget should be rejected. It spends too much, borrows too much, and taxes too much.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Will the gentleman yield?

Who took over the Congress in 2006?

I thank the gentleman from California.

I was going to ask my friend from Massachusetts, is it not true that the President vetoed Democrat spending, and did come to compromise on things like children's health care, but the first go-round you guys spent too much money, and that is why he was vetoing it? I mean, I can see, blame it on the President and Republicans for 6 years, fair and square. But you guys have been in charge for 2 years now, and the only vetoing that he did was when you were spending too much money.

I just think it is time to go ahead and say, you know, we are in charge, we are going to take responsibility. And, if anything, we need to start talking checks and balances in this town because I don't think we have any with all this runaway spending.

Again, I think this budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much. And I thank the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And I just wanted to remind my friends, because there seems to be a

historical glitch in their brains, but the Democrats took over in October of 2006. For you guys to keep reaching back and insisting all of our problems belong to George Bush is ridiculous. Speaker Pelosi was sworn in in January 2007. Do you have a problem with the spending up here? Talk to Speaker Pelosi. Your budget spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much. Think about the borrowing for a minute. Here, the RSC budget, which I'm glad to support, moves us towards a surplus. Instead, you take the Pelosi debt of $11 trillion and you double it in 5 years and triple it in 10 years. Great work.

On tax relief, the Pelosi Democrats call for a $1.3 trillion tax increase and one that is going to take away from the working people, whereas the RSC budget calls for $1.2 trillion in tax relief. And I know the Democrat Party has moved away from people who have a lot of achievements. In fact, there seems to be some problem that if you have achieved something, then you're guilty and we need to tax you more. But the RSC budget works for tax fairness.

And I think it is important, particularly for small businesses and corporations. We go out there, and I know we have got our first European President right now going over there to the EU, but those folks, those corporations pay 25 percent in taxes. Globally, we have got to compete against them, where our corporations pay 35 percent in taxes. We need tax fairness. The RSC budget will create 2 to 3 million jobs. And that is what this is about.

In terms of reform, the Pelosi Democrats seem to be determined to put their head in the sand and ignore reforms that are needed for Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Now they have taken away from the seniors Medicare Advantage. I'm not sure why they think that is pro- senior. All the seniors I have talked to are very disturbed that the Democrats would take that away from them. But the reality is what we want to do is preserve----

What we want to do is preserve the doctor-patient relationship. It appears that the Pelosi Democrats want to have a government-hospital relationship. And speaking for me, I don't like bureaucrats running health care.

There are some tough decisions that are going to be made. I was a Member of Congress when President Clinton started AmeriCorps. He said it was going to be a 5-year program. Now we just renewed it at $5 billion. And it is almost two decades later. We need to come together and make some tough choices.

The Republicans have offered several alternatives. We are ready to work with you. If you could back off some of your taxing, some of your spending and some of your borrowing, I think we could come out of here with a good, pro-job budget that turns the economy around. And I look forward to working with you on that.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I want to just say at the outset I have a number of problems with this, but in terms of bringing up Mr. Paulson, I did not vote for the first TARP program nor did I vote for the second one, but at least Mr. Paulson did pay his taxes. And I think most Americans know that we have a man in charge of the Treasury who was appointed by Mr. Obama who did not pay his taxes. And to hold him up as a standard over and over again I think is ironic for the Democrat Party. In fact, if I was a member of the Democrat Party, I'd have a little squeamishness myself before I embraced Mr. Geithner and all of the wonderful things that you believe he's going to do for this country.

Having said that, even though he did not pay his taxes, I hope he is successful because we need to turn the economy around, and the Republican Party certainly is going to help any way we can and work on a bipartisan basis to do that.

I have some real concerns about H.R. 1664, however. Number one, the institutions who signed up for it understood that there were certain rules that they would abide by, certain understandings, and now that has changed, this is going back and making the rules different for them. And that is one of the things that this administration is most guilty of I think is constantly changing the rules.

The market needs to react. If the market knows the rules are here, or they're here and they're left or they're right but they're poured in concrete, then the market can start making adjustments. But as it is, this Congress is obsessed with each week reading a new poll and coming out with a new rule, and because of that instability, the market will never normalize. The market has to become comfortable with the rules so that they can adjust and live in that environment, but if we keep changing them, we are still going to have instability in the market.

Secondly, this is overly broad. It applies to all employees rather than the top executives, and I know that many in the Democrat Party see this as a delicious opportunity to beat up on executives, successful people who pay high taxes, the rich and the wealthy who seem to be so maligned by the left. But this applies to all employees. Now, the gentleman mentioned that there might be a Cardoza amendment that's going to make some changes in this, maybe eliminate some of the companies that would be qualified for it. I'm interested in that amendment and look forward to that debate.

Number three, this is really all about AIG, and the fact that Mr. Dodd, the Democrat chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, had taken out the language which was put in by Republican Olympia Snowe that would have eliminated the AIG bonuses. Mr. Dodd purposely, under the instruction, according to him, not me, under the instruction of the Obama administration, took that out.

So now we're crawfishing--I'm not sure if you have crawfish out in Colorado, my friend, but crayfish, either way, but you know how they swim, when they're scared they put the tail in, they go backwards. And I think there are Members of the Democrat Party right now who are crayfishing or crawfishing, and they're doing it for Mr. Dodd's politics. Nobody in the House was aware of that negotiation and the language, but I think this is all about AIG, and this is a political decision.

You know, we've got a really smart administration right now, one that's on the side of fighting the war, can turn around the car industry, can turn around the banking industry, turn around the insurance industry, and guarantees us the efficiency of the post office and FEMA as an end result, as the standard that we've got to live by.

This is a bill that actually has some good intentions, something that we're all frustrated about. We do not want to reward inefficiency, but unfortunately, the government and these companies got in bed together, and now they're trying to live in that framework, and the government keeps changing the rules.

I thank the gentlewoman, and I just want to say this.

One other thing that Mr. Geithner recently announced is this public- private partnership to buy the toxic assets, now legacy assets, of banks, and the idea is to get the public sector and the private sector to take all this bad real estate off the books of financial institutions so that we can get a bottom, so that we can get a market, so that we can get them off the taxpayers.

But unfortunately, if you are a public-private kind of entrepreneur who might want to put together a deal like this, you're saying, you know, do I really want to do this when the government is going to come back and change my compensation? I think most people would say, you know, if these folks actually have to make as much money as some of the leading Democrats of the world like Barbra Streisand and George Soros, some of the big donors in your area, you know, if we have to pay them but they can do the job right, they can turn around AIG--which I think probably it's too late for that--maybe it's worth it because, after all, we are paying a lot of people to play professional sports and star in movies and things like that.

So maybe it's worth it to pay people high salaries to turn around the financial institutions, which have a ripple effect throughout our housing and our credit system and our banking system. It might be something that we should do. But I just think that this bill is a politically motivated bill and not a sound economic bill in the current situation.

So, with that, I certainly appreciate the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, on January 9, 2009, then President-Elect Obama stated that ``[t]here is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help jumpstart the economy.''

I rise today to submit to the Record the following list of economists, compiled by the CATO Institute, that disagree with the President's remarks. Along with these economists, myself and my colleagues from both parties believe that increased government spending and higher taxes deter productivity instead of encouraging development. History has shown that an increase government spending does not solve problems. The way to solve our problems is to lower taxes across the board, encourage investment, and restore fiscal responsibility in the White House and Congress. Passing the burden of deficit spending to our children and grandchildren does not lead to a brighter future. We need a policy based on facilitating business growth, not government spending, to reinvigorate our economy.

BURTON ABRAMS, Univ. of Delaware; DOUGLAS ADIE, Ohio

University; LEE ADKINS, Oklahoma State University; WILLIAM

ALBRECHT, Univ. of Iowa; RYAN AMACHER, Univ. of Texas at

Arlington; J.J. ARIAS, Georgia College & State University;

HOWARD BAETJER, JR., Towson University; CHARLES BAIRD,

California State University, East Bay; STACIE BECK, Univ. of

Delaware; DON BELLANTE, Univ. of South Florida; JAMES

BENNETT, George Mason University; BRUCE BENSON, Florida State

University; SANJAI BHAGAT, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder; MARK

BILS, Univ. of Rochester; ALBERTO BISIN, New York University.

WALTER BLOCK, Loyola University New Orleans; CECIL BOHANON,

Ball State University; MICHELE BOLDRIN, Washington University

in St. Louis; DONALD BOOTH, Chapman University; MICHAEL

BORDO, Rutgers University; SAMUEL BOSTAPH, Univ. of Dallas;

DONALD BOUDREAUX, George Mason University; SCOTT BRADFORD,

Brigham Young University; GENEVIEVE BRIAND, Eastern

Washington University; IVAN BRICK, Rutgers University; GEORGE

BROWER, Moravian College; PHILLIP BRYSON, Brigham Young

University; JAMES BUCHANAN, Nobel laureate; RICHARD BURDEKIN,

Claremont McKenna College.

RICHARD BURKHAUSER, Cornell University; EDWIN T. BURTON,

Univ. of Virginia; JIM BUTKIEWICZ, Univ. of Delaware; HENRY

BUTLER, Northwestern University; WILLIAM BUTOS, Trinity

College; PETER CALCAGNO, College of Charleston; BRYAN CAPLAN,

George Mason University; ART CARDEN, Rhodes College; JAMES

CARDON, Brigham Young University; DUSTIN CHAMBERS, Salisbury

University; EMILY CHAMLEE-WRIGHT, Beloit College; V.V. CHARI,

Univ. of Minnesota; BARRY CHISWICK, Univ. of Illinois at

Chicago; LAWRENCE CIMA, John Carroll University; J.R. CLARK,

Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga; GIAN LUCA CLEMENTI, New

York University; R. MORRIS COATS, Nicholls State University;

JOHN COCHRAN, Metropolitan State College at Denver; JOHN

COCHRANE, Univ. of Chicago; JOHN COGAN, Hoover Institution,

Stanford University.

LLOYD COHEN, George Mason University; JOHN COLEMAN, Duke

University; BOYD COLLIER, Tarleton State University; ROBERT

COLLINGE, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio; PETER COLWELL, Univ.

of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; MICHAEL CONNOLLY, Univ. of

Miami; LEE COPPOCK, Univ. of Virginia; MARIO CRUCINI,

Vanderbilt University; CHRISTOPHER CULP, Univ. of Chicago;

KIRBY CUNDIFF, Northeastern State University; ANTONY DAVIES,

Duquesne University; JOHN DAWSON, Appalachian State

University; A. EDWARD DAY, Univ. of Texas at Dallas; CLARENCE

DEITSCH, Ball State University; ALLAN DESERPA, Arizona State

University.

WILLIAM DEWALD, Ohio State University; ARTHUR DIAMOND, JR.,

Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha; JOHN DOBRA, Univ. of Nevada,

Reno; JAMES DORN, Towson University; CHRISTOPHER DOUGLAS,

Univ. of Michigan, Flint; FLOYD DUNCAN, Virginia Military

Institute; FRANCIS EGAN, Trinity College; JOHN EGGER, Towson

University; KENNETH ELZINGA, Univ. of Virginia; PAUL EVANS,

Ohio State University; FRANK FALERO, California State

University, Bakersfield; EUGENE FAMA, Univ. of Chicago; W.

KEN FARR, Georgia College & State University; DANIEL

FEENBERG, National Bureau of Economic Research; HARTMUT

FISCHER, Univ. of San Francisco; ERIC FISHER, California

State Polytechnic University; FRED FOLDVARY, Santa Clara

University; MURRAY FRANK, Univ. of Minnesota; PETER FRANK,

Wingate University; TIMOTHY FUERST, Bowling Green State

University; B. DELWORTH GARDNER, Brigham Young University.

JOHN GAREN, Univ. of Kentucky; RICK GEDDES, Cornell

University; AARON GELLMAN, Northwestern University; WILLIAM

GERDES, Clarke College; JOSEPH GIACALONE, St. John's

University; MICHAEL GIBBS, Univ. of Chicago; OTIS GILLEY,

Louisiana Tech University; STEPHAN GOHMANN, Univ. of

Louisville; RODOLFO GONZALEZ, San Jose State University;

RICHARD GORDON, Penn State University; PETER GORDON, Univ. of

Southern California; ERNIE GOSS, Creighton University; PAUL

GREGORY, Univ. of Houston; EARL GRINOLS, Baylor University;

DANIEL GROPPER, Auburn University; R.W. HAFER, Southern

Illinois University, Edwardsville; ARTHUR HALL, Univ. of

Kansas.

STEVE HANKE, Johns Hopkins University; STEPHEN HAPPEL,

Arizona State University; RICHARD HART, Miami University;

THOMAS HAZLETT, George Mason University; FRANK HEFNER,

College of Charleston; SCOTT HEIN, Texas Tech University;

RONALD HEINER, George Mason University; DAVID HENDERSON,

Hoover Institution, Stanford University; ROBERT HERREN, North

Dakota State University; GAILEN HITE, Columbia University;

STEVEN HORWITZ, St. Lawrence University; DANIEL HOUSER,

George Mason University; JOHN HOWE, Univ. of Missouri,

Columbia; JEFFREY HUMMEL, San Jose State University; BRUCE

HUTCHINSON, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga; BRIAN

JACOBSEN, Wisconsin Lutheran College; SHERRY JARRELL, Wake

Forest University.

JASON JOHNSTON, Univ. of Pennsylvania; BOYAN JOVANOVIC, New

York University; JONATHAN KARPOFF, Univ. of Washington; BARRY

KEATING, Univ. of Notre Dame; NAVEEN KHANNA, Michigan State

University; NICHOLAS KIEFER, Cornell University; DANIEL

KLEIN, George Mason University; PAUL KOCH, Univ. of Kansas;

NARAYANA KOCHERLAKOTA, Univ. of Minnesota; MAREK KOLAR, Delta

College; ROGER KOPPL, Fairleigh Dickinson University; KISHORE

KULKARNI, Metropolitan State College of Denver; DEEPAK LAL,

UCLA; GEORGE LANGELETT, South Dakota State University; JAMES

LARRIVIERE, Spring Hill College; ROBERT LAWSON, Auburn

University; JOHN LEVENDIS, Loyola University New Orleans;

DAVID LEVINE, Washington University in St. Louis; PETER

LEWIN, Univ. of Texas at Dallas; W. CRIS LEWIS, Utah State

University; DEAN LILLARD, Cornell University; ZHENG LIU,

Emory University.

ALAN LOCKARD, Binghampton University; EDWARD LOPEZ, San

Jose State University; JOHN R. LOTT, Jr., Univ. of Maryland;

JOHN LUNN, Hope College; GLENN MACDONALD, Washington

University in St. Louis; HENRY MANNE, George Mason

University; MICHAEL MARLOW, California Polytechnic State

University; DERYL MARTIN, Tennessee Tech University; DALE

MATCHECK, Northwood University; JOHN MATSUSAKA, Univ. of

Southern California; THOMAS MAYOR, Univ. of Houston; DEIRDRE

MCCLOSKEY, University of Illinois at Chicago; JOHN MCDERMOTT,

Univ. of South Carolina; JOSEPH MCGARRITY, Univ. of Central

Arkansas; ROGER MEINERS, Univ. of Texas at Arlington; ALLAN

MELTZER, Carnegie Mellon University; JOHN MERRIFIELD, Univ.

of Texas at San Antonio; JAMES MILLER III, George Mason

University; JEFFREY MIRON, Harvard University.

THOMAS MOELLER, Texas Christian University; JOHN MOORHOUSE,

Wake Forest University; ANDREA MORO, Vanderbilt University;

ANDREW MORRISS, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign;

MICHAEL MUNGER, Duke University; KEVIN MURPHY, Univ. of

Southern California; DAVID MUSTARD, Univ. of Georgia; RICHARD

MUTH, Emory University; CHARLES NELSON, Univ. of Washington;

WILLIAM NISKANEN, Cato Institute; SETH NORTON, Wheaton

College; LEE OHANIAN, UCLA; LYDIA ORTEGA, San Jose State

University; EVAN OSBORNE, Wright State University; RANDALL

PARKER, East Carolina University; ALLEN PARKMAN, Univ. of New

Mexico; DONALD PARSONS, George Washington University.

SAM PELTZMAN, Univ. of Chicago; TIMOTHY PERRI, Appalachian

State University; MARK PERRY, Univ. of Michigan, Flint;

CHRISTOPHER PHELAN, Univ. of Minnesota; GORDON PHILLIPS,

Univ. of Maryland; MICHAEL PIPPENGER, Univ. of Alaska,

Fairbanks; TOMASZ PISKORSKI, Columbia University; BRENNAN

Madam Speaker, I rise today to submit for the Record this article from ``The Skinnie'' written by Scott Loretti.

The W-2 summary statement detailing my '08 taxable earnings

arrived by mail last week. As usual, I opened it, skimmed the

numbers, cursed the government, and reminded myself to be

grateful.

I try to let daydreams of bureaucratic misuse of MY

fiercely-fought-for funds die there. Send the thing off to my

accountant and be done with it for another year. But, it's

inevitable. At some point, I'll say it. Just like you

probably have. To your spouse. Your mother. Your financial

advisor. Your god. Or yourself. In both anger and disbelief.

``Can you believe I paid (fill in the blank with the

appropriate amount) in taxes?! And for what?!''

But, the point is, you pay them. Just like I do. You might

not like it. But you recognize you're not above the law. You

were fortunate enough to be born under the Red, White, and

Blue, or you found your way here one way or another, and you

accept that the privilege comes with costs. You might be

summoned to jury duty. You're conduct is bound by a set of

laws. You can choose to wear the uniform of a particular

service branch. And, if you earn a certain amount of money,

the government's going to compel you to surrender some of it.

So, despite your political inclinations, you should be

apoplectically outraged.

Timothy Geithner is a tax cheat.

Timothy Geithner is the 75th Secretary of the United States

Treasury.

Among other things, the United States Treasury runs the

Internal Revenue Service, the bureau responsible for

collecting your taxes.

Don't be blinded by your ideology. And don't buy into the

comically ridiculous notion that this is the only guy who

could handle the job. Want the truth? I'll summarize

Geithner's resume for you. He has ZERO meaningful private-

sector experience. He has spent most of his 23-year

professional life at three public-sector-focused

institutions--the Treasury Department, the International

Monetary Fund and The Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Is he

a smart guy? Sure. He graduated from Dartmouth and earned a

master's degree from Johns Hopkins. Never mind that

government and Asian studies were his academic areas of

concentration.

So--ONLY guy for this crucial job during this time when

we've embraced (inexplicably) the notion of equivalence

between the federal government and our collective savior?!

Out of more than 300 million American citizens?! Are we

really that naive? Forget naive--stupid. I could reproduce

the resumes of my 750 classmates from the Wharton School and

you'd probably find 300 that make Geithner look like an

underachiever.

Moving on, we have former senator Tom Daschle. He cheated

on his taxes, too. Okay, he's sorry. And, he says, it was

``inadvertent.'' Apparent working definition of inadvertent:

When you realize you're about to get caught and you've been

named to the President's cabinet, call your accountant and

let him know you stole from the American people. Then, start

to cover your tracks. When that fails, promise to return the

spoils of your theft. Finally, frown deeply and speak in

somber tones as you feign contrition in front of the cameras

you conveniently assembled.

Don't misinterpret my message. I can promise you the

Democrats don't hold a monopoly on deceit and defamation of

the public trust. In fact, Geithner could be a Republican for

all I know. And, with certainty, the House of Representatives

is home to tax cheats on both sides of the aisle as I type.

Here's the point. You're giving trillions of dollars to

companies that have failed or underperformed. Would you do

that with your own savings? Say you own a stock. The company

is doing lousy. The management stinks. The industry is dying.

Would you take more of your money and double down? Or would

you sell so fast your broker's head would spin and redeploy

the money elsewhere.

It's a no-brainer. You don't want to own a portfolio full

of dogs. You try to reward winners with good ideas. It's your

money. You make the smartest choices you can.

Well, the ``bailout'' is exactly the opposite. It's the

forced allocation of capital to institutions that haven't

earned it by merit. In a capitalist economy, capital (where

do you think the name came from, anyway?) flows toward

opportunities that provide promising returns and away from

festering sinkholes of imprudence. Guess what--you don't live

in such a place anymore.

So, throw up our hands or move to Antarctica? No. We love

it here. But let's start small. One simple demand. Any public

employee at some predetermined level of seniority must be

subjected to an IRS audit. Period. Every representative.

Every senator. Every secretary and undersecretary. Refuse,

and forfeit your spot.

We have the resources. Instead of randomly auditing a few

thousand private citizens, redirect the resources to this

end. Remember, all of these people work for us.

Oh, you argue, ``Qualified people won't seek these jobs.''

I respond, ``If they cheat on their taxes, they're not

qualified.''

One more thing--something Messrs. Geithner and Daschle

probably wouldn't like. If you cheat, you're out. Go try and

make a living in the real world like the rest of us.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrat budget spends too much, borrows too much, and taxes too much. But spending and taxes has never been

a problem for Speaker Pelosi and this Congress.

Take the latest boondoggle in the stimulus bill--$3 million for the city of Georgetown and Adams Morgan, upper income neighborhoods of Washington, DC, so that they can do, what? Install bike racks and buy 400 new bicycles for these poor yuppie elitist residents there, many of them who make six-digit incomes.

Now, to my knowledge, the Speaker pro tempore and I are the only Members of Congress who regularly ride bikes to work. I am glad. He's got a great bike. Mine isn't quite as nice, but I think it is a good bike. But we paid for them with our own money.

Why should the Federal Government have a bicycle program? Why are we going out to two of the wealthiest neighborhoods in Washington, DC and saying, hey, we are going to buy bicycles for you people? That is ridiculous, and that is part of the reason that we need to reject the Democrat budget. It spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrat budget that we are looking at of $3.6 trillion spends too much, taxes too much, and it borrows too much.

Not that spending is a problem to this majority. Take recently the town of Union, New York, which received $578,000 in stimulus money that they did not ask for, and the money was earmarked for a homeless prevention shelter, which they do not have. Now the town supervisor says this is nice but we're not aware of any homeless problem in Union, New York.

Nonetheless, the White House, instead of saying this is a mistake, they simply say we encourage them to develop creative strategies for this funding.

This party is the party of ``owe.'' They owe China. They owe their big union lobbyists. They owe our children and the future generations. And, oh, my goodness, look how many O's are in $3.6 trillion.

Madam Speaker, here we are, March 6, doing what the Democrats should have done at the fiscal year closing on October 1. Now, I understand they were intimidated by George Bush and did not want to pass a budget out of the Democratically-controlled House or Senate. But they've now been in control of all three, House, Senate and White House, for 6 weeks, and nothing has been done.

Well, there have been some things done. For example, they had time to create 31 new Federal programs. They've had time to do some paybacks, political paybacks to their union supporters through executive orders. They've had time to entertain Stevie Wonder at the White House, to have the Nation's Governors into the White House for a little conga line dancing and, of course, they've had time to attack Rush Limbaugh.

Meanwhile, since election day the Dow has dropped 1,300 points, wiping out people's college education accounts and retirement savings. Unemployment is now above 8 percent. And yet, today, we're going to pass, or we're trying to pass a continuing resolution because we can't do what should have been done by the Democrat leadership October 1st.

This bill, by the way, is $410 billion. It's an 8 percent increase. When combined with the $790 billion stimulus package, that represents an 80 percent increase in Federal spending in 1 year. You know, if it worked, we would be in great shape because, under President Bush we passed a stimulus package. And I voted against that one. Fannie Mae, $200 billion, that stimulus package last year, $168 billion, AIG now up to $180 billion, Bear Stearns, $29 billion, the Wall Street bailout, $700 billion. If spending worked, we would have the economy turned around by now. We would be in great shape. But it doesn't work.

Let's reject this 80 percent increase in Federal Government spending. Let's do things to create jobs and rescue the savings of America's middle class.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I certainly applaud the committee for trying to do something about this problem, but I'm afraid that this is not the right solution. It actually seeks to help a few at the cost of all homeowners.

First of all, the government seems to be very content these days picking winners and losers. But I don't understand if Mr. Bachus is paying his mortgage and I'm not, why am I necessarily, just because of that, deserving to renegotiate the contract? What is it that the Federal bankruptcy judge will know about me which will make me have the insider advantage over my friend from Alabama? It doesn't make sense. The judge will have to decide, well, was I laid off because of something that I did? Did I bite off more than I should have chosen, because of my irresponsibility, because of the lender's irresponsibility? I think the precedent of this is extremely scary. And why only contracts that involve real estate? What about other contracts that people get involved with in terms of debt?

The fact of this is it's going to also not just put the government in a position of picking winners and losers, but it's going to put more uncertainty in the market. And right now, as I talk to Realtors and bankers and investors, what this market needs on Main Street and Wall Street is knowledge of rules. Rules that govern, regulatory practices, whatever they are, if they're here or if they're here, what Wall Street and the investment community needs to know is what are the rules? We will adjust to them. But here we go one more time increasing uncertainty by changing the rules.

Mr. Chair, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act (H.R. 1106) would allow bankruptcy judges to reduce the principal owed on a mortgage, a practice often referred to as a ``cramdown.'' Judges would also be able to reduce interest rates or lengthen the term of the mortgage. This will help only a few people while raising the cost of borrowing for thousands of moderate-income and first-time homebuyers.

Although supporters claim that this is a limited provision that applies only to existing mortgages, the cramdown language can easily be amended to make it permanent at a later date--which would then be priced into future mortgages. In addition, the House bill lacks many of the targeted limitations designed to make sure that bankruptcy is a last resort. It even weakens language passed earlier by the House Judiciary Committee that was designed to keep those who filed fraudulent mortgage applications from taking advantage of cramdowns.

H.R. 1106 does contain two important provisions to correct flaws in the housing bailout plan passed last year.

Problems with Cramdowns: Allowing bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages would raise mortgage costs for everyone and even more for first time homebuyers. Cramdowns would add additional risk that mortgages will not be repaid as the contract requires. Lenders must charge for that added risk, and experts estimate that the additional costs would raise mortgage rates by as much as two full percentage points or substantially increase required down payments. This increase would apply to every mortgage applicant in order to ensure that the entire pool of mortgages remains profitable upon resale to the secondary market.

Mortgage companies would greatly expand ``risk based pricing'' of individual mortgages as well. These added costs would fall hardest on moderate-income and first-time homebuyers, who have a higher risk of defaulting on a mortgage. This will price many families out of the housing market.

Further undermine the value of mortgage-backed securities: Banks and other investors are already facing heavy losses not only because mortgage-backed securities have lost much of their value but because of uncertainties about whether the mortgages will be paid. The language in H.R. 1106 increases this uncertainty. Investors will be at risk of both foreclosure and cramdowns that reduce the earnings of these securities. Many cramdown mortgages will later go into foreclosure. Since investors have no idea what this new provision will do to the value of their securities, prices will drop further.

Fail to help many homeowners: Only one-third of all Chapter 13 fliers completes the process successfully and gets the fresh start that bankruptcy promises. The other two-thirds ``pay court fees, pay attorney's fees, pay fees to the bankruptcy trustee, invest time and money to restructure their financial affairs, and then wind up with nothing more than temporary relief. In fact, one third of chapter 13 filers go on to file for bankruptcy again.

Other Provisions in H.R. 1102: The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act also contains a mixture of other housing and financial provisions. These include:

Liability waivers for mortgage servicers that modify mortgages: Mortgage servicers receive payments from mortgages and forward them (after fees) to the owners of the mortgages. As the main contact with homeowners, mortgage servicers should be able to refinance or alter mortgages in order to ensure that the owners get the best possible return, but many fear that unhappy mortgage owners would sue them. The legislation provides these servicers with a safe harbor so long as they act within certain specified boundaries. This is a needed change.

Making $250,000 FDIC and MCUA deposit insurance levels permanent: Last fall, Congress increased deposit insurance coverage by FDIC and NCUA to $250,000 until December 2009. This bill makes that change permanent and also increases the agencies' borrowing authority to cover their losses. Borrowing authority is used only if the deposit insurance fund runs out. This is a useful change but unlikely to be needed.

Keeping predatory lenders from taking advantage of FHA programs: Section 203 of H.R. 1106 makes it easier for HUD and the FHA to prevent predatory lenders from underwriting FHA-guaranteed home loans. This is a needed reform.

Trying to fix the Hope for Homeowners program: Last summer, Congress created Hope for Homeowners, an FHA-based program that it originally. FHA claimed the program which is run jointly with Treasury, would help up to 2 million homeowners. To date, according to the FHA, it has actually helped about 500. The legislation makes a number of changes that will make it more attractive to homeowners, raise the cost of it by $2.3 billion, but is unlikely to otherwise improve it.

Making the Problem Worse: Mortgage cramdowns would further destabilize an already damaged housing market while increasing mortgage costs for future borrowers. The useful changes it makes are necessary but in no way overcome the downsides associated with the passage of this legislation.

Analysis of the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan

Two of the bill's three key components are designed to provide subsidies and benefits primarily to homeowners who, while still current in their payments, may not be able to take advantage of attractive refinancing opportunities at lower interest rates because the value of their home has declined beyond the loan-to-value ratio permitted by rules governing mortgage investments made by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The second such provision of the plan would provide taxpayer and investor subsidies to mortgage borrowers who have taken on more debt than they could safely manage, including, in some cases, credit card and automobile debt. The third component of the plan encourages the enactment of legislation allowing bankruptcy judges to alter the terms of certain mortgage loans, a practice that to date has been prohibited by federal law.

The legislation suffers from 12 specific weaknesses and risks: The plan's Stability Initiative bestows new and costly benefits on those who took on more debt than they could handle, including credit cards, automobile loans, and mortgages (including refinancing and seconds). Worse, the value of the benefits will vary in direct proportion to the degree of borrower financial irresponsibility and the intensity of community land regulations. Homeowners with a first mortgage as large as $729,750 are eligible for the initiative, meaning that the well-to- do will receive more financial benefits than those of modest means. And as analysts at one nationwide financial firm noted, ``The modifications would go disproportionately to borrowers who overstretched and who lied about their income.'' This moral hazard sends a clear message to the American people: The worse the behavior, the greater the reward.

Under this Stability Initiative, borrowers with a ratio of mortgage debt service to income greater than 31 percent can have their mortgage interest rate reduced to as little as 2 percent if that is what it takes to achieve the 31 percent ratio-with government paying half the subsidy and the investor/lender surrendering the other half. If this concession is insufficient to reach 31 percent. Eligible borrowers may also have loans that are as much as 50 percent greater than the value of the house.

It is also unlikely that, under the Stability Initiative, borrowers with a ratio of debt service payment to income as high as 55 percent-- because of combined mortgage, credit card, and automobile debt--will be eligible to receive temporary payment reductions if they merely agree to HUD-approved counseling. Such borrowers may then be eligible for permanent payment reductions. This reduction scheme will be disclosed in rules that the Administration has announced it will release on March 4.

Because the investor/lenders will be responsible for a portion of the mortgage rate reduction, this program will deter private sector investment in all but the best mortgages. Combined with the proposed ``cramdown'' bankruptcy proposals, the net effect will be to require a substantial and permanent federal presence in the housing finance market to accommodate those many potential borrowers who are not highly qualified.

The plan also includes a formal endorsement by the President of a bankruptcy provision that allows judges to alter the terms of certain mortgages. This provision will increase the risk to lenders of all mortgages. The industry is already treating this as a permanent measure. Increased risk requires higher costs to compensate lenders, and either down payments or interest rates would have to rise, while potential borrowers with checkered credit histories would be denied access to credit. However, these costs would not rise evenly for all borrowers: Higher-risk borrowers (first-time buyers and moderate- income workers) would see costs rise more and have fewer opportunities to buy a house.

Anticipating such criticisms, the proposal contends that it will ``seek careful changes to personal bankruptcy provisions.'' However, because any changes in bankruptcy law must be passed in legislation, this outcome may merely be wishful thinking. As the President wants to make sure that ``millionaire homes don't clog bankruptcy courts,'' mortgages eligible for judicial ``cramdown'' cannot exceed $729,750 in value. Moreover, the most recent version of the legislation weakens language adopted earlier by the House Judiciary Committee to prevent borrowers who committed fraud in their mortgage application from taking advantage of cramdown.

The plan's Refinancing Initiative creates a new right for American borrowers now current in their mortgage payments; the right to refinance their home at a lower interest rate even

if the quality of the loan--as measured by the loan-to-value ratio-- would otherwise pose a risk to the lender. As such, this proposal establishes the act of being highly leveraged or slightly ``underwater'' (the amount that a borrower owes on his or her mortgage is more than the value of the house) as a legitimate reason to default, and as a policy problem worthy of taxpayer support and federal intervention. The creators of this new right fail to recognize that many other consumer credit markets operate comfortably, successfully, and safely despite the fact that many borrowers are underwater the minute they sign the contract--notably home improvements, mobile homes, automobiles, RVs, and HDTV's. Though those borrowers do expect to be ``underwater'' for these kinds of purchases, it raises the question of whether future legislation will extend this concession to car loans and credit card debt, which are also experiencing significant levels of default.

Only borrowers with loans held or repackaged by the federally controlled and subsidized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be eligible to exercise this new right to refinance. Borrowers whose loans are held by private investors are denied this right, further distorting the housing markets with government-selected winners and losers.

To date, the several, federal loan modification programs that have been put in place have had very limited success, and the rate of failures exceeds that of successes, especially for loans where one or more payments have been missed. For loans that were four months past due at time of modification, the recidivism rate is 80 percent after 12 months. For loans one month past due, the recidivism rate after 12 months is 60 percent. With the nationwide decline in house prices accelerating in recent months, the risk of recidivism under the new program could remain at high levels.

The program will cost $275 billion ($75 billion for problem mortgages and $200 billion for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).

Obama's plan will take a great deal of time to implement. A recent MarketWatch.com articles notes that loan refinancing applications are up 47 percent at a time when a substantial portion of the loan originating infrastructure has disappeared due to bankruptcy and bank consolidation. The prospect that a shrunken mortgage lending system could expeditiously accommodate the 7-9 million borrowers expected by the Obama plan is wishful thinking. The result will be long waits for refinancing that will come too late for some borrowers and may also crowd out efforts by unsubsidized borrowers to refinance due to the generous financial incentives offered to servicers participating in the new federal program.

Perhaps the most troubling part of the plan is the increased reliance being placed on the now federally controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose tax and corrupt behavior over the past decade was an important contributing factor to the present economic crisis. Although nominally privately owned, both are now run by the U.S. Treasury, whose massive holdings of preferred shares in both give it a huge implicit ownership stake. As is clear from the refinancing plan--which will reduce Fannie's and Freddie's earnings and thus weaken them further-- the two have become little more than the federal government's captive mortgage financing banks to be used at will for any housing policy initiatives that the President and/or Congress wish to pursue. And with the plan's many provisions discouraging the private sector from getting involved in mortgage finance, this plan substantially advances the de facto nationalization of America's housing finance system for all but the ``jumbo'' mortgages that exceed conforming limits.