superbrowns's Blog

In June 2008 Conde Nast Portfolio reported that numerous Washington, DC politicians over recent years had received mortgage financing at noncompetitive rates because the corporation considered the officeholders "FOA's"--"Friends of Angelo". The politicians extended such favorable financing included the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Democrat Christopher Dodd, and the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Democrat Kent Conrad. The article also noted Countrywide's political action committee had made large donations to Dodd's campaign. Democrat Senator Dodd proposed that the federal government buy up to $400 Billion in defaulted mortgages. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has called for House and Senate to investigate Senators Conrad and Dodd. It was reported that James Johnson, former CEO of Fannie Mae and an adviser to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, had received loans under the "Friends of Angelo".  Johnson announced he would step down from the vice-presidential vetting position on June 11, 2008 in order to avoid being a distraction to Obama's campaign.

In June 2008 The Wall Street Journal reported that Franklin Raines, a former CEO of Fannie Mae, received below market rates loans at Countrywide Financial because the corporation considered the officeholders "FOA's"--"Friends of Angelo" (Countrywide Chief Executive Angelo Mozilo). He received loans for over $3 million while CEO of Fannie Mae.  On July 16, 2008, The Washington Post reported that Franklin Raines had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."Subsequent attempts to connect Obama's campaign with Franklin Raines were characterized by The Washington Post as "a stretch".

How much money will it cost the democratic party to register voters and have them vote on the same day, I find this strange!!! when I registered they told me I had to wait to vote now you can vote the same day.

I can see this happening all over Ohio, the Obama supporters telling the homeless I'll give you 20 dollars if you vote for Obama and that person says who's Obama??/? and they reply back that he will be the President that put money in your pocket.

If you are homeless how would you argue that, you already recieved 20 dollars so you could say Obama put money in their pocket.

After the election these people will be foregotten and it won't bother them because they will still be dumpster diving looking for food, trying to find a warm place to stay.

These are not informed people they are bought people how many of these truely know who is running for President, how many of these people watch the debates, how many are drunk or druged up and have no clue what they are doing.

I hope the people that are doing this are willing to give these people a place to stay and a hot meal for life because this is what you promessed them...

Why I believe McCain should be the next President:

It is clear to me that we need a strong leader in office, one that is clear in what he stands for whether it be on abortion, education, or the economy , If you want any of your policies to pass you must get the Government to agree with you, I have noticed that McCain has the respect of most if not all of the Senators even Biden and Obama agree on alot of Issues he stands for.

Mommiegrandma is a strong supporter of Obama and she makes good points for him and she is strong in her beliefs and believes Obama is the right choice, he may be the right choice for her and the people that believe in him.

dprin believes McCain is the right choice and she is very strong in her beliefs and believes McCain can make the changes he speaks of.

These are two good people I speak of and  I have alot of respect for and believe they are both honest people, but we shouldn't make no mistakes on the next President I think both Obama and McCain are on the same page they just think we should get to the end in different ways, one way is more Government control and the other is less government control, I feel we need a little of both, Oversight from the Government is key to keeping the people honest, I think both should work together for the American people I think both policies will be good for our nation.

On the other hand we have to think about foreign policies and who we think would be a stronger President, a stronger leader on the war on terror, we can't have someone that thinks that talking to our enemy is the right way to go. I'm not saying we should go to war or we shouldn't talk. Terrorist supporters should know where we stand and know we will not tolerate what they want to do.

I watched Obessions and these extremist want to kill Americans, Russians, british, and anyone that don't believe in islam, they talk about overthrowing governments and killing anyone who doesn't believe, there are about 100 milliom Muslims in the world and they say that 10% are extremist some call this a small handful I call it a huge amout of people just look around the world and see what damage they have caused they kill innocent people not military people they kill anyone, they don't even check to make sure they don't believe in their  ways they just kill anyone.

they have waged war on us and some think we should just leave them alone.

In my opinion McCain would be the strongest leader because he wouldn't give in and he proved himself being a POW he stood his ground he could have left but chose to stay, he knew if he left it would make it worse on the other POW's

TransCanada Gets Alaska Governor Palin's Approval for Pipeline

By Eduard Gismatullin

Aug. 29 (Bloomberg) -- TransCanada Corp., the nation's largest pipeline company, won approval from Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to build a $27 billion pipeline to carry natural gas from the Arctic to U.S. markets.

Palin on Aug. 27 signed a bill authorizing the state to award Calgary-based TransCanada a license to build the 1,715- mile (2,744-kilometer) link from Prudhoe Bay to the Alberta Hub in Canada, according to a statement. The license will be granted in 90 days.

``Our company has started field work on the project in order to meet our target date for completing the initial open season within two years,'' TransCanada Vice President Tony Palmer said in the statement.

Alaskan authorities plan to develop gas deposits on Alaska's North Slope that were discovered decades ago and left untouched by the inability to get the fuel to users. Palin solicited pipeline proposals last year and chose TransCanada's proposal after rival plans by BP Plc and ConocoPhillips didn't meet the state's requirements.

Tapping the North Slope fields, which Alaska estimates to hold 35 trillion cubic feet of gas, would help make up for lower state revenue arising from declining oil production. Alaskan crude output has dropped by more than half since 1998.

Alaska owns the gas; BP, ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil Corp. hold most of the leases to develop it. The two partners have invited Exxon to join their pipeline venture known as Denali to compete with TransCanada.

State Subsidy

Under its license agreement with the state, TransCanada will get a $500 million subsidy in return for seeking federal regulatory approval for the project and finding customers for the pipeline. The license doesn't guarantee construction of the project.

The link will ship 4.5 billion cubic feet of gas a day through Canada to U.S. markets. TransCanada expects to hold an auction for capacity to help determine the size of the line in July 2010, the company said Aug. 1. The project could be operating by September 2018.

London-based BP is Europe's second-largest oil company behind Royal Dutch Shell Plc. ConocoPhillips, based in Houston, is the third-largest U.S. oil company, ranking behind Exxon and Chevron Corp.

To contact the reporter on this story: Eduard Gismatullin in London at egismatullin@bloomberg.net

Interesting!!!!! 

I saw some agreements on both sides however Obama won on the economy and McCain won on foreign affairs and the fight on terror, it went just as I suspected it .

I don't think either one stood out but Obama did start losing poise at the end calling McCain Tom once and then Jim.  I think McCain was a bit stronger but again he should  be, he does have more experience.

Both had to be pushed into debating neither one wanted to start it off, I got a laugh out of it, when they did start Jim couldn't shut either one up.

I'm sure I will hear Obama won and I will hear McCain won but in my opinion neither one was a winner because neither one  really answered the Questions asked, they both did ring around the question.

I do think Obama got the tax break wrong, I have paid less in taxes with Republicans in office I have made more on my 401 k, when my company gets tax breaks I get more raises and bigger bonuses, If Obama is elected we will all lose, companies need tax breaks to compete in a world market if they lose the tax breaks we will lose the compaines.

By STEVEN A. HOLMES Published: September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

Do you think McCain and Obama should suspend the race and go back to the senate to hammer the problem????

I read that some may think Obama would look like a follower "I wouldn't " This would prove to me that he would be willing to work with both sides, I feel the debate could wait a week, put differeances aside and come together.

But I don't think Obama will do this because as I said before he is self centered.

I went to the store the other day and I overheard a young lady speaking about Obama's choice for V P she was saying how he was a great choice because of his policies, she said he was great on foreign affairs and could help out our economy, she went on and on how he would be good for us.

she also said something about McCain that there is some old guy that is 75 and a P O W .

I didn't have a chance to correct her on his age or that he isn't a P O W anymore.

But what really got my attention is the comment she made about Obama " He has the face to lead this country" and that was all she said about him except that if we didn't vote for him it was because we were racist, why is it that the only reason they say we won't vote for him has to do with  race.

I'm sure there are some that are like that still, I also believe it is a two way street, there are some that will vote for Obama just because he looks black I'm submitting a new line on the list for what are you "Blacasian" he is neither Black or White and I have my own reasons why I will not vote for Obama and they have nothing to do with race and all of you already know what that is.

Maybe I'm  out of touch with the youth of today but what does that mean "he has the face to lead this Country", it does take more than just a face you have to know what you are doing, it sounds to me she has more faith in the VP then the President, does she get the role of the VP.

I'm not sure how Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin are going to be but one thing is certain The next President will be McCain or Obama, and Biden or Palin will be riding shot gun.

Now for one more issue I feel if both Obama and McCain are running and both are saying they are going to CHANGE Washington then they should start by offering a Cabnet position to each other. just my opinion.

 

March 14, 2008
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today submitted the following statement for the Congressional Record regarding the DeMint Amendment to the Senate Budget Resolution, which would impose a one-year moratorium on earmarks:
 
“Mr. President, I am pleased to lend my strong support for the amendment offered by Senator DeMint to impose a one-year moratorium on earmarks.  I thank him for his leadership on this important, fiscally responsible proposal, and am pleased to join with Senators McCaskill, Coburn, Kyl, Corker, Burr, and Graham in cosponsoring the amendment.  Additionally, Mr. President, I understand that my colleagues from Illinois and New York, Senators Obama and Clinton, have recently signed on as cosponsors of our effort.  I welcome them to our cause.   
 
“Mr. President, all of us in Congress should be paying very close attention to the current economic realities facing our country.  Almost daily, we are informed of worsening news on the market front, widening subprime mortgage delinquencies, defaults, and foreclosures, declining housing values, and a broadening credit crunch affecting all sectors of the economy.  Less than a month ago we passed an economic stimulus package in an effort to help avert an even worse situation than exists now.  While I have long railed against wasteful pork barrel spending, now more than ever, we have got to establish some commonsense budgetary guidelines to live within our means, just like most American families are doing, tightening their belts and not wasting their money on “wants” to ensure they have the funds available to cover their “needs.”  We need to follow their lead.  The American public is counting on us to represent their interests, not the special interests, and to stop spending their hard-earned tax dollars on needless earmarks.
 
“Just over a year ago, in January 2007, 96 members of the Senate voted to fundamentally reform “business as usual” in Washington when we voted to pass S. 1, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007.  I was very proud to support the passage of that bill because in addition to sound ethics and lobbying reforms, many which I had long-championed, the bill also included the most far reaching earmark reforms I had witnessed.  Unfortunately, nearly all of the earmark reforms were gutted in the final version of the bill, causing a number of us to have to vote against its passage despite our support for some of the good reforms in the bill.  We didn’t just miss the opportunity to address a broken legislative system of earmarking.  The opportunity was purposely and deliberately scuttled by those who didn’t want real earmark reforms, and they are the ones that had the seat at the table when the final version was drafted.  And as I recall, not one of those seats was filled by a member of the minority party. 
 
“As a result, the earmarking practice continues, as proven by the more than 9,000 earmarks in the omnibus spending measure approved last December 18th— 3 months after S. 1 was enacted.  Here is just a sampling of some of the earmarks that were included in the omnibus:

$50,000 for the construction of a National Mule and Packers Museum in Bishop, CA;
$100,000 for Cooters Pond Park in Prattville, AL;
$625,000 for the Historic Congressional Cemetery;
$1.628 million for animal vaccines in Greenport, NY;
$477,000 for Barley Health Food Benefits in Beltsville, MD;
$244,000 for Bee Research in Weslaco, TX
$10 million for the design and construction of the Derby Dam fish screen in Nevada to allow passage of fish
$1.786 million to develop an exhibit for the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary in Michigan;
$846,000 to the Father’s Day Rally Committee in Philadelphia, PA;
$125,000 for International Mother’s Day Shrine in Grafton, WV;
 $470,000 for an Oyster Hatchery Economic Pilot Program, Morgan State University, MD;
$446,500 for Horseshoe Crab Research, Virginia Tech, VA;
$125,000 for the Polish American Cultural Center in Philadelphia, PA;
$400,000 for the National Iron Worker’s Training Program;
$350,000 for leafy spurge control in North Dakota;
$1.725 million for the Hudson Valley Welcome Center in Hyde Park, NY;

“Clearly, Mr. President, when it comes to earmarking in Congress, it is business as usual, business as usual.  And that is what drives me and other sponsors of this amendment.
 
“Not long ago, a prominent member of the majority party in the House, Congressman Henry Waxman, called for exactly what this amendment calls for:  a moratorium on earmarks.  Representative Waxman was quoted in the press as saying “We have a problem in Congress, Congressional spending through earmarks is out of control.”  Congressman Waxman added “I think our best approach would be to suspend all earmarks for the 2009 appropriations cycle while we consider the right reforms for the earmark process.”  Mr. President, you will not hear me say this very often, but I could not agree more with Congressman Henry Waxman!
 
“Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.  We need to start making tough choices around here - and we need to start today.  We have to face the facts, and one fact is that we can’t continue to spend taxpayer’s dollars on wasteful, unnecessary pork barrel projects or cater to the special interests any longer.  The American people won’t tolerate any more Bridges to Nowhere, and they shouldn’t.”

December 15, 2000WASHINGTON, DC- U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today entered the following statement into the Congressional record regarding the Department of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill:

"Mr. President, 70 days and 20 continuing resolutions after what was supposed to be our October 6 adjournment date, the 106th Congress is coming to an end. Let us hope the upcoming New Year brings with it a renewed spirit of bipartisan cooperation.

"This year, such cooperation took a back seat to partisan bickering and ill-advised parliamentary tactics that had the effect of further polarizing this body. How many mornings did Americans awake to newspaper headlines reporting that Congress and the president still, weeks
and months after we were to adjourn, had not finished their work?

"Mr. President, there are many good provisions in the legislation soon to be sent to the President and I want to thank all those who put in long hours to bring this Congress to a close. I am particularly supportive of the Medicare changes that will strengthen the quality of health care
for our seniors.

"In 1997, Congress made some difficult, but necessary, changes in the financial structure of the Medicare system as part of the Balanced Budget Act. These changes were needed to preserve and protect the system and delay its impending bankruptcy from 2001 until 2015, while
also increasing choice and expanding benefits for beneficiaries.

"Despite the changes, there has been increasing concern that certain reimbursement reductions and caps contained in the Budget Act are resulting in access problems for our seniors.
Personally, I have grown concerned about the potentially negative impact on the delivery of health care in our rural communities and for our most frail elderly if we do not make certain adjustments.

"Mr. President, I am also pleased this legislation addresses many of the concerns raised by my constituents and the Arizona health care community. This proposal improves senior health
care by increasing access to critical preventative benefits--including bi-annual pap smear screening and pelvic exams, glaucoma screening, colon cancer screening, and medical nutrition therapy for patients with diabetes and renal disease. Rural hospitals are strengthened by updating reimbursement policies and increasing access for seniors to emergency and ambulatory services in rural areas. And this legislation significantly lowers co-payments for out-patient hospital visits.

"I am also pleased that Native Americans will not be overlooked in this legislative package, but instead will receive an economic boost through equitable treatment of tribal governments for unemployment tax purposes, a change to the tax law that I have been advocating for nearly a decade. An important stimulus to economic development in Indian country is to provide employment tax credits and incentives, including unemployment compensation benefits. This change to the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) will correct an uneven interpretation
in the tax law by finally including tribal employees in the nation's comprehensive unemployment benefit system.

"Unfortunately, Mr. President, I must oppose this legislation for a variety of reasons. Once again, I must object to the pork barrel spending in this year-end legislative package and in all of the appropriations bills that have become law. Regrettably, the process that got us to this
point led to what a New York Times headline aptly characterized as "The Politics of the Surplus." In other words, we paved our way home by spending billions of taxpayers' dollars on budget items that never went through a merit-based review process.

"In the run-up to this final agreement, over $24 billion in pork barrel spending (a list of this spending may be found on my Senate Web site) was doled out and that figure will surely climb once we get a good look at the bills before us. Mr. President, our appetite for pork barrel spending was so large this year, in fact, that NBC News highlighted our feast on their Nightly News segment, "The Fleecing of America."
"Who among us will ever forget the 1.5 million taxpayer dollars we've already approved to restore "a 56-foot iron rendition of the Roman god of fire and metalworking, Vulcan"?

"Or,

* the $1.5 million for sunflower research?
* the $400,000 for the Southside Sportsman Club?
* the $250,000 to develop improved varieties of potatoes?
* the $100,000 for the "Trees Forever Program"?
* the $176,00 for the Reindeer Herders Association?
* Or the $5 million for insect rearing?

"But, Mr. President, there's more to come in this year-end budget deal, which has at least $1.9 billion in pork. For instance, in the Conference Report for the Commerce, State, and Justice Appropriations bill, some examples of earmarks having never undergone the appropriate merit
review process include:
* $3 million for Red Snapper research
* $1 million for Hawaiian coral reef monitoring
* $500,000 for the California Ozone study
* $200,000 for the Kotzebue Sound test fishery for king crab and sea snail
* $600,000 for fall chinook rearing for the Columbia River hatcheries program
* $750,000 for bottle-nosed dolphins
* $3,338,000 for sea turtles
* $ 1 million for winter pollack survey in Alaska
* $1 million for the implementation of the National Height Modernization (NHM) system in North Carolina
* $300,000 for research on the Charleston bump
* $150,000 for lobster sampling

"Mr. President, the pork barrel spending adds up. Look at the numbers.

"Last spring, Republicans outlined our spending plans calling for about $600 billion in so-called discretionary spending-that is, spending on programs other than Social Security, Medicare, and interest on our $5.7 trillion debt. The President's budget requested about $623 billion in discretionary spending. We'll end up spending in the neighborhood of $650 billion-- some $100 billion over the discretionary spending caps set by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act.

"Mr. President, according to Robert Reischauer, former head of the Congressional Budget Office, this will be the third year in row in which the budget, excluding Social Security, "has been in surplus." The last time this happened, Reischauer says, was over 70 years ago. This is
why I believe, Mr. President, we should take advantage of our robust economy and make significantly paying down our national debt one of our top priorities.

"Mr. President, I must also once again express my disappointment over the narrow scope of the immigration provisions contained in this bill. I support the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act (LIFA). Negotiations between the White House and the leadership, which endorsed more
limited immigration reform, have resulted in a compromise that makes progress but falls far short of the Fairness provisions we never had a chance to vote on.

"In particular, this bill makes meaningful but insufficient progress on amnesty for those wrongly denied it, and does not address legitimate concerns about Central American refugee parity. Fortunately, negotiators have agreed to temporarily restore Section 245(i), which allows immigrants with family or employer sponsors to adjust their status in the United States, rather than return to their countries of origin and face the threat of 10 years of separation from family and work in the United States before returning. This bill also contains important provisions encouraging family unification through the creation of several new visa categories. That said, it will fall to supporters of the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act in the 107th Congress to advance
that bill's intent to allow long-term residents who have developed deep roots in our country and contributed to our economy for many years to remain legally, and to establish parity for Central American and other refugees not afforded the same status as refugees from other, similarly
troubled countries. I am sorry we could not have better addressed these concerns in this bill, but I appreciate the progress we are making and hope that we can take up these issues during the 107th Congress.

"I remain optimistic, Mr. President, that we will be able to work together in the 107th Congress to accomplish great things.

"Mr. President, we all should be proud of the recent election. Obviously, it wasn't perfect. Democracy never is. Yet, major issues important to all Americans were discussed and debated. In fact, a post-election survey by Pew Charitable Trusts found that a high percentage of voters believed there was "more discussion of issues than four years ago." And 83 percent of voters said they learned enough "to make an informed choice."

"No doubt voters have different opinions on how we should deal with these issues. But, Mr. President, they did not disagree on which issues need to be tackled by Congress and our President.

"In national pre-election polls, Americans consistently ranked Social Security, health care, and education among the issues they worry most about. But they also know that little gets done because too much special-interest money is infecting our political process, resulting in the
kind of gridlock we have witnessed over the last year. A Newsweek poll found nearly 60 percent of Americans agreeing with the statement that political contributions have "too much influence on elections and government policy." Only ten percent disagreed.

"Mr. President, the way we do business must change.

"If we have the will, we can begin to repair Americans' cynical perception of our government by working together, in bipartisan fashion, on campaign finance reform, a real Patient's Bill of Rights, Social Security reform, and badly needed reform of the tax system.

"Mr. President, we must also do our work in the open with due process and appropriate discussion.

"This is why, Mr. President, I must also object to a provision inserted by Senator Inouye, who has once again gone to great lengths to provide protectionist legislation to the lone U.S. operator of large cruise ships in Hawaii. In the 106th's closing hours, the Senator has had a
legislative provision inserted in the final appropriations measure that will prohibit any cruise ship operator from allowing gaming on board any vessel that departs from and returns to Hawaii. This provides American Classic Voyages with the protection they need to keep other cruise operators who depend on gaming to attract passengers and provide an additional revenue stream from entering the Hawaii market and prohibit other vessels currently departing from other U.S. port cities from sailing among the Hawaiian islands. In the end, the American
consumer is the loser.

"While Hawaii law currently prohibits any gaming within the state, including its waters, U.S., state, and international law allows gaming on vessels more than three miles from shore. I have no argument against Hawaii's gambling prohibition. But the amendment authored by
Senator Inouye is aimed at keeping planed operations by international cruise operators out of Hawaii and preserving the monopoly created for American Classic Voyages as part of special interest legislation he sponsored and which became law in 1998. The language will result in
fewer large cruise ship operators serving the Hawaiian Islands and drastically restricting consumer choice for cruise vacations in Hawaii.

"What is most amazing is this measure, like so many others in this bill, was never discussed publicly, with the administration, or with any Committee of jurisdiction in Congress. This type of closed door, special interest legislation should concern every Member. To deny the
American public the freedom of choice in cruising vacations and restrict international trade without one moment of debate is very troubling.

"In light of this and other such inappropriate legislating, we must enact institutional reforms to put an end to the rampant abuse of the budget process.

"Mr. President, if we are to hold any hope for reforming the budgetary process in this body, fundamental changes to the rules governing the appropriations process must be made. The two Rules of the Senate designed to impose discipline on the appropriations process are Rule 16, and Rule 28. Rule 16 is designed to block legislative riders on appropriations bills coming out of Committee, and Rule 28 is designed to accomplish the same goal on Conference Reports. Unfortunately, due to the fact that Rule 16 points of order only require a simple majority to overrule the Chair, it has proven ineffective in stripping riders. And, as we all know, Rule 28 is effectively moot at this point.

"As such, when the Senate reconvenes next year, it is my intention to offer an amendment to the Rules of the Senate designed to toughen Rule 16, and to reaffirm and toughen Rule 28. This amendment would do the following:

"Rule 16 would be modified to require a three-fifths vote to over-rule a point of order against a legislative item inserted into a general appropriations bill by the appropriations committee. Further, a single point of order may be raised against each legislative item, and each
point of order would be debatable and subject to a roll call vote.

"Rule 28 would be modified, blocking Conferees to a general appropriations bill from inserting in their Report any matter not committed to them by either House, or striking from the bill matter agreed to by both Houses. Conferees to a general appropriations bill would be prohibited from increasing an appropriation for any item committed to them by either House to a level exceeding the highest appropriated level for such item presented to them by either House,
and reducing an appropriated level for any item committed to them below the lowest appropriated level for such item committed to them by either House.

"Further, Conferees to a general appropriations bill would be restricted from modifying any item committed to them by either House where such modification is not germane to the item being modified. In any case, no matter may be inserted into the Report that is not germane to the general appropriations bill committed to the Conferees.

"The result of these changes would be to impose a strict "scope of conference" rule on appropriations Conferees.

"A point of order may be made by any Senator against any general appropriations bill Conference Report for any violation of the restrictions set forth by this rule. In such cases where a single restriction has been violated more than once within a Conference Report, or where more than one restriction has been violated within a single Conference Report, each violation may be treated individually, and may be subject to a specific point of order. In the event that a
single, or multiple points of order, are made against a general appropriations bill Conference Report for reasons set forth under these new restrictions, a three-fifths vote of the Senate is required to over-rule the Chair. Each appeal of the ruling of the Chair of each respective point of order is debatable and must be voted on separately.

"Mr. President, before I end, I want to wish everyone a happy holiday season and New Year."

May 10, 1992Washington, D.C.- Today Senator John McCain spoke on the floor of the United States Senate regarding presidential rescissions legislation, and gave the following remarks:

Mr. President, in 1974, the Congress enacted the Congressional Budget Control and Impoundment Act. One of the declared purposes of this act was "to assure effective congressional control over the budgetary process."

Under the effective control of the Congress since 1974, the public debt has risen from $483.9 billion to $3.7 trillion. By the end of the year, that debt will surpass $4 trillion. Thus, under the process dictated by the 1974 Budget Act, we have seen our debt increase by $3.5 trillion. That is roughly $14,000 per person in the United States.

It is clear that the Budget Act failed to meet it's declared purpose of effectively controlling the budgetary process. It has failed the Congress and the American people.

Mr. President, the rescission process we are engaged in today is an example of the failed budgetary process of the Budget Act. Since 1974, the Congress' attitude toward Presidential rescissions has been, to put it mildly, neglectful.

President Ford proposed 150 rescissions and Congress ignored 97. President Carter proposed 132 rescissions and Congress ignored 38. President Reagan proposed 601 rescissions and Congress ignored 384. Prior to March 10th, President Bush proposed 47 rescissions and Congress ignored 45.

If Congress had accepted the 564 Presidential rescissions that it has ignored since 1974, the America taxpayer would have been saved $40.4 billion.

In this present round of rescissions, President Bush has offered 130 rescissions and the Appropriations Committee has rejected 97. I profoundly regret that this process appears to have become a reckless pursuit of narrow partisan advantage.

The distinguished President Pro Tempore's comments at last week's markup of S. 2403 on the rescission process were illuminating. My friend, the Senator from West Virginia, was quoted last Thursday as saying that:

"Sooner or later, the White House learns that when it comes to appropriations, they don't hold the upper hand... . Sooner or later, they need money to buy pens to veto bills with. The farther down the road it gets, the meaner it gets."

Mr. President, it is a sad commentary when the debate on our national priorities is reduced to political intimidation of the President. Threats will not solve our problems. Threats will not advance the debate. Threats will not balance the budget.

I also expect to be targeted for my support of these spending cuts. The meanness will not be limited to the President. I fear that my state, Arizona, will suffer to promote partisan advantage because I do not hold the upper hand in the appropriations process.

Arizona is threatened. Our nation is threatened by a process driven by threats and intimidation. This not the way to decide our national priorities.

And, Mr. President, threats will not serve the needs of the American people.

I am confident that the voters are angry and will be watching this debate. I am confident that they are not interested in "upper hands" or turf wars. They are interested in results which explains why Americans hold Congress in such low esteem.

It is clear that some in the Senate would prefer to pass a bill that the President cannot sign simply to embarrass the President in an election year. While that result may serve the needs of some Senators, it clearly does not serve the needs of the American public.

I plan to offer an amendment that will eliminate spending for the Seawolf submarine as requested by the President in his rescission message. The Seawolf class of submarines was designed to counter the Soviet threat, a threat that no longer exists. It is a weapons system without a mission. It is a line item that should be without funding.

Yet, the Appropriations Committee would rather reduce funding for systems that still have clearly defined missions to respond to clearly defined threats. I understand and appreciate members concerns about jobs, but the object of defense spending is to protect our national security needs. Funding systems without missions will not protect America from foreign threats. I will talk about the Seawolf in greater detail later.

Mr. President, in closing, I would like to comment again on our broken budgetary process. The funding for the programs included in the President's rescissions is miniscule relative to our enormous budget deficit, but that is not sufficient reason to tolerate glaring examples of wasteful spending.

We do not need a rescission bill drafted solely to provoke a Presidential veto. Perhaps, Congress is not interested in making spending cuts. Perhaps, it is only interested in making political statements. I hope not.

In choosing to turn this issue into a political football, the Appropriations Committee has implicitly stated that it is not interested in spending cuts. The Appropriations Committee should not be solely concerned with spending our revenues. It should also be concerned with the responsible management of our scarce resources.

Finally, if the Congress sends the President a rescission package that he feels he must veto, I hope he reconsiders his position on testing the constitutionality of the line item veto. He will never receive a better piece of legislation on which to test the issue.

Let the Supreme Court decide. If the Court denies the existence of line item veto authority, at the very least, attention will be focused on the real scandal in Washington--our national debt.

Search U.S. Senator John McCain - Arizona                     Related Links Home Press Releases Speeches Articles Opinion Editorials Floor Statements Interviews Multimedia Photo Gallery Press Office --> Press Releases
Filter by: -- Issue-- Agriculture Budget, Taxes, and the Economy Crime, Justice, and Judiciary Defense, National Security, and War in Iraq Education Energy and Environment Foreign Affairs Healthcare Homeland Security and Immigration Indian Affairs Other Issues Pork Barrel Spending Technology and Telecommunications Transportation Veterans Affairs -- Region -- --> Print this page

MCCAIN STATEMENT ON CO-SPONSORSHIP OF THE FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005 May 26, 2006

 

 

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.  

 

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives.  In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the six years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets.  The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.  

 

Mr. President, the OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems.  This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005.  These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.  

 

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – known as government sponsored entities or GSEs – and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market.  OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns.  In fact, the report does quite the contrary.  OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.  

 

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation.  If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.   

 

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.  

 Washington D.C. ­– Today, U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) submitted for the record the following statement regarding his co-sponsorship of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Act of 2005:   

With the financial sector in turmoil today, the media and the politicians have started throwing around blame with the same recklessness as lenders threw around credit to create the problem.  Politically, the pertinent question is this: Which candidate foresaw the credit crisis and tried to do something about it?  As it turns out, John McCain did — and partnered with three other Senate Republicans to reform the government’s involvement in lending three years ago, after an attempt by the Bush administration died in Congress two years earlier.  McCain spoke forcefully on May 25, 2006, on behalf of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (via Beltway Snark):

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

In this speech, McCain managed to predict the entire collapse that has forced the government to eat Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with Bear Stearns and AIG.  He hammers the falsification of financial records to benefit executives, including Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, both of whom have worked as advisers to Barack Obama this year.  McCain also noted the power of their lobbying efforts to forestall oversight over their business practices.  He finishes with the warning that proved all too prescient over the past few days and weeks.

What was this bill?  The act would have done the following:

(1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and (2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.

Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8) reporting.

It never made it out of committee.  Chris Dodd, then the ranking member of the Banking Committee and now its chair, was in the middle of receiving preferential loan treatment from Countrywide Mortgage, one of the companies gaming the system in the credit crisis.  Meanwhile, Barack Obama took hundreds of thousands of dollars from the lobbyists McCain mentions in this speech, making him the #2 recipient of Fannie/Freddie money:

 

Mcdonalds also gives change

Troopergate Investigator Stephen Branchflower has been slapped with two lawsuits, one by a group of Alaskan residents who believe his inquiry represents an abuse of their tax dollars and the other by five Republican lawmakers who called Branchflower’s tactics “McCarthyistic.”

Both suits were filed at the Third Judicial District in Anchorage on Tuesday.

Citizens Robert Bettishworth, James Dodson, Seth Church, David Eichler, Thomas Temple and Alan Simmons complained the $100,000 allocated to determine whether Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin abused her power in firing of a political appointee is “a statutorily unauthorized waste of public monies.”

The citizen suit raised doubts about Branchflower’s neutrality, citing public statements from the investigator’s “Project Director” Democratic Sen. Hollis French.

French, who is actively supporting Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy, handpicked Branchflower to conduct an investigation to determine whether Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin violated ethics rules in firing Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. French has publicly said he expects Branchflower’s inquiry to culminate in an “October surprise” that would hurt Palin’s chances of becoming vice president in November.

Their suit specifically detailed an exchange Branchflower had with Alaskan lawmakers during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last Friday. “Branchflower admitted that not only did Senator French actually remove a name from Branchflower’s subpoena list, but that he was not sure why French had done that,” their suit said. “When asked specifically about the removal of the name, Branchflower stated that he ‘would have to defer that question to Mr. French,’ thus admitting that the investigation was under the de facto control and direction of Senator French.”

At that hearing lawmakers approved 13 subpoenas to further Branchflower’s investigation, including one for Palin’s husband, Todd.

Upon receiving the citizen suit, the court issued a summons to Branchflower requiring him to file a written answer to the citizen complaint within 20 days. This date lands smack in the middle of his investigation. Branchflower has said he expects to release a final report between October 10 and October 31, but answering his own summons would surely increase his workload.

The Republican lawmakers’ suit, not only targeted Branchflower, but French and his Democratic colleague Sen. Kim Elton as well. “The defendants are conducting a ‘McCarthyistic’ investigation in an unlawful, biased, partial and partisan political manner in order to impact the upcoming Alaska’ general and national presidential elections,” it said.

Elton is chairman of Alaska’s Legislative Council, which is overseeing Branchflower’s investigation. He is also ardently supporting Obama’s candidacy and has donated $2,000 to his presidential campaign.

The Republicans argued Commissioner Monegan gave Palin “ample cause” for firing by defying her, in concert with Senator French, on budget issues.

“Working with Sen. French, and contrary to directions from Governor Palin, Monegan had attempted to include items in the Alaska state budget appropriating funds for various items within the Department of Public Safety that Governor Palin had previously vetoed,” their suit said. “Afterwards, contrary to the instructions of the Governor and contrary to the Governor’s budgetary plan, Monegan attempted to travel to Washington D.C. at state Executive Branch expense, in order to request federal funding through ‘earmarks’ for line items from Alaska’s congressional delegation.”