Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to myself. Mr. Speaker, under current law, there will be a $110 billion across- the-board cut known as sequester. It will be imposed in this country on January 2, 2013, resulting in a 10 percent reduction in the Department of Defense programs and an 8 percent reduction in certain domestic programs as well. In May of this year, the House passed a bill to deal with this. That was H.R. 5652, the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act. What this legislation would do is it would replace that sequester of 2013 with commonsense spending cuts and reforms. Unfortunately, we have seen a lack of leadership both over in the Senate and in the White House. The Senate has failed to act on this legislation--the Senate, where all good bills go to die, so too with this, or any sequester replacement bill. Today the House will once again try to responsibly fix the sequester. The National Security and Job Protection Act would ensure our national security, but at the same time we do that, we'll cut spending. The National Security and Job Protection Act would do two things quickly. First, it would turn off the sequester of Congress, enacting the House-passed reconciliation bill or similar legislation that achieves equal levels of deficit reduction. Secondly, the National Security and Job Protection Act would require the President of the United States to submit to Congress a legislative proposal to replace the sequester with an alternative no later than October 15 of this year. Up until this point, we have seen absolutely no leadership, we have seen no plan from the President to fix this sequester problem, but yet there is strong bipartisan agreement that the sequester, as it is right now, is bad policy and should be re-prioritized. Once again, the President has failed to lead in this area, failed to put forward a credible response, failed to put forward a legislative proposal, and the Senate has failed as well. The result is that in less than 100 days we will see reductions that our own Secretary Panetta says will hollow out our Armed Forces and make totally arbitrary reductions in other spending programs. Not only has the President failed to lead in this area, he has failed to put forward a plan. The President has also failed--and this is important--to submit to Congress a report, as law requires him to do so, detailing specifically how this administration would implement the sequester. Mr. Speaker, after months, literally months, of stonewalling Congress on how this administration would implement the sequester, Congress now comes to the floor because we are forced to pass legislation requiring the President to submit a detailed sequester implementation program. When that legislation became law, as we said, the President's response has been no response. Rather than him doing his homework, the President has simply taken a pass on this matter and instead has provided Congress with nothing, and he is not even meeting the requirements of the law. It is an example, I think, to use the President's own word, of an ``incomplete'' by this President on his report card. That the President lacks leadership is simply stunning to this Member and to the American people as well. As I say, the Senate is no better for failing to respond in this matter. The Senate refuses to take up any bill or to replace the sequester whatsoever. Today, Mr. Speaker, we again come here passing legislation to try to solve this problem, to fix the sequester, to make sure that these draconian cuts do not go in place now. We're not saying that it has to be the House-passed bill that passed. We're also asking the President to put forward his own legislative proposal, for the Senate to act before the legislation takes effect. Americans are looking for leadership, and they're getting it from the House of Representatives today. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

Mr. GARRETT. Madam Speaker, I advise my colleague from Maryland that I have no further speakers at this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4078, the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act. At a time when new regulation after new regulation is being proposed by the Obama administration, it is critical that we restore some semblance of order to the regulatory process and ensure that our Nation's small businesses do not continue down in a sea of red tape. I thank Congressman Griffin, Chairman Smith, Chairman Issa, Leader Cantor, and the Rules Committee for including the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act as part of title VI of this legislation. This legislation subjects the SEC to the President's executive order. What that does is require enhanced cost-benefit analysis requirements, as well as require a review of existing regulations. Title VI will enhance the SEC existing cost-benefit analysis requirements by requiring the commission to first clearly identify a problem that would be addressed before issuing any new rules and to require that the cost-benefit analysis be performed by the SEC's chief economist. While the SEC already has certain cost-benefit requirements relative to rulemaking, recent court decisions have simply vacated or remanded several of these rules and have specifically pointed out deficiencies in the Commission's use of cost-benefit analysis. For example, recently the SEC Inspector General issued a report that expressed several concerns he had about the quality of the SEC's cost-benefit analysis. It found absolutely none of the rulemaking it examined attempted to quantify either benefits or costs, other than information and collection costs. This bill now will ensure that the benefits of any rulemaking outweigh the costs, and that both new and existing regulations are accountable, consistent, written in plain language, and simply easy to understand. Title VI also will require the SEC to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of simply not regulating, and choose the approach that maximizes the benefits. Under the bill, the SEC shall also evaluate whether a proposed regulation is inconsistent, whether it is incompatible, or duplicates other Federal regulation, as well. Because some regulations have been politicized in the past, this bill will require that the examinations be done by the Commission's chief economist. These are really just commonsense reforms and are appropriate, especially given the fact that the Commission continues to struggle with this issue. For instance, the D.C. Court of Appeals, which vacated the Commission's proxy access rule, stated: ``The commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously for having failed once again to adequately assess the economic effects of a new rule'' and also ``inconsistently and opportunistically framed costs and benefits of the rule.'' Mr. Chairman, this bill also includes a new section adopted by the subcommittee to provide a clearer post-implementation assessment of all new regulations so that these post-implementation cost-benefit analyses, in addition to pre-implementation, will be done correctly. Finally, it's a commonsense approach, and it's a pragmatic approach to a rulemaking process. I support the underlying legislation.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. If one accepts all the contortions and flimsy reasoning of the Justice Roberts' opinion on the constitutionality of this law, it brings to light one important consequence: the President of the United States has not been straight with the American public. See, the Court justified the individual mandate by calling it a tax. Now, I side with the dissent in this, but the Supreme Court has spoken, and the Supreme Court has now put the President in a tight spot. See, the President of the United States has said repeatedly that no family making less than $250,000 will see any tax increase--not your payroll tax, not your income tax, not capital gains, not any tax. Even the OMB Director from this administration came to us and said there are no tax increases in this. Again and again the President has said this to us. But Justice Roberts said, yes, it is, it's a tax. Look, Mr. President, it's time that you be straight with the American public. We must repeal ObamaCare. It is a broken promise this country can't afford. If we don't, it will be the final nail in the coffin of a dynamic free enterprise system. And as Speaker Boehner once said, we must pull it out by its roots. And if we do, then we can plant the seed of real health reform in this country.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Graves for leading the floor tonight on this very important matter. He joins me, I'm sure, in saying that we're all extremely disappointed that we have to come to the floor tonight and that the Supreme Court ruled today that the Commerce Clause does not support the individual mandate, but it may be upheld within Congress's power to lay and collect taxes. So what we have found today is that Congress cannot use the Commerce Clause to compel you to do something. But, instead, Congress can tax you into submission. It should have been crystal clear that the Commerce Clause, which grants power to Congress to enforce free trade pacts amongst the States, could not use that clause to regulate it. If Congress can force you to purchase a product, then there is nothing government cannot force you to do. This would have been a violation of your individual liberties as well as the constitutional doctrine of enumerated powers in which Congress is only given few and specific powers. As the Supreme Court's syllabus of this case states: The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. But the Supreme Court instead told us that Congress has the power to tax and tax and tax until you submit to it. Is this at all consistent with the founding principles of this country? Did those brave patriots who fought in the Revolutionary War and faced estrangement from their families, who endured British cannon fire and musket fire, weathered freezing winters and blazing summers, marched without shoes, slept without blankets, and suffered perpetual starvation all so that Congress could tax the people to form their behavior in Congress's image? Did the Founders, who objected to the Stamp Act, the Sugar Act, and the Declaratory Act, which led our great Nation to revolt, risk the charge of treason and put their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor at risk, all so that they could replace one King who demanded more taxation, and now replace it with a President who demands more taxation? No. We are Americans, citizens of a constitutional Republic where individual liberty is our birthright, won by our Founding generation's sacrifices. We are not and shall never be mere subjects of a government that can tax its way to tyranny. And disturbing as it is, there are many problems with this majority Court's rationale. You see, the Obama administration has been confused as to whether or not the monetary penalty for failure to pay is in fact a tax or not. But even if we accept the penalty as a tax, as the Court has rewritten the law to be, such a tax is still unconstitutional for many reasons. First, the Constitution lays out three types of permissible taxes. This tax is not accessed on income, so it is unconstitutional in that regard. This tax is not assessed uniformly and is triggered by economic inactivity so it is unconstitutional in that regard. And the tax is not apportioned among the States by population, so it is unconstitutional in that regard. Even more importantly, the Constitution does not grant Congress an independent power to tax for any purpose that it wants. Taxing to provide for the general welfare does not mean there is limitless power of Congress to tax. Rather, it means that a tax must be for a national purpose to achieve the ends that are outlined within the enumerated powers. Now, this is not only my view; this was the view of James Madison, who ought to know a little bit about the Constitution since he is the man most responsible for it. There is nothing about the individual mandate defined as a tax that is sanctioned by the Constitution. But we have strayed far from the Constitution of the Founders. No longer is the ability to tax constrained by the limits imposed by that great document. The growth and power of this government would render it not only unrecognizable, but also repulsive to the Founders. Madison and his fellow revolutionaries worried about the growth of government and the yielding of liberty. The writings they left for posterity are full of warnings about the fragility of limited government. Madison believed Republican governments would perpetually be on the defensive against the encroachments of aspiring tyrants. John Adams agreed when he said, ``Democracy never lasts long.'' And perhaps the most famous quote of all was Ben Franklin at the Constitutional Convention when he said we have produced ``a republic, if you can keep it.'' And now, 225 years later, we have arrived at this moment. We should strive to restore the free society of our Founding Fathers that they fought for. If liberty is our goal, the Supreme Court has failed the American people. And so although we come here tonight extremely disappointed that the Supreme Court did not rise to the defense of the Constitution, I can take solace with the knowledge that the people of this country will. See, the Americans of this country revere the Constitution, and they will not let it be trampled upon. They long cherish their liberties. They will not surrender them without a fight. Since the enactment of ObamaCare, I have seen the tireless efforts of patriots, both in my district, in the State, and across the country, trying to repeal ObamaCare. I am inspired by their passion, by their determination to defend the Constitution. This generation of Americans will not allow history to say that we presided over the demise of the American experiment in limited government. Now, it is true that the struggle against ObamaCare has been long and difficult and sometimes met, as today, with disappointing results. But for those of us who still believe in our founding principles, I offer some advice from Thomas Jefferson, who said, ``The ground of liberty is to be gained by inches.'' So we stand here tonight all together, pledging to work alongside the people of this great Nation who will fight inch by inch in defense of the Constitution, and we will repeal ObamaCare. Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare must be repealed entirely, because if it is not, the constitutional Republic and the safeguards of our natural rights through limited government will be lost.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GARRETT. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment that attempts to restore some sanity, fairness, and certainty to mortgage and insurance companies. My amendment would undo harmful economic actions taken by the administration that will, if carried out, continue to weaken credit availability and job creation. You see, earlier this year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed a rule to establish regulatory standards regarding the use of the legal theory known as ``disparate impact.'' Disparate impact liability allows for plaintiffs and government agencies to bring suit charging discriminatory practices based solely on statistics. If statistics indicate, for instance, that disparity exists between the number of loans made in a specific area to a certain preferred minority class versus the number of preferred minorities that live in that area, a lender could be charged with discriminatory practices, even if there was no intent whatsoever. Now, we all agree that discrimination is terrible and that when there is intent, we must prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. But under the example I laid out, the lender could even have specific anti- discriminatory practices in his company in place, but still be found liable under this legal theory. You see, accurate risk identification and classification is essential to the lending and insurance business, but the HUD rule ignores that. Risk-based lending and insurance underwriting and pricing that unintentionally results in a statistically disparate outcome, that is not discrimination. The proposed HUD rule would create a presumption of discriminatory disparate impact that could basically undermine the basic purposes of risk-based pricing, which ensures persons with different risk characteristics have to make payments commensurate with the risk they pose. So protected-class characteristics, including race, are actually prohibited from consideration in this assessment. State law already prohibits insurers from recording race, for example. But this HUD rule requiring race consideration would be impossible, then, under State law. Looking specifically at homeowners insurance, commonly considered factors--including applicant's claim history, construction materials, the presence or absence of a security system, and the distance from a firehouse--could be barred if they were found to result in creating a statistical disparity for a class defined by race, ethnicity, or gender. You see, all 50 States have anti-discrimination provisions in their housing insurance regulations already, and there is no claim that these regulations have been insufficient. So the process that HUD proposes for the disparate impact rule is, therefore, unworkable and economically impractical. The process HUD proposes for defending against a charge of unlawful discrimination based upon disparate impact would then require a defendant to prove a ridiculously high standard, that the challenged practice is necessary to its very survival, and that its business would basically collapse if it didn't do it. You see, the process HUD proposes would find the defendant company liable if a court could find another practice that is simply less discriminatory, not, instead, a reasonable, economical, practical, workable, state-authorized, or known practice. Simply, all they have to come up with is another practice. Extending disparate impact analysis to facially-neutral practices exceeds HUD's authority under the FHA and it is contrary to law. Extending disparate impact analysis to facially-neutral practices therefore is arbitrary and it is capricious. Therefore, the application of this HUD rule on the insurance industry should be precluded, and it should preclude it also because of McCarran-Ferguson. Recognizing disparate impact analysis under the FHA exceeds HUD's authority under the FHA and therefore is contrary to law. The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear a challenge on this. I think it was just last year. Unfortunately, you may know that that case was withdrawn. Why? Because of pressure from this administration. The administration rightly, I believe, was concerned that the Court would strike down the whole theory as being unconstitutional. Now recently a new case had been submitted to the Supreme Court for consideration on the very same issue. I hope the Court takes that case up soon. The Justice Department knows it has a weak case, and I do not believe that this administration should try to front-run the Supreme Court and attempt to push through this failed legal theory. My amendment would prohibit HUD from finalizing this rule that harms credit availability and job creation. It is supported by the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, along with a couple other institutions as well--the American Insurance Association and the Property Casualty Insurance Association of America. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT. And that's just my point. I'm not trying to stop any process. What I'm trying to do is prevent this administration from doing an end-run on the process. You set up the record almost completely straight. There were court cases on this. It was going to the Supreme Court. It was about to go to the Supreme Court and be heard, and then this administration put pressure on the city that was involved in it to stop it, and they withdrew the case. We would have had the decision by the Supreme Court in that matter, but the administration basically said no, because they wanted to go ahead with their actions here without interference of the Supreme Court. Fortunately, though, there is now another case that's been filed, and it's from my home State of New Jersey. This will give us all exactly what we need, just what you were saying: lower court, and now it's being appealed up to the Supreme Court.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GARRETT. I will just make three quick points. One is, again, it is really odd that here I stand with you next to the microphone and that I am actually defending the more conservative position and actually defending the position of the President of the United States, who says we should be spending less money. Secondly, in a time when we all said, Let's eliminate earmarks, here we have, as Heritage says, the largest earmark in American history. Because this is not simply an issue of saying that this program has a safety need and no one else does. If it wasn't a grant application process where New York, New Jersey, or any other system around the country could have applied and say, Our safety needs are X times high or less than Washington, D.C., maybe there wouldn't be a concern. But that's not the case here. All the other metropolitan transit systems in the country aren't being weighed as far as what their safety needs or what their maintenance needs are. It just simply made a decision here that Washington, D.C., and the congressional districts that it contains around it somehow or another merit greater service than do the other ones in Chicago or New York or New Jersey, what have you. I think that's where the difficulty lies.

Mr. GARRETT. I understand all the points that you raise as far as who is using the system, New Jersey people and New York people. But I can make that exact same argument about the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area and our transit area as well, and we don't have a $150 million extra earmark in for our area. Already, the D.C. metro area is getting $1.5 billion from Congress, from the U.S. taxpayers from Colorado to Oklahoma to Tennessee for this system, and now they're getting $150 million more. But all the tourists that come up from all over the United States to visit my metropolitan area in New York/New Jersey, we're not getting an extra $150 million, and we have the same exact concerns as far as safety and maintenance and the rest. So the constituents in my area are saying, Why is it that only the constituents down here get this extra earmark and we don't see the same thing for other metropolitan areas? I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. GARRETT. If the gentleman will yield, then the question is: Are you suggesting that the President does not care for the safety of this administration? Are you suggesting that the President----

Mr. GARRETT. It is the desire of this House and Members of this side of the aisle that we put an end to earmarks, and yet some might say that in this bill there contains $150 million solely for the benefit of one particular project, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, or WMATA. This is just one-tenth of the $1.5 billion that Congress intends to spend on the D.C. metro system over a 10-year period. This may not be considered your average earmark. The Heritage Foundation has dubbed this--according to Heritage--``the largest earmark in American history.'' Why? Well, the amendment before us is simple. It would eliminate the subsidy to WMATA that has been received since 2008. At a time of record budget deficits and debt, the American people cannot afford to provide a special subsidy, especially when it takes into consideration the fact that the D.C. metro area already receives funds from several different Federal transit programs. And given the performance of this agency, I really find it amazing. I find it astounding that this year the American people should be expected to give them another $150 million of their hard-earned money. In addition to the daily service interruptions, the lax management, and the generally poor performance that we're all familiar with, Metro has a significant record of wasteful spending. In 2005, The Washington Post reported that Metro spent $382 million to rebuild cars only to have them break down more often than those that weren't overhauled. The Post also pointed out that when senior agency attorneys wanted two new window offices, they spent $270,000 just to accommodate them. Why not? It's just taxpayer dollars from across the rest of this country. Earlier this year, it was reported that the Office of the Inspector General uncovered several personnel and unwarranted expenses on Metro's credit card, such as $2,000 worth of gift cards, three camcorders valued at $700, and even $180 just for headphones alone. Madam Chair, we cannot afford to keep pouring our money into an Agency that clearly hasn't done its job of cleaning its own house. Finally, it is curious to note that the $150 million this bill provides for is $15 million more than the President requested in his budget. Do we really want to be out-spending the President of the United States in this area? Finally, hardworking taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize a transportation system that has basically failed over the years to get its own fiscal house in order. We owe it to the American people to do better than that. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GARRETT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GARRETT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GARRETT. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GARRETT. I find it odd that I am in the position here of actually defending the President of the United States and defending what his recommendations are in this area, but I will gladly do so. The President suggested that, with all of those factors that you have just played out taken into consideration, it was his opinion that we should not be spending this full amount of money. It was President Obama's suggestion that we actually curtail the money.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, soon we will know if the Supreme Court will defend the Constitution and strike down ObamaCare, or let it stand. The Founders worried about the growth of government and the yielding of liberty. Ben Franklin warned us about the fragility of limited government when he proclaimed that the Constitutional Convention had produced ``a Republic, if you can keep it.'' Now it is 225 years later and a moment of truth. We will soon know if our Republic will reaffirm its commitment to the Constitution or succumb to the consolidation of unchecked power and the erosion of our cherished liberties. Although I hope that ObamaCare will be struck down, the Founders ultimately left the defense of the Constitution to the people. And I know that if the Supreme Court will not rise to the defense of the Constitution, the people will. To all the patriots throughout the country who have dedicated themselves to the repeal of this law, let me remind you of the words of Thomas Jefferson, who once said: The ground of liberty is to be gained by inches. So I pledge to stand alongside all of you in that fight, inch by inch, to defend the Constitution, and repeal the ObamaCare law in its entirety.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman. I'll be brief. If you've ever travelled in an airport for the last 10 years, you're familiar with the TSAs and their invasive conduct in certain circumstances, whether it's the full body scans or the pat downs, what have you. One thing that most Americans thought is that, if you didn't want to go through that, you could still always travel simply by driving your own car, driving your own truck, and not have to go through such an examination. That is not the case anymore. The TSA is not just for airports anymore, as the gentlelady has explained. They now go beyond the airports. They go onto the Nation's highways and they go onto the rest stops and they go onto the truck stops and the rest. And they are doing so in a manner that is not from the original intent of the Homeland Security bill that created the TSAs. They are going out there where no identifiable public security threat has been posed and they're doing so in the most absurd manner. Down in Savannah, Georgia, they went last year and they checked on the Amtrak trains. That sounds like a good idea. But you know when they did it? They did it when the people were getting off of the train as opposed to getting onto the train. They went over to Texas a little while ago, in Brownsville, Texas, and they checked the cars there, private cars--your car, my car, trucks and what have you. And they did it over at a port, not when the people are going into the port when there might be a risk or a threat to the port; they did it when cars were leaving the port. And again, there was no identifiable risk or threat posed at that period of time. There is support for the TSA in general, but let's focus it back at the airport again and let Americans know that you can still travel in this country, you can get in your own car and not be worried that there is going to be a TSA agent out there with no conceivable threat whatsoever and engaging in basically what really is security theater.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GARRETT. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. I will be very brief on this. I very much appreciate the fact that the settlement was done in a bipartisan manner. I very much appreciate the fact as to what the overall intent of the settlement efforts were by the administration and the State attorneys general. We're not questioning that at all. It's a very interesting analogy that you make as far as the servicers being the agent of the investors, but remember who you're talking about as to who those investors are. They are the pension funds in your districts; they are the unions in your districts who have their pension funds invested in mortgage-backed securities; they are the retirees in your districts who went and, through a mutual fund or some other sort of fund, bought an investment--a bond or what have you--that was in mortgage-backed securities. Now, yes, a third party, if you will, another party--the servicers-- made some bad decisions in this. But the way this works is that the State attorneys general and the DOJ went after--who? Basically the four or five largest banks, which is about 20 percent of the industry, figuring that they would be the best targets to go after. Fine. That narrows it down who you're going to go after. Now you give them the discretion as to which mortgages they're going to write down--I'm going to write down this one; I'm going to write down this one. Which ones am I going to basically help out through bailing out the home buyers? Yes, a large percentage of those are on their own books, but some of them are not on their own books. Some of them are the servicers for other investors that are out there. So which ones do you think the banks are going to look at first as far as taking a haircut from something that's in their own portfolio? From something that is going to be a negative to them, or from something that is out there extraneous--out to maybe one of your own pension funds out there? I would gather that, most likely, they will go outside of their own business financial decisions and say, let's look at some of these other investors instead. So that's who we're trying to protect. At the end of the day, it is a very simple thing. If this were to go forward, really all you want to make sure is that those people, innocent and otherwise, have a seat at the table and can make sure that their rights and interests are protected as well.

Mr. GARRETT. Earlier this year, the Obama administration and the State attorneys general across the country entered into a so-called multi-State mortgage settlement process, in a final settlement, with some of the Nation's largest servicers. What the administration stated at this time is that the settlement would require the servicers to use--this is important--their own money to help people, to help pay out overextended home buyers, basically. Unfortunately, this settlement went a lot further than that. In that settlement, people who were purely investors in mortgage- backed securities were also negatively affected by it as well--you might say literally taking money from them, or stealing money from them, through this process. You see, these private investors, they did absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever, but now they also are on the hook for having to pay in upwards of billions of dollars to, again, bail out some people who made some bad decisions and wrong investments. Now, I do very much sympathize with people, individuals--home buyers--who were hard-hit by the recession, and I understand what the intention of this settlement process was. But there is no reason whatsoever as to why private investors who fund our mortgage market in this country should have their private contracts broken and their money basically taken from them. See, they in this process were deliberately left out entirely of the administration's negotiations on the mortgage settlement. They did not have a proverbial seat at the table when the decision was made as to who would foot the bill. Basically, private contracts in the process were broken. People, investors, didn't have a chance to stop it. They didn't have a say. Who are these investors I'm talking about here? They're State retirement systems. They're 401(k) plans. They're public pension plans. They're private pension plans. They're insurance company annuities. They're mutual funds. Basically, what I'm talking about is just regular, everyday people who comprise the majority of American retirees across this country. So, in addition to the DOJ's taking this action in this past settlement practice without the investors being present at the table, this is really, if you think about it, another example of private contract rights having been broken and about Fifth Amendment due process rights having been broken as well. Now, this is all in the past--and what we're doing here in this legislation is going forward--but the past action, if it is able to be continued, would put in a hesitancy, if you will. It would encourage investors to step back from the mortgage market and say, you know, there is really a new political risk here if I'm going to invest in mortgages anymore, if I'm going to buy a mortgage, a bond, or what have you. And they will step back from doing so, and that will hurt everyone. That will hurt you, and that will hurt your neighbors who want to get a mortgage in the future because there will not be investors who will want to lend them money. Then what that will do, of course, is drive up the cost of borrowing, and that will drive up the cost of buying a new home. That, of course, is something that we do not want to do here. So having the government basically taking money out of pension funds, taking money from retirees, is not something that we should allow to occur going forward, and that basically is what our amendment tries to do: prohibit the DOJ from keeping these people from being at the table in any further settlement negotiations like this. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.