NY TIMES SEPT 2003: BUSH PROPOSED TIGHTENING OVERSIGHT OF FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC - THE DEMOCRATS OF CONGRESS BLOCKED IT
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
… Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
It’s the Democrats fault…
I’m no expert on finances or Wall Street, but I’ve learned one thing today. The disasters that are going now are the Democrats fault: From Stop the ACLUVia Freerepublic A September 11, 2003 New York Times article shows that President……
I’m no expert either, but if the Republicans had the majority rule in Congress, how did the Democrats block it?
I’ve got to second what Patty said, if the Republicans had any substantial insight of pending economic disaster, why didn’t they just push something through when they had majority rule? I mean seriously… as much as the blatant finger pointing helps things (sarcasm)… C’mon folks, I don’t think many Dems OR Republicans actually wanted a real estate Armageddon in America that would f@#k the global economy.
I also agree with Patty 2003 Republicans had control the Senate and the House , the Democrats may have spoken out against it but they had little power to stop it. The reason I think it may not have gone through was because it created a new agency and more bureaucracy and more tax payer money would have been spent. Which is something Republicans traditionally don’t like. And of course the reasoning for the democrats coming out against this was so that poor people could afford houses which although misguided was admirable thing that there were trying to achieve.
There needs to be a investigation into who deep-sixed these reforms. (It’s international talk like a pirate day, so I had to get “Deep six” in there).
Patty, Chris, how did the Democrats block this? That’s easy. You get 15% of the Rs and 90% of the Ds to vote against it. 90 divided by 15 equals Democrats are six times more responsible for this mess. They so badly wouldn’t let the Rs have a fix in place because of partisan pride, and the rest of us pay for it forever. Go kick ass, John and Sarah!
You hit it right on the nail Mitch! People need to just look at Congress voting records from the past, and your right 90% Dems and some so called Reps that claim to be conservative blocked it. Kudos to McCain & Palin ,go shake up Washington!
It should also be noted that Senate Bill S.190 was created to solve that problem, co-authored by John McCain. The following is from his speech on the Senate floor May 25, 2006 regarding S. 190 [109th], Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 Last Action:
“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. ”
–John McCain
I think it is extremely important to note that Republicans were not pointing fingers here. There is a problem and everyone was expected to start solving it. HOWEVER when you have Democrats blaming Republicans for the mess instead of working to fix the problem, people start to do some research to see if they are telling the truth…. unfortunately that was not the case.
2 Important facts left out:
1. In 2003 both the House and Senate were Republican controlled. If your own party couldn’t get this passed, you can’t blame the party that was in the minority.
2. Those that voted against it (both Dems and Republicans) made a very smart move. The bill, as it was proposed in 2003 (and again in 2005), sought to privatize the oversight of the bank lending industry. Privitizating the oversight of the lending industry was and remains completely the wrong thing to do.
Isn’t it funny when you tell only half the truth it completely changes things? Republicans seem really good at that.
Give people all the facts next time you facist.
And start thinking about why the richest 1% and businesses only gets richer under Republican economics and why the the remainder gets only poorer and looses their jobs.
From 2001 to 2006 the republicans were the majority, but by a slight margin. A lot of legislation got passed, or blocked, by a group consisting of most Democrats and a few moderate Republicans as Mitch said. But todays reality is that the Democrats are trying to lay this problem at the feet of Bush and the Republicans.
2 Important facts left out:
1. In 2003 both the House and Senate were Republican controlled. If your own party couldn’t get this passed, you can’t blame the party that was in the minority.
2. Those that voted against it (both Dems and Republicans) made a very smart move. The bill, as it was proposed in 2003 (and again in 2005), sought to privatize the oversight of the bank lending industry. Privitizating the oversight of the lending industry was and remains completely the wrong thing to do.
Isn’t it funny when you tell only half the truth it completely changes things? Republicans seem really good at that.
Give people all the facts next time you facist.
And start thinking about why the richest 1% and businesses only gets richer under Republican economics and why the the remainder gets only poorer and looses their jobs.
Here’s what the bill said:
Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to establish:
(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);
Do you see? Can you read? This bill was transfering any remaining oversight FROM the government TO an INDEPENDENT Agency! That meant it had NO FEDERAL OVERSIGHT AT ALL!
So. Please enlighten me why the appropriate thing to do would be to privatize the oversight of the lending industry? Please offer something of an intelligible comment. Please?
Also, if you are a Republican. Republican mantra is less government and free market rule. Regulation is Democratic battle-cry. So what do you believe in? Or are you a sheep?
Republicans did not point fingers because the fault can’t simply be tied to the other party.
Bush’s regulatory overhaul was a reaction to possible accounting irregulaties in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Think about the Enron/Arthur Andersen disaster from the preceding years.
So as much as many hope this is damning evidence of Bush’s prophetic solution to an impending meltdown, it does little to demonstrate, if it had passed, we would not be where we are today. The greed of the banking industry is at fault, with the remarkable complexity of unregulated mortgage backed securities
The problem originated with the banking/lending industry, and could have only been attacked with effective regulation of the private sector.
No one can deny the problem also predates the Bush Administration, but because the meltdown occurred on George W’s clock (whether it is really fair or not) it will be part of his and the Republican’s legacy.
It is good to see so many Republicans and neo-Cons finally realizing the need for regulation; that economic Darwinism results in corrution and disaster. Now you are starting to understand why we need government to nurture our best instincts, and to thawart our worst ones.
David Childers
A Filibuster is how the minority party in the Senate can stop the majority party from passing a bill. In order to do this, a minority party member gets up and speaks and does not stop speaking until the majority party withdraws the proposal or brings the Senate to a crashing stop. Thanks to Senate Rule 22, all the minority party has to do is threaten a filibuster and it is treated as a filibuster. To over ride the filibuster, you need 60 Senators to agree.
This is how the minority party could keep a bill from being passed.
Forget all this. Give us, the taxpayers the money! If each American gets $50,000, we will pay off our mortgages and get the economy moving again.
Oversight by Congress?
In 2011 shouldn’t U.S. Service Personnel have the same Constitutional Rights that murderers keep?
2002 U.S. Senate Hearing on the Feres Doctrine. Starting on page 64 of the PDF version the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE stated that in the 1950 U.S. Supreme Court’s Feres Doctrine decision, “The Court relied upon three principal reasons in coming to its decision: (1) The existence and availability of a separate, uniform, comprehensive, no-fault compensation scheme for injured military personnel;” Answering this issue is the 1994 U.S. Senate Report with its, “III. Findings and conclusions” “K” and “N”. Then the Dept. of Justices reported Court’s “(2) The effect upon military order, discipline, and effectiveness if service member were permitted to sue the government or each other; and, (3) The distinctly federal relationship between the government and members of its armed services, and the corresponding unfairness of permitting service-connected claims to be determined by nonuniform law.” The Hearing’s 127 pages of 19 Testimonials and Submissions for the Record did not address the documented: 1. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) and U.S. Senate 1994 Reports recorded “hundreds of thousands” of in-service guinea pigs, the variety and number of injurious non-consensual, experiments. The Senate Report’s noted withheld needed for treatment but experiment identifying evidence. 2. Not recognized was that many experiments were in direct disobedience of the Department of Defense (DOD) Secretary’s 1953 Order. 3. No mention was made of the fact that convicted rapists and murderers receive U.S. Constitutional experimentation protection that U.S. Service Personnel DO NOT!! SOURCE: “THE FERES DOCTRINE: AN EXAMINATION OF THIS MILITARY EXCEPTION TO THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT OCTOBER 8, 2002.” http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf /107hrg/88833.pdf
Starting from the U.S. Senate’s 1994, 50 years past, it is now 67 years of U.S. Congressional talk with no Feres Doctrine and its STANLEY service personnel “to harm” experimentation correction. During this time, hundreds of thousands of the “to harm” service records were destroyed in a 1973 National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) fire. Then Congress’s 1974 Privacy Act censored experiment verifying witnesses from any surviving and future records! Overlooked by many in Congress is their Oath of Office to defend the U.S. Constitution, their “Pledge of Allegiance” “with liberty and justice for all” checks and balances function, their U.S. Constitution Eighth Amendment protection of convicted rapists and murderers (but NOT U.S. Service Personnel) with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ignored, carved in stone over its entrance, “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW”!
As in the GAO and U.S. Senate’s reported past, these “military research” “incident to service” activities are conducted under the ongoing secrecy cover of our ‘national interests’, e.g., WWII, Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan. Shouldn’t U.S. Service Personnel and Veterans get back those Constitutional Rights that they die for and convicted rapists and murderers keep? Please hold your members in the U.S. Congress accountable!
DOCUMENTS.
The 1994 U.S. Senate Report noted, “The Feres Doctrine should not be applied for military personnel who are harmed by inappropriate human experimentation when informed consent has not been given.” Then, “During the last 50 years, hundreds of thousands of military personnel” were subjected to “experiments that were designed to harm”, e.g., their reported biological and chemical agents, radiation exposure, hallucinogenic and investigational drugs, experimental vaccines and behavior modification projects. In 2011 still ignored is this and the also noted past and present, “III. Findings and conclusions”, “K. DOD and DVA have repeatedly failed to provide information and medical followup to those who participate in military research…” and “N. Participation in military research is rarely included in military medical records, making it impossible to support a veteran’s claim for service-connected disabilities from military research.”, i.e., the withheld needed for treatment but experiment identifying injury evidence. SOURCE: December 8, 1994 REPORT 103-97 “Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans’ Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century.” Hearings Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 103rd Congress 2nd Session. Underlying this Senate Report is the GAO September 28, 1994 “Human Experimentation Overview on Co1d War Era Programs” T-NSIAD-94-266 archive.gao.gov/t2pbat2/152601.pdf
In 1992 the U.S. Senate signed the United Nation, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). with its “.. Article 7 - Freedom from Torture, or Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.” It gives convicted U.S. rapists and murderers protection from experiments by the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, Amendment VIII. Under, “Basic Rights of Prisoners.” is, “Written policy and practice prohibit the use of inmates for medical….experiments.” and “Nonconsensual experimentation is illegal”! Nineteen (19) times cited is the U.S. Constitution plus its Eighth Amendment’s no cruel and unusual punishment. SOURCE: U.S. State Dept., “U.S. Report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights July 1994, Article 7 - Freedom from Torture, or Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1987 STANLEY is a DOD, 1953 order disobeyed, 1958 injurious LSD experiment. This non-consenting guinea pig, Supreme Court noted as drugged under the concealment of chemical warfare testing, is swept under the same FERES injurious cover of an “incident to service.” Fifty (50) times STANLEY cites the Feres Doctrine. Not once addressed is the no human experimentation disobeyed 1953 order and the protection of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, Amendment Eight. SOURCE: U.S. SUPREME COURT, JUNE 25, 1987, U.S. V. STANLEY , 107 S. CT.. 3054 (VOLUME 483 U.S., SECTION 669, PAGES 699 TO 710). http://supreme.justia.com/ us/483/669/ case.html
On 26 February 1953 was the DOD Secretary’s NO non-consensual, human experiments on service personnel. This Top Secret Memo was UNCLASSIFIED on 22 August 1975:
“…the policy set forth below will govern the use of human volunteers by the Department of Defense in experimental research in the fields of atomic, biological and/or chemical warfare.”
“a. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.”
SOURCE: Pgs. 343-345: “The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code; Human Rights in Human Experimentation” George J. Annas and Michael A. Grodin (N. Y.: Oxford University Press, 1992).
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1950 Feres Case determined that past and present military personnel can’t hold the U.S. Government accountable for injurious acts. In determining responsibility for a death due to a 1947 Army barracks fire, those that serve fall into a DOD special “injuries that arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service” category. The Feres Doctrine’s sovereign immunity rational effectively makes the DOD the Judge and Jury over its own injurious experimentation acts. Lost are the checks and balances of the Judicial and Legislative Branches! SOURCE: Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146 (1950).
Amazing. Nice catch.