Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Financial Services has studied the need to reform the regulation of housing Government- Sponsored Enterprises for nearly 6 years. Since convening our first government hearing on GSE reform in March 2000, we…
Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Financial Services has studied the need to reform the regulation of housing Government- Sponsored Enterprises for nearly 6 years.
Since convening our first government hearing on GSE reform in March 2000, we have examined these matters extensively. As the ranking Democratic member on the subcommittee of jurisdiction, I have also had the opportunity to participate in more than 20 hearings and to hear scores of witnesses.
The legislation to address these matters that the Committee on Financial Services ultimately reported earlier this year was a very, very good piece of legislation. It would, as long as I have advocated, created a strong, world-class, independent regulatory for housing GSEs. The bill also received the overwhelming backing of my colleagues on the committee, passing by a vote of 65 to 5.
While I still believe this base legislative package is a good bill, I am concerned about some of the amendments that we will debate today. For example, the manager's amendment that we will shortly consider will add a number of new provisions that will severely restrict the ability of faith-based groups to participate in the new Affordable Housing Fund created by this bill and to participate in our democracy.
These changes are controversial, unconstitutional, and immoral. These revisions which were not previously debated in committee, which have generated considerable disagreement, deserve close scrutiny. Because the rule does not allow a clean vote to remove these troubling provisions from the legislation, I must regretfully oppose this bill on final passage.
Beyond the concerns I have with the manager's amendment, I have concerns about those amendments which would alter the delicate balance we crafted in committee to create a strong, world-class, and independent safety and soundness regulator for GSEs. These
amendments, which I will oppose, would remove the Treasury line of credit for the GSEs, impose capital standards based on competition rather than risk, create arbitrary limitations on GSE portfolios for reasons other than safety and soundness, and alter provisions of the bill that will help middle-income families purchase homes in high-cost areas.
Still, there are also a number of good amendments which I will support, including my own amendment to restore the Presidential and regulatory board appointment systems for the GSEs.
I hope all of my colleagues will support this target amendment to retain an independent public voice on Government-Sponsored Enterprise boards. This amendment also has the support of the National Association of Home Builders and the National Association of Realtors.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, while this bill has many admirable aspects, the process by which we have brought it to the floor is flawed. As a result, I will oppose this bill at the end of the day, but hope to work to improve the legislation as it moves on in the process.
Mr. Chairman, I think we have debated a tough issue. I am sure there are people on the other side that understand why we feel so strongly on this faith-based issue. We have maybe a chance to resolve this and come out of this House with a resounding victory.
If we vote down the manager's amendment, we will include the entire manager's amendment in the motion to recommit with three exceptions. We will take out that the prime purpose has to be housing, so faith-based organizations can still consider God as a primary challenge and obligation.
Secondly, we will add in the terms that will allow for voter registration and get-out-the vote on a nonpartisan basis. So this will only affect getting out the vote and voter registration in a nonpartisan way. Finally, what I urge my colleagues on the other side to do is vote down the manager's amendment, accept the motion to recommit, have a perfect bill that we can walk out of here today with almost a unanimous approval.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).
(Mr. Gary G. Miller of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I have a great deal of respect for the proponent of this amendment. I know he is a very serious and thoughtful Member; but I think this amendment goes overboard from the standpoint of during the 6 years of consideration of this bill, we balanced out very well the structure to create a regulator that would be similar to the bank regulators. The powers involved in this bill allow for the regulator to control safety and soundness and to have direction of the portfolio when systemic risk would occur in these particular organizations.
This amendment goes far beyond that and allows the latitude to the regulator to get involved whenever there are capital-markets instability, not only housing instability, but capital markets or the financial system instability. What it means is we will always be subject to the whim and fancy of a regulator to require these GSEs to sell assets or sell liabilities at the whim of the regulator's thought that there may be some need to regulate systemic risk, when in fact these organizations suffer no systemic risk.
I join with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) when he analyzes out that what we would be doing is arming a regulator who may not always be the most thoughtful individual in the world to take actions against our housing industry and our housing GSEs at the most inappropriate time and moment, causing destabilization to the housing market and, in effect, causing further destabilization and systemic risk to the financial markets. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.