Pages

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Federal Officials Send 4-Year-Old U.S. Citizen Back To Guatemala

First Posted: 03/23/11 04:54 PM ET Updated: 03/23/11 04:54 PM ET



WASHINGTON -- A 4-year-old girl born in New York was detained by immigration officials and then sent back to Guatemala, separating her from her parents, after she and her grandfather were stopped by customs officials earlier this month.
The girl, Emily Samantha Ruiz, is a U.S. citizen. But she, like many other children of undocumented immigrants, became caught in a web of complications for families with mixed legal statuses. On her way home from a trip to Guatemala with her grandfather on March 11, Emily was detained in Dulles International Airport when authorities stopped her grandfather on an illegal entry charge from more than a decade ago.
Authorities took her grandfather, a non-citizen on a valid work visa that allowed him to travel, into custody. But the young girl was detained in the airport, then sent back to Guatemala with her grandfather, citizenship notwithstanding.
Her family claims they were faced with a near-impossible choice by border officials: either have Emily sent to Guatemala or allow officials to put her in a juvenile facility in the United States, where she could be put in foster care or kept away from her parents.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which is housed within of the Department of Homeland Security, denied the family's version of events, claiming they did offer the Ruiz family an opportunity to pick the girl up from authorities.
"CBP strives to reunite U.S. citizen children with their parents. If the parents choose not to take custody of their children, CBP works with other agencies to ensure the children's safety and well being, up to and including releasing them into the custody of other relatives," spokesman Michael Friel said in a statement. "In this case, the parents were offered the chance to pick up the child, but elected to have her return to Guatemala with her grandfather."
Immigration lawyer David Sperling, who is representing Ruiz's parents, said federal officers did not offer Emily's father the option of picking her up in a way the man could understand.
"Mr. Ruiz categorically denies CBP's allegation that he was offered an opportunity to reunite with Emily," Sperling said in a statement. "The person from CBP that spoke to Mr. Ruiz only spoke English, even though CBP has many officers who speak Spanish at Dulles Airport. ... [S]ince a little child was at stake, why did they fail to provide a bilingual officer to speak to Mr. Ruiz?"
If Emily's parents had gone to pick up their daughter from authorities, they could have risked deportation along with her grandfather. Immigration law leaves few options for immigrants who entered the country illegally and hope to gain legal status, typically requiring undocumented immigrants to return to their native country for a decade before they can reenter the country legally. Emily's father, who told The New York Times he entered the United States unauthorized in 1996, could face detention if he encounters immigration officials.
More than 100,000 parents of citizen children were deported between 1998 and 2007, according to a 2009 Homeland Security report. Many families contain both citizens or legal permanent residents and undocumented immigrants, including those like the Ruiz family where only young children have U.S. citizenship. About 4 million citizen children have at least one parent who is undocumented,according to a Pew Hispanic Center study of 2009 census data released in August.
Emily Ruiz will likely be reunited with her family. Sperling plans to go to Guatemala, or send a staff member, next week to pick her up. Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) intervened on behalf of the Ruiz family on Tuesday, sending a letter to DHS calling for them to return the girl to her mother and father.
"This bureaucratic overreach and utter failure of commonsense has left a little girl -- a U.S. citizen no less -- stranded thousands of miles from her parents," Israel said in a statement. "I'm working with the family and their attorney to reunite Emily and her parents and asking for DHS to do a formal review of how this could have happened."
But without changes to immigration law, other families could be caught in similar situations. Senate Democrats, including Robert Menendez (N.J.), introduced a bill in the previous congressional session that would have given detained parents more time and access to support to reunite with their children. That bill, the Help Separated Children Act, never made it through Congress.
Michelle Brané of the Women's Refugee Commission told HuffPost that many families are separated when an undocumented parent enters deportation proceedings, and those numbers are increasing as the Obama administration steps up its enforcement efforts.
"What's happening with [Ruiz] is a slight twist on an issue we work on a lot, and that is the whole issue of what to do when a child is separated from their parents," Brané said. "The more common thing that we see are children whose parents are detained and the child is basically left behind. The reality is that once you've been separated like that, it is very difficult to be reunited with your child."
Parents facing deportation usually want to take their children with them, but first must arrange for the child's passport, educational records, plane tickets and other physical arrangements -- all of which are difficult to do from a detention center or under short time constraints. Although U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials are directed to avoid holding primary caretakers in custody unnecessarily, it can be difficult for parents to prove they are the sole caretaker of their child, Brané said.
Unless ICE improves its policies or Congress passes laws that allow some parents to gain legal status, families will likely continue to be separated under immigration enforcement.
"In theory, U.S. immigration law is supposed to be based on a family unity concept, yet the way our immigration law looks today, families are really being torn apart much more than being kept together," Brané said. "That fundamental principle of our immigration tradition has been lost."

Emily Samantha Ruiz, 4-Year-Old Deported By Feds, Is Coming Home

First Posted: 03/28/11 01:30 PM ET Updated: 03/28/11 01:30 PM ET
 The 4-year-old US citizen who was de facto deported by Customs and Border Protection iscoming back to America, in style.
"Immigration treated her like a second-class citizen, but we're going to bring her here and she's going to come first class," David Sperling, the family's lawyer told the Daily News.
Emily Samantha Ruiz was on her way back to her Brentwood home after a trip to Guatemala with her grandfather earlier this month. Ruiz was detained in Dulles International Airport after immigration officials stopped her grandfather for an illegal entry charge levied more than ten years ago.
Her family claims officials gave them a difficult choice: send Ruiz back to Guatemala or allow immigration to place her in an American juvenile facility. Fearing she would be taken into foster care, Ruiz' grandfather elected to have her sent to Guatemala.
CBP disputes the family's claims. The agency said it did offer the family an opportunity to pick Ruiz up from authorities.
"CBP strives to reunite U.S. citizen children with their parents. If the parents choose not to take custody of their children, CBP works with other agencies to ensure the children's safety and well being, up to and including releasing them into the custody of other relatives," spokesman Michael Friel said in a statement. "In this case, the parents were offered the chance to pick up the child, but elected to have her return to Guatemala with her grandfather."


REPUBLICAN SENATORS REINTRODUCE PATIENTS ACT




March 29, 2011 
CONTACT:
Andrew Wilder or Ryan Patmintra

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.) and U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) were joined today by U.S. Senators John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), and Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) to reintroduce legislation that would prohibit the federal government from denying or delaying health-care treatment to a patient based on cost.
The Preserving Access to Targeted, Individualized, and Effective New Treatments and Services (PATIENTS) Act of 2011would bar the federal government from using “comparative effectiveness research” – a common tool used by socialized health-care systems to dictate treatment based on cost rather than effectiveness – to deny or delay coverage of a health-care treatment or micromanage the practice of medicine.
“We should stick to a basic principle that all Americans should be able to choose the doctor, hospital, and health plan of their choice,” said Kyl.  “No Washington bureaucrat should interfere with that right, or substitute the government’s judgment for that of a physician.”
“Doctors should have as much good information as possible when treating their patients, but the government shouldn’t use this information to insert itself into the doctor-patient relationship,” said McConnell.
“American families and their physicians should make decisions about medical treatments, not Washington bureaucrats,” said Barrasso.  “This bill ensures Americans have access to the care they need, from the doctor they want.”
“Accessing affordable, quality health care is the main challenge facing American patients.  However, we cannot fix this problem with a government agency that allows Washington bureaucrats to take the place of physicians,” said Coburn.  “Instead, we have to reconnect consumer purchase with payment and work towards reforms that empower consumers, lower costs, and protect the doctor-patient relationship.”
“Patients have a right to expect privacy and no government interference in a situation as critical as the diagnosis of their health,” said Crapo.  “The PATIENTS Act protects the doctor-patient relationship on health care decisions, ensuring that patients, not Washington bureaucrats, can decide the best course for medical care and that research cannot be used to ration care.”
“Medical decisions are best made between the patient and a doctor. With half a trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare in ObamaCare, we must have this bill to protect patients from the federal government’s interference in the doctor patient relationship under the guise of cost control,” said Roberts.  “Without this legislation access to quality care will become disastrous for all Americans.”
President Obama’s 2009 “stimulus” bill provided $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness research, but did not include the necessary safeguards to prevent the research from being used to ration health care.  Under ObamaCare, an entire institute is created that is dedicated to CER.  Medicare and Medicaid can use that institute’s research in determining which treatments they will cover

Kirk, Gillibrand, 25 Other Senators Ask Secretary Clinton to Detail Steps Being Taken to End Palestinian Incitement Against Jews



by Senator Mark Kirk on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 at 5:18pm

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), along with 25 other Senators, today sent a bipartisan letter to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking her to identify specific steps the Administration is taking to press the Palestinian Authority (PA) to end dangerous incitement against Jews and Israel.

The letter, sent in the wake of this month’s brutal terrorist murder of the Fogel family in Itamar and the terrorist bombing of a civilian bus in Jerusalem, lists several examples of PA-sponsored incitement through public statements, media and grants.

“The Itamar massacre was a sobering reminder that words matter, and that Palestinian incitement against Jews and Israel can lead to violence and terror,” the Senators wrote.  “We urge you to redouble your efforts to impress upon the Palestinian leadership that continuing to condone incitement is not tolerable.”
 A copy of the letter with a complete list of signatories appears below:


March 29, 2011
The Honorable Hillary Clinton
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Clinton:
In the wake of this month's brutal terrorist murders of a Jewish family in Itamar and the terrorist bombing of a civilian bus in Jerusalem, we are writing with serious concern over continuing incitement directed against Jews and Israel within the Palestinian media, mosques and schools, and even by individuals or institutions affiliated with the Palestinian Authority (PA).  We would like to know what specific steps you are taking to press for an end to this dangerous incitement. 

Palestinian incitement includes the glorification of terrorists and jihad, and anti-Semitic stereotypes in the Palestinian media.  There are a number of examples of Palestinian incitement over the last year listed in an index established by the Israeli Prime Minister's office.

On March 9, 2011, PA President Mahmoud Abbas' advisor, Sabri Saidam, delivered a speech in which he emphasized that Palestinian weapons must be turned towards Israel.  Saidam reportedly demanded that the Palestinian people be attentive to the living conditions of martyrs' families and said that the anniversary of the death of Dalal Mughrabi (one of the perpetrators of a 1978 coastal highway massacre) should be marked by inaugurating a square in her name in the city of El-Bireh.

On February 9, 2011, the official Palestinian television station broadcast a clip from a campaign entitled "Women as Exemplars," during which Dalal Mughrabi (see above) was extolled.  In the summer of 2010, several children's summer camps were named after her.

On January 24, 2011, the Governor of Jenin issued a Presidential Grant worth $2,000 to the family of a Palestinian terrorist, Khaldoun Samoudi, who was killed while trying to detonate two bombs against Israeli soldiers at the Beka'ot Crossing.

On January 2, 2011, Al Hayat Al-Jadida reported that Azzam Al-Ahmed, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, attended a gathering on the 46th anniversary of the establishment of Fatah during which models of settlement buildings were blown up.  He reportedly reviewed terrorist attacks perpetrated by Fatah and said that, "Fatah is a mass movement which believed in popular revolution and wrested its right to use all means of resistance in order to achieve its aim."

Although President Abbas has expressed his sorrow over the Itamar massacre, the Palestinian Authority must take unequivocal steps to condemn the incident and stop allowing the incitement that leads to such crimes.  Educating people toward peace is critical to establishing the conditions to a secure and lasting peace. 

The Itamar massacre was a sobering reminder that words matter, and that Palestinian incitement against Jews and Israel can lead to violence and terror.  We urge you to redouble your efforts to impress upon the Palestinian leadership that continuing to condone incitement is not tolerable.  We also urge you to consider focusing adequate training and educational programs in the West Bank and Gaza that promote peaceful coexistence with Israel. 

Sincerely,

Mark Kirk                                            
Kirsten E. Gillibrand
Jon Kyl
Robert Menendez
Barbara A. Mikulski                                
Mary L. Landrieu      
James E. Risch                                                    
Charles E. Schumer  
James M. Inhofe                                                     
Ron Wyden
Pat Roberts                                           
Joseph L. Lieberman
Frank R. Lautenberg                                 
Amy Klobuchar
Jerry Moran                                            
Robert P. Casey, Jr.
John Ensign                                           
Benjamin L. Cardin
Roger Wicker                                              
Bill Nelson
Roy Blunt                                                 
John Boozman     
Patrick J. Toomey                                     
Sherrod Brown     
John Barrasso                                             
Mike Crapo
Jon Tester                                                  

House Vote Set on Ending Ineffective TARP Program, Saving Taxpayers $30 Billion



Posted by Katie Boyd on March 29, 2011

Today, the new House majority will vote on The HAMP Termination Act (H.R. 839), legislation introduced byRep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) that will save taxpayers $30 billion by canceling a TARP program that “has been beset by problems from the outset and…continues to fall dramatically short of any meaningful standard of success,” according to the most recent Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program’s (SIGTARP) report to Congress.
Earlier this month, outgoing Special Inspector General for TARP Neil Barofsky offered a scathing indictment of the Treasury Department’s unwillingness to accurately account for the program’s success – or lack thereof – saying: That is the exact opposite of transparency, it evades accountability, and it’s trying to cover a program that is clearly a failure.”  Watch more of Rep. McHenry’s tough questions on the HAMP program here:
 
Republicans have already passed legislation (H.R. 830) that will save taxpayers $8 billion by ending another costly, ineffective TARP program that gives private lenders the ability to dump their mortgage risks onto the backs of taxpayers.  Together, these bills represent a significant step toward fulfilling the new House majority’s Pledge to America to “prevent Washington from forcing responsible taxpayers to subsidize irresponsible behavior by ending bailouts permanently, canceling TARP, and reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” 
Republicans are fighting for the spending cuts that Americans are demanding and economists say are needed to create a better environment for job growth, and will continue to do so with today’s vote – and several others in the coming weeks.  If you have an idea for cutting spending, please share it with us at:www.americaspeakingout.com.


Committee Will Markup Bills to Terminate Failed Programs

February 24, 2011

WASHINGTON:   Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus announced a subcommittee hearing and full committee markup of four bills that will terminate failed and ineffective housing foreclosure programs.

The four proposals – which terminate the troubled Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, the FHA Refinance Program, and the Emergency Homeowner Relief Fund – will be the subjects of a hearing on March 2 by the Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee and a full committee markup on March 3.

“In an era of record-breaking deficits, it’s time to pull the plug on these programs that are actually doing more harm than good for struggling homeowners,” said Chairman Bachus.  “These programs may have been well-intentioned but they’re not working and, in reality, are making things worse.”
Insurance and Housing Subcommittee Chairman Judy Biggert said:  “We need to break down barriers that have delayed the housing recovery, including expensive and ineffective government programs that have failed to helphomeowners.  Unfortunately, these programs were set up in haste, executed poorly, and have done little to restore stability in the marketplace.  A government program that spends more to save a single borrower than it costs to buy a home is no help at all – it’s just a waste of taxpayer money.  We need to stop funding programs that don’t work with money we don’t have.”
The Committee will consider the following bills:
The HAMP Termination Act.  The Obama Administration’s signature anti-foreclosure effort, the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), has failed to help a sufficient number of distressed homeowners to justify the program’s cost.  According to the Administration, HAMP was supposed to help 4 million homeowners. Instead, only 521,630 loans have been permanently modified under this program and the re-default rate is high. To date, the Administration has spent approximately $840 million of the $29 billion earmarked for HAMP from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).
Far from helping at-risk homeowners, HAMP has actually made many worse off, according to a report from the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP): 
People who apply for modifications via HAMP sometimes “end up unnecessarily depleting their dwindling savings in an ultimately futile effort to obtain the sustainable relief promised by the program guidelines.  Others, who may have somehow found ways to continue to make their mortgage payments, have been drawn into failed trial modifications that have left them with more principal outstanding on their loans, less home equity (or a position further ‘underwater’), and worse credit scores.  Perhaps worst of all, even in circumstances where they never missed a payment, they may face back payments, penalties, and even late fees that suddenly become due on their ‘modified’ mortgages and that they are unable to pay, thus resulting in the very loss of their homes that HAMP is meant to prevent.  While it may be true that many homeowners may benefit from temporarily reduced payments even though the modification ultimately fails, Treasury’s claim that ‘every single person’ who participates in HAMP gets ‘a significant benefit’ is either hopelessly out of touch…or a cynical attempt to define failure as success.”
In a separate report, the SIGTARP noted HAMP “continues to fall dramatically short of any meaningful standard of success.”
The HAMP Termination Act ends the Treasury Secretary’s authority to provide new assistance under the program but preserves assistance already offered to homeowners through HAMP prior to the bill’s enactment.
The Neighborhood Stabilization Program Termination Act.  Congress has appropriated $7 billion for the Neighborhood Stabilization program, including $2 billion in the Obama Administration’s stimulus plan.  Two rounds of NSP funding have already been provided to states and localities.  The Neighborhood Stabilization Program Termination Act ends the program and rescinds the unobligated third round of funding of $1 billion.
Critics have argued that the NSP does not benefit at-risk homeowners facing foreclosure, and may instead create perverse incentives for banks and other lenders to foreclose on troubled borrowers – arguably worsening the housing crisis.  
The FHA Refinance Program Termination Act terminates the program and rescinds unobligated funding.   The price tag for this program is $8.12 billion, of which only $50 million has been disbursed thus far. For this large outlay, the taxpayers have seen minimal return on their investment.  As of December 13, 2010, only 35 applications had been submitted for this program.
The Emergency Mortgage Relief Program Termination Act ends the program and rescinds unobligated funding.  The Dodd-Frank Act reauthorized the long-expired Emergency Homeowners’ Relief Act of 1975 and provided $1 billion to authorize HUD to make emergency mortgage relief payments to homeowners facing foreclosure for up to 12 months, with a possible extension of another 12 months.  These loans will serve to increase the amount of the borrower’s indebtedness, so a borrower who is unable to pay back either the original amount of principal or the additional loans made under the program will be worse off in the long run.




Markup to consider the following measures: H.R. 839, "The HAMP Termination Act of 2011"; H.R. 830, "FHA Refinance Program Termination Act"; H.R. 861, "NSP Termination Act"; and H.R. 836, "Emergency Mortgage Relief Program Termination Act"



H.R.839 -- The HAMP Termination Act of 2011 (Reported in House - RH)
H. R. 839
[Report No. 112-31]

To amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to terminate the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to provide new assistance under the Home Affordable Modification Program, while preserving assistance to homeowners who were already extended an offer to participate in the Program, either on a trial or permanent basis.
 Financial Services 

Thanks to @, House just voted 252-170 to end funded . Stops $30billion from being wasted on failed program 

  
H.R.861 -- NSP Termination Act (Referred in Senate - RFS)

H. R. 861
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
AN ACT
To rescind the third round of funding for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program and to terminate the program.


3/16/2011 6:44pm:



On passage Passed by recorded vote: 242 - 182 (Roll no. 188).


3/17/2011:



Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
H.R.836 -- Emergency Mortgage Relief Program Termination Act (Referred in Senate - RFS)
H. R. 836
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 14, 2011

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

AN ACT
To rescind the unobligated funding for the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program and to terminate the program.


3/11/2011 12:32pm:



On passage Passed by recorded vote: 242 - 177 (Roll no. 174).


3/14/2011:




Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


 



H. R. 830
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
AN ACT
To rescind the unobligated funding for the FHA Refinance Program and to terminate the program.



3/10/2011 4:36pm:




On passage Passed by recorded vote: 256 - 171 (Roll no. 171).




3/14/2011:




Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.





Financial Services Republicans Unveil Fannie and Freddie Reform Plan



Introduce first round of bills to end the bailouts, protect taxpayers and get private capital off the sidelines


WASHINGTON, March 29, 2011 -House Financial Services Committee Republicans today unveiled their plan to reform government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 

Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, issued the following statement:

“Today marks the start of a process – a process to begin winding down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Beginning today, and over the course of the next few months, my colleagues and I on the Financial Services Committee will introduce multiple rounds of very specific, very targeted bills to end the bailouts, protect the taxpayers and get private capital off the sidelines.  The culmination of our efforts will formally wind down the GSEs and return our housing finance system to the private marketplace.

“With the American taxpayers on the hook for $150 billion and counting, the bailout of Fannie and Freddie is already the most expensive component of the federal government’s intervention into the financial system.  Americans are tired of the ongoing bailout of the failed government-backed mortgage giants, and they are tired of Democrats’ refusals to address the driving force behind the financial collapse.  While Democrats chose to ignore the problem last Congress, House Republicans stand ready to end the bailout and protect American taxpayers from further losses.”

As part of the first round of legislation to reform the GSEs, Financial Services Committee Republicans will introduce the following eight bills.  The Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises will hold a legislative hearing on the eight bills Thursday, March 31st and then a markup on Tuesday, April 5th. 

The Equity in Government Compensation Act 

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, is the lead sponsor of legislation to establish a compensation system for employees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that is consistent with other federal government employees.

“The taxpayer-funded bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is the biggest bailout in history,” said Bachus.  “Adding insult to injury, the top executives of these failed companies receive multi-million dollar pay packages, all courtesy of hard-working American taxpayers who are having a difficult time making ends meet these days.  It’s unfair and unreasonable to the taxpayers to reward these executives with such high salaries when their companies have received $150 billion of taxpayers’ money.”

Bachus’ bill suspends the current compensation packages for all employees at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and establishes a compensation system that is consistent with that of the Executive Schedule and the Senior Executive Service of the Federal Government.  Now that Fannie and Freddie are owned by the government, there is no reason that employees of Fannie and Freddie should not be paid like government employees.  In addition, the bill expresses the sense of the Congress that the 2010 pay packages for Fannie and Freddie senior executives were excessive and that the money should be returned to taxpayers.

The GSE Mission Improvement Act

Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) is the lead sponsor of legislation to permanently abolish the affordable housing goals of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

“The passage of legislation in the early nineties required the government-sponsored enterprises to devote a significant portion of their business to specific affordable housing goals,” said Royce.  “To meet these goals, the GSEs purchased more than $1 trillion in ‘junk loans.’  These loans accounted for a large portion of the mortgage giants’ losses – losses that were later loaded onto the backs of American taxpayers.  With a price tag that could reach $360 billion, the GSE bailout is the most expensive bailout in history, and it could have been avoided.  It’s time the American taxpayers stopped paying for Washington’s mistakes.”

Royce’s bill permanently abolishes the GSEs’ affordable housing goals, which were a central cause behind the collapse of the GSEs.  The ongoing goal of the GSEs should be to reduce risk to taxpayers, not expose them to further losses.  By eliminating these requirements and ending the mandate that Fannie and Freddie buy riskier loans in the name of affordable housing in the United States, Royce’s bill will protect American taxpayers going forward

The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Accountability and Transparency for Taxpayers Act

Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL), Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity, has introduced H.R. 31, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Accountability and Transparency for Taxpayers Act.

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played a central role in the housing collapse, and continue to function only because of federal support,” said Biggert.  “Taxpayers deserve to know where their dollars are going, what risks they are being exposed to, and how these institutions are being managed or mismanaged.  My bill will ensure that effective oversight tools are in place to rein-in the GSEs in a safe and orderly fashion.”

Biggert’s bill ramps up oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by establishing in statute an Inspector General (IG) within FHFA and providing the IG with additional law enforcement and personnel-hiring authority.  The bill also requires the GSE Inspector General to submit regular reports to Congress outlining taxpayer liabilities, investment decisions, and management details of Fannie and Freddie.  Finally, the bill requires that these reports, along with a system to report waste, fraud, or abuse, be made publically available.

The GSE Subsidy Elimination Act

Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX), Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight, is the lead sponsor of legislation to direct the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to increase the guarantee fees (g-fees).

“Slowly raising the guarantee fee of Fannie and Freddie to eliminate their imbedded subsidies will finally bring pricing parity between the private market and the GSEs,” said Neugebauer.  “This will allow more private market participation in the housing finance market, which is critical for the long-term health of the housing market and overall economy. From my reading of the Treasury Department’s report on Housing Finance reform, I would expect to have the full support of the Obama Administration for this bill.”

Neugebauer’s bill directs the FHFA to phase in an increase of the g-fees over two years so Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac price their guarantees as if they were held to the same capital standards as private banks or financial institutions.  By gradually increasing their g-fees, the playing field will be leveled so that private capital to re-emerge – all of which will decrease the government’s exposure to the housing market, thus protecting taxpayers from further losses.

GSE Portfolio Reduction Act

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Vice Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, is the lead sponsor of legislation to cap the current portfolios of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and increase their annual attrition rate.

“The GSEs are on track to be the nation’s biggest bailout, more than AIG and GM and all the big banks combined,” said Hensarling.  “It’s time to enact fundamental reform of Fannie and Freddie before these companies go from ‘too big to fail’ to ‘too late to fix.’”

Hensarling’s bill accelerates and formalizes the reductions in the size of the GSEs’ portfolios by setting annual limits on the maximum size of each GSE’s retained portfolio and ratcheting the limits down over five years until they have reached a sustainable level.  In the first year, the GSEs would have their portfolios capped at no more than $700 billion, declining to $600 billion for year two, $475 billion for year three, $350 billion for year four, and finally $250 billion in year five. 

GSE Risk and Activities Limitation Act

Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ), Vice Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, is the lead sponsor of legislation to prohibit Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from engaging in any new activities or businesses.

“This legislation cuts to the heart of the reckless bailout culture Washington has developed during past decades,” said Schweikert.  “This bill will put restrictions on where GSEs can invest their money and thus protect American taxpayers from future failed bailouts, unsuccessful government programs, and wasteful spending.  It is of utmost importance that we make these fundamental changes to get our fiscal house in order. We have no choice.”

Schweikert’s bill prohibits Fannie and Freddie from engaging in any new activities or businesses.  Currently, FHFA is preventing the entities from engaging in new activities, and we want to ensure that stays that way by codifying that current practice.  That will prevent taxpayers from taking on additional risk and allowing the GSEs to spread into other areas.

The GSE Debt Issuance Approval Act

Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM) is the lead sponsor of legislation to require formal approval by the Department of Treasury for any new debt issuance by the GSEs.

“The United States faces an alarming national debt that is growing daily.  We are placing the futures of our children and grandchildren at risk unless we act now,” said Pearce.  “Today the committee is taking an important step in the process of reducing taxpayers’ cost by restoring an essential tool to control their debt obligations.  I am glad to be working to address the problems with Fannie and Freddie, and I look forward to pursuing the necessary changes to restore fiscal responsibility to the United States.”

Pearce’s bill requires the Department of Treasury to formally sign off on any new debt issuance by the GSEs.  This will help protect taxpayers by requiring the formal legal authority of U.S. debt issuance to approve the issuing of agency debt, which is roughly the same as U.S. debt.

GSE Credit Risk Equitable Treatment Act

Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, is the lead sponsor of legislation to prohibit the exemption of GSE securities from the risk-retention requirements of Dodd-Frank.

“To get more private capital flowing in our mortgage market, we have to make certain that government policies do not continue to crowd out the private sector,” said Garrett.  “This bill will ensure that the GSEs are not exempt from new risk-retention rules mandated by Dodd-Frank and that they face the same retention standards as private market participants.”

Garrett’s bill will make clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be held to the same standards as any other secondary mortgage market participants.  Under Dodd-Frank, Fannie and Freddie could still be able to purchase a mortgage from a financial institution that falls outside of the Qualified Residential Mortgage (QRM) definition and issue asset-backed securities backed by non-QRM assets.  Garrett’s bill would clarify that a GSE loan purchase or asset-backed security issuance would not affect the status of the underlying assets.  If the GSEs purchase a non-QRM loan, all lender risk-retention requirements will still apply, and if the GSEs issue a non-QRM security, all securitization risk retention rules will still apply.