| S. 190: | Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 | 109th Congress 2005-2006 |
A bill to address the regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes. OverviewSponsor: | | Text: | Summary
|
Full Text | Status: |  | Introduced | Jan 26, 2005 | | Referred to Committee | View Committee Assignments | | Reported by Committee | Jul 28, 2005 |  | Senate Vote | (did not occur) | | House Vote | (did not occur) | | Signed by President | (did not occur) |
This bill never became law.
This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions
of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all
proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books.
Members often reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate
under a new number in the next session.
| Last Action: | Jul 28, 2005:
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably. | Related: | See the Related Legislation page for other bills related to this one and a list of subject terms
that have been applied to this bill.
Sometimes the text of one bill or resolution is incorporated into another, and in those cases the original bill or resolution, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned. |
|
Question & Answer 
Can you answer any of these questions posed by other users? Think of it as a civic good deed.
See 6 more questions posed on this topic or submit your own question on the Q&A page.
Oct 5, 2008 6:36 PM - I've read this post with a great deal of interest and dismay. S. 190 never had a chance; committee's do quite a bit of posturing. Read HUD Secretary Jackson's statement to Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs on 4/21/05 http://www.hud.gov/offices/cir/test042105.cfmin and you may understand why. On December 16, 2003 President Bush signed the American Dream Downpayment Initiative into law. That was an interesting bill. Why don't you focus on the bills that passed in the last 8 years instead of dithering about failed initiatives? -
Read AnswersAnswered by a visitor on Oct 13, 2008 7:53 AM -
Thank you, A1, for your service. I'm with you that these things shouldn't be so hard to research. Most of the "answers" here are only opinions that shouldn't be offered. For those trying to understand how Congress works- http://www.lexisnexis.com/help/cu/CU.htm#The_Legislative_Process/Stage_3.htm. After reading all these "answers" regarding S.190, I conclude that it didn't have either sufficient priority or sufficient support to be brought to the Senate floor in the 109th Congress, after which it automatically is dead. Answered by a visitor on Oct 20, 2008 3:36 AM -
I read HUD Secretary Jackson's statement and it appears his objective for a strong regulator was to enforce Congress' goals of yet more subprime loan purchases by Fannie and Freddie, with oversight at HUD. He didn't address the risks, nor do I think a HUD secretary would be qualified to do so. Better insight can be gained from Treasury Secretary Snow's testimony to the Senate Banking Committee of 4-7-05 (http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js2362.htm), which lays out the risks in some detail while pressing for a strong regulator. But then Snow seems to undermine his very argument by saying that all he wants to do is limit the number of mortgages that Fannie and Freddie purchase. He did not see a need to limit their mortgage insurance activities. Apparently he did not see how little difference there is between owning a risky mortgage and merely insuring a risky mortgage, or else he really believed that the Government would not have to "make good" on any losses that Fannie and Freddie couldn't cover. Try telling that to the buyers of those instruments, particularly the Saudis and others. Based on his testimony, had the bill been passed it still would not have prevented the meltdown and our need for the bailout. Oct 12, 2008 2:30 PM - This article from September 2005 states that "the administration can hardly do nothing if Congress fails to act. In this respect, the administration always has a card to play--it can always use the Treasury"s authority to restrict the GSEs? issuance of debt. (http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.23187,filter.all/pub_detail.asp) Does anyone have a clue why the President didn't take this route? -
Read AnswersAnswered by a visitor on Nov 19, 2008 3:17 PM -
Why must we piece together the information like a paleontologist speculating about a particular dinosaur. The answers should be readily available from the government. It's called accountability. I assume they like us not to have the verifiable facts. Answered by a visitor on Apr 7, 2009 4:02 PM -
It didn't become debt untill after the defaults began. Congress had allready prommised to cover the obligations of the GSEj's should they have gone bad. (community reinvestment act) |
Because the U.S. Congress posts most legislative information online one legislative day after events occur, GovTrack is usually one legislative day behind. For more information about where this data comes from, see
About GovTrack.us. S. 190--109th Congress: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.
(2005).
In GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation).
Retrieved Feb 10, 2010, from
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190&page-command=print
"S. 190--109th Congress: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005."
GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation).
2005.
Feb 10, 2010
<http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190&page-command=print>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190&page-command=print
|title=S. 190
|accessdate=Feb 10, 2010
|author=109th Congress (2005)
|date=Jan 26, 2005
|work=Legislation
|publisher=GovTrack.us
|quote=Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005
}} | |