A1: This was just a way for S.190 to be delayed through amendment. It then died at the conclusion of the 109th Congress when the 110 Session began in January of 2007. Shortly after, a similar bill (S. 1100) was reintroduced with the amendments in the 110th session of Congress where it remains pending. [Answer submitted on Sep 17, 2008 11:03 PM]

A2: Since this was a general question I've collected the answers and gotten some expert information on the matter and posted a detailed answer on the GovTrack blog: http://www.govtrack.us/blog/2008/09/18/what-does-ordered-to-be-reported-with-an-amendment-in-the-nature-of-a-substitute-favorably-mean/ [Answer submitted on Sep 18, 2008 8:45 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: On the overview portion of this page click on either Summary or Full Text. [Answer submitted on Sep 26, 2008 10:55 AM]

A2: According to the Committee's web page, the complete amended version is here: http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/s190_amd3.pdf

If you compare it to the Full Text version above, you can see what revisions were made. It doesn't say who made them, but it does indicate that this version cleared the Committee, and was referred to Rick Santorum (Rep. Conference Chair) to be introduced. [Answer submitted on Sep 30, 2008 4:58 PM]

A3: At the web address referred to above:

http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/s190_amd3.pdf

This is what it says:

"AMENDMENT intended to be proposed by Mr. SANTORUM"

Doesn't this mean that the amendment was proposed by Mr. Santorum?

[Editor: It depends on whether that is what became the committee's report.] [Answer submitted on Oct 11, 2008 10:22 AM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00190:@@@P

5/25/2006, 10 months after it died in committee (16 months after it was introduced) [Answer submitted on Sep 25, 2008 7:10 AM]

A2: The above answer is incorrect. The bill was reported out in July 2005 (as stated above under "Last Action") and, as with all bills upon which no action is taken, did not die until the 109th session of Congress ended on January 3, 2007. [Answer submitted on Sep 25, 2008 1:47 PM]

A3: Here is McCain's statement when he decided to co-sponsor the bill on May 25, 2006:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190 [Answer submitted on Sep 26, 2008 3:34 PM]

A4: My bad, misinterpreted the definition of "died", guy above me is correct. [Answer submitted on Sep 25, 2008 6:58 PM]

A5: McCain signed on as co-sponsor on 5/25/2006. This is the correct answer according to the Library of Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00190:@@@P

Which means, McCain signed on as co-sponsor when he knew the bill was already dead. The Republicans had control of this committee 11 to 9 over the Democrats so had the Republicans chosen to move this bill they could have. [Answer submitted on Sep 25, 2008 10:38 PM]

A6: And the above answer is nit-picky.. Yes, it didn't die officially until 2007, but given its non-movement for nearly a year it seems to me that it would be considered reasonable to call it "dead". [Answer submitted on Sep 25, 2008 10:57 PM]

A7: McCain's appeal for more Senate co-sponsors was an attempt to garner enough support to force a floor vote. Apparently, to no avail. It remained stalled until it expired. [Answer submitted on Sep 26, 2008 2:18 PM]

A8: If A2 is correct, then the government's THOMAS database has a typo in it. Check the link provided by A1 for yourself; it does in fact list Sen. John McCain as having co-sponsored the bill 5/25/2006 [Answer submitted on Sep 26, 2008 12:39 PM]

A9: A5, Get your facts straight - read the Congressional Record.

May, 25, 2005 was the date Senator McCain announced his cosponsorship of the bill. [Answer submitted on Oct 1, 2008 4:07 PM]

A10: John McCain "cosponsored" the bill on May 25, 2006; by making a speech on the senate floor. McCain did no work on the bill except for the speech.

Rep. Henry Gonzalez with Chalmers Wylie and Marge Roukerna introduced the Federal Housing Regulatory Reform Act, in 1991.

Senator John McCain voted against this bill.

A Member of the Senate Banking Committee, John Sununu is co-author of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (S. 190). He first introduced this legislation with Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) in 2003 and again in January 2005. [Answer submitted on Oct 2, 2008 2:21 PM]

A11: A9, You better put on your glasses - The Congressional Record clearly shows McCain's date as 5/25/"2006" [Answer submitted on Oct 2, 2008 4:22 PM]

A12: A9: read it again. It was May 25, 2006. [Answer submitted on Oct 2, 2008 7:21 PM]

A13: But it doesn't matter when because the bill didn't change the 1992 Housing Bill in substance. The director, James B. Lockhart, appointed by Bush in 2006, had regulatory authority over Freddie and Fannie already but apparently wasn't doing his job. Look at the text of the 1992 bill and compare it to the 2005 bill and you'll see that the Director was already vested with authority to evaluate and regulate Freddie and Fannie but just didn't do a good job. [Answer submitted on Oct 3, 2008 1:08 PM]

A14: To prove McCain sponsored the bill in 2006 rather than 2005, here is a link to the troubles at FNMA that he talks about in his floor speech as having happened "this week":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052300184.html

The article is dated Wednesday, May 24, 2006 [Answer submitted on Oct 3, 2008 6:06 PM]

A15: Why all the petty partisan bickering? Govtrack's Floor Speeches link on this bill shows McCain added his name as a fourth sponsor on 5/25/06 in the wake of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report laying out blame for Fannie Mae's multi-billion dollar accounting scandal. Unfortunately for all of us, his concluding remarks in that floor speech have proved omniscient. [Answer submitted on Oct 3, 2008 8:55 PM]

A16: A13 I don't understand why a Bush appointee in 2006 has anything to do with fixing the problems that were initiated from 1998-2004. By 2006, Regulatory Authority for Oversight was not going to solve or fix any previous years bad practices. [Answer submitted on Oct 4, 2008 5:48 PM]

A17: For those trying to prove that McCain was only being an opportunist to cosponsor this bill when it had no chance of passing, you should know that McCain also cosponsored S. 1508, which called for regulation of the GSEs back in 9/10/2003. [Answer submitted on Oct 7, 2008 5:30 AM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: I've answered this on the GovTrack blog:

http://www.govtrack.us/blog/2008/09/28/writing-versus-sponsoring/ [Answer submitted on Sep 28, 2008 9:32 AM]

A2: "The committee chair decides where the bill goes next, if he of she feels it requires further action."

http://www.lexisnexis.com/help/cu/The_Legislative_Process/Stage_3.htm [Answer submitted on Oct 4, 2008 9:00 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: Strange but true - neither party has true 'control' of the Senate.

A simple majority is not 'control' because neither party has the 60-votes req'd to break "filibuster". A minority party can block a measure (i.e. filibuster) until either the measure is withdrawn or the filibuster is broken by a 60-votes.

http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_senaterules.htm#filibusters

"almost any motion that does not have the support of [60-votes in] the Senate effectively fails"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate [Answer submitted on Sep 28, 2008 6:28 PM]

A2: It was never allowed to be brought to the floor for a vote because Schumer and Dodd, primarily, are on record as having said Fannie and Freddie are just fine. Since I am going by the clips of the floor comments and articles that were written at the time quoting the Republican's begging Dodd to allow it on the floor for a vote, I presume there was a filibuster by the Dems. It came up again in 2006, but at that point the Dems were in control of both Houses of Congress. [Answer submitted on Sep 29, 2008 12:30 AM]

A3: This link of a CSPAN video may help set the context

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

[Answer submitted on Sep 29, 2008 1:25 AM]

A4: It came up for a vote in June of 2006 when Democrats controlled the Congress. Frank, Dodd and others that are currently serving in the same committee to pass the $700M bailout thought that Republicans were trying to interfere with Fannie/Freddie because they supported homes of low-income. There are some testimonies from the floor that you can review. John McCain warned against the very thing that just occurred. As you can see, he acted instead of just talking about out. [Answer submitted on Sep 29, 2008 2:02 AM]

A5: The bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter. They stalled it until 2006, which is when the Democrats took control. [Answer submitted on Sep 29, 2008 7:53 AM]

A6: The Democrats did not gain control of the House and Senate until the election in November 2006. The first sentence in A4 above is thus incorrect. [Answer submitted on Sep 29, 2008 10:48 AM]

A7: The Democrats did not control the house until January 2007, to correct A4 and A5 above. [Answer submitted on Sep 29, 2008 4:28 PM]

A8: Even though Republicans controlled Senate in 05, there were not enough to avoid filibustering by the Dems. [Answer submitted on Sep 29, 2008 6:48 PM]

A9: A7 above is correct given that the newly elected Representatives and Senators weren't sworn in until January 07 but the November 2006 election is what caused the change in the first place. Splitting hairs I know. [Answer submitted on Sep 29, 2008 9:10 PM]

A10: A5 Response: SEC. 205. EXCLUSION FROM CERTAIN SECURITIES REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

(a) IN GENERAL- The Federal Home Loan Banks shall be exempt from compliance with--

(1) sections 13(e), 14(a), 14(c), and 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and related Commission regulations; and

(2) section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and related Commission regulations, with respect to transactions in the capital stock of a Federal Home Loan Bank.

These are the facts:

1)The bill was an attempt to privatize regulatory agencies. Hence, Democratic resistance to it. Hence, even Republicans voting against it.

2) The bill did nothing to address fraud and tighten oversight. Hence, Democratic resistance to it. Hence, even Republicans voting against it. [Answer submitted on Oct 1, 2008 11:52 AM]

A11: The Reform for Fannie, Bill S.190 was introduced by the Republicans....in fact, McCain co-sponsored.

The Bill must go thru Committee & gain 60% support. The committee is made up of 20 members.

At the time, 11 were Republicans & 9 were Democrats. To get 60% of support, the Republicans needed ONE Democrat to support.

Not one Democrat budged & the bill died. [Answer submitted on Oct 2, 2008 4:50 PM]

A12: A10 is incorrect. Read the full text; it established an INDEPENDENT regulatory agency, but not a non-governmental PRIVATE agency. [Answer submitted on Oct 3, 2008 3:03 PM]

A13: A11 is incorrect. An 11 to 9 vote can move a bill out of committee. It takes 60% of the full Senate to pass a bill. [Answer submitted on Oct 4, 2008 3:49 PM]

A14: Neither party at that time had sixty seats on its own. Sixty votes in the Senate are required to cut off debate and vote on a bill. Opponents can decline as a group to vote to cut off debate, and hold up a bill they oppose or think is unnecessary, forever if they so wish.

Since the GOP, even though the majority party at that time, did not have sixty seats, Republican and Democratic senators who were opposed or indifferent could hold the bill up until it was tabled and set aside as business, keeping there from ever being a vote. [Answer submitted on Oct 5, 2008 8:59 AM]

A15: A15: A13 is incorrect. I may be wrong, but I believe it takes a vote of 60% to move a bill out of committee. Since there are only 20 members in the committee, it would require 12 votes to get it out. The vote was on party line 11 to 9. One Democrat was all that was needed to move it to the floor. [Answer submitted on Oct 7, 2008 1:29 AM]

A16: Hello? Some people here have serious trouble with facts. The Republicans controlled the Senate during the term this was introduced - from January 2005 to January 2007.

In case you all forget, we hold our elections in the end of the year. So that would be November 2006 and the newly elected Congress takes office in January the following year.

The GOP had a 55 to 44 (with one Independent) margin from 05-07. The Mortgage lending market started unwinding in late 06 and started making headlines in early 2007. [Answer submitted on Oct 21, 2008 5:51 PM]

A17: I think it is important to remember that both the republicans and democrats do not always act as monolithic entities.

The famous Hagel letter asking for cooperation on this bill was not signed by all the Republican senators. [Answer submitted on Oct 22, 2008 9:55 AM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: Why bring it to a vote if you know in advance it will be filibustered. A minority party can block a measure (i.e. filibuster) until either the measure is withdrawn or the filibuster is broken by a 60-votes.

http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_senaterules.htm#filibusters

"almost any motion that does not have the support of [60-votes in] the Senate effectively fails"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate [Answer submitted on Sep 28, 2008 6:29 PM]

A2: No one knows the exact horse trading that went on, but it not a priority for the Republicans, except for Hagel and Dole. It appears this was a big priority for the following democrats on the committee:

Dodd - (D) Conn

Schumer - (D) NY

Menendez - (D) NJ

Reed (D) RI

Senator Obama, already on Fannie Mae's high list of donors, and Senator Jack Reed of RI reportedly held up any serious reform of Fannie Mae in order to cut out a ?low income trust fund? that Fannie had to pay money into to offer loans to bad credit risks.

The NILCH (National Institute for low income housing) had a press release that featured Senator's Reed and Obama talking about what a wonderful program that was in May of this year. [Answer submitted on Sep 29, 2008 1:05 AM]

A3: Answer A1 is bogus: the bill could have been voted out of committee - the Republicans controlled the committee 11-9, and they set the agenda.

Filibusters only apply to votes by the full Senate, not a committee. Pointing to the fact that the Democrats may have been able to filibuster the bill in the full Senate has nothing to do with whether the bill was passed out of the Republican controlled committee.

Answer A2 is bogus - an unsupported allegation posted for political gain. [Answer submitted on Sep 29, 2008 11:06 PM]

A4: The question makes a false assumption.

The bill did not, in fact, "die in committee."

It was passed, as an amended version. That's what that line in the status means. It was then referred to Conference Chair Santorum, who then appears not to have moved it on. The Congressional Record makes no mention of it after he got it. Which means it was never placed on the agenda for a floor vote. [Answer submitted on Sep 30, 2008 5:04 PM]

A5: Here's a CSPAN video that shows exactly how the reform and regulation was killed by organized democrats.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

It's no excuse, but with a very evenly divided congress, the well lobbied and organized can win over. [Answer submitted on Oct 1, 2008 2:14 PM]

A6: There's just one problem with A5's theory based on a carefully edited YouTube video - that Congress was not evenly divided. The GOP had a strong majority in both chambers. [Answer submitted on Oct 2, 2008 10:56 PM]

A7: A4 So the 11-9 party line vote moved the bill out of committee, then Santorum was supposed to schedule it?

I agree with A10 for the previous question, this wasn't real regulation. Was the proposed agency going to be part of the House or the Executive? [Answer submitted on Oct 3, 2008 7:41 PM]

A8: It did not die in committee, and the Democrats didn't kill it either. It passed committee (that's the "Ordered to be reported ... favorably" in the bill status).

It never got scheduled for debate before the full Senate, probably mainly for two reasons:

a) The 109th Congress was the shortest since the 40s, PLUS they had to deal with Hurricane Katrina, so they were pressed on time,

b) President Bush and Alan Greenspan, who were proponents of regulating Fannie Mae, both disliked this bill. Greenspan went so far as to call it "worse than doing nothing", because of how it watered down what he'd originally asked for.

Democratic opposition was unlikely to be filibuster-level strong. After all, a majority of the House Democrats voted in favor of this legislation -- 60% Yes/40% No -- so it's a bit hard to believe that they couldn't find FIVE democrats willing to vote for quorum, even if they voted against the bill.

The original author of the bill (in the House) himself blamed Bush and Greenspan for their lack of support for his legislation as the reason for its not passing. [Answer submitted on Oct 4, 2008 12:56 AM]

A9: A8 is wrong about the House vote. This was not the same bill that was passed by the house. Not even close. And Senate democrats were not willing to support the House bill. It makes the most sense to think that Senate repubs wanted to find some bill Senate dems could support, but that, in fact, there was no bill Senate democrats would support. Had this bill, which did not privatize regulatory agencies, and did not water down regulation (it added new regulatory authority) passed the Senate then both houses of Congress would have had to work to reconcile their differences and settle on a final bill. If one was even possible.

There is simply no way to read the history of this current financial mess without concluding that democrats derailed any hope for reforms which could have prevented the events which followed.

Were they bought off? Were they eager to continue to subsidize lending to high risk persons? Did they have some genuine and sincere issues republicans failed to address? Who knows for sure, but the fact that democrats found nothing to compromise on, and failed to present any alternative, should be a clue to us all. [Answer submitted on Oct 4, 2008 3:11 PM]

A10: A9 notes it did not privarize regulatory agencies and added "new" regulatory authority.

The bill eliminates one regulatory body and establishes a new "independent"regulatory body.

Partisan insinuations aside, could it not be that the very nature of the new body being "independent" is what led to a lack of support from both parties on S.190? [Answer submitted on Oct 5, 2008 5:13 AM]

A11: To embellish A10, the bill proposed taking oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac away from HUD's Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight and creating a new "independent" Federal Agency with far greater authorities that would also take over supervision of the 12 Federal Home Loan Banks from the Federal Housing Finance Board set up in 1989 after the S&L mess, effectively consolidating control of all these government sponsored entities under one roof.

In essence, many of the features of this bill were included in the Housing & Economic Recovery Act of 2008 [see Title III], Public Law 110-289, signed 7-30-08, and which also enabled the Fannie/Freddie conservatorships, as well as a plethora of other legislative proposals. Neither McCain nor Obama cast a vote on this bill. [Answer submitted on Oct 5, 2008 6:02 PM]

A12: There are press reports that say both Rs and Ds were close to an agreement on the bill. It ended on a party-line, which means somebody insisted on putting something in it that was totally offensive to the other side. Clearly, a compromise would have passed the bill, which is what they did in the House with their version. It takes two sides to have a standoff. It ain't a solo. The bill passed in 2008 (the House version in 2007.) I would imagine if you look at the list of Senators who lost in 2006 and were on the banking and finance committee, you'll find the culprit. [Answer submitted on Oct 7, 2008 5:01 PM]

A13: If you dig into this issue, you will find the 109th Congress of 2005 had a Republican Majority. Republicans and Democrats were very close to passing this, as both parties agreed there needed to be stronger oversight. I don't think we can point fingers at either party and blame them. Here is an article that references the bill's bog down.

http://www.allbusiness.com/government/532756-1.html

[Answer submitted on Oct 11, 2008 1:08 AM]

A14: Okay, this is in response to comments above.

As the allbusinss.com link above notes, most were in agreement on the main ideas of the bill.

But, make no mistake, there was no way that this bill would have "rescued" Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. If you skim the full text, you'll see that all it did was change the names of the regulators and add in a few regulations that wouldn't have helped much.

And the Allbusiness.com link has this important section, that seems to be the sticking point:

The Republican-backed measure would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to sell portfolio assets unrelated to their mortgage securities businesses. A Democratic alternative would have permitted the regulator to reduce the GSEs' portfolio without requiring such cuts.

---

So, in fact, if the bill had passed, by selling portfolio assets (meant to diversify those firms' financial positions) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac probably would have collapsed sooner. Selling assets that served as a hedge to the banks mortgage assets would have left the firms standing on only one leg.

Has your financial advisor ever told you NOT to diversify? Why write into law that a firm can't diversify its portfolio holdings? It makes absolutely no sense.

[Answer submitted on Oct 21, 2008 6:01 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: The average "Joe" is a worker that does not, I repeat DOES NOT understand what most of you are saying. I am a 36 yr old disabled veteran, with 3 autistic boys. I love my country, was willing to die for the freedom of all!

So, now to my point. It is obvious that I am not educated in this arena. Freedom, should not be confusing! It is a right. I am attempting to learn about our politics. What do I get? Confusion. I hope whomever actually knows the answers to whether Senator McCain was originally, for or against S.190! All I can see so far, is that you guys are speaking in codes. Do the rest of America a favor, let the truth be the truth. Hopefully we Americans can vote on the truth. We Americans are tired of lies, stories, etc. [Answer submitted on Oct 6, 2008 11:50 AM]

A2: This bill is important because it highlights the fact that Republicans attempted to reign in the housing bubble through regulation. Meanwhile, Democrats try to pin the blame for deregulation on Republicans in order to win elections. [Editor's note: This is the last political spin on this question.] [Answer submitted on Oct 6, 2008 11:05 PM]

A3: It should be noted that the sponsor and co-sponsors are those who bring the bill forward and would therefore be in favor of that bill. McCain was a co-sponsor on this bill. [Answer submitted on Oct 8, 2008 6:30 PM]

A4: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-811

Nov 24, 2003: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each representative's position was not kept.

Dec 8, 2003: This bill passed in the House of Representatives without objection. A record of each representative's position was not kept.

UNANIMOUSLY. How can you blame "the last 8 years," which obviously infers that George Bush was to blame for this all? [Answer submitted on Oct 8, 2008 9:47 PM]

A5: The reason the bill did not make law is because Democrats put a block on the bill. Any Senator or Senators in this case, can simply hold up a bill by blocking it. Dodd and Obama lobbied to stop the bill and put a block on it. They would go on to get hundreds of thousands each in donations from Freddie and Fannie. [Answer submitted on Oct 12, 2008 9:51 AM]

A6: 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.

[Answer submitted on Oct 13, 2008 7:53 AM]

A7: 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. [Answer submitted on Oct 20, 2008 3:36 AM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!

A1: Because, he isn't the Seceretary of the Treasury? The Democrats in Congress would have blocked this anyway. [Answer submitted on Oct 31, 2008 1:15 PM]

A2: 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. [Answer submitted on Nov 19, 2008 3:17 PM]

A3: 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) [Answer submitted on Apr 7, 2009 4:02 PM]

Add Another Answer:

Tips: Be clear. No one-word answers and don't use abbreviations that readers may not be familiar with. Reference the text of the bill or other articles when possible. Don't be inflammatory- it will be edited out!