Replies to post #741013 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Robert from yahoo bd]

Does anyone know if HERA has a "not subject to House Appropriation Committee Review Clause like Dodd-Frank?

"To underscore the point, the Act explicitly states that
“[f]unds obtained by or transferred to the Bureau Fund
shall not be construed to be Government funds or appro-
priated monies.” Id. § 5497(c)(2). To underscore it
again, Congress expressly renounced its check “as a re-
striction upon the disbursing authority of the Executive
department,” Cincinnati Soap, 301 U.S. at 321, by leg-
islating that “funds derived from the Federal Reserve
System . . . shall not be subject to review by the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Repre-
sentatives and the Senate.” Id. § 5497(a)(2)(C)."

So the Bureau’s funding is double-insulated on the
front end from Congress’s appropriations power. And
Congress relinquished its jurisdiction to review agency
funding on the back end. In between, Congress gave
the Director its purse containing an off-books charge
card that rings up “[un]appropriated monies.” Wher-
ever the line between a constitutionally and unconstitu-
tionally funded agency may be, this unprecedented ar-
rangement crosses it.14 The Bureau’s perpetual insula-
tion from Congress’s appropriations power, including
the express exemption from congressional review of its funding, renders the Bureau “no longer dependent and,
as a result, no longer accountable” to Congress and, ul-
timately, to the people. All Am. Check Cashing, 33
F.4th at 232 (Jones, J., concurring); see id. at 234 (de-
tailing examples showing that the Bureau’s “lack of ac-
countability is not just a theoretical worry”). By aban-
doning its “most complete and effectual” check on “the
overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the
government”—indeed, by enabling them in the Bureau’s
case—Congress ran afoul of the separation of powers
embodied in the Appropriations Clause. See THE FED-
ERALIST NO. 58 (J. Madison).

14 JUDGE JONES emphasized the perpetual nature of the funding
mechanism and opined that an appropriation must be time-limited.
See All Am. Check Cashing, 33 F.4th at 238 (“[T]he separation of
powers idea underlying the Framers’ assignment of fiscal matters to
Congress requires a time limitation for appropriations to the execu-
tive branch.”). We need not decide whether perpetuity of funding
alone would be enough to render the Bureau’s funding mechanism
unconstitutional. Rather, the Bureau’s funding scheme—including
the perpetual funding feature—is so egregious that it clearly runs
afoul of the Appropriations Clause’s requirements."

[clarencebeaks21]

Robert I do not think FHFA assessments are double-insulated.

FHFA collects assessments from the Enterprises and the FHLBs without a USG middleman (unlike the CFPB —which draws its budget funds from Treasury).

That said, FHFA is clearly ‘insulated’ —as noted. So is FHFA’s singular insulation still an aggravating factor in some greater, still to-be-determined multi-factor separation of powers calculus for independent agencies? IMO yes. But in which court and in what case will this be explained? Stay tuned.

[Lite]

Time for the House to draft resolution & new regulations to settle (put out this dumpster fire) this and set the end c-ship timeline and investment rules for for the GSEs forthwith.