Posts tagged ‘H.R. 3221’

March 23, 2011

America and it’s Energy concern

Dear Mr. Shaw:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the current status of the energy bill. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to take this opportunity to respond to your concerns.

In the first session of the 110th Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed two markedly different versions of omnibus energy efficiency and renewable energy legislation. The Senate version of H.R. 6, the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007, passed the Senate by a vote of 65-27 on June 21, 2007. I voted against the Senate passed version of the energy bill because of it did not include any language for increased domestic energy production, debate was not allowed to discuss a possible repeal of the Brazilian ethanol tariff and Senate Democrats promised to reinsert the $32 billion tax title in conference. The House passed H.R. 3221, The New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act, on August 4, 2007.

There are several fundamental differences between these two pieces of legislation that have made it difficult for a conference committee to be arranged without further action from either chamber. The Senate passed bill includes both a raise in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards and a Renewable Fuels Standard, while the House passed version does not deal with either in any capacity. Furthermore, the House passed version included a Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard, which was not included in the Senate version, as well as a lengthy tax title that was not added to the Senate passed energy bill.

Appointing a conference committee for these bills has been a slow and laborious process. To date, Senate leadership has yet to name conferees which has delayed any further action on the Energy Bill. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind as we continue working on these important bills. I am committed to working with my colleagues in the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the full Senate to promote America’s energy independence.

Again, thank you for contacting me. If you have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. In addition, for more information about issues and activities important to Florida, please sign up for my weekly newsletter at


Mel Martinez
United States Senator

July 10, 2009

Trouble with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

The National Housing Trust Fund (NHTF), as established in H.R. 3221, was to receive funding from the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

The FHFA regulator has the authority to suspend contributions to the NHTF/CMF under certain circumstances related to the fiscal distress of the GSEs. If allocating money to the NHTF/CMF contributes to the instability or undercapitalization of the GSEs, or would prevent them from completing a capital restoration plan, then the regulator can suspend the GSEs contributions.

Reason why the current call has changed to the SEVRA assumption.
“Yesterday the House Financial Services Committee kept the 150,000 new vouchers provision proposed in HR 3045 (the SEVRA bill) by defeating the Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV) amendment to limit the number of new vouchers to 20,000. (NLIHC and other organizations are working to secure at least 200,000 new vouchers a year for each of the next 10 years.)” National Low-Income Housing Coalition

The current troubles that the lending firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have caused an adbrupt stand still to the will and drive that the National Housing Trust Fund Bill has drawn to consider.

The purposes of the NHTF are to increase and preserve the supply of rental housing for extremely low and very low income households, including homeless households, and increase homeownership for extremely low and very low income households.

As this current economic crisis is related to that of the il-workings of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the rising number of low-income house-holds are rising above the considered projections that make up the current trust fund budgeting practice.

Currently, administering agencies are to develop, make public, and seek public comment on the state allocation plan. The allocation plan must reflect priority housing needs in the state based on these factors geographic diversity,the applicant’s ability to obligate amounts and undertake funded activities in a timely manner, the extent to which rents are affordable in the proposed project, the duration of the affordable rents in the proposed project, the use of other funding sources in the proposed project, and the merits of an applicant’s proposed eligible activity.

Get in contact with your state adminstrators and see how they stand in regards to the factors of eligibilty to continue federal funding.