Reclaiming my time, that was exactly the point I was going to make. So a broader amendment, were it germane to this bill, would probably be received favorably by all of us because we believe that fiduciaries in general should be reporting to the people that they are representing. But when you limit it only to pension plans, you eliminate foundations, you eliminate family trusts, and you eliminate a whole range of other fiduciaries that should have the same obligation. And singling out pension plans in this context I think is the wrong thing to do.
Melvin Watt: “Reclaiming my time, that was exactly the point I was going to make. So a broader amendment, were it germane to this…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the limitations of an amendment related to fiduciary responsibilities during a committee meeting.
Share
More from Melvin Watt
I simply wanted to rise and pay tribute to the memory of my dear friend and colleague, Major Owens, who passed last week. I express my condolences to his family. As new Members, we take for granted sometimes that there is a system in place…
I would certainly emphasize that if anybody here has the notion that I believe that I am above the law, they should dissuade themselves of that notion.
I am wondering, if you think this is redundant and extraneous rather than contrary to the intent, why wouldn't we just accept the amendment and keep going?
This is in line with my consistently repeated belief that it is the role of Congress, not FHFA, to decide on housing finance reform.





