Melvin Watt: “once again, Mr. Garrett has focused on an issue that we talked about earlier in the debate. I offered an amendment and…”

“once again, Mr. Garrett has focused on an issue that we talked about earlier in the debate. I offered an amendment and withdrew it, and it related to this general section. Basically, what we have done is allowed the lenders to presume, if they meet certain conditions, that their loan will be considered a safe harbor loan and go into the secondary market without any complications. In certain kinds of loans, we have made that presumption rebuttable because there is still tremendous opportunity for abuse even if they meet all of the safe harbor requirements. In other instances, we have made the presumption irrebuttable, and it was on the irrebuttable part of that that I offered the amendment and withdrew it. This is on the rebuttable part. Now, the problem with Mr. Garrett's amendment is that if you take out this rebuttable presumption, then the presumption becomes irrebuttable for all kinds of loans, those that have risks, and those that don't have risks. So what does that mean to the average lay person when you create a rebuttable or irrebuttable presumption? An irrebuttable presumption makes it impossible for you ever to rebut it. Because it is irrebuttable, you can't even raise it anymore. A rebuttable presumption makes it possible, even though it is presumed, that you can still go and offer evidence that what is generally a fair loan turned out to be, in your particular case, an unfair loan.”