Shutdown Ends, Housing Policy Heats Up

A budget standoff ends, the lights come back on in Washington, and the housing world braces for what comes next. We examine the real consequences for lenders and borrowers when Congress relies on short-term fixes, including delayed hearings, stalled reauthorizations, and programs like flood insurance that are repeatedly pushed to the next deadline. With the continuing resolution in place, HUD and the CDFI Fund are back to full strength, which is good news for credit unions serving underserved communities. However, the timeline only stretches to January, and the policy stakes are rising.

Our conversation turns to the CFPB’s funding uncertainty after a new DOJ opinion argues the Bureau can only draw from Federal Reserve profits. With the Fed operating at a loss, future transfers are at risk, and rulemaking could slow just as the market debates bold affordability ideas. We break down FHFA’s high-profile float of 50-year mortgages along with portable and assumable loans, explaining how each tool targets different pain points. Lower payments help some buyers but slow equity growth; portability and assumability fight the rate lock that freezes inventory. The throughline is suitability and guardrails; product design must pair with strong underwriting and clear disclosures to avoid past mistakes.

We also chart the path of the ROAD to Housing Act, a rare bipartisan package that passed the Senate Banking Committee unanimously and may be included in the NDAA. Even a slimmer version could deliver practical wins for supply, program efficiency, and access, with standalone options if the defense bill route falters. Along the way, we separate the myths from the mechanics: affordability is as much about access to down payments as it is about monthly payments.

Like what you heard? Subscribe, share with a colleague, and leave a five-star review to help more listeners find the show. For episode links and updates, visit acuma.org and follow us on LinkedIn.

Sponsored by Loan Vision.

Episode Transcript

SPEAKER_04 (00:00):
The views and opinions expressed in this
podcast do not necessarilyreflect the views or positions
of Acuma, its board ofdirectors, its management staff,
or its members.
The podcast discussion presentedis conversational in nature and
for general information only.

SPEAKER_01 (00:27):
This is Aqua's On Point Podcast.
On today's episode, we'll diveinto four policy issues facing
our members, ranging from theend of the shutdown to funding
of the Bureau, and to thepossibility of a 50-year
mortgage.
But before we get to ourepisode, just a quick word from
our sponsor.

SPEAKER_00 (00:47):
This episode is being brought to you by Loan
Vision.
Is your credit union looking toturn your accounting department
into a profit driver?
Loan Vision can help.
Our platform delivers real-timedata, loan-level insights, and
automations to streamlineworkflows and improve control
over financial performance.

(01:09):
Transform your cost centers intorevenue generators by equipping
your team with the tools neededto better serve your members.
And don't miss our monthlywebinar series where we share
key strategies and bestpractices to help credit unions
optimize their mortgageoperations.
Register today atwww.lonevision.com under our

(01:33):
upcoming events page.

SPEAKER_01 (01:36):
Hello, and welcome to Aquazon Point Podcast, a
series focused on sharing thestories of people making a
positive impact in the creditunion mortgage industry.
I'm your host, Peter Benjamin.
Today I am joined by ourresident expert, Anne Marie
Convoy, policy advisor withBrownstein.
AM, long time.
How are you doing?

(01:56):
And what's going on with you?

SPEAKER_06 (01:59):
I'm good.
Thank you for having me back.
I'm always excited to be on thepod.
I will tell you I'm I'm veryexcited that the government is
reopened for many reasons, but Iuh I was a little worried that I
was gonna come on the podcastand the shutdown would still be
dragging on and we wouldn't haveenough to talk about.
But luckily the government isreopened and we have plenty of

(02:20):
things to cover today.

SPEAKER_01 (02:22):
I think here's, you know, I was actually fully
prepared to come on the, youknow, during the shutdown.
I was fully prepared to come onthe next policy podcast.
And for us just to really talkabout nothing, we're really good
about talking about nothing hereover here at Acuma.
Um, and so I was fully preparedto talk about absolutely nothing

(02:43):
during this time.
But you're right, here we are.
Stuff to talk about to thatpoint.
Let's talk about that stuff wehave to talk about.
All right.
So obviously, first up, end ofthe shutdown.
Kind of walk us through, youknow, obviously the the things
that have transpired to kind ofget us to that point of of

(03:05):
ending the shutdown.
Um, and I yeah, I depending onhow how you take this, I might
have one or two questions.
So please, the shutdown.

SPEAKER_06 (03:14):
So the government is reopen.
And like you said, we haveplenty to talk about, but the
government being open came aboutkind of quickly in the end, for
as long as the shutdown went on.
It reopened on November 12th.
They are gonna have to have thisfight again in some form at the
end of January, but they boughtthemselves through the holiday
season to figure out what theywant to do in terms of full year

(03:37):
government funding.
The kind of price, if you wantto frame it that way, for a
handful of Senate Democratsvoting in favor of reopening the
government was that they wereguaranteed a vote on the issue
that was kind of at the crux ofthis for Democrats, which was
extending expiring, expandedObamacare credits that were came

(04:00):
to be during the COVID era.
There is some bipartisan supportfor that.
We've yet to see when that votewill happen, what it will look
like.
But on the funding piece, we arekind of squared away until the
end of January.
The National Flood InsuranceProgram was also reauthorized.
It's the 34th short-termreauthorization since the

(04:21):
program uh last had a long-termone back in 2017.
But, you know, we we might beback in the same exact place in
early February, where we are,there is the potential for
another shutdown, but they arehoping to move individual
funding bills or packages ofindividual funding bills, which
we call minibuses for fun herein DC in the intervening two

(04:43):
months.
So we have some time to see howthis all plays out.
The holidays are a crazy time inDC.
The House has been out ofWashington for the majority of
the fall, although the Senatehas been here grinding away
during the shutdown.
So the shutdown, in addition tothe disruptions that it brought
across the country, also was, ofcourse, very disruptive to

(05:04):
legislative work in DC.
There were any number ofhearings, markups, activities
that were planned or looselyplanned to happen in September
or October that were ultimatelypushed until the government
could reopen.
We're now up against the end ofthe year here, where the House
and Senate are out the week ofThanksgiving.
They're out the week ofChristmas.

(05:26):
So we we have just a few weekshere before the end of the year
to see what materializes.

SPEAKER_01 (05:33):
So, you know, a couple of things on you know,
obviously the end of theshutdown and the the CR that was
put in play.
You know, I first want to startwith flood, right?
This is, you know, one of thecans that they always just seem
to kick down the road.
And you know, from yourperspective, what is it about

(05:55):
flood insurance and that programthat is just it's just something
that they cannot establishlong-term funding for?
And it might be a sillyquestion, it might be a stupid
question.
Uh how are we going to frame itup?
It's just it seems to be such ayou know a vital thing for for

(06:21):
for many communities.
You know, obviously coming fromyou know in the mortgage
industry, you know, you know,the idea that you know during
the shutdown, lenders couldbasically originate a loan with
TBD flood insurance, right?
Just obviously it's putting thenot just the homeowner at risk,

(06:44):
but the the lender at risk andthe communities at risk.
What is it about flood insurancethat we just can't get right?
I don't know.
Maybe that's not the rightquestion, but what is it about
flood insurance?

SPEAKER_06 (06:58):
Yeah, I I get where you're coming from, Peter.
I would say unfortunately, floodis not unique in this sense.
There is a huge bucket ofprograms of this nature that
are, you know, largelybipartisan, non-controversial,
but need, you know,unfortunately on a shorter term
basis, reauthorizations.
And by that I mean flood getspicked up, you know, it has

(07:21):
aligned for quite some time nowwith the annual government
funding process.
There are some programs thathave five-year authorizations,
that have three-yearauthorizations, but flood
typically it's one year, it'sit's stuck on to government
funding.
And so it is really just stuckin this cycle of because that

(07:43):
it's so rare for them to committo full-year appropriations
bills in the past few years thatevery time they resort to a
short-term CR, almost everythingelse that is set to expire on
that date, you know, September30th, it all gets bumped to the

(08:04):
end of the next CR.
And so this cycle justcontinues.
And there's so much pressure onfiguring out the kind of top of
the ticket, if you will, the thefunding piece that they're not
carving things off of the lowerpart of the ticket, you know,
like the individualreauthorizations.
They pretty much it almost seemslike they will they are content

(08:28):
to let the solution to thoseplay out along time that the
solution to the biggergovernment funding issue.
And so until they're separated,which would really happen with a
kind of a full reauthorization.
And even then, it would be kindof a temporary separation
because even if it were, youknow, three or five years, it

(08:49):
ultimately would likely end atthe end of September for
whatever year that term wouldexpire on.
Um, that it's just married tothis government funding cycle
that they can't seem to break.

SPEAKER_01 (09:03):
You know, to kind of obviously thank you for that.
You know, another thing as partof the you know, the end of the
shutdown was I don't want tosay, you know, that they're at
their back, but CDFIs are back,right?
Um in many ways, that that'sthat's very much a good thing
for our industry.
Granted, creditants couldalways, you know, you know still

(09:25):
partner with them and be CDFIs,but the staffing associated with
the CDFIs are are really back inplay, right?

SPEAKER_06 (09:32):
Yes.
The CR that they passed reversedthe rifts that came out, the
reductions in force that wereissued during the shutdown.
So it was about 500 HUDemployees who were brought back
to work, and the the staff atthe CDFI fund were fully
restored as well.
We'll see how long the CDFI fundkind of goes without further

(09:53):
efforts to scale back its itsstaffing.
But for now, it is back at fullcapacity.

SPEAKER_01 (10:00):
Okay, awesome, awesome, awesome.
Now something that ties in withthe with the shutdown is
obviously funding of the Bureauand the the drama that goes
along with the CFPB.

SPEAKER_03 (10:16):
Walk us through that.

SPEAKER_06 (10:19):
So there is a fair bit of kind of legal process
involved in this one,unfortunately.
So I will try and keep it as topline as possible because I am
not a lawyer and I don't want toget crosswise with any of my
legal colleagues.
But the CFPB is is fighting alawsuit right now and has been

(10:40):
for several months on actingdirector Vaught's efforts to
fire a large number of CFPBstaff that has been waging back
and forth for essentially theentire year at this point.
Last week or so early, earlyNovember, the CFPB filed in that

(11:01):
case a new opinion from DOJ thatsays the CFPB actually can't
draw money from the FederalReserve because statutorily,
under the Dodd-Frank Act, theCFPB can only get money from the
Federal Reserve when it's atransfer from the combined
earnings of the Federal Reservesystem.

(11:23):
And DOJ is now saying thatcombined earnings means profit.
So the CFPB can only receivetransfers of the Federal
Reserve's profits.
And the Federal Reserve hasoperated at a loss for several
years now.
And so the conclusion from DOJbeing that the Fed cannot

(11:43):
transfer any money to the CFPBbecause the Fed has no profits,
and therefore there is noeligible pool of money from
which the CFPB can draw on.
So the CFPB in this case wouldonly be able to draw from you
know profits that right nowdon't exist or from the
appropriations process.
And right now, the CFPB is notreceiving funds through the

(12:06):
appropriations process.
That, of course, since theBureau's inception has been an
issue that's been kind ofping-ponged on Capitol Hill.
Um, the CFPB, in this filing tothe court, citing DOJ's legal
opinion, and specifically fromDOJ's Office of Legal Counsel,

(12:26):
says that they will have enoughmoney to fund the current CFPB
operations through the end ofthe year, at least, potentially
into early 2026.
This kind of whole legal theoryhas not yet been tested in
court.
So there are a lot of thingsthat will likely happen between

(12:47):
now and this potential fundingcliff that will impact the way
this all plays out.
And we're very early in thatprocess right now, but it is a
new and and substantial threatto the CFPB's funding structure
yet again.

SPEAKER_03 (13:06):
Okay.

SPEAKER_01 (13:06):
Thank you.
Thank you for that.
All right, so moving on,something that I I I know is is
I was at an event last, I guessa couple weeks ago, and I I
jokingly talked about this oncethis this news broke, not about
the CPV funding, but the ideathat a 50-year mortgage and the

(13:28):
idea that what what theadministration and and FHFA are
calling portable mortgages, i.e.
assumable mortgages.
What's going on over at theFHFA?

SPEAKER_06 (13:44):
So the FHFA is having quite a November.
And I'm I'm sure by the timethis airs, even more things will
have developed, but it's alreadybeen quite a packed month for
them.
So, yes, Peter, you'rereferencing that Colte tweeted
that the FHFA is working on the50-year mortgage.

(14:05):
Um, there was a lot of reportingaround this and uh his
presentation of the idea to thepresident and that the
president's take on it.
There's kind of a couple piecesat play here, right?
So lenders could offer non-QM50-year mortgages, but to offer

(14:28):
50-year mortgages eligible asQMs, the CFPB would need to
undertake a rulemaking to changethe the current rule cap on loan
terms, which is right now 30years.
So this kind of ties back to theCFPB because if the CFPB has no
funding in a few months, theywon't be able to undertake a

(14:49):
rulemaking like that.
So that's kind of where thatstands right now.
I think there's a lot of debateabout the benefits and downsides
of a 50-year mortgage.
You know, of course, stretchover a longer term, lower
monthly payments, higherinterest rate compared to a

(15:11):
30-year, most likely.
And you're going to accrueequity in your home at a lower
rate.
But I'll I'll leave thepontificating on the benefits or
the downsides of mortgages tothe other experts that you have
on this podcast.
Fulty's also working, youmentioned on assumable and

(15:32):
portable mortgages.
Portable, as the name suggests,would let folks transfer their
existing mortgage loan to a newproperty.
The assumable would let you takeon an existing mortgage on a
home that you're purchasing.
The lender would have toapprove, whatnot.
But these are all kind of in theearly stages.

(15:54):
But they are, I don't think,things that will go away
quickly.
I think we'll continue to hearabout them in the coming months,
especially as this larger debateabout housing affordability is
really center stage at themoment.

SPEAKER_01 (16:09):
No, and I appreciate how housing affordability is
kind of taking center stage.
You know, you and I have talkedabout this numerous times, that
you know, obviously it was a bigtopic, you know, during the
election.
It seems to be a priority for alot on the hill.
And all of these ideas arealways thrown out, but nothing

(16:32):
ever really moves on them,right?
On the idea of affordability.
You know, these, you know,outside of assumptions,
assumptions have been around fora while, right?
Having an assumable mortgage,that's that's been around for a
while.
Some lenders do it, some lendersdon't.
Um, but the idea of a portablemortgage, this is not a new
concept.
It's just, I don't want to callit radical, but it's definitely

(16:56):
far-fetched, right?
I mean, I I can't even imaginehow they'd even structure it to
make that even work.
But the one that's the mostinteresting to me is the 50-year
mortgage, right?
You know, thinking back to youknow, pre-2007, 2008, I mean, 40
years were popping upeverywhere, right?

(17:21):
W why why why not just bringthose back?
Why skip over 40 and go straightto 50?
Um I mean, let's be honest.
I mean that's 50 year mortgageis a long, long time.
I mean, 30 years is a long, longtime.
But 50 years, I mean, that isyou would uh essentially have to

(17:44):
buy a house and that would beyour little forever home.
I mean, to the point where ifthe average age of a of the
first-time homebuyer nowadays iswhat, uh 36, I think.
I mean, you're going to be 86when that that house or that

(18:06):
loan fully matures.
I mean, that is ridiculous.

SPEAKER_02 (18:11):
Absolutely ridiculous.

SPEAKER_06 (18:13):
If you bought your house when you were 21, by the
time you paid off your mortgage,you would also, I believe, be on
both Social Security andMedicare.
It would really span a hugechunk of your your essentially
your entire adult life.

SPEAKER_01 (18:28):
Right.
But the thing is, how many21-year-olds in today's society,
today's economy have enough fora down payment on a house
nowadays, right?
Almost no 21 years.

SPEAKER_06 (18:45):
I would imagine the the percentage is extremely
small.

SPEAKER_01 (18:50):
Right.
So, okay, let's say you you youstart getting enough for a down
payment when you turn 24, 25,right?
That's when you probably haveyour first job and you probably
have the ability to maybe startsaving up, right?
But again, I mean, how many24-year-olds have enough for a

(19:11):
down payment on a house in theDC area, right?
Maybe in Oklahoma City, maybe inI don't know, somewhere in South
Dakota, but here in like highcost area, I mean it's it's next
to impossible.
I don't think payments are theactual issue.
Yes, maybe payment yes, paymentsare part of the issue, which a

(19:34):
30-year mortgage, sorry, a50-year mortgage would help
solve the that monthly paymentissue.
Down payment and access, that'sthat's the real heart of all
these things.
Assumability solves the access,but and maybe portable portable

(19:54):
doesn't a little bit, but thereal heart of the issue is
access to that down payment andbeing able to actually purchase.
I mean would 100% financing be abetter path?
Maybe.
I don't know.
I digress.
I could go onto this argument.

(20:15):
Moral of the story is, and thisis my opinion, and I know I'm
I'm kind of going off on atangent right now.
I'm all down for portablemortgages, I'm all down for for
assumable.
The 50-year mortgage isinteresting because if it's done
properly, it could possibly be agood loan.

SPEAKER_03 (20:37):
I'll just say that.

SPEAKER_01 (20:39):
The problem is let's look back to the hybrid arms or
the pick-a-pay arms that reallyled to the financial crisis,
right?
You give the the you give thepower to you know some random

(21:00):
mortgage broker, they'reprobably gonna abuse that power,
right?
They're gonna put the wrongperson to a fifth-year mortgage
and it's become gonna become abad loan.
So for the right person, itcould be a good loan, but we
have to be able to prudentlyunderwrite it.
Uh again, I'm going off atangent.

SPEAKER_06 (21:16):
No, I think that's a great frame for the kind of the
set of three that we've justbeen discussing.

SPEAKER_01 (21:23):
Great.
Thank you for thank you forhumoring me.
All right, let's let's wrap up.
Let's wrap up with the update onthe road to housing.
Um, you know, for me, Iabsolutely love this.
Uh, I love the idea of the roadto housing, but what's going on
with that?

SPEAKER_06 (21:39):
So we've talked about the road to housing for
many months now on the podcast,and it always is making
important progress throughCongress.
As we know, it was marked upover the summer by the Senate
Banking Committee, got unanimoussupport.
It's very bipartisan package.

(22:00):
There's a lot of good policy inthere.
And there has been a play forseveral months now to include
all or some of this package inthe annual defense bill,
National Defense AuthorizationAct.
If there is one thing inCongress that will pass every
single year, it is the NDAA.

(22:20):
And so in recent years, someyears, folks have been able to
tack on bipartisan policypriorities outside of the
defense space into the package.
And that's what the push hasbeen with the Road Act is
saying, hey, this is animportant policy priority.
It's very bipartisan.
Let's see if we can get it intothe bill.

(22:42):
So the Senate sponsors arepushing for that.
Um, the House side, there hasbeen an effort with Mike Flood
and Emmanuel Cleaver, who arethe leadership of the housing
subcommittee in financialservices, to put together their
own package.
Uh, theirs is focused more onreauthorizing the home

(23:06):
investment partnership over atHUD.
They were hoping to kind ofmarry that with the Road to
Housing Act potentially.
The NDAA negotiations are kindof coming down to their last
stage here.
So we'll know in the next fewweeks whether or not the Road
Act or pieces of it make it intothe final version of the NDAA.

(23:28):
But given how bipartisan it is,the indicators are positive
right now that at least some ofit will be included in the final
version of the package.
This is always kind of aDecember process that it's
considered on the House andSenate floor.
But right now it looks likeit'll be on the House floor the
second week of December, whichmeans the Senate could take it

(23:49):
up either later that week orearly the third week of
December.
But nothing's final until thethe bill text is voted on.
So we're we're in the end gamenow, but we'll we'll know soon.

SPEAKER_01 (24:04):
So in in your opinion and from what you've
heard, uh obviously, you know,road passed Senate banking
unanimously, unanimously, andthen it passed obviously the
Senate floor.
What type of revisions are doyou anticipate?
Are they gonna be majorrevisions of the road now that

(24:25):
the House is really looking atit in flood, or do you think the
spirit and essence of the Senatebill is still gonna be there?

SPEAKER_06 (24:34):
I think the spirit and essence of the Senate bill
would still be there.
I would be surprised if theywere making major substantive
changes to the package for NDAAconsideration, only because the
the package is so bipartisan.
I think you could see, you know,pieces coming out and a narrower
version of it in the bill.

(24:54):
Uh there's always the potentialfor some changes, you know, if
if the House is asking for somethings, but I would not expect
it to be a sub a substantivelydifferent version of the
package.
Just perhaps smaller.

SPEAKER_01 (25:09):
Yeah, I mean, so I think you and I can agree.
I mean, it had a lot of greatcomponents in it that actually
goes back to the affordabilityissue that we were talking about
just a second ago with FHFA,right?
It had a lot of components thatactually would help with
affordability.
And so it it's, I think all eyesare on this and all eyes are on

(25:30):
the house to see what they dowith this.

SPEAKER_06 (25:32):
Um and if there are pieces that, you know, if part
of road makes it in and part ofit doesn't, you could see those
pieces that don't kind of marryup with this legislative effort
that they are working on in thehouse.

unknown (25:46):
Okay.

SPEAKER_03 (25:47):
Um, do you have any concerns that it won't be
attached to the NDAA?

SPEAKER_05 (25:54):
There's always a risk.

SPEAKER_06 (25:56):
You know, things fall out during this process all
the time.
Uh and I won't know for sureuntil the text is final.

SPEAKER_01 (26:06):
Right.
I mean, so I mean, let's let'slet's I mean you know, put the
cards on the table, even if itdoesn't go through this year,
right?
Because, like you said, it is sobipartisan.
And I kind of relate this almostto like the the the trigger
leads, right?
Trigger leads very bibipartisan.
It it tried to get attached tothe NDAA, it didn't, but

(26:28):
eventually, because of howfavored it was and how
bipartisan it was, it dideventually go through.
So no matter what, I mean, evenif it doesn't go through the
NDAA now, it it it more thanlikely will at some point go
through absolutely and it couldgo standalone as well.

SPEAKER_06 (26:44):
There's right, you know, it since it's already been
through the Senate, if the Housewanted to take it up quickly,
they could.
Um, if they wanted to send amodified version back to the
Senate, they could.
The traditional legislativepathways are very much open for
this package in the event thatit was not sticky to NDA in the

(27:05):
end.

SPEAKER_01 (27:06):
So it in the moral story is if not today, tomorrow.
But this this one's lookingpretty good.

SPEAKER_06 (27:13):
Yes, I'm cautiously optimistic.

unknown (27:16):
Okay.

SPEAKER_01 (27:16):
Well, well, Ann, thank you so much for kind of
walking us through all thatstuff.
Really do appreciate it.
Now, before we go, I know youhave some fun facts that you
want to share with us.

SPEAKER_06 (27:26):
Thanks, Peter.

SPEAKER_01 (27:27):
You're welcome.

SPEAKER_02 (27:28):
My pleasure.

SPEAKER_06 (27:30):
I just figured in the spirit of the holiday that I
would bring a couple facts aboutThanksgiving at the White House
to uh kind of lighten the moodhere at the end.
So I'm sure everyone is familiarwith the turkey pardoning.
I did a little research on thisahead of the podcast, and it
turns out that the turkeypardoning actually wasn't common

(27:53):
at the White House until the midto late 1900s.
There has been a turkeypresentation ceremony since it
seems the late 1800s, but itwasn't until Ronald Reagan and
then George H.W.
Bush that the actual pardoningof the turkey became an annual
tradition.
But what kind of kicked off thiswhole thing was when Ulysses

(28:15):
Grant was president in 1873, thepoultry king of Rhode Island
sent him a turkey to the WhiteHouse.
Uh, he provided turkeys for 40years after that.
And then in the 1920s, WoodrowWilson, so 1920, Woodrow Wilson
receives two turkeys at theWhite House.
He doesn't know which turkey tohave for Thanksgiving dinner.

(28:37):
So he has them fight on theWhite House lawn to select a
winner.
Um, the turkeys who came to theWhite House during the 20s, they
they kind of traveled in style.
I wish I had a picture to share,but they came in elaborate cages
and these boxes with veryelaborate designs on them in
1921.

(28:58):
The turkey that year, his namewas Supreme Two.
There's no mention of SupremeOne.
I looked, I'm not sure whathappened to that turkey.
But Supreme Two arrived at theWhite House wearing an aviation
helmet and goggles and clad inblack and gold sweater held on
by a pink bow.
And they tried to fly the turkeyto the White House, but it got
air sick.

(29:19):
So they had to land the plane tosave the turkey.
And then the next year, SupremeThree was traveled in a car 800
miles to avoid the air sicknesssituation.
And it was wearing a speciallymade motorcoat to protect the
turkey.
And it was in a special cagesuspended on springs so it

(29:40):
didn't get too shaken up duringthe drive.
And then Calvin Coolidge, hedecided he didn't want to deal
with the turkeys.
He decided to shop local.
That only lasted for like a yearor two.
And then 1925, everyone'ssending him all kinds of animals
again to the White House.
He doesn't really know what todo with them.
1926.
Someone sends him a raccoon.

(30:02):
He doesn't want to cook theraccoon.
So he and his wife adopt it as apet and they name her Rebecca.
And she lives at the White Housewith them for the duration of
his presidency.
And she has an embroideredcollar that says White House
Raccoon.
So I have to say, if you haveany interest in the White House

(30:22):
Thanksgiving traditions, theWhite House Historical
Association has some fantasticmaterials out there about this,
including some photo evidence ofthe things I've described here
today.
But I hope everyone listeninghas a fantastic Thanksgiving and
that no one receives a liveraccoon as a gift unless they,
you know, sought to do so.

SPEAKER_01 (30:43):
I've always wanted a raccoon as a pet.

SPEAKER_06 (30:45):
You and you and Mrs.
Coolidge, it seems.

SPEAKER_01 (30:50):
And unfortunately, I live in Maryland where it's
illegal to own a raccoon as apet.

SPEAKER_06 (30:54):
Oh, well, you you had that fact ready to go,
Peter.

SPEAKER_01 (30:57):
I sure did.
Hey, yeah, you gotta do researchon this, AM.
You gotta know where you live.
Um, well, AM, thank you so much.
As always, appreciate yoursupport that that you and the
rest of the Brown scene team dofor us.
Uh enjoyed the conversationtoday.
Um, I hope you have a uhwonderful holiday season.

(31:20):
If I don't see you before theend of the year, uh so thank you
very much.

SPEAKER_06 (31:25):
Thank you for having me, and same to you and yours as
well.

SPEAKER_01 (31:28):
Appreciate that.
And to close out, thank youagain to Lone Vision for
sponsoring today's episode.
And to all of you, we know yourtime is valuable.
Thank you for tuning in to thelatest episode of Acuma's On
Point Podcast.
We hope you enjoyed it.
Until next time, be well, myfriends.

SPEAKER_04 (31:43):
Thanks for listening.
We'll see you next time at theAcuma on Point Podcast.
If not already, be sure tosubscribe and give us a five
star rating.
For more great episodes andinformation, be sure to visit us
online at Acuma.org.
And to get the latest updates,head over to our LinkedIn page.