If there was ever any doubt that Rep. Mike Oxley, R-Ohio, chair of the Financial Services Committee, is out to destroy the existing real estate industry, it was removed with the introduction of HR 2660 IH, the euphemistically titled "Fair Choice and Competition in Real Estate Act of 2005," on May 26th, 2005.

Congressman Oxley's bill is designed to amend "the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 to clarify that real estate brokerage activities and real estate management activities are authorized financial activities for financial holding companies and financial subsidiaries of national banks, and for other purposes."

What the real estate industry is afraid the bill really does is:

1. Shift oversight and control of all real estate activities from the states to the federal government.
2. Allow banks into real estate which means they can sell and manage real estate just like any brokerage, except banks will be endowed with a federally-packaged competitive edge -- no state oversight, no licensing costs.
3. Make Mike Oxley into the most powerful man in the world. Carl Rove, Alan Greenspan -- eat your hearts out.

Presidents may change, but the men in charge of the nation's finances seldom do. When Alan Greenspan talks, people listen. When Oxley talks, they quake.

What other response is there to a man who is willing to put 1.1 million Americans out of work in order to give the federal government more power and give banks more money?

If that sounds far-fetched, turn these questions around, and you'll find no other answers make sense. If the bill were about fair competition, which Oxley says it is, why wouldn't banks be required to compete on the same playing field as brokerages -- by being licensed by states? And why wouldn't brokers be allowed to match banks' best usury rates to give to their clients in their small mortgage affiliates?

Funny, but those solutions weren't explored, so the only conclusion is that it's not really about competition. That leaves only the obvious -- since the only thing that changes is a power balance, then the agenda must really be about power. Otherwise, why cut states out of oversight?

If the real estate industry is worried about discount brokerage now, it hasn't seen nothin' yet. There's only one outcome for state-licensed brokers and agents -- being driven out of business. Once there is no licensure, there is no brokerage. Banks can hire anyone to work in their real estate departments -- for as little as they wish.

Months ago, Oxley, with full federal authority, asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to look into the competitive practices of the real estate industry.

A cursory examination of the questions he asked the GAO to find answers to makes Oxley's intent obvious -- he wants the GAO to create a playbook for banks to operate by:

The nine questions Oxley asked the GAO are:

1. How does consumer and industry use of information technology, in residential real estate, compare to the use in other areas of commerce?

2. How could greater use of information technology benefit consumers and residential real estate professionals? Among other things, could it help increase homeownership among lower income or non-English speaking consumers? If it is possible to quantify potential savings to consumers from removing barriers to greater use of electronic commerce in real estate transactions, please do so.

3. What legal or regulatory barriers or, self-regulatory practices hinder greater innovation and modernization of residential real estate transactions?

4. Do the MLSs in effect, function as the marketplaces for residential real estate?

5. What is the general governance structure, including any governmental oversight or regulation, of MLSs?

6. What are the legal and practical effects of the "IDX" and "VOW" rules adopted by the National Association of Realtors for Internet display of MLS information, and what purpose do they serve? Could these rules result in the blocking of legitimate commerce, particularly against certain licensed real estate brokers?

7. What is "Realtor.com" and how does this company generally promote the use of technology by consumers and real estate agents? Is this an IDX or a VOW site subject to the NAR rules?

8. What are the state law obligations of real estate agents and brokers to consumers to promote homes for sale, and how, if at all, are these obligations consistent with restrictions on display of information over the Internet?

9. Has the Internet facilitated the custom of agents representing both the buyer and the seller in the same transaction and, if so, is this good for the consumer?

Armed with the answers from the GAO, right down to how to run an MLS, Oxley could use the report two ways: to humiliate the real estate industry and provide business model assistance to banks.

Here's what could happen. The reports, which will surely be made public, will be quoted from liberally at hearings, which the National Association of Realtors (NAR) has called for, but the hearings won't be "fair." They will be an ambush. Just look at what's happened already in the press over virtual office eebsites, a concept not one journalist who's covered the issue in the national press truly understands. Oxley will whip up public anger against real estate brokers and agents using young, naive cub reporters who've never bought a house before. And their tight-fisted editors will play along, because Oxley, the FTC and the DOJ will make sure they get all the exclusives they want.

That appears to be the game plan, but the game's not over yet. The NAR still has some friends on the Hill.

For the fourth year in a row, says NAR, a majority of the U.S. House of Representatives has cosponsored legislation that would permanently prohibit big banking conglomerates from entering real estate brokerage or property management. A total of 231 members of the House and 25 U.S. Senators have signed onto the Community Choice in Real Estate Act, H.R. 111/S. 98, since the legislation was reintroduced at the start of the 109th Congress by Reps. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) and Paul E. Kanjorski (D-Penn.) and Sens. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.), Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.).

Needless to say, the bill is heartily backed by the NAR, which is papering Congress with information to help lawmakers consider the consequences.

"Banking conglomerates have requested permission from the Federal Reserve Board and the Treasury Department to sell and manage real estate under the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. For the past three years, Congress has denied financial holding companies and subsidiaries of national banks from taking over local real estate companies by denying yearly funds to finalize the proposed rule," explains a spokesperson for the NAR.

"For the third Congress in a row, a majority of the House of Representatives has reaffirmed that national banks should not be able to take over local real estate businesses and trigger the same kind of consolidation and loss of consumer protections we've seen in the banking industry as well as the securities and insurance industries banks have recently acquired," said NAR President Al Mansell, CEO of Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage in Salt Lake City. "On behalf of more than 1 million Realtors and the community businesses they lead, we call on lawmakers to heed the will of the majority and pass the Community Choice in Real Estate Act."

NAR says a "chorus of consumer, community and small business advocates have voiced their support for the Community Choice in Real Estate Act because they agree that if big banks were allowed to sell or manage real estate, there would be a negative impact on communities across America, leaving home buyers and sellers with fewer choices, higher loan fees and reduced customer service."

Other organizations that support H.R. 111/S. 98 include the Building Owners and Managers Association, CCIM Institute, Consumers Union, Institute of Real Estate Management, International Council of Shopping Centers, National Affordable Housing Management Association, National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Industrial and Office Properties, National Auctioneers Association, National Fair Housing Alliance, National Federation of Independent Business, National Leased Housing Association and the National Community Reinvestment Coalition.

"This is whistling past the grave yard," says a pundit. "Oxley and Frank have proposed legislation that is the excuse to call hearings -- that will include the GAO reports and be a PR nightmare. Still, it may not be enough to get their bill to the floor ... and a deal will eventually be cut."

Meanwhile, Congressman Oxley is reacting against NAR's tactics of questioning his motives in letting banks offer real estate services. The "NAR's assertion that I am engaged in some kind of a personal vendetta against their membership is unfounded," he said in a letter to fellow congresspersons. "It is now fully apparent that the NAR's campaign to block financial firms from competing with them is part and parcel of a larger strategy to prevent market forces from gaining a foothold in the real estate brokerage business."