Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007

Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with my friend from North Carolina.

I rise only on one specific factual point. The gentleman from North Carolina said this would levy 1.2 basis points on the mortgages. That's in lieu of a profit. The Treasury asked us to change it.

The gentleman from North Carolina said 1.2 basis points. That's equivalent to a 1.2 percent tax. No, that's 100 times wrong. A basis point is one one-hundredth of 1 percent. So 1.2 basis points is not 1.2 percent as the gentleman said, but .012 percent.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

Sometimes I am more impressed with the gentleman's work product than others. He just made a misstatement of his own amendment, if I have the right amendment. He says, instead of putting it in the Affordable Housing Fund, put it into Social Security.

Nothing in this amendment does that. This amendment says that if there is a deficit in the Federal budget, then you don't put the money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the Affordable Housing Fund. It does not say you put it anywhere else. It is unrelated. It simply says that if you don't have enough money to meet the deficit, then you don't take money that would not otherwise go to the deficit.

There is no connection between the money being spent from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This one is scored at zero by CBO; so, not spending the Affordable Housing Fund would in no way reduce the deficit.

I would yield to the gentleman if he would show me where in his amendment it says that, if we don't spend on affordable housing, we would put it into reducing the deficit. I am reading the amendment. There is nothing like that in here. I yield to the gentleman.

No. I am yielding for the purpose of a question. Answer the question. The gentleman said, the choice is to either put it into affordable housing or put it into the deficit. It doesn't go into the deficit now. It is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac profit. Nothing in his amendment that I read would put it into the deficit.

Would he please explain to me what his statement meant and how it is accurate, and I will yield for that purpose.

I understand that. That is a definition of the deficit. Good for the gentleman. But it does not put any money into the deficit. The gentleman said that if we passed his amendment, we would be choosing to put the money, instead of into affordable housing, into helping Social Security. The amendment doesn't say that.

I will yield if the gentleman will give me an answer to the question. Reading his amendment doesn't get to the question. How does your amendment transfer money into Social Security?

I will yield, it is a two-step dance. Is the gentleman asking me to dance?

I take back my time. The gentleman has now acknowledged that his statement was not accurate. The gentleman has now acknowledged that nothing in his amendment does anything about the deficit. He says it is a two-step dance. It is a Kabuki dance. It is a Dance of Seven Veils. It has got an unrepresentative argument here.

Nothing in this puts the money into Social Security. There is nothing in here that would do that. What it says is, let's not put any money into affordable housing from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac if there is a deficit.

Frankly, the gentleman did not, it seems to me, clearly represent his amendment. He says it is a two-step dance. Is he proposing that we would then take the money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the 1.2 basis points, not 1.2 percent, and put that into the Social Security Trust Fund? He has now acknowledged that nothing in his amendment would help Social Security. I guess we will learn later what is the second step of the dance.

I am kind of older; I used to watch Arthur and Kathryn Murray teach dance, but I don't think even they could have taught us how this is going to spin into putting money into Social Security. So this amendment is a perfect definition of a non sequitur.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

That is a far more plausible explanation than we have got.

Does the gentleman want me to yield?

I take back my time. That is absolutely untrue. I have never asked people to trust me. If he is talking about spending affordable housing later, what I have said is it will be spent in accordance with a bill to be passed by the Congress. That is not trusting me.

And I have never said that one thing was going to accomplish the other. We have said we would set some money aside and later decide how to spend it. It doesn't do that here. It leaves the money with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This isn't public money. It is a non sequitur. I repeat.

It says we have a deficit in Social Security. That is too bad. Let's keep fighting the war in Iraq for hundreds of billions of dollars, let's keep doing all these other things, but let's not take money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that would not otherwise contribute a penny to Social Security and spend it on affordable housing.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I decline to take up the time of the House at this late date.

Mr. Chairman, I'm disappointed in the gentleman from Illinois, having yielded to him, refused the same courtesy. It's my time, the gentleman from Georgia's time.

I never asked anyone to trust me. He repeats that. It is simply inaccurate.

I've said that I thought we should set some money aside for low income housing, a specific purpose, low income housing, and then in a later bill, not me personally, but the Congress, decide how best to disburse it. That is hardly saying trust me and I'm disappointed. The gentleman generally it seems to me is fairer than that.

Secondly, he says higher priority. Again, this is fantasyland. Nothing in his amendment does a penny for Social Security. And he says temporarily suspend. Hit the pause button until the deficit is over.

Let's be very straightforward. That means kill it forever. There's no pause here. No one is assuming that the deficit is going to be ended within the next 7 or 8 years, so the argument that the gentleman makes that it is more important to do Social Security trust fund than the housing fund is irrelevant because nothing, nothing in the gentleman's amendment puts a penny into the Social Security. It's one more way to kill the affordable housing fund reflecting an ideological opposition to the existence of the Federal Government helping build affordable housing.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman. Will he explain to me what in the world that has to do with an amendment that does not provide a penny for Social Security?

Mr. Chairman, that, I must say, totally disappoints me. For the third time the gentleman has tried to put words in my mouth. The words ``trust in me,'' the gentleman read that, and the gentleman's distortion, systematic distortion, has gone beyond what I can deal with in a brief intervention. But I will say this: I continually said we should address that in separate legislation. If the gentleman doesn't know the difference between passing legislation which sets guidelines and saying ``trust me,'' then the gentleman understands less in this place than I had hoped he did.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois apparently misremembered something. He looked diligently to try to find what he said, and he couldn't find what he imputed to me. I never said ``trust in me.'' I didn't imply it. His subtext notion makes as little sense as his argument that we are going to somehow help Social Security in an amendment that doesn't touch Social Security.

What I said repeatedly was I want to reserve this now because I think this bill will not be vetoed and we will get the reservation, and for budgetary purposes, CBO scoring, it is a better way to do it, and we will then pass a separate piece of legislation. And his equation of my calling for a separate piece of legislation with my saying ``trust in me'' falls below the level that I had thought we would debate here.

I would again repeat, the gentleman from Alabama eloquently said let's start now. Let's do this. I want to be very clear, Mr. Chairman. I have never stopped him. The gentleman from Alabama had a new-found passion to help Social Security. Where is his amendment doing that? Where is his legislation doing that? This notion of let's get to Social Security, the central point is: The gentleman from Illinois' amendment does not put one penny into Social Security. Passing it would not help it. It would kill this fund forever.

What we have had is a variety of amendments. This is the fifth one tonight that finds a different way to kill affordable housing. The gentleman from Alabama was straightforward. He said he just wanted to kill it. So this has nothing to do with Social Security. It has to do with killing the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

And I would just add this, and I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding, I find it somewhat ironic that Members who continue to support spending hundreds of billions of dollars on that terrible war in Iraq, which does America more harm than good, lecture me because we are going to spend half a billion dollars a year on Affordable Housing Fund out of nontax funds. Yes, let's do something about Social Security. Let's do something about the war in Iraq. Let's do something about other wasteful programs. But to take $500 million, I didn't see this concern for Social Security when we were doing the defense budget. I didn't see it when we did the authorization earlier today. I didn't see it when we were adding money.

I must be very clear, Mr. Chairman, within the rules, I am unpersuaded that the real motive of Members here is to do anything about Social Security. It is clear if you look at this pattern, they don't like the notion of the Federal Government's helping to build affordable housing, even if we do it, as we have succeeded in finding a way to do it in this bill, in a way that has no impact on the taxpayer, no impact on Social Security, and no negative consequences on the other government programs.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think we are ready to put this into a nationwide operation at this point. It has a great deal to commend it, and the gentleman is right to talk about pilot projects.

In the Committee on Financial Services we have created a task force, headed by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), to look at all housing programs to promote energy efficiency. This is something that we should have looked at a while ago. We have been late. There are some various programs. There are some in public housing. We tried to put some into the FHA. The chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee, my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), is interested in doing this, along with the gentleman from California in HOPE VI.

What I think would be best would be if we could defer this now and give it some study. There are some implications for how you carry it. There are some fairly specific calculations. It is one thing when you do it in a pilot project; it is another for Fannie and Freddie to do this nationally. And, of course, they don't do it directly. They do it through their various lenders.

So while I think in concept this is something we should be moving towards, I would hope we could do some further work on it. It is our expectation to bring out an overall housing energy promotion bill sometime this fall, and this would be an ideal candidate for inclusion in that.

I yield to my friend.

I move to strike the last word.

I will yield briefly to my friend from Georgia.

I am going to take back my time.

I will yield to the gentleman at the end.

First, let me say to the gentleman from Louisiana, I agree with him in many ways. Yes, they haven't done enough. I do find a great inconsistency, not on the part of the gentleman from Louisiana, who has been completely consistent on this issue for years, but first, we were being told that we should not interfere with the profitability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because we would be driving up the cost for middle-income homeowners. We heard that in several of the arguments in trying to get rid of the Affordable Housing Fund.

Now we have a much more serious attack on the ability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to help middle-income homeowners. This says no more middle-income homeowners, only people below the median. We were told before that if we took $500 million from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's profits each year, we would inevitably be driving up the cost for middle-income borrowers. This would reduce Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's profits by 7, 8, 10 times that amount. They get most of their profit from things held in the portfolio.

Yes, I will yield.

Mr. Chairman, taking back my time, the gentleman has completely misstated for about the fourth time my arguments.

Regular order, Mr. Chairman. I yielded to the gentleman.

I have said that I do not think it is my intent or anybody else's intent that will override the economics of the situation. I do not think we can legislate that it comes either out of this or out of that. The money is fungible. My view is that in the competitive situation in which they find themselves, much of this will come out of shareholders' profits. Some may come out of the banks and others they deal with.

The point I am making is this: The gentleman and others on the Republican side argue, they were arguing before about a mortgage tax increase. They kept saying we are going to raise the cost of mortgages, not by anything we did directly. Their argument was that when you reduce the profitability of these entities, they will be driven to raise their prices and that will cost other people more.

I believe they are far more constrained in their ability to raise prices. I don't think they are holding prices down now out of love. I think they are getting them up as high as they can now in the competitive situation.

But if you believe that reducing their profits will cause them to increase their prices and thus hurt other people, in this amendment that has a much greater impact of that kind than the housing fund, because this restriction on the portfolio will cause a far greater reduction in the profit than 1.2 basis points. And it again emphasizes to me that what we have are people who don't like the Affordable Housing Fund, because they have had various contradictory ways of trying to get rid of it. Now, the gentleman from Louisiana is correct, they haven't done enough to help low income people.

One of the things we do in this bill is to greatly increase the goals. We impose goals on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which also reduce their profitability. We tell them to do more of this kind of thing and we increase the enforcement mechanism for doing it. So we do try to increase the goals in the enforcement mechanism and we create the Affordable Housing Fund.

I would say this: Maybe they shouldn't have created these hybrids in the first place. They are part profit making and part with the public enterprise. It is hard to run them that way, I understand that. That is why many of us decided that we will try to get them in the direction of helping low income people, but given the pull of profit, some of what we should do is to take a piece of the profit and put it directly into affordable housing.

That is why we have a hybrid solution dealing with a hybrid. That is why I hope the amendment is defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman, and I will yield to my friend from New Jersey after I have propounded a question.

My position consistently today has been that it is not possible with absolute specificity to say an enterprise is paying for this out of this pot or that pot or the other pot. I do believe most of this will come from the shareholders.

But people on the other side argue no, reducing the profitability by $500 million a year for both enterprises, levying 1.2 basis points on the portfolio, was going to raise the mortgage rates for the middle class. For people who believe that, I want them to explain to me how reducing the portfolio so substantially would not cost even more to the middle class?

Again, Members said taking $500 million in profit, 1.2 basis points on the portfolio, would raise the rates on the middle class. I assume it doesn't do it specifically. It does it by reducing the profitability and inducing them to raise prices.

Since it would reduce profitability by many multiples of the housing fund, why would it not have a much greater effect?

I yield to the gentleman.

Excuse me, I am taking back my time to apologize for apparently not being clear in my question. I wasn't talking about cross-subsidization. Here is the point. I would have thought it was clearer, and I apologize for my inarticulateness.

The argument was that by taking $500 million from profits, 1.2 basis points on the portfolio, we would be reducing profitability and inducing the enterprises to raise prices and therefore that would be a mortgage tax.

The gentleman's amendment would reduce the profitability by far more than $500 million a year. It would be a far greater levy on them than 1.2 basis points. Now, the mechanism by which they claim that the fund is a mortgage tax is that as you reduce their profitability, they are driven to raise prices and that will cost more.

Now, it has nothing to do with cross-subsidy. Why does an amendment which would substantially reduce the profitability not have an even greater effect in terms of the middle class, who would not be benefiting from the portfolio, in raising what they have to pay?

I just yielded. I said I yield.

I apologize. I would ask the gentlelady to yield.

Please yield.

I do. I hope the Chair is happy.

I apologize. The gentlelady has yielded.

I thank the gentlewoman.

That is not what I said. I said reducing the profitability. I would ask the gentlewoman not to yield any further. We are not going to get an answer. I apologize for starting the whole thing.

People keep talking about $3 billion for Katrina. There was no housing construction fund in the hurricane bill. If that is meant to be construction, it is simply not the case. We put vouchers into the hurricane bill, but there was not $3 billion in any housing construction in the Katrina bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

There has literally been no Member of the House who has been more dedicated to helping those who are in trouble than the gentleman from Texas. He represents a community that is a model community: Houston.

We don't always show neighborliness in reaching out to others. The city of Houston, its mayor, its congressional delegation, its citizens, its police department, has known an extraordinary degree of compassion for fellow human beings in trouble. There are few examples in this country's history of one community reaching out as generously as the people of Houston have to the people who were forced to evacuate the gulf, particularly Louisiana.

The gentlewoman from California and I listened to the gentleman from Texas, and we put some language into the bill that we did last time on the hurricane.

On this one, at this point I would ask the gentleman to withdraw his amendment. We appreciate what has gone on. The destruction was greater in Mississippi and Louisiana. There are still unmet needs in Texas. We appreciate that. We have done something, and I acknowledge we have not done enough.

I promise the gentleman, we will continue to work with him to that end, but we have commitments in terms of the physical reconstruction to go to these two States.

There will be further years in this bill. Texas continues, particularly Houston, to have a big claim on us, and we will continue to try to work with the gentleman to try to resolve it, but we hope not to do it in a kind of zero-sum situation.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word just to acknowledge the graciousness of the gentleman from Texas.

We will continue to work with him. Houston is entitled to more help and it will get it. The only thing, I want to be partially modest. He said I have the least, the last and the lost. I have tried hard tonight to help the least and the last. But in my debates with the other side, I haven't been able to make much of an impression on the lost.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

The subsequent votes, do I understand correctly, will be 2-minute votes, Mr. Chairman?

I wish the gentleman would have said that last sentence a little less assertively.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the author of the amendment clearly indicates he would like to kill the housing fund altogether. He voted to do that in several

ways. We had several votes to do that. We're going to have about 10 votes on the same issue on this bill. I don't know, there's seven different ways to kill your lover. We have about 11 different ways to try to kill the affordable housing fund. Some of them contradict each other because they are joined only by the common opposition to the Federal Government constructing affordable housing. This bill continues that, this amendment, because the key change it makes is to strike the provision that says it will be used for the construction of affordable rental housing and says only vouchers. Now, the vouchers are useful as part of a balanced program. But the vouchers now have been, under the Republicans policy, annual vouchers. We haven't been able to change that yet. Maybe we will.

Yes.

I will be glad to read to the gentleman his amendment, or at least the one that I have. Is this No. 16?

When did we get unanimous consent to modify? I don't remember hearing that request. Parliamentary inquiry.

Well, I will then take back my time. The gentleman chides me apparently for telling the truth. I have the amendment as printed. I am reading the amendment. He says where in it is the voucher program? Here on page 2 on lines 2, 3 and 4. And it's not very arcane. Let me read it. Affordable housing fund grant amounts of a grantee for any year after 2007 shall be eligible for use or for commitment for use only for rental housing voucher assistance in accordance with paragraph 19.

Now, I apologize to the gentleman for reading his amendment. I had previously to apologize to the gentleman from Illinois for reading his amendment. The gentleman corrected me incorrectly. I would like to go on and correct his incorrect correction before I again yield. The gentleman's purpose may be confusing to people, but I just want to be clear.

I do not yield for the purposes of a parliamentary inquiry. Parliamentary inquiries are only done after the holder of the floor yields. And the fact is that I do want to make it clear I am reading the gentleman's amendment. It says only for vouchers, and that's why I said that. Now I will be glad to yield to him.

I object.

I take back my time. I've yielded to the gentleman for varying explanations of his varying amendments. But I want to talk about the one we have. First of all, I do not give consent because we had a pre-filing deadline precisely so that we can study these things. They are somewhat complicated. I think having them come right off the top of people's heads, particularly at 10 o'clock at night, after we've debated the same issue about seven times, it's not a good idea to come up with something brand new.

Here's the amendment. It says only vouchers, and it says it in several places, that it's for vouchers. And here's the problem with vouchers. He says it's still better than constructing housing. No, it is not, because a voucher program helps you compete for existing rental housing. But an annual voucher program, which is referenced in this bill, in this amendment, does not give you the ability to build new housing.

In parts of this country there is a housing shortage, that's a problem. In the gulf it's a problem because the housing was destroyed. So when you only do vouchers and do not help build affordable housing, you run into that problem.

Now, under our proposal, communities would have the ability to make choices. But what the gentleman says is in parts of the country where there is already a shortage of physical affordable housing, all his amendment would do would be to drive up the price by increasing the demand for it without in any way adding to the supply.

Now the gentleman's apparently acknowledged the flaws in the amendment by trying to modify it after he had previously submitted it. I don't believe this kind of last minute changes ought to be made at this point. And so we are left with the flawed amendment.

I understand the gentleman's desire to kind of disown it. But the fact is, it is what it is. And a voucher-only program does not add to affordable housing supply and that's what we need.

Yes, it is. And here's the point. And if the gentleman would yield to me. I do not think, and it says, disabled homeless veterans. I would agree between now and when we get to conference to give a first preference to disabled homeless veterans. I have two problems with this amendment. First of all, it is not clear that there are that many disabled homeless veterans to absorb 800 million a year. If there are you could deal with it.

But secondly, I do not think in many parts of the country, including my own, that if you only did vouchers you would be doing enough for them. I'd like to build some housing, some with supportive services. But I will give the gentleman my commitment that in the final bill we should be giving a very high preference to disabled homeless veterans.

And the localities will have the ability to do it by voucher or by construction, including, as the gentleman well understands from his work, maybe places that have supportive housing as part of it. That would be an eligible use.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I also want to strike a few misconceptions. First, the gentleman quite inaccurately said that the money here is authorized with no direction about how it is spent. The only money that will be spent if the bill becomes law, unless there is further action by the Congress of the United States, is the money that will go to Mississippi and Alabama, and the bill is quite clear that that will go to the States of Mississippi and Alabama. No further expenditures will be authorized until a second bill goes forward describing how they will be done. So the bill does describe how they will be done for Mississippi and Alabama. And, yes, there will be a second bill that will, we believe, describe how this money will be spent.

Secondly, he said we are reaching down to corporations like Exxon and taking their money. Well, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are very different than other corporations. They are federally chartered and have very specific Federal advantages. So, no, there is not an analogy between directing them and, in fact, other corporations, as was recognized, for instance, by Secretary Jackson of HUD as he began to criticize them for not doing enough in their affordable housing goals.

But the more important issue I have to say, Mr. Chairman, is I am somewhat puzzled by the, I don't know if it's a clash of egos or what, the inability of people on the other side to coordinate.

There were four separate amendments that seek to do exactly the same thing. Yes, we agree; people who are in the country illegally should not be the beneficiaries of this program. In fact, we accepted the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) who says that very clearly. It does say that you can't be here unless you are here legally, and says that the director shall issue requirements calling for sufficient evidence to show that. Now, one difference between that amendment and this one is this one gets people back into the controversy over the REAL ID Act. That was controversial when passed. A number of States, governors and legislatures have expressed disagreement.

Now, we already have accepted into the bill the amendment of the gentleman from Arkansas to deal with the question of keeping out people who are here illegally. Three other amendments, I guess people all want to get credit for the same thing, but one of the things they do is to get into the REAL ID Act.

So Members should understand that in voting for this amendment, you will be going beyond simply keeping people out of this program who are here illegally; we've already accepted an amendment directing that that be done. Instead, you will be getting the privilege of getting back into the controversy of the REAL ID Act. If you come from a State where that's not popular, then you get a chance to vote for it unnecessarily, since we already have the restriction.

Mr. Chairman, I will now yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. Chairman, I will take back my time to say yes, that's true. That is why the gentleman from Arkansas' amendment, which was adopted, sets forward the requirements.

This does mention the REAL ID Act. It is an affirmation of the REAL ID Act. It doesn't say it's the only way. But Members should understand, in adding this to what we have already accepted from the gentleman from Arkansas, what Members will be doing will be getting a chance to, once again, tell their State they may have a problem. Yes, we like the REAL ID Act and you've got to stick with the REAL ID Act. I don't understand why Members would want to reintroduce that controversy when we already have accepted an amendment that says there shall not be anybody in here who is not here legally. And it says, ``Regulations, as the director shall issue, setting forth requirements for sufficient evidence that they are lawfully present in the United States.''

So we have an amendment that has been accepted that will be part of the bill if it becomes law that says you must, according to the director, be able to show, the gentleman said there are various ways to do it. Now, this bill gets more specific and it gives some examples, including, they said, the REAL ID Act. And I don't think all the Members are eager once again to take a position about the REAL ID Act in the face of a lot of opposition from governors and legislatures when exactly the same purpose has been identified here.

You know, people used a cliche before, everybody's entitled to his own opinion, but everybody's not entitled to his own facts. But I guess on the Republican side, the rule is everybody is entitled to his own amendment on a popular issue, because we have four identically on this. We had 11 on the fund. We have six on something else.

Now, far be it from me to try to get them to coordinate, but we're going to be here for a couple more hours mostly debating amendments that were offered by people on the same subject of a previous amendment, some of which were offered because somebody didn't get the credit for it. So maybe this isn't the REAL ID Act, it's the ``Real- Credit-For-Me Act.'' And we already have in the bill, as I said, an amendment that accomplishes this purpose.

Will the gentleman yield for 30 seconds?

Will the gentleman from Texas yield to me?

Yes, I do agree that it should only be-- the gentleman didn't mean citizens, because it means citizens or lawful immigrants. Yes, I agree. That is why I supported the amendment from the gentleman from Arkansas.

I would say the other language that the gentleman from Georgia was talking about does not have this direction. It directs the director to require sufficient evidence that they are lawfully present in the United States. Yes, I do think some flexibility is there.

And while the gentleman from Georgia wants to back away from the REAL ID Act, if you vote for his amendment, you are once again reaffirming the REAL ID Act and saying only drivers licenses from those States are good, and it specifically gives very great prominence to the REAL ID Act, as opposed to telling the director, with some flexibility as things change, to accomplish the same goal.

No. I did not say that, never have. But I have said that there are a number of links, and everybody except the gentleman from New Mexico, apparently agrees that government-sponsored, enterprises, we do many things to them that we wouldn't do to a purely private corporation. They have a line of credit, they have a supervisory board. There is no OFEHO for private corporations. So, no; we treat them very differently, because they continue to be linked to the government, than other corporations in a variety of ways, including giving them housing goals, having OFEHO set up, giving them a line of credit and doing other things. They are subject to many more restrictions than a purely private corporation.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Let me just say this very briefly, that I believe that the issue of the solvency of Social Security is significantly an important issue. And I appreciate your comments on germaneness. But I appreciate the opportunity for our constituents at home to be able to hear this debate and this discussion with regard to how we see it as important and doing everything humanly possible to make sure that it is solvent and there for our seniors in the future.

I yield my time to the gentleman from Illinois.

I yield.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to Mr. Roskam.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to refocus the GSEs on what is their congressionally mandated responsibility, and that is, providing for and promoting affordable housing.

The amendment would direct the new regulator to require the enterprises to only hold mortgages and mortgage-backed securities that exclusively support affordable housing. That is, those mortgages that are extended to households falling below the area's median income in their retained portfolios.

Mr. Chairman, the GSEs were created by Congress to do a couple of things. First of all, to create liquidity in the secondary market, and, very importantly here, to provide affordable housing for low and moderate families. Now, to effect this worthy goal, Congress granted these enterprises a number of advantages over private firms, including exemptions from State and local taxation, and also the ability to borrow at lower rates. In fact, Mr. Chairman, Fannie and Freddie used these advantages to borrow at interest rates barely above the Treasury rate. They then buy mortgages from originators and do one of two things; either they package these securities into MBSs, that's mortgage-backed securities, and securitize them, or they retain the purchased mortgages on their own portfolio.

Interesting, the combined GSE portfolios have increased from $130 billion in the early 1990s, today it is over $1.5 trillion. The current practice of the GSEs buying derivatives to hedge against the interest rate risks created by these huge portfolios creates an enormous risk for us. And there should be some commensurate level of return on that risk to the taxpayer in the form of lower housing prices for low and moderate homeowners.

Federal Reserve studies, however, and those conducted by other organizations, have concluded, and this is important, that consumers receive no direct benefit from the GSE's expansive portfolio holding. Although GSEs as business enterprises should return a profit to their investors, they really can't lose sight of the purpose for which they were created and the additional people to whom they answer, given their special status. They are not simply another business entity.

Currently, GSE shareholders receive all of the benefits for the portfolios and none of the risk. In contrast, low and moderate income families bear all the risk and receive few of the benefits. By buying mortgages from banks that are part of the CRA requirement or holding more low income mortgages on their portfolios that might be difficult to securitize, this amendment will help the low and middle income American buyer buy their home and give low and middle income homeowners the benefits comparable to the risk.

Let me just end with this quote. Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, ``Tying portfolios to a purpose that provides measurable benefits to the public would help ensure that society in general, and not just the shareholders, receive a meaningful return in exchange for accepting the risk inherent in the portfolios. Moreover, defining the scope and purpose of the portfolios in this way would reduce the potential for unbridled growth in those portfolios, while avoiding the imposition of arbitrary caps.''

Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense, good government amendment that will provide the taxpayers, particularly low and middle income taxpayers, more benefits for the risks they bear by helping Fannie and Freddie refocus their job, which is affordable housing.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

As many Members have said when they have come to this microphone in the past, that when you come to the floor, we can all have our own opinion on these matters, but we can't have all our own facts. To use the gentleman from Georgia and also Florida, too, I think said when it comes to the expression of squeezing all the juice out, that's maybe an appropriate expression, but then the question is where did that juice go to and what should it be used for?

Well, my suggestion is that the juice should not necessarily always be used for the benefit of the stockholders, but the juice should be basically used for, what was the intent here, to provide for affordable housing for low and moderate income. And as the gentleman from Louisiana just indicated, as we've heard from all the testimony in the committees, the GSEs have not been doing the job that we wanted them to do. And one of the reasons I believe that we now see a bill before us to put on this new housing fund is in part because they have not been doing their job. Had they been doing their job as Congress directed them to some time ago, we may not have come to this position today where we have to be debating the issue of the housing fund, which is a separate issue.

The point, though, as far as where the juice goes to and what the real facts are, we also heard testimony of Chairman Bernanke when he came to the floor, and there are also GAO studies that have looked at this as well, and what do they say? Where does the juice really go to when the portfolios expand to this level? And they include not just the low and moderate income, but the higher ones, since the low moderate income is so small. Where does the juice go to now? The juice goes to the stockholders. That is not what I am interested in making sure happens. I am interested in making sure that the juice ends up with affordable housing.

Will the gentleman yield now?

I appreciate that argument. But your argument before, if I heard you correctly, when we had a little dialogue before, was that it is your intent with the overall housing fund and where the money would come from is not from the homeowners. Your intention, if I understood correctly, was from the stockholders, from the investors.

My bill would do the exact same thing and say that it would not be coming from the homeowner or the investor as far as any burden on them.

I only stated it once. How can it be four times?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

To the point of the chairman, I am a little bit confused. He said that I have repeated his position four times differently. I have only been on the microphone three times now. But I am also confused on his position as to whether or not there really is an MTI, a mortgage tax increase, because initially he said it is going to be on the homeowners and it is not going to be on the stockholders. Now he says that money is fungible so it really can come from either place.

So, at the end of the day, I guess my original assertion was that there is an MTI, there is a mortgage tax increase, because they can come from the homeowners.

From the gentleman from Georgia, when he says there is a cross- subsidization from the larger portfolio, I would like to see the evidence of that. The evidence that we heard in committee on that point was from Chairman Bernanke and from the studies was there was not that cross-subsidization, and that in fact all the benefit comes not to the homeowners, the benefit comes to who? It comes to the shareholders.

In fact, under Chairman Bernanke's testimony, it would be better if the portfolios would be limited to this. Why? Because then they would do better than what the gentleman from Louisiana said, there is a fractional amount of work they are doing as far as helping the low income homeowners, and instead they would be holding those in their portfolios, those mortgages, as he said ``difficult to securitize.'' That would help out. That is giving real juice to the low and moderate income homeowner.

Well, it is a good question, but it was a question that was essentially raised during the committee and answered by Chairman Bernanke at the time.

If Chairman Bernanke said, yes, there was with regard to the portfolios held by the GSEs a cross-subsidization of the market and therefore a benefit to the low and moderate income mortgages that they have, then the chairman's argument would be a correct one. But Chairman Bernanke did not say that.

The gentleman, first of all, misstates the actual language of the underlying bill when he says that the housing fund is a tax on profits of the GSEs. It is not a tax simply on the profits of the GSEs. It is a tax of the overall activity.

Just one final point, and I do believe that the gentleman was saying that it was a tax on the profits of the GSEs as opposed to that. But be that as it may, remember, to the point the gentleman from Georgia made, the GSEs, even with this amendment, would still be allowed to securitize those larger loans.

This doesn't preclude them from doing that. It simply says that they should not be holding them in their portfolios, whereas the gentleman from Texas reiterated the point of Chairman Bernanke, that raises the overall risk to the overall functioning of the GSEs.

Finally, since they are able to continue to issue those large loans and therefore securitize those loans, the overall market of the GSEs is not hurt in one sense, and the profitability at the end of the day, as far as the money going to the low and moderate incomes, is not impacted.

Low and moderate income families are benefited by this bill. Taxpayers are benefited by this bill inasmuch as we reduce the risk of the GSEs on the one hand and we address and make sure that the GSEs return to their basic function of providing liquidity to the marketplace and providing access for low and moderate income housing in this country.

I thank the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Mississippi, although I cringe when Members on the

other side of the aisle characterize what our motivation is and our interest in these things.

I wonder whether the gentleman from Mississippi heard the gentleman from Louisiana speak about the dismal job that the GSEs have done so far with regard to what I believe both of us agree should be their intention which is to provide for low and moderate-income housing, such as the gentleman from Mississippi was talking about. A dismal job.

Part of the reason they do that dismal job, their explanation is, these loans, some of these loans are difficult to securitize. If you can't securitize the loans, they are not going to take them. That is their record. The numbers were given before that they hold in their portfolio. A very small percentage of these type of loans, which is the type of loans that the gentleman from Mississippi was talking about holding.

All this amendment does is this. It says GSEs, you are supposed to be doing everything the gentleman from Mississippi says we should be doing, and that is providing for housing for low and moderate-income individuals. You are not doing a good job right now. We are going to focus your attention on it. If you are having a problem securitizing these lower loans, fine, don't securitize them, but hold them in your portfolio and make that the crux of your business. Your business should not be, as it has been in the past, simply making larger profits than normal, the raises and salaries given to the top executives. Your business is helping the people in Mississippi and Louisiana.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would take the conversation this evening in a little bit of a different direction. It simply would postpone the diversion of funds to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund that is created in this bill until such time as Congress stops raiding the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for unrelated government programs.

This year, the majority proposed and passed a budget that assumes it will raid the entire Social Security surplus, an estimated $190 billion, to spend on other government programs, and that amount will increase to $203 billion for the year 2008.

During the course of many of our journeys to this office in this last election cycle, we stood up in senior centers and in conversations and in coffee and corner conversations, and we said, ``We will stand firmly with the seniors on behalf of Social Security.''

The chairman of the Financial Services Committee has sort of quietly admonished the Republicans on this side of the aisle who were here in the year 2005 for voting on a past bill and so forth. But there are 54 new Members of the House of Representatives, and we all took the oath of office. I took it right over there where Congressman

Feeney is sitting, took my oath; my wife was in the audience, my children were by my side, my mom and dad were here. Fifty-four of us all came in, 13 on our side, 41 on the other side, and we took that oath of office. We were not part of the conversation in the year 2005, but many of us campaigned on the integrity of the Social Security system.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know what the parliamentary rule is on referring to quotes and so forth, and I know that it is not what in our family is called cool, so I am not going to name names. But a quick Google search of the new Members of Congress who joined me in this class, the class of 110th, criticized opponents that they defeated for voting to rob the Social Security Trust Fund and spend it on other programs.

``Those were documented votes. Those are budget votes, and they used the Social Security Trust Fund to mask the overall Federal deficit.''

Someone else said, ``We are going to make sure we have real substantive programs about how we make sure Social Security is secure.''

Or, Mr. Chairman, how about this. Another new Member said in their campaign that they would ``fight for Social Security for seniors.''

Or how about this language. That they would ``stop the raids on the Social Security Trust Fund that are used to help cover our Nation's huge Federal budget deficits.''

You get the point.

You know, life is choices. And I respect the chairman and his passion on this bill and the intellectual honesty with which he has approached this. When I saw the chairman, who was injured, I sort of thought that he might have tripped and fell over one of those Blue Dog signs that are littered all over the Cannon Building in my office. They are everywhere. Mr. Chairman, I have a copy of one of the Blue Dog signs that says, ``The Blue Dog Coalition. The national debt is $8.8 trillion, and your share of the national debt is $29,000.''

You know what? Those signs are getting a little bit faded. There is not quite so much interest in that issue right now on the part of the Blue Dogs, it seems to me.

I think we have choices to make, and I would submit that the choice that we have to make is a choice of priorities. And voting ``yes'' on this amendment says our highest priority in this conversation that we are having is to ensure the integrity of the Social Security system. It simply says, it transcends this last hour or two of debate. It doesn't get into the profitability and loss, the shareholders, and so forth. It admits, okay, great idea. But put it on pause, and take the money that the chairman has found, take the money and put it into the Social Security Trust Fund. That is what this amendment says. It says put it on pause, and use it to fund our obligations.

Look, we have got a lot of moving parts in terms of problems in this country. We have got the national debt, we have got veterans obligations, we have got pension obligations. We have got to lower gas prices. You name it. There is one thing after another that we need to do. And all this bill does is it says, great idea, terrific idea even; wrong time.

So I think the majority owes a great debt of gratitude to the chairman of the committee, because he has come up with $3 billion that can be enacted in one rollcall this evening to make the Blue Dog Coalition promise come true.

Here's the point.

Page 2, paragraph I, the term ``actual on budget deficit'' means, with respect to the fiscal years, for fiscal year the total outlies of the government, excluding for Social Security program, exceeds the total receipts of----

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Maybe it is a two-step dance.

Will you yield?

The first step is to push the pause button, Mr. Chairman, and to recognize the current obligation--

I thank the gentleman.

In the same way, Mr. Chairman, you have demonstrated it to the committee, and you have been a leader in this dance, basically, by saying, ``Trust me in how we are going to fund this.''

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important within this context to realize who has the gavel and who has the majority.

Mr. Chairman, you have the majority. You have the ability to direct vast sums of money. And what I am suggesting is that in your earlier conversation regarding those that were a part of the 2005 vote that you sort of felt like was somehow binding into perpetuity, 54 of us, Mr. Chairman, were not part of that conversation, and 54 of us didn't really find it informative.

There are 54 of us that came in this Congress totally new, fresh. We are the Etch-A-Sketch that is clean; 41 on your side of the aisle and 13 of us.

And so what I am suggesting is in the course of the campaigns that brought us here, many, many of us, and I Googled and searched several of yours and I didn't want to string them out by naming names and so forth. But many of your new freshmen said they were champions of Social Security. Well, you know what? They have got an opportunity to vote in favor of this bill.

Let me make my point, and I will reciprocate. But, like you do, you tend to finish your point.

Mr. Chairman, we have to make priorities.

You know, I come from the O'Hare Airport area. O'Hare is in my district. And you know, the biggest challenge in O'Hare and why everybody hates flying through it is because there are so many planes in the air. This puts another plane in the air when nationally, you know what, we've got so many things circling, we've got one obligation after another that we're not doing well.

I commend the chairman. Look, you found $3 billion. The Democrats should give you a legislative, well, I was going to say something that was a little over top. They should congratulate you for finding that type of, those type of resources. And what I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, is that we put this on pause. I'm not getting involved in the debate earlier about whether it's a good idea or a bad idea. Say, for the sake of argument, it's fabulous. Say, for the sake of argument, western civilization won't process forward without it. I still say that there are higher priorities. And I named any number of them.

And what you have done, Mr. Chairman, in your advocacy and the way that you have asked us to, I would characterize it as trust you on how this is going to be articulated and distributed in the future based on legislation that you will have a profound influence on. And I would also say that we've got the ability, it's a two-step process.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate my colleague's instruction on germaneness. I have drunk of that cup. I offered what I thought was a relevant but nongermane amendment and sort of learned the hard way the buzz saw of the parliamentarian on a previous bill and sort of learned my lesson. I thank the gentleman for that.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from New Jersey will continue to yield, we can have a wonderful conversation about germaneness. But getting back to the chairman's point earlier about what I characterize as a ``trust in me'' argument. No, you didn't use the ``words trust in me,'' but I think it is important that the body not be left confused about the implication at least that we took about a verbal interchange that the chairman had with the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) when she asked, and I am quoting from the committee transcript: ``I know we have discussed the fact that there might be other ways to do this, but it seems if it is the chairman's plan to reconsider the details of the housing fund in the future, why not just take the fund out of here and then have the hearings and then make the decision.''

And at that point Mrs. Biggert continued: ``I cannot remember a time where we put something in and said maybe we will do this in this way but then we might do it another way and then we will go back and re-do it.''

And then she yielded to the chairman, who then said: ``The reason I do not want to leave it out now is I am very strongly committed to it, perhaps more than some other members. It is, I think, a rational part of this bill. It is a part of, frankly, an agreement.

``Let me be very clear. I believe that there is a great deal of interest on the part of the administration and some others in having a greatly increased regulatory structure for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

``Not everybody who wants an increased regulatory structure for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is committed to that Affordable Housing Fund. If the Affordable Housing Fund was not established in this bill and was a stand-alone bill, it might get vetoed.

``I think it is less likely to cause vetoing of the whole bill. I like very much the idea of the Affordable Housing Fund. I do not believe it could stand on its own necessarily, and that is the reason for including it in this bill.''

Now, I took from that, and I think it is a very reasonable inference, Mr. Chairman, the ``trust in me'' argument, and I think that that is a consistent argument.

Mr. Chairman, I am always one to learn and I am always open to instruction, and I appreciate that very much. But the point is when a question is asked in committee and the ranking member of a subcommittee asks it and it is essentially not answered, I think the subtext is ``trust in me.'' And I think that the opportunity as we move forward is to say, look, we have got an opportunity to take a $3 billion fund here that has been created that the chairman of the committee has found and to do the right thing with it.

Would the gentleman yield just for a clarification.

I am asking if he would yield for a moment to let me correct something, if he would.

I very much appreciate that. It is very important that I clear this up.

First of all, there is no inclusion of taxes here. This money is coming from the shareholders. It's coming from the shareholders of these GSEs. That's exactly where it's coming from.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I will yield a word to my distinguished chairman.

Reclaiming my time, I'd like to get into this dance just a little bit myself, because here we've got this little program that we're trying to offer to help the very, very poor. To show you how desperate the opposition is on the other side, they want to segue this program as a saviour for Social Security, when they spent the last 2 years trying to kill Social Security with private accounts.

And then to try to use, when you mentioned the Blue Dog Coalition, I want you to know I'm a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, and I take offense to that particular point. Nobody has been working harder to bring down the deficit that you all created.

Let the record speak for itself. How can you even think to take this little poor program here that we're trying to help, would get low income housing, and then claim it to try to use it to try to offset the deficit, when, in fact, we had over a $3 trillion deficit, and under your control of this Congress for the past 4 years, since 2001, you and this President sitting in the White House has borrowed more money from foreign governments and foreign nations, yes indeed, you weren't here, your party, than all of the previous 42 Presidents put together, in other words, since 1789.

Announcement By the Acting Chairman

Mr. Chairman, what I am saying is that there is very serious hypocrisy here that must be pointed out so the American people can make plain and understand the debate that is before us. This issue has nothing to do with tax increases, nothing to do with raiding Social Security savings and nothing to do with anything dealing with the debt. And my whole point is that the reason it's so hypocritical is the opposition on this side has done so much to destroy Social Security, to raise the debt and not respond. And then to pour this on the backs of this little program that we have targeted to poor people is about as hypocritical as you can get.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), I don't know what his intention is, but this is probably the most terrible of all of the amendments to come before us tonight. This amendment not just guts the affordable housing program, this amendment guts Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as a viable enterprise. And it would have significant adverse effects on the entire U.S. housing financial system.

Now, here's what the amendment does that I understand. It would require that the new GSE regulator restrict Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's portfolio holdings to only mortgage and mortgage-backed securities that exclusively support affordable housing. That is devastating. Particularly mortgages that are extended to households who are having incomes below the median income.

Mr. Chairman, that's like taking an orange and squeezing all of the juice out of it and then passing it off to somebody to get orange juice out of it. You are squeezing out of this operation the ability for it to have a very healthy, market-driven portfolio by restricting it to the lower elements of our economy, where there is no juice.

The portfolios of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play an important role in stabilizing the supply and reducing the cost of mortgage credit totally within the whole housing financial industry. So enter this effort, just to go after, I have never seen anything like it.

Not just yet.

This is just, again, a program designed to help very, very poor people. And you are willing to bring down the whole housing finance system just to get at it. Because this amendment would require a drastic reduction in the enterprise's portfolio holdings and subject them to micromanagement by the regulator. And the amendment would require a drastic reduction in the GSE's portfolios, which, in effect, reduces the access to competitive financing options from community banks and their home buying customers. This is a far-reaching, devastating amendment and must be rejected.

Let me explain carefully what the juice is of what we're squeezing out.

Your amendment, by limiting the portfolio, does an important thing to bring the juice out. It threatens the viability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by bringing the juice out by what I mean is by limiting their portfolios to less liquid, lower yielding assets, which eliminates their ability to cross subsidize affordable housing products using the earnings of their more diverse----

Thank you very much.

Let's get this right now. Anybody with any just basic common sense of how our investment system works in this country knows that if this amendment were effected here, if you were to put this amendment on any other enterprise, to dictate to that enterprise that your portfolio must exist at the lower yielding end of returns, you know good and well that that is not going to be helpful to that enterprise.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, to my distinguished friend from Georgia, whom we served in the legislature together there in Georgia, whom I respect greatly, but I have got to disagree with this amendment, with all due respect.

First of all, we already have this in an accepted amendment by Mr. Boozman that requires that recipients of housing assistance under the bill's Affordable Housing Fund be able to demonstrate with sufficient evidence that they are lawfully present in the United States. That is sufficient. It is already in there.

But let me just point out the real problems and the complexities with this REAL ID. First of all, the REAL ID Act would have States implement new standards, new technology, and new procedures for processing and approving driver's license applications by May of 2008. On March 1 the Department of Homeland Security issued 162 pages of proposed REAL ID regulations acknowledging this one undeniable fact, that compliance by May 2008 would be in their statement an ``impossible task.'' So we could not even do it. By the time the comment period closed last week, the Department of Homeland Security had received over 12,000 comments opposing what the gentleman from Georgia is talking about. The proposed cost for the states, by DHS's own estimation, would be $23.1 million that would be added if the gentleman from Georgia's idea would be incorporated. Only $40 million has been appropriated so far, an amount that wouldn't even begin to cover the costs in one State alone, which would be, let's say, Maine, where the estimate for compliance there is $180 million.

The astronomical cost of this mandate is not our only concern with the gentleman from Georgia's amendment. REAL ID requires that States would have to link their DMF databases with every other State in the Union, raising major concerns about privacy issues and security risks of a nationwide interoperable system.

The amendment by the gentleman from Georgia may be well intended, but it would throw our entire system on top of its head and would not even begin to even deal with this issue that is already being dealt with in a more appropriate way by Mr. Boozman's amendment, which has been accepted. We have got to ensure that all of our identity documents are secure, but REAL ID will not work in its current form. We need to bring together DHS, DOT, States, and experts in privacy, civil liberties, constitutional rights to establish national standards that will protect both our national security and the privacy of American citizens. This amendment would not deal with that, so we must urge everyone to oppose it.

Finally, my point is that immigration is, indeed, a big issue. It is a complex issue, and we are going to deal with that. But, again, you have tried it with the veterans. You have tried it with the debt. You tried it with restricting portfolios. You have even tried to tie it to Social Security and the veterans. And now you are trying to tie this immigration fight onto this simple program to try to bring some affordable housing to the most needy people that need it in our country and especially those that have been devastated from the hurricanes down in Louisiana and in Mississippi.

So, Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this amendment. Vote ``no'' on the gentleman from Georgia's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I am always reluctant to rise in opposition to my colleague from North Carolina, because he is my close colleague from North Carolina. He is right next door to my congressional district, well, one county removed, I guess. So it's burdensome when I have to rise in opposition to his amendments.

But this one I feel strongly about. First of all, I have heard this argument several times today that this imposes some kind of tax on middle-class and low-income homeowners. I think, if you look into this, you will find that this money is either going into a trust fund, which we all support to increase homeownership and affordable housing in this country, or, as has been the case throughout Fannie and Freddie's existence, it is going to the shareholders of Fannie and Freddie.

There is no passing along of savings, no enhancement of credit to additional home buyers. This is a choice between whether the shareholders get it or if we were going to finance affordable housing by the government, whether the taxpayers would be paying for it, which this trust fund really shields the taxpayers from having put up this money. That's my first argument.

The second concern I have is that this trust fund would sunset in 5 years, and we have, as a Congress, if we pass this bill and it survives through the whole process, we will have legislated this into existence.

The effect of this amendment would be to allow the director of this new agency with all these enhanced powers that we have given to him, to unlegislate what we have legislated, which I think is an inappropriate delegation of our authority.

Now, it may be that we make a bad decision to legislate it, but we recognize that by putting a 5-year sunset in the provision and allowing ourselves to come back and correct our own decision if we find that the decision was erroneous.

It is not good from my vantage point, to say to a director of any Federal agency, we passed this as a policy matter, and we are going to give you the authority to reverse it.

Now, if some independent body were making this determination, it were a study, as the gentleman indicated, we agreed to a study by the GAO and put it in the bill. That would be an appropriate mechanism for us to get feedback where we could undo this at the end of 5 years or renew it at the end of 5 years, but that's different than saying to the director, you can go if you determine that A, B or C exists, and you can unwind what the Congress of the United States told you is the law of the land.

So if the gentleman were inclined to offer this as part of this study, which we approve, I think it might be an appropriate way to proceed, because it would help to inform us. The GAO would do the study, they would tell us what their results were, and if we agreed with them that it was a big enough mistake, then we could, even before the 5 years, we could go back and correct it. But I don't want any director of some agency to be passing legislation either directly or indirectly.

For that reason, I think this is not a good amendment. I encourage my colleagues to defeat it.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I want to suggest the second step of the dance, from my perspective, is the money goes into the trust fund; housing is built; that generates economic activity and reduces the deficit. So the second step to this dance is a deficit reduction using the trust fund, not under the gentleman's amendment though.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I won't take 5 minutes. I just want to remind Members that we've just spent an awful lot of time arguing about something that has nothing to do with this bill, and that there are a number of other amendments. And I fear that at some point tonight, we will regret this detour on which we have engaged.

It illustrates, and the gentleman who is in his first term here will appreciate why the rules of the House are constructed as they are. You don't have a provision to transfer this to the debt because if there were a provision in your amendment to transfer it to the debt or to Social Security, this amendment would be non germane to this bill. And without germaneness rules, you can go off and talk about, for as long as you want, as they do in the Senate sometimes, about anything that they want to talk about.

But the amendment that you have offered is marginally germane because you didn't do what you say you wanted to do. And you've made the point that, Mr. Chairman, he's made the point that he wanted to make, I'm sure, to his constituents.

So I would hope that we could get back to the amendments that are germane and relevant to this bill, and maybe finish this bill tonight. It would be wonderful.

Would the gentleman yield just long enough to let me clarify that I'm not arguing about whether this is important. I'm arguing about whether it is germane, and there is a difference. I acknowledge that it is important.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I have been reading the amendment. And the first part of the amendment really does exactly what the bill does, it tells the director to set up some guidelines, and that is what the director is authorized to do under this bill. So that's not troublesome.

But then you get to page 2 of the amendment, and then you have the requirement that there be a settlement procedure which is duplicative of the settlement procedure that already exists under law. You have the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act already in place. There is going to be a separate set of disclosures now related to this. And then the gentleman has the nerve to say that we are creating a bureaucracy and adding costs to the closing process.

I, for the life of me, can't understand why this would be a good idea.

The first part of the amendment is fine, because that is what the bill is all about. But it is already in the bill. Why would you have two disclosures, two sets of disclosures? We have had hearing after hearing after hearing about how to simplify the disclosure process at closings. Mr. McHenry from my own State offered an amendment to the bill in committee that tried to put forth a one-page disclosure statement, and here we are now with you all telling us we ought to have a second set of disclosures at a closing under this trust fund. It is inconsistent, and it is obvious what this is about, is to throw every stumbling block in the way that you can to discourage the trust fund.

We had an amendment earlier that was defeated in the last series of votes. Mr. Bachus offered the amendment, the ranking member of the full committee, that would have stripped the trust fund out of the bill. You lost that amendment. You lost that amendment. To go every other conceivable way to try to do identically what the overwhelming majority of this House has already said it is not willing to do seems to me to be counterproductive.

Let me just address one other issue. Mr. Price from Georgia raised this earlier. We have to at some point say, look, we have had more open rules out of committee under Chairman Frank's chairmanship this year than all of the last 8 years in this House, and at some point the notion that we can continue to bring bills to the floor under open rules when we have 15 different amendments that essentially say the same thing over and over again, and then

have one of your Members get up and say, well, because one of your Members was not allowed to amend his faulty amendment it is not an open rule, it is insulting to the Chair of this committee and it is insulting to this institution.

So this is yet another example to do what was failed to be done in the ranking member's amendment, and I ask my colleagues to defeat it once again.

announcement by the acting chairman