National Energy Security Intelligence Act of 2008

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1363, I call up the bill (H.R. 3221) to provide needed housing reform, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment to the House amendments to the Senate amendment with an amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I offer the motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize myself for such time as I may consume.

Let me concur with the remarks of the gentleman from Louisiana. I don't like everything in this bill either. It is inconceivable to me that anybody would like everything in this bill, because it is the product of a very significant set of compromises. To some extent, frankly, the challenges the Congress faced and the administration faced in dealing with the housing crisis--remember, we are here in substantial part because of a terrible housing crisis that has affected the economy of the U.S. and the world. We are dealing with the consequences of bad decisions and inaction and malfeasance from years before.

Obviously it requires a joint effort. To some extent, this is a test of our ability as a self-governing people to govern. Because if everybody held off and said I am only going to support a bill with which I am in complete agreement, we would not be able effectively to respond to this crisis.

So I appreciate the President's policy statement saying I don't like everything in this bill, but I'm going to sign it and you should pass it quickly. I think that's true of all of us who have looked at this.

Now I do want to refute some of the myths. One, we heard reference to a $300 billion program. My colleague, the ranking member, sent out a Dear Colleague letter that said the part of the bill that tries to avoid mortgage foreclosure is a $300 billion program. In fact, it's a $1.7 billion program, according to CBO.

Yes, it's $300 billion, $300 billion is the total amount of mortgages that could be insured. It would cost $300 billion only if no one who had one of those mortgages ever made a payment of a penny and the houses were worth nothing. Obviously it's not a $300 billion program. That's why CBO said our version was $1.7 billion.

We also heard from some of the Republicans that it is a $5 trillion program. What they call a $5 trillion program, the stand-by authority that the President has asked us to give the Secretary of the Treasury, the Congressional Budget Office says is a $25 billion program but probably won't be spent.

So I think we need to understand conservative Republican arithmetic. It is the most inflationary arithmetic I ever heard. $1.7 billion of CBO becomes $300 billion. $25 billion from CBO becomes $5 trillion. I hope it will be very clear to people that these numbers that are being thrown around are simply inaccurate and misleading.

I also want to talk now to some of my friends on the left and others who have, I think, been misrepresenting what we are doing with regard to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac giving stand-by authority, saying this is bailing out the corporations, that this is welfare for the rich.

Let me read the list of people, organizations, who have specifically endorsed what this bill does with regard to stand-by authority to keep Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from collapsing:

The Consumer Federation of America, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Leadership Conference on Legal Rights, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Council of La Raza, the National Urban League, the National Fair Housing Alliance, the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

Mr. Speaker, apparently there has been some infiltration. Apparently the corporate welfare advocates have taken over all the liberal organizations in America. We will probably have to investigate that, because all of the organizations with which I have worked for 28 years, who are the effective advocates for low-income housing, say pass this bill, please, and please specifically help Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

So the amount of misinformation here is enormous.

Finally, I want to address the question of procedure. Everything in this bill, with the exception of the emergency request from the President for stand-by authority for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, has been fully debated in the Financial Services Committee and voted on and debated on the floor of this House.

We are repackaging a number of things. Sometimes it takes our friends in the Senate two, three and four tries to get something done, so we keep serving the ball to them. Everything in this bill, with the exception of the emergency stand-by authority, has been thoroughly debated and voted on the floor of the House, and no part of it got less than 260 votes. So we're hardly rushing through things for the first time.

July 17, 2008.

Statement on Recent Federal Action To Provide Stand-by Support to

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

The undersigned consumer, civil rights and fair housing

organizations commend U.S. Treasury Secretary Paulson,

Federal Reserve Board Chairman Bernanke and leaders of the

Senate Banking and House Financial Services Committees, for

acting quickly to provide for stand-by support to Fannie Mae

and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored housing

enterprises (or GSEs). This support reaffirms the importance

of the two companies in providing liquidity and stability to

the housing market during this tumultuous period.

The U.S. economy has a deep stake in the success of Fannie

Mae and Freddie Mac as companies with an essential public

mission. As history has shown, both GSEs are vital to the

long-term health and success of our nation's housing finance

system. Furthermore, their public mission activities have

been and must continue to be instrumental in expanding

opportunities for homeownership and affordable rental housing

for consumers.

The establishment of a strong independent regulator, as

provided for by the housing measure pending before Congress,

will serve to maintain public confidence that Fannie Mae and

Freddie Mac remain safe and sound and thus able to continue

to carry-out their vital public mission. Immediate action on

GSE regulatory reform signals that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

functions are essential to the housing market and to

consumers.

Center for Responsible Lending

Consumer Action

Consumer Federation of America

Consumers Union

Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights

League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)

Mexican American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF)

National Association of Consumer Advocates

National Association of Neighborhoods

National Community Reinvestment Coalition

National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income

clients)

National Council of La Raza

National Fair Housing Alliance

National Low Income Housing Coalition

National Urban League

Opportunity Finance Network

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I welcome the evolution in the gentleman's thinking. A week ago he sent me a letter saying we should not do the FHA modernization, so he has apparently expanded that, and I appreciate that.

There is one other myth, though, that I forgot to refute that he trotted out, namely, that this is going to force the FHA to take bad loans. That could not be further from the truth. This bill explicitly leaves the FHA in complete control of the decision to guarantee a loan or not. Nothing in this bill coerces the FHA. The lenders, to be eligible, would have to write down the loan by a significant percentage. An independent decision is then made by the FHA as to whether or not they want to guarantee it.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, a major author of important parts of this bill.

I now recognize the Chair of the Financial Institutions Subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, for 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds to say that the gentleman from Alabama suggested that I was misrepresenting his letter. Here is the last paragraph: There is need for expedited legislation, and that action is a basic GSE reform bill that can be drafted, and taken to the floor with minimal preparation, since we have had hearings, not FHA modernization and not a tap standby authority. That's what he asked for a week ago, only GSE reform and not anything else.

Secondly, the minority leader has understated the administration's position. I'm sure that he wants to be accurate. They are not simply saying the President would sign the bill, the statement of administration policy urges the House to pass it expeditiously. So they are not simply going to sign it, they want us to pass it expeditiously. I know the minority leader wouldn't want to understate the position of the administration.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall).

Would the gentleman yield?

The gentleman from Georgia has been a diligent advocate for a sensible public policy, and I admire both his diligence and his grasp of the issue. He is correct. Nothing in this title changes existing Federal law with respect to the authority of the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's preemptive authority, and their right to regulate and oversee a depository institution's products and services marketing and distribution system, and they do obviously have definitional authority under this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a very diligent member of the committee, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).

Mr. Speaker, another one of the most active members of our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green) is recognized for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca), and there is language in the bill dealing with in-person counseling of which he is the main author, and I yield to him now for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

(Mr. SHAYS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), a very active member of the committee.

(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am glad now to yield to my neighbor, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), 1 minute.

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

That's very generous of my friend. If he wishes to give another minute, I certainly would want to facilitate that.

I believe you can get unanimous consent, but if the gentleman's time has expired it would then be within the prerogative of the gentleman from Alabama to yield him another minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), a valued member of our committee.

I now yield to an alumnus of our committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sires), 1 minute.

I yield 1 minute to a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

I yield 1 minute to another member of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Carson).

I yield 1 minute to a very active member of the committee, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Klein.

Mr. Speaker, yet another very active and important member of our committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks). I yield him 1 minute.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the Chair of the Small Business Committee and a member of our committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. Speaker, I am about to yield to the Speaker, but I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my friend from Illinois who wonders about this newfound confidence in the President. My confidence in giving him power is growing as his time in office diminishes.

I now recognize the Speaker of the House for 1 minute. Her leadership has been very important on this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) who has been very concerned with this crisis given the impact that it has in her home district.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

I accept that we should. The imbalance is not intentionally done, just we're better at time management.

I now yield 3 minutes to one of the leading members of our committee in the preparation of this bill, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Would the gentleman yield to me at this time?

All the debates I've heard about civil litigation have been concerned that plaintiffs' lawyers would initiate lawsuits. We're talking here, as the gentleman well knows, about citizens who are finding themselves as defendants in foreclosures, and I can't imagine that people meant to exclude the ability of lawyers to defend people when we've got a record of some of these foreclosure packages being abusive.

So I would agree with the gentleman, and if necessary, I would hope we could make that very clear that defending someone who's being foreclosed upon, when there have been inappropriate practices isn't what has generally been meant here by a stopping the initiation of civil litigation.

I want to now yield to the chairman of the Budget Committee who has been a very important factor in our being able to pull this together, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), 2\1/2\ minutes.

Let me inquire of my colleague, I understand he only had one more speaker?

Well, we have two. So I will now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for 2 minutes and then I'll be closing on our side.

Would the gentlewoman yield?

We were able to postpone the deadline there of October 1. There is also an issue on risk-based pricing. I believe we will have both of those resolved in a more flexible way before October 1 so that seller financing and risk-based financing, appropriately done, will not go out of existence.

Regular order.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The resemblance between reality and the rhetoric from New Jersey is even thinner at this point than it usually is. In fact, in 2003 and earlier, many of us were trying to do some reforms.

In 2005, I supported Michael Oxley, the former chairman of the committee and others, in enacting reform. The fact is very clear-- Republican rule for 12 years, no Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac reform. We took office, and 3 months after the Democrats became the majority, the Financial Services Committee, under the Democrats, and this House, passed a bill that increased regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the satisfaction of this administration. Twelve years of inaction under the Republicans, in 3 months----

No.

In 3 months we did it in the House, and it took the Senate, and there was, unfortunately, obstruction from Senate Republicans, but it finally got done.

Secondly, we have the myth of the $5 trillion, the silliest single misleading statistic I have ever heard. $5 trillion is the total value of mortgages held by people insured by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The gentleman from Texas said this could reach $5 trillion. It will reach the sky on a broomstick before that.

No. I ask the gentleman to stop harassing me. He had his time. I would like to conclude. We had equal time here.

The $5 trillion means that--in the first place, nothing in this bill assumes any responsibility for any of those mortgages. Zero. It is stand-by authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to make the loans.

As the gentleman from New Jersey acknowledged, the CBO said this might cost $25 billion. It will probably cost nothing. It might cost $25 billion. How did $25 billion become $5 trillion? By fantasy. In fact, what you have is if every single mortgage held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were to pay zero, then you would have a $5 trillion problem, but it wouldn't be ours.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not to the liking of any single individual in all of its aspects, but it shows our ability to govern, because every single organization that has been advocating for low-income housing, all of the organizations that are in the business of building and selling housing, the organizations concerned with the financial health of this country, and the mayors and the Governors all support the bill, the Financial Services Roundtable, the American Bankers Association, the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Association of Realtors, the National Association of Home Builders, the United States Conference of Mayors, the National Governors Association, and all the advocacy groups, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, National Community Reinvestment Coalition, National Consumer Law Center, National Fair Housing Alliance, National Low Income Housing Coalition.

The point is this. If we had a bill that was perfect for any one of these groups, you wouldn't have this coalition. These are people who, unlike my conservative colleagues who think that their administration has suddenly lost all of its moorings and they think that the Realtors and the home builders and the Financial Services Roundtable and the Low Income Housing Coalition and the home builders, all of these people don't understand. That's because they know the difference between a $5 trillion fantasy and a $25 billion stand-by authority to prevent terrible economic damage.

Here is the final point. No solution to a problem could be more elegant than the problem. We are in this problem because of excessive deregulation that led to the subprime explosion. The gentleman from Alabama and I and other members of the committee, my two colleagues from North Carolina, tried several years ago to prevent it. I acknowledge that we worked together. We were overruled by higher political authority at the time under the Republican-controlled Congress.

We are suffering from the results of the subprime. As to Fannie and Freddie, yes. That's a hybrid form that none of us here created that we should look at, and we will look at. But to deny a emergency response until we do that would be inviting disaster.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the renewed enthusiasm for this issue, and I can't tell you how important I think it is. Energy today is a national security issue, and it is incredibly important that we have a full understanding of what the money that we send every single day overseas is doing to our enemies, how it is fueling their ability to do things like buy weapons, improve weapon systems and do other things.

I was struck by one portion of the bill and would make an inquiry to the bill's sponsor, that you made a difference between the National Intelligence Estimate and the National Intelligence Assessment. I am curious why you chose National Intelligence Assessment versus the National Intelligence Estimate on this particular issue.

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana to respond.

Reclaiming my time, that's interesting.

Sure.

And I understand that. And I think the gentleman from Louisiana misstated, it is not because it is the most accurate report, it is because it is based on open-source information and something that we could use to project versus the actual intelligence estimate which is more narrow in scope and used confidential, and as you know, classified sources of information.

And I ask the question because I have to be honest, I am very disappointed with my friends this evening on an issue that I think is so important. You know, there is a reason, I think, that we have a 9 percent approval, the lowest this Congress has ever registered. And it is for issues exactly like this.

We stood up in good faith last week. As a matter of fact, Mr. Hoekstra introduced this very bill word for word, and then we offered it, the same bill, in a motion to recommit. And this is policy, and we won't spend much time on it, but I have to note that I just think this is an awful way to do business here, and I think the 110th Congress has really sunk to new lows.

There was no reason that you couldn't have picked up the phone and talked with Mr. Hoekstra about a bill that he introduced and pioneered to deal with a most serious issue. As a matter of fact, one of the speakers today actually voted against the bill in its form, but today there is a renewed enthusiasm that we are going to pass this bill.

I yield to the distinguished majority leader.

You are very welcome, sir. To the distinguished Member, I am reclaiming my time.

The only real problem with the bill last week was that there was a Republican and not a Democrat. You know what, I say okay. If that's the way this is going to be, I say okay.

Ronald Reagan had a very interesting plaque on his desk, and it said, ``It's amazing what you can get done if you don't care who gets the credit.'' So I am going to offer this tonight, Mr. Distinguished Majority Leader, and then I will let you respond.

We hope that because of this new spirit of great ideas, but it has to be a Democrat idea, I am for that too, because I am more concerned about $4 a gallon gasoline and people not being able to make it.

So I offer this suggestion, and I will offer this deal tonight, H.R. 3089, please take it. It opens up ANWR and OCS and builds more refineries here in the United States. It's yours. We'll bring it over word for word and let you put a Democrat on it. Let's get it done.

H.R. 2279, which builds new refineries on military bases. Please, take this bill, help those people who are suffering under $4 a gallon gasoline. I'll bring it over, word for word. Put your name on it. We'll get it done.

H.R. 5656, which repeals the ban on coal-to-liquids as an aviation fuel. Please, for the people who are stopping to go to their children's away games because they can't afford over $4 a gallon gasoline, take this bill, please. I will bring it over, word for word, it's yours.

H.R. 2208, which provides incentives for the development of coal-to- liquids, please, take the bill. Put your name on it. We'll vote for it. Put it on suspension. We're in.

H.R. 2493, which eliminates expensive and wasteful boutique fuel blends, which is costing Americans real money out of their paychecks. Their food prices are going up. We have volunteer firefighters who no longer can afford to respond to fires in very remote areas of places like Michigan and Texas and, yes, even Louisiana. Please, take the bill. Put a Democrat on it. Call a sponsor, we'll give it to you word for word.

H.R. 6107, it opens up the coastal plains of Alaska, which we know will directly have an impact on the cost of fuel and bring down those prices of people who can't afford over $4 gasoline today.

H.R. 6108, which opens up our deep oceans as an energy resource. My legislation, H.R. 6161, which will spur the development of clean cars and invest in nuclear power. I give you the bill today, it's mine, it's yours. I'll give it to you. Take it. Put it on suspension.

My complaint here is this. There has been a lot of nothing happening on it. If you are trying to tell the American people you are for lessening their burden at the pump, which is literally killing small towns all across America, then let's do something about it. If it's just the fact that Republicans are on these bills, we give you all of them, every single one of them. Let's do this together, so the people who are paying the pain at the pump get some relief.

Now, this bill is pretty serious, I think, and I believe the reason we need this American-made energy plan, and that this helps us understand what the impact of those oil dollars flowing overseas every single day, and every day that we don't do something, means that we are a little bit in danger, is serious. That's why we are going to support this bill. We don't care if your name is on it. We really don't.

We just want to point out we don't care if your name is on all the bills that do the right thing. Every day, think of this, every single day, we send $840 million to OPEC. We send $191 million to Saudi Arabia. This is as of April. We send $155 million to Venezuela, $52 million to Russia.

Energy is a critical issue, and it's one that we should focus the intelligence community's efforts on. We shouldn't divert our intelligence resources to global climate change, as my colleagues have suggested. It doesn't have a real impact for what we know is fueling our very enemies' ability to buy missile systems, to upgrade their nuclear arsenals, to invest in their conventional forces, and people like Hugo Chavez, spending money, as has been reported in public newspapers, on submarines. We all certainly know what his intentions are with that, with American shipping so close to the coast.

Focusing our intelligence resources on energy security would make clear to the American people that our priorities are focused in the right place again. The press has also reported that Hugo

Chavez has supported the FARC, a terrorist organization that operates in Colombia. Wouldn't it make sense to track the rising oil prices, which results in greater income to Chavez's now nationalized oil companies, and to assess whether these funds are being used to collude with terrorist organizations? Is it merely coincidence that Chavez has reportedly traveled to Russia today to buy arms in the wake of rapidly rising oil prices? I think we all know the answer to that. It's helpful to have the intelligence resources focused on that very serious problem.

We need to have a better idea of how rapidly escalating energy costs are directly or indirectly increasing funds available to terrorist organizations so that this Congress can make informed decisions about the policy going forward. If there is a direct or even an indirect correlation between rising energy prices and increased financial support to terrorist organizations, we need to know, and we need to take action.

What are the security implications of Iran leveraging energy resources against the United States? Iran is the world's fourth largest producer of crude oil and as oil prices continue to rise, we must consider the potential for Iran to leverage energy resources and the potential effects of such actions.

These are questions our intelligence professionals should be analyzing and answering. We have done a lot of things here. We have played a lot of games. I think there was even a bill last week they called the DRILL Act. It stuns me a little bit. There was actually no drilling in the bill.

We need to have an honest discussion, not only with ourselves, but with the American people. We haven't really done that. Every day, it presents a national security issue that we spend about $1 billion a day overseas to people who want to do us harm, every single day.

Every day that we don't open up our own American-made energy resources, shame on us. We are just only adding fuel to what we will have to deal with in one way or another.

In addition to the economic aspects of having increased domestic energy supply here in America that frees us up, provides jobs here at home, and provides energy security and reduced prices and makes us competitive in a worldwide market when we are talking about the competitiveness of energy prices, and the manufacturing of goods here in the United States. The greatest thing of all, if you do a comprehensive package that includes conservation and alternative energy, and American-made and American-drilled oil, it means that we walk away from the ability to have to send $1 overseas. The sad part is, it's doable. It's absolutely doable.

We really don't need the intelligence community to come back and tell us this. We know it, but I am strongly encouraging us to support this bill, because maybe if it's coming from the intelligence community and says, hey, folks in Congress, you have a problem, you better do something about it, I am going to be for it. I don't care if it has a Republican name on it or a Democrat name on it. As I have said before, we have got a whole list of great bills we are willing to walk over and have you sponsor as soon as we can possibly get the ink to dry.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for my friend from Maryland. I enjoy his service on the Intelligence Committee, but I think we have had this debate before. I can't tell you, you are a great guy but how wrong you are on this one.

You know, you talked about Big Oil. Let's all be mad at Big Oil. I am mad at Big Oil. I have friends who run small stores who literally have had tears in their eyes because the fuel costs don't allow them to do deliveries of food, deliveries of flour for what they used to do.

I know mid- and small trucking firms who have had to actually park their trucks, because anything over $4 takes away all their margin. This is hurting the poorest Americans first, the middle class second, and, beyond that, people are adapting. But the folks who have played by the rules are getting killed with these oil prices, these gasoline prices.

So what you are telling me is you are mad at them. You say they are not drilling on any of the leases. Not true, they have got 4,700 onland leases. But they are telling us, this is where we know the oil is. Please let us get it.

And we said, no, we are mad at you because you are making money because oil is $145 a barrel.

Okay. I am mad at them too. But every day that you stay mad and you don't take action means that we send $840 million to OPEC every day. That really makes me mad.

How about $191 million to Saudi Arabia? What should that be doing to you?

How about $155 million to Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, who we know is in collusion with the Iranians, who we know is investing in munition plants, who we know, by press reports, is buying submarines to intimidate U.S. shipping, who we know is buying munitions for the FARC in Colombia. We finally have them at rope's end, and we don't care that we are going to fund them through this sham of a government in Venezuela?

Or the $52 million we sent to Russia. And by the way, they are retrofitting their nuclear missile systems that are targeted at the United States. And they couldn't do it before. Just a few years ago they couldn't afford to do it, we had to give them money to dismantle their nuclear program. And because oil is at $145 a barrel because we refuse to increase the supply in the world, they are going to go out and buy missile systems targeting us.

It is crazy, it is madness, and we can do something about it. If you are mad at oil companies, increase the supply of oil and watch the prices fall. That is the best way to get them. And guess who benefits? The single mom who is right now trying to debate if she can keep that job because it is a little bit too far at $4.19 a gallon in my hometown. I have talked to those people and they are at wits' end.

We have to stop this. I said, we don't care if it is Republican or Democrat. And if that has been the concern, quite obviously tonight maybe that was the big issue. We again, I will offer again, you can have every bill that we have; I will bring it over, to stop sending money to foreign oil overseas at the expense of our people at the pump.

You can bring up Big Oil all night long. You can be mad at them, you can tax them, you can try to regulate them, but you and I both know that prices aren't going to go down at the pump for any of those causes. They will if we have an American-made domestic supply that actually impacts the world market and starts bringing prices down.

I'm going to plead with all of you for those people who don't have a voice and they don't have fancy lobbyists and they can't afford to fly to Washington, DC because they are barely making it right now, please, let's have an American-made energy supply that keeps Americans alive, keeps them employed, has an impact on our national security, has an impact on our economic security, and the best benefit of all, it takes care of our environment in the process, because what we are proposing is conservation, alternative energy and American-made sources of energy, including oil. And there is more conservation in our bills than there is production. Who isn't for that?

I haven't heard any discussion of nuclear with zero emissions. You talk about sun, solar and wind. That is great. But that, in and of itself, won't do it.

Take our comprehensive bills, the all-of-the-above energy plan. Take it all. Get it done. Make a difference for the future generations of America. We will all stand up together and celebrate.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, I gave a good chunk of my time to the majority leader, and I was going to do that. I know if I run over, you will give me a little bit of that time back. I won't be long.

I think we have certainly debated this. If you are mad or you are disappointed, and I am very disappointed with the remarks from the gentleman. To accuse somebody of something like that is, well, I won't even get into it and I will tell you why, because we have in the power of our hands in Congress to fix this through conservation, through alternative energy research and through an American-made energy plan.

I would like some regular order, sir.

What we are talking about is conserving energy to get ourselves off foreign oil that actually has an economic impact, a positive economic impact.

The statistics you made up from the oil companies I have never heard them before. They are absolutely outrageous. And who cares? I am mad at them, so let's do something about it. Let's do a conservation, alternative energy and American-made oil so that we can stop punishing the very people who are struggling to make it every day.

You can be disappointed and mad and kick the chair and say we hate them, and that is great. It doesn't do anything for somebody who is paying more for milk or bread or gasoline.

I would request unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.

Again, we can be mad. We can kick. We can scuffle. The most important people in this debate aren't being heard right now. Americans back home are saying help us out. Give us an American-made energy plan. Give us conservation. Give us alternative energy. All of those things are in the bills we are willing to give you tonight.

I would hope and urge, for the very pressure that is being put on those families, we would stand united, with your name on the bills, and take care of those people, because right now they are at the back end of the heel, and all they hear is their disappointment in a very, very, very inactive Congress on the issues that matter to them the most.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation and recognize myself for such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I do rise in opposition and I do so reluctantly because I acknowledge that we are faced with a crisis, and because there are provisions in this bill that I strongly support.

The bill strengthens GSE capital requirements, it enhances the government's receivership authority if they get in trouble. These are significant improvements over the current regime. Even more importantly, the legislation contains a measure I introduced over a year ago to create a comprehensive system for licensing and registration of mortgage originators. This provision will do more to protect consumers and prevent many of the abuses that caused the subprime crisis in the first place than just about any other reform we can make.

The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that, rather than bringing up a clean bill to the floor to improve GSE regulation, to modernize the FHA and to crack down on rogue elements in the mortgage industry, the majority has brought us something else entirely, and they prohibited any amendments, it's a ``take it or leave it.''

The bill before us today includes provisions that actually would undermine GSE safety and soundness and fiscal discipline by diverting billions of dollars from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and from homeowners and taxpayers to pay for three big new government programs. It does so at a time when we should instead be doing everything within our power to stabilize the GSEs and our housing markets and avoid the need for an even bigger taxpayer bailout down the road.

Mr. Speaker, the most troubling aspect of this legislation remains the affordable housing fund, which would siphon $9 million from the GSEs over a 10-year period to fund State and local initiatives. One of the primary beneficiaries of these funds will be political advocacy groups across the country that claim as some part of their mission the promotion of affordable housing.

When the affordable housing fund was first introduced in GSE reform legislation that the House considered in May of last year, I cautioned that this would be an additional cost on the GSEs; I said that on the floor of this House. At that time, their combined capitalization was roughly $106 billion. Today, their market capitalization is roughly $20 billion. One year and $86 billion in lost market capitalization later, a plan now to divert billions of dollars from the GSEs to fund another expensive government housing program is not only just bad policy, it's irresponsible.

Also, I believe unwise are provisions of this bill authorizing--and let me say this: The chairman of the full committee said that I have referred to this as a ``$300 billion program.'' I do that again today without apology. Mr. Speaker, this bill authorizes $300 billion in new FHA loan guarantees. Now, the chairman said that I said it would cost that in my letter to the Members. But, in fact, I said the $300 billion program would do little to help struggling homeowners. I said a $300 billion program. I didn't say that would be the ultimate cost. In fact, it authorizes $300 billion in guarantee. If anybody doubts that, 412 of the bill, line 19, it says, ``The aggregate original principal obligation of all mortgages insured under this section may not exceed $300 billion.'' At no time have I said that the ultimate cost would be $300 billion.

In fact, in another letter to the Members I quoted the Washington Post and what they said about the cost. And that cost will be in excess of $1 billion in all likelihood. So they are three new

programs, all of them costing more than $1 billion.

And as I said, this new FHA loan guarantee program would have the effect of bailing out lenders and investors seeking to offload their riskiest loans on an FHA already close to being overwhelmed by the larger role that it's being asked to play in the mortgage market.

Many of us on this side of the aisle have questioned the fairness of asking 110 million Americans who are paying their mortgages on time, renting or owning their homes outright to subsidize those who make different choices.

The version of this legislation that the House approved last May at least had the virtue of being upfront. It required taxpayers to foot the bill directly for this ill-conceived Federal program. The version we are considering today purports to protect taxpayers by changing and shifting those costs over on the GSEs--the same GSEs are asked to pick up this cost, but at the same time we authorize the taxpayer to lend them money--by imposing these costs of the bailout on the GSEs through the affordable housing fund. But as we found in the last couple of days, as I said, that's the same thing as asking the taxpayers to foot the bill no matter how circuitous you do it.

On this point you don't take my word for it. Look at the editorial of the Washington Post, not a conservative newspaper. Here's what they said: ``The bill would fund the bailout through a fee on Fannie and Freddie, possibly $531 million in 2009. This is rather circuitous, given that government backing subsidizes Fannie and Freddie indirectly (and that they may soon be borrowing directly from the Treasury)''--and they will when this bill passes, or could. ``And it contradicts the purposes of the mortgage bailout, which is to shore up housing prices: Fannie and Freddie will pass the fees along to their customers, thus decreasing housing liquidity and depressing the residential real estate market.'' Despite that, despite liberal newspapers agreeing with conservatives, it's in the bill, and we won't have an opportunity to get it out.

The editorial concludes by asking the question, and I asked the same question: ``Wouldn't it be simpler and safer to let a new regulator address the GSEs' capital needs before plunging them even deeper into the housing quagmire?'' Mr. Speaker, I couldn't agree more.

In addition to asking taxpayers to bail out the GSEs and lenders and investors seeking to rid their portfolios of their most toxic mortgages, this bill goes a step further. It establishes yet a third government program, this one a $4 billion grant program--paid for by the taxpayers--to fund the purchase of foreclosed properties by States and local governments. This is nothing more than a bailout of investors and real estate speculators who made risky investments but who will now be able to dump their foreclosed properties on State and local governments.

This approach invites more, not fewer, foreclosures by providing incentives to lenders to foreclose on properties rather than attempt to work with struggling homeowners to keep their houses or property. Besides, setting the government up as a landlord is not my idea of a wise use of taxpayer dollars or an answer to the housing crisis. What in the world it is doing in a bill purportedly designed to avert foreclosures and assist troubled homeowners is anyone's guess.

This legislation unfortunately contains yet another--despite all that--irresponsible, in my opinion, provision from the Senate-passed bill, one that establishes a moratorium on the FHA's authority to engage in risk-based pricing. At a time when we're asking the FHA to play a greater role in assisting troubled homeowners seeking to refinance, barring the agency from pricing its product according to risk is a serious mistake. Not only will this moratorium prevent the FHA from serving more homeowners, it will lead to higher mortgage costs for everyone as the FHA is forced to raise its upfront and annual premiums to compensate for its inability to charge premiums based on risk.

If we've learned anything in the last 2 or 3 years it's that there's risk out there, and we ought to price for that risk. We don't do that in this bill; in fact, we establish a moratorium to stop that.

This legislation--the entire legislation--presents us with extremely tough choices. It includes long-needed reforms, as I said, but it also adds costly and unnecessary programs that make it impossible for many of us to support. It takes money from the GSEs when they're already in trouble. It creates two big new government housing programs even though there's an abundance of housing programs already existing. If they are not doing the job, let's reform the ones we have. And it places a moratorium on risk-based pricing.

If that weren't enough, the bill now includes a proposal to support the GSEs by direct government investment of taxpayer dollars in the common stock of these privately held companies.

When the Treasury proposals were announced last week, we were told it was essential to avoid a catastrophic failure of Fannie and Freddie and the turmoil in global capital markets. We were told we needed to pass it within 48 hours. Confusingly, at the same time we were told that the Treasury needed blank check authority, we were assured that it would never be used. We were told it must be voted on immediately, even though we were told at the same time the Federal Reserve had agreed to provide liquidity in the event of an emergency if there was one.

Those assurances notwithstanding, giving unlimited authority to a government agency for unprecedented action is a serious matter in a system that's based on checks and balances. Deciding this issue without hearings and within a 1-week span with virtually no deliberation and no opportunity to amend is a surrender of congressional responsibility. Congress did not do that with Chrysler, Lockheed or Conrail, which all were extensively studied and debated before action taken.

It is likely that the concept of ``If you build it, they will come'' applies here; if we give them this authority, it will be used, and I believe not only to provide liquidity, but to purchase an equity stake in these private, stockholder-owned companies.

Even a small government investment in Fannie and Freddie is incremental nationalization, let's be honest, a path our government should not go down without serious consideration of the consequences. One is crowding out the private mortgage market as we give them ever larger sources of cheap money. How do private lenders compete? They don't. Not fairly.

We should hesitate to saddle taxpayers with losses in tough times that should be absorbed by those who took the risks and reaped the billions in profits when times were good.

By raising concerns, those of us who questioned a rush to judgment on a blank check request were able to delay the consideration last week and to make some beneficial changes in the bill. As a result, even Senators Dodd and Shelby have now acknowledged--and I think Senator Shelby has thought all along--that the blank check needs to be examined very carefully.

Mr. Speaker, we can do better than this bill. Given the high stakes, we must do better. We should reject this legislation and immediately substitute it with a clean bill that reforms the GSEs, modernizes FHA, and increases the Treasury lending authority by a set amount.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to introduce my letter of July 14 and let the Members themselves determine whether the correct characterization would be made on my statement.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Financial Services,

Washington, DC, July 14, 2008.

Hon. Barney Frank,

Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: It is unquestionably true that the

financial stability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is

critically important to the housing market and in turn to the

overall economy. It is also quite apparent that as a result

of a weak economy, short seller activities and a declining

housing market, Fannie and Freddie are facing substantial

financial challenges. Having said that, the sweeping changes

contemplated in the proposal made by the Treasury Department

over the weekend represent a far-reaching overhaul of the

financial regulatory structure of our housing market. Making

such broad changes in a precipitous manner without adequate

study and analysis is unprecedented and, perhaps,

unnecessary.

The problem immediately at hand seems to have been

addressed yesterday by the decision of the Federal Reserve to

open the discount window to Fannie and Freddie. It also

appears this intervention by the Federal Reserve will be

sufficient to provide adequate liquidity for these

enterprises to meet any obligations for the near future.

With this Federal Reserve liquidity facility in place, a

more long-term structure can be given the careful analysis

that is necessary to avoid the all too common problem of

unintended consequences when the regular legislative order is

bypassed. Please consider a process which will allow all

sides of this issue to be given the careful consideration

they so clearly deserve.

I do believe there is need for expedited legislation and

that action is a basic GSE reform bill. This legislation

could be drafted and taken to the floor with minimal

preparation since its provisions were carefully vetted in

hearings and markup.

Sincerely,

Spencer Bachus,

Ranking Member.

At this time, I will recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, the subcommittee Chair, Mrs. Biggert, for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry as to how much time is remaining.

I would ask unanimous consent to give the gentleman from Rhode Island another 1 minute.

I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that the total time be extended 1 minute.

I would ask unanimous consent that the total time be extended 1 minute and the gentleman from Rhode Island be given that time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the capable gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time I recognize the deputy ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Neugebauer from Texas, for 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina, a member of the committee, Mr. McHenry, 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the time remaining on both sides.

I continue to reserve my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a very capable, bright member of our committee for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the secretary of the Republican Conference, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inquire into the time remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, due to the imbalance, I'd reserve the balance.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6545) to require the Director of National Intelligence to conduct a national intelligence assessment on national security and energy security issues.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 6545.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cazayoux) for sponsoring this important and timely piece of legislation. Gas prices are at a record high at more than $4 a gallon. As a result, the price of our everyday needs are going up as well. Things like food and consumer goods need to be transported long distances before they reach store shelves in our neighborhoods. Moreover, high fuel costs strain our military operations and increase the taxpayer dollars required to move our troops, ships and planes around the world.

The recent escalation in prices serves as a reminder of the fact that the United States relies on the global energy market. About 65 percent of our oil is imported from other countries, and the price of oil fluctuates with global events. Although much of the oil we import comes from Canada and Mexico, our western hemisphere allies, our oil consumption impacts the global oil market. Many other oil-producing countries are hostile to the United States and are plagued by corruption or instability. The list of the top ten holders of oil reserves includes Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Russia and Nigeria. For the past few years, 20 to 30 percent of Nigeria's oil output has been disrupted by rebel attacks; Iraq's production hovers below pre-invasion levels and is by no means stable; and Iran's nuclear activities have raised concerns around the world.

In addition, over the past few years global oil reserves have declined while global demand for oil has increased. Some estimate that global demand will increase by 46 percent over the next 25 years. If supply cannot keep pace with demand, the market becomes increasingly volatile and disruptions have a much greater effect.

We must understand the national security implications of the global energy market. Some countries are beginning to use energy as a leverage to achieve their foreign policy goals. For instance, 40 percent of the world's oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf. Would Iran try to block the Strait of Hormuz in the event of a foreign policy crisis? The Intelligence Committee should analyze the impact of such a crisis.

The National Intelligence Assessment required by this legislation will allow the intelligence community to work with the best minds in the country, from academia to industry, much like the National Intelligence Assessment on global climate change. The intelligence community will collect data from various sources and then assess the geopolitical aspects.

I also note that the report required by this bill is the same one that would have been required in the motion offered by the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee last week. However, the form in which he offered it would have killed the entire intelligence authorization bill. Unfortunately, when asked, he refused to agree to allow the House to simply adopt this amendment on the spot which would have saved the bill. That forced Members into the uncomfortable position of choosing this report over authorizing full funding and other critical legislation that our intelligence agencies need to do their jobs of keeping us safe.

I am pleased that we passed the intelligence authorization last week, and I will vote to support this legislation. This report will be an important tool for policymakers to understand the current energy crisis and plan for the future. I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

Just to answer that question, it was the language chosen by Ranking Member Hoekstra.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is left, please.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I understand the issues that my friend from the Intelligence Committee has raised. I just want to point out that this issue we have with the oil crisis and energy crisis did not occur in the last couple of years. This administration has been in office now close to 7\1/2\ years, and this is a policy we should have started 8 years ago. And now we are attempting to resolve it.

I want to respond to one of your issues, though, about the drilling. The oil companies should explore the more than 68 million acres of Federal land that we have already leased to them. It just boggles my mind, this has not been used.

But maybe I found a reason why they don't want to do this. In today's Baltimore Sun, July 22, an Associated Press article, Big Oil Big on Dividends and Buybacks, and this is a quote: ``Giant oil companies such as ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips are set to report what will probably be another round of eye-popping quarterly profits. Which raises the question: Just where is all that money going?

``The companies insist they're trying to find new oil that might help bring down gas prices, but the money they spend on exploration is nothing compared with what they spend on stock buybacks and dividends.

``It's good news for shareholders, including mutual funds and retirement plans for millions of Americans, but no help to drivers making drastic cutbacks to offset high fuel bills.

``The five biggest international oil companies plowed about 55 percent of the cash they made from their businesses into stock buybacks and dividends last year, up from 30 percent in 2000 and just 1 percent in 1993, according to Rice University's James A. Baker III Institute For Public Policy.

``The percentage they spend to find new deposits of fossil fuels has remained flat for years, in the mid-single digits.''

Is this why we are not drilling, they are not drilling the 68 million acres? Based on this article, and based on the evidence before us, they have not drilled. They have improved their profits. They have done it for their stockholders, but it has hurt the American public as a result of that policy.

Mr. Speaker, I would now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cazayoux) the sponsor of H.R. 6545, the National Energy Security Intelligence Act.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to respond to my good friend, who I respect. Former law enforcement.

I am not mad at the oil companies. I am disappointed in the oil companies on behalf of the American people.

I think you have talked about where we buy our oil. It seems to me that this administration has been in office for about 7\1/2\ years, have set the oil policy, and now we are paying for it. And we are attempting to do whatever we can on this side of the aisle to resurrect it.

And to come up with an issue of drill, drill, drill. We keep saying, and the facts are there, we have 83 million acres that the oil companies have under license, and they have not chosen to put money into the drilling of those 83 million acres, both onshore and offshore. That is number one.

What really concerns me, and what I am upset about though is the fact that we, this Congress, when the Republicans were in the majority, that we gave oil companies billions of dollars of grants to do research. And yet I haven't seen any of that money go to drilling or doing what you are suggesting that we should do now.

What I see is what I read in that article in the Sun paper about the fact that the oil companies are making outstanding, the highest profits they have ever made in their history. And you know why? Because they are putting the money, the grants that we gave them, the American dollars, not in to drilling and trying to help bring the oil prices down, but to the bottom line of their stockholders and also to really having the American people suffer because of that strategy.

So I would just say that this is an issue we must move forward with. We are talking about drilling when this is an intelligence bill, and we should stand behind this bill, as Americans, as Republicans and as Democrats.

Now I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Rhode Island, Congressman Kennedy.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

How much time remains on each side?

I reserve.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to my friend.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

How much time do I have remaining?

I will close.

First, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana and the other sponsors of H.R. 6545 for introducing this important piece of legislation.

Energy and the availability of fuel affects every aspect of our lives. It impacts our security. It impacts our economy, and it impacts our wallets. We need the best information available and the best analysis possible on energy security. The intelligence community is in a unique position to give it to us.

I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and I thank him for the great intelligence, brilliance, and eloquence that he has brought to this very important debate for the American people. I want to thank him, as Chair of the Financial Services Committee, for his tremendous leadership. I also want to commend Congresswoman Maxine Waters as Chair of the Subcommittee on Housing, and acknowledge the excellent work of Chairman Charlie Rangel on the Ways and Means Committee, without whose leadership we would not be here today, and also subcommittee Chair Richie Neal for his extraordinary leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that this legislation would have been the product of much more bipartisanship, and it seems that it has been between the White House and the Democrats in the Congress. As a fan of Congressman Spencer Bachus, I also want to acknowledge him. We have some areas of disagreement here, but I'm pleased that we are able to move forward.

Mr. Rangel, Mr. Frank, Mr. Neal, and Chairwoman Waters have brought us a comprehensive package on housing policy reforms that will lift families facing foreclosure and stem the continuing drop in home values across the country.

I also wish to acknowledge the contributions of Secretary Paulson. Treasury Secretary Paulson played a constructive role and helped the President reach this agreement after opposing many parts of this legislation. I'm so pleased that the White House issued a statement that the President would not veto this bill.

Under Chairman Frank's leadership, the House last year, just 3 months after Democrats took the majority, in the spring of last year, this House of Representatives passed a bill very similar to the one the House is voting on today, and the administration said that it will not oppose. But at the

time, we had trouble getting from the passage of the bill. Mr. Frank and members of the committee, Chairwoman Waters, foresaw, they knew there was a need for legislation. They passed legislation similar to this 15 months ago only 3 months after Democrats took power.

Again in May of this year, the House passed virtually an identical GSE reform bill as part of a broader comprehensive package to address the crisis in our housing market. Also in January, in discussion over the economic stimulus package, we proposed inclusion of both the GSE reform bill and the FHA reform bill that are now in this package. Unfortunately, we could not get agreement on that.

The bill that the House takes up today, if enacted, will represent the most far-reaching reform of our nation's Federal housing finance system in a generation. Chairman Frank had the foresight to build a bipartisan consensus around the bill that addresses the difficult challenges in our housing markets and communities across America. To help American families avoid foreclosure and jump-start the housing market, this legislation first steers middle class families away from predatory subprime loans and provides them with affordable mortgages; shields middle class borrowers from predatory lending practices and provides foreclosure avoidance counseling opportunities; protects taxpayers, not speculators, by requiring lenders and homeowners to take responsibility; and it offers tax breaks to first-time home buyers.

In this bill we are also ensuring that legislation increases the stock of affordable housing by preserving affordable rental housing for seniors and other populations in communities across America; provides tax incentives for the production of rental housing for low-income populations.

So while all of the attention is on the GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the rest, I wanted to be sure that people understood what was happening to help working families in America.

I would have liked to have seen a seller-financed down payment provision that would help low- and moderate-income families achieve homeownership, and I hope that that issue will be revisited in future legislation. I would also hope that we can review carefully what the most appropriate government structure is to oversee the GSE, including the Federal home loan banks. The Federal home loan banks were not part of the problem, and I know they have some concern about whether a single individual, an executive director or a governing board would provide better governed insight. I think it would be important for us to review this.

On the subject of our veterans, this legislation, and thanking Mr. Frank, is also helping returning veterans achieve the dream of homeownership by increasing the VA home loan limit for veterans in high-cost areas. I'm so proud of that. It is extending the length of time veterans are protected from foreclosure upon their return from service from 3 months to 1 year.

The bill does many, many other things, too numerous to mention here, but suffice it to say that we are addressing a crisis of historic proportions, and the bill protects the futures of our families and their housing.

Having just returned from the gulf coast region, I would also like to note the significant contributions to this bill of two of our newest Members of the House, both of whom hail from the gulf area, Don Cazayoux from Louisiana and Travis Childers from Mississippi. Congressman Cazayoux and Congressman Childers sponsored legislation cutting red tape at HUD so that public housing facilities can receive swift assistance from FEMA after a natural disaster. Their legislation also authorizes funds to combat violent crime on or near the premises of public or federally assisted housing facilities. Their achievement is a testament to their diligence and dedication in representing their districts.

As this bill was going forward, I just might say about 2 weeks ago around this time we thought we had a mortgage foreclosure housing bill that we would bring to the floor. It was then that we heard that following weekend, a week-and-a-half ago, from Secretary Paulson that the GSE language provisions needed to be in this bill. That made a drastic change in the legislation making it a much bigger package.

While we all understand that the last thing our economy needs is for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac not to be able to make loans and we go forward giving confidence to the markets that Congress will act and the system should be trusted for what Congress is saying about this, I think down the road a bit we should review the hybrid nature of Fannie and Freddie. I know that this bill gives authority to review the compensation of the executives of those institutions, and I think that's very important.

Owning a home is an essential part of the American dream. It's not only about what it means to individuals, it is what it means to the community, putting down roots. It's what it means to the economy as we take an interest in our homes and make them habitable. By expanding homeownership opportunities and protecting families against foreclosure, we are helping to keep the American dream of homeownership alive by restoring confidence in the housing market. Our economy can begin to grow and create jobs for the American people again.

For this reason, I don't think we could have been better served than by the tremendous leadership and knowledge and perception of the distinguished chairman of the committee, Barney Frank. I thank you for your leadership once again, Mr. Frank, and by the relentless persistence of Congresswoman Maxine Waters on behalf of low-income people and homeowners and renters in our country. Thank you for your leadership.

Thanks to Mr. Rangel as well. It seems like every bill we're thanking Mr. Rangel because he has such an important part of it. He has so much knowledge of the process, stamina, and working on legislation day in and day out, we're deeply in his debt, and in this case, he was well and ably served by Congressman Richie Neal.

Again, this is a major accomplishment for the Congress. I'm glad it's being done in a bipartisan way with the Congress and the administration and hope that it will be signed into law this week.

Thank you again, Mr. Frank.