Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) whose intentions are certainly well meaning, here is the situation. This was never brought before our committee. We spent hour after hour, most times till 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning, working on a variety of these issues.

Now, if there are charges that he is speaking of, and they appear to be serious, they belong in the jurisdiction of the Justice Department, not in the Agriculture Committee.

That is where this argument needs to be taken, but not at this late hour at a time when it has not been brought before our committee. And, as he said, he might have mentioned it to the gentleman, Mr. Pomeroy, at dinner, but that's a hue and a cry from having this discussion in the full Agriculture Committee.

The other point is that there are 16 companies who provide crop insurance. If this rather draconian amendment were even adopted, it would severely wreak havoc in the crop insurance industry as we know it and provide fewer choices for our farmers.

Again, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee.

I respectfully ask that we oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, if this House of Representatives wants to stand up for the people of America, they will stand up and vote for this rule and for this bill.

We spent many hours, way into the midnight hours, working and bringing every party together. This is not a tax increase; the other side knows it. Their leader said these words President Bush said in his 2008 budget: ``Some foreign companies are inappropriately avoiding taxes that other American businesses pay by using this loophole.'' This is what the Republican President said. This is not raising taxes; it is closing a loophole. Vote for the rule.

Madam Chairman, we are at an extraordinarily important moment. The people of America are watching us all across this country.

The U.S. agricultural community and industry employs over 20 percent of our entire workforce and accounts for $3.5 trillion every year in our economy. And it is just somewhat baffling to me as we look, and we have worked together in the committee to get many competing forces together, that the gentleman and gentlewomen on the other side of the aisle would turn their backs on the American people and all the work that we did together and in bringing these competing forces together, whether it was black farmers or our Traditionally Black Colleges, or food stamp recipients, all with compelling needs, country of origin labeling, on a whimsical excuse, because we had to balance and score this at a time so that we would have pay-as-you-go so we wouldn't put it on the backs of our children and grandchildren to pay for this farm bill; went to Ways and Means and asked them to find a way to get us $4 billion, and they went and got a way that was first presented by President Bush.

President Bush said, let us close this loophole on foreign companies that are using what is known as earning strippings to stop paying taxes like every other American business. When President Bush said this just 6 months ago, there was no hue and cry about a tax increase.

There is no tax increase on this. This is a good bill. Let's pass it.

Madam Chairman, I serve on both Agriculture and Financial Services, so I can look at this with a very jaundiced eye. And I think what we have to do is make a decision in this move based upon what the lay of the land is. First, we're talking about renewable energy and ethanol. Where is that going to take place? It's going to take place in the rural communities where the products, where the crops are that will make renewable energy.

This proposal is tied very tight, and I think that farm credit deserves to have an opportunity to compete in this new burgeoning industry. The businesses that are made eligible are ones that process or handle farm products that are directly used in renewable energy. This is very tight. I do not believe that the farm credit needs to be denied this opportunity. I do not think it blurs jurisdictional lines. We should not close the door on an industry, an opportunity for farm credit to provide a service that is not directly competitive with our bankers.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor one of the finest educators ever to serve students in my congressional district. Please join me in congratulating Carolyn LaVerne Davenport for thirty- four years of outstanding service to my constituents in the 13th Congressional District of Georgia.

Ms. Davenport was born in Atlanta and raised in Jonesboro, Georgia, the heart of my district. As a youth, she attended the same school system in which she taught for many years, graduating as valedictorian from the W.A. Fountain School in 1965. She went on to earn a Bachelor's degree from Spelman College in 1969 and received her Master's of Elementary Education degree in 1972. Carolyn taught first and third grades at George M. Kilpatrick Elementary School. Throughout her career, Ms. Davenport received many accolades including an honorary life membership to the Georgia Parent Teacher Association, as well as a Certificate of Special Achievement from the American Red Cross Youth Services.

Not only was she a leader in the classroom, she was a leader in her community as well. Twenty-five years ago, Carolyn founded the Clayton County Campaign for the United Negro College Fund. Thanks to the UNCF and Carolyn's activism, thousands of students, including several of my colleagues in this great body, have been able to receive a higher education and pursue their dreams. In 1991, in recognition of her great efforts, Ms. Davenport received the UNCF Star Volunteer Award and the 2000 South Metro Salute to Higher Education Award. She has also volunteered for many civil rights, community and international organizations including the Concerned Black Citizens Coalition of Clayton County, the NAACP, the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and CARE International.

Madam Speaker, Carolyn Davenport is a true public servant. The impact she has made continues to be felt by her colleagues, friends and other members of the community. As she enters retirement, she will still be regarded as an exceptional leader and a model citizen. Once again, I congratulate Carolyn for reaching this milestone.

Thank you very much. It is certainly a pleasure to be with both the gentleman from Louisiana, and for you as well, Mr. Melancon.

This is definitely a major, major priority as far as the future of this country is concerned. Our energy policy is interwoven directly into our vital national security. There is no question about it.

We have, for the past 50 years, progressively gotten more and more dependent on oil from the Middle East. There is a reason why Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, those Middle Eastern countries are so vital.

It is so important for us to try to hopefully find a way in which we can get peace in that region. We don't know the answer to all of this; it is largely going to be up to those Middle Eastern countries. But we are so directly tied to the future stability of that region, largely because of one thing, that is, our energy. And that has been a mistake, that we are tied to our future energy needs to the most unstable region in the world. And we now need to move very rapidly to excise ourselves from that.

The other reason why our energy policy is so vital and so important, and again, part and parcel of our national security, is because of global warming. Make no mistake about it, there may be differing opinions about global warming, there may be differing opinions about climate change, but one thing is certain, the facts do not lie. This Earth is getting warmer by the day, by the year.

Scientists have pointed out that the Earth's climate is increasing in warmth at a rate of one-tenth of a degree in each of the previous decades.

That may sound like a little. But when you look at just 2 degrees since the turn of the century, that is a major, major fact; the fact of dependency on oil in the Middle East, the most unstable region, the fact that we are experiencing the damage of global warming. The reason for the global warming is the excretion of carbon dioxides into the air, and that gives us the greenhouse effect.

So on those two points, we have no choice but to proceed directly ahead and provide the kind of sterling leadership this Nation deserves, as you so aptly pointed out, Mr. Matheson, in a very responsible way, in which both sides of the aisle can come together. Everybody can come together and understand that this is not a Republican issue. This is not a Democratic issue. This is an issue for the future of the American people and the people of the world.

Mr. Matheson, I would like to maybe pick up on a point you made on the diversity and alternative sources of energy. Let's just take one for a few moments and put this one on the table, because I truly believe that this is one of the major directions we are going to have to go in.

As you know, one of the problems with our dependence on oil and petroleum, aside from the Middle East and the political volatility there and the unstableness that is there, even if we had and were able to produce some of this oil on our own here, we have a refining problem. We are very short in our refining capacity.

It has been almost a quarter of a century since we even built a new refinery. There are reasons for that, environmental, people don't want them around, but they are not there. But that is another reason.

So, one of my interesting visits not long ago was to go down to South America, to Brazil, to visit Brazil. One of the reasons I wanted to go to Brazil was because I wanted to find out what they were doing and how they were doing it with their energy problem.

Here is one salient fact: Brazil and Argentina both are not dependent upon the Middle East for oil. They have moved very rapidly and are setting the curve for ethanol production.

Now, 85 percent of their automobiles are ``flex'' automobiles, in other words, running on a combination of mostly ethanol made from sugar cane.

If Brazil can do those two things, get clean energy, get ethanol, make it from a grown product that continually renews itself, and at the same time not be dependent on oil from the Middle East, surely we can learn something from what is going on in Brazil. And I did. A group of us went down to Brazil. We spent a lot of time down there. We talked to people and we found out some things there.

I believe, quite honestly, a major feature, not all of it, but a major feature of our way out and our way forward in becoming energy independent rests in the production in this country of ethanol.

Again, we have got to be very responsible as we move forward with ethanol production. We have got to have a level of moderation with it and we can't go overboard with it. It is very interesting that President Bush in his State of the Union, if you recall when he was talking about energy, mentioned it. He said we can solve our problem with ethanol made from corn, and he put some large figure out there.

But if we even just went with that, it would put such downward pressure on our food stock, on our cost of beef and poultry and chicken and pork, who feed off of corn. Corn cannot do it alone. So it has to be a dual approach with cellulosic, which is made out of pine straw and pine trees and wood chips and switch grass, which we have plenty of.

The point that I am making is we can move rapidly here, and we are. As a part of our farm bill that we will be marking up this week, that we are in the process of marking up, we and the Democrats and Blue Dogs, who make up a large part of the Agriculture Committee, are in the leadership on this, and it is one of the areas in which all of us can be very proud. But certainly within our Blue Dog Coalition, we are providing the leadership on finding a way out of our energy dependence, and we are doing it through our farm bill.

Just think, that we can grow our way out of dependence on oil in the Middle East. We have got all of it right here in this country, and I think getting the ethanol plants moving, using corn where we can, but there is a certain limit we have to have there, but use these other means of cellulosity, the wood chips, and putting the incentives in this package, as we have in the farm bill to explore and develop ethanol plants and plants of operation.

Also, we have to do it near the points of distribution. And in the process of creating this new industry, we create jobs when we create a clean energy source and that is one of the major steps I believe for us as we move towards energy independence.

I think you made a significant statement there, Mr. Matheson, that when you are in a deep hole, the first thing you do is stop digging.

I want to very, very briefly share, and I am sure there are some American people who are watching our discussion this evening, on just how serious a situation we are in. I talked about instability in the Middle East and our dependence upon oil.

Clearly there are two known facts. Right now, 42 percent of all of the known oil reserves rest under the basin in the Middle East, in Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. That is nearly half of all of the available oil supplies that we know of in the Earth. And it is not renewable. It doesn't renew itself. Eventually at some point oil is going to run out.

When I was at NATO, and we had a meeting over in Paris this past winter, our winter NATO meetings, a question was put to a noted economist, John Malone, and he made a profound statement. He said we didn't leave the stone age because we ran out of stone; nor will we leave the oil age because we have run out of oil. What he said was that civilization as we know it could very well run out before the oil runs out with the rapid rate we are going with the damage that oil-driven energy sources around the world are causing with the greenhouse effects.

I thought it would be very interesting to share with the American people just how serious this is given the fact that oil is not a renewable source of energy, given the fact that almost half of it is in a very unstable region, and much of the world is still depending upon. But according to the Energy Information Administration, here are some startling facts. They say that world daily oil consumption is projected to grow by 1.4 million barrels this year in 2007 and by 1.6 million barrels in 2008. That is daily oil consumption. You talk about running out with that rapid rate, and each year it goes up. In addition, the EIA projects a steady increase in natural gas and electric use in the United States which will create upward pressure on prices. This doesn't paint a very good picture.

And then it goes on to say that almost all scientists agree that the Earth's climate is rapidly changing and getting warmer, having increased by 2.6 degrees Fahrenheit since the turn of the century. Now as I mentioned earlier, on the surface of it, 2.6 doesn't seem like much, but it is major. The Earth's global average temperature is now approaching or possibly has passed, according to this report, the warmest experience since human civilization began over 12,000 years ago. Now it is approaching the warmest it has ever been in the history of mankind. Global warming is a fact. Climate change is a fact.

And it goes on to say that over the past 150 years, measured carbon dioxide concentrations have risen by more than one-third. The question is not whether greenhouse gases will result in climate change, but rather the magnitude, the speed, and the geographic details and the likelihood of impacts stemming from this trend.

I am not painting a gloom and doom picture here. We are talking about facts so we can get a sense, a greater sense of urgency in this Congress and in the world. So many places over in the world we are fighting and killing one another over what could very well be in the scheme of things very trivial. We are all in the same bucket as human beings.

This earth of ours is precious, and for no other reason more important than saving this earth for our future generations, the air we breathe all rests in the decisions that we make in this Congress today.

I know and I share the same feeling with you all that we feel very honored and very privileged to be elected and serving in Congress at a time when this is our challenge. And when they write the history books and perhaps our grandchildren and children will look and say, well, what did grand-daddy or my daddy do at that time, the history books will reflect very proudly that we provided the leadership at a very crucial time to move this Nation forward in getting away from oil dependency and getting into clean energies.

We have the means to do it. We know we need to do it, and we have the direction to do it.

Thank you very much. I think in addition to the plans and the points that we have offered here, there's the other side of this that we have got to face, and that is human behavior. We've got to provide leadership to change human behavior when it comes basically to the one instrument that is causing so much of the pollution, that is causing the earth to get warmer. That is the automobile, and we have to move on both fronts. We have to move on the front of getting the American people to do, and we can do this if we use our policy right, if we use our incentives right.

One is that we need to provide encouragement and incentives for individuals to get out of their automobiles, to use other means of transportation, especially in our large urban areas.

Let me tell you about my region of the country that I represent which is Atlanta. The Atlanta area has one of the highest carbon dioxide emissions area in this country, and with that is traffic congestion, which is about to choke the great promise of our city, not only in our region, not only in terms of the traffic but the air we breathe.

So we have got to move and provide the leadership to get alternative means of transportation moving people from place to place without such great dependency on the automobile. Just think about the time and productivity and hours that's a waste in the human productivity of sitting in traffic jams, let alone the waste of energy and the idling of the motors just in the traffic jams alone. We can't continue that way. We've got to do things.

Commuter rail is one of the areas that we are working. That's hard. It's hard to get people out of their automobiles, but it might be good policy for us to move to an area of good Federal tax dollars being used as incentives to be able to give people opportunities to get on these commuter rails. Perhaps we ride for free. Perhaps they're down in a subsidized cost. We've got to do something.

In Europe and in France and throughout Europe and in Japan, they have got trains now that are zipping people along at 100. They have got one over in Asia and Japan somewhere that's going about 150, 160 miles an hour. Where would we be without the rapid commuter rail systems we have in the northeast? Can you imagine if we didn't have it? You think traffic is bad between New York, Boston and Washington, D.C. Just think it what it would be like if we didn't have those systems.

So there are ways in which we've got to do that.

The other thing is; and I am not saying, I know how hard it is, I love my car. We are a society in a culture in America that has just grown up with the automobile. It's a part of us from the drive-ins to all the things that we associate with the good life. Get a home, get a car. You are in America.

But maybe, in addition to getting them out of those cars with incentives and the commuter rail and other means, maybe we can do something with the car itself. They are doing some things, American ingenuity is already at work in New York. The Ford Motor Company is now putting together an electric car. They are already out there. We have moved, and I think we are moving with the proposal in this Congress, to give an incentive, to give a tax write-off, tax benefit, some help, for people who will buy cars that run on the batteries and electricity. They have this.

I think there is a lot more we can do, in changing the habits of the American people, changing to get them out of the automobiles, and then changing the nature of the automobiles themselves, and then, of course, getting the clean sort of renewable energy we can to put them in. These are the kinds of proposals and approaches that I think this issue calls for, and I think it's the way forward in the future.

The one area we did not mention, because we need to, because it's going to play a very important role in the future, that's nuclear, nuclear energy. I know when you mention the words nuclear energy, folks get a little shaky, but that's an education job, that's a leadership job. But nuclear energy is reliable, it's low cost, everywhere we have the safety necessary, there's a licensing process that we go through, there are all kinds of features there. But nuclear energy is very, very important, it's going to play a very important role, and we have got to invest in it.

Finally, I have got to say, I think in reminding a great historian once said, on the bleached bones of many past civilizations are written those pathetic words, too late. Let us hope and let us know for sure with the action we are taking in this Congress that they will not be able to say that about our civilization on this energy and global warming. We are not going to move too late.

Well stated.

Mr. Speaker, I stand 100 percent behind this bill for a responsible redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. Much has been said. There are several points I would like to make going forward.

First of all, this is responsible. This is not something that was just put together. This was put together with military advisers of the first order, generals on the ground who were consulted, and by two of the most distinguished individuals in this Chamber, our distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Tom Lantos, and our distinguished chairman of our Armed Services Committee, Mr. Ike Skelton. Nobody can argue their credentials. Nobody can argue the credentials of the military advisers that put this together.

But most importantly, the people that no one has mentioned, the entity that no one has mentioned, the most important entity of all is the American people. This bill represents the will of the American people. Seventy percent of the American people support this action today.

Now, let me remind you of the words of Robert Jackson, one of our distinguished Supreme Court Justices in the steel seizure case of 1952, when a similar situation was in place, where we were at loggerheads then with the executive branch and the legislative branch, but at that point, the Supreme Court decided that Congress has the authority. And Jackson went on to say that when the executive branch denies, disrespects and disavows the authority of Congress, we enter into what is referred to as a zone of twilight, or a twilight zone.

That's where we are now, to get out of this twilight zone of destruction and mayhem, of instability in the Middle East. You talk about stability in the Middle East. We are more unstable in the Middle East now as a result of what we have done.

Get us out of this twilight zone. This bill is the way to do it, and I commend it and hope we pass it overwhelmingly.

Mr. Speaker, let me just very briefly outline exactly what we are after in this bill.

First of all, this is a responsible effort for redeployment so that we can refocus and fight the war on terror. The situation in Iraq is a civil war compounded by civil wars that have been going on ever since Abraham, Hagar, Sarah, Isaac, Ishmael, Esau, Mohammed and his son-in- law, which has broken into the Shi'as and the Sunnis; hundreds of thousands of years, folks.

None of the people from Iraq came to this country and asked, please come over and pump in $500 billion, 3,600 of the lives of your precious sons and daughters to make a democracy for us. That was a decision that was made counter to the authorization in the first place. It was a go against weapons of mass destruction.

It is responsible. It is focused. We need to do it, and I urge passage of this bill.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

We have just heard the gentleman from Texas lay out a scenario that is ripe full of holes. This amendment is drastic. It is costly. It is inefficient. It affects all families and individuals currently using a voucher or living in section 8 project- based housing. It's impossible to administer. Even HUD and the administration itself has not even requested it. It imposes a new unfunded mandate on private sector landlords owning Federally assisted housing, forcing them to assume the role of a welfare agency.

The gentleman talks about a boom on the taxpayers. This imposes a significant cost to taxpayers by raising the costs incurred by public housing.

And I have in my hands a letter from just about every housing and real estate and housing association in this country saying, in effect, that we are not able to support the Hensarling amendment.

Most exemplary of the ridiculousness of this amendment is that he asks for 20 hours of work, but doesn't say how, doesn't say when. Twenty hours when? Twenty hours a week? Twenty hours a month? Twenty hours a year? There is no way to administer it.

But Madam Chair, what is so hurtful to me about this amendment; yes, it is mean-spirited. But not only is it mean-spirited, my friend, it is, indeed, bigoted. It is, yes, a bigoted amendment. Let me tell you why. It reflects a very

stereotypical negative view of certain economic racial groups of poor people, poor families, because it singles them out for an ill-defined work requirement that does not apply to other families and individuals receiving Federal assistance.

This amendment needs to be dealt with for what it really is, and quite honestly, it is an insult to the Congress of the United States. And I submit it is even beneath the dignity of the Congress of the United States to even entertain this amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver), and I reserve the balance of my time to close.

I will yield to the gentleman to respond.

May I inquire as to the balance of my time?

I reserve the right to close, if the gentleman from Texas has more to offer.

Let me explain, if I may, Madam Chair, in closing. This is very personal to me. I've grown up in this country. I understand messages and I understand this message. This is a message that is targeted to a group of people, no matter how small they may be, who believe that certain people are categorized as wanting a handout, or that they are lazy, or that they don't want to work. So then the cry comes, before we can give them any help, make them work. Make them get a job.

Madam Chairman, that is what this is about. In my humble opinion, 20 hours of work, not even defined, whether it is a day, whether it is a month, whether it is a week, no requirements in it, is an unfunded mandate.

On top of that, Madam Chairman, there are already included in this bill a number of provisions to encourage work, to encourage self- sufficiency, including reduced work disincentives.

So in closing, may I say, Madam Chairman, please vote against the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor a great accomplishment by students in my Congressional district. I offer my congratulations to members of the Chestnut Log Middle School Reading Team of Douglasville, GA, for winning the Helen Ruffin Reading Bowl. This competition was held at the University of Georgia in Athens on April 21, 2007.

Students read from a statewide book list and answered questions from the novels in order to earn points and win the contest. To be eligible for the State competition, Chestnut Log students first won the Douglas County Reading Bowl in February, then a regional competition at West Georgia University in Carrollton in March. In April, they became State champions.

I want to recognize the members and coaches of the Chestnut Log Middle School Reading Team. These individuals are Seth Blair, Isaac Carter, Zachary Fowler, Will Gay, Patrick Ray, and Caroline Wesson. Special recognition goes to coaches Jan Easterwood, Margaret Robbins, and Susan Bissell for their guidance of this team and devotion to fostering good reading habits among youth.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I want to commend these students for their great accomplishment. As an avid reader, I wish to persuade all of my constituents, no matter young or old, to read and to encourage reading within their communities.

Mr. Speaker, thank you to Ms. Baldwin, the distinguished lady from Wisconsin for her generosity, and thanks to Mr. King and those on the other side of the aisle who are joining in this effort.

Mr. Speaker, without question, this is an extraordinary day, it is an extraordinary bill, is an extraordinary occasion. This is America, the greatest country in the world, and our flag represents greatness. To have now, finally, fruition, the manifestation of those precious words that were captured in the book of Exodus in the holy scriptures, where God said, the greatest and the first commandment in relationship of man to man were these words, ``Honor thy father,'' and then He said, ``and thy mother that thy days will be long in the land.''

Finally, today, on this day, June 11, in the year 2007, nearly 4,000 years since those words were written down and inscribed, we are finally recognizing fathers as well as mothers by making sure the flag flies not just on Mother's Day but on Father's Day as well.

In the Hebrew language, the word for ``father'' is ``abba, ``and in the Greek language it is ``pater,'' and together those words mean the begatter, the progenitor, the source. But it also means provider and protector. It is no wonder why God in His wisdom said: ``Honor thy father'' and He put father first, and our mother, and now we are rectifying that situation.

I am very delighted to be here. This is an important bill, at an important time, because never before have we needed to stress the role of father, to be a good father.

It is a gaping hole in the fabric of America that fathers are not being fathers. Throughout so many aspects of our society, the American flag is one of the greatest symbols of our country. It is the representation of our freedoms, our values, our heritage as a Nation.

As Americans, our flag code instructs us to fly the flag every day, but especially on a number of very special significant Federal, religious, and cultural holidays. For many years, this list of occasions has included Veterans Day, President's day, Columbus Day and Mother's Day.

In the past several years, the list was amended to include the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.'s observation of his birthday as a national holiday, in honor of his outstanding contributions that he made in his lifetime to the advancement of the civil rights of all Americans.

But our flag code currently does not reflect the important roles of both men and women in the raising of children, and never before have we needed to emphasize that. It is time that this body officially recognizes the importance of American fathers by passing this important legislation today.

I am pleased that the House is considering H.R. 2356, for fathers play an extraordinary role in the development of children. Psychologists have emphasized that the presence of a father significantly influences a child's development in many ways. Infants not only distinguish between their father and strangers' voices within the first 4 weeks of life, but infants also recognize that a father is likely to engage in play time with them.

That first impression, to hear that strong comforting voice of a father, to balance that with the mother, is so critical in the development of our children. In later years, the relationship between a father and his children strongly influences success in the classroom, improves relationships with peers, and decreases the likelihood of negative behavior.

Is there any wonder that today in so many reaches and depths in our neighborhoods that there is negative behavior, and that is so much associated because there is not a father being a father in the home and in the life of that child.

The presence of a father is also a very important determinant in the child's socioeconomic potential later in life. Unfortunately, over the last four decades, research shows that there has been an unprecedented rise in this Nation in the number of fatherless homes, especially when they are first born, no father.

The National Fatherhood Initiative emphasizes that children from families with fathers are five times less likely to be poor. What is the answer to poverty? Getting the fathers who produce these children to be fathers, to take care of these children and be responsible for these children.

It is important for Congress to emphasize the significance of fathers and their socioeconomic value of the two-parent family as well, for studies also show that children are more likely to engage in recreational activities when their fathers are present. When fathers are involved in organized sports such as soccer, baseball and basketball, they are not only encouraging physical activity in their children, but also character development and sportsmanship.

Fathers also benefit for participating in their children's teams, as physical activity contributes to increased wellness and disease prevention in men. Fathers who are active in child rearing may also find themselves more nurturing toward their colleagues in the workplace, improving other aspects of their lives, by taking younger coworkers under their wing or volunteering more time to charitable organizations as well.

Schools across this country are developing innovative programs to reach out to parents and to especially get fathers involved in various and positive activities. In Kansas City, Missouri, the Reconnecting Education and DADS organization developed a specific reading program for fathers to use with their children.

The Kindering Center of Belleview, Washington, created a weekly support group for fathers of children with special needs. All over the country, schools are facilitating courses in responsible fatherhood, including education on child development, managing stress and good nutrition for their children and themselves.

I want to take just a minute here to acknowledge the important work of a similar organization in my own congressional district in Georgia. These men, these fathers are making a difference in the lives of our children by volunteering their time to improve the learning environment, not only for the children, but the many others who are within the school as well. They call it the DADS organization, DADS, whose acronym stands for Diverse and Dedicated Support, and it is a collective effort by fathers in my congressional district to serve as role models, not the athlete, not the rap guy, not the singer, not the superstars. The great role models for our young people need to be their fathers. By doing this today, this Congress is making this bold and much-needed statement.

This program places fathers of students in Clayton County, Georgia, middle schools to serve as hallway and classroom monitors to help with the discipline problems in our schools. Who better to do that, helping faculty to maintain order as students transition between classes throughout the day. This is where the violence sometimes starts. But with a parent there, particularly a father, a strong male presence, these men also serve as tutors when students need the help the most,

including Clayton County students to pursue their education and their dreams.

One self-employed volunteer at Lovejoy Middle School works while students are in class, and takes breaks throughout the day to monitor hallways and classrooms. That's a father.

Another volunteer, a wounded veteran from the war in Iraq, not only sacrificing his life in Iraq, where he was wounded, but he comes back home in Clayton County, Georgia, and walks the halls of Adamson Middle School with a cane. What a sight. These are heroes. No greater role model could we find than this wounded veteran who was wounded in Iraq, but comes back to help shape the lives of our young people in school.

He came so that he may assist the faculty in ensuring good discipline among the students. I am so honored, I am so full, I am overflowing up here today to know these fathers are making the ultimate difference in our communities and in my district. These men are not just fathers to individual students. They are dads to the children who lack the involvement of a father in their lives. The expansion of this program to elementary and high school underscores the success to reach out and encourage the involvement of fathers both inside the school and out.

In closing, I want to also note that many children from single-parent families are doing well. They are succeeding. But just think what it would be if they had both parents there, if they had been raised to be upstanding and successful members of our community. By passing this legislation today, we will show our support for the important roles that fathers, as well as mothers, play in preparing future generations in this country.

Honor thy father and thy mother so that thy days will be long in the land. We are doing that in Congress today, with extraordinary important, meaningful, and significant legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a great achievement by students in my congressional district. Congratulations to the Jonesboro High School Mock Trial Team, which proudly represented the State of Georgia at the National High School Mock Trial Championship in Dallas, Texas, in early May. the Jonesboro team defeated 40 other schools from across the Nation to win the 2007 National Title.

Mock Trial offers students the opportunity to understand the many important aspects of our legal system, including trial preparation and standard courtroom procedures. In the fall, each team begins to prepare for their local competition by preparing for trial just as real lawyers would. If a team like Jonesboro High School is so fortunate to win both county and State competitions, they have half as much time to prepare for a substantially harder competition at the national level. Even with these great challenges, the Jonesboro team persevered and achieved victory nationally and they are champions.

I would like to recognize the hard work and dedication of the Jonesboro High School team by acknowledging the students and coaches who made this victory possible. The competitors were Brian Cunningham, Lindley Curtis, Kayla Delgado, Matthew Mitchell, Braeden Orr, Laura Parkhouse, Kyle Skinner, Britt Walden, Jayda Hazell, Joe Strickland, Lindsay Hargis, Jurod James, Sandra Hagans and Tabias Kelly. The Jonesboro High team was led by Anna and Andrew Cox, attorney coaches John Carbo and Deborah Benefield, Tasha Mosley and Mercer Law School student coach Katie Powers.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I wish to extend congratulations to all of these outstanding individuals in achieving the 2007 National High School Mock Trial National Title.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak and to urge our colleagues to please vote and pass this passage.

Now, the most important part, and, of course, all of it is very important, but there is one part that I want to emphasize that is so important on the second part; and I take quite a distaste at how the gentleman referred to that as pork, because the children's health program is not pork.

In my State of Georgia, there are 273,000 children who will go without their insurance or health care if we do not pass this measure.

Now, yes, we must get the funding to the troops; they are in need, and we certainly want to get the funding there. But let me just urge those in the minority on the other side of the aisle that many of these 273,000 children who are in Georgia without health insurance belong to the soldiers who are serving in Iraq, and we have been working feverishly in each step of the way to make sure we had the SCHIP program included. And I want to make sure we include this all the way, and urge the President to sign it when we get there.

Thank you, Mr. Ross. It is a pleasure, as always, to be on the floor with you and my fellow Blue Dogs.

I want to talk about two issues here that relate. One, of course, is the debt, the deficit that we have; the lack of accountability, financial accountability. But I would like to talk about it from the standpoint of what is really on the minds of the American people today, and that is the situation that faces us in Iraq and what we desperately need to do.

We need to do two things: One is be honest with the American people; and, two, be honest with the money that the American people send up here for us to apportion. Nowhere is that more significant than with military affairs.

As I stand here, Mr. Ross, I am trying to think of the best illustration I can come up with that would kind of paint a picture for where we are. I think if we look back in history, a certain event took place around 1952 when we were in a similar position of debating this issue of who has control of military affairs or how do we deal with the issues in time of war. Is it the executive branch, or is it the Congress, and what is the role therein?

This debate is heated on those two things today. The President says Congress has no role in this. Congress says we definitely do. And we are right that we do.

It was borne out in a case in 1952 when there was a decision made by the Supreme Court when this issue came up on who had the right to determine whether the steel mills would be seized during a time of war, during the Korean War.

And it got so hot and heavy in that debate it went to the courts. Is it the Congress or is it the President? Well, the Supreme Court ruled on that which brings us to a point here today. But in the concurrence that was written by Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, he said some very important, significant and prophetic words.

He said that this is a case that clearly fits within the realm of Congress's responsibility in a time of war. And in his concurrence he said that when the executive branch operates in tandem with the congressional branch, with congressional authority, he said that is a time of maximum power for the President. He said, but when the President acts counter to the express constitutional authority of the Congress,

he said, we enter into what he referred to then as a zone of twilight, or in essence a twilight zone which, quite ironically, is where Rod Sterling got the name for his television program ``The Twilight Zone.''

That is where we find ourselves here, in the twilight zone.

He went on to say, when we enter this twilight zone, the Presidency in at its lowest ebb when it does not recognize the authority of the Congress.

Our authority rests with the purse. Our authority rests with making sure that we raise and support the military. Our authority rests with legislation. And when you wrap those two things together, that is what is the embodiment of what we have captured in our resolution for financial responsibility and accountability in a time of war to make sure that the money is accounted for; to make sure when our troops are going into war, that they have the money for the armor.

That is exactly why when they were sent into war by this President and this administration without the body armor, we had to amend the appropriations bill with over $200 million to get it in there, led by Democrats, led by Blue Dog Democrats, if you recall, to get the money in the budget for that.

The reason that happened is, up until January, this President has had the luxury of a rollover Congress that did exactly what he wanted them to do without even a whimper or a bang. They just rolled over, gave the President everything that he wanted, and we did not do the constitutional function of oversight, of making sure that there is financial accountability and responsibility in the actions that we are giving.

That is why it is important what we do today. Now this is incorporated into our presentation, into each of the bills that we have put forward. The status is now that these efforts are being worked between the House and the Senate. But I think it is very important for the public to also know that in this bill we have the accountability features in. But we also have the responsibility where we are not going to cut off any funds as long as our troops are in danger on the battlefield.

It is our hope, however, that we will be responsive to the American people and bring this matter to a close in terms of the loss of life of our soldiers that are caught in the cross hairs of a civil war.

Now, the Middle East is a region of vital interest, and there is absolutely no way we will ever be able to completely disappear from the Middle East, nor is that our intent. Nor is it the intent of the American people.

The point is our nose has been poked into a civil war, a civil war that has been festering for thousands of years between the Sunnis and the Shiites. That is their civil war. It is not right to have our soldiers in the middle of that. That needs to be brought back and we need to enter into a more reasonable support of containment and redeployment of our troops, and in a manner that pays attention to the wear and tear on our military.

Mr. Ross, it is shameful when we have to say that so many of our troops are over there for the third or fourth time. That is not right. The American people are against that. It is my hope that we will bring financial accountability and responsibility to this matter. The American people, who are very much engaged with us on this Iraq situation, are looking to Democrats; and quite honestly, they are looking to Blue Dog Democrats. They are looking to people who have fiscal responsibility and also understand that we know we are in a dangerous world.

The most important thing we need for our advancement right now is to make sure we have a strong defense and we have got that, but we also want our policies to be responsive to the American people. That is what the Democrats are putting forward as we move forward on our way out of this terrible civil war that our Nation finds itself in. We are going to do exactly that.

Mr. Ross, it is a pleasure to be here, and I am sure the American people fully support our efforts and understand exactly what we are talking about when we say it is time to bring financial accountability and transparency to our efforts here on Capitol Hill, and nowhere is that more important than dealing with our military affairs and the men and women serving in harm's way overseas.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about this for a moment. First of all, let me just address the gentleman from Alabama's amendment, who's a very honorable person and a very, very good and highly thought-of colleague.

But it's very important that we recognize that his amendment is designed to do one and one thing only, and that is to gut this bill. And that's what the design is. So no matter which way you talk, whatever the arguments you use, it's designed to gut the bill.

Now, for the last year and a half, 2 years in our Committee on Financial Services, we've talked about the affordable housing trust fund. It has been moved out in many respects as a bipartisan measure.

Now, this is tailored. It's tailored specifically. I want to put into the Record a letter. It comes from the Most Reverend Nicholas DiMarzio, who is the Bishop of Brooklyn, Chairman of the Domestic Policy Committee for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Here is what he says.

He says, ``As Chairman of the Domestic Policy Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, I write in strong support of a provision in H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Financial Reform Act of 2007, that provides some $500 million a year from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as a dedicated source of funding for an affordable housing trust fund.

``As you know, the Catholic community serves tens of thousands of men and women and children who struggle to avoid homelessness and maintain adequate housing. Besides sheltering homeless people who turn to us for help, our Catholic Charities, agencies, dioceses and parishes have built and continue to maintain thousands of affordable units. But despite our efforts and the efforts of so many others, there is just not enough affordable housing available. And we believe that a trust fund will be a stable source of money for building and rehabilitating affordable housing for very low income people.

``Our experience demonstrates to us how homelessness and inadequate, substandard housing destroys lives, undermines families, hurts communities and weakens the very social fabric of our Nation. By setting aside money for a National Housing Trust Fund, Congress acts to make the shelter needs of low income families a national priority.''

This brings us to the crux of this matter. And the crux of this matter, gentleman from Alabama, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, is that we have a pressing need. We have a pressing need for affordable housing. And nowhere is that pressing need more pressing than in Louisiana and Mississippi, where this is targeted to.

How those people have suffered; how much they've begged and pleaded for help. And yes, we have passed Katrina funds, but not for this.

And in committee, time and time again, we've raised these issues, and your very amendment, my distinguished friend from Alabama, was defeated in committee.

Now, it's very clear that 75 percent of the affordable housing funds available in the first year will go to Louisiana. 25 percent of such funds will go to Mississippi for affordable housing arising out of the costs and out of the terrible agonies of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

It's about time that we responded to these needs. And there's no better way of dealing with it than through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

But I do want to set the record straight so we understand, from the point from the gentleman from New Jersey and others, and the public who's listening to this debate and watching this debate, to make sure that you understand exactly what this housing fund is based upon. It is funds and where the funds are derived from. They're derived through contributions by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in amounts equal to 1.2 basic points on each GSE's total outstanding mortgages, including both those held in the portfolio and those that have been securitized each year, from 2007 through 2011. And the program sunsets in 5 years. This is not a permanency. This is an emergency situation where affordable housing is needed. We're infusing this in. We're targeting it to the area in this country where the greatest need is, and then we're sunsetting it in 5 years. That's the responsible way of doing it. And I submit that the gentleman's amendment should be defeated.

Will the gentleman yield for one moment, please? Who better to deal with affordable housing than Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

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

Mr. Chairman, I really believe that it is so comical to see our friends on the other side of the aisle come up with the various and different ways to so-called ``skin this cat'' and gut the bill. This is very clever way my great friend from Texas, whom I have great respect for (Mr. Hensarling), but, Mr. Chairman, let me just read for the Record exactly what his amendment says so that we can really fully understand the lengths to creative linguistic judgments that they will go to cleverly try to skin the cat and gut the bill.

Mr. Hensarling says his amendment will permanently eliminate the Affordable Housing Fund contributions in the case of certain factors in the bill that, as written, merely require a suspension of fund contributions. And two, also requires permanent eliminations of the Affordable Housing Fund contributions if a determination is made that such contributions are contributing to an increase in the cost of mortgages to home buyers. Putting the issue in a considerably complex box.

Now, we know from the dynamics of economics what is happening in our society today, especially in the housing market. We know what the ravages of Hurricane Rita and Katrina has done to the area which we are targeting the bill. We also know that there is no segment in society that is most impacted and in need of affordable housing than the very, very poor, those people who need the help. This is where this bill is being targeted.

And his amendment would prevent the reinstatement of affordable housing funds when a GSE's financial problems temporarily cause a suspension of funds contributions is resolved, and would also create a new condition to shut down the fund that could arbitrarily result in the permanent elimination of the Affordable Housing Fund. That is exactly what the gentleman's amendment does, and that is exactly why we need to defeat it.

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

In response to the gentleman's amendment, let me just try to cut through a lot of this to get to exactly why we oppose this amendment and why it's important. And again, this amendment is again designed to obliterate the program.

Now, it's very important for us to understand, we're dealing right now with a very volatile housing market. We're dealing with a situation where the subprime market has melted down. We're dealing with a situation where we've had record foreclosures. We're dealing with a situation where the area we're targeting this to go to first for the first year has suffered the worst natural disaster, where people are homeless as we speak.

There is a need for government. We have a constitutional responsibility to take care of the public interests. If there ever was a need for the public interest, it is needed in affordable housing. We do not need this kind of amendment that in effect does this, all the studying he may want to say, and I respect the gentleman from North Carolina. I do not question his motives, and I do not dislike him as a person. I just dislike greatly his amendment because his amendment goes, again, at the effort to cut this bill, which is totally designed for the least of us, for people that can't afford it, for people that need our help.

That's why we have this measure, and when you look at the marketplace, you cannot apply the activities of the free marketplace dealing with housing and put all of the convertibles you want to put on it as it applies to middle class or upper class individuals. We're not dealing with people with money. We're dealing with people that don't have any money. That's why we're providing this measure to them.

So that if your amendment goes into effect, in effect you will be requiring the Director to determine if the GSE's allocations to the fund will decrease the availability or affordability of credit to home buyers or will increase the costs to home buyers. If the Director determines that the GSE's allocation to the fund will decrease the availability or affordability of credit to the home buyer will increase the costs to the home buyers, the requirement to allocate amounts to the funds shall be terminated.

All of that power you are putting arbitrarily into a person's hands to say, on his whim, kill the program, done with the program, based upon what he sees and what he says. That's why this bill, this amendment, must be defeated, and we recommend strongly a ``no'' vote on your amendment for that reason.

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 want to talk about this amendment very, very briefly, but just prior to getting to that, I wanted to make a very, very important point about the previous amendment, because I think it is very, very important for the record to reflect, for there was denial about the REAL ID Act and its implications on the gentleman from Georgia's amendment.

It is very important that I read the language in the bill, in the amendment, that the gentleman from Georgia had previous to this.

It says on page 2, starting at line 3, that a driver's license or identification card issued by a State, a State that is in compliance with title II of the REAL ID Act of 2005, title II of division B of Public Law 109-13; 49 USC 30301 note.

That is the language that is in the bill. The REAL ID is in the bill. Now, it is there. This is the amendment. This is what we are voting for. The REAL ID is in the language.

Now I want to spend the remainder of my time on the gentleman from Texas' amendment. Let us talk about your amendment, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sessions.

That disclosure that you are requiring, you must admit first of all it is a highly speculative cost. Number two, it does not provide a benefit to consumers. It will add another disclosure to an already cumbersome settlement process, further confusing the homeowners and the home buyers. Again, these are basically poor people who we are trying to help who have been victims of a hurricane. We are also going to, in the process after that first year, apply it to States so that they can apply their own criterion.

But, Mr. Sessions, where your amendment really causes a problem is in the broader community of the housing financial market. For example, your amendment would also make it difficult for a Federal Home Loan Bank, for example, to make advances or loans to a community bank member based on a blanket lien on the bank's overall mortgage portfolio, thus raising mortgage costs. These community banks depend on these advances to provide home buyers with competitive credit.

So, again, in each of the previous amendments, I cannot understand for the life of me why the Republicans want to so overreach to basically undermine the entire housing financial market just to get at this one small effort to help low income people get relief and get some assistance in becoming homeowners, in the rental capacity as well as the construction of new homes.

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

Are you saying that this amendment would prevent home buyers without Social Security numbers from obtaining home loans? Is that correct?

Is it Social Security number, or valid Social Security number?

But you don't have valid Social Security number in here. And my point is this: That one of the problems we have got in immigration is there are many illegals, if you are getting at illegal immigrants, who have Social Security numbers. We would place on these this system, much like it is in the employer system, where employers will come and tell you that all of our employees are legal because they have Social Security numbers.

But I will also tell you, there is a burgeoning industry within the illegal immigration area of falsified Social Security numbers. That's a big deal. So I think that this raises a very serious problem within your amendment, because if you simply say Social Security Number, you're not really getting at the problem that you feel you're getting at.

Yes, I yield to the chairman.

Reclaiming my time, again, that does create a problem with your amendment. And further, another problem it creates is because under current requirements, lenders may use any legitimate form of identification, so it would compound the difficulty, because it would make it difficult, again, for community banks to use blanket liens to pledge collateral, raising costs. The point I'm trying to get at is while the intention is good, I think that when you look at all of the problems with immigration, when you look at the problem of the fact of the cottage industry of providing bogus Social Security numbers, unless you put into this feature some mechanism to check to make sure that the Social Security number is valid, then the amendment seems to be moot.

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

I yield to the chairman of the committee.

I move to strike the last word.

Let me see if we can put some of this in perspective for tonight as we wind down in this successful debate.

Here we've got an extraordinary emergency problem affecting the very poorest of people. Not just the very poorest of people, but people who have been devastated by the worst natural disaster in the modern history of our country; and on top of that, people who have been denied and denied. What comes to my mind are those images of those individuals who lost everything standing on rooftops to get saved. In a way, they are still standing on those rooftops, without homes. And here we've got a measure to go and address that.

This evening has just been an illustrative of attempt after attempt. First you wanted to make this equate to saving Social Security or raiding Social Security. Then you put this program in as being a measure to add to the deficit. Then came immigration. That wasn't enough. Then you want to restrict the means of the GSEs to have the most profitable way of arranging their portfolios. And you want to clamp down and make it so that the only investments they could get would be those at the bottom of the economic heap yielding the lowest return. Because you knew that this would not require a tax increase. You knew that this was based upon shareholders, nontaxable funds, a very creative way. And yet you tried to slam it in. Here are these Democrats raising your taxes again. But the American people are not buying that. That is not the case.

Then the game comes that again, this is an entitlement, where nowhere in the legislation is it an entitlement. All of tonight just reminded me, when I remember those images of those poor people still looking for help, but what you have offered them tonight is a massive cut, cutting the legs out from under them and then condemning them for being a cripple. That's devastating.

Now we come to the last amendment. Having failed all of that, my good friend from Texas says we're going to cap it. Oh, that's not going to do anything. But your fellow Congressman from Texas game down to that floor, Congressman Green and Congressman Brady asking for help, wanting to help, but no money, and here you are wanting to crimp it, wanting to cap it.

Now, you say the cap doesn't mean anything, that it is going to be the lesser of 1.2 basis point average total

mortgage portfolio for the prior year, or $520 million, or a lesser amount determined by the director. The director determines either the higher amount possesses a safety or soundness concern.

But what this amendment actually does, it reduces the amount available in the affordable housing program from an estimated $600 million a year down to $520 million a year. But it goes more than that. It just doesn't cap that. It would also cap the amount that the $520 million, even if the actual funds under the formula exceeded the estimated $600 million a year.

Chairman Frank has put a very creative measure in. He has tagged it to no set amount, he just put it at 1.2 of the basic points so it allows a free marketplace. And then it allows these GSEs and the shareholders, based upon the profit that they make, to take some of that and help the most needy among us.

This has, indeed, been a tremendous debate tonight. We have been going at it since 5 o'clock this afternoon. But it has been worth it because there is no greater thing you can do for your fellow citizens than make sure they have a roof over their heads.

Announcement By the Acting Chairman