Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), who was an instrumental participant in the construction of the reform legislation under consideration.

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

I think it important to realize how we came to this point with just the briefest of look-backs over historical performance of the three enterprises that will be subject to the new regulatory standards.

In May of 1996, both HUD and the Treasury agencies issued reports to the committee which were suggestive of reforms which ought to be considered and adopted by the Congress, to which the then-acting Vice President for Corporate Relations at Fannie Mae made the following professional comment: ``This is the work of economic pencil brains who wouldn't recognize something that works for ordinary home buyers if it bit them in their erasers.''

To which the CBO responded to the criticisms: Not only do the managements of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have a fiduciary responsibility to defend shareholder interest, but their own financial interests and compensation are closely linked to the continued flow of subsidies to the enterprises.

How prescient were those observations of the CBO in 1996. It required almost a decade longer before it was discovered that earnings manipulations not only had led to significant restatements, they had triggered another consequence.

Bonuses paid by the corporations to management at Fannie Mae were tied directly to earnings per share, and there were categories of earnings that triggered highest, moderate and lowest bonuses that could be paid. Apparently in a given year, the earnings per share target was hit to one-thousandths of a cent accuracy, I was later told by mathematical probability it just happened, that triggered the payment of $65 million in bonuses in a single year. Over the period of 2001 to 2003, the period of time for which financials have still not been certified, total bonuses paid amounted to $154.3 million. These bonuses are in addition to base salaries and other benefits, and represent money provided by the American taxpayers through guarantees of obligations that the agencies are able to use in the business world to yield profits

for shareholders and evidently profits for themselves.

Further examination of the ability of the regulator to intervene even in the matter of the unwarranted bonuses was later proven in court to be insufficient to bar payment of the bonuses until criminal illegality is proved. That matter is still under examination at the moment.

The bill, however, is important for other reasons to taxpayers. This enterprise will stand between the agencies who issue debt and engage in housing activities and significant potential losses to taxpayers should either of the enterprises ever be found under significant financial duress.

The regulator historically has been impaired. It is the only financial regulator in the United States which must come to the Congress for its funding. All other regulators are funded by assessments on the regulated entities. We fixed that problem. All other regulators have the ability to reach inside the organization of a financial enterprise and adjust its capital requirements. That is money put in the sock drawer for a rainy day. In case something goes bad, you need to have capital.

For the OFHEO-regulated enterprises, you had to come to the Congress and pass an act of Congress to adjust the capital. If any other financial enterprise were to get into financial duress and be unwound in the marketplace, that process is called receivership. Not so for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. There are special provisions that allow the Congress to intervene in protection of their financial interest. This bill remedies that problem.

There are a host of other matters that the 360 pages of the bill address, but probably the most important is a tool used by regulators today in financial enterprises known as prompt corrective action. That means if a regulator sees an activity that could lead to injury of shareholders and taxpayers, it can intercede at a very early time and require a cessation of those activities or simply prohibit them from doing it again. We provide for prompt corrective action.

What we enable with the passage of this bill is the creation of an independently funded regulator, with all the tools a modern financial regulator should have to oversee vastly complex financial enterprises to protect the American taxpayer from unwarranted losses.

Besides the criticism leveled at the bill today relative to affordable housing, there is another issue which I feel appropriate to address, and that is relative to the growth constraints on the investment portfolios of the two enterprises.

They have, in the aggregate, $1.6 trillion invested in the two portfolios. Under the prudential management and operations standards of the bill, the director of the new enterprise shall examine counterparty risks; management of interest rate risks; adequacy and maintenance of liquidity and reserves; management of asset and investment portfolios; investments and acquisitions; overall risk management processes; and, if we did not cover it in that list, such other operational and management standards as the director determines to be appropriate. That translates into, if you do not see it on our list, Mr. Director, go do it anyway, because we are giving you the authority.

Finally, as to the ability to establish how the portfolio should be reduced and to what level, Secretary Snow testified before our committee he could not tell us how to do it or to what level they should be adjusted, but he did go on to say it should be the subject of professional examination and recommendation.

Finally, on page 273 of the bill, we read: ``An analysis of the potential systemic risk implications for the enterprises, the housing and capital markets, and the financial system of portfolio holdings, and whether such holdings should be limited or reduced over time,'' is the director's obligation to engage in professional study, make recommendations to the Congress if congressional action is needed, or otherwise act in the best interest of the United States taxpayer.

Finally, with regard to the concerns over the affordable housing disposition, it should be pointed out these funds are not available today. This is a new fund. If people are engaged in assistance as a charitable activity in affording housing to low-income individuals and registering people to vote, this bill will not preclude that activity from going forward. What it merely says is that in an instance where we have limited funds available, estimated to be perhaps $500 million spread across the entire country, that those funds first and foremost should be utilized to help people in true need of housing, not political activism.

If one is engaged in political activism and building houses as of today's date, you can continue to do it. If you wish to be engaged in this fund going forward, you will have to make a policy decision, do I wish to continue political activism, or do I really want to help people get in homes?

Mr. Chairman, I represent to the House this is a fair bill, fair compromise and responsible action on the part of this House, and I urge Members to support its adoption.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who is a long-term co-contributor to the preparation of the legislation before us.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his continuing courtesy and leadership on this issue. I am going to try one more time on this thing. The bill as it is now constructed allocates 3.5 percent of net profit for the first 2 years from the various enterprises into a fund which gives as a priority Katrina victims, Rita victims and natural disaster victims, in that order.

I can tell you if I were to go to the city of Baker, in my district today, walk down Groom Road to the FEMA trailer park and say to them, I am going to buy you a bus to haul you to go vote 2 years from now, or I am going to put money into building you a home, guess which one they would pick. People want out of the FEMA trailers, they want out of their circumstance; and almost every cent of this money, we will guarantee, I promise, to be utilized almost exclusively for Katrina and Rita.

It is estimated as a result of the Katrina disaster, 100,000 homes are impaired or destroyed: 100,000. The guesstimate of what it might take to pay off mortgages, to clean the mess up, and to build homes back is easily $30 billion. That is Katrina. Then we talk about Rita and then welcome back and plug Wilma in as a natural disaster, $500 million in the scope of this debate, concerning ourselves with creating a resource for additional political activism does not make sense.

Now, let us talk about the administration of the program: who is going to run it, what is the program. I know how you check on a house. You go see if it is there. Then you can figure out if somebody is in it and who are they. You can look at their income tax return; and, yes, they are entitled to be here pursuant to the provisions of the program.

How do you regulate a bus acquisition program used for hauling people to the polls? Who is going to do that? What are the rules? How about this? How about you leave Katrina/Rita victims alone, come back with regulations that create a system, something that makes sense. Here is how you do it. Here is how you comply. Then you get the money. No, we want to take the money first and figure it out later. That is what gets this place in trouble.

Now, if we really want to work together and reclaim our bipartisan territory, let us take it one step at a time. Let us figure out what the problem is, figure out a remedy, let us promulgate it, make it subject to hearings, pass it through the Congress, and plug some money in later. Now, I know that may be too logical, but I really want to leave that as a thought before you vote against the manager's amendment.

This is a well-crafted proposal with extremely limited resources aimed at an enormous problem that otherwise will not get resolved in a very cost-effective manner, and we will outstrip the resources of this proposal for 5 years, much less the 2 years for which the money has been officially dedicated for this purpose.

Keep in mind, if you are building houses and hauling voters and registering and engaged in political advocacy as of the date of passage of this bill, you can still do it. You just do not get to back your truck up to the U.S. Treasury and download a bunch of this money. That is all. It is an easy choice, and I suggest to the House that it is a reasonable position for us to take and a responsible position. It is not an attack on the basic civil rights of this country.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important vote under consideration. I wish to point out that 3.5 percent assessment of net profits for the first 2 years will generate an estimated $400 million a year nationwide.

The identified needs for Hurricane Katrina only are probably in excess of $300 billion for housing-related activities. If we add Rita and Wilma, the funds will be far depleted before we ever get to the issue of whether we need to be engaged in voter registration or voter transport to the precincts. If one were to go to Trailer City on Groom Road in Baker, Louisiana, and walk up to one of those trailers and say, hey, folks, I am here from the Federal Government and I want to buy a new van to haul you to the precinct next year to go vote, what kind of response do you think you will get if you said that will come at the expense of advancing replacement housing for families to go home?

And then let us talk about the administration of the program. How do you confirm affordable housing works and they are doing it? You look at the lot and see the house. You knock on the door and see if anybody is inside. That is easy.

How do you confirm that the money being spent for voter enhancement, education, and transportation is used for a valid purpose? Do you go to Uncle Bob's RV Trailer Park and look to see if they are using those vehicles for voter transport? How do we know?

The idea here is we have very restricted resources. We have an incredibly large problem to resolve with response to the hurricanes. We know that by deploying these resources this way, we can ensure we are helping people in the most effective manner possible.

We should come back through regular order, have committee hearings and talk about it. How are we going to have advocacy for people to be able to vote and participate? And if we want to fund that, fund it separately. This is not the time, not the place, not the way. Please, do not vote for this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 1461, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross-references, and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of H.R. 3945, as proposed to be adopted under suspension of the rules, be modified by the amendment that I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 263) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on this legislative day, it adjourn to meet at noon on the third constitutional day thereafter, unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in House Concurrent Resolution 263, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, October 19, 2005.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1858) to provide for community disaster loans, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, there is within the construction of FEMA a loan program called the Community Disaster Loan Program. Currently as constructed, there is a $5 million limit per loan per community under the rules that govern distributions of these loans. There is also a funding limitation of some considerable concern in light of the community needs pursuant to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

The purpose of this legislation is to designate $700 million of previously appropriated funds for the purpose of making them available under the provisions of the current Community Disaster Loan Program.

Secondly, the bill would waive the $5 million arbitrary cap in light of the current need, but only as to the $700 million specified, and only as to the final disposition of the need for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Pursuant to those modifications, the Senate has also adopted a provision which would not allow the waiver of repayment which has been historically the case over the course of the administration of the Community Disaster Loan Program. The bill as now constructed does not permit the waiver of repayment of these loan obligations. This will in effect create a $700 million loan program which must be repaid by the communities which have suffered the Katrina-Rita losses without a limit as to the $5 million cap on a per-loan consideration.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the gentleman from Minnesota yielding and just wish to express appreciation for those concerns he has noted. Certainly, the repayment obligation should be met at some point. The arbitrary deadline, in fact, may be problematic going forward.

I would suggest in consultation with the other members of the Louisiana delegation, we fully intend to examine this going forward and hope to have the opportunity to bring our concerns to the attention of this body and the Senate as well. The principal concern, as the gentleman has identified, is the Senate has passed this vehicle in its current construct. If we were to amend it as suggested, it would have to return to that body for their agreement.

We are very concerned with potential layoffs occurring next week in various municipalities. So this loan package is very much an emergency issue; and albeit with the nonwaiver of repayment provision, we fully support it in its current form, given the constraints we face.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy. I shall be brief. I wish to express appreciation to those Members who brought to the House's attention that the waiver of repayment has been stricken from the bill, but I would also indicate that in discussions with people and in the loan construction packages they have great latitude as to terms and conditions of repayment. They have been quite assuring that they will work with communities in a manner which is responsible to assure relief is provided, but that the taxpayers of the United States have some assurance that, when possible, communities will give back that which was extended during times of hardship.

I would also want to point out that there literally have been billions of dollars made available to constituents in Louisiana of great scope and consequence from the FEMA checks to the provision of temporary housing. There has been a great deal of work conducted here.

I wish to express appreciation for the administration and all those who are engaged in this work and to the people of this great country, who have given

voluntarily huge charitable contributions to various organizations to be of assistance to us. We are indeed appreciative, and we do not wish to leave the House floor today with the impression that Louisianans have been ignored. Far from it.

We have a long way to go. There is much work to do. There is suffering still far too rampant in our communities. This act today will go another small step in helping those people get back to normality. But there is a lot happening as fast as can be conducted, I believe, in the State of Louisiana, and I am sure in other coastal States as well, and I would like the record to reflect some balance, that it is not as fast as everyone would like, but help is coming, and I appreciate the gentleman's allowing me to make that statement.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand the reason for the gentleman's inquiry and the illustrative list gentleman presents is very reasonable. In other circumstances, we found ourselves with the luxury of a little time with which to consider the matter. If we were to agree to that modification, I understand the matter would be referred to the Senate for further consideration and may well put in jeopardy the adoption ultimately of this loan program, which we are hoping to have in effect and available on Monday morning to affected communities.

I have, however, conversed with the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and others on the committee who have jurisdiction over FEMA matters in

which this loan program is domiciled, and have assurances from them that we will visit the gentleman's concerns and adopt a reporting regime, if not exactly, very similar to this.

I would be supportive of and I am sure all members of the Louisiana delegation who are here on the floor would also support the gentleman's request, but would respectfully ask, given the concerns of time and the issues at hand, that the gentleman would withdraw his objection. We would be happy to note formally in the record our agreement to proceed with the gentleman on our return to work absent the Columbus Day recess to achieve the gentleman's interest.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I thank the gentleman for his question. I would point out, we would act forthwith, and perhaps there would be additional items that we would be interested in having reported to us on the matter of these loan dispositions. So we have some accountability to our constituencies and know what local governments are seeking in the way of assistance and how we may further provide aid.

So the gentleman's point is important to us in the delegation as well as to the gentleman for his own satisfaction that the funds are being used appropriately.

I would like to have the possibility of working with the gentleman's staff over the recess week we are about to enter into, in consultation with the staff from the offices of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), to try to perfect a reporting regime that the gentleman and I and the chairman would find acceptable to achieve his goals, and it would be obtained as soon as agreement can be obtained. I would commit our delegation to be fully supportive of that effort.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 1858.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3894) to provide for waivers under certain housing assistance programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to assist victims of Hurricane Katrina in obtaining housing, as amended.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3894, Hurricane Katrina Emergency Housing Act of 2005. The legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to waive several limitations on the rental voucher programs. These waivers will allow us to help families who have been displaced by the hurricanes to move quickly to secure shelter they so desperately need.

Having a roof over your head is one of the most basic human needs. In the aftermath of the storms, Federal and local governments now face the monumental task of coordinating the relocation of thousands upon thousands of individuals across the entire Nation.

This legislation will assist those displaced individuals and families who are already receiving assistance under section 8 to quickly find housing, and I wish to reiterate the point: this assistance being modified is for those currently qualified to receive section 8 assistance. Under the bill, HUD is given the statutory authority to waive the section 8 voucher eligibility requirements for a period not to exceed 1 year. Specifically, HUD is given the authority to waive tenant contributions toward rent eligibility of individuals to receive assistance, income verification, 1-year lease term, initial inspections of housing units, portability restrictions, model leasing, and English proficiency regulations.

This bill provides similar waivers for the project-based section 8 program with the exception of eligibility of individuals to receive assistance.

In addition, H.R. 3894 includes a provision to preserve existing project-based section 8 housing assistance payments contracts for those who were either damaged or destroyed due to hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

In an effort to better address the needs of individuals and families displaced by the storms, DOD, HUD, Veterans Affairs, and government- sponsored enterprises are instructed to compile a list of Federal, civilian, and defense facilities that can be used as temporary housing, as locations to construct or deploy temporary housing or provide permanent housing. This information is to be coordinated by HUD within 30 days of enactment of the bill, and the Secretary of HUD is required to report to the Congress accordingly. GAO is also instructed to conduct a study of State emergency plans to assess their effectiveness.

I would also want to speak to the role of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Alexander), who has worked tirelessly on this important legislation, is the principal author of the measure, and with his assistance brings it to the floor for consideration of the bill.

I would urge my colleagues to support final passage.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would just like to state that I agree with much of what the gentlewoman had to offer to the House in her comments with regard to long-term and permanent assistance for those dislocated by the storms.

I certainly believe that people should be given the ability to make the best choices for their families, take vouchers, and move wherever it suits their family's need close to employment, close to job training, whatever suits their circumstance best.

Unfortunately, we in Louisiana who feel that way have had a different path outlined by our Governor. I read her most recent comment: ``The path I have outlined, moving our people from shelters or the homes of in-laws or friends or into hotels and transitional trailer communities here in Louisiana, gives our people hope. It gives them a clear path that they can see, a path that will help them get their lives together and get them home to Louisiana.''

I do not necessarily share that perspective. I think we should be doing the highest and best job with the limited resources that are available to us, and I agree with the gentlewoman that we should be doing something on a grander scale. The bills before the House today are merely modest steps. They are significant progress, but we need to do better.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Alexander), the principal sponsor of the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to respond to the concerns raised by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) with regard to the forward- looking picture of housing needs in not only the disaster-stricken area but across the Nation, but particularly in the Hurricane Katrina area which I was fortunate to be adjacent to and not a part of.

It is certainly clear that a new housing vision is required. Much attention has been given to the city of New Orleans where damage was significant. Much attention, however, has not been given to areas north and south of the city, whether it is St. Bernard Parish or St. Tammany. In St. Tammany, the wind damage was extensive. Acres upon acres of large trees were blown down across streets, across houses. The damage was difficult to believe.

In St. Bernard Parish where the flooding left 9 to 14 feet of water in houses for periods up to 2 weeks, it is tragic to think what people will discover when they are finally able to revisit their neighborhoods. Certainly normal government strategies will not work in the face of such tragedy.

At the direction of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and working with the administration, the President, Secretary Snow and Secretary Jackson, we will have a plan to consider in the House of Representatives that will be different and unique. We have the capability to address this problem that we have never addressed before with a response that has never been proposed before. We hope to have such legislation before the break next week; but if not, immediately upon our return.

I look forward to working with the Members on the other side of the aisle and all Members from the affected areas. We understand that the needs are great, and the needs will not be met in one year or two. This is going to be a decades-long remedy requiring the patience of the Congress and the continuing generosity of all Americans.

None of us could foresee the scope of devastation. None of us would wish this on any place in the world; but it has happened and there are people who are living in shelters without resources, without futures, not knowing what tomorrow will bring. We have a high obligation to respond, and the Members of the Louisiana delegation fully intend to do their best in meeting this need.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3894.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3895) to amend title V of the Housing Act of 1949 to provide rural housing assistance to families affected by Hurricane Katrina, as amended.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3895 is important legislation to again provide flexibility to the Rural Housing Authority relative to converting available funds to vouchers to provide additional options for those displaced by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. It also provides additional loan flexibility with regard to repairs and remodeling pursuant to storm damage for existing loans now provided by the agency.

I wish to acknowledge the work of the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, who have been extraordinary in their desire and willingness to help those of us in the gulf coast area with remedies to the identified problems.

This legislation, the second of three to be considered by the House today, is an important step. Not in and of itself a significant remedy, but it does provide significant new flexibility to a historically proven and valuable program. For these reasons, I believe it is highly important for the House to adopt this matter as well as the legislation to follow. In cooperation, all three bills will provide significant and meaningful assistance to those who find themselves without a place to call home.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, who has been extraordinarily cooperative and is exhibiting great leadership in helping the people of the gulf coast deal with these catastrophes.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3895.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3896) to temporarily suspend, for communities affected by Hurricane Katrina, certain requirements under the community development block grant program, as amended.

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

Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 3896, the Hurricane Katrina Emergency Relief CDBG Flexibility Act of 2005. Many local officials are quite familiar with the provisions of the CDBG block grant program, which enables local communities to meet needs at their discretion. Within the body of the existing rules that govern the applicability of these funds, however, there is a provision that restrains the utilization of money for certain purposes to no more than 15 percent of the total funds made available.

For example, the prohibited areas are limited areas and are known as public services, would include activities such as crime prevention. If a community wished to spend more than 15 percent of its block grant on crime-related services, it would be prohibited from doing so now under the current rule.

Further defined under the definition of public services are homebuyer down payment assistance, fair housing counseling, health services and child care. So in the affected area of the Katrina disaster, if a community wished to help individuals get access to homeownership with a homebuyer down payment assistance program, they would be limited in the scope of those funds to only 15 percent being made available for that activity.

This bill merely lifts temporarily that 15 percent limitation on CDBG block grants.

I think it is a very good way to provide needed resources within local communities to meet the needs as they best see them. Of course, the grant is still subject to all the normal review and processes, so there is accountability for utilization, but it simply creates more flexibility within local governments to meet the needs of the communities as a result of these dire circumstances.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief comment, but a heartfelt comment, about my appreciation to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the

gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) as to the true bipartisan manner in which these matters have been debated, considered, and supported.

I also want to make known that the administration has exhibited great concern, the President visiting the affected areas now many times, the various agency Secretaries, an innumerable number of Federal employees, occupying one of the former largest department stores in our community in an operations center that we have never seen anything like before. Although inefficient at times, never meeting anyone's expectations appropriately, many people, volunteers as well as paid employees, have spent now countless hours on the ground in all of the communities that are affected.

It is indeed a disaster beyond one's comprehension, and the remedies offered will take considerable time. There is no magic wand in any Department of the government, State, Federal or local, one can wave and make the hurt go away. This is going to take a decade, if not longer. Restoration of the levees to a category 5 integrity, environmental remediation to remove the siltation that was deposited, restoration of bridges and structures to provide people merely access to the communities in which they once resided, restoration of employer opportunities so people can have jobs, and schools need to be built so kids can get an education, fire stations and police stations must be built to provide for civil order, this is no small task.

So I say to my colleagues in the United States House, I am deeply appreciative of your kind expressions of concern and offers of assistance. In fact, one of the barriers to speeding up assistance, I wanted, along with Chairman Ney, to create a House Intranet, just for House Members. I had Members who went to FEMA with resources they wanted to volunteer to give to us in our communities, and they could not get through the regulatory processes to do it in any reasonable time.

I am now told if I were to propose, which I intend to do, the establishment of a Web page on the official services of the House on which Members could voluntarily list assets which they would make available to communities to be used freely for restoration of services in small towns across the gulf coast, that would be a violation of House ethics, using official resources for a charitable solicitation.

I am asking Members to join on to a letter asking that the rules be waived or, if necessary, an act be passed on this House floor, to allow those Members who have come up to me and said, I would like to offer this, to be able to offer that to the mayors, police systems and those affected across the stricken region.

My point is there is great empathy here in this body when disaster strikes this country. I am very appreciative of that. I merely ask going forward that we continue to work in a bipartisan manner as we propose remedies coming from those in the affected communities that we believe appropriate and responsible.

I do not wish to leave this day without expressing the view held by all members of the Louisiana House delegation: we understand this is United States taxpayers' money. We understand there are people in jobs across this country working to pay their bills; and we are asking, through you, to take their money and give it to us. Certainly we have need, but we also understand there should be accountability. It should be transparent, and any abusive practice should be held accountable; and people who take advantage of this circumstance should be held to the measure of conduct that is appropriate.

So I say to my Members of the House, continue to work with us. We understand your obligation to protect the public trust, but we have to balance that with the needs of people who are now the victims of the greatest natural disaster in our Nation's history. I assure you, we will do our part. We will introduce a bill to provide for permanent resolution of our housing disaster, and I hope you will give it the care and concern you have demonstrated today.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill just considered.