Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H. Res. 487, supporting the goals and ideals for Korean American Day.

On January 13th, we will celebrate the 103rd Anniversary of Korean American Day. It was on that day, 103 years ago, that a boat carrying 102 Korean immigrants arrived in Hawaii. According to the 2000 census, there are now more than 1 million Korean Americans. Over that time, Korean Americans have made an untold number of contributions to American society.

Whether in education, science, business, or the arts, Korean Americans have played and continue to play a vital role in shaping communities throughout New Jersey and the entire country.

For instance, there are over 4,000 Korean Americans currently serving in our Armed Forces and a large number of them are deployed overseas keeping our nation safe from terrorism. Furthermore, Korean Americans own more than 135,500 businesses across the U.S., employing nearly 334,000 individuals and generating gross receipts and sales of $46 billion.

Many of to day's Korean Americans came to this nation in the 1950s fleeing the war and poverty that followed the invasion of South Korea by North Korea. Today, that region continues to face threats to its overall security. I promise to continue to work with my colleagues and Korean officials to find a long term solution to the nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula. Ensuring safety in the region and seeking a diplomatic resolution to the conflict are two of my top priorities.

Korean American Day is an excellent opportunity for Americans to remember the many contributions that Korean Americans have made to our society and I urge all of my colleagues to support H. Res. 487, supporting the goals and ideals of Korean American Day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H. Con. Res. 218, recognizing the centennial of sustained immigration from the Philippines to the United States and acknowledging the contributions of our Filipino-American community to our country over the last century.

The United States and the Philippines have a relationship full of tradition and history and both countries have a shared commitment to global peace, security, and prosperity. Currently, there are over 2 million Filipino-Americans, the second largest Asian-American community in the U.S. These Filipino-Americans have made significant contributions in many areas including education, religion, business, labor, and the arts.

Dating back to World War II, when the United States and the Philippines fought side by side against Japan in the Pacific, Filipino- Americans have served with dignity and bravery in the United States Armed Forces. Today, many Filipino-American soldiers are fighting overseas in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Philippines is working closely with the United States to win the global war on terror. Ongoing Philippines initiatives to improve and expand international counterterrorism cooperation encourage even better levels of communication between our two countries.

I will continue to work with leaders in the Filipino-American community to ensure that relations between the United States and the Philippines continue to grow and prosper in the 21st Century. I urge all of my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 218.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding achievements of Don DeGarmo, a senior at Newton High School. Mr. DeGarmo has received the General Spaatz Award. That is the Civil Air Patrol's highest cadet honor. In only 4 years, he has demonstrated excellence in leadership, character, fitness, and aerospace education.

On average only two cadets in 1,000 ever receive this reward; and in over 40 years, only about 1,500 cadets have ever received it. I am confident that Mr. DeGarmo will continue to fulfill the Civil Air Patrol's mission, which is to serve America by performing Homeland Security and humanitarian missions for our communities, States, and Nation.

Upon graduation, Mr. DeGarmo plans to enter the U.S. Air Force and continue his commitment to protecting our values and our freedoms. We owe a great deal of debt to young men such as he who will protect and preserve the United States of America. At his young age, he is already becoming a role model for future generations, and I come here today to commend him for his exceptional career.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 438 today to once again demonstrate my strong resolute support for the State of Israel and all of our support for Israel, and its beleaguered people as well. When we think about it, it is really unfortunate that Congress has to get together and even make such a statement, but I believe that the circumstances and world politics necessitate that we do so.

In addition to being one of the United States' closest allies, Israel is also the only truly fully functioning democracy in the Middle East. Yet, ever since 1948, when the world officially established the State of Israel and recognized its right to exist in the Middle East, the United Nations has shown an extraordinary bias against it.

It is my hope that it would be clear to all the freedom-loving peoples in the world and all the peaceful nations throughout the world that such a sentiment is unwarranted. Israel has done no more than to promote religious and economic freedom and democratic principles to each of its citizens, and it has

done so while enduring literally decades upon decades of violent attacks from many of its neighbors.

The U.N.'s bias has only served, however, to embolden Israel's enemies and to promote an anti-Israel attitude. That body's record of lagging in promotion of Israeli ambassadors to leadership positions while turning basically a blind eye when condemnation of actions against Israel were warranted is just one of the reasons why the U.S. Congress cannot sit idly by and do nothing.

As a cosponsor of H. Res. 438, I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to join in support of this resolution and also the next resolution, H. Res. 535, which honors the life and work of slain Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Together, these resolutions demonstrate the contrast of peace and democracy versus the hatred and bias that has surrounded Israel and the United Nations' treatment of it over the years.

I am hopeful that our united stand today will persuade the U.N., which has a history of inefficiency and corruption, to change its approach and its dealings with these issues.

I thank the gentlewoman for this opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, Federal spending is just too high and basically it is in danger of spiraling out of complete control. But American families are really better off if they are able to keep more of their money to decide to spend it as they see their needs fit. But only when excesses and unnecessary spending are identified and eliminated will that happen. And that is really the responsibility of both sides of the aisle.

The bill before us began with $34 billion in savings. We have another $15 billion roughly in savings on top of it. This will not fix our mandatory spending problems right away, but it is a first step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, opponents on the other side of the aisle have been spreading lies about it when they say there are cuts in the Medicaid funding program. In fact, the reform program includes a 7 percent increase in spending for Medicaid. Programs like Medicaid simply cannot sustain themselves without any reform. No one can argue that Medicaid is a completely 100 percent efficient program. Reforms are necessary to protect the program and protect the services that are provided to the people who receive them. Right now, around 53 million Americans receive the benefits of this program. It is a State-Federal partnership. And unless reform is done now, we will see that program become disabled and cripple the States and eventually lead to bankruptcy.

One area we see this is in prescription drugs. Time and time again, the Federal Government overpays for prescription drug benefits. And unless reform is made in this program, we will see that program crash as well.

The other side has lied with regard to student loans as well. There are no cuts in the student loan program under this budget reform plan. That is another lie of the other side of the aisle. As the number of college students increases, the student loan program will grow as well. Under this bill, student financial aid will continue to increase as the number of kids in colleges increase. Financial aid actually goes up through increases in loan limits and reductions in origination fees.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the Middle Class Fairness Act and the AMT, the alternative minimum tax. This tax was put in place years ago to basically cover a small group of wealthy taxpayers who were avoiding paying their taxes. Unfortunately, now it extends far beyond its initial intent in recent years. Now the AMT is actually punishing families and homeowners and the very credits that are in the current tax law, those credits that encourage savings, education, marriage, homeownership; they are all under attack by the

Well, I thank my friend from Texas for those words. And I thank you also for your leadership and the opportunity to join you this evening as you continue the battle for reform.

As we take up this critical matter of budget reform this week, I would ask my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to view this as a process not in terms of dollars and cents of savings and cuts, but more in the terms of what really is the proper role of the Federal Government.

The Republican Party, I think, is the party that gives more credit to the American people than the other side of the aisle ever will. It is the philosophy of keeping government close to the citizens and Federal Government in its proper place that put the Republican Party in the majority several years ago and has kept it there now for the last 10 years. Yet, I feel at times that political control can cause us to lose hold of what our Founding Fathers initially thought that our role should be.

But in forming any policy, as we discuss these issues, I think casting votes on the floor, the Constitution should be our guide, not simply the whims of the day. And so in any discussions on this, let me just bring us back to what one of our Founding Fathers of the Constitution told us back in Federalist 45 when he said, James Madison said:

``The powers delegated . . . to the Federal Government are few and Defined . . . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs; concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.''

If Mr. Madison was to join us here today, I would imagine that he would see very little difference between King George and London and today's bureaucrats here in Washington, D.C. when it comes to big government and meddling in local issues. Unfortunately, just as the Founders of the Constitution have long since passed, so have many of their principles which this system of government was set upon. And were they to return today to the halls of D.C. and Congress, they would see the government has grown out of all bounds.

They would see a Federal judiciary that has traded judicial self- restraint for judicial activism, and they would find a wildly inefficient Federal bureaucracy.

The framers saw the excesses of London and Versailles, the gross central powers, at the disposal of so few and at the expense of so many.

The government conceived by Madison and others was designed specifically to resist such a fate. Now, Alexis de Tocqueville famously observed the greatest genius of libertarians, egalitarian of early America, was that it bore absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to his native France. Indeed, men like Madison and de Tocqueville might wander the Halls today and find striking similarities between the opulent and power-laden prerevolutionary Versailles.

But short of storming the Bastille, I came to Congress in the 108th Congress convinced that something could be done, and we are working towards that endeavor today. We are working towards that endeavor in other fields as well, such as Congressional States and Community Rights Caucus to turn Congress back to the Constitution and the 10th amendment.

Many of my colleagues and others inside the Beltway forget that State taxpayers and Federal taxpayers are not simply separate groups of people. Americans from all over the country send their money to Washington, only for Washington to lose some of it, waste some of it and spend some of it in ways that may not be best for all of us. Take my State of New Jersey: for every dollar in taxes my State of New Jersey sends down to Washington, we only get 54 cents back. That does not make much sense to me, nor to the citizens of my State. New Jerseyans would be better if they kept most of that money back home for their own self-control and projects.

Mr. Speaker, to conclude, this week provides the House with an opportunity to help restore the vision of our Founders, the vision of Ronald Reagan. Yes, we must look out for the least among us. Yes, we must protect the key interests that cannot be dealt with at any other level, but just as the 10th amendment states clearly, and I quote, ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by and to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people,'' all of us as elected representatives of the people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that Members of this House keep those words in mind as we go through this week, as we consider this legislation, and truly need it here in Washington D.C. and remember to return the power back to the people.

Again, I commend the Member from Texas for his leadership in this endeavor.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring attention and pay tribute to Sussex County, New Jersey, for their efforts to recognize the heroic feats of our region. In the historic downtown square of Newton, New Jersey, a 34-inch-diameter cast bell is engraved with the words ``Sussex County Veterans Memorial 2005.'' This memorial is long overdue, but truly represents the liberty, freedom and democracy our brave men and women in the armed forces have fought for. What better time to present this memorial than on the occasion when our Nation pays our respects to our defenders of liberty on Veterans Day.

Defending our country by serving in the armed forces is one of the most commendable achievements and deserves our utmost gratitude and respect. America's armed forces have time and again fought to protect our homeland and bring freedom and prosperity to the entire world.

We must never forget the sacrifices of these men and women and every effort must be made to ensure that our veterans and all they fought for are never forgotten. The Sussex County Veterans Memorial will remind all Americans of the monumental accomplishments our soldiers have made throughout history. They will be honored, admired and remembered forever.

It is with extreme reverence that I offer my sincerest gratitude to the veterans of Sussex County, New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Upper Greenwood Lake Volunteer Ambulance Corps in New Jersey's fifth Congressional district on 50 years of excellent service to our community. Located in West Milford in northern New Jersey, this brave group of selfless residents has been saving lives since being founded on June 2, 1955.

A great community effort, the Upper Greenwood Lake Volunteer Ambulance Corps was started with the assistance of a weekend resident and a loan from a local business owner. Residents helped maintain the first ambulance, a 1947 Cadillac, and cleared the land for the headquarters with assistance from local business.

Today, volunteers spend countless hours training in life-saving and learning how to use advanced equipment. Volunteers also raise money to defer the costs of ambulance care for needy residents,

For their great dedication to the cause of saving lives, I praise the Upper Greenwood Lake Volunteer Ambulance Corps and wish them another 50 years and beyond of outstanding response to medical emergencies.

Mr. Speaker, the duty of promoting, developing and preserving the economic environment and quality of life of a community is a personal contribution to the democracy that has made America the great country it is today. Leaders are looked upon for advice, ideas and stability to sustain the growth and security of our communities.

In recognition of the outstanding dedication and personal leadership to a community, I am pleased to extend my warmest commendation to Mr. Charles O. Wright for his services to the Oakland Chamber of Commerce in Oakland, New Jersey.

For the last 25 years, businesses as well as prospective college students in Oakland, NJ have flourished on his behalf. In 1981, Mr. Wright was selected to join the Chamber's Board of Directors. Soon after, he served as

Vice President and Treasurer. In 1984, as President of the Oakland Chamber of Commerce, he established the Chamber Scholarship, benefiting students of the community. His respected leadership qualities resulted in his Chairmanship of four Standing Committees: Scholarship, Membership, Election and Technology.

Mr. Wright has enjoyed a career focused on providing service and intellect to the Borough of Oakland, NJ. The community will thrive for years to come because of his leadership and dedication to society.

It is therefore with great honor that I offer my sincerest appreciation and congratulations to Mr. Charles O. Wright for his committed service to the Oakland Chamber of Commerce and I wish him a future filled with continued success.

Mr. Speaker, today I honor Lance Corporal Brian Parrello, a heroic young man from my district who died while bravely serving his country in Iraq. I am proud that this week we will name the United States Post Office in his hometown of West Milford, New Jersey after Brian, the very post office where his father has spent many years working for the Postal Service.

On January 1 of this year, Lance Cpl. Brian P. Parrella, 19, of West Milford, N.J. was killed in Al Anbar Province, Iraq as a result of hostile fire. Lance Cpl. Parrello was assigned to Small Craft Company, Headquarters Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C. Parrella was attached to a Marine Swift Boat unit that patrolled the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

A resident of West Milford, New Jersey, Parrello attended West Milford High School where he was a member of both the football and hockey teams. Following high school, he was so deeply affected by the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon that he proudly enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps. His teachers, coaches and peers have called him a real leader and a role model, someone who always gave 150 percent, and a person who led by example with a big heart.

This loss causes us to reflect on the bravery demonstrated by our men and women in uniform as they carry out their obligations in the face of danger. When their Nation called them to duty to preserve freedom and the security of our neighbors, they answered without hesitation.

Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere privilege to recognize the life of a proud soldier and heroic representative of the State of New Jersey. Lance Cpl. Brian P. Parrella was an honorable defender of liberty and he deserves our gratitude and respect.

I am pleased that we could recognize Brian's sacrifice in this manner and I hope that years from now the citizens of West Milford can remember the courage and sacrifice of this brave young man. We will continue to keep Brian's family and the families of all our men and women serving around the world in our thoughts and prayers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the venomous words spewed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad towards one of America's closest allies and a true companion in the War on Terrorism, Israel.

Yesterday's statement by President Ahmadinejad confirms his country's station among the most radical and dangerous in the world. It is the sort of hate espoused by Mr. Ahmadinejad, cheered unwittingly by a crowd of impressionable children, that breeds new terrorists among Islamic youth. Israel has been a unwavering companion of the United States. America must stand behind them as they face such invective, and we must remain as steadfastly committed to Israel's defense and independence.

As the process moves forward to promote peace between Israel and their Arab neighbors, this declaration by the Iranian leader potentially takes us two steps backwards.

I call on any citizen of Iran who is peaceful and freedom loving, to reject the sentiments of their close-minded and hateful leader.

I urge the State of Israel to trust that when the rhetorical smoke of their enemies clears, the United States will, as always, be standing strong as a proud ally.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to compliment both Chairman Baker and Chairman Oxley for their work in order to put together a bill that the main purpose which is to regulate and strengthen the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

If anyone here questions the need for additional remedies such as regulations, all we have to do is look at a brief history going back a couple of years of these two entities.

Back in January of 2003, Freddie Mac issued a press release and stated it will issue an unaudited statement of earnings for the year 2002 and restate accounting results for prior years.

November of the next year, November 2003, Freddie issues a restatement of past accounting results for the year 2000, 2001, 2002, and revises its net earnings upwards by $4.4 billion that they were off in their records.

September of 2004, OFHEO makes public a report highly critical of accounting methods of Fannie Mae. November of 2004, Fannie announces that it is unable again to file a third-quarter earning statement because its auditor, KPMG, refused to sign off on the accounting results.

December of 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC, issues a statement supporting OFHEO's report and orders Fannie to restate its financial results. Again, in December of 2004, the Fannie CEO Franklin Raines and CFO Tim Howard have to resign from those entities.

Finally, in June of 2005, after 3 years, finally Freddie issues its first audited annual report since the year 2002. And now we are here in October, and we look back about a week or so ago, and press reports are out again suggesting that investigators have uncovered again new accounting violations of Fannie Mae, possibly including overvalued assets, underreported credit losses, and misused tax credits.

Mr. Chairman, if there was ever a need of entities that need additional regulation, it is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If there are ever two entities that need to be limited in their size, it is these two entities. If there were every two entities that need not grow, it is these two entities. I applaud the chairmen for their work to regulate them.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation, which strengthens the language with regard to portfolios and GSEs.

The GSEs claim that they are shock absorbers in the system. One of the main reasons that Fannie and Freddie claim they should not have their portfolios limited is that they provide a stable means of support for the residential finance markets at times of crisis.

Fannie's CEO, Dan Mudd, testified that ``our mortgage portfolio allows us to play a shock-absorbing function for the finance system during times of potential difficulty.''

This week, Freddie's president, Eugene McQuade, was quoted as saying that the enterprises provided a source of stability to the mortgage finance market after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

This is a nice thought, Mr. Chairman. However, their statements are not true.

If you look at Fannie's purchases for its portfolio during every month of 2001, you will notice that its purchases in September of 2001, of that year, were the lowest level of anytime during that year.

Fannie might argue that they acted as a shock absorber not by buying mortgages and MBS, but by committing to buy in succeeding months.

Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by saying that we should support these significant portfolio limitations in order to make sure that GSEs are able to be reined in and not become what they have said they are and go out of their range of portfolio.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

My amendment would strike the language in the bill that raises the conforming loan limits for certain parts of the United States. H.R. 1461 would raise by 50 percent the maximum size mortgage Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could buy.

This language hurts the very basic functions of GSEs to provide liquidity and help lower-income home buyers.

While the GSEs are chartered to operate in every district across the country, their effectiveness in serving low-income borrowers has been seriously hindered because they focus instead on bigger and bigger loans to higher and higher-income borrowers. Presently, Fannie and Freddie can buy first mortgages on single-family houses up to $359,000. That limit is the so-called ``conforming loan limit,'' and it rises every year. Next year it will go up to $400,000. But with the bill now, it will go up to $600,000 in 2006. A home buyer would need an income of almost $200,000 to buy that home. Is that what Fannie Mae was intended to help?

According to a study by the Federal Reserve published last January, the interest rate difference between a conforming loan and a jumbo loan fluctuates between .15 percent and .18 percent, most of which is pure profit for Fannie Mae. Based on the current interest rate environment, this means at best Fannie is going to lower monthly costs by simply $60 for someone buying that $200,000 loan who is now paying $3,300 or so a month in mortgage payments.

The problem for Fannie is this extension into jumbo loans for higher- income families and forgetting about

their mission to help lower-income families comes with a an added price, a risk to their balance sheets.

Chairman Greenspan and Secretary Snow have consistently raised their concerns about the systemic risks that the size of Fannie and Freddie's portfolios pose to our Nation's housing market. And if we allow them now to participate in the jumbo loan market as well, they will only continue to further exacerbate this dire situation.

We should ask, why was it even proposed that Fannie get this added power to help high-income home buyers? Was there a problem that needed to be fixed? No such evidence was ever presented at any of the committee hearings.

The private sector has adequate sources of funding for loans that are above the conforming limits. An active private secondary market for larger mortgage loans that did not exist when the enterprises were set up is now active to supplement these sources of funding, and allowing Fannie to take on higher costs in jumbo loans only takes valuable time and resources away from their enterprises.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

We must remember what the original focus of the GSEs was when they were initially chartered by this Congress, they were to do two things, and that is to provide liquidity to the marketplace and also to help provide for facilitating low-income buyers coming into the marketplace.

It is already set up in the law that the amount that GSEs can lend can go up every year. As it is right now, it stands at $359,000. It is set to go up to $400,000 for next year, in 2006. As the bill was amended in committee, it comes out now that that will go up by 50 percent.

I ask the question, how would we define somebody who is about to buy a $600,000 home? That individual would have to be making an income of around $200,000. Even if they are firemen, policemen, teachers, who have you, they would still need an income of $200,000 in order to buy a home at $600,000.

That was not the intent of GSEs. The intent was to help the low- income market to get their homes. By allowing the GSEs to get into this market, what we are doing is distracting them from their purpose and hurting those very people that they were intended to help: low-income people, whether they are in New Jersey or California or other high- interest-rate States, to be able to buy their first time.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds.

Madam Chairman, the assertion that this would be devastating to the market runs contrary to the facts before the committee. There was no evidence whatsoever presented to the committee to say that the system in place in States such as New Jersey or California or elsewhere are in need of GSEs to come in to increase their conforming limits by 50 percent. There is already an additional market out there that allows for people to buy jumbo loans; and there are a number of different variations, adjustable rate loans, that allow people who are in the upper brackets and making $200,000 to be able to afford and to buy these mortgages.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, as stated, the purpose of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the GSEs, was to provide liquidity difficult to the market and allow first-time homeowners to get into the market in the first place. However, we want to define who those people are, and I think some things we can agree on: those people who are making $200,000 and who want to expand and go up to larger houses should not be the ones that we define as lower-income individuals.

The statistics also show that came before our committee that even if we put this into place, the differential on mortgage rates would account for around $60 to $70 per mortgage. So if you are buying that $600,000 house and paying $3,000 or $3,300 a month, even if this bill were to pass, you would only see your savings of around $60 or $70.

I think the focus of Congress should be what it was when Fannie and Freddie were first set up, and that is to help those people get into their very first home. We can do that best by limiting their function to what it was prior to this amendment in the committee, and that is to focus on first-time home buyers in every State of the Union to be able to buy that first home, people of low and modest means who need the assistance of a government-backed program such as Fannie and Freddie to be able to know that there is a program there that allows them to get into that loan.

We can allow the other market, which is already in place, which has been functioning properly, where there is no evidence whatsoever to come before our committee that says there was a need to expand in this area, to continue to provide the financing for people who are at the upper-income levels of $200,000 and the like to be able to buy those homes.

Madam Chairman, I believe the best thing in mind is to make sure we remain in place the system that allows first-time home buyers the ability to get into their homes. By voting ``yes'' on this amendment, we be will be able to do that.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, the cost to buy a new home is about to go up in America. Why is that? Because as soon as next week, Congress is about to vote on placing a new tax on homeownership, a tax that may well raise the cost for the average American who wants to buy their new home.

Years ago, Congress set up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with the noble intent to add liquidity to the marketplace and help home buyers. But in an about-face, Congress is about to impose a new tax and at the same time fail to address an inherent flaw in the current system.

Mr. Speaker, legislation before the House would allow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to continue to rack up debt on their balance sheets with no limits. These are the same organizations that have been wracked with financial accounting scandals, may have 1.5 to $1.7 trillion on their balance sheets right now. I say ``may'' because no one can get a clear financial picture from these entities.

Alan Greenspan has testified to this problem repeatedly, noting that without restriction on the size of the GSE balance sheets, we put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States. American homeowners deserve better. We need to help them and not hurt them.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim my time at this point.