Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chairman, as has been discussed both in committee and on the floor of the House this morning, this legislation is a result of Democrats joining with Republicans. Not all. I mean, many Republicans are opposed to this legislation.

But after 2 years of trying to address the subprime lending crisis, many Members of this body came together to craft legislation. That legislation is not perfect, nor will it be. I have concerns about it.

My Members, many of them, are particularly concerned about the liability provisions. And this amendment fundamentally unravels, at least a consensus that some of us have reached with the other part by gutting the safe harbor contained in the legislation that is critical to the functioning of the secondary mortgage market. Without liquidity provided by the secondary market, the homeownership dreams of millions of Americans, particularly low- and middle-income Americans, will simply not be realized.

If this amendment is enacted, the safe harbor for the secondary market would disappear because notwithstanding the satisfaction of the statutory elements of the safe harbor, securitizers would be required to cure any violations of the bill's minimum standards by a creditor. This would effectively eliminate any benefit from the conduct of due diligence by secondary market participants that this bill is intended to promote. Deprived of that safe harbor, securitizers would simply stop purchasing loans. The effect on the availability of mortgage credit and on the housing market across the country would be devastating.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

May I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Madam Chairman, if this amendment is adopted, it's going to seriously damage this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to resist this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I want to compliment the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) for offering this amendment. I know it clarifies the role of the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the approval process for State license mortgage practitioners and originators. I compliment the gentleman. I know that the Conference has worked with the industry in crafting this amendment. I urge support for it.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I compliment the author, Mr. Green, for this amendment. I would anticipate and hope that with the passage of this amendment that mortgage originators would receive instructions on these subjects. So I very much am in support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we have discussed this amendment, and I acknowledge that the gentleman brings up a valid point. It is something that we will continue to adjust as the process goes forward.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Ohio obviously points out a significant problem with foreclosures in Cleveland. It is actually a heart-breaking experience that the people of Cleveland are going through when one out of every five or six houses are undergoing foreclosures. You hear some pretty devastating figures. I know, I used to be an attorney for the FOP, Fraternal Order of Police, in Birmingham; and there is absolutely nothing more problematic in a community than a vacant house from a crime standpoint as well as from a property value standpoint.

The notice she requires, I think some of that is addressed by Mr. Green and Mr. McHenry, but it is at an earlier time. I would say this, I personally am not going to ask for a roll call on this.

Going forward, I think parts of this amendment are very good. I think stating what the new interest rate will be, giving somebody a notice. The Federal Reserve said some folks sort of, you know, this is something that they don't always see or focus on. But explaining what the new interest rate is going to be and how it is going to be determined, that could be somewhat problematic, but it could be worked in a range as long as the regulators are given some discretion. Offering the borrower the best estimate of what the new monthly payment will be could also, as long as there was some range or discretion in there.

The last two things I think are very good, offering alternatives that the consumer could pursue. That might be very valuable, as would providing information on HUD-approved house counseling. I think that would be very valuable. I personally am not going to ask for a roll call on this. Other Members might.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida because, as you know, on this side, as with this whole body, we come with different perspectives.

Mr. Chairman, many of us are sympathetic to the insurance rate increases coastal catastrophe-prone areas have experienced recently, but there is no consensus that H.R. 3355 would offer any long-term help. Instead of granting long-term relief for middle-income coastal homeowners confronted with rising insurance costs, this bill would stick taxpayers wiith the tab of bailing out insolvent State insurance companies. In the past few years since some of the largest hurricanes on record tore through the gulf coast and coastal Florida, affected States have tried to protect their local markets, to limit rates increases, force coverage, or restrict market freedom. Competition is reduced

and homeowners are left with fewer choices--State efforts to secure more coverage for their constituents have ironically resulted in less affordability.

The Florida members on the minority side of the Financial Services Committee--Ginny Brown-Waite, Tom Feeney, and Adam Putnam--have been very attentive to the needs of their constituents and have constantly kept us updated on the problems there. We commend them for their service.

Of the two primary titles, the first does nothing that States can't already do under current law. The second is nothing more creative then giving cheap federally-subsidized loans to State insurance companies that are driving out the private market. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that over the next 5 years, implementing this bill would cost $75 million. But even this number grossly underestimates the true cost for American taxpayers. CBO apparently finds little value in Title II of this bill, finding that the federally subsidized loans would be made ``very rarely,'' as CBO does not expect any states would even bother applying for a loan following a disaster. In essence, they agreed this provision is of little value. However, taxpayers could potentially be on the hook for tens of billions of dollars, stuck with an enormous cost of capital for the loan's duration, and subject to the inevitable pressure to forgive the loans on the taxpayers' dime. This is the old two step ``ask for'' by people borrowing from government-- ask for the money now and then ask for debt forgiveness later.

Because private insurers don't want to provide underpriced, risky coastal insurance, Florida created Citizens Property Insurance Corporation in 2002. While Citizens was supposed to be an insurer of last resort, it is now Florida's largest insurer with over 1.3 million policyholders and total exposure of more than $434 billion, yet only enough funding to pay approximately $9.4 billion in claims. This undercapitalization means that if a major hurricane hits Florida, Citizens could be bankrupt by hundreds of billions of dollars. To bring down the cost of insurance even more, Florida created a state reinsurance fund to sell cheap reinsurance to private companies to encourage them to write business in the state. This fund is chronically undercapitalized and has driven out the global reinsurance market, recouping losses through taxpayer assessments. According to a Georgetown University report released last summer, the Florida cat fund offers $32 billion in coverage despite having only $1 billion in hand [or, according to the Florida Cat Fund staff, around $28 billion in liabilities and $2.2 billion in non-debt cash assets].

Mr. Chairman, the federally-headed consortium, while novel, likely offers nothing but an implicit federal backing for any issued securities, much like a GSE. According to the President's Statement of Administration Policy for this bill, ``there is no need for a federal role because states are currently free to associate to address catastrophe risk.'' It is also questionable whether such securitization represents any significant advantages over the sophisticated private reinsurance markets. According to the Georgetown Environmental Law & Policy Institute, ``the mere creation of the consortium would likely skew insurance premiums and encourage unwise development.'' Masking the true cost of insurance puts homeowners in harm's way while subsidizing state cat funds and developers.

Perhaps most troubling are the provisions of the bill that would mandate cheap Treasury loans to state catastrophe programs. Today, Florida is the only state with a reinsurance fund that would qualify for these loans, but there is no doubt this bill would spur the creation of other state programs based on the Florida ``model.'' One property and casualty insurance trade association stated that that these loans would ``impede private markets and would send the wrong signals to states.'' H.R. 3355 even allows an interim period where other state-run insurers--such as the bankrupt Citizens in Florida-- could receive these loans. We should question the wisdom of bankrolling state insurance companies like Citizens. Congress should also consider whether a Federal loan to an insolvent state catastrophe fund would be like the Federal Government's ongoing ``loan'' to the National Flood Insurance Program, which is currently carrying $18 billion in debt to the U.S. Treasury that is unlikely to ever be repaid.

Republicans will offer a number of important amendments today to steer this debate towards fiscal responsibility, taxpayer protection, and free market competition. We will also consider an amendment by Congressman Shays to replace the text of this bill with a bipartisan, blue-ribbon commission to report to Congress specific proposals to improve the affordability and availability of natural catastrophe insurance. We need to look more closely at the various solutions proposed by members on both sides of the aisle that could help homeowners access more coverage through the private market.

Mr. Chairman, we have an obligation to be thoughtful and deliberate when confronting this complex issue affecting millions of homeowners. The problem has many root causes, namely overregulation, overbuilding, and overreaching by state insurance entities. This bill, nor any one proposal, is the silver bullet. Congress should craft meaningful bipartisan reforms that address market dysfunction and the growing threat excessive coastal development poses. The Nation's homeowners and taxpayers deserve better than a scramble to rush a partisan bill through Congress. If the amendments are not accepted, we should vote it down but keep working.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of CJ's Home Protection Act of 2007.

Congressman Ellsworth said a picture is worth a thousand words, and he held up a picture of CJ Martin. When the Congressman brought CJ's mother, Kathryn Martin, to my office, he brought that picture with him. It brought back memories to me of another picture, of not a little boy but of a little girl, and I have that picture with me today.

This is a picture of Whitney Crowder. Now, unlike CJ, I am happy to say that today she is an eighth grader in a Tuscaloosa city school. She is doing well, but she has had a lot to overcome. Just like CJ, she and her family lived in manufactured housing.

Let me tell you, manufactured housing in the South has replaced a lot of substandard housing. It provides affordable housing for a lot of Alabamians. As many as one out of five Alabamians lives in a manufactured house. It is affordable. It is clean, and it provides a very good home.

Whitney was living in one of these manufactured houses. An alert went out that said a tornado was 30 miles off. She had approximately 20 minutes; but the TV wasn't on. She didn't have a weather alert radio. And although the TV stations were able to track that storm and to tell within a quarter mile where it was going and when it would arrive there, she and her grandmother and the rest of her family didn't have the TV on. Some people say why don't you require these in cars. Why just manufactured housing? Well, in fact studies show when people are in cars they have the radio on and more often than not they receive an alert.

But as is the case in Alabama with this storm and another storm that took 32 lives a few years before that, people were asleep. I think the Martins were asleep. They had no idea that a killer tornado was bearing down on them, even though warnings were going out.

As I said, although I am happy to say that Whitney survived the tornado, her brother Wesley, 16-month-old, and her father did not. They were killed.

We have come to a time in our country where we really have no excuse not to do the few elementary things we can do to prevent the death or at least lessen the likelihood of the death of CJ Martin in Indiana or Wesley Crowder and his dad, Whitney's father, in Alabama. Technology today in an F-5 or F-4 storm gives 30 to 40 minutes' warning. With that warning you only need two things: You need shelter from the storm, you need a place to go, and you need to receive that warning.

Now, in 2003 this Congress passed the Tornado Shelters Act, which allows communities to use community block grant money to build shelters, a shelter from the storm, a shelter that could exist for the Martins or the Crowder family, and a mobile community.

I am happy to report in my district, the Sixth Congressional District of Alabama, we now have six of these shelters in or near manufactured housing communities. But people don't have to go to those. If they are in manufactured housing, they can go to a nearby building with a basement or interior room. Manufactured housing, a mobile home as some of us call them, they don't have basements and interior rooms. It is not wrong; it is just something they are not designed to have. But there are permanent structures nearby, whether it be a school, a tornado shelter that we authorized in 2003, or maybe even their parents' house. The Crowders had an aunt and uncle that lived only about 400 yards away in a site-built house with a basement. They would have been safe from that storm. The technology was there to warn them. The shelter was there to receive them, but there was no weather radio.

Now, what's the cost of a radio? Some people have talked about the cost that you are imposing, although the manufactured housing industry as far as I know has said they support this bill. Well, Wal-Mart just came out with a weather radio for $12. So that's the cost if you buy them in bulk. You can put them in for $12 in a mobile home, manufactured housing. $12. What is the cost of not acting? For the Crowder family there are all sorts of costs. The greatest cost was the loss of two individuals, a little 16-month-old boy, Whitney's little brother, and her father. Also the cost to Whitney and her mother and the 12 other people injured by this storm. The cost was several million dollars in health care costs.

Now, we are not here to save money; we are here to save lives. But this bill will not only save lives; it will save money. A killer tornado like this hit Oak Grove at night, and among the things it did was paralyze a man. That man is still paralyzed to this day and his cost of treatment is, as we all know, hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. One radio in that gentleman's manufactured housing home could have saved him a life of paralysis. But, instead, it took 30 lives and denied him mobility for the rest of his life.

As the Congressman from Indiana said, this is not about Republicans or Democrats. There are certain things we ought to say, it is time to do this; and technology has reached that time. When 40 percent to 50 percent to sometimes as many as 60 percent of the deaths every year from these killer tornadoes are in mobile homes, manufactured housing, and families live in these houses, whether they be our grandparents, our parents, our children, our neighbors, our loved ones, or people we don't even know, you see the devastation here. There were site-built homes here. This is a manufactured house. Twenty-seven manufactured housing units in this area, a mobile home community, no longer existed.

As the gentleman from Indiana said, looking at this picture really doesn't do it justice. People actually commented when they came upon this area which was about half a mile long and 400 yards wide, it looked like a garbage dump. You couldn't tell there had been a community there. It looked like there were a few junk cars because the cars were rolled over and over.

We can rebuild these communities; but CJ, we can't bring him back. We can't bring Whitney's little brother and father back, but we can do our best for literally pennies to prevent some of these deaths.

I think that is why 55 TV stations throughout this Nation have made this their cause. They visited us in Washington last year. They said, Look, we will get the warning out and there are shelters available. But please require the installation of a $12 radio so we can bridge that gap between warning and safe shelter.

That is what we are here to do today. In this House where we sometimes are in conflict and at loggerheads, can't we this time come together in a united way in an effort that will cost almost nothing and which the manufactured housing industry said we are willing to do this, and require these radios. And not only when a tornado comes or when a devastating flood comes like came to Texas and people were asleep in a mobile home community and several of those homes were swept away. This will save lives.

So I commend CJ Martin's mother. That's what America is about, someone saying I lost my son but I don't want it to happen again. It is about the Crowder family who wrote me a letter, a grandmother saying please push this bill.

We will never go back and know whether CJ could have survived had this legislation been passed. We will never know whether Wesley Crowder and his father would survive, but we do know by talking to people throughout the United States that these radios have in many, many cases already saved lives and will save lives if we install them in manufactured housing.

We have a shot at significantly reducing over half the deaths from tornados simply by taking the step together united, Republicans and Democrats, and passing this legislation.

I commend Chairman Frank for expeditiously moving this legislation, and I commend the Member from Indiana for his thoughtfulness and his care and dedication to this issue.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to commend an individual from the District I represent, the Sixth Congressional District of Alabama, whose recent achievement in the field of music deserves the accolades and esteem of this body.

On June 3, 2007, Dr. Drew Mays of Birmingham took top honors in the world renowned Van Cliburn Foundation International Piano Competition for Outstanding Amateurs in Forth Worth, Texas. His winning performance in the final round included Beethoven's Sonata in C major, Op. 53 ``Waldstein'' and Liszt's Mephisto Waltz No. 1.

This event, whose prestigious sponsor has long been recognized internationally as a champion of musical excellence, gives its participants from around the world an opportunity to compete for top honors as amateur pianists. Created in 1999, the Van Cliburn Foundation's amateur competition is the most respected amateur piano competition in the United States, and was created to ``celebrate the amateur spirit.''

It is remarkable to note that as amateurs, competitors may not derive their principal source of income from public performances or piano instruction. Therefore, the level of artistic ability and expression is reached in tandem with balancing the pressures and concerns of daily life. This is an achievement indeed.

In addition to being a master of the piano, Dr. Mays is an ophthalmologist in private practice, specializing in glaucoma. He also serves on the staff of Birmingham's VA Medical Center, and serves as residency program director for the Department of Ophthalmology at the University of Alabama in Birmingham. However, before his medical career began, Dr. Mays studied advanced music both at the Manhattan School of Music and at the Conservatory of Music in Hannover, Germany. In 1987, he earned a master's degree in music from the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, the same year he began to work on his medical degree.

What is even more fascinating in my opinion is that Dr. Mays ended his musical career when he started medical school, starting a 15-year hiatus from playing the piano. Only in 2002 did Dr. Mays start to regularly play the instrument again, which culminated with his winning the Van Cliburn Foundation competition only 5 short years later.

In closing, I must remark that Dr. Mays' achievements are a realization of his unwavering commitment to the art of musical performance. Not only is Dr. Mays now a world renowned pianist committed to sharing the gift of music, but he is also a respected physician committed to helping patients with the gift of sight. Our great Nation should congratulate him on his achievements as one of Alabama's finest, and be honored to call him one of our own.

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

Mr. Chairman, as we start this discussion or debate about this new program, the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund program, I think it is important to distinguish between what we disagree on and what we agree on.

The first thing that we agree on is that Chairman Frank and the members of the majority have a sincere commitment to meeting the housing needs of

low-income Americans, to make housing more affordable for low-income Americans, and we share that need. What we debated in committee, what we have debated on the floor of this House on two previous occasions and now, is how we meet those needs.

What this legislation does is it creates a new National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. This is a new Federal program. In fact, Chairman Frank has said this is the largest expansion of a housing program I think in the last 30 years.

Mr. Chairman, this is a multi-billion dollar program. We say that this is not the way to do it. If we are to address the unmet needs of low-income Americans for affordable housing, this is not the way to go.

Why do we say that? Because presently there are over 30 Federal programs addressing affordable housing for low-income Americans. In addition to those 30-something programs at HUD, we have FHA and we have the GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. What this legislation proposes to do is not reform any of those programs. What it proposes to do is take money from FHA and from the GSEs, Fannie and Freddie, and transfer that money into a new program.

So we end up with all the programs we presently have, which it ought to be obvious to everyone apparently are not working. You are talking about the majority of the $35 billion. And when I say ``not working,'' let me say this to the chairman: They are not meeting the needs, or we wouldn't need to create a new program.

But what we are saying is if there is something wrong with the existing program, if there is something wrong with the $35 billion we are presently committing under the HUD programs, if FHA or the GSEs are not doing their job, why come along and create another program? And then if FHA and the GSEs are doing their job, why take money from FHA and the GSEs, particularly because at the same time we are saying to those programs, we want you to play a larger role in the mortgage crisis, the subprime mortgage crisis in America, but at the same time we are taking money from those programs.

So that is what we are debating. We are debating whether or not with all these programs, with the large Federal role in creating low-income affordable housing, why it is necessary to create another large program. As Chairman Frank actually says, this is one of the most significant expansions of Federal programs for low-income Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Let me say this to the chairman.

CDBG, those programs under HUD, designate money to all of the States, to many local governments, and to our different territories.

In addition to that, you have the HOME program. You have patterned this bill, if you look at it----

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to myself because I would like to make one statement.

Mr. Chairman, as I said at the start of this debate, the trust fund will be the largest expansion in Federal housing programs in decades. That is what we are debating.

Also at this time I would like to introduce, and I asked back in July for

HUD to produce the list of programs which today promote affordable housing. They sent me a list, and it has actually 34 programs which in some way assist low-income Americans with their housing needs. That is not my list; that is their list.

But let's again focus on, we have all of these programs. Do we rehabilitate these programs or do we shift money from one program to another? And if we are shifting money from one program to another, I don't see how this is the largest expansion of Federal housing programs in decades, or as the gentlewoman from California said, the most significant new program in over 11 years.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

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

Mr. Chairman, I want us to be clear about something. We hear from the majority this is a historic moment, and I will say to the majority I believe that it is. I believe that it is very significant. I don't believe that what we're debating here is insignificant at all. In fact, I want to yield the chairman 15 seconds to respond, but I believe the chairman himself has said, my recollection, that this trust fund would be the largest expansion of a Federal housing program in decades, and I yield to the chairman because when I said that before, he shook his head and I don't know if he was shaking his head at that.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Back in June, when you released your press statement, you said this trust fund would be the largest expansion of Federal housing in decades and that was June 28.

What we're doing here is we're taking money to fund this large expansion of Federal housing, we're not taking it from the 30 existing programs that specifically address low-income housing, elderly, disabled, AIDS, senior citizens.

We're taking it from FHA and from the GSEs which actually that money presently today promotes an affordable mortgage for all Americans. So we're taking from low-income, middle-income Americans, we're taking from programs which promote affordable housing for them, and we're transferring it to other Americans.

In doing it, we're not reforming. There are 80-something programs. The gentleman had said how many programs, are there 80 or 30. There's 80 housing programs, 34 of which specifically address low-income Americans.

At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to another of our Members.

Let me say this about Members. Two Members on our side have spoken in favor of this program. It is very difficult for Members to oppose a program that actually creates or has at its purpose creating affordable housing. You will see that by the two Members who are speaking.

Again, I will say that the majority of our Members believe that if you have 80-something programs and they are not working, you have a program, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program which, actually, this program actually says that if HUD doesn't adopt regulations, just simply adopt the regulations and the distribution of that program. So they almost mirror each other.

If those programs aren't working, why take money from FHA, which is one of the most successful affordable housing programs in America? Why take money away from middle- and low-income Americans to create yet another program? In fact, if you think about that, you are creating two bureaucracies, two programs with all the Federal employees that go into those programs, and you are putting money in one program, and then you are taking it out of that program and you are putting it in another program. That, in itself, involves a cost to the taxpayers.

In fact, when you take from one Federal program and put it in another, as opposed to appropriate money, to me that's the worst of all worlds from an efficiency standpoint.

I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for 3 minutes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have been in this House for 15 years. I have never asked that a Member's words be taken down, but I will tell you that I came as close to doing that as I have any time in my 15-year career. For a gentleman to get up and say that we Republicans today have said we don't care about low-income Americans and we think too much money is being spent on these programs, no one has said that.

I don't know where he is getting that. I wish he would talk about the

merits of the program as opposed to slamming Republicans, going into Medicaid, Medicare, and those. But I didn't do that, but I will tell you that those last remarks did not represent what anyone on this side has said.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about here today is creating what the chairman of the committee said back in June was the largest expansion of a Federal housing program in decades. How the chairman proposes, and I don't question his motivation, because I know that his motivation is helping low-income Americans. There is a need for low-income affordable housing.

He has disputed my representation that there are 30 some-odd programs that address low-income affordable housing.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to include the response to my inquiry to HUD, which is a list of 34 programs.

HUD Programs--Promoting Affordable Housing Opportunities

Program Area: Community Planning & Development

1. Home Investment Partnerships Program.

2. Supportive Housing Program.

3. Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy.

4. Rural Housing and Economic Development Program.

5. Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program.

6. Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS.

Program Area: Housing

7. One- to Four-Family Home Mortgage Insurance.

8. Mortgage Insurance for Disaster Victims.

9. Rehabilitation Loan Insurance.

10. Loss Mitigation.

11. Mortgage Insurance for Condominium Units.

12. Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Insurance.

13. Good Neighbor Next Door Program.

14. Section 202--Supportive Housing for the Elderly

Program.

15. Assisted-Living Conversion Program.

16. Cooperative Housing.

17. Multifamily Rental Housing for Moderate-Income Families

Mortgage Insurance.

18. Existing Multifamily Rental Housing (Section 207/223

(f)).

19. Mortgage Insurance for Housing for the Elderly (Section

231).

20. New Construction or Substantial Rehabilitation of

Nursing Homes, Intermediate Care Facilities, Board and Care

Homes, and Assisted Living Facilities; Purchase or

Refinancing of Existing Facilities..

21. Supplemental Loans for Multifamily Projects.

22. Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities

(Section 811).

23. Multifamily Mortgage Risk-Sharing Program.

24. Mark-to-Market Program.

25. Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance.

Program Area: Public & Indian Housing

26. Housing Choice Voucher Program.

27. Homeownership Voucher Assistance.

28. Project-Based Voucher Program.

29. Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing

(HOPE VI).

Program Area: Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

30. Section 3 Program.

Program Area: Policy Development & Research

31. Partnership for Advancing Technologies in Housing

(PATH) Initiative.

Program Area: Government National Mortgage Association

32. Ginnie Mae I Mortgage-Backed Securities.

33. Ginnie Mae II Mortgage-Backed Securities.

34. Ginnie Mae Multiclass Securities Program.

You look over those programs and you find HOPE VI, which, I think all Members would agree, supplies low-income housing for America. We have got section 8. We have got programs to rehabilitate nursing homes, to build intermediate care facilities, to establish boarding and care homes, on and on, support for persons with disabilities, persons with AIDS, disaster assistance or homes for those caught in disasters.

As the gentleman from Illinois said, $35 billion is going into those programs. But out of all those programs, this program, if you look at where the money is going to be distributed, it actually says that if HUD does not write regulations that will basically take the HOME investment program, it will be distributed to the same agencies for purposes of low-income housing, which is the exact purpose of the HOME program. If the HOME program isn't working, why wouldn't we appropriate money for the HOME program? If these programs are not working, why would we do that?

Why? Several people have said, the gentleman from Texas on the other side said over 50 percent of Americans today are struggling to meet their housing needs. Most of those, most of those low- and middle- income Americans are homeowners, and they are struggling with making their mortgage payments.

You open the newspapers, you find that foreclosures are at a historic high; yet what is proposed to us today?

What is proposed is that we take money from FHA and from Fannie and Freddie, which are both used. One is, FHA, as we all know, is affordable mortgage for low-income, middle-income Americans.

The GSEs promote mortgage liquidities. I don't see how you can take money from FHA, take money from the GSEs, fund this program without it affecting FHA and the GSEs. Diverting GSE funds to an affordable housing fund is essentially a tax on the GSEs.

Who has to pay that tax? That's a tax on their mortgage business. That ultimately is going to be paid by low-income borrowers. The proposal to take FHA receipts, it's going to mean fewer low-income Americans will have access to affordable FHA mortgages in the long run.

You can't create something from nothing. You can't create a program funded from an established program which supplies Americans with low- income mortgages or supplies liquidity to the mortgage market. You can't take money from those programs without affecting those programs. There are always costs.

You can't, as the chairman said, have the largest expansion of Federal housing programs in decades, take it from FHA and the GSEs, which supply mortgage liquidity. You can't take that kind of money without affecting those programs.

With all these programs, including the HOME program, which, as I said, mirrors the proposal before us today, we need, in conclusion, let's ask ourselves two questions: If all the efforts today, all these programs, 80 programs in all, 30-something programs addressing this, plus FHA and the GSEs, which also have a mission to loan money for

mortgages for multifamily units, if those aren't working, why wouldn't we fix those existing programs?

And even if we conclude that we need a new program, a national housing trust fund, why in the world would we go to FHA and the GSEs and ask them to fund those programs at the very time when we're having a subprime mortgage crisis in this country? And we have all asked, we have directed FHA and the GSEs to address this problem, and now we're taking money away from them and ultimately from low- and middle-income Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me commend the chairman and the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. It's been a pleasure working with Congressman Adam Smith on this legislation, and I commend you, Adam.

This is a bipartisan bill with a goal that should bring all of us together. And that goal is the reduction of extreme poverty and to make that reduction of extreme poverty a foreign policy priority for the United States.

Today, in dozens of poor countries all over the world, little boys and girls are born into poverty, disease, and hunger. Hopelessness and despair are their daily companions. Their burdens are day-to-day; they're painful and they're heavy.

In debating debt relief, I quoted Sister Rebecca Trujillo. She was asked,

How do they make it? How do they get through the day? Her answer was: ``How do they survive? Since being in Nicaragua I have taken to answer in a matter of fact way. Often they do not. Often they do not survive the day.''

Each day, even on our bad days, and we're fond of saying we've had a really bad day, but we ought to be reminded that for billions of people throughout the world, that even on our worst days, we have more food, more shelter, more clothes, more security, more health care, more of everything than our poor brothers and sisters have on their best days.

And, finally, a lot of people said, well, the reality is overwhelming. Half the world lives on $2 a day. But we can make a difference and we can do so at a very small cost.

We've had successes. We have made a difference. Debt relief has been a success. It has improved the lives of millions of people for almost no monetary cost to this country. Since the Millennium Development Goals were set 7 years ago, the poverty rate in sub-Saharan Africa is down 6 percent. There are more children receiving health care, in fact, over a million more children in that area alone, and medical treatment. Vaccinations are up throughout Africa. The percentage of students enrolled in primary schools has gone up considerably.

So, in closing, let me simply say this: cost should never be the overriding consideration. But when we consider cost, and doing the right thing is the imperative, but when we consider the cost, let us realize that the cost of not acting is not only hopelessness and unrest throughout the world, but is also terrorism and confrontation and wars that can be avoided if these programs work.

Global poverty is in our economic interest. It is in our national security interest as well. This bill will focus our battle against global poverty, and it is a powerful statement that Americans are committed to making this world a better place for all.

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

Mr. Chairman, as one of the original authors of the first TRIA legislation back in 2002, which passed this House with a strong vote, and also as a supporter of the extension in 2005, which I also cosponsored, I am disappointed that I have to rise today in opposition to the present bill. But I do so sincerely.

The whole idea of TRIA, the 2002 bill, the 2005 extension, was to create a short-term government backstop which would allow the insurance industry, the private market to adjust to the 9/11 reality.

By any objective measure, people on both sides of the aisle have said TRIA has been a success. Secretary Hank Paulson supported a TRIA which was a government backstop as the government continued to process the stepping back.

The terrorist insurance markets have stabilized. We have heard this debate, this word today of the gentleman from New York and the leadership and the Democratic Party and some of their differences. Even in correspondence which I have seen, he said terrorist insurance, the approach we have has been working. It is giving us insurance. The markets have stabilized. Policyholders are requesting and they are receiving coverage. Prices have declined. Reinsurance has become more available. The private marketplace is diversifying, and it is absorbing additional risk exposure every day.

This past July, Secretary Paulson, which, as I said, he supported TRIA, he doesn't support this legislation because it essentially preempts the private market. But he made this statement to me: It is my belief that the most efficient, lowest cost, and most innovative methods of providing terrorist risk insurance will come from the private sector.

I agree, and it is therefore that reason that I must oppose the bill before us today, because it works at cross-purposes with that whole philosophy of allowing a temporary backstop as the private market fills in and meets the need for terrorist risk insurance.

We presently have a TRIA program in place that relies on that private sector first and the government only as a backstop and, as I said, it is working very well. It is effectively creating what is a temporary assistance or a hand up, not a permanent handout. However, this bill replaces what has been a successful and temporary mechanism which has worked so well to allow the insurance marketplace to adopt to the 9/11 realities. It replaces it with legislation that, instead of scaling back the Federal backstop, it expands it greatly. It increases the government growth greatly. It increases taxpayers' exposure tremendously, so much so that we are not going to pay for it here today. We are going to disregard PAYGO. And I understand there is some private deal that may have been agreed to out of the public domain and unknown to Members. That is not how legislation should function. But it is a flawed bill that is, unfortunately, a departure from what has heretofore been a very successful bipartisan consensus effort on behalf of this Congress that we have all come together and adopted in the past.

TRIA should not be a partisan issue. Our division on this legislation reflects a philosophical difference and disagreement over how, how much and for how long middle-class America should subsidize the cost of terrorist insurance for both insurers and for urban developers.

And what is the taxpayer role?

I had hoped that we could consider a number of important amendments today to scale back these new Federal subsidies; i.e., taxpayer- supported guaranteed benefits. I had hoped that we could ask that the insurance companies pay a greater percentage; that they collect an increased amount. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership has decided not to even allow a fair and free debate on these amendments.

The expanded Federal subsidies provided for in this bill are so expensive that they violate the House's budget rules. But, as I said, instead of admitting this violation, or even waiving it, which would be a more honest approach, or finding a way to pay for the costs to the taxpayers, the majority has turned to what I call a ``fantasy fix'' that mandates various terrorist coverage, but removes any certainty in the Federal payment.

Even the most ardent proponents of TRIA are opposed to this so-called solution to the PAYGO problem. One Democratic colleague that's on the floor today has made this statement which I associate myself with: ``Making the entire program contingent on Congress passing a second piece of legislation completely undermines the intent and desired effect of the legislation.'' He went on to say, and I quote, ``It would render the legislation almost completely useless.'' That's the legislation we have before us. That's it. That's what we're considering today.

We heard as we debated the rule that there have been some assurances given in a letter which none of us have seen from the majority leader to the Member that they're going to fix this, that they're going to fix it in conference. We're just asked to take a leap of faith. To me, that violates not only the promises that the Democratic majority made in this campaign to have an open, honest process with full disclosure, not back-room agreements. We don't even know what we're voting on. We're told, vote for something on blind faith. It'll be fixed. Yes, it's flawed. Yes, it won't work. Yes, we know we're not paying for it, but we'll do that later. Trust us.

You know, it's one thing to ask Members of Congress, it's another thing to ask the American people for their representatives to pass something they have no idea entirely what it is; to act on the assurance of a letter that 433 Members have not seen, surely not the 210 in the minority.

Policyholders are also shortchanged in this legislation. If an insurance company's losses exceed a certain level, the new bill that Members saw for the first time last night says that the consumer gets no more money until a later Congress acts, regardless of what the insurance policy says or what the company agreed to pay. In other words, they're writing a policy, the company is agreeing to pay a certain amount, but all of it is contingent upon Congress then coming in and paying for it. I'm not sure that's even constitutional, that we as a legislative body would say, go out and write insurance policies, tell policyholders this is their coverage, and another legislative body, 5, 10, 15 years down the road, they'll come in and they'll pay for it. How do we know that? What will the policy read? It will be interesting to see what the policy says. All this is contingent upon an act of Congress. How about all of this is contingent upon the ability of the United States to write such a check, or the willingness of the people to do that? What if these policies are extended and then we have a new Congress and that Congress says ``no''? The policyholders have paid for something and they have no assurance they'll ever receive a dime.

While I am a strong supporter of what has to this date been the approach of Congress for short-term extensions of this program that continues down the road of phasing out the government backstop, the taxpayer funding, and phases in greater private sector participation, and by private sector participation, I simply mean that those who are provided the coverage pay for the coverage, not someone in rural Kansas or New Mexico or Georgia, but that who's getting the benefit pays the price, not the American people.

I cannot support this bill. It extends the program for 15 years, in other words, more or less basically permanent. It writes a blank check, asks the taxpayers to pay it, but doesn't pay for it now. It makes no provisions for paying for it, other than a letter from the majority leader to a member of the New York delegation saying, in a month or two, we know this is a flawed bill, it's a no go, but we'll fix it. But vote for it right now. I cannot do that. I cannot ask the Members of the minority to do that.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say in closing that Members on this side of the aisle are prepared and we have been prepared to strongly support an extension of the TRIA program that is fiscally responsible, that does the right thing for taxpayers. But we're not going to vote for something we have no idea what we have, other than an assurance in a letter we have not seen.

While we have complete bipartisan agreement on the merits of the current TRIA program, we know that in the aftermath of 9/11 there was a need to act. We acted. We've been successful. Let's not change something that's proven to work well with a blank check from the taxpayers. This bill is a gimmick. It increases government subsidies without providing greater certainty in the marketplace. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would yield the gentleman from New York 30 seconds to answer an inquiry if he would allow me.

I would ask the gentleman, this letter that we heard of earlier from Mr. Hoyer to yourself, could you share a copy of that letter with the minority?

Could we see it now?

Could we make a copy of it?

So this is a private sort of agreement between the two of you?

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to the remaining time on our side.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker).

Mr. Chairman, TRIA is working well as a temporary matter. The insurance market is beginning to fill out and, sadly, this is a step in the wrong direction.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the manager's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment has some improvements to the bill. I would like to express to the chairman that I appreciate his willingness to work to make, I think, some needed and technical changes to the bill. I would encourage my colleagues to vote for the manager's amendment and, again, express, although the chairman and I have some philosophical differences in the overall TRIA legislation and whether how temporary it ought to be or how permanent it ought to be or the extent of where the Federal subsidies, on this amendment we have no disagreement.

We continue to work well in a bipartisan manner despite our philosophical differences.

Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support the manager's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim 30 seconds of my time.

I thank the Chairman.

Let me say to all Members of this body, we are not saying and neither has it been our position that the government does not have a role to play in offering a backstop to terrorist insurance. We believe that that ought to be a limited goal, and we believe that we ought to continue in the path of the prior TRIA extensions, where we continue to let the private market fill in.

We believe, on the other hand, and we not only believe, but this bill calls for higher deductibles, higher premiums and higher taxpayer participation, and we feel like we are reversing our role

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the full committee for reading that list of those that endorsed it. You will notice that some of the absences were the Consumer Federation of America, which said that this bill was not good for consumers, i.e. taxpayers. The National Taxpayers Association obviously wasn't on that list, because it is a great deal for the insurance companies, and we all acknowledge that. It merely subsidizes them at the expense of taxpayers. The one name missing is taxpayers. They will pay for this legislation.

Madam Chairman, the Federal Housing Administration, which we today call FHA, was created in 1934; and it is a very important source of support for first-time home buyers and for low- and middle- income borrowers. FHA provides mortgage insurance that protects lenders against losses when homeowners default on their mortgage obligations, as many of them are doing today. It also allows the lenders to offer their customers, American homeowners, low interest rates and low closing costs.

Since its inception, the FHA has insured nearly 35 million loans. That makes it the largest insurer of mortgages in the world. FHA's share of the mortgage market, however, has been steadily declining in recent years, falling from almost 20 percent 10 years ago, of the total mortgage market in America, to 5 percent today.

This sharp drop in FHA's market share resulted largely from the growing popularity of subprime mortgages, as more borrowers opted for loans featuring zero down payments and introductory teaser rates far lower than what was available from FHA.

The difficulties we are experiencing today by many subprime borrowers is as their initial low interest rates reset at a much higher level, it offers FHA an opportunity to reestablish its standing in the marketplace as a safe, low-cost alternative for American homeowners. It is also another reason that we should be here today reforming FHA, to ensure that that happens.

For that to happen, Congress does need to pass the reforms that we are considering today. I want to say that right upfront. There are important reforms in this bill. These same reforms were contained in legislation that Ranking Member Biggert of the Housing Committee and myself and others in a bipartisan way introduced in the 109th Congress. In fact, that legislation, Comprehensive FHA Reform, and that is in this bill today, and is very good provisions, passed with over 400 votes on the House floor, only to die in the Senate. I am sorry that happened.

Earlier this year, Congresswoman Biggert and I reintroduced legislation identical to that legislation. However, and I am sorry to say that rather than embracing last year's bipartisan approach, the majority has chosen to go in a different direction. I think they do that from honest philosophical reasons. We disagree with those reasons.

They have included provisions which we believe will divert surpluses generated by the FHA program to a new affordable housing fund established in separate legislation which this House and our committee passed earlier this year.

While a strong bipartisan consensus exists regarding the need for FHA reform, the reforms in this bill, the majority is insistent on linking the enactment of these reforms to the creation of yet a new multi- billion dollar housing fund has caused many of us on this

side of the aisle to hesitate from strongly supporting this legislation.

I admit, most of our Members are in a quandary. We like the reforms in this bill. We know that those reforms will go a long way towards addressing the crisis that we face today, the Affordable Housing Fund. And we realize at the same time that there is legitimate purpose behind Chairman Frank's Affordable Housing Fund, and one of those is to offer affordable low income rental property for Americans. And we understand that he honestly believes, and we have an honest disagreement as to the need for this.

We simply believe that a better approach is to dedicate the FHA surplus to shoring up the financial solvency of the FHA mortgage program, which was only recently removed from GAO's list of government programs at high risk for waste, fraud and abuse.

A portion of that surplus could also be returned to beneficiaries of the program. Who are they? They are the many people who have taken out FHA-insured reverse mortgages, many of them senior citizens, and we could do that in the form of lower insurance premiums for all Americans who have FHA mortgages.

Madam Chairman, the key reforms included in this legislation, lowering down payment requirements, increasing loan limits and mortgages that FHA is authorized to ensure, giving FHA more pricing flexibility, command broad consensus among Republicans, Democrats, the Bush administration, consumer groups and the industry, the realtors, the home builders and others. Indeed, in announcing several of these initiatives last month designed to contain the damage caused by the problem in subprime, President Bush stressed the critical role that FHA can play in assisting homeowners facing sharply higher mortgage payments and possibly foreclosure in reaffirming the administration's support for the FHA modernization legislation and many of the provisions contained in this bill.

However, the administration, as have many on our side of the aisle, also is strongly opposed to using FHA surplus as seed money for an untested, unrelated government housing program, one that is estimated to cost $3 billion or more.

Thus, by insisting that this bill carry that controversial provision, we feel like the majority is delaying, if not jeopardizing, the enforcement of important reforms that we need now to provide a lifeline for seeking to refinance out of high cost subprime loans.

Madam Chairman, accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support Republicans' amendments to strike the extraneous Affordable Housing Fund provisions opposed by the administration and allow us to move forward quickly with badly needed and long overdue reforms in the FHA program. If we are not successful in those amendments, many of the Members will vote for this underlying legislation, some will not. But, again, I want to acknowledge the sincerity and the good faith that the majority has worked throughout this process with the minority; and, Chairman Waters and Chairman Frank, we very much appreciate that. We appreciate the many fine provisions in this bill.

Madam Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman of the full committee. And I want to make it perfectly clear that this was a grandson, not a son or daughter who was born to Linda and I. So when you said proud addition, I just didn't want a rumor back home that we had had a child.

But I also want to acknowledge what you said. There are many important reforms in this bill. In fact, from last year's bill, much of what the chairman has said, I think we have worked together, groups have worked together, and as a result of the subprime crisis we have got an even better bill, and I acknowledge all that. There are many good things about this bill, and I commend him for his knowledge of the subject and his fine work. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, on September 17, 2007, I missed votes because I was traveling to be with my oldest daughter as she gave birth to her first child, my grandchild.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio.

We have heard words about Paul Gillmor, our friend, and one word we keep hearing over and over is ``caring.'' He really cared. He cared about his family. You would go in his office and you would see the pictures of his family.

He cared about his staff. Mark Wellman, his chief of staff; Dave Oxner, great guys. They were sort of a reflection and extension of Paul. They were gentlemen. They really did not care about who got the credit. They were hard workers. I say to Mark and Dave, I know that you are grieving right now.

Mr. Obey mentioned that he cared about this institution. He truly did. He cared about every Member. I never heard him insult another Member. I never heard him say something unkind.

He talked about issues. He felt strongly about issues. The brownfields legislation was a great example of how he was very tenacious, had very strong feelings. He did that earlier this year on the industrial loan companies when, as a small town banker, mainstream banker, he felt very strongly that small town banks were being disadvantaged. But he never said anything unkind about those who opposed his position.

To his credit, I think part of that kindness, that caring, and also his capable leadership, that legislation passed the House 371-16. I think brownfields will be part of his legacy, particularly to the industrial States, the people of Ohio that he loved; as will the industrial loan company legislation, that really will help preserve small town mainstream banking.

He was a banker. I had the privilege of appointing Paul as the ranking member of the Financial Institutions Subcommittee. I never regretted that decision. I knew that what Paul cared about was not himself or not the glory, but doing what was right for the American people. He never disappointed me. I will miss him deeply.

Madam Chairman, the Farm Credit System does fulfill a valuable service to the farmers of America, and we have no argument with that. But we all need to recognize that the Farm Credit System is a government-sponsored entity. It has the benefits and privileges of a government-sponsored entity, and the taxpayers underwrite its operation.

Now, traditionally they have made what we call farm loans, agricultural loans. There is much concern in the private lending market, independent bankers, small-town bankers, credit unions and thrifts that this role has been expanding. In fact, over half the loans made by the Farm Credit System are to farmers or corporations valued at over $1 million.

Where they were making agricultural loans, agricultural mortgages, now they're lending money to Cargill, ADM, Jack-in-the-Box, and retail businesses.

This amendment is simply our way of saying that when you begin to compete with small-town bankers, with thrifts, with credit unions, it is a contact sport. And we need to take a step back and look at it. But at this time, we don't believe that any expansion, in fact, I'd like to submit for the Record a letter by Michael Reyna, who is the immediate past chairman and CEO of the Farm Credit Administration, in which he says that the pressure was always there to make off-farm loans, and he submits this letter in support of our amendment.

Statement on the Frank/Bachus Amendement (#10) Submitted By Former Farm

Credit Administration (FCA) Chairman and CEO Michael M. Reyna (2000-

2004)

Man's best friend, protector, and hunting partner, the dog,

holds a special place in the heart of rural America. The Farm

Credit System (System) plays a very special role in rural

America, too. Congress established the System, the Nation's

oldest government sponsored enterprise (GSE), to achieve a

very special public policy goal: a dependable source of

credit for agriculture and rural America.

(21) Typically, GSEs are established, structured, and

intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the

economic marketplace; a mechanism to free up capital for new

loans. And, as their name implies, GSEs are chartered by the

government and are given tax breaks and authority to issue

government backed debt obligations, among other special

advantages, to achieve their public policy goal.

Unlike other GSEs, the System--with its special government

breaks and authorities--directly competes as a retail lender

against its private sector counterparts, namely banks and

other financial institutions. Competition is a contact sport,

but fair is fair and it's not hard to understand why many

private sector lenders bristle when it comes to directly

competing against a public sector lender with special tax

breaks and a cheaper source of funds.

Striking a delicate balance, Congress wrote, and has

amended, the Farm Credit Act with an eye towards focusing the

public benefits of this GSE by limiting the types of loans

that the System can make as well as where and to whom these

loans can be made. Unsatisfied with the wisdom of Congress,

the System has applied relentless pressure in recent years on

its regulator, the Farm Credit Administration (FCA), to grant

ever broader lending authority and even to issue ``no action

letters'' essentially giving System lenders a ``free pass''

to disobey the law. As the immediate past Chairman of the FCA

(2000 to 2004), I have directly experienced the System's

pressure to get the FCA to give the System what it wants.

``Private sector lenders are well aware of these efforts,

and the System's lending abuses are well-documented. And,

notwithstanding the public relations campaign relative to its

young, beginning, and small farmer lending efforts, the bulk

of the System's public benefit goes to commercial

agriculture--those farmers with retail sales in excess of one

million dollars annually. This fact alone suggests a thorough

review of whether the System is achieving its public policy

purpose is in order, particularly given that agricultural

concentration has increased as the number of commercially

viable farms in America continues to decline.

Rather than submitting a ``secret'' wish list of regulatory

changes it wants the FCA to make behind closed doors through

``notational votes,'' the System is now seemingly seeking to

broaden its lending authority directly from Congress, through

the Farm Bill (H.R. 2419). Seemingly, because when it comes

to legislation, the devil is in the details. A review of the

proposed language raises legitimate concerns about exactly

what authorities are being broadened and by how much. Without

greater specificity, the ambiguity will leave much to the

System's regulator to sort out. Would the three-member FCA

Board be a lapdog or a watchdog on these issues? Given its

close ties to the System, is there really any doubt how the

decisions would turn out?

The System's proposed changes to the Farm Credit Act are an

outgrowth of its HORIZONS Project, a multi-year effort

designed to justify an expansion of the System's off-farm

lending powers. And, therein lies its primary flaw--the

System's efforts are more about the System's growth and

profitability rather than the credit needs of agriculture and

rural America. When it comes to commercial agriculture,

competition among lenders is healthy and credit is available

and affordable. Consequently, there is no public policy

rationale to broaden the System's lending authority in this

area, let alone expand its lending authority beyond

agriculture either. In other words, ``That dog don't hunt.''

Private-sector lenders now provide ample home-mortgage

credit in towns with population between 2,500 and 6,000,

often by selling those mortgages to the System's fellow GSEs,

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Not only is there not a mortgage

credit shortage in this population range, but authorizing the

System to lend in communities larger than 2,500 will distract

it from financing moderately-priced rural housing where it is

most needed.

Rather than responding to the System's relentless desire to

finance corporate agriculture, Congress should undertake a

comprehensive examination of the System's future role in

financing agriculture and rural America. Only after such a

detailed review should the Congress consider any expansion of

the System's off-farm lending authority. Therefore, the House

of Representatives should drop the HORIZONS provisions now in

the Farm Bill by voting for the Frank/Bachus amendment #10.

Madam Chairman, the activities of Planned Parenthood are a concern for many of us. In Alabama, there was an unsuccessful abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic, and the baby was born with severe injuries including a hole in her heart. Planned Parenthood has always been a glaring exception to the long-standing policy in the House of not allowing taxpayer money to be used to provide abortions. It claims that Title Ten money is not being used for abortions. The reality is that any Federal dollar that goes to a clinic where abortions are being performed, ends up facilitating an abortion.

The Pence Amendment is a simple way to clear up whether Federal tax dollars are being used properly. Title Ten money should not go to any organization that provides abortions. This is an issue of being accountable to taxpayers and consistent with the Hyde Amendment that we have passed on a bipartisan basis for 31 consecutive years. Therefore, I urge support for the Pence Amendment.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the Chairman, and let me attempt to answer the question.

The question is really not whether the gentleman from North Carolina objects to an earmark. It's not whether the gentleman from New York is for an earmark.

Really, this is the people's House, and it's really up to the people to make the final judgment on each and every

one of these earmarks, and the people simply don't know what these earmarks are. This is the people's House, and we've been told there are earmarks in this bill, there will be earmarks added in conference. We're told that the professionals on the Appropriations Committee are reviewing these earmarks. They're making a determination. That's what it's about.

I grew up in Birmingham, and there was a Scripps Howard newspaper in Birmingham, and it had a searchlight on the front page. I'm sure some of you had a Scripps Howard newspaper in your community, and that was the truth going out, the light.

The gentleman from North Carolina says he doesn't know anything about these earmarks. I don't know anything about these earmarks. The gentleman from New York may know all about them. The chairman of the committee may know about them. But really, the truth is that who ought to know, and who has a right to know and a right to make that judgment in each and every case is the people we represent, the people of the United States. It's their money. It's not our money.

And that's what's so wrong with this process tonight. We are arguing among ourselves that this Member doesn't have the right, or this Member knows more than this Member, when the truth is it's the American people that have the right to know. They have the right to disclosure. This is their House. This is their money. And they have the right to make decisions about each and every one of these earmarks that some of us know about and some of us don't know about.

Now, I would say this. The American people don't know how many earmarks are in this bill or how many earmarks will be in this bill. We're going to be asked to pass, we represent, we each represent, 6-, 700,000 citizens, and we're going to be asked tomorrow or the next day to vote on this bill, to vote ``yes'' or ``no.''

We've already been told there will be earmarks added to the appropriation bill, but it won't be until all the bills are passed that they'll go to conference, and a few select Members, representing probably 10 percent of the American people, they will add the earmarks. The American people will not ever know what these earmarks are until they're passed into law.

Now, you know, I will tell the gentleman from New York, I don't care if you tell me about the earmarks.

Announcement By the Chairman

I care about the American people. They have a right to know. They have a right to disclosure.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. Chairman, I have a question I think the American people would like answered. It is a question that has not been asked tonight. We know Chairman Obey, and we know he has taken a position that he is not going to publish or disclose these earmarks. He has expressed his opinion.

What we don't know, Mr. Chairman, is, the Speaker is not sitting in the Chair and we don't know where the Speaker stands on this whole procedure. We do know that the majority leader said that all earmarks would be published, there would be complete transparency. We know that he said in committee they would be debated. We know that the Speaker on a number of occasions, I think we have all seen those quotes, we have heard a few tonight, the Speaker make it clear during the campaign and after the campaign that all earmarks would be disclosed prior to any vote on the House floor.

So, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is incumbent on the Speaker to come before this body and address the body and tell the body whether or not the procedure that we are witnessing, whether it is chairman of the Appropriations Committee has taken this on himself, whether he is doing it on his own accord, whether he has polled the Democrat Members to see where they stand.

But more important, we want to know where the Speaker stands. We want to know whether the Speaker consulted with the chairman, whether she has blessed this. We know what she said in USA Today. We know what she said in the Christian Science Monitor and what she said in a news conference just last month. We know that in a press conference on March 13, 2007, she specifically said that all earmarks would be made public before a vote on the House floor. We know that, so it is a mystery to us why we are going through this process.

Now, the chairman of the full committee said back in 1999 there was a bill, one bill, that the Republican majority did not publish the earmarks before the vote on the floor. We know that is part of his reason for doing this. But we also know that the Speaker of the House told the American people that this would never happen as long as she was Speaker. And she, as a late as a month ago, said there would be no votes on the House floor on an appropriations bill where earmarks were not published.

In fact, the gentleman from Illinois, the majority whip, says, if possible, we are going to put them on the Internet weeks before we vote on them on the House floor. They are not on the Internet. We don't know how many earmarks there will be, what earmarks are under consideration, the total amount of those earmarks.

But more importantly, we do know one thing, Mr. Chairman, we know that the Speaker of this House, the Speaker of this House said that this wouldn't happen. She said it many times on many occasions, both during the campaign when she asked the American people to turn the Republicans out and put the Democrats in.

And we know that from exit polls that many people went to the polls on election day with that promise in mind; and they voted for Democrats who now serve in this body under the assurance that this wouldn't happen, and it is happening.

Now, we know that the chairman of the full committee, we know his position. He said we just have to do. He talks about what we have done and what they have done. The important thing is the American people.

In fact, earlier tonight on one of the news network, it was not Fox, they asked: Where does Speaker Pelosi stand on this? The American people are asking, where does the leadership of the majority stand on this issue?

That is my question, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that before we proceed in this body, that the Speaker of this House come before this body and not tell, I don't care if she tells Republicans, I don't care if she further explains to Democrats, I want her to tell the American people why, only 3 weeks after promising that earmarks would be fully disclosed both in committee and on the floor of this House, that we backed away from this.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. I really believe that we do need enhanced regulatory supervisions over the ILCs, and this legislation does that. The Federal Reserve and other Federal regulators have urged us to enhance the regulation, and that is what this does.

It also does two things; and every year that we wait to pass this, it becomes a bigger problem. But we grandfather the existing ILCs. If we had done this bill 2 or 3 years ago, we would have had much fewer of these and we wouldn't have the problems that we have today, talking about, well, this commercial firm has one, this commercial doesn't.

But it was through no fault of the chairman of the full committee. Mr. Frank, when he was ranking member, pushed this very hard as a solution to this problem, as did the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Gillmor, and I want to commend both of them for their hard work over the past several years.

I also want to particularly commend the chairman of the committee, Mr. Frank. He has really made this a collaborative effort. It has been a bipartisan effort; and I hope the bill, because of that, is a better bill.

I think we are going to have a good vote here. I do think, because it is a bipartisan effort and it is a compromise, that we will have, hopefully, better success in not only passing this bill out of the House but seeing it ultimately enacted into law.

These ILCs, and they are ILCs, industrial loan companies, now they are industrial bank holding. This is the Industrial Bank Holding Company Act, because they really have evolved into bank holding companies; and what these started out primarily as is just a small loan company where industrial employees were able to borrow money. It is very similar to a credit union. The only difference is they didn't join as members. They just borrowed money, because they really didn't have access to a commercial bank at that time, and that was the whole reason for these.

As the chairman said and as the subcommittee Chair said, all of these exist in six States. The vast majority of the assets of ILCs are chartered in Utah; California and Nevada being the other States that have significant numbers of them.

As the subcommittee Chair has said, these things have grown 3,500 percent just since we started focusing on this.

It is really growing out of control. And what it does, we made a policy decision several years ago in this Congress that we would not allow commercial firms to operate banks, and this will really enforce that policy decision that we made.

As they have grown in size and nature and complexity, several not only regulatory but policy issues have been presented, not only to the Congress, but to the regulators. One of the concerns, as the subcommittee Chair and the chairman have both referred to, is a concern over mixing banking and commerce, which is really not what the American financial system is all about. Japan and other systems have allowed a mixing of commerce and banking, and we are evolving, but they have run into problems. We would like to avoid those problems.

An exemption in the current law permits any type of company, including a commercial firm, to acquire an ILC in six States. We want to close that loophole. We want to stop that.

Let me conclude by saying I do have one concern, and I am going to have a colloquy with the chairman in a moment. But I am concerned that this bill, and it is not intended and I know the chairman has said previously we hope to address this in the Senate or in conference, but I am concerned that it may discriminate against our domestic automobile manufacturing dealers.

The reason I say that is most automobile companies today, including the large foreign automobile manufacturers, have set up ILCs. General Motors has set up an ILC. But Chrysler and Ford do not have ILCs. And, as drafted today, the bill would allow the foreign automobile manufacturers as well as GM, and I am going to clarify that in the colloquy, to continue their ILCs. However, Ford and Chrysler, or DaimlerChrysler, which may end up to be Chrysler, does not have an ILC.

I am concerned not only that that is a disadvantage to the automobile companies but to the Nation's dealers that sell Ford and Chrysler products. People are going into this every day, they are thinking ILCs give them a competitive advantage, and I don't want to see Chrysler and Ford shut out of having an opportunity to have this advantage.

As the process moves forward, I would like to work with both the chairman and the ranking member to ensure the legislation does not create an unlevel playing field that harms our domestic automobile industry.

At this time, I would like to pose a question to the chairman.

Under the committee reported bill, Chairman Frank, a number of firms that already controlled industrial banks before January 29, 2007, are grandfathered from the new prohibition on control of industrial banks by commercial firms. The grandfathered firms that control a particular industrial bank are subject to a disposition agreement with the FDIC that is affected by the outcome of this legislation. Under the agreement, the FDIC has the power to waive the disposition requirement, depending on the state of the law, in 2008.

My question is whether it is the committee's intention that the decision to grandfather these firms supercedes this particular prior agreement and makes a waiver unnecessary, provided the grandfathered firms abide by all of the limitations imposed on grandfathered firms and operate under the supervision of the appropriate Federal supervisory agency.

Chairman, your response does indeed clarify the situation, and I thank you for doing that. And I again thank you and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) for their work on this important bill.

I would also like to join with you. You have both praised Chairman Bair, and I think she has done an exceptional job of trying to sort through this difficult situation. And I would also like to commend the OTS and the Federal Reserve for working a compromise on some of the supervisory questions that were presented by this bill. Late last week, they came to an agreement between themselves.

Yes, and I appreciate that encouragement; and I know they do, too.

At this time, I again commend the chairman. I think this is a very good bill that deserves the support of all the membership.

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

Mr. Chairman, first let me thank the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Frank, for his openness throughout this whole process. We have engaged in committee, in both hearings and in markup, in quite a long discussion. On most occasions, we came together; there was a consensus. And that's good. On other issues in this legislation we parted company, we had disagreements. That was the bad. There were one or two occasions where we had strong disagreements. Let's first talk about the things we agree as a body, both Republicans and Democrats.

I think we all agree that the government-sponsored entities, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Federal home loan banks, that they play an important role in the American economy, and more importantly and more specifically, in homeownership.

Homeownership in America is at an all-time high. You go to any country in the world and homeownership rates come nowhere near what they are in America. I think it was the legislation that this Congress, many, many years ago, passed in setting up these GSEs that has resulted in more affordable housing, readily available opportunities to own a home and realize the American Dream.

Now, in recent years, the growth of our government-sponsored entities has been astounding. In fact, let me give you three figures. And if you hear nothing else that I say out here today in support of establishing a strong independent regulator over these entities, it is this fact: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, excluding the Federal home loan banks, but those two entities hold $3 trillion worth of debt. When you add mortgage base security obligations, it is $5.2 trillion. Now, you may say well, what is $5.2 trillion? I can't visualize that. And I don't know any of us that could get our arms around that. I'm not sure any of us appreciate how big that is. But let me compare it to the public debt held by the U.S. Treasury. The entire public debt of the U.S. treasure is $4.9 billion. In other words, the debt of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is greater than the debt of the U.S. Treasury. That is an astounding number.

We came together, both in 2005 and again this year, and we said we must establish a strong, independent regulator with power to make changes and oversight, and if necessary, forbid it to ever be the case that these entities became illiquid, to step in and prevent what would be, in either occasion, a devastating blow to the U.S. economy.

In 2005, we brought a bill to the floor and we passed a bill establishing a small regulator. Now, the chairman has pointed out that this is almost the same bill that we had in 2005, yet many Republicans who are going to vote no today voted yes then. That appears to be a contradiction. He has pointed that out. The lady from California has mentioned 2 years ago I was in support of the bill that came out of this floor. I voted to send it to the Senate. They pointed out earlier today, in debate on the rule, that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), he voted for the bill, now he is voting against the bill. There are differences.

Now, the gentleman from Massachusetts says there are no differences. If you are voting against the bill today, why did you vote for it 2 years ago? He asked that question a few minutes ago. Why did we? Why did we vote for it 2 years ago and vote against it today? Different circumstances.

Two years ago, I will remind the chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts, the gentlelady from California, the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman sitting there from Texas, Mr. Green, Mrs. Maloney, who is here, the gentlelady from New York, they have all said why in the world are you changing your vote? Well, let me say to the entire body, there is a change in circumstances. And let me offer this as proof.

Two years ago, this was ``the same bill.'' The chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts, voted against the bill 2 years ago. The gentlelady from California, who says why are you changing your position, she voted against the bill 2 years ago. The gentleman from Texas voted against the bill. The gentlewoman from New York voted against the bill. Let me tell you what some of those circumstances are.

Let me say this to the gentleman: This bill, in many respects, is better than the bill 2 years ago, and we need to pass this bill. And I predict, the gentleman from Massachusetts, the gentlelady, the subcommittee chair from California, this bill is going to go to the Senate. But we do have objections to this bill, and we are going to protest those objections by voting against the bill.

Two years ago, this is exactly, when you all were in the minority, the reason you voted against it. You voted against it. It's not the same bill.

Now, what is it that we find uncomfortable about this bill? It is not that we are establishing a strong regulator. It's that we are doing things that run contradictory, counter to what we are trying to do here today. And what are we trying to do? We are trying to assure the safety and the soundness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We are also trying to make them more independent and not beholding on the government. We are saying, quote, this implicit guarantee that the government will stand behind the GSEs, that we are going to establish an independent regulator and we are going to try to move in a direction where they are more independent and they function more like a private corporation, which was as originally conceived. But then, right in the midst of saying that, we established additional costs on Fannie and Freddie. And they are opposed to that, they are opposed to the additional costs.

We say we are going to make them sounder, more independent, more stable, and then we put on them an obligation of $3 billion, a cost. We say that we are going to take this occasion, the reason for this bill is because we are going to establish a strong regulator. We are going to do that to make them safer. And yet at the same time you say, we're going to increase their costs by $3 billion over the next 5 years.

We are going to make them pay a part of their profits into a fund.

Yes, let me say this: There is a problem in our country, a problem of the lowest income Americans, and I have said this, I have said this in committee, I will say it on the floor of the House; probably the group of Americans most in need of shelter are the lowest income Americans. And they, and the chairman and I are in agreement on this, are the ones who need affordable rental properties. We need to do something about that. We need to address that. We have presently 50 or 60 housing programs, and part of their responsibility is to address that need.

Now, what we ought to do before we establish yet another Affordable Housing Fund, we ought to see why the 50 or 60 that we have that are spending hundreds of billions of dollars, why they are not meeting this need, why money is being wasted, why there is still an unacceptable amount of fraud. Why don't we clean up and make more effective and efficient those housing programs that address those needs, instead of turning around and creating yet another housing program?

Not only do we address a goal that we have 50 or 60 other Federal programs which are supposed to address this, but how do we address it? First, we talk about how important the financial stability of the GSEs are, but yet we say that over the next 5 years we are going to make you pay $3 billion, $500 million a year, into yet another Federal housing program.

Then we do something else, because there is a chain reaction. Where does this money come from? Well, it comes from middle and low income American homeowners that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are holding their mortgages or mortgage-backed securities. So where do Fannie and Freddie get that money? Because they don't print money. Well, they will have to get it from only one place, and that is their customers, their clients. That is every low and middle income American that takes out a mortgage. They will pay into this fund.

Now, who won't pay into this fund? Upper class Americans, and many upper-middle class Americans, they won't. There will be no obligation on their part on this $3 billion. In fact, what is the mission of Fannie and Freddie? It is to promote affordable housing for low and middle income Americans. And yet those are the very Americans that you are going to make it not quite as affordable for, because you create a $3 billion obligation.

Mr. Blunt, the gentleman from Missouri, calls it a tax on middle class Americans. Now, I would say it is not a tax on all middle class Americans, it is a tax on middle class American homeowners, and he has said that. But we probably should, in fairness, include the low income Americans who will pay into this fund. We probably ought to include them.

Because we are establishing a $3 billion obligation, on behalf of American homeowners, low and middle income, we are going to offer an amendment to take out what is really an extraneous provision in this bill, and that is a bill to create yet another Federal Affordable Housing Fund.

We are going to do a second thing. We are going to offer amendments that say if there are benefits to this Affordable Housing Fund, and if it does pass, it ought to inure to the benefit of American citizens, those who live in America and who are citizens of America. There will be four or five amendments to do that.

We are going to oppose this fund. We are going to lose later tonight when the vote is taken. It will move over to the Senate, and, if it passes the Senate, there will be another $3 billion Federal housing program.

We are particularly concerned about, because when the FHA bill came up 3 weeks after this bill came up and we created in committee a $3 billion new Federal housing program, we raised FHA fees and we created another placeholder in that bill that will move out here, we created another Federal housing program to add to the tens of programs we have, or maybe it is over 100 programs. I am not sure. I have quit counting.

But in every bill that we bring out of the Financial Services Committee, are we going to establish a new multi-billion dollar plan to help low income Americans with affordable housing? And if we do, if we do, are we going to raise the cost to low and middle income Americans to purchase a home, the cost of that mortgage? Or are we going to increase their FHA fees when they do use and utilize FHA, have an FHA- backed mortgage?

What we said in committee during this whole subprime situation, and I will say the chairman and I tried to address that last year, and I really wish we had, we both have seen this coming for a long time. He and I are both happy that the regulators have started moving, and we will just see if that is enough.

But with all these problems in subprime lending and a reduction in liquidity in the mortgage market, we have said many times people are going to need to avail themselves of the FHA. But yet, just like we did in this bill, we increase the cost to those homeowners. It simply does not make sense.

Now, the chairman from Massachusetts says, oh, no, we are not increasing the cost to those who avail themselves of an FHA mortgage. We are not increasing the cost for the tens of millions of Americans who depend on Fannie and Freddie to reduce the cost of their mortgage. We are not getting it from them. We are getting it from Fannie. We are getting it from Freddie. We are getting it from the FHA.

Where do they get their money? They get it all from the homeowners. They don't get it from the Treasury. They get it from the homeowners, and these are the people we are going to tax when we pass this bill today.

So we are opposed to this bill. We are protesting the inclusion in this bill of yet another Federal housing assistance program, and we are taxing low and middle income Americans.

Now, in fairness to the chairman, a lot of this money will go to Louisiana and Mississippi over the first 2 or 3 years. In fact, because of that, there were Republicans, particularly 2 years ago, that rushed into helping on this bill because a lot of it was going to Katrina. But just 3 months ago we passed a massive bill in this House in Katrina relief. We agreed on the number it would take and we passed it.

Yet, here we go again with more money for Katrina, if we need more money for Katrina relief, and that relief is going to go into 2009 now, we are going to pay for years in the future for people who are displaced by that to continue to have shelter. We keep saying, well, 6 more months. Then we extend it another 6 months and another 6 months. And here we go again. Three months ago we passed what we said would probably be an amount we pretty much all agreed on, I thought, for Katrina relief. But yet here we go again.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his sincerity, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

I appreciate that. That really is evidence again of the bipartisan approach we have had on this committee.

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

Let me close by acknowledging the many positive aspects of this bill and just reiterate that had it not been for the creation of our new Affordable Housing Fund, a new government program, we would have had consensus here. But that should not distract from the fact that we do need a strong independent regulator, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania said.

Mr. Chairman, with that I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I said earlier in the debate, we do not need another housing program. If we determine that the 90 some-odd housing programs are not being effective in addressing the needs of low-income and middle-income Americans, then we need to first reform those programs.

But, in passing legislation to strengthen the financial stability of our GSEs, we do not need at the same time to impose a $3 billion cost on them. Those are opposing actions.

If we are to do it, we certainly don't need to do what we are doing in this bill, and that's impose it on those who depend on Freddie and Fannie. Those are low- and middle-income American homeowners. In fact, regrettably, that's what we do in this fund. While we do a lot of great things, we do that.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia and I thank the chairman.

I would like to briefly respond to two things that the chairman said. But before I do, I would like to acknowledge and thank the chairman. He said, in voting against this bill 2 years ago, I was not promoting and voting for it, I was not promoting socialism. Let me also acknowledge that 2 years ago, when the chairman voted for this bill, he was not opposing socialism. So, I think we both acknowledge that I was not promoting socialism, and you certainly weren't opposing socialism, nor are you today.

Now, the chairman has said that this isn't going to cost anything. It's out of the profits. It's not going to come from homeowners, it's not going to come from Fannie Mae, it's not going to come from Freddie Mac.

Yes.

Oh, it would come from shareholders.

Let me say this, the shareholders, that's the profits of the company, and the profits have to be generated somewhere. This idea that it doesn't cost anybody anything, and there is not a cost to the customers of the corporations, who are homeowners, it would be, indeed, a historic moment in this body if we passed legislation that cost billions of dollars, but it didn't cost anybody anything.

It would probably be the first time in the history of this universe. And if it does happen, we should pause, because we will have figured out basically how to defy the principles of mathematics and economics.

Third, the chairman mentioned Katrina, and I mentioned Katrina earlier in this debate, and let me point out, and I think this is probably conclusive evidence of why we do not need to pass a $3 billion additional housing fund.

The chairman correctly said that we passed this bill before, and I voted for it and it had money in there for Katrina. Well, this bill creates $3 billion, much of which will go to Katrina. Well, it was only 2 months ago that we appropriated $3 billion for Katrina. That is the 3 billion that we voted for; and there is no reason to pass legislation, which actually passed this body, went to the President and passed appropriating $3 billion, and here we come appropriating another $3 billion.

So I will continue to say we determined we needed $3 billion when I voted for this bill before, and I stand by that. We didn't need $6 billion, we needed $3 billion. That is why we voted for $3 billion. That is why 2 months ago we said this is what it will cost.