mr. speaker , i want to thank the gentleman from texas for yielding me this time . 
i want to speak in favor of the manager 's amendment , if it is adopted , certainly a great and important bill , and the rule itself . 
the actual truth of the matter is that housing ownership in america is at an all time high . 
this congress and this president have established policies that allow virtually every american that has a job to find a way , if they desire , to own a home . 
the gses , fannie mae and freddie mac , have played an important part in that . 
they provide liquidity in the secondary market so that there are more opportunities for people to borrow at relatively low rates of interest . 
we ought to preserve that system , and we ought to protect that system . 
these are enormous entities . 
fannie alone is $ 1.7 trillion in terms of assets , and both of these entities had some accounting troubles . 
the gentleman from ohio ( mr. oxley ) xz4003070 and the gentleman from louisiana ( mr. baker ) xz4000120 have led the way so that we can reform and have appropriate oversight for those enormous , but important , entities that help the housing market in america flourish . 
the question here today is whether the rule ought to be adopted . 
some of our friends on the other side are very upset , because rather than providing money for bricks and mortar , what they would like to do is to provide money for politics . 
they want to allow folks that engage in political activity , including voter registration , to have access to money that otherwise would go to low-interest loans or to help affordable housing builders at the local level actually build bricks and mortar . 
& lt ; center & gt ; & lt ; pre & gt ; [ page : h9113 ] & lt ; /pre & gt ; & lt ; /center & gt ; people that want a home do not need a lobbyist ; they do not want a politician . 
they want somebody that will actually build them , with the sticks and the bricks and the mortar , a home to live in . 
that is what this fight is about . 
one of the largest advocates , the groups that the other side would like to have receive up to 2 or $ 3 billion this fund may reach in the next 5 years , is a group called acorn . 
now , acorn is an important group . 
they are a first amendment group . 
the gentleman is right . 
they have every right to participate in first amendment activity , but not with money that we give them from congress . 
thomas jefferson said that to force a man to contribute to a cause in which he does not believe is the definition of tyranny . 
we want to build homes . 
they want to buy liberal lobbyists and politicians . 
that is what this debate is about . 
acorn had a game plan in the year 2003 in florida . 
by the way , they do this in many other competitive states . 
acorn wanted to register voters . 
they argued to the public that this was about support for a minimum wage constitutional amendment in florida . 
but their three bottom-line goals here are very important . 
increasing the minimum wage was the least important thing as part of their voter registration drive . 
what they argued to contributors , who have the right to contribute to this activity , who we should not force probably to contribute to this activity , is they had three goals . 
and i want to read these into the record . 
the goals of this campaign are three-fold : to increase voter turnout of working class , mainly democratic voters without increasing opposition turnout ; number two , to increase the power of progressive constituencies by moving a mass agenda , putting together the capacity to get on the ballot and win and by putting our side on the offensive ; number three , to deliver a wage increase to hundreds of thousands of floridians . 
that was an afterthought . 
chairman oxley and chairman baker have fashioned a great compromise . 
let us build homes . 
let us pay for bricks and mortar . 
let us not pay for a liberal lobbyist . 
