mr. speaker , let me thank the gentleman from texas ( mr. sessions ) xz4003670 for conducting a worthwhile debate on this issue and the rule . 
while we will have plenty of time to debate the merits of the legislation , and there are a great deal of those out there , and i think both sides would agree , i want to thank the gentleman from louisiana ( mr. baker ) xz4000120 for his excellent work , as well as the gentleman from massachusetts ( mr. frank ) xz4001400 , the ranking member . 
the approach that we took , beginning with the need , the glaring need for a world-class regulator for the gses , became quite evident with the revelations of some of the accounting scandals that took place in both of those institutions and to a lesser extent with the home loan banks . 
looking back in the past when chairman baker was a lone voice in trying to get changes in the regulatory structure to where we are now is quite extraordinary . 
it is quite extraordinary that we are actually debating a rule that would bring up a major piece of legislation totally changing the way we look at gses and their role in the housing market and the secondary market , particularly as it relates to their regulation and how they are regulated . 
i do not think anybody can argue that the structure we set up is less than superlative and provides a world-class regulator . 
some of the issues we debated that were so contentious , i think of receivership , and all of the debates that we had about the necessity for including receivership language in it so in case one or both of the gses , that the regulator could actually put them in receivership , essentially became a nonissue just a few months ago . 
i think that points out the kind of progress we made in the committee . 
the 65-5 vote that we had on final passage was quite extraordinary . 
we also needed to look at the whole issue of affordable housing . 
the gentleman from ohio ( mr. ney ) xz4002930 and his subcommittee really deserve a lot of credit for putting together , i think , a very solid plan borrowed from the home loan bank system from which they set aside 10 percent of their profits towards affordable housing . 
let me point out that program has been incredibly successful over the years , borrowing a page from the home loan banks , in this case , to set aside 5 percent from fannie mae and freddie mac that would potentially provide hundreds of millions of dollars towards affordable housing . 
again , i think members agreed with that , and the concern was always , i think , in the back of everybody 's mind to make certain that this money was accountable and it was used for bricks and mortar , actually building the homes instead of political advocacy and the like . 
indeed , i think we came to a reasonable conclusion on that . 
we have differences as to the application of that . 
it was always our goal to make those funds available only to groups that had housing as a function and that they had a track record . 
i am thinking of habitat for humanity as a good example , but also state housing agencies and for-profit companies that would compete for those funds and would have to be approved by the board we set up in the legislation , again , providing accountability where that money goes because it is technically , certainly , not government funds , taxpayer funds , but private sector funds . 
we want to make certain that every dollar that was made available went into building affordable housing . 
and then , of course , along came hurricane katrina , hurricane rita , and now wilma ; and those events provided another glaring need for affordable housing in those heavily struck areas . 
that is why we wanted to include those and provide them with the opportunity to essentially be first in line for those funds because of the enormous complications that have developed down there in terms of housing and exacerbated an already difficult situation . 
that is where we are now . 
i am proud of the committee and the work we have been able to do . 
i think we are in a position where we can debate the manager 's amendment under the rule . 
there are several democrat amendments made in order , republican amendments made in order , four on each side . 
i think the rules committee has done a superb job in doing that . 
i know the gentleman from massachusetts will probably offer a motion to recommit based on the issue of fund availability . 
that is precisely within his rights , and i would expect that . 
but this vote on the rule that i support is moving us forward to get to legislation passing to help the hurricane victims and to better regulate the gses . 
i think there is a broad bipartisan consensus for that . 
let us vote up the rule and get on with the debate . 
