mr. chairman , i yield myself 3 minutes . 
mr. chairman , the gentleman from iowa is a thoughtful member and the former chairman of the committee , who has been very critical of the role of gses , and i think this is , frankly , not so much a specific amendment as an expression of a sense that , a view that they have gotten too large . 
one particular aspect to the amendment seems to me to sum this up when it calls for higher minimum capital requirements as the director deems necessary or appropriate to ensure long-term institutional viability and competitive equity in the market . 
now , we are all for long-term institutional viability , but competitive equity means , look , there are banks who complain that because fannie and freddie are perceived to have some back-up from the congress , and let me say right now , if you are listening , if you are buying fannie or freddie 's paper because you think i am going to vote to bail you out , sell it , and cash it in , i am not going to do that . 
i do not think there is a federal guarantee . 
i certainly , as a great supporter of their housing role , do not plan to do that . 
but banks complain that they can not meet fannie and freddie 's price because fannie and freddie can borrow money more cheaply . 
that is part of what we are dealing with here when you talk about competitive equity . 
i agree that fannie and freddie get certain advantages in this . 
that is why we have virtual unanimity here . 
there are debates about restrictions on what happens when you go into the affordable housing fund , but there is virtual unanimity about having an affordable housing fund . 
what we are saying is there are two ways we can do this . 
we can reduce what we think is freddie and fannie 's competitive advantage , or you can make sure that more of that competitive advantage is shared with the housing market , and that is the position that the majority , bipartisan majority of the committee has taken . 
when the gentleman from iowa talks about competitive equity , it seems to me you are inviting the banks to say , wait a minute , that is not fair , and we do not want fannie and freddie to be able to do this as cheaply as possible because it is not fair to us . 
with regard to the powers of the regulator , the gentleman from louisiana played a major role in this , and the gentleman from pennsylvania was with him , and the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee . 
the regulator is fully empowered . 
the regulator within the bill is fully empowered to do whatever is necessary for safety and soundness . 
the regulator can raise capital in general ; the regulator can decide that a particular activity is risky , and capital should be raised to compensate for that . 
but to go beyond and to get into competitive equity , it seems to me to be not so much a concern for safety and soundness as the philosophical question . 
i would also say that with all of the misdeeds of fannie and freddie , their safety and soundness has not been called into question . 
yes , there were accounting misdeeds , and people got money who should not have gotten it , and some are being penalized as they should be , but safety and soundness has not been called into question , and this legislation further enhances what the regulator does . 
