mr. chairman , i rise in support of this legislation , which strengthens the language with regard to portfolios and gses . 
the gses claim that they are shock absorbers in the system . 
one of the main reasons that fannie and freddie claim they should not have their portfolios limited is that they provide a stable means of support for the residential finance markets at times of crisis . 
fannie 's ceo , dan mudd , testified that `` our mortgage portfolio allows us to play a shock-absorbing function for the finance system during times of potential difficulty. '' this week , freddie 's president , eugene mcquade , was quoted as saying that the enterprises provided a source of stability to the mortgage finance market after the september 11 terrorist attacks . 
this is a nice thought , mr. chairman . 
however , their statements are not true . 
if you look at fannie 's purchases for its portfolio during every month of 2001 , you will notice that its purchases in september of 2001 , of that year , were the lowest level of anytime during that year . 
fannie might argue that they acted as a shock absorber not by buying mortgages and mbs , but by committing to buy in succeeding months . 
mr. chairman , i will conclude by saying that we should support these significant portfolio limitations in order to make sure that gses are able to be reined in and not become what they have said they are and go out of their range of portfolio . 
