mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  i think it important to realize how we came to this point with just the briefest of look-backs over historical performance of the three enterprises that will be subject to the new regulatory standards .  in may of 1996 , both hud and the treasury agencies issued reports to the committee which were suggestive of reforms which ought to be considered and adopted by the congress , to which the then-acting vice president for corporate relations at fannie mae made the following professional comment : `` this is the work of economic pencil brains who would n't recognize something that works for ordinary home buyers if it bit them in their erasers. '' to which the cbo responded to the criticisms : not only do the managements of fannie mae and freddie mac have a fiduciary responsibility to defend shareholder interest , but their own financial interests and compensation are closely linked to the continued flow of subsidies to the enterprises .  how prescient were those observations of the cbo in 1996 .  it required almost a decade longer before it was discovered that earnings manipulations not only had led to significant restatements , they had triggered another consequence .  bonuses paid by the corporations to management at fannie mae were tied directly to earnings per share , and there were categories of earnings that triggered highest , moderate and lowest bonuses that could be paid .  apparently in a given year , the earnings per share target was hit to one-thousandths of a cent accuracy , i was later told by mathematical probability it just happened , that triggered the payment of $ 65 million in bonuses in a single year .  over the period of 2001 to 2003 , the period of time for which financials have still not been certified , total bonuses paid amounted to $ 154.3 million .  these bonuses are in addition to base salaries and other benefits , and represent money provided by the american taxpayers through guarantees of obligations that the agencies are able to use in the business world to yield profits for shareholders and evidently profits for themselves .  further examination of the ability of the regulator to intervene even in the matter of the unwarranted bonuses was later proven in court to be insufficient to bar payment of the bonuses until criminal illegality is proved .  that matter is still under examination at the moment .  the bill , however , is important for other reasons to taxpayers .  this enterprise will stand between the agencies who issue debt and engage in housing activities and significant potential losses to taxpayers should either of the enterprises ever be found under significant financial duress .  the regulator historically has been impaired .  it is the only financial regulator in the united states which must come to the congress for its funding .  all other regulators are funded by assessments on the regulated entities .  we fixed that problem .  all other regulators have the ability to reach inside the organization of a financial enterprise and adjust its capital requirements .  that is money put in the sock drawer for a rainy day .  in case something goes bad , you need to have capital .  for the ofheo-regulated enterprises , you had to come to the congress and pass an act of congress to adjust the capital .  if any other financial enterprise were to get into financial duress and be unwound in the marketplace , that process is called receivership .  not so for fannie mae and freddie mac .  there are special provisions that allow the congress to intervene in protection of their financial interest .  this bill remedies that problem .  there are a host of other matters that the 360 pages of the bill address , but probably the most important is a tool used by regulators today in financial enterprises known as prompt corrective action .  that means if a regulator sees an activity that could lead to injury of shareholders and taxpayers , it can intercede at a very early time and require a cessation of those activities or simply prohibit them from doing it again .  we provide for prompt corrective action .  what we enable with the passage of this bill is the creation of an independently funded regulator , with all the tools a modern financial regulator should have to oversee vastly complex financial enterprises to protect the american taxpayer from unwarranted losses .  besides the criticism leveled at the bill today relative to affordable housing , there is another issue which i feel appropriate to address , and that is relative to the growth constraints on the investment portfolios of the two enterprises .  they have , in the aggregate , $ 1.6 trillion invested in the two portfolios .  under the prudential management and operations standards of the bill , the director of the new enterprise shall examine counterparty risks ; management of interest rate risks ; adequacy and maintenance of liquidity and reserves ; management of asset and investment portfolios ; investments and acquisitions ; overall risk management processes ; and , if we did not cover it in that list , such other operational and management standards as the director determines to be appropriate .  that translates into , if you do not see it on our list , mr. director , go do it anyway , because we are giving you the authority .  finally , as to the ability to establish how the portfolio should be reduced and to what level , secretary snow testified before our committee he could not tell us how to do it or to what level they should be adjusted , but he did go on to say it should be the subject of professional examination and recommendation .  finally , on page 273 of the bill , we read : `` an analysis of the potential systemic risk implications for the enterprises , the housing and capital markets , and the financial system of portfolio holdings , and whether such holdings should be limited or reduced over time , '' is the director 's obligation to engage in professional study , make recommendations to the congress if congressional action is needed , or otherwise act in the best interest of the united states taxpayer .  finally , with regard to the concerns over the affordable housing disposition , it should be pointed out these funds are not available today .  this is a new fund .  if people are engaged in assistance as a charitable activity in affording housing to low-income individuals and registering people to vote , this bill will not preclude that activity from going forward .  what it merely says is that in an instance where we have limited funds available , estimated to be perhaps $ 500 million spread across the entire country , that those funds first and foremost should be utilized to help people in true need of housing , not political activism .  if one is engaged in political activism and building houses as of today 's date , you can continue to do it .  if you wish to be engaged in this fund going forward , you will have to make a policy decision , do i wish to continue political activism , or do i really want to help people get in homes ?  mr. chairman , i represent to the house this is a fair bill , fair compromise and responsible action on the part of this house , and i urge members to support its adoption .  mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  