Richard Baker

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to make clear that there is a difference of opinion as to the appropriate method to move forward and establish that the committee's work product is not frivolously or expeditiously constructed. The committee has worked many long hours and heard from many experts in the field as to the most sound recommendations that could be adopted to effect the changes both sides agree need to be made. In studying the gentleman's substitute, I think it is important to recognize, however, the consequences if the House were to adopt this specific recommendation. The Kanjorski amendment would establish by sense of Congress that the SEC should continue to negotiate with the NRSROs to form some sort of unidentified self-regulatory model. What has been suggested in the proposal is that offered by the International Organization of Securities Commissions, the acronym IOSCO. The IOSCO code provides for a rating agency disclosure regime, but those who have studied it who do not share its goals point out there is the lack of a meaningful enforcement provision that is so essential, we believe, that is contained in H.R. 2990. It is important that if we do identify conduct that is inappropriate financial behavior, violating one's fiduciary obligation, that the regulatory structure have a mechanism to take away the right to practice. H.R. 2990 would provide that certainty. And, further, Mr. Kanjorski's amendment requires the SEC to testify annually for a period of 5 years on the SEC's efforts to improve the transparency of the credit rating agency. Therein, I think, generally not giving much attention on the question of reporting by an agency represents the real thrust of the amendment. It is to continue the dialogue for another 5 years. Well, we have identified the sufficient problems to bring to the Congress's concern. There is time for action. The time is now. And adoption of the Fitzpatrick recommendation, H.R. 2990, is essential and justified and, I think, essential and justified for us to act today. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes at this time to the primary sponsor of the legislation, Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, we will have two.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), a valuable member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Chairman, it is appropriate, I think, to perhaps review the subject matter at hand from a little higher altitude than the debate has taken us. We have an obligation in this House to ensure that hardworking American families who invest their money in the markets can do so in the most safe and sound manner possible. What we now know about the function of the credit rating agencies over the past decade is their performance has been less than what we should expect. In fact, days before corporate failures, they continued to report the highest investment grade analysis on many troubled companies. We know that we must act to ensure that pension fund investors, managers of perhaps rather large public schoolteacher or public employee investment funds have the best tools available to ensure that innocent third parties are not harmed by abhorrent actors in the capital markets. I can assure my colleagues that this proposal moves us in an improved direction. Certainly, any legislation can be improved upon, but the bill we have before us is fully warranted, fully justified, and it is now timely for this House to act. I commend Chairman Oxley for his continued leadership in trying to bring out fiscal accountability in the capital markets. I commend Mr. Fitzpatrick for his hard work on this measure. But I ask this House to turn down the Kanjorski substitute and adopt H.R. 2990 as recommended by the Financial Services Committee. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. I thank the chairman for yielding time and for his continuing diligence and hard work on this important matter to all the people of this country, but particularly those of us in Louisiana. I certainly want to express my appreciation to Mr. Frank and to colleagues on his side who have also worked hand in hand with us to try to come to accommodation on this difficult issue. The flood insurance program is one that has been roundly criticized, and appropriately so in some instances. The repetitive loss problem that was addressed several years ago by this Congress was one of embarrassment for those who are responsible and felt that the program had been abused. But those chapters are now closed. The problem that faces us today is one of a different nature, and that is people entered into contractual obligations to protect their property, and storms beyond anyone's comprehension have now caused individuals to make claim on those policies, leaving the program today at a $20 billion borrowing level, a record high, and as previously noted, a requirement to go to $25 billion if the agency is to meet all of its contractual obligations. But I believe one point needs to be made clear in the hearing record on this matter, and the flood insurance program is unique. It is a program that collects premiums and from premiums collected makes payments to claimants. It is the only disaster response program in the United States which has a stream of income from which people who suffer loss may be reimbursed. Through 2004, the fund balance on hand after paying out $15 billion in claims within the flood insurance program was a positive balance of $1.8 billion. This is the only mechanism I know of when FEMA writes a check as the result of a declaration of a Presidential disaster where the taxpayers see their money come back. So I find it problematic when this program is criticized, because in all other cases where there is a disaster response, taxpayer money is spent without any recourse of recovery. In this case, we need to address the problems before us. The bill increases the borrowing authority to $25 billion, and also, from a financially soundness perspective, increases the amount of money to flow back into the program with increases in premium. The most important sector where these increases occur is in the nonprimary residence structures, meaning businesses and vacation homes. Premiums will increase, or may increase, up to a maximum of 30 percent per year. This is estimated to get the program in sound financial condition over the next 3 to 4 years, of course barring what we hope will not happen, and that is another cataclysmic Katrina-Rita combination. I do believe this program serves an essential service in the function of our economy. Pointing to the area still decimated by Katrina, we need to get people back into their homes. They need to have the knowledge they have flood insurance coverage, because there are important economic activities that must occur in that region of the State in order to provide the United States with a free flow of energy and to have access to our ports through which agricultural products are exported. I certainly hope the House will adopt a great bipartisan product.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I rise today in strong support of this measure which represents the work product of the Committee on Financial Services not for a matter of hours but, frankly, a matter of years. The committee first authorized a terrorism reinsurance program some years ago, initially after the events of 9/11. That program has now exceeded its lifespan and is due to expire at the end of this year. The consequences of letting the program expire are consequential. The inability to underwrite an indeterminate risk is of great consequence to particularly our real estate and development community, but to all business enterprises which are vulnerable to and concerned with the potential of a terrorism event. The collective impact of this program will not be felt by taxpayers until and unless there is a terrorist attack. It is something that some appear to not understand. We are not creating a job bureaucracy. We are not spending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars. We are only saying that in the event another unexpected terrible calamity that struck New York some years ago should ever reoccur, that there be in place a governmental mechanism to help us through the crisis. Some are concerned that this represents a way in which to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to private interests of taxpayer money without recourse. The principal reason why the House approach is the only approach that we should adopt is the requirement for the industry, once solvent, once stable, once economic conditions have returned to normality, that there would be repayment of the credit extended by the United States taxpayer. This is not a giveaway. This is a bridge loan in the time of national crisis. I cannot conceive of how this Congress could go home and walk away from this responsibility to act for a preventive measure. It only gives our economic system the assurance that there will be continuity; that there will be the ability for our economic systems to function should we be called upon to respond to an event of enormous proportions that all of us hope will never occur. We also are sensitive to the scale of the insurance industry. There are very large companies who can withstand enormous losses and pay them off quite well. There are regional and smaller providers who provide an essential service in our economy that would be disastrously impacted if the provisions contained in the House measure are not adopted. I cannot speak highly enough about the long-suffering work of our chairman, Chairman Oxley, and the kind assistance offered by the ranking member, Mr. Frank, in really making this a bipartisan recommendation to meet what is an identified and obvious need in the most responsible manner possible. Let me say it again, because it is so important. If, and only if, the provisions of this act are necessary will it be brought into life. At such time any assistance offered to any private entity who is a for- profit entity and taxpayer resources are expended, there will be a requirement to repay the taxpayers of this country when the solvency of that enterprise is clear and established. Emergency purposes for emergency needs in a time of crisis. I commend both Members for their leadership and hard work on this measure.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time and wish to express my appreciation to him and members of the Rules Committee who have delivered a rule enabling consideration by the House today of significant legislation relative to the reform in the regulatory structure of government-sponsored enterprises. For many years, that has been the subject of discussion by the Committee on Financial Services and, prior to that, the Committee on Banking. I cannot express enough appreciation to Chairman Oxley for his long-standing tolerance on this matter, the many hours of agony I am sure I have caused all Members on this subject matter; and I am very appreciative for his courtesies extended in bringing to the floor a bill which has been over many months hammered into the shape we currently find it. As to the current issue before the House in the consideration of the rule now pending, I wish to make clear that the manner in which the manager's amendment was constructed is no different from the construction of hundreds of manager's amendments over the years in this body. From the time at which a matter leaves committee until it arrives on the House floor can be a matter of days, weeks, or months. Circumstances change. In this case, one element of that manager's amendment is the establishment of assistance for victims of the significant hurricanes the country has experienced, a highly appropriate utilization of a new fund. I think it important to understand this is the first time such fund has been constructed. The entity which will manage and distribute the funds does not now exist; and so, for some Members, constraining the utilization of the fund in its beginning stages was a logical precaution. It is about restoration of housing in the case of hurricane victims, many of whom do not live in my district, but certainly reside in my State. At the moment, they are without a home. They are living in a FEMA trailer or a tent or with family and friends or in any number of circumstances around the country. They are desperate for the opportunity to come home, to live in that structure that they call their own. The bill now provides resources to construct homes. It was never intended that the bill would become the basis for political activism. The choice is clear: If we have limited resources to meet overwhelming need, should we not ensure that those resources are used as intended for the construction, for affording opportunity for low-income individuals and those who are requiring homeownership opportunities for the first time to have every cent go for that utilization? Of course it does. It is regrettable, of course, that there would be those to say the amendment is flawed and that you should oppose it because we will not allow a voter registration campaign or political activism. I think in light of the concerns expressed, the overwhelming need for housing inventory, the fact that this is a 5-year program which will end at the end of 5 years, that we do not have yet an entity to manage, supervise or distribute the funds, it is highly appropriate that the constraints adopted in the manager's amendment be favorably considered by this House and adopted. More broadly, I think the rule has made in order a number of amendments that were not discussed in committee, which the House will consider and vote on accordingly; and I think at the end of the day, no matter the construct of the final bill, it is important to understand that a government-sponsored enterprise reform is absolutely essential. I will speak more to that matter during general debate; but I think those who only listen to the debate on the rule should understand, a government-sponsored enterprise is created by an act of Congress. It is given a privileged position in the marketplace. They utilize taxpayer- guaranteed debt in order to make a profit for their shareholders. They are unique in their construct in that they are authorized by the Congress, but are shareholder-driven institutions. They take on great risk and, accordingly, deserve the highest standard of regulatory oversight possible. This bill achieves that.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3945) to facilitate recovery from the effects of Hurricane Katrina by providing greater flexibility for, and temporary waivers of certain requirements and fees imposed on, depository institutions and Federal regulatory agencies, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3945 and express appreciation to the chairman and the ranking member and the members of the Committee on Financial Services for their continuing assistance for those who are victims of Hurricane Katrina. In this instance, it is relative to financial institutions who now find themselves under some financial duress as collateral for loan obligations has been impaired, or in the case of loan repayments, the revenue streams available to the borrower are no longer available for repayment of loan obligations. Under current regulatory law, the regulator must act when a financial institution's financial characteristics take on certain problems. In the instance of this legislation, we are providing unprecedented flexibility for the regulator with regard to capital and net worth standards for lending institutions. Stated another way, we know these institutions are only impaired as a result of the consequences of Hurricane Katrina as they were all adequately-to-well-capitalized the day before the storm made landfall. In addition to that capital and net worth forbearance, we also extend terms relative to deposit of insurance proceeds. Normally, when there is a large influx of assets into the bank, deposits or really liabilities, the bank is then required to take certain financial actions to ensure its financial solvency. This provides the regulator with the ability to allow that aberrant behavior brought on by Hurricane Katrina insurance payments not trigger normal regulatory responses. To say it a different way, the bill provides relief to financial institutions which today could be found to be troubled which are fully capable of restoration of their responsibilities over time if the regulator is given the ability to exercise the powers in this legislation. I think it is well crafted. I think it is responsive to the problems identified, and I would hope the House would act favorably on its consideration. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Massachusetts and his courtesy extended during the course of consideration of this and a number of other measures relating to the response to the Katrina effort. I feel it entirely appropriate, in light of the many people who are still adversely affected by the storm, to not appear that we are only expressing interest in the financial institutions. There are many individuals today where their employment is no longer possible because the structure where they worked is no longer there. There are folks who cannot go back to work because other employees are unable to be located. There are many people still without homes living in a variety of circumstances across the country. The state of emergency continues. In reaching out to those individuals, we are at work on a number of measures, one of which I hope the House will soon consider, H.R. 4100, relative to the Louisiana Recovery Corporation. I will be speaking to that issue at length in hearings over time, but I certainly wanted to take advantage of the opportunity presented to let individuals adversely affected by the current storm circumstance understand that this is only one small part of a very large effort by all of the members of the House delegation from Louisiana, as well as the members of the Committee on Financial Services, to be responsive to the entire array of identified difficulties. In fact, the corporation, once created and authorized by the Congress, would enable to assist financial institutions and homeowners with the acquisition of mortgages and assuming the debt obligations for those borrowers, as well as some restoration of the equity homeowners may have in their property prior to the storm. It is intended to help communities rebuild, not simply build homes. The overall effort from extending assistance and forbearance through the regulatory process to financial institutions, as well as extending assistance to homeowners who are now displaced from their property, is a massive long-term effort, which will require the work of this Congress, I suspect, for years to come. To those who are concerned about Louisianans rebuilding in circumstances which are less than desirable, we share the view. Only when levee restoration is complete, only when environmental remediation is complete will the rebuilding begin, and then to the highest hurricane standards available and applicable for our circumstance. But make no mistake. Because of the vital nature of the energy industry, the aquaculture industry, the shipping and exporting business, which is conducted through one of the world's largest ports, the Baton Rouge/New Orleans, there is an evident and obvious necessity for people to return to the great city of New Orleans and the surrounding area because of the jobs that are necessary to provide the rest of the Nation with energy independence and the abundance of natural resources which our State produces. Accordingly, the bill now before us is an important measure to help provide that economic stability going forward. It is a small part of a much larger package, but there is a plan, coming through in various pieces through each of the appropriate committees, to respond to the needs of the people of Louisiana in an appropriate and professional manner. I simply ask the indulgence of those people in Louisiana who are still dealing with FEMA, living in a trailer, not certain about tomorrow, to understand the Congress is responsive to their concerns, and over the course of the next several weeks, actions will be taken we hope all will find appropriate and responsive. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of the time.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3945.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 1461, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross-references, and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), who was an instrumental participant in the construction of the reform legislation under consideration.

Mr. BAKER. 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 wouldn'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.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who is a long-term co-contributor to the preparation of the legislation before us.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his continuing courtesy and leadership on this issue. I am going to try one more time on this thing. The bill as it is now constructed allocates 3.5 percent of net profit for the first 2 years from the various enterprises into a fund which gives as a priority Katrina victims, Rita victims and natural disaster victims, in that order. I can tell you if I were to go to the city of Baker, in my district today, walk down Groom Road to the FEMA trailer park and say to them, I am going to buy you a bus to haul you to go vote 2 years from now, or I am going to put money into building you a home, guess which one they would pick. People want out of the FEMA trailers, they want out of their circumstance; and almost every cent of this money, we will guarantee, I promise, to be utilized almost exclusively for Katrina and Rita. It is estimated as a result of the Katrina disaster, 100,000 homes are impaired or destroyed: 100,000. The guesstimate of what it might take to pay off mortgages, to clean the mess up, and to build homes back is easily $30 billion. That is Katrina. Then we talk about Rita and then welcome back and plug Wilma in as a natural disaster, $500 million in the scope of this debate, concerning ourselves with creating a resource for additional political activism does not make sense. Now, let us talk about the administration of the program: who is going to run it, what is the program. I know how you check on a house. You go see if it is there. Then you can figure out if somebody is in it and who are they. You can look at their income tax return; and, yes, they are entitled to be here pursuant to the provisions of the program. How do you regulate a bus acquisition program used for hauling people to the polls? Who is going to do that? What are the rules? How about this? How about you leave Katrina/Rita victims alone, come back with regulations that create a system, something that makes sense. Here is how you do it. Here is how you comply. Then you get the money. No, we want to take the money first and figure it out later. That is what gets this place in trouble. Now, if we really want to work together and reclaim our bipartisan territory, let us take it one step at a time. Let us figure out what the problem is, figure out a remedy, let us promulgate it, make it subject to hearings, pass it through the Congress, and plug some money in later. Now, I know that may be too logical, but I really want to leave that as a thought before you vote against the manager's amendment. This is a well-crafted proposal with extremely limited resources aimed at an enormous problem that otherwise will not get resolved in a very cost-effective manner, and we will outstrip the resources of this proposal for 5 years, much less the 2 years for which the money has been officially dedicated for this purpose. Keep in mind, if you are building houses and hauling voters and registering and engaged in political advocacy as of the date of passage of this bill, you can still do it. You just do not get to back your truck up to the U.S. Treasury and download a bunch of this money. That is all. It is an easy choice, and I suggest to the House that it is a reasonable position for us to take and a responsible position. It is not an attack on the basic civil rights of this country.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important vote under consideration. I wish to point out that 3.5 percent assessment of net profits for the first 2 years will generate an estimated $400 million a year nationwide. The identified needs for Hurricane Katrina only are probably in excess of $300 billion for housing-related activities. If we add Rita and Wilma, the funds will be far depleted before we ever get to the issue of whether we need to be engaged in voter registration or voter transport to the precincts. If one were to go to Trailer City on Groom Road in Baker, Louisiana, and walk up to one of those trailers and say, hey, folks, I am here from the Federal Government and I want to buy a new van to haul you to the precinct next year to go vote, what kind of response do you think you will get if you said that will come at the expense of advancing replacement housing for families to go home? And then let us talk about the administration of the program. How do you confirm affordable housing works and they are doing it? You look at the lot and see the house. You knock on the door and see if anybody is inside. That is easy. How do you confirm that the money being spent for voter enhancement, education, and transportation is used for a valid purpose? Do you go to Uncle Bob's RV Trailer Park and look to see if they are using those vehicles for voter transport? How do we know? The idea here is we have very restricted resources. We have an incredibly large problem to resolve with response to the hurricanes. We know that by deploying these resources this way, we can ensure we are helping people in the most effective manner possible. We should come back through regular order, have committee hearings and talk about it. How are we going to have advocacy for people to be able to vote and participate? And if we want to fund that, fund it separately. This is not the time, not the place, not the way. Please, do not vote for this motion to recommit.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of H.R. 3945, as proposed to be adopted under suspension of the rules, be modified by the amendment that I have placed at the desk.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on this legislative day, it adjourn to meet at noon on the third constitutional day thereafter, unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in House Concurrent Resolution 263, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, October 19, 2005.