Randy Neugebauer

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

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

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. One of the things that we have to understand that we're talking about today on this floor, we're talking about a lot of different kinds of security. We're talking about energy security. We're also talking about economic security. But really the bottom line we're talking about is jobs in America. No doubt that energy is a major issue in our country. Our energy dependence becomes a problem, is continuing to be a problem, but what we have to do is go about this in a way that makes sense. And when we look at, yes, we need to look at additional research in certain areas and additional expenditures in other areas and nuclear, and the gentleman from Florida brought that point forward, the gentleman brings forward the fact that we're increasing things like that by 20 percent. That would be really good if we were spending surpluses, but in fact we're not spending from surpluses, and what we're talking about is deficit spending and what we're talking about is an economic future for our young men and women. Because you see what we're on the floor here today trying to do. My colleagues and I are trying to save the American taxpayers some money, because we have a leadership on the other side of the aisle that's on a spending spree. They think they have surpluses that they're spending, and in fact we're not. In fact, we've got a $23 billion increase. We have got these ``funny money'' accounts where we're going to come up with the money from someplace. We all know where that money is coming from. That money is going to come from the American taxpayers because they've already gone on record to say that we're going to pass the largest tax increase in American history. And the way they're going to do that is they're going to tax the rich people. Well, let's talk about the tax structure in this country today. For example, who are the rich people? We've got 1 percent of the top wage earners in this country already paying 33 percent of the taxes. Now, the next level up, the top 5 percent, they get to pay 54 percent of the taxes, and the top 10 percent get to pay 68 percent of the taxes. Recently, the Tax Foundation brought forth a point that I think most of us knew, and that is, that three out of every five, that's 60 percent, of America's highest income-bracket payers are small business people. Let me repeat that. Three out of every five of the people who are in the upper bracket, which is the bracket that they want to tax, are small business people. And what do small business people do? Well, they just do something that's extraordinarily great for America. They create jobs. In fact, they're the largest creator of jobs in this country. And what we did is back in 2003 we said, you know what, we want small businesses to create more jobs, make more economic security for our young people, and so we lowered the taxes. And what happened? Well, something wonderful. We created 7.8 million new jobs in America. And you know what creating 7.8 million new jobs in America did for us? Well, number one, we have the highest home ownership rate in the history of this country. More people own a home today than any other time in the history of this Nation. Guess what, more people are employed than any other time in the history of our Nation. What we have to do, the Speaker of this House stood up on the day that she was sworn in and said, we listened to the people. I don't think they were listening. If they thought the American people were saying we want more spending and more taxes, I think they misunderstood. If the American people said anything, it is they want a government that's less, that takes less of their money, spends less of their money, lives, spends their money like government spends their money like the American people have to, they have to spend within their limits. Yes, I will like a 2 percent increase in this and a 2 percent increase in that, but the truth of the matter is, we can't afford it. If we continue on this trend of higher taxes, bigger spending, we are going to see these job numbers begin to talk. So when you talk about we want more energy-efficient cars, let me tell you, if we don't have anybody that can afford cars in America because they don't have jobs, then what do we need energy-efficient cars for? Let's be sensible about our policy here. We are making a sufficient amount of commitments to many of these initiatives, but we have to do it in a commonsense way. We have to do it in a way that says, you know what, a 2 percent increase or 3 percent, maybe this program should be eliminated, because this program is not providing any dividends for the American taxpayers. We measure, around here, what we are doing about our problem by how much money we spend on it. Quite honestly, that's how we got in the situation of these large deficits is because we keep throwing money at problems instead of standing up here on the floor of this House and debating these issues and talking about what is in the best interest of the taxpayers. I commend the gentleman from Minnesota on his amendment and urge passage.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, It was an honor to join the residents of Post, TX, on June 3, 2007 to celebrate the community's centennial. As the Congressman for the 19th district, I often travel back and forth from Lubbock to the southern part of the district around Abilene. One of my favorite parts of the trip up and down U.S. Route 84 is approaching Post and looking across the caprock in the distance. During my trips to each of the district's 27 counties, I also have developed an even deeper appreciation for many of the other qualities that make west Texas so special. Our region is home to the best people in the world who are always ready to welcome you into their hometowns. Another quality that makes west Texas special is the strong sense of patriotism that so many West Texans possess. We see this patriotism in the great numbers of young people who volunteer to defend freedom and protect American citizens by serving in the United States military. This tradition continues on today. It continues in the form of young men and women like Colter Creech from Post. Colter--who has the distinction of being accepted into two military service academies--will attend the United States Air Force Academy beginning this summer. Colter is a fine example of the type of young people that come from Post and towns like it across west Texas. He is smart, patriotic, and understands the importance of serving his country. Our freedom and the freedoms of millions across the globe will depend on fine young Americans like Colter. As the residents of Post reflect on and celebrate their history, they can also look forward to a promising future knowing that the west Texas values that have sustained their community through the years continue to do so today.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment. You know, I think sometimes we get a little crass around here and we think, oh, it's just $1 million, it's just $1.2 million. But the people back in the 19th District of Texas still think that $1.2 million is a lot of money. In fact, it's their hard-earned money that we're debating on the floor of this House tonight. I think sometimes we forget that. One of the things that I am very proud of is the fact that our economy has been growing at a very strong rate for the last few years. We found a novel idea about leaving more of the American taxpayers' money in their pocket, and what happened? The economy started getting better, more jobs. More people today, Mr. Chairman, own a home than any other time in the history of this country. More people working today than any other time in the history of this country. And why is that? Because we're creating jobs. And who are creating those jobs? Businessmen all over this country. And one of the things that concerns me about this budget process that we've gone down, and it's been alluded to tonight, is really what we're talking about tonight is tax increases, because we know that this budget is going to be financed with more taxes. And, quite honestly, the people in the 19th District of Texas believe they are paying enough taxes. In fact, they believe that Congress doesn't have an income problem. It has a spending problem. And it is one that they are looking to our leadership to begin to solve. As was alluded to a while ago, you cannot spend your way out of a deficit. One of the things that concerns me most about this budget process is, we are also going to be asked to vote on things we can't see right now, but we are going to trust somebody. In other words, what we are going to do is, we are going to be asked to vote on these appropriation bills, and then in August the chairman of the Appropriations Committee is going to tell us what we voted on. You know what? The people in the 19th District of Texas voted to send Randy Neugebauer to the United States Congress to review legislation, review appropriations, determine whether they think that that is in their best interest, and vote on it. And they kind of think that it would be a good idea, before I voted on something, that I knew what was in that piece of legislation. But yet we are going to have appropriation bills where we are going to vote on those, and then earmarks are going to be airdropped into those bills and mysteriously are going to be revealed to all of us. Can you imagine being in your home district and the paper calls you up and says, ``I see what you voted on.'' And you say, ``I'm sorry. I haven't read the paper this morning. I haven't seen what I have voted on,'' because the earmarks were not disclosed in the bills that we are considering. Now, I don't know about in your home district, but in my home district that doesn't make a lot of sense. What we need is transparency here. We have a lot of very smart people in Congress, and while the chairman may believe he is a very smart person, and he may be, I don't know, but I believe that I know more about the 19th District and some of the priorities in that community than the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. And the people in the 19th District are relying on Randy Neugebauer to make sure that that interest is represented here. Now, one of the things that we have to begin to do is to do what we said we were going to do. And this group, when they got the leadership, they ran on a platform of we are going to be more transparent, that people are going to get to see all of the spending bill at one time, that they are not going to be in pieces and parts, and there are not going to be deals cut in conference; that when these spending bills are brought to the floor of the House of Representatives, we are going to know what is in those bills. And that should be the way it is. But now, as we get into this process, we find out that, no, that is not the way it is going to be; that we have a new rule, and the new rule is that we will let you know when it is time for you to know. Well, you know what? The people in America think that the time for a United States Congressman to know what is in a bill is not after he has voted or she has voted on that bill, but while and before they voted on that bill. We said we were going to come down and bring these bills onto the floor. We were going to look at them, peruse them, that we were going to have time to look at them. And we have not kept that promise, and that is a shame. It is a shame that the American taxpayers are getting rooked with this appropriation process.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, you're going to hear a lot of perspectives today, but I wanted to give you a perspective from my friend James Clark. James wrote me this letter about stem cell research. ``In October 2004, I was involved in a car crash which has left me paralyzed from the waist down . . . Given the current technology and my condition, there is no hope of full recovery.'' James goes on to say, ``I fully support ethical forms of stem cell research. I believe, based on news accounts, that stem cells could be the key to a full recovery for me. To walk again and regain complete independence,'' would be, ``a joyous day for me and my family. I can only imagine how many American people would also benefit. ``But, Congressman, I believe there is a very dark side to stem cell research. There are those who believe stem cells should be taken from living embryos. In my opinion, the killing of an embryo for the harvest of stem cells is exactly the same as killing another human being. Under no circumstances do I wish to benefit from the stem cells that result from the harming or killing of a human embryo. No thanks, I'll stay in this wheelchair.'' Clearly, James has a lot to gain from scientific breakthroughs in stem cell research. Let's spend our money where we can get breakthroughs. Let's continue adult stem cells. So let's focus taxpayer dollars on research that has shown promise. Adult stem cell research, and other research that doesn't lead to the destruction of human life, have produced more than 70 treatments. On the other hand, stem cell research on embryos has produced ZERO treatments or cures that could help James walk again. I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill so that we can focus our resources on ethical and promising adult stem cell research that could help my good friend James get rid of his wheelchair. Vote ``no'' on this bill. Congressman Neugebauer, Thank you for letting me share my concerns with you about a matter of great importance to millions of Americans. The Congress debates again the issue of stem cell research for which history, generations of Americans to come, and God himself will judge us. For so very many reasons it is important that we get this issue right. In October 2004 I was involved a car crash, which has left me paralyzed from the waist down. Further complicating any hope of recovery, I suffer a rare form of spinal cord injury resulting from anoxia or loss of blood flow to the spinal cord. Given the current technology and my condition there is no hope of full recovery. Other people suffer conditions far worse than mine but just to establish my background let me share with you the following: I cannot use my legs, nor can I feel them. I suffer DVT's (blood clots in the veins) from the lack of mobility, lack of circulation and fragility of my legs. A DVT can lead to stroke or death. I cannot go to the bathroom in the normal way. I must have the assistance of catheters and at least once a day the help of another person. I suffer constant back pain. It's rather mild but it also never quits. About once every two months I suffer a serious infection of one sort or another. Sometimes it's an infection under a toenail or sometimes it's a urinary tract infection. One such infection was so bad and developed so quickly I was taken to the emergency room and then hospitalized for almost a week. The single most painful aspect of my condition is the embarrassment and humiliation of not having bowel and bladder control when it leads to an accident in public. There are not words that can describe the sense of absolute shame when this happens and I have to be extraordinarily careful when going to public places. Even the best-laid plans for an accident- free public outing are not always successful. On the whole I would have to say I'm pretty happy. I have a lovely wife, two beautiful children, parents and extended family who love me deeply. I have been blessed. I fully support ethical forms of stem cell research. I believe based on news accounts that stem cells could be the key to a full recovery for me. To walk, to regain complete independence, to retake my former strength and good health; I can't tell you how joyous that would be for me and for my family. I can only imagine how many millions of Americans would also benefit. But, Congressman, I believe there is a very dark side to stem cell research. There are those who believe stem cells should be taken from living embryos. In my opinion the killing of an embryo for the harvest of stem cells is exactly the same as killing another human being. Under no circumstances do I wish to benefit from the stem cells that result from the harming or killing of a human embryo. No thanks, I'll stay in this wheelchair. There are those who believe stem cells should be taken from aborted embryos. After all they're just going to be discarded anyway. To me that's like saying, well the Nazis did experiments on some of the 6 million Jews. Can't we use their notes and their lab materials to advance scientific and medical knowledge? No, as a matter we cannot do so with a clear conscience. Nor can we with a clear conscience use embryonic stem cells resulting from the harm or death of a human embryo. I have no opposition to the use of embryonic stem cells, which are collected in such a way as to cause no harm to an unborn baby (which includes a human embryo or a human fetus). I also have no opposition to the use of adult stem cells. I fully support ethical research and I know you do too. Thank you for this opportunity to be heard on the record, Congressman Neugebauer. You have been a great friend to the sanctity of human life and for that we all owe you a debt of gratitude. James Clark.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. And he brings a point that many of us have had to experience, and that is to make that call of condolence to a mom or a dad or to a wife. And I thought it was interesting, one of the previous speakers talked about being in the majority means you lead. And, in fact, we have gone 107 days without the much-needed resources for our young men and women, and it took the Republicans having to write to the Speaker of the House and saying it is going to be hard for us to go back home and talk about memorializing the sacrifice our young men and women have made in the past when we aren't even funding the troops of today. So we said we are not willing to go back on a recess for Memorial Day without taking care of the business of supporting our troops. And I am hopeful that tomorrow, and certainly before we adjourn, that the Democrats do begin to deliver to our young men and women the resources they need so that when we do go home for this Memorial Day, we can celebrate the sacrifices of the many that have gone before, that we can do it with our heads held high that we have taken care of our part of the business. I am pleased to be joined by a new Member of Congress from Michigan, someone who has a number of military bases in his district, who also has taken a keen interest in the Walter Reed issue and making sure that when our young men and women get injured that they get 21st century care. So I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman Walberg.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the gentleman. And as the gentleman has said, he has been to Walter Reed with his wife; I have, also. And I think about one time I went and I was there with a soldier that had gotten a new prosthesis. He had lost part of his leg. And he said he was so proud of it. He said, Congressman, this is state-of-the-art, and I'm going to be able to walk again, and do you know what I want to do? I said, what do you want to do? He said, I want to go back and be with my buddies and finish the job that I went to do. Those are the kind of men and women that I'm going to be celebrating during this Memorial Day weekend. I am proud to see that a great Member of Congress from Iowa, the gentleman from Iowa Mr. King, who I know has been to Iraq on a number of occasions, and I am pleased that he has joined us this evening and would yield to the gentleman.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I was listening with interest this evening about all of the things that are going, supposedly, not well in Iraq. So I hope to spend the next hour with some of my colleagues talking about the things that are going well. I thought it was interesting as the other side was talking about how they support our troops, and are thankful for the wonderful job they are doing, yet they have made them wait 107 days for much-needed resources to do the job that we have asked them to do. We are going to talk about that later on this evening, of all of the things that our young men and women have had to wait for as we have been playing a political game, or the other side, I would say, has been playing the political game, and our young men and women have been doing and continue to do the professional job that they have been doing for so many times. I have been to Iraq three times myself, and tonight I am joined by some of my colleagues that have also been over there. We are going to talk about this war, because it's a real war. I think some people try to minimize what is going on in this global war on terrorism, but, in fact, it is a real war. We will talk about where this war is being fought. It's not just being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are also going to talk about the fact that Iraq is a central front for the war on terrorism. Finally, we are also going to talk a lot about the progress that's being made over there. General Pace was in Congress today briefing Members on what's going on in Iraq and brought forth a very positive report in many ways. I look forward to this time. I am certainly glad that some of my friends on the other side weren't around when we fought the Revolutionary War, because it might have been too expensive, or we might have lost too many lives. What we do know is freedom and democracy has never come cheap. It comes with a price. We enjoy the freedoms. In fact, we enjoy the freedom to be on the floor tonight with our colleagues because of price that many have paid that have gone before us. I am very proud of them. Every time that I have had the opportunity to travel and be with our soldiers, it makes me proud to be an American. I would like to recognize my good friend from New Mexico, my neighbor Mr. Pearce. Mr. Pearce has also been to Iraq on three different occasions. He has seen many of the things that I have been alluding to. I would ask him to talk about his perspective of what is going on in the global war on terrorism.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I am also pleased that another colleague and a fellow Texan has joined us this evening, Congressman Burgess.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico. He brought a lot of insight to this discussion tonight. There is nothing better than, if you want to see what's going on, to go to the battlefield yourself. What I was wondering with some of my colleagues this evening is the Democrats have made our troops sit and wait for 107 days to see if, in fact, they are going to fund the very resources that they need. And I have got to wonder how demoralizing that has to be when you get up every morning and you are putting yourself in harm's way for this great Nation of America, keeping America safe, and also helping liberate and begin to bring peace and democracy to another country, and how that must feel to know that your own home country is sitting over here and playing political games while you are doing the heavy lifting. So I have to say to the young men and women that are in harm's way tonight that I am hopeful that this Democratic leadership will finally step up and do what they should do. Before I yield to the next gentleman, I wanted to let the American people know what our young men and women have been waiting on. In this bill that we hopefully can pass this week is $8 billion for body armor, armored vehicles, and base security surveillance. In other words, these are the things that would help to keep them safe. Yet we have to wait 108 days for the Democrats to decide that they want to keep our troops safe. That just isn't right; $2.4 billion to help use some new technology and some things that we are learning about IEDs, which is one of the things over there that has caused so much damage and death and destruction in that country and harmed and injured, severely, many of our young men and women. And yet they have had to wait 108 days for these resources, for this Democratic Congress, this Democratic leadership, to give them the resources that they need. Another important piece of this supplemental is the fact that $2.7 billion is allocated for updating our security and our surveillance and our intelligence. Let me tell you, today in Iraq and Afghanistan and all around the world, knowing where the bad guys are is a very important piece of how we defend this country and we prosecute the war on terrorism. Yet we have had to wait 108 days and counting for this leadership to do the right thing by our young men and women. It is my honor and privilege now to recognize a fellow Texan, a former judge, a good friend, Congressman Carter from Texas, who has also been to Iraq. I believe the gentleman has been three times, if I am correct.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Soon to be 108 days.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I would yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, I thank the gentleman. And you alluded to something that I want to point out, and several of our previous speakers have talked about this chart. And basically, people say, well, what's going on in Iraq? And I think what we hear is the news media portrays, well, there's a lot of fighting going on. But really what's been going on in Iraq at the same time is some nation building. And what you see on this chart is over 14,000 projects that have either been completed or are underway, and as the gentleman referred to, as some of these provinces for the first time have water. Some of them, for the first time in a long time, have electricity. But let's get down to really talking about what's making a difference in the lives of the Iraqi people. And for the first time, young men and women are back in school again, and commerce is going on in these communities, and people are being able to live a life that's less fearful of this tyranny that Saddam Hussein would reign over his people. And so 14,000 projects, either completed or underway. And all of those green dots, and I know that it doesn't show up on the C-SPAN that well, but this map is dotted with projects. The other thing that the gentleman brought up, and I think you're going to hear from some of the other speakers tonight, is that most of the time when we go to Iraq, we spend some time with the troops. I have meals, almost with every chance we always say to the military, we want to eat with the troops. We want to hear from the young men and women that are out there with boots on the ground what's going on. And my most recent trip to Iraq, I was sitting with a young man, and it was one of the last, I think we were in Baghdad, and he looked over at me, and he looked me right in the eye and he said, Congressman, this is my third trip to Iraq. He said, nobody has more invested in this effort than me. Would I like to be home with my family? Absolutely. But, Congressman, go back and tell your colleagues, please let us finish this job. We are winning. We are making a difference. And it would be a true shame for us to leave this job undone and to let the Iraqi people down. The other thing, and the gentleman alluded to, was the fact that now we've been hearing that tens of thousands of calls are coming in now to the security forces of people in the neighborhoods saying, there's some bad folks roaming in our neighborhood. They're trying to do bad things; they're trying to harm us. And so they're turning in the bad people. So the Iraqi people are buying into the fact that this is their country. They have a responsibility. They're standing up the troops. One of the interesting things the gentleman talked about the fact that we're standing up an Iraqi Army. Every once in a while, and we know it's unfortunately, but our suicide bombers will bomb a recruitment area. And the next day, what shows up at that same site but more recruits because they went their country back. They've had a number of elections, and so the fact that now that the sheiks, and not just the sheiks but the people in the communities are getting engaged in this process, and what we're hearing is that now these leads are turning into being able to not only get the bad guys, but get their weapons. And hundreds of thousands of pounds of ammunition has been seized because of these tips that we're not getting from our soldiers, but from the people in Iraq. I believe the gentleman from New Mexico wanted to make a comment about that.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. And the gentleman's correct. In fact, the money that was taken out to fund the studying of global warming and intelligence was taken out of some of our more crucial intelligence areas, the intelligence that's used to help our young men and women in the battlefield know where the bad guys are before the bad guys know where they are. So that just doesn't make sense. We're joined by some additional colleagues this evening, and certainly my good friend from Georgia, Congressman Gingrey, he's another Member that's been to Iraq three times. That seems to be the theme tonight. And I'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, it's my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

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

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the distinguished chairwoman of the Housing Committee. I enjoy serving with her. You know, I think one of the points I would make here is my bill does not try to kill the Housing Fund. My bill tries to say that, you know what? We're asking these entities to step up and make a big contribution, and we want to make sure that they do it in a safe and sound manner. You know, I will tell you, the problem here is that if these entities, if we do something that jeopardizes the health of these entities by taking money out of their capital structure, these entities will not be able to perform the functions that they have been performing in the marketplace. And so what this is, I believe, is a realistic approach at looking at how we begin to go down this road. Now, even the majority has put a sunset in this bill, a 5-year sunset I believe, if I am correct. What that allows us to do is we are going to see, you know, $520 million roughly over a 5-year period, we are going to see what happens to how does that Housing Fund perform, how does that impact the entity that is paying these monies? If we want to come back at the end of 5 years and you want to raise the cap, let's look at the cap. But let's also let the regulator look at the cap during that process and make sure that we're not doing something that is causing harm. The worst thing we can do for the housing market in this country is to disrupt one of the envies of the world, and that is our financial structure, how we finance housing in this country. When I was in the home building industry, I was on the National Board of Directors of Home Builders, people from all over the world wanted to come and say how is it that America has such a high ownership rate and such a robust financial market for housing. They wanted to know how to copy ours. So we need to preserve that and not sit around and figure out ways to necessarily harm it. So I encourage Members to support this. This is a fair proposition. This is not killing anything. This is a fair proposition. It's saying that we believe that how we got to the ownership rate that we have in America today is by protecting the companies and the entities and the financial structure that allowed us to get here, and not by trying to somehow cause it harm. In closing, I want to say this to Chairman Frank and to the ranking member, this has been a very deliberative process. And Mr. Frank, in our full committee, allowed us the opportunity to offer as many amendments as we would like to. We had a lot of dialogue there. We've had a lot of dialogue here tonight, and maybe some of it has been duplicative. But I think the good thing about it is that we have aired all of the concerns that people have about this. Because this is a very important piece of legislation. It has a tremendous amount of impact on the future of the financial markets in America. And so if it takes 1 day or it takes 2 days, and if it takes 20 amendments or 100 amendments to get to the right place, then I think that is a good process. But I want to thank the chairman for allowing us to get to this point.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, this is a pretty simple amendment. We have had a lot of debate this evening about whether to have a housing fund or not to have a housing fund, and the votes are in and we are going to have a housing fund. One of the things that I feel very strongly about is this is a substantial amount of money to any entity. While these are large entities, $520 million, over $3 billion over a 5-year period, is a lot of money. If we are going to ask these entities to make this kind of commitment, I think we owe them some certainty here. Now, the current formula is that we will take 1.2 basis points times the portfolio. But what I believe is fair is to set a ceiling on what that amount can be. Now, the current scoring by is that at 1.2 on the total portfolio that we would have about $520 million. What I am saying is let's cap it at $520 million. When you start looking at an entity, you don't want them making a decision on whether to make additional loans available for people in America that need loans, affordable loans, of saying if we increase our portfolio, we are going to have to pay more money into the housing fund. So what I believe is a fair balance is saying that as they bring their portfolio up and down to meet the market demands and adjust to the market conditions that we just give them a number that they know that is not going to exceed so what when they are budgeting, making sure that they are going to have a safe and sound entity, that they know what the number is. I am a small businessman, Mr. Chairman, and when I was sitting down every year, I made a budget for my business. And one of the things that we tried to do was to fix a lot of our costs so that we would know what our costs would be because variable costs many times are causing you not to be able to control those or they are counter to being profitable in many cases. These are entities that have provided housing opportunities for Americans for many, many years. And I was in the real estate business and the home building business in the 1980s, and I will tell you if it was not for Fannie Mae and Mae and the Federal Home Loan Bank board buying mortgages in America, many people would not have been able to buy a house during that time because a lot of the players got out of the market. So, number one, the original purpose of this legislation was safety and soundness. That is how this debate got started. So if we are really concerned about the safety and soundness of it we have come up with a number here, and it is a big number. This is a lot of money. When I came to Washington, I was a little surprised. People use a billion around here like it is not a lot of money. But everybody in this room should understand what $1 billion is. If you and I started a business the day that Jesus Christ was born and that business lost $1 million not every week, not every year, but that business lost $1 million every day since the birth of Christ, we wouldn't have yet lost $1 billion. So we are talking about a large sum of money. That may not be large to people in Washington, but let me tell you to people in West Texas it is a lot of money. So if we are going to ask a company to make that kind of contribution to a housing fund, I think we owe them some certainty. And I believe that $520 million a year is a certain number. It is a big number. It a accomplishes a lot of the things that the other side, I think, wants to do with this fund. So whether you agree with the fund or not agree with the fund, I don't see how you can disagree with the opportunity to come up with a fair compromise for these entities to say that we are going to cap this contribution requirement at this level. As I mentioned, and it was somewhat turned around in our committee meeting when I offered this, when I sit down and make a commitment to a charity, they say to me sometimes we want you to make a multi-year commitment. Now, I don't always make that multi-year commitment based on whether I am going to make money that year or lose money that year. I make a commitment and I stick to it. But I always make a commitment that I think I can live up to. So it is important for several reasons: That, number one, that we give some certainty; and, number two, that we make sure that when these contributions are asked for that the regulator is given some ability to be able to say we think in this particular year, because of the market conditions, because of the profitability of this company, that that may be less. So I encourage Members on both sides let's give some certainty.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the gentleman, and I, like the gentleman, encourage this is a fair amendment. We have passed out a tremendous amount of resources for Mississippi and Louisiana. I've been to the gentleman from Louisiana's and to the gentleman from Mississippi's district. I have seen the recovery efforts down there, obviously a lot of devastation in those States, and a rebuilding program is going on. Quite honestly, I have to compliment the gentleman from Mississippi. They are doing a much better job of moving forward with their rebuilding program. But one of the things that we need to understand is these natural disasters affect all Americans, and that when we begin to ask this Congress to pass out resources to help people in America rebuild their lives, that we don't do it along State lines. And I agree with the gentleman, and I encourage everyone to support the gentleman's amendment. I think it is a very fair amendment. Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time and I ask the gentleman so I make sure I understand your amendment here, but currently the allocation is 75 percent for Louisiana and 25 percent for Mississippi. And all the gentleman is asking here is that Texas get 10 percent of this housing fund, 5 percent taken from Louisiana and 5 percent from Mississippi. So you're requesting 10 percent for the people of Texas that suffered the same devastation and loss as the people in Louisiana and Mississippi; is that correct? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).