it was by mr. oxley. this is an article written and voted from mr. oxley in the "financial times" last september, september 9, 2008 where he fumes against criticism that the house didn't try to rerm fannie mae and freddie mac a few years ago. he said all the hand wringing and bed-wetting is going on without remembering how the house stepped up on this to try to reform fannie mae and freddie mac he says what did we get from the white house? a white house that was controlled by the republicans. we got a, quote, one-finger is a lute, in trying to reform fannie -- salute, -- absolute in trying to reform -- salute in trying to reform fannie mae and freddie mac. we have been looking to reform fannie mae and freddie mac and looking for ways to cut costs and expenses. one of those places we're already doing something about which makes their suggestion look like peanut, that's in iraq. the republicans under the leadership of george bush and the republican congress cut the taxes for the wealthiest 1%, prosecuted two wars without paying for them, left wall stree

mr. oxley's -- tough and a mr. oxley's -- toughen up mr. oxley's bill. paul volcker says that sweeping financial reform legislation before congress would make the u.s. a model for tte world. "the u.s. would go from laggard to the parade if we get this legislation passed." i am glad thereeis a chance of getting international acceptance for the basic principles. he expects this to produceeof coherent legislation of package3 be helpful and i would say to my friends from tennessee -- i do not know why he said there was nothing in heee about mortgages. some tough regulation to ban the kind of irresponsible subprime mortgages we tried to get banned before but >> this is the largest rewrite of the bill since the great depression. work on the bill resumes tuesday morning, including votes on amendments on derivatives and the consumer protection agency. expect livv coverage on c- span3 and c-span.org. at the white house today, president obama met with members of congress, republicans and democrats. here is what the president had to say. for engaging in a substanti

>> did you ask mr. oxley about this? >> i spoke with him or an aide of his. when mr. barclay was a member of congress, he had an annual fund-raising event in vail. people would pay $5,000 or 10 dozen dollars for the privilege. when he retired, he figured he would still have that ski trip. he thought it was a lot of fun and he could raise money for his pac. members of congress still like having this political kiddie when they leave congress. he was still trying to raise money for it so he could give money back to candidates or do whatever he wanted with it. the $20,000 expenditure in vail was a fund-raiser to raise money for his pac. >> how closely can they track what they spend pac money on? >> part of the problem with this closure on capitol hill is that sometimes you disclose so much information, it is too much information to figure out. anyone can go to the fec.com website and look up someone's pac and other reports to see how money is spent. it is a lot of information. another quick way of doing it is to set up responsive politics, which is opensecrets.org. they a

very graphic quoteation from mr. oxley -- quotation from mr. oxley, chairman of the house financial services committee, saying it was the white house that stopped the changes that needed to be -- mr. sessions: will the gentleman yield? mr. perlmutter: and it was a billion dollars from those mortgages, from 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 under republican leadership that is weighing down fannie mae and freddie mac that under the democrats we offered conservatorship and that's what they're in now, like a bankruptcy. with that i'm going to yield two minutes to my friend, mr. ellison. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. ellison: mr. chairman, let me just correct one very, very serious flaw and that is to somehow blame the effort to -- blame the americans. this crisis has to due with a failure to regulate, a failure to give consumer protection to people who are getting mortgages that they couldn't pay for on tricky and unsound terms. because we are now going to have consumer protection bureau designed to protect those ver

he had an amendment to the bill of mr. oxley. mr. oxley, the republican chairman of the committee, brought up bill. if no democrat had voted either in committee or on the floor of the house on that bill, it would have worked exact -- it would have looked exactly as it looked. it was a majority of republicans. the gentleman from california, mr. royce, wasn't able to persuade a third of his fellow republicans to vote with him. i'm sorry he wasn't able to do better. i'm not an expert in how to get republicans to vote with him. i can't offer him any help. maybe he can find somebody to teach him how to get better votes among republicans. by the way, i did in 2003 say i didn't see a problem with fannie mae and freddie mac. in 2004, president bush said to fannie mae and freddie mac, i order you, he had the power and used it, he used it to order them to increase subprime lending purchases. he wasn't alone in that. june 22 article of "the wall street journal" quotes a member to have congress in 2005 in a hearing saying work the advent of subpr

the republican-controlled house chaired by mr. oxley and the committee passed a bill he objected to. he said i was successful in defeating it. i played a minor role under mr. delay and the republican leadership. mr. delay did not take advice from me. if mr. delay took advice from me, he wouldn't have gone on the dance show, i would have advised him against it. it was a republican house that passed the bill. he did offer an amendment. it was overwhelmingly defeated. more than 2/ of the republicans voted against it. my own view, yes, in 2003, i said there was no problem. in 2004 after president bush under republican control congress who didn't hinder him order fannie mae and freddie mac to increase the purchase of loans, i changed my position. i joined the republican leadership of the house as a fairly minor player in supporting legislation. he was against it. i just would make that point again. he also forgets to mention that-- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcgovern: 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: t