Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman is quite wrong. I said--and he didn't listen, as he may not have listened to the gentleman from Alabama, because he didn't express disagreement with him--I said, If people are meeting their obligation under the bill that we put forward and under the Federal Reserve's rules, if you're meeting your obligations, if you're making your payments on time, they cannot raise your rates retroactively. I see members of the staff checking it out. They will find out what I'm saying is accurate. If you are meeting your obligations, you cannot have the rate raised. What the gentleman from Texas said is, Suppose you lose your job. Well, losing your job, if you are otherwise meeting your obligations, should not mean that they can raise your rate retroactively. We are only talking about in this bill retroactive raises. There is no limitation going forward. Now the gentleman from Alabama also said, Well, if the Federal Reserve is right--the gentleman from Texas doesn't like what the Federal Reserve did--the gentleman from Alabama said, If the Federal Reserve is right, why don't you stop there? Because we do some things the Federal Reserve doesn't do, one. Two, because many of us believe--and I have to say, my conservative friends flip-flop on the Federal Reserve issue with a speed that dazzles me. Sometimes the Federal Reserve is this undemocratic institution which people worry about. Other times we should delegate significant legislative authority to them. I'm glad they acted. By the way, the Federal Reserve only acted after party control of the Congress changed. In 2007 we began to move on this, and then they acted. There's another side point. Let me say this. Several of my colleagues said, Well, this has got good stuff in it. It's got disclosure. You know, if the Republicans, when they were in the majority, had broken out of this absolute slavish assumption that no regulation is ever any good, in effect--they don't say it quite like that, but that is the practical effect--if they had, when they were in power from 1995 to 2006, passed something that had the good parts of this bill, we might have not been here today on this bill because that might have chastened the companies. So they now find things in this bill that they like, but they refuse to do them. The gentleman from New York was pushing for some of this. During their 12 years--and by the way, that's a pattern. During the 12 years of Republican rule, there were no financial regulations. There was some deregulation. There was nothing about the subprime or credit cards. We came to power and have begun to deal with it. We are dealing with the negative consequences of lack of regulation. But to go back to the point, we go beyond the Federal Reserve. There is one area where, regrettably, we don't go beyond the Federal Reserve. The gentleman from Alabama correctly noted that our colleague from Illinois (Mr. Schock) had a good amendment involving your credit rating. Unfortunately, while we accepted that amendment, it was left out of the final bill because of the objections of the ranking Senate Republican, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Shelby. I fought for the inclusion of the gentleman from Illinois' amendment. I spoke to him. I urged him to join in, but it was reported to me by the leadership of the committee that that amendment from the gentleman from Illinois was unfortunately rejected by the objections of Mr. Shelby. So we didn't get that one. We did get a very good amendment that the Federal Reserve didn't have, sponsored by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), to require that the estate of a decedent be correctly done. We also have some rules in here about not sending credit cards to people under 18. By the way, the notion that this market works perfectly is somewhat rebutted by the fact that we're told that one of the crises now coming is credit card debt that's going to be a problem, securitized credit card debt because there were some imprudent things. So if this bill means that there will be some credit cards that won't be issued, good. Because they have been imprudent in doing that. But people who pay will not have a problem. So just in summary, this bill does not restrict credit card interest going forward. Maybe that's what they did in the United Kingdom. It does not interfere with small business, in the opinion of the National Federation of Independent Business. It agrees with the Federal Reserve that you should not raise rates retroactively. On that one, it's the gentleman from Alabama, the Federal Reserve, and myself; the gentleman from Texas and some others who are on the other side, a legitimate difference of opinion. But we also have some consumer protections not in what the Federal Reserve did. I would also say, this notion that we should leave public policy to the unelected Federal Reserve and that Congress should not step in also and act I think is one that underestimates the role of elected officials and democracy in our country. Now I disagreed with the gun amendment. I wish it hadn't been in there. I don't control the rules in the Senate. I intend to vote against it. In my judgment, the value of the credit card bill outweighs the harm that I think that would do. I would say, some Members on the other side may have a dilemma. Many of them strongly welcomed the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma. But understand that unless both pieces pass, nothing passes. So no matter how strongly you support the gentleman from Oklahoma's amendment, if Members succeed in defeating the credit card part of it, that fails. I do have to caution them that the Federal Reserve cannot come to their rescue, as they are prone to have it do. They may want to delegate legislative powers to the Federal Reserve. I don't. But I do not think the Federal Reserve, in the most expansive reading of section 13(3), can mandate that you carry a gun in a national park. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the credit card part passes, that the gun part does not; but in any case, I hope that this bill is sent to the President.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I repeat, the National Federation of Independent Businesses says this is good for small businesses, this bill, because they have been victimized. It will in no way cause there to be a failure to offer a credit card to a business that can pay it back. Nothing in this bill remotely suggests that. There was also, as I said, a somewhat implausible argument. The New York Times quoted people in the credit card industry saying, If you do this, we won't like it, and we may raise rates. The notion that if we pass this bill rates will be raised on the great majority makes this mistake. The assumption is that there is money now laying on the table that the beneficent credit card companies voluntarily forgo. Under the principles of free enterprise, the business is legally entitled and motivated to charge as much as it can. That argument only makes sense if you think they are voluntarily reducing money that they could get from some of the customers. Of course, they're not. No one expects them to. But the most important thing here is the conflict that I see in my friend on the other side. The gentleman from Alabama repeatedly said what we should do is stick with the Federal Reserve's rules. The gentleman from Texas, as I heard him, didn't say that. There's a difference here. This is a case--and maybe they caught it, and maybe not. It may be one of those cases where the right hand doesn't know what the far-right hand is saying. Because to the extent that there is any restriction on rates, it is identical in the Federal Reserve's rules as in this bill. So there is a fundamental difference between the approach taken by the gentleman from Alabama and the gentleman from Texas. The gentleman from Alabama says, Adopt what the Fed said. The gentleman from Texas specifically objected to that provision in our committee. And what the New York Times article is aimed at--the quotes from the credit card people--is that provision that's in the Federal Reserve. By the way, it does nothing to cap interest rates going forward. That is a straw argument. The only restriction on rates here, on interest rates, is to say that you cannot raise them retroactively. Now the Federal Reserve also says that. So the gentleman from Alabama agrees. The gentleman from Texas, who's an honest believer in no restrictions, says ``no.'' In fact, in our committee debate he cited an example of when he thought a company would be justified in raising rates retroactively. He said, Suppose someone owes a company interest on debt already incurred and has been meeting the regular scheduled payments, but either goes to prison or loses his or her job. The gentleman from Texas said, If you have been paying the credit card company on a regular basis, and you lose your job, they should be legally allowed to raise the rates on what you already owe them. We disagree. So does the Federal Reserve. So, apparently, does the gentleman from Alabama, because he supports what the Federal Reserve says.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 456, I take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 627) to amend the Truth in Lending Act to establish fair and transparent practices relating to the extension of credit under an open end consumer credit plan, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee who is one of the coauthors of this important bill, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Maffei).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, to begin the debate, I recognize the major author and chief advocate for the credit card bill, dating back several years, and it is her diligent effort that is paying off today for the American consumer, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for 4 minutes.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. The gentleman referred to money added to the budget. He talked about the bailout, et cetera. I would remind Members that the $700 billion was asked for by the Bush administration, and it passed with Democratic support and the support of a significant minority on the Republican side, including the Republican leadership and a very heavy majority of Republican Senators. So, yes, that $700 billion was voted at the request of the Bush administration, with substantial bipartisan support. There was, of course, also the matter of another $700 billion-or-so in the war in Iraq which I voted against. So I do regret some of these extra expenditures, but the responsibility is hardly that of one party. And now I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me begin by responding to the gentleman from Texas' reference to small business. The National Federation of Independent Business supports this bill. So the suggestion that this will somehow have a negative effect on small business is repudiated by the active support for the bill of the organization that has generally been identified as the major spokes-organization for that, the National Federation of Independent Business. Secondly, there was a premise here that I find very faulty. The gentleman from Texas quoted the New York Times and others, and they have said--Mr. Speaker, I'm going to interrupt myself at this point, if I may. The chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior has come in. I assume he wanted to speak. I will now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 627 and include extraneous material thereon.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this legislation.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the chairwoman of the Housing Subcommittee which played a major role in our efforts to deal with this crisis.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this is our sending back to the Senate a version of a bill which we passed earlier this year. They then passed the bill in a form very close to ours, but in a couple of areas where we felt it important to insist on our original position and also to include some things that came up in the interim from the administration. It has several purposes. One, it enhances the ability of the executive branch to reduce the number of foreclosures. Last year Congress passed the HOPE for Homeowners program, which we hoped was going to reduce foreclosures. We didn't get it right. We had a good general idea, but it was passed in a form that was not very usable. We have learned from the experience, and we have a version here that we think is going to work much better. It includes, for instance, at the request of HUD, a provision that will allow them to deal with the problem of second mortgages, which has been an interference in our ability to get foreclosures. It also includes, as it did originally, a very good version of the safe harbor for services. That was a bipartisan idea of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) to encourage those who are in charge of the mortgage process to act when it makes more sense to write down the mortgage and avoid foreclosure. It gives them the legal ability to do that and withstand frivolous lawsuits. It also has some provisions in here that are very important to those smaller financial institutions that are the lifeblood of our communities and which have been unfairly tarnished in this most recent debate over financial institutions. Community banks and the Independent Community Bankers of America have a letter here, which I will put into the Record, which supports this bill. Community banks were facing a significant increase in the assessment they get for deposit insurance. That was true. And this bill will extend the deposit insurance, which was temporarily at $250,000, and makes it permanent. That's very important for the smaller banks. It has to be paid for. But also there were problems with the larger banks who got in trouble. Absent this bill, community banks would have been facing a very significant increase in their assessment. Because this bill gives the FDIC borrowing authority, standby authority in case it's needed, they will not have to raise the assessment. The FDIC has to be ready to act. And if there was not the borrowing authority, they would have to raise the assessment to have a pool of money available. They have been, under Sheila Bair's leadership, a very thoughtful and responsible organization. Borrowing authority we will do. It's in here. Similarly, there was a problem that threatened a significant increase in the assessment that our local credit unions would have to pay because of the failure of some large credit unions. There's a pattern here of the larger institutions' failure imposing costs on the smaller. It's our job to prevent that from happening. What we have here is a provision that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) has worked on. We worked with the National Credit Union Administration. It provides a mechanism by which the significant increased assessment on the credit union can be avoided. That's why the National Credit Union Association has sent in a letter in support of this. We will, as I said, be reducing foreclosures and helping the mortgage market. So the National Association of REALTORS has sent in a letter in support of this. And because it is good for the banking industry in general, the American Bankers Association has supported this. Our major financial institution representatives support this bill. As I said, it enhances our ability to reduce foreclosures. It averts significant increases in assessments that would go to the credit unions and the community banks. It also includes language which we have been working on and this House had passed, and it was bipartisan in our committee, improving the programs for the homeless. We made several important compromises on that. The gentlewoman from West Virginia who is here as the ranking member of the Housing Subcommittee on our committee worked on this. We incorporated that in this bill. So it is widely supported by people who are in the field of the homeless. It is, in general, an important piece of legislation that responds as well as we can to this foreclosure crisis. Myself and a majority of the House clearly would have preferred if it had included the authority of bankruptcy courts to reduce mortgages on primary residences. We passed that in the House. It failed in the Senate. Our colleague from California (Ms. Lofgren) and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, and others made a very valiant effort to resuscitate it. It was not possible. I regret that. I hope we won't give up on that. I think it's a glaringly illogical and unfair part of the law, but it would be a mistake, in my judgment, to allow that failure to get the votes that we tried to get in the Senate to stop the very many other important parts of the bill. So, as I said, I move to suspend the rules. I hope we can send this soon to the President. If we pass this bill, it will go to the Senate; and I believe that the Senate will adopt it and send it on to the President. Independent Community Bankers of America, May 18, 2009. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I did want to respond, and I appreciate the support from the gentlewoman for the bill. With regard to the FHA, I just want to read from the National Association of REALTORS letter because they, as much as any entity in this country, have an interest in a strong FHA. Contrary to the wishes expressed by the gentlewoman from West Virginia, the REALTORS approve of the fact that we are improving the HOPE for Homeowners program. It says, ``The bill reforms the HOPE for Homeowners program, preserving benefits to homeowners while limiting risks to the FHA fund and the taxpayer. The bill also strengthens oversight of FHA-approved lenders to protect the FHA Fund and taxpayers from fraud and abuse.'' At the hearing that we had earlier this year--and that was when the Bush administration was still in power--career employees of the FHA noted that they do not have, and will not have until this bill becomes law, the power to prevent applicants for FHA funding who have a record of abuse from applying again. So at the initiative of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), we added that to this language. So what this bill includes is a very important power for the FHA to debar, to use the appropriate legal term, people who have had a record of fraud. That's one of the reasons why we think that the FHA is strengthened by this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 896) to prevent mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability, as amended.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform be discharged from further consideration of House Resolution 49 and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform be discharged from further consideration of House Resolution 70 and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, Alan Blinder is a man of great intelligence, excellent judgment, and considerable experience in both making and analyzing national economic policy. In this article from last Sunday's New York Times, he draws on all of these qualities to give us some excellent advice. I can think of no more relevant subject for my colleagues to contemplate as we deal with important economic choices. [From the New York Times, May 17, 2009] It's No Time to Stop This Train (By Alan S. Blinder) Contrary to what you may have heard from some doomsayers, 2009 is not 1930 redux. What we must guard against, instead, is 2010 or 2011 becoming another 1936. Realistically, there is little danger that the economy is heading toward a repeat performance of the Great Depression-- when real gross domestic product in the United States declined 27 percent and unemployment soared to 25 percent. What we have is bad enough: our worst recession since the 1930s. But unless our leaders behave unbelievably foolishly, we will not repeat the tragic slide into the abyss of 1930 to 1933--for two main reasons. First, our economy has many built-in safeguards that did not exist back then--like unemployment insurance, Social Security and federal deposit insurance, to name just three. These programs serve as safety nets that cushion the fall. And while they are certainly not strong enough to prevent recessions, they should be enough to prevent another depression. The more important reason is that Barack Obama, Timothy F. Geithner and Ben S. Bernanke are not Herbert Hoover, Andrew Mellon and Eugene Meyer. (Who's that? Mr. Meyer was the Federal Reserve chairman from September 1930 to May 1933.) In stark contrast to the laissez-faire crowd that ruled the roost in 1930 and 1931, our current economic leaders are not waiting for the sagging economy to right itself. Rather, they have taken numerous extraordinary steps already--and stand ready to do more if necessary. That's the good news. But even if another depression is next to impossible, there is still the danger that next year, or the year after, might turn into 1936. Let me explain. From its bottom in 1933 to 1936, the G.D.P. climbed spectacularly (albeit from a very low base), averaging gains of almost 11 percent a year. But then, both the Fed and the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt reversed course. In the summer of 1936, the Fed looked at the large volume of excess reserves piled up in the banking system, concluded that this mountain of liquidity could be fodder for future inflation, and began to withdraw it. This tightening of monetary policy continued into 1937, in a weak economy that was ill-prepared for it. About the same time, President Roosevelt looked at what seemed to be enormous federal budget deficits, concluded that it was time to put the nation's fiscal house in order and started raising taxes and reducing spending. This tightening of fiscal policy transformed the federal budget from a deficit of 3.8 percent of G.D.P. in 1936 to a surplus of 0.2 percent of G.D.P. in 1937--a swing of four percentage points in a single year. (Today, a swing that large would be almost $600 billion.) Thus, both monetary and fiscal policies did an abrupt about-face in 1936 and 1937, and the consequences were as predictable as they were tragic. The United States economy, which had been rapidly climbing out of the cellar from 1933 to 1936, was kicked rudely down the stairs again, and America experienced the so-called recession within the depression. Real G.D.P. contracted 3.4 percent from 1937 to 1938; the total G.D.P. decline during the recession, which lasted from mid-1937 to mid-1938, was even larger. The moral of the story should be clear: Prematurely changing fiscal and monetary policies--from stepping hard on the accelerator to slamming on the brake--can be hazardous to the economy's health. Wow, we've learned a lot since the '30s, right? Well, maybe not. For the echoes of 1936 are being heard right now, even before the current recession hits bottom. If you've been paying attention, you know that a number of critics of the Fed are sounding alarms over the huge stockpile of excess reserves it has created--more than $775 billion at last count. What these critics are fretting about now is exactly what goaded the Fed into action in 1936: that the vast pool of loose money will ultimately be inflationary. The clear inference is that some of it should be withdrawn before it's too late. On the fiscal side, many of President Obama's critics are complaining vociferously about the huge federal budget deficits. Try to ignore, if you can, the sheer hypocrisy of many Congressional Republicans who, having never uttered a peep about the huge deficits under George W. Bush, are suddenly models of budget probity. But whatever the motives, the worries of today's deficit hawks sound eerily reminiscent of Roosevelt in 1936 and 1937. Fortunately, Mr. Bernanke is a keen student of the Great Depression who will not allow the Fed to repeat the errors of 1936-37. But his critics, both inside and outside the Fed, are already branding his policies as dangerously inflationary, and no Fed chairman wants to be called an inflationist. Similarly, I hope and believe that President Obama will not transform himself from the spendthrift Roosevelt of 1933 to the deficit-hawk Roosevelt of 1936--at least not until the economy is back on solid ground. That said, a growing flock of budget hawks are already showing their talons. They will have their day--but please, not yet. To avoid a replay of the policy disasters of 1936-37, both the Fed and our elected officials must stay the course. Mark Twain once explained that, while history does not repeat itself, it often rhymes. We don't want any rhymes just now.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I have long believed that people who denounce partisanship in general fail to understand the role that responsible political parties can and must play in a functioning democracy. But there are cases when partisanship gets a bad name because of the kind of advocacy it receives, and those of us who believe that partisanship can be a constructive force have an obligation to dissociate ourselves from this. The most recent example of this I have seen was reported in CQ Today on Thursday, May 7, in the article on the front page headlined ``Luntz Shapes GOP Messages on Health Care.'' In the article, which summarizes Mr. Luntz's message and in some cases quotes him directly, the writer summarizes part of his message as follows: ``While Republicans might not be able to get their own ideas enacted, he went on, they could at least stop Democrats from achieving the political victory created by a successful revision of the healthcare system.'' Note, Madam Speaker, that these words are not directly attributed to Mr. Luntz, but I have no reason to think that Mr. Armstrong in any way distorted the essence of Mr. Luntz's message in his summary. And later in the article, in a direct quote, describing the words that Republicans should use in carrying on their effort to stop the Democrats from a successful health care policy, Mr. Luntz is directly quoted as saying ``I could care less about matching the words to the policies . . .'' Madam Speaker, obviously Republican Members of the Congress are free to accept or reject Mr. Luntz's partisanship of the wrong sort, but it does seem to be relevant that he was invited to address a Republican gathering and was, according to the article, warmly received by many. For example, the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa, is quoted as saying ``We look to him for how do we express the things that we believe in ways that are effective.'' Madam Speaker, the notion that a significant number of Republicans would have as their central purpose in the healthcare debate not adopting a policy or even modifying one, but rather simply preventing the Democrats from being successful in meeting the nation's healthcare needs, is sufficiently disturbing that I believe this article should be reprinted here so that people can fully understand the dimensions of the debate in which we now find ourselves. [From CQ Today, May 6, 2009] Luntz Shapes GOP Messages on Health Care (By Drew Armstrong) Republican message guru Frank Luntz is back--this time to help Republicans try to win the war of words as they battle Democrats on overhauling health care. Speaking at a closed-door session with House Republicans on Wednesday, Luntz said the GOP needs to get away from ``markets'' and focus on ``patients.'' And while Republicans might not be able to get their own ideas enacted, he went on, they could at least stop Democrats from achieving the political victory created by a successful revision of the health care system. For example, he said, the GOP should throw private health insurance companies under the bus. ``For 10 years we were carrying the water of the insurance companies because they were backing us on health care,'' he said. ``Well, they're not anymore. They've sold out, so now you can go right back at them, because the American people blame the insurance companies more than almost anybody else for why health care is such a mess in this country right now. So you don't have to be nice to them at all.'' A detailed account of the presentation was given to Congressional Quarterly by multiple people who attended the session. Luntz, the author of the book ``Words That Work,'' about the political effect of specific phrases and words, offered Republicans a detailed presentation on what language to use when talking about health care and how to attack Democratic proposals, along with a long list of ``don'ts.'' Republicans will get little chance to present their own vision, Luntz warned, but they will have plenty of opportunities to stand in opposition to Democrats. ``You're not going to get what you want, but you can kill what they're trying to do,'' he said. Republicans need to start defining specific words on favorable terms in order to win, he said, specifically pointing out President Obama's promises of a high-quality health care system. And they need to make sure that voters think ``quality'' means getting the health care they want whenever they want it. ``Don't let them define it. If you define it this way, they can't do well,'' he said of Democrats. ``They can't provide that treatment. They can't provide that health care.'' From ``Private'' to ``Patients'' Much of Luntz's presentation was an attempt to correct the way Republicans talk with voters about health care. He urged them to stop using economic terminology like ``free market'' and ``private'' and to talk instead about ``doctors,'' ``nurses'' and ``patients.'' ``If you use the phrase ``private health insurance market competition,'' you deserve to be down to 160 seats in the House, because nobody understands that language,'' Luntz said. He also had advice for choosing the photos in mailers sent to constituents: ``Get pictures of seniors that look like they make apple pie every day forever, and the children who look so angelic that it just makes you feel compassionate, which I know is sometimes tough for people in this room,'' he said. And he called on Republicans, when describing the consequences of the Democratic proposals, to use language that would scare voters. ``What's the word that people are afraid of?'' Luntz said. ``Deny.'' ``The idea that a doctor or a hospital would deny care that they need is what frightens them the most about a Washington takeover,'' he said. Luntz came to the presentation with polling data, all done in the last few months, to back him up. ``Each of these words has been carefully chosen. This is not random, this is not gut. I could care less about matching the words to the policies, I have no investment in the words--except that these are the words that the American people want,'' he said. Luntz, who helped craft Republican messages through the 1990s, was a fixture in Washington GOP circles until 2005, when he left for Hollywood after an alleged falling-out with House Republican leader John A. Boehner of Ohio. He returned to Capitol Hill Wednesday, at the invitation of the House Republican Conference, to try to focus the message on health care. Gathered in a meeting room of the Cannon House Office Building, lawmakers and aides applauded as Luntz was introduced. ``Welcome home!'' shouted one attendee. ``We've reached out to Frank,'' said House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence, R-Ind. ``I would say, enthusiastically, Frank is back.'' Republicans who attended the meeting said they were glad to have him back. ``We look to him for how do we express the things that we believe in ways that are effective,'' said Darrell Issa, R-Calif. ``He told us to stop talking like a bunch of wonks and politicians and start talking like people,'' said Michael C. Burgess, R-Texas, who has become a prominent voice on health care issues. Recommending a Change in ``Tone'' At times, Luntz badgered the members, castigating them for their failures of political acumen--and for the ringtones on their cell phones. At one point, he was clearly angry over leaks to the media earlier in the day that described parts of his presentation. When an audience member asked if Luntz would e-mail the slides he was using, he fired back, ``I will forward you the PowerPoint so that way I can then read it in some newspaper two days from now. What the hell?'' And as Luntz urged members to focus on healthy lifestyles and wellness, Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, piped up: ``I don't want to live that kind of life.'' ``You don't want to live that kind of life?'' Luntz asked. ``Yeah, you're eating your BBQ. Clearly you don't want to live that kind of life,'' he went on, to some laughter. ``Hey, ribs are a food group,'' an unidentified member called out, to which Luntz responded: ``His ribs could actually get up and walk out of the office.'' When a cell phone belonging to F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., started ringing, Luntz told a young aide that Sensenbrenner needed to change the ringtone. ``That's gonna be your job, when Sensenbrenner comes back in here,'' Luntz said to the aide, though Sensenbrenner had not actually left the room--and let Luntz know it. ``You need to get him a telephone ring for the 21st century,'' Luntz continued, ``Like `Play that funky music, white boy.' Something much more interesting.''

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of H.R. 1728, 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 accurately reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.