Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself the balance of my time. Yes, that is exactly the issue. The gentleman says, surprisingly to me, we want to increase the availability of credit. Let's understand the problem. Too many loans were made to people who shouldn't have gotten them. In some cases it was the fault of the borrower; in some cases it was the fault of the lender; and in some cases the fault lies elsewhere. Yes, one of the important purposes of this bill is to reduce the pattern of people getting loans who shouldn't have gotten them because they couldn't repay them. So to say that the purpose of this bill is to increase the availability of credit, is it to have more subprime loans, more borrowers who can't pay back? Now you want to do it with balance and you want to do it in a reasonable way. I believe we deal with that. If there are questions do we go too far one way or the other, those are legitimate. We discussed a lot of those in committee. There were a lot of amendments that were adopted. But I accept my colleague from Georgia's definition as the heart of the matter: Does this bill, if it is enacted, mean that fewer mortgage loans will be granted going forward than were granted in that period from 2002 to 2006, as the gentleman from Texas' amendment shows, when subprime mortgages shot up? I hope so. I hope that we will have fewer mortgages granted to people who couldn't have paid them. Now other people, we hope things will go better. With the FHA piece, we hope to do even more in making credit available.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first I guess I have to apologize to the gentleman from Georgia after listening to what he said. He chided me, mildly, in a friendly manner, for mentioning the dimensions of the safe harbor, he said it wasn't part of the bill, but I was only responding to his description of it. So I listened to him; he said the safe harbor was too narrow, it would push people into a 30- year. I responded. I thought when he raised it that it was relevant. Beyond that, though, we do have this issue: do you tell the Federal Reserve that it will decide whether or not this goes forward? It also says, and there is a lack of balance here. If it says it will reduce the availability by any amount. Well, to some extent the purpose of this bill is to reduce the availability of credit. If Members believe that people got mortgages who shouldn't have been able to get them, then they ought to support a bill that will reduce the availability of credit. Frankly, the profligate availability of credit is a major reason for the current problem. So, yes, there are people who used to get mortgages who won't get them under this bill. Some lenders don't like that. There are lenders who made loans and they won't be able to make the loans under this bill, but that is precisely the point. The point is not to allow credit to be as loosely granted as it was even for qualified mortgages. People got mortgages who shouldn't have gotten them. Now if you believe that not everyone who got a mortgage in the past should get a mortgage now, then it would seem to me you want to reduce the availability of credit. The question is: how do you do it? Do you do it in a sensible way? What is the balance? That is what we think is achieved in this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I believe it was premature to ask for a recorded vote because I had not yet been given my time and maybe cooler heads will prevail.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's description of the safe harbor refers to an earlier version of the bill. In the committee, a bipartisan amendment offered by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean) significantly increased the safe harbor so it is not a 30-year fixed mortgage only that is allowed. Variants of time, certain ARMs, it is much more flexible. The gentleman's comments apply accurately to a provision that is no longer in the bill; but it does not apply to what is in the bill. My second point is that I am surprised at the back-and-forth attitude some of my most conservative colleagues have toward the Federal Reserve system. On the one hand, there has been a great deal of concern, which I share, about the unlimited power of the Federal Reserve in some areas. But time and again we are being told, as in this amendment, we should yield to the Federal Reserve our constitutional power to legislate. This amendment says we will vote, but the bill will not go into effect until the Federal Reserve gives us permission. Now I have a good deal of confidence in Mr. Bernanke, but the notion that we would cede to the Federal Reserve the power to enact legislation, where is Ron Paul when we need him? When did the Federal Reserve become the constitutional equal of the Congress of the United States? So on that ground alone, I would oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, in the absence of any other Member, I will seek the time in opposition.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I commend this bipartisan effort to address an issue that is particularly important in their district. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise, in the absence of any other claimant, to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. We are going to support the amendment. I am puzzled as to what a rollcall would accomplish, except some missed planes. So I will now yield back the balance of my time and promise to vote ``yes'' very loudly.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman would yield, he said he is sorry the other body didn't move. There's a lot of that going around

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reconsider my hasty action and take back my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman for 30 seconds.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, in the absence of anyone else, I will claim this time in opposition.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, it says ``qualified mortgages.'' But part of the problem has been that people got mortgages with bad judgments by the people who made them.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. There are some basic rules like the ones of debate. Also, the fact that I said that to empower any prosecutor anywhere, at any level. And this isn't about ACORN. We don't sit here to judge on this or that organization. The gentlewoman said we don't judge guilt or innocence. Well, the amendment tries to do that. The amendment says: a guilty finding by statute; in the absence of a guilty finding, in a court of law. Because if there's a guilty finding in a court of law, under my amendment, then this denies funding to people. There are a lot of prosecutors. And it's not just ACORN. There are a lot of organizations, including political parties in the State of New Hampshire, near me. The Republican Party operatives were convicted of election fraud. I don't think that means you go after everybody else. It certainly didn't mean pending indictment you do this. There ought to be a bright line between penalties for indictment and for conviction. Now if the amendment had said a pattern of indictments, that's a different story. It might have been a better argument. But this says a single indictment of any individual by any prosecutor for any organization anywhere in American has these negative consequences. I think we have seen enough of prosecutorial misconduct, whether it was Senator Stevens or whether it was Members on both sides of the aisle, whether it has been organizations that have been prosecuted. I don't think we want to set that principle. Remember, this is precedential. Once we set as a body the legal principle--apparently, it was in the earlier bill. It shouldn't have been. If I missed that, I apologize. I want to now repudiate the notion that the action of a single prosecutor who may be politically motivated to indict anybody anywhere for election fraud, disables that organization, forces the organization to fire an individual who may later be vindicated. Yes, the gentlewoman said one of the employees of the organization that has motivated her amendment was convicted. My amendment says: in that case, you either fire the person or you lose the money. Conviction ought to be the standard. But a single indictment by a single prosecutor anywhere, I do not think that is the rule of law under which Americans wants to live. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No. The conviction triggers it. No question. That's what is in the amendment. My amendment says if you are convicted, it's triggered. But to say that any individual who works for any organization who's indicted, shuts it down. The gentlewoman said, Are you on the side of ACORN?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentlewoman from Minnesota said, ``Do we want to allow funding for people who employ people who are under investigation?'' Yes. I don't want to live in a society where the mere instituting of an investigation by any prosecutor anywhere shuts down lawful activities. Now, she said an organization that's under indictment, but the amendment goes far beyond that. Any individual member of an organization, no matter how far flung, apparently, according to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, if an investigation begins of anybody, you shut them down. The gentlewoman from Minnesota mentioned someone who has been convicted. Under the amendment I offered, that would end it. We would either have to fire that person or lose the funding.

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. I yield back the balance of my time.