Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, we are introducing legislation to make sure that the taxpayers are off the hook.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. We have introduced a bill to restore a provision that was knocked out by Republicans.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. It has been filed.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, last week. Last week.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 2 minutes. I regret the chairman's refusal to allow me to answer the question he asked. Yes, we just filed the bill because we are restoring a provision that was in the financial reform bill. The gentleman, who has shown very little regard for the taxpayer in his own vote sending money to Brazilian cotton farmers--and, by the way, I wish he had listened to Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen and not voted to force on them money for weapons systems they didn't want. They said those things when they tried to get the Congress not to give them weapons they didn't want, but many of my Republican friends, the majority, disregarded that. But in the TARP legislation we said that in 2013, when this program ends, any penny that was spent and not returned to the taxpayers will come from the banks, will come from the hedge funds. And we can anticipate Republican opposition to that, because in the financial reform bill last summer, already passed, not recently introduced, we say that for many of these programs to recover the costs of the foreclosure mitigation and dealing with the results of foreclosure, we would get it from large financial institutions. The Republicans objected to that, and the Republicans insisted in the Senate that it be knocked out. So every time we have tried to get money from the large financial institutions to pay for the costs of the damage their irresponsibility inflicted, the Republicans have opposed it. Again, when it came to Brazilian cotton farmers or weapons the Pentagon didn't want or infrastructure in Afghanistan or Iraq Security Forces, all of the things the gentleman from Alabama voted for that comes out of the taxpayers' hide, and then he votes against and opposes our legislation already passed and just reintroduced to have the large financial institutions pay for this. So his concern for taxpayers comes into play when we are trying to help people who are in need, but it is not in play when we are talking about heavy defense contractors, Brazilian and American cotton farmers, or the large financial institutions, because he and his fellow partisans have consistently fought every effort we have made to get the large financial institutions to bear this cost. But we do have still, as people will hear later, provisions to do that.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, the question was not the farm bill. It was the amendment from the gentleman from Wisconsin to cut out $150 million that is being voted subsequent to the farm bill to the cotton farmers of Brazil. We had an amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) not to pay $150 million a year to Brazilian cotton farmers. We were told that we had to do that because otherwise we would be in trouble. But we had an alternative. We could have knocked $150 million out of the subsidy to American cotton farmers. That's $300 million a year that we are losing. We have the second engine on the F-35. My friend on the other side, the gentleman from Alabama, quoted the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying national security is at risk, but then they vote against him and force on him money he doesn't want. The gentleman from Alabama voted for a second engine. The administration, at the request of Secretary Gates, said he'd veto the bill if that happened. So it does seem to me a little odd to quote the Secretary of Defense and the Admiral, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the problems of debt and then vote for money over their objection. So those are things I would do. Brazilian cotton farmers, I would have limited the amount that we pay others. There's a couple of other major flaws here. We've heard several times from people on the majority side that more people are hurt than helped by HAMP. That appears nowhere in anybody's testimony. Neil Barofsky didn't say it. La Raza didn't say it. They said some people are hurt. I will yield if the gentleman wants to point to any document that says more people were hurt than helped.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman quoted Barofsky, quoted La Raza. Those figures are nowhere in there. And their credit is not worse off because they're in the program. That's the fundamental flaw. What they are saying is--and people have said, the gentlewoman from Illinois--go to the private sector. The problem, by the way, that La Raza has is this is too much private sector. La Raza's problem here is that the problem is that it leaves too much to the private sector. The private sector does the easy stuff. The notion that more people are hurt than helped is simply nonexistent. By the way, we've always heard from my Republican friends that we shouldn't be the nanny state, to let people make choices. No one is forced to go into this program. If they can go into another program, they can make it better. The final point I want to make is this. Yes, there is a question about who pays for it. Under the TARP bill that we passed, it is mandated that in 2013 we get money from the financial institutions for this. In the financial reform bill that passed the House, we had a provision that required that that assessment be made right away. In the conference report on financial reform, we had an assessment on the financial institutions, those above $50 billion in assets, except hedge funds above $10 billion. We have had three legislative efforts to assess these costs on the financial institutions. The Republicans have opposed every one, unfortunately, with some success; although, we still have one left. The final point I would make is this. Yes, the HAMP program has a lot of problems. Solutions cannot be more elegant than the problems they seek to resolve. The absence of any program leaves people worse off. The Republicans successfully defeated efforts to give bankruptcy powers. They have successfully opposed efforts to make the banks pay for this. So they set up a program which, thanks to them, at least for now, looks like it comes from the taxpayers--although we'll be able to recover that money--which has no leverage over the private sector, and then they object to it. So I would say again, Mr. Chairman, look at the votes on subsidizing Brazilian cotton farmers or a second engine or money for infrastructure in Afghanistan or security in Iraq. Billions of dollars collectively in all those programs, which my Republican friends, including the advocates on the other side of killing this program, voted for. We have a program here that will be paid for by assessments on the large financial institutions if the Republicans aren't successful and once again go to their rescue. It is a program that people go to voluntarily. They have a right to go purely to a private sector program. If that doesn't work, they can go in here. It has not helped everybody. The fact that some people didn't get a modification here I regret, and I wish we'd give them more power, but it doesn't mean they are worse off. A few are worse off. Nobody quoted and said a majority were worse off. I hope the program is continued.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have the right to close, and I am my only speaker.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, I claim the time in opposition, and I'm the only speaker, so I will reserve my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Has the gentleman used up all the time?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I apologize. I heard him say reserve, and I misunderstood that. I will say about this amendment that it is harmless and perfectly okay for people to claim credit for what's already been done, kind of like going to a taxidermist and shooting the bear. If this amendment didn't happen, the same result would be there. But here's the result: temporarily this comes out of tax funds. But because it's TARP money, it's subject to a--and by the way, we passed an amendment that says it goes back to the Treasury temporarily. I say ``temporarily'' because over Republican objections, and I hope they're going to relent in these, we put into the TARP legislation language that says that in 2013 whatever hasn't been paid back from the TARP to the general Treasury will be assessed to financial institutions. What that means is that if this does have a net cost to the Treasury, in 2013 the President in power at that time will be directed to send us legislation to require that this come out of the large financial institutions, that is, nothing from the Treasury. Now, I say I'm worried about it because we've had two further instances of this which the Republicans have opposed. We've just had a package of four bills. Two of them came out of the financial reform bill, their financing did: help for the unemployed homeowners and the neighborhood stabilization program. In the version of the bill that we put first in the conference, that money was to be recovered by an assessment on banks with $50 billion or more and hedge funds with $10 billion or more; and Republican opposition to it killed it. So, yes, it is true that temporarily, now, the unemployed homeowners and the neighborhood stabilization come out of the Treasury. We have filed legislation, and I just refiled it last week, but it goes back to where we were in July that would take it from the large financial institutions. Similarly, by the way, in the financial reform bill we had a provision that said, over Republican objections, that the FDIC would immediately assess the amount that we thought we would need for the TARP on the large financial institutions. So let's be very clear. If we carry out our promises and commitments, this money will not come out of the taxpayer; it will come out of the TARP. It will come out of the large financial institutions. I can't say the same for certain other wasteful spending. Members on the other side insisted, for example, in overriding the objection of Secretary Gates to the second engine. Now, the gentleman from Texas voted with Secretary Gates and me, and I appreciate that. But a majority of Republicans voted to give him the second engine, even though he said he'd tell the President to veto the bill. People disregarded, a majority in the House, on both sides, the request that the Osprey be killed. In other words, people cite Secretary Gates and cite Admiral Mullen, but we still hear on the Republican side criticism of them for trying to live up to their own words when they say, well, we're going to limit military spending. I don't think it is a reasonable policy to cite their worries about the deficit and then override them in specific cases. And we also have, of course--and here the Pentagon wanted it, I think they were wrong-- $1.2 billion my colleagues voted for--I voted against it--to spend money to build up the security forces of Iraq. You talk about money not being well spent. At its worst, I cannot imagine anyone thinking that any foreclosure program here would be spent worse than it is being spent in Iraq. By the way, the Inspector General did say he was critical of the program. When asked by the gentleman's Texas colleague, Mr. Green of Houston, he said, no, he would not abolish it. He specifically said he wouldn't abolish it. He was asked that in the hearing and said no. And we have consistently heard from the other side a statistic they have never yet validated, that more people were harmed than helped. None of the people they quote say that. Yes, it's a program that's difficult because we wouldn't do bankruptcy and we have left the voluntary decision in the hands of the private sector. That's why this argument that the private sector can do it better is so nonsensical. It is the refusal of the private sector to fully participate in this program in its full spirit that's been the problem.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am indifferent. Well, I'm against the amendment. I take it back. I am against the amendment because I had to be against the amendment to get the time to speak. So I am against the amendment. But I'm not against the amendment on substantive grounds. I'm against it on aesthetic grounds. I hate to clutter things up with an amendment that doesn't do anything. Well, let me go back to the substance. The substance is that we have a false claim that this is because of the taxpayers, when the TARP will make sure that it doesn't come out of the taxpayers, the TARP legislation. And Members who vote to send money, $1.2 billion, to build up the security forces of Iraq, please don't have them tell me, Mr. Chairman, that they're for efficient spending. The security forces in Iraq. How about Afghan infrastructure? The majority voted to send money to Afghanistan for infrastructure. There is a great mark of efficiency.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first, any suggestion that this is any way disrespectful of the sacrifice of our troops is nonsense. Saying that we do not want brave Americans to continue in a very difficult situation in which they are at a great disadvantage and that in fact we would like to bring them home is no criticism of them at all, and nothing undermines their ability to be there. There is a policy decision as to whether they should be there. Now my friend from Washington and my friend from California have said, well, this isn't the right forum parliamentarily, and my friend from Washington said, yes, we should have a change in strategy but not this way. But this is all we've got. Right now, the Members have a choice, and that's the way this place is now being run: Either you vote for this resolution or you vote it down and you give an implicit and, in some cases, explicit approval to the administration to stay there indefinitely. General Petraeus said the other day he sees us jointly there with the Afghans well after 2014. Now, yes, there is some gain we could get in deterring terrorism there, although the notion that if we stop terrorism in Afghanistan, that's going to be the end of it when there are unfortunately other places in the world--Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, elsewhere. We can't plug every hole in the world. And in fact this is an effort that, having been tried for 10 years, has not, unfortunately, looked to me like it's going to succeed. We're told, well, but this was important because we deterred an attack on Europe. But where are the Europeans? The thing that most astounded me today was when my friend from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) said, well, what about our 47 coalition partners? What about them? They're sitting this one out. They're pulling out. This is a virtually unilateral American action with a couple of flags that we fly for a few other countries. Some of them did have people there and they've suffered casualties, but they're all withdrawing, leaving us alone. And then let's talk about the cost of this war. The gentleman from Ohio said it's not a fiscal issue. Of course it is. This war costs us well over $100 billion a year. You will see Americans die from a lack of police and fire and public safety here if you continue to fund this futile war.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Please instruct the gentleman as to the rules. He is blatantly wrong. It is not simply purchasing property. This gives the city money, and maybe that's why they are so wrong on this. They don't understand the program. It includes giving the city money to go in----

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself another minute, because these people take a lot of work to get them to explain it. The fact is that it isn't simply to buy it from a responsible owner. It includes money, as we have tried to explain to them, to demolish property. In fact, in the cities of Detroit and Cleveland, they specifically asked us--the gentlewoman from Los Angeles amended it--you can use city money to demolish property when there is no owner. So, no, there is no--you don't write a check to someone who has abandoned the property. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I reclaim my time to point out the evasion.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that the gentleman has just explained why this is bad for the cities. Every organization representing cities and counties and local governments and local economic development agencies disagree with him. They have written to us and asked us to support this program because he is simply wrong about the tax implications.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No. I will yield for the purpose of asking the gentleman a question. He said it's possible to find the address and the owner. I am asking him to live up to what he said. Can he tell us who the owner is? He's got the picture of the property. He says, no, you don't have to spend public money to tear it down. Go after the responsible owner. I ask the gentleman, can he tell us who is the responsible owner? I yield to the gentleman.