Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, when a Member says he is reserving his time to close, is it permissible to split it? I just, for the future of the bill, want to know that. I had assumed the gentleman was closing, and I thought only one Member closes.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman would yield, that was also in the manager's amendment, so it will not be offered. It's in the manager's amendment.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), who hasn't had enough floor time this week.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman would yield, with regard to the permanent audit team, they may be the largest institutions, and that is a somewhat separate question, but for those who don't have a permanent audit team, not only would it be better for the regulated entity, it would be better for the CFPA. As any agency, they will have limited resources. If you have a bank that has $13-, $14-, $17 billion in assets and has had a good record, as most of those banks have had in consumer affairs, it would be a great waste of regulatory resources to be doing that when they would have the option, instead, of simply sending a CFPA member to join the other team. So, yes, I would hope that the CFPA would take full advantage of this authority with those banks.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I offer this statement to indicate that I agree with the interpretation of the Gentleman from North Carolina regarding his interpretation of the secured creditor haircut portion of the Manager's Amendment. Apparently, there are some people who feel that, even with the improvements to this provision in the Manager's Amendment, there are some who might interpret this incorrectly, and I would agree with the Gentleman that very explicit language reaffirming this interpretation could usefully be added at conference time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We are trying here to prevent fraud in the various programs. In the subprime mortgage bill, which we are reenacting here, which the House voted on, we put in some very strict restrictions against people who had a pattern or a history of fraud. But the gentleman from Maryland pointed out quite correctly that it was overly rigid, that it excluded, in the case of someone he knew, someone who many, many years ago had been involved in an unrelated situation where culpability was uncertain, there was a criminal conviction, and what this does is to provide some needed flexibility for minor offenses that were long ago. I thank the gentleman for calling it to our attention. We were pleased to be able to make this change.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller), who is an important author of much of this bill.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to one of the strongest advocates of fairness and equity, and critics of lack of action to stop the foreclosure process, the gentlewoman from California, the Chair of the Housing Subcommittee, Ms. Waters.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. What is the time remaining on both sides, please, Madam Chair?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chairman. Is it not in order for the gentleman from California to offer his amendment now?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kilroy), a very diligent member of the committee.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I rise to offer amendment No. 1.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to my colleague from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentlewoman will yield, as the gentlewoman knows, there was a clerical glitch at the last minute so that we missed by a very narrow margin a submission time for the Rules Committee. And what I am glad to have the chance to do now is to agree with the gentlewoman, who has been working diligently on this, that this language will go if we have anything to say about it, as we will, into the conference report. So the answer is yes.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield the gentlewoman an addition 30 seconds.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, working with the chairman of the Agriculture Committee has been very constructive, and we have enjoyed that working relationship, and I am very proud that our committees have avoided the kind of jurisdictional disputes that too often plague this place. We have a couple of issues here: One, should there be an end user exemption, et cetera? Two, whether you agree or not, it certainly shouldn't be one that could be manipulated. So this is to make sure that this is there. Finally, I do want to respond to the gentleman from New Jersey. Apparently, they discovered that jobs are being lost. In fact, the reason that jobs are being lost now and were being lost at an even greater rate last year is the economic disaster that came from a lack of regulation. So the argument that by putting in place regulations that will prevent the enormous economic disaster, which officially began with the recession in 2007, will somehow cause job loss is bizarre-o-world. Job loss was brought about by the lack of regulation, which we are trying to correct. It is true that the Republican position is: Leave business alone. Let them continue to do whatever they think is right. Don't have any regulation. That's how we got into this mess.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, the SEC has recognized the potential problems for people under $75 million. They are not now subjected to this. The question is not whether they should be immediately put under this, but whether they should be given a permanent exemption without giving us a chance to have the SEC continue its development of more appropriate rules. The notion that no such requirement should apply, there is an absolutism here that seems to me in error. Yes, the SEC should treat companies at $75 million and below differently than people that are at a billion dollars and above, et cetera. But they are in the process of doing this. This is an exemption that is unnecessary at this time. If and when the SEC decides that it is ready to cover them and Members here think that they haven't done an adequate job of providing for it, a motion like this might be in order. I understand the desire of people to help smaller businesses. But at this point it is a license for people who might want to be abusive by guaranteeing them that they will never be audited despite any effort to make an appropriate audit.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the authority granted to me under the rule, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just take this opportunity to announce if there are any Members here who think we are going to do any further business, that we're not. We will resume tomorrow morning. I will inform the Members as a result of what we have been able to do with some of the manager's amendments and this en blocing, and I appreciate the cooperation of the gentleman from Texas and others, we have, I believe, 11 amendments left to be offered tomorrow. Two of them will take a longer time, one on the CFPA, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency; one on the Republican substitute; and then there will be a recommit. So we should be, obviously, finishing this bill sometime early tomorrow afternoon. We will come back in tomorrow and resume the debate, and I wanted Members to know that.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, these are 10 amendments that raise in merit from wonderful to at least acceptable, and I will be reserving the balance of my time; and I will yield time, or they can get their own time, to any one of the offerers who wishes to explain his or her amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy), the author of one of the amendments.