Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to say I have never heard such misleading nonsense on the House floor. The amendment we offer does not require anybody's rent to go up a penny. Indeed it is the amendment of the gentleman from New York already in the bill that allows the housing authority to go much higher. We say, ``The housing authority, use whatever basis you want, but in no case go above 30 percent.'' The gentleman from New York says, ``Use whatever basis you want and go as high as you want.'' And if, in fact, not being subjected to a cap is such a protection, why is he then taking that away from the elderly? But the central point is the gentleman from New York has just made statements that are so widely at variance with the facts that I am astonished. He says under our amendment the individual's rent would go up. No, only if the housing authorities, whom he is defending here, choose to do it. His argument is that if we give a housing authority a 30-percent limit, they will set the rate higher than if we tell the housing authority they can set it as high as they want to. The gentleman knows that is a hard argument to make. That is why, just to remind people of the parliamentary situation, the gentleman has taken the Hinchey amendments in an imperfect form and put them in here, because he is desperate to avoid a vote. The key difference is this: Under his bill, even with the Hinchey amendments that they have stolen for these purposes, working people will be subject to unlimited rents, people on welfare and elderly will be subjected and protected by the 30-percent cap. That would then be the sole difference, and I believe we ought to have a vote on that and not be preempted by some parliamentary sleight of hand.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey] has these amendments in proper form pending. The appropriate way to do this would be to vote on the amendment that is now pending. If it is defeated, these two amendments would then be in order. This is simply an effort to hijack the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey] to preempt a vote, and therefore I object.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, in fact what happened was the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey] had two separate amendments, and they only stole one. They forgot to steal them both. So the gentleman only took half of Hinchey; he got a ``Hinch'' but no ``E'' here. So that is the problem.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] for his courtesy in this regard. We have here one more tactical retreat. In the interests of simplicity, they further complicate things. Here is the problem: The manager's amendment would have created a new notch act for people who are nostalgic about the notch act. The manager's amendment that the other side was so vehemently defending said for currently disabled and elderly people it would be a 30-percent cap, but for new people it would not be. So now what this does is to apply the 30-percent cap to new elderly people. I like that. So does my amendment. Why is it offered now? It is offered now in a desperate hope to prevent a vote on the underlying amendment because if this substitute is adopted, then there is no vote on the underlying amendment. As a matter of fact, this was a preexisting amendment, and intellectual property does not apply in here. It is a substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts] crossing out ``Mr. Hinchey of New York.'' They took Mr. Hinchey's amendment, which would have done this subsequently, and they crossed it out and they wrote in ``Mr. Watts.'' Mr. Chairman, that is okay. They can do that. The gentleman from Oklahoma is not the Peoples' Republic of China. He is not held to any standard on intellectual property. He can copyright and counterfeit and pirate; that is OK. But the reason he did it is to prevent a vote under the underlying amendment. And I just want to make one point before I yield to my friend from Massachusetts. Understand that the gentleman from New York said the tenants are better off without this 30-percent cap. Understand the wholly illogical and inconsistent approach he takes. On the one hand he says over 30 percent cap has been bad, even if it is not a flaw, it is bad for the tenant, it drives their rents up. So now he says, ``I am going to protect the elderly by subjecting them to that 30 percent cap,'' that he says is so bad for them. It just shows what a sham this is. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, we have not been given the courtesy of a copy.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I know this is clearly one where the housing authorities are on one side; the tenants are on the other. No tenant has said to me, ``Please let them raise my rent.'' The housing authorities explained this to me: Given the cutbacks that have occurred in the housing budget, they believe they are going to have to raise the rents on working tenants to get moneys to offset it. One of them said to me, yes, these Massachusetts people will be between a rock and hard place. I do not think that is the case. I think they are between a rock and a rather soft place, the lower income people. But I do understand the housing authorities are faced with these cuts, are prepared to raise the money from the tenant. I disagree very much with the housing authority.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to point out, nice speech, wrong subject. The amendment we are offering on a bipartisan basis does not tie rent to income. It allows the housing authority every freedom to set the rent for working people except in one context. It says it cannot go above a certain amount. The only difference between this amendment and the gentleman's proposal, by the way, with regard to welfare recipients we are the same. With regard to existing elderly people we are the same. But with regard to working people and new elderly residents, there is one difference. We say set the rent however you want and whatever basis you want, but there is an upper limit. Their bill says, set the rent however you want and whatever way you want without an upper limit. Some protection. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Los Angeles, CA [Ms. Waters], a member of the committee and an expert in this field.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen], although this may be a Democratic strategy.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn], a member of the committee.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he May consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer]. (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we just got it. The gentleman was talking about ``it and others.'' The gentleman was talking about things unrelated. The only relevance of the Brooke amendment to his story was that poor woman that he was talking about under the Brooke amendment, that if they wanted to they could raise her rent. That is how the gentleman gives hope, raising their rent. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, that was a very interesting speech; I just do not know what amendment it was supposed to be relevant to since it obviously does not affect ours.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman has shown how indefensible his amendment is by absolutely misrepresenting its substance. The amendment I have goes back to the pre-1981 days. It sets a 30-percent limit. It does not require an increase. The gentleman's argument, be clear, here is what he says: If you tell housing authorities that they can charge no more than 30 percent, but less if they want to, they will charge more than if you tell them they can charge 40 or 50 percent. His amendment says the housing authorities can raise the rents on these working people to whatever level you want. Our amendment says set whatever level you want, but in no case above 30 percent. In fact, there is one group of people who get the 30 percent protection, and that is people on welfare under his version. So he singles out working poor people in housing and he protects them by taking the cap off their rent. There is absolutely nothing in the amendment we are offering that requires, encourages, pushes, urges, an increase in the rent. All we say is a cap. When a 30-percent limit on what you can charge someone is transmogrified into raising the rents, as opposed to allowing them to go higher, you see how logically indefensible the gentleman considers the amendment to be. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman had 6 minutes. Who is he kidding?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana, although he would not yield to me.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The amendment that I have offered puts an upper limit of 30 percent, but does not at all require any increase.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez], one of the coauthors of the amendment.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the unanimous- consent request of last night, I offer an amendment, as modified.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed]. (Mr. REED asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. That is the same point. If in fact discussions between Members of the House and the executive branch about how to deal with some of these issues, if that is to be subpoenaed and made public, then comparable documents on this side will be. I predict that we will see a very one-sided application of this principle.