Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I am grateful for this very clear delineation of the Republican philosophy, ``do nothing about subprime mortgages.'' Now, the gentleman from Texas did say, well, the Federal Reserve is doing it. Understand that in 1994, a Democratic Congress gave the power to the Federal Reserve to promulgate those regulations. Alan Greenspan refused to use them. From 1995 on, he refused to use them. At some point in the late 1990s and the early part of this century, it became clear to many of us, led by my colleagues from North Carolina, Mr. Miller and Mr. Watt, that we had problems in the subprime area. And people tried to get Mr. Greenspan to do it, and he wouldn't do it. So we then said, ``okay, we had better act legislatively in the absence of the Federal Reserve doing it.'' We were blocked from doing it by the Republican leadership of the House. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller) and I tried to get some legislation. Some Republican Members were ready to cooperate with us. But the decision came from the Republican leadership ``no.'' So from 1994, when Congress voted authority to the Federal Reserve, until 2007, after the Democrats had come back into the majority, nothing was done to block subprime mortgage abuses. Nothing. And not a single piece of legislation came forward when the Republicans were in control. Now, I would add, by the way, that in 2007 we did a bill, we had some bipartisan cooperation, not a majority of Republicans, the bill passed the House but failed in the Senate. It didn't come up. Now we are doing it again. At no point have we seen a Republican alternative. The gentleman from Texas had some criticisms. We have never seen a Republican proposal to deal with subprime mortgages. Now they might say, ``well, we are in the minority, what is the point?'' But they were in the majority, Madam Speaker, from 1995 to 2006. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) submitted an amendment to the bill which talks about how subprime mortgages skyrocketed in percentage from 2002 to 2006 under the Bush administration and under Republican control of Congress. Members on the Democratic side said, ``let's do something it about it.'' The Republican answer was ``no.'' So we have here the clearest demonstration of the Republican approach of ``do nothing.'' But then the gentleman said, ``oh, no, the Federal Reserve has done it.'' Well, first of all, understand the inconsistency between conservative attacks on the undemocratic nature of the Federal Reserve in some context and the decision to allow Congress to let them legislate instead of the Congress. The notion, we heard it on credit cards and we heard it today, the notion that the elected officials of this country should not intrude when the Federal Reserve has proposed legislation turns democracy on its head and is wholly inconsistent with other arguments we get. Beyond that, while I appreciate what Mr. Bernanke has done----

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the record is relevant because when you---- Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Bernanke, to his credit, repudiated the no-regulation, extreme conservative philosophy of Mr. Greenspan and promulgated rules, but only after a Democratic Congress began to act on this. And I think he did a good job and deserves credit. The problem is that there are things he cannot do. The Federal Reserve cannot change statute. So, yes, this bill goes beyond what the Federal Reserve did. I'm glad the Federal Reserve is doing it. I'm glad that Mr. Bernanke reversed the Greenspan position which had been supported by the Republicans to do nothing. We will debate individual cases of this. As to legal services, yes, we have had examples of individuals being evicted, being foreclosed inappropriately. What this does is to say that they can get some legal help. This is a defensive measure for people who are going to be losing their homes. And we found that there were some problems there. As to securitization, we will get into this. But, yes, I do agree we have people who have come to us and said, ``you know what? We don't have any money. Why don't you let us make loans?'' Well, we don't think people should be lending money they don't have and immediately selling the loans. Here is the point, Madam Speaker, we will get into it later. The extension of loans to people who shouldn't have gotten them, partly the fault of the borrowers, partly the fault of the lenders, whatever the reason, that was the single biggest cause of the subprime crisis. And the record of the Republican Party, from taking office in 1995 until today, is to oppose overwhelmingly any effort to do anything about it, from Mr. Greenspan's refusal to use the authority he was given to the failure of the Republicans to this day to come forward with any constructive legislative alternative. So, yes, there might be room for debate, but as between doing something to prevent this and doing nothing, I believe ``something'' wins.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Texas is wrong to say we didn't want action. Yes, in the early part of the century we thought there wasn't a crisis. We tried to get Alan Greenspan to use the authority we gave him. In 2003 I said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in crisis, as I didn't think they were, as Wachovia wasn't and Merrill Lynch. In 2004, the Bush administration ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac significantly to increase the subprime mortgages and low-interest mortgage rates. At about that time, and as Mr. Hensarling's amendment shows, it was around that time that the Bush administration presided over a great increase in subprime mortgages. Beginning in 2003, we tried to get legislation adopted, and the Republicans said no. The Republicans wouldn't do it. It wasn't until 2007 that there was any action at all. And it is not a coincidence that the Fed was given authority under a Democratic Congress in 1994 and didn't exercise it until a Democratic Congress came back in 2007. Yes, I was in the Congress. I was in the minority, and I was frustrated by the failure of the Republicans to do anything.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Now under Mr. Oxley, he did try to amend the rules to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and a bill passed the House in 2005. I voted for it in committee, but opposed it on the floor because it restricted organizations like the Catholic Church from participating in affordable housing. But the bill failed after 2005. The bill to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which passed the House, where I served, it died later on in part because, as Mr. Oxley has made clear, the Bush administration and he got into a disagreement. So the Republicans had authority to pass bills on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and subprime lending for 12 years and did nothing. We, in 2007 when we came into the majority, very promptly passed a bill to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and to regulate subprime lending over consistent Republican opposition.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first I reiterate, yes, I did say in 2003 I didn't think we had a crisis. As the Bush administration increased the number of subprime loans that it required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take, and as we saw the subprime crisis, I said we did have one and pushed for legislation. But most importantly, the gentleman referred to what is called the SAFE Act. It did not pass as a standing bill. First of all, during the period when the Republicans controlled the House for 12 years, they passed no such legislation. It never even came up in committee. When the Democrats took power, we passed a subprime bill. The provision he is talking about was the section of the subprime bill that was passed over the objection of a majority of the Republicans. My guess is that the gentleman from Texas probably voted against the bill he has just hailed. We can check the Record. But, yes, there was an amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama that we worked on. It became a part of the Democratic bill that was passed over the objections of a majority of Republicans, and the gentleman from Alabama was severely criticized by most Republicans for voting for the bill.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. During the period of Republican rule, nothing happened. When the Democrats took over, we did pass a subprime bill of which the SAFE Act was a part. It was opposed in final passage by a majority of the Republicans. The author, Mr. Bachus, was criticized by many Republicans for supporting the bill. And I would be interested in knowing whether the gentleman from Texas voted for the bill which he has just hailed.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very nominal opposition to the amendment.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 2 minutes. Madam Chair, at the committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) offered a proposal for a study. I did not agree with it at the time because it seemed to me to be talking about the potential negative. Subsequently, the administration asked us to support a study which seemed to me to be incomplete because it was only talking about potential positives. So what I decided made the most sense was to amalgamate the two and to offer a study which asked the Federal Reserve to do both sides of this. I am sometimes skeptical of studies. I will say that I have, from time to time, thought about an amendment that said that any Member who moved to create a study should be required to take a public test on the results of that study once it was completed because we too easily put in the extra work here; but I do think, in this case, it is a new area of policy. It is entirely reasonable to have both the potential pluses and minuses studied, and that is why I offer this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I heard my friend from Texas with mixed emotions. I liked the part of it where he said to trust the individual to make his or her economic decisions and to not interfere, and I hope when the bill I am sponsoring to repeal the ban on Internet gambling comes up that that sentiment doesn't die, because some people don't like the choices people would make. I would like to empower consumers. Congress passed a law that said, if you want to gamble with your own money on the Internet and you're 53 years old, you can't do it. So I welcome this kind of consumer choice, but that's, I think, a more clear-cut choice than this one. The gentleman from Texas confidently says that, if you have this, there will be no teaser rates for a lot of people. I do not think there is any basis on which he can say that. I am reminded of what Lord Melbourne said about Macaulay in the 19th century: ``I wish I could be as sure of anything as he is of everything.'' There is no basis for saying there will be no more teaser rates. As a matter of fact, a rate that only lasts 2 months or 3 months is likely to be a confusing thing to people, and he says that a consumer can tell. There still will be disclosure, but it will still come with a blizzard, and it will still come in ways that may not be clear to people. The fact is that a 6-month minimum is a way to make sure that the product being offered is a sensible and thoughtful product that will not mislead some people. The fact is that not all consumers are of equal education, of equal ability to discriminate, of equal financial literacy. Yes, I think we should work to the point where people are as well educated as they should be, but that's not the case now. You have to ask yourself, Mr. Chairman: Why would someone offer a 2- month teaser rate other than to try and bait and switch people into a higher rate? I congratulate the gentleman from Virginia. This is a very thoughtful amendment. He has been working with the Obama administration. It comes with their strong support, and he is to be congratulated for an important consumer protection motion.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, if the handwriting on the wall becomes graffiti, in our view, then out comes the whitewash brush. So we'll be very clear. We were told they needed time to get things ready. If it appears that that time is being used to take advantage of consumers and to try to get in some last licks before the rule goes into effect, then I and I believe the overwhelming majority of the committee and of the House will urge our colleagues in the Senate to speed up the date in their version and we will acquiesce with that.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed only in that by bringing forth this amendment, the gentleman from North Carolina has revealed the imperfection of our product. We should have included this in the first place. But it is a very good idea, and I congratulate him for his diligence. And this is the process at its best, a specific issue which was called to the attention of a Member in a concrete way, and he responds not simply in terms of that specific situation but with a broader solution. With that, Mr. Chairman, I now yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will reclaim my time to say the gentlewoman has been a staunch advocate of this. She was thinking about an amendment. I regret that we were in a situation where we weren't able to move the date up for a variety of reasons. I will say this: if the banks, the credit card issuers, use the time between now and the effective date in a way that is abusive of customers, if they use the time not simply to get ready for the change that they say they need, but if they use the interim period to raise rates on people retroactively and to do other things that are abusive, to me that will be a very strong argument for speeding up the date. Now, the Senate hasn't acted on this bill yet, and it doesn't become law until they do and we go to conference. If we see a pattern of the credit card companies using the time lag to engage in practices that this bill seeks to stop in an excessive way, then I will urge my Senate colleagues to speed up the date and we will acquiesce. Mr. Chairman, I now yield on this issue to one of the main advocates here, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I will yield again to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I rise to offer the amendment.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I am very pleased to be able to say today that the gentlewoman from New York, the author of the bill, and the gentleman from Illinois, the chairman of the subcommittee, are doing an excellent job. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the chairman. I want to make it very clear. Yes, I do want there to be protection against violence committed against people like me, but let me reassure those, some on the other side. In asking that transgender people or people like me or people like my colleague from Wisconsin be protected against violence, I am not seeking your approval. Your approval of the way in which I live is not terribly important to me, I would say to them, Mr. Speaker, so I do want to differentiate. Those of us who think that violence should be prevented are not asking for approval from people with whom we are perfectly prepared not to associate any more than necessary. This is not a request for acceptance. We don't want it. We don't need it from those people. What we are talking about is a protection against violence. The last point is this. Why a hate crime? Because when someone is assaulted as an individual, that individual is put in fear. But when a group is assaulted because of race or religion or sexual orientation, members who aren't assaulted, if there's a pattern to this, are also put in fear. That's the rationale, and it applies here as well as elsewhere.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. My thanks to the gentleman from Michigan, who has been such an extraordinary moral force in his leadership in the Judiciary Committee and under whom I was proud to serve. Let me begin by saying apparently we have in Philadelphia one of the longest pending criminal cases in history because the gentleman from Indiana mentioned that people were arrested and charged in 2004. But he didn't tell us what happened to them. Well, he said it was terrible, they were charged. One would assume that people would be interested in knowing what happened. I will tell the House what happened. The charges were dismissed. Now, the gentleman from Indiana apparently forgot to say that. Those arrests were false. They should not have taken place. But let me say this: If we were to repeal every criminal statute because some police officer may have made an improper arrest, things would be pretty anarchic. I also do think if you're going to talk about an incident, certainly would be my practice, and if you talked about criminal charges and they were dismissed that you would say so, that you wouldn't leave people wondering. So I do want people who are worried about the fate of those poor people in Philadelphia who, if you listened to the gentleman from Indiana, these last 5 years have been facing felony charges, please don't worry. Those charges should not have been brought and they were dismissed. Now, you hear about that often because it's apparently the only case we do have. No one has been successfully prosecuted, nor should they be, for this. Now, I do want to say this: I'm delighted to hear some of the most conservative Members of this House expressing support for free speech in this context. Only in this context. They have not been conspicuous in demanding the right of free speech, but I'll take it when I can get it. There was a statute proposed here that interfered with the free speech of a member of the clergy. Now, he is a lunatic member of the clergy named Phelps, and he was going and standing out at cemeteries and denouncing them on his religious grounds. I did not think people should be allowed to disrupt funerals, but I voted against the bill, along with my colleague from Texas (Mr. Paul) and my colleague from Oregon (Mr. Wu), and all the rest of these great defenders of free speech on the other side said he couldn't stand half a mile from the cemetery an hour before with his anti-gay sign. Now, I will confess that when he heard that I had come to his defense, that caused him more aggravation than anything else; so it was for me a twofer. I got to defend free speech and aggravate a lunatic. But I don't remember a lot of free speech defenses then because it wasn't popular. Now, in addition to free speech, there is one other thing that's very interesting. You would think this is the first time hate crimes ever came up in American history. There are on the books statutes that increase the penalty for crimes depending on the motivation. And people say everybody should be treated equally. By the way, I assume Members know that there was a special statute that makes it particularly egregious in terms of sentencing if you assault a Member of Congress. I assume nobody knew that on that side because they would have moved to repeal it. They apparently are perfectly comfortable getting a greater degree of Federal protection against crime than the average citizen. Did they forget to repeal that? Where was that motion? Mr. Chairman, did that come up in the committee? Well, apparently not. But there were other categories, age and race. Let's be very clear, Mr. Speaker. It is not the concept of hate crime protection that is controversial. We have had it and it has been administered. It is extending it to people like me, to those of us who are gay, to people who are transgender. And the assertion that there is no basis for protecting transgender people against violence, that's Marxist in its oddity. And I mean by that, of course, Chico Marx, who said at one notable point when Groucho caught him red-handed, ``Who are you going to believe--me or your own eyes?'' The fact is that crimes against people who are transgender have been very serious. I know they are not always prosecuted as well as they should have been. But I do want to stress, the notion of hate crimes, of increasing the penalty because of the motivation for certain characteristics of the victim, has not been controversial on the Republican side. They have made no effort to change it. If they were really motivated by what they claim to be saying, or what they are saying, then they would be for repealing hate crimes in general. They would be for repealing hate crimes based on race and age and other categories. It's only when it deals with gay people. And because in some people's minds saying that it's wrong to assault someone who is transgender may mean that you have to show some respect for that person. Well, let me reassure them. I do think that there ought to be hate crimes protection against gay, lesbian and transgender people. By that I mean that if there is a physical crime, actions that are otherwise criminal, the fact that it is based on that prejudice should count.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, from time-to-time Members insert into this Record articles which are of particular relevance to current policy debates, and we often add a commentary. Today I do not add any words because this compelling, insightful column by Richard Cohen on the willingness of far too many in the world to give a pass to Hamas while being harshly critical of Israel needs no gloss. Madam Speaker, I add only that I am in very strong agreement with virtually everything Mr. Cohen has to say in this piece and I hope it will be read and reflected upon. Hamas's Bloody Hands (By Richard Cohen) Some residents of Gaza were taken from their homes and shot in the legs or feet. Some were brutally beaten, and some were simply murdered, sometimes after hideous torture. If you are expecting--based on everything that has happened--tha the awful Israelis did this, guess again. It was Hamas, the authentic and genuine government of Gaza. Well, no one's perfect. The information about the shootings is taken from a report issued yesterday by Human Rights Watch and available on its Web site. It says that ``Hamas security forces or masked gunmen believed to be with Hamas'' executed 18 people, most of whom were accused of collaborating with Israel, sparing the expense and bother of a trial. Others were shot, maimed or beaten, not for allegedly collaborating with the enemy-- or, as is often the case, having a house or woman that a snitch covets--but for belonging to the opposition political party, Fatah. Many of these murders and assaults took place during Israel's recent pummeling of Gaza. Yet, as Human Rights Watch goes to some pains to document, at no time did Hamas's security forces lose control of Gaza, so the murders and maimings were not a consequence of chaos but of government policy. Whatever the case, the murders, shootings and beatings continued even after the hostilities ended. Since then, at least 14 more people have been executed extrajudicially, which is to say murdered. Some were also tortured. You can only imagine what would happen if Israel dealt with its internal political enemies or dissenters in such a fashion. Last month, for instance, Israel got a heap of criticism and abuse when it was reported in the Israeli media that some Gaza civilian had been unjustifiably shot by Israeli soldiers. The report was widely cited, not just for its shocking allegations but also because it was supposedly indicative of the sort of place Israel has become. The government said the allegations were based on hearsay. We shall see. No doubt the Human Rights Watch report will be ignored or dismissed in the greater cause of demonizing Israel. This has been the trend of late. No doubt, too, some will excuse Humas's criminality as the inevitable result of Israeli actions--the Officer Krupke School of Behavior made famous by the singing gang members of ``West Side Story.'' But as much as some would like to criticize Israel--and I have done so myself--they still have a minimal obligation to acknowledge the difference in core values between Israel and its enemies. This does not mean that Israel is above criticism. After all, it has made life unbearable for some Palestinians, supported illegal settlements in the West Bank, been too harsh in squeezing Gaza, and, maybe most important, it ought to get out of the West Bank--for reasons of justice and for its own sake. Still, it remains unimaginable that Israel would murder its domestic critics or silence dissent with the occasional kneecapping. These are the tactics of thugs. Read the Hamas charter. It is not some uplifting cry of a downtrodden people seeking its freedom but a repellent anti- Semitic screed. It sees the Jews behind every major world event since the storming of the Bastille: ``They were behind the French revolution, the communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions . . . for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests.'' The Rotary? The Lions? Why not Welcome Wagon? When Israelis talk of the practical difficulties of pulling out of the West Bank, they mean the likelihood that Hamas will oust Fatah and launch rockets into Israel. They are both concerned and appalled by a Hamas charter that, in part, reads like it could have been written by Hitler. Withdrawal is necessary and right, but it cannot be done naively and without the participation of the United States. It's going to take American peace-keepers. It is that simple. No Israeli can trust Hamas to keep the peace. Human Rights Watch is to be commended. It does not have one standard for Israel and another for Hamas, Hezbollah or the other despotic regimes of the Arab world. That is more than can be said, though, for critics who vilify Israel, romanticize Hamas and clearly have never had the inexpressible pleasure of living in a place where a chance remark can get your legs riddled with lead. Say what you will, but that place could never be Israel.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, our jobs as Members of Congress are sources of great satisfaction to us, but there are occasional downsides. For me, the worst is the fact that I cannot literally be in two places at one time on certain occasions. One of those is coming up. On Friday, May 1st, at a time when I already committed myself irrevocably to be elsewhere, the Arnold M. Dubin Labor Education Center at the University of Massachusetts/Dartmouth will be celebrating the life of the late Nicholas Roussos. Madam Speaker, at a time when we are trying to pass legislation that will restore to American working men and women the right to be fairly represented in the workplace through unions of their choosing, it is poignant that Nick Roussos passed away. No one I have ever worked with has been a better, more dedicated, tougher, and at the same time gentler crusader for the rights of working people than Nick Roussos. As a leader in the Southeastern Massachusetts branch of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, and as a prominent member of the leadership of the labor movement in general, both in Southeastern Massachusetts and in the Commonwealth, Nick Roussos embodied the best in that activity. I first met him in 1981, when congressional redistricting sent me to the City of Fall River to look for support. I found a strong supporter. But more importantly, I found a great friend and a source of inspiration. No one who worked with Nick Roussos--no one exposed to his infectious humor even in the face of the greatest adversity--could become jaded for too long. At the tensest moments I had to deal with. I would find excuses to call Nick and get the encouragement and energy that he could dispense as well as anybody else, and far more than most. Economic trends, especially trade policy, have been unkind and unfair to the people that Nick represented. But he never gave up fighting hard for justice for them. Madam Speaker, Nick Roussos was an American hero. He did as much as was humanly possible to improve the quality of life for his neighbors and for the people he represented. And it's important to note that those whom he dealt with on the industry side shared the great respect for him that I have expressed here. Madam Speaker, the Arnold M. Dubin Labor Education Center is an institution in which he vigorously participated, and it does a great deal to carry on the best traditions of American labor policy. I very much regret that I cannot join so many of my friends in honoring Nick Roussos on May 1st, but I do want to take this opportunity to remind people of the spirit that he embodied and of the need for us to enact legislation that will allow people like Nick Roussos to continue the work that they have done on behalf of those most in need of assistance.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would the gentleman yield? Yes, I think it would be a very good idea if instead of--and I thought it was catch- up time for me. But when we come back, I would like to have, and we can do 2 hours, we can have one D and one R, and have 5 minutes each. We can have a fair debate thing. I look forward to debating these. So I thank the gentleman for that. And when we return, I'm going to ask my staff to start getting some hours and we can work with Members on the other side. Let's have some genuine debates on these issues. And I thank the gentleman for the spirit in which he said that.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I take back my time. Now I guess I am guilty. Yes, I was the senior Democrat, and I spoke out. I wish that I had that effect elsewhere. You would not have been able to kill the affordable housing trust fund. While I was the ranking minority member, when I was the senior Democrat of the Housing Subcommittee and then on the full committee, the Republican majority killed virtually every affordable rental housing production program we had. They beat up public housing unmercifully, to the great distress of lower-income people. I wish I was as persuasive as the gentleman now, I must say, less than convincingly tries to argue. And in fact, no, I do not think I charmed the majority of Republicans. And, by the way, it was Mr. Baker whom the gentleman correctly identified as the leading opponent of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who said in 2007, when I became chairman and was able to put together the right ingredients in the bill, quote, ``With every iteration, it got stronger. It is to the point where I didn't know what else there was to put in there.'' So I appreciate Mr. Baker's endorsement of the bill which I helped pass. Now, I do want to address one issue as he closes, and I may expand on this. There was one other point--and we have had a legitimate debate. But in an article in a publication called Investors Business Daily, to my great dismay circulated by the Republican staff of the Financial Services Committee, I was accused of betraying my oath and my obligation because of a relationship I had with a man who worked at Fannie Mae. And I want to address that scurrilous piece of defamation right now and express my disappointment that people I have worked with on the Financial Services Committee, that their staff, presumably with the approval of somebody, would have circulated such a scurrilous lie. As we know, there are members in this body who have spouses and partners who are variously employed, and it has never been the rule that you couldn't do anything because your partner is employed. We have a Member of the Republican Party who very conscientiously has been voting ``present'' recently on some measures because of his wife's position. And the article falsely said that I was having a relationship with a senior executive at Fannie Mae, and that is why I did it. Now, obviously the fact that it is a gay relationship adds to a certain piquancy with the right wing when they circulate this sort of vicious defamation. The fact is that the man with whom I had a relationship graduated from business school in 1990. He was a new MBA. He then went to work in an entry-level position at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He was never a senior executive. He had a working position at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. After eight years, we ended the relationship. He left town. I was by that time a lower ranking member of the committee. The events we are talking about happened many years later after we had separated, when he had, to my knowledge, no financial interest, and he was 3,000 miles away. No, I have to say to the gentleman from New Jersey, I reject the suggestion that I was so persuasive that the only one issue on which I could prevent a right-wing rampage on the part of his party on the Financial Services Committee, in which I was unable to get decent regulation, in which I was unable to get good subprime lending, or I was unable to protect affordable housing--the only thing I was able to do was to stop them from regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And that is why a majority of them never took that position and we never got a good bill until I became chairman. No, I think it is something else. I think it is the fear of the right wing that regulation is coming; that unregulated credit default swaps are going to be no longer the case; that we will have rules that will prevent irresponsible subprime lending. As Mr. Zandi, a great thinker on this, notes in his closing passage: Regulators didn't create the subprime financial shock, but they did nothing to prevent it. In other words, no, it wasn't the CRA that did it; it was the lack of regulation that did it. This was the result of first policymakers' distrust of regulation in general, their enduring belief that markets and financial institutions could effectively police themselves; and, second, of the Nation's antiquated regulatory framework. The institutions guiding the Nation's financial system were fashioned during the Great Depression; and, as finance evolved rapidly, they remained largely unchanged, and overhaul was indisputably overdue. I happen to be chairman of the committee that is going to have a major play in this overhaul, and there are right-wing forces that don't want that to happen. So I accept the fact that I am the target. I don't think it is me, personally. I am not that paranoid. It is that if they can go after me and blame me, and, unfairly, Senator Dodd--who wasn't even the senior Democrat when this was happening. It is particularly far-fetched to blame Senator Dodd. He wasn't even the senior Democrat. The notion that he was as the second ranking Democrat he was running the Senate I would have thought was too implausible. But, again, we have learned from Swift Boating and elsewhere that vicious right-wing propaganda cannot be allowed to go unrebutted. The fact is that, yes, there is this concerted effort, there is this fear that we won't have unregulated subprime mortgages. And we will see this when we bring the bill up, that we won't have any more unlimited credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations. It is the fear of regulation that Franklin Roosevelt confronted, that Theodore Roosevelt confronted. It is the fear that the disastrous results of the policy of deregulation have led the American people to understand that the time has come, once again, in our history to adopt a good set of regulations. I believe that is why there are these lies, distortions, and smears about my record, why I am being held accountable for the 0-12 record of the Republican Party. And the time has come to have that debate, because we have learned, I think, that if we wait too long, the lies will stick. And not only will that be bad for reputations; even worse, it will be bad for the public policy we need to prevent a retention. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes. I am taking back my time to say yes. My point is that it was not my fault that 200 Republicans voted against it. I did vote with the overwhelming majority of Republicans. The question is, who is responsible? But I would also say this. You know, when you are in the minority you can't always shape things. Sometimes you have to make unpleasant choices. When I became the chairman of the committee on January 31, 2007, I was able then to combine tough regulation, knowing that we were going to be able to restrict subprime, and with help for rental housing. So the fact is that when I was in power, not forced to choose among Republican alternatives but in the majority, I helped pass a bill that was tough enough, tougher than the bill in 2005, that was acceptable to the Bush administration, acceptable to the leading critical group, acceptable to Mr. Baker. So, yes, I voted with the great majority of Republicans. So I guess that is what I am responsible for: I voted with the overwhelming majority of House Republicans to report out a bill that the Republicans thought would work. I will yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I agree--the gentleman says my persuasive powers. That is the joke of it all. That is, frankly, the gap between the propaganda and the reality. The Republicans are in control; they pass the bill. In fact, they cut out the affordable housing part I wanted. I did at the time hope that we could combine moderate regulation of the sort Mr. Oxley wanted and the overwhelming majority of Republicans wanted with an affordable housing program and with restrictions on subprime. When we were not able to get the subprime bill through and things had deteriorated, I then said, okay, and I was for tougher regulation. So, by the way, at that point the gentleman from Iowa I believe voted against it. I know the gentleman from New Jersey did. Do you know why? I will tell people, Mr. Speaker. Because I, in the chairmanship that I had, was able to get a bill that toughened the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But what about the Catholic Church getting money to build rental housing, and allowing nonhousing groups like the Catholic Church, and others, to build rental housing? They opposed it. So, yes, a majority of Republicans voted for the bill in 2005 that the Bush administration was too weak, and a majority of the Republicans opposed the bill in 2007 that the Bush administration was strong enough, because their opposition to rental housing for low-income people overcame that. But that is the story. Now I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.