Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I now yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson), a former member of our committee with whom many of us disagree but who, representing the State of Utah, has been a very staunch and articulate defender of a form of banking which is very important in his State.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman would yield to me, let me say, and I want to pay tribute to members of the staffs on both sides, Mr. Paese and Mr. Yi on my side here, who did a lot of negotiating. There are a lot of regulators involved here, the FDIC as the primary regulator, but the Federal Reserve and the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Comptroller, and we did the best we could to try and not have this be a means of changing existing relationships. So I can assure the gentleman from Alabama that he has precisely stated our intent. When we grandfathered these firms in this bill, it was our purpose and is our purpose to let them continue to operate the existing industrial banks under the limitations of the bill and under the supervision of each grandfathered firm's appropriate supervisory agency. So I hope that would respond to the question. It is our intention essentially to ratify the existing arrangements by law, which would, of course, preclude the need for a waiver if the law is clear about what it does.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman would yield. With some encouragement.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I move to strike the last word. I will yield briefly to my friend from Georgia.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois apparently misremembered something. He looked diligently to try to find what he said, and he couldn't find what he imputed to me. I never said ``trust in me.'' I didn't imply it. His subtext notion makes as little sense as his argument that we are going to somehow help Social Security in an amendment that doesn't touch Social Security. What I said repeatedly was I want to reserve this now because I think this bill will not be vetoed and we will get the reservation, and for budgetary purposes, CBO scoring, it is a better way to do it, and we will then pass a separate piece of legislation. And his equation of my calling for a separate piece of legislation with my saying ``trust in me'' falls below the level that I had thought we would debate here. I would again repeat, the gentleman from Alabama eloquently said let's start now. Let's do this. I want to be very clear, Mr. Chairman. I have never stopped him. The gentleman from Alabama had a new-found passion to help Social Security. Where is his amendment doing that? Where is his legislation doing that? This notion of let's get to Social Security, the central point is: The gentleman from Illinois' amendment does not put one penny into Social Security. Passing it would not help it. It would kill this fund forever. What we have had is a variety of amendments. This is the fifth one tonight that finds a different way to kill affordable housing. The gentleman from Alabama was straightforward. He said he just wanted to kill it. So this has nothing to do with Social Security. It has to do with killing the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. And I would just add this, and I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding, I find it somewhat ironic that Members who continue to support spending hundreds of billions of dollars on that terrible war in Iraq, which does America more harm than good, lecture me because we are going to spend half a billion dollars a year on Affordable Housing Fund out of nontax funds. Yes, let's do something about Social Security. Let's do something about the war in Iraq. Let's do something about other wasteful programs. But to take $500 million, I didn't see this concern for Social Security when we were doing the defense budget. I didn't see it when we did the authorization earlier today. I didn't see it when we were adding money. I must be very clear, Mr. Chairman, within the rules, I am unpersuaded that the real motive of Members here is to do anything about Social Security. It is clear if you look at this pattern, they don't like the notion of the Federal Government's helping to build affordable housing, even if we do it, as we have succeeded in finding a way to do it in this bill, in a way that has no impact on the taxpayer, no impact on Social Security, and no negative consequences on the other government programs.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, that, I must say, totally disappoints me. For the third time the gentleman has tried to put words in my mouth. The words ``trust in me,'' the gentleman read that, and the gentleman's distortion, systematic distortion, has gone beyond what I can deal with in a brief intervention. But I will say this: I continually said we should address that in separate legislation. If the gentleman doesn't know the difference between passing legislation which sets guidelines and saying ``trust me,'' then the gentleman understands less in this place than I had hoped he did.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman. Will he explain to me what in the world that has to do with an amendment that does not provide a penny for Social Security?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I'm disappointed in the gentleman from Illinois, having yielded to him, refused the same courtesy. It's my time, the gentleman from Georgia's time. I never asked anyone to trust me. He repeats that. It is simply inaccurate. I've said that I thought we should set some money aside for low income housing, a specific purpose, low income housing, and then in a later bill, not me personally, but the Congress, decide how best to disburse it. That is hardly saying trust me and I'm disappointed. The gentleman generally it seems to me is fairer than that. Secondly, he says higher priority. Again, this is fantasyland. Nothing in his amendment does a penny for Social Security. And he says temporarily suspend. Hit the pause button until the deficit is over. Let's be very straightforward. That means kill it forever. There's no pause here. No one is assuming that the deficit is going to be ended within the next 7 or 8 years, so the argument that the gentleman makes that it is more important to do Social Security trust fund than the housing fund is irrelevant because nothing, nothing in the gentleman's amendment puts a penny into the Social Security. It's one more way to kill the affordable housing fund reflecting an ideological opposition to the existence of the Federal Government helping build affordable housing.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I decline to take up the time of the House at this late date.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I take back my time. That is absolutely untrue. I have never asked people to trust me. If he is talking about spending affordable housing later, what I have said is it will be spent in accordance with a bill to be passed by the Congress. That is not trusting me. And I have never said that one thing was going to accomplish the other. We have said we would set some money aside and later decide how to spend it. It doesn't do that here. It leaves the money with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This isn't public money. It is a non sequitur. I repeat. It says we have a deficit in Social Security. That is too bad. Let's keep fighting the war in Iraq for hundreds of billions of dollars, let's keep doing all these other things, but let's not take money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that would not otherwise contribute a penny to Social Security and spend it on affordable housing.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. That is a far more plausible explanation than we have got. Does the gentleman want me to yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I take back my time. The gentleman has now acknowledged that his statement was not accurate. The gentleman has now acknowledged that nothing in his amendment does anything about the deficit. He says it is a two-step dance. It is a Kabuki dance. It is a Dance of Seven Veils. It has got an unrepresentative argument here. Nothing in this puts the money into Social Security. There is nothing in here that would do that. What it says is, let's not put any money into affordable housing from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac if there is a deficit. Frankly, the gentleman did not, it seems to me, clearly represent his amendment. He says it is a two-step dance. Is he proposing that we would then take the money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the 1.2 basis points, not 1.2 percent, and put that into the Social Security Trust Fund? He has now acknowledged that nothing in his amendment would help Social Security. I guess we will learn later what is the second step of the dance. I am kind of older; I used to watch Arthur and Kathryn Murray teach dance, but I don't think even they could have taught us how this is going to spin into putting money into Social Security. So this amendment is a perfect definition of a non sequitur.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will yield, it is a two-step dance. Is the gentleman asking me to dance?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will yield if the gentleman will give me an answer to the question. Reading his amendment doesn't get to the question. How does your amendment transfer money into Social Security?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I understand that. That is a definition of the deficit. Good for the gentleman. But it does not put any money into the deficit. The gentleman said that if we passed his amendment, we would be choosing to put the money, instead of into affordable housing, into helping Social Security. The amendment doesn't say that.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No. I am yielding for the purpose of a question. Answer the question. The gentleman said, the choice is to either put it into affordable housing or put it into the deficit. It doesn't go into the deficit now. It is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac profit. Nothing in his amendment that I read would put it into the deficit. Would he please explain to me what his statement meant and how it is accurate, and I will yield for that purpose.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. Sometimes I am more impressed with the gentleman's work product than others. He just made a misstatement of his own amendment, if I have the right amendment. He says, instead of putting it in the Affordable Housing Fund, put it into Social Security. Nothing in this amendment does that. This amendment says that if there is a deficit in the Federal budget, then you don't put the money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the Affordable Housing Fund. It does not say you put it anywhere else. It is unrelated. It simply says that if you don't have enough money to meet the deficit, then you don't take money that would not otherwise go to the deficit. There is no connection between the money being spent from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This one is scored at zero by CBO; so, not spending the Affordable Housing Fund would in no way reduce the deficit. I would yield to the gentleman if he would show me where in his amendment it says that, if we don't spend on affordable housing, we would put it into reducing the deficit. I am reading the amendment. There is nothing like that in here. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with my friend from North Carolina. I rise only on one specific factual point. The gentleman from North Carolina said this would levy 1.2 basis points on the mortgages. That's in lieu of a profit. The Treasury asked us to change it. The gentleman from North Carolina said 1.2 basis points. That's equivalent to a 1.2 percent tax. No, that's 100 times wrong. A basis point is one one-hundredth of 1 percent. So 1.2 basis points is not 1.2 percent as the gentleman said, but .012 percent.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I don't see other sponsors. Just to say, in the absence of the minority, I don't mean to be presumptuous and others may want to speak as well, but one of the amendments we're adopting was offered by the gentleman from Missouri, the minority whip, to require that any assistance provided in the fund from the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund be considered a Federal award for the purposes of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, full disclosure, et cetera. I appreciate, once again, the gentleman from Missouri offering this. I have heard the gentleman from Texas' amendment. These are two safeguards that we neglected to put in. What it makes clear is that while this is not going to be Federal funding, it will be treated, since it comes from this Federal enactment, with all of the safeguards that would apply if it were Federal funds. And I think the whip has done a very good job in doing this. He's picked up an existing set of rules, and this is one more example I think of the extent to which, and I know this doesn't do away with all the controversies, but it does allow us to argue, as I said, on a philosophical basis. So I just want to acknowledge my appreciation to the whip for coming up with this, and I'm glad we're able to adopt it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.