Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, taking back my time, the gentleman has completely misstated for about the fourth time my arguments.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, I will yield.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will yield to the gentleman at the end. First, let me say to the gentleman from Louisiana, I agree with him in many ways. Yes, they haven't done enough. I do find a great inconsistency, not on the part of the gentleman from Louisiana, who has been completely consistent on this issue for years, but first, we were being told that we should not interfere with the profitability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because we would be driving up the cost for middle-income homeowners. We heard that in several of the arguments in trying to get rid of the Affordable Housing Fund. Now we have a much more serious attack on the ability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to help middle-income homeowners. This says no more middle-income homeowners, only people below the median. We were told before that if we took $500 million from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's profits each year, we would inevitably be driving up the cost for middle-income borrowers. This would reduce Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's profits by 7, 8, 10 times that amount. They get most of their profit from things held in the portfolio.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am going to take back my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I do not think we are ready to put this into a nationwide operation at this point. It has a great deal to commend it, and the gentleman is right to talk about pilot projects. In the Committee on Financial Services we have created a task force, headed by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), to look at all housing programs to promote energy efficiency. This is something that we should have looked at a while ago. We have been late. There are some various programs. There are some in public housing. We tried to put some into the FHA. The chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee, my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), is interested in doing this, along with the gentleman from California in HOPE VI. What I think would be best would be if we could defer this now and give it some study. There are some implications for how you carry it. There are some fairly specific calculations. It is one thing when you do it in a pilot project; it is another for Fannie and Freddie to do this nationally. And, of course, they don't do it directly. They do it through their various lenders. So while I think in concept this is something we should be moving towards, I would hope we could do some further work on it. It is our expectation to bring out an overall housing energy promotion bill sometime this fall, and this would be an ideal candidate for inclusion in that. I yield to my friend.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The subsequent votes, do I understand correctly, will be 2-minute votes, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I wish the gentleman would have said that last sentence a little less assertively.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the author of the amendment clearly indicates he would like to kill the housing fund altogether. He voted to do that in several ways. We had several votes to do that. We're going to have about 10 votes on the same issue on this bill. I don't know, there's seven different ways to kill your lover. We have about 11 different ways to try to kill the affordable housing fund. Some of them contradict each other because they are joined only by the common opposition to the Federal Government constructing affordable housing. This bill continues that, this amendment, because the key change it makes is to strike the provision that says it will be used for the construction of affordable rental housing and says only vouchers. Now, the vouchers are useful as part of a balanced program. But the vouchers now have been, under the Republicans policy, annual vouchers. We haven't been able to change that yet. Maybe we will.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will be glad to read to the gentleman his amendment, or at least the one that I have. Is this No. 16?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. When did we get unanimous consent to modify? I don't remember hearing that request. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I will then take back my time. The gentleman chides me apparently for telling the truth. I have the amendment as printed. I am reading the amendment. He says where in it is the voucher program? Here on page 2 on lines 2, 3 and 4. And it's not very arcane. Let me read it. Affordable housing fund grant amounts of a grantee for any year after 2007 shall be eligible for use or for commitment for use only for rental housing voucher assistance in accordance with paragraph 19. Now, I apologize to the gentleman for reading his amendment. I had previously to apologize to the gentleman from Illinois for reading his amendment. The gentleman corrected me incorrectly. I would like to go on and correct his incorrect correction before I again yield. The gentleman's purpose may be confusing to people, but I just want to be clear.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I do not yield for the purposes of a parliamentary inquiry. Parliamentary inquiries are only done after the holder of the floor yields. And the fact is that I do want to make it clear I am reading the gentleman's amendment. It says only for vouchers, and that's why I said that. Now I will be glad to yield to him.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I object.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I take back my time. I've yielded to the gentleman for varying explanations of his varying amendments. But I want to talk about the one we have. First of all, I do not give consent because we had a pre-filing deadline precisely so that we can study these things. They are somewhat complicated. I think having them come right off the top of people's heads, particularly at 10 o'clock at night, after we've debated the same issue about seven times, it's not a good idea to come up with something brand new. Here's the amendment. It says only vouchers, and it says it in several places, that it's for vouchers. And here's the problem with vouchers. He says it's still better than constructing housing. No, it is not, because a voucher program helps you compete for existing rental housing. But an annual voucher program, which is referenced in this bill, in this amendment, does not give you the ability to build new housing. In parts of this country there is a housing shortage, that's a problem. In the gulf it's a problem because the housing was destroyed. So when you only do vouchers and do not help build affordable housing, you run into that problem. Now, under our proposal, communities would have the ability to make choices. But what the gentleman says is in parts of the country where there is already a shortage of physical affordable housing, all his amendment would do would be to drive up the price by increasing the demand for it without in any way adding to the supply. Now the gentleman's apparently acknowledged the flaws in the amendment by trying to modify it after he had previously submitted it. I don't believe this kind of last minute changes ought to be made at this point. And so we are left with the flawed amendment. I understand the gentleman's desire to kind of disown it. But the fact is, it is what it is. And a voucher-only program does not add to affordable housing supply and that's what we need.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, it is. And here's the point. And if the gentleman would yield to me. I do not think, and it says, disabled homeless veterans. I would agree between now and when we get to conference to give a first preference to disabled homeless veterans. I have two problems with this amendment. First of all, it is not clear that there are that many disabled homeless veterans to absorb 800 million a year. If there are you could deal with it. But secondly, I do not think in many parts of the country, including my own, that if you only did vouchers you would be doing enough for them. I'd like to build some housing, some with supportive services. But I will give the gentleman my commitment that in the final bill we should be giving a very high preference to disabled homeless veterans.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. And the localities will have the ability to do it by voucher or by construction, including, as the gentleman well understands from his work, maybe places that have supportive housing as part of it. That would be an eligible use.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I also want to strike a few misconceptions. First, the gentleman quite inaccurately said that the money here is authorized with no direction about how it is spent. The only money that will be spent if the bill becomes law, unless there is further action by the Congress of the United States, is the money that will go to Mississippi and Alabama, and the bill is quite clear that that will go to the States of Mississippi and Alabama. No further expenditures will be authorized until a second bill goes forward describing how they will be done. So the bill does describe how they will be done for Mississippi and Alabama. And, yes, there will be a second bill that will, we believe, describe how this money will be spent. Secondly, he said we are reaching down to corporations like Exxon and taking their money. Well, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are very different than other corporations. They are federally chartered and have very specific Federal advantages. So, no, there is not an analogy between directing them and, in fact, other corporations, as was recognized, for instance, by Secretary Jackson of HUD as he began to criticize them for not doing enough in their affordable housing goals. But the more important issue I have to say, Mr. Chairman, is I am somewhat puzzled by the, I don't know if it's a clash of egos or what, the inability of people on the other side to coordinate. There were four separate amendments that seek to do exactly the same thing. Yes, we agree; people who are in the country illegally should not be the beneficiaries of this program. In fact, we accepted the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) who says that very clearly. It does say that you can't be here unless you are here legally, and says that the director shall issue requirements calling for sufficient evidence to show that. Now, one difference between that amendment and this one is this one gets people back into the controversy over the REAL ID Act. That was controversial when passed. A number of States, governors and legislatures have expressed disagreement. Now, we already have accepted into the bill the amendment of the gentleman from Arkansas to deal with the question of keeping out people who are here illegally. Three other amendments, I guess people all want to get credit for the same thing, but one of the things they do is to get into the REAL ID Act. So Members should understand that in voting for this amendment, you will be going beyond simply keeping people out of this program who are here illegally; we've already accepted an amendment directing that that be done. Instead, you will be getting the privilege of getting back into the controversy of the REAL ID Act. If you come from a State where that's not popular, then you get a chance to vote for it unnecessarily, since we already have the restriction. Mr. Chairman, I will now yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I will take back my time to say yes, that's true. That is why the gentleman from Arkansas' amendment, which was adopted, sets forward the requirements. This does mention the REAL ID Act. It is an affirmation of the REAL ID Act. It doesn't say it's the only way. But Members should understand, in adding this to what we have already accepted from the gentleman from Arkansas, what Members will be doing will be getting a chance to, once again, tell their State they may have a problem. Yes, we like the REAL ID Act and you've got to stick with the REAL ID Act. I don't understand why Members would want to reintroduce that controversy when we already have accepted an amendment that says there shall not be anybody in here who is not here legally. And it says, ``Regulations, as the director shall issue, setting forth requirements for sufficient evidence that they are lawfully present in the United States.'' So we have an amendment that has been accepted that will be part of the bill if it becomes law that says you must, according to the director, be able to show, the gentleman said there are various ways to do it. Now, this bill gets more specific and it gives some examples, including, they said, the REAL ID Act. And I don't think all the Members are eager once again to take a position about the REAL ID Act in the face of a lot of opposition from governors and legislatures when exactly the same purpose has been identified here. You know, people used a cliche before, everybody's entitled to his own opinion, but everybody's not entitled to his own facts. But I guess on the Republican side, the rule is everybody is entitled to his own amendment on a popular issue, because we have four identically on this. We had 11 on the fund. We have six on something else. Now, far be it from me to try to get them to coordinate, but we're going to be here for a couple more hours mostly debating amendments that were offered by people on the same subject of a previous amendment, some of which were offered because somebody didn't get the credit for it. So maybe this isn't the REAL ID Act, it's the ``Real- Credit-For-Me Act.'' And we already have in the bill, as I said, an amendment that accomplishes this purpose.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield for 30 seconds?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman from Texas yield to me?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, I do agree that it should only be-- the gentleman didn't mean citizens, because it means citizens or lawful immigrants. Yes, I agree. That is why I supported the amendment from the gentleman from Arkansas. I would say the other language that the gentleman from Georgia was talking about does not have this direction. It directs the director to require sufficient evidence that they are lawfully present in the United States. Yes, I do think some flexibility is there. And while the gentleman from Georgia wants to back away from the REAL ID Act, if you vote for his amendment, you are once again reaffirming the REAL ID Act and saying only drivers licenses from those States are good, and it specifically gives very great prominence to the REAL ID Act, as opposed to telling the director, with some flexibility as things change, to accomplish the same goal.