Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No. I did not say that, never have. But I have said that there are a number of links, and everybody except the gentleman from New Mexico, apparently agrees that government-sponsored, enterprises, we do many things to them that we wouldn't do to a purely private corporation. They have a line of credit, they have a supervisory board. There is no OFEHO for private corporations. So, no; we treat them very differently, because they continue to be linked to the government, than other corporations in a variety of ways, including giving them housing goals, having OFEHO set up, giving them a line of credit and doing other things. They are subject to many more restrictions than a purely private corporation.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move of to strike the last word. I have heard the pejorative ``anti-American'' used in some ludicrous contexts, and I think I have seen now the champion application of that inappropriately. If you are not for a complicated amendment, adding some language to a disclosure that is somewhat controversial, you are anti-American. I hope the debate bounces up from here. I would then also say to the gentleman from Georgia, my colleague from Georgia quite correctly pointed out that his amendment would call on people to reaffirm the value of the REAL ID Act. And it is true that the REAL ID Act is only one of four things, but some Americans don't have passports. In fact, the majority of American citizens don't have passports. A Social Security card with a photo ID issued by the Federal Government, some people don't have that. And a certificate from the Department of Homeland Security Immigration, if you are a regular American citizen, you don't have that. So of the things people would have of those four, that would be the most common. We don't prescribe it in the amendment adopted by the gentleman from Arkansas. We leave it up to the director because things may change. Things may evolve. There may be new documents. Prescribing this now for 4 and 5 years from now seems to be an error. But it is true, the gentleman from Georgia does give Members a chance to vote once again in favor of the REAL ID Act, as a major, not as an exclusive, but a major premise here. As to the gentleman from Texas' amendment, I note that he makes a point of saying that the cost of the disclosure will be paid for by the housing fund. He also believes that the housing fund comes at the cost of the mortgage borrowers. I don't understand why with this great flourish he says, hey, we'll make the housing fund pay for this because by his reasoning, that is an additional amount for the mortgage borrowers. If the existence of the housing fund costs them money, adding to the housing fund simply would add to their costs. My objection to it is this. It is a complicated, additional calculation of a sum that is de minimus. Even if all of the cost of the housing fund went to individual mortgages, we are talking about a very small, 1.2 basis points of the portfolio. In fact, I believe most of it won't come from the mortgage holder, it will come from the shareholders. It is a complicated calculation. People will differ about how to make it. So this notion that if it is going to be a real calculation, and if it is just plucked out of the air it is some pro rata thing and it doesn't mean anything, but to impose additional bureaucracy for a cost that is de minimus is a mistake. That is why my friend from North Carolina said this is part of the ``we don't like the housing trust fund.'' And by the way, when the gentleman said a housing trust fund created by the Democrats, we were being given too much credit; 43 Republicans joined us in voting against the amendment of the gentleman from Alabama to kill the housing trust fund. So it wasn't just Democrats; 43 Republicans is a pretty significant chunk. It was somewhat bipartisan. But the point is only if you believe the housing trust fund is going to be some significant cost does it make sense to go through all of this trouble to add this line. We who believe it is will be de minimus in terms of how it affects each mortgagor, think it will probably cost them more to do this calculation and charge them for it than they would otherwise have to pay. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, reclaiming my time, first of all, to say that is the most baffling thing I have ever had said. It is going to take me a while to figure out what it could possibly mean, if anything. But secondly, with regard to executive compensation, of course the shareholders would bear the cost if there was one. Our point there was since the SEC has mandated the disclosure and mandated the disclosure be printed in the proxy, there will be no cost to voting on it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. My problem with the answer the gentleman from Texas gave my friend from North Carolina is he voted for the amendment from the gentleman from Alabama to kill this fund before he knew whether his amendment would be accepted or not. The gentleman says he doesn't know anybody in this body who would turn his back on communities. He has a far more limited circle of acquaintances than I would have thought for someone who had been here this long. The fact, though, is that the amendment from the gentleman from Alabama would have, if it passed, killed the fund. The gentleman from Texas voted for it. Had he been successful in that vote, there would be no fund for him now to ask for. Now, I thought my friend from Mississippi who has been an eloquent and passionate defender of the interests of all the people in the gulf made a very good point. As I said to the gentleman from Houston, Mr. Green, yes, I think we should look at the needs of Texas. We did some in the hurricane bill in terms of vouchers. I'm prepared, if this bill gets to conference, to accommodate. We may have underestimated the physical destruction in parts of Texas. I don't think we should now pick a number, but no one had approached me. Mr. Green from Texas had approached me, and I said I would work with him. I would be glad to work on it. I do think when the gentleman says we couldn't expect him to vote for a housing fund that ignored his community, he voted to abolish that fund before he knew what would happen to his amendment. Maybe he just thought the die was cast, but I'm perfectly prepared to work on this. I hope the amendment is defeated. I don't expect the gentleman to withdraw it, and I would be glad to then look at the arguments about how much destruction there was in Texas, and I would undertake to find some way to try to help in Texas. Of course, the gentleman will probably vote against the whole bill, and if he succeeds, I won't be able to help him, but you can't help everybody all the time. All you can do is offer. So I hope that we do get a bill through, that it has the housing fund. I hope this amendment is defeated, but I do think that when we look at the concentrated destruction in the part of Texas, something not statewide, and the reason we did Mississippi and Louisiana was we felt the destruction there was more statewide, not the whole State, but it was fairly widely distributed. It would appear there was a more narrow geographic impact in Texas, and I would think that is worth looking at. And if the housing fund survives the four or five more Republican efforts to kill it, chop it, dice it and slice it, which are probably coming in their infinite list of amendments, and we do get it to conference, I will be glad to work with the gentleman.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will cede to Mr. Walden. If only the gentleman will yield to somebody.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Point of Order

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am going to insist on my point of order. I am moved, and I mean this, by the eloquence of these arguments for adequately funded public service. I hope all Members will listen to this. But unfortunately, this is beyond the scope of this bill, which is housing related. I, therefore, must insist on the point of order, not out of lack of sympathy for my two colleagues, but because if we open the floodgates, we would get swamped. So I do insist on the point of order. It is not germane.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, the point of order. This is beyond the scope of this bill.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if I might say in response, it is all within the context of housing. This is a very narrowly specifically defined housing bill.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman, and he and I have been working together on a lot of this. I am glad he is going to withdraw it and we won't be proceeding further, but I would note that a number of recent developments in the mortgage field have made it clear that securitization is not the absolute unmixed blessing that people once thought it was. There are advantages to portfolio and there are some disadvantages. There are obviously advantages in terms of liquidity being created through securitization, but there are some problems. So I thank the gentleman for raising this issue, and it is one we will continue to work.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this is another version of the effort to kill the fund. It is very similar to amendments we have had before. I will ask Members to draw on their memories. I think at this point they would try to remember than stay up an extra 10 minutes listening to the debate very similar to what they have had before. It is subject to the frailty which the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) pointed out before, since we have had a similar amendment before; namely, that it would give to the Director the right to cancel this. It doesn't ask just for information from the Director for us to take into account when we do this after the sunset; it empowers the Director to end it. And it also says: Will not result in increased costs to borrowers on their residential mortgages. There may be a de minimis cost increase. The way this is worded, a director would have to find that there would be no cost increase at all, not 10 cents, not $1 a mortgage. I do not think it is intended mainly to deal with the soundness of the enterprise; I think it is dealing, once again, with an effort to try to kill the fund, which we have had five or six votes on already and a couple of more pending amendments. The other factors, other than it might raise the cost of the mortgage, are already in the text of the bill and they are already factors that the Director is required to study. So since we have talked about this before, I do not think at this hour anybody is going to bring any new knowledge.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. And I do want to congratulate the gentleman from California for a very nonduplicative amendment. It is an amendment that is different from all the other amendments, and I am glad to see it. I almost feel like it was Passover; we finally have an amendment that is different from all the other amendments. The question I have for the gentleman that was raised here, and he may have explained it as I was going over this. He did submit it in a timely fashion, so we should have checked it earlier. What about a foreign visitor who is in the country legally, say on a student visa. Would you be able to purchase a home on this? I would yield to the gentleman.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Not an investor, but someone who is here under a student visa that might not have a Social Security number, is not working, is here under a student visa and maybe can't work. Could that individual buy a home?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. But we do have people here, for instance, who are here as students. There are wealthy people who come here to study. In fact, if you find someone paying full tuition in a college, she is probably from another country. And if that parent wanted to buy a home for that student, I don't believe they would have to get a Social Security number; I believe under a student visa you might not be able to work.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I understand that. But does every student here under student visa have to get a Social Security number? I am told in some cases under a student visa you can't work. If you are here as a student with wealthy parents, the parents want to buy you a home, you might not have a Social Security number and this would keep you from buying a home.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, excuse me. The gentleman first said it wasn't the parents. The parents live in another country. The student is here under a student visa, not working, for a 4-year course of study. Could the parents from another country buy that student a home under this bill if the student didn't have a Social Security number?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. How could they if the students don't have a Social Security number, how could you buy them a home?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No. The gentleman is obfuscating now. The parents live in another country. The parents give the student the money so that the student can buy the home. What about a student lawfully in the U.S., under a student visa, whose parents in another country want to finance the purchase of that home? The student doesn't have a Social Security number, maybe under the visa can't work. I think that is the case. The student wouldn't be able to buy a home. And I do agree that we should tighten up the rules on people here illegally, but as I read this I think it may sweep too far, impose too broad a mandate on Fannie and Freddie over things they can't control. And there may be other categories, but somebody here under a student visa whose family lives in another country, is prepared to finance the purchase of a home, it would appear to me that would make that impossible. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Again, the gentleman is simply misrepresenting the question. The parents live in another country. People in Saudi Arabia don't have to have Social Security numbers. So the parents are in another country; the student is here without a Social Security number. How does the student buy the home?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman's interpretation in foreign investment is the parents buy the home for the student. Well, if the student had enough money on his or her own, then the student couldn't buy it.