[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 118 (Tuesday, September 20, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H8103-H8104]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    RESPONDING TO LAST WEEK'S COMMENTS OF MAJORITY LEADER REGARDING 
                        AFFORDABLE HOUSING BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it would be fruitless for 
any one of us to dedicate himself or herself to refuting every 
inaccuracy that is uttered on this floor, so I reserve that effort for 
those of particular public policy significance, and I want to address 
some comments by the gentleman from Texas, the majority leader, last 
week as he was justifying the hostage taking that has occurred with the 
bill that would create an affordable housing fund through Freddie Mac 
and Fannie Mae's profits. We have, as you know, rules that urge us--not 
urge us--insist that we refrain from impugning each other's honesty. I 
will simply note that the gap between what the majority leader said and 
reality was unusually large even by the standards of political debate. 
First of all, he quite inaccurately said that nothing in the bill 
regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that came out of our committee, 
the Financial Services Committee, on a 65-5 vote, that nothing in that 
bill would have provided aid to the people who were stricken by the 
hurricane. He

[[Page H8104]]

was, of course, quite wrong. The basic mechanism which we are now 
talking about putting to the aid of the people who lost their homes was 
in the original bill. That is, the bill as it came out of committee 
said that 5 percent of the profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would 
go to affordable housing. Note that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's 
profits by everybody's agreement are increased by a series of 
associations they have with the Federal Government. Everyone 
acknowledges Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can borrow money from the 
public more cheaply than other entities, and we have said that in 
return for the arrangements that allow that to happen, we will impose 
certain restrictions on them. It is not a confiscation of private 
property; it is the recognition that these entities profit and we want 
something in return. There had been a lot of agreement that we were not 
getting enough in return. We thought one thing we could do was to take 
5 percent of the after-tax profits and put it towards affordable 
housing.
  In the bill that was there, it is true that the bill that we passed 
before the summer recess did not talk about the hurricane's effects, 
mainly because the hurricane had not happened, so we are guilty of not 
having foreseen the terrible events in Katrina. But the basic mechanism 
was there. What we did do after Katrina was to say, and the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) took the lead, the gentleman from Ohio the 
chairman of the committee and I said, Yes, that makes sense. Let's take 
this mechanism for affordable housing that was created and let's in 
this first year in particular focus as the first priority on Louisiana. 
But the mechanism that was available for us to do that was in the bill. 
It is simply wrong to say that there was nothing in the bill to help 
them. The basic mechanism for their aid was in the bill and we were 
then able to respond to this latest circumstance and send it there.
  The second gap between what the majority leader said and reality was 
when he said, well, these are just negotiations. No, these are not 
negotiations. This is a kidnapping. This is a hostage taking. There is 
a legitimate philosophical objection by some of the most conservative 
Members of this body to the notion of putting these profits to help 
affordable housing. As I said, it is not just your average private 
corporation. These are private corporations whose profits are greatly 
enhanced by a series of governmental arrangements which they are 
greatly attached to. But we had that battle in committee and those who 
tried to kill this particular program of affordable housing as part of 
their profits lost by 53-17. Some of them are still against it. Some of 
them want some other changes. Let us have some votes on the floor.
  From time to time, and I guess we finally have found one thing, Mr. 
Speaker, we have reached the limit of the majority's ability to run out 
the clock. In the past when they have had tough votes, we have waited 3 
hours, 2 hours, more time as I have noted than it takes us to evacuate 
the building in case of a threat when they twist arms and put on 
pressure. Apparently even they recognize that support for using some of 
the profits of these private corporations, which profits are enhanced 
by Federal help, that putting that to affordable housing, particularly 
now when we have this need for housing in Louisiana, that they could 
not hold the rollcall open long enough to twist enough arms to get 
there. Well, that is democracy. Let us have the vote on the floor.
  I would just add this, Mr. Speaker as I close. There is a lot of 
concern about how we are going to pay for the aid that we all believe 
should go to Louisiana. We have one small piece, hundreds of millions, 
but it is still hundreds of millions, and in most contexts that is not 
small, we have got a way to deal with the housing needs of those people 
without in any way impacting the Federal budget. Again, that mechanism 
was in the bill when it came out of committee. We were then able to 
adapt it to this situation. That is what the Republican leadership is 
refusing to allow the House to vote on. If the majority thinks it is a 
bad idea, I will regretfully wave good-bye to it, but I do not 
understand why under any theory of democracy a bill that comes out of 
committee 65-5 with a provision that was supported 53-17 is held 
hostage, not for negotiations but held hostage because there is a 
provision that some of the most conservative Members of the body are 
opposed to philosophically, they do not have the votes to beat it on 
the floor, they will not abide by democratic principles, they are 
engaging in this kind of ambush.

                          ____________________