The amendment I offer would reduce the authorization by 0.7 percent, seven-tenths of 1 percent. I cannot tell the Members how much that is in dollars because there might be a spy that knows algebra and if a spy knew algebra he could take 0.7, he could multiply, he could do some other things and he would know the total. I certainly would not want to violate the law by indicating the total. So in deference to the algebraic literate Iranians who may be lurking, I will tell any Member who comes to me privately what the dollar amount is. Let me say it is significant. Seven-tenths of 1 percent does not look like a lot, but we are not dealing here with the NEA or the CPB or low-income fuel assistance. We are here dealing with national security, which means it is serious money. So I will be glad to tell people how much we are talking about. I cannot tell it publicly because they are listening. What I am proposing to do is to reduce this to the amount the President requested.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing an amendment to reduce national security authorization during a House floor debate.
Share
More from Barney Frank
No one doubts that if a change in administration comes and the new President disagrees with the existing Director, he or she can be removed.
I think it is clear that Fannie and Freddie are sufficiently secure so they are in no great danger.
The Supreme Court says we have a right to be married. There is no Federal legislation and in many States no other legislation that protects us against discrimination.
For example, there are key differences in product characteristics between payday, car title, and other high-cost secured loans and more traditional closed-end unsecured lending and related products, and the products are often regulated…





