Barney Frank

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.

This is not a bill to protect religious liberty in general. It singles out one particular religious tenet.

This is a legislative enactment that essentially says that the fact that I live in a loving committed marriage with another man is somehow a threat to other people's freedom.

I was particularly pleased that, unlike some others, he did not exclude Muslims from that tradition.

If you're going to dip your fingers in the Federal till, don't complain if a little democracy rubs off on them.

This bill--and I will differ specifically with Mr. Labrador on this--empowers people to take my tax money and use it to do things and then exclude me and Jim from its benefit.

I was one of three Members of the House who voted against that. Three of us, Ron Paul, Dave Wu, and I voted to allow this bigot to continue to demonstrate his bigotry.

I don't feel respected. I don't feel that this is kind to single out what I do.

Critically I made sure that the United States reserve the right to maintain and enforce existing sanctions and even to deploy new sanctions to address those continuing concerns which we fully intend to do when circumstances warrant.

The single-biggest issue that we dealt with in Dodd-Frank.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau may not exercise any rulemaking, supervisory, enforcement, or any other authority including any authority to order assessments over a motor vehicle dealer that is predominantly engaged in the sale…

I do think there is a tendency for an overreach by the FSOC. I do not think straightforward insurance companies or money managers should be covered and regulated as SIFIs.

I think that on the heels of what we have just seen in South Carolina, where we are eliminating symbolism, it seems to me that we have an opportunity to actually get into the invidious discrimination that still takes place.

Dodd-Frank doesn't do enough to address this kind of invidious discrimination.

We are talking about dismantling the one and only consumer protection agency that we created.

I actually opposed the bailout, the $700 billion in bailout we gave to the banks.

I know people in my district who have gone to jail for writing bad checks for $1,000 and yet these people are still walking around.

I am tired of the Republicans' death-by-1,000-cuts strategy to roll back the significant gains we have made since Dodd-Frank enactment.

I hope that the committee will.

Why has FSOC undertaken a thoughtful analysis of one category of nonbank companies, but not another?

FSOC's power to recommend more stringent regulation of specific activities and practices has distinct public policy advantages over its power to designate individual companies.

The power to recommend avoids the 'too-big-to-fail' stigma that some have associated with the designation of individual companies.

I don't think asset managers or insurance companies that just sell insurance as it's traditionally defined are systemically defined . . . Their failure isn't going to have that systemic reverbatory [sic] effect.

In 2009, Barney Frank introduced the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act, which created a five-person board at the CFPB.

We will not acquiesce. We will not give our consent. We will fight.