Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, for years now I have had the honor of sharing with our colleagues the news of the awards being presented by the organization ROFEH International--New England Chassidic Center. ROFEH International is an extremely important organization helping make the first-rate health facilities that are available in Boston to people who might not otherwise be able to benefit from them. The health profession constitutes one of the great assets of Greater Boston. It is at the same time an extraordinary source of benefit to those who receive the world-class treatment that is available, a major engine for our region's economy, and through the people it employs a significant contributor to the vibrant cultural life of our region. ROFEH International, ably led by its founder, Grand Rabbi Levi Horowitz, works closely with these institutions in many ways, and annually honors leaders in the health fields, both health professionals and those who have supported the important work that these health professionals do. Mr. Speaker, this year the recipients are Dr. Robert M. Goldwyn and Mr. Michael P. Albert. Dr. Goldwyn receives the International Distinguished Service Award. Mr. Albert is the recipient of the ROFEH International-New England Chassidic Center ``Man of the Year'' award. Both are extremely well deserved, and reflect the commitment to both improving our health facilities and making them widely available that marks the work of ROFEH International. Mr. Speaker, in the interests of sharing this news and perhaps inspiring others to take similar actions, I ask that the biographies of Dr. Goldwyn and Mr. Albert be printed here as examples of the people who work with project ROFEH and the good that they do. Robert M. Goldwyn, MD, ROFEH International Distinguished Service Award Dr. Robert M. Goldwyn is Clinical Professor of Surgery at the Harvard Medical School; Division of Plastic Surgery at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. Distinguished surgeon and educator, Dr. Robert M. Goldwyn has authored or coauthored more than 350 articles, more than 50 chapters and has edited many books. Dr. Goldwyn was among the first to perform experimental microsurgical transfer flaps and limb transplantation. Early in his career, he investigated the use of cryotherapy in the treatment of vascular tumors, of palliation of unresectable recurrent breast cancers of the chest wall. He developed new techniques for reduction mammoplasty, a major focus of his clinical activity. He was a founding member of Physicians for Social Responsibility and has written numerous articles on world peace, opposition to chemical and biological warfare, medical ethics, and medical history. Awards include the Dieffenbach Medal, the Honorary Kazanjian Lectureship, the Special Achievement Award, and the Presidential Citation of the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, then I would say this. Then that furthers reinforces the point. Because what you are then saying is the underpayment, the subsidy element is such that you are still losing private sector jobs to prison jobs. And I would say to the gentleman, let us end on a note of approval. Yes, I look forward to working with the gentleman for better funding, and if things go well in November it will be easier than it has been.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. My problem with my friend from Virginia's argument, well, there are two; first of all, if there are 9,000 fewer jobs in Prison Industries, that means there are 9,000 more jobs in the private sector. So the second point is that he concedes that if we funded this it wouldn't be a problem. Well, rather than put the burden on lower-wage working people in the garment industry, the furniture industry, et cetera, then let us work to get the funding. It is not a huge amount. But there is, to some extent, a replacement of prison jobs and private sector jobs.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, and I speak strongly in support of this bill. I have not yet had anyone explain to me why it is our strong policy to ban the products of prison labor that come over in trade, but we then encourage them to compete with American workers if it is domestic prison labor. I agree it is a good idea for inmates to have work opportunities, but I am hoping that marketing is not one of those things in which prisoners engage. That is, it is the actual process of making the product that has its rehabilitative effect. And as the gentleman from Michigan just mentioned, it is the intention of many of us to increase the extent to which prisoners could be used to make products that could be distributed to various entities in our society in a way that wouldn't be competitive with the market. But I do not understand how you tell low-wage workers, because the level at which the prison products exist is at the low-wage level, how do we tell low-wage workers they are going to lose their jobs because of prisoners? How do you tell people who have been hardworking people trying to support themselves and their families that prisoners are taking their jobs because of the inherent subsidy that is involved? Now, the way to resolve that, it seems to me, is to leave the market, to the extent that we can, to people who are in the market, in the private sector; and try, as the gentleman from Michigan said, as we try in this legislation, to increase the extent to which prisoners can be employed and learn skills and make products that will be distributed to the nonmarket segment. And there is no loss there. Again, the marketing is not part of the prison experience and shouldn't be. So it is entirely possible to have prisoners learning skills, improving their skills by producing things that can then be distributed to a nonmarket segment. But the fundamental principle that we should not allow prison labor to take jobs away from hardworking people, particularly at the low-wage level, is at the core of this bill.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to another staunch defender of human rights throughout the world, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), such time as he may consume.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I consume just to express to the government of the People's Republic of China, on behalf I think of this entire House, a plea that they understand that their desire to be recognized as a great Nation, their security in this world will be enhanced, not diminished, if they reach out to this great leader who has moved in a direction beyond what some would want him to go to try and reach a compromise involving autonomy for the people of Tibet. It is simply unbecoming for a Nation with the economic might of China, with the potential military might of China to appear to be frightened of this gentle, loving advocate of human dignity. So we urge the Chinese Government, the entire House does, to reconsider its unwillingness to meet halfway as the Dalai Lama has agreed to do, and to give him the ability to return to Tibet, to a people that yearns for him, to reconcile with the people of Tibet and with the Dalai Lama, and the Chinese Government will be the beneficiaries, not the victims. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the House is able to pass this bill, unanimously I believe we will be doing it

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. And to close out our side here, and I think the debate, I yield such time as she may consume to a woman who has not only been a leader in human rights but was an early advocate and personal friend of the Dalai Lama. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that a few years ago when he spoke at Brandeis University in the district of my colleague, Mr. Markey and I were there to meet him, and he had taken a stand that may have been a little controversial. And the first thing he said to me was, this was years before the gentlewoman from California had ascended to leadership. He said, ``Congressman, please tell Nancy Pelosi not to be angry; I am going to explain this to her.'' So when the Dalai Lama is concerned about her opinion of him, I think that says a great deal about her own commitment and dedication. And, of course, he did explain; and, no, she was not angry. She respected him then, she respects him now, and I am delighted to yield to her such time as she may consume.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important piece of legislation recognizing one of the truly great advocates of human rights in our time, a man who in the face of enormous adversity generated by the People's Republic of China's oppression has really held forth the banner of human rights. I therefore am delighted to yield as much time as he may consume to our champion of human rights here in the House of Representatives, the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations who has for his entire life been a very vigorous defender of the cause of freedom in a variety of also adverse circumstances, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on September 12th, the Annual Hispanic Recognition Awards Ceremony will take place in New Bedford, Massachusetts. These awards express the admiration and appreciation of the community for outstanding individuals who have shown leadership in a variety of ways. Unfortunately for me, we will be in session when this awards ceremony takes place, and I will not be able to attend in person, which I would have liked to do so that I could express directly my admiration and gratitude to the winners of these awards for the work they have done. Mr. Speaker, since I cannot be there and because the work that is being recognized is so important not just for the Hispanic Community but for the Greater New Bedford Community and indeed all of Southeastern Massachusetts, I wish to take the opportunity here to commend Mayor Lang, elected officials and the committee, led by Director Emilio Cruz, who have done the work that is culminating in this important ceremony and to express my deep appreciation of the winners of the awards. Mr. Speaker, the list of the awardees is: Reverend Eva Amaro, Senior Pastor of the Christian Revival Temple, Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, MD, renowned psychiatrist, Mr. Anibal Lucas, Director of the Maya Kichee USA, Ms. Raquel Tejadas, businesswoman.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the yielding by the ranking member from the Education and Workforce Committee. I hope we are going to set some good examples for the body today. First, my friend from Illinois correctly noted that I am the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, which under this bill will lose jurisdiction over the program. And I cheerfully get up here to thank my colleagues for doing this. We are too consumed by turf in this body. I must say, having served on a number of committees, there is not a committee in the Congress that does not have more to do than any rational human being can handle. I wish people would be less concerned about turf. I agree here: this is a program that makes more sense in the Workforce Committee. It will also resolve a problem we have had in which the appropriation for this program was bounced back and forth between the appropriations subcommittee that deals with HUD and the appropriations committee that deals with the Department of Labor. I do note parenthetically, I guess, I am surprised that my Republican colleagues have not yet changed the name of the Secretary of Labor to the Secretary of Workforce. They let that nasty word ``labor'' survive longer than I think they meant to. The point is that there was a tension that was there. I want to express my appreciation to all of my colleagues, including those on the appropriations committee, for dealing with it. And my understanding is that once this bill, which goes from here to the President's desk for what I know is a sure signature, it will free up a contingent appropriation that we have, that is, an appropriation was in, I think, the Labor-H bill contingent on this being done. So this is a good example, I hope, of cooperation between committees about how to do things. It is also a very good example of bipartisanship. I want to particularly express my appreciation and admiration to the gentleman from Delaware. This was a subject that should not have been hard, but for a variety of reasons it became hard. It involved two appropriations subcommittees, two standing committees, and then it involved that wondrous place, the United States Senate, where very little is simple. And I want to express my admiration for the extent to which the gentleman from Delaware navigated between shoals in the Senate. I do notice that the Washingtonian magazine listed him as a ``bridge builder.'' And I have to say that in getting all of the various pieces together, and he was able to take the lead in this, he built a bridge that rivals the Delaware Water Gap Bridge in terms of what he was able to do. I am very appreciative. Because what we have here, as both of my colleagues have said, is a wonderful program. It does what a lot of people talk about doing, but we are rarely able to do. It goes to young people, including many young people who have had troubled pasts who have been not only troubled, but let's be honest, troubling to others. And it takes some of those who are willing to make an effort to straighten out their lives and gives them a framework in which to do it. I have experienced this program in the city of New Bedford, Massachusetts, which has had some problems. I see my colleague from Georgia here, who did us the great honor of coming to New Bedford and was very well received. We have a situation there with young people who were in those circumstances, and this program has been a wonderful program. It is actually kind of a two-in-one program, because it provides great help to the young people, and we also get some affordable housing out of it. It is not primarily a housing program, that is why it belongs in this Committee on Workforce, but it does have a housing benefit. And so what we have is a very good program tangled up in jurisdictional issues. Thanks to the leadership of the gentleman from Delaware, and it was a fortuitous circumstance that he serves on both of the committees, Financial Services and Education and Workforce, and the great enthusiasm of the gentleman from Illinois who has been a strong advocate of this and has helped when we tried to save it a couple of times. Because of this ambiguity, it was in nobody's appropriation bill. Given the limited allocations that appropriators have, they have the reverse turf issue, because the more you have to cover a program, the less you have got for your other programs. So for a couple of years now, we have had this problem where this program became orphaned in the appropriations process. It was the subject of an unusual custody: both parents were insisting that the other one take responsibility. We finally resolved that. And so what has happened is that the legislative situation has caught up with an excellent substance. And I now am very pleased that we are going to pass this bill. It is going to be signed by the President. The appropriation will go forward. I have to say the appropriation is not what I would like it to be. Like a lot of other good programs, it has suffered from being squeezed by the, I think, the distorted priorities of this Congress. I do not want to be wholly bipartisan about all of this. But at least we have saved the program to fight again for a better day. For that I thank the gentleman from Delaware for his leadership, the gentleman from Illinois who has been a strong supporter, and let me say, as a member of the Financial Services Committee, and we had jurisdiction over this program, I say good-bye to it cheerfully, because I understand that in its new home it will be very well taken care of.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for his honesty. He is against the minimum wage, so he is going to vote for this bill. I would simply point out that I am for the minimum wage so I am going to vote against this sham.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have served here 26 years. Eight years before that I was in the State legislature. And before that, I studied legislatures. They are a subject of fascination to me because I believe deeply in democracy. I have never seen democracy so degraded in a purportedly legitimate institution as by this bill today. It is solely intended to allow Members of your party, Mr. Speaker, to pretend to be for an increase in the minimum wage to get them safely past an election. There are plenty of ways, if they were really for increasing the minimum wage, they could join and give us the majority to do it. But you are allowing them to be dishonest. This proposal that links the estate tax and the minimum wage in a bill that you know is not going to pass the Senate is the most ethically repugnant, intellectually dishonest, morally bankrupt ploy I have ever seen in a legislative body. For you, Mr. Speaker, and your party to perpetrate this conscious, deliberate deception, not just on the American people, but particularly on the poorest and hardest working among them, is something I would have thought previously even you would have been ashamed to do. Apparently, shame has become entirely irrelevant to you and your party.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. She and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and others on our committee on both sides of the aisle worked constructively on a good bill. I appreciate the kind words of the majority whip. There was a threatening climate towards foreign direct investment a few months ago as a result of the reaction to the Dubai Ports. I thought it was a mistake to allow Dubai to be able to buy those ports, but I did think that the reaction against that threatened to jeopardize a very important source of support for the American economy, and that is foreign direct investment. There was among some of our colleagues a kind of reaction to say, ``We don't want them bringing their money in here and investing in America.'' That was unwise, and I think cooler heads on both sides of the aisle have prevailed, and we have a bill that recognizes that foreign direct investment, the foreign investment in building plants and running enterprises in America, is a good thing. Many Americans complain when American corporations invest their money in physical facilities overseas. Well, it then does not make sense to complain about the reciprocal. Yes, we want to make sure that nothing is done that jeopardizes our security. I think we have a bill today that improves the situation without any kind of drastic change of a sort that would have endangered foreign direct investment, and I have to say there was a terrible mistake made by the Bush administration, in my judgment, in not shutting down the Dubai Ports thing before we got to it. I do think we should be very clear, though, we have to differentiate between laws which are badly administered and laws which are badly structured. We have had cases, in my view, where this administration has messed up on a number of occasions. I think they badly handled Katrina. They made a terrible mistake with Dubai, but if we were going to drastically wrench out of shape every law that this administration administers poorly, we would not be taking an August recess. That would keep us busier than we already are. What we have to do is make a separation. We have to be able to differentiate between the incompetence of an administration and a structural failing in the law. Now, we have done that in this case. I understand the bipartisanship extends here to the restructuring, in a reasonable way, in the law and not to recognition in my part on the incompetency of the administration. I do not mean to include my colleagues in saying that, but I do think this is the principle we have tried to follow on our side. When this administration messes something up, we should not overreact and wrench the structure out of shape. We should make those structural changes that might be called for. That is what we are doing here, and we are preserving the role that foreign direct investment can play in the United States. We can express the hope that this administration in its remaining time will not misadminister this as badly as they did before.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to note that I agree with what the chairman has just said. But this is not the first example of a bill coming out of the Financial Services Committee on a subject which could have been very contentious but, in fact, came to the floor in a form that reflected a very good process, a very open process, with hearings and subcommittee, committee markups, and full participation and, as a result, received overwhelming votes. We saw this on the GSE bill, we saw it in the bill dealing with the extension of credit, called the FACT Act, and we have seen it on a number of bills, and the chairman deserves a great deal of credit on this. And as his career here draws to a close, I just want to note that this is a very good example of the chairman's willingness to help us bring out the best in ourselves in this process. And he is correct, this could have been the source of a lot of demagoguery, a lot of political sniping, of frankly some destabilization to the economy because of the negative impact a badly handled bill could have had. So I just want to acknowledge that as the ranking member, it has been my privilege to work with the gentleman from Ohio, and this is only one of a series of bills where we have worked together, under his leadership, to take subjects that, as I said, could have been contentious and destabilizing, and brought the House a product with overwhelming support. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. And I must say, I am very pleased that, having worked together, that the relationship of ranking member of the full committee and ranking member of the subcommittee or chairman of a full committee and the chairman of a subcommittee, nobody planned that to work as smoothly. You have to work at it, and with kind of overlapping responsibilities. I am very proud of the very constructive work we have done together, along with our counterparts on the other side. I agree with what has been said about this bill. It takes the FHA and makes it a more important entity. On one issue, the high cost loan limits, for much of the district that I represent in Massachusetts, the FHA might as well be on the moon because the median house prices in my district are beyond what the FHA could do. And I was glad to work with my colleague, the gentleman from California, who has joined us, Mr. Miller, to make it realistic. People have said, well, you are creating homes for the wealthiest. No. What we have is a situation where, if you don't do it by median house price, middle income borrowers are priced out of the market because of the price of the house. And, of course, people said, well, you are going to be squeezing out lower income people. No. When the FHA makes those loans to people at the median income in the high-cost areas, that makes money for the FHA. And I want to stress that. This is a money maker bill. This is a bill that expands housing, but it will make money for the Treasury. The FHA, in our accounting term it is called a negative subsidy. A negative subsidy means you put money in. And, the FHA is a net contributor. I think at some point we might look at expanding some of what we do at the FHA without further increasing the cost to the Treasury. But this is a bill that expands housing opportunities and makes money for the Treasury. There is one particular part I want to address, and the gentlewoman from California generously mentioned it and the gentleman from Ohio was helpful on this. We do, in this bill, extend FHA's authority to lend to people who have lower credit scores, people who are bigger risks. And when that happens, you have to worry about higher defaults. I did not think we, the Federal Government, should be in the position of saying that, as we lend to people who are bigger risks, we should take that risk pool and make those people who are higher risks who meet their obligations pay for the people who are higher risks who don't. In other words, yes, we understand that. As you reach down into a lower credit sector, and there is a correlation with income there, obviously, you are going to have more defaults and we have to pay for the defaults. But it is not fair, and we the Federal Government should not set the principle that one low-income person or 10 low-income people who meet their responsibilities are the ones who have to make up for the low-income person who isn't able to. Now, this bill doesn't entirely meet my desires in this respect, but it does set this important principle. Yes, it says if you are of a low credit score, you will have to pay some more. But after 5 years under this bill, if you have been meeting your obligations, you then no longer have to pay more on the annual basis. Thus, it seems to be both an incentive for people to keep their payments but also a matter of fairness. I don't see why, if I am someone with a low credit score and I am making my payments in a responsible way, I should have to shoulder the burden of those people who aren't able to make their payments any more than anybody else. Now, as I said, this doesn't go as far as I would like, but it sets that important principle. And the other thing I would note is this: We give FHA the authority to go up to certain levels for the borrowers with lower credit, but they are not mandated. And I would urge my friends in the FHA, and they have worked with us and I appreciate it and some of them are here today observing, as is fitting given the cooperative effort we had here. As we go forward, given that the FHA makes money, let's refrain from penalizing the responsible low credit people. And they are the great majority, by the way. Nobody thinks that you are going to have a majority of them default. Let's say to those lower credit borrowers who meet their obligations that we are not going to try to make them be held responsible for others who can't make it. That is something, if it has to be done, could be more fairly done across the board. So I am very appreciable of the things in the bill, the increase in the loan limits, the reaching out to other entities to be able to function and reaching out to give people an alternative to predatory lending, and it is important that we set the principle. As we give people an alternative to what might be predatory loans in the purely private sector, we do it in a way that will give people of lower credit recognition that if they are responsible and meet their payments, they will no longer be put under the gun. I think we have further to go there, and as experience works out, I will be pushing for that. But it is very important that we set that principle, and I am grateful to the gentleman from Ohio, to my good friend from California who has done such great work in the housing area, and to the people in the administration who worked out an agreement with us to get this principle set forward.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), is, as has been announced, retiring. I do want to say that I am very proud of the extent to which our committee has worked together cooperatively. There are obviously points of difference. There are legitimate differences between Democrats and Republicans and liberals and conservatives. But without subsuming those or without anybody sort of abandoning his or her principles, we have been able to find that area where there is common ground like this. I do think that the chairman of the full committee deserves an enormous amount of credit for creating the atmosphere in which we were able to both pursue our differences in a civil way and then come together where we did not have differences, but had common ground.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control the balance of the time on our side.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the ranking member of our Housing Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from California, for filling in for me as I came over. Mr. Speaker, we have a national goal of increasing homeownership. Homeownership is very important. I always want to make it clear to people that while homeownership is very important, it should not be considered all of our goal in the housing area. A large number of people, for economic reasons and other reasons, will be renters. It is a good thing if we can help people become homeowners, but we should not neglect the legitimate interests of renters. In this case, however, we are talking not about renters, we will deal with them in some later parts of our program today, we are dealing here with extending the ability to own homes to people who would economically not otherwise be able to make it. We have gotten to a pretty high percentage of homeownership. But if you look at the economics of land, of zoning, of building, if you look at what people earn, if we do not make manufactured housing more easily available to people, we will not be able to break out of the current percentage levels of homeownership. That is, significantly extending homeownership so we get to maybe an 80 percent range or so requires us to make full use of manufactured housing. One of the things I am pleased about, when I first came here there was a kind of a war going on, or at least a battle between people of conventional homes, stick-built homes, as they are called, and manufactured housing. I think it is now clear that the demand for housing is such and the economic range is such that these are not competitive entities. There is room for more of the stick-built housing, of the site-built housing; there is room for more of the manufactured housing. We need to give a full range of choices for people. It is also clear that manufactured housing hits a price range that we have to make available if we are going to extend homeownership. Now, what we found was, as many of us began to push for this a few years ago, we were pushing, I pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to do more in manufacturing housing. The gentleman from Ohio is nodding, because he and I have worked together on this. We intend to continue. Part of our effort with regard to the GSE legislation is to push Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to do more in manufactured housing. We have worked harder to make sure that manufactured housing is safer. And this goes back to the former chairman of the committee, then called the Banking Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) who helped to make sure that we had legislation that made manufactured housing safer, particularly in those areas where there are hurricanes. We have done that. And then we found that one of our own entities, the Federal Housing Administration, was not as responsive to the manufactured housing issues as they should be. So this bill does that. Obviously, manufactured housing is somewhat different than other forms of housing. The problem is, of course, our laws, our loan procedures, our property laws, our title laws were all drawn up with the model of a site-built home on a piece of land owned by that homeowner. You need more flexibility when you are dealing with manufactured housing. This provides it. So I am very pleased to join in this bipartisanship effort with my colleagues on the committee to put forward a bill that will be a substantial step forward in making housing available. I thank the gentleman from Ohio, the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Ohio who is the main author of this bill for giving us all a chance to work together on this. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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