Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, well, I will say this. I would say enough would be what the moderate Republicans said, $7 billion more for Labor-HHS. The problem is that they said that was enough, but it is not there. So I would be satisfied if my moderate Republican friends simply lived up to their own declaration.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to observe a surrender. Once again, our moderate Republican colleagues will hand over their tin swords to the Republican leadership. They are very predictable, and they are my friends, and it is nice to have predictable friends. On every important issue, the moderate Republicans have an unfailing three-step approach to the issue: ineffectual protests, abject surrender, and denial. Now, they told us for a long time that this budget did not have enough funding for important domestic programs. Indeed, as part of this rule, we have what is called a self-executing rule, which adopts a resolution to mollify the consciences of the Republican moderates. Those are easily mollified. My colleague from Massachusetts said the gentleman from Florida said facts are stubborn things. Facts are very different from the moderate Republicans. They are the very opposite of stubborn things. They are among the most pliable thing known to man or woman. So they have a resolution which says, in the summary, it recognizes the need to increase the President's Labor-HHS appropriation by not less than $7 billion. It recognizes it. It does not do it. It just recognizes it, and on the basis of being able to recognize what they claim is a defect, they are going to vote for this, and that is the deal that is made. Now, I would have liked to have debated their resolution, but it is self-executing. People watching, I know we are not supposed to refer to them, but we do not address them directly, but we can explain things to them. It gets a little complicated. People might wonder what do we mean by a self-executing resolution. In this case, it allows the moderate Republicans to execute their own moral principles. That is what is self-executing. It allows them to come forward and say, we wish we had more money for poor people, and we have a resolution that says there is not enough money for poor people, and we will vote for that budget that does not have enough money for poor people because we said it does not have enough money. On that, some people consider themselves to have shown independence. If that was the spirit of independence that motivated this country 250 years ago, that would be the British flag up there and the representative of the Crown. So I hope we defeat this sham, and maybe the moderate Republicans will grow some spines.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, again, I was simply quoting the moderate Republicans, for one thing. Secondly, that claim for responsibility and this assumption that they would get the job done would be more impressive if we thought that they in the Senate were going to agree to something. So, in fact, we had a problem earlier this year where bills passed in somewhat different form in the House and the Senate were signed into law despite the Constitution, and we now know why, because whether it is lobbying and ethics reform or the budget or immigration, the Republican House and the Republican Senate cannot get together. I will have to say to the gentleman from Florida that beating of your chest and talking about how responsive you are as to beat the moderates into submission would be more impressive if I thought you had any chance of getting an actual budget signed by the Senate.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, since congressional districts were realigned in Massachusetts in 1992, I have had the honor of representing a large number of Americans who trace their ancestry to the Republic of Cape Verde. As with other Americans who trace their ancestry to other nations, the Cape Verdean Americans who live in my district are very proud of their ancestral homeland, and are very much interested in my working to preserve good relations between our two countries. In the case of Cape Verde, that is very easy. The Republic of Cape Verde from the day of its independence has maintained a degree of democracy, respect for individual freedom, and respect for human rights that is very impressive. In the nature of things, people tend to hear bad news about other continents, countries or regions. But while it is important for us to give attention to those places where correction is needed, we should not by silence about successes let people think that there are none. I recently had the chance to read a very impressive study by Dr. Bruce Baker and Professor Roy May of Coventry University in the United Kingdom, entitled Cape Verde: The Most Democratic Nation In Africa? In the acknowledgment to their report, the authors answer this question in the affirmative--We believe that the country fully lives up to the title of the most democratic nation in Africa. Sensible space limitations prevent me from asking that their entire article be printed here. I do note that it will soon be appearing in a leading academic journal on African affairs. But given the importance of refuting the notion that democracy is somehow unsuited to African countries, a justification occasionally put forward by defenders of autocracy, I do want to quote some important passages here from their article: One of the most striking indicators of Cape Verde's democratic maturity has been the ease by which power has been transferred, with defeated governments and their supporters accepting the electorate's verdict. Since the country's 1991 transition to multiparty democracy, Cape Verdeans have changed their government three times. Deputies from both main parties believe the National Assembly to be effective in adversarial debate. Civil and political rights are enshrined in the constitution and widely respected in practice. The judiciary is regarded as independent and therefore free of political bias. Mr. Speaker, the authors acknowledge that democracy of Cape Verde, as is true everywhere else, is not perfect, but they stress that there is an overall democratic atmosphere in Cape Verde in which those lapses can be pursued by people interested in improving the situation without fear of repression or retaliation. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to call attention to the thriving democracy in the Republic of Cape Verde both because it deserves attention in itself, and is a counter to those who argue that somehow democracy and respect for basic human rights is a western doctrine that cannot travel to other parts of the world. Mr. Speaker, the Cape Verdean Americans whom I represent are very proud of their homeland, as they should be. It is entirely appropriate that the Bush Administration recognized the flourishing democracy of Cape Verde, among other aspects of that nation's governance, by making it one of the first recipients of funds under the new Millennium Challenge foreign aid program.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, one of the most effective advocates for housing for people of moderate and low income to have served recently in our federal government is Nicolas P. Retsinas. Mr. Retsinas now directs the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University, and he recently published an extremely important and cogent article in the Boston Globe, on May 5. One of the great mistakes that is made by people who talk about housing policy is to talk as if we are concerned only with promoting homeownership. Homeownership is a very important thing, and increasing the number of people who enjoy it is a desirable goal. But it is also the case that tens of millions of Americans for a variety of reasons, primarily economic, are unlikely ever to be homeowners, and if we do not pay attention to the need for a good stock of affordable rental housing, we will be condemning large numbers of our fellow citizens to substandard lives in many ways. Under the current Administration, as Mr. Retsinas points out, Federal policy badly neglects the needs of those who must rent. It is true that a bias in public policy against renters unfortunately predates the Bush Administration, but it is this Administration that has greatly exacerbated it by its assault on the various programs by which we provide rental housing at affordable levels for moderate and low-income people. Using his literary device of talking of ``Owner- World,'' and ``Renter-World,'' Mr. Retsinas notes that, ``Today parts of Renter-World constitute a desperation sector of America. Poor people, crammed into too-small apartments, struggle to pay for food, rent, transportation, and medical care.'' Mr. Speaker, given Mr. Retsinas' experience in administering housing problems, his great scholarly expertise in this subject, and most of all his compassion and understanding of the needs for rental housing as part of a comprehensive national housing policy, I ask that his important article from the May 5 Boston Globe be printed here. [From the BOSTON GLOBE, May 5, 2006] The Endangered Land of Renter-World (By Nicholas P. Retsinas) Welcome to Renter-World, home to more than 34 million households. Renter-World denizens, aka tenants, comprise all ages. Eighty percent of all twentysomething households rent; so do 4 million senior households. Tenants come in all socioeconomic strata: Twenty percent of renters earn more than $60,000 a year; another 20 percent earn less than $10,000. Yet a myopic Uncle Sam barely sees Renter-World. Instead, Uncle Sam focuses on Owner-World. Owner-World captures the federal tax breaks: The homeownership tax deductions for mortgage interest and property taxes top $100 billion a year and are rising rapidly. Owner-World also captures the federal attention: For almost 100 years, starting with a 1918 Department of Labor campaign and continuing through Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal, Bill Clinton's National Homeownership Partnership, and George Bush's Ownership Society, the federal government has been promoting homeownership. Today 69 percent of households own a home--an all-time high. From Uncle Sam's vantage, that statistic marks success. Homeownership is the American ``dream;'' the crucial first step on a family's pathway to the middle class. A homeowner amasses equity, so that one day he can own a piece of America. That vested interest spurs involvement in schools, in neighborhoods, in political life. Just as important, the home gives the owner a financial cushion. Even if owners do not reap the windfall of a superheated market, the home can still be a hedge against inflation. Indeed, we are a nation of immigrants who have marked the exodus with a series of papers: green cards, citizenship, and mortgages. The ``American dream'' may be a three-bedroom Cape on a tiny lot, but immigrants have come here for that dream. So Uncle Sam's myopia is understandable. He expects renters to move on--to become owners. That is what they too expect. Renter-World, however, is in trouble. Even though we are building new rental units, we are not adding to the net ``affordable'' (a euphemism for cheap) units. That supply is shrinking. Between 1993 and 2003, we lost 2 million low-rent units from the rental inventory. At the same time, rents are rising, especially for newly constructed units. Consider the plight of the lowest income renters: 70 percent pay-more than half of their income for housing. The National Low Income Coalition could not find one county in the United States where a minimum wage worker, paying 30 percent of his or her income for housing, could afford a one- bedroom apartment. As for the government rent subsidies aimed at alleviating the hardship of low-income tenants, those too have shrunk. The war on terror and the war in Iraq have pushed them off the agenda. Today parts of Renter-World constitute a desperation sector of America. Poor people, crammed into too-small apartments, struggle to pay for food, rent, transportation, and medical care. To paraphrase Linda Loman, lamenting the plight of her husband, Willy, in ``Death of a Salesman'': ``Attention must be paid'' to these renters. The reason is pragmatic. In the past, Renter-World has been a gateway to Owner- World. Low-income workers, renting for a few years, have saved up enough for the downpayment on a house, and, with scrimping, have kept up with mortgage payments. But today's renters cannot so easily make that leap. The Big Box shelver, married to the fast food waitress, may want the American dream. They may have left family thousands of miles away to seize the dream. But without some housing relief, they will never leave Renter-World. And the promise of America, the dream for millions of Americans, is to leave Renter-World. That first mortgage-- often the first mortgage for a family--constitutes step one in the economic mobility we value. High rents trap families, anchoring them on the bottom rung of the ladder that we want them to climb. For the sake of the renters, and of the nation as a whole, Uncle Sam must pay attention to Renter-World.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it is an important duty of all of us who serve here to pay respect, to express our gratitude, to join in the sorrow of those and their families who are serving this Nation in a time of war. I have tried very hard to do that whenever the occasion occurred. I have attended funerals of young men who were killed, and in one case a man not so young. I was pleased on Saturday to attend a welcoming home ceremony for one young man who returned. I attended a ceremony to see off a group of Guardsmen. The merits of the war are irrelevant when it comes to honoring and expressing our gratitude to those who have served. Having said that, I want to say that I deeply regretted that yesterday, Tuesday rather, I felt called upon to vote against a bill that was presented here under the suspension of the rules which allowed for no serious debate and zero chance of amendment, a bill which in part protected veterans' funerals from the disruption that they have encountered. And it is true that a particularly contemptible group of bigots are harassing people at some funerals. And we have every right and under the Constitution the power to stop it. Sadly, a badly overdrafted bill was brought forth with no chance for us to amend it. And I do not think we honor our veterans by failing to honor our Constitution. So I had to vote against the bill. Part of the bill, if it had been in part, if we could have amended it down, I would have proudly supported, the part that would have said you cannot have a demonstration in which any individual is willfully making or assisting in the making of any noise that disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good order of the funeral, memorial service or ceremony on a military cemetery. But the bill went before that. The bill says that for 60 minutes before a funeral and 60 minutes after, within 500 feet of the cemetery, you can't hold up a sign that might be offensive to people. You can't picket. It doesn't just say noise. It says diversion, and it defines it, any picketing, the display of any placard, banner, flag or similar device. When we had an outrageous effort to intimidate a Danish newspaper because they exercised the right of free press and published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, which many Muslims found offensive, some people, apologists for this outrageous behavior against the newspaper, said, well, you know it is free speech. But free speech has to be respectful. Free speech has to be within limits. No, it does not. Free speech is not respectful speech. Indeed, the American Constitution, the principle of free speech precisely protects the right of despicable people to be obnoxious. If you don't believe in that, you don't believe in free speech. In fact, the particular group of vicious people who have been disrupting the funerals have as their major goal getting rid of people like me, gay men and lesbians. They particularly hate us. But I will not allow their bigotry against me and the reaction against that to be used to reduce the protections of our Constitution. The parts of this bill that say that if you try to disrupt a funeral you are going to be prevented, they are fine. But telling people that 60 minutes before or after a funeral, within 500 feet of a national cemetery, they can't picket or hold up a banner, that is not free speech. That is not what we fight for. I have defended previously the right of the Nazis to march in Skokie, to the great horror of victims of the Holocaust, or survivors of the Holocaust. I told the Muslims who tried to coerce the Danish press that no matter how offensive they found that cartoon, freedom of expression meant that no government should stop you from being offensive. Disrupting a funeral, of course you should not do that. We should not allow ourselves, through restrictive legislative procedures, to act against an admitted evil, the disruption of those ceremonies, in ways that could undermine the Constitution. So I hope this will come back from the Senate in a form I can vote for. I would have voted for part of this bill; but I cannot, no matter how despicable the bigots who are defaming this Nation and disrupting cemeteries, I will not allow their behavior to be used as an excuse for undermining the right of other people in other places to hold signs. People holding signs within 200 feet of a cemetery, a half hour after a funeral that some people find offensive, that is free speech. And the way to counter that is to counter that. So I regret very much, in fact, Mr. Speaker, and I don't mean to look for sympathy here. I had an operation here last week. I had a stent, and I was supposed to return early Tuesday to have the stent removed. I delayed my return because I wanted to attend this funeral of the young man who was killed. Obviously, the discomfort of my stent was nothing to what people face who are in Iraq. But I simply want to testify that I will do everything I can to continue to honor these people, but that does not require us to demean the first amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the recent death of John Kenneth Galbraith brought to a close one of the truly great careers in both the intellectual and political history of our country. As an economist, as a teacher, as a writer, as a creative public official, and drawing on all of these and more, as a tough-minded and effective activist for social justice, John Kenneth Galbraith made enormous contributions to the quality of life in America. Appropriately, he was memorialized in the Washington Post recently by one of his most important comrades in arms, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who shared with Ken Galbraith not just a friendship, but the effective pursuit of the roles I have just described, substituting of course Arthur Schlesinger's historical work for Ken Galbraith's economic contributions. Drawing on their collaboration on so many issues over more than 60 years, Arthur Schlesinger concisely and deftly reminds us in his essay of what citizenship in a democracy is at its best. I ask that this article be printed here. J.K. Galbraith's Towering Spirit (By Arthur Schlesinger Jr.) Edmund Burke once made a famous prediction. ``The age of chivalry is gone. That of sophists, economists and calculators has succeeded and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever.'' Some years later Thomas Carlyle disdained economists as professors ``of the dismal science.'' The profession has indeed done little since to disprove Carlyle and to refute Burke. But neither Burke nor Carlyle foresaw John Kenneth Galbraith. In the first place, Galbraith was the tallest economist in the world. That reinforced the boldness with which he confronted the establishment and its ``conventional wisdom.'' Salvation, Galbraith argued, lies in the subversion of the conventional wisdom by the gradual encroachment of disquieting thought. ``The emancipation of belief,'' he writes, ``is the most formidable of the tasks of reform, the one on which all else depends.'' He was the republic's most valuable subversive. His skills were not confined to economics. He was a diplomat, politician, bureaucrat, satirist, novelist, journalist, art collector, and man of the world and wit, and he took disarming delight in each role. I met him as a Washington bureaucrat during World War II. We discovered that both of us were born on Oct. 15, 9 years apart, and we became grown men who were, in height, 13 inches apart. The convergence of thought--I do not remember a disagreement--is the only compelling argument for astrology that I know. His brilliant deployment of subversive weapons--irony, satire, laughter--did not always please the more sedate members of his profession. But it vastly pleased the rest of us. Ken used the whiplash phrase and the sardonic thrust for several purposes: to reconnect academic economics, walled off in mathematical equations, with human and social reality; to rebuke the apostles of selfishness and greed; and to give the neglected, the abused and the insulted of our world a better break in life. He challenged the national conscience with a series of thoughtful books, provocative interviews, merry rejoinders and lethal wisecracks. The Bush presidency led Ken to muse aloud that it had caused him to think thoughts that he never thought himself capable of thinking. I asked, ``For example?'' Ken replied, ``I begin to long for Ronald Reagan.'' Galbraith was never less than opinionated, and his opinions were often deflationary and sometimes devastating. He was the master of the unconventional wisdom. How, in view of his elegant unmasking of pomposity, hypocrisy and shame, can we account for the broad and indeed ecumenical range of his friends and fans--stretching from left to right; from tall to short; from Bill Buckley to Arthur Schlesinger (and Ken more or less induced the last two characters to be fond of each other)? Within this tall fellow bristling with opinions there resided a rare kindness of heart and generosity of spirit. In Mr. Dooley's phrase, Ken not only afflicted the comfortable but comforted the afflicted. In a quiet way, without fanfare, he helped more people, promoted more noble causes, sustained more fragile spirits than almost any of us have known, giving of himself and his substance with grace and concern. Underneath his joy in combat, he was a do-gooder in the dark of night. There is another reason why Ken was so generally loved--his wife of 69 years, Catherine Atwater. Kitty was an intrepid lady, having stood up to Ken for more than half a century. Together they created a welcoming household. John Kenneth Galbraith has left us, and the sum of human valor, wit, irreverence, sympathy, compassion and courage has badly diminished when we need them most.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure during my years of representing Southeastern Massachusetts to work with Fernando Garcia. Fernando Garcia is a leader in the business community of Southeastern Massachusetts, and has been particularly active in affairs of the large Portuguese-American Community that contributes so much to that part of the state and indeed to the state as a whole. I had the pleasure a few years ago of visiting the Azores in the company of Mr. Garcia and the then Mayor Fred Kalisz of the City of New Bedford, and I have worked with Mr. Garcia on a number of occasions since then on matters of particular interest to the Portuguese-American Communities. At a time when we are talking about immigration, it is important to note that Mr. Garcia, like so many others who have been such important contributors to the life of Southeastern Massachusetts, is an immigrant who was born in the city of Sao Miguel, in the Azores. I note that he knew no English when he arrived here at the age of 11, and like the overwhelming majority of immigrants, strove to become proficient to the point where he is now a significant community leader--in English while of course retaining his facility in Portuguese. Mr. Speaker, the sort of civic activity that Fernando Garcia exemplifies is a very important asset and I was pleased to read the excellent article about him in the Fall River Herald News, appropriately in the Business section since as the owner of Fall River Ford he is a significant leader in that segment of the life of his community. Mr. Speaker, as an example of the important positive contribution made by immigration to this country, I ask that the article from the Fall River Herald News about Fernando Garcia be printed here. [From the Herald News, Apr. 14, 2006] A Fall River Prince (By Kathleen Durand) Fernando Garcia said it's easy to be a good corporate citizen in a wonderful environment and community like Fall River. The owner of Fall River Ford, Garcia will be recognized by the Prince Henry Society tonight for his many acts of charity and service to the community. The Fall River chapter as its Portuguese-American of the year. Similar honors will be bestowed on Thomas Alves, a plumber, by the New Bedford chapter, and Joseph de Melo, an attorney, by the Taunton chapter. The three will receive their awards at a dinner at the Century House in Acushnet. Garcia said the Prince Henry Society is made up of people of Portuguese heritage, including both immigrants and native- born Americans. The primary function of the society is to promote education, he said, and it has given hundreds of scholarships worth thousands of dollars to deserving students. A member of the Fall River chapter, Garcia said he was totally surprised to learn it has named him Portuguese- American of the year. ``Every member of the chapter is deserving of the award. It's a small chapter but it gives constantly,'' he said. ``It's the first chapter that has women members who have added to the vision of the society and made it better by their input and views.'' Garcia came to New Bedford from Sao Miguel, Azores, in 1957 at age 11. He said he knew no English. ``One of the things I've tried to do over the years is to never forget the hardships and sacrifices immigrants must make,'' he said. ``We try to instill that in others and make their journey easier by avoiding the pitfalls we had.'' The New Bedford schools had no bilingual program at that time, so Garcia learned English at Our Lady of Mount Carmal School. After four years there he said he was able to navigate through the public schools. He went on to the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, where he was president of his class as a sophomore and a junior. He majored in business and foreign languages and his class, the Class of 1969, was the first to graduate from the Dartmouth campus. ``Then it was out into the business world, and I haven't stopped since,'' he said. In October 1998 he said he saw a great business opportunity in Fall River. Ford Automotive Co. was about to close a dealership due to prior failures. Garcia said with proper management and dedicated employees, he was able to restructure it so that it now ranks in the top 10 Ford dealerships in New England, employs about 100 people and generates annual sales of more than $75 million. ``I'm delighted with the growth I've been in the 7\1/2\ years I've been here,'' Garcia said. ``There are so many good people. I find it impossible to say no to worthy causes.'' In business and in life, Garcia said he believes in integrity, character and in always keeping his word. Garcia said Fall River Ford is most grateful for the courtesy and patronage of the community. ``I am very proud to be Portuguese,'' he said. ``On the day I received my citizenship papers I was as equally proud to be a Portuguese-American.'' Garcia is involved in numerous activities aimed at improving the quality of life in this region. He is chairman of the Executive Business Council at Charlton Memorial Hospital, a member of the board of the President's Council at the hospital, a member of the board of the local chapter of the American Heart Association, a member of the community advisor board of the Diabetes Association and a board member of the development council for HealthFirst Family Care Center. Before he bought Fall River Ford, Garcia was a national sales manager for Rusty Jones, an automotive appearance maintenance program. He than founded All-Neads Insurance of New Bedford. When he bought Fall River Ford, he gave his co- workers at All-Neads the opportunity to buy the business. Without them, he said, the business would not have achieved the success it did.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, that last discussion actually interested me. The question would be, what penalty would a Member of Congress face if, having left a classified briefing, that Member disclosed information that turned out to be false? You know, in libel, truth is a defense. Perhaps when it comes to disclosing classified information that comes from this administration, falsity would be a defense on the grounds that if it was not true, who is going to be hurt? The gentleman from Florida talked about oaths. I want to talk about one that I took, to uphold the Constitution of the United States, because the Rules Committee is interfering with my ability to do that. We have one of the most serious constitutional issues facing this country now that we have faced in a very long time: the assertion by the President of the United States that because of terrorism, he basically is freed from restraints. He has announced by the way, remember, it is not directly relevant to this bill, but he has announced that as President he may order the imprisonment for an indefinite period of time of an American citizen, and that citizen has no recourse to any tribunal to disprove any charges against him, and there may not be any charges lodged. That is one of the things he said. In that same breathtaking assertion of untrammeled power, he says he can order the wiretapping of any American citizen; and it has gone beyond, as was brought out in the questions by the Judiciary Committee of the Attorney General, even within America. I think that is a dangerous abuse of power. I believe we are able to protect ourselves against terrorists, and we should protect ourselves against these murderous fanatics, but I believe we are able to do that while still observing the Constitution. And I want to be very clear. I want to give law enforcement power. I believe law enforcement, they are the good guys, but they are not the perfect guys. You give the good guys power, but you give it to them in a series of balances and restraints. You do not give them untrammeled power. The President has announced that he has carried out a program of wiretapping invasion of the most private moments of any American, with nobody else given any involvement, no warrants. Now the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) presented to the Rules Committee a very thoughtful amendment that would reaffirm that we want to go by the law of 1978, that would repudiate one of the most outrageous and, I am going to use the technical term here, ``cockamamie'' arguments I have ever heard; namely, that when all of us voted to justify, to authorize the force against the Taliban in Afghanistan, we were somehow authorizing warrantless wiretapping. You know, I want to say to the people who say that, follow one of my rules. In a political debate, no matter how convenient it seems to you, please do not say anything that no one believes. It will not be helpful. No one believes that. But we now this have situation where the bill that includes some of the money that carries out the warrantless wiretapping is before us. People may think warrantless wiretapping is fine. I think it is a violation of the Constitution. But they should not be controversial. Should not this House of Representative be able to vote on that subject? The gentleman from California presented a bipartisan amendment dealing with wireless wiretapping, reaffirming what some of us think; that there should be restraint, repudiating the outrageous argument that the Afghan resolution okayed it. And you have, Madam Speaker, and your party, refused to allow the House to vote on it. That is the disgrace. That is the abuse of the Constitution. We are not even going to be allowed to vote on an amendment that would deal with this central constitutional question. And I would just say in closing, we are now in the process of instructing the people of Iraq about how to ruin parliamentary democracy. As they see you deny us the right to vote on this central constitutional question, I say again what I have said before: if anybody from the Iraqi Parliament is watching our procedures, please do not try this at home.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, I guess I didn't know we would get in great detail about what was cockamamier than what; but when I used that phrase, I was referring specifically only to one argument: the argument that the Afghanistan force resolution authorizes. That is all I said. I repeat, anybody who makes that argument is, let's use a Southern expression, had too much moonshine. Beyond that, I understand the gentleman thinks it is okay for warrantless wiretapping. The question is not wiretapping, but warrantless. But my question is this: Why can't the House of Representatives vote on it? By what right does the Rules Committee arrogate to itself the right to extinguish debate? I expect that there will be differences.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, one obstacle we have when we seek to address what is clearly the number one domestic problem in America today--a healthcare system that is both unduly expensive and provides too little coverage for many Americans--is the objection to what some people are quick to call ``socialized medicine.'' The notion that a government role in healthcare is somehow inimical to the delivery of decent healthcare has prevented rational debate on this subject from going forward. Paradoxically, as the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Jim Nicholson, recently noted in his speech at the Press Club, it is the healthcare delivery system in our country that is most completely a government operation that scores highest in consumer satisfaction. As Secretary Nicholson noted in that speech, ``For the sixth consecutive year, the American Customer Satisfaction Index reports that veterans are more satisfied with their health care than any other patients in America. VA outscored the private sector by a full 10 percentage points. And as you would expect, because of our first-rate care, veterans are now coming to us in ever greater numbers.'' Mr. Speaker, the point must be underlined: the most popular form of medical care with those who receive it according to Secretary Nicholson, speaking on behalf of the Bush Administration, is a form of medicine that is entirely government run. I find it odd that people who would denounce Medicare as a form of ``socialized medicine'' don't apply that dreaded epithet to the one major medical care delivery system in our country which is entirely run by the public sector--the medical care delivered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. I ask that excerpts from Secretary Nicholson's speech be printed here because they are an absolutely irrefutable answer to those who claim that any increase in a government role in medical care will somehow cause deterioration in the quality of that care. The ability of some myths to survive reality is one of the most impressive and depressing features of the American political scene. But I hope that people reading Secretary Nicholson's remarks, and thinking about what they mean in the broader context, will refrain in the future from somehow arguing that an increase in a public sector role in medical care will necessarily lead to its deterioration. I join Secretary Nicholson as a Member of Congress in taking pride in the medical care we provide for our veterans. My only criticism is that we don't do it in even greater quantity--too many veterans are unable to get access to the system, and I believe that it is an area where more resources would allow us to do an even better job. But again to quote from Secretary Nicholson's speech, when the ``NBC Nightly News . . . aired a story about VA healthcare, saying that it is the envy of healthcare administrators and a model for healthcare nationwide,'' it ought to give pause to those who mindlessly repeat the assertion that quality medical care and a government role are incompatible. The VA is, I think, truly one of America's good news stories. Following a decade-long healthcare transformation, the VA is now at the forefront of America's healthcare industry. And it's not just a proud secretary saying that, but a host of other organizations within and outside of the healthcare community saying that about us. For example, the Journal of American Medical Association has applauded the VA's dedication to patient safety. The Washington Monthly magazine a few months ago had a feature article calling VA health care, quote, ``the best care anywhere.'' U.S. News and World Report described the VA as the home of top-notch health care in its annual best-hospitals issue. And since you're sitting down, I won't shock you unduly by telling you even The New York Times recently said that the VA is a model for our nation. And very recently, I think last week or the week before, on the NBC Nightly News was aired a story about VA healthcare, saying that it is the envy of healthcare administrators and a model for health care nationwide. And we are a model of humanitarian service in our communities as well. Our VA employees come to the aid of their communities and their citizens--veterans and non- veterans alike--in times of disasters and other emergencies. To make my point, I need only to mention the heroic effects and efforts of VA employees during Hurricane Katrina and Rita. Not only did our staffs evacuate several hundred patients out of our hospitals in the Gulf area to other hospitals without losing one, and not only did they do it quickly and efficiently, at great personal risk to themselves and at great personal sacrifice and loss. One nurse told me in Houston, where we relocated patients, that she for four days could see her house in New Orleans, and she could see only the roof and the chimney, but she went with her patients when we evacuated them, not even knowing the disposition of her own family. And when it's all said and done, it's the millions of the men and women who we care for, though, who are our biggest supporters. For the sixth consecutive year, the American Customer Satisfaction Index reports that veterans are more satisfied with their health care than any other patients in America. VA outscored the private sector by a full 10 percentage points. And as you would expect, because of our first-rate care, veterans are now coming to us in ever greater numbers. Fully 7.7 million are now enrolled in our system. This year VA doctors and nurses will treat over 5.3 million veterans at one of our 14 points of healthcare access. That's an increase of more than 1 million veterans coming to us since President Bush came to office. We expect this year that we will have 60 million patient encounters; that is, 60 million visits to our centers, clinics and hospitals. We have 154 major hospitals and over 900 clinics, and we dispense pharmaceutical prescriptions to over three--excuse me, over 230 million times. We've achieved something that no other major integrated provider has ever yet been able to do, and that is that every one of these 7.7 million veterans enrolled in our system has an electronic medical record. Time precludes me from telling you all of the advantages of safety and good medicine that that gives us, but let me mention anecdotally a couple of things. One, a young man came through Ronald Reagan airport. He was a diabetic. His insulin was in his luggage, and they lost his luggage. And he called his father in South Carolina, panicking, and his father said, ``Call the VA,'' because he was a veteran. He called our VA hospital here in north Washington. They said, ``Get in a cab and come out here.'' And by the time he got there, they had his medical record dialed up, knew his insulin regime, administered to him, gave him a supply and sent him on his way. And during that relocation of hundreds of patients in Katrina, we were able in every case, after we got them resettled into another hospital, to dial up their medical record. So electronic health records and their advantages to patient safety, for telemedicine, have put us at the forefront in health care delivery in this country, and we are very proud of that achievement. And I can say that because it didn't happen in the 14 months that I've been in the job. So I'm sitting on the shoulders of those who did make it happen. But it is a seminal achievement in health care. Two weeks ago I announced the creation of another front of technological initiative at the VA, which has the potential for untold ramifications in health care, and that's the creation of a new Genomic Medicine Program Advisory Committee, which will be to help me establish policies for using genetic information to help improve the medical care of our veterans. The VA's commitment to move into this realm of research, to advance our knowledge of the relationship of the genome to a host of physical and mental conditions relevant to veterans, is completely in keeping with the investigative nature of VA medicine. For 75 years our researchers and clinicians have been breaking exciting ground in virtually every aspect of medicine, with most of their work resulting in new and better ways to treat the myriad illnesses of our veterans. From Nobel Prize-winning researchers--and the VA's had three Nobel Prize winners--from Nobel Prize winners to the CAT scan to paperless records technologies, to kidney transplants, to microchip-drive prosthetics, to medical school partnerships that have trained more than half of our nation's physicians today, we are leading the world in our care for our veterans. As I've outlined, we've done a great job so far. We are a world-class healthcare network when it comes to treating existing illnesses and disabilities. But then we ask ourselves, what if we knew how to identify the earliest possible signs of a veteran's predisposition to a particular disease? What if we knew in advance how a veteran would react to a particular drug therapy? What if we could reasonably forecast the risks a particular veteran might face with respect to some forms of cancer? What if, summing up, we could move from providing medicine that is preventative to medicine that is predictive? With the advent of the Genomic Medicine Advisory Committee, we are positioning the VA to take a new journey, a truly great journey along the DNA trail. It is a path still not well lighted. There are so many questions of ethics and privacy that we are not going to proceed down that trail without first assessing the risks and benefits to our veterans. But we know from past experience that once we determine that a VA program is in the best interest of our veterans, we move forward with all the resources we can muster. And when VA health care is on the move, we change the nation's healthcare landscape for the better. As medical practice incorporates the advances of science, we must harness VA's triple mission of health care, research and training to bring these advances to the veterans we serve. I'm confident our new push down the genomic road will benefit not only our veterans, but the larger national health care community as a whole, as so much of our other research has done, such as the development of the CAT scan and the pacemaker and the first liver transplant done at the VA.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, one of the most disturbing trends that we have seen recently is that of those who would adopt rules abolishing any restrictions on the untrammelled flow of capital around the world, taking away from countries their sovereign rights to impose restrictions that serve legitimate national interests. This applies both to direct foreign investment, and even more to the notion that short-term purely financial investments must be allowed under any circumstances whatsoever. As Daniel Davies notes in a British newspaper, the Guardian, while it is true that the general rule should be to allow cross-border purchases of companies, ``there are, quite feasibly, a lot of uncommon but not impossible situations in which a democratic government might want to pass a law about the operations of a company, and not want to find itself being taken to a WTO tribunal for doing so.'' He correctly says in closing, ``Of course, there is not really all that much to be said for local ownership restrictions in most cases . . . But on the other hand, nor is it `protectionism.' The case for capital market openness is very much weaker than the case for goods market openness and we should all resist the attempt to define down protectionism.'' [From the Guardian, Mar. 20, 2006] Defining Protectionism Down (By Daniel Davies) Economic ``protectionism'' is back in the news with a vengeance, with France objecting to takeovers in the steel sector, Spain putting together national champion utilities and the USA crying blue murder over Dubai Ports World's proposed acquisition of P&O. James Surowiecki had an article in the Saturday Guardian painstakingly setting out the conventional wisdom on this subject (ie, that it's very bad). Trouble is, this isn't really what ``protectionism'' means. Basically and historically, ``protectionism'' (and ``mercantilism'' and related terms) always used to refer to tariff policy, with respect to goods markets and trade between buyers and sellers. The use of the terms to refer to policies about capital markets and ownership of companies is a new one; I spotted it beginning to arise in the FT and Economist around the beginning of the 1990s and have been writing Mr Angry letters on the subject ever since. Because capital markets ``protectionism'' is much less bad than the goods market type and might not even be bad at all. It's easy to explain why tariffs are bad. They're a tax on a particular economic activity--trade. Because of this, they cause people to do things that they wouldn't otherwise do in order to avoid the tariff, or not to do things they otherwise would do because the cost of the tariff means it isn't worth their while. There is a deadweight loss associated with this, and empirically it turns out that this deadweight cost is substantial. That's why tariffs are bad, and why we have a WTO dedicated to removing them. On the other hand, ownership of a company isn't an economic activity at all (because ``ownership'' isn't an activity, it's something you can do while sleeping, in a coma or even dead). So it is much harder to see how any deadweight loss can be created by placing taxes or other kinds of barriers on overseas investment in domestic companies. The very fact that James Surowiecki in his article has to appeal to ``the discipline of the takeover market on inefficient managements'' ought to raise eyebrows here. If there is one thing we do know about the discipline of the stock market, it's that it's a very weak force for good indeed, if it's a force for good at all. And the empirical evidence bears this out as well; while the gains from goods markets liberalisation are big and definitely there, the gains from capital account liberalisation are small and frustratingly difficult to detect, no matter what econometric techniques you bring to bear. Set against this, there are on occasion quite legitimate reasons why one might want to put curbs on the foreign ownership of domestic industries. Most particularly, you might want to be absolutely sure that you can govern them via domestic national laws. There is a lot of ill-founded paranoia about ``multinationals'', but it is true that a company with multinational operations has a lot more wriggle room when it comes to regulations it doesn't like. Furthermore, you can keep a lot more control over the tax base, and over things like shipping records and accounts which are usually stored in head office. Even the Thatcher governments recognised this, which is why the government used to have a ``golden share'' in a lot of privatisation companies. There are, quite feasibly, a lot of uncommon but not impossible situations in which a democratic government might want to pass a law about the operations of a company, and not want to find itself being taken to a WTO tribunal for doing so. And this is what the root of the problem is, I think. The rise of cross-border ownership of companies has gone hand in hand with the rise of a lot of bogus WTO cases trumped up by multinational companies which don't like the way in which they are being regulated in one of their countries of operation, and have managed to convince someone that it is a restraint of international trade. At about the time that the new usage of the word ``protectionism'' was being popularised, the international civil service was trying to negotiate something called the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). If it had been passed, this would have more or less guaranteed to foreign investors in any country that they would be able to carry out business in the same way in which they did in their own country. The fact that this would lead to a lowest-common-denominator effect pretty quickly was, of course, not an unintended consequence--this was the grand high era of neoliberalism, after all. However, more or less for this reason, the MAI was incredibly unpopular (particularly in the USA, where there are all sorts of local regulations and industry sweetheart deals which everyone wanted to preserve) and it died the death of a thousand committees. Ever since the death of the MAI, global civil servants at places like the EU and the WTO have been trying to resurrect it. They've been doing this, as far as I can see, by attempting to blur the distinction between goods market and capital market protection. I've mentioned that the WTO is chock full of bogus cases where regulations on a local subsidiary of a large company have been portrayed as a restraint of trade, but the EU is if anything worse; the office of Charlie McCreevy and the Single Market Directorate Generale of the EU have a really nasty habit of claiming that the ``right of establishment'' of the Treaty of Rome gives them the power to force through any cross-border merger in Europe in the face of government opposition. So the linguistic confusion between ``protectionism'' in the sense of tariffs and ``protectionism'' in the sense of local ownership restrictions is not really all that innocent. Of course, there is not really all that much to be said for local ownership restrictions in most cases. If someone wants to buy shares in a company, the fact that he comes from overseas is usually not a very good reason to stop him. But on the other hand, nor is it ``protectionism''. Even Adam Smith had very different opinions on free trade in goods markets, versus international investment. The case for capital market openness is very much weaker than the case for goods market openness and we should all resist the attempt to define down protectionism.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, for many decades, Jerome Grossman has been a leader in the fight for a rational, humane foreign policy for the United States. Alongside my predecessor in this body, former Congressman Robert Drinan, Jerome Grossman was one of the effective leaders of the opposition to the war in Vietnam. He has continued over his long career with undiminished energy to fight for the principles in which he believes and in which our country ought to act. On January 5, in the Wellesley Townsman, the weekly newspaper in the town where he lives, Mr. Grossman published an article on the election in Iraq. As the newspaper noted, Jerome Grossman is the Chairman of the Council for a Livable World, and in that capacity has been an insightful critic of the President's Iraq war from the earliest days of the Administration's initiation of this policy. In this article, he notes the problem of having a fully free election in a situation of military occupation. Mr. Speaker, although I greatly respect Mr. Grossman and I am one of many in Congress who have benefited significantly from his wisdom and advice over the years, I do not fully agree with the critique that he puts forward in this column. He is of course correct that there is not an autonomous government in Iraq, and it is also the case that the conditions in which the recent elections were held were far from ideal. But given all of those factors, I also believe that the elections were to a very significant extent an expression of the views of the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, what we have seen since that election is that those views fall far too heavily along sectarian lines, and the prospects for a genuinely democratic, functioning government coming out of this process is much more clouded than the President would have us believe. But despite this difference in emphasis between myself and Mr. Grossman on this particular aspect of the situation, I believe his article is a very useful contribution to the debate about our policy, and it is an important counter to the unrealistic optimism expressed by the Administration. I think it would be very useful for Members to read Mr. Grossman's viewpoint, drawing as he does on his decades of experience with these issues, and I ask that the article be printed here. A `Free And Fair' Election in Iraq President Bush hailed the Dec. 15 parliamentary election in Iraq as a ``landmark day in the history of liberty.'' It was an election in which 11 million Iraqis voted--a 70 percent turnout, which is remarkably high. But was it ``free and fair?'' It is impossible to have a ``free and fair election'' under foreign military occupation, by definition. President Bush himself pointed out this obvious fact at his March 16, 2005, press conference on the election in Lebanon. ``Our policy is this. We want there to be a thriving democracy in Lebanon. We believe that there will be a thriving democracy, but only if--but only if--Syria withdraws her troops completely out of Lebanon, but also her secret service organizations . . . There needs to be a complete withdrawal of these services in order for there to be a free election . . . '' Under strong U.S. and United Nations pressure, Syria did remove its troops and a free and fair election was held. The pressures on Iraqi voters were enormous. In the streets were 168,000 heavily armed American soldiers, 250,000 Iraqi troops and perhaps 100,000 Iraqi police. The survival value of the blue stain on the index finger was apparent to all, as was the voter's name at the polling place. They could be insurance against being picked up on suspicion of being insurgents and then languishing in Abu Graib. Or they could be protection from the armed Kurdish and Shiite militias roaming the cities in search of dissident Sunnis. In addition, leaders of the various tribal groups urged their minions to vote their slates, in order to attain local power for the coming struggle, widely expected once the occupying Americans depart. And anyway, who will count the votes? The United States as the occupier of Iraq has the power to make elected Iraqis carry out U.S. political decisions. We decided the time and place for elections, vetoed some candidates, approved others and guided the writing of the constitution. The U.S. Ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad--termed ``The Viceroy'' around the world--virtually runs Iraq from his fortified embassy with its staff of 5,000 and room for an active CIA. Here is the real situation: Iraq has a puppet government set up to keep order and to carry out American policies. This is the logical and inevitable result of military conquest. Any election held under such conditions--under the gun-- cannot be called free and fair. The Iraqis are simply choosing which of their number will enforce U.S. will and help to crush the inevitable resistance to foreign occupation. The Iraqis are not really governing themselves and we should not pretend that they are. Authentic Iraqi democracy with free and fair elections can develop only after complete U.S. withdrawal.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I know some Members here will not remember it, but there used to be something called a conference committee, and if we sent the Senate a bill and they did not like it, they could amend it and send it back. We do not have to do the bidding of the Senate by taking the tough issue off the table for them.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I once again skirt the rules of the House by taking note of the fact that people not in this Chamber may be watching us. And I am particularly concerned about members of the Iraqi National Assembly, the newly elected Parliament which we are trying to instruct in democracy. They may be observing this procedure by which this House deals with a number of very important and controversial issues, some of which I fully support, some of which I question. But as they watch us deal with this, it is being dealt with in a manner in which no amendments are allowed, in which only 40 minutes total of debate are allowed. And it is a bill brought forward because the committee leadership didn't like what happened when the House actually voted on it in a democratic manner. You will remember this bill came before us, many of the elements of this bill some time ago, and the House, working its will, voted to include an amendment to the hate crimes section. That appalled many Members of the majority. In fact, we read in some of the newspapers, members of the majority of the Republican Study Committee lamented the fact that the leadership had actually given the House membership a chance to vote. They said, we can't allow that to happen, we can't allow democracy to be running rampant on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. So today we have the antidote to democracy. We have a bill brought forward that repeats much of what was done before, which adds some other issues that ought to be debated, many of which I support, some of which I might like to see amended, and it prohibits amendments. It is a very important and somewhat controversial piece. And there can be controversy about better ways to do it or worse ways to do it, but it is brought up in an absolutely undemocratic fashion. So to those members of the Iraqi National Assembly who may happen to be observing this, I think there is a very important point we need to make: please don't try this at home. We are trying to instill others in the world to be democratic. The President's inaugural address noted that we are going to bring democracy. Is this what you mean by teaching people to follow democratic procedures, Madam Speaker? The other side brings up a controversial bill, and because it was amended once, make sure you can bring it back again in an unamendable form, put in other aspects, and leave virtually no time for debate. We will have debated this bill under the same rule that we debate naming of post offices. We will give this bill the same amount of time as we give post offices, or that major piece of legislation, the only vote we cast last Wednesday when this House came out overwhelmingly in favor of Sandra Day O'Connor. That is the bill that we had 40 minutes of debate on, the same as this. This is a shameful example of the degradation of the democratic process that has befallen this House. What happens is what has happened in the past: things get put in here that cannot be individually examined, they cannot be debated. Members will feel pressured to vote for the overall package. Members, and this is the goal, put a lot of things in here that are very important and very good, many of which I have voted for in the past, many of which I want to vote for. But Members have put in a few other things that are very controversial and do not allow this House to approach looking at things individually and saying an amendment here, yes or no. And then if Members do not buy the whole package, then you go after them. The Republican majority has decided to legislate in the same manner in which you give a pill to a dog: you take something that the dog wants and you stick a couple of pills in it and you ram it down its throat. That is an inappropriate way for this democratic House to proceed.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I just want to point out that the poison pill the gentleman from Wisconsin was referring to was an amendment adopted on the floor of this House by a majority of the House. So the poison pill is the result of a majority of this House. The problem is the gentleman from Wisconsin has Thomas Jefferson confused with Lucretia Borgia. When the will of the House works its will under this regime, and the gentleman from Wisconsin does not like the outcome, it becomes a poison pill and we go through this whole procedure just to get rid of it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, no crisis confronting the world is as grave as that in Darfur, Sudan, where genocide is a tragic fact. America's failure to act more vigorously in this regard is a grave error. It is true that there are other nations, including many in Africa--which bear some of the blame. But we must not let the inaction of others become a justification for our own failure to take steps that we know to be morally necessary to save lives. My colleague from Massachusetts, (Mr. Capuano), on his return from a trip to Darfur led by the gentlewoman from California, the Democratic Leader, wrote a forceful article in the Boston Herald for March 7th making the case for much firmer action by the U.S. and others in Darfur. Mr. Speaker, given the moral imperative of action, I hope all of our colleagues will agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts who writes that ``I urge the President to fully support the U.N. peacekeeping mission and put the full weight of the U.S. military behind it. More troops, with a mandate to protect civilians, are desperately needed . . . If the U.N. cannot meet this timetable, we must strengthen the AU force and provide additional civilian support.'' Mr. Speaker, at a time when people compete with each other to stress the importance of the moral element in politics, our colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) has struck a clear note on one of the overriding moral issues of our time, and I join him in calling on the President and the rest of us to take prompt action. U.S. Must Work To Halt Darfur Genocide (By Michael Capuano) We look back on the Holocaust and wonder how the world stood by while 6 million Jews were slaughtered. Never again, we pledged. Yet in 1994, 1 million Rwandans were massacred. Afterward, we declared it genocide and pledged never again. Many leaders later expressed deep regret over our inaction. In 2003, our attention was drawn to Darfur, Sudan, where innocent civilians were being murdered, enslaved, raped and driven from their homes. We declared it genocide, but failed to act, again. Since 2003, more than 400,000 people have been murdered in Darfur and 2 million more displaced. I just returned from Sudan, on a trip led by House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. In Al Fashir, Darfur, we met with relief workers, traveled to Internally Displaced Persons camps and spoke with African Union (AU) personnel. This reinforced my conviction that genocide is still occurring, the government of Sudan is responsible and not enough is being done. We also met with Sudanese government officials who claimed the suffering in Darfur was exaggerated. There were skirmishes over water and grazing rights, they said, but nothing to concern outsiders. They admitted funding the Janjaweed, the militias who attack civilians, yet vehemently denied genocide is occurring. Everyone else we spoke with, AU personnel and relief workers, recognize they are witnessing genocide. There are 7,700 AU personnel on the ground. However, they don't have a mandate to protect civilians and lack sufficient resources. Without a drastic troop increase and outside logistical assistance, the AU will continue struggling. AU officials told us they need more support and are planning for the involvement of a United Nations force. But the government of Sudan, the perpetrators of the genocide, rejects U.N. involvement. I have persistently called for the protection of civilians and an end to the violence. Attempts to address this crisis legislatively have faced resistance. I have tried to Introduce amendments to a State Department bill and a Foreign Operations bill, authorizing the president to use all necessary means to stop the genocide. These amendments were blocked. President Bush and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan recently discussed a U.N. peacekeeping force for Darfur. The president has publicly called for the doubling of peacekeepers. I urge the president to fully support a U.N. peacekeeping mission and put the full weight of the U.S. military behind it. More troops, with a mandate to protect civilians, are desperately needed and must arrive in the next couple of months. If the U.N. cannot meet this timetable, we must strengthen the AU force and provide additional civilian support. President Bush recently said America was first to recognize the genocide in Darfur. He said, ``Our country was the first country to call what was taking place a genocide, which matters--words matter.'' Actions matter more. It's time to back our words up with action. Time is running out.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that Michael R. Lunsford, a constituent of mine from Taunton, Massachusetts, recently celebrated the first anniversary of being elevated to the position of Bishop within the International Fellowship of Reformed Episcopal Churches, previously known as the International Fellowship of Reformed Episcopal, Pentecostal Churches of the Syro-Atiochan Rite. While this marks an important milestone for Bishop Lunsford and for the members of his congregation, I believe it is also important for the broader community to be aware of the many ways in which he has contributed to improving the lives of Taunton residents, and improving the quality of life in the greater Taunton area. Indeed, he offers an excellent example of the way in which clerics contribute to their communities simultaneously on two levels: as spiritual leaders for the members of their particular houses of worship or faiths, but also as participants in important community efforts to address social concerns that go beyond the doors of their own houses of worship. It is from that perspective that I would like to acknowledge the valuable services Bishop Lunsford has performed--and continues to perform--for Taunton and its environs, and also overseas (obviously, in this case, the term ``community'' has a much more expansive meaning than we sometimes give it). Bishop Lunsford moved to Taunton in 1983 with his wife, when he took on the position of pastor at the Crossroads Christian Center. He has been active in area religious and civic affairs since that time. From its inception in 1987, he has been an advisor to Barnabas Ministries, an international missionary organization that has provided encouragement and training to thousands of pastors in more than 27 developing countries throughout the world. He was also the founder of two local human service programs: Eagles Nest, an after school program established in 1998 that focuses on tutoring, reading programs and other youth services; and The Lord Cares Food Program, which began in 1993 and provides nutrition assistance to needy families by means of donations and volunteer work. He was also the founder in 2001 of Crossroads International, a multi-racial ministry headquartered in Taunton, with branches in New Bedford, Massachusetts, Providence, Rhode Island and Port Limon, Costa Rica. Crossroads International works on promoting business development, youth empowerment and anti-drug initiatives, among other efforts. Bishop Lunsford is also on the board of Youth Challenge International, an anti-drug abuse organization, and is a member of numerous local human service and community boards, including Taunton Cares, Pro Home, Taunton Emergency Task Force, Community Counseling, Greater Taunton Clergy, and the Department of Mental Health. Because his work is very much in the American tradition of combining spiritual and community leadership, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Michael R. Lunsford on his many contributions to Taunton, his elevation to the position of Bishop and his ongoing commitment to helping less fortunate people around the world.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I agree with the words of the gentleman from Ohio. First of all, let me express the regrets of our colleague from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) who was a major sponsor of this bill and who, I think, is the Representative of the National Federation of the Blind. He very much wanted to be here. He had a previous engagement, and he stayed here until the very last minute. I know he has a statement for the Record, but I did want to convey to people his having made an extraordinary effort to be here personally. As I said, I agree with what the gentleman from Ohio said. I will say that I had inquired as to whether or not there might be some alternative financing arrangement. I appreciate this is a first-rate organization that makes enormous contributions. There are some other organizations that work in the field as well. But it was not possible to work anything out, and I did not want to stand in the way of this very important legislation, both in terms of commemorating Louis Braille and in terms of making the funding available. So I give this legislation my support.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I understand there probably has been some confusion about how long things are going to go. I will say I am now convinced that the problem is FEMA has no idea of what the spend-out rate is, and this is a further indication. While we are on the subject, since we are talking about FEMA, I do have to say it is not on a related subject, it is not related, but the decision by FEMA to evict people who have lost their homes, who are living in hotels because some of them did not fill out the right forms, is the single cruelest most senseless public policy I have seen. It serves no purpose. It is an infliction of further misery on people who have already been beset. And it is an example of incompetence and callousness compounding each other. Let me get back to this. Here I sympathize with my friends on the majority who have the responsibility of trying to make sense out of what they are hearing. We do not want to cut off the people who need help. I appreciate what the gentleman said. Let me say we have put a bill out. I hope we will see that bill on the floor soon, that we will get to vote on it, that we will send it to the Senate. And until and unless we get Senate consideration on the kinds of things we are talking about, I will vote for this one, but for no further ones.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I think, given the calendar, we should do it as quickly as possible.

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