Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I cannot answer as to where the whole Federalist Society is, but I can tell the gentleman where at least one of the leaders of the Federalist Society who introduced my Governor the other day, I know where he was. He was busy making jokes about two Senators in the Ku Klux Klan, which he seemed to think, as did others, was riotously funny.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, here they go again. Once again, the Republican Party is demanding of the courts that they be more activist. Earlier this year, we passed a resolution denouncing the Supreme Court in the case of eminent domain for not overturning decisions of local and State elected officials in Connecticut. Today, we are asked to denounce the Ninth Circuit Court for not overturning the actions of a local School Board. And here is the nub of the Court's holding, quote, ``although we reached our conclusions with little difficulty and firmly endorse the school districts' authority to conduct a survey for the purposes involved here, we reiterate that we express no view on the wisdom of posing some of the particular questions asked or of conducting an inquiry into the particular areas surveyed by the school district.'' And here is what the majority is apparently upset about. That determination is properly left to the school authorities. In other words, where is activism when you need it, Madam Speaker? Why do we not have a Supreme Court tell the people in Connecticut, elected officials, you may not do this economic development the way you want? We, the unelected Supreme Court, will overturn you. Here, without a specific textual phrase in the Constitution, even like taking of property, we say to the Ninth Circuit, how dare you say this is up to the school board? The gentleman from Pennsylvania made some arguments that were very plausible to me about the lack of sense for some of these questions. He was critical. He said, you should not ask these of first, third and fifth graders. But it is not up to the courts to decide what is good or bad psychology. That is up to the school district. And again, let us be very clear. This is the second time in a couple of months the majority has complained that the courts, the Federal courts, have not cancelled out the actions of local elected officials and State elected officials. Now, that is only a problem for this point. What we ought to have is honesty in attacking the judiciary. Truth in demagoguery. The point is that when you say you are opposed to the courts because they are activists and because lifetime-appointed judges are overturning elected officials, that ought to be what you mean. If you mean you do not like the particular outcome, say so. It is perfectly legitimate to be result-oriented, and lots of us are. The problem here is the lack of intellectual honesty. Clearly, people are not opposed to judicial activism. In the case of eminent domain, in the case of this situation here, they are opposed to the lack of judicial activism. Now, I also wonder how far that extends, because on Monday, the Supreme Court decided a far more important case, I believe, to the parents involved regarding their rights vis-a-vis their children. By a 6-2 vote, the Supreme Court said that the burden of proof is on the parents of a child with a disability. If the parents disagree with what the school has proposed to educate a child with a disability, they, the individual parent, has the burden of proof in court in overturning what the school board has decided. Now, I have to tell my colleagues this: I think if you are the parent of a disabled child, getting that child the proper educational structure is more important than whether or not she has to do a sex survey. You might dislike the sex survey, but I would think to most parents, getting the right education for your child is more important. But the Supreme Court said, no, the burden of proof is on you, the parent. You, the parent, have the burden of proof with regard to your child's education. Where are the assertions of the absolute right of the parents? Why do the parents not have the kind of rights you are claiming? Was that making parenting unconstitutional? Did Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas who are in the majority make parenting unconstitutional when they said you, the parent, have the burden of proof if you want to improve the educational structure of your children? In other words, what the majority says is when we do not like a decision, we will criticize the court. That is fine, that is free speech, as long as you do not get into PATRIOT Act situations. But why disguise what you are saying? If you really do not like the result, say you do not like the result. Why all these complaints about activism when what we have here is again a complaint about the absence of activism? So I hope going forward, we will have honest debates about what the courts do and do not do, and we will stop pretending that we are upset about activism when what you are really upset about is judicial pacifism. You want the Ninth Circuit to overturn the Palmdale School Board. Well, why does a Member of Congress not do something about that with the school board of Palmdale? You are upset because the Supreme Court did not overturn the elected officials in Connecticut. Let us have some honesty in this regard.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, let me ask the gentleman, because I know he has studied this well. I have read the opinion. I have not read the pleading. I do not know what specific phrase in the Constitution they pointed to, but I wonder from an originalist standpoint, did John Adams and James Madison want the Supreme Court to have the right, did they say that there was this absolute parental right? I would ask the gentleman, is this one of those nasty things we find lurking in that penumbra, which is such an unpleasant word?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, a couple weeks ago the majority in the House narrowly imposed on the bill creating an affordable housing fund with funds from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac severe restrictions to keep insidious left-wing organizations from undermining the stability of this country. I have a letter here from one of the organizations that was so targeted. It is that radical group known as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, a set of groups in local communities that, to quote them, ``pray at each meeting that families and those who have no home quickly may find a place in which they can live a decent and happy life.'' Here is what this subversive organization of deeply religious people dedicated to trying to help the poor have to say: ``Our members live in communities across the country. They serve individuals and families with no homes, families on the verge of homelessness. We see what they are going through. Many Councils of the Society provide shelter and housing for the poor. The poor need a voice just as much as Americans who have the financial ability to own their own homes. They, too, should be allowed the privilege to register to vote, regardless of where they live; and nonprofits should not be penalized for providing them an opportunity to do so.'' Council of the United States, Society of St. Vincent De Paul, St. Louis, MO, November 2, 2005. Hon. Barney Frank, Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC. Dear Rep. Frank: As National President of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul representing 116,000 members across the United States in 4,000 parishes, I urge you to: 1. Support the Affordable Housing Fund in the GSE legislation (H.R. 1461), but without restricting an organization's right to engage in voter registration. 2. Oppose any language that restricts voter registration and freedom of affiliation by non-profit and public organizations when using their own funds. 3. Tell House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and Financial Service Chairman Mike Oxley (R-OH) to reject these restrictions and bring the bill to the floor for a vote without this language. Members of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul pray at each meeting ``that families and those who have no home may quickly find a place in which they can live a decent and happy life.'' I ask that you help us to continue to make this a reality. It is our belief that it is the right of every American to vote. Access to the privilege to register to vote should not be conditioned upon where people live or what their financial condition is. Nonprofit organizations such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, work tirelessly to serve the poor. It is irresponsible to hold organizations hostage by this restrictive measure that impinges on the rights of poor Americans and upon those who seek to help give a face and a voice to the many that are voiceless. We see from the recent tragedies in the south that there are many poor and today many more homeless who need shelter. Adding such limitations on those who are trying so hard to help is wrong. The Society has been serving the poor in America for over 150 years. Our members live in communities across the country. They regularly visit and serve individuals and families with no homes, families on the verge of homelessness, and families who live in hazardous and substandard conditions. We see what they are going through. Many Councils of the Society provide shelter and housing for the poor. The poor need a voice just as much as Americans who have the financial ability to afford their own homes. They, too, should be allowed the privilege to register to vote regardless of where they live, and nonprofits should not be penalized for providing them an opportunity to do so. Sincerely, Joseph Flannigan, National President, Society of St. Vincent de Paul.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, how many Republicans?

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, so apparently four or five Members have been able to do this. I will repeat that we have heard no substantive defense of why this came. I would agree with what the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) said, sometimes you do not know something is controversial; but once you learn that it is, then you have the regular procedure.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, do I oppose it? Yes, I oppose it. Under this procedure I will oppose it. I will not support the diminution, the continued reduction of democracy in the House. And I think, yes, there could be a lot of free speech, but not by shutting it down in the House. I will say again, nobody can give us a substantive justification of why this is being done this way. Look, this involves the Constitution. It involves the complex issues of campaign finance regulation. It involves how you take technology and how you adapt basic constitutional principles to it, and that is to be debated by 20 minutes on each side, and that is to be preformed with no amendments. Mr. Speaker, it is a joke. It is self-parody. Let us all defend free speech by not having any. I hope that this is voted down and that we then can have an appropriate debate under the rules of the House with amendments and with full discussion.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, again, invoking one other individual does not pass for substantive debate. I am surprised. Do you not understand what real argument is?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I have to comment on the irony that we have people here defending vigorous open debate and free speech by invoking one of the most restrictive procedures of the House of Representatives. Apparently, people here believe that James Madison thought that there should be free debate except in the Congress of the United States. Under the procedure, and people should understand who will be monitoring this debate, for many of us the key issue is not the substance. Yes, I thing we ought to legislate. It is the outrageous high-handed arrogance we have seen now become, unfortunately, second nature to the majority, that brings an important bill invoking constitutional principles and history and modern technology, and how you integrate those, and the question of campaign finance, into the most restrictive procedure. We have 40 minutes to debate this. No amendments are possible. Apparently this is the perfect bill. This must have sprung like Minerva from the forehead of Zeus in perfect form, and here it is. God forbid that the United States Congress or House of Representatives should be able to amend it or change it. It will be here. Take it or leave it. And of course the assumption is that people who agree that we should not be restricting the free use of the Internet will be so intimidated by the fear that if they voted ``no'' they will be criticized that they will fall in line. No, I do not think that works any more. I think the American public is smart enough to know that the end does not always justify the means and that the irony of purporting to defend free speech by shutting it down in the Congress of the United States is too bizarre. You want to know how restrictive this is? This procedure allows a total of 40 minutes for debate. Is 40 minutes a lot of time? This Republican majority has regularly kept roll calls open after debates have finished for longer than we get to debate this bill. They will spend way more than 40 minutes twisting each other's arms in private, rather than allow us to have the debate time. What, are we overworked? We are hardly as a Congress overworked. We would have plenty of time to debate it. Whatever happened to the notion that a bill comes out of committee, and I am a ranking member of a committee. I would not allow for my committee, if I could help it, a bill to come to the floor where there was substantial opposition under suspension of the rules. This has nothing to do with the substance. There are issues to be debated here. Forty minutes and no debate. The rules are suspended because free speech is so important to these supporters that free speech must be sacrificed as we get it. They are going to destroy the village in order to save it. If someone would explain to me, I would yield my time, why we could not have this as a regular bill under regular procedure. Is there some reason unbeknownst to me that kept us from having this as a bill that came to the floor, that people can go to the Rules Committee and we could have amendments and we could debate it for more than 20 minutes on each side. I would be glad to yield to any advocate of free speech who can tell me why it has become inapplicable in this bill. Well, I have no takers. Apparently, all we get in defense of this is free silence. And I will commend my colleagues for having the good sense not to try to defend their procedure.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let us do that. Let us defeat this now and send it to a rule. The gentleman from California's (Mr. Doolittle) idea of a substantive defense is maybe a tribute to the gallantry that he continues to exemplify long after it may have gone out of fashion. He says the reason this is a good idea is that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) said so. I highly esteem my colleague from California with whom I disagree in this case. But the notion that her imprimatur is in itself a substantive defense of failing to follow the regular procedure does not meet the argument.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, you said all of the Members there present. How many were there?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the previous speaker and many of the other Republican speakers that the recent decision allowing eminent domain for private economic gain was a bad one. But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are blaming some of the wrong people. The Supreme Court was not the author of this policy. What the United States Supreme Court did in the Kelo case was to allow elected officials at the State and local level to go forward with what they wanted. In other words, the complaint of my Republican colleagues about the Supreme Court in this case is, where was judicial activism when we needed it? They are denouncing the Supreme Court because it did not overturn the decision of locally elected officials. I happen to agree in this specific case. But try to square that with their rhetoric in which they are talking about activist judges and unelected officials. What they are implicitly acknowledging here is that there are times when they very much want unelected and lifetime-appointed judges to overturn what local officials did, because the case here of eminent domain is a case not of the Supreme Court taking anything aggressive. As I said before, the Supreme Court does not use eminent domain. That building across the street has not gotten one inch bigger since I got here. What the Supreme Court did was to allow the local officials' decision to stand. That is the kind of lack of activism that my Republican colleagues deplore.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for what she says. I know she is very much on the side of doing this in the right way, and confronted with particular facts, you have to deal with things. So I do believe that a rational food aid policy will include some flexibility on buying the food in an emergency, time and everything else, but I certainly agree it should not come at the expense of the overall program.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by telling you how impressed I am with the firm statement of principle apparently by the Republican Study Committee. Confronted with an appropriations bill that they believe wrecks the budget, violates the House rules, they are calling for a firm and principled ``present'' on the rule. That is an inspirational example of how to combat wrongdoing. It does give new meaning to the faith-based initiative. Apparently the gentleman from Indiana thinks this is a terrible rule and a bad bill, but because he has faith that by some process, apparently others will be excluded, that the chairman of the committee will fix it, he will refrain from voting against it. I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Connecticut, who fights very hard for the most important parts of this bill, in my judgment, those which my colleague from Massachusetts alluded to, those which try to alleviate hunger, food stamps and international feeding programs, and I am pleased that they have survived the onslaught as well as they have. I hope that when we get to the reconciliation process, her efforts and the efforts of others who care about these things will succeed. There is one aspect of the feeding program, however, where I find myself in sharp disagreement with the conference report, and at this point I would include for the record a speech given to the Kansas City Export Food Aid Conference in May by USAID Administrator Natsios. [From the Kansas City Export Food Aid Conference, May 3, 2005] The Local Purchase Initiative (Remarks by Andrew S. Natsios, Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development) I am very pleased to be here today to discuss U.S. food aid--what we have done right in the past and what we can do to improve how we conduct our food aid programs in light of new challenges since September 11, 2001. Last year when I was here, I talked about the success of U.S. food aid over the past 50 years and how we have assisted more than 3 billion people through P.L. 480 programs. Over the past twelve months, many of you have continued to work with people in Sri Lanka and Indonesia whose lives were devastated as a result of the Tsunami as well as people in Sudan, Ethiopia and Eritrea who have been hit hard by the equally overwhelming consequences of conflict and drought. In addition, many of your organizations contribute to long term development programs in places like Honduras and Bangladesh that strengthen communities so that when they face sudden or slow onset disasters, they are prepared and better able to cope with the setbacks. You have continued to work tirelessly to save and improve people's lives. I appreciate the partnerships we have created together to address food insecurity. I want to take a few minutes now to talk about changes in the world over the past few years and how the change has affected our ability to meet food aid needs. Our Agency, and particularly our food programs now operate in an environment characterized by increased frequency and severity of natural and manmade disasters, terrorism, instability, the HIV/AIDS pandemic, corruption, poor governance and conflict which has led to increased population displacement. The United States Government is facing increasing demands on its diplomatic, military and humanitarian resources. And the resources are limited. But not responding is not an option, so we prioritize and stretch the dollars to meet as many needs as possible as efficiently as possible. At the same time, the World Trade Organization continues its debate on food aid issues in the context of the current agricultural trade negotiations. Some of the other members would like to do away with in-kind food aid such as the P.L. 480 Title II program. The U.S. has made two presentations at the WTO in Geneva on U.S. food aid policies and programs. At these presentations and in the negotiations we keep reminding member states, and relevant international organizations that we must come to an agreement that will ensure (1) that we maintain adequate food aid levels to meet global needs; (2) that food aid continues to be an internationally accepted form of assistance when it targets food insecure populations; and (3) that we minimize any trade distortions. I won't belabor this any further as I know that there will be a more in-depth discussion on trade issues over the next few days. Let me just say that we will continue to try to ensure that the WTO Doha Development Round does not restrict in-kind food aid. If food aid is unduly restricted, inhibit development, increase food insecurity and create instability in developing countries. In President Bush's 2002 National Security Strategy, he acknowledged the importance of fighting poverty abroad when he defined the three pillars of our foreign policy as Defense, Diplomacy and Development. Recognizing that we cannot address all of today's problems using our military or diplomatic resources, he emphasized that what we do as development practitioners can also serve to protect vital American national interests. In January of this year, USAID released a paper focusing attention on failing, failed and recovering states known as the Fragile States Strategy. The strategy provides a focal point for the USAID Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian assistance in defining its priorities and in carrying out its humanitarian assistance role. The strategy promotes four basic objectives for carrying out work in fragile, failed and failing states which are to: (1) improve monitoring and analysis; (2) ensure that priorities respond to realities on the ground; (3) focus programs on the source of the fragility or weakness; and (4) create or use streamlined operational procedures to support rapid and effective response. Failed states are both the incubator and sanctuary for terrorists. Where there is no effective national government to control terrorist organizations, these groups will flourish. It was no accident that Sudan, Somalia, and Afghanistan served as the base of Al Qaeda training and planning. As the National Security Strategy document so succinctly puts it: ``America is now threatened less by conquering states than by failing ones.'' We now know by painful experience that we are not immune from the consequences that arise from state failure on other continents. Our underlying priorities, in working in fragile states, are to increase stability, promote security, encourage reform and build institutional capacity. This will address the causes of fragility as opposed to simply targeting symptoms. The President's 2006 budget proposes reforms which will give USAID the programmatic tools to deal with fragile states. In crisis situations, strategic programming of food aid can stabilize a fragile economy by supporting local farmers and maintaining demand for the locally produced goods, despite the low purchasing power of those requiring assistance. Famines can be demand driven or supply driven. A supply driven famine is caused by reduced food production and rising prices. In this case, importing U.S. food to increase the food supply would be an appropriate response. A demand driven famine is caused by the collapse of family livelihoods and the inability of families to access food, even where there is adequate supply and low prices. In cases where the food supply is adequate and prices stable, but where families cannot afford to purchase the food, an appropriate response would be to purchase what is available locally to assist the food insecure rather than adding U.S. food to the local supply which could depress local prices and further aggravate the economy. As with all of our work in fragile countries, we need to take a close look at all of our options when responding to needs. The work is getting more rather than less arduous and it is evident that we must expand the ways in which we conduct our business. The old way of doing business is insufficient to meet the mounting food needs in this new environment given our limited dollars. Despite all that we are doing, and all that the rest of the world is doing to win the war on hunger, the number of chronically malnourished people in the world continues to rise, now totaling more than 850 million people. And though the prevalence of undernourishment has fallen in 30 developing countries since the early 1990s, poverty and conflict have contributed to its growth elsewhere. In the past decade, and especially in the past several years, conflict-related emergencies and natural disasters have created global food needs beyond the capacity of the U.S. and other donors to respond using the options currently available to us. In specific situations, when food pipelines break or when conflicts pause and we need to move food in quickly to save lives, we need to be able to access food more quickly. In his book on famine, Fred Cuny stated that ``the chances of saving lives at the outset of a [relief] operation are greatly reduced when food is imported. By the time it arrives in the country and gets to people, many will have died.'' He goes on to say that ``evidence suggests the massive food shipments sent to Ethiopia in 1985 had little impact on the outcome of the famine . . . and that by the time it arrived in sufficient, steady quantities in the rural areas, the death rate had peaked and was already declining.'' Some of the starkest evidence we have of deaths directly related to a slow food aid response took place in Gode, Ethiopia, the epicenter of the 2000 famine there, which threatened over 10 million people with starvation. While the famine was eventually averted--the Centers for Disease Control has estimated that in Gode, 20,000 deaths resulted from the crisis in that region alone with an estimated 78,000 deaths in four other regions. Seventy-seven percent of the deaths in Gode occurred before the major relief interventions began in the summer of 2000 and more than half of the deaths were of children under the age of five. One way to respond to the needs more quickly is to purchase food locally, but this requires us to have access to cash. When food emergencies are a function of localized drought, conflict or crop failure from disease or locusts with food available close-by, local purchase can be critical. USAID is searching for innovative ways to stretch its dollars and meet the needs of the most vulnerable populations with emergency and developmental food assistance. One way of doing this is to provide cash which could be used to purchase food in the country or region where an emergency is taking place. For FY 2006, President Bush has taken the initiative to provide this tool to USAID humanitarian officers and has put a request into the FY 2006 budget asking that $300 million be shifted out of P.L. 480 Title II and into the International Disaster and Famine Assistance (IDFA) account to be used as cash for meeting emergency food needs. Specifically, the President stated in his budget that ``This funding will permit USAID to provide food assistance in the most timely and efficient manner to the most critical emergency food crises. This assistance will be used in those instances where the rapid use of cash assistance is critical to saving lives.'' One of the factors behind this request is the length of time that it takes to ship food commodities from the United States to an emergency. Shipping in-kind assistance from the U.S. normally requires three or four months to arrive at an emergency distribution point once it is ordered. Having the option to purchase the food in the same country or region where an emergency is happening would enable us to get food to hungry people faster. It would save lives and would fill a critical gap until U.S. commodities arrive at the site. In addition to providing a faster option, local purchases of food will, in many cases, save the dollars that would otherwise have been spent on transportation costs, allowing us to purchase additional food aid to feed more people. The primary purpose of the Title II program is to save lives and having more flexibility in our programs to use cash to buy food locally will save lives. The fact that U.S. farmers and shippers are able to benefit from the Food for Peace program is an important, but secondary benefit. It is not the primary objective of the program. The primary objective is to save lives. In responding to pending crises, USAID has limited options: We can order a shipment of U.S. commodities which can be expected to arrive at the distribution site within 3 to 4 months of purchase. We can access food from pre-positioned U.S. commodity stocks or swap commodities from other food pipelines. However, the limited pre-positioned stocks are not always adequate or suitable for every situation and increasingly thin pipelines have lately rendered swaps infeasible. Within the past year, we have established a pre-position warehouse in Dubai, UAE to store commodities until they are needed in an emergency. While this is extremely useful, we cannot always preposition the amount or appropriate mix of commodities that would be needed in every emergency. Also, pre-positioning will not solve every problem. For example, currently Ethiopia is facing an unexpectedly severe food crisis and while the current supplemental budget has a sizable increase in food aid, it cannot be used to order food until the President signs it. When this happens, we will need to order the commodities in the U.S., ship them, and then wait for them to arrive in Ethiopia several months from now. Needless deaths will occur while we wait. If we had the flexibility to purchase food locally, we could purchase the commodities in or near Ethiopia once the legislation is signed, getting the food to the people who need it months sooner. This is not a hypothetical situation--it is taking place as we speak. Another option that we have to meet emergencies is to divert U.S. commodities headed to other programs on the high seas. And while this has been done, it is an extremely costly intervention. It means that another program will suffer, and ultimately means less money for commodities. The ability to purchase food supplies in local or regional markets would give us one more option for meeting critical needs. While this will not always be viable, this flexibility will make a difference in the reduction of human suffering. I want to be very clear that this requested change is not an attack on the U.S. farmers or the U.S. maritime industry. The contributions that many of you have made in feeding hungry people overseas is notable and will continue to be a critical, basic component of how the U.S. conducts its management of food aid. The Administration has no intention of changing how the United States runs its food aid programs in general. This is not the beginning of a push to make our food aid program an all-cash program. I personally would oppose any kind of proposal to make more than one quarter of our food aid budget available for local purchase. The greater portion of U.S. food aid must continue to be purchased in American markets where the supply is assured for emergencies where large volume is needed. One thing that I have been asked repeatedly is: How will we sustain support on Capitol Hill for these humanitarian food aid programs, if the benefits to the U.S. agricultural and shipping industries are perceived to be decreased? The budget for OFDA, the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, and the Refugee Program budget have been as stable in funding as the Food for Peace budget, and these two budgets contain no guaranteed purchase of U.S. commodities. Americans, including those who have been intimately involved in our food aid programs in the past, will strongly support USAID's effort to improve the U.S. food response to humanitarian emergencies by making that response as flexible and effective as possible to save more lives and reduce suffering. I believe that compassion for those who are suffering is part of the moral fabric of this society. This was evident to me in the massive outpouring of private cash contributions to help the victims of the Tsunami and I believe that it holds true here. Stretching our emergency resources further will also help to protect our development programs from being tapped to meet emergency needs. I know that many of you have questions about how we will run this program and I will try to answer as many of them as possible. The Administration has requested that the money be placed in the International Disaster and Famine Account. This is the emergency account managed by our Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance. However, the $300 million designated to this account for the purchase of food aid will be managed by the Office of Food for Peace, which currently manages the Title II food aid program. As Food for Peace currently has the responsibility for and the expertise in managing food aid, they are the appropriate group to administer this money. The money, like current Title II money, will be programmed primarily through NGOs and the World Food Program. One of the questions that I have been asked is: Is there enough food available in local markets to meet our emergency needs? Though local purchase will not support all of our food aid initiatives, there is food available for purchase in developing countries. In 2004 more than $680 million worth of food aid was purchased from developing countries by WFP in order to meet local food aid needs. Developing countries able to supply food aid commodities have included (but are not limited to) Indonesia, Pakistan, South Africa and Sudan. This method not only provides food more quickly and more cheaply, it also supports the local economy and helps improve the livelihoods of poor farmers. We follow the principle of ``Do no Harm'' in local markets. The $300 million will not all be used to purchase and program food in a single country, but in a variety of countries, reducing the impact on local markets. We also intend to apply Title II legislated requirements such as Bellmon and Usual Marketing Requirement, where local purchases are conducted to ensure that there will be no displacement of commercial sales, or negative impact on local markets. I have also been asked several times why we can't just use our notwithstanding authority under Title II to make local purchases. I have been told in no uncertain terms by our USAID lawyers that we cannot use our notwithstanding authority for local purchases. Title II authorizes the donation of American agricultural commodities. Notwithstanding authority was not intended for, nor can it be used to create additional authority that would allow the purchase of foreign commodities. The notwithstanding clause can waive existing federal laws which slow down emergency response, but it cannot be used to invent new authority not now available under Title II. As it is currently written, Title II can not be used to purchase commodities locally. We do not intend for this money to be used in purchasing commodities from other developed nations. If food aid is not available for local purchase under appropriate market conditions in developing countries with some proximity to the emergency need, the food aid will be purchased in the United States. I want to close with another example of where this type of program could be used effectively. In the past in southern Sudan, small farmers in the fertile western farming areas have often produced small grain surpluses, while hundreds of thousands of Sudanese in other parts of the country have urgently needed food aid. If we were able to strategically and carefully buy the surpluses to meet food aid needs elsewhere in the same country, we would end up sustaining and improving the lives of both groups. Should signatories comply with the July Peace Accords, there is a real possibility that agricultural output could return to its former level and the region would once again act as an important regional cereal supplier. However, if using donated food commodities from the U.S. remains our only option, we risk lowering demand for the local production and destroying price incentives for the local farmers to improve their production to meet future food aid needs. I would be happy to take your questions. Mr. Speaker, the issue was this. We give food aid, and that is generous. Under the rules that will be maintained by this bill, the aid can only be given in kind; that is, we ship the actual physical food. That has obvious advantages in that it helps the American farmer while it helps those in need. Particularly for nonemergency food aid, that is an entirely legitimate way to go. In some emergency situations, maybe in many, it is the right way to go. The problem is under current law, the American foreign aid administrators are not allowed to use any of this food aid by buying the food near where the emergency happens. That is one reason why a large part of the food aid is taken up in transportation costs. I understand there are maritime interests like that, but that is not an appropriate way, it seems to me, to go about trying to help them. Inevitably, not inevitably, correctly, much of the food aid will be that bulk aid. But to maintain a position that we will never use any of the food aid to buy the food on site, nearby, in ways that it can be done in ways that do not disturb local markets is a grave error. What bothers me about this appropriation is not simply that it bans that from happening, and I give credit to the administration and to the President, Administrator Natsios, my former legislative colleague from Massachusetts, who asked for the authority to do this. When that was rejected outright, there were various compromises proposed. The senior Senator from Ohio Mr. DeWine, I think senior, whatever, proposed a compromise in which a percentage of the emergency aid would be available. We are not talking, those of us who support this, about making all of even the emergency aid cash-based, but there ought to be a capacity in the Administrator to put some of the money that is appropriated into buying food locally. Now, I know, by the way, there are people on the Committee on Agriculture that say, no, that would be bad for the local markets. Mr. Speaker, I have a rule in politics: Try not to say anything that no one will believe is really your motive. When you look at this agricultural bill and American agricultural policy and the devastation our subsidy policy wreaks on local food markets, the notion that the people who make American agriculture policy in this Congress are really concerned about the poor local farmers is risible. We obviously have ways of dealing with the local impact, and I believe that Administrator Natsios is absolutely right. There is another argument here to which I give more credibility, and that is some of the organizations that are engaged in international development of food aid are the intermediaries here, and they get the food and they sell it, and they then use the money in various good ways. And these are good organizations. I will note that two of the major organizations here, OXFAM and CARE, have decided, no, they do not need to have 100 percent of the aid being given in bulk, and that a percentage of the emergency aid, that is all we are talking about, a percentage of the emergency aid being available, not mandated, but being available when appropriate, to be bought on site or nearby, not right on site, but nearby, that is better. There are other organizations that have concerns. I notice one of them is the Catholic Relief Services, which does great work. I do want to express great concern, Mr. Speaker. I hope in consequence to the what the President sent this House on Wednesday, I hope that Catholic Relief Services, because they want to help people overseas, will not be told the that Catholic Church cannot do voter registration to get out the vote, which is what some people would say if they helped people locally. So I hope that the restrictions on the Catholic Church and other good organizations that the majority wants to apply if they are doing things domestically to help the poor will not also apply to their international efforts. I hope we will work out a compromise. Let me close by saying I was particularly disturbed by this language, and it is the Republican majority, the great believers in openness, the great principled reformers, here is what their report says, the majority report, on this bill. ``The conferees further admonish the executive branch to refrain from proposals which place at risk a carefully balanced coalition of interests which have served the interests of international food assistance programs well for more than 50 years.'' In other words, we got a deal going here. Take your principles and get out of here before you upset the apple cart. Do not come to us talking about a more efficient way to provide emergency food aid to people, because you might break up our political deal. Some reform.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to welcome the conversion of the gentleman from Texas to an increased section 8 voucher program. We on our side have several times offered amendments to do that in the appropriations bill. I did not remember him as a supporter. But conversion is a great thing, and I celebrate it, and I look forward to the gentleman from Texas voting with us the next time we move to increase the section 8 voucher program. But it does not solve all of the problems. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), someone who has been very hardworking, both on voter registration and on housing.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I just wanted to add my voice. The ranking member of the subcommittee has spent a good deal of time focused on the corporate governance of these GSEs. He is one of the best students ever in the House. This is a very thoughtful and, I think, wholly constructive amendment. It does not detract from any of the purposes that we have. In fact, I think it would enhance them, and I hope the amendment is adopted.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, a little while ago, we had a vote on the manager's amendment. It was a very close vote. It was 210 to 205. One Member inadvertently voted the other way that he planned to. So it was 209 to 206. What I am offering here as the recommit is a close replay of that vote, but it ought to be even clearer for people. My recommittal motion leaves the manager's amendment as adopted entirely intact except for two changes. One, instead of requiring that to participate in the Affordable Housing Fund, housing must be the organization's primary purpose, it says it must be one of its primary purposes. If you maintain the requirement that it be the primary purpose, no faith-based organization may participate. Some of you may remember a familiar passage: Thou shalt have no primary purpose above me. If you say that you can only do this if you have housing as your primary purpose, by definition the Catholic Church and the Baptists and the Episcopalians and the Jewish groups, which are collectively today a very important provider of affordable housing, are simply automatically debarred. There will be no faith-based groups allowed. People are talking about faith-based groups. I am aware of no restriction as binding as saying it has to be the primary purpose, and I will insert into the Record at this point a letter not just from Catholic Charities, but from Bishop DiMarzio, on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, saying that: ``Proposals that would limit eligible recipients to organizations that have as their purpose the provision of affordable housing would effectively prevent Catholic dioceses, parishes and Catholic Charities agencies from participating.'' Department of Social Development and World Peace, Washington, DC, October 3, 2005. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: I write as Chairman of the Domestic Policy Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to urge you to retain the Affordable Housing Fund as part of the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 (H.R. 1461) and bring the bill to a vote forthwith. The Catholic Bishops have historically urged the federal government to help meet our nation's promise of a decent home for every American family, especially those families with extremely low incomes. As I noted in my June 10 letter to the House of Representatives, the Catholic Community--through our Charities agencies, dioceses, and parishes--serves tens of thousands of men, women, and children who struggle to maintain adequate housing. Besides sheltering homeless people who turn to us for help, we have built, and continue to maintain, thousands of affordable housing units. All of these experiences have demonstrated to us how inadequate, substandard housing hurts human life, undermines families, destroys communities, and weakens the social fabric of our nation. Despite our efforts--and the efforts of so many others--there just is not enough affordable housing available. Proposals that would limit eligible recipients to organizations that have as their primary purpose the provision of affordable housing would effectively prevent Catholic dioceses, parishes and Catholic Charities agencies from participating in Affordable Housing Fund programs. Similarly, proposals that would prohibit recipients from engaging in voter registration and lobbying activities with their own funds during the period they are utilizing affordable housing funds would force Catholic agencies to choose between participating in Affordable Housing Fund programs or engaging in constitutionally protected voter registration and lobbying activities with their own funds. I urge you to oppose inclusion of these kinds of unnecessary limitations and prohibitions in H.R. 1461 as it moves to the House floor for a vote. There are ample ways to write safeguards into the legislation to prevent the diversion of affordable housing funds to uses other than what they are intended without requiring recipients to forego their constitutionally protected rights as a condition for participating in Affordable Housing Fund programs. The Bishops' statement, Putting Children and Families First, notes: ``Many families cannot find or afford decent housing, or must spend so much of their income for shelter that they forego other necessities, such as food and medicine. . . . [The Catholic bishops] support housing policies which seek to preserve and increase the supply of affordable housing and help families pay for it.'' We must put in place a sustainable source of funds to build affordable housing and this new fund would do that. As I said in my June letter, this legislation presents Congress with a genuine opportunity to make the shelter needs of extremely low-income families a national priority. I believe that such families who need housing the most should be targeted to receive these limited funds. With every best wish, I am, Sincerely, Most Rev. Nicholas DiMarzio, Chairman, Domestic Policy Committee, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.