Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I would be glad to yield the gentlewoman from Ohio further time to point out the weaknesses in the manager's amendment. I share her appreciation of the extremely excessive language there. I think she is more optimistic than I about some of these little tweaks, but I do appreciate her understanding of its problems. There are further problems, and there are other ways that we will get at it, but I welcome the gentlewoman's expression of disagreement with the extreme sweep of the manager's amendment.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I concur with the gentleman from Louisiana, this is a very narrowly and appropriately drafted bill that provides relief that is both in timing and geography restricted. It allows flexibility in dealing with the affected area. None of us believe that this is enough. None of us believe that this resolves all the problems. There continue to be serious problems for people there, but what this will do will be to give the financial institutions the flexibility and give the regulators the power to allow this flexibility to help us get through this immediate period. We will, I hope, soon be working on in our committee some broader measures of relief, not just in our committee, but elsewhere. But at this point, this relief, which is carefully restricted, is entirely necessary to minimize the damage. The financial system in this country serves us well. Our financial intermediaries do an excellent job. While not everything worked well, obviously, during the response to the hurricane, I think credit should be given to the financial regulators, to the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Credit Union Administration, because sometimes the news is what you do not hear. It is the dog that does not bark that could be significant. Among the things that you have not heard in these months since that problem, nearly 2 months now, you have not heard criticism of the financial regulators. They deserve credit for having taken maximum advantage of the flexibility they have. What this bill does is, frankly, to say, yes, we have confidence in them. We believe that they have behaved appropriately, and this gives them even more flexibility to take into account the short-term concerns that we have there while we work collectively on a longer-term fix. I think this is an entirely appropriate piece of legislation. I am glad to support it. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first, as to the rule, let us be very clear. This is democracy denied squared. Substantively, this imposes restraints on getting lower income people to vote. One of the Members of the majority, one of the authors of this restruction, the gentleman from Florida, talked about ACORN. In fact, under provisions of the bill which are agreed upon unanimously, what ACORN proposed would have disqualified them from getting funds. There is agreement that if groups are engaging in partisan activity they should be excluded. One thing that the majority forgot to mention, one of the pieces of their amendment to which we object is the piece that says you can only participate in this program if housing is your principal purpose. The faith-based initiative, rest in peace. Apparently, it did not last very long. The primary purpose of faith-based organizations is faith. It is not housing. They would like to do housing. It is part of their mission, but it is not their primary purpose. That is why not just Catholic charities but the Conference of Catholic Bishops of the United States has asked that this be amended, because this provision that only if your primary purpose is housing can you participate denies any faith- based group the right to participate. Apparently, the fear of low- income people voting outweighs the support for faith-based groups. What are the substantive restrictions? We agree that there should be no partisanship. There would be a lot of restrictions if my very small, specific amendment were to pass. You could do not electioneering. You could not do lobbying beyond a very limited amount, but you could get out the vote. You know what that means? We had the Episcopalians, the Methodist, the Orthodox Jews, all of which do a lot of housing. You are the Methodists and you run an elderly housing project, under the Republican provision, you cannot do get-out-the-vote activity if you help build housing. So you cannot hire a bus to go take the old people to vote. You cannot have somebody come in and get them to register. That is what we are talking about. There is an extremism here that is not comprehensively accepted in the history. The committee voted on this bill. It is contentious as anything I would write, as anybody would write. It is a good bill which sets up a world-class regulator. Much of what has been said on that side I agree with. Then the Republican Study Committee, the most conservative Members of the House who appear to be able to run the House by using their influence with the majority leadership, an influence which does not seem to have changed since the majority leadership changed, they were able to take this bill hostage. They tried to kill this whole thing. Members on their side now say, we are for doing this affordable housing. Well, then why did they try to kill it? There was an amendment to kill the whole affordable housing fund, not restricted. It lost 53 to 17, and so then they went to the majority leader and said we cannot win a fair fight. Hijack the bill. So now it comes to the rules situation. Here it is. Yes, we will get the vote on the manager's amendment. The manager's amendment includes what the gentleman from Ohio, the gentleman from Louisiana, myself, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania all agree to, along with the gentlewoman from California, to give a preference for those areas affected by the hurricane. So what the gentleman from Texas would have Members believe, both gentlemen from Texas, it is an open rule on this issue because if you are willing to vote not to give a preference to the hurricane areas, you can also vote to let the Catholic Church participate in low-income housing. They come as a package. If you think the Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church and the Methodist Church and other churches ought to be able to participate in this, then you have to vote not to give preference to the hurricane areas. That is their idea of a fair rule. All I asked for was a chance to agree to everything in the manager's amendment except for three things: Allow faith-based groups to participate. Let it be one of their primary purposes. Let them do nonpartisan voter registration and let them do nonpartisan get-out-the- vote. We are not given a chance to vote on that. I hope Members will vote against the manager's amendment. It is a tough vote for Members in the hurricane areas because they will be demagogued. If the manager's amendment is defeated, let me announce now, I will then offer a motion to recommit which will be everything in the manager's amendment except these three things. So Members over there who have told these low-income groups, as often happens, I do not like what these people have done, I do not want to exclude the Catholic Church, but my hands are tied, we will untie your hands. We will give you a chance to vote on it, but it is still not a fair vote. I think it is very clear that there is one reason why the Members are not allowed to vote on a specific amendment that says let us take all of the restrictions on the groups, and when people say we do not want the money spent on other things, it has always been clear that the money can only be spent on affordable housing. We are talking about whether groups with their own money can do other things. People have said the money is fungible. Well, when we were debating faith-based groups, when we said if you give money for day care, is that going to go to religious activities, we were told, no, they will be segregated. I agreed with that. So the argument about fungibility, apparently, appears to be itself very fungible. Mr. Speaker, all we are asking for is a chance for an up-or-down vote on three provisions which have never been voted on which were inserted here because the most conservative elements in the Republican Party, the Republican Study Committee, got the majority leader to make them a condition of the bill coming to the floor. I guess if the rest of the Republicans want to be held hostage by that group, they will show us by their votes today.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, last month, September, the National Gaucher Foundation devoted its efforts to publicizing what the foundation calls ``the most prevalent genetic disease facing United States Jews.'' The National Gaucher Foundation is dedicated to combating this disease that affects significant numbers of Ashkenazi Jews. While the disease is very debilitating, it is treatable, and it is therefore particularly important that people learn a great deal about it so that those who do suffer from it or are threatened from it are aware of what can be done to treat it. I commend the work of the National Gaucher Foundation, and I encourage people, particularly Ashkenazi Jews who may well be vulnerable to it, to take advantage of the foundation's work to gain knowledge that may be of significant benefit for their health and that of their families.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, my predecessor as the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, John LaFalce, continues to be a very informed, thoughtful advocate of consumer protection within the context of a well-functioning financial system. On October 11, he wrote to the various bank regulators in support of legislation introduced by myself and Representatives Maloney, Sanders, Lee and McCarthy, H.R. 3449, dealing with abuses in overdraft protection. Mr. LaFalce's thoughtful analysis of the problem and the reasons for addressing it are very persuasive, and because this is an important issue that we are addressing, I ask that his comments to the Federal regulators be printed here. The Federal banking agencies recently issued guidelines for the operation of overdraft protection programs, and the Federal Reserve Board recently revised its Regulation DD with respect to the advertising of overdraft protection programs. Although well-intentioned, these new guidelines fall far short of what is needed in this area, and in many ways the recent regulations by the Fed only make matters worse. I call H.R. 3449 to your attention because I believe that the problems it deals with are enormous, and can and should be dealt with, promptly, by regulation. I shall highlight some of the more significant problems dealt with by H.R. 3449 and urge the bank regulators to address those problems.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, my question is in the current uncertainty, do you know which Members the leadership from whom you are to take instruction to close the vote----

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I intend to vote for this bill, as I believe all of us plan to. It is a very reasonable approach. It makes some changes in the rural housing program which are limited both geographically and chronologically, which is the way to do this short-term approach. There were some other issues raised, and the majority has agreed with us there are other changes that could be made in this program; and I believe we will be taking them up later to do a more permanent situation. There is one permanent change here involving the program known as the 502 program which gives some flexibility in financing and I think all who are interested in this favor. I will take a minute or two to note, this is about rural housing. This is housing built with Federal help, generally public-private cooperation, federally subsidized, assisted housing in rural areas; and I stress that because too often when we talk about Federal housing programs, people think only about the big cities. Here we are not talking just about New Orleans, but the adjacent parishes. As the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) pointed out, we are talking about small communities along the Mississippi coast. There is a need for housing assistance in various places, and we should stress again this is very important housing that helps people of low- and moderate income in rural areas, sparsely settled areas, to have decent places to live. So it is a reminder that housing programs are not simply big-city programs, but appropriately done are programs that meet needs in various places. What this does is to give the flexibility during the next 6 months so the rural housing programs and the housing built there in the affected areas, people can respond to that with some flexibility. Money will not be lost; money will be reprogrammed. It is a product of a great deal of thoughtful collaboration on both sides of the aisle, and I intend to vote for this bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, once again, this is a bill that is broadly, probably unanimously, supported, or overwhelmingly; and it reflects a good deal of conversation. We appreciate the willingness of the Members on the majority side to come together. Obviously, there continue to be some differences between us on some policy issues; but in terms of responding to this emergency, those are not things that should get in the way. I think both sides showed a spirit of cooperation. The majority was very helpful, and we have legislation that can be widely supported. But, once again, the problem is what it does is good, but what it does not do is not so good. In particular in this case we ought to be substantially increasing the CDBG funding. Now, we are not the Committee on Appropriations. We do have an authorizing power. Giving the people the ability to spend on more things but not more money is better than nothing, but not nearly good enough. CDBG needs the kinds of things that CDBG does, both for the larger communities of 50,000 or more, called ``entitlement cities,'' but also what we should be doing here is providing to the Governors of the affected States funding which they could use in their CDBG programming, because they get one-third of it, for those communities that are in areas of less than 50,000 population, that is, they are the Small Communities Program, and we should be increasing the funding there. I hope at an appropriate time we will do that, because these communities are going to need a great deal of help. The CDBG program is one of the logical ways to do it. We know how to spend here. It is a program which has had virtually no scandal, to my knowledge. It is a program which works well, and simply expanding this existing funding mechanism would be one very good way to get money to people very quickly in ways they know how to spend. But I also should note, as the gentlewoman from California noted, I guess in some ways those of us who have been advocates of an active government role in the housing and community development areas can feel somewhat more supported today than we often are on this floor, because we have now had three bills in a row which take advantage of the existence of federally funded programs which have a lot of critics around here. We have had proposals from the administration this year, from HUD, to dismantle in their existing form both the voucher program and the CDBG program. There was a proposal to block grant the voucher program. Block granting, by the way is what people do to programs they do not like. I have been here a long time. Nobody in my memory has ever proposed block granting a Federal program which he or she supported. What we had basically was an effort to cut back on the voucher program. What we are doing now is taking the concept of the voucher program and greatly expanding it, through FEMA funding; but, yes, it is a voucher program that has not only proven its worth but is a lifeline at a time when we need one. It would have been a bad thing if we would have had to invent such a program right now because of all the startup problems you would have. Similarly, as the gentlewoman from California pointed out, this administration proposed the most hair-brained reorganization of the Community Development Block Grant program imaginable. They took the Community Development Block Grant, which aids communities, they took the Community Services Block Grant, which deals with poverty, they took the Community Development Financial Institutions, which deals with economic development in cities, and decided to put them all in the Commerce Department. CDBG and CSBG have a particular impact on poverty. I think what happened was they had a contest over there in the administration, maybe one of those lotteries they have when they try to help 1 percent of the people that need housing, and they decided to find the Federal Department that had the least orientation towards helping poor people, so they could take these programs that help poor people and give it to that Department. So we took it out of HUD, and we took it out of the Health and Human Services Department, and they took programs out of Labor, and they sent them to the Department of Commerce, I think on the grounds that the Department of Commerce really did not know enough about poverty, and this is a way for them to learn. I am all for educating people, but not by giving them Federal programs as their blocks. So what we have today is an affirmation in this bill of the importance of the Community Development Block Grant program as a proven mechanism for getting aid out. Again, I want to say, and I suppose this will cause a little friction, maybe some people will have to disassociate themselves, but I do appreciate the difference between the members of our committee on the majority side in their approach to these things and the administration. Unlike the administration, which had as its intention dismantling these things, and we, I think were not going to act on that, we are here trying to build on them. Of course, there is always room for improvement. We have been having some conversations about how to improve the voucher program, how to streamline it, how to make it more efficient. But substantially diminishing it would have been a mistake. So I am very pleased. Of course, that was also the case with rural housing, because one of the things I hope we will do in the near future, in the next few months, this year or next year, is to go to the rural housing program and take some steps that will preserve that as a source of affordable housing. There are trends and various complications that we do not need to go into here now, which, if not confronted, we could lose that housing. So we have a recognition today of the importance of the concept of the voucher program. We have a recognition of the importance of the Community Development Block Grant mechanism in delivering services with Federal funding. We have a recognition of the importance of preserving and using that rural housing stock. I hope all of those will go forward. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I do want to repeat again, these steps are useful. They leave us with a lot to do. The problem is that the Bush administration at this point has zero proposals that will respond to the longer-term needs of these affected communities. I am told these proposals are coming, and I do not doubt some of my colleagues will be coming forward with them. But we did have a speech from the President of the United States in which he outlined his plans; and the one I looked at very closely was his housing plan, his housing plan consisting of an effort to find existing Federal properties that the Federal Government does not want or need and have a lottery, so a very small percentage, 1 or 2 percent of the people in need, can get Federal property and zero dollars from any source that we control to help make them into housing. And that, let us be clear, that is the sum total of the President's proposal for the longer term. It is wholly inadequate. We have made a step here today. I look forward to our being back on this floor in coming months to talk about a broader set of proposals for community development, for housing and for other things; and I hope at the time we will keep in mind the importance of building on and improving these existing programs and continue to reject the kind of radical dismantling that the administration has proposed, and instead to try and have their return to the 19th century with the concept of homesteading, which is inappropriate, inadequate, and ill thought out.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, for more than 45 years, Julian Bond has provided leadership in the fight against prejudice and its terrible effects in the United States. From his early days as a student leader, to his current position as Board Chair of the NAACP, with distinguished elected service in between, Julian Bond has been in the forefront of the fight for justice in America. Given his extraordinary leadership in the struggle against discrimination based on race, and given the efforts of some to argue that the fight against homophobia is somehow entirely different from the fight against racism, Julian Bond's eloquent, forceful defense of the right of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people to be treated fairly is noteworthy. On Saturday, October 1, Mr. Bond addressed another important civil rights organization, the Human Rights Campaign, at the HRC's Washington Dinner. His speech, not surprisingly for a champion of human rights, is a strong defense of the right of people to be free from prejudice based on their sexual orientation, and an explicit affirmation that the fight against racism and the fight against homophobia have a common basis. As he said in that speech, ``denial of rights to anyone is wrong, and . . . struggles for rights are indivisible.'' Mr. Speaker, because of the eloquence of his repudiation of the effort to divide those who fight against racism from those who fight against homophobia, and because of his extraordinary stature in the fight to make sure that the rights spelled out in our Constitution are in fact fully enjoy by everyone, Julian Bond's words at the Human Rights Campaign Dinner deserve the attention of every Member of this body, and I ask that those remarks be printed here. I am more than honored to receive this award, and want to express my thanks to all responsible for it. I want to promise you that I intend to live my life as if I actually deserve it. I believe it represents a common acknowledgement that denial of rights to anyone is wrong, and that struggles for rights are indivisible. I feel tonight a little like the great abolitionist Frederick Douglass must have felt in April, 1888. Douglass, by then an old man, was addressing a women's convention in Seneca Falls, New York. They praised him for his devotion to the cause of women's suffrage. Forty years earlier, at the world's first Women's Rights Convention, when Susan B. Anthony made a motion that American women had the right to vote, it was Douglass who seconded the motion. In 1888, Douglass reflected back on that moment and told his audience, When I ran away from slavery, it was for myself; when I advocated emancipation, it was for my people; but when I stood up for the rights of women, self was out of the question, and I found a little nobility in the act. You have all made me feel noble tonight. I am proud to represent an organization that has fought for justice for all for nearly 100 years, and while we've won many victories, we know--you know--there are other battles yet to be waged and won. At the NAACP, we were proud to have opposed the federal marriage amendment and its wrong-headed versions in several states. President Bush backed amendments banning same-sex marriage, calling marriage ``the most fundamental institution of civilization.'' Isn't that precisely why one should support, not oppose, gay marriage? The NAACP recently passed a resolution to strengthen families, including yours. We promised to ``pursue all legal and constitutional means to support non-discriminatory policies and practices against persons based on race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality or cultural background.'' We know there was a time, not so long ago, when black people in this country couldn't marry the person of their choice either. The California Supreme Court was the first, in 1948, to strike down laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Now the California legislature has become the first to legalize gay marriage. As California goes, so goes the Nation. It's just a matter of time. Almost twenty years after California legalized interracial marriage, the United States Supreme Court heard the aptly named case Loving v. Virginia. A married couple--Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Jeter, a black woman--won a ruling from the Court that Virginia's miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. That case enabled me to get married in Virginia. That case recognized marriage as one of the inviolable personal rights pursuant to happiness. That's why when I am asked, ``Are Gay Rights Civil Rights?'' my answer is always, ``Of course they are.'' ``Civil rights'' are positive legal prerogatives--the right to equal treatment before the law. These are rights shared by all--there is no one in the United States who does not--or should not--share in these rights. Gay and lesbian rights are not ``special rights'' in any way. It isn't ``special'' to be free from discrimination--it is an ordinary, universal entitlement of citizenship. The right not to be discriminated against is a common-place claim we all expect to enjoy under our laws and our founding document, the Constitution. That many had to struggle to gain these rights makes them precious--it does not make them special, and it does not reserve them only for me or restrict them from others. When others gain these rights, my rights are not reduced in any way. The fight for ``civil rights'' is a win/win game; the more civil rights are won by others, the stronger the army defending my rights becomes. My rights are not diluted when my neighbor enjoys protection from the law--he or she becomes my ally in defending the rights we all share. For some, comparisons between the African-American civil rights movement and the movement for gay and lesbian rights seem to diminish the long black historical struggle with all its suffering, sacrifices and endless toil. However, people of color ought to be flattered that our movement has provided so much inspiration for others, that it has been so widely imitated, and that our tactics, methods, heroines and heroes, even our songs, have been appropriated by or served as models for others. No parallel between movements for rights is exact. African- Americans are the only Americans who were enslaved for more than two centuries, and people of color carry the badge of who we are on our faces. But we are far from the only people suffering discrimination--sadly, so do many others. They deserve the law's protections and civil rights, too. Sexual disposition parallels race--I was born black and had no choice. I couldn't change and wouldn't change if I could. Like race, our sexuality isn't a preference--it is immutable, unchangeable, and the Constitution protects us all against prejudices and discrimination based on immutable differences. Those whose bigotry is Bible-based selectively ignore Biblical injunctions in Exodus to execute people who work on the Sabbath and in Leviticus to crack down on those who get haircuts or who wear clothes with more than one kind of thread. Recently, they've even ignored the sanctity of marriage-- just ask Michael Schiavo. Many gays and lesbians worked side by side with me in the '60s civil rights movement. Am I to now tell them ``thanks'' for risking life and limb helping me win my rights--but they are excluded because of a condition of their birth? That they cannot share now in the victories they helped to win? That having accepted and embraced them as partners in a common struggle, I can now turn my back on them and deny them the rights they helped me win, that I enjoy because of them? Not a chance. In 1965, those of us who worked in the civil rights movement were buoyed by a radio address given by Lyndon Johnson. His words speak to us today. He said then: It is difficult to fight for freedom. But I also know how difficult it can be to bend long years of habit and custom to grant it. There is no room for injustice anywhere in the American mansion. But there is always room for understanding those who see the old ways crumbling. And to them today I say simply this: It must come. It is right that it should come. And when it has, you will find that a burden has been lifted from your shoulders too. It is not just a question of guilt, although there is that. It is that men cannot live with a lie and not be stained by it. One lesson of the civil rights movement of yesterday--and the on-going civil rights movement of today--is that sometimes the simplest of ordinary acts--taking a seat on a bus or a lunch counter, registering to vote, applying for a marriage license--can have extraordinary ramifications. It can change our world, change the way we act and think. Thank you again for this honor. The old ways are crumbling. It must come. Let us leave here determined to fight on until it does.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for yielding me this time. She is the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity and has been playing a very leading role, not just now but for years, on housing issues, and I fully subscribe to her really very forceful and eloquent description of where we are. Let me take up where she left off. I am going to vote for this bill. It is later than we would like. It is less, in some ways, than we like, but everything it does do, it seems to me, is useful. And I want to express my appreciation to the Members on the other side who had, I believe, a role in making sure of this. There was some original fear that the housing vouchers or the equivalence of vouchers which will be funded out of FEMA would somehow be competing with the existing voucher program. Several of my colleagues told me that they had heard from housing authorities in their areas, in other parts of the country that they were being told, Okay, here come these FEMA people, they go to the head of the list, and they would in effect take a voucher away where there are waiting lists. Let us be clear that that is not happening. These are additives. These are additional. So it is very important to note that, because as the gentlewoman from California noted, we have waiting lists. We have an ongoing problem, and this does not make it any worse, but it does not make it any better. But let us be clear, it does not make it worse. So anyone who was under that misimpression, we had a briefing, and I appreciate the majority facilitating this, and staff from both sides and Members were there, and FEMA and HUD both made it very explicit to us that these are additional to the voucher program. So no one should feel they are going to be competing with someone already there. The next question, though, is, what do we do next? Yes, it is important to get people the vouchers, but they are a short-term solution by definition: 6 months and 6 months. We hope people will be able to find some alternatives. But what do we do? That is the point I want to address, because this underlines the need for us to get back in the business of helping construct on a permanent basis new affordable housing. We made great mistakes as a society decades ago by building for low- income people Columbia Point or Pruitt Igoe or Cabrini Green, large sterile warehouses for far too many people with far too few services, and they did not work well, and not because of any character defect in the people that lived there but because of the inherent flaw in the way they were planned. We have learned since then how to use public money to build housing that is desirable; how, in particular, to use public money in conjunction with private developers, profit-making and nonprofit, to provide decent homes. There has been a lot of concern here about making sure that faith- based organizations are allowed to participate in government programs. Well, in the housing area, there is nothing new about that. Faith-based organizations for years have been the leaders in using Federal programs to provide affordable housing. In my own State of Massachusetts, the Boston Archdiocese and Office of Urban Planning has been a superb provider of affordable housing. So has the Jewish Community Housing for the Elderly. If you talk to the Association of Homes for the Aging, religious entities are very much involved. I would note that none of them ever told me that they had to discriminate in hiring to provide that housing. But what we should be doing is taking advantage of that experience and broadening it, because we have got to the point where the only housing that has been built has been for older people. And that is important, building housing for the elderly and the disabled, but as we now see, we also need some family housing. Here is the problem: If all we do is what we are doing today, and what we are doing today is important and I am for it, but if this is all we do, a year from now, where will these people live? Because there is not this great excess of affordable residential units all over the country. There are pockets where there are. We also have the question about what happens in New Orleans and other areas. Now, I was very distressed to hear the Secretary of HUD say; not surprised, I must add but distressed, that when New Orleans is rebuilt, there will be fewer African-Americans there. Shame on us if that is the result because, where are these people supposed to go? This was their home. This was a community. And we should be providing temporary help, but we should also be determined to allow this community to rebuild itself. That does not mean building inadequate housing in the middle of a floodplain. It does not mean having people be vulnerable to floods. It means we should use our wit and our resources to provide replacement housing for people that is better and safer and protected. We know how to do that. So as I support this bill today, I want to reaffirm, and I know the gentlewoman from California has been a leader on this, and I want to acknowledge that the gentleman from Louisiana, who is managing this bill, he and I and others on our committee are working on one piece of legislation that might be a vehicle for this, that there are many ways to do it. But I want to stress the importance of, after the vouchers, then what? If we want to allow people to move back not just to New Orleans but to the Mississippi gulf and other communities, then we, in part, should be building housing. There are other things we need to today, and our committee is working on that and working with the financial community. And in this context, I really have to express my great disappointment here in the President's approach. When the President gave his major speech not for the interim but for the longer-term situation, the only housing situation he addressed was the homeownership through an urban homesteading plan. Now, homesteading has a great history in the United States. And in the 19th century, people were given a piece of land out in the unsettled parts of the country, and they could chop down trees, and they could build their houses. I do not think that model translates all that well to an urban area. I do not think, when the people in New Orleans are given a piece of land, which is what the President's program says, I will give you the land but nothing else, even if there were any trees left after the flood, I do not think the average returning resident of New Orleans will be able to chop them down and build a house. The urban homesteading plan is wholly inadequate. By definition, the President's urban homesteading plan helps a very small percentage of those who need the help. He is having a lottery. Since when for a program to meet basic human needs do you have a lottery, which by definition means a very small percentage of the people get in there? Just look at the inadequacy of that program. It says the Federal Government will try to find property it owns. It will not be based on suitability about where to build. It will be on what the Federal Government owns and has no use for and then will be made available to a small percentage of people. And then they are on their own and have to find somehow some money to build on it or to rehabilitate it. That just does not make sense. What we need to do, following on from this, is a sensible housing production program working with the local officials in New Orleans and in the gulf and elsewhere, the gulf of Mississippi and elsewhere. Let sensible planning go forward at the local level, building not large sterile public housing units but mixed housing, because people with various incomes will need help, and various forms of help will be necessary. For some people, because we want to promote home ownership, various forms of mortgage assistance will make sense, so working with the financial institutions. For others, we will need to build some housing. We also, I think, have an obligation to rebuild the public housing units that were destroyed, not exactly as they were. We have had some experience, and our committee has in general voted often to reauthorize the HOPE 6 program, which is a way to take public housing and improve it. So, yes, I vote for this bill. I also welcome the fact it does not take away from the existing voucher program. It does, of course, emphasize the importance of the voucher program, but it also will leave us, and I hope we will address this in this Congress later this year or early next year, a program for the reconstruction of housing in New Orleans for people of various incomes, some of whom will not be able to return to their homes without the construction, with Federal help, of affordable housing. We know how to do that. We have very good examples of it. And it is very important that we go forward.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of a gifted group of students from the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth who have designed and built an entry at this year's Department of Energy Solar Decathlon. The Solar Decathlon brings 18 college and university teams to participate in this innovative solar competition to design, build, and operate the most attractive and energy-efficient solar-powered home. Student teams built their solar houses on their respective campuses and will transport them to the National Mall in Washington, DC, where they will form a solar village on the National Mall. The solar village is open to the public October 7-16, 2005. The teams' solar houses are open for touring every day except October 12, when they are closed for competition purposes. An overall winner will be announced on October 14. I especially wanted to note that after the competition the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Solar Decathlon Team will be donating their solar home to Habitat For Humanity where it will be permanently installed in Northeast DC as a Habitat-provided home. I'm proud to have the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth in my district and to represent these bright young people who have worked so hard to draw attention to the benefits of alternative energy.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, for years I have taken the opportunity to share through the pages of the Congressional Record the important work done by a very significant institution--ROFEH International--New England Chassidic Center. This important organization, led by Grand Rabbi Levi Y. Horowitz, does extremely important and creative work in the medical field. Rabbi Horowitz is himself a very distinguished expert in the field of medical ethics, and demonstrates beyond any argument that an appreciation of the advantages of modern medicine and a deep commitment to one of the world's great religious traditions is not only fully compatible but can be mutually reinforcing. This organization has done a great deal to help people in need of medical treatment and has done much to make sure that the superb medical facilities of the Greater Boston Area are available to people worldwide. This year at the Annual Dinner on November 20, ROFEH International- New England Chassidic Center will honor two very eminent men who have distinguished themselves in support of this important work. Dr. Peter Black, Neurosurgeon-in-Chief at Brigham and Women's Hospital, receives the ``ROFEH International Distinguished Service Award.'' Rahmin Kodsi, President of Clement Textile Company in Boston, is the recipient of the ``Man of the Year'' award. Mr. Speaker, the sort of work that ROFEH International-New England Chassidic Center does in the medical field is highly worthy of emulation and I am taking advantage of this opportunity to ask that the drafts of biographies of these two extremely qualified honorees be made a part of this record. Peter M. Black, M.D., Ph.D. Dr. Peter Black has devoted most of his professional life to understanding and treating patients of all ages with brain tumors and/ or epilepsy. He has traveled widely in developing countries to teach techniques and concepts. In Boston, he has developed a busy neurosurgical practice, believing that compassion, good judgment, and technical excellence must go hand in hand. Dr. Black is a graduate of Harvard College and McGill Medical School, with neurosurgical residency at the Massachusetts General Hospital and a staff position there. In 1987, he became Franc D. Ingraham Professor of Neurosurgery at Harvard Medical School, Chairman, Departments of Neurosurgery at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Children's Hospital, Neurosurgeon-in-Chief at Brigham & Women's Hospital, and Chief of Neurosurgical Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Center, positions he has continued to hold since then. He has published extensively in tumor and epilepsy research with over 350 peer-reviewed papers and ten books on these topics. His clinical work emphasizes cutting edge technology for treating tumors of all types; he is a leader in image-guided minimally invasive surgery, brain mapping, and intraoperative imaging for tumors. Dr. Black is the chairman of the editorial board of Neurosurgery and sits on several other editorial boards of scientific journals. He is a frequent invited speaker at national and international conferences. Among his awards are the Mayfield, ASEAN and Botterell awards, the Distinguished Service award for the Joint Section on Tumors, the Distinguished Leadership in Neuroscience award for the Dana Alliance for Brain Initiatives, and the Pioneer Award from the Children's Brain Tumor Foundation, and the Thomson Compassionate Scholar award from the Brigham and Women's Hospital. Dr. Peter Black and Katharine his wife of38 years, have five children: Winifred, Peter Thomas, Elizabeth, Katharine, and Christopher, who live and work around the world. Mr. Rahmin Kodsi Born in Cairo, Egypt in 1929, Rahmin Kodsi was only 16 years old when his father passed away. As the only son who suddenly needed to support his mother and two sisters, Rahmin was forced to drop out of school to assume his late father's textile business. In 1960, Rahmin married Ginette, and they are now the proud parents of three daughters: Louna Levana, Lili Leah and Joyce Simcha. During the Six Day War, the Egyptian government imprisoned and confiscated the property of successful Jews, accusing them of involvement with the Israeli government. As a prominent Egyptian Jew, Rahmin suffered that fate as well, though he was fortunate (relatively) enough to only spend 3 weeks in prison. He was subsequently relocated to Naples, and his family followed three months later. The Kodsi family lived briefly in Paris and then came to Boston in 1968. In Boston, Rahmin opened his first textile business-Clement Textile-- in 1971. He has contributed significantly to the Boston Jewish landscape as well as to the business world. He sits on the board of directors of the Sephardic Community of Greater Boston, and he participates in many other philanthropic projects. Today, Rahmin and Ginette live in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, where they share many simchas with their daughters,

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first, the first half of the gentleman's remarks previously are irrelevant. We are not disputing the importance of including faith-based groups as providers. When this question came up years ago, I was ardently for it. No one is trying to prevent faith-based groups from providing the service. No one is saying that a faith-based using its own money, using private money, using private donations has to pay any attention to the question of hiring if they choose to have only their religious co-workers. The question is if a faith-based group wants to take Federal money paid for by every taxpayer in this country, is it a violation of their religious character to say, with that Federal money, they must not discriminate in hiring? The religious character being imputed to these groups makes me think that we are talking about the constitution of the Iraq. What is this? The Sunnis should not have to hire the Shias? The Shias should not have to deal with the Kurds? What is the principle here? Are we not trying to promote the notion of people living together? What religious group taking Federal money says, ``You know what, I want to help these poor people, but not with a Jew,'' ``I cannot have a Baptist working for me,'' ``no Mormon need apply''? We are not talking about administering religious services. We are not talking about performing religious rites. We are talking about taking Federal money to perform what has to be, remember, a secular service. We all agree to that. If it were not a wholly secular service, no one would expect us to be funding it with Federal money. And this is the question I have to ask my friends. Of course we want religious groups there. Why is it so terrible to tell Jews that they must associate with Baptists if Federal money is being spent to provide child care services? What violation of the religious right of a Catholic is to say you have to hire a Methodist? How are Episcopalians being deprived of their religious integrity if they are told that, you know what, when you have Federal money in this program, if you hire a Presbyterian, that is okay. I mean, this is fundamental, we thought, in America. Again, we are talking about Federal money, and we are talking about not imputing to religious groups an insistence on bigotry and discrimination in the spending of Federal funds.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the senior Democrat on the committee, the gentleman from Tennessee, has tried very hard to get an answer as to why a very straightforward amendment could not be voted on, and he could not get an answer. I will tell him he could not get an answer because the real answer is embarrassing. We have got now increasing unhappiness on the conservative wing of the Republican Party, its dominant wing, about the notion that we should have democracy on the floor of the House of Representatives. We had a bill that was voted out of the Committee on Financial Services 65 to 5. It is being held off the floor despite the urgings of the chairman of the committee and the two relevant subcommittee chairmen because the conservatives think the House might vote wrong, and they have now acknowledged this. In the September 19 Washington Times, talking about the hate crimes amendment which was adopted because we had an open rule, here is what the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, says: ``Our side lets this hate-crimes amendment get into a children's protection bill because we let it come to the floor on an open rule, a vehicle made for liberals to use.'' So that is the problem. Apparently the right wing has gotten so little confidence in its ability to win votes on the floor that they now consider openness a liberal plot. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), according to the article, says he does not know how or why the House leadership allowed the children's safety bill to come to the floor under an open rule, meaning unlimited amendments could be proposed and voted on. To quote the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry): ``As members of the majority party, we're asking: How could we allow this to happen? Why did we give the opposition an easy route to victory?'' Well, it used to be called democracy and open procedures. So what we have is an acknowledgment by this very conservative wing that their position could not sustain itself in open debate and vote on the floor of the House, and so they are insisting that the House Committee on Rules not let things come up. That is the answer to the gentleman from Tennessee. His amendment was not allowed in order because it would have won. I guarantee him, if they were convinced they could have beat it, they would have let it come in. I have to repeat, with this now open repudiation of the notion that the House should be allowed to work its will, and I know we do not address people watching on television, I will say this to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, if there are people in the newly elected parliament of Afghanistan or the constituent assembly in Iraq are watching, as we preach to them democracy, as we tell them as members of a legislative body they should express the will of the people, if they understand this new opposition on the part of the conservatives who dominate the Republican Party, the openness on the floor of the House, please do not try this at home. [From the Washington Times, Sept. 19, 2005] Hate-Crime Add-On to Child Safety Bill Irks House GOP (By Ralph Z. Hallow) The chairman of the 100-member House Republican Study Committee says conservative lawmakers, already angry about what they see as out-of-control spending, are furious over passage last week of a bill that included an amendment expanding federal hate-crimes protections. ``House conservatives barraged me with their frustration and concern over this bill,'' said Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, the RSC chairman. ``Our guys are starting to spoil for a fight after this bill.'' The bill, which passed 223-199, would federalize local crimes if the suspected motive is animosity toward homosexuals or ``transgender'' persons. Existing federal hate-crimes laws already cover women and minorities. With the help of 30 mostly liberal Republicans, Democrats succeeded in making the measure part of a children's safety bill in a move that took conservatives by surprise. ``First, we have $50 billion in new spending for Hurricane Katrina relief, with no offsets in other spending,'' Mr. Pence said, ``Next thing, our side lets this hate-crimes amendment get into a children's protection bill because we let it come to the floor on an open rule--a vehicle made for liberals to use.'' North Carolina Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, another conservative Republican, says he doesn't know how or why the House Republican leadership allowed the children's safety bill to come to the floor under an open rule, meaning unlimited amendments could be proposed and voted on. ``We gave the far left a ripe opportunity for success,'' Mr. McHenry said. ``As members of the majority party, we're asking: How could we allow this to happen? Why did we give the opposition an easy route to victory?'' Conservatives in Congress have fought hate-crimes measures, saying such legislation bestows on government the power to presume to know and to punish criminal motives, rather than the crimes themselves. Rep. John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, presented the hate-crimes legislation in the form of an amendment to House Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.'s children's safety bill, which strengthens the monitoring of child sex offenders and increases penalties for molestation. Co-sponsors of the hate-crimes amendment included Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank and Wisconsin Rep. Tammy Baldwin, both Democrats, and Connecticut Rep. Christopher Shays and Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, both Republicans. Mr. Pence says House Republicans voted to pass the child- safety bill--it sailed through on a 371-52 vote--with the Conyers hate-crimes amendment attached because they wanted the children's protection portion and thought the Conyers amendment would not survive joint House-Senate conference reworking of the bill. ``I voted for [the measure] thinking it would be fixed in conference,'' Mr. Pence said. ``I hope it will, but there are rumblings that the Senate may take the bill as is and pass it and send it to the president, which would be very frustrating to a lot of us.'' ``But I have enough confidence in Chairman Sensenbrenner that he will clean this bill up.''

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it would be fruitless for any one of us to dedicate himself or herself to refuting every inaccuracy that is uttered on this floor, so I reserve that effort for those of particular public policy significance, and I want to address some comments by the gentleman from Texas, the majority leader, last week as he was justifying the hostage taking that has occurred with the bill that would create an affordable housing fund through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae's profits. We have, as you know, rules that urge us--not urge us--insist that we refrain from impugning each other's honesty. I will simply note that the gap between what the majority leader said and reality was unusually large even by the standards of political debate. First of all, he quite inaccurately said that nothing in the bill regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that came out of our committee, the Financial Services Committee, on a 65-5 vote, that nothing in that bill would have provided aid to the people who were stricken by the hurricane. He was, of course, quite wrong. The basic mechanism which we are now talking about putting to the aid of the people who lost their homes was in the original bill. That is, the bill as it came out of committee said that 5 percent of the profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would go to affordable housing. Note that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's profits by everybody's agreement are increased by a series of associations they have with the Federal Government. Everyone acknowledges Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can borrow money from the public more cheaply than other entities, and we have said that in return for the arrangements that allow that to happen, we will impose certain restrictions on them. It is not a confiscation of private property; it is the recognition that these entities profit and we want something in return. There had been a lot of agreement that we were not getting enough in return. We thought one thing we could do was to take 5 percent of the after-tax profits and put it towards affordable housing. In the bill that was there, it is true that the bill that we passed before the summer recess did not talk about the hurricane's effects, mainly because the hurricane had not happened, so we are guilty of not having foreseen the terrible events in Katrina. But the basic mechanism was there. What we did do after Katrina was to say, and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) took the lead, the gentleman from Ohio the chairman of the committee and I said, Yes, that makes sense. Let's take this mechanism for affordable housing that was created and let's in this first year in particular focus as the first priority on Louisiana. But the mechanism that was available for us to do that was in the bill. It is simply wrong to say that there was nothing in the bill to help them. The basic mechanism for their aid was in the bill and we were then able to respond to this latest circumstance and send it there. The second gap between what the majority leader said and reality was when he said, well, these are just negotiations. No, these are not negotiations. This is a kidnapping. This is a hostage taking. There is a legitimate philosophical objection by some of the most conservative Members of this body to the notion of putting these profits to help affordable housing. As I said, it is not just your average private corporation. These are private corporations whose profits are greatly enhanced by a series of governmental arrangements which they are greatly attached to. But we had that battle in committee and those who tried to kill this particular program of affordable housing as part of their profits lost by 53-17. Some of them are still against it. Some of them want some other changes. Let us have some votes on the floor. From time to time, and I guess we finally have found one thing, Mr. Speaker, we have reached the limit of the majority's ability to run out the clock. In the past when they have had tough votes, we have waited 3 hours, 2 hours, more time as I have noted than it takes us to evacuate the building in case of a threat when they twist arms and put on pressure. Apparently even they recognize that support for using some of the profits of these private corporations, which profits are enhanced by Federal help, that putting that to affordable housing, particularly now when we have this need for housing in Louisiana, that they could not hold the rollcall open long enough to twist enough arms to get there. Well, that is democracy. Let us have the vote on the floor. I would just add this, Mr. Speaker as I close. There is a lot of concern about how we are going to pay for the aid that we all believe should go to Louisiana. We have one small piece, hundreds of millions, but it is still hundreds of millions, and in most contexts that is not small, we have got a way to deal with the housing needs of those people without in any way impacting the Federal budget. Again, that mechanism was in the bill when it came out of committee. We were then able to adapt it to this situation. That is what the Republican leadership is refusing to allow the House to vote on. If the majority thinks it is a bad idea, I will regretfully wave good-bye to it, but I do not understand why under any theory of democracy a bill that comes out of committee 65-5 with a provision that was supported 53-17 is held hostage, not for negotiations but held hostage because there is a provision that some of the most conservative Members of the body are opposed to philosophically, they do not have the votes to beat it on the floor, they will not abide by democratic principles, they are engaging in this kind of ambush.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing, has said giving assurance to the people of New Orleans, the poorer people in particular of New Orleans, and, frankly, a lot of African American people, that we will be committed to rebuilding the city so they can come back home is very important. The longer we delay on this bill, the longer we delay giving people what is very important reassurance at a critical time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we did obviously get overwhelming consensus in the committee; and the vote among the Republican members of the committee was something 6 to 1 in favor of the bill. By the way, we have had some negotiation since, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) knows because he has been participating in them. Some of the objections of some of the more conservative Members have been accommodated. Some safeguards were put in. Not everything was done that we liked on our side. We have been trying to be conciliatory, although people obviously had the power to go ahead. Then, most recently, we decided this is a way to get money, if this bill were to pass quickly, to do housing so badly needed in the gulf area, frankly bypassing some of the normal problems you would have in terms of the need for regulations at OMB. It would not go on the deficit. There has been a lot of concern about relief efforts that add to the deficit. This would be hundreds of millions of dollars, because it comes from the profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, not on the deficit. The only other point I would say, and I would hope the majority would have something to say about it, he said people do not like some things about the bill. Well, as I read the Constitution, I did not find the word negotiation in private among the majority party as part of article I. I thought bringing bills to the floor and having debates and votes was the way to do it. Now I understand you want to establish some limits. But I do think we are reaching the point where democracy is suffering. A bill adopted in an open process with hearings and debates in committee and amendments passes 65 to 5. It has been, what, months since that bill was voted out of committee; and there have been some negotiations. The notion that the bill cannot come to the floor until all but three Members of the majority are satisfied really flies in the face of democracy. If there are differences, what is the objection to letting the majority of the House of Representatives vote? We are not enormously far apart. I have voted in the past for this thing called Reg-Neg, negotiated regulations. I do not think it ought to displace democracy. We have a bill that has an overwhelming vote in committee. There are some legitimate differences. Why cannot we let democracy work, and then, whichever side wins, the bill passes and hundreds of millions of dollars are available for the gulf.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to address some of the misconceptions that arise when we deal with this legislation. I and many of the strongest proponents of hate crimes legislation are also among the strongest proponents of free expression in this House, and I want to be very clear. A belief in free expression means the belief in the right of obnoxious people to say hateful things. This is not an effort to prevent people from engaging in racist or homophobic or sexist insults. I regard that to be a very unpleasant but fully constitutionally protected practice, and there have been mistaken assertions in this. There was in fact a case in Philadelphia which lent itself to the interpretation that unpleasant speech was being prosecuted. That case was thrown out of court, and it was wrong. Nothing in this law in any way, this amendment that the gentleman from Michigan, who happens to be one of the greatest defenders of freedom of expression in the history of Congress, nothing in this amendment impinges in any way on anybody's right to say or write anything they want. What it says is that if you commit an act which is otherwise a crime, because the predicate for this is that you have to commit a physical act which would be a crime against a person or property, but generally against a person, that it becomes an aggravating factor if it is demonstrated to be motivated, and the courts have made it clear that you have to demonstrate this is an element of the crime in some way, you must demonstrate that it was motivated by prejudice. Now the argument is, well, why is one kind of crime worse than any other? Well, in fact, of course, our laws, State and Federal, are replete with examples where the exact same act is treated more harshly depending on the motivation. We have laws that particularly single out crimes against the elderly. We have laws that say if you desecrate one kind of property it is worse than if you desecrate another. Here is the rationale for this. If an individual is assaulted and the individual chosen for the assault was chosen randomly, that is a very serious problem for that individual, and the crime ought to be punished and the individual protected. But where individuals are singled out for assault because of their race, because of their sexual orientation, because of their gender or identity, and transgendered people are among those who have been most recently viciously and violently attacked, it is not simply the victim of the violent assault who is assaulted. Other people in that vicinity, in that area, who share those characteristics, are also put in fear. And it is legitimate for us to say that when you have individuals being singled out because of a certain characteristic, this becomes a crime that transcends the assault against the individual. It does not mean we do not protect the individual. It means that we go beyond that. Now there are people who say, look, if you hit anybody, it is exactly the same thing. I doubt their sincerity, Mr. Chairman. Because, as I understand it, under Federal law, if one of us were to be walking out in the street with a private citizen and we were both assaulted, the individual assaulting us has committed a greater crime than the individual assaulting a private citizen. That is, we have one category of hate crimes in that it is a more serious crime to assault a Member of Congress. Now, by the way, it is obviously not in any way constitutionally inappropriate to denounce Members of Congress. We all know that. So anyone who thinks that when you have enhanced a sentencing by singling out an individual you have immunized him or her from criticism, just look at us. I do not know anybody who is proposing that we get rid of that. So here is what we are dealing with. We are dealing with a law which in no way impinges on anyone's freedom of expression and says that when individuals are physically harmed in part because of who they are that others who share that characteristic are also put in fear, and that is a way to try to diminish that form of activity. I should add, too, that we have recently seen more of an outbreak of this sort of violence against people who are transgendered, and it is important for us to come to people's aid. Of course, when people say, oh, well, this whole new thing is here, of course, the parent of hate crimes legislation is the anti-lynch laws of the 1930s. We tried in the 1930s to pass laws which were Federal hate crimes. The lynch laws were laws that said murder is murder, but where people are murdered for racial reasons in parts of the country where the individuals may not be protected, where law enforcement might be complicit, that is a Federal law. Now it is true that while this House continuously passed such legislation, the Senate never did because of other things. But the fact is that the principle of Federal intervention to protect individuals against crimes of violence that are ordinarily State crimes, in those cases where there is a pattern of nonenforcement, which is a predicate again for activity in this bill, goes back to anti-lynch laws, and I think many of us regret that those laws have not been passed.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, just before we adjourned, the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston issued a very thoughtful statement in support of the disengagement by Israel from the Gaza Strip, and the dismantling by the Israeli Government of Israeli settlements in that area. Mr. Speaker, this was a very wrenching process for many in Israel, and the willingness of the Government of Israel--supported by a majority of the people of Israel--to engage in this withdrawal with all of its difficult emotional strains speaks highly of that country's willingness to take steps for peace. The withdrawal from Gaza should not be the last action taken in this process, but it is unreasonable to expect that they will be able to take further actions in the absence of a showing by the Palestinian Authority of its willingness and ability to respond in kind to this disengagement. The statement of the JCRC is a first rate statement of what should be done going forward, and it is an appropriate expression of support of a majority of the Jewish Community of Greater Boston for a peace process that is thoughtful, balanced and prudent. I ask that this important statement be printed here. Jewish Community Expresses Support for Israel's Disengagement Plan Nancy K. Kaufman, Executive Director and Susan A. Calechman, President of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston issued the following statement today regarding Israel's plans to disengage from the Gaza Strip and communities in northern Samaria. The JCRC fully supports Prime Minister Sharon and the government of Israel as they begin implementation of the Gaza disengagement plan. Israel's vigorous democracy is taking bold and courageous risks in an effort to protect her security and to renew the process of resolving the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. We also support the Israeli government's effort to resolve the conflict through a negotiated two-state solution as expressed in the Road Map. Final borders and other final status issues must be left to the parties themselves to negotiate in a peace process free from violence and the threat of violence. Disengagement will only lead to a peaceful outcome if there is a commitment on the part of the Palestinian leadership to put an end to terrorism. We call upon the Palestinian Authority (PA) to disarm the terrorist groups and their infrastructure. This includes removal of existing stockpiles of weapons and preventing such stockpiles from being rebuilt; preventing the smuggling of weapons; closing of clandestine weapons manufacturing and preventing attacks, especial1y during the disengagement process. The future of peace, and the stability of the PA itself, is fully dependent on it taking this action. We recognize the profound sacrifices being made by the families who are being relocated, some after living in their homes for nearly 30 years. The loss of their homes, synagogues, farms, businesses and schools is an immense sacrifice which should be recognized with efforts made to bridge any gaps that develop among Israelis as a result of this effort. We condemn the rhetoric of a tiny extremist fringe that promotes violence as a response to policies undertaken by the democratically elected Israeli government. At the same time, the rights of free speech and lawful dissent which are basic and indispensable in a democratic society must be protected. It is critically important that those with differing views of the peace process condemn explicit hate speech, venomous language, and threatening words. It is also important that discussion among all the conflicting viewpoints be created to promote an atmosphere in which differences can be expressed with civility and respect. We call on the U.S. government to continue its work with Israeli and Palestinian leaders to ensure that all commitments are met and that a resolution to this conflict leads to a secure peace for both sides.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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