Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, let me take back my time. There were two different California issues here. Of course, one would not expect California to settle for only one controversy. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) is correctly alluding to the future issue of so-called SB1. But what the gentleman from California had identified to me before that had passed was preemption of existing California where it predates the recent enactment. And that is the concern that I was alluding to.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus). Let me say I appreciate the affirmations from both gentlemen. Mr. Chairman, let me say now, I want to transition from the colloquy where we were in agreement as to what it says to express my view that I think even with these agreements the bill is, with regard to some existing law in California and elsewhere, more preemptive than it needs to be. I recognize the value of this colloquy in making clear what those limits are. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) who has been very concerned about this and who, indeed, alerted me to it earlier, and I unfortunately did not pay as much attention as I should have at the time, she is concerned and I share her concerns, so she will be pursuing this further. So I just want to say while I am pleased to have this colloquy and to have these understandings, my own personal view, which I realize is not shared by the gentleman of Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) is that even with these understandings, there is more preemptive language here than need be. I intend to work with the gentleman from California and other Californians in various ways to try and further reduce that preemption.

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

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to engage in a colloquy with the chairmen of the full committee and the subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, as part of this colloquy, I would say to my friends the chairmen of the full committee and subcommittee that many Members are concerned about the scope of the preemption that was just referred to, particularly with regards to identity theft. So I want to clarify with the author of the bill, the committee chairman, what we are intending and how we have underscored that intention in the manager's amendment which will be coming forward. Does this bill or this amendment allow the preemption of any State law on identity theft, such as limits on Social Security number use, criminal penalties for identity theft perpetrators, or other identity theft protections that are not specific subject matters addressed by this bill.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), another diligent member of the committee who made a great contribution to this bill.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Where? This is the end of the bill.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her spirit of cooperation. I think she is very much right on the substance. We did have to try to work out a balance out of committee. Some of us, as you recently saw, were more willing to stick to our commitments than others; but I would say to the gentlewoman, I think that in substance she has a very good idea and, yes, I would welcome the chance to try to work with her in conference assuming that there is something conferencable about this, as there may well be.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would say, particularly with regard to protecting legitimate merchants against abusive credit repair companies, I would be glad to work with the gentleman.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The question is not whether the Chair has the discretion but whether or not he has the integrity and courage to do so.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, during the recess, I was pleased to meet with a group of representatives of The United Steel Workers in my district. They presented me with a petition with which I am in strong agreement--calling on those of us who serve in Congress ``to pledge their support for the Healthcare Bill of Rights in its entirety.'' In particular, this petition cited the importance of three key principles, which are: First, everyone has a right to quality healthcare, regardless of financial standing. The government must insure that no American is denied needed healthcare services because of inability to pay; second, healthcare should be affordable for all who need it. The government must see that healthcare costs are brought under control; and third, everyone has a right to affordable prescription drugs. The government must insure that every American has prescription drug coverage. No one should be forced to choose whether or not to buy needed prescribed medicine based on how much money they have. Mr Speaker, I will not enter here the long list of names of signers of this petition. But I believe that Members should be aware of the strong sentiment that exists on behalf of such an important public policy. And I salute the Steel Workers of America and those who have taken the lead in organizing this petition in my own district and elsewhere, for their commitment to a better America.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, upon my return to the United States after a week in the Republic of Cape Verde, which is the ancestral home of many of my constituents, I was pleased to read that the President, in a long overdue move, is seriously thinking about significant UN involvement in our administration of Iraq. Unfortunately, both past history and the description of current efforts fail to give me confidence that the administration is ready to do this in the serious way that is required for success. The importance of this being done appropriately was recently underlined in an extremely cogent article from one of our most experienced foreign policy experts. Jonathan Moore is a man who began his career working as a key aide to the late Eliot Richardson, himself one of the most distinguished and thoughtful practitioners of foreign policy in recent history. Jonathan Moore has broad first-hand experience in international affairs, and has also been a thoughtful scholar. He served America at the UN under President George H.W. Bush, and he is now an advisor to the UN Development Program on Post Conflict Reconstruction. On Tuesday, August 26, as I was leaving the country, I read the attached article by him in the Boston Globe and I was struck by how well he put the case. As might already be clear from his having begun his work with Eliot Richardson, Jonathan Moore's active political career was as a Republican, which is relevant only to refute any suggestion that there is even the slightest hint of partisanship in his strong critique of the administration. Few Americans have earned a right to a hearing on this subject more than Jonathan Moore, and I know of no one who has made the case for the appropriate policy to be followed in this difficult situation more cogently. I ask that Jonathan Moore's incisive article be printed here, and I earnestly hope that the administration will heed him. [From the Boston Globe, Aug. 26, 2003] UN Can Pick Up Pieces in Iraq if U.S. Will Let It In the aftermath of last Tuesday's bombing of United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, the United States finds itself in a terrible bind largely of its own making. Following the successful fighting and takeover, the United States held the initiative as it turned to the immediate postwar challenges of occupation: establishing security, tending to humanitarian relief, getting basic public services functioning, and undertaking efforts to build a democratic nation and to begin serious reconstruction. Now the momentum may have shifted against the United States, putting it in a perilous position. In all the time building up to the war, the United States insisted on its objective of regime change and its vision of a stable, democratic Iraq exerting a salutary influence on peace and progress in the Middle East. The problem is that the administration did not heed sensible, professional warnings of the inherent dangers and obstacles that would be faced and cautions about the enormous investments that would be required to pull it off. Instead, the administration proceeded by itself in an arrogant and ill-prepared manner. While the problems the United States has encountered since the war was declared over could not have been predicted with certainty (and who would have wanted to), some were probable, all were possible, and none, even occurring together, should have come as a surprise. Two factors in the current situation are predominant: establishing and maintaining security in Iraq and the role of the United Nations. The United States is in the process of botching both of them, and they are intertwined. The administration has failed to control security in Iraq by underestimating the problem and by refusing to take the measures required to achieve it. When the Security Council refused to give the United States carte blanche for both its war-making and its nation- building, the administration dismissed the United Nations and proceeded unilaterally. (The ``coalition'' is us. Our biggest and best ally, the British, have 11,000 troops in Iraq compared with our 150,000.) Security is the sine qua non. Nothing else in the administration's ambitious agenda can happen without it. Not only does adequate security in Iraq not exist and is diminishing but the United States, in its insistent monopoly, is exclusively responsible for it and therefore for its failure. As Washington now casts about for help both in recovering security--with peace-keeping troops from other countries--and in reconstruction--with financing and expertise also from international actors--other nations neither want to participate as U.S. vassals nor are they entirely confident the United States is up to doing a good job. Two weeks ago the United States scrapped a possible UN resolution designed to attract such help and provide greater credibility for the whole enterprise because the administration didn't want its own authority to be diluted in either realm. We've been there before and should know better, most recently in Afghanistan. We try to do it on the cheap and alone, stubbornly and churlishly. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who months ago brutally put down our Army chief of staff for having suggested the need for up to 300,000 troops to secure postwar Iraq, indicated after the bombing of the UN headquarters and amid other security breakdowns that the current level of U.S. troops envoy to Iraq chided the Iraqis to exert more authority over the situation. This won't work. Perhaps a strategy would be for the United States first to deploy substantially more troops to Iraq and also support a new Security Council resolution reconfirming coalition authority for the security job but switching principal responsibility to the UN for the reconstruction job--a dual model somewhat similar to the one used in Afghanistan. This would allow the United States to do what it can do best and the UN to do what it can do best. The United States would still exercise enormous influence in the nation- building arena but with more international involvement in money, experience, and political capital. There would be greater credibility and broad acceptance for such an arrangement, more sharing of credit and blame (the United States would not be exclusively exposed and targeted), and such a regime would be likely to attract more troop contributions to the United States-led security effort. The administration would still face huge odds. But it would strengthen the prospect and improvement is desperately needed. The United States can't go it alone, and it must not go down and out in Iraq.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) who, as the gentlewoman mentioned, is literally held up. His plane is probably trying to land, and he deserves a great deal of credit for this initiative. This a perfectly common sense piece of legislation. It corrects what must have been an oversight in the legislation. There was never any reason to restrict churches. We are taking an action that expresses our confidence in the management of these institutions. It allows them to make rational choices about how best to maximize their funds. I think this is particularly important because as we know, the clergy, that is one of the professions in this country that is, in my judgment, that is undercompensated. People who choose to go into the clergy are generally selfless people who care a great deal about others, as well as about their theology. They work very hard. They work on days that the rest of us, by definition, think of as days of rest, and they are not sufficiently compensated. We often hear of people who gave their lives not just to the clergy but to support roles, to the secretaries, to the support people, to the youth workers, and the notion that in their retirement years they would not be fully protected and given the maximum amount is a very troubling one. This small step today is a very important one because it does as much as we can do within this context to take some steps towards enhancing the retirement security of some very decent hardworking people who, as I said, were somewhat undercompensated. I appreciate the initiative. I was pleased that our committee unanimously reported this out. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment and for yielding. Mr. Chairman, this budget is clearly inadequate for our housing needs. The Committee on Appropriations was given too little to work with. I would be more sympathetic to the majority on the Committee on Appropriations if they had not all voted for the budget, which is the reason they had too little to work with. But by the time they are through with the tax cuts and other things, there is simply too little left here for basic housing needs, even to keep where we now are, and that has been too low. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a document from the National Low Income Housing Coalition, which makes clear exactly how much of a shortfall there is. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from New York for his amendment, which goes part of the way towards undoing the damage this bill will do to our housing programs. Housing Appropriations Inadequate; 85,000 Families at Risk Tens of thousands of low income families, seniors, and people with disabilities are at risk of losing their housing under the VA-HUD-IA Appropriations bill passed by the House Appropriations Committee on July 21 and set to be considered by the full House on Friday, July 25. The most serious problem lies in the funding of the Housing Choice Voucher program. The Appropriations Committee appropriated $583 million less to the program than is needed to renew every voucher currently in use by low income families, making it almost a certainty that at least 85,000 households will lose their housing assistance sometime in the coming year. The Committee appropriated $13.26 billion for the voucher program. Although the funding represents an improvement over the Bush Administration's request, which was $1.26 billion short and would have jeopardized the housing of more than 180,000 families, the cut represents the first time in the history of the voucher program that Congress or an Administration would break the federal government's longstanding commitment to renew all existing vouchers. ``Housing is a foundation of our communities and our families,'' said NLIHC President Sheila Crowley. ``The reality today is that millions of families just do not earn enough to be able to afford even modest housing. It is outrageous that in a time of economic downturn Congress not only is failing to address the unmet need, but is actually taking the unprecedented step of cutting families from the voucher program.'' In addition, the House bill does not provide funding for existing vouchers that are not in use at the beginning of FY04. As a result, a further 95,000 authorized vouchers that could potentially have been used to serve additional families from waiting lists will be de-funded, according to the most recent data analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The cuts come while only a fraction of eligible households receive vouchers, which typically pay the difference between 30% of the family's income and the rent on a modest rental home. Most families seeking assistance face a several year wait. In larger cities, waiting lists can be as long as eight to 10 years. ``The Administration and Congress enacted reckless tax cuts benefiting the wealthiest elites of this country, and now it is hard-working families and seniors struggling to make ends meet who will pay,'' Ms. Crowley added. The Committee did rebuff the Administration by failing to take steps to turn the voucher program into a block grant to the states, something the Administration has been urging. Advocates have expressed serious concern about the block granting plan, as block grants typically decrease in value over time and allow states to make changes to programs that can lessen their effectiveness and original intent. The Committee has allocated a net appropriation of $31.8 billion to HUD, not including offsets. The $31.8 billion is an increase of $817 million from last year's budget and a $96 million increase from the President's requested budget. While the appropriation looks as if it is a slight increase, the amount is inadequate because housing costs have risen rapidly in the past year, meaning that additional funding is required to serve the same number of households. In addition, the appropriation does not consider the increasing number of low income people who are unable to afford a home. There is currently a 2 million home gap in the number of lowest income families (those in bottom income quintile) and the number of rental homes affordable to them, and the committee does not address this need. In constant dollars, the amount appropriated to housing for low income people continues to decline. HUD's FY04 budget of $31.8 billion would be only one-third of the FY1976 HUD budget (in the last year of the Ford Administration, in 2002 constant dollars). Besides the voucher program, key provisions of the bill include: HOPE VI. The Administration targeted the HOPE VI program for elimination in FY04. The Appropriators instead allocated $50 million to the program, a small fraction of the $574 million it has received in recent years. The program, which helps communities rehabilitate and demolish distressed public housing, has received bipartisan support by many Members of both the subcommittee and the full House. However, it is unlikely the full House will find funding for the program equal to current levels. Public Housing. The public housing capital fund would receive $2.7 billion, level funding from FY03 and $71 million more than the President requested. The funding for capital needs remains wholly inadequate, given the $20 billion estimated backlog in capital needs. The public housing operating fund, which funds operating expenses such as utility payments and maintenance, was appropriated a total funding level of $3.6 billion. The appropriation represents a $250 million shortfall, although it is $26 million more than the President's request and $23 million above the FY03 funding level. Two of the President's much-touted initiatives were not fully funded: The American Dream Downpayment Initiative, which would provide downpayment assistance to first-time homebuyers, received only $125 million of the $200 million the President had requested. His Samaritan Initiative, which would provide $50 million for housing and services for people experiencing long-term homelessness, was not funded. In addition, the Committee tempered other of the Bush Administration's attempts to cut funding. As it has done for the past two years, the Administration did not request any funds at all for the Rural Housing and Economic Development program. Appropriators reinstated funding to $25 million, last year's level. The Brownfield Redevelopment program, intended to redevelop contaminated sites and provide jobs to low income people, was appropriated $25 million despite the Administration's attempts to eliminate the program. The subcommittee suggested in the report that HUD work collaboratively with the Environmental Protection Agency to redevelop sites.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am struck by the number of Members of the majority party who come up and concede, there is not enough here and not enough there. That was their decision. They voted to cut taxes on wealthy people and then voted for a budget that constrains them. So as they complain about these constraints, remember that this is self-flagellation in almost the literal sense. Given the bad position they have put us in, we have to make choices. Nothing in the gentleman's amendment would interfere with NASA's ability to solve the problems that led to the tragedy of a few months ago. Indeed, the opposite is the case. At this point, NASA ought to be focused on preventing that kind of tragedy, rather than going into new programs that would divert resources and attention; and instead, we have the Superfund program. The gentleman from California said, Well, you have got to take risks. If, as a society, we decide to take risks, that is one thing. But I do not think the people who live in Fairhaven, Massachusetts, ought to have to take the risk of living next to a Superfund site that has been certified by the EPA as a Superfund site; and now they tell us they have not got enough money to continue. The gentleman from New York says this is $10 million more, a slight percentage increase than what we now have, but what we now have is a recent announcement by the EPA that existing Superfund sites will get no work. The EPA has just announced some of the hazardous sites in this country will be left in their current situation because they have not had enough money, and we are being told, well, you should be happy we are continuing the situation in which existing Superfund sites will not get the money. I think it is important to deal with space, but not at the expense of exposing citizens of this country today to the hazards of Superfund sites, and that is what this bill does. It carries forward a situation in which EPA admits it does not have enough money, and that is intolerable.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first I do want to comment on the irony of many of us being lectured about the value of free trade by supporters of the most anti-free trade, anti-poor people policy that the United States has, our agriculture policy. People who have voted for the American agriculture bill have less credentials to preach to the rest of us about being fair to poor people than anyone I can think of. I am here to speak against the Chile Free Trade Agreement, as well as the Singapore Free Trade Agreement, both for the reasons that we have heard from from others, but specifically because they have unfortunately become the embodiment of a purist, right-wing ideology gone mad. Chile, in fact, as we have known, has been a successful economy. Part of what Chile did as it was building its successful economy was to adopt some sensible controls on short-term capital flows. They did not want hot money coming in and out. Most analysts agree that the major cause of the problems in Asia in the late 1990s had to do with hot money going in and out. Sound economies, sound budgets were undermined when short-term investments had flowed in and there was a run on the country. Most economists today agree, including advocates of free trade, that it is wise for countries in some cases, particularly developing countries that may not have sound banking systems, to be allowed to put controls not on foreign direct investment, but on short-term hot money. This agreement, because of the right-wing ideology that governs this administration and, I must say, I believe contrary to the wishes of the Trade Representative, embodies a purist view that says no capital controls anywhere, anytime, anyplace. Let me tell my colleagues what some free trade advocates say of this. The Economist magazine, which prides itself on its free trade credentials, says in an article entitled ``A Place for Capital Controls'': ``In negotiating new free trade agreements with Chile and with Singapore, the U.S. has recently sought assurances of complete capital account liberalization. Bitter experience suggests that such demands are a mistake. It is past time to revise economic orthodoxy.'' Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank, a strong supporter of the Trade Promotion Act, a free trader, says: ``There is an emerging consensus among economists that emerging markets should be particularly wary about full capital account liberalization. It makes little sense for our trade agreements to be pushing on our trading partners' restrictions which fly in the face of sound economics.'' He is again opposed to this. Finally, Professor Jagdish Bhagwati, a strong advocate of free trade, says: ``The inclusion of provisions in this regard, in these treaties, in these FTAs, seems to be ideological and a result of narrow lobbying interests hiding behind the assertion of social purposes or ideology.'' I urge the rejection of these treaties. Singapore and Chile were forced to agree to these over their objection. If we rejected these treaties, we could easily renegotiate without these ideological insistencies, right-wing ideology run amuck. I hope that we defeat these treaties and renegotiate them without imposing this rigid capital control prohibition on these two countries. [Excerpted testimony from Apr. 1, 2003 House Financial Services Committee Hearing on the U.S.-Singapore and U.S.-Chile FTAs] The Capital Control Provisions in the Singapore and Chile FTAs By Jadish Bhagwati, University Professor (Economics), Columbia University) The inclusion of capital control provisions in the Chile and Singapore FTAs is . . . difficult to understand in terms of economics. Even the IMF, including in its latest report from its Chief Economist Ken Rogoff and associates, concedes the case for prudence rather than haste in dismantling capital controls and in occasional but cautious use of them when necessary in otherwise capital-wise open economies. The inclusion of provisions in this regard in these FTAs seems therefore to be ideological and/or a result of narrow lobbying interests hiding behind the assertion of social purpose. I see, in particular, the following problems with these FTAs as a template: 1. The provisions are overly ambitious in extending to all kinds of ``investments'', including ``futures, options and derivatives'', instead of being confined to direct foreign investment. I see this as a potential problem with the NGO community which has become properly sensitive to financial flows and crises, and to the havoc they cause, especially on the poor in the afflicted countries. It will simply play into the hands of the many anti-globalization critics who see trade treaties as being captive to financial and corporate interests. At a time when trade liberalization itself has become difficult to manage, the inclusion of such provisions into a trade agreement is to invite gratuitous criticism. 2. The limitations put on what can be demanded by way of compensation for use of capital controls and their effects on the value of investments by foreign entities go some way towards assuaging the early concerns. But they still amount to roadblocks. I do not see how it can lead to anything but political objections when invoked, just as the ultra- conservative view of ``takings'' that was slipped into Chapter 11 provisions of NAFTA has led to fierce political objections. 3. As I read the text of the agreements, it appears that the traditional protections built in for ``balance of payments'' situations, which would have been invoked automatically to suspend ``free transfers'', have been removed and been replaced by a separate Dispute Settlement mechanism when capital controls are invoked. This is more restrictive for Chile and Singapore; it also constitutes a tightening of the restrictions being imposed on these countries' ability to use capital controls as they see fit. None of this is good news. It also seems to me that few other countries will be prepared to accept such a template. Such restrictions, which are to be deplored in any event, are best left to be handled through investment agreements, rather than fastened on to trade agreements where they will bring trade liberalization, a policy which is far less controversial, into disrepute.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, as to the history, it is clear, as it has been for 31 years, that the law says that if you take Federal funds, you cannot take the money you took from all the taxpayers and then tell some of those taxpayers many of them are ineligible because of their religion. The gentleman from Indiana is wrong. We are not having the Federal Government tell you who to hire. We are saying that the Federal Government tells you you cannot refuse to hire most of the people who pay taxes that you are now spending because they do not like your religious beliefs. And I have to say, you tell me that this drives religions away. What are we talking about, the Taliban? I mean, what is it that is so terrible? We are saying when you run your church, you run your church. When you hire people with your own money then you hire whoever you want, but when you take Federal tax dollars for a secular purpose, remember by definition, you cannot get Federal funds for religious purposes. So you are getting Federal funds for secular purposes, nonreligious purposes. Every taxpayer contributes and you are telling people then you can hire only people of your religion as they believe. That means racial segregation de facto. How many whites will the black Muslims hire? How many blacks will the Orthodox Jews hire? Religion unfortunately de facto means segregation. But they also have to say what is it that is so terrible? What we are saying to religious people is, in doing these good works with Federal money, we ask you please to associate with people of other religions, and you are telling us that asking religious people to associate with people of other religions defiles them. You ought to call your position the Antiheretic and Infidel Association Act. Unclean. Get away from me, unbeliever. Well, if you want to say, get away from me, unbeliever, go ahead, but do not take the unbeliever's money through taxes and say, thank you for the tax money, now get out of here before you profane my day care center, before you profane my Head Start center. How can you tell people that everybody has to pay taxes, but only those who meet a certain religious test, and it is not a broad religious test, it is a specific one, you believe in evolution, you cannot do Head Start here? You believe in all kinds of things, out you go. So we are simply asking that the law be maintained. Our amendment maintains current law, and we ask you, please do not take the Taliban as the model for American social service.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Arizona and the gentlewoman from Illinois. I just want to reaffirm what has been said. This comes from the authorizing committee. It is a very important piece of legislation that very appropriately accompanies this bill, and it allows us to meet our commitments to multilateral institutions in a very progressive way, and I thank all concerned for the fact that I hope we are about to adopt it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I have a great deal of respect for the thoughtful consideration that the gentleman from Wisconsin gives to a wide range of issues. I have a couple of differences with him here. One, I think he will understand if at this point I am less inclined to be credulous when the State Department tells me things than I have been from time to time in the past. Their record on accuracy with regard to the Middle East has not been so great lately, and I expect the State Department to say that I am unpersuaded. Beyond that, I think, and I acknowledge what has been said, that this is not about the money. This is, I hope, a chance to express to the government of Saudi Arabia the profound unhappiness that this House has with virtually everything they do. Now, I understand that they are cooperating with regard to terrorism, and it was said particularly since May 12. Yes, once they got bombed themselves they were prepared to cooperate with us. Whether it is selling us oil or fighting terrorism, let us understand they are doing us no favors. The Saudi Arabians need the United States a lot more than we need them. Think about confronting hostile forces in the world. If you are America, Saudi Arabia might be helpful. If you are Saudi Arabia, America is essential. I do not want them to stop cooperating, but I do not think we are buying their cooperation with $100,000. I think they are cooperating now out of self-interest, and I think they will continue to do so. To the extent there is cooperation, that is fine, but I do think we should tell them how unhappy we are. I agree with one point my friend from Arizona made. They do not belong on the same list with those other countries, and I would make a recommendation to him. If this amendment passes, as I hope it does, when you get to conference, reconfigure this. Give the Saudis a paragraph unto themselves. You will have the ability to do that. We should not be giving them money. I agree they should not be in there with Libya or Cuba. You have the compositional right to give them a separate place. On the other hand, when you look at Saudi Arabia and that list, some things are not that different. I do not believe there is a more consistent violator of human rights in the world than the government of Saudi Arabia. This is a government that not only violates the human rights of their own people, but when American military personnel go over there, they have been subjected to sexual and religious discrimination of a sort that we would tolerate nowhere else. The Saudis have not been terribly constructive with the Middle East peace process. I support what the President is doing with regards to the Middle East peace process. I was a supporter of the roadmap, and I will continue to be. I do not think the Saudis have been a very relevant piece of that. And, yes, I think it is very worthwhile for us to say to the Saudis, we recognize you have an interest and you want to cooperate with us, and to the extent that we can cooperate together in finding these terrorists we will do that. But cutting off this money is a way to express to them, as I said, the profound revulsion that people here feel about the practices of that government. And so I think the gentleman's amendment is a very thoughtful one. I do not think it will for a minute, let us think about it now, if this amendment passes, the Saudis are now going to say, okay, no more cooperation on terrorism? I do not think they are doing that as a favor to us. They are doing it out of self-interest. They need to sell the oil more than we need to buy it. So we have one way now, I think we have apparently have agreement here in the House about how badly the Saudis have behaved in virtually every way, and the question is do we need them enough so that we have to worry about their feelings? I think the answer is that it is important for us to send them precisely this kind of very angry message, not about the money but about the message. And I believe the cooperation will not only survive but it may, if there is any rationality there, improve. Because I think it is important for them to understand how unhappy people are. And I must say, with respect to all my friends who have, and nearly everybody here has condemned the Saudis, but I think simply condemning them while continuing the status quo will not have any impact. I think the amendment of the gentleman from New York is an essential piece of trying to change things.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join in supporting this. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), a member of the subcommittee, worked collaboratively with the gentleman from Alabama. This has been an important cause that he has brought to our attention, and we appreciate that. I should note that one of the ways in which we were able to cooperate on this bill was it is coming forward under the rubric of the community development block grant program, so we made sure that is, in fact, consistent with the community development block grant program. It is also additional money, so it does not take away from any existing programs, and it is entirely worthwhile. I would just make two points about the broader implications of this bill. First of all, it is particularly for manufactured housing. Manufactured housing is a very important housing resource for low- and moderate-income homeowners and residents. And I hope that it will be a hallmark of this committee in a bipartisan way that we will find other ways to protect this important housing resource. It does not often get the respect it deserves, either in the culture or in the law. I am determined that we will do our best. Second, I am glad to be here joining my Republican colleagues in creating a new Federal program in which new Federal money is made available for an important societal need. Now, it is not a huge amount of money for the whole country, $5 million. It might, as the need evidences itself, go beyond that. What it shows us is that there are important needs in this society; and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) has just eloquently sketched out the need for this kind of shelter to protect vulnerable people from these tornados. What we are saying is, this is a need that will not be met adequately for the people of this country unless the Federal Government creates a new category of funding and provides Federal funds for that. I am glad to do that because it is an important program that we are establishing. It is an important need that we are meeting, and as I said, it underlines the importance of manufactured housing and an appropriate Federal response to social programs.