Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I understand the point that says authorizing legislation has to be adopted, but it says until June 30, 2002. The appropriation, I assume, begins October 1st. Does this mean no money can be spent between October 1 and June 30, or that the mandate would not be in effect from October 1 until June 30?

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a clarification question?

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, one of the popular and successful innovations in Federal aid to housing in recent years dating back to when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) was the Chair of the committee is the HOME program. The HOME program is one of the few programs now existing, perhaps the only one, which allows municipalities that feel the need to do housing construction. Many of us feel that we have a terrible problem in this country because of the increased price of housing, particularly in areas of housing shortage. While we are strong supporters of the section 8 voucher program, there is a large consensus, which you saw in the bipartisan witnesses before our hearings, that the voucher program alone is not enough, that it does not deal with the situation increasingly common in many of our areas, metropolitan areas and others, but particularly metropolitan areas, where economic pressures have driven housing prices so high and where production is so difficult for a variety of reasons. The HOME program is the premier general production program. It is strongly supported by elected officials. The President proposed to take $200 million of the HOME funds and restrict them, restrict them in a way that they have not previously been restricted. The HOME program has been a genuine block grant with complete flexibility. One of the things you can do under the HOME program if the municipality or the consortium of municipalities wants to is to do a homeownership program. But it is not mandatory. This is part of a flexible approach. The President said, let's take $200 million of this plan and make it mandatory that they use it for that and only that. Now, the committee increased the funding, but it increased the funding by picking up this restriction. What my amendment does is very simple. It has no offset because it needs no offset. It does not change the dollar amount of the bill, of the HOME program or of anything else. It simply removes from the HOME program as put forward in the bill a restriction on the use of $200 million which restriction would be imposed over the objection of the mayors. It is a restriction which takes a first unfortunate step towards converting a genuine flexible, successful, local-oriented block grant program into a partial categorical program. I stress again that the category which is earmarked in this bill at the President's request is an entirely permissible one. We are not preventing those municipalities that want to do it from doing this. We are saying that if the municipality wants to do it, it should be able to do it, but if it does not wish to do it, it should not have to do it. That is the critical point here. I want to stress again that this is important because this bill, which fails because of the tax reductions having taken away the revenue that we need to be responsible, this bill fails entirely to deal with the production problem. We do have some money in the 202 program for the elderly. We just had testimony that there are nine people on the waiting list for every section 202 elderly unit. If you want to know whether these programs are successful or not, look at that consumer satisfaction. Older people, 9 to 1, want to get into what is available. But that is only for the elderly. We have the low-income housing tax credit which does some good. But the primary program by which we can today do production is the HOME program. This bill fails as I said in not responding to the needs for another production program. The problem of course is that no such program was on the books and so you cannot expect it to be appropriated before it is authorized. I hope we will in this Congress create an increased production program. But one way to do production--the only way--is to increase home funds. So I want Members to be very clear. The only way you can meet even a small part of the need for increased housing production, particularly in those metropolitan areas where the housing shortage makes vouchers unusable, is to free up the money in HOME. A homeownership program might be a useful one in some municipalities. My amendment does not in any way, shape or form restrict the ability to do that. But to impose that and to say to a city, here is a chunk of money that you cannot use for production, you cannot use for rehabilitation, you cannot use for anything else, you can only use it for homeownership, when that city might prefer to do it in different ways is a reversion to a way of thinking about congressional imposition on municipal flexibility that I had thought this Congress was beyond and I thought my friends on the other side were beyond. So I hope the amendment is adopted. Now, there are other potential uses of the $200 million. We will have that conflict. But at this point I hope we can free this up and let the mayors spend this money as they see it, including on production.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. I object.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, if someone is doing an illustrated dictionary and needs perhaps a metaphorical or a dictionary of figures of speech and wants to illustrate the phrase ``robbing Peter to pay Paul,'' that is the dilemma we are in now. I know the gentleman from Illinois who cares deeply about lower income people is as unhappy as many of us on this side in particular are at this kind of choice. I admire his commitment to the HOPE VI program which has been a very important one, because HOPE VI has been extremely useful in my district. My dilemma is that we also have a problem with public housing capital funds. And so, Mr. Chairman, Members who are undecided as to how to vote on this will get no guidance from me. They seem on the whole to do without that in general, so that is okay. But this is important because it underlines the tragedy that this bill represents. It quite literally sets the poor against the poor, lower income working people against lower income working people, public housing against subsidized housing for the elderly, anticrime/drug efforts in public housing against efforts to rehabilitate that housing. This indicates how terribly inadequate this bill is. The gentleman from New York said no matter how much money there was, people would say it was inadequate. I have to tell him he is wrong, and I hope he will test us someday. Come in here with a bill that does not cut virtually every program in real terms. Let us talk about the public housing situation. The public housing operating budget is cut in real terms. We are told it gets an increase, but out of that increase they are supposed to pay the higher utility bills. By the way, the Secretary of HUD when he testified before our committee and was asked what the budget assumed, the operating budget for public housing regarding fuel bills, he told us he did not endorse this. He, as a good soldier, told us that the Energy Department had instructed him to say that the expectation is that fuel bills next year will be lower for the housing authorities and, therefore, they were to get less money for that. They are to get some additional money and out of that pay for the public housing drug elimination program. On the capital funds, it has already been reduced some. We are told, well, it is reduced because they have not spent it all. They have not spent it all in part because you do not spend responsibly right away, you have to do capital planning, and they are doing this. This bill underfunds virtually every category where we are dealing with housing. Public housing in particular deserves our attention. I quoted before the President's laudable sentiment that he would not leave any child behind. More poor children live in public housing than in any other segment obviously of our society. And we are talking about this terrible choice. The gentleman from Illinois is not attacking public housing. The HOPE VI program helps public housing. What we are talking about here, as he correctly brings to us with this amendment, is this terrible choice about public housing. Which aspect of it will we underfund the worst? Will we let the projects deteriorate in general with inadequate capital funding? Will we allow, under HOPE VI, some concentration to improve them? There are other areas of problems. I will be getting later to the question of the Federal Housing Administration. I want to stress again, it is not simply the poor and lower income working people who are being hurt by this Congress' failure and this administration's refusal adequately to fund things, the FHA program that builds multiple family housing for middle-income people has been shut down for months for want of $40 million; and it will turn out later that they are, in fact, overcharging in other FHA programs, we are told by more than $50 million. So this amendment is to me a terrible dilemma. We have two very valuable programs that serve the poorest people in this society, and we have to choose between them. The President said we need to do a tax cut of that magnitude because it is not the government's money, it is the people's money. People live in public housing. The government does not live in public housing. The residents of public housing are people who are in need. This dilemma is brought upon us by that irresponsible tax cut.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York has offered a very thoughtful amendment, once again aimed at helping the people in our society most in need of help. Now, it is unfortunate that the motif of this bill comes through again. It is so substantially underfunded because the tax cut deprived us of these revenues that it makes a choice between two needy groups. This choice is a little easier for this reason. The $200 million in the HOME program which has, in this bill, been earmarked for a home ownership program is an interesting example of retrograde behavior on the part of my colleagues on the other side; not the only example, but an interesting one. This one more clearly leads to a repudiation of some of their own professed principles. The HOME program has been a block grant, in effect. It gives monies to the cities and the consortia with a great deal of flexibility. It had been working very well, apparently too well for the Republican leadership and the President. The President decided he wanted to do something for poor people, but he did not want to actually spend any new money on doing it. The President went shopping for the poor, but he unfortunately did not think when we were talking about poor people that he could go to a store, because that requires money, and he gave that away in the tax cut. So the President went to the recycling bin to see what he could find for the poor people. He found $200 million that had already been assigned to the poor people. This great act of charity that comes forth Members should understand is not additional money. It is an earmarking of $200 million that had previously been sent to the mayors. I should not even say recycling, because that assumes somebody else had discarded it. The mayors had not discarded this. This is something the mayors had been planning to spend. Indeed, the $200 million for home ownership, again, it is not a new money program. It is $200 million for home ownership taken out of a pot of money that had previously been given as a block grant to the mayors. So it is putting a categorical stamp, to a certain extent, on what had been a block grant program, which the Republicans will do from time to time when they want to, rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding. The mayors, the National Conference of Mayors, the League of Cities, do not like this earmark, so the $200 million here is over the objection of the people who have been the administrators of the program and the recipients of the program. If indeed this amendment were ultimately not to pass, and of course the way we are working it tonight we will not know that for a while, probably until a couple of days until we have these roll calls, or maybe later, I will propose we will cancel out the $200 million earmarks and leave it where the mayors and League of Cities want it to be. In other words, I think we should go back to the block grant and repudiate this faux gift that comes from the President. He is making a gift of somebody else's money for home ownership. But, on the merits, we talk about the American dream. Let us first try to alleviate the American nightmare. Let us first try to show a response to the poorest of the poor, the homeless. Can there be in this wealthy society anything less morally tolerable than homeless children? Can anyone let any other program go by while children are still homeless? The gentleman from New York gives us a chance to remedy that situation, to a certain extent, by taking money that is now being assigned to programs that the people who run the programs do not want. Granted, their first choice would be to have the money on an unrestricted basis, but the way it now stands, that is why we have, from so many mayors, support for this. The President is also a bad one from that standpoint. HOME has been a very flexible, very well-run block grant. The notion of now letting conservative politicians look generous, not by providing any additional funding for low-income people but by putting restrictions on what has heretofore been a successful, relatively unrestricted set of programs geared to local needs, ought to be rejected. So I hope this amendment is adopted. If this amendment is not adopted, I will then be offering next the amendment, and we will have the choice when the roll calls come to put all that money at least back into the unrestricted pot. Let us not allow a situation in which the President plays Santa Claus with money that really should have gone to the mayors and which the mayors would rather see go to alleviating the homeless than not.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I understand Members' desires to leave, but there is a constitutional responsibility to debate seriously important issues. I am the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. Under the schedule proposed by the majority leader, we would be debating much of these important housing issues beginning sometime after 11 o'clock tonight until the early hours with no votes. I cannot agree to that, and I must inform Members that there will be no assurance of not having votes. There are votes on appeals from the chair. There are motions to rise. The problem is that important issues have to be discussed. We have all week next week. I am ready to work, but I will not agree, and Members should not expect to leave at 11 o'clock while we debate these important issues and not have votes.

Mr. FRANK

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

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I am the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Housing. There are enormous questions at issue here, and trying to rush them through would be inappropriate.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a stunning example of the social harm that is resulting from the excessive tax reduction of earlier this year. We have widely acknowledged that there are housing crises in many parts of this country. The gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), who chairs the subcommittee, has presided over hearing after hearing in which witnesses brought forth by both sides of the aisle have testified to that. The very prosperity which benefits so many and is so welcome exacerbates the problem in many areas of those people in middle-income and lower-income categories who are not participating, and this bill systematically makes it worse. It is not a matter of what the subcommittee chose to do, it is a matter of the substantial reduction in resources mandated by that tax bill, which left them with no real options. As a result of the inaction of this committee pursuant to that tax cut, the Federal Housing Administration, the FHA multifamily program, is shut down, has been shut down, and will remain shut down. When we get in the full House I will put in a letter from the homebuilders and realtors and many others lamenting this. We are not building multifamily units for middle-income people. Public housing residents are savaged by the President's budget, and unfortunately, this bill repeats that. The public housing drug elimination program, I do not think it is duplicative to have more cops in public housing. This cuts virtually every aspect of public housing. The President says he will leave no child behind. Who does he think lives in public housing, stuffed animals? Children live in public housing, the poorest children in this country. They are victimized by the poor resource allocation that this bill manifests. This bill is, unfortunately, far below the minimum we should expect, and that is mandated by that irresponsible tax cut.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will continue to yield, yes, I think Presidents want to operate with as little constraint as possible. It is not a personal matter, it is institutional. I do think that, although, frankly, I think the administration is making a mistake in asking this, because I think it is in their interest to get a vote, and this is the one mechanism we have for encouraging nominees to get a vote, rather than to be killed silently. In other words, there should be a difference in consequence whether a nominee is silently killed by a refusal to vote or actually voted down. The amendment would say to the Senate: ``Look, you have an incentive, if you do not like someone, to take up that nomination and vote the person down because that will keep the person from a recess appointment, rather than killing it silently.''

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, that is one of the effects of putting back the amendment. In other words, today, and with the amendment as adopted, if the Senate refuses to vote, then the administration can appoint that individual. But if the Senate does what the gentleman and I agree it should do, it takes it and votes it up or down in the public way and the nominee fails, then the nominee cannot get a recess appointment. In other words, we should be constructing the situation so there is an incentive to vote on the nomination and not kill it silently. Under this amendment, there would be that situation. A nominee voted down could not get a recess appointment. A nominee killed silently could get a recess appointment. I think we should preserve that status quo.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for his courtesy in yielding. That is exactly what motivated me to offer this, in part. Right now under existing law there is a difference in outcome. If the Senate refuses to vote at all, then the President can make the recess appointment. But if the Senate does its constitutional duty, votes, and votes someone down, that person cannot be appointed. I think that is very good, because that means a nominee and a President have that right to a vote. It is more likely to require a vote. If we were not to adopt this amendment, then the consequence of not voting and of voting someone down would be the same, and there would I think be fewer votes, more nominees killed silently, and I do not think that is appropriate. I have to say, when we talk about prerogatives, if we talk about something that entirely affects the internal operations of one body or the other, I think we should defer. But when we are talking about public officers of the United States, then I think it is reasonable for us to do it. I appreciate the gentleman allowing me to speak further.

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

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I would say this. If we were talking solely about something that affected only the Senate, that I suppose would be reasonable.

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

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, the bill that comes before us makes a change in existing law that I think is a mistake. Under existing law, and I am told that it has been this way since 1950, if the United States Senate votes down a nomination, that individual whose nomination was voted down cannot be the subject of a recess appointment. On the other hand, it has always been the case that if the Senate does not act on a nominee, that nominee can be the subject of a recess appointment. Previous administrations, and I know we had some talk back and forth about whether the amendment involving the Vice President's house and his electric bill would have been offered if we had the former Vice Presidential candidate as the Vice President; I am not sure, as a fellow religionist of the former candidate, maybe the lights would have been out from Friday night to Saturday night, so maybe the electric bill would have been cheaper, but we do not have to face that here. Because this provision, the provision that says that you could appoint someone to a recess appointment, even if that person had been rejected by the Senate, that was requested by the Clinton administration of the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Appropriations correctly said no to it. So there is no argument here that there is any differential treatment. Since President Truman, this has been the rule. The President has a right to make a nomination. The Senate has a right to vote on it. If the Senate fails to vote, then that individual could be given a recess appointment, as was, for instance, Bill Lann Lee, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. His nomination has not been voted on and, therefore, he could be given a recess appointment. But if the Senate votes someone down, takes up a nomination and votes it down, the law has been that that individual could not be paid and, therefore, could not get a recess appointment. Now, people will say, and I know we are dealing here with inter- branch situations, and I know one of the taboos is that we here in this Chamber of the people are not supposed to take in vain the name of the lofty institution on the other end of the building, but it is relevant here for legislative purposes, so I assume I will have the indulgence of the Chair in pointing this out. Here is the problem: right now, there is a difference in impact if the Senate votes someone down or fails to vote. If they fail to vote, that person is eligible for a recess appointment. If they vote the person down, he or she is not eligible. If we adopt the language that this administration and the Clinton administration and previous administrations have asked for, that difference will disappear, whether the Senate votes down a nomination or refuses to vote on it at all will make no difference in the President's ability to appoint that individual. I think it is a mistake to do that. Many of us think it is wrong for action to be inaction. If there is opposition to a nominee, that opposition ought to come forward, there ought to be a debate and there ought to be a vote. Nominees ought to get votes. It ought not to be the case that nominations are killed simply by inaction. Under the current system, as I said, the Senate has to make this decision. If they let a nomination die by inaction, that nominee is eligible for a recess appointment. If they do what the Constitution calls for and vote the nomination down, the nominee is not eligible for a recess appointment. Let us not collapse that difference. Let us not remove one incentive which now exists for the Senate to take action. Let us not create a situation legislatively where, if a nominee is voted down in an open vote with debate and a chance for people to speak on it, it has the same effect as if that nominee is held up by some inaction. I do not think we ought to contribute to this situation. As Members know, that directly affects us. Sometimes disagreements occur. They have happened in the Senate. Bills have been held up. Appropriations bills were recently held up because of a dispute over whether or not nominations would be voted on. There is a bicameral interest in there being action as opposed to inaction in the other body, because inaction in one body can lead to the kind of disputes that prevent both bodies from acting. So this is not partisan, this is executive versus legislative. This was a request that was made by previous administrations who wanted to be unfettered. What this says is in this administration, as in any other, let the Senate vote. If they vote and vote someone down, he or she should not subsequently be given a recess appointment, which is constitutionally permitted but, in effect, a defiance of the vote. If, on the other hand, they fail to vote at all, then it ought to be the case that that person is subject to a recess appointment, because they should be able to benefit from their own inaction.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just say in closing, without coming fully on the merits here I had not intended to speak, but I was struck by the objection to the notion that this might be embarrassing. As one who has been both embarrassed himself and has sought to embarrass others, I regard the right to embarrass each other as one of the most cherished parts of American democracy. I am sorry to see that right denigrated, particularly by people who have freely engaged in it in the past.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, there have understandably been a large number of tributes to our late colleague, Joe Moakley, who so well exemplified the best qualities of a representative of the people. One of them in particular had special meaning to me. Among the issues for which he fought so hard were those affecting the right of older people to live their lives in some degree of comfort and security. The most recent issue of The Older American, published in Boston by the Massachusetts Association of Older Americans, is dedicated to Joe and contains a number of articles describing his great work in that field. I ask that the article by the MAOA President Emeritus, Elsie Frank, recalling the speech Joe made 3 years ago at her 85th birthday celebration, be printed here, as an example of the impact he had. I am proud to share with my colleagues my Mother's excellent summary of the qualities that made Joe Moakley so important to so many of us. [From The Older American, July 2001] Joe Moakley (By Elsie Frank) My friend, Joe Moakley, was not a grandstander but a public official who was dedicated to public service. He took his responsibilities as a Congressman seriously; he was committed to social justice--to equality and respect for human dignity, and to the proposition that private interests shall not prevail over the public good. He wanted a society that is caring, just and fair to all--young and old alike. Part of Joe's greatness was his ability to make everyone feel special--like I felt when he spoke at my 85th birthday party. Joe agreed with historian Arnold Toynbee that a society's quality and durability can best be measured ``by the respect and care given to its Although no one would argue that society can shield every individual from problems that need to be solved, Joe Moakley openhandedly offered his help to others, often frustrated with a feeling of helplessness, and hopelessness. To him helping others was not a political issue, it was a moral issue. Despite the columnists and talk show hosts who ridicule those who help the downtrodden, money could not buy the good feelings Joe Moakley had about helping others. When we at the Committee To End Elder Homelessness, Inc. were in the planning stages of converting an abandoned bread factory into permanent housing for homeless elders, he was the one we turned to for assistance in overcoming obstacles. Joe Moakley was more than a politician. By his desire to make a difference in the quality-of-life of young and old, he set an example for all elected officials, those now in office and those who will win elections in future years. To continue his legacy of dedicated public service, his successor has an enormous void to fill.