Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to have a colloquy with the gentleman from New York or the gentleman from Indiana. I would just ask, I guess I can mention this, whether we include language that protected free exercise, i.e., no one would be coerced into a religion, whether or not that would affect the employment issue, and my answer clearly is no. There are two separate issues that we raised. My colleague from Texas has raised the employment issue. I may agree with him on that, but it is a separate one from the free exercise. The free exercise goes to the question of the citizens not employed by the program, but who would be participants in it? I am assuming if we did free exercise, that would cover them. That would then leave unresolved the issue of employment, but the two would not be affected.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I would give unanimous consent, if we were asking for a modification that added the free exercise clause, with the understanding that that left unresolved and untouched to be further debated the employment issue raised by the gentleman from Texas. The free exercise goes to the beneficiaries; employment goes to the other section.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would the gentleman repeat the unanimous consent request?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, how much time remains?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I have no objection.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just join in making it clear that we on the minority side have no objection to the ``render unto Caesar'' amendment.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to say some of these programs, which are very important programs, CDBG, HOME, they have been well run for years, they have been frozen, they have been level-funded, the need has increased. I hope out of this comes an increased recognition that we need to increase the funds.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Right. I understand the gentleman's question. That is true. Cities, however, have done that. The fact that a mandate was not imposed by the Federal Government does not invalidate it in my mind. I believe cities have the right to make these judgments. Independent of this legislation, many cities decided in the democratic process that governs those cities that it was helpful to have municipal employees living there, that it was helpful to promote the interaction, to have the police living there, the teachers living there. It was helpful to have these people who perform those important services living in the neighborhood. This language facilitates that. It is not a general housing aid. It is in facilitation of an important municipal policy that they find useful to have their employees living in the communities. I am for broadening housing aid in general, and I thank the gentleman. I will be glad to be with him when the budget comes up so we can increase these programs and accommodate the increases he wants to make. But this is one with a particular nexus between the city and its employees.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), who, along with her Hawaii colleague, did a great deal to make sure the rights of native Hawaiians were protected in this section, and it is in the manager's amendment. (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. What is wrong with it is that the budget that has been adopted, over the objection of the gentleman who thought it was too liberal, does not have enough money. I would be glad to join with the gentleman from Oklahoma if he would be willing to put his money where his mouth is, if in fact he would allow the program----

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will yield further, I thank the gentleman for his strong endorsement of union workers. I am sure when Davis-Bacon comes up there will be----

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The fact is that as you expand this program, it is going to cost some more money. I support greater housing aid. I would say to the gentleman I am all in favor of this. In fact I do not think it should be limited at all by occupation.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will yield further, I am in partial agreement with the gentleman as to the first amendment.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman said it was his intention to acknowledge that the gentleman from New York had accurately stated his intentions. I certainly do not intentionally want to undo any of this harmony. I simply say that I join with both gentlemen in our commitment to work this out. I think they have made it very creative. We will be able to do that.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, could I ask unanimous consent to include subsequent to my remarks on the general debate extraneous material?