Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman from Georgia has been a diligent advocate for a sensible public policy, and I admire both his diligence and his grasp of the issue. He is correct. Nothing in this title changes existing Federal law with respect to the authority of the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's preemptive authority, and their right to regulate and oversee a depository institution's products and services marketing and distribution system, and they do obviously have definitional authority under this legislation.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1363, I call up the bill (H.R. 3221) to provide needed housing reform, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment to the House amendments to the Senate amendment with an amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Speaker, we confront here one of those moments in which there is a certain degree of confusion, and we are here, in substantial part, today at the urgent request of the Bush administration. This package has several pieces. Three of them, in fact, are urgent requests of the Bush administration, and indeed, the Bush administration does have a criticism to make of the pace with which we are doing this. They think it is too slow. Well, Members on the other side, some of them have complained that we're moving too rapidly. The Secretary of the Treasury has been a little frustrated that we were moving so slowly. Clearly, we have here an example of the classic situation in which the right hand does not know what the far right hand is doing. We are dealing today with legislation that has, with one exception, already passed this House. As to the ability to amend and debate, one of the high priorities of this administration has been significantly increasing the regulatory structure for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal home loan banks. This House passed it last April of 2007. It was very much debated in committee, and it came to the floor of the House with many amendments. Well, that piece has already been debated on the floor of the House and amended, subject to a fairly open rule, not totally open. We have the modernization of the Federal Housing Administration, another high priority of the Bush administration. Several months ago, the head of the FHA, the Bush appointee, Mr. Montgomery, the head of the FHA lamented the fact that we hadn't acted. Despite that, the senior Republican on the Financial Services Committee sent me a letter last week saying don't act on it. So we have the head of the FHA a couple of months ago complaining that we had not acted on this urgent administration priority, and then I get a letter from the senior Republican of this committee saying don't do that piece, leave that piece out. He talks about doing only 1 piece, that one's left out. So we have the administration's request for GSE reform, already voted on and debated last year; FHA modernization, already voted on and debated by the House. This is a re-passage to accommodate, frankly, some of the problems we've had with the Senate. We did have the FHA rescue plan that was voted on on the floor of the House, and that one was not amendable, and I acknowledge that. All of the things I've talked about, by the way, these three pieces that have already been voted on, all passed the House by very large majorities. All had significant Republican support. All were fully debated in committee and amendments offered. This is a repackaging. Now, the gentleman who preceded me said what are we afraid of. I guess I do have a certain fear of being caught in this Republican crossfire, with the administration telling us move more quickly and the Republican members of the committee saying how dare you move so quickly; and the Secretary of the Treasury saying we'll have confidence undermined in the market, and the Republicans saying we didn't have enough time to read the bill. Again, almost everything in here has previously been debated in committee and voted on on the floor of the House. There's one new element, and I agree that did not go to committee. We didn't have a public hearing on it. The Secretary of the Treasury asked us not to have a public hearing, said he thought it would be damaging to the market if we had a public hearing. We have had a week and a half to talk about it, to discuss it, including in informal ways, and I've been open to discuss it with anyone who wanted to. But the Secretary of the Treasury did say that he thought the hearing would be a problem. So what are we afraid of? Well, I had a certain fear of rebuffing the Secretary of the Treasury, President Bush's appointee, on the matter that he thought was so important as to how we handled it. So that's why we are here. This is a balanced bill that includes a significant increase in the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It does give to the administration the ability to make some loans to them or maybe buy shares with an instruction that they protect the taxpayer with various mechanisms and with a requirement that the compensation of the CEOs and the top officials of those agencies be strictly regulated. But it doesn't do that in isolation. It does it only as part of a bill which significantly tightens the increase, that tightens and increases the regulatory structure.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first, let me say that I think this is a very reasonable motion to instruct, and I urge all Members to vote for it. I do want to take a moment, since we are talking about the Native American housing benefit, to explain to people what the major issue is. It's not the subject of a matter of discussion. It wasn't that controversial in our committee, and it has to do with the action of the Cherokee Tribe. The Cherokee Tribe was one of several tribes that owned slaves in the 19th century and fought on the side of the South in the Civil War. When the Civil War was concluded, treaties were signed, not just with the Confederacy. There was a treaty. Treaties were signed with these Indian tribes that were independent in which they agreed to incorporate into the tribe from that day forward the former slaves, known as the Freedmen, and their descendants. To my great disappointment, the Cherokee Tribe has decided that they don't want to continue that arrangement. I think it is a violation of their tribal obligations, their treaty obligations. The Bureau of Indian Affairs agreed. They're a fairly small number of people. The question is not what blood people have but this treaty obligation that the Cherokees undertook. Our committee voted to exclude the Cherokees from the housing benefit as long as they are out of compliance here. Now, it's interesting, some defenders of the Cherokees have said, well, let's let it go to the courts. But I've read the Cherokee's brief on this subject. It's been in a court case, and they say to the court, stay out of this, it's up to Congress. Well, I agree with the brief, and that's an important part of this bill. And that's one reason why we have asked for the appointment of conferees, and the conferees are people who strongly believe it's a fairly small number of people to talk about, that the Cherokee Tribe should not be allowed to expel them. Now, as to the energy piece, we very much agree with this. I think it's probably the case that we have more to learn from the Native Americans about energy use and conservation than they from us, and it is, therefore, entirely appropriate that we say that the funding that is available be available for them to use in this way. As I said, I don't think this is a group that we have to force this on, but I think it's a useful one. Indeed, it's a principle that we think very important, and in fact, later this month, the Committee on Financial Services will be voting on a bill. The gentleman from Colorado is the prime author. The gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes) has worked with the gentleman, Mr. Perlmutter, on it, and we very much agree with this principle, and indeed, we want to incorporate it in Federal housing policy in general. Essentially our view is that where the Federal Government is funding housing in a fairly direct way, then we ought to require energy efficiency, and where the Federal Government is not funding it but helping enable it, we ought to encourage it. Of course, as we know, if you do energy efficiency into the building of the housing, you may have an increase in immediate cost and a long-term saving, not just in energy efficiency but in funding. So I'm going to be yielding time to the gentleman from Colorado because we agree that this is a very useful, broad principle, and we agree with the approach of the gentleman from Illinois which is, since this instruction itself isn't controversial, we'll all use it to talk about other things that we want to talk about. That's perfectly reasonable. We have nothing else to do this morning. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, preliminarily I would say that not only do I agree with the gentleman that we should not rule out any new production, I know of no Member of the House who takes that position. And even later today we will be dealing with legislation that the Committee on Resources brings forward that tries to increase and encourage production. With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), a member of the committee and a leader in the committee on matters of energy, be allowed to control the remainder of the time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. That is a most extraordinary misunderstanding of the law. Yes, there was a law in 1968. Guess what this will be if we pass it--a new law. The notion that a law passed in 1968 somehow defies this Congress of the ability to pass a subsequent law incorporating current judgment doesn't make any sense to me. You're not in court here arguing. The question is, does this Congress have the right to take into account evolved views to amend the law? Yes, there is a law on the books. If the law on the books, I would say to the gentleman, covered this, we wouldn't need this law, but this is a law that we would pass. So the notion that there was a prior law really makes less sense than a lot of other things I have heard today, which says a lot.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, is asking the same unfounded inquiry repeatedly a violation of the House under dilatory tactics?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. While the gentleman from Utah is thinking of something to say, I will yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) such time as he may consume.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will close. I appreciated the kind words the gentleman from Utah had to say about me. I only wish he would extend those courtesies to my constituents who have, I think, been unfairly denigrated. And I again want to stress there was nothing inappropriate about 40 years later the Congress deciding, by a vote, this is no fiat here, to look at the law and say, we now believe that this is an appropriate designation. It is to say to an area that has been subjected to de- industrialization, you get the support of this planning mechanism, which is necessary because it is on a navigable waterway, so it can't be entirely done by State authorities. It is supported by all of the locally elected officials, overwhelmingly by the people there, by all of the Members of Congress nearby, by the four United States Senators who would be affected. You get this ability to enhance the quality of your life and, at the same time, to find, as my colleague from Rhode Island said, a new economic pattern. And that is engaging in self-help. We are trying to help them tear down an elevated highway that is a barrier to this river. There is a coordinated set of planning activities to improve it. And I have to say, the gentleman, I think, has helped me prove the point. In his diligent search to defeat this bill, he came up with three people in the area who were against it. Well, I don't think three people in an area of hundreds of thousands gives you, even under Aristotle's definition, the right to impugn the legitimacy of this, particularly since we are following the regular order. I would say to my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, please don't tell the people, the hardworking people of an industrial area who are trying to improve the quality of their lives for themselves and the lives of their children, don't tell them that this environmental designation stops where they live, and that they are to be, by a specific vote of the Congress of the United States, excluded from this set of benefits.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 2 minutes. These are the portions of the river bank that would be excluded by the gentleman's amendment. These would not be protected. The historic park enshrining the battleship Massachusetts would not be protected. The gentleman made an argument I found hard to follow. It was because the 1968 Act said one thing, it would be a violation of the rule of law to pass a law. I have never heard that. We are here in the House of Representatives debating a law. If it gets a majority and is passed by the Senate, never to be taken for granted, it will become an addition to the law. The notion that a law being passed somehow distorts the law is a grave error. The gentleman talked about the will of the people. The overwhelming will of the people in this area is to have this designation. No, it is not wild and scenic in the dictionary definition. It is recreational, which is one of the provisions that the law calls for. And the question is today, 40 years after the original passage of the law, do we, as a Democratically elected House--the gentleman will forgive me for using the word ``democratic'' affirmatively. Unlike Aristotle, I don't think ``democracy'' is a bad word. Do we have the right to say to urban dwellers, the people in the city of Fall River who are targeted by the gentleman's amendment, the people in the city of Fall River, an industrial area. They are the ones that are being told the environment is not for you. Environmental enhancement, the ability to use this law to get the planning right, you don't get that. You are not entitled to it because you have been an industrial area. I don't think the House wants to deny the right to environmental improvement and enhancement to working people who live in an urban area. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I just want to point out, this is a park that would be excluded. Behind it you do see a superstructure. It walls off the city. That is what Mr. McGovern and I have gotten money to take down, without regard to the wild and scenic, but we want to take this down and open up this waterfront even more. That is what you will deny us by killing this bill.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I concede three business people out of this whole area opposed it. So we did not pass this by unanimous consent. Three people were there. Fortunately, my area that I represent is not the Senate. You don't need unanimous consent. If you get 98.9 percent, that's good enough. What particularly puzzles me, though, is the gentleman from Utah apparently thinks that Congress in 1968 reached the ultimate in wisdom and that because something was passed in 1968 it can never be changed. We're not talking about interpreting the statute, we're talking about passing one. And, in fact, our views of the environment have evolved. As my colleague from Rhode Island eloquently put it, the nature of the economy of New England has evolved. Back then it was a very industrial economy. We have lost that industrial base for reasons not, I think, largely the fault of the people there, and they are trying now to go in a new direction. So here is where it is. If you were ever industrialized, according to the gentleman from Utah, that's it. The environment is not for you. He says, well, why doesn't the State do it? Probably because we are talking about navigable waterways, and as there are limits to what the State can impose on navigable waterways. This is a navigable waterway. There is Federal responsibility. So we are coming here to the Federal Government to empower the State. Every single community there. Governors. The previous Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, was for this. The current Governor is for it. But again the gentleman says, well, because it didn't meet this definition of 1968 you can never do it again. We are talking about recreation, recreation for the people there, and, yes, we are saying that there is an act of Congress. We look at the 1968 act, we look at our current views of the environment, we look at the needs of the people, and this is the question. This isn't a test on what was in the minds of people 40 years ago who passed the bill. We are the Congress. We are now passing the bill. The gentleman's amendment excludes 9 miles, the City of Fall River, whom, again, he characterizes, as, well, the only thing that's wild there are the gangs, the only thing scenic is the graffiti. That is a very unfortunate thing to say about a city of hardworking people in which there are a number of very attractive and useful institutions and places. But the question is, do the people who live in that 9 miles--by the way, that's on both sides of the river, and there is a less-developed town across that my colleague Mr. McGovern represents--are they to be denied the chance to maximize the quality of their environment? Are they to be denied this planning tool, overwhelmingly supported by the city, so that as we tear down this elevated highway, as they expand the open space, as they take advantage of the river, they can do it in a rational way. The gentleman keeps saying, well, but what about 1968? What about 1968? Maybe it was a good year for wine. But the notion that because a bill was passed in 1968, this Congress has lost the ability to make subsequent decisions, makes no sense. We are asking you, all of us who represent the affected area, all of the elected officials in the area, the overwhelming majority of people in the area, give us this tool so that we can enhance the recreational character, improve our environment, and don't say that because we once had this industrialization, we don't qualify for environmental concerns. Executive Department, City of Fall River, Fall River, MA, July 15, 2008. Hon. Barney Frank, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Frank: I am writing to express my full support of the bill you recently sponsored, which is currently awaiting a vote by the House, to designate the Taunton River as a Wild and Scenic River under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. As the Mayor of the City of Fall River, which is situated on Mount Hope Bay at the mouth of the Taunton River, I recognize the river's value and am pleased to join you and other legislators (Representative James McGovern and Senators John Kerry and Edward Kennedy) in support of legislation that will protect this integral resource from further development. As a sign of Fall River's commitment the City Council of Fall River passed a resolution on May 20, 2005, in support of the recommendation for designation of the Taunton River as a Wild and Scenic River. In addition, at that same time the City Council endorsed the Taunton River Stewardship Plan developed by the Taunton Wild and Scenic River Study Committee. Thank you for recognizing the Taunton River's remarkable value and for introducing legislation that will protect it from development and industrial use. The City of Fall River appreciates and fully supports your advocacy efforts in this matter. Sincerely. Robert Correia, Mayor.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by regretting the animus toward the people we represent that we've just heard. The gentleman from Utah said, ``Wild and scenic. The only thing wild about this are the gangs there.'' The city of Fall River, the gentleman has an amendment that would exempt from this bill the city of Fall River, Massachusetts, a city full of working people, many of them immigrants who became American citizens, and their descendants, from Portugal and elsewhere, people who worked in the garment industry and the textile industry, a city which has suffered economically the fate of de-industrialization. Characterizing them and saying ``The only thing scenic about them is their graffiti, the only thing wild about them is their gangs,'' they don't deserve that denigration, no matter what political points people want to score. If you want to come after me, if you want to come after Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island or Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts, we'll deal with it. But please don't denigrate these hardworking people. Don't impute to them gang activity that doesn't exist. The gentleman who accused them of gang activity has no idea of what goes on there and he makes an inaccurate statement. The only thing scenic is the graffiti? Is that not scenic? This is the Battleship Massachusetts. It's part of a national park. It's one of the few battleships that comes with a Patriot missile, because I got Raytheon to put it up there. It's a park, a park for patriotic people. Do you see any graffiti on the Battleship Massachusetts? In fact, that is part of the problem here. Apparently we're told it's okay to have a wild and scenic river. And of course we're not saying it should be wild and scenic. We are talking about a part of the statute that says you can have recreation. And these are people who have decided that in part because they have lost their industrial base that they had for a variety of reasons, they will develop new economic activity that is based on their river. By the way, one of the bridges that is talked about, one of these structures, we have gotten money to take down. Like a number of cities that walled themselves off from the river, Fall River has appreciated the great beauty and attractiveness of that waterfront. And they would like to tear it down. But here is the issue. Is environmentalism only for suburbanites? Do working people who have found themselves in economic distress have no right to try and enhance the quality of their environment? Let me have some more of those pictures down here. Let me have some more to show people what we are talking about. We are not talking about only what was pictured. This is part of the area that would be banned from the bill under the gentleman from Utah's amendment. So is this. Part of it is Mr. McGovern's district. Part of it is my district. It impacts the other districts. Yes, it is not everywhere beautiful. These are people who haven't had the good fortune to live always in land that was so attractive. But they would like to try and improve their situation. They would like to be able to enhance the quality of their environment without being denigrated as gang members or graffitists. Yes, there are a few people who do graffiti. The overwhelming majority in every single community along this river on both sides has asked for this designation. It was begun by our late and beloved colleague Joe Moakley before anybody heard of LNG. By the way, on LNG, there is an LNG plant in the district of our colleague, Mr. Markey. We in the Massachusetts delegation overwhelmingly supported a second LNG plant just a little bit offshore, just north of Boston that has been approved. Many of us support a third one. It is not a case of rejecting LNG. And I notice that people on the other side, those who think Fall River is just full of graffiti artists and gang members and don't know that wonderful city and the decent, patriotic people who live there, they circulated an editorial from the Boston Herald saying this isn't needed. And the Herald editorial, the op-ed piece that they circulated, concluded by saying, of course, it's not necessary because the LNG plant is dead. It's not simply the current LNG plant that has been rejected. It was the Coast Guard saying that in that narrow waterway, with the bridges that have to be traversed, you can't do it. Carlos Gutierrez said ``no,'' the Secretary of Commerce. I've got to say, I didn't know that I would be defending the Bush administration so much here. I know I will be defending them against the Republicans on the questions of the housing bill. But we were also told there was this terrible conspiracy with the Park Service under George Bush. I don't think the Interior Department under President Bush was engaged in this kind of chicanery that has been imputed to them. We are talking about the desire of people who live in an area that has some industrial activity, but some residential and recreational areas, who want to protect what they have and make it better. They have asked us, and we have worked with them, to tear down an elevated highway. We are working with them to enhance the quality of their environment in a way that will also improve things economically. Every Member of Congress whose district is remotely near here strongly supports this bill. Every city and town along the way supports this. Every elected legislator and local official supports it. For them to be told essentially that ``it's too gritty, it's too grubby, you aren't people who we had in mind when we talked about the beauties of the environment, you don't deserve this because you've had graffiti and some of you belong to gangs''--an inaccurate characterization of the whole city--to deny them that is I think a degree of cruelty, frankly, that I hope this House does not encompass. I and others have tried very hard to take into account what other Members think about their districts. To repudiate what all of the Members of Congress, five of us very directly involved here, think would be important for this particular area because an LNG plant that has been rejected by the Department of Commerce and by the Coast Guard and cannot be resuscitated, might some day in 10 years be resuscitated, and by then we will have had enough other LNG plants that it wouldn't even have any demand probably, that these people should be told, just the 9 miles, conveniently, the city of Fall River, the urban area, the area of hardworking immigrants who became American citizens, that they should be told that they don't qualify for environmental protection is a decision that I hope this House would not make. I thank the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from West Virginia for the consideration they have given. It may in part be relevant that these are Members who themselves understand the desire of working people, of people who have lived in these kinds of areas, to get the same kind of consideration for their environmental needs as wealthy suburbanites. I hope that the bill is passed without amendments that would cripple it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first, let's note the nonseriousness of this. It says ``promptly.'' It kills the bill. If you want to vote against the bill, you can vote against the bill. This says ``promptly.'' If it were seriously intended to be a legislative act, it would have said ``forthwith.'' Beyond that, it is not simply about energy. The last two lines say ``nothing shall be used as a basis to restrict current and future business and economic activities.'' This is a license to do any business whatsoever. Now I know a couple of businesses down there that I didn't think the Republican Party would be all in favor of. They would love to have this. They will expand it and invite you down and give you a discount. This isn't just about energy. First of all, it's about killing the bill. But what does it say? The gentleman from Arizona read the amendment we have adopted about energy. ``Nothing shall be used as a basis to restrict current and future business and economic activities or expansion of such activities.'' It is hardly about energy. The LNG plant has been rejected twice by the Coast Guard and once by that radical environmentalist, the Secretary of Commerce, Carlos Gutierrez, appointed by George Bush. I'm about to yield to my colleague from Massachusetts. He and I represent hardworking people, working class people. Many of them are Portuguese immigrants and others who became American citizens who have lost their industrial base. They are trying to enhance the quality of their environment and at the same time offer an alternative economic mode. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, don't take it out on them. If we've got a political fight over energy, let's carry it out among the big boys and girls. Don't turn to these working people and say, do you know what? You're not classy enough. You don't deserve environmental protection. That is for the elite. That is for the wealthy. I yield, finally, to my colleague from Massachusetts.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am about to close, Mr. Speaker. I did want to reassure my colleague from West Virginia, and I appreciate that she is doing her part by making clear that gasoline should be cheaper, it is a very important issue when we talk about financing public housing, I want to reassure her that nothing in this bill prohibits drilling for oil on public housing property. I know there is a lot of concern on the Republican side about that, so they should rest assured that they are okay. General Leave

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon, following the precedent of the gentlewoman from West Virginia, who has already inserted very extraneous material in the debate on this bill.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6216) to improve the Operating Fund for public housing of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that came to the House earlier under a rule and had proceeded without any significant controversy to the point of a recommital motion. The recommital motion offered was one this bill deals with, the relationship between smaller public housing authorities in particular, and HUD, and tries to give them more flexibility. It's widely supported and requested of us, indeed, by many of the housing authorities that are in our districts. The recommital motion involved the right to own weapons and said that no authority could restrict the right to own weapons beyond what State or city applicable law provided. That was somewhat controversial and led to a decision to withdraw the bill. It was then back in committee, and in committee we adopted the substance--we in fact adopted the recommital motion. There were a couple of refinements that were broadly agreed to, making it clear that nothing would protect anybody who illegally used a weapon. And that was broadly supported. We also made a couple of other small changes. Our colleague from Florida (Mr. Meek) noted that he has a housing authority in his district that is in receivership. He wanted to make it explicit that the rights the tenants have in general do not get lost in receivership. That was unanimously agreed to. We also adopted language that is responsive to the will of the House, making it clear that people who are in this country illegally would not be able to benefit under this program. With that, we are back to where we were originally. The bill had not been controversial, although it had been worked out in committee, and I appreciate the cooperation of my colleague from West Virginia, the gentlewoman, who was the ranking member of the Housing Subcommittee. So we have now a bill that we believe represents the will of the House. There were some members, particularly on our side, who weren't happy with the recommital motion, but it was clear what the will of the body would be. We did not feel we wanted to interfere with an important piece of legislation. Among those who have asked us to do this is the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, and the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association. This also, by the way, allows capital funds to be used for operating expenses in the appropriate circumstances, which we took from a previously done appropriations bill. So it is a bill that improves the management of public housing. It incorporates the concerns that have been raised. I hope it is adopted. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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