Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I asked the gentleman a simple question.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Is it in order to demand a roll call before the Chair has put the voice vote?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Before I begin, I have an inquiry: If I could yield to the gentleman from Virginia, the proponent of the motion, would he consider my making a unanimous consent request to change this to a ``motion of forthwith,'' so the House could simply adopt this ``forthwith'' and go to dinner?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, this is now clear. This is a motion to do this promptly. ``Promptly'' means at the speediest nine calendar days, because it does not, as the Parliamentarian has informed us in writing, waive any of the rules for committee meetings, for Rules Committee, et cetera. So the purpose here, the intent, perhaps not the purpose, but the unmistakable intent would be to put this off until after we are due to adjourn November 16. And for what purpose? For the purpose of restating what has already been stated. It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, and I take some encouragement from this, that opponents of the principle of nondiscrimination don't want to debate it on its merits. We haven't heard any defense of discrimination. We just have a parliamentary maneuver to protect it. This is not about marriage. In fact, this is not a recommit. It is a statement. It says ``nothing in this act may be construed.'' Correct. No one who reads English could think to the contrary. But, just to make sure, the gentleman from California offered a motion, and the minority tried to have it not be roll-called, and you voted for it, Members of the House. It says, ``As used in this act, the terms `married' or `marry' refer to marriage as defined in section 7, title I of the U.S. Code, the Defense of Marriage Act.'' The Members of the House just voted overwhelmingly to reaffirm that definition. So what do we have? A motion now simply to delay by reaffirming the last vote. The gentleman from Indiana thought there was some other language that might lead to a marriage problem, so we adopted that. So this is the third effort to say the same thing. It is not to say the same thing, but to defeat it. I would say this. I would recommend to my friend from California, who has done such a good job on this, once we have concluded this, report this out as a separate bill, this third reiteration, if it gives people some comfort. I asked the gentleman to make it ``forthwith.'' If there was a real need to do this, it would be now part of the law and we would be voting. It is ``promptly'' because it adds nothing to the bill, nothing, literally nothing; it subtracts nothing. It is simply a motion to delay. I now want to address that. I want to address the motion to delay. Mr. Speaker, we say here that we don't take things personally, and usually that is true. Members, Mr. Speaker, will have to forgive me. I take it a little personally. Thirty-five years ago, I filed a bill to try to get rid of discrimination based on sexual orientation. As we sit here today, there are millions of Americans in States where this is not the law. By the way, 19 States have such a law. In no case has it led to that decision. The Massachusetts law passed in 1989, that did not lead to the decision in 2004. Unrelated. But here is the deal. I used to be someone subject to this prejudice, and, through luck, circumstance, I got to be a big shot. I am now above that prejudice. But I feel an obligation to 15-year-olds dreading to go to school because of the torments, to people afraid that they will lose their job in a gas station if someone finds out who they love. I feel an obligation to use the status I have been lucky enough to get to help them. I want to ask my colleagues here, Mr. Speaker, on a personal basis, please, don't fall for this sham. Don't send me out of here having failed to help those people. We have already today twice voted overwhelmingly to repudiate any suggestion that this had anything to do with marriage. What you have is a ploy by people who want to keep discrimination on the books, who want to deny protection to so many vulnerable victims of discrimination, but they at least understand that is not something you can say explicitly. So they give us this sham. I ask, I ask again, would the gentleman allow us to adopt this forthwith? I would yield to the gentleman for that purpose so we can make that forthwith.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on October 9 I delivered a speech in the House regarding, among other things, my involvement in advocating for civil rights protections for transgender individuals. Following those remarks, I inadvertently failed to submit for the Record several documents to which I had made reference during the speech, specifically excerpts from testimony I gave before an Education and Labor Committee subcommittee last month in support of including full transgender protection in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and from two other speeches addressing transgender issues that I offered during previous debates on the House floor. In order to give a fuller picture of my views on these important topics, I ask that the documents be printed here. Excerpt From Testimony of U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions, ``The Employment Non- Discrimination Act, H.R. 2015,'' September 5, 2007 Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. . . . And then we have the issue that my colleague so ably discussed of the transgender--and I understand that this is a new issue for people. There are people who were born with the physical characteristics of one sex who strongly identify with the other. Some of them have a physical change, some of them don't. Let me make a plea to all of my colleagues--these are people--think what it must be like to be born with that set of feelings. Think what it must be like, think what stress-- what agony you go through--to defy society's conventions to the extent where you make that kind of a statement. This is something people are driven to do. Is there any reason why any of us should make the lives of those people more difficult than they already are? Obviously these are people who are coping and things are getting better. Things are better in many ways. When I was younger, a lot of things were difficult that are less difficult today. But what we say here is if someone has these feelings--if someone is born with one set of characteristics and strongly identifies the other way--should you fire him? You deny him a promotion? You say no matter how good your job is, that makes me uneasy so out you go. That we say in here you can make rules that those people have to abide by. That they dress in a gender consistent way . . . There is another issue we . . . have to talk about. What happens when they're all in the shower together--you know you can segregate bathrooms, but in showers it's a little difficult. This says no, people don't have the right to go into open places where people are unclothed in a way that's to embarrass people. That we talk about an accommodation, again people will say, ``well you didn't do that well enough.'' There's room for some fine-tuning there, but on a fundamental principle--particularly for those people who are themselves made the most uneasy by the transgender issue--and I must say having worked with a lot of transgender people, I would tell my friends you get over it pretty quickly. Because what you find out is you're dealing with human beings like all the rest of us--normal human beings who have the same emotions and needs and strengths and weaknesses all of us have. But for those who are not yet at the point of comfort with them, do we really feel driven to make life harder for these people? By the way, I just want to deal with this choice issue. No one I believe in the history of the world has said, ``you know what, life's too easy. I think although I was born a woman I'm going to act like a man. I think that would be a real lark. I think I'll just go through life that way and invite physical abuse and invite all kinds of ridicule.'' So that's all we're saying. And let me say here--a final appeal--if there's any institution that ought to understand this it's here. Let me tell you what I know. This institution--we as Members--are very well served by a large number of gay and lesbian employees. And many of my colleagues on the Republican side know that and have, to their credit, employed them. I wouldn't have said this a couple of years ago, but after the recent incident it's now public. For years the Clerk of this House was a gay man, a Republican named Jeff Trandahl, whose orientation became public because he behaved in a very honorable and admired way in the issue of our former colleague, Mr. Foley. And the Ethics Committee saluted Mr. Trandahl. You know, Jeff Trandahl is an example and I know Jeff well and he's a friend whom I respect and admire and given the role he played, how much easier it would have been--maybe some troubles could have been avoided if there were legal protections that he and others would have had so they would not be subject to prejudice. I'll acknowledge--yes--as Mike Carney's example will show and my own example will show--people say ``well you know some of these gay people are misbehaving.'' Yeah, living a life that you were trying to hide from others is not a prescription for model behavior. And you do dumb things in the closet sometimes. It's not an excuse. It's your fault when you do them. But it's in society's interest to diminish that pressure. And you can do that today. Thank you.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. How much time remains, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute just to say that the assertion that this is ignoring the private market would be more persuasive to me if it were not for the fact that every organization that is engaged in the private market building of housing disagrees. The National Association of Realtors and the National Association of Home Builders, neither of which are known for its socialist tendencies, have written letters in support of this bill exactly as it has been presented. They who fully understand the market, and we don't just use boilerplate rhetoric to describe it, understand the importance of interactivity between some public sector participation and the market, and this creates no new government bureaucracies. This funds existing State and local housing programs. The Federal role will be for HUD by a formula to distribute it. It is a funding mechanism for the State and local authority. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from California, in consultation with a number of groups, put this forward, and it's to give more flexibility to the recipients. I yield to the gentlewoman from California who will explain the amendment.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I take back my time. I think the gentleman doesn't have 30; he doesn't have three. Would the gentleman please abide by the rules. He made a statement, and I am yielding my time. He has equal time. I don't think there are 30 programs. I don't think they can come up with them. The HOME program, I agree, there are reasons why this must be in addition to the HOME program. Community Development Block Grants are not supposed to be primarily a construction program. Mayors and city council members and others all over the country will be appalled to be told that they are supposed to put CDBG primarily in housing construction; they aren't. It is for a whole variety of programs. People know that. We do have programs to build housing for the elderly and for the disabled, but there is simply not a list for housing construction. Secondly, the gentleman from Alabama says, Why don't we fix these programs? Of course, the Republican Party was in control of both Houses of Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development for 6 years. Apparently, they didn't do anything. He then says, Why don't we fix FHA and GSE? Well, I was surprised by that, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman knows that this House has, in fact, passed bills that do make reforms in both the FHA and the GSE. For him to say why don't we fix FHA and GSE when he knows we have passed bills to do it seems, to me, strange because we have done that. Here is the point. We do have the HOME program. It is subject to annual appropriations. And we do have local housing trust funds. It is the local housing trust funds that want this bill. The gentlewoman from Illinois mentioned the Low Income Housing Coalition. They are the major driver behind this bill because they understand its importance. We want to supplement the funds. What is the problem with the one program that builds affordable housing, the HOME program, there is not enough money. It competes with other appropriated funds. By the way, the argument that somehow we are being unfair to the elderly, in this bill, unlike what happened during the Republican rule, we limit the fees that can be charged to the elderly under the HOME equity mortgage program. We do that. They didn't. We limit what the FHA can charge for mortgage insurance. OMB ordered HUD to raise the fees so they would make even more of a profit. We said you can't do that. We authorized some additional activity. We have limited the fee increases, and we have taken some of the money from the additional activity, not from fee increases. The fact is this: The Republican Party has opposed any funding for affordable housing construction. They inherited the HOME program. They haven't been very good to it in the appropriations process. This says we need to get back in the business in a major way of helping build affordable housing. There is no 30 programs that build affordable housing for low-income people. That is not what CDBG is intended to do, and it is not what CDBG largely does. Most of the money goes for other things. This list of 30 programs is mythical. I await its reality, but I don't have any high expectations. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia for a colloquy.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, there was allusion by the gentleman from Alabama to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In fact, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the bill we passed, which we did do some reforms in, we did say that they should in their secondary mortgage activity be supportive of people at 80 percent of median. We have given them the affordable housing goals, and people who understand this issue understand that there is a distinction, as the gentleman from Virginia understands. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have primarily and historically been aimed at helping people in the more moderate income range. We have actually lowered it to 80 percent of median. This gets to people much below that in general, which is why there is no overlap between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and this program. Secondly, to the gentleman's argument, what we want to do here is give as much flexibility as we can to the local communities. That is why, yes, we are not creating a Federal bureaucracy here. The Federal Government will largely be passing this money through to the State and local housing trust funds who can focus on the needs of their own community. They would have the ability, with the 15 percent, to spend it where they think best. If they thought it was needed for the lowest income people, they could do that. But if they felt, as in the gentleman's area, this needs to go to people at 60 percent of median, and ultimately when we get the fund up to 80 percent of median, they would have the ability to do that. So the 15 percent is within the discretion of the local communities.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I take back my time. I yielded for a specific purpose. He has as much time as I do. I asked him, and he has had time to get the list from people: What is the list of programs that build affordable family housing? Construction. And I will yield.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, if this were a serious effort to put on a work program, it might have been offered as an amendment to the bill. It wasn't offered before the Rules Committee. Secondly, it would have said ``report back forthwith,'' and it would have been voted on and it would have been added. It says ``promptly.'' Now it is true that if we were to adopt a motion to recommit that says ``promptly,'' it would go back to the committee. Our committee is a fairly busy one. We have the subprime issue before us. We have credit card reform issues. House floor time is fairly busy. I am told there are Members who don't think working here on Friday is the best thing that has ever happened to them. We are getting towards the end of this session. We have the appropriations bills. So the choice of ``promptly'' rather than ``forthwith'' is clearly motivated by animus against the bill. Having failed in several tries to kill the bill as a whole, they now say, let's do it this way. And on its own merits, here is the problem. I have not been a supporter of the work requirement within the public housing area, but at least in public housing you have administered a framework where it can be applied, although I think inappropriately. Here we are talking about a program whereby the Federal funds will be distributed. And by the way, they are not mostly taxpayer; they are shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dollars in the largest amount. But what we are going to do is distribute this money to hundreds of local housing funds, State and local funds. You talk about unfunded mandates. This says to all of the grantees, the Catholic Church in some places, or B'nai Brith housing or other local housing groups, Habitat for Humanity or any of the others, you must, in addition to building the housing, undertake to administer this kind of volunteer work program. Lest anyone think this is something that they can do easily, read the third page of the recommittal motion. ``Administration. A grantee providing assistance with Trust Fund grant amounts may administer the work activities requirement under this subsection directly, through a resident organization, or through a contractor having experience in administering work activities programs within the jurisdiction of the grantee.'' This takes some of the limited amount of money that would be available for housing and creates another new set of contractors. Maybe Blackwater will lay down their guns and come over here now when they get run out of Iraq and so a whole new set of contractors will be dealing with this. And the organizations that get this money, they are religious organizations, they are nonprofits, they are homebuilders. They will now have this new mandate to go and make people work, and it becomes a complicated one. Here's what it says. For example, if you are ``a single custodial parent for a child who has not attained 6 years of age,'' then you have to go out and do this volunteer work for 20 hours a week, unless you can show that you couldn't get child care. You've got to show that it's unavailable. There are three different kinds of paragraphs. It's a very complicated thing to administer. So you say to people, you know what, thank you for helping build affordable housing, thank you to the archdiocese, thank you to the Methodists, thank you to Habitat for Humanity, thank you to these charitable groups. Oh, and by the way, you are now in charge of making the parents of small children go to work unless they have first shown to you the unavailability of child care, and you have to go out and hire somebody to administer this for you. So, even if it were ``forthwith,'' I would be opposed to it, but ``promptly'' means that the people who are opposed to using funding to help build affordable housing want to at best delay the bill, and maybe if they're lucky enough, because they can combine this with other filibusters, kill it. This is a very difficult program to administer. It is not one for which there has been any demand. I guarantee you it will be strongly opposed by all of the organizations, the charitable and nonprofit organizations, that will be told to administer this housing. It is an unfair imposition on some of the best-motivated organizations and people. It doesn't give them any money to do it. It gives them this very difficult task. It delays the bill at best, and I hope it is defeated for what it is meant to be, an effort to derail a bill that can't be derailed in a more straightforward fashion. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island, my neighbor, Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My friend from Alabama said that there are 30 programs that this would duplicate. I know of one program which helps build family affordable housing. That is what this does. I would yield to the gentleman. Would he name some of the other programs? The question is, what are the 30 programs that help construct, not Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and FHA, he said there were 30 HUD programs that help build affordable family housing. I would yield to the gentleman if he would tell me what they are.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I rise to try to save the bill from this effort to kill it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. So much for tomorrow, Madam Speaker.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, can the standing rules of a committee be waived by actions on the floor?

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, is there anything in this recommittal motion that would allow me, as chairman of the committee, to ignore the rule that requires a 3-day notice before there is a markup, which would seem to me to make it impossible for me to report it tomorrow, on the day of a funeral, very sensitive, but is there anything in this amendment that would waive the 3-day requirement for a markup before we could proceed?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, for many years I have had the honor of sharing with our colleagues information about a very important event not just in greater Boston, but from a national perspective. It is the annual dinner of ROFEH International--New England Chassidic Center. Under the leadership of Grand Rabbi Levi Y. Horowitz of the New England Chassidic Center, ROFEH International does extraordinarily important work in the medical field. Rabbi Horowitz is himself a distinguished authority on medical ethics, and plays an important role in helping medical professionals in Boston deal with the ethical issues that modern science encounters. Project ROFEH also plays a very important role in helping provide access to the medical care that is available in Boston to people around the world. Annually, under the leadership of Rabbi Horowitz, these organizations have a dinner in which leading citizens who have contributed to the work that they do are honored. Without exception they are men and women of great distinction and generosity. This year the awardees are Dr. Kenneth C. Anderson, who receives the ROFEH International Distinguished Service Award, and Keevin Geller, who receives the Man of the Year Award. Madam Speaker, I was pleased to receive biographies of these two distinguished leaders and I ask that they be printed here along with my congratulations to the people who do the important work of ROFEH International and the New England Chassidic Center, under Rabbi Horowitz's leadership. Kenneth C. Anderson, MD ``ROFEH International Distinguished Service Award'' Dr. Anderson graduated from Johns Hopkins Medical School, trained in internal medicine at John's Hopkins Hospital, and completed hematology, medical oncology, and tumor immunology training at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. He is the Kraft Family Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School; and serves as Chief of the Division of Hematologic Neoplasia, Director of the Jerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center, and Vice Chair of the Joint Program in Transfusion Medicine at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. He serves as chair of the NCCN Multiple Myeloma Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee; as a Cancer and Leukemia Group B Principal Investigator; on the Board of Scientific Advisors of the International Myeloma Foundation; on the Board of Directors and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation; as well as on the Board of Directors and Chair of the Leadership Committee of the Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium. He is a Doris Duke Distinguished Clinical Research Scientist and has had long term RO-1, PO-I, and SPORE NIH funding. His numerous awards including the 2001 Charles C. Lund Award of the American Red Cross Blood Services, the 2003 Waldenstrom's award for research in plasma cell dyscrasias, the 2004 Johnson & Johnson Focused Giving Award for Setting New Directions in Science and Technology, the 2005 Third Annual International Myeloma Foundation Robert A. Kyle Lifetime Achievement Award, and the 2007 Joseph A. Burchenal Award for Clinical Research from the American Association for Cancer Research. His paradigm for identifying and validating targets in the myeloma cell and its bone marrow milieu has already provided novel therapies, and offers great promise to improve patient outcome in hematologic malignancies and solid tumors as well. Keevin Geller, ROFEH International New England Chassidic Center Man of the Year Award Keevin Geller, has been proud to call the Bostoner Rebbe, his friend for over thirty years. Mr. Geller is the owner of Barney and Carey Lumber Company since 1978. In addition to his lumber business, Keevin is a real estate developer and owner. He was one of the first property owners to convert a Back Bay townhouse into condominiums, and went on to complete over twenty-five such projects there and on Beacon Hill. He built and restored many homes in Milton, also creating that town's first condominium complex in the buildings of a former estate. A serious conservationist, he has specialized in the redevelopment of existing structures, while protecting the surrounding land. He was honored with the Commonwealth Award for land preservation. Keevin was one of the founding members of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. He is a thirty-year member of the Hundred Club, and a life member of many conservation organizations. He is a graduate of Boston University, with a major in Latin. His wife, Cynthia, also a BU alumna, is the granddaughter of the late Max Oransky, one of the Rebbe's father's Chassidim. Cynthia and Keeven reside in Sharon, Massachusetts, where he serves on various town committees.