Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Georgia misunderstands my view. What I want is fiscal discipline. What I object to is the very selective application of that to people who are in need. The gentleman from Iowa says we are going to restore freedom. I don't think the freedom of Navajo children that live in inadequate housing is something worth defending. I am especially struck by the fact that we are about to ask the President to spend tens of billions more where we spent hundreds of billions in the war in Iraq. I offered an amendment a year ago to restrict spending on a manned space shot to Mars. I lost on the floor of this House. I don't know how every Member voted. I do know a majority of the Republican Party voted against me because the President wanted to send a man to Mars. I voted against the Agriculture bill. I voted for an amendment that would have cut the spending there. But to be accused of being careless with the taxpayers' money by people who have supported this enormous corruption-ridden expenditure of hundreds of billions in Iraq is like being called silly by the Three Stooges. Now, back to the gentleman from Georgia. He says well, don't blame me. The gentleman says he just borrowed the amendment from other people. It's germane to its rules. The gentleman could be more creative than that. Here's the point. This is why you don't do the PAYGO in this restrictive fashion program by program, selectively by program by program. When you like a program that spends a lot of money, in some areas you don't do it. If you don't like the program, you do it, and you claim it's just the neutral principle of fiscal responsibility. But PAYGO is sensibly applied over the whole budget, over the whole appropriations process. You can say, you know, we need more in the environmental area, we need more in the housing area, we need more in the transportation area. Let's reduce it in the manned space shot to Mars. The way this is written, the only way you could have this pass and be valid would be if you cut within this program. The gentleman says, well, those are the rules of germaneness. Yes, that's why you do PAYGO on a broader scale. To say you can only do Indian housing if you cut other things that are germane to this bill is precisely to shield the manned space shot to Mars, it's to shield expensive military spending, it's to shield cotton subsidies beyond what ought to be, and then say, you know what, if you're going to interfere with the freedom of these Navajo children to live in squalor, then we're going to have to make you cut back on money elsewhere. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, to begin with, I implore Members of the House not to give in to this effort to invoke judicial activism, to cancel the vote of the people's elected Representative. My friends on the Republican side are very selective in their denunciation of judicial activism. From time to time, they complain, if the courts uphold some fundamental constitutional right, that our ability as elected officials to make public policy has been trifled with. Here the shoe is very much on the other foot, and I think the foot on which the shoe is is in the mouth. This is an effort to overrule the overwhelming decision of the people of Hawaii through their elected officials to create these programs. There are few things in Hawaii that are as broadly supported as this housing program. There are controversial aspects of some of what goes on in Hawaii. We are aware of none here. This has been fiercely defended by everyone who is representing Hawaii who has been here since I have been here, and this Congress is voting on it. What are we told? What is the argument? Well, the Supreme Court doesn't think you should do that. What happened to the objection to judicial activism? What happened to the will of the people? In fact, as the gentlewoman from Hawaii has pointed out, there is no clear-cut Supreme Court decision here. There is room for us to make choices. But I am struck at the ease with which some of my conservative colleagues invoke this principle of popular rule against judicial activism in such a selective fashion. This harms no one. This isn't excluding anyone from anything. It is providing housing for people who need it. The gentlewoman from Hawaii has given a very good explanation of the history. I do not understand, Mr. Chairman. This is a fairly small program affecting a fairly small number of people in Hawaii. It is overwhelmingly supported by the people of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, what motivates Members of this house to get up and interfere with the arrangements that the people of Hawaii have arrived at? What drives them? What angers them that the arrangement has been reached that says this to the Native Hawaiians? And no one disputes the history that our friend from Hawaii has given. The United States came in and overthrew the government. That is very well documented. What drives people at this point to continue to battle against this effort to help these Native Hawaiians and to invoke the courts to say we don't care what the votes were in Hawaii. We don't care about an overwhelming vote in the U.S. House. This is a very reasonable effort by the polity of Hawaii, the Native Hawaiians and others, to meet a very real need. No one is saying the program is badly run. No one is saying it is corrupt. No one is saying it is unnecessary. There is some hyper-abstract, ideological objection to people reaching out to their fellow residents in need. And while it is overwhelmingly supported, what we have is an ideological objection, the nature of which I cannot understand. No one has told me what harm is done by this. I don't understand who this hurts. But somehow, people are motivated to attack this program which helps this particular, fairly small minority of people. And then, absent any rational arguments in my judgment, they invoke the principle of judicial supremacy, which they so often scorn in other contexts. I hope this amendment is defeated.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I will take back my time to say the gentleman has just stood up and said, look, I don't understand this language; I just borrowed it from you. Well, don't borrow things if you don't know how to use them. I mean, don't lend your car to someone who can't drive. The fact is that the gentleman apparently didn't understand the implications of what he borrowed because the way this goes now, PAYGO in general has broader application. In this particular case, what it says is within this act. So if you want to spend more money on Indian housing, you have to in the same act, under this act, find offsets elsewhere. This is an example of how he misunderstands the process. I would also say by the way there's a selectively to this because we don't get this amendment on every spending bill. Maybe it was offered on some of the other bills, the Ag bill, the space authorization. I don't see it all the time. I didn't see it on the Defense bill. Are we going to get this on the Iraq supplemental? I mean, I don't know how much we're going to spend here, but whatever we spend here, we spend in about, what, a week in the Iraq supplemental. I don't see it coming there. Somehow this becomes particularly important when we are trying to help people in dire straits; but even there, it's not logical. Nothing in here will break PAYGO. PAYGO applies in an overall basis at the appropriations process. If the gentleman wants me to yield, I'll be glad to yield.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, that's not what it says.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will take back my time to say the gentleman hasn't read his amendment. Here's what it says: to the extent that this act or the amendments made by this act provide for offsetting decreases in spending of the Federal Government. Now, the rules of the House are such that you could not here offset other programs. You have germaneness rules. So under the terms of this amendment, you would have to make reductions in this same act subject to the same act.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, there are issues in which a number of Members of the House are recognized as leaders. There are sometimes issues where one particular Member, by the force of his commitment, by the intellectual powers he brings to bear, by the length of that commitment, really stands out as a leader. And on this particular issue, the issue of Native Americans in general, that is our colleague from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) dating back from his days in the State legislature in Michigan, when he represented a district with no Native Americans. They named cars in his district after Native Americans, but they're the only ones with those names that lived there. And just out of a concern that America honor its commitment in this area, which we haven't always done, he has been for many years a champion of the cause of Native Americans. I am delighted to have worked with him on this bill, he is the sponsor of the bill, and I yield him such time as he may consume.

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

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I just want to give a little more information than we got in the last intervention from the gentleman from Georgia. He disappointed me when he decided to inform us that the bill had been defeated in March. Yes, it was defeated. It was ``defeated'' by a vote of 272 ``yes'' and 150 ``no.'' It lost because it required two- thirds. But I must say, Mr. Chairman, to refer to a bill having been defeated to refute the notion that it was widely supported and to neglect to mention that in fact it got a 122-vote majority and simply failed by 10 votes to get two-thirds, is a very incomplete reporting of the facts.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, as I understand this amendment, it is to make illegal what is already illegal, and since it was offered I guess to the appropriations bill, it is to make apparently for the second time illegal what is already illegal, but the gentleman from Iowa explains why it is necessary. It is that as we approach the next to the last year of an 8-year term for President Bush, his administration is still unable and apparently, according to the gentleman, unwilling to enforce that law. The gentleman says the Federal Government, headed of course by President Bush, is the largest employer of people who are here illegally and not able to work; and he says that they lack conviction. Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to take on various responsibilities as chairman of the committee. Defending the President against the gentleman from Iowa is not one of the things I'm prepared to do today. The gentleman from Iowa believes it's important for us for the third time to pass a law that he said the administration wouldn't enforce. I suppose the House could do that. I don't see any reason to think that they're going to enforce it any more this time than the other two times it was binding.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that does not make a great deal of sense, even in its own terms. First of all, the PAYGO principle applies in the appropriations process. Authorizations are authorizations. The Appropriations Committee balances the various authorizations. Nothing is committed to be spent by this bill. What it says, however, is really quite striking. It says no authorization or appropriation shall be effective except to the extent that this act or the amendments made by this act provide for offsetting decreases. In other words, if you thought that it was important to provide housing for the Native Americans who live in such desperate straits in so many places and make up for that elsewhere in the Federal budget, you couldn't do that. This says if you want to help the housing needs of American Indians, then you better reduce housing somewhere else. For the disabled? For the elderly? It does not allow for there to be offsetting decreases elsewhere.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I agree that the amendment is a useful one, and I support it. The gentleman from Oklahoma, who is a member of the Financial Services Committee, has been a very able advocate for Native Americans on a variety of issues, as well as on others. I think this is an example of his constructive approach. But I do want to take some exception with the reasons for it. And we can do things for somewhat different reasons. I don't think what the gentleman from North Carolina was doing was rash. In terms of what is best for the tribes, what we are doing here is trying to enforce a treaty. Frankly, I think the tribes have suffered more from violations of treaties than they have been the violators of treaties. I think that, in fact, it is a national embarrassment that this Federal Government has historically been the one that has initiated breaches of treaties and ignored treaties. So I am glad to say this is a sign here, not simply on the merits of including the Freedmen, but a reaffirmation by this Congress that we will hold everybody to those treaties. I do believe by establishing that principle, we will be doing the Native Americans in the end some good, as well. Beyond that, in terms of timing, I understand this is in the courts. But let's be clear what is in the courts. The issue here is whether a decision taken by the tribe to exclude the Freedmen, I believe, in violation of the treaty should be upheld or not. At any minute, the tribe could resolve this by saying, okay, we will abide by the treaty. So it is not that they need judicial permission to do that. They don't have to await the outcome. Given all that, I do agree if the court decision, the tribal court as I understand it, upholds the right of the Freedmen, if the current status of the Freedmen is maintained, then the amendment wouldn't be necessary, and, in fact, if that had been the case, the gentleman from North Carolina wouldn't have offered it. As all the Members have said, this is a very agonizing issue for many of us. None of us wants to be put to this kind of a test. But the principle of adhering to the treaties, I think, governs. The gentleman from Oklahoma has proposed a useful amendment. As I understand it, he cooperated with the gentleman from North Carolina. They worked together on this. And what this says is if the resolution comes either by a court decision that says the Freedmen must be continued as tribal members or by a decision by the Cherokees, and again, they aren't bound by a decision by the court not to do this. They could always do it. So from the standpoint of cutting off, you know, they say when people are in civil contempt they have the keys in their pockets. The Cherokees have the cash here. It is entirely up to them as to whether or not the benefits continue to flow. Nothing in the gentleman from North Carolina's amendment would in any way impede the flow of funds to the Cherokees unless they are found to be by us, I think very clearly, in violation of the treaty. So if the Cherokees, either because of the tribal court or of their own volition, decide to continue what has been the status quo of the Freedmen, then there is no cutoff. So I do not believe it can fairly be said that this will penalize them. It leaves it in their hands. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the gentleman from North Carolina and the gentleman from Oklahoma, we have had the cooperation from Members on the other side, I think we have come to as good a resolution to a difficult situation as possible. I hope both amendments are adopted.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strong support for the amendment and my appreciation and admiration for the gentleman from New Mexico. This is a very important piece of this. We try to do this in our committee increasingly. We tried to do it with regard to the recovery from the hurricane as well. It is housing and economic development. They are both necessary, and they go together. If you don't have decent housing that is affordable, you are going to have a hard time filling the jobs. But if you don't have economic development, then housing without it is somewhat sterile. The gentleman from New Mexico has come up with a very thoughtful approach here. It is very logical to make this part of this program. There was some original talk about it being separate, but I think from the standpoint of making sure this survives all the way through the process, it is better to link the two, because the underlying housing program is going to expire and, frankly, putting them together this way gives us more assurance that it will ultimately be signed and not caught up in some unrelated controversy. So both procedurally and substantively, the gentleman from New Mexico has made the right choices, and I join in hoping the amendment is adopted.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a reauthorization, and I believe with the initiative of the gentleman from New Mexico, which I hope the House will adopt, will extend the Federal program that responds to the economic needs of the Native Americans. It also has a provision reauthorizing the Native Hawaiian legislation. The program primarily provides funding, subject, of course, to appropriation, to the recognized tribes for housing. Members will be aware, if they represent areas where the tribes are and if they have visited those areas, that inadequate housing is a serious social problem for many of our Native American residents. And this is a bill that provides money to them to help them meet that need. Now, the program is changed in three ways: First, as I said, it has not yet been changed but we expect it to be. Our committee has unanimously expressed its support for an amendment that was drafted by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), who will be offering it, which creates an economic development program to go along with the housing program, and we do believe adequate housing and economic development go hand in hand. Secondly, at the request of the tribes, the Indian Housing Council, we have added in this a provision for a reserve fund and we have also provided funding for a self-determination program. So this bill comes before us strongly supported by the broad range of the tribes and it continues Federal support to help the tribes themselves build housing and will, I hope, also now have a component for economic development. There is one item of some controversy which I think all of us involved here regret but we cannot ignore. The gentleman from North Carolina will be offering an amendment which says that no funding under this bill, including the housing program and the, I hope to be adopted, economic development program to the one tribe, the Cherokees, who have recently decided that the descendants of the slaves that the tribe had in the 19th century will be excluded from tribal benefits despite a treaty obligation to the contrary, we hope in the end that will never be necessary. In fact, I believe we will see an amendment that will make it clear that the amendment will only apply as long as the tribe maintains that position and there is pending litigation in the tribal court to change it. We hope it is changed. That's, as I see, the only controversy that applies to the program itself. I take it back. I know there will be an amendment to strike the Native Hawaiian program, and we will very vigorously oppose that. We have had that debate before. This is a program that works well, that is overwhelmingly supported in the State of Hawaii, and we believe should be allowed to continue. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 2786, to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering and cross-referencing, and insertion of appropriate headings.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, David D'Allesandro was a very successful CEO of one of America's leading financial institutions, the John Hancock Company. Mr. D'Allesandro consistently demonstrated during his tenure as the leader of this important corporation that social responsibility and successful activity in the private sector are fully compatible. In the Boston Globe on September 3rd, he published an article that exemplifies the thoughtful and constructive approach he brought. Madam Speaker, I believe that the most important thing we can do domestically is to demonstrate that understanding and support of a prosperous private sector is not only consistent with support for a vigorous and well funded public sector, but in fact benefits from such an approach. As he says, ``If we are going to be globally competitive and continue to attain record profits in this ever-evolving competitive globalization, that same corporate America has to `cough up' and take more financial responsibility for our greatest asset: our children and their education.'' Noting the great wealth that is being created by pools of private capital America, he asks pointedly, ``If there is that much money running around, why does the National Education Association report that we are facing a potential nationwide teacher shortage with more than a million teachers retiring in the near future and the need for more than 2 million teachers in the next decade? . . . Among the reasons for this turnover is inadequate pay compared to other professions with the same training requirements.'' Madam Speaker, David D'Allesandro is asserting a point that other corporate leaders must understand in their own interests and in the interests of a more equitable society. I ask that this very thoughtful article be printed here because it makes such an important contribution to our national debate. (By David D'Allesandro) Economy Thrives, but Schools Go Begging Starting tomorrow, traffic in and around every major city including Boston will once again be congested due mainly to two seasonal phenomena: school buses packed with children and cars of executives back from vacationing through the lazy days of August. But something is different this year. Very different. The children are returning to many public school systems that are strapped for cash, and the executives are returning to businesses that are overflowing with cash. As a capitalist, I believe in free markets, reasonable tax rates, competition, high compensation for performance and I am all for businesses being incredibly successful. But there is something disturbing--really disturbing--that while Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson recently said, ``This is far and away the strongest global economy I've seen in my business lifetime,'' our public school systems are suffering beyond comprehension. Business, particularly large corporations and private equity funds, will spend billions each year on reinvestment in products, technology, distribution, advertising, and an endless array of tools. Yet, they are not directly assessed to subsidize their overwhelming reliance on our education system to feed them high quality, educated adults who will fuel their growth. Their counterargument is that part of their personal and business taxes find their way back to schools. And, or course they will quickly point out ``this or that'' voluntary corporate public education initiative. But the growing disparity between their growth and schools' budget problems seems particularly and fundamentally wrong. Let us consider just a few indicators: Despite some recent credit market issues, the Dow Jones Industrial Average hit record levels over 13,000 this year. And even touched 14,000 in contrast to bottoming at less than 7,300 just five years ago. Record profits the last few years have been a big driver. Goldman Sachs recently stated in US News and World Report: ``If we and the consensus are correct, then the period 2003- 2008 will have been one of the most powerful periods of economic growth globally since accurate data bas been collectible for much of the world.'' Armed with hundreds of billions of dollars, private equity firms have been dominating the acquisition landscape. They have scooped up thousands of companies including many high profile ones like Hertz, Toys R Us, Neiman Marcus, Metro Goldwyn Mayer to name a few. Their capital, combined with considerable tax breaks, have created enormous wealth for these private firms. So, if there is that much money running around, why does the National Education Association report that we are facing a potential nationwide teacher shortage with more than a million teachers retiring in the near future and the need for more than 2 million teachers in the next decade? As alarming as that is, the NEA says 50 percent of new teachers leave within five years. Among the reasons for this turnover is inadequate pay compared to other professions with the same training requirements. Why, according to a 2007 Boston Globe examination of property tax rates in 298 Massachusetts cities and towns, has the average homeowner's tax bill gone up 49 percent since 2000? Why are so many communities being forced to consider overrides to improve school buildings, provide basic services, and maintain after-school and sports activities? When towns like Stoneham are almost forced to eliminate all competitive sports activities, there is something terribly wrong. While the politicians debate options from ``cheeseburger taxes,'' increased highway tolls, casinos, and Governor Patrick's new bond debt proposals, both the federal and state governments need to rethink who are the true benefactors of our education system. In all fairness, if businesses are being properly assessed for these windfalls, then more current tax dollars should find their way to education. If not, then the government should step up and fix it. Naturally, corporate America will say that the problem is inefficient school systems. And while that may very well be correct, most corporations are not particularly efficient either. This is primarily a diversionary tactic to shift focus away from the corporate coffers. Corporate executives will also contend that reinvesting large profit sums in public education would not be in the direct interests of their investors. Well, they would be wrong. A highly educated American work force ready to compete with the emerging economies of countries like India and China is very much in the interests of shareholders. If we are going to be globally competitive and continue to attain record profits in this ever-evolving competitive globalization, that same corporate America has to ``cough up'' and take more financial responsibility for our greatest asset: our children and their education.