Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

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. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the important role he has played in our committee as a representative from a State which has a very large number of Native Americans. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren) has played a lead role in helping us live up to our obligations to Native Americans. And I am very proud of the role that the committee has played in general in this area, in the coinage area, a couple of things that have come up in the housing area and elsewhere, and the gentleman from Oklahoma has been a major part of that. I am also very pleased to be here with one of the great advocates for human rights in general and particularly for Native Americans, our colleague from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), who has been the major mover in insisting that we live up to the obligation we as a Nation have to Native Americans. This bill is in furtherance of that. It is, I am glad to say, and has been from the beginning, bipartisan, and I hope it is passed. And I just want to pay tribute to the work of both the gentleman from Oklahoma and the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the very important work the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall) is doing on this, and the bipartisan cooperation we have. It is really disappointing that we have to bring this resolution forward. It does not speak well of the government of the People's Republic of China that this is necessary, because they are trying to have it both ways in an inappropriate manner. On the one hand, China insists on being treated with the respect due a great world power. And they are proud of their economic strength, and they say to America, in fact, they try to have it both ways in two ways. Maybe they're trying to have it four ways, because what they tell us is, open up, economic competition is the way. If we are selling more goods in your country than you are selling in ours, that's because we're doing a better job of it. And so they want respect as a world power, and they want an openness in the economy, but only in one way, because when it comes to areas of economic activity where they don't have that overwhelming advantage, where, frankly, cheap labor doesn't buy you a lot, where our technology and our level of sophistication works to our advantage, all the arguments they've used go out the window. Now they're no longer this great world power. They're a poor country that has to shelter its banking activity from the United States and others. They don't single us out. They shut out much of the world. The argument that you should open up your economy and let economic forces play out, without imposing political barriers, that apparently works with manufacturing of their goods, but that's exactly the argument they repudiate when we talk about our financial institutions. I would add that there is, of course, another example of this with regard to the intellectual property failings in China, but we're here to focus on the financial services. And so what we are saying to the Government of China is, essentially, I guess I would say this, they may be credited with one of the great engineering feats in history, even more impressive than the Great Wall of China, is turning the Pacific Ocean into a one-way street, because when it comes to allowing the forces of economic competition to determine outcomes, where they would have an advantage, they're all for it. But where we say, look, we have these very important financial institutions, as my two colleagues have mentioned, institutions which will benefit the Chinese, which will help with the savings rate. The gentleman from Georgia has made it clear. This isn't an assault on China by the outsiders. This is something that would be of interest to the Chinese because the Chinese use the same argument to us. They say, look what we're doing for you. We're giving you these cheaper products. Don't turn them down. Well, I don't understand why that doesn't translate into their doing the same thing. And so you cannot, I think, in this world consistently, at the same time, be a complete free trader where you have an advantage, but a mercantilist and protectionist and restrictionist society where you think somebody else might have the advantage. But this resolution is aimed only partly at China. It is also a directive from this House. And I hope, with a very large vote, and I hope our colleagues in the Senate will do it, to the United States regulators, to the Securities Exchange Commission, to the bank regulators, to the Federal Reserve, the Secretary of the Treasury: do unto others as they do unto us in the financial area. Do not allow the Chinese financial institutions a freedom to operate in the United States that they would deny to us. And I want to stress that. There have been criticisms that have come from China and from some in the United States who say, yes, China sells a lot, but don't be restrictive. The answer is openness. Well, this is the test. Is openness a two-way ocean? And if the Chinese continue to resist living by the doctrine they preach to us, then the United States regulators, those in the United States who decide whether Chinese institutions can have access here, really, in their own interest, should take account of that because if you continue to have a situation in which Chinese financial institutions are allowed activity in the U.S. that the Chinese Government denies to American institutions in China, I believe this body will go beyond a resolution. And I can tell you that the committee that I chair will begin to consider, then, legislative changes. And we're often told that you can't legislate that because of the WTO. But here we're asking them to live up to their WTO responsibilities. And if this continues, I will consult with our colleagues in the Ways and Means Committee, and I think we will try to put some binding legislation here. I hope it doesn't come to that. And I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall) for taking the initiative here and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam) and others. This is, I hope, unanimous, but certainly overwhelming, it was unanimous in the Committee on Financial Services' request. And the gentleman from Georgia read a very impressive list. Every important entity of financial institutions in the United States was on the letters that the gentleman from Georgia read. So we hope that the Chinese Government will listen. And if they don't, we hope the United States regulators will listen, because we are only asking here that the Chinese live by the doctrines that they profess to believe in. And we believe that this is something that is in the mutual interest of both countries. I submit the following exchange of correspondence regarding H. Res. 552. Hon. Barney Frank, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the bill, H. Res. 552, calling on the Government of the People's Republic of China to remove barriers to United States financial services firms doing business in China. I understand there are certain provisions of this legislation as it will be presented to the full House that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. In the interest of permitting your Committee to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of this important legislation, I am willing to waive this Committee's right to sequential referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving consideration of the bill, the Committee on Foreign Affairs does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the legislation which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. I would ask that you place this letter into the Congressional Record when the House has H. Res. 552 under consideration. Sincerely, Tom Lantos, Chairman.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I misspoke. I said that this has passed our committee unanimously. I was reminded by our very able staff that the committee sentiment was so overwhelming that we unanimously decided we didn't even have to take it up in committee. So this did not pass the committee unanimously; this bypassed the committee unanimously.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, during the recess recently, one of the men from whom I learned a great deal, I hope with some impact about how to be a successful advocate for a better and fairer world, died. Leon Shull had been, for many years, the executive director of Americans for Democratic Action. He had a passion for social justice which he combined with a clear-headedness about how to get there that was extraordinary. Too often in our politics, we see a divide between the people with passion, the people with reason, people who feel very, very deeply about the need to correct injustice, and people who are able to calculate in a cool manner what types of political activity will be effective. Leon Shull was one of those rare people who combined both of them in a way that made each of those qualities more important. There wasn't any trade-off with Leon between his pragmatic and clear-headed political analysis and his strong idealism. His idealism and his pragmatism worked together. They strengthened each other. He was determined to be effective because he felt that he had a moral obligation not simply to will a fairer world, a world with fewer poor children, a world with less discrimination based on race or gender or sexual orientation or religion, a world with less widespread killing for unjustified reasons; he felt the moral obligation to diminish those things to the extent that any one human being could. And because he felt morally obligated to do it, he knew he was morally obligated to be effective. He worked with many people who would give in from time to time to that wonderful feeling of just lashing out, of just letting your emotions run. But he knew the work to which he was committed was too important for that, that he owed the children and the victims of racism and poor, elderly people and working people thrown out of jobs, people in other parts of this world living in dire poverty, he knew that he owed them not just goodwill, but a commitment to making their lives better. He was for many years the leader of Americans for Democratic Action. Americans for Democratic Action immediately after World War II under the leadership of Eleanor Roosevelt and John Kenneth Galbraith and Walter Reuther and others was a very important organization in which liberals fought a two-front ideologic war against conservatives who wanted to retreat from the New Deal on the one side and from Communists who were anti-democratic on the other. As time went on, the Americans for Democratic Action, ADA as it is known, became less important, probably because the Democratic Party, I believe, moved more in that direction. But it was still important to have that organization then as it is now as an independent force, and Leon Shull kept that organization vibrant. There is an expression used about boxers who are fighting in a weight class heavier than their own, that they are able to punch above their weight, that they have a strength and a physical ability that allows them to be competitive with people bigger and theoretically beyond their reach. Leon Shull punched above his weight, and ADA under him punched above its weight. He was in this city for many years a beacon for those of us who believed that the liberal tenets of Franklin Roosevelt were still very relevant, that a wealthy society in the United States had both the obligation and the resources to diminish inequality, not to dispose of it altogether in a capitalistic system, but to diminish it. Leon Shull was an ally of people fighting racism, of people fighting poverty, of people fighting unjust wars, of people fighting for rational environmental policy, of people fighting for free speech and fairness. And with all that, he was a gentle man. He was a fierce advocate of these policies, but in personal demeanor a man of gentleness, a man who inspired the love and affection of those who worked with him. In later years he retired and he moved away from Washington, and I saw much less of him. Mr. Speaker, when I read of his death, I realized as I thought about it all that he is one of the people from whom I learned a great deal. To his wife, Anne, to his daughters and others who have lost this great man, I send my deepest sympathy; and to his memory I express my gratitude for being the model of an effective liberal.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida, who has been a leader on human rights. Also, I should say that I am very proud of the bipartisan cooperation we have had in the Financial Services Committee on this. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to one of the other main coauthors of this, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say we agree with the gentleman from Virginia. There will be a rollcall. Among the people who we hope will look at it are the few right across the hall there. We do plan to have a rollcall. Secondly, I just want to say that people have commented on the overwhelming support, but this could have been more divisive, and the staffs of both Democrats and Republicans on our committee, Chris Tsentas of Ms. Lee's staff and others worked very hard together Mr. Speaker, I now yield the remaining time to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a good day for the cause of human rights and for drawing on the strength of the American people to vindicate the values that are so widely shared among our people. This bill is part of a package of two. Subsequently we will deal with a bill involving the country of Iran. Both of them have a similar purpose; namely, to empower Americans in their individual capacities, through their State governments, through organizations to express in a concrete way the overwhelming opposition in our country to the genocide being perpetrated by the Government of Sudan in Darfur, and to the effort by the sometimes pro-genocide Government of Iran to acquire a nuclear weapons capacity. Now what we have, we have sanctions against those countries. Let me say a word about sanctions. People are sometimes supportive of sanctions when they agree with the cause and denigrate the notion of sanctions when they disagree with the cause. History is clear. When economic sanctions are widely supported globally, they have an impact. I had a great day years ago, Mr. Speaker, standing in Statutory Hall and listening to Nelson Mandela thank the Congress of the United States because we had enacted sanctions. He said that the enactment of sanctions by the U.S. as part of a worldwide enactment of sanctions brought an end to apartheid earlier than it would have otherwise. Our former colleague, Mr. Dellums, the mayor of Oakland, had a very proud day then. He had been the leader of it, and it is very fitting that the initiator of the bill we are dealing with today is his successor, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who has been the driving force in the bill we have before us. And what we have is this: There are American citizens, State governments and others who have funds invested in collective investment entities. They have invested the funds to get a maximum return, pension funds, State governments and others, individuals in mutual funds. And they have in many cases gone to the investment entity and said, We don't want our money helping the dictatorship of Iran go nuclear. We don't want our money used to perpetuate genocide in Darfur and help a government that does that. We want you to sell our investments in companies that are complicit in this through economic support. And they have been met in some cases by the argument, Well, we can't do that because we have a fiduciary responsibility as the investment entity to maximize returns, and, therefore, we cannot sell this company and that company. And to the extent that they are complicit in Darfur and complicit in Iran's nuclear weapons, that is irrelevant. Mr. Speaker, I think that is often more of an excuse than a reason. But today, we render that debate moot because the two bills we are dealing with, now with Darfur and subsequently with Iran, do not compel any investment entity to do anything. These are not bills of compulsion. They fully respect the market. What they say is, if you are a mutual fund, if you are a pension fund manager, and significant numbers of the investors in your entity or the beneficiaries of your entity come to you and say, Clean my hands; I do not want to be financing these outrageous regimes and their terrible practices, you cannot plead, Oh, I am sorry. The law won't let me do it, because these bills have a common theme. They prevent lawsuits against these investment entities who take these issues into account. And they have a powerful double effect. First, they will add to the effectiveness of sanctions because there is in the United States widespread anger at both regimes. Not only will they add to the effectiveness of sanctions, they do it in a way that is fully respectful of the autonomy of these entities. As I said, there is no compulsion, no interference of the market. It is freeing Americans to do this, and that is also important because you have the regime in Iran and you have the regime in Sudan trying to avoid the public obloquy that they so richly deserve by saying that is just the American administration. They try to separate the President and his policies in opposition to both of these from the American people. What these bills do is to make it clear, as I think they soon will once they are law, that the opposition to the genocide in Sudan and to the weapons nuclearization in Iran are widespread throughout this country, and that this opposition is not just the President and not just the Congress. It is a broad, deeply held American view. One final point. A letter from National Council on Foreign Trade complained that with these bills we were going to let the States get into the foreign policy business. No, this is the Congress of the United States into the foreign policy business. This does not say that any mutual fund anywhere at any time can divest for foreign policy reasons. I think, by the way, they already have that right, and we make it clear in this bill. We are not trying to say that they don't. But what this package of bills does is these two bills makes two foreign policy judgments. The United States Congress, by passing these bills, will say we have an absolute horror about the genocide in Darfur and want to do everything we can to put an end to it, and we are overwhelmingly opposed to the regime in Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. These are two very specific foreign policy judgments that Congress will make. We will then be empowering people in the United States to join us in implementing them. But the argument that this somehow throws open the foreign policy process willy-nilly is simply wrong I submit the following correspondence: Committee on Education and Labor, Washington, DC, July 27, 2007. Hon. Barney Frank, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Frank: I am writing to confirm our mutual understanding with respect to the consideration of H.R. 180, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act. As you know, Section 7 of H.R. 180 amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to provide a safe harbor for changes of investment policies. I am writing to confirm that this provision falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor. Given the importance of moving this bill forward promptly, I do not intend to object to its consideration in the House. However, I do so only with the understanding that this procedure should not be construed to prejudice my Committee's jurisdictional interest and prerogative in H.R. 180 or any other similar legislation and will not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my Committee in the future. The Committee also asks that you support our request to be conferees on the provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House- Senate conference. Sincerely, George Miller, Chairman.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a member of the committee who has been working hard on this, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 180) to require the identification of companies that conduct business operations in Sudan, to prohibit United States Government contracts with such companies, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first I ask that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inject into the Record at this point a letter from 41 national organizations, the Save Darfur Coalition, strongly supporting this legislation Washington, DC, July 30, 2007. Dear Member of Congress: We write to request your vote in favor of H.R. 180, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act, which is ``under suspension'' and scheduled for a floor vote on Monday, July 30th. Three years ago this month the United States Congress recognized the crisis in Darfur, Sudan as genocide. Today, the escalating violence in the region demands that Congress take decisive action. Together our organizations represent concerned Americans from all states and of many faiths--Darfur advocates and American citizens from across the political spectrum working together to end the genocide. We strongly endorse the spirit and substance of H.R. 180 and encourage its quick passage. This legislation will be a powerful action to put much-needed economic pressure on Sudan with the goal of stopping genocide. Thank you for your consideration of this legislation. Sincerely, Bill Wasserman, Executive Director, Save Darfur Coalition; Jason F. Isaacson, Director, Government and International Affairs, American Jewish Committee; Ruth Messinger, Executive Director, American Jewish World Service; Bryan Ardouny, Executive Director, Armenian Assembly of America; Gedlu B. Metaferia, Executive Director, African Mutual Assistance Association of Missouri; Sylvia Oliva, Clerk of Peace and Social Concerns Committee, Annapolis Friends Meeting, Religious Society of Friends; Aram Hamparian, Executive Director, Armenian National Committee of America; Daniel S. Mariaschin, Executive Vice President, B'nai B'rith International; Raj Purohit, Senior Fellow, Citizens for Global Solutions; Imelda Gonzalez, General Councilor, Congregation of Divine Providence; Rabbi Marla J. Feldman, Director, Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism; Bakheit Shata, Founder/Executive Director, Darfur Community Organization, Omaha, NE; Shirley Bodisch, OP, Dominican Sisters; Anita Sharma, Executive Director, ENOUGH: a project to end genocide and crimes against humanity; Eric Cohen, Chair, FidelityOutOfSudan.Com Campaign; Mark Hanis, Executive Director, Genocide Intervention Network; Nina Schwartz, Vice President, Help Darfur Now; Lisa Stenchever, Education Coordinator, Holocaust Museum and Study Center; Steve Gutow, Executive Director, Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Rabbi Shawn Zevit, Director of External Affiliations and Tikkun Olam, Jewish Reconstructionist Federation; Sr. Sheila Kinsey, OSF, Leader, Justice, Peace & Integrity of Creation Office Wheaton Franciscans, Wheaton, Illinois; Marie Lucey, OSF, Associate Director for Social Mission, Leadership Conference of Women Religious; Joellen McCarthy, BVM, Mary Ann Zollmann, BVM, Peggy Nolan, BVM, Leadership Team of the Sisters of Charity, BVM Dubuque, Iowa; Hilary O. Shelton, Director, NAACP Washington Bureau; Sr. Elizabeth Rogers, Justice and Peace Representative, North American Province of the Cenacle Sisters; Eddie L. Koen, Jr., National Chair, National Black Law Students Association; Rev. Dr. Bob Edgar, General Secretary, National Council of Churches; Martina W. Knee, Member, Executive Committee, San Francisco Bay Area Darfur Coalition; Andrea Schuver, Co-chair, Save Darfur of South Palm Beach; Julie Driscoll, SCN, Vice- President, Sisters of Charity of Nazareth; Sister Marilyn Gottemoeller, Sisters of Mercy, Regional Community of Cincinnati; Diana Oleskevich, CSJA, Justice Coordinator, Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet and Associates; Sister Catherine Marie Kreta, CSJ, Justice Coordinator, Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet--Los Angeles Province; Sister Patricia Murphy, CSJ, Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet--St. Louis Province; Sister Marge Wissman, Sisters of St. Francis, Oldenburg, IN; Scott Warren, Director, STAND: A Student Anti-Genocide Coalition; Gabriel Stauring, Co-Founder, Stop Genocide Now; Adam Sterling, Director, Sudan Divestment Task Force; Rob Mosher, Director, Government Affairs, U.S.-Armenia Public Affairs Committee; Dr. Geoff Tunnicliffe, International Director/CEO, World Evangelical Alliance; Czerina Patel, Executive Director, Yenza: Building Bridges, Spotlighting Success and Amplifying Voice in Africa. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the main sponsor of the bill, as I said, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who as a member in the last term of both the Foreign Affairs and Financial Services Committees was very well-suited to push this and continues to be a very strong supporter of it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for making this point. The gentleman from California is a very careful student of the intertwined legal and economic issues, and the point he is making now is very important. We expect this to be subjected to a sensible economic analysis; that is, if you are providing real value to that government, then you are covered. Clearly, if you have a secondary market for bonds, you've enhanced the value of the initial instrument. So people who support a secondary market for a particular instrument are clearly investing in the underlying issuer. They know that. It is a conscious act. No one is going to be trapped. So the gentleman is making a very important point, and we want to be very clear. We will be expecting the administration, in preparing this list, to use the same kind of economic analysis we would use in any other case. If an activity, a purchase, an investment, a loan, any financial activity is contributing to the financial enhancement of the Iranian Government, then it triggers, we would believe, this bill.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman once again for helping clarify a point. Sometimes when we do legislation I wish we had a clause that we could automatically print out that says ``this bill does not do what this bill does not do,'' because people are forever reading into legislation things that aren't there. We have some people who have claimed that they do not now have the legal authority to do the divestment. When this bill becomes law, as I hope it will be, and its companion bill, that argument won't be able to be made at all. I agree with the gentleman from California. I don't think it's a good argument now. But we do want to make clear, in absolutely nailing this down, we in no way want to give any support to the argument that, in the absence of this bill, the authority isn't there. So I thank the gentleman for once again helping us be very clear about what we're doing.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank the bipartisan leadership and staff of both committees, because the Foreign Affairs Committee, under the leadership of the gentleman from California and the gentlewoman from Florida, have worked on this. I, in my remarks on the Darfur bill, really spoke about both bills. Let me just reiterate, this is a chance for us to make very clear the overwhelming opposition, staunch opposition of the American people to the nuclear weapons plans of the regime in Iran and other aspects of that regime. And I hope that we will, I'm told it will be tomorrow, have two overwhelming rollcalls in this House which will be, in themselves, an expression of the American people's views on both the genocide in Darfur and the nuclearization of the Iranian military, and that will then be followed by a widespread demonstration across this country of people's determination as Americans that we will do what we can to stop both of those. So I think this is a very good day for the bipartisan legislative process I submit the following correspondence. Committee on Education and Labor, Washington, DC, July 27, 2007. Hon. Barney Frank, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual understanding with respect to the consideration of H.R. 2347, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act. As you know, Section 7 of H.R. 2347 amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to provide a safe harbor for changes of investment policies. I am writing to confirm that this provision falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor. Given the importance of moving this bill forward promptly, I do not intend to object to its consideration in the House. However, I do so only with the understanding that this procedure should not be construed to prejudice my Committee's jurisdictional interest and prerogative in H.R. 2347 or any other similar legislation and will not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my Committee in the future. The Committee also asks that you support our request to be conferees on the provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House- Senate conference. Sincerely, George Miller, Chairman.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3067) to amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 to exempt small public housing agencies from the requirement of preparing an annual public housing agency plan, as amended.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a bill that was brought forward in the previous Congress by the gentleman from Texas. It is very important that we regulate when necessary; it is equally important that we not regulate when it is unnecessary. This is an example of our recognition of that principle. We have rules that govern housing authorities. These are complex and difficult issues that housing authorities face. But one set of rules should not be made to fit all. Smaller housing authorities ought to have more flexibility than the larger housing authorities. This bill, brought forward by the gentleman from Texas, and I congratulate him for his persistence in calling this to the attention of the committee, acts on that principle. It exempts from excessive regulation, but not entirely from regulation, smaller housing authorities. In particular, I would just say that there was a rule for example that plans be made every 5 years and in some cases housing authorities have to report on certain things every year. In this case what we would say is that the smaller housing authorities would file their plan every 5 years and only if there are any changes of any significance in the covered matters would they have to report again. So it would save a lot of time, energy, and paperwork for the smaller housing authorities. It will help these people with the difficult job that they do. I thank the gentleman for bringing the bill forward. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I thank the staffs of the majority and minority, who worked very well together on this, as they do on many bills

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I ask that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this bill and include therein any extraneous material.