Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I yield myself my remaining minute. I know my friends have said they sought a compromise. The only problem is they had a unique motion here, it was the unilateral compromise, they compromised with themselves. And they did a pretty good job of compromising with themselves, but I think we need to compromise with each other. There are two committees here that have concerns: one about the integrity of the banking system and not having non-banks get into the banking system. This House is aware of that because we dealt with a similar issue with regard to industrial loan corporations. What we are saying here, the gentleman from Alabama and I, is we were not previously told about a problem of a lack of availability of credit from the banking system for alternative energy. If that exists, it needs to be remedied. And as I've said, I've spoken to the chairman of the full committee; I've spoken to my ranking member on our committee. We're prepared to have joint hearings and be available for people to document to us what the nature of the problem is, and then respond, whether it's an increase in size, or what. But I do think the history shows that we should be very careful about who gets into the banking industry and who doesn't. The banking system ought to be preserved very carefully.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman I yield myself 2 minutes. This bill as presented significantly expands the ability of the Farm Credit System to operate in nonfarm contexts in two ways; first of all, in terms of the membership that would be required to be farm credit providers, and, secondly, in terms of the transactions in which they engage. And I think that would be an error. And I believe that it is a mistake to allow an expansion into the banking system by entities that aren't banks. We have a particular exemption in the Farm Credit System for agricultural lending, and it was meant to be lending by and to agricultural commodities. This bill goes beyond it. Now, I want to say, and I have had conversations with the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Members have said that especially with the interest in alternative energy, there have been problems in getting loans from banks. I must say that, and I talked to my colleague the ranking Republican, no one has brought this to our attention. Had this been brought to our attention on the Financial Services Committee, we would have responded. And I want to say now, and I talked to the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, I am prepared to have, I think we should have in the fall, joint hearings of our two committees, the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Financial Services, to listen to people's concerns here. And if it is documented that there have been problems with the availability of loans for the purpose of alternative energy for agriculture, then, yes, I would agree that something is appropriate. My problem is that this bill as it now stands goes beyond that in several ways. It weakens the restrictions in terms of stock ownership as to who gets involved. Now, another issue that has been raised was allowing an increase in the town size, from 2,500 to 6,000. My reaction to that was favorable, but we were never able, as we were willing, to negotiate out some limitations and some expansions. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama, the senior Republican on the Financial Affairs Committee.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, this morning David Wessel, writing in the Wall Street Journal, called deserved attention to the growing maldistribution of income in our country. He observes that ``. . . governments and businesses must come up with new ways to spread its'' (globalization's) ``benefits more widely.'' I commend the report to my colleagues and ask unanimous consent that Mr. Wessel's article be printed here. [July 26, 2007] Globalization Study Moves Past Rhetoric Most of the policy briefs, working papers and trade- association reports that cross a columnist's desk slide easily into the trash can or onto the read-someday pile. But a recent study on globalization, commissioned by the Financial Services Forum, an association of the chief executives of 20 huge financial companies, ranging from American International Group and Citigroup to UBS and Wachovia, stands out.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will not object to the unanimous consent request. It will forestall a 15-minute vote and make it a 2-minute vote. And I appreciate the cooperative spirit from the gentleman of Michigan on this as throughout he has been cooperative. I understand other decisions get made, but I did just ask the indulgence of the House because people shouldn't be voting on something with no explanation. There was implemented in 1998 in legislation, and I think it was part of an appropriations bill then, a requirement that everybody who lives in public housing who is not otherwise fully employed work 8 hours a month in community service. It is not highly regarded by the people who run public housing. It costs money to do this. Understand, when a similar amendment was proposed for the section 8 vouchers, it was defeated, it authorized the Housing Authority to hire someone to administer it. This is not work that is terribly useful. The way the amendment is written, if you were working, and you are fired or your job ends because of trade or other problems as some people in public housing and you are unemployed, you then have to do 8 hours a month of make-work. So it is a make-work requirement does nobody any good, it is based on the assumption that you can't trust those lazy people in public housing across the board, and it costs money to administer. So that is why the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), who has long been a proponent of it, and myself have offered this amendment. I thank the gentleman for a chance to explain it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that this bill funds what we call the 811 program, housing for disabled. Now, I don't know why we would want to say that we would vote money to build housing for the disabled but no parking. Have we found a new group of totally mobile disabled? I mean, this amendment would say that if you got funds under the 811 program to build housing for disabled people, you couldn't provide parking for vans, for transportation. I'm really baffled as to the scope, and I do think that telling people that they could not provide parking at a disabled housing facility is a very poor idea. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the answer to the gentleman from Texas is when you have federally funded housing for the disabled, the parking that goes for the disabled and the service vehicles comes from that money. So the gentleman says, why does the Federal Government have to pay for parking? I don't know who else the gentleman thinks is going to pay for parking at housing that is built for people who are disabled. If the gentleman is unhappy with this, then perhaps he should draft his amendments more seriously.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I'm certainly prepared for it to be accepted.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I will go make a great speech in my office.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer this on behalf of myself and our colleague from New York Mr. Rangel, who, in fact, in a previous Congress in 2002, I believe, offered a similar amendment. It would suspend for a year, because we do this 1 year at a time, the work requirement in the public housing sector. We're talking about 8 hours a month.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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 and to insert extraneous material.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I again note that this is not simply words. Words are important and the work of Bruce Vento and Stewart McKinney, two outstanding Members of Congress, ought to be recognized. The fact that we are talking here about veterans, about children, about other populations that we all want very much to help, they are important. But I want to stress again this is also a commitment for the Committee on Financial Services. I know I speak for the chairwoman of the Housing Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), and my colleague here. And I want to again point to clauses 6 and 7 of the resolution. The resolution ``recognizes that the lack of affordable housing exacerbates homelessness in the United States,'' and No. 7, ``supports the continued efforts of Federal, State, and local governments and private nonprofit organizations in their efforts to prevent and end homelessness through the development of affordable housing.'' The services that are provided, the shelter, the counseling, they are all absolutely essential. But so is a commitment by this very wealthy Nation to help build affordable housing. And if we were not to make that commitment, then the resolution would, I think, be an empty one. So I look forward to the Committee on Financial Services working together in a bipartisan way to continue to bring to this floor, and I hope ultimately to the desk of the President, and, more important, ultimately to the streets of our cities and rural areas in this country the housing that is needed. This is a promise that we are going to go forward with building affordable housing, and it is a promise that we fully intend to keep. General Leave

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important resolution. It is an appropriate noting of the anniversary, 20-year anniversary, of the passage of the Homeless Assistance Act. It marked the beginning of a formal Federal recognition of the problem of homelessness; it's a great paradox, and one of which we should be embarrassed in this country. It may not seem obvious to people, but before this, certainly 25 years ago and beyond, the homeless population was an invisible one. And it was in the 1980s that people began to focus on it. Two former Members of this body, both of whom sadly died younger than should have been the case, while still in their fullness of powers as Members of this body were among the first to recognize it, and it was bipartisan. The former Member from Connecticut, Stewart McKinney, whose successor will be speaking on behalf of this very shortly, was one of those who began it. And he was joined in his advocacy by the late Bruce Vento from St. Paul. And they were two men of great compassion and vision. They were skilled legislators who served on the committee as it was then called on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, and they insisted that we, as a body, in this very wealthy Nation, address the terrible tragedy of people who were homeless, including children and war veterans. A number of things contributed to the homelessness issue. There were some trends in this society, and often we hear about unintended consequences. There were some trends that in themselves were welcomed that had these negative consequences. One was the improvement in urban areas, the transformation of many downtowns in our big cities from places that were considered not very attractive places in which to live to places that people wanted to live in, the phenomenon known as gentrification. The area that I represented when I was in the State legislature in the 1970s in Boston, in downtown Boston there were boarding houses, rooming houses in many of the downtown parts of Boston. Most of those are now much more expensive housing. They are single-family homes or condominiums. That, from the standpoint of the city, I suppose, is an improvement. But many of those who lived there were priced out of the market and, in many cases, found no alternative housing. We also had the movement of deinstitutionalization, of deciding that people with various problems, emotional and mental problems, that it was better to try to get them integrated into communities than to have them living forever apart in institutions, and on the whole that was a very positive step. But no major social policy happens perfectly. The combination of the upgrading economically of these downtowns, of the release of people from institutions, these contributed to the homeless problem. There are, of course, other problems. Vietnam veterans who came back from a war that they didn't ask to start, who were sent by this country to this difficult country and came back to a country that treated them poorly, that did not honor their commitment and the sacrifice of their time and of their health. And in combination with substance abuse, all of these came together. At any rate, 20 years ago we recognized that we had this problem, and we have begun to deal with it. And this resolution is a tribute to the two far-sighted men who led this fight; to the many, many people who have worked to try to provide a solution to homelessness; to the homeless themselves, fellow citizens of all ages and races and backgrounds who have had to cope with these difficulties, some because of their own failings, often because of no thing that they did wrong but because of circumstances in which they found themselves. In any case, we ought to deal with it. And this resolution is also very thoughtful, and I call attention to the ``whereases.'' Whereases, to be candid, Mr. Speaker, are often unemployment. They are filler. But in this case the whereases make some very important points, and one in particular I want to address. It talks about the vulnerable groups that are included. Another one talks about the veterans who are involved. That is, this makes clear that we are dealing with people who have a very legitimate claim on our response. In addition, the resolution itself goes beyond really congratulating people for the work they did and deploring the continued existence of homelessness, but it makes some very specific policy recommendations, which, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Financial Services will be responding to and has already begun to respond to. For example, in the resolution, clause 6 says that we recognize ``that the lack of affordable housing exacerbates homelessness in the United States.'' That may seem to state the obvious, but the obvious may have been stated but hasn't been acted on. We have not done nearly enough to produce affordable housing. Homelessness requires shelter; it requires services. But it requires, more than anything else, homes for people. Affordable housing, also rental housing, but it requires housing. The resolution supports the continued efforts of Federal, State, and local governments in their efforts to prevent and end homelessness through the development of affordable housing. It was not an accident that the gentleman from Connecticut who succeeded Mr. McKinney will be soon speaking on this, is a member of our committee, and is a cosponsor with many of us on legislation that will actually return the Federal Government to the job of producing affordable housing. So I welcome this resolution for what it commemorates but also for what it commits this Congress to do. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 561) recognizing the 20th anniversary of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act and the impact it has made on homelessness and endeavoring to continue working to eliminate homelessness in the United States.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, in few areas of our public life is there a greater gap between what people say and what they do than with regard to conservatives who decry ``judicial activism.'' It is a constant refrain from conservatives that judges should not be intervening in the policy process to impose their own particular views, and that it is especially egregious when appointed judges make fundamental decisions that ought to be left to elected officials. Their indignation is of course at its highest when decisions by some of those elected officials are in fact overturned by judges in the name of some judicial principle. As Adam Cohen shows in his very thoughtful essay in the New York Times for July 9th in fact, conservative judges--generally to the great applause of their co-ideologues--are far more energetic judicial activists in this sense than their liberal counterparts. Few examples of conservative indignation at the Supreme Court equal in volume the anger that came when a 5-4 majority of the court decided not to overrule the decision of elected officials in Connecticut regarding eminent domain. Conservatives vigorously objected to the Court's failure to intervene and cancel the decisions of these elected officials. ln the most recent Supreme Court term, the Court ended its work for the year by invalidating several important actions taken by elected officials--regarding school integration and campaign finance reform to name two of the most prominent. The Eleventh Amendment jurisdiction of the court under the conservatives' rule--a great expansion of the constitutional prohibition against suits against States--has been used repeatedly to knock out the application of congressional statutes that seek to prevent discrimination against vulnerable groups. As the internal headline on Mr. Cohen's piece says with regard to judicial activism, ``The conservatives forgot that they're opposed to it.'' It is important, Madam Speaker, for people to be honest about what they believe and not simply to misuse principle as a means of enacting substantive positions without having fully to defend them. I ask in the interests of informed debate on this question of who are the judicial activists that the article by Mr. Cohen be printed here. [From the New York Times, July 9, 2007] Last Term's Winner at the Supreme Court: Judicial Activism (By Adam Cohen) The Supreme Court told Seattle and Louisville, and hundreds more cities and counties, last month that they have to scrap their integration programs. There is a word for judges who invoke the Constitution to tell democratically elected officials how to do their jobs: activist. President Bush, who created the court's conservative majority when he appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, campaigned against activist judges, and promised to nominate judges who would ``interpret the law, not try to make law.'' Largely because of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, the court has just completed one of its most activist terms in years. The individuals and groups that have been railing against judicial activism should be outraged. They are not, though, because their criticism has always been of ``liberal activist judges.'' Now we have conservative ones, who use their judicial power on behalf of employers who mistreat their workers, tobacco companies, and whites who do not want to be made to go to school with blacks. The most basic charge against activist judges has always been that they substitute their own views for those of the elected branches. The court's conservative majority did just that this term. It blithely overruled Congress, notably by nullifying a key part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, a popular law designed to reduce the role of special- interest money in politics. It also overturned the policies of federal agencies, which are supposed to be given special deference because of their expertise. In a pay-discrimination case, the majority interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in a bizarre way that makes it extremely difficult for many victims of discrimination to prevail. The majority did not care that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has long interpreted the law in just the opposite way. The court also eagerly overturned its own precedents. In an antitrust case, it gave corporations more leeway to collude and drive up prices by reversing 96-year-old case law. In its ruling upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, it almost completely reversed its decision from 2000 on a nearly identical law. The school integration ruling was the most activist of all. The campaign against ``activist judges'' dates back to the civil rights era, when whites argued that federal judges had no right to order the Jim Crow South to desegregate. These critics insisted they were not against integration; they simply opposed judges' telling elected officials what to do. This term, the court did precisely what those federal judges did: it invoked the 14th Amendment to tell localities how to assign students to schools. The Roberts Court's ruling had an extra fillip of activism. The civil rights era judges were on solid ground in saying that the 14th Amendment, which was adopted after the Civil War to bring former slaves into society, supported integration. Today's conservative majority makes the much less obvious argument that the 14th Amendment protects society from integration. With few exceptions, the court's activism was in service of a conservative ideology. The justices invoked the due process clause in a novel way to overturn a jury's award of $79.5 million in punitive damages against Philip Morris, which for decades misrepresented the harm of smoking. It is hard to imagine that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, who were in the majority, would have supported this sort of ``judge-made law'' as readily if the beneficiary were not a corporation. The conservative activism that is taking hold is troubling in two ways. First, it is likely to make America a much harsher place. Companies like Philip Morris will be more likely to injure consumers if they know the due process clause will save them. Employers will be freer to mistreat workers like Lilly Ledbetter, who was for years paid less than her male colleagues, if they know that any lawsuit she files is likely to be thrown out on a technicality. We have seen this before. In the early 1900s, the court routinely struck down worker protections, including minimum wage and maximum hours laws, and Congressional laws against child labor. That period, known as the Lochner era--after a 1905 ruling that a New York maximum hours law violated the employer's due process rights--is considered one of the court's darkest. We are not in a new Lochner era, but traces of one are emerging. This court is already the most pro-business one in years, and one or two more conservative appointments could take it to a new level. Janice Rogers Brown, a federal appeals court judge who is often mentioned as a future Supreme Court nominee, has expressly called for a return to the Lochner era. The other disturbing aspect of the new conservative judicial activism is its dishonesty. The conservative justices claim to support ``judicial modesty,'' but reviews of the court's rulings over the last few years show that they have actually voted more often to overturn laws passed by Congress--the ultimate act of judicial activism--than has the liberal bloc. It is time to admit that all judges are activists for their vision of the law. Once that is done, the focus can shift to where it should be: on whose vision is more faithful to the Constitution, and better for the nation.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would the gentleman point that out to me in the amendment?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, not exceeding more than 20 percent of the families. It doesn't single out children. Well, maybe there will be 30 or 40 percent, because in my experience, it may differ, you say make an exception for a hardship. That's not the exception for people in section 8; it's the rule. There aren't a lot of rich people living in section 8 or middle income people. The fact is that under the gentleman's amendment, if adopted, there will be single parents with children of 7 or 8 or 10 years old, several of them, and at the end of 5 years, they'll have to move. Those kids didn't do anything to anybody. And you know what we've learned from education and from homelessness, 7 years, the gentleman tells me. He does give them 7 years. It's very biblical. But they'll still have to move after 7 years. Churning poor people isn't useful. Making people move isn't useful. We've adopted some rules here. The gentleman knows we agreed with him that we should not charge them for more rent if they're making more money. We don't want to have a disincentive. We've done other things to improve it. But here's a fundamental point. People in section 8 housing are there because they meet strict income criteria. Under the gentleman's amendment, someone who continues to be poor, who continues to meet the income criteria, who has lived up to every rule, who has small children, who has tried diligently to get a better job, but in many parts of this country, by the way, we're talking about working people. There are many people who can work full-time at twice the minimum wage and not be able to afford rental housing in his district or in parts of my district or in other districts, the gentlewoman from California's district. And they'd be evicted. They'd be evicted from housing that they were eligible for, for no reason other than the clock. I reserve the balance of my time.