Floor Statements

I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, we confront here one of those moments in which there is a certain degree of confusion, and we are here, in substantial part, today at the urgent request of the Bush administration.

This package has several pieces. Three of them, in fact, are urgent requests of the Bush administration, and indeed, the Bush administration does have a criticism to make of the pace with which we are doing this. They think it is too slow.

Well, Members on the other side, some of them have complained that we're moving too rapidly. The Secretary of the Treasury has been a little frustrated that we were moving so

slowly. Clearly, we have here an example of the classic situation in which the right hand does not know what the far right hand is doing.

We are dealing today with legislation that has, with one exception, already passed this House. As to the ability to amend and debate, one of the high priorities of this administration has been significantly increasing the regulatory structure for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal home loan banks. This House passed it last April of 2007. It was very much debated in committee, and it came to the floor of the House with many amendments. Well, that piece has already been debated on the floor of the House and amended, subject to a fairly open rule, not totally open.

We have the modernization of the Federal Housing Administration, another high priority of the Bush administration. Several months ago, the head of the FHA, the Bush appointee, Mr. Montgomery, the head of the FHA lamented the fact that we hadn't acted. Despite that, the senior Republican on the Financial Services Committee sent me a letter last week saying don't act on it. So we have the head of the FHA a couple of months ago complaining that we had not acted on this urgent administration priority, and then I get a letter from the senior Republican of this committee saying don't do that piece, leave that piece out. He talks about doing only 1 piece, that one's left out.

So we have the administration's request for GSE reform, already voted on and debated last year; FHA modernization, already voted on and debated by the House. This is a re-passage to accommodate, frankly, some of the problems we've had with the Senate.

We did have the FHA rescue plan that was voted on on the floor of the House, and that one was not amendable, and I acknowledge that.

All of the things I've talked about, by the way, these three pieces that have already been voted on, all passed the House by very large majorities. All had significant Republican support. All were fully debated in committee and amendments offered. This is a repackaging.

Now, the gentleman who preceded me said what are we afraid of. I guess I do have a certain fear of being caught in this Republican crossfire, with the administration telling us move more quickly and the Republican members of the committee saying how dare you move so quickly; and the Secretary of the Treasury saying we'll have confidence undermined in the market, and the Republicans saying we didn't have enough time to read the bill.

Again, almost everything in here has previously been debated in committee and voted on on the floor of the House. There's one new element, and I agree that did not go to committee. We didn't have a public hearing on it. The Secretary of the Treasury asked us not to have a public hearing, said he thought it would be damaging to the market if we had a public hearing. We have had a week and a half to talk about it, to discuss it, including in informal ways, and I've been open to discuss it with anyone who wanted to. But the Secretary of the Treasury did say that he thought the hearing would be a problem.

So what are we afraid of? Well, I had a certain fear of rebuffing the Secretary of the Treasury, President Bush's appointee, on the matter that he thought was so important as to how we handled it. So that's why we are here.

This is a balanced bill that includes a significant increase in the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It does give to the administration the ability to make some loans to them or maybe buy shares with an instruction that they protect the taxpayer with various mechanisms and with a requirement that the compensation of the CEOs and the top officials of those agencies be strictly regulated.

But it doesn't do that in isolation. It does it only as part of a bill which significantly tightens the increase, that tightens and increases the regulatory structure.

So just to summarize, this bill again responds to an urgent request by the Bush administration that we enacted in April, we passed it in the House in April. We tried to put it in the stimulus. The administration said not yet. That's already been voted on and debated.

It has the FHA modernization that's been voted on and debated. It has the FHA rescue plan, voted on and debated. All of those have already been in the bill, and three of these pieces in this bill are urgent requests of the Bush administration.

It does do some things for affordable housing, and I understand that many on the other side are ideologically opposed to that. But they were ideologically opposed to it when we debated it on the floor. And on the affordable housing trust fund, we have already voted about 10 times on the floor of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer the motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize myself for such time as I may consume.

Let me concur with the remarks of the gentleman from Louisiana. I don't like everything in this bill either. It is inconceivable to me that anybody would like everything in this bill, because it is the product of a very significant set of compromises. To some extent, frankly, the challenges the Congress faced and the administration faced in dealing with the housing crisis--remember, we are here in substantial part because of a terrible housing crisis that has affected the economy of the U.S. and the world. We are dealing with the consequences of bad decisions and inaction and malfeasance from years before.

Obviously it requires a joint effort. To some extent, this is a test of our ability as a self-governing people to govern. Because if everybody held off and said I am only going to support a bill with which I am in complete agreement, we would not be able effectively to respond to this crisis.

So I appreciate the President's policy statement saying I don't like everything in this bill, but I'm going to sign it and you should pass it quickly. I think that's true of all of us who have looked at this.

Now I do want to refute some of the myths. One, we heard reference to a $300 billion program. My colleague, the ranking member, sent out a Dear Colleague letter that said the part of the bill that tries to avoid mortgage foreclosure is a $300 billion program. In fact, it's a $1.7 billion program, according to CBO.

Yes, it's $300 billion, $300 billion is the total amount of mortgages that could be insured. It would cost $300 billion only if no one who had one of those mortgages ever made a payment of a penny and the houses were worth nothing. Obviously it's not a $300 billion program. That's why CBO said our version was $1.7 billion.

We also heard from some of the Republicans that it is a $5 trillion program. What they call a $5 trillion program, the stand-by authority that the President has asked us to give the Secretary of the Treasury, the Congressional Budget Office says is a $25 billion program but probably won't be spent.

So I think we need to understand conservative Republican arithmetic. It is the most inflationary arithmetic I ever heard. $1.7 billion of CBO becomes $300 billion. $25 billion from CBO becomes $5 trillion. I hope it will be very clear to people that these numbers that are being thrown around are simply inaccurate and misleading.

I also want to talk now to some of my friends on the left and others who have, I think, been misrepresenting what we are doing with regard to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac giving stand-by authority, saying this is bailing out the corporations, that this is welfare for the rich.

Let me read the list of people, organizations, who have specifically endorsed what this bill does with regard to stand-by authority to keep Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from collapsing:

The Consumer Federation of America, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Leadership Conference on Legal Rights, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Council of La Raza, the National Urban League, the National Fair Housing Alliance, the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

Mr. Speaker, apparently there has been some infiltration. Apparently the corporate welfare advocates have taken over all the liberal organizations in America. We will probably have to investigate that, because all of the organizations with which I have worked for 28 years, who are the effective advocates for low-income housing, say pass this bill, please, and please specifically help Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

So the amount of misinformation here is enormous.

Finally, I want to address the question of procedure. Everything in this bill, with the exception of the emergency request from the President for stand-by authority for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, has been fully debated in the Financial Services Committee and voted on and debated on the floor of this House.

We are repackaging a number of things. Sometimes it takes our friends in the Senate two, three and four tries to get something done, so we keep serving the ball to them. Everything in this bill, with the exception of the emergency stand-by authority, has been thoroughly debated and voted on the floor of the House, and no part of it got less than 260 votes. So we're hardly rushing through things for the first time.

July 17, 2008.

Statement on Recent Federal Action To Provide Stand-by Support to

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

The undersigned consumer, civil rights and fair housing

organizations commend U.S. Treasury Secretary Paulson,

Federal Reserve Board Chairman Bernanke and leaders of the

Senate Banking and House Financial Services Committees, for

acting quickly to provide for stand-by support to Fannie Mae

and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored housing

enterprises (or GSEs). This support reaffirms the importance

of the two companies in providing liquidity and stability to

the housing market during this tumultuous period.

The U.S. economy has a deep stake in the success of Fannie

Mae and Freddie Mac as companies with an essential public

mission. As history has shown, both GSEs are vital to the

long-term health and success of our nation's housing finance

system. Furthermore, their public mission activities have

been and must continue to be instrumental in expanding

opportunities for homeownership and affordable rental housing

for consumers.

The establishment of a strong independent regulator, as

provided for by the housing measure pending before Congress,

will serve to maintain public confidence that Fannie Mae and

Freddie Mac remain safe and sound and thus able to continue

to carry-out their vital public mission. Immediate action on

GSE regulatory reform signals that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

functions are essential to the housing market and to

consumers.

Center for Responsible Lending

Consumer Action

Consumer Federation of America

Consumers Union

Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights

League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)

Mexican American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF)

National Association of Consumer Advocates

National Association of Neighborhoods

National Community Reinvestment Coalition

National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income

clients)

National Council of La Raza

National Fair Housing Alliance

National Low Income Housing Coalition

National Urban League

Opportunity Finance Network

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I welcome the evolution in the gentleman's thinking. A week ago he sent me a letter saying we should not do the FHA modernization, so he has apparently expanded that, and I appreciate that.

There is one other myth, though, that I forgot to refute that he trotted out, namely, that this is going to force the FHA to take bad loans. That could not be further from the truth. This bill explicitly leaves the FHA in complete control of the decision to guarantee a loan or not. Nothing in this bill coerces the FHA. The lenders, to be eligible, would have to write down the loan by a significant percentage. An independent decision is then made by the FHA as to whether or not they want to guarantee it.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, a major author of important parts of this bill.

I now recognize the Chair of the Financial Institutions Subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, for 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds to say that the gentleman from Alabama suggested that I was misrepresenting his letter. Here is the last paragraph: There is need for expedited legislation, and that action is a basic GSE reform bill that can be drafted, and taken to the floor with minimal preparation, since we have had hearings, not FHA modernization and not a tap standby authority. That's what he asked for a week ago, only GSE reform and not anything else.

Secondly, the minority leader has understated the administration's position. I'm sure that he wants to be accurate. They are not simply saying the President would sign the bill, the statement of administration policy urges the House to pass it expeditiously. So they are not simply going to sign it, they want us to pass it expeditiously. I know the minority leader wouldn't want to understate the position of the administration.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall).

Would the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a very diligent member of the committee, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).

Mr. Speaker, another one of the most active members of our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green) is recognized for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca), and there is language in the bill dealing with in-person counseling of which he is the main author, and I yield to him now for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

(Mr. SHAYS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), a very active member of the committee.

(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am glad now to yield to my neighbor, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), 1 minute.

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

That's very generous of my friend. If he wishes to give another minute, I certainly would want to facilitate that.

I believe you can get unanimous consent, but if the gentleman's time has expired it would then be within the prerogative of the gentleman from Alabama to yield him another minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), a valued member of our committee.

I now yield to an alumnus of our committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sires), 1 minute.

I yield 1 minute to a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

I yield 1 minute to another member of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Carson).

I yield 1 minute to a very active member of the committee, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Klein.

Mr. Speaker, yet another very active and important member of our committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks). I yield him 1 minute.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the Chair of the Small Business Committee and a member of our committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. Speaker, I am about to yield to the Speaker, but I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my friend from Illinois who wonders about this newfound confidence in the President. My confidence in giving him power is growing as his time in office diminishes.

I now recognize the Speaker of the House for 1 minute. Her leadership has been very important on this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) who has been very concerned with this crisis given the impact that it has in her home district.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

I accept that we should. The imbalance is not intentionally done, just we're better at time management.

I now yield 3 minutes to one of the leading members of our committee in the preparation of this bill, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Would the gentleman yield to me at this time?

All the debates I've heard about civil litigation have been concerned that plaintiffs' lawyers would initiate lawsuits. We're talking here, as the gentleman well knows, about citizens who are finding themselves as defendants in foreclosures, and I can't imagine that people meant to exclude the ability of lawyers to defend people when we've got a record of some of these foreclosure packages being abusive.

So I would agree with the gentleman, and if necessary, I would hope we could make that very clear that defending someone who's being foreclosed upon, when there have been inappropriate practices isn't what has generally been meant here by a stopping the initiation of civil litigation.

I want to now yield to the chairman of the Budget Committee who has been a very important factor in our being able to pull this together, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), 2\1/2\ minutes.

Let me inquire of my colleague, I understand he only had one more speaker?

Well, we have two. So I will now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for 2 minutes and then I'll be closing on our side.

Would the gentlewoman yield?

We were able to postpone the deadline there of October 1. There is also an issue on risk-based pricing. I believe we will have both of those resolved in a more flexible way before October 1 so that seller financing and risk-based financing, appropriately done, will not go out of existence.

Regular order.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The resemblance between reality and the rhetoric from New Jersey is even thinner at this point than it usually is. In fact, in 2003 and earlier, many of us were trying to do some reforms.

In 2005, I supported Michael Oxley, the former chairman of the committee and others, in enacting reform. The fact is very clear-- Republican rule for 12 years, no Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac reform. We took office, and 3 months after the Democrats became the majority, the Financial Services Committee, under the Democrats, and this House, passed a bill that increased regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the satisfaction of this administration. Twelve years of inaction under the Republicans, in 3 months----

No.

In 3 months we did it in the House, and it took the Senate, and there was, unfortunately, obstruction from Senate Republicans, but it finally got done.

Secondly, we have the myth of the $5 trillion, the silliest single misleading statistic I have ever heard. $5 trillion is the total value of mortgages held by people insured by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The gentleman from Texas said this could reach $5 trillion. It will reach the sky on a broomstick before that.

No. I ask the gentleman to stop harassing me. He had his time. I would like to conclude. We had equal time here.

The $5 trillion means that--in the first place, nothing in this bill assumes any responsibility for any of those mortgages. Zero. It is stand-by authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to make the loans.

As the gentleman from New Jersey acknowledged, the CBO said this might cost $25 billion. It will probably cost nothing. It might cost $25 billion. How did $25 billion become $5 trillion? By fantasy. In fact, what you have is if every single mortgage held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were to pay zero, then you would have a $5 trillion problem, but it wouldn't be ours.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not to the liking of any single individual in all of its aspects, but it shows our ability to govern, because every single organization that has been advocating for low-income housing, all of the organizations that are in the business of building and selling housing, the organizations concerned with the financial health of this country, and the mayors and the Governors all support the bill, the Financial Services Roundtable, the American Bankers Association, the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Association of Realtors, the National Association of Home Builders, the United States Conference of Mayors, the National Governors Association, and all the advocacy groups, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, National Community Reinvestment Coalition, National Consumer Law Center, National Fair Housing Alliance, National Low Income Housing Coalition.

The point is this. If we had a bill that was perfect for any one of these groups, you wouldn't have this coalition. These are people who, unlike my conservative colleagues who think that their administration has suddenly lost all of its moorings and they think that the Realtors and the home builders and the Financial Services Roundtable and the Low Income Housing Coalition and the home builders, all of these people don't understand. That's because they know the difference between a $5 trillion fantasy and a $25 billion stand-by authority to prevent terrible economic damage.

Here is the final point. No solution to a problem could be more elegant than the problem. We are in this problem because of excessive deregulation that led to the subprime explosion. The gentleman from Alabama and I and other members of the committee, my two colleagues from North Carolina, tried several years ago to prevent it. I acknowledge that we worked together. We were overruled by higher political authority at the time under the Republican-controlled Congress.

We are suffering from the results of the subprime. As to Fannie and Freddie, yes. That's a hybrid form that none of us here created that we should look at, and we will look at. But to deny a emergency response until we do that would be inviting disaster.

Mr. Speaker, first, let me say that I think this is a very reasonable motion to instruct, and I urge all Members to vote for it.

I do want to take a moment, since we are talking about the Native American housing benefit, to explain to people what the major issue is. It's not the subject of a matter of discussion. It wasn't that controversial in our committee, and it has to do with the action of the Cherokee Tribe.

The Cherokee Tribe was one of several tribes that owned slaves in the 19th century and fought on the side of the South in the Civil War. When the Civil War was concluded, treaties were signed, not just with the Confederacy.

There was a treaty. Treaties were signed with these Indian tribes that were independent in which they agreed to incorporate into the tribe from that day forward the former slaves, known as the Freedmen, and their descendants.

To my great disappointment, the Cherokee Tribe has decided that they don't want to continue that arrangement. I think it is a violation of their tribal obligations, their treaty obligations. The Bureau of Indian Affairs agreed. They're a fairly small number of people. The question is not what blood people have but this treaty obligation that the Cherokees undertook.

Our committee voted to exclude the Cherokees from the housing benefit as long as they are out of compliance here. Now, it's interesting, some defenders of the Cherokees have said, well, let's let it go to the courts. But I've read the Cherokee's brief on this subject. It's been in a court case, and they say to the court, stay out of this, it's up to Congress. Well, I agree with the brief, and that's an important part of this bill. And that's one reason why we have asked for the appointment of conferees, and the conferees are people who strongly believe it's a fairly small number of people to talk about, that the Cherokee Tribe should not be allowed to expel them.

Now, as to the energy piece, we very much agree with this. I think it's probably the case that we have more to learn from the Native Americans about energy use and conservation than they from us, and it is, therefore, entirely appropriate that we say that the funding that is available be available for them to use in this way. As I said, I don't think this is a group that we have to force this on, but I think it's a useful one.

Indeed, it's a principle that we think very important, and in fact, later this month, the Committee on Financial Services will be voting on a bill. The gentleman from Colorado is the prime author. The gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes) has worked with the gentleman, Mr. Perlmutter, on it, and we very much agree with this principle, and indeed, we want to incorporate it in Federal housing policy in general.

Essentially our view is that where the Federal Government is funding housing in a fairly direct way, then we ought to require energy efficiency, and where the Federal Government is not funding it but helping enable it, we ought to encourage it. Of course, as we know, if you do energy efficiency into the building of the housing, you may have an increase in immediate cost and a long-term saving, not just in energy efficiency but in funding.

So I'm going to be yielding time to the gentleman from Colorado because we agree that this is a very useful, broad principle, and we agree with the approach of the gentleman from Illinois which is, since this instruction itself isn't controversial, we'll all use it to talk about other things that we want to talk about. That's perfectly reasonable. We have nothing else to do this morning.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, preliminarily I would say that not only do I agree with the gentleman that we should not rule out any new production, I know of no Member of the House who takes that position. And even later today we will be dealing with legislation that the Committee on Resources brings forward that tries to increase and encourage production.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), a member of the committee and a leader in the committee on matters of energy, be allowed to control the remainder of the time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by regretting the animus toward the people we represent that we've just heard. The gentleman from Utah said, ``Wild and scenic. The only thing wild about this are the gangs there.'' The city of Fall River, the gentleman has an amendment that would exempt from this bill the city of Fall River, Massachusetts, a city full of working people, many of them immigrants who became American citizens, and their descendants, from Portugal and elsewhere, people who worked in the garment industry and the textile industry, a city which has suffered economically the fate of de-industrialization.

Characterizing them and saying ``The only thing scenic about them is their graffiti, the only thing wild about them is their gangs,'' they don't deserve that denigration, no matter what political points people want to score. If you want to come after me, if you want to come after Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island or Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts, we'll deal with it. But please don't denigrate these hardworking people. Don't impute to them gang activity that doesn't exist. The gentleman who accused them of gang activity has no idea of what goes on there and he makes an inaccurate statement.

The only thing scenic is the graffiti? Is that not scenic? This is the Battleship Massachusetts. It's part of a national park. It's one of the few battleships that comes with a Patriot missile, because I got Raytheon to put it up there. It's a park, a park for patriotic people. Do you see any graffiti on the Battleship Massachusetts?

In fact, that is part of the problem here. Apparently we're told it's okay to have a wild and scenic river. And of course we're not saying it should be wild and scenic. We are talking about a part of the statute that says you can have recreation. And these are people who have decided that in part because they have lost their industrial base that they had for a variety of reasons, they will develop new economic activity that is based on their river.

By the way, one of the bridges that is talked about, one of these structures, we have gotten money to take down. Like a number of cities that walled themselves off from the river, Fall River has appreciated the great beauty and attractiveness of that waterfront. And they would like to tear it down.

But here is the issue. Is environmentalism only for suburbanites? Do working people who have found themselves in economic distress have no right to try and enhance the quality of their environment?

Let me have some more of those pictures down here. Let me have some more to show people what we are talking about. We are not talking about only what was pictured.

This is part of the area that would be banned from the bill under the gentleman from Utah's amendment. So is this. Part of it is Mr. McGovern's district. Part of it is my district. It impacts the other districts. Yes, it is not everywhere beautiful. These are people who haven't had the good fortune to live always in land that was so attractive. But they would like to try and improve their situation. They would like to be able to enhance the quality of their environment without being denigrated as gang members or graffitists. Yes, there are a few people who do graffiti. The overwhelming majority in every single community along this river on both sides has asked for this designation. It was begun by our late and beloved colleague Joe Moakley before anybody heard of LNG. By the way, on LNG, there is an LNG plant in the district of our colleague, Mr. Markey. We in the Massachusetts delegation overwhelmingly supported a second LNG plant just a little bit offshore, just north of Boston that has been approved. Many of us support a third one. It is not a case of rejecting LNG. And I notice that people on the other side, those who think Fall River is just full of graffiti artists and gang members and don't know that wonderful city and the decent, patriotic people who live there, they circulated an editorial from the Boston Herald saying this isn't needed. And the Herald editorial, the op-ed piece that they circulated, concluded by saying, of course, it's not necessary because the LNG plant is dead. It's not simply the current LNG plant that has been rejected. It was the Coast Guard saying that in that narrow waterway, with the bridges that have to be traversed, you can't do it.

Carlos Gutierrez said ``no,'' the Secretary of Commerce. I've got to say, I didn't know that I would be defending the Bush administration so much here. I know I will be defending them against the Republicans on the questions of the housing bill. But we were also told there was this terrible conspiracy with the Park Service under George Bush. I don't think the Interior Department

under President Bush was engaged in this kind of chicanery that has been imputed to them.

We are talking about the desire of people who live in an area that has some industrial activity, but some residential and recreational areas, who want to protect what they have and make it better. They have asked us, and we have worked with them, to tear down an elevated highway. We are working with them to enhance the quality of their environment in a way that will also improve things economically. Every Member of Congress whose district is remotely near here strongly supports this bill. Every city and town along the way supports this. Every elected legislator and local official supports it. For them to be told essentially that ``it's too gritty, it's too grubby, you aren't people who we had in mind when we talked about the beauties of the environment, you don't deserve this because you've had graffiti and some of you belong to gangs''--an inaccurate characterization of the whole city--to deny them that is I think a degree of cruelty, frankly, that I hope this House does not encompass.

I and others have tried very hard to take into account what other Members think about their districts. To repudiate what all of the Members of Congress, five of us very directly involved here, think would be important for this particular area because an LNG plant that has been rejected by the Department of Commerce and by the Coast Guard and cannot be resuscitated, might some day in 10 years be resuscitated, and by then we will have had enough other LNG plants that it wouldn't even have any demand probably, that these people should be told, just the 9 miles, conveniently, the city of Fall River, the urban area, the area of hardworking immigrants who became American citizens, that they should be told that they don't qualify for environmental protection is a decision that I hope this House would not make.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from West Virginia for the consideration they have given. It may in part be relevant that these are Members who themselves understand the desire of working people, of people who have lived in these kinds of areas, to get the same kind of consideration for their environmental needs as wealthy suburbanites.

I hope that the bill is passed without amendments that would cripple it.

Would the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. Chairman, I concede three business people out of this whole area opposed it. So we did not pass this by unanimous consent. Three people were there. Fortunately, my area that I represent is not the Senate. You don't need unanimous consent. If you get 98.9 percent, that's good enough.

What particularly puzzles me, though, is the gentleman from Utah apparently thinks that Congress in 1968 reached the ultimate in wisdom and that because something was passed in 1968 it can never be changed. We're not talking about interpreting the statute, we're talking about passing one. And, in fact, our views of the environment have evolved.

As my colleague from Rhode Island eloquently put it, the nature of the economy of New England has evolved. Back then it was a very industrial economy. We have lost that industrial base for reasons not, I think, largely the fault of the people there, and they are trying now to go in a new direction.

So here is where it is. If you were ever industrialized, according to the gentleman from Utah, that's it. The environment is not for you. He says, well, why doesn't the State do it? Probably because we are talking about navigable waterways, and as there are limits to what the State can impose on navigable waterways. This is a navigable waterway. There is Federal responsibility. So we are coming here to the Federal Government to empower the State. Every single community there. Governors. The previous Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, was for this. The current Governor is for it. But again the gentleman says, well, because it didn't meet this definition of 1968 you can never do it again.

We are talking about recreation, recreation for the people there, and, yes, we are saying that there is an act of Congress. We look at the 1968 act, we look at our current views of the environment, we look at the needs of the people, and this is the question. This isn't a test on what was in the minds of

people 40 years ago who passed the bill. We are the Congress. We are now passing the bill.

The gentleman's amendment excludes 9 miles, the City of Fall River, whom, again, he characterizes, as, well, the only thing that's wild there are the gangs, the only thing scenic is the graffiti. That is a very unfortunate thing to say about a city of hardworking people in which there are a number of very attractive and useful institutions and places.

But the question is, do the people who live in that 9 miles--by the way, that's on both sides of the river, and there is a less-developed town across that my colleague Mr. McGovern represents--are they to be denied the chance to maximize the quality of their environment? Are they to be denied this planning tool, overwhelmingly supported by the city, so that as we tear down this elevated highway, as they expand the open space, as they take advantage of the river, they can do it in a rational way.

The gentleman keeps saying, well, but what about 1968? What about 1968? Maybe it was a good year for wine.

But the notion that because a bill was passed in 1968, this Congress has lost the ability to make subsequent decisions, makes no sense.

We are asking you, all of us who represent the affected area, all of the elected officials in the area, the overwhelming majority of people in the area, give us this tool so that we can enhance the recreational character, improve our environment, and don't say that because we once had this industrialization, we don't qualify for environmental concerns.

Executive Department,

City of Fall River,

Fall River, MA, July 15, 2008.

Hon. Barney Frank,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Frank: I am writing to express my full

support of the bill you recently sponsored, which is

currently awaiting a vote by the House, to designate the

Taunton River as a Wild and Scenic River under the federal

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. As the Mayor of the City of Fall

River, which is situated on Mount Hope Bay at the mouth of

the Taunton River, I recognize the river's value and am

pleased to join you and other legislators (Representative

James McGovern and Senators John Kerry and Edward Kennedy) in

support of legislation that will protect this integral

resource from further development.

As a sign of Fall River's commitment the City Council of

Fall River passed a resolution on May 20, 2005, in support of

the recommendation for designation of the Taunton River as a

Wild and Scenic River. In addition, at that same time the

City Council endorsed the Taunton River Stewardship Plan

developed by the Taunton Wild and Scenic River Study

Committee.

Thank you for recognizing the Taunton River's remarkable

value and for introducing legislation that will protect it

from development and industrial use. The City of Fall River

appreciates and fully supports your advocacy efforts in this

matter.

Sincerely.

Robert Correia,

Mayor.

That is a most extraordinary misunderstanding of the law. Yes, there was a law in 1968. Guess what this will be if we pass it--a new law. The notion that a law passed in 1968 somehow defies this Congress of the ability to pass a subsequent law incorporating current judgment doesn't make any sense to me.

You're not in court here arguing. The question is, does this Congress have the right to take into account evolved views to amend the law? Yes, there is a law on the books. If the law on the books, I would say to the gentleman, covered this, we wouldn't need this law, but this is a law that we would pass. So the notion that there was a prior law really makes less sense than a lot of other things I have heard today, which says a lot.

I claim the time in opposition.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

I yield myself 2 minutes.

These are the portions of the river bank that would be excluded by the gentleman's amendment. These would not be protected. The historic park enshrining the battleship Massachusetts would not be protected.

The gentleman made an argument I found hard to follow. It was because the 1968 Act said one thing, it would be a violation of the rule of law to pass a law. I have never heard that. We are here in the House of Representatives debating a law. If it gets a majority and is passed by the Senate, never to be taken for granted, it will become an addition to the law. The notion that a law being passed somehow distorts the law is a grave error.

The gentleman talked about the will of the people. The overwhelming will of the people in this area is to have this designation. No, it is not wild and scenic in the dictionary definition. It is recreational, which is one of the provisions that the law calls for.

And the question is today, 40 years after the original passage of the law, do we, as a Democratically elected House--the gentleman will forgive me for using the word ``democratic'' affirmatively. Unlike Aristotle, I don't think ``democracy'' is a bad word. Do we have the right to say to urban dwellers, the people in the city of Fall River who are targeted by the gentleman's amendment, the people in the city of Fall River, an industrial area. They are the ones that are being told the environment is not for you. Environmental enhancement, the ability to use this law to get the planning right, you don't get that. You are not entitled to it because you have been an industrial area.

I don't think the House wants to deny the right to environmental improvement and enhancement to working people who live in an urban area.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

How much time do I have remaining?

I will close.

I appreciated the kind words the gentleman from Utah had to say about me. I only wish he would extend those courtesies to my constituents who have, I think, been unfairly denigrated.

And I again want to stress there was nothing inappropriate about 40 years later the Congress deciding, by a vote, this is no fiat here, to look at the law and say, we now believe that this is an appropriate designation. It is to say to an area that has been subjected to de- industrialization, you get the support of this planning mechanism, which is necessary because it is on a navigable waterway, so it can't be entirely done by State authorities. It is supported by all of the locally elected officials, overwhelmingly by the people there, by all of the Members of Congress nearby, by the four United States Senators who would be affected. You get this ability to enhance the quality of your life and, at the same time, to find, as my colleague from Rhode Island said, a new economic pattern. And that is engaging in self-help. We are trying to help them tear down an elevated highway that is a barrier to this river. There is a coordinated set of planning activities to improve it.

And I have to say, the gentleman, I think, has helped me prove the point. In his diligent search to defeat this bill, he came up with three people in the area who were against it. Well, I don't think three people in an area of hundreds of thousands gives you, even under Aristotle's definition, the right to impugn the legitimacy of this, particularly since we are following the regular order.

I would say to my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, please don't tell the people, the hardworking people of an industrial area who are trying to improve the quality of their lives for themselves and the lives of their children, don't tell them that this environmental designation stops where they live, and that they are to be, by a specific vote of the Congress of the United States, excluded from this set of benefits.

Mr. Speaker, first, let's note the nonseriousness of this. It says ``promptly.'' It kills the bill. If you want to vote against the bill, you can vote against the bill. This says ``promptly.'' If it were seriously intended to be a legislative act, it would have said ``forthwith.''

Beyond that, it is not simply about energy. The last two lines say ``nothing shall be used as a basis to restrict current and future business and economic activities.'' This is a license to do any business whatsoever. Now I know a couple of businesses down there that I didn't think the Republican Party would be all in favor of. They would love to have this. They will expand it and invite you down and give you a discount.

This isn't just about energy. First of all, it's about killing the bill. But what does it say? The gentleman from Arizona read the amendment we have adopted about energy. ``Nothing shall be used as a basis to restrict current and future business and economic activities or expansion of such activities.'' It is hardly about energy.

The LNG plant has been rejected twice by the Coast Guard and once by that radical environmentalist, the Secretary of Commerce, Carlos Gutierrez, appointed by George Bush.

I'm about to yield to my colleague from Massachusetts. He and I represent hardworking people, working class people. Many of them are Portuguese immigrants and others who became American citizens who have lost their industrial base. They are trying to enhance the quality of their environment and at the same time offer an alternative economic mode.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, don't take it out on them. If we've got a political fight over energy, let's carry it out among the big boys and girls. Don't turn to these working people and say, do you know what? You're not classy enough. You don't deserve environmental protection. That is for the elite. That is for the wealthy.

I yield, finally, to my colleague from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that came to the House earlier under a rule and had proceeded without any significant controversy to the point of a recommital motion. The recommital motion offered was one this bill deals with, the relationship between smaller public housing authorities in particular, and HUD, and tries to give them more flexibility. It's widely supported and requested of us, indeed, by many of the housing authorities that are in our districts.

The recommital motion involved the right to own weapons and said that no authority could restrict the right to own weapons beyond what State or city applicable law provided. That was somewhat controversial and led to a decision to withdraw the bill.

It was then back in committee, and in committee we adopted the substance--we in fact adopted the recommital motion. There were a couple of refinements that were broadly agreed to, making it clear that nothing would protect anybody who illegally used a weapon. And that was broadly supported.

We also made a couple of other small changes. Our colleague from Florida (Mr. Meek) noted that he has a housing authority in his district that is in receivership. He wanted to make it explicit that the rights the tenants have in general do not get lost in receivership. That was unanimously agreed to.

We also adopted language that is responsive to the will of the House, making it clear that people who are in this country illegally would not be able to benefit under this program.

With that, we are back to where we were originally. The bill had not been controversial, although it had been worked out in committee, and I appreciate the cooperation of my colleague from West Virginia, the gentlewoman, who was the ranking member of the Housing Subcommittee.

So we have now a bill that we believe represents the will of the House. There were some members, particularly on our side, who weren't happy with the recommital motion, but it was clear what the will of the body would be. We did not feel we wanted to interfere with an important piece of legislation.

Among those who have asked us to do this is the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, and the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association.

This also, by the way, allows capital funds to be used for operating expenses in the appropriate circumstances, which we took from a previously done appropriations bill.

So it is a bill that improves the management of public housing. It incorporates the concerns that have been raised. I hope it is adopted.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the author of the bill, as the gentlewoman has noted, is our colleague, Mr. Sires from New Jersey, who represents a district in northern New Jersey where public housing is an important part of the makeup of the area. He was, at the time of this, a member of the Financial Services Committee, and a valuable member, and his interest in housing matters obviously continues. So we were very glad to be able to follow his lead.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sires).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

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

General Leave

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, we are about to see the world sit by silently, not silently perhaps, but ineffectively, and allow one of the most outrageous abuses of human rights that we have seen in a long time to go forward.

The president of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, is engaging in a pattern of oppression and tyranny and thuggery and despicable conduct towards his own people. He lost a preliminary election for the presidency despite every effort he could make to rig the election. Rather than allow the second round to go forward, he has ramped up the terror to the point where the man who got more votes than he in the first round understandably said he wouldn't participate in a run-off election which

would not only be a fraud but which has already led to the murder and abuse of many innocent people.

Robert Rotberg, a very distinguished scholar of Africa, wrote an article that was published in yesterday's Boston Globe. The headline is, ``Who will have the courage to save Zimbabwe?''

He starts with a little history. He writes, ``After Idi Amin terrorized and killed his own Ugandans throughout the 1970s, President Julius Nyerere of neighboring Tanzania finally sent his army across the border to end the mayhem and restore stability. Who will now do the same for beleaguered Zimbabwe? Who will remove despotic Robert Mugabe from his besmirched and exposed presidency?''

He is not calling for an army to go in, although there is certainly far stronger justification for an army to go there than a lot of places armies have been sent recently, but he has a program which he believes could be helpful. But as he points out, it has to be African nations that do this.

This is a situation given the colonial history where the United States and Britain and France and others would not have the moral authority to act. But Africans should.

Madam Speaker, I led a congressional delegation to Africa in April, and I was honored to be in the presence of the current president of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, a man who was one of the leaders in overturning one of the worst oppressions we have seen, apartheid in South Africa. I was honored to be in his presence. I was delighted when he presented a very high honor from South Africa to our colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

But I have felt terrible disappointment at President Mbeki's passivity in the face of the terrible repudiation of democracy by President Mugabe. I wish that President Mbeki would have understood the right of the people of Zimbabwe to receive the same kind of sympathy and help that many of us tried to extend to the people of South Africa when they were victimized.

I will include for the Record the article by Mr. Rotberg making an argument for an African initiative to protect the people of Zimbabwe from the tyrant, the degenerating tyrant who so viciously oppresses them.

Mr. Rotberg closes with this: ``Zimbabwe is in shambles. The United States and Britain would doubtless like to act unilaterally, but dare not. Only Africans and the U.N. have unquestioned moral authority.'' And he notes here that the former Secretary General Kofi Annan did a great job when Kenya had troubles and helped to pacify and restore democracy and stability to Kenya. So he says, ``Only Africa and the United Nations have unquestioned moral authority. Which African leaders will now emulate Nyerere's profile of courage in Zimbabwe's dire time of need?''

As one who has strongly supported the rights of the people of Africa to be free from colonialism, one who has strongly supported the need to provide the appropriate economic support so we can seriously diminish poverty, as a great admirer of President Mbeki and his colleagues, I implore them to save the good name of African democracy. And I understand the difficulty, and they certainly aren't the ones perpetrating this. But if the world, if Africa allows Mugabe to continue this terrible reign of terror, it will be a source of shame to us all.

Who Will Have the Courage to Save Zimbabwe?

(By Robert I. Rotberg)

After Idi Amin terrorized and killed his own Ugandans

throughout the 1970s, President Julius Nyerere of neighboring

Tanzania finally sent his army across the border to end the

mayhem and restore stability. Who will now do the same for

beleaguered Zimbabwe? Who will remove despotic Robert Mugabe

from his besmirched and exposed presidency?

Presidential contender Morgan Tsvangirai's courageous

decision to boycott Zimbabwe's runoff election on Friday--

after Mugabe's thugs broke up yet another opposition rally by

swinging iron bars and sticks at potential Tsvangirai

voters--compels the African Union, the UN Security Council,

and major powers finally to act. Tsvangirai said that he and

his supporters were facing war, not an election, and they

would ``not be part of that war.'' Serious UN sanctions are a

first step.

Second, since South Africa shows no appetite for an

intervention and Tanzania, Botswana, Mozambique, and Zambia--

Zimbabwe's neighbors--are unlikely to act militarily without

South African agreement an African stained Zimbabwe's tyranny

should: demand that Friday's poll be postponed until Africans

can patrol the country and oversee a free and fair real

election; demand compulsory mediation by former UN secretary

general Kofi Annan, who pacified Kenya earlier this year;

denounce despotism in Zimbabwe; and ban all Zimbabwean

aircraft from flying over neighboring airspaces, thus

effectively keeping Mugabe and his henchmen bottled up inside

their decaying country. Neighboring countries could also

squeeze land-locked Zimbabwe's electricity supplies and slow

rail traffic.

Time is short. Mugabe is clearly still intent on ratifying

his usurpation of power on Friday. Tsvangirai officially led

Mugabe in the initial presidential poll in March. In recent

weeks Mugabe's military have unleashed a relentless wave of

intimidation against Tsvangirai's Movement for a Democratic

Change and its supporters, killing 86, maiming at least

10,000, and assaulting thousands more. Tsvangirai was

detained seven times before Sunday and his key deputy was

imprisoned last week without trial on a bogus treason charge.

Yesterday, the house of another key deputy was trashed and

his elderly relatives assaulted.

Unless Africa and the UN act courageously, Mugabe will get

away with his brazen attempt to cling brutally to power and

impoverish his own people despite broad global contempt.

Mugabe has also refused to summon Parliament, which is

dominated by the Movement for Democratic Change and was

elected overwhelmingly in March. As a result, many of

Mugabe's cabinet ministers and loyalist remain in office,

drawing salaries, despite having lost their seats. Several

times, Mugabe and close associates have publicly declared

that the Movement and Tsvangirai would never be allowed to

take office or govern. ``Only God will remove me,'' Mugabe

defiantly declared Monday.

Conditions in Zimbabwe, where more than 80 percent of

adults are unemployed and nearly everyone is hungry; where

there are startling shortages of staple corn, wheat and

bread, sugar, oil, milk, and gasoline; and where brutality is

always around the next corner are even more horrific today

than they were in Uganda in 1979, when Nyerere invaded.

Famously, Mugabe told a BBC interviewer in 1999 that he was

``no Idi Amin.''

Mugabe's men have also continued to use food as a political

weapon, first stopping the supply of grain by international

relief agencies and last week physically stealing relief

shipments to give to their own supporters. Mugabe's thugs

have also harassed British and American diplomats at

roadblocks, in one case threatening to burn them alive in

their cars.

Zimbabwe's inflation now exceeds 160,000 percent a year.

One U.S. dollar buys 4 million Zimbabwe dollars at the

unofficial street rate. Mugabe and his close associates

exploit differences between official and unofficial exchange

rates to prosper while ordinary Zimbabweans go hungry or are

attacked.

Zimbabwe is in shambles. The United States and Britain

would doubtless like to act unilaterally, but dare not. Only

Africans and the UN have unquestioned moral authority. Which

African leaders will now emulate Nyerere's profile of courage

in Zimbabwe's dire time of need?

Madam Speaker, this year marks the 150th Anniversary of an extraordinarily important religious congregation in the City of Newton, which I am proud to represent in this body, and where I have lived for 28 years. Congregation Mishkan Tefila has been an important part of the City of Newton since 1957. Temple Mishkan Tefila has of course been primarily a place of worship for large numbers of Jewish men, women and young people, and through a series of outstanding rabbis and other leaders, it has performed that essential function superbly. It has also been a forum for community leadership in a number of other ways. Its doors have always been open to the community, both its own members and the community at large, and I have personally benefited from that openness on a number of occasions by being able to participate in forums that the temple has run, which have helped me and others fulfill our duties to relate to our constituents.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to salute the members of the Mishkan Tefila Congregation on this 150th Anniversary, and congratulate them on their opportunity both to look back on a very proud history, and to look forward to the promise of continued great service in the years ahead.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join with my colleague, the Senior Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), in hailing the proclamation of September 13th, 2008 as Dr. Bernard Lown Day.

In fact Madam Speaker, it would be a more accurate representation of the dimensions of Dr. Lown's great career if we were to proclaim several Dr. Bernard Lown Days. He is a man who has made numerous extremely valuable contributions to humanity in a number of fields, because he combines intellectual ability of the first order, a deep commitment to improving the quality of life of his coinhabitants of the planet, a capacity to translate his unsurpassed understanding of the actual functioning of the human heart into treatments and instruments that have significantly advanced the fight against heart diseases, and finally, a characteristic not often joined to some of those I have just listed, an understanding of the political process and how to move it.

In his professional life as a cardiologist, Dr. Lown invented the defibrillator and the cardioverter, and he was the first to use the drug lidocaine. In these innovations, in his own practice of over 50 years, and the knowledge he's imparted to countless numbers of younger--and by now not so young--other doctors, Dr. Lown has put all of us in his debt for his contributions to our health.

In addition, he has been a leader in international cooperation in the medical field, and in humanitarian work in general, recognizing early on that the fight against disease and poor health must know no artificial political boundaries.

Finally, he has been a leader in the effort to avert nuclear disaster and to promote a humane and sensible approach to international conflict. In recognition of these latter activities, Dr. Lown was a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate in 1985 for his work in co-founding the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and the work he had done--and of course continues to do--opposing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and promoting world peace.

It is sometimes said that people who try to do too many different things can diminish their ability to do any one thing. Bernard Lown's life is an example of exactly the opposite: the many areas of important human activity in which he has excelled have not detracted from each other but rather have reinforced each other, contributing to a life's work that has been a model of how one takes his very considerable talents and puts them at the service of others.

Senator Kennedy and I are delighted to have been given the privilege of representing Dr. Lown in the Congress of the United States and we are very proud to join here today in observing September 13th as Dr. Bernard Lown Day.

I thank the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. Speaker, I guess as I get older my memory is even worse than I thought. I thought I remembered what it was like when the Republicans were in power. But I don't seem to remember any of those bills my friend from Texas was just talking about. Apparently they were saving them up until we came to power, because I don't remember them ever bringing them up when we were here.

Having said that, I do want to apologize to my friends on the other side for talking about the legislation under consideration. I hope they will indulge me as I do that.

And as I do it, I want to say that I think what we've seen in the bill being brought forward by our newest colleagues from Louisiana and Mississippi is the importance of timing. We've had this problem in which public housing authorities in Louisiana and Mississippi were being treated unfairly. This is not singling them out for special treatment. This is ending a bureaucratic glitch that disadvantaged them. And we're doing it in the way that was suggested by the Bush administration, and I give them credit for that.

But it ought to be clear to people that having new Members here from Louisiana and Mississippi, the areas affected, had an impact. They are both on the Financial Services Committee, and I'm very proud that the Financial Services Committee on which they are now members gave them the opportunity to bring this bill forward.

I also want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Mississippi and the gentleman from Texas, the Chair and Subcommittee Chair of the Homeland Security Committee.

One of the things that plagues this institution is jurisdictional arguments and turf fights. I'm very pleased that we've been able, my colleagues particularly on the Homeland Security Committee, to work so closely together on this. I'm also glad to say that this is genuinely a bipartisan issue, and I appreciate the Republicans supporting us.

But I do want to stress again, this is no special deal for Louisiana and Mississippi. By a bureaucratic glitch, the existence of a provision that has never been funded keeps them from getting money to replace public housing that was destroyed. And there's a Federal program under FEMA that provides Federal funds for public buildings that are destroyed. This simply allows public housing a fair share.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express the strong feelings that I and many others have on the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel.

Israel was created by a U.N. resolution 60 years ago. People who have stressed the importance of U.N. resolutions with regard to the Middle East sometimes forget to note that when a U.N. resolution was passed which created the State of Israel in a fairly small part of what had then been Palestine, it evoked violent opposition from almost all of Israel's neighbors. That is, those countries which launched an armed attack aimed at obliterating Israel as it was born, in defiance of a U.N. resolution, do not come with clean hands when they talk now about living up to every U.N. resolution. That's no reason to ignore them, but it is a context that ought to be clear.

There are a number of perspectives that people bring to the existence of Israel and its history. There is one that I want to talk about in particular as a liberal.

By all of the values that motivate me to be in public life, the State of Israel is the only nation in the Middle East today that qualifies as a nation that respects them. Whether it is the principle of nondiscrimination--and some things are very controversial in their own country--the rights of women, free speech, the rights of gay men and lesbians, Israel stands out by a very strong margin over all of its neighbors.

I do want to address some of my friends on the left who are critical of some of the geopolitical aspects of this. It's legitimate to do it. Indeed, if you want to hear criticism of the approach Israel takes towards the peace process or the question of settlements, one of the best places to go is Israel. Because unlike every other Middle East nation, Israel is a place where democracy thrives. Indeed, one of the important lessons the existence of Israel teaches the world is that those who argue that if you have threats to your national security, democracy becomes a luxury, are wrong.

Israel was born under attack. It has lived its entire 60 years to date with the great hostility of its neighbors. It has fought a number of wars. And it is today confronted by many nations, Iran, for example, that profess to be interested in its obliteration. Despite that, it has maintained a strong democracy; governments win and governments lose. And the Israeli High Court has a record, frankly, that in some ways exceeds our own U.S. Supreme Court in vindicating civil liberties.

Now, having said that, I will add that I am critical of some aspects of Israel policy. The point, however, is that that's a right that people have within Israel to exercise those differences that others don't. I thought the recent comments by Secretary Rice that were somewhat critical of what Israel was doing were useful in helping move towards the peace process.

On the other hand, it ought to be clear, and I do believe Israel should continue to maintain its willingness to withdraw from most of the West Bank, I think they should be removing settlements, but it must be remembered, Israel did withdraw from southern Lebanon and it did withdraw from Gaza in the face of a good deal of controversy at home, one under Prime Minister

Barak, one under Prime Minister Sharon, of two different parties.

Tragically, in both cases, Israel's voluntary withdrawal was followed by the entrenchment in those two areas of organizations dedicated not simply to territorial change, but to Israel's obliteration, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza. And they have used those places from which Israel withdrew as bases for attacks. I understand the emotional reaction that says, ``We'll never do that again.'' I think it would be wrong; I do not think it would be in Israel's best interest. That does not mean they should not be able to defend themselves, of course they should.

But the fundamental point is this: Yes, there are serious issues about how to pursue peace. Nowhere are they more openly debated than within Israel itself, and that is one of the great glories of its 60 years.

Madam Speaker, Special Orders, such as I am now entered into, are a time when Members can fairly freely say things without fear of contradiction because generally no one is here. And as you listen to many of the Special Orders, there is a very good reason why no one is here: No one ought to want to pay any attention to them. And we have a certain amount of tolerance when it comes to Special Orders, but sometimes the stupidity level, it seems to me, is exceeded.

In a Special Order yesterday, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) said the following. He was denouncing the notion of financing public transportation from the gasoline tax. It does

seem to me that having public transportation available is one of the good ways to reduce the use of oil. High prices have driven more people to use public transportation, but that's a legitimate subject for debate. What is not a legitimate subject is to make things up.

The gentleman said yesterday, and I quote from the Record, ``And if you go to Barney Frank's district and you jump on--I don't know what they call it, the subway, the ``Big Dig,'' the major multibillion dollar boondoggle--and you buy a ticket to ride along on that thing, you get a cheap ticket because it's subsidized by H5321.'' Well, you can't buy a ticket to ride on the Big Dig, but if you could, it should be cheap because there's nothing to ride on.

In fact, quite contrary to what the gentleman from Iowa made up yesterday, the Big Dig is not a subway, the Big Dig is a highway. Now, it did cost a lot of money, but it was money that was spent on a highway. So when the gentleman says, ``I don't know what they call it, the subway, the Big Dig, the major multibillion dollar boondoggle''-- and by the way, it's not in my district. But that is such a small error compared to the major errors the gentleman made that I mention it only in passing. But I am baffled by why the gentleman would get up and purport to talk about something in Massachusetts and so mis-describe it.

So let me be very clear: The Big Dig is a highway, it is not a subway. A subway is a mass transit conveyor that goes underground. A highway is something on which cars go. So you can't buy a ticket on the Big Dig, and it is not a subway.

He said further, by the way, that you get a cheap ticket because it's subsidized by H5321. I don't know what H5321 is. There is a bill, H.R. 5321, which has absolutely nothing to do with public transportation, but accuracy does not appear to have been the governing principle in that conversation.

I do note that the gentleman from Iowa singled out three districts to discuss: San Francisco, represented by the Speaker, New York City--and he imputed all New York City to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Rangel--and myself. Why we three districts were singled out--myself, San Francisco, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Rangel--I don't know what emotions the gentleman from Iowa was seeking to evoke by, out of all of the public transportation districts, picking the three of us. Again, that's something he is entitled to do, but he is really not entitled to call a highway a subway and denounce us for that.

So, as I said, I understand that when you are here under Special Orders, you can generally get away with a great deal because there is no one to point things out. And I actually felt sufficiently concerned about the accuracy of what's said in the House that I waited around for a while. And I learned many interesting things about NASA, more than I had planned to, but that was an educational experience. But I would hope that Members in the future, when they want to go and attack things, would put a little effort into trying to know what they are talking about. It might elevate the debate.

Madam Speaker, this year marks the 150th Anniversary of an extraordinarily important religious congregation in the city of Newton, which I am proud to represent in this body, and where I have lived for 28 years. Congregation Mishkan Tefila has been an important part of the city of Newton since 1858. At that point, of course, Jewish citizens of the city were a very small number of a much smaller city. Over time, both the city and the Jewish population have grown significantly, and Temple Mishkan Tefila has been an important element in the growth of both. Temple Mishkan Tefila has of course been primarily a place of worship for large numbers of Jewish men, women and young people, and through a series of outstanding rabbis and other leaders, it has performed that essential function superbly. It has also been a forum for community leadership in a number of other ways. Its doors have always been open to the community, both its own members and the community at large, and I have personally benefited from that openness on a number of occasions by being able to participate in forums that the temple has run, which have helped me and others fulfill our duties to relate to our constituents.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to salute the members of the Mishkan Tefila Congregation on this 150th Anniversary, and congratulate them on their opportunity both to look back on a very proud history, and to look forward to the promise of continued great service in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 682) to award a congressional gold medal to Edward William Brooke III in recognition of his unprecedented and enduring service to our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, this bill was sponsored in the Senate by our very cherished colleague, Senator Kennedy, who served with former Senator Brooke for many years. It has been carried in the House with great vigor and care by our colleague from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and I yield her such time as she may consume.

How much time remains, Mr. Speaker?

I yield myself 4 minutes.

I consider it a great honor to be able to stand on the floor of this House and as the Chair of the committee bring out the bill that would honor Ed Brooke. As a citizen of Massachusetts in 1972 and again in 1978, and as a fairly partisan Democrat, I was proud publicly to endorse him for reelection both times to the Senate.

The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia made the point he was the first African American elected attorney general and then to the Senate only shortly after this country officially said segregation was morally and legally wrong. 1954 was the Brown v. Board of Education decision, not made final until 1955 in its decree. Seven years later Ed Brooke is elected attorney general. And as we look back now, it is probably difficult for some people to understand what an important accomplishment that was. But he is not a man who should be honored simply for having broken those barriers, because having gotten the opportunity, he used it.

The committee I chair has jurisdiction over housing. As I work in the housing area, I find myself frequently trying to preserve some of the pioneering efforts on behalf of affordable housing that Ed Brooke created. I was very proud about a month or so ago when he called to say that he liked what we were doing.

I was just reminded, Mr. Speaker, when I was up in our State of Massachusetts over the weekend, that it was in 1978, in his last year in the Senate, that Ed Brooke began the policy of saying that when housing had been built with Federal help with a certain restriction that set it aside for lower

income people and those restrictions expire, it shouldn't be simply sold to the highest bidder, but that public policy ought to make some efforts to preserve it for people who were in need of housing. We are still fighting that fight today.

We have something known as the Brooke amendment, one of the greatest acts of compassion ever to pass this body. It said originally that the poorest of the poor who get housing through various public programs shouldn't be expected to pay more than 25 percent of their income for housing, precisely because they have so little. That was changed, regrettably, in the eighties. I voted against it, but it was changed to 30 percent. But it is still there. It is still the Brooke amendment. It is still a major barrier to a degradation in the quality of life of lower income people, because there are those who would make them pay 40 and 50 and 60 percent of their income, depriving them and their children of the necessities of life. So it is with great pride that we fight and have fought to continue the Brooke amendment.

Senator Brooke was a leader in a number of areas. Yes, he broke the barrier of racism and became the first African American to win statewide office in Massachusetts and then to come to the Senate at a time when racism was even more virulent than it is today. We have made strides in diminishing it.

But, as I said, he didn't just do that. He was a leader in a number of areas, and particularly in the housing area. I don't believe anybody who has ever served in the Congress of the United States has a record that exceeds his.

So I am delighted to join under the leadership of our colleague Senator Kennedy and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) in voting for this medal, the second medal, the third medal that Brooke will have gotten, because he got the Presidential Medal of Freedom and he earned the Bronze Medal in World War II, fighting in a segregated outfit, putting patriotism ahead of the indignities to which he submitted in the fight against that terrible tyranny.

This is a medal well earned by a man who exemplified the commitment to the public welfare that we could well remember today.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that because of the energy of a number of people, we are going to be awarding this gold medal to a man who so richly deserves it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I am about to yield back.

Ed Brooke, in addition to being a superb United States Senator who fought very hard and very effectively for economic fairness and obviously against racial prejudice, but he also was the chief law enforcement officer of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for 4 years.

Just to give people a flavor of that, I will mention one accomplishment. It was under his attorney generalship that the Boston Strangler was prosecuted and imprisoned. So people who may not otherwise be able to relate should know. And if you saw him in the movie, I think he was played by Raymond St. Jacques, but if you go see again the movie of the Boston Strangler, you will see a part of that book. We are here to talk about a number of other parts, including a superb legislative record on behalf of social fairness.

I am prepared to yield back if the gentlewoman is.

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

First I ask that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to submit their comments and material on this matter.

Madam Speaker, the overriding economic issue confronting our country is the task of proceeding with the increased globalization of the economy in a manner that promotes an equitable distribution of the benefits. For too many years, until fairly recently, there was a consensus supported by many in the academic and business establishments that argued that concern about the distribution of the benefits of globalization was unnecessary at best and disruptive at worst, and that if we simply proceeded with greater openness, in trade, in the freeing of capital from any restraints, and in other ways, we would all be better off.

It is now indisputable that this is not the case, and that growth has proceeded in the U.S.--and in some other parts of the world--in recent years in a manner that has increased both wealth and inequality. Of course it is the case that in a capitalist system, some inequality is necessary for the economy to function. But we have seen inequality grow far beyond what is either productive or, in the minds of many of us, morally justifiable. Many of us have argued to people in the business community that the resentment that is being generated--very legitimately--by this increased inequality has become an obstacle to the adoption of policies that they think are in our national interest. Many of us, including I believe the leadership on economic issues of the Democratic Party here in the House, believe that we should proceed with globalization in a reasonable and orderly way, but accompanied by policies that offset its tendencies to increase inequality, erode environmental standards, and promote reckless deregulation. Recently, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers wrote interesting articles in the Financial Times strongly arguing that such a position is both necessary and achievable. In the Financial Times of May 21, Martin Wolf, a very thoughtful economic commentator, makes a further important contribution to this debate. The movement from an unqualified cheer for globalization without any concern for its negative consequences on substantial numbers of Americans to a thoughtful discussion of how to go forward with the economic integration of the world in a socially useful manner is a very welcome one. Martin Wolf's contribution to that debate in the Financial Times is therefore very important and I ask that it be printed here.

[From the Financial Times, May 21, 2008]

How To Preserve the Open Economy at a Time of Stress

(By Martin Wolf)

Is the spread of prosperity in the interests of citizens of

today's high-income countries? Is globalisation of their

economies in their interest?

These distinct questions are raised in my mind by two

important columns from Lawrence Summers (``America needs to

make a new case for trade'' on April 27 and ``A strategy to

promote healthy globalisation'' on May 4). In these, Mr.

Summers argues that the international economic policies of

the U.S. need to be coupled more closely to the interests of

its workers. Many Europeans will concur.

This is not to argue that the interests of citizens of

high-income countries are more important than those of

others. On the contrary, the view that increases in incomes

of the poor offset equivalent losses for the rich is morally

compelling. But politics is national. Unless or until a

global political community emerges, politics will respond

only to perceptions of national interest.

So is the rising prosperity of China, India and other

emerging economies in the interests of today's high-income

countries? The correct answer to this is: not necessarily. It

would be absurd to pretend otherwise.

The big advantages of the spread of prosperity include a

wider distribution of innovation and bigger opportunities for

profitable exchange. The rise of the U.S. brought such

benefits to the U.K. Also valuable (though not certain) is

greater political stability in previously impoverished

countries.

The big disadvantage is greater competition for scarce

resources. Power is a scarce resource: if country A has more,

country B has less. Resources are also limited. If commodity

prices rise, the terms of trade (the relative prices of

exports and imports) of net importers will deteriorate:

countries have to sell more exports to obtain given imports.

Since the end of 2001, U.S. terms of trade have

deteriorated by an eighth, as commodity prices have soared

and the currency devalued. This has turned an 18 per cent

increase in real gross domestic product between the last

quarter of 2001 and the fourth quarter of 2008 into a 16.4

per cent increase in real national income. The difference is

not huge. But it is worth some $220bn in today's dollars. So

countries may indeed be harmed by the prosperity of others.

(See charts).

The answer to this is: so what? As Willem Buiter has

pointed out (Economic Internationalism 101, Maverecon, May

5), nothing can be done to halt the diffusion of ``knowledge,

skills, technology, management systems'' and so forth. Or at

least nothing rational or decent can be done. Of course, the

U.S. could launch an unprovoked blockade or even war against

China or India. To mention such ideas is to reveal their

strategic and moral bankruptcy.

The U.S. could, it is true, try to halt the flow of ideas.

The U.K. tried to halt the spread of technology to the U.S.

in the early 19th century: it failed. The Chinese empire once

made it a capital crime to export silkworms: that failed,

too. Similarly, protectionism against the emerging countries

might slow their growth, but would not halt it. Yet it would

guarantee a breakdown in international relations that

threatened hopes of a peaceful future.

To repeat, nothing can be done about the rise of emerging

countries, as they follow the

lead of the west. What cannot be helped must be accepted.

This takes us to my second question. Given the rise of the

emerging world, should the developed world limit the

globalisation of its own economies? Of course, so long as

high-income countries depend on imports of commodities, trade

will be essential. Self-sufficiency is a mirage. It is a

question rather of how much openness to trade and movement of

capital and labour there should be.

One issue has been the huge current account deficits of the

U.S. Yet these are at last contracting, as export growth

explodes (see chart).

On trade more narrowly, the basic point is well known: free

trade is in the interests of the country adopting the policy,

unless it has monopoly power. But--an important ``but''--the

benefits and costs are likely to be unevenly distributed. The

latter is particularly likely for trade between rich and poor

countries. Free movement of capital or labour may also harm

important interest groups within a country even if it raises

aggregate incomes. The freer movement becomes, the harder it

may also be to impose taxes and regulations on those able to

move.

As Mr. Summers argues, it is hard for a democracy to

proceed with policies that a large minority believes are

against their interests. If the fall-back position is not to

be protectionism, itself no more than an inefficient tax and

subsidy programme, more creative options must be chosen. The

most obvious point, at least for the U.S. is the need to

shift the provision of security from employers to the state.

Corporate welfare states are unsustainable in a dynamic and

open economy.

Yet if the U.S. is to have a more generous welfare state,

including universal health provision, as in every other high-

income country, taxes will have to be raised. Indeed, they

will have to be raised even to meet existing commitments. Mr.

Summers argues, in response, for international action against

harmful tax competition, He argues, too, for greater

international agreement on regulation. In some areas, notably

finance, the latter makes sense. But the view that the U.S.

must obtain such agreements if it is to raise some of the

lowest levels of taxation and weakest regulation in the

advanced world is unpersuasive. If Sweden's taxes can be 56

per cent of GDP, it is not tax competition that keeps the

U.S. at just 34 percent. The mobility of capital and people

is an excuse, not a justification, for low U.S. tax levels.

What is desperately needed is an honest debate about these

issues. Such a debate would, I believe, reach four

fundamental conclusions. First, whether or not citizens of

the U.S. (or other high-income countries) welcome it, the

global spread of economic development is ineluctable. Second,

protection against imports is a costly and ineffective way of

dealing with the consequences. Third, parties of the centre-

left should argue for redistributing the spoils of

globalisation, not sacrificing them. Finally, a necessary

condition is higher taxation of the winners. But the chief

obstacle to that is a lack of domestic political will.

Globalisation is not a reason for low taxes, but an excuse.

It should be discarded.

Everybody should remember, above all, that the opening of

the world economy is the west's greatest economic policy

achievement. It would be a tragedy if it were to turn its

back on the world when the rest of humanity is at last

turning towards it.