Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, here they go again. Once again, the Republican Party is demanding of the courts that they be more activist. Earlier this year, we passed a resolution denouncing the Supreme Court in the case of eminent domain for not overturning decisions of local and State elected officials in Connecticut. Today, we are asked to denounce the Ninth Circuit Court for not overturning the actions of a local School Board. And here is the nub of the Court's holding, quote, ``although we reached our conclusions with little difficulty and firmly endorse the school districts' authority to conduct a survey for the purposes involved here, we reiterate that we express no view on the wisdom of posing some of the particular questions asked or of conducting an inquiry into the particular areas surveyed by the school district.'' And here is what the majority is apparently upset about. That determination is properly left to the school authorities.

In other words, where is activism when you need it, Madam Speaker? Why do we not have a Supreme Court tell the people in Connecticut, elected officials, you may not do this economic development the way you want? We, the unelected Supreme Court, will overturn you. Here, without a specific textual phrase in the Constitution, even like taking of property, we say to the Ninth Circuit, how dare you say this is up to the school board?

The gentleman from Pennsylvania made some arguments that were very plausible to me about the lack of sense for some of these questions. He was critical. He said, you should not ask these of first, third and fifth graders. But it is not up to the courts to decide what is good or bad psychology. That is up to the school district.

And again, let us be very clear. This is the second time in a couple of months the majority has complained that the courts, the Federal courts, have not cancelled out the actions of local elected officials and State elected officials. Now, that is only a problem for this point.

What we ought to have is honesty in attacking the judiciary. Truth in demagoguery.

The point is that when you say you are opposed to the courts because they are activists and because lifetime-appointed judges are overturning elected officials, that ought to be what you mean. If you mean you do not like the particular outcome, say so. It is perfectly legitimate to be result-oriented, and lots of us are.

The problem here is the lack of intellectual honesty. Clearly, people are not opposed to judicial activism. In the case of eminent domain, in the case of this situation here, they are opposed to the lack of judicial activism.

Now, I also wonder how far that extends, because on Monday, the Supreme Court decided a far more important case, I believe, to the parents involved regarding their rights vis-a-vis their children. By a 6-2 vote, the Supreme Court said that the burden of proof is on the parents of a child with a disability. If the parents disagree

with what the school has proposed to educate a child with a disability, they, the individual parent, has the burden of proof in court in overturning what the school board has decided.

Now, I have to tell my colleagues this: I think if you are the parent of a disabled child, getting that child the proper educational structure is more important than whether or not she has to do a sex survey. You might dislike the sex survey, but I would think to most parents, getting the right education for your child is more important. But the Supreme Court said, no, the burden of proof is on you, the parent. You, the parent, have the burden of proof with regard to your child's education.

Where are the assertions of the absolute right of the parents? Why do the parents not have the kind of rights you are claiming? Was that making parenting unconstitutional? Did Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas who are in the majority make parenting unconstitutional when they said you, the parent, have the burden of proof if you want to improve the educational structure of your children?

In other words, what the majority says is when we do not like a decision, we will criticize the court. That is fine, that is free speech, as long as you do not get into PATRIOT Act situations. But why disguise what you are saying? If you really do not like the result, say you do not like the result. Why all these complaints about activism when what we have here is again a complaint about the absence of activism?

So I hope going forward, we will have honest debates about what the courts do and do not do, and we will stop pretending that we are upset about activism when what you are really upset about is judicial pacifism. You want the Ninth Circuit to overturn the Palmdale School Board. Well, why does a Member of Congress not do something about that with the school board of Palmdale? You are upset because the Supreme Court did not overturn the elected officials in Connecticut. Let us have some honesty in this regard.

Madam Speaker, let me ask the gentleman, because I know he has studied this well. I have read the opinion. I have not read the pleading. I do not know what specific phrase in the Constitution they pointed to, but I wonder from an originalist standpoint, did John Adams and James Madison want the Supreme Court to have the right, did they say that there was this absolute parental right? I would ask the gentleman, is this one of those nasty things we find lurking in that penumbra, which is such an unpleasant word?

Well, I cannot answer as to where the whole Federalist Society is, but I can tell the gentleman where at least one of the leaders of the Federalist Society who introduced my Governor the other day, I know where he was. He was busy making jokes about two Senators in the Ku Klux Klan, which he seemed to think, as did others, was riotously funny.

Absolutely. Let us just be very clear. I, from what I have read, would not have voted to issue that survey. I think it was a mistake. But I hope the majority is not telling us that it is the role of the circuit courts of appeals to second-guess the psychological judgments of the school boards.

Again, you may disagree even with what the court said in terms of the final decision, but let us be intellectually honest. It is a lack of activism. In the eminent domain case here, it is a lack of activism. It is a complaint by the majority that the courts have upheld decisions by local officials that the majority does not like. They have a right to that view; they just do not have a right to disguise it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, a couple weeks ago the majority in the House narrowly imposed on the bill creating an affordable housing fund with funds from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac severe restrictions to keep insidious left-wing organizations from undermining the stability of this country. I have a letter here from one of the organizations that was so targeted. It

is that radical group known as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, a set of groups in local communities that, to quote them, ``pray at each meeting that families and those who have no home quickly may find a place in which they can live a decent and happy life.''

Here is what this subversive organization of deeply religious people dedicated to trying to help the poor have to say:

``Our members live in communities across the country. They serve individuals and families with no homes, families on the verge of homelessness. We see what they are going through. Many Councils of the Society provide shelter and housing for the poor. The poor need a voice just as much as Americans who have the financial ability to own their own homes. They, too, should be allowed the privilege to register to vote, regardless of where they live; and nonprofits should not be penalized for providing them an opportunity to do so.''

Council of the United States,

Society of St. Vincent De Paul,

St. Louis, MO, November 2, 2005.

Hon. Barney Frank,

Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.

Dear Rep. Frank: As National President of the Society of

St. Vincent de Paul representing 116,000 members across the

United States in 4,000 parishes, I urge you to:

1. Support the Affordable Housing Fund in the GSE

legislation (H.R. 1461), but without restricting an

organization's right to engage in voter registration.

2. Oppose any language that restricts voter registration

and freedom of affiliation by non-profit and public

organizations when using their own funds.

3. Tell House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and Financial

Service Chairman Mike Oxley (R-OH) to reject these

restrictions and bring the bill to the floor for a vote

without this language.

Members of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul pray at each

meeting ``that families and those who have no home may

quickly find a place in which they can live a decent and

happy life.'' I ask that you help us to continue to make this

a reality.

It is our belief that it is the right of every American to

vote. Access to the privilege to register to vote should not

be conditioned upon where people live or what their financial

condition is. Nonprofit organizations such as the Society of

St. Vincent de Paul, work tirelessly to serve the poor. It is

irresponsible to hold organizations hostage by this

restrictive measure that impinges on the rights of poor

Americans and upon those who seek to help give a face and a

voice to the many that are voiceless. We see from the recent

tragedies in the south that there are many poor and today

many more homeless who need shelter. Adding such limitations

on those who are trying so hard to help is wrong.

The Society has been serving the poor in America for over

150 years. Our members live in communities across the

country. They regularly visit and serve individuals and

families with no homes, families on the verge of

homelessness, and families who live in hazardous and

substandard conditions. We see what they are going through.

Many Councils of the Society provide shelter and housing for

the poor. The poor need a voice just as much as Americans who

have the financial ability to afford their own homes. They,

too, should be allowed the privilege to register to vote

regardless of where they live, and nonprofits should not be

penalized for providing them an opportunity to do so.

Sincerely,

Joseph Flannigan,

National President,

Society of St. Vincent de Paul.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the previous speaker and many of the other Republican speakers that the recent decision allowing eminent domain for private economic gain was a bad one. But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are blaming some of the wrong people.

The Supreme Court was not the author of this policy. What the United States Supreme Court did in the Kelo case was to allow elected officials at the State and local level to go forward with what they wanted. In other words, the complaint of my Republican colleagues about the Supreme Court in this case is, where was judicial activism when we needed it?

They are denouncing the Supreme Court because it did not overturn the decision of locally elected officials. I

happen to agree in this specific case. But try to square that with their rhetoric in which they are talking about activist judges and unelected officials.

What they are implicitly acknowledging here is that there are times when they very much want unelected and lifetime-appointed judges to overturn what local officials did, because the case here of eminent domain is a case not of the Supreme Court taking anything aggressive. As I said before, the Supreme Court does not use eminent domain. That building across the street has not gotten one inch bigger since I got here. What the Supreme Court did was to allow the local officials' decision to stand. That is the kind of lack of activism that my Republican colleagues deplore.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I have to comment on the irony that we have people here defending vigorous open debate and free speech by invoking one of the most restrictive procedures of the House of Representatives. Apparently, people here believe that James Madison thought that there should be free debate except in the Congress of the United States.

Under the procedure, and people should understand who will be monitoring this debate, for many of us the key issue is not the substance. Yes, I thing we ought to legislate. It is the outrageous high-handed arrogance we have seen now become, unfortunately, second nature to the majority, that brings an important bill invoking constitutional principles and history and modern technology, and how you integrate those, and the question of campaign finance, into the most restrictive procedure.

We have 40 minutes to debate this. No amendments are possible. Apparently this is the perfect bill. This must have sprung like Minerva from the forehead of Zeus in perfect form, and here it is. God forbid that the United States Congress or House of Representatives should be able to amend it or change it.

It will be here. Take it or leave it. And of course the assumption is that people who agree that we should not be restricting the free use of the Internet will be so intimidated by the fear that if they voted ``no'' they will be criticized that they will fall in line.

No, I do not think that works any more. I think the American public is smart enough to know that the end does not always justify the means and that the irony of purporting to defend free speech by shutting it down in the Congress of the United States is too bizarre.

You want to know how restrictive this is? This procedure allows a total of 40 minutes for debate. Is 40 minutes a lot of time? This Republican majority has regularly kept roll calls open after debates have finished for longer than we get to debate this bill. They will spend way more than 40 minutes twisting each other's arms in private, rather than allow us to have the debate time.

What, are we overworked? We are hardly as a Congress overworked. We would have plenty of time to debate it. Whatever happened to the notion that a bill comes out of committee, and I am a ranking member of a committee. I would not allow for my committee, if I could help it, a bill to come to the floor where there was substantial opposition under suspension of the rules.

This has nothing to do with the substance. There are issues to be debated here. Forty minutes and no debate. The rules are suspended because free speech is so important to these supporters that free speech must be sacrificed as we get it. They are going to destroy the village in order to save it. If someone would explain to me, I would yield my time, why we could not have this as a regular bill under regular procedure.

Is there some reason unbeknownst to me that kept us from having this as a bill that came to the floor, that people can go to the Rules Committee and we could have amendments and we could debate it for more than 20 minutes on each side. I would be glad to yield to any advocate of free speech who can tell me why it has become inapplicable in this bill.

Well, I have no takers. Apparently, all we get in defense of this is free silence. And I will commend my colleagues for having the good sense not to try to defend their procedure.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let us do that. Let us defeat this now and send it to a rule. The gentleman from California's (Mr. Doolittle) idea of a substantive defense is maybe a tribute to the gallantry that he continues to exemplify long after it may have gone out of fashion. He says the reason this is a good idea is that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) said so.

I highly esteem my colleague from California with whom I disagree in this case. But the notion that her imprimatur is in itself a substantive defense of failing to follow the regular procedure does not meet the argument.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, you said all of the Members there present. How many were there?

Mr. Speaker, how many Republicans?

Mr. Speaker, so apparently four or five Members have been able to do this. I will repeat that we have heard no substantive defense of why this came.

I would agree with what the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) said, sometimes you do not know something is controversial; but once you learn that it is, then you have the regular procedure.

I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, do I oppose it? Yes, I oppose it. Under this procedure I will oppose it. I will not support the diminution, the continued reduction of democracy in the House.

And I think, yes, there could be a lot of free speech, but not by shutting it down in the House. I will say again, nobody can give us a substantive justification of why this is being done this way. Look, this involves the Constitution. It involves the complex issues of campaign finance regulation. It involves how you take technology and how you adapt basic constitutional principles to it, and that is to be debated by 20 minutes on each side, and that is to be preformed with no amendments.

Mr. Speaker, it is a joke. It is self-parody. Let us all defend free speech by not having any. I hope that this is voted down and that we then can have an appropriate debate under the rules of the House with amendments and with full discussion.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, again, invoking one other individual does not pass for substantive debate. I am surprised. Do you not understand what real argument is?

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by telling you how impressed I am with the firm statement of principle apparently by the Republican Study Committee. Confronted with an appropriations bill that they believe wrecks the budget, violates the House rules, they are calling for a firm and principled ``present'' on the rule. That is an inspirational example of how to combat wrongdoing. It does give new meaning to the faith-based initiative. Apparently the gentleman from Indiana thinks this is a terrible rule and a bad bill, but because he has faith that by some process, apparently others will be excluded, that the chairman of the committee will fix it, he will refrain from voting against it.

I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Connecticut, who fights very hard for the most important parts of this bill, in my judgment, those which my colleague from Massachusetts alluded to, those which try to alleviate hunger, food stamps and international feeding programs, and I am pleased that they have survived the onslaught as well as they have. I hope that when we get to the reconciliation process, her efforts and the efforts of others who care about these things will succeed.

There is one aspect of the feeding program, however, where I find myself in sharp disagreement with the conference report, and at this point I would include for the record a speech given to the Kansas City Export Food Aid Conference in May by USAID Administrator Natsios.

[From the Kansas City Export Food Aid Conference, May 3, 2005]

The Local Purchase Initiative

(Remarks by Andrew S. Natsios, Administrator, U.S. Agency for

International Development)

I am very pleased to be here today to discuss U.S. food

aid--what we have done right in the past and what we can do

to improve how we conduct our food aid programs in light of

new challenges since September 11, 2001.

Last year when I was here, I talked about the success of

U.S. food aid over the past 50 years and how we have assisted

more than 3 billion people through P.L. 480 programs. Over

the past twelve months, many of you have continued to work

with people in Sri Lanka and Indonesia whose lives were

devastated as a result of the Tsunami as well as people in

Sudan, Ethiopia and Eritrea who have been hit hard by the

equally overwhelming consequences of conflict and drought. In

addition, many of your organizations contribute to long term

development programs in places like Honduras and Bangladesh

that strengthen communities so that when they face sudden or

slow onset disasters, they are prepared and better able to

cope with the setbacks. You have continued to work tirelessly

to save and improve people's lives. I appreciate the

partnerships we have created together to address food

insecurity.

I want to take a few minutes now to talk about changes in

the world over the past few years and how the change has

affected our ability to meet food aid needs. Our Agency, and

particularly our food programs now operate in an environment

characterized by increased frequency and severity of natural

and manmade disasters, terrorism, instability, the HIV/AIDS

pandemic, corruption, poor governance and conflict which has

led to increased population displacement.

The United States Government is facing increasing demands

on its diplomatic, military and humanitarian resources. And

the resources are limited. But not responding is not an

option, so we prioritize and stretch the dollars to meet as

many needs as possible as efficiently as possible.

At the same time, the World Trade Organization continues

its debate on food aid issues in the context of the current

agricultural trade negotiations. Some of the other members

would like to do away with in-kind food aid such as the P.L.

480 Title II program. The U.S. has made two presentations at

the WTO in Geneva on U.S. food aid policies and programs. At

these presentations and in the negotiations we keep reminding

member states, and relevant international organizations that

we must come to an agreement that will ensure (1) that we

maintain adequate food aid levels to meet global needs; (2)

that food aid continues to be an internationally accepted

form of assistance when it targets food insecure populations;

and (3) that we minimize any trade distortions. I won't

belabor this any further as I know that there will be a more

in-depth discussion on trade issues over the next few days.

Let me just say that we will continue to try to ensure that

the WTO Doha Development Round does not restrict in-kind food

aid. If food aid is unduly restricted, inhibit development,

increase food insecurity and create instability in developing

countries.

In President Bush's 2002 National Security Strategy, he

acknowledged the importance of fighting poverty abroad when

he defined the three pillars of our foreign policy as

Defense, Diplomacy and Development. Recognizing that we

cannot address all of today's problems using our military

or diplomatic resources, he emphasized that what we do as

development practitioners can also serve to protect vital

American national interests.

In January of this year, USAID released a paper focusing

attention on failing, failed and recovering states known as

the Fragile States Strategy. The strategy provides a focal

point for the USAID Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and

Humanitarian assistance in defining its priorities and in

carrying out its humanitarian assistance role. The strategy

promotes four basic objectives for carrying out work in

fragile, failed and failing states which are to: (1) improve

monitoring and analysis; (2) ensure that priorities respond

to realities on the ground; (3) focus programs on the source

of the fragility or weakness; and (4) create or use

streamlined operational procedures to support rapid and

effective response.

Failed states are both the incubator and sanctuary for

terrorists. Where there is no effective national government

to control terrorist organizations, these groups will

flourish. It was no accident that Sudan, Somalia, and

Afghanistan served as the base of Al Qaeda training and

planning. As the National Security Strategy document so

succinctly puts it: ``America is now threatened less by

conquering states than by failing ones.'' We now know by

painful experience that we are not immune from the

consequences that arise from state failure on other

continents.

Our underlying priorities, in working in fragile states,

are to increase stability, promote security, encourage reform

and build institutional capacity. This will address the

causes of fragility as opposed to simply targeting symptoms.

The President's 2006 budget proposes reforms which will give

USAID the programmatic tools to deal with fragile states.

In crisis situations, strategic programming of food aid can

stabilize a fragile economy by supporting local farmers and

maintaining demand for the locally produced goods, despite

the low purchasing power of those requiring assistance.

Famines can be demand driven or supply driven. A supply

driven famine is caused by reduced food production and rising

prices. In this case, importing U.S. food to increase the

food supply would be an appropriate response. A demand driven

famine is caused by the collapse of family livelihoods and

the inability of families to access food, even where there is

adequate supply and low prices. In cases where the food

supply is adequate and prices stable, but where families

cannot afford to purchase the food, an appropriate response

would be to purchase what is available locally to assist the

food insecure rather than adding U.S. food to the local

supply which could depress local prices and further aggravate

the economy.

As with all of our work in fragile countries, we need to

take a close look at all of our options when responding to

needs. The work is getting more rather than less arduous and

it is evident that we must expand the ways in which we

conduct our business. The old way of doing business is

insufficient to meet the mounting food needs in this new

environment given our limited dollars.

Despite all that we are doing, and all that the rest of the

world is doing to win the war on hunger, the number of

chronically malnourished people in the world continues to

rise, now totaling more than 850 million people. And though

the prevalence of undernourishment has fallen in 30

developing countries since the early 1990s, poverty and

conflict have contributed to its growth elsewhere.

In the past decade, and especially in the past several

years, conflict-related emergencies and natural disasters

have created global food needs beyond the capacity of the

U.S. and other donors to respond using the options currently

available to us. In specific situations, when food pipelines

break or when conflicts pause and we need to move food in

quickly to save lives, we need to be able to access food more

quickly.

In his book on famine, Fred Cuny stated that ``the chances

of saving lives at the outset of a [relief] operation are

greatly reduced when food is imported. By the time it arrives

in the country and gets to people, many will have died.'' He

goes on to say that ``evidence suggests the massive food

shipments sent to Ethiopia in 1985 had little impact on the

outcome of the famine . . . and that by the time it arrived

in sufficient, steady quantities in the rural areas, the

death rate had peaked and was already declining.''

Some of the starkest evidence we have of deaths directly

related to a slow food aid response took place in Gode,

Ethiopia, the epicenter of the 2000 famine there, which

threatened over 10 million people with starvation. While the

famine was eventually averted--the Centers for Disease

Control has estimated that in Gode, 20,000 deaths resulted

from the crisis in that region alone with an estimated 78,000

deaths in four other regions. Seventy-seven percent of the

deaths in Gode occurred before the major relief interventions

began in the summer of 2000 and more than half of the deaths

were of children under the age of five.

One way to respond to the needs more quickly is to purchase

food locally, but this requires us to have access to cash.

When food emergencies are a function of localized drought,

conflict or crop failure from disease or locusts with food

available close-by, local purchase can be critical.

USAID is searching for innovative ways to stretch its

dollars and meet the needs of the most vulnerable populations

with emergency and developmental food assistance. One way of

doing this is to provide cash which could be used to purchase

food in the country or region where an emergency is taking

place.

For FY 2006, President Bush has taken the initiative to

provide this tool to USAID humanitarian officers and has put

a request into the FY 2006 budget asking that $300 million be

shifted out of P.L. 480 Title II and into the International

Disaster and Famine Assistance (IDFA) account to be used as

cash for meeting emergency food needs. Specifically, the

President stated in his budget that ``This funding will

permit USAID to provide food assistance in the most timely

and efficient manner to the most critical emergency food

crises. This assistance will be used in those instances where

the rapid use of cash assistance is critical to saving

lives.''

One of the factors behind this request is the length of

time that it takes to ship food commodities from the United

States to an emergency. Shipping in-kind assistance from the

U.S. normally requires three or four months to arrive at an

emergency distribution point once it is ordered. Having the

option to purchase the food in the same country or region

where an emergency is happening would enable us to get food

to hungry people faster. It would save lives and would fill a

critical gap until U.S. commodities arrive at the site. In

addition to providing a faster option, local purchases of

food will, in many cases, save the dollars that would

otherwise have been spent on transportation costs, allowing

us to purchase additional food aid to feed more people.

The primary purpose of the Title II program is to save

lives and having more flexibility in our programs to use cash

to buy food locally will save lives. The fact that U.S.

farmers and shippers are able to benefit from the Food for

Peace program is an important, but secondary benefit. It is

not the primary objective of the program. The primary

objective is to save lives.

In responding to pending crises, USAID has limited options:

We can order a shipment of U.S. commodities which can be

expected to arrive at the distribution site within 3 to 4

months of purchase.

We can access food from pre-positioned U.S. commodity

stocks or swap commodities from other food pipelines.

However, the limited pre-positioned stocks are not always

adequate or suitable for every situation and increasingly

thin pipelines have lately rendered swaps infeasible.

Within the past year, we have established a pre-position

warehouse in Dubai, UAE to store commodities until they are

needed in an emergency. While this is extremely useful, we

cannot always preposition the amount or appropriate mix of

commodities that would be needed in every emergency. Also,

pre-positioning will not solve every problem. For example,

currently Ethiopia is facing an unexpectedly severe food

crisis and while the current supplemental budget has a

sizable increase in food aid, it cannot be used to order food

until the President signs it. When this happens, we will need

to order the commodities in the U.S., ship them, and then

wait for them to arrive in Ethiopia several months from now.

Needless deaths will occur while we wait. If we had the

flexibility to purchase food locally, we could purchase the

commodities in or near Ethiopia once the legislation is

signed, getting the food to the people who need it months

sooner. This is not a hypothetical situation--it is taking

place as we speak.

Another option that we have to meet emergencies is to

divert U.S. commodities headed to other programs on the high

seas. And while this has been done, it is an extremely costly

intervention. It means that another program will suffer, and

ultimately means less money for commodities.

The ability to purchase food supplies in local or regional

markets would give us one more option for meeting critical

needs. While this will not always be viable, this flexibility

will make a difference in the reduction of human suffering.

I want to be very clear that this requested change is not

an attack on the U.S. farmers or the U.S. maritime industry.

The contributions that many of you have made in feeding

hungry people overseas is notable and will continue to be a

critical, basic component of how the U.S. conducts its

management of food aid. The Administration has no intention

of changing how the United States runs its food aid programs

in general. This is not the beginning of a push to make our

food aid program an all-cash program. I personally would

oppose any kind of proposal to make more than one quarter of

our food aid budget available for local purchase. The greater

portion of U.S. food aid must continue to be purchased in

American markets where the supply is assured for emergencies

where large volume is needed.

One thing that I have been asked repeatedly is: How will we

sustain support on Capitol Hill for these humanitarian food

aid programs, if the benefits to the U.S. agricultural and

shipping industries are perceived to be decreased? The budget

for OFDA, the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, and the

Refugee Program budget have been as stable in funding as the

Food for Peace budget, and these two budgets contain no

guaranteed purchase of U.S. commodities. Americans, including

those who have been intimately involved in our food aid

programs in the past, will strongly support USAID's effort to

improve the U.S. food response to humanitarian emergencies by

making that response as flexible and effective as possible to

save more lives and reduce suffering. I believe that

compassion for those who are suffering is part of the moral

fabric of this society. This was evident to me in the massive

outpouring of private cash contributions to help the victims

of the Tsunami and I believe that it holds true here.

Stretching our emergency resources further will also help

to protect our development programs from being tapped to meet

emergency needs.

I know that many of you have questions about how we will

run this program and I will try to answer as many of them as

possible.

The Administration has requested that the money be placed

in the International Disaster and Famine Account. This is the

emergency account managed by our Office of Foreign Disaster

Assistance. However, the $300 million designated to this

account for the purchase of food aid will be managed by the

Office of Food for Peace, which currently manages the Title

II food aid program. As Food for Peace currently has the

responsibility for and the expertise in managing food aid,

they are the appropriate group to administer this money. The

money, like current Title II money, will be programmed

primarily through NGOs and the World Food Program.

One of the questions that I have been asked is: Is there

enough food available in local markets to meet our emergency

needs? Though local purchase will not support all of our food

aid initiatives, there is food available for purchase in

developing countries. In 2004 more than $680 million worth of

food aid was purchased from developing countries by WFP in

order to meet local food aid needs. Developing countries able

to supply food aid commodities have included (but are not

limited to) Indonesia, Pakistan, South Africa and Sudan. This

method not only provides food more quickly and more cheaply,

it also supports the local economy and helps improve the

livelihoods of poor farmers.

We follow the principle of ``Do no Harm'' in local markets.

The $300 million will not all be used to purchase and program

food in a single country, but in a variety of countries,

reducing the impact on local markets. We also intend to apply

Title II legislated requirements such as Bellmon and Usual

Marketing Requirement, where local purchases are conducted to

ensure that there will be no displacement of commercial

sales, or negative impact on local markets.

I have also been asked several times why we can't just use

our notwithstanding authority under Title II to make local

purchases. I have been told in no uncertain terms by our

USAID lawyers that we cannot use our notwithstanding

authority for local purchases. Title II authorizes the

donation of American agricultural commodities.

Notwithstanding authority was not intended for, nor can it be

used to create additional authority that would allow the

purchase of foreign commodities. The notwithstanding clause

can waive existing federal laws which slow down emergency

response, but it cannot be used to invent new authority not

now available under Title II. As it is currently written,

Title II can not be used to purchase commodities locally.

We do not intend for this money to be used in purchasing

commodities from other developed nations. If food aid is not

available for local purchase under appropriate market

conditions in developing countries with some proximity to the

emergency need, the food aid will be purchased in the United

States.

I want to close with another example of where this type of

program could be used effectively.

In the past in southern Sudan, small farmers in the fertile

western farming areas have often produced small grain

surpluses, while hundreds of thousands of Sudanese in other

parts of the country have urgently needed food aid. If we

were able to strategically and carefully buy the surpluses to

meet food aid needs elsewhere in the same country, we would

end up sustaining and improving the lives of both groups.

Should signatories comply with the July Peace Accords, there

is a real possibility that agricultural output could return

to its former level and the region would once again act as an

important regional cereal supplier. However, if using donated

food commodities from the U.S. remains our only option, we

risk lowering demand for the local production and destroying

price incentives for the local farmers to improve their

production to meet future food aid needs.

I would be happy to take your questions.

Mr. Speaker, the issue was this. We give food aid, and that is generous. Under the rules that will be maintained by this bill, the aid can only be given in kind; that is, we ship the actual physical food. That has obvious advantages in that it helps the American farmer while it helps those in need. Particularly for nonemergency food aid, that is an entirely legitimate way to go. In some emergency situations, maybe in many, it is the right way to go.

The problem is under current law, the American foreign aid administrators are not allowed to use any of this food aid by buying the food near where the emergency happens. That is one reason why a large part of the food aid is taken up in transportation costs. I understand there are maritime interests like that, but that is not an appropriate way, it seems to me, to go about trying to help them.

Inevitably, not inevitably, correctly, much of the food aid will be that bulk aid. But to maintain a position that we will never use any of the food aid to buy the food on site, nearby, in ways that it can be done in ways that do not disturb local markets is a grave error.

What bothers me about this appropriation is not simply that it bans that from happening, and I give credit to the administration and to the President, Administrator Natsios, my former legislative colleague from Massachusetts, who asked for the authority to do this. When that was rejected outright, there were various compromises proposed. The senior Senator from Ohio Mr. DeWine, I think senior, whatever, proposed a compromise in which a percentage of the emergency aid would be available.

We are not talking, those of us who support this, about making all of even the emergency aid cash-based, but there ought to be a capacity in the Administrator to put some of the money that is appropriated into buying food locally. Now, I know, by the way, there are people on the Committee on Agriculture that say, no, that would be bad for the local markets. Mr. Speaker, I have a rule in politics: Try not to say anything that no one will believe is really your motive.

When you look at this agricultural bill and American agricultural policy and the devastation our subsidy policy wreaks on local food markets, the notion that the people who make American agriculture policy in this Congress are really concerned about the poor local farmers is risible. We obviously have ways of dealing with the local impact, and I believe that Administrator Natsios is absolutely right.

There is another argument here to which I give more credibility, and that is some of the organizations that are engaged in international development of food aid are the intermediaries here, and they get the food and they sell it, and they then use the money in various good ways. And these are good organizations.

I will note that two of the major organizations here, OXFAM and CARE, have decided, no, they do not need to have 100 percent of the aid being given in bulk, and that a percentage of the emergency aid, that is all we are talking about, a percentage of the emergency aid being available, not mandated, but being available when appropriate, to be bought on site or nearby, not right on site, but nearby, that is better. There are other organizations that have concerns.

I notice one of them is the Catholic Relief Services, which does great work. I do want to express great concern, Mr. Speaker. I hope in consequence to the what the President sent this House on Wednesday, I hope that Catholic Relief Services, because they want to help people overseas, will not be told the that Catholic Church cannot do voter registration to get out the vote, which is what some people would say if they helped people locally. So I hope that the restrictions on the Catholic Church and other good organizations that the majority wants to apply if they are doing things domestically to help the poor will not also apply to their international efforts. I hope we will work out a compromise.

Let me close by saying I was particularly disturbed by this language, and it

is the Republican majority, the great believers in openness, the great principled reformers, here is what their report says, the majority report, on this bill. ``The conferees further admonish the executive branch to refrain from proposals which place at risk a carefully balanced coalition of interests which have served the interests of international food assistance programs well for more than 50 years.''

In other words, we got a deal going here. Take your principles and get out of here before you upset the apple cart. Do not come to us talking about a more efficient way to provide emergency food aid to people, because you might break up our political deal.

Some reform.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for what she says. I know she is very much on the side of doing this in the right way, and confronted with particular facts, you have to deal with things. So I do believe that a rational food aid policy will include some flexibility on buying the food in an emergency, time and everything else, but I certainly agree it should not come at the expense of the overall program.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want the gentleman from Georgia to wonder all day about some of these things, so I have one answer and one correction.

Our response to 9/11, the gentleman's memory seems to be failing him, was to vote virtually unanimously with only one dissent to invade Afghanistan and put an end to that regime. I am sorry we were not able to catch Osama bin Laden. But I have heard few distortions as great as to say that our response to 9/11 was whatever he said. In fact, we all but one on this side voted to go to war in Afghanistan. Now, that may seem a triviality to him, but it seems to me that that was a very useful response.

Secondly, the gentleman wants to know what is our answer to Social Security. It is very simple: put the money back. If Social Security receives every dollar which has been paid into Social Security and the interest that it is legally entitled to receive on that, it is fully funded until sometime in the 2040s.

Now, having spent some of the Social Security surplus for the war in Iraq, for tax cuts for the very wealthy, the President now says, Well, those are just IOUs. We do not have the money.

But here is my answer: put the money back. If you just put the money back into Social Security, we will be okay.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman, it was never discussed in committee. That is precisely the point. The restrictive language being put forward, which would say no faith-based group could participate, has never been debated in this committee and we are not allowed to do an amendment on the floor.

Yes, it is part of the manager's amendment along with a number of other things such as preference for the gulf. All we asked for was an ability to vote on some of these specific things. I agree, it was not brought up in committee. It was brought up in a private session between the Republican Study Committee and the then-majority leader. That is not an appropriate forum to be the only place where we discuss things.

Mr. Speaker, first, as to the rule, let us be very clear. This is democracy denied squared. Substantively, this imposes restraints on getting lower income people to vote.

One of the Members of the majority, one of the authors of this restruction, the gentleman from Florida, talked about ACORN. In fact, under provisions of the bill which are agreed upon unanimously, what ACORN proposed would have disqualified them from getting funds. There is agreement that if groups are engaging in partisan activity they should be excluded.

One thing that the majority forgot to mention, one of the pieces of their amendment to which we object is the piece that says you can only participate in this program if housing is your principal purpose. The faith-based initiative, rest in peace. Apparently, it did not last very long.

The primary purpose of faith-based organizations is faith. It is not housing. They would like to do housing. It is part of their mission, but it is not their primary purpose. That is why not just Catholic charities but the Conference of Catholic Bishops of the United States has asked that this be amended, because this provision that only if your primary purpose is housing can you participate denies any faith- based group the right to participate. Apparently, the fear of low- income people voting outweighs the support for faith-based groups.

What are the substantive restrictions? We agree that there should be no partisanship. There would be a lot of restrictions if my very small, specific amendment were to pass. You could do not electioneering. You could not do lobbying beyond a very limited amount, but you could get out the vote. You know what that means? We had the Episcopalians, the Methodist, the Orthodox Jews, all of which do a lot of housing. You are the Methodists and you run an elderly housing project, under the Republican provision, you cannot do get-out-the-vote activity if you help build housing. So you cannot hire a bus to go take the old people to vote. You cannot have somebody come in and get them to register.

That is what we are talking about. There is an extremism here that is not comprehensively accepted in the history.

The committee voted on this bill. It is contentious as anything I would write, as anybody would write. It is a good bill which sets up a world-class regulator. Much of what has been said on that side I agree with.

Then the Republican Study Committee, the most conservative Members of the House who appear to be able to run the House by using their influence with the majority leadership, an influence which does not seem to have changed since the majority leadership changed, they were able to take this bill hostage.

They tried to kill this whole thing. Members on their side now say, we are for doing this affordable housing. Well, then why did they try to kill it?

There was an amendment to kill the whole affordable housing fund, not restricted. It lost 53 to 17, and so then they went to the majority leader and said we cannot win a fair fight. Hijack the bill. So now it comes to the rules situation. Here it is. Yes, we will get the vote on the manager's amendment. The manager's amendment includes what the gentleman from Ohio, the gentleman from Louisiana, myself, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania all agree to, along with the gentlewoman from California, to give a preference for those areas affected by the hurricane.

So what the gentleman from Texas would have Members believe, both gentlemen from Texas, it is an open rule on this issue because if you are willing to vote not to give a preference to the hurricane areas, you can also vote to let the Catholic Church participate in low-income housing. They come as a package. If you think the Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church and the Methodist Church and other churches ought to be able to participate in this, then you have to vote not to give preference to the hurricane areas. That is their idea of a fair rule.

All I asked for was a chance to agree to everything in the manager's amendment except for three things: Allow faith-based groups to participate. Let it be one of their primary purposes. Let them do nonpartisan voter registration and let them do nonpartisan get-out-the- vote. We are not given a chance to vote on that.

I hope Members will vote against the manager's amendment. It is a tough vote for Members in the hurricane areas because they will be demagogued.

If the manager's amendment is defeated, let me announce now, I will then offer a motion to recommit which will be everything in the manager's amendment except these three things. So Members over there who have told these low-income groups, as often happens, I do not like what these people have done, I do not want to exclude the Catholic Church, but my hands are tied, we will untie your hands. We will give you a chance to vote on it, but it is still not a fair vote.

I think it is very clear that there is one reason why the Members are not allowed to vote on a specific amendment that says let us take all of the restrictions on the groups, and when people say we do not want the money spent on other things, it has always been clear that the money can only be spent on affordable housing. We are talking about whether groups with their own money can do other things. People have said the money is fungible. Well, when we were debating faith-based groups, when we said if you give money for day care, is that going to go to religious activities, we were told, no, they will be segregated. I agreed with that. So the argument about fungibility, apparently, appears to be itself very fungible.

Mr. Speaker, all we are asking for is a chance for an up-or-down vote on three provisions which have never been voted on which were inserted here because the most conservative elements in the Republican Party, the Republican Study Committee, got the majority leader to make them a condition of the bill coming to the floor. I guess if the rest of the Republicans want to be held hostage by that group, they will show us by their votes today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I concur with the gentleman from Louisiana, this is a very narrowly and appropriately drafted bill that provides relief that is both in timing and geography restricted. It allows flexibility in dealing with the affected area.

None of us believe that this is enough. None of us believe that this resolves all the problems. There continue to be serious problems for people there, but what this will do will be to give the financial institutions the flexibility and give the regulators the power to allow this flexibility to help us get through this immediate period.

We will, I hope, soon be working on in our committee some broader measures of relief, not just in our committee, but elsewhere. But at this point, this relief, which is carefully restricted, is entirely necessary to minimize the damage.

The financial system in this country serves us well. Our financial intermediaries do an excellent job. While not everything worked well, obviously, during the response to the hurricane, I think credit should be given to the financial regulators, to the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Credit Union Administration, because sometimes the news is what you do not hear. It is the dog that does not bark that could be significant.

Among the things that you have not heard in these months since that problem, nearly 2 months now, you have not heard criticism of the financial regulators. They deserve credit for having taken maximum advantage of the flexibility they have.

What this bill does is, frankly, to say, yes, we have confidence in them. We believe that they have behaved appropriately, and this gives them even more flexibility to take into account the short-term concerns that we have there while we work collectively on a longer-term fix. I think this is an entirely appropriate piece of legislation. I am glad to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with a great deal of what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) has said, as I agree with a great deal of what is in the bill. In the nature of parliamentary debate, we will be focusing on some specific points where I disagree, but I do not want that to obscure the fact that there is a great deal of agreement.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) who as ranking member of the minority on the Housing Subcommittee has had a major role in shaping our position and in the impact of the affordable housing front.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to welcome the conversion of the gentleman from Texas to an increased section 8 voucher program. We on our side have several times offered amendments to do that in the appropriations bill. I did not remember him as a supporter. But conversion is a great thing, and I celebrate it, and I look forward to the gentleman from Texas voting with us the next time we move to increase the section 8 voucher program. But it does not solve all of the problems.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), someone who has been very hardworking, both on voter registration and on housing.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I would be glad to yield the gentlewoman from Ohio further time to point out the weaknesses in the manager's amendment. I share her appreciation of the extremely excessive language there. I think she is more optimistic than I about some of these little tweaks, but I do appreciate her understanding of its problems.

There are further problems, and there are other ways that we will get at it, but I welcome the gentlewoman's expression of disagreement with the extreme sweep of the manager's amendment.

When the gentlewoman says she is not in need of further time, I think she is being very kind to her colleagues in the Republican Study Committee. She is being very kind to our colleagues who miswrote this amendment.

The only thing that I would differ with the gentlewoman is she said there are unintended consequences. No, to her they are unintended. To the people who think poor people vote too much, they were intended. But we can work together to fix it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), the ranking member of the subcommittee of jurisdiction here, who has been one of the major architects of what we believe is mostly a very good piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis). Since this is a bill which in its form in the manager's amendment would interfere with voter registration efforts, there can be no more appropriate speaker on our side than the gentleman from Georgia, who, 40 years ago and more, literally risked his life to advance the rights of people to vote. And I do not think he will be deterred any more today than he was by Bull Connor.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to say the gentleman from Louisiana has phrased that conundrum for groups exactly correctly.

I agree with the Roman Catholic Church of the United States that they should not have to make that choice, and the Episcopal Church and the Baptist. That is exactly what the Catholic Church says: We have been doing housing; do not make us choose.

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

(Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca), one of our most energetic members on the committee, fully familiar with the need for housing in particular.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, let me say that I am glad that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) indicated the status of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), because I would not have wanted him to have been an unindicated co-contributor. I think that was very helpful.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), a very active member of the Committee on Financial Services who is very aware of the need for housing.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), who has worked in the building trades and knows this issue very well.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), one of the most active members of the committee and very familiar with needs for housing.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) to speak regarding a very important provision of the bill as it now exists.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have noticed a certain level of discomfort on some of my friends on the Republican side and some of my not so good friends on the Republican side. So I want to be very generous and ease their discomfort.

There are people who are not happy with everything in the manager's amendment. A lot of what is in the manager's amendment a lot of us like, the preference for the gulf areas, some of the restrictions on what people do with the use of funds.

There are three small provisions in the manager's amendment that are controversial. The one that says no faith-based groups can go in there, the principal purpose; and the one that says nonpartisan voter registration and nonpartisan get out the vote are not possible.

So I want to tell people this: If the manager's amendment is defeated, I will offer as the recommittal motion the exact manager's amendment minus those three specifics. So if they like the manager's amendment but do not want to keep the Catholic Church out of affordable housing, do not want to have the problem that the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) mentioned where they cannot take old people to the polls, and do not want to restrict nonpartisan voter registration, if the manager's amendment is defeated, everything except those three things that were in the manager's amendment will be in the recommit.

And as proof of that, I have given a copy of what the recommit would then be over to the Republican side. They can look it up, as Casey Stengel used to say. They will be able to see that they can then carefully and in good conscience vote against the manager's amendment and then vote for the recommit because it will be their amendment; so they will get permission to vote for the recommit, and they will get everything in the manager's amendment except the one thing that keeps out faith-based, restricting it to people whose primary purpose is here, and the nonpartisan restriction on voter registration. All the other restrictions and everything else will be in it. So do not worry. I am making their life easier.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I claimed the time in opposition to the manager's amendment because I am in opposition to a small part of the manager's amendment, and, like many Members, I have a dilemma. Much of the manager's amendment is what a manager's amendment ought to be, the result of taking into account in some cases things that happened after the bill came out of committee like the hurricanes, some refinements. It is a very good amendment.

There are two small changes I would like to make. First, the manager's amendment says, unlike the bill that passed committee, that a nonprofit group may only ask for these funds and build housing with these funds if building housing is its primary purpose. Understand that that unequivocally says no faith-based institution may apply unless we have a faith-based institution that worships housing. I am not aware of any, but I do not want to be narrow-minded. There may be one. But any other faith-based institution has as its primary purpose its faith, and this excludes organizations that have been doing work.

The gentleman from Louisiana correctly pointed out, well, if they have been already doing this, this does not stop them. It just means they cannot get the new money.

But we want this money to be used well. There is a wealth of experience in the Catholic Church, in the Episcopal Church, in the Methodist Church, in the Jewish Community Housing For the Elderly. In other groups, the Local Initiative Support Corporation, in other groups, the Enterprise Fund, nonprofit groups, some of which have housing as their primary purpose and some do not, why do we want to say to groups that have a very successful record of building affordable housing, including church groups, that they cannot participate in this program? But that is what it does.

So one thing that I would change in the manager's amendment is to say that they can do this if housing is one of their primary purposes, not their only primary purpose. It lets the faith-based groups back in.

Secondly, we agree that we should prohibit the groups, and, remember, we are not talking about using the money from the Affordable Housing Fund for anything but housing. That is very clear.

The Members have said, well, and I kind of slipped into this, well, political activism, et cetera. Not a penny of the affordable housing funds can be used for anything but housing; and there are strict penalties if you get caught doing that. By the way, there may be some who think that if you participate in affordable housing that it will be so profitable that it will generate funds that you can use elsewhere.

When I mentioned that point yesterday, people from the Catholic Conference and the Episcopal group and all the other groups started to laugh. Anyone who has done subsidized housing knows the organizations usually wind up further subsidizing with their own funds rather than end up making money.

But we are talking about now only what you can do with your own money if you use affordable housing funds for affordable housing. We have agreed to a lot of restrictions. We have agreed that with your own money, if you agree to participate in this fund, you cannot engage in any Federal election activity as it is defined in the Federal Election Campaign Act. You cannot make expenditure for any electioneering communication as defined in the Federal Campaign Act. You cannot make any lobbying expenditure except under the limits of 501(c)3. All of those we have accepted. They are in the manager's amendment as further restrictions, and we accept them.

All we are saying is that nonpartisan voter registration and get-out- the-vote should be permitted uses, in other words, what the gentleman from Ohio talked about. We had the gentleman from Florida read the ACORN Plan. That plan by ACORN would have made them ineligible to participate in this fund. It was partisan. People have every right to be partisan. We have made a concession here, that, yes, we will say that if you are engaged in partisan political activity you cannot do this.

Here is what will be the parliamentary situation. If this manager's amendment is defeated, I will offer as the recommittal motion 99.5 percent, textually, of the manager's amendment. It is over there at the majority's side. We will not touch it from what it now is. The only changes we will make is we will, instead of saying this has to be your primary purpose, which excludes faith-based groups, we will say it has to be one of your primary purposes.

We will continue the restriction on electioneering and lobbying, et cetera, but we will say that electioneering and communications or partisanship are banned, but nonpartisan voter registration and nonpartisan get-out-the-vote are not banned. That is the question.

Should we say that if you do affordable housing, you cannot also do voter registration, nonpartisan voter registration. If you are caught doing it in a partisan way, then you would lose the funds under here.

You cannot do get out the vote.

Again, voting and residence are very closely linked in America. You vote from your home. In some cases you might vote in your home, if you are in an elderly development. What about the people, and the gentleman from Ohio raised this. The gentleman from Ohio said, well, we are going to work on it. Yes, it has to be worked on, because right now, thanks to the demands of the Republican Study Committee, it is not there, the right to do that.

If you have a housing development, you cannot, under this manager's amendment, help the old people in the development vote. You cannot invite somebody in to do voter registration. They can come in on their own, but you cannot cooperate. Again, I want to emphasize and I would say to my Republican friends, this is a bill that has a lot of bipartisan support. We have some partisan differences in other areas than housing, but this one got pretty bipartisan.

What happened is this: there are people who do not like affordable housing. I have to say the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) is not here, but he said why do you not just do vouchers instead of this. He was being honest. He is not really for the affordable housing program at all.

I did look up, on June 29th this year, the House by a majority adopted an amendment to increase section 8 vouchers. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) voted against that. Thirty Republicans voted for it. He was not one of them.

I think there are people who do not want the housing to go forward, and there are others who do not want to see an increased voter participation by people they do not think will be serious enough voters. If that is what the House wants to vote on, okay.

But procedurally what you have is a bill comes out of committee; it is held up for months because a part of the Republican Party does not want to put this to a fair vote. Well, I regret that. We should have had a fair vote. I am just offering you the next best thing. It is not the same thing. It is not a clean vote, but here is the functional equivalent.

Members can have two choices: they can vote against the manager's amendment and know that I will offer a recommittal motion, which will be everything in the manager's amendment except the one provision that prevents faith-based groups from participating; and the one that says no nonpartisan voter registration or the voter turnout.

Alternatively, if people vote for the manager's amendment, maybe some people will be afraid: well, I do not want to look like I am not helping the people in the hurricane area, then I will offer a recommit. The recommit will make those three small specific changes in the manager's amendment.

In other words, Members will have a chance to vote on everything in the manager's amendment, all the restrictions on what these groups can do with their own money, all the restrictions of what they can do with affordable housing money, put our faith-based groups in and have the voter registration be allowed. That is what will be before us.

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

Mr. Chairman, I first yield myself 1 minute to say I do not think it is a fair characterization of the low- income housing activities of the Catholic Church or other organizations that they are trying to back up the truck to the Treasury. In the first place, there is no debate that every penny in the affordable housing fund goes for affordable housing.

The question is, what do you have to give up as a choice of doing the affordable housing. Every faith organization in America, every Protestant denomination, every branch of Judaism, and the Roman Catholic Church says we do housing, and the gentleman is right. They could simply refuse to take any money from this and go forward, because they are not eligible for money from this.

Why do that? Why say to the faith-based organization, whatever happened to your belief in the importance of helping faith-based organizations? Is it over already, that romance? Because that is what we just want to change. All we want is to allow our religious organizations in part to be able to participate without stopping their voter registration and other activity.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of

making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Iowa is a thoughtful Member and the former chairman of the committee, who has been very critical of the role of GSEs, and I think this is, frankly, not so much a specific amendment as an expression of a sense that, a view that they have gotten too large. One particular aspect to the amendment seems to me to sum this up when it calls for higher minimum capital requirements as the director deems necessary or appropriate to ensure long-term institutional viability and competitive equity in the market.

Now, we are all for long-term institutional viability, but competitive equity means, look, there are banks who complain that because Fannie and Freddie are perceived to have some back-up from the Congress, and let me say right now, if you are listening, if you are buying Fannie or Freddie's paper because you think I am going to vote to bail you out, sell it, and cash it in, I am not going to do that. I do not think there is a Federal guarantee. I certainly, as a great supporter of their housing role, do not plan to do that. But banks complain that they cannot meet Fannie and Freddie's price because Fannie and Freddie can borrow money more cheaply. That is part of what we are dealing with here when you talk about competitive equity.

I agree that Fannie and Freddie get certain advantages in this. That is why we have virtual unanimity here. There are debates about restrictions on what happens when you go into the Affordable Housing Fund, but there is virtual unanimity about having an Affordable Housing Fund.

What we are saying is there are two ways we can do this. We can reduce what we think is Freddie and Fannie's competitive advantage, or you can make sure that more of that competitive advantage is shared with the housing market, and that is the position that the majority, bipartisan majority of the committee has taken.

When the gentleman from Iowa talks about competitive equity, it seems to me you are inviting the banks to say, wait a minute, that is not fair, and we do not want Fannie and Freddie to be able to do this as cheaply as possible because it is not fair to us.

With regard to the powers of the regulator, the gentleman from Louisiana played a major role in this, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania was with him, and the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee. The regulator is fully empowered. The regulator within the bill is fully empowered to do whatever is necessary for safety and soundness. The regulator can raise capital in general; the regulator can decide that a particular activity is risky, and capital should be raised to compensate for that. But to go beyond and to get into competitive equity, it seems to me to be not so much a concern for safety and soundness as the philosophical question.

I would also say that with all of the misdeeds of Fannie and Freddie, their safety and soundness has not been called into question. Yes, there were accounting misdeeds, and people got money who should not have gotten it, and some are being penalized as they should be, but safety and soundness has not been called into question, and this legislation further enhances what the regulator does.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Competitive equity.

Well, I would say to the gentleman, we agree on this. Competitive equity has got nothing to do with protecting the taxpayers, except the taxpayers who happen to own banks. That is where competitive equity comes in.

The fact is that safety and soundness is what protects the taxpayers. Competitive equity has to do with fairness to competitors. That does not implicate the Treasury.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, first, the administration has been somewhat inconsistent on this. A year ago, Secretary of HUD Jackson boasted about the fact that he was insisting Freddie and Fannie increase the extent to which they do low-income housing because we have always had affordable housing goals enforced by law. So the administration last year was insisting that Fannie and Freddie use more of their money to help low-income people.

Let me say, I am not surprised. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) has been straightforward. He is one of the most intellectually honest Members of the House. Sometimes, like on casino gambling and medical marijuana, I am glad to be with him. This time we disagree. He is very clear in saying we should not be doing subsidized housing. He is quite clear.

If his amendment were to pass, we would not be able to have an affordable housing program because the level of profits Fannie and Freddie generate, which we are tapping in part, 5 percent, to do affordable housing, would substantially diminish.

Yes, I think people ought to be able to work to build housing; but low-income people, people working at the minimum wage, a minimum wage the gentleman does not want to raise, are not going to be able to build their own housing.

People in the hurricane area who get priority, if the affordable housing bill goes through, that part of the bill goes through, hundreds of millions of dollars will be available to replace housing literally washed away in Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, and in Florida. There is no way people down there will be able to do it on their own. The gentleman has been quite explicit, and I appreciate his being honest about it.

If this amendment passes, the effect will be to substantially increase the capital cost to Fannie and Freddie. They will have to pay more for capital. Once they pay more for capital, not only would the affordable housing fund disappear, but so will the ability of the Bush administration, through Secretary Jackson, to demand that they meet certain housing goals. And leave aside the affordable housing program, the Bush administration, under Secretary Jackson, is proud of what it did to order Fannie and Freddie to do more to meet affordable housing goals, to buy up mortgages for people at 80 percent of median income. I hope that the gentleman's amendment in this particular case is defeated.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentleman's amendment actually does not go quite far enough, but he has a germaneness problem. What he really wants to do is abolish HUD, given his philosophy. He does not think there should be a Federal housing program. Since he cannot get at HUD, he goes after Fannie and Freddie in ways that would reduce substantially what we do in housing.

And, by the way, the administration's objection to this bill is not, as says the gentleman, that it is too much regulation. It is that we do not give the regulator enough powers. So the administration's position is somewhat opposite to the gentleman from Texas', not for the first time, to his credit.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Chairman, we have had very limited time here, so I am going to stray to another topic relative to the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, I just wanted to add my voice. The ranking member of the subcommittee has spent a good deal of time focused on the corporate governance of these GSEs. He is one of the best students ever in the House. This is a very thoughtful and, I think, wholly constructive amendment.

It does not detract from any of the purposes that we have. In fact, I think it would enhance them, and I hope the amendment is adopted.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its present form, I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a little while ago, we had a vote on the manager's amendment. It was a very close vote. It was 210 to 205. One Member inadvertently voted the other way that he planned to. So it was 209 to 206.

What I am offering here as the recommit is a close replay of that vote, but it ought to be even clearer for people. My recommittal motion leaves the manager's amendment as adopted entirely intact except for two changes.

One, instead of requiring that to participate in the Affordable Housing Fund, housing must be the organization's primary purpose, it says it must be one of its primary purposes. If you maintain the requirement that it be the primary purpose, no faith-based organization may participate.

Some of you may remember a familiar passage: Thou shalt have no primary purpose above me. If you say that you can only do this if you have housing as your primary purpose, by definition the Catholic Church and the Baptists and the Episcopalians and the Jewish groups, which are collectively today a very important provider of affordable housing, are simply automatically debarred. There will be no faith-based groups allowed.

People are talking about faith-based groups. I am aware of no restriction as binding as saying it has to be the primary purpose, and I will insert into the Record at this point a letter not just from Catholic Charities, but from Bishop DiMarzio, on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, saying that: ``Proposals that would limit eligible recipients to organizations that have as their purpose the provision of affordable housing would effectively prevent Catholic dioceses, parishes and Catholic Charities agencies from participating.''

Department of Social Development and World Peace,

Washington, DC, October 3, 2005.

Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Speaker: I write as Chairman of the Domestic

Policy Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic

Bishops (USCCB) to urge you to retain the Affordable Housing

Fund as part of the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of

2005 (H.R. 1461) and bring the bill to a vote forthwith. The

Catholic Bishops have historically urged the federal

government to help meet our nation's promise of a decent home

for every American family, especially those families with

extremely low incomes.

As I noted in my June 10 letter to the House of

Representatives, the Catholic Community--through our

Charities agencies, dioceses, and parishes--serves tens of

thousands of men, women, and children who struggle to

maintain adequate housing. Besides sheltering homeless people

who turn to us for help, we have built, and continue to

maintain, thousands of affordable housing units. All of these

experiences have demonstrated to us how inadequate,

substandard housing

hurts human life, undermines families, destroys communities,

and weakens the social fabric of our nation. Despite our

efforts--and the efforts of so many others--there just is not

enough affordable housing available.

Proposals that would limit eligible recipients to

organizations that have as their primary purpose the

provision of affordable housing would effectively prevent

Catholic dioceses, parishes and Catholic Charities agencies

from participating in Affordable Housing Fund programs.

Similarly, proposals that would prohibit recipients from

engaging in voter registration and lobbying activities with

their own funds during the period they are utilizing

affordable housing funds would force Catholic agencies to

choose between participating in Affordable Housing Fund

programs or engaging in constitutionally protected voter

registration and lobbying activities with their own funds. I

urge you to oppose inclusion of these kinds of unnecessary

limitations and prohibitions in H.R. 1461 as it moves to the

House floor for a vote. There are ample ways to write

safeguards into the legislation to prevent the diversion of

affordable housing funds to uses other than what they are

intended without requiring recipients to forego their

constitutionally protected rights as a condition for

participating in Affordable Housing Fund programs.

The Bishops' statement, Putting Children and Families

First, notes: ``Many families cannot find or afford decent

housing, or must spend so much of their income for shelter

that they forego other necessities, such as food and

medicine. . . . [The Catholic bishops] support housing

policies which seek to preserve and increase the supply of

affordable housing and help families pay for it.'' We must

put in place a sustainable source of funds to build

affordable housing and this new fund would do that.

As I said in my June letter, this legislation presents

Congress with a genuine opportunity to make the shelter needs

of extremely low-income families a national priority. I

believe that such families who need housing the most should

be targeted to receive these limited funds.

With every best wish, I am,

Sincerely,

Most Rev. Nicholas DiMarzio,

Chairman, Domestic Policy Committee,

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has done great work, but he said this does not bar religious groups.

From October 3 to the Speaker from the Catholic bishops: ``Limiting eligible recipients to organizations that have as their primary purpose,'' which this bill does now, ``the provision of affordable housing, would effectively prevent Catholic dioceses, parishes and Catholic charities from participating.''

Secondly, none of the money here would go to those other purposes. I agree with what the gentleman said. I just do not agree with what the bill said. This is their chance to reconcile them.

Mr. Speaker, last month, September, the National Gaucher Foundation devoted its efforts to publicizing what the foundation calls ``the most prevalent genetic disease facing United States Jews.'' The National Gaucher Foundation is dedicated to combating this disease that affects significant numbers of Ashkenazi Jews. While the disease is very debilitating, it is treatable, and it is therefore particularly important that people learn a great deal about it so that those who do suffer from it or are threatened from it are aware of what can be done to treat it. I commend the work of the National Gaucher Foundation, and I encourage people, particularly Ashkenazi Jews who may well be vulnerable to it, to take advantage of the foundation's work to gain knowledge that may be of significant benefit for their health and that of their families.

Mr. Speaker, my predecessor as the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, John LaFalce, continues to be a very informed, thoughtful advocate of consumer protection within the context of a well-functioning financial system.

On October 11, he wrote to the various bank regulators in support of legislation introduced by myself and Representatives Maloney, Sanders, Lee and McCarthy, H.R. 3449, dealing with abuses in overdraft protection.

Mr. LaFalce's thoughtful analysis of the problem and the reasons for addressing it are very persuasive, and because this is an important issue that we are addressing, I ask that his comments to the Federal regulators be printed here.

The Federal banking agencies recently issued guidelines for

the operation of overdraft protection programs, and the

Federal Reserve Board recently revised its Regulation DD with

respect to the advertising of overdraft protection programs.

Although well-intentioned, these new guidelines fall far

short of what is needed in this area, and in many ways the

recent regulations by the Fed only make matters worse.

I call H.R. 3449 to your attention because I believe that

the problems it deals with are enormous, and can and should

be dealt with, promptly, by regulation. I shall highlight

some of the more significant problems dealt with by H.R. 3449

and urge the bank regulators to address those problems.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, my question is in the current uncertainty, do you know which Members the leadership from whom you are to take instruction to close the vote----

Mr. Speaker, for more than 45 years, Julian Bond has provided leadership in the fight against prejudice and its terrible effects in the United States. From his early days as a student leader, to his current position as Board Chair of the NAACP,

with distinguished elected service in between, Julian Bond has been in the forefront of the fight for justice in America. Given his extraordinary leadership in the struggle against discrimination based on race, and given the efforts of some to argue that the fight against homophobia is somehow entirely different from the fight against racism, Julian Bond's eloquent, forceful defense of the right of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people to be treated fairly is noteworthy.

On Saturday, October 1, Mr. Bond addressed another important civil rights organization, the Human Rights Campaign, at the HRC's Washington Dinner. His speech, not surprisingly for a champion of human rights, is a strong defense of the right of people to be free from prejudice based on their sexual orientation, and an explicit affirmation that the fight against racism and the fight against homophobia have a common basis.

As he said in that speech, ``denial of rights to anyone is wrong, and . . . struggles for rights are indivisible.''

Mr. Speaker, because of the eloquence of his repudiation of the effort to divide those who fight against racism from those who fight against homophobia, and because of his extraordinary stature in the fight to make sure that the rights spelled out in our Constitution are in fact fully enjoy by everyone, Julian Bond's words at the Human Rights Campaign Dinner deserve the attention of every Member of this body, and I ask that those remarks be printed here.

I am more than honored to receive this award, and want to

express my thanks to all responsible for it. I want to

promise you that I intend to live my life as if I actually

deserve it.

I believe it represents a common acknowledgement that

denial of rights to anyone is wrong, and that struggles for

rights are indivisible.

I feel tonight a little like the great abolitionist

Frederick Douglass must have felt in April, 1888. Douglass,

by then an old man, was addressing a women's convention in

Seneca Falls, New York. They praised him for his devotion to

the cause of women's suffrage. Forty years earlier, at the

world's first Women's Rights Convention, when Susan B.

Anthony made a motion that American women had the right to

vote, it was Douglass who seconded the motion.

In 1888, Douglass reflected back on that moment and told

his audience, When I ran away from slavery, it was for

myself; when I advocated emancipation, it was for my people;

but when I stood up for the rights of women, self was out of

the question, and I found a little nobility in the act.

You have all made me feel noble tonight.

I am proud to represent an organization that has fought for

justice for all for nearly 100 years, and while we've won

many victories, we know--you know--there are other battles

yet to be waged and won.

At the NAACP, we were proud to have opposed the federal

marriage amendment and its wrong-headed versions in several

states. President Bush backed amendments banning same-sex

marriage, calling marriage ``the most fundamental institution

of civilization.''

Isn't that precisely why one should support, not oppose,

gay marriage?

The NAACP recently passed a resolution to strengthen

families, including yours. We promised to ``pursue all legal

and constitutional means to support non-discriminatory

policies and practices against persons based on race, gender,

sexual orientation, nationality or cultural background.''

We know there was a time, not so long ago, when black

people in this country couldn't marry the person of their

choice either. The California Supreme Court was the first, in

1948, to strike down laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

Now the California legislature has become the first to

legalize gay marriage.

As California goes, so goes the Nation. It's just a matter

of time.

Almost twenty years after California legalized interracial

marriage, the United States Supreme Court heard the aptly

named case Loving v. Virginia.

A married couple--Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred

Jeter, a black woman--won a ruling from the Court that

Virginia's miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. That

case enabled me to get married in Virginia. That case

recognized marriage as one of the inviolable personal rights

pursuant to happiness.

That's why when I am asked, ``Are Gay Rights Civil

Rights?'' my answer is always, ``Of course they are.''

``Civil rights'' are positive legal prerogatives--the right

to equal treatment before the law. These are rights shared by

all--there is no one in the United States who does not--or

should not--share in these rights.

Gay and lesbian rights are not ``special rights'' in any

way. It isn't ``special'' to be free from discrimination--it

is an ordinary, universal entitlement of citizenship. The

right not to be discriminated against is a common-place claim

we all expect to enjoy under our laws and our founding

document, the Constitution. That many had to struggle to gain

these rights makes them precious--it does not make them

special, and it does not reserve them only for me or restrict

them from others.

When others gain these rights, my rights are not reduced in

any way. The fight for ``civil rights'' is a win/win game;

the more civil rights are won by others, the stronger the

army defending my rights becomes. My rights are not diluted

when my neighbor enjoys protection from the law--he or she

becomes my ally in defending the rights we all share.

For some, comparisons between the African-American civil

rights movement and the movement for gay and lesbian rights

seem to diminish the long black historical struggle with all

its suffering, sacrifices and endless toil. However, people

of color ought to be flattered that our movement has provided

so much inspiration for others, that it has been so widely

imitated, and that our tactics, methods, heroines and heroes,

even our songs, have been appropriated by or served as models

for others.

No parallel between movements for rights is exact. African-

Americans are the only Americans who were enslaved for more

than two centuries, and people of color carry the badge of

who we are on our faces. But we are far from the only people

suffering discrimination--sadly, so do many others. They

deserve the law's protections and civil rights, too.

Sexual disposition parallels race--I was born black and had

no choice. I couldn't change and wouldn't change if I could.

Like race, our sexuality isn't a preference--it is immutable,

unchangeable, and the Constitution protects us all against

prejudices and discrimination based on immutable differences.

Those whose bigotry is Bible-based selectively ignore

Biblical injunctions in Exodus to execute people who work on

the Sabbath and in Leviticus to crack down on those who get

haircuts or who wear clothes with more than one kind of

thread.

Recently, they've even ignored the sanctity of marriage--

just ask Michael Schiavo.

Many gays and lesbians worked side by side with me in the

'60s civil rights movement. Am I to now tell them ``thanks''

for risking life and limb helping me win my rights--but they

are excluded because of a condition of their birth? That they

cannot share now in the victories they helped to win? That

having accepted and embraced them as partners in a common

struggle, I can now turn my back on them and deny them the

rights they helped me win, that I enjoy because of them?

Not a chance.

In 1965, those of us who worked in the civil rights

movement were buoyed by a radio address given by Lyndon

Johnson.

His words speak to us today. He said then:

It is difficult to fight for freedom. But I also know how

difficult it can be to bend long years of habit and custom to

grant it. There is no room for injustice anywhere in the

American mansion. But there is always room for understanding

those who see the old ways crumbling. And to them today I say

simply this: It must come. It is right that it should come.

And when it has, you will find that a burden has been lifted

from your shoulders too. It is not just a question of guilt,

although there is that. It is that men cannot live with a lie

and not be stained by it.

One lesson of the civil rights movement of yesterday--and

the on-going civil rights movement of today--is that

sometimes the simplest of ordinary acts--taking a seat on a

bus or a lunch counter, registering to vote, applying for a

marriage license--can have extraordinary ramifications. It

can change our world, change the way we act and think.

Thank you again for this honor.

The old ways are crumbling.

It must come.

Let us leave here determined to fight on until it does.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for yielding me this time. She is the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity and has been playing a very leading role, not just now but for years, on housing issues, and I fully subscribe to her really very forceful and eloquent description of where we are.

Let me take up where she left off. I am going to vote for this bill. It is later than we would like. It is less, in some ways, than we like, but everything it does do, it seems to me, is useful. And I want to express my appreciation to the Members on the other side who had, I believe, a role in making sure of this.

There was some original fear that the housing vouchers or the equivalence of vouchers which will be funded out of FEMA would somehow be competing with the existing voucher program. Several of my colleagues told me that they had heard from housing authorities in their areas, in other parts of the country that they were being told, Okay, here come these FEMA people, they go to the head of the list, and they would in effect take a voucher away where there are waiting lists.

Let us be clear that that is not happening. These are additives. These are additional. So it is very important to note that, because as the gentlewoman from California noted, we have waiting lists. We have an ongoing problem, and this does not make it any worse, but it does not make it any better. But let us be clear, it does not make it worse. So anyone who was under that misimpression, we had a briefing, and I appreciate the majority facilitating this, and staff from both sides and Members were there, and FEMA and HUD both made it very explicit to us that these are additional to the voucher program. So no one should feel they are going to be competing with someone already there.

The next question, though, is, what do we do next? Yes, it is important to get people the vouchers, but they are a short-term solution by definition: 6 months and 6 months. We hope people will be able to find some alternatives. But what do we do? That is the point I want to address, because this underlines the need for us to get back in the business of helping construct on a permanent basis new affordable housing.

We made great mistakes as a society decades ago by building for low- income people Columbia Point or Pruitt Igoe or Cabrini Green, large sterile warehouses for far too many people with far too few services, and they did not work well, and not because of any character defect in the people that lived there but because of the inherent flaw in the way they were planned. We have learned since then how to use public money to build housing that is desirable; how, in particular, to use public money in conjunction with private developers, profit-making and nonprofit, to provide decent homes.

There has been a lot of concern here about making sure that faith- based organizations are allowed to participate in government programs. Well, in the housing area, there is nothing new about that. Faith-based organizations for years have been the leaders in using Federal programs to provide affordable housing. In my own State of Massachusetts, the Boston Archdiocese and Office of Urban Planning has been a superb provider of affordable housing. So has the Jewish Community Housing for the Elderly. If you talk to the Association of Homes for the Aging, religious entities are very much involved.

I would note that none of them ever told me that they had to discriminate in hiring to provide that housing. But what we should be doing is taking advantage of that experience and broadening it, because we have got to the point where the only housing that has been built has been for older people. And that is important, building housing for the elderly and the disabled, but as we now see, we also need some family housing.

Here is the problem: If all we do is what we are doing today, and what we are doing today is important and I am for it, but if this is all we do, a year from now, where will these people live? Because there is not this great excess of affordable residential units all over the country. There are pockets where there are.

We also have the question about what happens in New Orleans and other areas. Now, I was very distressed to hear the Secretary of HUD say; not surprised, I must add but distressed, that when New Orleans is rebuilt, there will be fewer African-Americans there. Shame on us if that is the result because, where are these people supposed to go? This was their home. This was a community. And we should be providing temporary help, but we should also be determined to allow this community to rebuild itself.

That does not mean building inadequate housing in the middle of a floodplain. It does not mean having people be vulnerable to floods. It means we should use our wit and our resources to provide replacement housing for people that is better and safer and protected. We know how to do that.

So as I support this bill today, I want to reaffirm, and I know the gentlewoman from California has been a leader on this, and I want to acknowledge that the gentleman from Louisiana, who is managing this bill, he and I and others on our committee are working on one piece of legislation that might be a vehicle for this, that there are many ways to do it. But I want to stress the importance of, after the vouchers, then what?

If we want to allow people to move back not just to New Orleans but to the Mississippi gulf and other communities, then we, in part, should be building housing. There are other things we need to today, and our committee is working on that and working with the financial community.

And in this context, I really have to express my great disappointment here in the President's approach. When the President gave his major speech not for the interim but for the longer-term situation, the only housing situation he addressed was the homeownership through an urban homesteading plan. Now, homesteading has a great history in the United States. And in the 19th century, people were given a piece of land out in the unsettled parts of the country, and they could chop down trees, and they could build their houses. I do not think that model translates all that well to an urban area.

I do not think, when the people in New Orleans are given a piece of land, which is what the President's program says, I will give you the land but nothing else, even if there were any trees left after the flood, I do not think the average returning resident of New Orleans will be able to chop them down and build a house. The urban homesteading plan is wholly inadequate. By definition, the President's urban homesteading plan helps a very small percentage of those who need the help. He is having a lottery.

Since when for a program to meet basic human needs do you have a lottery, which by definition means a very small percentage of the people get in there? Just look at the inadequacy of that program. It says the Federal Government will try to find property it owns. It will not be based on suitability about where to build. It will be on what the Federal Government owns and has no use for and then will be made available to a small percentage of people. And then they are on their own and have to find somehow some money to build on it or to rehabilitate it. That just does not make sense.

What we need to do, following on from this, is a sensible housing production program working with the local

officials in New Orleans and in the gulf and elsewhere, the gulf of Mississippi and elsewhere. Let sensible planning go forward at the local level, building not large sterile public housing units but mixed housing, because people with various incomes will need help, and various forms of help will be necessary.

For some people, because we want to promote home ownership, various forms of mortgage assistance will make sense, so working with the financial institutions. For others, we will need to build some housing. We also, I think, have an obligation to rebuild the public housing units that were destroyed, not exactly as they were. We have had some experience, and our committee has in general voted often to reauthorize the HOPE 6 program, which is a way to take public housing and improve it.

So, yes, I vote for this bill. I also welcome the fact it does not take away from the existing voucher program. It does, of course, emphasize the importance of the voucher program, but it also will leave us, and I hope we will address this in this Congress later this year or early next year, a program for the reconstruction of housing in New Orleans for people of various incomes, some of whom will not be able to return to their homes without the construction, with Federal help, of affordable housing.

We know how to do that. We have very good examples of it. And it is very important that we go forward.