Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. Speaker, I move reconsideration. I move reconsideration, thanks to your arm-twisting.

I was until the game started.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

After all the razzle-dazzle, exactly what was the prevailing side?

Objection.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with this legislation and, frankly, with the cooperative spirit that has brought it before us as a suspension. Members may note, there was a change in plans. Originally, we had a unanimous consent agreement to bring this up as a bill with an amendment. We have had conversations. As a result, we have an agreement to go forward with this bill with an amendment. It is a modification that will make the impact a little easier on some people in some areas of the country and will make it in part something of an experiment because we will have to revisit it after a few years, but it will change the essence of the bill.

Our hope is, as a result of the spirit of compromise and flexibility that was shown on this side, when the bill goes elsewhere in this Capitol, there will be a hospitable attitude. There was, frankly, the prospect before that of a possible deadlock between the branches. We believe we have taken a step, well, more than a step, to help avoid that.

The substance is very important, and I want to pay particular tribute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). One is a member of the committee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter); and one is not, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), because they took the initiative. Yes, people who have built in areas that are likely to flood should get some help from the Federal Government. The poor old Federal Government gets denounced a lot in general; but in particular, almost everybody finds some reason to want to substitute it for the pure market forces in some cases.

There is a consensus here that the market does not work for some people with regard to flood insurance. Our position was, however, that we were too little reliant on economic factors. That is, we have had a situation where people could build, be flooded, get compensated through a Federal program; build, get flooded, and get compensated through a Federal program indefinitely. Neither in fiscal terms nor from an environmental standpoint was that a good idea.

This bill is an effort, without cutting people off, to reform that situation. It is widely supported by virtually all of the taxpayer groups that worry about what they think is excessive spending, and it is supported by environmentalists. It is something of a compromise. I hope we can go forward with it and see it adopted.

I should note, this program, the Federal Flood Insurance Program, expired last year. The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) and I collaborated earlier this year and retroactively extended it. I believe it was the first act this Congress took, was to make sure people were protected. No one is indifferent to the fate of these people.

We did, however, say, and I thank the gentleman for his leadership, that we could not simply continue to extend this program. It had to be reformed. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) did us a great service by taking the initiative there. It was supported by the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who is the ranking member; and that is where we are.

We have now got a further compromise. I understand that is not yet something they have had a chance to review in the Senate. My hope is what we will do, and I believe there is agreement on this, is to pass a 3-month extension in an appropriate vehicle here, which would then be accepted in the Senate. That would give us until March 31 of next year with the program fully in effect to be able to work out in the Senate what we believe we have successfully worked out here, namely, a reasonable compromise. It is in that spirit that I go forward with this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), one of the main coauthors.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), who came to us earlier and mentioned a particular problem affecting his State and is responsible, with the support of others from Texas, for a very constructive change in this program.

Mr. Speaker, I did want to enter my Russian grandparents in the ``they got run out'' contest, but I will do that later.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

(Mr. THOMPSON of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to again express my appreciation to the people working on this, and I should acknowledge, as others have, we do recognize that Louisiana, because of geography and history, has different problems and I am pleased that we were able, and I understand we were not able to get everybody together, but I think it was a good thing that because of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the bill is different than it would have been. They did call to our attention special problems that they have; we cannot always resolve everything. But I appreciate that we were able to move in that spirit.

I also wanted at this point, Mr. Speaker, to say that I know the gentlewoman from California who has been working on this from my subcommittee as well as others has some concerns, and I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman. Let me say, first of all, she talked about encouraging thinking outside the traditional. For me she has picked a good week in which to do this. I have been spending a lot of time talking about some nontraditional thinking this week in my State Supreme Court on Tuesday. But in the particular issue that she mentioned, that she has alerted us to it, she is absolutely right. The people in her district were hit by some natural disaster that no one could have predicted. We need to have a capacity to help communities respond to the unpredictable as well as the predictable. And I would assure her that it is my intention, now that she has brought this to our attention, to see that the committee addresses that to the extent that we can next year.

I also just want to say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that I am very pleased that we are where we are, but I should reiterate, we are at a point where we are, I believe, going to agree to a 3-month extension of this program. I hope no one thinks that simply by inaction, they are going to be able to coerce us, and I do not mean anybody in this room or who votes in this room; I just do not want anyone to think that inaction will force us to continue to do

year-by-year extensions that the chairman had talked about. We made a serious, good-faith compromise here. I believe it ought to be generally acceptable. I hope that early next year, when Congress reconvenes after our recess, we will be able to come forward with this bill with maybe some minor changes and get some further study, and it will become law. I hope that everyone understands that this is our chance to put this on the kind of indefinite footing it ought to be on.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the first group the gentleman read, the Heritage Foundation and that group, would you send them a note reminding them where I was on this bill, that I helped on this bill?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) has played a very important role in this. I am glad to be here in support of his efforts. I agree that this is a bill that is a good set of steps forward, it is more than a first step, but it is not everything that we should be doing. It is useful to do it now.

I have spoken with the Attorney General of New York, Mr. Spitzer, the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Mr. Galvin. They have further ideas about how we can improve the protection of the investing public. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) himself has some ideas. So I am glad we are moving. And I appreciate the fact we do not end when we adjourn for the year this legislative process; we will resume it next year and be in conference with the Senate bill, and maybe even ourselves pass some other legislation in this regard.

But I want to address two other aspects of this issue. It is important that we legislate. It is also important that we fully empower those who are charged with investigation and enforcement. We are the legislative branch. We set the policy. But we are not able to carry it out. What is important is that those entities that are empowered to carry it out be allowed to do that. Now, a number of people have noted today on that.

We have learned recently some disturbing facts about the mutual fund industry. It should be clear that we

learned them primarily from two State regulators, the Attorney General of New York and the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And I am proud to say, Mr. Speaker, that on our side of the aisle we take pride in that because there were efforts to impinge on their ability to do this work.

And I am very pleased that our resistance to any effort to diminish the role played by State regulators in the securities field has been vindicated. If, in fact, the Attorney General of New York, the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and some other regulators did not have the incentive, the tools, the ability fully to investigate, we would not know today what we know.

In addition, we have had the problem that the SEC has said, well, there were some limits in terms of funding. A year ago back to 2001, my predecessor as ranking member, the very able gentleman from New York, Mr. John LaFalce, when we were asked to raise SEC fees, he led our side in saying, let us make sure a lot of that goes to the SEC to increase their budget. And there was resistance. Even after the corporate reform bill last year, the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, was passed, we as a Congress did not initially give the SEC the money they needed to enforce that.

Now, my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), has correctly pointed out we regret the fact that we have not also passed 2179, the SEC enforcement bill, giving the SEC more powers that they have asked for, including some that would specifically enhance their ability to levy fines against mutual fund companies. Parts of that bill specifically deal with the power to penalize mutual fund companies under those acts. But in addition to the additional powers, we need to give them more people. And we did fight, beginning late last year on into early this year; finally the Congress agreed to give the SEC the amount of money that they needed for Sarbanes-Oxley, but there is, of course, a time lag between getting the money and being able to spend it.

Now, both sides agreed to give the SEC flexibility in hiring, and we gave them that. But we ought to note that by the time we were to persuade this Congress to give the SEC adequate funds, they tell us they did not have time to spend it. So, ironically, the SEC had to give back some money this year, over $100 million. But they have told us that that does not mean that that level was too high, only that they did not get it in time to spend it, over our objections.

We now, I think, should go forward and have a situation where State regulators and the SEC are fully funded and fully empowered to do their job.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I just want to say that this unanimous-consent agreement reflects a very cooperative agreement between the majority and the minority. We have had a chance to go over all this. It is an agreed upon procedure. We have even had a chance to read the bill. And so because this is such a contrast to the Medicare bill and the way it has been handled, I do not object.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, often in institutions unwritten rules get more obedience than written rules. One of the unwritten rules that is quite generally followed around here is that when one Member begins a set of remarks by speaking highly of another Member, the first Member is about to disagree with the second Member. So let me adhere to that rule.

I have enormous respect for the work done by the gentleman from Virginia who is leading the opposition to this bill. He is in many ways, particularly in criminal justice, the conscience of this House. And so I feel it is particularly important to explain why we disagree, and I appreciate the comments made by the gentleman from Georgia. This is not a debate about whether or not prisoners ought to be given work to do which will be socially productive and rehabilitative. The question is how will we pay for that work. That is the issue.

The current system in effect pays for prison rehabilitation by putting hardworking, low-wage citizens at a disadvantage and exacerbates their problem. What we now have is a subsidized form of competition between the prisoners and garment workers, textile workers and furniture workers. That is why the AFL-CIO so strongly supports our bill. That is why unions, the UAW, UNITE, unions which have been in the forefront of the battle for social justice support this bill, because it is not a case of saying prisoners should not be given useful, rehabilitative work. It is an effort to change the way it is financed.

Right now a vulnerable section of our population, people who work in the textile industry, people who work in the garment industry, people who work in the furniture industry, they are the ones who have to bear the brunt of financing prison rehabilitation.

We believe through this bill, that like any other important public purpose, we should fund it in a general way with everybody who will benefit participating, and that we do not single out not just a segment but an economically vulnerable segment, people who are already hurt disproportionately by trade policies, people who are already in difficulty because of a variety of other factors.

This bill includes provisions to say that the prisoners can do work, make products, but simply not compete commercially. There are plenty of these institutions in this society, Habitat for Humanity was mentioned, homeless shelters, day-care centers, there are plenty of places that have a need for clothing and furniture, draperies, they can be given this.

What is at issue is not whether or not prisoners do work, but what is the socially fair and responsible way to pay for it. It is true there will be a difference. If we go the way those of us who support this bill want, Prison Industries will not be doing much marketing, but I would hope marketing is not one of the things that we are not getting the prisoners into right away. They do the physical work, they learn the vocational skills. The marketing is not something that we ought to be introducing them to. This bill is a way to continue rehabilitative work for the prisoners in a socially fair manner.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against the amendment. I am always a little puzzled when we get amendments that would substitute a study for the bill. It seems to me it would ease the strain on the GAO if we just killed the bill. Since the purpose of this study is to stop the bill from going forward, why drag the poor GAO into it? Why do we not let them go about their business and not have them do a study when the only purpose of the study is to kill the bill? I say that because I do not remember

any call for a GAO study before we came forward with this bill.

On the merits, I want to express my disagreement with the former chairman of this committee. I appreciate very much his concern for prison reform, and there are a number of things I think we ought to be doing to reform the prisons. For one thing, we ought to be dealing with overcrowding by not locking up as many wholly nonviolent prisoners as we do for things that in some cases ought not to be offenses. But I have to disagree with him when he says this does not cost anything. It extracts a cost, and it extracts it in an unfair way. Obviously, somebody has to pay for this. It is now paid for not by the tax system in general but by those people who work in a couple of industries, industries that are already under economic attack. This takes the cost and takes it out of the hides of workers in the garment and textile industries. That is why UNITE!, the union of garment and textile workers, is so strongly for this bill. It takes it away from small businesspeople who would be getting the work otherwise.

I want to say particularly to many of my friends on the liberal side who have a concern for the welfare of prisoners not based on any kind of view that the prisoners are such wonderful people who happened to fall into prison by accident, but on the perfectly sensible notion that most prisoners will someday be out of prison and back in society and it is in society's self-interest to help them become the kind of people who will not do bad things when they come out.

But here is what you have to look at this Federal Prison Industries system as. It is a way for the prison system of the United States Government to escape public judgments and public supervision. It is self-financing. Why should it be? What other aspects of the prison system do we want to exempt from the appropriations process, do we want to exempt from Congress being in control? What this does is to say to the prisons, the Bureau of Prisons in our government, you get this source of income over which we have no control, and I must say I think we have a problem with not just prison overcrowding but what is the cause of prison overcrowding. In my view, too many people are in prison who should not be there. People who are violent towards other people or people who steal from other people ought to be in prison. But we have got people who are there for nonviolent drug possession offenses and others whom I think should not be in prison.

I do not understand why some of my liberal friends think we ought to be subsidizing prison expansion. That is what you are doing here. When you leave this in place, Federal Prison Industries, as this self- financing entity, you are giving the people in the Bureau of Prisons a source of income so that they can do something that everybody agrees is important. No one is for having the prisoners be without this kind of rehabilitative work. The question is, how do you finance it? I am not for allowing that to be self-financed in a way that deprives us of the right as elected officials to make choices about what the resources ought to be. That is particularly the case because, as I said, it is not cost-free.

We are losing jobs in the garment and textile area. Obviously when we subsidize prisoners to produce jeans, to produce clothing, to produce draperies, jobs are lost by people in the private sector who would be doing that. It is simply inappropriate to say to hardworking, low-wage people, you know what, you are going to lose your job because there are prisoners we want to rehabilitate. I want to rehabilitate the prisoners, but not by taking jobs away from people who have stayed out of prison. On the whole, they are better at what they are doing. That is the nub of this.

We have a very large budget. I think that the gentleman from Illinois is right about what we ought to be doing. The question is not what we should be doing with regard to prisoners but how do you pay for it, how do you finance it. Do you do it by taking work away from people in the private sector? They are not taking away high-level jobs. They are not taking away those jobs where America is expanding. They are not doing things that take away from the strengths in the American economy. They exacerbate the problem we already have in industries that are already under pressure, and that is wholly inappropriate.

I believe that there are in this society day care centers, homeless shelters, and other institutions with a great need for these products. Let us in an intelligent and humane way have the prisoners produce for that sector and pay for it in a legitimate way, not by taking it out of the hides of the weakest and most vulnerable people in the private sector.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I respect the principled opposition of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) to this bill. It is in this context we should see his amendment. He argues that he has a better transition, but it is a transition to a goal which he opposes.

So I would ask Members to consider if you are trying to find a path to a certain destination, whose guidance will you select: the people who are trying to get to the destination or the people who think that destination would be a terrible thing?

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has said this accurately, that this is a second chance to vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on the bill. I want to reiterate I will be strongly supportive of efforts to continue giving prisoners the work. There are specific sections in this bill that we are bringing forward that talk about donation programs, that say that we want the inmates to be making things for daycare centers, for homeless shelters, for drug rehab clinics. All of us know in every one of our districts there are very worthy facilities that provide services to people in great need, and they do not have enough of a budget to buy what they need. Let us give them the furniture. Let us give them the clothing. Let us give them the drapery. Let us give them the other things that can be made.

The issue is not whether or not the prisoners should be engaged in rehabilitative work; it is whether rehabilitative work should be financed by the whole society or whether it should be financed by competing with the most economically vulnerable sectors of our society. The bill says the former; the opposition to the bill and the amendment essentially say the latter.

The amendment says a while longer, a vote against the bill says never, but they came to the same result.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we do not have the usual situation here where there are Democratic and Republican managers who might come to an agreement on this one. I would say, though, that as one of the Democrats who has been supportive of this bill, I certainly would concur with what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has said and would also urge its acceptance.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work that my colleague from Texas does on this and other issues, but in this case we disagree. I think it would be a grave error to sunset.

Sunset is a legitimate tool, but when we adopt a sunset, I think we need to calculate what incentive we are setting in motion. For example, the gentleman from Wisconsin played a very useful role here. We in the House Committee on the Judiciary, on which I then served, insisted on a sunset to the Patriot Act because a lot of new powers were being granted affirmatively, and we felt that it was important that, as we started these brand new powers, the people exercising the powers should know that they would have to come and get them renewed. There was an incentive in that sunset to the people given the grant of new authority to exercise it in a reasonable way.

Here, though, a sunset would create, I believe, perverse incentives. We know on good faith people in the Bureau of Prisons do not like this bill. The people in the Federal Prison Industries do not like the bill. The people who are now working to provide rehabilitative employment efforts to inmates, which all of us support, like the current system and do not want to have to go to a new system. For the new system to work well, we have provisions in this bill that say there will be additional training for the inmates, there will be donation programs, and that is being strengthened, there will not programs whereby we in this bill mandate the people who run the Federal prisons to find alternatives to the sale of these products. We want them to continue working, but we want a variety of things to be done so that there can be donations to charitable groups, et cetera. It is going to be more work for the people who now run the prisons. It will be the course of least resistance for them to go with the status quo. That is why, I think, a sunset creates a perverse incentive, because the people who do not want this program to work are the people who are in charge of making it work, and if they know that if we have not been able to find other work, if they can simply sit and let some of these provisions for alternative sources of employment go unused, they will make their case for getting rid of this.

So it is one thing if we give a grant of power to people and tell them, look, go use these powers wisely because they have to come back to us. It is another thing to say to a group of people who do not like what we are doing, if, in fact, the efforts to make work what they do not want to work are not very effective, then they will have achieved their goal.

So I really believe that a sunset goes in the wrong direction here. I think we need to give the Federal Prison Industries every incentive to make this work. I do not want them to have the benefit of saying we cannot find 100 day-care centers and shelters; if we cannot set up these alternatives, if we cannot do all these new jobs that have been put on us, then we will have a good argument to the Attorney General to abolish it.

I also agree with the argument made by the chairman, who is a very strong and thoughtful defender of the role of elected Representatives in our democracy. He is quite right to object to this on separation of powers grounds. This is far too great a delegation of power to the Attorney General. But there is also, I think, what I believe to be a perverse incentive. So for both reasons, because I believe we should go to a new system in which the inmates are given work but we finance that work differently, and that is going to be a complicated task to put on people in the prisons. I do not want the bureaucrats, the administrators of this, to have any incentive not to do their very best.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I should inform the membership that it is the earnest hope and, indeed, intention of the gentleman from Ohio and myself to control most of those 30 minutes apiece somewhere else other than on the floor of this House.

I very much appreciated the ability to work with the chairman. We had a difficult issue, the fair credit bill. It is not everything I would have liked to have seen. It is different than it would have been if our side was in the majority. But nevertheless it was a genuinely legislated bill. There was give and take. It is, I think, an improvement over current law. The other body has also passed a bill which has similar characteristics. It is an eminently conferencable bill because both Houses have legislated on similar subjects not in diametrically opposite ways, but in similar ways.

This instruction motion, and we have discussed this with the majority side, has been cut down, as a clever deduction would lead you to believe, since if you read the instruction motion, it consists of a paragraph numbered 1. Ordinarily one does not number a paragraph 1 unless one has a 2. We did have

a 2; it has gone in the interest of conciliation and compromise, so we now have one. And it is that the House stick by its position on a very important subject, and I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio's support on this.

What we have done in this bill, in both bodies, is to increase the information to consumers about credit reports. We have in various ways, by increasing the flow of information, given the consumers a better chance to know what is being said about them. But there was one flaw that came to me as I read the volumes of testimony that we got, namely, there was a problem with the input of the information at the outset, the accuracy. What we have is, in the law, a very low standard of care that the initial furnishers of the information have to have.

I understand they are having problems. We are not trying to overburden them. Indeed, I have talked to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) about some ways later on to modify this to keep people from being flooded; but essentially what the motion says is that we stick by the language in our bill that makes it easier, if you get this information and it tells you that there was some inaccuracy about you, this bill, this language, makes it easier for you to get that corrected. It means that you are entitled to more cooperation than under current law to get inaccurate information about you corrected. That is what we do. I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio's support.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

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

Mr. Speaker, from time to time I have used this medium to share with my colleagues the important work being done by the Citizen's Scholarship Foundation of Fall River, Massachusetts, the organization created and run--with the help of many, many others in increasing numbers--by Dr. Irving Fradkin.

I do so not simply to give well deserved recognition to the tireless efforts of Dr. Fradkin on behalf of young people who might not get to benefit from a college education without his work, but more importantly to give an example to others of what can be done in this regard. Of course it is important that we in the Congress continue to provide public funds to help provide the equality of opportunity to higher education, which we all want to be a part of the American experience. A sufficient level of

public support is indispensable. But this does not mean that volunteer efforts of the sort that Dr. Fradkin encourages are irrelevant or insignificant. We need both.

Mr. Speaker, as an indication of the continued importance of Dr. Fradkin's work in helping gather funds to provide higher education to people who would otherwise be unable to afford it, I ask that the following documents be printed here. They include a Proclamation from the North Dakota Dollars for Scholars Governing Board, and several letters from young people who have been the beneficiaries of the scholarships generated by Dr. Fradkin's work.

Proclamation To Honor Dr. Irving Fradkin

issued this fourth day of June, 2003, by the North Dakota Dollars for

Scholars Governing Board

Whereas, North Dakota citizens value education and are

supportive of young people pursuing postsecondary education

plans; and

Whereas, North Dakota Dollars for Scholars has grown to

having 69 chapters impacting 129 communities at the close of

FY 03; and

Whereas, North Dakota has Initiated a state level

organization, led by a voluntary group of state Governing

Board members, to continue its rich history of scholarship

support for postsecondary education; and

Whereas, all chapters in North Dakota to date have raised

$9.4 million for local awards and endowment building; and

Whereas, all chapters in North Dakota to date have awarded

scholarships to 8,454 students why also receive a key message

of encouragement and pride from their community in addition

to the monetary award; and

Whereas, all programs of Scholarship America helped to

bring over $965,000 to North Dakota postsecondary education

institutions, and

Whereas, the Dollars for Scholars program would not have

been possible without the determination and vision of one man

named Irving Fradkin;

Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved By The North Dakota Dollars

for Scholars Governing Board:

That our deep gratitude is extended to Irving Fradkin for

making Dollars for Scholars possible in North Dakota and

around the United States; and

Be It Further Resolved, that the North Dakota Dollars for

Scholars Governing Board presents this resolution and plaque

to Dr. Irving Fradkin to honor all he has done and

accomplished for youth and education in America.

Charles Stroup,

Hazen, ND, NDDFS Governing Board Chair.

Mr. Chairman, one of the most relevant facts about this debate was in The New York Times a couple of days ago. The Republicans, who are putting together a prescription drug bill, plan to institute a copayment for people receiving home health care. The frailest and the poorest in our society, elderly people who are unable to perform basic functions and stay in their own homes, and who get help from very low-paid workers, will now, according to the Republican plan, if it becomes law, be forced to pay out of their meager incomes hundreds of dollars a year for this basic service.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania who spoke before said that during the Clinton administration, he made a rather partisan speech, but he said during the Clinton administration we also had to make some payments. Yes, but at that time we were not trying to cut taxes for millionaires.

When the Committee on Rules refused to allow the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin, which would have paid for this by undoing the great tax relief that is coming to a handful of very wealthy people in this country, they posed a very stark choice to this House: vote the $87 billion and have it come out of home health care for the elderly; have it come out of the Environmental Protection Administration.

I have a Superfund site in the district I represent where EPA has shut down the work because they cannot afford it. So, yes, there are plenty of us prepared to meet our obligations, but not by either adding to the hundreds of billions of debt we already face or by cutting back on basic needs.

So if this leadership in the House would allow this House to vote to assess a fair taxation on the richest people in this country instead of promising them additional hundreds of billions of tax relief, we would avoid the terrible choices they have forced the House to make.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the willingness of the gentleman from North Carolina to take management of this bill to the floor and I want to join in thanking the gentlewoman from California for giving us the opportunity to honor this extraordinary woman, Dorothy Height.

No problem in the history of this country, in my judgment, comes close to the problem of race in terms of its importance and the need for us to respond. Having brought people against their will from Africa hundreds of years ago and having subjected them, first to slavery, and then to a rigid and degrading system of official segregation, and then to a very grudging and gradual retreat from that segregation system, this Nation has to confront what I think is the saddest part of our history, our treatment of people of African descent. I am pleased that we have made the progress that we have made. Although, anyone who thinks racism has been extirpated lives in a much too optimistic world, but we have made progress. It is for that reason that it is so important to honor Dorothy Height. She was born into a racist society. She was born into a society in which national legislation, passed by our predecessor Congresses, signed by Presidents, enforced by the United States Supreme Court, segregated on the basis of race. And everyone knows that ``separate but equal'' was never anything more than a cruel joke. Separation came because people believed in inequality. And Dorothy Height was born not only into that racist system, she was born as a woman at a time when society was far less willing to acknowledge the equality of women in the social and political sphere. Facing that double handicap, she set out to help heal this society, to cure the ills that have troubled us. Of course, she did not succeed altogether, but no one that I know of has done more over this long and distinguished lifetime of hers to fight against those evils, the evils of prejudice, of segregation, of denying people the ability to live up to their full potential.

One of the great honors of my life is that as I came along to join this body and became actively involved as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and various civil rights fights, I got the chance to know her, to work with her and to be inspired by her. I am particularly proud, Mr. Speaker, that one of the latter things I did with Ms. Height as she continues her efforts was to appear with her in her capacity as chair of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, one of the great institutions of our time and with the executive director, the very distinguished and able Wade Henderson as they announced their endorsement of legislation that would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, because I have found that people who have been unfairly discriminated against, based on one characteristic of themselves, understand why it is unfair to do that elsewhere, and it is an example of the greatness of Dorothy Height, that later in her life, well past her 80th birthday, she understood the importance not of abandoning the fight for racial fairness which she continues, but of taking on, also, the newer fight for opposing discrimination based on sexual orientation.

I believe the great heroes of this society are those who have undergone whatever was necessary to help us live up to the wonderful ideals of that Constitution of 1787, and that was a Constitution which stated an ideal better than the society lived up to the reality. Realizing those ideals has been the most important part of our Nation's history and no one, literally no one, has played a more important part in that, no one has been tougher and more dedicated and more loving at the same time in her insistence that the country live up to its own best ideals than Dorothy Height. I thank the gentlewoman from California for giving us a chance to acknowledge that.

Mr. Speaker, no obligation which we have as elected Representatives is greater than that of making clear to those we are privileged to represent why we vote as we do, especially on important issues. Because debate time on the President's request for an $87 billion appropriation for Iraq and Afghanistan will almost certainly be far too limited for Members fully to explain themselves, I ask unanimous consent to put here into the Congressional Record an article which I wrote, and which was published in the Boston Globe on October 10, outlining my position on this issue.

[From the Boston Globe, Oct. 10, 2003]

Paying for the War in Iraq

(By Barney Frank)

The best argument for refusing President Bush's request

that we put America $87 billion deeper in debt to pay for the

mistakes he has made in Iraq comes from a very good source--

George W. Bush.

In objecting to the pay increase voted for federal

employees, the president said that paying for it would

require reductions in other domestic programs--e.g.,

environmental cleanup, aid to education, community

development block grants, and transportation. After 2\1/2\

years of making light of the more than $1.5 trillion that its

budgets will add to the federal debt during his term, the

administration has rediscovered the importance of controlling

deficits and argues that additional federal expenditure on

some items must come at the expense of others. So, if we do

as the president asks and appropriate $87 billion for Iraq,

it will force reductions in other areas of federal spending

that have already been cut below the barest minimum.

But while it would be a dereliction of my duty to my

constituents simply to ratify the president's proposal,

neither would it be responsible to reject it categorically. I

cast the right vote when I opposed the president's decision

to go to war in Iraq. None of the major reasons advanced at

the time for this effort has been vindicated by events.

Indeed, since the war in Iraq, our role as a force for

stability has deteriorated in virtually every trouble spot.

Syria, the Palestinians, North Korea, Iran--where there has

been a change in America's ability to work for a reduction in

violence, tension, and instability, it has been for the

worse.

But while the war was unwise, it was also a fact, and it

imposes on Americans' responsibilities that we cannot escape.

Elections have consequences, even when they are decided as

dubiously as our last presidential contest.

However, recognizing that we have both moral and practical

obligations in this regard does not mean rubber-stamping the

Bush administration's request. There are three ways in which

Congress should modify the proposal.

First, while it is important that we provide funding for

the military to pay for this war, we should not vote for

every dollar requested. The president is justifiably seeking

funds to replace the weapons and ammunition consumed in the

war in Iraq and in the expensive occupation of that country.

But some of that ought to come from a redirection of the tens

of billions the Pentagon is still spending on unneeded

weapons that were conceived for the Cold War era. Nuclear

attack submarines, defense against intercontinental ballistic

missiles, and other weapons were justified by the need to

confront a Soviet superpower. As one conservative commentator

recently noted, the administration's request for $65 billion

for the Pentagon is aimed at preserving the current weapons

procurement policy, which includes a substantial amount for

Cold War armaments rather than the military capability we

need for the current world situation.

Second, the proposals to engage in social spending in Iraq

include several billion dollars which may he desirable but do

not rise to the level of necessity--especially if it must

come at the expense of equally important social spending in

the United States and in desperately poor other nations in

the world.

But wise reductions in both categories will still leave us

with a large amount to spend, especially given the ineptitude

of the administration's efforts to get others to share the

burden.

Here the congressional response should be clear. None of

this money should be added to the national debt, nor should

it be allowed to exacerbate the severe problems that already

result from inadequate funding in so many domestic programs.

It is well past time for Congress to repudiate the Bush

doctrine that you can pay for two wars with three tax cuts.

Further expenditures for the aftermath of the Iraq war must

be funded by undoing the Bush tax cuts on incomes of $200,000

and above. I will not vote for any additional appropriation

to pay for the war in Iraq unless it is completely financed

by changes in the tax code that will undo some of the tax

reduction now being enjoyed--and scheduled to be enjoyed

further--by the richest 2 percent of Americans.

We should be undoing tax cuts to produce far more than $87

billion. Even before the $87 billion request, the Bush

policies were slated to add $1 trillion to the national debt

in fiscal years 2003 and 2004 alone. But at the very least,

the president ought to be willing to join us in paying for

the consequences of his policy in Iraq by cutting back on the

excesses of his fiscally irresponsible and socially

inequitable tax reductions.

I will vote to meet America's obligations in Iraq even

though I thought we were wrong to incur them. But I will not

do so at the expense of important domestic social and

economic needs. Forcing Congress--and America--to make such a

choice will be damaging and divisive, and President Bush

should stop insisting that we do.

Mr. Speaker, from time to time Members use the vehicle of the Congressional Record to emphasize their positions on ideological or political issues of great importance. That is an entirely valid function for those of us who are supposed to be engaged in democratic debate. But I think it is also important from time to time to call attention to non-ideological, non-partisan matters which could improve that debate and the recent article by Michael Kinsley in the Washington Post entitled, ``In Defense of Hypothetical Questions'' is a superb example of this. Often when we are using the Congressional Record to call attention to an important statement we seek to summarize its message in prefatory remarks. In the case of Michael Kinsley's article--as is often the case with Mr. Kinsley--he does such a good job of making the case that my trying to do so here would be not only redundant, as these summaries are by definition, but a mistake because it would not do justice to his argument. Instead, in the interest of improving the quality of political debate in America, I ask that Michael Kinsley's defense of hypothetical questions be printed.

[From the Washington Post]

In Defense of Hypothetical Questions

(By Michael Kinsley)

One of the absurd conventions of American politics is the

notion that there is something suspect or illegitimate about

a hypothetical question. By labeling a question as

``hypothetical,'' politicians and government officials feel

they are entitled to duck it without looking like they have

something to hide. They even seem to want credit for

maintaining high standards by keeping this virus from

corrupting the political discussion.

``If I've learned one thing in my nine days in politics,

it's you better be careful with hypothetical questions,''

declared Gen. Wesley Clark in a recent presidential

candidates debate. He might have learned it on TV, where

``Never answer a hypothetical question'' is one of the rules

a real life political strategist offered to real-life

presidential candidate Howard Dean in HBO's fictional

Washington drama, ``K Street.''

The question Clark was trying not to answer was ``your

vote, up or down, yes or no'' on President Bush's request for

$87 billion to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for

another year. This question is only hypothetical in the sense

that Clark doesn't literally get to vote on the matter. That

kind of literalness could make almost any question

hypothetical. The obvious purpose of the question was to

elicit Clark's opinion on the $87 billion. And surely it is

not unreasonable or ``hypothetical'' to expect candidates for

president to express an opinion on whatever controversy

surrounds the presidency at the moment.

Secretary of State Colin Powell was asked this week whether

Americans would have supported the Iraq war if they'd known

we weren't going to find those weapons of mass destruction

the administration used to justify it. This really is a

hypothetical question, as Powell labeled it in declining to

answer, but it's a darned interesting one and one an honest

leader in a democracy ought to be pondering about now, even

if he doesn't care to share his thoughts.

Neither of these examples is the kind of hypothetical

question that calls on the answerer to imagine a situation

that is unlikely to occur and one there would have been no

good reason to think about. What if a man from Mars were

running in the California recall? What if President Bush were

secretly writing a treatise on moral philosophy? And so on.

Avoiding questions (from reporters, from opponents, from

citizens) is the basic activity of the American politician.

Or, rather, avoiding the supply of answers. Skill and

ingenuity in question-avoidance are a big factor in political

success. Usually, avoiding the question involves pretending

to answer it or at least supplying some words to fill the

dead space after the question has been asked. But if you can

squeeze a question into one of a few choice categories, the

unwritten rules allow you to not answer at all. There's

national security. (``I'm sorry, but revealing the size of my

gun collection might imperil our war on terrorism.'') There's

privacy. (``I must protect my family from the pain of

learning about my other family.'') There's legal proceedings.

(``That arson allegation has been referred to the Justice

Department and I cannot comment further.'') But only an

allegedly hypothetical question may be dismissed because of

its very nature, irrespective of subject matter.

This is silly. Hypothetical questions are at the heart of

every election in a democracy. These are questions the voters

must answer. Voters are expected to imagine each candidate

holding the office he or she is seeking and to decide which

one's performance would be most to their liking. Every

promise made by a candidate imposes two hypothetical

questions on the voter: If elected, will this person do as

promised? And if this promise is kept, will I like the

result? The voter cannot say, ``I don't answer hypothetical

questions.'' And voters cannot sensibly answer the

hypothetical questions they've been assigned without learning

the answers to some hypothetical questions from the

candidates.

Hypothetical questions are essential to thinking through

almost any social or political issue. In law school there

called ``hypos'' and the process is called ``salami

slicing.'' Imagine this situation and tell me the result. Now

change the situation slightly--does the result change? Now

change it in a different way--same result, or different one?

It's just like an eye exam, in which you peer through a

series of alternative lenses until you zero in on the correct

prescription.

Yet even lawyers turn against the cherished hypo when

nominated for prestigious judgeships. Then they say self-

righteously that they cannot answer hypothetical questions

about how they might rule. Once they are safely on the bench,

of course, they issue public opinions every day that are,

among other things, statements about how they analyze the

issue at hand and strong indications, if not more, of how

they will rule in the future.

A refusal or inability to answer hypothetical questions is

nothing to be proud of. In fact, it ought to be a

disqualification for

public office. Anyone who doesn't ponder hypothetical

questions all the time is unfit for the task of governing. In

fact, it's hard to see how any halfway-intelligent person can

manage to avoid taking up hypothetical questions a dozen

times a day.

But we can all name a few politicians we suspect are up to

this challenge.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here to support this bill. It is a good example of what the Committee on Financial Services can do when it is allowed to work out legislative matters in a cooperative way, as we have done here. I am particularly pleased with the work done by two of the younger Members on our side, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), who is managing this bill here, because that is a reflection of the initiatives he has taken, and also as the gentleman from Alabama, the chairman of the subcommittee, was gracious enough to mention, his Alabama colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), has also played a major role.

What we have here is what ought to be the model and, I am pleased to say, has for much of this year been the model for legislation coming from our committee, which is a recognition of the importance of the market, a recognition that we have a responsibility to structure the rules so that the capitalist system can function to its maximum but, at the same time, recognizing that there will be issues that will not be resolved purely by the working of the market. We add protections for consumers. We add measures that deal with social concerns in ways that do not interfere with the market. I think that is our job. Our job is to recognize that the market is a wonderful mechanism for creating wealth, it does not do everything, and that we have a responsibility to add to those market mechanisms things that will deal with other issues, but in ways that will not detract from the functioning of the market.

In this bill we allow the banks to do the check truncation that will greatly promote efficiency. Consumers who have a need for copies of their checks can get them. There is the recredit provision that has already been described. So I am very proud that we have here, as I said, a model of what we ought to be doing; a measure which allows, and basically this is what we are doing, we are updating the basic law so that the private sector can take full advantage of evolving technology; and we are doing it in a way that we believe fully protects the legitimate interests and concerns of consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we were able to bring this bill forward. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) for his time and, more important, for the work he has done on this bill.

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

I am particularly appreciative of the efforts of the gentleman from Ohio, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity and the other gentleman from Ohio, who chairs the full committee, for helping us bring this bill forward.

The gentleman from California and I began our collaboration on this issue in a previous Congress when this came up as part of an omnibus housing bill, and while we bogged down on that omnibus bill because of some differences between the parties and ideological concerns, it struck us that there was no reason to hold back on something that ought to be, and we believe is, in fact, in everybody's interest with no downside.

I would note that this is one of those times when we can bring forward a bill that will advance an important social purpose dealing with our housing affordability crisis, and this is not for subsidized housing, but as we build housing, multifamily housing, as we increase the housing stock, we deal with the affordability problem because there is a problem here of supply and demand. The affordability program is exacerbated by a shortage of supply, and as we increase the supply even of conventional housing, we are dealing with that.

This also has the unusual aspect of probably helping to reduce the Federal deficit. FHA premiums, given the repayment rate, particularly when we are dealing at this end of the spectrum, make money for the Federal Government. So if this has any impact on the Federal budget, it will be a directly positive one, not simply an economic activity that will be generated, that housing will be built, but specifically in the collections that will come from the FHA.

We do not have a single housing market in this country. We have, for a variety of reasons, some areas which cost more than others. Those are both supply- and demand-related factors. We should not, therefore, have a single FHA rule. Where we are dealing with high-cost areas, given the value that the FHA has as a financing mechanism for housing, we ought to take advantage of that.

I want to express my appreciation also to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) for his consistent leadership on this issue. I would also like to acknowledge the role that the National Association of Homebuilders played in helping educate all the Members to the importance of this and to the benefit which we will all receive from it.

So I again express my appreciation to Members on the majority side, the lead sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller), the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).

I am very pleased we will be moving this bill, and I hope that it is one that can be signed before the end of the year. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to make one other point.

Even with regard to Section 8, this is helpful legislation, because the Section 8 cost is based on the cost of the housing. To the extent we can get multifamily housing built more efficiently with financing help, then the Section 8 rent, even in one of those units, which could happen, would be nice. So this is a bill which, as I said, has no downside.

I appreciate the gentleman from California noting he and I will continue to look for ways without regard to ideological party differences, which will remain and which are legitimate and which we will debate, but aside from those, we can find ways to move this along.

So, again, with thanks, particularly to the gentleman from Ohio who worked very hard on this, I urge passage of the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much, and I agree with almost everything he said today, but only almost. I would still like to see an omnibus bill.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes the cliches come true. I thought about that when I got a phone call last night telling me the death of Millie O'Neill. I was profoundly sorry.

She was an extraordinary woman of warmth and strength and humor, a genuine believer in and participant in this American political system through the real partnership she had with her husband, the late Speaker Tip O'Neill.

All of the cliches we summon up about the partnership of marriage, about a woman who could combine toughness when it was appropriate with gentleness at other times, all of those Millie O'Neill exemplified.

I had a great privilege when I came here in 1981 as a Member of the House from Massachusetts. I became, particularly as a Massachusetts Member, but not only those of us from Massachusetts, a member of that extended family that the O'Neills presided over. I had known other members, Tom O'Neill, the oldest son who was a legislative classmate of myself, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), and a former member, Mr. Donnelly, we were all elected to the legislature that same year, and so we came to know each other then.

I got to know over the over the years other members of that family, the O'Neills' son, Kip, the daughters, Susan and Rosemary, the son, Michael, who sadly passed away a few years ago. And I interacted with them and did a lot of work together with them.

Millie O'Neill was not always a presence here. She came down when her husband became the Speaker, but once she did, she became a vital part of this city. I was privileged as a Massachusetts Member from time to time to be at the events where we were celebrating any number of holidays or other important political functions. Sometimes you go to those things reluctantly. Sometimes you finish a day here and just want to go home. But, Mr. Speaker, when you knew that Tip and Millie O'Neill were going to be at an event, then you wanted to go because you knew it would be suffused with laughter and warmth and all of the best things about people coming together. Because separately Millie O'Neill and Tip O'Neill were wonderful people of strength and of great commitment; together there was a synergy. They brought out in each other the best of the best.

They enjoyed each other's company, and they made it impossible to be in their company and not to share in that enjoyment.

When we mourn, Mr. Speaker, we mourn for the person who has passed away. We mourn also for ourselves. We mourn for our lost memories, for the good times we once had and will not have again; and as I said when I learned of the death of Millie O'Neill, I was profoundly saddened by the passing of that wonderful woman, and I was also saddened myself to realize that never again would I be in her company, never again would I be one of the beneficiaries of what she radiated.

So, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to come say to Tom and Kip and Rosemary and Susan how sorry I am; but I am confident that very soon, having had the privilege to be the children of that wonderful woman, that the very, very good memories of their mother, just as they have of their father, will crowd out the pain.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this Special Order in commemoration of Millie O'Neill.