Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin. I wonder if the gentleman from Ohio could give us some guidance on what the chances are for the ultimate survival of this very important program which the President supports, and I believe is supported on the merits. Could we get it in the bill next week? Or what is the prospects of this Youth Build program not dying because of kind of a shuffle here.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I have been concerned about a program known as Youth Build, which I know many Members are familiar with, which is a very good program which gets young people in urban areas and elsewhere to learn how to build houses. And the results are some very nice houses for deserving people, and an improvement of a neighborhood, and most importantly, skills for these young people. Now, we ran into a little difficulty. It is not one of the more expensive of our programs although it has been, at $60 million, not nothing. The President in his budget proposed I think $50 million for it, but proposed that instead of being funded out of the HUD budget it be transferred to the Labor Department's budget. That led to, I guess, it falling between the cracks of the two appropriate subcommittees; so that while I understand there is support for the program and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), a former chairman of the HUD subcommittee, tells me that he strongly supports it, and I understand there was a very close vote in the Appropriations Committee on an amendment to put it back into the bill, both bills now come to the floor without that appropriation for Youth Build. And I think this is a case of something not being rejected on the merits, or not being something we cannot afford, but something that has sort of fallen through the cracks because of this proposed change in where it goes. So I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee, given the, I believe, support, it was in the President's budget, there was virtually a tie vote in the Appropriations Committee, could the gentleman tell me, is there some hope that we can give to these young people that this important program will survive?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, does that mean, and maybe we can discuss this again in the Transportation HUD bill, but that, since it is not a large sum of money, the President supports it, it has a lot of support here, that we can expect at some point in the process before we finish the appropriations, this program could be funded?

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman. Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Kirk

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, as I continue, I just want to apologize for the inevitable mispronunciation that may come in. I hope that no one will think that this in any way denigrates the respect and admiration that we have for these brave people and the deep sympathy we extend to their families. 1. Master Sergeant Evander E. Andrews 2. Specialist John J. Edmunds 3. Private First Class Kristofor T. Stonesifer 4. Machinist's Mate Fireman Apprentice Bryant L. Davis 5. Engineman First Class Vincent Parker 6. Electronics Technician Third Class Benjamin Johnson 7. CIA Johnny Michael Spann 8. Private Giovanny Maria 9. Electrician's Mate Fireman Apprentice Michael Jakes, Jr. 10. Staff Sergeant Brian C. Prosser 11. Master Sergeant Jefferson D. Davis 12. Sergeant First Class Daniel H. Petithory 13. Sergeant First Class Nathan R. Chapman 14. Captain Matthew W. Bancroft 15. Lance Corporal Bryan P. Bertrand 16. Gunnery Sergeant Stephen L. Bryson 17. Captain Daniel G. McCollum 18. Staff Sergeant Scott N. Germosen 19. Sergeant Jeannette L. Winters 20. Sergeant Nathan P. Hays 21. Staff Sergeant Dwight J. Morgan 22. Staff Sergeant Walter F. Cohee III 23. Specialist Jason A. Disney 24. Major Curtis D. Feistner 25. Captain Bartt D. Owens 26. Chief Warrant Officer Jody L. Egnor 27. Staff Sergeant James P. Dorrity 28. Staff Sergeant Kerry W. Frith 29. Specialist Thomas F. Allison 30. Master Sergeant William L. McDaniel II 31. Staff Sergeant Juan M. Ridout 32. Specialist Curtis A. Carter 33. Chief Warrant Officer Stanley L. Harriman 34. Senior Airman Jason D. Cunningham 35. Technical Sergeant John A. Chapman 36. Sergeant Peter P. Crose 37. Specialist Marc A. Anderson 38. Private First Class Matthew A. Commons 39. Aviation Boatswain's Mate-Handling First Class Neil C. Roberts 40. Sergeant Philip J. Svitak 41. Chief Petty Officer Matthew J. Bourgeois 42. Staff Sergeant Brian T. Craig 43. Sergeant First Class Daniel A. Romero 44. Sergeant Jamie O. Maugans 45. Staff Sergeant Justin J. Galewski 46. Sergeant Gene A. Vance Jr. 47. Staff Sergeant Anissa A. Shero 48. Technical Sergeant Sean M. Corlew 49. Sergeant First Class Peter P. Tycz II 50. Sergeant First Class Christopher J. Speer 51. Sergeant Ryan D. Foraker 52. Lance Corporal Antonio J. Sledd 53. Private James H. Ebbers 54. Specialist Pedro Pena 55. Sergeant Steven Checo 56. Chief Warrant Officer Thomas J. Gibbons 57. Staff Sergeant Daniel Leon Kisling Jr. 58. Sergeant Gregory Michael Frampton 59. Chief Warrant Officer Mark O'Steen 60. Sergeant Michael C. Barry 61. Operations Officer Helge Boes 62. Specialist Brian Michael Clemens 63. Specialist Rodrigo Gonzalez-Garza 64. Sergeant William John Tracy Jr. 65. Chief Warrant Officer Timothy Wayne Moehling 66. Chief Warrant Officer John D. Smith 67. Private First Class Spence A. McNeil 68. Private First Class James R. Dillon Jr. 69. Navy Petty Officer Third Class Jason Profitt 70. Staff Sergeant John ``Mike'' Teal 71. Lieutenant Colonel John Stein 72. Senior Airman Jason Thomas Plite 73. First Lieutenant Tamara Long Archuleta 74. Staff Sergeant Jason Carlyle Hicks 75. Master Sergeant Michael Maltz 76. Sergeant Orlando Morales 77. Staff Sergeant Jacob L. Frazier 78. Private Jerod R. Dennis 79. Airman First Class Raymond Losano 80. Sergeant First Class John E. Taylor 81. Captain Seth R. Michaud 82. First Class Petty Officer Thomas E. Retzer 83. Specialist Kelvin Feliciano Gutierrez 84. Sergeant Christopher Geiger 85. Petty Officer First Class David Tapper

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would repeat what has been said before, but apparently with sufficient clarity, I guess. The one person, who more than any other, was penalized for speaking out in this matter, in defense of the principles that the previous speaker articulated was a chaplain, the chaplain who was sent to Okinawa in a punitive transfer, and I know people have said that the Air Force gave different reasons for that. I do not think anyone really believes that. It is clear that she was transferred for punitive reasons, because she spoke out against what she thought was an inappropriate set of actions against people's freedom of religion. She was, as we said and is, a chaplain. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, briefly I would note that what we have been objecting to is precisely the denial to some cadets at the Air Force Academy of the very freedom that the previous speaker proclaimed. No one has criticized anyone's profession of his or her religion. The animus here, the gravimen of this charge is, that other people have been penalized for it, and the Superintendent to the Air Force Academy himself acknowledged it. Now, I apologize for prolonging this, and I would say that when the chairman of the subcommittee, the former chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) appealed for an end to the debate, he got acquiescence on this side. Two Members on his side decided to prolong it. I wish that others had followed our example. But since they have not, I do think that things have to be answered. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding to me. And it is true. I grew up in Bayonne, New Jersey, in the gentleman from New Jersey's (Mr. Menendez) district. And growing up, Peter Rodino was someone for whom I had a great deal of respect, someone whom, as I thought about a political career, I admired enormously, living not far from his district. And then, of course, I watched, as did the whole country, in the 1970s when the impeachment went forward. I was then in the State legislature. I did not, as did the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from New York, serve on the committee during impeachment. So when I got here in 1981, having been elected in 1980, and got assigned to the Judiciary Committee, it was really a reinforcement to me of the kind of literally awe-inspiring role I had been lucky enough to take, having known of Peter Rodino when I was in high school. Having watched him perform in that masterfully understated way at the most critical period in the 1970s, and then to be accepted by him as a colleague meant a great deal to me. And sometimes when we meet someone of whom we have a very high opinion, anti-climax sets in. The object of one's admiration does not always live up to it. That was not the case with Peter. I served for 8 years as a member of the Judiciary Committee under his leadership, and it was the legislative process at its best. Peter Rodino had a gentle toughness. He was a man who was in person pleasant, calm, thoughtful. But there was a toughness both in terms of integrity and in terms of commitment to principle that informed that gentleness. And as previous Members have said, he was a great defender of the U.S. Constitution. He was a great believer that our job here was in part to take that marvelous document, the U.S. Constitution, with all of the wonderful principles it set forward, and to complete the job that had only been begun when the Constitution was adopted of extending the benefit of those principles to everybody in this society. Peter understood that the Constitution was a set of aspirations only imperfectly realized at first. And his job, more than anything else, was to help America realize those aspirations and help everybody in America realize those aspirations. And one of the things that is always striking to me is when someone shatters stereotypes. And let us be clear, Peter Rodino, when he got here, faced a number of stereotypes. People make jokes about New Jersey. People make ethnic allusions. There is no point in denying this. Peter Rodino faced that. When Peter Rodino was slated to be the chairman of the committee and impeachment was pending, the rumor mill was very active: Oh, we cannot have Rodino do it. Who knows what there will be? Who knows if he can live up to it? Hey, he is a guy from Newark, New Jersey. What do you want to do here? Well, this guy from Newark, New Jersey, who was the subject of a lot of wholly unjustified innuendo, took that job and did it as well as anybody could and did it, as the gentleman from New York, the previous speaker, pointed out, superbly, gave America a lesson in how not to pre-judge people, gave America a lesson in judging people by who they are. Peter also, of course, in addition to that, was a dedicated believer in dealing with the racism that has sadly been the history of this country and in doing with whatever we could do legally to diminish it. He was a great believer in civil liberties. I will tell my colleagues, in 1981 when I got here and I was originally going to go on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, as it was then called, because I wanted to deal with housing, Speaker O'Neill said to me, listen, would you go on the Committee on the Judiciary as an additional committee because Peter Rodino has a tough job. He is dealing with a lot of efforts to undermine the Constitution. There are a lot of proposals now to undo decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court protecting civil liberties. I remember at the time saying to the Speaker's emissary, well, you know, I do not know if I want to do that. Those are a lot of tough issues. There are a lot of groups that will be very angry. The answer was, oh, of course, but they do not like you anyway, so you have nothing to lose. I went on that committee, along with a lot of others, including Pat Schroeder and Chuck Schumer, in a tough time under his leadership. I take pride in having been a defender of the constitutional principle and having been a defender of the rights of minorities and of free speech and other things that were under attack. So I am very, very grateful to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for giving us this opportunity and this chance to honor this man. The thing I think best sums it up is he was a man who understood democracy, intellectually and instinctively; and no one I have served with in 25 years was better at making democracy work for the people of this country.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I will not contest the gentleman from Pennsylvania on the intellectual level of some of his companions, but on other issues, I very much disagree with what he has had to say. As to its relevance, yes, marijuana is and can be a drug with serious adverse consequences. So is OxyContin. So are many other substances that can only be legally administered by a physician with a prescription. This is not a bill to make marijuana generally available. It is not a bill to put it in baby formula. It says, what is the rationale for singling out marijuana and saying that no doctor in no State can prescribe that even if that doctor feels that is the only way or the most effective way to alleviate pain? And I say most effective. I would have hoped we would have learned something about trying to practice medicine here. They released today the autopsy, sadly, in that tragic case of Terri Schiavo. Apparently, according to the autopsy, not only was she in a persistent vegetative state, she was blind. The fact is that we had people on the floor of this House a few months ago directly controverting what we now know to be the medical facts. Let us not do that again. Let us not say that we will decide on a political basis at the national level that no State is competent to regulate the practice of medicine in that State if they decide to allow a doctor to prescribe marijuana, because that is what we are talking about. The regulation of medicine has been a State function. Some States have decided to allow their doctors to prescribe marijuana. This has got a double safeguard. The State has to decide to do it, and then a physician has to decide to do it. If there are physicians that you think are misusing this, and there are with substances. Rush Limbaugh got into trouble with OxyContin. That does not mean because something can be legally prescribed that you look away when it has been illegally used. So let us treat marijuana the way we treat many, many other substances with far more impact on individuals. Let us leave this to the States and leave it to the doctors, and let us stop this practice, which I have commented on before, where most of us are not doctors, but try to play them on C-SPAN.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, one the ablest Members of the current Congress, Jim McGovern, has joined with one of the ablest Members in the history of the Congress, George McGovern to address the troubling issue of Iraq, and they make an eloquent case--with which I completely agree--that ``the United States must now begin an orderly withdrawal of our forces from this mistaken foreign venture.'' Mr. Speaker, it is our custom in introducing relevant material of this sort into this Record to put some gloss on the material entered. In this case, I feel absolutely no need to do this, because the authors--former Senator George McGovern and Congressman Jim McGovern-- do a superb job of explaining why we should pull out of Iraq. I will note that I join them not only in their basic argument, but in their note that as ``earlier opponents of the U.S. invasion of Iraq . . . we hoped that our concerns would be proven wrong.'' None of us take any joy in the fact that this has worked out so much worse than the Administration had predicted, but we must draw the consequences from this mistake and not continue with a seriously flawed policy which drains us financially, costs the lives of our military, and makes the situation in the Middle East worse rather than better in so many ways. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the essay by George McGovern and Jim McGovern from the Monday, June 6 Boston Globe be printed here. [From the Boston Globe, June 6, 2005] Withdraw From Iraq (By George McGovern and Jim McGovern) We were early opponents of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Nonetheless, once American forces were committed, we hoped that our concerns would be proven wrong. That has not been the case. The United States must now begin an orderly withdrawal of our forces from this mistaken foreign venture. The justification for the war was based on false or falsified information. What had been initially characterized by the Bush administration as an uncomplicated military operation has turned into a violent quagmire. Our leaders underestimated not only the insurgency, but also the deep- rooted ethnic divisions in Iraqi society. There are no clear answers from the administration or the Congress on how long our forces will need to stay in Iraq, what the anticipated costs in human life and treasure will be, or even what would constitute success. Instead, many of our policymakers seem resigned to an open- ended occupation. Former Defense Undersecretary Paul Wolfowitz has told Congress that we will be there for at least another 10 years. It is common to hear even some who voted against the war say, ``now that we're there, we have no choice but to stay.'' We very much disagree. Calls to maintain the status quo echo the same rationale used to keep us in Vietnam. To those who contend that we would weaken our credibility if we withdraw, we believe that the Nation's standing would greatly improve if we demonstrate the judgment to terminate an unwise course. Our continuing presence in Iraq feeds the insurgency and gives the insurgents a certain legitimacy in the eyes of much of the world. We know from our own history that armies of occupation are seldom welcome. There have been elections in Iraq, and yet it remains unclear whether the different political, ethnic, and religious factions want to work together. One thing, however, is clear: Washington cannot determine Iraq's destiny. It doesn't matter how many times Condoleezza Rice or Donald Rumsfeld visit. It doesn't matter how many soldiers we deploy. The myriad factions in Iraq themselves must display the political will to demand a system of government that respects the diversity that exists in their country. There are no easy answers in Iraq. But we are convinced that the United States should now set a dramatically different course--one that anticipates U.S. military withdrawal sooner rather than later. We should begin the discussions now as to how we can bring our troops home. The United States should accelerate and pay for the training of Iraqi security forces with the help of Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab allies. We can begin drawing down American forces to coincide with the number of trained Iraqi forces. By that measure, we should bring 30,000 of our troops home now. President Bush should consult with the current Iraqi government and other Arab nations about the necessity for an Arab-led security force to complement the Iraqis in the short term. Again, the United States should finance this effort. We should also work with the United Nations to solicit ideas and assistance from the international community on how we can best disengage. There are no guarantees that militarily withdrawing from Iraq would contribute to stability or would not result in chaos. On the other hand, we do know that under our occupation the violence will continue. We also know that our occupation is one of the chief reasons for hatred of the United States, not only in the Arab world but elsewhere. Wars are easy to get into, but hard as hell to get out of. After two years in Iraq and the loss of more than 1,600 American soldiers, it is simply not enough to embrace the status quo. We are not suggesting a ``cut-and-run'' strategy. The United States must continue to finance security, training, and reconstruction. But the combination of stubbornness and saving face is not an adequate rationale for continuing this war. This is not a liberal or conservative issue. It is time for lawmakers in Washington--and for concerned citizens across the Nation--to demand that this sad chapter in our history come to an end and not be repeated in some other hapless country. The path of endless war will bankrupt our treasury, devour our soldiers, and degrade the moral and spiritual values of the Nation. It is past time to change course.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I concur with the explanation given by the gentlewoman from New York, the major author of the bill. This House has previously passed the bill, and it did not emerge from the Senate. We hope that it does this year. There were, if you go back 20 years or more, a number of restrictions on what various financial institutions can do. They have been outdated by technology, and passing this bill is one more step towards making sure that our financial institutions can in fact take full advantage of that. There is one issue that is of some interest to many Members that I want to note. We have in some parts of the country institutions known as ``industrial loan corporations'' that have many of the functions of banks, but, unlike more traditional banks, have many of their assets in nonbanking activities. Hence the name ``industrial loan corporation.'' They have become somewhat controversial. The Federal Reserve system is very much unhappy with them. There have been other concerns about other entities getting into the banking business when they are primarily not banks, but doing this in various ways. When the Congress passed the bill reorganizing the financial systems and removing a lot of the constraints on various financial institutions known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, it adopted a test that institutions had to be 85 percent financial in their total to get certain powers. Working with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor), I have put that formula into place, or the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) and I together have, with the concurrence of most of the members of our committee, so that as we expand bank powers, whether it is for branching or, today, for interest on business checking or in other ways, we have maintained that principle that these new powers should only go to institutions that have an 85 percent financial entity. This does not displace existing industrial loan corporations; indeed, it allows them to continue with whatever powers they get from the States where they are chartered, where they are State chartered, but it does say that as we expand banking powers, that expansion will be limited to institutions which would qualify under the 85-15 test. That provision is in here, and with that provision and a couple of other minor changes, I think this is a piece of legislation that is very appropriate. I would note that a question was raised about one aspect of it by people interested in land title. My colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) negotiated, I think, a very reasonable response to their question, and we now have a bill that I hope will pass overwhelmingly. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, one of the most troubling aspects of our current economic situation is the eroding position of a very large number of working people. While I was pleasantly surprised by the relatively high number of jobs created in April, the fact is that job creation during this recovery period has significantly lagged both historical experience in recovery, and the projections of the Bush Administration. Even more distressing is that those who have gotten jobs are being paid at rates which are historically low in real terms. Distressingly, inequality in our society is increasing even as our wealth increases, and as Alan Greenspan noted a year ago, a disproportionately large share of the increased wealth has gone to corporate profits and very little to compensation paid in wages and salaries. In a recent New York Times article, Bob Herbert does an excellent job of documenting this problem, quoting from the excellent report from the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston. Andrew Sum, the Director of that center, is appropriately quoted in that article as noting that in the current economic phase, ``younger workers have just been crushed.'' I admire the work that Andrew Sum is doing and I appreciate Bob Herbert's giving this the broader exposure to which it is entitled. In furtherance of this need to understand what is happening in our economy today, I ask that Mr. Herbert's article be printed here. [From the New York Times] The Young and the Jobless (By Bob Herbert) There were high fives at the White House last week when the latest monthly employment report showed that 274,000 jobs had been created in April, substantially more, than experts had predicted. The employment bar has been set so low for the Bush administration that even a modest gain is cause for celebration. But we shouldn't be blinded by the flash of last Saturday's headlines. American workers, especially younger workers, remain stuck in a gloomy employment landscape. For example, a recent report from the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston tells us that the employment rate for the nation's teenagers in the first 11 months of 2004--just 36.3 percent was the lowest it has ever been since the federal government began tracking teenage employment in 1948. Those 20 to 24 years old are also faring poorly. In 2000, 72.2 percent were employed during a typical month. By last year that percentage had dropped to 67.9 percent. Even the recent modest surge in jobs has essentially bypassed young American workers. Gains among recently arrived immigrants seem to have accounted for the entire net increase in jobs from 2000 through 2004. Over all, only workers 55 and up have done reasonably well over the past few years. ``Younger workers,'' said Andrew Sum, the center's director, ``have just been crushed.'' Whatever the politicians and the business-booster types may be saying, the simple truth is that there are not nearly enough jobs available for the many millions of out-of-work or underworked men and women who need them. The wages of those who are employed are not even keeping up with inflation. Workers have been so cowed by an environment in which they are so obviously dispensable that they have been afraid to ask for the raises they deserve, or for their share of the money derived from the remarkable increases in worker productivity over the past few years. And from one coast to the other, workers have swallowed draconian cuts in benefits with scarcely a whimper. Some segments of the population have been all but completely frozen out. In Chicago, only one of every 10 black teenagers found employment in 2004. In Illinois, fewer than one in every three teenage high school dropouts are working. Last month's increase of 274,000 jobs was barely enough to keep up with the increase in the nation's working-age population. ``The economy is growing and real output is up,'' said Mr. Sum, who is also a professor at Northeastern. ``But the distribution of income, in terms of how much is going to workers--well, the answer is very little has gone to the typical worker.'' The squeeze on the younger generation of workers is so tight that in many cases the young men and women of today are faring less well than their parents' generation did at a similar age. Professor Sum has been comparing the standard of living of contemporary families with that of comparable families three decades ago. ``Two-thirds of this generation are not living up to their parents' standard of living,'' he said. College graduates today are doing better in real economic terms than college graduates in the 1970's. But everyone else is doing less well. ``If you look at families headed by someone without a college degree,'' said Professor Sum, ``their income last year in real terms was below that of a comparable family in 1973. For dropouts it's like 25 percent below where it was. And for high school grads, about 15 to 20 percent below.'' It shouldn't be surprising that the standard of living of large segments of the population is sinking when employers have all the clout, including the powerful and unwavering support of the federal government. Workers can't even get a modest increase in the national minimum wage. Globalization was supposed to be great for everyone. Nafta was supposed to be a boon. Increased productivity was supposed to be the ultimate tool--the sine qua non--for raising the standard of living for all. Instead, wealth and power in the United States has become ever more dangerously concentrated, leaving an entire generation of essentially powerless workers largely at the mercy of employers. A remark by Louis Brandeis comes to mind: ``We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few. But we can't have both.''

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey bringing this forward and I join with him and my colleague from Massachusetts in regretting that we are at this pass. I understand that the committee is not motivated by any animus against the Coast Guard or any failure to appreciate the need for what it does. While we are going to have this amendment withdrawn at this point, obviously we all fervently hope that the administration will come into compliance with the very reasonable request of the committee so that by the time this bill ultimately is signed into law it includes these necessary funds for the Coast Guard. I represent the most prosperous fishing port in the United States, the city of New Bedford, town of Fairhaven. The value of the catch there is very significant. They make a significant contribution to the economy, the fishermen do. They also provide a very healthy source of food. At a time when we are worried about the health of what people eat, the health effects, we are worried about obesity, fishing is one source of about the healthiest food people can eat. Unlike most other foods, people do not often realize that the seafood that is brought to their table involves some risk of life. People do not get killed growing vegetables or even herding cattle, but people get killed fishing, particularly out in the deep sea. We have had tragic instances recently in the North Atlantic of these extraordinarily brave men losing their lives not through their own fault but weather and other factors. We need to do a lot to deal with that. We need to change regulations that give them incentives to be out at unsafe times. We need to do better training. We need a whole range of things. But no matter how hard we try to avoid accidents, given the nature of fishing, they will happen. Sadly, the Coast Guard today is not as well equipped as it can be and should be to deal with those accidents. My colleague from Massachusetts alluded to a controversy over a failure of a helicopter at a time when someone needed a rescue. The Coast Guard maintains that it would not have made any difference. We do not know whether it did or did not, but even accepting their argument, we should not be having that debate. Families mourning the loss of a brave fisherman should not be further tormented by the possibility that it was a failure in our own government that led that to happen. Having the Coast Guard do everything that it physically is capable of doing in these rescue situations is an essential part of an overall safety program, and obviously that cannot happen without there being the funds that we need. I urge the administration strongly to comply with the committee's request because it would be morally unacceptable for us to let this bill get signed into law with this gap still there. I appreciate the leadership of the committee in trying to get it resolved. They will have our support in doing that. We hope that when this bill is finally signed, those of us who represent fishermen will be able to tell them with some sense of confidence that we are, in fact, doing everything that we can to save them in this difficult situation.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I was disturbed to read of reports that people at the Air Force Academy were inappropriately and improperly putting pressure on cadets to follow certain religious practices. In this particular case, cadets who did not follow a certain brand of Christianity were being ridiculed and being criticized, and the allegations were that they were even being pressured by officials of the Academy to follow this specific set of religious practices. Obviously, we should create a situation in which people of any religious persuasion are free at the Academy to follow that. But for young men and women who were sent to the Academy to learn to lead our Air Force and defend our country in that important institution to be subjected to religious pressures, religious ridicule and criticism because they do not particularly follow one or another religion is terrible public policy, and, of course, unconstitutional. When I heard that, my reaction was to give the Air Force the benefit of the doubt. I wrote a letter to the Air Force Academy and the Secretary of the Air Force asking that the Air Force be looking into this, and I had read that in fact they were. So I thought, well, I hope we are talking with reasonable people. These allegations sounded to me like things that no reasonable person would allow to go forward. Let us see what happens. I decided I would wait to see what the Air Force did. Well, I am not waiting anymore, because the Air Force has acted. They have made things worse. They have done some things that confirm the view that I and others have that there is something seriously wrong. Captain Melinda Morton, an Air Force chaplain, number two in the chaplaincy there, was just transferred, well ahead of when she was supposed to be transferred, to Okinawa. Now, I mean no disrespect to Okinawa. For the people that live there, it is home, and it is a wonderful home. It has a lot of advantages. But when you are the number two in the chaplaincy in Colorado and you are sent to Okinawa very suddenly, it is clearly meant to be a rebuke, and the reason that the number two in the chaplain's office was sent to Okinawa was because she was supporting the criticisms. According to a New York Times article, which I will include for the record, she was told by the Chief Chaplain, Colonel Whittington, after a critical report on this subject from a team from the Yale Divinity School, she was asked to denounce the report and defend the Academy. But she said she could not do that because she agreed with the report. It was about 2 weeks later that she was transferred to Okinawa. So we have here not just a refusal to deal with inappropriate abuse of people on religious grounds, but a punishment of a very brave officer, a woman of integrity, a chaplain, a member of the clergy, who in pursuance of her faith and her obligations and her understanding of the Constitution refused to say something that she thought untrue about a report. When intelligent people say silly things, it generally means that they do not want to tell you the truth. The explanation the Air Force gives for sending her to Okinawa makes no sense at all. I do not believe we have put in charge of the Academy people incapable of making sense, so when they tell us things that are just silly, I think they are covering up. They gave a convoluted argument about, well, the other guy is going to leave, so she is going to have to leave afterwards, and, therefore, they both have to leave together. It makes zero sense. If anything, you would probably say if a new person was coming in, it would be better to have her there to help train him. Then we were also told by both the New York Times and the Associated Press that Colonel Whittington, the chaplain who apparently asked her to denounce the report, and when she disagreed with him and said she could not denounce the report she agreed with, and the report said there had been inappropriate religious pressure, he apparently was part of an effort to penalize her. We are told that he could not give an interview to the New York Times and the AP because he was being interviewed by the Air Force Special Study Panel. Now, I doubt very much that the Air Force Special Study Panel is grilling him 18 hours a day, or even 10 hours a day. In other words, there is obviously no conflict between being interviewed by this panel and also talking to the press. Why do they not let the chaplain talk to the press? Because they are afraid if he told the truth it would be embarrassing, is my inference. If there is a different argument, let them give it to us. Madam Speaker, we should note that among those who brought these allegations to light originally is a proud Air Force Academy alumni, Michael Weinstein, who worked for the Reagan Administration, whose son is now there, who said he has spoken to 117 people at the Academy who validate the accusation that there is inappropriate pressure put on people and that people are subject to disadvantages if they do not follow a particular religious view. The Air Force has got to reverse this pattern of religious oppression at the Academy, of religious abuse, ``oppression'' may be too strong; it has got to stop the transfer of a brave woman for speaking out; and they have got to take seriously a problem, rather than make it worse. Madam Speaker, I include for the record the May 15, 2005, New York Times article entitled ``Air Force Chaplain Says She Was Removed for Being Critical.'' [From the New York Times, May 25, 2005] Air Force Chaplain Says She Was Removed for Being Critical (By Laurie Goodstein) A chaplain at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs who has accused her superiors of using their positions to promote evangelical Christianity among the cadets says she was fired from an administrative job because of her outspokenness and was given orders to ship out to Japan. An Air Force task force, meanwhile, has finished an investigation at the academy into charges by the chaplain and others that officers there were inappropriately proselytizing the cadets. The academy chaplain, Capt. MeLinda Morton, said she had disagreed with her boss, the academy's chief chaplain, Col. Michael Whittington, after a critical report by a team from the Yale Divinity School was released to the news media in April. The report, dated July 2004 and which she helped write, found that some academy chaplains were insensitive to the religious diversity of the cadets. Captain Morton said her boss asked her to denounce the report and defend the academy, but she told him she agreed with it. She said that about two weeks later, on May 4, she received an e-mail message from Colonel Whittington dismissing her from her position as his administrative assistant, or ``executive officer.'' However, she remains a chaplain, retains her rank and earns the same salary. ``That is pretty plainly, in my mind, retribution,'' Captain Morton said. ``That makes a big point on a staff. The point is, `We don't regard Mel as trustworthy and we humiliate her by firing her.' However, in the whole scope of things, that's pretty minor to what's going on in the academy.'' She also said that in March she received orders to transfer to Okinawa, and from there could be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. Captain Morton said she was surprised because in December she was told by Colonel Whittington that she would be staying at the academy through summer 2006 to see several projects through. At the time, Captain Morton was developing a sensitivity training program for the academy and was involved in pastoral care for cadets who were victims in a sexual abuse scandal that swept the academy in 2003. An academy spokesman, Lt. Col. Laurent Fox, said in an interview that Captain Morton's dismissal as executive officer and her reassignment to Okinawa were entirely routine, and not retribution. He said that Captain Morton was removed from her position in order to make way for a new executive officer because Colonel Whittington was leaving the academy in June and Captain Morton is leaving in July. ``We don't see this as a dismissal,'' Colonel Fox said. ``This kind of a transition is a normal process that happens in squadrons across the Air Force.'' Colonel Fox said he knew nothing about a meeting that led to a quarrel over the Yale Divinity School report. A request to interview Colonel Whittington was denied because he was being interviewed by the task force investigating the religious climate at the academy. The task force is expected to release a preliminary report on May 23. Complaints about the religious climate at the academy first surfaced after fliers were passed out in the dining hall advertising a showing of the movie ``The Passion of the Christ.'' An alumnus of the academy, Mikey Weinstein, grew concerned after he visited his son at the school last year and learned that he had been subject to repeated religious slurs because he is Jewish. Mr. Weinstein, who served in the Reagan administration, said yesterday that he became enraged and set out to see if others had similar experiences. He said he has now spoken with 117 academy cadets, staff members and faculty members who complained about religious intimidation and proselytizing at the academy. Of the 117 people, 8 are Jewish, one is an atheist, about 10 are Catholic and the rest are nonevangelical Protestants. His son was interviewed by the task force this week, Mr. Weinstein said. He said he was not interviewed by the task force, even though ``I have a boatload of information,'' he said. ``I can't reveal people's names, but I thought it might be useful,'' he said.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, many Americans continue to be gravely embarrassed by our country's failure to address in a forthright manner the abuse of human rights which occurred at Abu Ghraib prison under our control. Clearly the great majority of Americans who have served in Iraq are innocent of any such pattern of abuse, but it is simply a defiance of common sense and the facts to hold accountable only a handful of low-level military personnel on the scene, while exonerating those in charge who are in various degrees culpable for either encouraging or allowing this to happen. Bob Herbert's column in the New York Times on April 27 makes this point forcefully, noting that ``under Commander in Chief George W. Bush, the notion of command accountability has been discarded. In Mr. Bush's world of war, it's the grunts who take the heat. Punishment is reserved for the people at the bottom. The people who foul up at the top are promoted.'' Mr. Speaker, our country deserves better of its leadership, and so do the men and women in the armed services who should not see a small number of their comrades held accountable for their actions while those in charge suffer no such penalty. I ask that Bob Herbert's thoughtful discussion of this matter be printed here. On Abu Ghraib, the Big Shots Walk (By Bob Herbert) When soldiers in war are not properly trained and supervised, atrocities are all but inevitable: This is one reason why the military command structure is so important. There was a time, not so long ago, when commanders were expected to be accountable for the behavior of their subordinates. That's changed. Under Commander in Chief George W. Bush, the notion of command accountability has been discarded. In Mr. Bush's world of war, it's the grunts who take the heat. Punishment, is reserved for the people at the bottom. The people who foul up at the top are promoted. It was a year ago today that the stories and photos of the shocking abuses at Abu Ghraib prison first came to the public's attention. It was a scandal that undermined the military's reputation and diminished the standing of the U.S. around the world. It would soon become clear that the photos of hooded, naked and humiliated detainees were evidence of a much larger problem. The system for processing, interrogating and detaining prisoners at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq was dangerously out of control, and the command structure responsible for it had collapsed. Detainees were beaten, tortured, sexually abused and, in some instances, killed. Many detainees should never have been imprisoned at all, as they had committed no offenses. So what happened? A handful of grunts were court-martialed, a Marine major was cashiered, and the Army plans to issue a new interrogation manual that bars certain harsh techniques. There was no wholesale crackdown on criminal behavior. We learned last week that after a high-level investigation, the Army had cleared four of the five top officers who were responsible for prison policies and operations in Iraq. The fifth officer, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski of the Army Reserve, had already been relieved of her command of the military police unit at Abu Ghraib. (She has complained, and not without reason, that she was a scapegoat for the failures of higher-ranking officers.) As Eric Schmitt wrote in The Times: ``Barring new evidence, the inquiry by the Army's inspector general effectively closes the Army's book on whether the highest-ranking officers in Iraq during the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, should be held accountable for command failings described in past reviews.'' This is the way atrocities are dealt with in Mr. Bush's world of war. The higher-ups responsible for training, supervising and disciplining the troops--in other words, the big shots who presided over a system that ran shamefully amok--escaped virtually unscathed. The abuses at Abu Ghraib, which seemed mind-boggling at the time, turned out to be symptomatic of the torture, abuse and institutionalized injustice that have permeated the Bush administration's operations in its so-called war against terror. Euphemisms like rendition, coercive interrogation, sleep adjustment and waterboarding are now widely understood. Yes, Virginia, it is the policy of the United States to kidnap individuals and send them off to regimes skilled in the art of torture. Two things are needed. First, a truly independent commission, along the lines of the bipartisan 9/11 panel, should be set up to thoroughly investigate U.S. interrogation and detention operations and make recommendations to correct abuses. Second, the U.S. government should make it clear, beyond any doubt, that torture and any other inhumane treatment of prisoners is wrong, just flat wrong, and will not be tolerated under any circumstances. ``In our contemporary world, torture is like the slave trade or piracy was to people in the 1790's,'' said Michael Posner, executive director of Human Rights First, which is suing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over the prisoner abuse issue. ``Torture is a crime against mankind, against humanity. It's something that has to be absolutely prohibited.'' If the president made it clear that men and women up and down the chain of command would be held responsible for the abuses that occur on their watch, the abuses would plummet. Instead, the message the administration has sent is that its demands for accountability will be limited to a few hapless, ill-trained grunts. The big shots who presided over behavior that has shamed America in the eyes of the world can count on this president's embrace.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, before I yield, I just would say sometimes we have debates about where does wealth begin and what is middle class, et cetera. I guess I would differ with the gentleman from California that if you have $100,000 in the bank, you are a little guy, but if you have $130,000, you are rich. I think that unduly compresses the middle class. I think much more is being made, frankly, over $30,000 than is deserved. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, we will deal with this one; and when the gentleman brings that amendment up, we will deal with that one. I want to make it very clear. I did not stop the gentleman from offering any amendment he wanted to.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. May I ask the gentleman a question. Did someone keep the gentleman from offering that amendment? Why did the gentleman not offer that amendment? It is the gentleman's amendment. Is the gentleman criticizing me for his amendment? If the gentleman thinks his amendment should be different, make it different.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman. The other thing I want to do is to disagree very strongly with the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) on the causality of the savings and loan crisis. I do not believe, having served here at the time, and I have seen very few analyses that said the deposit insurance issue was effective, it increased the cost but it was not the cause of the failure. And those are really two quite distinct things. The causes of the failure I believe were two. First of all, we imprudently loosened substantially what savings and loans, thrift institutions could invest their money in. So they became invested in things that were much less insured. They were not just doing houses; they were doing a lot of open land, et cetera. Secondly, this Congress in 1981 passed tax legislation that greatly inflated the value of real estate and then in 1986 undid it. If you wanted a dictionary example of going from one extreme to another, it was the treatment of real property and real estate in the 1981, 1986 tax act. So we kind of baited and switched people. In the 1981 act we gave, I say ``we'' because I voted against the 1981 act. I vote for the 1986 act, but Congress gave people incentive to invest in real estate. And because of the tax advantages, it made sense to buy an empty building and not have anybody in there in some cases literally because of the tax advantages. But in 1986 we rationalized the Tax Code, but we did it too rapidly and there were people caught in the middle. I believe those were the two major causes. I agree that increasing deposit insurance raised the cost of it, but I do not think it is causal. Just to go back, I think, frankly, it is the least sophisticated saver who we protect by raising this rate. The gentleman said correctly, you can open 10 accounts, 12 accounts, 13 accounts; but more sophisticated people unfortunately, the deposit insurance limit is not very effective against them; but there are people of less sophistication, less ability to be mobile, and they are the ones who do it. I do think if your life savings is $130,000 you are rich. And I think trying to protect the least sophisticated people that way and to preserve against unfair competitive pressures on smaller institutions justifies the bill.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) simply multiplies his mathematical difficulty. He said, well, when I said if you have $100,000 under his calculations, you are a little guy but if you have 130,000 you are rich. He says, but what if you have 10 times $130,000? The answer is, well, what if you have 10 times 100,000? Thirty percent is still 30 percent. So the fact is that he is ascribing to a 30 percent increase a qualitative impact that simply will not stand up to analysis. He says, well, you can have 10 accounts and you would have 1.3 million. Yes, and you could have 10 accounts and have 1 million. So the difference is really quite small. I must say even when the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), with whom I agree here, talked about this will save people, $30,000 is not going to make a big difference one way or the other. I believe it is a step in the right direction. First of all, understand that much of the argument for this comes from smaller institutions who fear the negative competitive effect of the doctrine of ``too big to fail.'' By the way, the large institutions are on the whole not for this. The large institutions feel that if people are worried about a bank failure affecting their accounts, if they have more than the insured amount they will put it in the largest possible institution to the detriment of smaller institutions. I do not think it is a good thing for there to be that kind of competitive pressure exercised against smaller banks. That is why they are very strong advocates of this.