Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). She has been very much in the forefront overseeing this issue. Along with her, I and others have written some letters to the Federal Reserve. We have been staying very much on top of this. The gentlewoman has been performing a real service, and I appreciate the cooperation of the chairman. I look forward to our being able to work together to make sure that consumers are protected.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for his great graciousness in what he had to say. And let me say in deference to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) a great baseball leader, if you notice, I yielded to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), who then came back to this side to thank us. If you're scoring this, it is 3 to 6 to 3, I believe is the appropriate scoring.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, in a very impressive display of bipartisanship, I am now going to yield some of our time to the manager of the bill for the majority. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) as long as he does not talk about the Rohrabacher amendment.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentleman from Alabama's letting us butt into his conversation. I want to speak in favor of the bill. It is an example of the things that we do that are not controversial and are not exciting to a lot of people but are, in fact, very important for the proper functioning of the economy. This is an upgrading and an updating of the deposit insurance system. It is widely supported by financial institutions. There is a difference of opinion on one aspect, the coverage increase, but I will say that, while I support the bill as written and support the coverage increase, it is my hope that however that winds up, it will not lead to the demise of the bill. The bill is an important piece of legislation for improving the functioning of the banking system. I just also want to point out two things: There is a mistaken assumption abroad that somehow things have gotten so poisonous here that nothing ever happens. There are issues on which we disagree vehemently, but the fact that this bill is coming forward from the Committee on Financial Services with overwhelming support from the committee, disagreement on one specific point, is a refutation, that I think people ought to know that, no, it is not the case that we have been so embittered towards each other that we cannot function. This bill comes forward with support on both sides. It also, as was noted by the gentleman from New York who spoke earlier, contains a section that what we call lifeline banking. And not all banks in the world were having parties when that was included, but it is an important point to be made here. It is our job to pass legislation and to do things that help the financial system function. Banks are good institutions. They perform useful roles in our society. But there are also needs that individuals have, particularly lower income individuals, that are not going to be automatically taken care of by even the best functioning market, and our job, in part, is to advance measures that help the institutions function but at the same time provide a degree of fairness, a kind of minimum support, for people who will not automatically benefit from the general going forward. This bill is an example of that, and I want to say that the inclusion of this lifeline provision is very important. I appreciate the majority's accommodating the concern that people had, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who pushed hardest for this; so I hope that this package will go forward as an example that even at times that are very contentious, we can work together on legislation that bridges some gaps and advances the system.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I think we would all agree that that would certainly justify at least three accounts. One for each child.

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

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Connecticut, good friends who kept debate alive so I could get here. I was in a hearing where I am the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, and I appreciate the chance to speak. Let me say to my friend from Chicago that we are delighted to have lent you this very distinguished jurist, Judge Leighton. He has come back home now. Chicago was a nice place to visit, and the visit did last many decades; but I am delighted to have had the chance to respond to the unanimous vote of the City Council of New Bedford urging me to introduce this legislation. I appreciate the committee's processing it. I think, as the gentleman from Illinois mentioned, I am delighted to be here on behalf of a Republican nominee to the Federal bench. Judge Leighton was an appointment of President Gerald Ford. Judge Leighton is a man who, in his own right as a jurist, as a distinguished legal scholar, deserves recognition. It does not, I think, diminish one iota, but rather enhances him, to note that he is not simply an extremely distinguished judge, a man who, born into difficult circumstances to immigrant parents who did everything they could to provide him with the opportunities; a man whose education was interrupted by service in World War II, so he overcame a number of obstacles and, despite that, graduated from law school and earned an appointment to the Federal bench and earned a great reputation on the Federal bench. In addition, it is important to note, given the nature of this country and the fact that we are a country that has drawn enormous strength from immigration, from people coming from all over the world, the thing about immigrants is that they are not a random sample of the population from which they come. Immigration is itself an act that shows entrepreneurship and energy. Lazy people on the whole do not immigrate to foreign countries where they do not even speak the language. The very fact of immigration is a sign of a degree of eagerness to better yourselves, to work hard for yourselves and your family. So I do not think it is an accident that our national prosperity and thriving democracy has been strengthened by our being the place where some of the most energetic and entrepreneurial people from all over the world come. Judge Leighton's parents were in that category. They come from the Island Republic of Cape Cabo Verde, and it is a country which has recently been recognized by this administration for its commitment to democracy and its vigorous support for economic development by being in the very first group of countries that qualified for the Millennium Challenge Account. Judge Leighton was in that first wave of Cape Verdean immigrants, a man born in 1912; and I do note for the record that Judge Leighton is exactly 2 days younger than my mother, as I looked at his birth date; and he is one of the people who was in the lead in this particular ethnic group, people of Cape Verdean descent, taking their place in America, as so many groups before them and after them continue to do. It is a source of great pride to the people of Cape Verdean descent and to the people of the Republic of Cape Verde that a man born to Cape Verdean immigrant parents rose by dint of his own intelligence and commitment to this very distinguished position. I am particularly grateful that July 5 is Cape Verdean Independence Day, and I will be marching in a parade then, as I always do, sponsored by a very important organization, the Cape Verdean Veterans Association. Cape Verdeans have, from the moment of their coming here, been strongly patriotic Americans and they have a strong tradition and identification with the armed services. I am very proud that one of the people who works for me in Massachusetts, Ervin Russell, is a Vietnam veteran, an in-country Vietnam veteran of Cape Verdean descent who is very active with that organization; and on July 5, we are looking forward to, after completing this parade run by the Cape Verdean Veterans Association, dedicating this post office; and we will have, I think, the ambassador and others, because this is a celebration of the triumph of a man. It is also a vindication of the American immigrant tradition, because it is a symbol of what the immigrants to this country have given to this country. Judge Leighton has done enormous service to America, and he is being honored at the request, as I say, of the city council and the mayor of the city of New Bedford, both for his own work and as a symbol of the Cape Verdean immigration to this country. So I very much appreciate what my colleagues have done.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, nothing that we do is more important than trying to provide a fair start in life for young people born into difficult economic circumstances. The Head Start and Early Head Start programs are therefore among the most valued that we have. I was pleased but not surprised to be informed that the version of these programs run by the Fall River Community Action Group, Citizens For Citizens, received the Excellence Award from the Department of Health and Human Services. Citizens For Citizens is an extraordinarily creative organization, run by dedicated people with a deep commitment to helping others. This recognition of the Head Start program is just an example of the generally excellent work that Citizens For Citizens does, and on the occasion of this, I want to congratulate Director Neil Lynch and all of those who work with him in this important endeavor. Mr. Speaker, the Fall River Herald News last month ran an article about this program and the good work that it does. It is important for people to see examples of successful federal programs, and I therefore ask that this article from the Fall River Herald News be printed here. [From the Herald News, Mar. 24, 2005] CFC Head Start Program Receives Program of Excellence Award Fall River.--Citizens for Citizens' Head Start and Early Head Start program has once again received the U.S. Department of Health's Program of Excellence Award following an extensive study of all aspects of the operation by a team of 12 federal reviewers. Neil Lynch, CFC Head Start director, said that only two other programs in Massachusetts received the Program of Excellence Award. The award was presented at a regional conference in Nashua, N.H. The reviews are conducted every three years and the highest rating is a repeat of the study results in 2001. The federal reviewers determined that CFC Head Start meets and surpasses every federal performance standard. ``The team from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services closely scrutinized us in how effectively we were performing in the areas of education, quality health and nutrition, disabilities, social services, transportation and parent involvement,'' said Lynch. He noted that the federal reviewers also met with community partners, including the public schools, social service agencies, parents, policy council members and the CFC board. ``I am very proud of our staff for receiving the Program of Excellence Award for the second consecutive time,'' said Lynch. ``The staff and the parents of Head Start children devote a great deal of effort into the programs we provide in order to ensure the highest quality of early childhood education possible,'' he added. CFC operates 21 Head Start classes in Greater Fall River and an Early Head Start and home-based program on Second Street. The federal reviewers determined CFC Head Start and Early Head Start accomplished the following: --All curricula in place are based upon sound child development principles and presented in creative learning methods. --Parents are actively involved in curriculum planning through a policy council, which is informed of current decisions affecting service delivery, program policies and procedures. --Successful family partnership built. --Rapport between staff and parents created trust and helped identify individual needs. --Collaboration is excellent between area health and dental providers, schools, colleges and pediatric specialists. --General layout of classrooms are safe, confortable and fully accessible. Mark A. Sullivan Jr., executive director of CFC, said Head Start is a valuable learning resource for children and that since its inception it has successfully prepared millions of children to enter school on a level playing field. ``I am very proud of the administrators of CFC's Head Start, the staff and especially the parents who are closely involved with the program to ensure their children get a quality learning experience,'' said Sullivan.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it is deeply discouraging that no high-ranking military or civilian defense officials are being held accountable for the terrible abuses of basic human rights that occurred at the prison in Abu Ghraib. The editorial from the Washington Post, which I hereby insert into the Record, makes the point very well. The failure of the Bush Administration to hold any high-ranking official in any way accountable for this grave lapse is in itself a deeply regrettable example of dereliction of duty. [From the washingtonpost.com, Apr. 23, 2005] Top Officers in Abu Ghraib Case Cleared (By Robert Burns) Washington.--Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, faulted by some for leadership failures in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, has been cleared by the Army of all allegations of wrongdoing and will not be punished, officials said. Three officers who were among Sanchez's top deputies during the period of the prisoner abuse in the fall of 2003 also have been cleared. An Army Reserve one-star general has been reprimanded, and the outcome of seven other senior Army officer cases could not be learned Friday. Sanchez, who became the senior U.S. commander in Iraq in June 2003, two months after the fall of Baghdad, has not been accused of criminal violations. It is unclear, however, whether the controversy surrounding his role in Iraq will stand in the way of his earning a fourth star. He is nearing the end of his tenure as commander of the Army's 5th Corps, based in Germany. After assessing the allegations against Sanchez and taking sworn statements from 37 people, the Army's inspector general, Lt. Gen. Stanley E. Green, concluded that the allegations were unsubstantiated, according to officials familiar with the details of Green's probe. Green reached the same conclusion in the cases of two generals and a colonel who worked on Sanchez's staff. The 'officials who disclosed the findings spoke only on condition of anonymity because the results on Sanchez and 11 other officers who were the subject of Green's scrutiny have not yet been publicly released and Congress has not been fully briefed. The question of accountability among senior Army and Defense Department officials who were in positions of responsibility on Iraq detention and interrogation policy has been hotly debated in Congress. Some Democrats accuse the Pentagon of foisting all the blame onto low-ranking soldiers. In a statement issued Friday that did not mention Sanchez or other specific cases, Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that as soon as all Pentagon assessments of accountability are complete he will hold a committee hearing ``to examine the adequacy of those reviews'' and to hear senior civilian and military officials address the issue. Warner, R-Va., said he strongly agrees with one investigation report that concluded last year that commanders should be held accountable for their action or inaction and that military as well as civilian leaders in the Pentagon ``share this burden of responsibility.'' The office of Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, declined to comment on the matter. Asked about public expectations of punishment for senior officers associated with Abu Ghraib, the Army's chief public affairs officer, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, said the Army went to great lengths to make its investigations thorough and fair. In addition to clearing Sanchez, the Army inspector general has determined that there should be no punishment given to Sanchez's former top deputy, Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski; to Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast, who was Sanchez's intelligence chief in Baghdad; or to Col. Mark Warren, Sanchez's top legal adviser at the time. In an interview Friday, three senior defense officials associated with the Green investigations cited mitigating circumstances in the Sanchez case, including the fact that his organization in Iraq, known as Combined Joint Task Force 7, initially was short of the senior officers it required. They also cited the upsurge in insurgent violence shortly after Sanchez took command and the intense pressure the military faced in hunting down Saddam Hussein. The three officials spoke on condition of anonymity. A separate investigation by a panel headed for former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger concluded that Sanchez should have taken stronger action in November 2003 when he realized the extent of problems among the military intelligence and military police units running Abu Ghraib. A subsequent Army investigation, made public last summer in what was called the Kern-Fay-Jones report, concluded that although Sanchez and his most senior deputies were not directly involved in the bases at Abu Ghraib, their ``action and inaction did indirectly contribute'' to some abuses. Sanhez and Wojdakowski were cited in the Kern-Fay-Jones report for failure to ``ensure proper staff oversight of detention and interrogation operations'' in Iraq, specifically at the Abu Ghraib prison where Iraqi detainees were physically abused and sexually humiliated by military police and intelligence soldiers in fall 2003.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, Theodore Olson, most recently Solicitor General under President George Bush from June 2001 until July of last year, is without question one of the leading members of the American Bar, and a very important figure in conservative politics. Mr. Olson understands that there not only is no conflict between an energetic political and intellectual conservatism and a deep respect for an independent judiciary, but that in fact the two are, as American history shows, wholly complementary, and in some ways reinforcing. On April 21, Mr. Olson published a cogent, well-argued essay in the Wall Street Journal headlined Lay Off Our Judiciary. The article is an impressive rebuttal to some of the irresponsible, thoughtless attacks that have been made both on specific judges and on the notion of an independent judiciary. Clearly, Mr. Olson makes these arguments out of a genuine commitment to the institution of an independent judiciary, and not because he takes one side or another in a particular dispute that has found its way to the courts or to Congress. As he notes, ``calls to investigate judges who have made unpopular decisions are particularly misguided, and if actually pursued, would undermine the independence that is vital to the integrity of judicial systems.'' Mr. Olson goes on to be very critical of various aspects of the nomination battles now occurring in the Senate. I do not agree with everything he says here, but the importance of his overall affirmation of the centrality of an independent judiciary to our system of governance is so relevant to current political debates that I ask that it be printed here. [From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 21, 2005] Lay Off Our Judiciary (By Theodore B. Olson} A prominent member of the Senate leadership recently described a Supreme Court justice as ``a disgrace.'' An equally prominent member of the leadership of the House of Representatives on the other side of the political aisle has characterized another justice's approach to adjudication as ``incredibly outrageous.'' These excoriations follow other examples of personalized attacks on members of the judiciary by senior political figures. So it is time to take a deep breath, step back, and inject a little perspective into the recent heated rhetoric about judges and the courts. We might start by getting a firm grip on the reality that our independent judiciary is the most respected branch of our government, and the envy of the world. Every day, thousands and thousands of judges--jurists whose names we never hear, from our highest court to our most local tribunal--resolve controversies, render justice, and help keep the peace by providing a safe, reliable, efficient and honest dispute resolution process. The pay is modest, the work is frequently quite challenging, and the outcome often controversial. For every winner in these cases, there is a loser. Many disputes are close calls, and the judge's decision is bound to be unpopular with someone. But in this country we accept the decisions of judges, even when we disagree on the merits, because the process itself is vastly more important than any individual decision. Our courts are essential to an orderly, lawful society. And a robust and productive economy depends upon a consistent, predictable, evenhanded, and respected rule of law. That requires respected judges. Americans understand that no system is perfect and no judge immune from error, but also that our society would crumble if we did not respect the judicial process and the judges who make it work. We have recently witnessed tragic violence against judges, their families and court personnel in Chicago and Atlanta. These incidents serve as reminders of how vulnerable the judiciary is to those who may be aggrieved by judges' decisions. Violence and intimidation aimed at judges is plainly intolerable; all of us can, and should, be unequivocally unified on the proposition that judges must be protected from aggrieved litigants and acts of terrorism. The wall between the rule of law and anarchy is fragile; if it is penetrated, freedom, property arid liberty cannot long endure. This is not to say that some judges don't render bad decisions. Arrogant and misguided jurists exist, just as such qualities may be found in the rest of the population, and our citizens and elected representatives are fully justified in speaking out in forceful disagreement with judges who substitute their personal values or private social instincts for sound jurisprudential principles. But the remedies for these aberrations consist of reasoned, even sharp, criticism, appeals to higher courts, and selection of candidates for judicial positions that respect limits on the roles of judges. But, absent lawlessness or corruption in the judiciary, which is astonishingly rare in this country, impeaching judges who render decisions we do not like is not the answer. Nor is the wholesale removal of jurisdiction from federal courts over such matters as prayer, abortion, or flag- burning. While Congress certainly has the constitutional power, indeed responsibility, to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts to ensure that judges decide only matters that are properly within their constitutional role and expertise, restricting the jurisdiction of courts in response to unpopular decisions is an overreaction that ill-serves the long-term interests of the nation. As much as we deplore incidents of bad judging, we are not necessarily better off with--and may dislike even more--adjudications made by presidents or this year's majority in Congress. Calls to investigate judges who have made unpopular decisions are particularly misguided, and if actually pursued, would undermine the independence that is vital to the integrity of judicial systems. If a judge's decisions are corrupt or tainted, there are lawful recourses (prosecution or impeachment); but congressional interrogations of life- tenured judges, presumably under oath, as to why a particular decision was rendered, would constitute interference with-- and intimidation of--the judicial process. And there is no logical stopping point once this power is exercised. Which member of Congress, each with his or her own constituency, would ask what questions of which judges about what decisions? Imagine the kinds of questions asked routinely in confirmation or oversight hearings. How can those questions be answered about a pending or decided case? And what if a judge refused to testify and defend his reasoning about a particular decision? Would an impeachment or prosecution for contempt of Congress follow? Either would be unthinkable. Federal judges are highly unlikely to submit to such a demeaning process and, if push came to shove, the public would undoubtedly support the judges. No discussion of the judiciary should close without reference to the shambles that the Senate confirmation process has become. It does no good to speculate about how or when the disintegration began, which political interest has been the most culpable, or the point at which the appointment of judges became completely dysfunctional. That sort of debate is both endless and futile. The only hope for an end to the downward spiral is for the combatants to lay down their arms; stop using judicial appointments to excite special interest constituencies and political fund-raising; move forward with votes on qualified, responsible and respected nominees so that those who have the support of a majority of the Senate can be confirmed, as contemplated by the Constitution; and remove the rancor and gamesmanship from the judicial selection process. We expect dignity, wisdom, decency, civility, integrity and restraint from our judges. It is time to exercise those same characteristics in our dealings with, and commentary on, those same judges--from their appointment and confirmation, to their decision-making once they take office.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this rule to begin with is further evidence of the contempt which the majority of this House has for something called democracy. We have heard in a few brief minutes from both a Republican and a Democrat their unhappiness that important issues will not be brought forward. Why? Well, we work probably all day today; we may work a half day tomorrow. So in this week when we could have worked many days and debated many amendments at length, we will have some not discussed at all and others discussed for a handful of minutes because this majority cannot be bothered with anything as cumbersome to them as open debate and having Members have to record themselves. One of the issues which is given inadequate time, it is given some time but inadequate time, I think 10 minutes, is an outrageous effort by the majority to further diminish the ability of elected State governments to defend their own citizens. State governments are sometimes popular around here and sometimes not. When State governments, democratically elected governors and legislatures, appear to be obstacles to letting major players in the energy industry get whatever they want, then they are to be diminished, they are to be dismissed, they are to be thrown out of the process. With regard to liquefied natural gas terminals, a very important issue, an issue which has become more important because of their relevance to the terrorism threat which security officials tell us is the case, this bill takes a limited State role in the siting of these and makes it a nonexistent State role. The ability of governors and legislatures--I have a Republican governor in my State who does not like a proposal to site an energy plant in a wholly inappropriate place, way up river in the city of Four Rivers, which the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and I share. This governor's objections will be muffled. So I guess I should congratulate you on the bipartisanship of your contempt for democracy. It is not just our colleague from Tennessee who could not get amendments through; my Republican governor cannot get his voice heard. This rule and this bill ought to be defeated.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the honesty of the gentleman. Let me suggest the way that he can reunite himself: help us vote down the rule. That will not jeopardize the bill. When the rule is voted down, the Rules Committee will have to do the right thing.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, people in Southeastern Massachusetts, and Portuguese-Americans in particular, received very sad news on Sunday of this week of the death of Antonio A. Costa. As the New Bedford Standard Times noted in its obituary of this outstanding man, ``Mr. Costa was an esteemed leader, establishing many firsts within the New Bedford, Mass., Portuguese community.'' Mr. Costa was a leader in establishing Portuguese language media, and he went on to be the Broadcasting Director for Voice of America in the Portuguese language section. He then returned to our area and again provided significant cultural, intellectual and economic leadership to the Portuguese-American community in particular, and the broader community in general. After retirement, he continued his leadership role and produced the only radio program in Portuguese in South Florida. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Costa was exactly the kind of community leader that contributes to the strength of America and I ask that his extraordinary life and his contributions to others be noted here. Mr. Costa's life reminds us of the great benefit America derives from immigrants such as himself and the attached editorial from the New Bedford Standard Times makes that clear. Antonio A. Costa, Leader in Portuguese Community Pompano Beach, Fla.--Antonio Alberto Costa, formerly of Southeastern Massachusetts, died Sunday, April 10, 2005, unexpectedly at Imperial Point Medical Center. He was the husband of Guida (Goncalves) Costa. Born in Lisbon, Portugal, he was the son of the late Jose M. and Maria A. (Correia) Costa. He immigrated to America as a young man. Mr. Costa was an esteemed leader, establishing many firsts within the New Bedford, Mass., Portuguese community. He was a founder and past president of the Luso-American Soccer Association as well as the Portuguese American Athletic Club in New Bedford. An entrepreneur, he began by purchasing Phillips Press and continued with the founding of Costa Imports. He founded the first Portuguese-language radio station in the United States, WGCY, now broadcasting as WJFD-FM in New Bedford, and produced the first Portuguese variety television program, ``Passport to Portugal'' on WTEV-TV. He initiated a daily TV cable program ``Panorama of Portugal,'' currently known as The Portuguese Channel, and purchased and published what is known as ``The Portuguese Times'' newspaper, also in Southeastern Massachusetts. Mr. Costa relocated to Washington, D.C., to represent Portugal as the Portuguese language broadcasting director for ``Voice of America.'' He returned to New England as co-owner and director of Radio Club Portugal, ``WRCP.'' In recognition of his services to the Portuguese community, the government of Portugal conferred upon him the rank of comendador da ordem do infante dom henrique. Various civic organizations recognized his achievements as well. The Seven Castles Club named him Man of the Year, as he received the Merit Award from the United Way as well as the Portuguese- American Federation. He received official citations from the Massachusetts and Rhode Island houses of representatives, the Medal of Prestige from the Portuguese Continental Union and the Annual Achievement Award from the Prince Henry Club. In retirement, he produced the only Portuguese-language radio program in South Florida on WHSR-AM, where the transmission continues via his Web site, radioportugal.net. He also wrote periodic chronicles published in O Journal entitled ``Desabafos.'' Survivors include his widow; two sons, Carlos Alberto Costa and his wife, Susan, of Westport, Mass., and Luis Manuel Costa and his wife, Nancy, of New Bedford; a daughter, Ana Maria Costa of New Bedford; five grandchildren; three great- grandchildren; and a nephew. His funeral will be at 9 a.m., Friday from the Dartmouth Funeral Home, 230 Russells Mills Road, Dartmouth, Mass., followed by a Mass of Christian Burial at 11 in Immaculate Conception Church, New Bedford. Interment will be private. Arrangements are by Porter Funeral Service, Westport.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, 23 years ago, when Congressional Districts in Massachusetts were changed, one of the first issues I worked on involving the newer parts of my district concerned the Community Development Block Grant Program for the City of Fall River. Working with then Mayor Carlton Viveiros, I was successful in preserving parts of the CDBG Program in Fall River that were being threatened by legislative changes. And in the years since then, Fall River has continued to be a national exemplar of how this program works for the benefit of our constituents. On Friday, April 1, the newspaper of Fall River, the Herald News, ran an excellent editorial, which testifies both to the value of the CDBG Program nationally, and to the good work that people have done administering it in Fall River. As the editorial eloquently pointed out, ``Allowing a community's water mains to decay does nothing to foster self-reliance. An 80-year-old widow on a small pension, living alone, will probably not be lured from the paths of righteousness if she receives some help paying her heating bills.'' As the Herald News notes, CDBG funds in Fall River ``are a good example of tax money being put to a variety of concrete uses that directly benefit people.'' Given that we are now in a national debate on this program in response to the President's proposal substantially to reduce it and reorganize it, I ask that the very thoughtful editorial by the Fall River Herald News be printed here. The most common (and often misguided) gripe about government is that you pay your taxes and you never see your money at work. In fact, it is popular to believe that government spends its entire budget on ``pork barrel'' projects of the ``how do butterflies fly'' variety. This kind of thinking is so enshrined in the American consciousness that no one really believes government ever does anything useful with taxpayer dollars. That's not true. Witness the Community Development Block Grant Program. That program brings about $5 million to Fall River every year. That $5 million is not spent on pork. Money from CDBG funding puts police officers on foot beats, helps poor elderly people pay their utilities and has helped reline miles of city water pipes. Does that sound like pork to you? At a recent press conference, Fall River Mayor Edward M. Lambert Jr. spoke strongly about the need to preserve the CDBG program. Lambert said the program is threatened by an initiative aimed at rolling a number of similar programs together, cutting funding and handing control over to the Department of Commerce. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has always administered CDBG programs. Frankly, any threat to CDBG money is a threat to Fall River. Of course, numerous people will say that the cutting of another ``entitlement'' program is a good thing, that ``self- reliance'' needs to be encouraged. It's difficult to see what these people mean. Allowing a community's water mains to decay does nothing to foster self- reliance. An 80-year-old widow on a small pension, living alone, will probably not be lured from the paths of righteousness if she receives some help paying her heating bills. In Fall River, Community Development Block Grants are a good example of tax money being put to a variety of concrete uses that directly benefit people. That kind of government program deserves to continue on a steady course.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the Taunton Gazette recently ran a very comprehensive series documenting the social and economic importance of the Community Development Block Grant Program. Taunton, Massachusetts, which I am privileged to represent, is a very good example of how when this program is well administered, as it has been in Taunton, it can be of such enormous benefit in a variety of ways to its citizens. Joanna James of the Taunton Gazette deserves a great deal of credit for her thorough and insightful reporting, and the Taunton Gazette deserves a great deal of credit for devoting the space to this story. Too often today people are given only snippets of information about important public policy issues. The Taunton Gazette's in depth exploration of how the CDBG Program works in that city is a tribute to the program itself, and to its continued importance, to the people in the City of Taunton led by Mayor Nunes who administer it, to Joanna James for the quality of her reportage and to the Taunton Gazette for giving so much space to such an important public policy issue. I find it hard to believe that anyone could read this series of articles and still feel that this is a program ought to be substantially diminished, as the President's budget would do. (By Joanna James) Taunton.--President George W. Bush's recommendation to dismantle the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) in his proposed budget would filter down the federal bureaucracy in no time and aim directly at the heart of each community nationwide, according to local and state elected officials. David Bachrach, director of the Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD), predicts a looming crisis targeting the community, whether or not the CDBG program is cut. Taunton received $1.2 million from its funding for 2004. If the program isn't eliminated, then the question will be how much funding will be allocated to it, according to Bachrach. Bachrach said if it's significantly cut that will cause unnecessary Congressional pressure to take money out of other programs. ``These are huge resources that only government can will upon the community.'' Bachrach said. ``It's a shame that the cuts are even a suggestion.'' Bush proposed to eliminate the community funding program and replace it under the Department of Commerce while cutting its funding by 35 percent. The CDBG aids statewide municipalities with low income housing, public enhancements such as park and street renovations and a plethora of other community resources left to the discretion at the local level. Mayor Robert G. Nunes said the CDBG is a ``tremendous program'' that will have dire effects on Taunton if it is cut. Nunes said over the last 10 years, the program has provided $15 million to Taunton. The funds have been used on community issues such as housing, public safety, infrastructure, parks, roads and the hiring of police officers. ``There's a national, bipartisan effort from mayors lobbying heavy on this,'' Nunes said. Last week Nunes attended a roundtable discussion on the CDBG cuts in Boston with seven other Massachusetts mayors hosted by Rep. Michael E. Capuano, D-Mass. ``We discussed the impact the cuts would have across the country.'' Nunes said, ``not just our communities.'' As the former mayor of Somerville, Capuano spoke from first-hand experience on how the CDBG funding was critically important to the quality of life in communities. ``President Bush said in his State of the Union address that he wants to help the faith-based and community groups . . . yet he's cutting the very programs that help kids stay away from drugs, provide housing and opportunity,'' Capuano said. Bush's CDBG proposal fueled mayors nationwide to take a stance against it because the CDBG program offers them flexibility to decide where to direct the funding at a local level. Locally, Nunes is working with the person who utilizes the CDBG program the most. Bachrach's Office of Community Development is the second largest in the city to receive federal level funds (the first is Title I education). ``The CDBG is a significant tool,'' Bachrach said, ``It's hard to fathom what will happen without the funds.'' Currently the CDBG is funding 12 programs under the Office of Community Development; whereas if the grant was eliminated Bachrach would have to competitively find 12 separate grants toward neighborhood revitalization, head starts for small businesses, elder services, police detail and teachers--to name a few. Over the past three years, the Office of Community Development has used the CDBG to benefit: 515 elderly, 740 single-parent households, 96 disabled persons, 348 youth and 622 families. The CDBG has also impacted Taunton's business growth and infrastructure improvements. ``We're going to have to reevaluate the direction of money,'' Nunes said, ``less money, then less money toward infrastructure and other community needs.'' Although locally there has been a collective effort to prevent the cuts, Nunes said at this point there is nothing more that can be done other than wait for Congress's decision.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, my predecessor as the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Financial Services, John LaFalce, made enormous contributions during his tenure in Congress to our deliberations on financial services issues, and as a private citizen, he continues to do so. I have myself benefited in a number of conversations from his knowledge and wisdom about a range of issues. One of those about which he is most concerned is the current plan for a change in international financial regulations known as Basel II. On March 11, John LaFalce published a very thoughtful, well-informed article in the American Banker, outlining his concerns about the implications of Basel II. This is a subject currently before us in the Financial Services Committee, and while not widely known, is of great importance to our financial system. Because of that, I ask that the article by John LaFalce expressing his deep reservations about Basel II be printed here. Basel II Plan is a Crisis in the Making In the coming year Congress and U.S. bank regulators will decide whether to adopt new capital regulations that would impact the entire U.S. banking system. Current discussions about Basel II are focusing on the minute details, rather than the more important question of whether the proposed accord makes any sense at all. In my view, Basel II is fundamentally flawed, and actually dangerous, for numerous reasons. First, it is based on a fanciful premise that sophisticated risk-management models enable banks to allocate capital to each asset that is neither too low, nor too high, but just right. I hope my former colleagues and others do not gamble the stability of our domestic and global financial system on this theory. Recent financial crises, such as at Long-Term Capital Management, should serve as stark reminders that all models, no matter how sophisticated, are subject to unpredictable market forces and, most important, human judgments, mistakes, and even manipulation. With every large bank in the world lining up to play the Basel II capital game, and a financial system that is increasingly interdependent, the consequences of even an inadvertent mistake could be devastating. The odds are too high that Basel II, if adopted, could trigger a systemic financial crisis. Second, Basel II's proponents have been too quiet about the most fundamental tenet of banking regulation--safety and soundness--and the critical role that an adequate capital cushion plays in the safe and sound operation of our banks and banking system. A Basel II regime would be reckless, unsafe, and unsound, inter alia, because: It would allow banks to use complex risk-based models that few if any corporate executives or directors will ever comprehend adequately, if at all, and models that the regulators will lack the resources and technical skills to supervise adequately. It is an ominous sign that the regulators recently published a formula that would have caused banks to underestimate their capital needs for retail credits by 60 to 70%. Banks will implement Basel II only if they know their capital requirements will decline. That will also create powerful incentives, competitive pressures, and irresistible temptations for the nation's largest banks to revise their models over time to achieve the lowest amount of capital reserves possible. Banks will be able to artificially improve their performance by manipulating capital levels, much as we have seen some companies manipulate earnings. The new capital regime will seriously undermine the competitive viability of small to medium-size banks because of the dramatically lower capital levels that the largest banks will achieve. We now know that two former Federal Reserve economists came to that very conclusion in a paper that is being published independently. Third, Basel II is overly optimistic about the ability and resources of regulators to supervise the new and complex capital rules. As Standard & Poor's has pointed out, ``National bank regulators could be overwhelmed by the implementation of Basel II, with its intensive need for verification of the internal systems and databases of individual banks.'' In addition, although the new accord allows regulators to make discretionary capital adjustments, banks will likely resist or seek to influence these adjustments, particularly after spending tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars developing their models. As for market oversight, I discount that almost entirely. We are already seeing resistance by banks to making public disclosures about their models, ostensibly because of concern over the potential litigation exposure. Neither the markets nor the regulators nor most corporate officers or directors will be in any position to comprehend the underlying assumptions and idiosyncrasies built into the banks' models or to react quickly enough to emerging crises. Fourth, some in the Federal Reserve would like us to believe that adoption of Basel II is necessary and inevitable. It is neither. Despite the perceived momentum behind Basel II, the accord seems to have little support beyond a few forceful players at the Federal Reserve and the handful of the largest banks that stand to gain the most because of reduced capital requirements. I am convinced that the seasoned executives of some, if not most, of the nation's largest banks would themselves, in private conversation, acknowledge the folly of Basel II. Many former regulators have expressed serious reservations about, if not outright opposition to, Basel II, including Jerry Hawke, Bill Isaac, Bill Seidman, and others. Powell is apparently sufficiently concerned that he has reignited the debate over the FDIC's authority to examine banks already being examined by other federal regulators. The fact that the chairmen and ranking members of both the House Financial Services Committee and its financial institutions subcommittee introduced legislation Thursday that could slow down or even prevent adoption of Basel II should also send a strong signal to the regulators. Fifth, I am not even convinced that the Federal Reserve itself fully embraces Basel II, or even adequately understands many of its implications. Some prominent members of the Federal Reserve may still mistakenly believe that regulatory capital does not affect competition or the pricing and strategic decisions that banks make. This misconception could help explain their preference for theoretical models rather than practical realities. Chairman Greenspan has been largely silent in the Basel II debate, although the irony is that he prudently questions the sufficiency of the capital levels at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But Basel II would actually allow banks to hold less capital for the same mortgage assets than Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are required to hold. Current estimates of the capital that Basel II banks would have to hold for mortgage assets would also be at or below the capital level that led to the savings and loan crisis. Some at the Federal Reserve appear to be more attuned to the importance of maintaining adequate regulatory capital reserves. Timothy Geithner, the president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, remarked recently that it was important for the nation's largest financial institutions to ``maintain an ample capital cushion over and above the high regulatory thresholds.'' He added that ``because of the broader implications of a failure for the financial system and for the economy as a whole, the supervisory framework for the largest systematically significant banking organizations . . . needs to produce a higher level of financial soundness than might be indicated by measures of economic capital or expected by shareholders and creditors of the institution.'' Sixth, proponents like to argue that Basel II is necessary to create competitive equity among internationally active banks. No capital accord will ever accomplish that objective, both because of significant differences in accounting standards and the wide disparity in the quality of regulation abroad, as Jerry Hawke has stated. Global regulatory consistency will never be achieved, particularly when foreign banks abroad are examined only sporadically and without anywhere near the same thoroughness as U.S. banks. The reality is that U.S. banks have proven stronger, more profitable, and more resilient than their foreign counterparts in recent economic cycles. Seventh, there clearly is an effort afoot, pending Basel II's adoption, to abolish the leverage ratio as inconsistent with the principles of Basel II. Congress and U.S. regulators must not weaken our country's important regulatory protections such as the leverage ratio and prompt corrective action regulations to emulate the questionable supervisory oversight abroad. Although some at the Federal Reserve have provided assurances that the leverage ratio will be maintained under Basel II, some have left that question open. And powerful institutional and lobbying forces have already voiced their preference for capital regulations based exclusively on risk based credit models, and have called for the elimination of the leverage ratio. This cannot be allowed. Among other things, the leverage ratio ensures that regardless of the risk-based models used by banks, there is at least a base level of protection in the event of a crisis, rather than relying primarily on an insurance fund or taxpayer bailout. In sum, decades as a legislator have convinced me that the most effective regulations are those that are easy to understand, can be applied objectively and consistently, are not subject to manipulation, and can be monitored effectively by supervisors, managements, and market participants. This is particularly the case when dealing with issues affecting the stability of our domestic and global financial systems. With some reasonable updating, the existing Basel I approach can continue to meet these goals and ensure that sufficient capital is available as a cushion against mistakes or unanticipated crises. Basel II would take us in a dangerous direction toward subjective self-assessments of capital and a dependence on complex theoretical models that are subject to manipulation and incapable of being effectively monitored. I see no consideration of safety and soundness at all in the Basel II debate, and no recognition of the danger of adopting a new capital regulation that goes in the exact opposite direction from the recent reforms concerning corporate governance, regulatory oversight, and internal controls.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, one of the saddest aspects of our current political dialogue is that partisanship has extended into the intellectual sphere. That is, I very much agree that people should pick one party or the other as being more representative of their views than the alternative and generally support that party. That is legitimate partisanship. Excessive partisanship comes when people are never willing to admit that ``their side'' ever makes mistakes, or that the ``other side'' ever has any virtues. It is for this reason, as well as the substance of his well-reasoned articles, that I was very gratified to read Boston Globe Columnist Jeff Jacoby's two-part series on torture. Mr. Jacoby is a strong, outspoken conservative who supports the war in Iraq. But unlike many, he does not let his general ideological position in this set of issues make him an apologist for specific actions which go counter to the very moral values that the war in Iraq is supposed to be vindicating. In a forceful two-part series in the Boston Globe, Mr. Jacoby makes a principled, thoughtful, fact-based case against the use of torture by Americans, even in the service of our entirely justified fight against terrorism. Mr. Jacoby puts it eloquently in his first article: ``Better intelligence means more lives saved, more atrocities prevented and a more likely victory in the war against radical Islamist fascism. Those are crucial ends and they justify tough means. But they don't justify means that betray core American values. Interrogation techniques that flirt with torture, to say nothing of those that end in death, cross the moral line that separates us from the enemy we are trying to defeat.'' In his second article, Mr. Jacoby argues that the case against torture is not only a moral one but also a pragmatic one, noting, among other things, ``torture is never limited to just the guilty.'' Mr. Speaker, I salute Jeff Jacoby both for the force of his arguments and for the intellectual integrity he has shown in making them. No issue confronting our Nation is more important than how we deal with this set of questions and I therefore ask that Mr. Jacoby's very significant contribution be printed here. [From the New York Times, Mar. 17, 2005] Where's the Outrage on Torture? (By Jeff Jacoby) In August 2003, when he was commander of the military base at Guantanamo Bay, Major General Geoffrey Miller visited Baghdad with some advice for US interrogators at Abu Ghraib prison. As Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, the military police commander in Iraq, later recalled it, Miller's bottom line was blunt: Abu Ghraib should be ``Gitmo-ized.'' Iraqi detainees should be exposed to the same aggressive techniques being used to extract information from prisoners in Guantanamo. ``You have to have full control,'' Karpinski quoted Miller as saying. There can be ``no mistake about who's in charge. You have to treat these detainees like dogs.'' Whether or not Miller actually spoke those words, it is clear that harsh techniques authorized for a time in Guantanamo forced nudity, hooding, shackling men in ``stress positions,'' the use of dogs were taken up in Afghanistan and Iraq, where they sometimes degenerated into outright viciousness and even torture. Did the injunction to ``treat these detainees like dogs'' give rise to a prison culture that winked at barbarism? Should Miller be held responsible for what Abu Ghraib became? The latest Pentagon report on the abuse of captives, delivered to Congress last week by Vice Admiral Albert Church III, doesn't point a finger of blame at Miller or any other high-ranking official. It concludes that while detainees in Iraq, Guantanamo, and elsewhere were brutalized by military or CIA interrogators, there was no formal policy authorizing such abuse. (On occasion it was even condemned in December 2002, for example, some Navy officials denounced the Guantanamo techniques as ``unlawful and unworthy of the military services.'') But surely, Church was asked at a congressional hearing, someone should be held accountable for the scores of abuses that even the government admits to? ``Not in my charter,'' the admiral replied. So the buck stops nowhere. And fresh revelations of horror keep seeping out. Afghanistan, 2002: A detainee in the ``Salt Pit'' a secret, CIA-funded prison north of Kabul is stripped naked, dragged across a concrete floor, then chained in a cell and left overnight. By morning, he has frozen to death. According to The Washington Post, which sourced the story to four US government officials, the dead man was buried in an unmarked grave, and his family was never notified. What had the Afghan done to merit such lethal handling? ``He was probably associated with people who were associated with Al Qaeda,'' a US official told the Post. Iraq, 2003: Manadel al-Jamadi, arrested after a terrorist bombing in Baghdad, is brought in handcuffs to a shower room in Abu Ghraib. Shackles are connected from his cuffs to a barred window, hoisting his arms painfully behind his back a position so unnatural, Sergeant Jeffrey Frost later tells investigators, that he is surprised the man's arms ``didn't pop out of their sockets.'' Frost and other guards are summoned when an interrogator complains that al-Jamadi isn't cooperating. They find him slumped forward, motionless. When they remove the chains and attempt to stand him on his feet, blood gushes from his mouth. His ribs are broken. He is dead. Then there is the government's use of ``extraordinary rendition,'' a euphemism for sending terror suspects to be interrogated by other countries including some where respect for human rights is nonexistent and interrogation can involve beatings, electric shock, and other torture. The CIA says it always gets an assurance in advance that a prisoner will be treated humanely. But of what value are such assurances when they come from places like Syria and Saudi Arabia? Of course the United States must hunt down terrorists and find out what they know. Better intelligence means more lives saved, more atrocities prevented, and a more likely victory in the war against radical Islamist fascism. Those are crucial ends, and they justify tough means. But they don't justify means that betray core American values. Interrogation techniques that flirt with torture to say nothing of those that end in death cross the moral line that separates us from the enemy we are trying to defeat. The Bush administration and the military insist that any abuse of detainees is a violation of policy and that abusers are being punished. If so, why does it refuse to allow a genuinely independent commission to investigate without fear or favor? Why do Republican leaders on Capitol Hill refuse to launch a proper congressional investigation? And why do my fellow conservatives--those who support the war for all the right reasons--continue to keep silent about a scandal that should have them up in arms?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, since 1982, my Congressional activities have been covered by the Sun Chronicle, which provides news for the Greater Attleboro, Massachusetts area. It is a newspaper which understands the importance of solid and thoughtful coverage of events that happen within its area. At the same time, it pays due attention to national issues, and it has also been an important advocate for fair treatment for that part of Massachusetts in which it circulates. Its interest in all three of these elements came together on March 18 when the Sun Chronicle published a gracious and thoughtful editorial about the appointment of an Attleboro native, Joe Solmonese, to be the head of the Human Rights Campaign. The Human Rights Campaign is a major voice for fair treatment for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people, and I am among those who was very pleased that Mr. Solmonese was selected, given the combination of skill and talent that he brings to the job. As the Sun Chronicle noted, ``Attleboro is honored by the appointment of a city native to head the Human Rights Campaign'' and it is also honored and fortunate to have a newspaper with the generosity of spirit to editorialize as well as it did on this subject. I ask that this editorial be printed here. [From the Sun Chronicle, March 18, 2005] Activist Eyes Tough Fight (By David Crary) New York.--After 12 years advocating for abortion rights, Attleboro native Joe Solmonese might have opted for a less divisive field of work. Instead, he is taking over leadership of the largest national gay-rights group at a time when the same-sex marriage debate rivals abortion for volatility and virulence. ``My challenge is to talk about why the equality we seek is not just important to our community, but should be important to everyone,'' Solmonese said. ``I have to believe in the optimism and fair-mindedness of the American people.'' Solmonese was named last week as the new president of the Washington-based Human Rights Campaign and will formally assume the post April 11. He plans to start his tenure by traveling around the country, meeting with state and local activists. Since 1993, Solmonese has been a strategist for EMILY's List, a political action committee supporting state and federal candidacies of Democratic women who favor abortion rights. He was its chief executive for the past 2\1/2\ years, helping break fund-raising records but also seeing candidates his group endorsed lose 2004 Senate races in Florida, South Carolina and Missouri. Solmonese, 40, graduated from Boston University with a degree in communications after growing up in Attleboro. One of his role models was the local congressman, Barney Frank-- who disclosed his homosexuality in 1987 when openly gay politicians were almost unheard of. ``Barney Frank is an incredibly heroic person, but also someone who is absolutely in touch with his constituency,'' Solmonese said in a telephone interview. ``He's a man who values family more than anyone I know.'' Solmonese came out as gay in his early 20s; he recalls attending a Human Rights Campaign dinner when he was 22. Before joining EMILY's List, he was an aide to former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis and a fund-raiser for Frank. He credits his parents, both schoolteachers, with inspiring him to pursue a career of political activism. Solmonese Elementary School in Norton is named after his father, Joseph. ``After a decade in the reproductive rights movement, I see myself having been in the fight for a progressive America,'' he said. ``Groups like the HRC are very much at the forefront of that fight.'' Another common denominator for the abortion-rights and gay rights movements is their determined and politically well- connected opposition. Conservative leaders who focus on those two issues have claimed credit for the Republicans' strong showing in the 2004 election. ``The American people fear a whole range of things right now, from terrorism to their economic future,'' Solmonese said. ``Our opposition has been pretty crafty at capitalizing on that fear, using whatever means necessary to make political gains.'' Many conservative groups are now waging a two-pronged fight against gay marriage. They are lobbying Congress to approve a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman; they also hope many more states will join the 17 that already have amended their constitutions to ban gay marriage. The Human Rights Campaign was among numerous gay-rights organizations participating earlier this month in a strategy session aimed at competing effectively in upcommg state ballot campaigns regarding gay marriage. Solmonese says he hopes Massachusetts will demonstrate to Americans nationwide that its pioneering legalization of same-sex marriage has positive, not negative, results. ``Massachusetts is still there, with loving, committed families going on with their lives and experiencing the same rights and responsibilities that all Americans do,'' he said. ``We want to shine a light on what happened in Massachusetts, and tell the American people who we truly are.'' He replaces another Massachusetts political activist, former state Sen. Cheryl Jacques, who stepped down as HRC president late last year, citing differences with its board. Her departure coincided with speculation in the gay media, and elsewhere, about discord among the HRC and some other major gay-rights groups. Solmonese said he has detected no serious rifts since his hiring was announced.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield for purposes of a unanimous-consent request to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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