Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, to begin as the majority leader leaves, I must say when he says that the timing of this, 1 month before an election when the issue has been pending all year, when he says the timing was forced upon him and is not effected by political considerations, he violates what I would recommend to the gentleman is an important rule of political debate: No matter how advantageous one thinks it is, try hard to believe something no one believes; it does not really help your cause. Beyond that, we have the most seriously misdescribed constitutional amendment I have ever seen. Actually if the Republicans go forward with their proposal, having created the largest deficits in our history, to require a balanced budget some time in the far distant future, that may be an even greater one at variance with reality. But here is the problem: They describe an amendment very different than the one they bring forward. We have heard the gentlewoman from North Carolina and the gentleman from Texas say this is aimed at preventing judges from forcing one State to do what another State does. It does far more than that. At its core what it does is say that no State, by whatever process it chooses, may find that two women being willing to commit themselves to each other legally as well as emotionally is a good thing and not a bad thing, because that is the core of the issue. In the State of Massachusetts, it is true we began with a court decision. Since then, it has been debated in our legislature. The legislature of Massachusetts very narrowly approved an amendment that would have said no to same-sex marriages but would have mandated full civil unions, which may also be thrown out by this amendment. That amendment will now be debated next year. An election is going on in Massachusetts today in which how people voted on this is a major issue. We just had a change in the leadership of the Massachusetts House. A speaker who opposed same-sex marriage has been replaced by a speaker elected by the House of Representatives of Massachusetts, in turn elected by the people, who support same-sex marriage. I think the question is very much in doubt, but the point is undeniable; the political process in Massachusetts, the democratic process in Massachusetts, is now deciding whether or not to allow same- sex marriage. Mr. Speaker, the other side comes with an amendment that would cancel any decision made on this that they do not like by the people of Massachusetts. This is not an amendment that says one State cannot do something to another State. There would be an amendment possible. I would not be for it, but if that is really what is meant, then we would have an amendment that took DOMA and made it a constitutional principle. Such an amendment would be possible. I think it would be a mistake. I do not think it would be a good idea to freeze that, because then we would have some real difficulties, but it would be at least in accordance with what the other side is saying because this amendment does far more than has been described. It has been a rule that I have found when people in political debate will not be completely open about what they are trying to do, it is because they really know it is not defensible. Why do you not acknowledge that this amendment would cancel a democratic decision by the people of Massachusetts? Indeed, if the legislature decides to get rid of this, there will be a referendum. If the legislature does not decide to get rid of it, then a fairly small number of people can force a referendum and we will have a referendum, very likely, in 2008. We will have had by that time the benefit of 4 years in which same- sex marriages happened. I understand why the opponents of same-sex marriage are so upset. They have made a number of predictions about what will come after same-sex marriage, none of which will be proven true, so they are desperately trying to cut this off before it happens. We have already had nearly 5 months of same-sex marriage. None of their predictions were proven true, as none of their predictions were proven true when they talked about the chaos in Vermont. But let us understand what the House is being asked to do. If the concern was to say judges could not decide this, if the concern was to say full faith and credit does not apply, there would be amendments that could be narrowly drafted to deal with that, although I would not support them. But that is not what is here. This amendment says no State, Vermont, Massachusetts, by whatever process, by referendum, by vote of the legislature, by whatever process, can decide that it would like to have same-sex marriage for its own citizens. I will say that on behalf of the citizens of Massachusetts, who do not share the distaste for love that is expressed in a way in which you do not disapprove that Members of the majority have, please do not impose your views on the people of Massachusetts. If your concern is genuinely to prevent one State from forcing another, deal with that. But this is an undemocratic effort to say no State may differ in this intimate matter of public policy with your views.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, they started in 2001.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman gets the date wrong. He said since 1989. Same-sex marriage started in the Netherlands in 2001. When Members are giving statistics, they ought to know what they mean.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, let me begin on a note of agreement with my predecessor in the well. I do think what we are seeing in Serbia has been very encouraging. And I am glad that President Clinton persevered in doing that over the opposition of a large number of Republicans in this chamber who sought to prevent him from carrying out that policy. But I want to talk now about Iraq. We went into Iraq, I thought, unwisely and unnecessarily. I believe that my vote against that was the right vote. But even those who voted for it have a hard time dealing with what has been one of the most incompetently executed major national security policies in the history of this country. And one sign of that is the consistently wrong predictions this administration has made. They said that when we went into Iraq and when they won the war, and the military part was won very easily, despite what President Bush had earlier said, he inherited from President Clinton a superb military regime that won easily the military parts of the efforts in both Afghanistan and Iraq. But we were told that once the military part was over, the people of Iraq would be so welcoming, that it would be fairly easy. Indeed, this administration punished General Shinseki for predicting that it would be a difficult occupation. And, of course, it was a very difficult occupation. But then we were told, well, when we capture Saddam Hussein that will take the energy out of the resistance and things will get calmer. And we captured Saddam Hussein, fortunately; but unfortunately things did not get better. And then we were told, well, we will turn over the government of Iraq to an Iraqi set of officials and then things will get better. And we turned over the government to an Iraqi set of officials and things have gotten worse. Now, we are accused by those who do not think debating public policy is appropriate in a democracy. Apparently, they have this very odd idea that the more important the issue, the less appropriate it is to debate it. Democracy in their minds should be conducted about trivia; but when we are talking about important issues of war and peace and the lives of our young people and the national security, somehow it becomes inappropriate to engage in the democratic debate that is at the nature of our governance. But we have an additional witness to the argument that Iraq remains sadly unsafe in many places for this government and its supporters, the United States government. And we are not just talking about Fallujah or the Sunni Triangle. We are talking about Baghdad. We recently had, and I read this in the New York Times last Thursday, a wire service article, the United States government last week, or at least I learned of it last week, recently gave asylum to a 15-year-old Iraqi girl who asked for asylum on the ground that her support for the American military made it unsafe for her to live in Baghdad. In other words, we now have an official recognition by the United States immigration officials that being a supporter of the American military in Baghdad is so dangerous as to justify the extraordinary act that is a grant of asylum. This is not critics of the administration saying that. This is not Fallujah. This is Baghdad. This is a sad statement, and I am terribly troubled by this. I am glad we gave this young woman asylum given those circumstances. A young woman who expressed her support for the American military now tells us that it is unsafe for her to go to Baghdad. Well, if in fact things are calmer, let us talk about an election. They are going to have an election throughout the country. Baghdad is one of the places where we are told things are fairly secure. Well, if it is secure enough to have a free election, why is it so insecure as to say that a 15-year-old has to be given asylum in the United States because it is not safe for her to remain in her own country because she sided with America. What is clear is that the result of the Bush administration's Iraqi policy has been a sad deterioration, in my view, of the true national security policy of this country; and the misinformation, the self- delusion, the inaccuracy, the infighting, the inconsistency that have marked this policy have resulted in a very, very sad situation. And as long as the President and his chief advisors insist on defying reality and blaming the messengers who bring forward the evidence of this sad reality, it is unlikely that things will get better. The self-deluded are rarely the self-correcting. [From the New York Times, Sept. 23, 2004] U.S. Asylum for Iraqi Girl, 15 Washington--A 15-year-old Iraqi girl who claimed persecution in Baghdad because her family cooperated with the United States military has been granted political asylum here. The case is believed to be among the first instances of an Iraqi seeking political asylum in such circumstances. The girl and her mother, who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation against other family members still in Iraq, received the letter on Thursday from the Citizenship and Immigration Services, according to Jeff Sullivan, their Washington lawyer. The girl came to the United States last year with her mother for treatment of a cancerous growth in her cervix. The two subsequently applied for political asylum. The mother is pursuing asylum for the father and three other children still in Baghdad, Mr. Sullivan said.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, why not race and religion?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time. Does he then seek to undo the Federal law that singles out race and religion currently for a protection of this sort? If he thinks it is wrong to do division, does he oppose the existence of those laws and do we expect to see a law repealing these?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I am torn. I cannot decide which argument has less merit. There was the gentleman from Florida who said, do not take it up on this bill; it is in the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. It is in the dungeon of the Committee on the Judiciary. I envy the gentleman's ability to say that without smiling. This bill is introduced, and it is sent to the Committee on the Judiciary. And that committee, of which he is a member, consistently refuses to take any action on it. Of course, it would be better if the Committee on the Judiciary did its duty and had a markup and let us vote on the bill. The Committee on the Judiciary tyrannically refuses to deal with the bill. That is bad enough. But it literally adds insult to the democratic process to injury of the democratic process to refuse to act on the bill, and then complain when people find another way around. This is like locking somebody up, and she escapes through your backyard, and you charge her with trespassing. We have found a way out of your prison, and that bothers you. How can anyone seriously argue that, having refused to let the bill be subjected to the normal processes, we are the ones who are at fault because we have found another way to bring it up? And then we have the gentleman from North Carolina who said this is a violation of free speech. I guess it is easy when you do not read the bill. This bill criminalizes actions that consist of violence against individuals. It allows the Attorney General to enter under certain limited circumstances, if it is a Federal crime of violence under the Federal U.S. Code. It allows certain other things if there is an act of bodily injury or an attempt to cause bodily injury. Nothing in here criminalizes speech. In fact, when people start talking about Sweden, it is a pretty good indication that they do not have anything to talk about with regard to the law that we are voting on in America. By the way, America, unlike Sweden, has a first amendment, and the Supreme Court would have banned that if anybody tried to. Finally, to refute that argument, which is without any merit whatsoever; I mean, sometimes we get close questions here. That one has no merit. There is nothing remotely in this bill that threatens anybody's speech. But here is the proof of it, and it also is a sign of the gross inconsistency of those on the other side. We are not starting down any path today, except the path of their illogic. What we are doing is adding a category to existing Federal categories. There are already on the books laws that create hate crimes. It is not the case that every crime is treated equally. By the way, there was one category of people, and violence against them is much more seriously treated than violence against anybody else. If you are so offended by that, where is your motion to amend the law and take away the statute that says it is a super Federal crime to assault one of us. If a Member of Congress and a private citizen are walking down the street and they are both assaulted, it is a much more serious crime against the Member of Congress. Where is your consistency? If you mean what you say, why have you not gone after that, or is it okay if you are protected, Madam Speaker? And then we have race on the books, and we have religion. Has anybody ever found a case where they say, well, once you do this, someone's free speech will be impugned? Are you telling me there are no racists in America? Are you telling me that no one makes racially offensive remarks? People do. And none of them, none of them have ever been prosecuted for hate speech. So, in fact, you deny the reality, Madam Speaker, when people say this, that there are already on the books certain categories that are treated as hate crimes. None of them have led to there being any impugning of people's free speech. Then the question is, why do we want to do this? In the first place, no one is saying that if you were violently assaulted, you will not be protected by the law. Why do we add an additional element if it is a hate crime? And here is the reason: When people are going out and singling out people because of their race or their color; and, by the way, if people who are white are being assaulted by people of another race because of their race, that is a hate crime, and it ought to be treated as such. I do not share the view that that is a bad thing. It is wrong for thugs to tyrannize people because of that, and it is worse than another crime for this reason. If some individual is walking down the street and is randomly assaulted, he or she is traumatized. But if another individual is singled out because of her race or religion or sexual orientation or gender, then it is not simply the individual who has been assaulted but others who share that characteristic who are put in fear. We do have a particular problem. The gentleman said, well, you are saying gender instead of sex. Yes, there are people who are transgendered in our society. They are sadly often victimized. They are often victims of violence. Yes, I think it is a good idea to come to their aid. And if the gentleman thinks it is a mistake to go to the aid of people who are transgendered who are more often than others victimized and who are put in fear for that, then we do disagree, and I welcome the chance to vote on it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am here to protest what has become a significant degradation of the democratic process in this House. We have a situation in which the House leadership has turned the legislative process into a propaganda arm. With increasing and depressing frequency, we are given resolutions to vote on in a form which does not allow for amendments, and these resolutions contain a mix of the good, the bad and the ugly. What we have is a pattern of taking sentiments to which all Members of the House or nearly all Members subscribe, sentiments which are quite proper, and then adding into these sentiments are far more controversial sentiments, sentiments that many of us disagree with. It is an abuse of the process of democracy to bring forward on this floor resolutions which combine those things with which Members agree with things which are controversial in a form which does not allow Members to even begin to separate them. There are, for good reasons, parliamentary rules and ways through which Members can express partial agreement. We can amend. We can divide the question. But when bills are brought here under suspension of the rules, as they often are, the legislative process is turned into a political propaganda machine. What happens is Members feel coerced into voting in very large numbers for particular sentiments which could not in many cases get a majority on their own and certainly could not get majorities of the size that they get. And then having gotten that, people will say, see, everybody agrees with that. Most recently this happened on September 9 when we voted on the resolution brought out of the Committee on International Relations dealing with the terrible events of September 11, 2001; and I will insert this in the Record, appropriately marked. It has resolve clauses that we all agree with, but it also has a series of ``whereas'' clauses which include a number of things which are extremely controversial, in my view, untrue, and unworthy of being put through in this coercive fashion. Paragraphs 4 and 5, which I have noted on my copy of the resolution, treat the war in Iraq as part of the global war on terrorism. It has been made increasingly clear, most recently by our colleague who is now waiting confirmation as head of the CIA, that statements by administration officials tying Iraq to the September 11 situation were simply not true. Yet this resolution acts as if they were. This resolution implicitly reaffirms the increasingly discredited notion, believed, I think, by almost nobody except possibly the Vice President because he talks about it all the time, that said that there was a direct link between September 11 and Iraq. And it is wrong to coerce Members to vote for statements that falsely assert this claim because otherwise they will be accused of not caring about the events of September 11. Then on paragraphs 15 through 21, we have inappropriate celebratory language. If we read these paragraphs, we have solved the problems of immigration and terrorism. We are examining all the cargo. We have taken care of everything. We have ``whereas'' clauses here that look like part of the President's reelection campaign. He is entitled to a reelection campaign. He is not entitled to take things that belong in a reelection campaign statement and bundle them into an otherwise noncontroversial resolution to coerce people into voting for him. This congratulates us, for example, that we have extended our borders overseas and to secure and screen cargo before it is placed on ships destined for United States ports of entry. It talks about the great success of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center. Frankly, if one read this resolution and believed it, they would not need the 9/11 Commission report. These paragraphs basically celebrate the accomplishments of what the 9/11 Commission points out need to be done. We have congratulations to the Immigration Service, congratulations to the FBI, congratulations to the Coast Guard. There are very hard- working decent people trying hard to accomplish these things, but we have not done them yet. These things, if they had been brought forward on their own as statements, would have been rejected, I believe. It is absolutely wrong to take these inaccurately self-congratulatory statements about the administration's performance and our own performance here in Congress and get votes for them because otherwise people would be accused of not wanting to express our horror of September 11 and our thanks to those who worked so hard against it. So, Mr. Speaker, because I did not think that the war in Iraq was part of the war on terror, I do not think we deserve to claim ``mission accomplished'' with regard to the fight against terrorism, I voted against this resolution. And I hope we will stop this practice of giving a bait-and-switch approach to legislation. H. Res. 757, in the House of Representatives, U.S., September 9, 2004. Whereas on September 11, 2001, while Americans were attending to their daily routines, terrorists hijacked four civilian aircraft, crashing two of them into the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, and a third into the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C., and a fourth was prevented from also being used as a weapon against America by brave passengers who placed their country above their own lives; Whereas three years later the country continues to, and shall forever, mourn the tragic loss of life at the hands of terrorist attackers; Whereas by targeting symbols of American strength and success, these attacks clearly were intended to assail the principles, values, and freedoms of the United States and the American people, intimidate the Nation, and weaken the national resolve; 4 Whereas three years after September 11, 2001, the United States is fighting a Global War on Terrorism to protect America and her friends and allies; 5 Whereas since the United States was attacked, it has led an international military coalition in the destruction of two terrorist regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq while using diplomacy and sanctions in cooperation with Great Britain and the international community to lead a third terrorist regime in Libya away from its weapons of mass destruction; Whereas the United States is reorganizing itself in order to more effectively wage the Global War on Terrorism by transforming the Department of Defense, sharpening the Federal Bureau of Investigation's counterterrorism focus, strengthening the authority of the Director of Central Intelligence to coordinate national intelligence activities, and creating a Department of Homeland Security; Whereas of the senior al-Qaida leaders, operational managers, and key facilitators that the United States Government has been tracking, nearly two-thirds of such individuals have been taken into custody or killed; Whereas just as significant, with the help of its allies, the United States has disrupted individuals and organizations that facilitate terrorism--movers of money, people, messages, and supplies--who have acted as the glue binding the global al-Qaida network together; Whereas Pakistan has taken into custody more than 500 members of al-Qaida and the Taliban regime, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi bin al Shibh, conspirators in the September 11, 2001, attacks, and Kahallad Ba'Attash, an individual involved in the planning of the attack on the USS COLE in 2000; Whereas Jordan continues its strong counterterrorism efforts, arresting two individuals with links to al-Qaida who admitted responsibility for the October 2002 murder in Amman, Jordan, of Lawrence Foley, a United States Agency for International Development Foreign Service Officer; Whereas in June 2002, Morocco took into custody al-Qaida operatives plotting to attack United States Navy ships and ships of other member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in the Strait of Gibraltar; Whereas the United States and its allies in Southeast Asia have made significant advances against the regional terrorist organization Jemaah Islamiyah, which was responsible for the attack in Bali, Indonesia, in October 2003 that killed more than 200 people; Whereas Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and other countries in Southeast Asia have taken into custody leaders and operatives of local al-Qaida-affiliated terrorist organizations and members of al-Qaida traveling through such countries; Whereas the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and other countries have disrupted cells of the al-Qaida terrorist organization and are vigorously pursuing other leads relating to terrorist activity; 15 Whereas following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States Government initiated innovative programs, such as the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program and the Container Security Initiative, to extend our borders overseas and to secure and screen cargo before it is placed on ships destined for United States ports of entry; 16 Whereas the Department of Homeland Security implemented the US-VISIT border security screening system in December 2003 at all air and sea ports of entry, requiring that nonimmigrant visa holders entering the United States be fingerprinted and screened through various criminal and terrorist databases before entry into the United States, and this system will be expanded to land ports of entry in accordance with congressional deadlines; 17 Whereas since September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard has conducted more than 124,000 port security patrols, 13,000 air patrols, boarded more than 92,000 vessels, interdicted over 14,000 individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally, and created and maintained more than 90 Maritime Security Zones; 18 Whereas following attacks of September 11, 2001, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center was established, which now fuses, for the first time in United States history, terrorist-related information, foreign and domestic, available to the United States Government for systematic analysis and dissemination to prevent or disrupt terrorist attacks on the United States; 19 Whereas following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Terrorist Screening Center, a multi-agency partnership, was established to integrate the dozens of separate terrorist databases that existed before September 11th into a single terrorist watch list for use by Federal, State, and local law enforcement, intelligence, and border security personnel. 20 Whereas following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States Government has ensured the hardening of cockpit doors on airplanes and greatly expanded the use of armed Federal air marshals to prevent and deter future hijackings that could turn commercial planes into weapons of mass destruction; 21 Whereas having recognized the need to prevent terrorist organizations from using their resources, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has worked closely with the Department of the Treasury to target 62 terrorist organizations and freeze $125,000,000 in assets of such organizations worldwide used to fund terrorist activities; Whereas to date United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces have killed or captured 43 of the 55 most wanted criminals of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, including Saddam Hussein himself; Whereas the al-Zarqawi terror network used Baghdad as a base of operations to coordinate the movement of people, money, and supplies; and Whereas thousands of families have lost loved ones in the defense of freedom and liberty against the tyranny of terror: Now, therefore, be it Resolved: That the House of Representatives-- (1) extends again its deepest sympathies to the thousands of innocent victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, their families, friends, and loved ones; (2) honors the heroic actions and the sacrifices of United States military and civilian personnel and their families who have sacrificed much, including their lives and health, in defense of their country in the Global War on Terrorism; (3) honors the heroic actions of first responders, law enforcement personnel, State and local officials, volunteers, and others who aided the innocent victims and, in so doing, bravely risked their own lives and long-term health; (4) expresses thanks and gratitude to the foreign leaders and citizens of all nations who have assisted and continue to stand in solidarity with the United States against terrorism in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; (5) discourages, in the strongest possible terms, any effort to confuse the Global War on Terrorism with a war on any people or any faith; (6) reaffirms its commitment to the Global War on Terrorism and to providing the United States Armed Forces with the resources and support to wage it effectively and safely; (7) vows that it will continue to take whatever actions necessary to identify, intercept, and disrupt terrorists and their activities; and (8) reaffirms that the American people will never forget the sacrifices made on September 11, 2001, and will never bow to terrorist demands.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I make the same argument as I made on the previous point of order.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that section 643 is legislation in an appropriations bill.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, Mr. Chairman. I think it is pretty clear.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from New York and others be allowed to submit statements on this subject of this amendment that has been objected to.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Are we at the point of the bill dealing with section 216?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I just want to point out there is a difference between ending in 1 hour and 1 hour of debate; namely, whether or not the clock stops. I would agree if we are talking about 1 full hour of debate, but if we are talking about 1 hour on the clock I would object.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, equally divided, I assume?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to point out that the last I looked, no bank was sitting in the White House. We are talking about a policy issued under the authority of the President of the United States and supported by the Justice Department. So this very transitory populism on the part of some of my Republican colleagues, denouncing the bank, may sound right; but this is not any bank's policy we are talking about. These are regulations issued by George Bush's Department of Treasury, supported by George Bush; and the George Bush administration supports this particular amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor). (Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds to say that I agree we have a forgery problem, but it is greater than Members may think. It is not of the matricula consular. Apparently someone has forged a letter from the United States Department of Justice. Because I have a letter today, I know my chairman has it, signed by a man who purports to be James B. Comey, the Deputy Attorney General, and it is on the letterhead of the U.S. Department of Justice and it supports this amendment. And it says, ``The Department of Justice fully supports the administration's current policy under the USA PATRIOT Act that requires banks and financial institutions to establish reasonable procedures. Therefore, the Department supports the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment that preserves these regulations.'' So it is not just the matricula consular that is being forged. Apparently there is somebody forging letters from the Department of Justice. So maybe we should suspend the proceedings and send out the Sergeant of Arms. Contempt of Congress. Now, I think, frankly, that forgery has been somewhat exaggerated in this debate, but the biggest exaggeration is this: So, yes, a couple of years ago people said various things, but there has been an evolution and we now have the policy of President Bush, supported by the Department of Justice and the Department of Treasury, and that is what is being assailed here today. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa). (Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to make one point. The notion that people will stop coming here illegally if they do not have a matricula consular is totally at variance with logic and experience. People who want to stop illegal immigration have a very good point, but the notion that people will come to the border and say, Oh, my God, I forgot my matricula consular, I am staying home, has no basis in reality. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the FBI and Justice want us to pass this amendment.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to make what I think is a central point. Whether or not the card exists, whether or not it is honored by banks will have zero effect on immigration. No one gets to the border deciding to come here without legal authorization and says, Whoops, I can't cross that river without my matricula consular. Illegal immigration is a problem, but it is a wholly irrelevant one to this. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, for many years I've had the great privilege of sharing with my colleagues and the nation the description of those who are being honored by ROFEH International and the New England Chassidic Center. This year, the dinner for these two valuable institutions will be held on November 14, and the awardees are Dr. Edwin H. Kolodny, and Mr. Daniel M. Wyner. Dr. Kolodny will receive the ``ROFEH International Distinguished Service Award,'' for his very charitable service, and the great distinction he has achieved in the fields of birth defects, genetic diseases of the nervous system, and mental retardation and developmental disabilities. The ``Man of the Year,'' Daniel Wyner, has performed outstanding service to the New England Chassidic Center and to the Greater Boston Jewish Community as a whole. These two organizations, under the leadership of Grand Rabbi Levi Y. Horowitz, make extremely important contributions to the religious, cultural and social life of Greater Boston, and indeed have a relevant impact in the medical field. I am pleased to join in honoring Mr. Wyner and Dr. Kolodny, and I ask unanimous consent to include here biographies of both men as an example of the sort of valuable community service that we should be encouraging through appropriate recognition. Dr. Edwin H. Kolodny is a renowned neurologist and geneticist. He is the Bernard A. and Charlotte Marden Professor of Neurology and Chairman of the Department of Neurology at the New York University School of Medicine and Director of its Division of Neurogenetics. He is a specialist in inherited metabolic and degenerative diseases of the nervous system and has made many contributions to the field of Jewish genetic diseases. He serves on many scientific advisory boards and has authored numerous articles in leading medical journals. A native of Brookline, Massachusetts and graduate of the Boston Latin School, he received his A.B. from Harvard College (cum laude in Economics) and his M.D. from the NYU School of Medicine (with honors). Dr. Kolodny trained in Internal Medicine for 2 years at Bellevue Hospital in New York and completed his Neurology residency at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. After 3 additional years of training in Neurochemistry at the NIH in Bethesda, Maryland, he returned to Boston and the Harvard Medical School where he rose to Professor of Neurology and Director of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver Center for Mental Retardation. Dr. Kolodny is the recipient of numerous awards and honors for his work as a clinician, researcher and teacher. These include the Alpha Omega Alpha Award of the NYU School of Medicine, the Above and Beyond Award of the National Tay-Sachs and Allied Diseases Association, and listing in ``Best Doctors in the U.S.'' He has also served as a Visiting Professor at medical schools in Israel and elsewhere overseas. Dr. Edwin Kolodny and his wife, Dr. Roselyn Kolodny, a pediatrician, have four children, Nancy Lieberman, Dr. Leonard Kolodny, Robin Leshem, and Noah Kolodny, two son-in-laws, Ralph and Erez, and two daughter-in- laws, Debby and Michelle, of whom they are equally proud, and fabulous grandchildren Naomi, Tamar, Benjamin, Daniel, and Sarah. Dan Wyner is President of Shawmut Corporation, a fourth generation family business that manufactures innovative textile composites for the Automotive, Medical, Military and Industrial markets, with three plants in Massachusetts and Michigan. Dan has worked for Shawmut for over 23 years, working alongside his grandfather, father and most recently, one of his brothers. In addition to his role at Shawmut, Dan is one of the founders of Omniflex LLC; a Western Massachusetts based technical film supplier, and currently serves as a director of Omniflex, which is a Shawmut Joint Venture. He is also one of the founders of PolyWorks LLC; a Rhode Island based low-pressure injection molding company and serves on its board of directors. In addition to his business interest, Dan has worked to support a number of charitable organizations. Over the past several years, Dan and his wife Lorna have been supporters of ROFEH International, helping in the development and renovation of ROFEH's residential facility for the benefit of families of Bone Marrow Transplant patients. Dan presently serves on the board of trustees of the Rhode Island chapter of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society as treasurer of that organization, and he and his wife Lorna are significant supporters of the Society, supporting both direct research projects, annual fundraising events, and recruiting for and participating in this year's Team in Training Cyclefest 100-mile bike ride. Dan is also a member of the Board of Trustees of the Alperin Schechter Day School in Providence, RI where their daughter Madelyn is a fourth grade student. Dan is also a member of the Board of Overseers at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Dan and his wife support a number of other charitable causes, including the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington Medical Center, Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital and the American Jewish Historical Society. Dan is a graduate of Dartmouth College where he majored in Philosophy. He, together with his wife and daughter, live on a small horse farm in Rhode Island. In his spare time Dan plays tennis, pilots ultra-light aircraft and does some wheel-thrown pottery.