Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the willingness of the gentleman from North Carolina to take management of this bill to the floor and I want to join in thanking the gentlewoman from California for giving us the opportunity to honor this extraordinary woman, Dorothy Height. No problem in the history of this country, in my judgment, comes close to the problem of race in terms of its importance and the need for us to respond. Having brought people against their will from Africa hundreds of years ago and having subjected them, first to slavery, and then to a rigid and degrading system of official segregation, and then to a very grudging and gradual retreat from that segregation system, this Nation has to confront what I think is the saddest part of our history, our treatment of people of African descent. I am pleased that we have made the progress that we have made. Although, anyone who thinks racism has been extirpated lives in a much too optimistic world, but we have made progress. It is for that reason that it is so important to honor Dorothy Height. She was born into a racist society. She was born into a society in which national legislation, passed by our predecessor Congresses, signed by Presidents, enforced by the United States Supreme Court, segregated on the basis of race. And everyone knows that ``separate but equal'' was never anything more than a cruel joke. Separation came because people believed in inequality. And Dorothy Height was born not only into that racist system, she was born as a woman at a time when society was far less willing to acknowledge the equality of women in the social and political sphere. Facing that double handicap, she set out to help heal this society, to cure the ills that have troubled us. Of course, she did not succeed altogether, but no one that I know of has done more over this long and distinguished lifetime of hers to fight against those evils, the evils of prejudice, of segregation, of denying people the ability to live up to their full potential. One of the great honors of my life is that as I came along to join this body and became actively involved as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and various civil rights fights, I got the chance to know her, to work with her and to be inspired by her. I am particularly proud, Mr. Speaker, that one of the latter things I did with Ms. Height as she continues her efforts was to appear with her in her capacity as chair of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, one of the great institutions of our time and with the executive director, the very distinguished and able Wade Henderson as they announced their endorsement of legislation that would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, because I have found that people who have been unfairly discriminated against, based on one characteristic of themselves, understand why it is unfair to do that elsewhere, and it is an example of the greatness of Dorothy Height, that later in her life, well past her 80th birthday, she understood the importance not of abandoning the fight for racial fairness which she continues, but of taking on, also, the newer fight for opposing discrimination based on sexual orientation. I believe the great heroes of this society are those who have undergone whatever was necessary to help us live up to the wonderful ideals of that Constitution of 1787, and that was a Constitution which stated an ideal better than the society lived up to the reality. Realizing those ideals has been the most important part of our Nation's history and no one, literally no one, has played a more important part in that, no one has been tougher and more dedicated and more loving at the same time in her insistence that the country live up to its own best ideals than Dorothy Height. I thank the gentlewoman from California for giving us a chance to acknowledge that.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, no obligation which we have as elected Representatives is greater than that of making clear to those we are privileged to represent why we vote as we do, especially on important issues. Because debate time on the President's request for an $87 billion appropriation for Iraq and Afghanistan will almost certainly be far too limited for Members fully to explain themselves, I ask unanimous consent to put here into the Congressional Record an article which I wrote, and which was published in the Boston Globe on October 10, outlining my position on this issue. [From the Boston Globe, Oct. 10, 2003] Paying for the War in Iraq (By Barney Frank) The best argument for refusing President Bush's request that we put America $87 billion deeper in debt to pay for the mistakes he has made in Iraq comes from a very good source-- George W. Bush. In objecting to the pay increase voted for federal employees, the president said that paying for it would require reductions in other domestic programs--e.g., environmental cleanup, aid to education, community development block grants, and transportation. After 2\1/2\ years of making light of the more than $1.5 trillion that its budgets will add to the federal debt during his term, the administration has rediscovered the importance of controlling deficits and argues that additional federal expenditure on some items must come at the expense of others. So, if we do as the president asks and appropriate $87 billion for Iraq, it will force reductions in other areas of federal spending that have already been cut below the barest minimum. But while it would be a dereliction of my duty to my constituents simply to ratify the president's proposal, neither would it be responsible to reject it categorically. I cast the right vote when I opposed the president's decision to go to war in Iraq. None of the major reasons advanced at the time for this effort has been vindicated by events. Indeed, since the war in Iraq, our role as a force for stability has deteriorated in virtually every trouble spot. Syria, the Palestinians, North Korea, Iran--where there has been a change in America's ability to work for a reduction in violence, tension, and instability, it has been for the worse. But while the war was unwise, it was also a fact, and it imposes on Americans' responsibilities that we cannot escape. Elections have consequences, even when they are decided as dubiously as our last presidential contest. However, recognizing that we have both moral and practical obligations in this regard does not mean rubber-stamping the Bush administration's request. There are three ways in which Congress should modify the proposal. First, while it is important that we provide funding for the military to pay for this war, we should not vote for every dollar requested. The president is justifiably seeking funds to replace the weapons and ammunition consumed in the war in Iraq and in the expensive occupation of that country. But some of that ought to come from a redirection of the tens of billions the Pentagon is still spending on unneeded weapons that were conceived for the Cold War era. Nuclear attack submarines, defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles, and other weapons were justified by the need to confront a Soviet superpower. As one conservative commentator recently noted, the administration's request for $65 billion for the Pentagon is aimed at preserving the current weapons procurement policy, which includes a substantial amount for Cold War armaments rather than the military capability we need for the current world situation. Second, the proposals to engage in social spending in Iraq include several billion dollars which may he desirable but do not rise to the level of necessity--especially if it must come at the expense of equally important social spending in the United States and in desperately poor other nations in the world. But wise reductions in both categories will still leave us with a large amount to spend, especially given the ineptitude of the administration's efforts to get others to share the burden. Here the congressional response should be clear. None of this money should be added to the national debt, nor should it be allowed to exacerbate the severe problems that already result from inadequate funding in so many domestic programs. It is well past time for Congress to repudiate the Bush doctrine that you can pay for two wars with three tax cuts. Further expenditures for the aftermath of the Iraq war must be funded by undoing the Bush tax cuts on incomes of $200,000 and above. I will not vote for any additional appropriation to pay for the war in Iraq unless it is completely financed by changes in the tax code that will undo some of the tax reduction now being enjoyed--and scheduled to be enjoyed further--by the richest 2 percent of Americans. We should be undoing tax cuts to produce far more than $87 billion. Even before the $87 billion request, the Bush policies were slated to add $1 trillion to the national debt in fiscal years 2003 and 2004 alone. But at the very least, the president ought to be willing to join us in paying for the consequences of his policy in Iraq by cutting back on the excesses of his fiscally irresponsible and socially inequitable tax reductions. I will vote to meet America's obligations in Iraq even though I thought we were wrong to incur them. But I will not do so at the expense of important domestic social and economic needs. Forcing Congress--and America--to make such a choice will be damaging and divisive, and President Bush should stop insisting that we do.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here to support this bill. It is a good example of what the Committee on Financial Services can do when it is allowed to work out legislative matters in a cooperative way, as we have done here. I am particularly pleased with the work done by two of the younger Members on our side, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), who is managing this bill here, because that is a reflection of the initiatives he has taken, and also as the gentleman from Alabama, the chairman of the subcommittee, was gracious enough to mention, his Alabama colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), has also played a major role. What we have here is what ought to be the model and, I am pleased to say, has for much of this year been the model for legislation coming from our committee, which is a recognition of the importance of the market, a recognition that we have a responsibility to structure the rules so that the capitalist system can function to its maximum but, at the same time, recognizing that there will be issues that will not be resolved purely by the working of the market. We add protections for consumers. We add measures that deal with social concerns in ways that do not interfere with the market. I think that is our job. Our job is to recognize that the market is a wonderful mechanism for creating wealth, it does not do everything, and that we have a responsibility to add to those market mechanisms things that will deal with other issues, but in ways that will not detract from the functioning of the market. In this bill we allow the banks to do the check truncation that will greatly promote efficiency. Consumers who have a need for copies of their checks can get them. There is the recredit provision that has already been described. So I am very proud that we have here, as I said, a model of what we ought to be doing; a measure which allows, and basically this is what we are doing, we are updating the basic law so that the private sector can take full advantage of evolving technology; and we are doing it in a way that we believe fully protects the legitimate interests and concerns of consumers. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we were able to bring this bill forward. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) for his time and, more important, for the work he has done on this bill.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, from time to time Members use the vehicle of the Congressional Record to emphasize their positions on ideological or political issues of great importance. That is an entirely valid function for those of us who are supposed to be engaged in democratic debate. But I think it is also important from time to time to call attention to non-ideological, non-partisan matters which could improve that debate and the recent article by Michael Kinsley in the Washington Post entitled, ``In Defense of Hypothetical Questions'' is a superb example of this. Often when we are using the Congressional Record to call attention to an important statement we seek to summarize its message in prefatory remarks. In the case of Michael Kinsley's article--as is often the case with Mr. Kinsley--he does such a good job of making the case that my trying to do so here would be not only redundant, as these summaries are by definition, but a mistake because it would not do justice to his argument. Instead, in the interest of improving the quality of political debate in America, I ask that Michael Kinsley's defense of hypothetical questions be printed. [From the Washington Post] In Defense of Hypothetical Questions (By Michael Kinsley) One of the absurd conventions of American politics is the notion that there is something suspect or illegitimate about a hypothetical question. By labeling a question as ``hypothetical,'' politicians and government officials feel they are entitled to duck it without looking like they have something to hide. They even seem to want credit for maintaining high standards by keeping this virus from corrupting the political discussion. ``If I've learned one thing in my nine days in politics, it's you better be careful with hypothetical questions,'' declared Gen. Wesley Clark in a recent presidential candidates debate. He might have learned it on TV, where ``Never answer a hypothetical question'' is one of the rules a real life political strategist offered to real-life presidential candidate Howard Dean in HBO's fictional Washington drama, ``K Street.'' The question Clark was trying not to answer was ``your vote, up or down, yes or no'' on President Bush's request for $87 billion to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for another year. This question is only hypothetical in the sense that Clark doesn't literally get to vote on the matter. That kind of literalness could make almost any question hypothetical. The obvious purpose of the question was to elicit Clark's opinion on the $87 billion. And surely it is not unreasonable or ``hypothetical'' to expect candidates for president to express an opinion on whatever controversy surrounds the presidency at the moment. Secretary of State Colin Powell was asked this week whether Americans would have supported the Iraq war if they'd known we weren't going to find those weapons of mass destruction the administration used to justify it. This really is a hypothetical question, as Powell labeled it in declining to answer, but it's a darned interesting one and one an honest leader in a democracy ought to be pondering about now, even if he doesn't care to share his thoughts. Neither of these examples is the kind of hypothetical question that calls on the answerer to imagine a situation that is unlikely to occur and one there would have been no good reason to think about. What if a man from Mars were running in the California recall? What if President Bush were secretly writing a treatise on moral philosophy? And so on. Avoiding questions (from reporters, from opponents, from citizens) is the basic activity of the American politician. Or, rather, avoiding the supply of answers. Skill and ingenuity in question-avoidance are a big factor in political success. Usually, avoiding the question involves pretending to answer it or at least supplying some words to fill the dead space after the question has been asked. But if you can squeeze a question into one of a few choice categories, the unwritten rules allow you to not answer at all. There's national security. (``I'm sorry, but revealing the size of my gun collection might imperil our war on terrorism.'') There's privacy. (``I must protect my family from the pain of learning about my other family.'') There's legal proceedings. (``That arson allegation has been referred to the Justice Department and I cannot comment further.'') But only an allegedly hypothetical question may be dismissed because of its very nature, irrespective of subject matter. This is silly. Hypothetical questions are at the heart of every election in a democracy. These are questions the voters must answer. Voters are expected to imagine each candidate holding the office he or she is seeking and to decide which one's performance would be most to their liking. Every promise made by a candidate imposes two hypothetical questions on the voter: If elected, will this person do as promised? And if this promise is kept, will I like the result? The voter cannot say, ``I don't answer hypothetical questions.'' And voters cannot sensibly answer the hypothetical questions they've been assigned without learning the answers to some hypothetical questions from the candidates. Hypothetical questions are essential to thinking through almost any social or political issue. In law school there called ``hypos'' and the process is called ``salami slicing.'' Imagine this situation and tell me the result. Now change the situation slightly--does the result change? Now change it in a different way--same result, or different one? It's just like an eye exam, in which you peer through a series of alternative lenses until you zero in on the correct prescription. Yet even lawyers turn against the cherished hypo when nominated for prestigious judgeships. Then they say self- righteously that they cannot answer hypothetical questions about how they might rule. Once they are safely on the bench, of course, they issue public opinions every day that are, among other things, statements about how they analyze the issue at hand and strong indications, if not more, of how they will rule in the future. A refusal or inability to answer hypothetical questions is nothing to be proud of. In fact, it ought to be a disqualification for public office. Anyone who doesn't ponder hypothetical questions all the time is unfit for the task of governing. In fact, it's hard to see how any halfway-intelligent person can manage to avoid taking up hypothetical questions a dozen times a day. But we can all name a few politicians we suspect are up to this challenge.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am particularly appreciative of the efforts of the gentleman from Ohio, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity and the other gentleman from Ohio, who chairs the full committee, for helping us bring this bill forward. The gentleman from California and I began our collaboration on this issue in a previous Congress when this came up as part of an omnibus housing bill, and while we bogged down on that omnibus bill because of some differences between the parties and ideological concerns, it struck us that there was no reason to hold back on something that ought to be, and we believe is, in fact, in everybody's interest with no downside. I would note that this is one of those times when we can bring forward a bill that will advance an important social purpose dealing with our housing affordability crisis, and this is not for subsidized housing, but as we build housing, multifamily housing, as we increase the housing stock, we deal with the affordability problem because there is a problem here of supply and demand. The affordability program is exacerbated by a shortage of supply, and as we increase the supply even of conventional housing, we are dealing with that. This also has the unusual aspect of probably helping to reduce the Federal deficit. FHA premiums, given the repayment rate, particularly when we are dealing at this end of the spectrum, make money for the Federal Government. So if this has any impact on the Federal budget, it will be a directly positive one, not simply an economic activity that will be generated, that housing will be built, but specifically in the collections that will come from the FHA. We do not have a single housing market in this country. We have, for a variety of reasons, some areas which cost more than others. Those are both supply- and demand-related factors. We should not, therefore, have a single FHA rule. Where we are dealing with high-cost areas, given the value that the FHA has as a financing mechanism for housing, we ought to take advantage of that. I want to express my appreciation also to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) for his consistent leadership on this issue. I would also like to acknowledge the role that the National Association of Homebuilders played in helping educate all the Members to the importance of this and to the benefit which we will all receive from it. So I again express my appreciation to Members on the majority side, the lead sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller), the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley). I am very pleased we will be moving this bill, and I hope that it is one that can be signed before the end of the year. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to make one other point. Even with regard to Section 8, this is helpful legislation, because the Section 8 cost is based on the cost of the housing. To the extent we can get multifamily housing built more efficiently with financing help, then the Section 8 rent, even in one of those units, which could happen, would be nice. So this is a bill which, as I said, has no downside. I appreciate the gentleman from California noting he and I will continue to look for ways without regard to ideological party differences, which will remain and which are legitimate and which we will debate, but aside from those, we can find ways to move this along. So, again, with thanks, particularly to the gentleman from Ohio who worked very hard on this, I urge passage of the bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, sometimes the cliches come true. I thought about that when I got a phone call last night telling me the death of Millie O'Neill. I was profoundly sorry. She was an extraordinary woman of warmth and strength and humor, a genuine believer in and participant in this American political system through the real partnership she had with her husband, the late Speaker Tip O'Neill. All of the cliches we summon up about the partnership of marriage, about a woman who could combine toughness when it was appropriate with gentleness at other times, all of those Millie O'Neill exemplified. I had a great privilege when I came here in 1981 as a Member of the House from Massachusetts. I became, particularly as a Massachusetts Member, but not only those of us from Massachusetts, a member of that extended family that the O'Neills presided over. I had known other members, Tom O'Neill, the oldest son who was a legislative classmate of myself, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), and a former member, Mr. Donnelly, we were all elected to the legislature that same year, and so we came to know each other then. I got to know over the over the years other members of that family, the O'Neills' son, Kip, the daughters, Susan and Rosemary, the son, Michael, who sadly passed away a few years ago. And I interacted with them and did a lot of work together with them. Millie O'Neill was not always a presence here. She came down when her husband became the Speaker, but once she did, she became a vital part of this city. I was privileged as a Massachusetts Member from time to time to be at the events where we were celebrating any number of holidays or other important political functions. Sometimes you go to those things reluctantly. Sometimes you finish a day here and just want to go home. But, Mr. Speaker, when you knew that Tip and Millie O'Neill were going to be at an event, then you wanted to go because you knew it would be suffused with laughter and warmth and all of the best things about people coming together. Because separately Millie O'Neill and Tip O'Neill were wonderful people of strength and of great commitment; together there was a synergy. They brought out in each other the best of the best. They enjoyed each other's company, and they made it impossible to be in their company and not to share in that enjoyment. When we mourn, Mr. Speaker, we mourn for the person who has passed away. We mourn also for ourselves. We mourn for our lost memories, for the good times we once had and will not have again; and as I said when I learned of the death of Millie O'Neill, I was profoundly saddened by the passing of that wonderful woman, and I was also saddened myself to realize that never again would I be in her company, never again would I be one of the beneficiaries of what she radiated. So, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to come say to Tom and Kip and Rosemary and Susan how sorry I am; but I am confident that very soon, having had the privilege to be the children of that wonderful woman, that the very, very good memories of their mother, just as they have of their father, will crowd out the pain.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, September 30, one of our nation's most thoughtful commentators on public policy, E.J. Dionne, Jr., published a very important article about globalization. E.J. Dionne is an enlightened and sophisticated student of world affairs, and he has been a consistent voice against isolationism, xenophobia, or any other prejudice against the rest of the world. So it seems to me particularly worth noting when he questions some of the assumptions that have long governed the opinion of many of the most highly educated people in this country about globalization. E.J. Dionne is not an opponent of increasing global economic integration, but like many of us who understand the inevitability of this, in this column he makes some extremely important points about how it has played out, and, what thoughtful public policy ought to be to deal with the downside of globalization. Indeed, the very fact that he here describes that downside makes this an important article, because too many of those who have embraced international economic integration have done so through an excessively rosy set of glasses. It is not coincidental, Mr. Speaker, that both Mr. Dionne and I have a very important connection to the city of Fall River, Massachusetts. He was born and grew up there, and his family remained an important part of that city's cultural, religious and educational life for decades after he moved to Washington. I have had the privilege of representing Fall River in this body since 1982, and he and I have thus both had a chance to see first hand what the downside of globalization has been among many of our more vulnerable, hardworking citizens. The balanced view of globalization which E.J. Dionne takes in this article is one that is sorely lacking in many quarters, and because this is one of the most important public policy issues confronting our country, I ask that E.J. Dionne's article be printed here. [From the Washington Post, Sept. 30, 2003] Gone With Globalization (By E.J. Dionne Jr.) Except for the saints in our midst, everyone has prejudices including the well educated and well-to-do: But when upscale folks have prejudices, they usually call them ideas, convictions or principles. So how can you tell when a principle is merely a prejudice? When someone keeps making an argument even though the facts suggest it no longer holds up. It is time to ask whether the overwhelming support for free trade and globalization among well-off, highly educated people is more a prejudice rooted in their own self-interest than a matter of high principle. Okay, maybe that's too harsh. So try this: Even if globalization made a lot of sense during the buoyant 1990s, shouldn't the troubling economic developments since 2000 force people to modify their views? Is it not now undeniable that globalization has serious costs that are not merely ``transition problems'' and that these costs are borne disproportionately by certain parts of the country and the society? Now, I don't want to be accused of prejudice myself, so let me stipulate that most educated folks really believe on principle in free trade. They can rely on reams of writing by intelligent economists to support their view. Moreover, no one likely to hold power in our country would return us to the days of William McKinley and high tariff walls. The globalizers are right when they argue that too many Americans are now reliant on the global economy for such policies to work. But it ought to be equally obvious that the globalizers in both political parties were too carefree when they asserted in the 1990s that, well, yes, there are ``losers'' from globalization, but there are so many more ``winners'' that we really shouldn't worry. Those who lost out in this grand process would eventually find their footing, the argument went, and government could help them make the transition. By the way, where was all that help? In any case the prophets of our bright future said the United States shouldn't worry about ``old'' industries such as steel or apparel. It should worry about leading the way in all that is ``new'' and ``high tech.'' Having grown up in Fall River, Mass., a place whose job base was once rooted in the apparel industry, I've always felt that writing off an industry as, ``old'' is a lot easier for people who never depended on it. Maybe, that's an ``old economy'' prejudice on my part, especially since my home town has been remarkably inventive in giving birth to new enterprises. Still, it's not a form of prejudice to cite statistics showing that the sharp decline in manufacturing jobs over the past few years has been accompanied by a decline in overall family incomes. Consider the Census Bureau's report for 2002 showing that U.S. household incomes had declined for the third year in a row and that the number of Americans living in poverty had increased by 1.7 million in a year. The old manufacturing states--including Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, and Missouri-- were among those hit, the hardest. (Politicians take note: These are swing states.) The economists reassure us that the poverty rate is a ``lagging'' indicator and that a robust recovery will start lifting people up again. But will it? Is it not just as plausible to worry that the flight of jobs to China and elsewhere, courtesy of globalization, has combined with big improvements in productivity to create an economy that leaves many of our fellow citizens behind even in flush times? The Institute for Supply Management, which keeps some of the best numbers on manufacturing, pleased the stock market earlier this month with report showing that economic activity in manufacturing grew in August, as it had in July. But its manufacturing emplopment index actually fell and remained below the 50 percent break-even point for job creation for the 35th consecutive month If supporters of globalization really do hold principles and not prejudices, they should admit that the facts make it increasingly difficult to say that everything will eventually get better for everyone and that changes in the system will only make it worse. Worse for whom exactly? Our tax and social policies are supposed to respond to inequities as they arise. But our current approach seems based mostly on begging China to fix its currency and praying for 5 percent growth. Michigan, as it sometimes has in the past, will just have to rely on a pass and a prayer. The evidence suggests that we're not in the New Economy anymore but in a New New Economy with problems that weren't supposed to arise. The real lagging indicator is our economic thinking.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have been greatly honored over the past several years to be able to share with my colleagues and the country the great respect I have for the work of the New England Chassidic Center, and of ROFEH International. Under the leadership of Grand Rabbi Levi Horowitz, both of these institutions provide significant service to the people of Greater Boston. ROFEH International, founded under the Rabbi's leadership, plays an extraordinarily important role in helping people take advantage of the extraordinary medical facilities that exist in the Greater Boston area. Annually, the work of these two organizations is celebrated at a dinner. This year that dinner will take place on November 16, in the Grand Ballroom of the Boston Park Plaza Hotel. The dinner features among other things two awards to people who have performed through these organizations great service to others. The recipients of the ROFEH International Distinguished Service Award and the Man of the Year Award are always people of great professional distinction who have shown a deep dedication to the well being of others, and have used their great talents to that end. This year's Man of the Year is Mr. Edmund I. Shamsi. The ROFEH Distinguished Service Awardee is Dr. Joel Feldman. Mr. Speaker, we talk often of the importance of volunteerism in achieving the quality of life that all of us want in this country, and I think it is important that we share examples of this. I therefore ask that the biographies of Edmund Shamsi and Dr. Joel Feldman be printed here, as an example of volunteerism at its best, and to mark the occasion of the Annual Dinner. Man of the Year Award--Mr. Edmund I. Shamsi Edmund I. Shamsi was born in Teheran, Iran, in 1945. When Ed was four, his father--a successful business merchant-- decided to make aliyah. As was the norm for Mideastern families immigrating to Israel in the mid-century, the Shamsis found themselves in a refugee camp. They spent six months in Pardes Hannah and then another six months in Pardes Kats, near Tel Aviv. The Shamsis eventually settled in B'nai Brak, where Ed attended school. In his sophomore year of high school, Ed relocated to Ohio, where he concluded his primary school education. Ed obtained admission to Kent State University and successfully completed his freshman year. Responding to a greater call, he returned to Israel amid his studies, and enlisted in the Israeli army. Upon discharge, Ed returned to America to complete his education, this time at Boston University. Ed put himself through BU by working as a truck driver during the summers, as a cabdriver on vacations and as a Hebrew teacher at a local synagogue. Post-graduation, Ed worked in the merchandizing department of Zayre Corp. This kindled Ed's interest in real estate; he bought a single-family house at auction, developed it and sold it. Thus, the genesis of Ed's real estate career. In 1972, Edmund married Helene. Together, they are the proud parents of three children: Joshua Jacob Sasson, Benjamin Elazar David and Esther Pnina. In his capacity as president of the Sephardic synagogue in Boston, Ed provides leadership for the Boston community at large. To supplement this niche, Ed also serves as president of Boston Group Development, Inc. and develops and manages real estate properties in the United States, Israel and the Ukraine. To date, Ed still holds residences in Brookline, MA and Jerusalem, Israel.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we face a very difficult situation regarding the fishing industry in Massachusetts. I believe that current federal law should do a better job then it does of allowing fishing to go forward with appropriate respect for environmental considerations. Flaws in the current law have resulted in judicial orders that restrict fishing unduly, and will cause serious economic harm without appropriate environmental justification. It is my hope that we will proceed quickly to amendment of existing law so as to avoid this problem in the future. Currently, because we have not yet dealt with the law, the fishing industry in Massachusetts faces the imposition of unduly restrictive rules. Some of my Congressional colleagues and I have spoken out in an effort to hold off drastic action for as long as is legally possible, to give us time to change the law. Last week, Mayor Frederick Kalisz, Jr. of New Bedford addressed an important meeting in New Bedford, attended by a large number of representatives of the fishing industry, as well as federal officials. Mayor Kalisz's comments are extremely thoughtful and because this is an important national subject, and because I hope that the views expressed by Mayor Kalisz will be followed by federal officials, I ask that his comments be printed here. 2003 NOAA--Fisheries Constituent Session--September 16, 2003 Good afternoon Dr. Hogarth, on behalf of the residents of the City of New Bedford, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present a few brief remarks regarding the current state of fisheries issues. Back in 1976 when the Magnusun Act was first enacted there was great hope throughout the country that the Act's innovative structure of setting forth objective standards and requiring that these standards and scientific data form the basis of decisions rendered through consensus by a regional fisheries management councils would protect the American Fishery and also create a sustainable fishery. As you are aware, the Act set forth ten (10) national standards and required that all fisheries management plans be consistent with these standards. Although Congress seemed to give all of the standards equal weight, the regulations promulgated to implement the Act and subsequent Court decisions appear to have created a pecking order among standards. As a result the scientific data is no longer a tool to assist in crafting consensus, but rather disagreements over basic scientific data have become the single biggest impediment to consensus. This is truly unfortunate. We rely on current economic conditions to determine interest rates; we rely on current air quality conditions to determine smog, yet we are satisfied to rely on last year's fishing trawls to determine if fish are in the same area today. My remarks are not intended to attack the science, but rather to call for a renewed scientific partnership based on consensus. If we can not agree on the basics of fisheries science, we will never be able to agree on maximum sustainable yield. I understand that in spite of the significant strides that have been made in marine biology and marine environmental science, our knowledge pales in comparison to the mysteries the oceans still hold. We still do not fully understand the result of a 2% change in the salinity of the water, nor do we fully understand the impact of a 2 degree change in the water temperature on year old fish stock. We understand that smoke stack emissions from the Midwest can affect our air quality here in New England, but do not understand, or in some cases recognize, the effects the particulates from those emissions will have on Georges Bank when they run into an Atlantic Storm. We intuitively understand that there must be an effect on the oceans from El Nino, but we still don't know what causes red tide to occur when it does. Perhaps it is only the arrogance of man that would lead us to assume that we can totally understand the intricacies of the seas. And so rather than expand our knowledge of those things we still don't understand, we have settled for intensive study of the things we do understand. We then purport to be committed to building a sustainable fishery by controlling only those things we understand. It is analogous to learning that someone has polluted a stream and then rather than seek to identify the source of the contamination, claim that the reduction of fish is solely due to new lures being used by people who fish in the stream. We have allowed ourselves to become overwhelmed by the task of fisheries management and have ceded our responsibilities to science. Science's role must be to use the best methods available to collect data, analyze that data and then identify trends. Science's role is not to set policy. That is the role that Congress assigned to the members of the regional council who represent all of the various interests. As we seek to expand our knowledge, we must also guard to ensure that we recognize the difference between scientific data and rhetoric. There is currently a movement afoot to paint our fishing families as ``capture hunters'' and not the harvesters of the bounty of the sea as Magnuson rightfully recognizes. The fisherman are no more the enemy of the oceans than farmers are enemies of the land. So where do we go from here. I believe that Vice Admiral Lautenbacher's message in the NOAA Annual Guidance Memorandum clearly identifies NOAA's role in the future. The Vice Admiral writes: ``NOAA's own decision making processes must be transparent, participatory, and information-based, taking into account diverse societal values. In short, the Nation needs NOAA as an honest broker when it comes to oceanic and atmospheric issues.'' I couldn't agree more. But there must be actions to support these words. An honest broker facilitates frank and forthright discussion and is not willing to resort to overly simplistic solutions such as ``hard TACs'' which do nothing more than encourage more intensive use of the fishery. An agency that has led the way in understanding the dynamics of hurricanes by flying planes into the middle of the cyclone, cannot rely on old outdated models and data when it comes to fisheries. The Vice Admiral also rightfully recognizes the need to develop new models and methods for data gathering and analysis. Again the Vice Admiral writes: ``We should enhance our current scientific and decision- making ability, in order to fulfill mandates for trust resources in a manner that satisfies the public's expectations of an honest broker. We should conduct research on ecological, social and economic processes geared toward advancing integrated analyses of alternatives.'' The Vice Admiral further writes: ``To enhance NOAA's role as honest broker, we should strive consistently to improve the accuracy and quality of the scientific research on which important decisions depend. We should also work to make our decision processes as fair and transparent as possible and expand our interaction with the entire spectrum of decisions-makers to ensure increased responsiveness to NOAA science.'' The Vice Admiral's message is actually a call to develop models that analyze the entire system rather than just one piece of a much bigger system. As I mentioned earlier, this new model will require renewed commitment as we seek to understand that which is still a mystery. Finally, the Vice Admiral writes of the need to forge strategic partnerships stating. ``The challenges facing America require integrated, cooperative solutions. No agency can go it alone. We need to work with universities, industry, stakeholder groups and government agencies at all levels.'' Over the past two years, the City of New Bedford has forged a strategic partnership with NOAA and other federal agencies and through this partnership has developed innovative consensus based strategies for the remediation and redevelopment of Brownfields. Today, I renew the commitment of New Bedford to continue our work with SMAST, MassFisheries, NOAA-Fisheries, and our sister ports in Massachusetts and throughout New England to develop and implement the best practices possible so that we can collect and analyze data in real time to create a truly sustainable fishery. Today, the winds have changed. A solidarity is building on the wharves and in the facilities, on the streets and in the community. During the past year, I have met regularly with a Seafood Industry Advisory Task Force composed of representatives of the various sectors of New Bedford's Seafood Industry. In these meetings there is a sense of cooperation and resolve. We understand that it is more than just charts and graphs, it is about families and community. We understand that an academic exercise that only results in a 1% change in the resource in 2023 can decimate an industry, a community and a family. We have many difficult decisions to make. Let us agree to use the best available science to gather and analyze our data in real time, and then allow the deliberative framework created by the Magnuson Act to balance the interests and manage our fisheries.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the First Congregational Church of Rochester, Massachusetts, in the district which I am privileged to represent, will mark a very impressive occasion--the church's 300th Anniversary. During these 300 years--which of course predate the establishment of our country, an event in which members of the church had an important role--the First Congregational Church has made innumerable contributions to society while serving its central religious purpose. Recently I received a letter from the Reverend Dr. Leo D. Christian, which gives a brief history of the church--brief because it would take a volume the size of this Record adequately to document what has happened here over 3 centuries. This is an impressive example of the way in which our institutions ought to work, and how institutions can both serve the needs of their members and contribute to the greater society. I ask, because I think this is an example that should be widely shared, that the letter from the Reverend Dr. Leo D. Christian be printed here, and I again express my congratulations to Dr. Christian and the members of the church for their truly impressive record. First Congregational Church, Rochester, MA. Dear Representative Frank: On October the 13th, 2003, we at the First Congregational Church are celebrating our 300th Anniversary. As a Church we have had the privilege of not only watching the development of this nation and this commonwealth, but we participated in its very formation. The laws and governing principles were decided by the input and votes of our people along with the other great peoples of the day. A list of some notable people is as follows: Joseph Burge, First Representative to Province Court and John Hammond, Second Representative to Province Court. Representatives to the General Court before the Revolution; Abraham Holmes, John Hammond, Noah Sprague, Thomas Dexter, John Freeman, and Samuel Sprague. Rochester Selectmen/Town Clerks: Between the years from 1690 to 1909, more than 30 of our members took on the civic roles of Town Clerk and Selectman, the first three being Samuel White, Samuel Hammond and Mark Haskell. From 1909 until present times, our members have continued to play a major part in local government. When the settlers came to the shores of New England they found this a very rustic place in comparison to their mother country. Our first minister, the Reverend Samuel Arnold, noted that this was a dark wilderness. Our church has had the privilege of helping our nation and state be what it is today. Whether it was the issue of slaves or the rights for women to vote we, along with other of like mind, stood for emancipation and for the suffrage movements. When our nation was involved in its Revolutionary War we mustered the militia on the church green and sent many of our own to answer the call to arms in our nation's revolution. Thirty three (33) of our young men never returned home. In a time of great national crisis we sent people again to stand for liberty in the Civil War. It is more than likely that our people have served in every war and conflict that our nation has fought, even to the point of our ladies' society making bandages and giving support to the troops. Such people of note are Militia: (1690) Lieut. John Hammond and Ensign Isaac Holmes. Rev. Jonathan Moore went as chaplain with the 1st company of militia answering the Lexington call. Captain Earl Clapp was at the Battle of Bunker Hill and rose in rank to Major. Major Elnathan Haskel was an aid to General George Washington and as such is shown in a painting hanging in the Capitol in Washington, D.C. portraying Borgoyne's Surrender. As our nation was threatened from the north there were those who fought in the French and Indian Wars: Paul Sears and Joseph Doty. Those who served in Canada were Joseph Barlow, Charles Sturtevant and Earl Clapp. Then again in the War of 1812: Joseph Doty, Jonathan King and Samuel Cowing represented our church and community. Missionaries, authors, educators, civil servants, physicians, lawyers and politicians have come from this beautiful white meeting house on the village green. Through these 300 years our mother church has given birth to four daughter congregations, Marion, Mattapoisett, Warcham and North Rochester Congregational Churches. Our vestry served for years as a town school and many people in the community still remember attending there as children. We have hosted and still do many civic programs such as senior citizens, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. The men of our church formed an organization known as the Brotherhood that not only provided them fellowship, but served the community with a host of family entertainment opportunities and benevolent contributions to those who were in need. Some of those who served in the following capacities were: Medicine: Dr. James Foster, (Note) The early pastors, namely Rev. Samuel Arnold and Timothy Ruggles, also aided their people by extracting teeth, doling out opium, saffron, older, yellow dock and snake root when their parishioners' own remedies failed. Education: The first pastor, Samuel Arnold, along with his pastoral duties, taught young boys who wanted to attend Harvard College. (Rochester has always been known for its support of academics and in the early days it was generally the presiding Reverend who led the quest for education.) Abraham Holmes, a lawyer and representative to the General Court, used his home office to teach law students, there being no law school available. Rev. Jonathan Bigelow, who came in 1827, was responsible for the building of our present meetinghouse, a parsonage and the Rochester Academy. The latter a ``noted and highly accredited institution gave instruction in all English studies, Latin, Greek and French languages and great attention was paid to the Moral Conduct, general deportment and intellectual improvement of its scholars.'' Many graduates became doctors, lawyers, teachers, ministers and judges, living beneficial lives in their own communities. Henry Martyn Dexter, one of the first preceptors of Rochester Academy afterwards became Nestor of Congregationalism. Our congregation has always been blessed with an abundance of teachers. Although we are separate organizations to our governing and civil structures we have always been in congruence for the good of the community, our commonwealth and our nation. Whatever the need of the community we have tried to rise to the occasion and offer assistance.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I received a very thoughtful letter from Eugene O'Kelly, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of KPMG. I was thoroughly impressed to receive a strong letter in favor of the independence of accounting standards from the Chief Executive of this major accounting firm. I believe Mr. O'Kelly's letter makes a very important contribution to the debate on a significant public policy issue and I ask that it be printed here.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) will later be managing on the Democratic side a bill from the Subcommittee on Immigration dealing with religious workers which I sponsored, and I would now like to express my appreciation to the gentlewoman and to the majority on the Committee on the Judiciary for bringing it forward. I will be back at a hearing on the Committee on Financial Services on the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, and so I take this opportunity to thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes 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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be here to support this effort to make sure that the Federal Housing Administration is fully able to support hospitals. I wish it were as available to support housing, but we will deal with that in other settings. As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) has made clear, changes in Certificate of Need and other changes at the State level dealing with health care have put obstacles in the way of hospitals using FHA mortgage insurance. This is not a cost to the Federal Government; it is an example of trying to make medical care less expensive in ways that do not drain the Federal Treasury. It is a matter really that leverages the Federal system in ways that will help slow the increase in hospital costs and makes a great deal of sense. It is the kind of technical fix that is not terribly controversial, but is very important and will have enormous benefit. I am pleased that we are going to be doing this in this quick fashion. I hope that this goes all of the way through the process; and the sooner the President can sign this bill, the better we will have treated the important cause of medical care. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the ranking member of the subcommittee who worked very hard to make the bill better, but still obviously has some concerns with it. But from the consumer standpoint, the gentleman worked as hard as anyone.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I guess I must look pretty stupid to be told that people are going to work with me at the end of the bill. This process has been going on since we finished the markup. My staff was negotiating with the staff of the majority. We offered all kinds of things. We had the manager's amendment opportunity. This amendment was filed last night. It was subject to secondary degree amendment. It could have been changed. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) said there is no real difference between my position and the position of the gentleman from Louisiana. Let me correct the gentleman, there is no difference between my position and the position the gentleman from Louisiana explained when the amendment was offered; but there is a big difference between my position and what the law says if we pass this bill this way. We talk about the protected classes, people who have been the victims of fraud, people who are unemployed, if you pass this bill and defeat this amendment, they will have less rights thanks to your work than they have today. The amendment of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), he said through inadvertence, took away their rights. Whatever they use to take away their rights, whether it was inadvertence, advertence, or anything else, they have lost their rights. Now after saying no to a negotiation before, no to the manager's amendment, and no to an amendment here, now the other side says we will see you in conference. Let me make a commitment to the gentleman. If you want to use your majority to defeat this amendment, I probably cannot stop you; but if this is not substantially repaired in conference, this bipartisan consensus is coming to an end.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to express my extreme disappointment. I relied on an explanation the gentleman now acknowledges was erroneous when this amendment was adopted. The gentleman says it goes too far. I have offered to try to compromise. He now tells me that after the bill has passed, he will work with me. That offer is worth about as much as the explanation I got, apparently. And it may or may not be a conferencable item. I do not know whether the Senate will have any language in this. So I must express my extreme disappointment. This is not conducive to a cooperative working relationship, I must say to the gentleman from Louisiana. We tried to do this through negotiations in the manager's amendment; we have tried to repair this. And the gentleman has at every point said, no, I won because there was a misunderstanding, and that is it. Mr. Chairman, I cannot consider that to be a reasonable offer to work together. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) who served as the Chair of our task force on identity theft and who is responsible for much of the good material in this bill.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague and chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), for his kind words. I do have to correct him. At this point, the way I feel, it would be incorrect to say that my efforts were tireless, but I am pleased we brought this bill to the floor. I urge Members to vote for this bill. There will be some amendments and I will be supporting some. I will be opposing others. I do not think they go to the heart of the bill. There is one particularly important amendment that will be offered by the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski). We are here today because there were sunsets in the original bill in 1996. The fact that we had to come back to renew this has given us the opportunity to make some significant consumer improvements, and I agree with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley). I will vote for this bill because if it becomes law, consumers will have significant new protections in many areas. They will not be all that I would have liked. For someone who serves in the minority, this bill, I think, shows both the opportunities but also the inherit limitations of being in the minority. That is a bill where we worked together. We worked together where the majority was predominant as democracy requires. I appreciate the chance we had to make some improvements that Members on our side wanted. In many cases, the request for improvements, for instance, identity theft, where the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) led our task force, they were mutually agreed on. So I think we have a bill that is better than existing law and that, frankly, contains more new consumer protections than any legislation I have seen in a while. On the other hand, I should be very clear, this is not the bill that I believe we would have written if we were in the majority. There are some areas where we would have written it differently, but that is the nature of the process. And given where we were and the negotiations we were able to do, the votes that we were able to take, we have a product that I think does the best possible in these circumstances to do the two important things we have to do: One, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) has said, help the market to function. The free market is a wonderful engine for the creation of wealth. And what we have done here today is to reenact some rules that allow it to go forward in the most efficient possible way. We have also shown, I think, that it is entirely consistent with a respect for and understanding of the free market, to protect consumers in various ways. The market is an excellent instrument, but it is not a perfect one. It will make some mistakes. There will be errors. There will be abuse. I believe our job as legislators is to try to write legislation, create rules that allow the market to function while protecting people in ways that do not unduly interfere with the market. And I think, as I said in this bill, we have moved significantly in that direction. So I would urge Members to be supportive. I do note that after this bill, let me explain this to people, after this bill passed through committee, the State of California did adopt additional legislation in the area of privacy. Much of that legislation is unaffected by what we do today. One section out of that legislation would be affected by what we do today. Had California acted earlier, we might perhaps have been able to address that in our deliberations. Given the way things work, once a bill is out of committee, that becomes harder. I know from friends from California are going to continue, on our side, to try to make efforts, whether it is here or later on in the Conference Committee, and these are decisions that we will try to make to try to improve that. I regret this, but given the timing, that was something we could not control. With all of that, the basic point to me is that we have a bill today that continues the preemptions, which I believe help the market function at its most efficient in granting credit and adds to, in most cases, the consumer protections, including some areas like identity theft and medical privacy which had not, in 1996, been on everybody's agenda. So I hope that we will go through the amendment process. I hope a couple of amendments will win, but in any case, I will urge Members to vote for this bill as the best accommodation that we were able to achieve in this circumstance of the duty to make it possible for the free market to function, while at the same time, providing those protections for consumers which would not automatically come from the market. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.