Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very good idea. It is efficient. We make sure consumers are fully protected. I agree with just about everything everybody else is going to say today. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) be allowed to manage the remainder of our time on this bill.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman is right, we are trying in everything we have done, and I think we have accomplished that in our committee so far. The chairman has been very cooperative in promoting efficiency while protecting consumers. This bill, as I said, does do that with regard to your ability to get the check if you actually need it. The gentleman raises a point that had not previously occurred to me that I think is a good one. I think it ought to be addressed. I would be obviously, as I have told him, very reluctant to do it now without a chance to examine it and have some hearings. We do have pending in the process a more comprehensive bill called the Regulatory Relief Bill into which I believe this would fit. The bill passed our committee. It is being sequentially referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. There are some important issues there, particularly including the industrial loan corporations, where we have given assurances that we are going to try and work some compromises out. So I can guarantee to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), who has raised this very important issue, that further work remains to be done on regulatory relief. I have spoken to the chairman of both the full committee and the subcommittee, and we agree that this is an issue worthy of consideration. I would say this, whether or not we would all ultimately agree on a solution cannot be predicted. Certainly the gentleman will, I believe, have an opportunity if not to offer it today to offer it later, and I hope then to be able to offer it with a good deal more agreement.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Texas in the discretion he showed in continuing to avoid defending this outrageous decision to stiff the poor people. As to the check truncation bill, I appreciate his discussion of the work. As the ranking member, let me say I appreciate we have an open rule here. We do have an inverse relationship here. Well, we have two. One, the poorer a person is, the less fairly they are going to be treated in the tax bill. Secondly, the less important the legislation, the more open-handed the Committee on Rules will be in letting us discuss it. I am glad that we are bringing this bill forward. I was the ranking member when it was put forward, but I have to tell my colleagues I am glad that it is going to pass; but it probably will not make it into my next biography. I do not expect being remembered as the coauthor of the check truncation bill will be part of my legacy. So I thank the gentleman for his concern. The reason we are not debating it is very simple. There is nothing left to say. The banks are going to use the different kinds of paper. People will be able to get a record of their checks. That is the end of it. I understand why the gentleman would rather talk about something else than being unfair to poor people. Unfortunately, there is not enough substance here.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the gentleman from California say anything personally offensive to the Vice President. I wonder when we are being told that something was personally offensive to the Vice President, what would that be? He may be more thick-skinned than you give him credit for, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the majority party spokesman for the Committee on Rules was somewhat inaccurate in describing our position. The effort that we are engaged in to provide some financial relief to some of the poorest and hardest-working people in this country and their children would not cost the government revenues anymore. It would be balanced. We find, unlike him, a number of unfairnesses in the Tax Code; and I was struck by, in his conversation, the complete absence of any defense of the decision to deny this benefit to these people. I came down here today as the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services to talk about check truncation, but I would agree with my colleagues that fairness truncation is a far more important issue; and that is what we are talking about. The gentleman who spoke said this is a Republican Party and he is proud of it. I think there is too good of appreciation in the country today of the real differences that exist between the parties. Partisanship is not always a bad thing. There is a legitimate aspect in a democratic society to recognizing differences. The gentleman from Texas is proud that they passed a tax bill that excluded the poorest working people in America. He said he was proud of it, and I think we are proud on our side to be appalled by it. We are proud on our side to say that we can, without further draining our ability to pay for important public needs, provide help to these lower-income people; and as I said, it is a matter of fairness truncation. By the way, one of the misarguments that is used to defend stiffing the poorest people in this country when the wealthiest are doing very well is, well, they do not pay taxes. Do people in this Chamber really not notice something called the Social Security payroll tax? In fact, anybody who works pays Social Security payroll taxes. Deductions are made, and in fact, the people who are making $25,000, $30,000, $20,000, they are paying a very large percentage of their income in those taxes. I hope that we will soon do the noncontroversial bill that allows banks to truncate checks, and I hope we will then undo the Republican decision to truncate fairness and equity even further than it is and use some of the resources that we were able to use for a very large overall tax cut and spend a very few dollars on the poorest people in this country, including children.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. So the ruling is or the indication is that any suggestion that the Vice President might be interested in making money would be personally offensive?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we hear too rarely of our public policy successes, because of a natural tendency for people to focus on areas where our efforts have fallen short of what we sought to achieve. It is important to examine the policies which have not worked well, so that we can change them. But when organizations, the media, and others pay attention only to failure, the public gets a distorted overall picture, and people become unduly pessimistic about our ability to achieve important goals through public policy. One area in which the private and public sectors can work together to produce a very favorable current situation is that of the scallop fishery. This does not mean that no errors were made in the course of this work, and to some extent we have seen here a process of trial and error. One of the errors we had previously made was to rely exclusively on science conducted by the regulators, and in recent years, independent scientific assessment of the fishery has proven to be an extremely useful tool. Today, the scallop fishery is a very successful one. The catch is high, the stock has been replenished, the economy of the Greater New Bedford area--and other scallop fisheries--benefits, and, perhaps most importantly, consumers are able to receive a steady supply of a food that is both good and good for them. Sadly, this success seems, in some cases, to have angered some conservationists when it should, instead, have given them a sense of confidence about our ability to make public policy decisions. As the Representative of the City of New Bedford, the Town of Fairhaven, and other communities in which scallop fishing is important, I have had the disappointing experience of seeing some--by no means all--environmental organizations take unreasonable positions, and maintain them even in the face of contradictory experience. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that when we reauthorize the Sustainable Fisheries Act, we build on the experience that we have gained in the scallop fishery, as well as in other fisheries, and make changes in the law that will enhance our ability to achieve the public policy successes that we have seen in the regulation of scalloping. In a very comprehensive and thoughtful article, our former colleague, Gerry Studds, and Dr. Trevor Kenchington, a marine biologist, present the story of the success in the scallop fishery--as the sub-headline of their article in the May 25 issue of the New Bedford Standard Times correctly notes, ``cooperation between managers and fishermen has rebuilt stocks.'' Those who served with Gerry Studds during his twenty four years in the House, including his service as Chair of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries before its abolition, will not be surprised to read his cogent and balanced presentation. As a leading voice in this House on the question of fishing, Mr. Studds had a major role in bringing about many of the achievements chronicled in this article, and I am proud as his successor in representing the major scallop fishery in American to have been able to carry on his work. Because this is a very important issue that we will, I hope, be addressing in legislation this year, I ask that the very informative article ``Success With Scallops'' offered by Mr. Studds and Dr. Kenchington and carried in the New Bedford Standard Times, be reprinted here. Success With Scallops cooperation between managers and fishermen has rebuilt stocks (By Trevor J. Kenchington and Gerry E. Studds) If you thought all living marine resources were either severely depleted or on the verge of extinction, due to a combination of ineffective management and the greed and shortsightedness of fishermen, you could hardly be blamed. After all, that is the message conveyed to you day after day in the media--and in the fund-raising solicitations of many environmental groups. You might be more than a little surprised, therefore, to learn that an immensely valuable component of commercial fishing in New England and the Mid-Atlantic--the Atlantic sea scallop fishery--presents a shining example of successful management and an unprecedented instance of cooperation between fishermen and managers. ``The scallop resource on Georges Bank and in the Mid- Atlantic region has not only increased dramatically in recent years, but is at record high levels and considered fully rebuilt,'' said the Executive Director of the New England Fishery Management Council last fall. (Heading Toward Recovery: Rebuilding New England's Fisheries, Fall 2002) Under these circumstances, you might be even more surprised to learn that several environmental organizations and their allies have gone to court again and again to block these management efforts. To date, their legal challenges have been uniformly unsuccessful. But they have succeeded in tying managers and fishermen in expensive, litigious knots. Why is it that these groups, among them the Conservation Law Foundation and Oceans, have painted a target on the backs of the scallop fishermen when pinning a medal on their chests for innovative, proactive citizenship might seem more appropriate? Let's take a closer look, first at the scallops themselves and their importance to the country and to local communities, then at the recent history of scallop management. Scallops feed on the lowest level in the marine ecosystem-- microscopic floating plants. Much as cattle turn grass into beef, scallops turn natural plant energy into meat. Scallop meat is, moreover, nutritious, low fat and a prized delicacy when fresh. Left to themselves, however, scallops are not an efficient pathway for the plants to feed the rest of the ecosystem. Scallops, with their strong shells, resist most predators. Enter humans. With effective management of the U.S. Atlantic scallop fishery, annual production of some 40 million pounds of high-quality scallop meat can be landed and enjoyed by consumers, replacing high-priced imports with fresh product. Importantly, because scallops are ``shucked'' (opened) at sea with only their meats brought ashore, their viscera are discarded overboard and thereupon become a food source for predatory fish such as cod. The scallop industry is very important to the social fabric of shoreside communities from Maine to North Carolina. The bulk of the catch is harvested by approximately 200 full-time scallop vessels, while another 100 or so fish for scallops to a lesser extent. Some 2,000 people are directly employed in the harvesting. In the process of supplying this product to consumers, the scallop fishery can earn between $150 million and $200 million per year, valued at the point of landing. Even more value is added and more jobs supported in processing, distribution and sales. Income from scalloping contributes to the economies and way of life of many coastal communities in a half-dozen states. That is an important contribution for some ports like Stonington, Conn.; Cape May, N.J.; and Hampton Roads, Va. But, scalloping is vital to New Bedford, where the majority of Atlantic scallops are landed. In fact, the revitalization of the scallop fishery has propelled New Bedford into its current position as the No. 1 fishing port in the United States, measured by dollar value of product landed. But it is not foreordained that the scallop industry should have its current success. In the past, scallop fishermen, like those in so many other U.S. fisheries, compensated for a declining resource by fishing harder (and more dangerously) struggling to maintain their income but driving the scallops down further. 1994 rules In 1994, all that began to change when strict rules were implemented limiting the number of participants in the fishery and, more importantly, the number of days that scallop vessels could fish in a given year. Further cuts followed, particularly in 1998. Full-time scallop vessels are now limited to 120 days at sea each year compared to the 250 or more that many worked before restrictions began. They are also now limited to seven men, which severely limits their catching power, compared to the 13 men commonly carried in earlier years. In addition, large portions of the most productive scallop grounds in the world (on Georges Bank, off Massachusetts) were closed in order to assist federal efforts to rebuild stocks of groundfish (cod, flounder, and haddock). About 80 percent of the Georges Bank scallops (roughly half of the entire Atlantic scallop resource) is currently off- limits to fishing. Under these strict management measures, the weight of scallops alive in the ocean has increased almost eight-fold since its low point in 1993. It is now safely above target levels set by federal managers for rebuilding the stock pursuant to the federal Sustainable Fisheries Act. For scallops, a formal 10-year rebuilding plan was initiated in 1999. By 2001--just three years--scallop stocks had rebuilt to their target level. related reasons They rebuilt so quickly for a series of inter-related reasons. First, scallop stocks can be, and were, very productive. Second, significant conservation measures were imposed in time to capitalize on a large, natural up-tick in scallop productivity. Third, the scallop fleet responded to challenges imposed by the Sustainable Fisheries Act by organizing itself to partner with the federal government to achieve conservation goals. Almost 200 full-time participants in the Atlantic scallop fishery have come together under the banner of the Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF), which is headquartered in Fairhaven, Massachusetts, just outside New Bedford. FSF participants have worked with the federal government to develop innovative approaches to improve scallop yield, reduce the (already very limited) bycatch of other fish species by scallop dredges and reduce the potential for interactions between scallop dredges and the ocean bottom habitat. FSF members have also worked in partnership with major East Coast universities, such as the University of Massachusetts School for Marine Sciences and Technology and the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences at the College of William & Mary, using both scallop gear and high-resolution video cameras to survey scallop stocks, to learn about the ocean bottom in scallop areas and to develop gear that can reduce the potential for fish bycatches and the small potential for interaction of scallop dredges with endangered sea turtles. Pilot projects, involving the industry, academia and the federal government, were undertaken in 1999 and 2000 to reopen portions of the Georges Bank groundfish closed areas to environmentally responsible scallop fishing. Areas have been closed in the Mid-Atlantic to allow concentration of small scallops detected in those regions to grow and then to spread the catches of these large concentrations of harvestable scallops over a period of years, rather than have them be taken in one ``gold-rush'' event. rotating closures The FSF has also been working since 1999 to devise a systematic approach to rotational management of scallop beds--an effort that promises important habitat benefits and further reductions in the already small bycatches. Few, if any, fishery participants nationwide have invested more time, effort and material resources in developing proactive management approaches. Significantly, moreover, these cooperative management efforts have repeatedly (and, sad to say, expensively) stood the test of determined court challenges. This is fisheries management for the 21st century. If anything became clear in the 20th century, it was the top- down management of fisheries, in an atmosphere of conflict between managers and the managed, has failed worldwide and would not have worked for the Atlantic scallop fishery. It is, finally, important to recognize that the scallop fishery is an environmentally clean fishery. Scalloping involves very little bycatch. There are only negligible catches of cod, haddock and most other species of fish. Bycatches of flounder, monkfish and skate are a bit higher but still relatively small. Scalloping alone would pose no threat to those populations; however, there can be issues when a resource has been depleted by directed fishing (that is, not by scalloping) or by environmental factors. The potential for scalloper bycatch is something that needs to be considered in developing rebuilding measures in these cases. The scallop industry is working with managers to identify and resolve these specific issues when they arise. designed to work Then there is the issue of the scallop dredge itself. Simply put, harvesting scallops from deep offshore waters requires towed gear. Thus, dredges are necessarily used for the bulk of the scallop fishery. Importantly, however, while the dredge is a large and heavy device when sitting on land or aboard a boat, when towed under the water, hydrodynamic forces literally lift it off the bottom. In fact, the New Bedford style scallop dredge used in the Atlantic has been called an ``airplane'' dredge and actually requires ``depressor plates'' (which function as upside-down airplane wings) to maintain contact with the bottom--contact that involves chains and skids skimming across the bottom, rather than digging into it. Contrary to the impressions created by some, dredges do not plow the bottom for scallops; rather, water flow behind the depressor plates causes scallops to be sucked off the bottom and whirled into the bag portion of the dredge. Moreover, scallopers tend to avoid areas with even occasional boulders unless they are forced there by lack of resource elsewhere or by closures of productive scalloping areas. Their gear is not efficient in those areas while damage to expensive dredges is both common and dangerous. It is those rocky bottom areas that represent the main focus of efforts to protect essential groundfish habitat from the adverse effects of fishing gear. Scallops and scalloping on the other hand are most productive where the seabed is sand or fine gravel. Managers are currently working, as they should be, towards focusing scallop fishing efforts on large concentrations of large scallops, including those in closed areas of Georges Bank. Moreover, focusing scallop effort on areas where scallops are abundant also reduces the potential for any impact of the scallop dredge on the ocean bottom and the potential for bycatch of other species. Scallopers fishing in areas of high abundance spend less time fishing for scallops and more time processing them. This reality is at the heart of scallop rotation management, as championed by the industry. Successful rotation management, therefore, requires access to areas of scallop abundance. So, to return to where we began, why is it that the fisherman who regularly risks his life in the most dangerous of all occupations to wrest a living from the sea and put food on our table who has not only played by the rules but has taken the initiative (at considerable expense to himself) to help develop an innovative, conservation-positive management system that is working and working well--why is it that, in addition to the forces of nature and the processes of regulatory bureaucracy, he must now contend with a sustained legal assault from groups that seek to portray him as the most avaricious and irresponsible of men? Might it be that the scallop industry has ``stepped on the message'' of some whose world view has no place for them? Are there those whose agenda is somehow threatened by proof that a fishery can be both successful and sustainable? These are questions that thoughtful and responsible people would do well to ponder.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, before we went on recess, I came to the floor of the House to express my deep dismay at the disregard for fundamental democratic principles shown by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. In an interview he gave on May 2 aimed for broadcast in Turkey, Secretary Wolfowitz repeatedly criticized the Turkish military for not having intervened in parliamentary deliberations with sufficient strength when the question of Turkish participation in the war in Iraq came up. I believed then and now that this appalling call on the Turkish military to violate fundamental democratic norms was particularly disturbing because there are few things more important to the stability of the world than the effort now going on in Turkey to show that people who are religious Muslims can preside over a fully democratic regime. While many of us would like to hope that this could be taken for granted, the recent history of the Middle East argues to the contrary and that is why supporting the Turkish government in its effort to implement democracy is so important. Secretary Wolfowitz in his interview criticized the Turkish military for not speaking out to influence the Parliament, and when the interviewer pointed out to him that the Turkish military had in fact done that, he repeated his criticism by saying that they had not done it with enough strength. Telling a military in a democratic government that it should more strongly be expressing its views to elected officials demonstrates a misunderstanding of democracy in general, and a particular insensitivity to the implications of such statements in a country--Turkey--where there had been a history of military coup that many are trying to overcome. Subsequent to my comments, I learned of a statement made by General Hilmi Ozkok, Chief of the Turkish General Staff, in which he responded to those who had been critical of the military. While his comments pre- date the interview given by Mr. Wolfowitz, this reads as if he were in part responding to the Deputy Secretary, and in fact he may have been doing so because it would not surprise me if Mr. Wolfowitz had made these criticisms directly to the Turkish military before going public with them. The contrast between the interview with Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz-- the relevant portions of which I am going to re-print here--and the statement by General Ozkok is striking, and I am sad to see the head of the Turkish General Staff showing a far better understanding of the role the military should play in a democracy than the Deputy Secretary of Defense of the United States. As General Ozkok points out, ``the military did not think it would be beneficial to share its views on such a critical issue with the press and public. It expressed all its views clearly and openly, however, at the state summit, the National Security Council, and in all of the meetings; which were chaired by our Prime Minister, government members and pertinent organizations and institutions.'' General Ozkok goes on to say ``the Iraqi issue is a vital and multifaceted issue. The military is concerned with the security dimension of this issue and expresses its views and puts forward suggestions on this aspect only. As all of you will appreciate, a decision on such an issue calls for political, economic, social and judiciary dimensions as well. We as the military do not think we know best. Consequently we could have paved the path to misinterpretations if we had issued statements to the public on the security aspects only.'' Most crucially, referring to the MGK--the National Security Council of Turkey which consists of five military and nine civilian members-- General Ozkok says ``as you know, the MGK issues recommendations to the government according to the Constitution, not to the TBMM (the Parliament) . . . if the MGK had issued a recommendation at the time the motion was being taken up at the TBMM (the Parliament) and before a decision was made, it would have meant putting the pressure on the TBMM to pass the motion. This would not have been democratic and not in line with the Constitution.'' Mr. Speaker, I wish Paul Wolfowitz understood this fundamental aspect of democracy as well as the head of the Turkish General Staff. I ask that the sadly contrasting views of the role of the military in a democracy expressed by Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz and General Ozkok be printed here. CNN Turk. Which traditional alliance are you talking about? Wolfowitz. Well I think you know which ones I mean but I think particularly the military. I think for whatever reason they did not play the strong leadership role on that issue that we would have expected. But I think the bigger disappointment has to do with the general failure of the Turkish public reflected also in the government, about what the stakes were in Iraq and that here you have a neighbor with an overwhelmingly Muslim population where the people were suffering under one of the worst dictators in the world. And one would have thought that Muslim solidarity would have led people to say lets help the Americans liberate these people and that isn't what happened. Okay, that's past. We are now in the present and future. The present and future is there's a spectacular opportunity in Iraq to help these newly liberated people achieve their real potential and I think that's what we need to work on together, Turkey and United States and I think what Turkey needs to do is look into its democratic soul and say, yes we believe in democracy, we believe in democracy for Muslims and Arabs. There's an opportunity now, whatever happened in the last few months, there's an opportunity now to work with the Americans to build that in Iraq. Let's seize that opportunity and do everything we can as Turks to support it. CNN Turk. But if you make a prognosis of what went wrong earlier, since you mentioned for example the military the traditional institution which had strong connections to the United States did not play a leadership role, so for the future to repair the relationship and bring it back to its original level that means that you have to need a leadership role to be played by those who haven't played it. What kind of a role the military might have because after all the military is not working in Turkey's parliament political parties [inaudible]? And they have been criticized by getting involved in politics. Wolfowitz. I'm not suggesting you get involved in politics at all. I mean, I think, all I'm saying is that when you had an issue of Turkey's national interest and national strategy I think it's perfectly appropriate, especially in your system, for the military to say it was in Turkey's interest to support the United States in that effort. CNN Turk. Didn't they say that? Wolfowitz. I don't know. My impression is they didn't say it with the kind of strength that would have made a difference. But look lets not dwell too much on the past.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, sometimes when a President flies somewhere, part of his trip is charged to his party's political committee because the trip is partly governmental and partly political. The expenses for running the House for the next hour ought to be charged to the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, because the purpose of this rule and of other rules we have seen so far is incumbent protection for the Republican Party. What they have done is to shut down democracy within the House. It is democratic in the sense that you get elected to get here, but then it becomes authoritarian. There will be no free speech, there will be no chance to consider tough issues. Why? Not simply because we do not have enough time. We do not work very much around here. We do this to protect Republican incumbents from having to vote on difficult issues. The purpose of the Committee on Rules is to make sure that Republicans can follow an extremely conservative leadership and do things that would be unpopular and then pretend that they had no choice. How does that happen? They vote for rules which prevent them from voting on these issues. They then go in a great act of fakery to their constituents and say, Gee, I would have been with you, but I did not get a chance to vote on that issue, having themselves voted on the procedure which kept the issue off the floor. We cannot vote on important issues in the defense bill; we cannot vote on an alternative unemployment compensation. It is a conscious and deliberate pattern, and it is particularly to accommodate that extraordinary breed known as the ``moderate Republican.'' They specialize in razzle-dazzle. They specialize in being loyal executors of extreme right-wing policies, but in a way that allows them to go home and disclaim any responsibility for what they were doing. It would not be plausible to claim they were drunk for an entire session. That is usually the way people explain that sort of thing. So what they do is to vote for rules, procedures that keep controversial issues off the floor, so they can then go and mislead their constituents by saying that they would have supported their position, but they did not have a chance to do it. It is a self-inflicted constraint. It is the reverse Houdini. Houdini used to have people tie him in knots, and he would go before the people and untie the knots. What moderate Republicans do is the reverse Houdini. The moderate Republicans tie themselves in knots, and then they go before the voters and say, Gee, I'm sorry I couldn't help you, but I was all tied up in knots. Let us vote against this rule and put an end to the most fundamental, political and intellectual dishonesty.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I just have to express my dismay at the anti-American diatribe we have just heard. I am sorry to hear this defeatist attitude about the American economy. The American economy continues to be a vibrant one overall, and to have it so thoroughly denigrated and to be told that no one ought to want to go into business in America is a shockingly anti-American approach.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I was appalled 2 weeks ago to read that Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, one of the key policymakers in this administration, had publicly criticized, for Turkish consumption, the Turkish military for abiding by democracy. In an interview, which I will put into the Record, with CNN Turk, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz repeatedly criticized the Turkish military because it had allowed democracy to function in Turkey. And he ought to resign. We have much too much at stake in our effort to bring stable democracy to the world in general, and particularly the Middle East, to allow a man to stay in that high office who has allowed himself to say that the military did too little, was not strong enough in pressing a democratically elected government. Indeed, it is especially disturbing to have that said with regard to the government of Turkey. Trying to encourage Islamist movements that are genuinely democratic is one of our highest goals. The clash that some have argued exists between Islamic fundamentalism and democracy is a terrible threat to the world. We have in Turkey now a government that has Islamist groups, the political majority, and is also committed to democracy. And that parliament made a decision, not the government but the parliament, that we did not like. It failed to get a sufficient majority to join us in the war effort. And here is what Paul Wolfowitz has to say: `` . . . many of the institutions in Turkey that we think of as the traditional strong support is the alliance were not as forceful in leading in that direction.'' Question: ``Which traditional alliance are you talking about?'' `` . . . I think particularly the military.'' This is Mr. Wolfowitz: ``I think for whatever reason they did not play the strong leadership role on that issue that we would have expected.'' And the questioners were somewhat puzzled. Here is a high American official. We have said we are going to war in Iraq in part to bring about democracy, and he is criticizing a military in Turkey because it had not strongly tried to influence the elected officials? So they say what kind of a role the military might have because after all the military is not in parliament. And another interviewer says: ``And they have been criticized by getting involved in politics.'' Mr. Wolfowitz seems to realize he said something that he should not have, but he cannot help himself. His contempt for the democratic process, if it comes out with results he does not like, was too strong. His partisanship on this issue was too strong. So here is what Mr. Wolfowitz says: ``I'm not suggesting you get involved in politics at all. I mean, I think, all I'm saying is that when you had an issue of Turkey's national interest . . . I think it's perfectly appropriate, especially in your system,'' my emphasis, ``for the military to say it was in Turkey's interest to support the United States in that effort.'' The interviewer says: ``Didn't they say that?'' Mr. Wolfowitz's response: ``I don't know. My impression is they didn't say it with the kind of strength that would have made a difference.'' In other words, they did not muscle the government. They did not use armed force, the threat of armed force, as unfortunately the Turkish military has in the past, to force the Turkish Parliament to take an action which we wanted them to take. Mr. Wolfowitz is the Deputy Secretary of Defense. As David Greenway pointed out in the Boston Globe last week, ``The Turks are perfectly aware of the Pentagon's creeping takeover of U.S. foreign policy. There will be some who consider Wolfowitz's remarks as encouragement to boot out Erdogan,'' the Turkish prime minister. Let me stress again how important it is for the experiment we are seeing in Turkey to succeed, a democratic Islamist government, and they had a tough issue that we dropped in their laps; and the parliament voted and the government tried and could not get a majority. And the Deputy Secretary of Defense says the military was not strong enough, the military did not intervene forcefully enough the way that they traditionally have? This is appalling to have such a high-ranking American official say this, and we have already got problems in post- war Iraq. The administration's policy is a shambles there. Mr. Wolfowitz can take some of the responsibility for that. He is one of those who scoffed when Army Chief of Staff Shinseki said we are going to need several hundred thousand troops, and now of course we are being told 150,000 troops is not enough. But we have this terrible problem in Iraq clearly now since there have not been found the kinds of weapons that the administration said there would be, certainly not in the quantity they predicted. The justification for Iraq is the impact it will have on governments in Iraq and in the rest of the Middle East. How does it help to have our Deputy Secretary of Defense, one of the shapers of that policy, now say, by the way, when we say democracy, we mean a democracy where the military intervenes strongly, not just gives its viewpoint but intervenes strongly to make sure things come out? Things in Iraq and our credibility are in enough trouble without Paul Wolfowitz compounding it, and he ought to resign. [From the Boston Globe, May 16, 2003] Democracy, Neocon Style (By H.D.S. Greenway) Neoconservatives, who have risen to great power and influence within the Bush administration, have told us of their sweeping design to transform the Middle East into a model of democracy. Skeptics have demurred, but the neocons have countered that the doubters lack vision. There have been recent events, however, that bring into question the sincerity of these grand visionaries. Take, for example, the recent remarks of Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, perhaps the most influential of the right-wing conservatives in government. Although the State Department got most of the blame for the diplomatic debacle over Turkey's failure to allow US troops to transit en route to Iraq, it was Wolfowitz who conducted much of the negotiations. As it was, Turkey's new, democratically elected Parliament said no, much to Washington's chagrin and to the embarrassment of the Turkish government, which had urged a ``yes'' vote. Turkey was not the first government in a democratic state to be rebuffed by legislators. It happens in the United States all the time. But last week, in an interview with CNN, Wolfowitz lashed out at the Turkish military for the failure to fall into line. ``I think for whatever reason, they did not play the strong leadership role that we would have expected,'' he said. Consider the ramifications of this statement in the Turkish context. Democracy in Turkey is alive but fragile. Open elections began only in the 1950s. Traditionally the Turkish military has seen itself as the guardian of the secular state that Kemal Ataturk put into place following the end of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. The Turkish generals have made it a habit to step in from time to time to dismiss governments they do not like, returning rule to civilians only when it suits them. The last time this happened was in the late 1990s, when Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan was chucked out of power by the military for being too anti-Western and too Islamic. Islam is a growing force in Turkey, especially among the rural poor now flooding into cities. Turkey's armed forces and the elites are determined to keep the country secular. Recent Turkish elections swept all the establishment parties away and brought to power a new Parliament with a decided Islamic bent. Its leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a former mayor of Istanbul, was at first banned from becoming prime minister because of a nationalistic poem with Islamic imagery that he had once read aloud. But Erdogan and his party had gone out of their way to be pro-West and moderate, and the military kept to its barracks. Eventually, Erdogan was allowed to assume the prime ministry, which he deserved, but not before he had been received by President Bush in the White House. Bush rightly decided that, far from being a threat Erdogan's clean government ticket could serve as an example of how a Middle Eastern government could be Islamic, democratic, moderate, and pro-Western all at the same time. Erdogan and his government wanted to allow US troops to use Turkish soil to attack Iraq, and not just because of the huge bribe the United States had offered. But the government couldn't persuade enough legislators. Many Turks felt the Parliament had made a mistake, that Turkish interests had been hurt, but the Parliament didn't agree, and that was that. End of story; or so it should have been. One might have thought that anyone interested in true democracy would have been impressed and delighted. Here was Parliament defying the government, and the military didn't intervene. An American foreign policy goal is to get the European Union to accept Turkey. One of the EU's legitimate complaints is that the EU is a grouping of democracies and that the banana republic-like actions of the Turkish military over the years indicate that Turkey's democracy is only a sometime thing. But this time around, the Turkish military was not interfering. Then up steps Paul Wolfowitz, saying that the Turkish military had not played ``the strong leadership role that we would have expected.'' Does that mean that, in Wolfowitz's view, there should have been a military coup? Or that the Turkish generals should have threatened the Parliament? In the Turkish context there is every reason to interpret the deputy secretary of defense's remarks in that way. The Turks are perfectly aware of the Pentagon's creeping takeover of US foreign policy. There will be some who consider Wolfowitz's remarks as encouragement to boot out Erdogan as they did Erbakan. Americans have a right to ask: Do the neocons really want democracy, or do they simply want to bully the Middle East into a semblance of democracy that will toe the American line and further neoconservative imperial fantasies?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, sadly this bill reminds me of some comments we heard just a week or so ago from leading corporate executives who, having signed an agreement in which it was clear that their companies had abused the trust of investors, tried by public statements to water that down, and I admire the vigor with which the new head of the Securities and Exchange Commission Mr. Donaldson, who appears to be doing a good job, spoke out harshly against them. What he said was, look, we have got to acknowledge that we made, as a society, serious errors, and we have to be willing to make a whole- hearted effort to correct them, and essentially what we saw were chief executives of culpable corporations who were making it clear that whatever reforms they had agreed to came grudgingly and reluctantly. That is what this bill is. It is a grudging, reluctant acknowledgment that something had to be done, and it is an effort in the face of serious wrongdoing that took hard-earned money away from large numbers of people to do as little as people think they can get by with. This is a time for us to be forthcoming. This is a time for us to do an expansive piece of legislation protecting people. We are not dealing with speculative ills here. We are dealing with real harm that was done to real people. And a bill such as this, a grudging and partial acknowledgment that there were some mistakes but a refusal to deal with them in their entirety, is the same spirit that we saw from these corporate executives: you caught us, and you are going to make us do something; but we are going to fight you every step of the way, and we are not going to give any wholehearted endorsement to measures that will change things. The measures that are in the Democratic substitute that will be coming forward represent, frankly, the spirit in which the head of the SEC spoke, and I hope we adopt it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker. Among the sillier policies that are pursued because some people do not like gay men and lesbians is the one which refuses to allow gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country in the armed forces. This is in great contrast to, to take a particularly striking example, Israel, which has openly gay and lesbian people in the Israeli Defense Force. Those who argue that the presence of openly gay and lesbian soldiers erodes morale have a very hard time explaining the example of the IDF. In our own country, this self-inflicted mood reached new depths recently when the military began expelling from its ranks people who were becoming expert in Arabic and other languages, which are relevant to our fight against terrorism. From ``don't ask, don't tell'' we have proceeded to ``don't ask, don't tell, don't translate,'' and our national interest is a loser. We already have too few people skilled in translating many of the languages that are used by terrorists, and we detract from our own security by turning away those who would help us overcome this deficiency. Recently, the Linguistic Society of America founded in 1924 ``for the advancement of the scientific study of language'' spoke out against this policy. That meeting adopted the following resolution and because of the importance of this issue to our national security, I ask that it be printed here. Whereas linguists, translators, and interpreters serving at the Defense Language Institute have made important contributions to the nation's defense since the Institute's inception; Whereas language specialists fluent in Arabic and other critical languages are especially vital to U.S. national security at this time; Whereas the General Accounting Office reports that there is currently a serious shortage of such linguists in the military; Whereas the military's recent dismissal of highly trained and highly skilled language specialists who are gay or lesbian presents a significant risk to national security; Whereas sexual orientation is irrelevant to one's job performance, and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unjust; Therefore be it resolved that the Linguistic Society of America make known its opposition to the U.S. military's policy of dismissing linguists, translators, interpreters, or other members of the armed forces on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, on this coming Sunday, May 11, Young Israel of Brookline, Massachusetts will honor Lance Kawesch and Emily Stein, ``for the years of excellent service, tireless devotion and total dedication to Young Israel and our community.'' Mr. Kawesch and Ms. Stein joined Young Israel shortly after their marriage, and have been hard working and valuable members of the Congregation ever since. Lance has served as President, and Emily is the Office Manager and Director of Operations. Between them, they have organized, supported, and contributed to a wide range of the important educational, religious, charitable and cultural activities which mark the work of Young Israel. Young Israel is a vibrant part of the district which I represent, and I am pleased to have the chance to join the members of Young Israel in saluting the important work of Lance Kawesch and Emily Stein.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if people want a dictionary illustration of adding insult to injury, the Republicans are providing it. They do great injury today to the principle of nondiscrimination, and they have added to that the insult of not allowing this House to debate it. As the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) made clear, this is the first time we will be removing from the statute books an existing antidiscrimination provision, one that says you cannot take Federal money and then discriminate against some of the people who paid the taxes. If you are a particular organization, you can say, I do not care if you are Jewish and pay taxes or Catholic and pay taxes. I do not care if you are a Protestant and pay taxes, if you believe in abortion. I do not care if you are a Methodist and pay taxes, if you agree on evolution. We will exclude you. It is appalling to me that they are going to be able to engineer this enormous regression in the principle of nondiscrimination without there even being a separate vote and debate. It is a tribute to the Republican majority, the most submissive body of elected officials gathered since the dissolution of the Supreme Soviet that they will ratify this decision to roll back a fundamental constitutional provision, a fundamental antidiscrimination public policy provision, and they will all march down and vote not to allow it to be debated. The gentleman from Ohio is right. In 1965 there was an exemption for religion organizations, and it was expanded in 1972. A Senator said at the time, ``This is to keep the hands of Caesar off of the place of God.'' Now we are talking about the hands of Caesar coming to the religious institutions bearing money. And we were saying this, if you as a religious institution want to preserve your autonomy, hire only whom you want, that is your right. But do not tell Americans of all religions to pay taxes and then take those tax dollars and say, but you are the wrong religion. You are the right religion but the wrong doctrine. And that is what this does. It removes it from the statute books. The law now says you cannot discriminate based on religion. People have said, well, we need this so that religious organizations are not denied funds because of their name. Well, in the first place, that is up to the current administration. What is George Bush saying? Stop me before I discriminate again? If he does not want to discriminate, he has a good way to stop discriminating. You know the person who went to the doctor and he said, Doctor, it hurts when I go like this. The doctor said, Do not go like this. Mr. President, do not go like this. Do not discriminate. But do not take people's tax dollars and say you can only hire your own. The question is two fold: Do we maintain the principle that if you take Federal money, if you are a religious organization and to be autonomous, that is fine? By the way, for secular purposes, remember by definition the religious group can only take Federal money for secular purposes. It would be unconstitutional as everyone acknowledges to give tax dollars to a religion for religious purposes. So the question is can a religious organization take money for secular purposes and discriminate? And we are told, well, wait, it is important for them to hold together. It seems to me the worst thing being said about religious organizations are the people who say, you know what, if you want Baptist or Jews or Mormons or Catholics to help other people, you better not make them associate with nonbelievers. They can only help people find jobs, they can only give job training as long as they are free from the spiritual pollution of having to teach these jobs alongside nonbelievers. That is a condemnation of religion that I hope this House will not engage in, compounded by a denial of democracy on the floor of the House. To bring forward such an important issue and use your submissive majority to prevent debate is contemptible.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if I had an indefensible point I would not yield either, despite all the time they have. If, in fact, a religious organization get money for job training, they have a right to refuse to hire someone who does not believe in job training. If they have hired because they are going to try and fight drug addiction, they do not have to hire someone who is for drug addiction. If the gentleman thinks I am going to yield him after he refused to yield to me when he has all the time and I do not, let him get some more time from his side which has the extra time and is sitting on it, and I will debate him. The fact is that any organization has the right to deny people a job if they disagree with the job for which they are being hired. So, no, you do not have to hire someone who disagrees with what you are being hired for. That is totally not the case. And by the way, this law about discrimination does apply across the board.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, morally and politically it is essential that the United States show that our concern for human rights is truly universal, and is not a concept to be invoked when convenient to provide cover for geopolitical motives. In the New York Times for Sunday, April 6, Aryeh Neier noted the unfortunate tendency of the world to focus on one or two major crises to the exclusion of terrible problems happening elsewhere. Specifically, he deplored the fact that war in Iraq has contributed to a situation in which outrageous human rights abuses in Zimbabwe, Cuba, and Belarus have failed to receive sufficient attention. It is true that recently we in the House took an appropriate step of condemning the oppression by Fidel Castro, but more needs to be done to focus world outrage on the abuses of freedom committed not only by Castro, but by the brutal dictators in Belarus and Zimbabwe. Because of the importance of maintaining our commitment to human rights as a broad and universal principle, I ask that Aryeh Neier's important article be printed here. [From the New York Times, Apr. 6, 2003] The World's Other Tyrants, Still at Work (By Aryeh Neier) With international attention focused on Iraq, despots are seizing the opportunity to get rid of their opposition--real or imagined. In Zimbabwe, Cuba and Belarus, independent journalists, opposition leaders and human rights advocates have been thrown in prison. Absent scrutiny, the leaders of these rogue regimes have been emboldened, aware that their actions are causing little more than a ripple of protest beyond their countries. The outside world has ignored Zimbabwe, which is holding critical parliamentary elections whose outcome could help determine whether President Robert Mugabe will be able to amend the Constitution and handpick his successor. Since the start of the war in Iraq, Mr. Mugabe has intensified a campaign of intimidation, arresting more than 500 democracy advocates and opposition leaders, including Gibson Sibanda, vice president of the main opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change. The campaign of state-sponsored violence is not limited to the opposition leaders in Zimbabwe. A worker on the farm of a opposition parliamentary deputy died of injuries after being beaten by Mr. Mugabe's security agents for participating in a two-day general strike. Other farm workers have also been beaten by men in army uniforms who claimed that the farms were being used as staging grounds for opposition activities. Hundreds of people accused of taking part in the strike were treated for broken bones in private clinics, fearing more reprisals if they sought care at public hospitals. Meanwhile, Zimbabwe, once a breadbasket for southern Africa, falls ever further into poverty and famine. In Cuba, the war is giving Fidel Castro cover for an unprecedented assault. Over the past two weeks in state security agents have arrested about 80 dissidents. Prosecutors are seeking life sentences for 12 of those detained and 10- to 30-year prison terms for the rest. They include the economist Marta Beatriz Roque, the poet and journalist Raul Rivero and the opposition labor activist Pedro Pablo Alvarez. The list of arrests reads like a Who's Who of Cuban civil society--with the obvious exception of those who were already in jail when the roundup started. They are the unsung heroes of a movement to liberate the minds of Cuba. But the names do not mean much to a world public now concentrated on becoming more and more expert on the latest in military equipment and on the geography of Iraq. In Minsk, the capital of Belarus, the authorities last week detained 50 opposition protesters who had gathered for the 85th anniversary of the declaration of the short-lived Belarusian Democratic Republic. On Thursday, demonstrators supporting the Iraq war--which President Aleksandr Lukashenko opposes--were arrested. It seems clear that Mr. Lukashenko, Europe's sole remaining dictator, is intent on tightening his grip on Belarus. Sadly, Zimbabwe, Cuba and Belarus are not alone. Other countries have used the Iraq war to step up human rights abuses. Vietnam's most renowned dissident, Nguyen Dan Que, 1 60-year-old writer who is a physician by training, was arrested late last month. Hardly anyone protested. In Egypt, hundreds of war protesters were detained, with dozens beaten and tortured. In Thailand, the government has justified what appear to be summary executions in the name of a war on drugs. At least 1,900 people have been killed, including innocent bystanders. These crackdowns, too, all passed with little notice or comment. That dictators move in times of world crisis comes as no surprise. The Soviets crushed the Hungarian revolution in 1956 during the Suez crisis. In 1968, when the Johnson administration was preoccupied with Vietnam, and Germany and France as well as the United States were convulsed in antiwar demonstrations, the Soviets moved into Czechoslovakia. In January 1991, just as today, the international community was focused on a war in Iraq. As the Persian Gulf war was starting, the Soviet Army took advantage of the internal community's inattention to crack down on an independence movement in Lithuania. More than 200 people were wounded and 15 killed as Moscow seized control of the television broadcast center in Vilnius. If we let tyrants escape the international condemnation that is often the only way to protect their critics against abuses, the brutal campaigns in Zimbabwe, the clean sweep of dissidents in Cuba, and the arrests of demonstrators in Belarus may have to be added to the list of unintended consequences of the war in Iraq.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I know as you get old your memory goes, but I do not remember hearing that this is new. I remember rehearing that this will get the economy going. I do not remember the defense of the 2001 tax cut being this will prevent the economy from slowing down so rapidly. There was no acknowledgment that there was going to be a slow down; and I asked people to go back to 2001, and we heard in 2001 these same arguments.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I think repetition is often relevant in this body; but when the gentleman talks about how we needed tax cuts, a significant amount, to get the economy growing, did he give the exact same speech that he gave in 2001 when we were told that large tax cuts would stimulate the economy?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Is it appropriate for the Senators to lie by voting for this budget?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.