Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, after the previous speaker, I think I should rise to the defense of some Republicans. He said people who had not been in uniform should not be involved in this debate. I do not think that the Speaker of the House, the majority leader of the House or any of the rest of us who were not able to serve for one reason or another ought to be disqualified. I have never found that the Speaker, because he had never served in the military, was somehow incompetent to discuss military affairs. I also thought it was rather unkind to Ronald Reagan. We dedicated a building to him yesterday. I had previously thought that people, including former President Reagan, considered ending the Cold War in the way that it ended to be one of his accomplishments. But we learned today that apparently that was a mistake. Indeed, the previous speaker denigrated the notion that the Cold War ended, so I guess that is a claimed accomplishment of President Reagan that is not really real. I am rather more sympathetic to President Reagan in that regard. Some people suggested, one of the previous speakers, that we are even worse off, that Russia is more dangerous today. Maybe we ought to ask the Communists to come back. Maybe we should see if we can get at least Mr. Gorbachev back in power, Mr. Zyuganov. In fact, what we have heard today is some of the worst history I have ever heard. I want to, by the way, differ with some of my colleagues who support this amendment. I think the intelligence community does an excellent job on the whole. They have a very difficult job. The reason they sometimes do not know the answer is we cannot know the answer. We cannot know the unknowable. People who are planning to do bad things do not always cooperate by tipping their hand. I do not criticize them for not having known everything that was going to happen. I think they have, in fact, done a pretty good job. What we are experts in here, by the way, is not military expertise. We are the experts so empowered by the American people at dividing up the resources of this country. We made a decision a couple of years ago about how much we were going to spend. We are not, I think, spending to the fullest, to the extent that we need to in any one area. We then have the job of allocating scarce resources. That is what we have the democratic mandate to do. The suggestion that somehow this impinges unfairly on the expertise of the committee, no one really seriously believes that. In fact, when people get up and defend the committee on one day, they are the people who would criticize a different committee on a different day. Let me say, in addition to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I also have respect for the committee. Indeed I have respect for, I was about to say all the committees of the House but let me say today I have respect for all the committees but one and I hope we can soon resume respect for that one. The question is how do we allocate our resources. There are a couple of erroneous historical arguments. People have made the analogy to 1941. That is about the worst history I have ever heard. In the 1930s, America was one of the weaker powers in the world. We are not remotely comparable to 1941. We are not, as the United States, anywhere near where we were 55 and 60 years ago vis-a-vis Germany and Japan. Today the United States is by far the strongest Nation in the world. We are stronger than all of our potential opponents, and everyone agrees we should stay that way. One of my friends said we were emasculating the Defense Department. We are not emasculating. We are saying that maybe in this world, we can taper off on the Viagra dose that they have been on for many years, but nobody is talking about America being anything less than overwhelmingly the strongest Nation in the world. Fifteen years ago, when we peaked in defense spending, we had not just the Soviet Union but its satellite nations. Remember what we all believe, you do not look at the enemy's intentions, you look at the enemy's capability. The defense budget we had 15 years ago assumed that East Germany and Hungary and Czechoslovakia and Poland could be part of a Soviet assault. There has been a very substantial diminution in the capacity of the Soviet bloc to damage us. Yes, it is still a dangerous world. That is why we are still going to be, if this amendment passed three times over, by far the strongest Nation in the world. The question is, let us look at where we are in America. Many of us believe that there has been a greater diminution in the external threat, which is still there. People posturing about saying, ``Well, there is no threat,'' no one has said there is no threat. There is a threat. The question is, is it now with the collapse and dismantlement of the Soviet Union, the denuclearization of Belarus, the denuclearization of Kazakhstan and the Ukraine, the freeing of the satellite nations so they are now in NATO as opposed to opposing NATO, has there been a diminution? I think the argument is overwhelmingly that there has been. Many of us believe that while we should still be the strongest Nation in the world militarily, the time has come to shift some resources into domestic crime fighting, into fighting cancer, into dealing with some of our domestic problems. We believe that in the current world, the average American faces more domestic threats than international ones. No one is suggesting that we should have anything less than by far the strongest military and intelligence in the world. We are saying that too much is no longer defensible.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. My question was this: You said that because we have a committee composed of intelligent, patriotic Americans, we should not be for an across-the-board cut. My recollection is that in the past, the gentleman from Illinois has voted for across-the-board cuts. Did that reflect his lack of respect for the members of those committees?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, that is not under our committee's jurisdiction as I last looked, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his disquisition of what the bear is doing in the forest, but I do have a question.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. We wish you would not ask for additional money.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I think we may get an extra here.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, let us get out a news flash.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman, the basic point I want to make is it seems to me very much a partial picture to talk about the reduction in the defense spending without talking about the concomitant reduction in the need for defense spending. I have to say that if you look at the Soviet Union today, not just in conventional, but you have got the defection of the nuclear parts that were in Ukraine and Belarus, the Soviet Union today is far less than two-thirds as threatening to us as it was in 1985. There has been, I believe, a diminution in the external threat we faced greater than the diminution in the defense budget.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Only ground-based? Does the gentleman think the Soviet air and sea power is the same?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. He pointed out that there has been a reduction from what seemed to me a greatly swollen budget under Secretary Weinberger, but it is down about 30 percent. At the same time, we have had the collapse of the Soviet Union. The defense is to deal with our enemies. I wonder if he believes that we are, in fact, facing less of a military threat today than we were in 1985? I wonder if he would quantify that.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to receive from Chairman Charles Gifford of BankBoston an excellent report on the diversity program of the bank. BankBoston shows beyond dispute how an intelligent, supportive approach to diversity is fully compatible with a successful business in America today. Because the inclusion of gay and lesbian workers in diversity programs is unfortunately not yet as wide spread as it should be, I was especially pleased to note the recognition Mr. Gifford and BankBoston have given to this important aspect of a comprehensive diversity program. Given the prejudice against gay men and lesbians that still exist in many areas of our economy and society, I am grateful to Mr. Gifford and BankBoston for taking a leading role in this area. When a highly successful and very well respected institution such as BankBoston steps forward in this way, the lessons for society as a whole are profound. Because of this, I ask that the page from that diversity report illustrating the importance of inclusion of gays and lesbians in diversity programs be printed here. I do so not to suggest that the other aspects of the diversity program are unimportant, but because BankBoston is particularly deserving of praise for its willingness to take on this one prejudice which so many other entities fear to confront. Our Commitment to Diversity: A Statement From Chad and Henrique We are deeply committed to building a diverse workforce, and are confident that we can and must effectively manage our diversity. But, when BankBoston chose diversity as one of Our Values, many of us in executive management immediately foresaw some challenges. First, we need to educate our workforce, so we all recognize diversity as the critical business issue that it is. Second, we need to use that understanding and appreciation to leverage diversity as an integral instrument in providing value for customers and shareholders. And third, we must hold ourselves accountable and determine whether we have achieved this vital goal. Like most business people, we live by the motto that ``what gets measured gets managed.'' This focus on measuring performance quantitatively encourages structure, discipline and accountability. At BankBoston, we use many processes to measure our performance against goals. We survey customers to see how well we are meeting their expectations. We chart our financial performance to determine whether we are hitting our Managing for Value targets. We even use a detailed Performance Development Process to ensure that we manage employees' development. Some goals, however, do not lend themselves as easily to numbers and graphs. In fact, when you try to measure success in managing diversity through only numerical means, you risk missing the broader and deeper picture. For example, if you meet your targets at hiring more people of color, but you don't create a safe and supportive environment in which their talents and abilities flourish, you will ultimately fail. Even if employees don't physically leave the organization, they may fall short of their potential without sufficient recognition and development. Diversity is also a moving target. As cultures and demographics shift, diversity itself takes on new meaning. Just 20 years ago, diversity was seen as the need to hire and promote more women and people of color. Today, it is commonly accepted that we must think more broadly than race and gender. We must harness the diverse talents and perspectives of all employees, in our efforts to meet our business goals. This includes changing the way we manage and interact as team members with people who have different styles of learning and working, and managing diversity as a key business advantage in our increasingly multicultural markets. In an evermore diverse and competitive marketplace, we cannot afford to exclude any perspectives. The costs of not managing workforce diversity are well documented--high turnover, high absenteeism and low productivity. The benefits of managing diversity are also well established--increased creativity and innovation, greater productivity, increased employee satisfaction and loyalty, larger market share and, ultimately, enhanced shareholder value. This report--focusing on three critical areas of diversity for BankBoston (i.e., investing in our employees, customers and community)--is an example of our sincere commitment. It is one more step in our ongoing journey. We re publishing it to educate our workforce on the value of diversity, to share our successes thus far and to hold ourselves, as an institution, accountable for our progress. Chad Gifford, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Henrique Meirelles, President and Chief Operating Officer.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I agree that Mr. Eizenstat has done yeoman's work and that the Secretary of State has done whatever the semantic equivalent of yeoman's work is.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I believe that my colleague has explained this matter very adequately, and I urge Members to vote for it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to my colleagues' attention the recognition bestowed on McCarrick Elementary School of Fall River, Massachusetts, which was recently chosen as a Title I Distinguished School. McCarrick is located in the second largest city in my Congressional District in an area which unfortunately has high levels of unemployment and other social problems that have often been barriers to educational achievement. However, because of the hard work of the entire McCarrick community, the school has compiled a strong record of achievement over the past few years. McCarrick has developed an effective curriculum with a heavy emphasis on literacy, professional development partnership with other community institutions, and, above all, commitment to the growth of every student. This focus and commitment has allowed McCarrick to be one of only 109 schools across the country honored this year as a Title I Distinguished School by the National Association of State Coordinators of Compensatory Education in partnership with the U.S. Department of Education. The criteria on which the selections were based are 1) opportunity for all children to meet proficient and advanced levels of performance; 2) professional development; 3) coordination with other programs; 4) curriculum and instruction to support achievement of high standards; 5) partnership among schools, parents and communities; and 6) three years of successful achievement data. A special award ceremony recognizing all the honorees will take place today at the International Reading Association Conference in Orlando, Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is a paradox of government that those who do the most for others frequently get the least recognition, and I can think of no example of which this is more true than our public schools. All public schools face a constant battle to provide the best possible education they can, more often than not with inadequate financial resources. This is particularly true for schools with high percentages of low income students, where additional instruction in basic academic skills, including English proficiency, is often necessary. So, I think it is particularly appropriate to honor in this fashion the Title I schools that have done such a good job, and I congratulate the staff, students and families who have done so much to make McCarrick a successful institution of learning. Because I believe it is important to both recognize quality public education and to emphasize how important and effective the Title I program is, insert the school's mission statement and some additional background on its curriculum for printing in the Record.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker. I remember from my own High School days the benefit I gained from participating in the Voice of Democracy contest, and I am therefore particularly pleased to share here with our colleagues the winning Massachusetts entry in the 1997- 1998 VFW Voice of Democracy scriptwriting competition. The winner, Leah Makuch, did an excellent job of expressing her understanding of the democratic system in which we Americans are fortunate enough to live. I am sometimes disappointed that more teenagers do not take advantage of the opportunities which our democratic system offers them, and thus I was particularly pleased to read Leah Makuch's excellent exposition on this subject, and I am for this reason very happy to have a chance to make it widely available. ``My Voice in Our Democracy'' 1997-98 VFW Voice of Democracy Scholarship Competition Massachusetts Winner (By Leah Makuch) So many parts of this world are silent. So many people are silenced by governments afraid of the power of speech, afraid of the people they seek to control. They use their governmental power against the members of their own country. On the contrary, I live where I am allowed to speak, encouraged to speak, even required to speak by my human responsibilities. I live in a country of loud voices shouting their opinions, in a country where this is expected. I live in a democracy, and my voice counts. On the literal level, my voice is rather quiet. Yet I have the power to speak loudly and firmly, to shout my beliefs unto listening ears. My words reverberate through the great Rocky mountains and are projected over the marquee in Times Square, carried along every television network and telephone line, even electronically transmitted to millions of computers all over America. When I choose not to buy a particular product because its manufacturer endorses something I oppose, I am speaking my message to this manufacturer. When I petition against a congressional bill, I speak my opposition loudly and clearly. And although I cannot legally vote, my voice is heard through the votes of my parents and family members. I am a member of a democracy, and it is my responsibility to make myself heard. Here I stand, right now, on the soapbox of this cassette tape, confident that when I speak about democracy, someone is listening. The ears upon which my words fall are not deaf to my message. I am being listened to at this very moment, and my voice as an American, as a member of a democracy, is respected as being worth hearing. For this reason, if for no other, I should speak. I should speak, I must speak, for that which I believe in and against that which I oppose, because in my heart I know that someone will hear my words. I live in a great democratic puzzle, and my piece fits where no other can. I am not excluded because I am young. I am included because I am worth listening to. The American Heritage Dictionary defines democracy as ``the common people, considered as the primary source of political power.'' I am a member of this common people, this source of power. What other united, non-democratic peoples would not scoff at my words proclaiming myself as such? This democracy in which I live sees me as this, however. This democracy recognizes my voice as a consumer, future voter, a thinker, and, most importantly of all, as a human being. As a human being, I have been granted inalienable rights, most notably the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Primarily, my right to life. Is my life complete, if I have no say in how it is led? Therefore, my voice is a central part of my right to life. I have the right to liberty. This liberty is a liberty of the mind, heart, and soul, a liberty to make my wishes known and live in fear of being persecuted. My voice is my liberty. I have the right to the pursuit of happiness. I have the right to seek out that which makes me happy and support it with the God-given voice inside of me. My voice is the means by which I can pursue my happiness. Therefore, with my voice being a central theme in my rights as a human being, I have four primary inalienable rights: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the voice by which to fulfill these. My voice is my right as a human being. On face value, it sounds like a right that can be taken lightly. Freedom of speech. This first amendment should read: ``responsibility of speech.'' I have the right and the responsibility to speak in support of goodness and truth, to speak for those who have no voices. By these standards, who would oppose this democracy? Who would oppose a family of people with voices, who exercise their natural rights and speak directly to their government for the good of all? My voice in our democracy speaks loudly, and with the same weight as all other voices carry, whether they belong to bodies older, younger, or of a different color than my own. It baffles me why so many people have no pressing desire to become a citizen of this fine democracy. The chance to have a voice in one's own country, to influence the world with what one has to say, is a powerful opportunity. Presented to many countries of the world, this tantalizing chance would be fought for like it was at our country's birth, when the first Americans would not let their voices go unheard. How fortunate to live in a country where lives are not lost searching for their voices! I am lucky to live in such a democracy. I am fortunate to be able to speak without fear of persecution, to voice my message to the world. So many voiceless people do not have this chance. And as I speak on the importance of my voice and the voice of others, I have already made the first step . . . and I am being heard.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important and under appreciated aspects of the workings of our democracy is the extraordinarily dedicated and able work done by the professional staffs who serve those of us who have been elected to Congress. While it is popular to mock people who work in the political and legislative system, in fact their contribution represents one of the great bargains the American people receive. Our work is enormously helped by the large number of extremely talented and dedicated people who put in extremely long hours helping us make public policy, at far less compensation than most of them would receive in almost any other occupation. I thought of that recently Mr. Speaker when I learned of the death of an extremely dedicated creative individual who is one of those who helped set the model for the kind of professional policy advisor on whom we are now so dependent. His name is John Barriere, and he came to Washington 50 years ago. Sadly, John Barriere died last week at the age of 78, and he left behind him a legacy of extraordinary service to democracy. I was recently reminded by Gerry McMurray, a former Chief of Staff of the Housing Subcommittee of the House Banking Committee, that Mr. Barriere was the first man to be a professional staff member of that subcommittee, having helped bring it into existence 43 years ago, and serving as its Staff Director until 1964. Because of the great ability he showed in that position, he was chosen by Speaker John McCormack in 1964 to be the first policy staff advisor to the Speaker, and he was the Executive Director--and heart and soul--of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee until 1978. Among the pieces of legislation that he played an indispensable role in bringing to passage were the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968--that extraordinarily important set of bills that helped break the back of legal racism in America. He worked closely with Richard Bolling during his chairmanship of the Rules Committee in bringing forward the Congressional Reform Act of 1974 and 1976, and the Budget Act of 1974. Indeed, along with John McCormack, Richard Bolling, Harry Truman and Senator Robert Wagner recognized John's great ability and put him to work. In other words Mr. Speaker he was a man whose great ability and equally great willingness to serve proved to be an important asset for a series of leaders in our governing processes. I was pleased myself to meet him more than 30 years ago, when in the service of the gubernatorial campaign of the late Edward McCormack, a nephew of the Speaker, I came to Washington to do some research on federal issues. I was then a young graduate student in political science, and meeting John Barriere, and listening to him describe the interaction of the legislative process, politics, and substantive policy was an extraordinary education which I never forgot. Many years later, when my domestic partner, Herb Moses, went to work at FannieMae, I was delighted to learn that one of his co-workers was Laura Barriere, the daughter of John, and vicariously through Laura I was able to renew that acquaintance. I was saddened by news of his death, and Herb and I send our condolences to Laura, and the rest of the family. And I wanted to note here the passing of this man who quietly, but very effectively, did so much to set a pattern of professional service in the House from which we continue to benefit.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I agree with that. That is exactly what I said. In fact, if you are a corporation trying to make a profit, which most corporations do, you are not covered by this amendment. That is true. If you have a profit-making corporation that is selling girl scout cookies, they could not be RICO'd for selling girl scout cookies. But under this amendment if they are a profit-seeking corporation seeking a profit, which profit-seeking corporations are wont to do, they do not get the benefit of this.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I understand that. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is limited in the amount of time he can state the obvious. Yes, if you are a profit-making corporation and you are going about the business of trying to make a profit, this amendment does not protect you. You could be subject to RICO. I agree. If General Motors was accused of trying to sell girl scout cookies in a racketeering way, you have come to their defense. But if someone said, corporation X is guilty of racketeering in its profit-making corporate entity, they are not protected. I do not think that ought to be the case. I do think there have been abuses of RICO, but against profit-making entities trying to make a profit. Indeed, if you look at the pattern of RICO, it is more often used by one civil plaintiff against a civil defendant and a profit-making corporation. I do not know what play they are going to call in the huddle, but we may be about to see version five. I have four versions and seven people working on amendment 5. Let us go to a hearing. Let us go to a markup. I do not think we should have the markup right here. It is not polite. I think we ought to do this in the regular order. But this amendment says, if you are engaging in profit-making activity, and you have a profit-making purpose, you get no benefit. You are covered by RICO. RICO says you cannot get together for racketeering purposes. I would not suggest that that is what is going on over there, Mr. Chairman. What they are trying to do is what we should do in the regular legislative process. Let us have a hearing and do this in a sensible way.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would look forward, as I think many on our side would, and I know the ranking member would, we would love to reexamine the RICO statute across the board and deal with abuses, and on that basis I thank the gentleman and we will be cooperative.