Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, on October 9th of this year, one of the leaders in increasing the supply of affordable housing in the State of Massachusetts, Tom Connelly, marked his 30th anniversary as the Executive Director of the Massachusetts Chapter of the National Association of Housing & Redevelopment Officials (MassNAHRO). I have benefitted enormously in my work on housing in the Committee on Financial Services from Mr. Connelly's good judgment, his broad and deep knowledge of all aspects of housing matters, and his passion for helping this become a fairer society. NAHRO nationally has been a great partner for those of us trying to improve the housing situation for many in this country. One of the strong aspects of NAHRO's work is their continued recognition that for many low-income people, the answer for their housing needs is not homeownership but decent rental housing, and a failure to understand this is one of the contributing factors to the housing crisis that led to our current recession. NAHRO, MassNAHRO and Tom Connelly in particular have been supportive of appropriate efforts to promote homeownership, but they have also understood the importance for a very large number of low-income people of affordable rental housing, so they are not pushed into inappropriate home mortgages. Madam Speaker, in his thirty years as Executive Director, Tom Connelly has set a high standard for organizational leadership and for housing policy. And I should add that among the contributions he has made to the field of housing is his daughter, Meredith, who works on housing matters for the Committee on Financial Services and carries on her father's tradition of doing excellent work for the housing needs of low-income people. Madam Speaker, I submit this statement for the Record because I hope that people will look at the work that Tom Connelly has done and that it will serve as a model for those interested in helping with housing issues.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I have never learned more in my life than I have learned since 1992 when at the vote of the Massachusetts Legislature, the city of New Bedford and the town of Fairhaven were included in the congressional district I represent. These two communities together form the most successful fishing port in the U.S., and that industry enriches New Bedford and the surrounding areas not just economically but culturally and socially as well. One of the leaders in that industry is Jim Kendall, a fisherman himself who has served in a number of important posts in helping preserve that industry and protect it against adversity. He recently wrote an eloquent introduction to the announcement of the Friend of the Fishing Industry Award, which was presented to two men to whom the Greater New Bedford Area is greatly indebted: Raymond and Richard Canastra. These two brothers have, as Jim Kendall's statement points out, been extremely creative in providing support for this industry. The work they have done for the open display auction confounded many skeptics who thought that it would never work, but their success in New Bedford has in fact been so widely hailed that it's led to the recent opening of a similar facility in Boston, helping revive a fishing port that had been declining to some extent. Madam Speaker, I join Jim Kendall and others in the fishing industry and subsidies in Massachusetts in thanking Ray and Richie Canastra for their work and I ask that Jim Kendall's statement be printed here as an example of the kind of economic leadership individuals can provide to their community. Offshore Mariners Wives' Association, September 27, 2009. Introduction of 2009's ``Friends of the Fishing Industry'' This year's award to the Friend of the Fishing Industry is a bit different as we are proud to announce that the award is going to not just one, but two individuals. Not only have they contributed to the fishing industry here in New Bedford, but their efforts have extended throughout New England. It's not often that you find two people who have come so far in a relatively short period of time, and who have returned so much to the industry that they obviously care so much about. Their innovation and foresight has not only proven to be a sound business venture for them, but a boon and stabilizing factor for the Greater New Bedford fishing fleet. It hasn't stop there either, their fortitude and determination now has extended to the ports of Gloucester and Boston. They pioneered the concept of the open display auction here in New Bedford at a time and place when many of us doubted it could succeed. In 1985 through 1986 the industry had gone through a traumatic strike that changed the way business had been done for many years. The New Bedford seafood auction ceased to exist, and a buyers auction that replaced it, had also closed its doors. The industry was in turmoil, with little or no sense of balance that had existed for years before. The sale of a trip was as hard and as uncertain, as was the fishing trip itself. They felt that an open display auction could work and benefit the fishermen, and the port of New Bedford, and they set about to prove it. It wasn't easy, it never is trying to convince people that there is a better way to do their business, business that they had been doing in basically the same way for years. They have proven that they were right, and the New Bedford fishing industry has benefited greatly because of it. The auction has provided stability to the sale of fresh fish and scallops, along with the recognition that New Bedford is still the port to go to for your best seafood. Their efforts in beginning the auction and the continued developments, have helped the port of New Bedford regain the title of the richest fishing port in the country, and continues to help us maintain that distinction. Recently they opened another display auction in the port of Boston, that is attracting fishing vessels to a port that was all but abandoned by the fishing industry. This is in direct contradiction to what has been occurring elsewhere, with the devastating changes for other ports that have lost not only their auctions, but their fishing industries and communities. Their involvement has deepened over the years with them becoming deeply involved with the management process and fishery science. Working with, most notably, Drs. Brian Rothschild and Kevin Stokesbury from the School for Marine Science and Technology at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth. They have also helped to organize the fishermen not only here in New Bedford, but in Gloucester as well. What may turn out to be one of their most important innovations is the Project to Save Seafood and Ocean Resources, along with its associated website, Savingseafood.org. At a time when information is king, providing factual and unadulterated information to the American public is crucial. There is a desperate need to show the American consumer the value of New Bedford seafood, and the efforts that the New Bedford and New England fishermen have taken in order to provide them with healthy seafood. There is also a need to inform the consumer how we are striving to provide them their healthy seafood in a safe and sustainable manner. The American consumer and public also needs to know what the fishermen and their industry has gone through in order to bring this to them. I encourage you to visit the website at www.savingseafood.org. Richie lives in North Dartmouth, with his wife Roberta, and their two lovely daughters, Sophia, and Noella. Raymond lives in Rochester with his wife Debbie and their two children Cassie and Kyler. It gives me great pleasure to present ``The Friend of the Fishing Industry Award'' to two men whom I'm proud to have worked with over the years, my friends; Raymond and Richard Canastra.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to an active supporter of this administration and a strong approach towards Iran, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to make one final point. It is the fantasy of the President of Iran, among many fantasies, most of them malign, that somehow it's the American Government that's been opposed to them and that the broad reach of the American people would be more sympathetic. The important point to stress here is that this bill does not do anything at the Federal level. This bill empowers State governments and private citizens to give vent to their own understandable extreme dislike and fear of the Iranian Government. So let's be very clear. This is a bill that will have effect to the extent that the activities of the Iranian Government increase the revulsion many Americans feel at those actions; not at the people of Iran, but at the Government of Iran. If, in fact, some of the hopeful signs were to look better, then this bill will not have much of an impact. So, to the great extent, whether or not this bill has a real impact will depend very much on what the Iranians do. And so I appreciate the cooperation we've gotten on both sides. And I stress again, this is a bill that empowers American citizens, American local and State governments, and whether or not this leads to action will depend very much on future actions by the Government of Iran.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am somewhat encouraged by what appears to be some progress in negotiations between the United States and many other nations and Iran. I believe, as do I think, almost everybody in the House, perhaps not everybody, but almost everybody, that nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranian regime would be a terrible thing for the world to have to deal with, and I am very supportive of our efforts to mobilize the necessary multinational coalition to impose the kind of sanctions that will stop this. In that context, I have worked closely with the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from California, Mr. Berman, on sanctions legislation, and I believe that he is correctly coordinating closely with the administration on the timing of broader sanctions legislation. The bill we are discussing right now is one that has previously been passed by this House. It was blocked in the Senate in the previous administration because the State Department argued against it, and I think the time has come for us to do it. It does not in itself impose any sanctions. What it does is to make it very clear that Americans who are deeply concerned about the prospect of Iranian nuclear power and other aspects of Iranian governance, that they are able to act on those. In particular, this bill says that no one in this country ought involuntarily to have his or her money put to the support of the Iranian economy. It has two provisions. First, it would protect States which have decided to divest from companies that are invested in Iranian energy operations from being preempted by the Federal Government. The State of Massachusetts, my home State, some years ago passed a bill saying not that no one in Massachusetts could do business with Myanmar, as the dictatorial rulers of that country now call what was once Burma; they said that they did not want State money, money from the State of Massachusetts, to be involved in ways that would be supportive of that regime. The State Department challenged that on the grounds of Federal supremacy in foreign policy, and the Supreme Court upheld it. What we do today is to say not that States can make foreign policy, but that States have the right to control their own funds. The staff has given me a list of about 20 States that have enacted legislation to divest from Iran and several other States that have adopted policies of divesting from Iran. Part of this bill today protects those States which have made the decisions by their own democratic processes from having the Federal Government come in and say, no, we are the Federal Government, we are in charge of foreign policy, and you must continue to invest in Iran. Secondly, we have had a movement of citizens that say to various investment vehicles, we do not want our money invested in Iran. What this says is that if people who are contributors to an investment fund go to that investment fund, whatever it is, and say, we don't want our money helping to bolster the economy of that regime in Iran, withdraw our funds from those companies, that the company can't be sued. What we have had is the investment vehicles have often said, I think sometimes frankly not entirely meaning that this is the real reason, oh, well, we can't do that, because we are mandated to get you the best possible dollar return, and if we withdraw here, we will be accused of having used other criteria. Now, in fact it has been, I think, fairly clear that when you have a very large entity investing broadly, withdrawal from no one cause is going to cause a problem. But that is still the fear that was cited. So what this bill does is to give a very narrowly drafted protection to the investment managers against being sued because they respond to a claim from their own contributors to that fund who don't want to be supporting Iran. As I said, it does not mandate any divestiture. It does protect State governments from having their money put where they don't want it to be, and it protects entities that do investments from being sued if they were to give in to the moral argument that their funds should not go for this or that country. There are a couple of technical changes to the bill as introduced which provide that the exceptions are very narrowly drafted just to this. It is, in fact, about the Iranian energy section, and I believe those in America who want to make these decisions should be protected in doing so. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1327) to authorize State and local governments to direct divestiture from, and prevent investment in, companies with investments of $20,000,000 or more in Iran's energy sector, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first I would ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material both on this bill, H.R. 3606, and the preceding bill, H.R. 1327.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3606) to amend the Truth in Lending Act to make a technical correction to an amendment made by the Credit CARD Act of 2009.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We made an error, Congress did, when we passed the credit card bill, not in passing the bill. The only error we made there was we didn't make it go into effect immediately because the abusive behavior by the credit card companies has been even worse than some people have feared, and I hope we will soon be trying to move up that effective date. But there was a drafting error in which the restrictions applied not just to credit cards if you read the bill literally, as you have to, with the bill, but all open-end credit agreements. Credit unions in America, which have not been any part of a pattern of abuse of credit cards, were inadvertently swept into this. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) called this to the attention of the committee, as did the National Credit Union Administration and the Credit Union National Association; the latter, of course, being the private association of credit unions, the former being the administrative agency. They asked us to fix it. They were quite correct. Credit unions are a very important part of the structure of this country and it serves our consumers. And so this bill would correct that error and allow the credit unions to continue to perform their function. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont, the lead author of this bill, Mr. Welch.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this has been well- covered by the two Members, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee), who have been major movers in it. I would just ask, although we have general leave, I would note that I am inserting in the Record a letter from the National Credit Union Administration, a letter from the Credit Union National Association, both asking for this, and then two documents which I hope will give people some sense of how this institution works at its best. Credit Union National Association, Washington, DC, October 7, 2009. Hon. Barney Frank, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Spencer Bachus, Ranking Member, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus: On behalf of the Credit Union National Association (CUNA), I am writing regarding a specific issue that credit unions are experiencing with respect to the recently-enacted Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act. CUNA is the nation's largest credit union advocacy organization, representing approximately 90% of America's 8,000 state and federal credit unions and their 92 million members. Credit unions are currently reeling from an unintended consequence of the CARD Act. Section 106 of the CARD Act prohibits creditors from treating payments as being late unless the creditor adopts reasonable procedures to ensure that periodic statements are mailed or delivered to the consumer no later than 21 days before the payment due date. We believe this provision was intended to cover only credit card accounts; however, the provision, as enacted, applies to all open-end loans, including general lines of credit, lines of credit associated with share draft and checking accounts, signature loans, and home equity lines of credit (HELOCs) as well as multi-featured, open-end lending programs. Consolidated Billing May Cease, Increasing Costs for Credit Unions Members Most credit unions provide monthly consolidated membership statements that combine information on a member's savings, checking, and loan accounts, other than for credit cards. Since these statements may include a number of open-end credit plans with different due dates, changing these due dates to comply with the 21-day requirement may lead credit unions to discontinue the use of consolidated statements or send statements for each loan in addition to the consolidated one. The alternative is to send separate statements for each loan. This will greatly increase both processing and mailing costs (in addition to the environmental impact), which credit unions have estimated will be $1-$2.25 per month per loan. Notwithstanding the additional costs, we are also very concerned that some credit unions currently do not have the capacity to print and mail these increased number of statements in order to meet the rule's timing requirements. Not only will credit unions need to pass on these costs to their members in the form of higher loan rates, lower deposit rates, or higher fees elsewhere, but credit union members will be very confused and concerned when they receive multiple statements from their credit union, depending on how many loans they have outstanding. Credit union relationships with their members will suffer, all in an effort to comply with an unintended application of a law that is intended to benefit consumers. Credit Union Members May No Longer Be Able to Choose Their Payment Date For certain loans, particularly vehicle loans, credit union members are often permitted to choose the due date to best suit their financial needs; for example, members may choose due dates that coincide with pay days or to avoid other payment due dates. This practice will have to be discontinued if the member-chosen date no longer complies with the new 21- day requirement. Changing the express choice by members would not be consumer-friendly, and members will not understand that a Federal law requires this action. Additionally, many credit unions provide their members with the convenience of automated payments, in which payments are automatically withdrawn from the credit union account on a certain date. Again, this may often be chosen by the member, who may choose a date that is related to when he or she receives a paycheck. This may now need to be changed based on the new 21-day requirement, imposing hardship and inconvenience if the new date no longer coincides with the receipt of a paycheck. Bi-Weekly Payments Are No Longer Permitted Many loans are structured so that payments are made bi- weekly, which serve to minimize the amount of interest that is charged, as compared to loans in which payments are made monthly. These loans are often repaid through payroll deduction. If bi-weekly programs are no longer permitted under the new 21-day requirement, the result will be that these members will pay additional interest and may no longer have the benefit and convenience of payroll deduction. HELOC Terms and Conditions Must Be Changed The 21-day requirement will also apply to HELOCs, the terms of which cannot be easily changed. Regulation Z lists exceptions for changing terms of HELOCs and although the Regulation Z commentary permits changing the due date, we note that the due date is often a contractual term, which adds to the difficulty of complying with these new requirements. A Technical Correction is Necessary and Appropriate To address these concerns, Representative Peter Welch (D- VT) has introduced legislation, H.R. 3606, the CARD Act Technical Corrections Act. This legislation very simply inserts the words, ``a credit card account under'' to Section 106 of the CARD Act. These words were included in the House- passed version of the CARD Act, and we believe the effect of their omission in the enacted version of the legislation was unintended. We hope the Committee will agree that a technical correction is appropriate and will support passage of technical corrections legislation as quickly as possibly. On behalf of America's credit unions, thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Daniel A. Mica, President & CEO.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. So little time, so many fallacies. The first fallacy is that we were not comparing the credit card bill to the defense bill; we were talking about a regular practice. It wasn't just the credit card bill. Regularly for years the Senate does this, and no Republican has ever risen to object to it. Their objection is not to the procedure, but to the substance. Nothing is being held hostage. The bill will pass or fail. If it failed because of this, it would come back without it. Secondly, the gentleman's last point is simply nonsensical: one arrest that was inappropriate. There have been other inappropriate arrests. Hate crimes bills have been in effect, hate crimes laws, at the Federal and State level for years. There is zero example of that happening. There is an amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas that makes it impossible. When people use wholly irrelevant arguments against the bill, it means that they can't find a real argument that they want to use. Finally, the gentleman from California, the ranking member said, don't have these hate crimes, violence is violence, or one of the Members said that. I guess then he is opposed to that amendment which prohibits a tax on U.S. servicemen on account of service because that is in here. There is in here a provision that protects servicemen who are attacked on account of service. If you are opposed in principle to that, then you ought to be opposed to that in general. It is clear there is an animus against those of us who are gay or lesbian, against people who are transgender, on the part of many in the House, and they are reflecting a strong political sentiment in the country. They are entitled to it. I do not lament the loss of their friendship and affection; I can live without it. But it should not lead them to deny protection to vulnerable people, and we are talking here about crimes, not just murder, but about assault and destruction of property which are too often ignored. So let's be very clear. There is no consistency to the argument about the procedure. There is no consistency to the argument about hate crimes. There is no validity whatsoever to the argument that some clergy would be arrested or prosecuted because none have been. This is simply a declaration of unhappiness that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people are getting some protection.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I agree: it makes no more logical sense to add a hate crimes bill to the Defense bill than it would to take a bill requiring people to be allowed to use their guns in the national parks to a credit card bill. But that's what the Senate did. The Senate added a bill dealing with the rights of gun owners in the national parks to the credit card bill with which there was no logical connection. Now, I wish the Senate wouldn't do things like that. I wish a lot of things. But when we are confronted with the reality of the Senate, we have to act. Now, it is conceivable that you would have people who are so devoted to the principle of having no illogical attachment that they would oppose it in every case. I must have been in the Cloakroom when Republicans rose to denounce the Senate for adding the bill allowing the use of guns in parks to the credit card bill. That was done. Not a single Republican, to my recollection, objected. Indeed, quite to the contrary, they all voted for it, which makes it very clear: the objection here is not to the Senate adding an unrelated bill, because the Republicans in this House have voted for that time and time and time again. It is an objection to protecting against hate crimes people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. Now, some say we shouldn't have these hate crimes laws. But their inconsistency is I don't remember them trying to repeal the hate crimes laws that are on the books. There is nothing new about hate crimes here. There is nothing new about its constitutionality. By the way, if you say violence should be violence, how about somebody having the intellectual integrity to get up and repeal that statute that says, if someone assaults someone standing next to me, it might be a misdemeanor, but if somebody assaults me, a Member of Congress, it's a Federal felony. We have a major distinction. We are protected by special laws, older people, people who are religious. Then they say, it's a matter of choice. The level of intelligence involved in thinking that being gay or lesbian is a matter of choice aside, religion is a matter of choice. People convert to religions. Does that mean we shouldn't protect people against hate crimes based on religion? Finally, we are told this is being sneaked through. One of the earlier speakers, in a total flight from reality, said it is being sneaked through. It passed the House. It was debated. It went through the regular committee process, and it passed the House. Yes, from time to time, the United States Senate, which has no rules preventing it, adds unrelated bills. If there are Members who have consistently opposed that practice, they have the right to oppose it here and say that is the reason. But Members who have voted for legislation which the Senate attached to unrelated legislation who claim now to be offended by that practice clearly have no logical or other basis on which to make that claim. There are people who do not think we should add a very vulnerable category, particularly people who are transgender, to the hate crimes protection. They lost that fight when we had it in the House. I would have had it come up again, but it is clearly just another example of another time-tried practice.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, the gentleman who just recognized me, the dean of our delegation, has the distinction of having worked very closely with the late Senator Kennedy for 33 years, for more than two-thirds of the Senator's term. And I know that Senator Kennedy greatly valued his colleagueship, as all of us do who serve with him as the dean, and his work now in a number of the areas pays tribute. I do think it is important to note that the longer you worked with Senator Kennedy, the more you came to admire what he did. I would have one difference with my colleague with whom I rarely differ on things. He said Senator Kennedy would be seen as one of the greatest Senators. I would say the best. And I know my colleague is gracious and may have a Senator or two he needs on the cap-and-trade bill, so he doesn't want to go too far. But I think we would all agree. I was a fledging academic before I went into politics. I was studying for a Ph.D., and I then learned I had a personal characteristic which was a defect in academics but absolutely essential to serve in this body. I have a very short attention span. And it works to my advantage here and to my disadvantage in serious scholarship. But from both ends, I don't think there is much question about his greatness as a Senator. Obviously, those of us in the delegation and our great colleague and civil rights leader, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) who has worked with Senator Kennedy, goes back even before any of the rest of us in terms of colleagueship; but we obviously agreed with his values, and that is a big part of it. But even those who didn't, and this is what's so striking and so needed in our country today, many Members of Congress who served with him who disagreed with him on most substantive issues, joined in the praise for his integrity and his character and his dedication. We are at a time now where politics is held in low repute by a lot of young people. I would hope that younger people in particular would think back to the deep, deep love for Senator Kennedy that was expressed by so many people across the political spectrum. Think about the accomplishments to which so many people attribute; think about the people who express the enormous gratitude for the difference he made in their lives. There could not be a better example of how you can get into this business of politics and do good. I would hope people would be encouraged by that. Beyond that, there is one particular point that I want to stress. We have a besetting sin today in our politics where people think that you show your depth of commitment to a cause by rigidity, not just by rigidity, but impugning the motives of those on your side who try to get something done. Compromise for its own sake is a very bad idea. People who talk about the ``center'' have to be clear what they mean. The ``center'' is not a place of value. It may be where you wind up. But you wind up there as you try to move the center. Yes, you want to try to be representative of a majority. Those who have as a goal finding the precise middle are giving up their own moral and intellectual capacity. What Senator Kennedy did was to start firmly from a set of moral principles and then work to get them accomplished the best that he could. And that is, unfortunately, a practice that today isn't as appreciated as it should be. Purity is a wonderful state, I am told. I do not say that from experience. But it doesn't make anybody any better off. No one was more firmly committed to the ideals of fairness and equity than Edward M. Kennedy, and he understood that the more firmly committed he was to them, the more he was morally obligated to make some progress on them. I realize ideals help nobody, and I say that because he was at the same time one of the premier idealists of our time. No one better or more consistently articulated the goal of a society in which no one suffered unfairly, in which all were treated with dignity and had a certain minimum, at least, of substance. But while he was preeminent as a preacher of that set of moral virtues, he was also preeminent as a hands-on politician who could work with others within the democratic process with other people elected who might have disagreed with him, and because of him, more of his goals were accomplished than were accomplished by anybody else. No one did more to advance those causes which he exemplified. But he never got all he wanted. And I hope that is also an example; and the example is that, sure, you do not belong in politics unless you have a set of ideals. You don't have any business trying to gain influence over others unless it's to make this world a better place. But once you have those ideals, your obligation is not simply to treat them in a way that makes you feel good; it is to get them accomplished. I do not think in American history over the time of his Senate career that anybody did a better job for people of all income, for the victims of discrimination, whether it was based on race or sexual orientation, or gender, for the whole concept of what we think is the genius of America; namely, that when you're born, you're born with a chance to maximize your potential, and the economic circumstances or the prejudice of others or anything else don't hold you back. This Nation is enormously indebted to Senator Edward Kennedy for the work that he did and for the example that he set. And I thank my colleague, the dean of our delegation, for leading this Special Order.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, the hardest part of our job is attending the funerals of those young men and women who have given their lives in the service of our country. Having voted to send American military forces into war in Afghanistan, I was profoundly moved--and troubled--when I attend the funeral of Sergeant Jared C. Monti of Raynham, Massachusetts, who lost his life in a brave effort to save a comrade in that country. These occasions are for us an important reminder that voting to send people to war is a last resort done only after the most thorough and thoughtful consideration, and only when no alternative is consistent with our security. But Madam Speaker, to talk about the difficulty of our jobs in the context of the death in battle of this brave young man is an example of grave disproportion. For me, this was a sad day. For the family of Jared Monti, it was part of a period of deep and enduring sadness, and of course with Sergeant Monti himself it was the ultimate tragedy--a promising young life lost. Madam Speaker, in the Boston Globe for Sunday, September 6, Bryan Bender of the Globe staff wrote a moving, eloquent article about Sergeant Monti, describing the battle in which he was killed as he with no regard for his own safety tried to save a wounded comrade. Next week I will be at the White House when Sergeant Monti's family receives the Medal of Honor that was posthumously awarded to him. Madam Speaker, as a tribute to an extraordinary young man, whose dedication to his comrades was unlimited, and as a reminder of what war really means to those who must fight it, I ask that Mr. Bender's excellent, sad article be printed here. [From the Boston Globe, Sept. 6, 2009] He Could Not Leave a Comrade Behind (By Bryan Bender) The sound of feet shuffling in the woods, high on a ridge in remote Afghanistan, was the only warning that Sergeant Jared C. Monti and the 15 men under his command were about to be attacked. Before they could even react, they were bombarded with rocket-propelled grenades and machine-gun fire. The ambush by mountain tribesmen allied with the Taliban came so suddenly and with such ferocity that some members of Monti's unit ``had their weapons literally shot out of their hands,'' according to an Army report. Monti, a 30-year-old staff sergeant from Raynham, shouted orders and radioed for support as he found cover behind some large rocks. An officer a few miles away asked whether he could pinpoint the enemy's position. ``Sir, I can't give you a better read or I'm gonna eat an RPG,'' Monti replied. But later, when one of his men was wounded and lying in the open, Monti braved intense fire to try to rescue him--not once, but three times. It cost him his life. Three years later, after an Army review of Monti's actions that day, President Obama will award him the Medal of Honor, the highest recognition for valor in the US military. When Monti's parents, Paul and Janet, accept the award in a White House ceremony on Sept. 17, it will be only the sixth time the Medal of Honor has been awarded since Sept. 11, 2001, and the first time someone from Massachusetts has earned it since the Vietnam War. Monti's story reveals not just the courageous actions of a 12-year Army veteran. It also illustrates the extreme conditions of combat in Afghanistan, where increasing numbers of US forces are dying, and the sheer chaos of the war. Everything went wrong for Monti and his patrol. The unit was left on that narrow ridge longer than intended, exposing it to a much larger enemy. And while Monti's display of ``extreme personal courage and extraordinary self- sacrifice,'' as the Army described it, helped turn the tide, disaster struck again when the soldier Monti tried to save was killed in a freak accident while being airlifted out. Including Monti, four soldiers died. ``True valor is not defined so much by results,'' an Army general wrote in recommending Monti for the medal, ``as it is by the depth of conviction that inspires its expression. On rare occasions, the actions of men are so extraordinary that the nobility rests, not in their outcome, but in the courage of their undertaking.'' ``He was very humble'' When Charlie Witkus learned his buddy Jared had been killed, he organized a ``Viking'' funeral. After his burial at the Massachusetts National Cemetery in Bourne, Monti's friends collected cards, letters, and other mementos of him and set them ablaze on a makeshift pyre floating on a Taunton pond. It was a fitting tribute, Witkus felt, for a guy who once organized a ``survival style'' canoe trip down the Taunton River, with no food or water. ``I was devastated,'' said Witkus, who last spoke with his friend about three weeks before he died. ``He was the most stand-up guy I ever knew.'' Monti was born in Abington and grew up in Raynham, 35 miles south of Boston, the son of a schoolteacher and a nurse. Stories of his generous spirit abound: As a youngster he made lunches for his brother and sister to help his mom get to nursing school on time. During his high school years, he once cut down a spruce tree in their yard to give to a single mother who could not afford a Christmas tree for her kids. He even collected enough money for gifts. But he rarely took credit for his deeds, relatives and friends said. Only after he died did his father, Paul, find a 3-foot tall trophy Jared won in a weight-lifting championship. ``That is the way he was,'' said Paul Monti. ``He was very humble. He believed in doing things for other people.'' To honor his son's memory, Paul Monti has established an annual scholarship fund for a Raynham senior headed to college. He also finds comfort driving Jared's pickup, still covered with stickers from his beloved 10th Mountain Division. Jared set his sights on the military early, inspired by an uncle in the Navy. He joined the Massachusetts National Guard's delayed entry program in 11th grade at Bridgewater- Raynham Regional High School, attending weekend drills at the recruiting station in Taunton until he graduated. ``I wanted to be that same person,'' he later wrote of how the image of his uncle's crisp uniform captured his imagination. A steady hand Monti was not a perfect soldier, but he proved that he could earn the trust and respect of those he led; he called them his ``boys,'' and some of them called him ``grandpa.'' When he left for basic training in Missouri in 1993, barely 18 years old, he had never been out of Massachusetts. Army life was tough, he recalled, but he adjusted quickly and eventually decided to enlist full time. He was disappointed other soldiers didn't take it as seriously--a feeling he later expressed in his own words in a journal his family found on his computer after his death. ``I wanted to fight for my country at a time when everybody else was smoking weed and or just there to earn a couple of bucks toward college,'' he wrote. He got into several bar fights, including with one of his sergeants in Kansas who ridiculed him by calling him ``Rambo,'' and he did 14 days of hard labor for violating a weekend pass when he was stationed in South Korea in the 1990s. ``I drank till there was no tomorrow,'' he wrote of the incident. But as he rose through the enlisted ranks, his superiors quickly saw he had a steadiness and maturity that others didn't. Monti was one of the first enlisted soldiers in the 82nd Airborne Division selected to be trained to call in air strikes on enemy positions, an enormous responsibility that brought the risk of civilian casualties. ``If a lot of guys were just sitting around, he was always willing to teach us something,'' recalled Sergeant Clifford Baird, who first met Monti, with his ever-present chewing tobacco tucked under his lip, when they were posted together at Fort Drum, N.Y. ``He'd sit there and give us a class. He was very respected around here.'' Monti also had a special bond with junior soldiers. While soldiers are required to shave every day, even in the field, Monti would let his beard grow and shave only before returning to base. The new guys loved that he would bend the rules like that. And he was as loyal to his men as they were to him. He once gave up his leave to fill in for a soldier who hadn't seen his family in two years. When stationed at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, he gave his new kitchen set to a soldier whose kids were eating on the floor. When his girlfriend, Sherri, sent care packages with his favorite cigars, he would promptly hand them out to his unit. ``One of the things that sets him apart was that he had a great deal of compassion,'' said Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Abbott, the operations officer for Monti's squadron in Afghanistan. A heavy burden He earned a chestful of medals, but Monti agonized over all the killing war required, his family said. He returned from Afghanistan in 2003 with a Bronze Star for valor, but his mother recalled: ``He didn't like talking about it. Most of the time he just liked to be left alone. He'd say, `Don't tell anybody I am here.' He wasn't proud of it.'' When he was pressed about how he earned it, Janet Monti said, he'd finally blurt out something like, ``I had to kill someone's brother, or father, or sister.'' Monti described his private anxieties in an undated entry, titled ``My story,'' that his father recently found on his personal computer. ``We are not fighting in World War II,'' Monti wrote. ``We don't have the ability to justify any means to our end. Wars of today are not black and white.'' Monti's job to call in air strikes ``weighed heavily on him,'' said Jon Krakauer, a mountaineer and author of the best-seller ``Into Thin Air'' who, while working on a book, spent nearly five weeks with Monti's unit. ``It was always this tough call,'' Krakauer said. ``He was conservative about it.'' Krakauer recalled a patrol with Monti when a Toyota Corolla came barreling down the road. Fearing the driver was a suicide bomber, a soldier prepared to open fire. But Monti stopped him just in time. It turned out the driver was just a local in a hurry. ``A split-second later it would have been really bad,'' said Krakauer. It was Monti's humanity that also helped him get along especially well with the locals, Krakauer said. He was called on frequently to negotiate, through an interpreter, with tribal leaders, who liked him so much they gave him a Muslim name. ``He was only 30-years-old but he was an old soul,'' said Krakauer. ``Worst-case scenario'' The nearly 300 members of the 3rd Squadron, 71st Calvary Regiment had a grueling mission; they lost an average of 15 to 20 percent of their body weight, pulling 16- to 18-hour days, seven days a week, often in 100-plus degree temperatures. In one of the longest maneuvers in recent US military history, they trekked by Humvee along dirt paths and steep mountain passes from a US base in southern Afghanistan to remote Nuristan province in the northeast, about the distance between New York and Washington, D.C. ``We moved into unknown terrain,'' recalled Abbott, the squadron's operations officer, noting even the Soviet army did not venture there during its brutal occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. ``Sergeant Monti went out with reconnaissance teams to learn the people,'' he said, ``to learn the populace, and to gain knowledge of a terrain that nobody had ever been employed in before.'' Monti's last mission was to scout Taliban positions near infiltration routes from neighboring Pakistan--mainly goat trails thousands of feet up--and gather targeting data for a larger offensive, dubbed Operation Gowardesh after the nearby town, to take place a few days later. On the evening of June 17, 2006, the patrol was ferried by helicopter a few miles from the town. To avoid detection and the sweltering heat, they moved mostly in the dark, using night-vision equipment to navigate the rugged terrain. On June 20, they stopped on a narrow ridge overlooking the Gremen Valley, with steep inclines on both sides, that commanded a view of several enemy positions. The 16 soldiers set up their observation post on a sloping patch of ground, about 165 feet long and 65 feet wide, with a tree line at the top end and a few large rocks, a portion of an old stone wall, and a few small trees at the lower end, according to the Army's recreation of the battle. The next morning Monti was informed that the larger US assault would be delayed for three days--the helicopters and troops were needed elsewhere--leaving them low on food and water. The plan had been to use the cover of the US assault to resupply them by helicopter; now the resupply could expose them to the enemy. At about 1:30 p.m., Monti took most of the patrol to meet a resupply helicopter about 500 feet away. A small group stayed behind. They soon spotted a local man down in the valley using military-style binoculars to look up toward their position before he picked up a satchel and disappeared. ``It was the worst-case scenario,'' said former Army Captain Ross A. Berkoff, the squadron's intelligence officer, who was monitoring the situation from about 6 miles away. ``We stirred up a hornet's nest.'' well-coordinated attack When the enemy fighters opened fire on the patrol just before nightfall, the two soldiers nearest the woods bolted down the slope to seek cover behind rocks. Sergeant Patrick Lybert, 28, of Ladysmith, Wis., was crouched behind a low stone wall, in the best position to fire back. The others could barely raise their heads to aim. The patrol faced between 60 and 80 fighters, most of them members of Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin, a local tribal militia aligned with the Taliban, according to Berkoff. Monti calmly reported over the radio that the patrol was at risk of being overrun, according to officers in the operations center a few miles away. As shoulder-launched RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) skipped off the rocks right above his head, he began plotting grid coordinates for another group of soldiers on another ridge to fire mortar shells at the advancing fighters. Within minutes, Lybert, who had been holding off the enemy from behind the stone wall, slumped forward, blood coming out of his ears. The tribal militia split into two groups to try to encircle the patrol. Soldiers who still had weapons passed them back and forth to the one in the best position to fire back. The enemy ``had one goal in mind,'' said Abbott, who was monitoring the battle from the command post. ``To overrun and kill everybody in Monti's squad.'' Monti saw a group of fighters closing in fast. When they came within 30 feet, he threw a grenade in their path. He then took a head count. Private Brian Bradbury, who had been near the tree line, was missing. a dark ending Monti called out for him over the din of the battle. He called again. Finally, the 22-year-old from Lowville, N.Y., replied weakly that he was badly injured and couldn't move. He was lying about 30 feet away, where Monti couldn't see him, but directly in the enemy's sights. Monti told Bradbury he was coming to get him. He handed off his radio, tightened the chin strap of his helmet, and ran out into the open. The woods, about 100 feet past Bradbury, immediately erupted with more gunfire and RPGs. Moving low and fast, according to the testimony of his fellow soldiers, Monti got within less than a dozen feet of Bradbury before he had to dive behind the low stone wall where Lybert lay dead. After a brief pause, he made another attempt but the shooting was even more intense. He scrambled back behind the low wall. He prepared to make another attempt to save Bradbury, this time asking some of his men to cover him with more gun fire trained on the woods. But as he lunged toward Bradbury the third time, an RPG exploded in his path. The blast blew off his legs, but Monti struggled to get back to the stone wall, his men calling out in encouragement. With his last breaths, his soldiers later reported, Monti said he made his peace with God. And right before he died he asked them to tell his family he loved them. As darkness fell over the valley, the mortar rounds Monti called for began to hit the enemy positions. US aircraft also dropped several bombs into the woods. ``Monti's selfless act of courage rallied the patrol to defeat the enemy attack,'' the Army concluded. It was dark by the time Bradbury was pulled to safety and treated by the medic. A helicopter arrived but couldn't land because of the rough terrain. Staff Sergeant Heathe Craig, 28, a medic from Severn, Md., was lowered to Bradbury, who had a team of doctors waiting to treat him back at the base. But as they were being hoisted up, the winch broke. Both fell to their deaths. Berkoff remembered standing in front of the field hospital and thinking, ``Could anything possibly go right today?'' Monti was posthumously promoted to sergeant first class. As she prepares to accept the Medal of Honor from the president for her son's sacrifice, Janet Monti says she can't help but wonder what Jared would think about it. ``He would say this medal isn't just for me. He would want to share this medal with everybody who died that day.''

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say on behalf of the Obama administration, I welcome this very temporary expression of deference to their views. It will not last very long. As soon as it is politically convenient, it will disappear. So I urge them to enjoy that brief moment of graciousness. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 697, I call up the bill (H.R. 3269) to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to provide shareholders with an advisory vote on executive compensation and to prevent perverse incentives in the compensation practices of financial institutions, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days on this bill to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I recognize myself for such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have encountered gaps between rhetoric and reality in this Chamber, never one as great as the wildly distorted description of this bill that we've got before us. Let's be very clear. There are differences between the parties here on the whole, at least as reflected in the committee vote. I think it will probably be different on the floor. There is much less difference than there used to be about one piece of it, the say-on-pay. When the say-on-pay bill came up previously in 2007--by the way, when the Republicans were in the majority prior to 2007, on this, as on many other issues, we Democrats tried to do some reforms, predatory lending being one--we got nowhere--credit cards being another. We did try, in our Committee on Financial Services, to bring this up. The Republicans used their majority not to allow it. In 2007, when we were in the majority, we did bring it to the floor, and it passed over the objection of most Republicans, and I will introduce into the Record their comments denouncing say-on-pay. But 2 years later, they have moved some. So they are now for reform on say- on-pay, many of them, although a somewhat watered-down form. I should say there is a stark difference between us remaining on whether or not any action should be taken whatsoever by the Federal Government to restrain compensation practices that inflict excessive risk on the economy. We should be very clear; this assertion that this amounts to control of all wages and prices is nonsense. There is, of course, nothing about prices at all in the bill. As to wages, what it says is that the SEC shall impose rules that prevent excessive risk- taking, and the reference to wages is only in that context. The amount of wages is irrelevant to the SEC. What this bill explicitly aims at is the practice whereby people are given bonuses that pay off if the gamble or the risk pays off but don't lose you anything if it doesn't. That is, there is a wide consensus that this incentivizes excessive risk for you a shorter time. If you're the head of a financial institution or you're one of the decisionmakers or you take actions that are risky and 1 month later it looks like they paid off and you get your money and then 6 months later it turns out it blew up, you don't lose any of the money you got. And if at the outset you take a risk and it costs the company a lot of money, that doesn't cost you anything. All we are saying is that there has to be some balance to the risk- taking. And people ask, What is excessive risk? Excessive risk is when the people who take the risk pay no penalty when it goes wrong; when they have a heads they win, tails they break even situation; when the company loses money and the economy may suffer, but the decision-makers do not. Now, one of the sillier remarks we heard was this will cause us a problem with international competition. In fact, say-on-pay, when the Republican Party overwhelmingly opposed it 2 years ago, was already borrowed from Great Britain, the United Kingdom. And we were told during 2006 that we were losing a lot of business to Great Britain, that we should cut back on Sarbanes-Oxley, for instance, because people would go to England. But England had the very proposal that they were saying was going to drive people away. In fact, today--I will read from an article from a couple weeks ago. The Prime Minister of England says they are going to adopt plans forcing banks to hold back half of all bonuses for up to 5 years to discourage excessive risk-taking. That's our major financial competitor. And the conservative opposition is critical because it's not mandatory. We have been in conversations with the European Union, the United Kingdom, with Canada, and others. This will be done on a coordinated basis. In fact, American salaries, American compensation has been much higher. So, no, there is no price control; no, there is no wage control; no, it is not a problem for international competition. And by the way, as to every institution, every credit union--you heard that rhetoric--the bill exempts any institution with less than $1 billion in assets, and it gives the SEC the authority to even raise that so there's even less. But here's the nub of it: The Republican Party has reluctantly been dragged--reality sometimes has an impact--to supporting a watered-down version of say-on-pay. Say-on-pay, by the way, says that the shareholders of the company can vote and express their opinion. The gentleman from Texas was upset that we don't have a Federal Election Commission mechanism for these votes. But why only these votes? Shareholders vote on everything. Apparently it's only when the shareholders tend to vote on pay that Republican sensibilities are trampled. We do not, in this bill, talk about the amounts. We do say the shareholders should. We say, in consultation with all the advocacy groups who represent shareholders and pension funds and elsewhere, that the people who own the company, the shareholders, should be able to express their opinion on the compensation. We go beyond that to say that we believe the Federal Government has interest--not in the level of compensation, that's up to the shareholders--in the structure. When you have, as we have seen, structures whereby companies lose lots of money, and they lose lots of money on particular deals, but the people who made those deals make money on them, that has a systemic negative impact on this society because it incentivizes much too much risk. Now, what is the Republican approach to that? Nothing. They admit that these are problems. They regret that these things are happening, but their regrets won't stop the damage. In the Republican substitute there is a watering down of say on pay, but they at least acknowledge that reluctantly. But when it comes to the practice of large corporations in the financial area structuring bonuses that incentivize excessive risk, my Republican friends admit that that's the case and lament it and are adamant that we should do nothing about it. That's the big difference. We believe that the SEC--and by the way, as to the form, it was a Republican former Member of this body, Christopher Cox, who was Chair of the SEC, proposed disclosure. He broached it first. He said we have an important public interest in knowing it. So we are going to take the form of disclosure of compensation prescribed by a Republican Member of this House as Chairman of the SEC, with his colleagues, and let the shareholders say yes or no. We are going to go beyond that and say that the SEC should look at this and say, you know, you have a situation here where people making the decisions will have an incentive to take too much risk. If you tell people that if they take a risk and it pays off they are enriched, and if it fails miserably, they don't lose anything, they will take more risk than rationally should be taken. You should not incentivize people to take risks where they can only benefit and never suffer a penalty. That's all this bill says. We will prevent that kind of thing from happening. We won't set amounts. We won't deal with wage controls. We won't do anything else, and we exempt institutions under $1 billion. So I await the Republican counter. Yes, they want to water down say- on-pay, but they reluctantly accept it, but they have zero to offer with regard to the situation of excessive bonuses. And yes, we did get some reluctant agreement that we put some limits on the people who are recipients of TARP funds, but one of those who received TARP funds prospered with those funds, paid back the funds, and are now engaging in the same risky bonus practices they had before. The Republican position, at least in committee, was to do nothing about it, zero. Ours is, have rules, not that set the limits, not that set wage controls, but simply say that you cannot structure it so that whatever level of compensation you have, you profit if the bonus pays off and you lose nothing if the bonus causes great damage to your company and the economy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).