Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6216) to improve the Operating Fund for public housing of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, we are about to see the world sit by silently, not silently perhaps, but ineffectively, and allow one of the most outrageous abuses of human rights that we have seen in a long time to go forward. The president of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, is engaging in a pattern of oppression and tyranny and thuggery and despicable conduct towards his own people. He lost a preliminary election for the presidency despite every effort he could make to rig the election. Rather than allow the second round to go forward, he has ramped up the terror to the point where the man who got more votes than he in the first round understandably said he wouldn't participate in a run-off election which would not only be a fraud but which has already led to the murder and abuse of many innocent people. Robert Rotberg, a very distinguished scholar of Africa, wrote an article that was published in yesterday's Boston Globe. The headline is, ``Who will have the courage to save Zimbabwe?'' He starts with a little history. He writes, ``After Idi Amin terrorized and killed his own Ugandans throughout the 1970s, President Julius Nyerere of neighboring Tanzania finally sent his army across the border to end the mayhem and restore stability. Who will now do the same for beleaguered Zimbabwe? Who will remove despotic Robert Mugabe from his besmirched and exposed presidency?'' He is not calling for an army to go in, although there is certainly far stronger justification for an army to go there than a lot of places armies have been sent recently, but he has a program which he believes could be helpful. But as he points out, it has to be African nations that do this. This is a situation given the colonial history where the United States and Britain and France and others would not have the moral authority to act. But Africans should. Madam Speaker, I led a congressional delegation to Africa in April, and I was honored to be in the presence of the current president of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, a man who was one of the leaders in overturning one of the worst oppressions we have seen, apartheid in South Africa. I was honored to be in his presence. I was delighted when he presented a very high honor from South Africa to our colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters). But I have felt terrible disappointment at President Mbeki's passivity in the face of the terrible repudiation of democracy by President Mugabe. I wish that President Mbeki would have understood the right of the people of Zimbabwe to receive the same kind of sympathy and help that many of us tried to extend to the people of South Africa when they were victimized. I will include for the Record the article by Mr. Rotberg making an argument for an African initiative to protect the people of Zimbabwe from the tyrant, the degenerating tyrant who so viciously oppresses them. Mr. Rotberg closes with this: ``Zimbabwe is in shambles. The United States and Britain would doubtless like to act unilaterally, but dare not. Only Africans and the U.N. have unquestioned moral authority.'' And he notes here that the former Secretary General Kofi Annan did a great job when Kenya had troubles and helped to pacify and restore democracy and stability to Kenya. So he says, ``Only Africa and the United Nations have unquestioned moral authority. Which African leaders will now emulate Nyerere's profile of courage in Zimbabwe's dire time of need?'' As one who has strongly supported the rights of the people of Africa to be free from colonialism, one who has strongly supported the need to provide the appropriate economic support so we can seriously diminish poverty, as a great admirer of President Mbeki and his colleagues, I implore them to save the good name of African democracy. And I understand the difficulty, and they certainly aren't the ones perpetrating this. But if the world, if Africa allows Mugabe to continue this terrible reign of terror, it will be a source of shame to us all. Who Will Have the Courage to Save Zimbabwe? (By Robert I. Rotberg) After Idi Amin terrorized and killed his own Ugandans throughout the 1970s, President Julius Nyerere of neighboring Tanzania finally sent his army across the border to end the mayhem and restore stability. Who will now do the same for beleaguered Zimbabwe? Who will remove despotic Robert Mugabe from his besmirched and exposed presidency? Presidential contender Morgan Tsvangirai's courageous decision to boycott Zimbabwe's runoff election on Friday-- after Mugabe's thugs broke up yet another opposition rally by swinging iron bars and sticks at potential Tsvangirai voters--compels the African Union, the UN Security Council, and major powers finally to act. Tsvangirai said that he and his supporters were facing war, not an election, and they would ``not be part of that war.'' Serious UN sanctions are a first step. Second, since South Africa shows no appetite for an intervention and Tanzania, Botswana, Mozambique, and Zambia-- Zimbabwe's neighbors--are unlikely to act militarily without South African agreement an African stained Zimbabwe's tyranny should: demand that Friday's poll be postponed until Africans can patrol the country and oversee a free and fair real election; demand compulsory mediation by former UN secretary general Kofi Annan, who pacified Kenya earlier this year; denounce despotism in Zimbabwe; and ban all Zimbabwean aircraft from flying over neighboring airspaces, thus effectively keeping Mugabe and his henchmen bottled up inside their decaying country. Neighboring countries could also squeeze land-locked Zimbabwe's electricity supplies and slow rail traffic. Time is short. Mugabe is clearly still intent on ratifying his usurpation of power on Friday. Tsvangirai officially led Mugabe in the initial presidential poll in March. In recent weeks Mugabe's military have unleashed a relentless wave of intimidation against Tsvangirai's Movement for a Democratic Change and its supporters, killing 86, maiming at least 10,000, and assaulting thousands more. Tsvangirai was detained seven times before Sunday and his key deputy was imprisoned last week without trial on a bogus treason charge. Yesterday, the house of another key deputy was trashed and his elderly relatives assaulted. Unless Africa and the UN act courageously, Mugabe will get away with his brazen attempt to cling brutally to power and impoverish his own people despite broad global contempt. Mugabe has also refused to summon Parliament, which is dominated by the Movement for Democratic Change and was elected overwhelmingly in March. As a result, many of Mugabe's cabinet ministers and loyalist remain in office, drawing salaries, despite having lost their seats. Several times, Mugabe and close associates have publicly declared that the Movement and Tsvangirai would never be allowed to take office or govern. ``Only God will remove me,'' Mugabe defiantly declared Monday. Conditions in Zimbabwe, where more than 80 percent of adults are unemployed and nearly everyone is hungry; where there are startling shortages of staple corn, wheat and bread, sugar, oil, milk, and gasoline; and where brutality is always around the next corner are even more horrific today than they were in Uganda in 1979, when Nyerere invaded. Famously, Mugabe told a BBC interviewer in 1999 that he was ``no Idi Amin.'' Mugabe's men have also continued to use food as a political weapon, first stopping the supply of grain by international relief agencies and last week physically stealing relief shipments to give to their own supporters. Mugabe's thugs have also harassed British and American diplomats at roadblocks, in one case threatening to burn them alive in their cars. Zimbabwe's inflation now exceeds 160,000 percent a year. One U.S. dollar buys 4 million Zimbabwe dollars at the unofficial street rate. Mugabe and his close associates exploit differences between official and unofficial exchange rates to prosper while ordinary Zimbabweans go hungry or are attacked. Zimbabwe is in shambles. The United States and Britain would doubtless like to act unilaterally, but dare not. Only Africans and the UN have unquestioned moral authority. Which African leaders will now emulate Nyerere's profile of courage in Zimbabwe's dire time of need?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, this year marks the 150th Anniversary of an extraordinarily important religious congregation in the City of Newton, which I am proud to represent in this body, and where I have lived for 28 years. Congregation Mishkan Tefila has been an important part of the City of Newton since 1957. Temple Mishkan Tefila has of course been primarily a place of worship for large numbers of Jewish men, women and young people, and through a series of outstanding rabbis and other leaders, it has performed that essential function superbly. It has also been a forum for community leadership in a number of other ways. Its doors have always been open to the community, both its own members and the community at large, and I have personally benefited from that openness on a number of occasions by being able to participate in forums that the temple has run, which have helped me and others fulfill our duties to relate to our constituents. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to salute the members of the Mishkan Tefila Congregation on this 150th Anniversary, and congratulate them on their opportunity both to look back on a very proud history, and to look forward to the promise of continued great service in the years ahead.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join with my colleague, the Senior Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), in hailing the proclamation of September 13th, 2008 as Dr. Bernard Lown Day. In fact Madam Speaker, it would be a more accurate representation of the dimensions of Dr. Lown's great career if we were to proclaim several Dr. Bernard Lown Days. He is a man who has made numerous extremely valuable contributions to humanity in a number of fields, because he combines intellectual ability of the first order, a deep commitment to improving the quality of life of his coinhabitants of the planet, a capacity to translate his unsurpassed understanding of the actual functioning of the human heart into treatments and instruments that have significantly advanced the fight against heart diseases, and finally, a characteristic not often joined to some of those I have just listed, an understanding of the political process and how to move it. In his professional life as a cardiologist, Dr. Lown invented the defibrillator and the cardioverter, and he was the first to use the drug lidocaine. In these innovations, in his own practice of over 50 years, and the knowledge he's imparted to countless numbers of younger--and by now not so young--other doctors, Dr. Lown has put all of us in his debt for his contributions to our health. In addition, he has been a leader in international cooperation in the medical field, and in humanitarian work in general, recognizing early on that the fight against disease and poor health must know no artificial political boundaries. Finally, he has been a leader in the effort to avert nuclear disaster and to promote a humane and sensible approach to international conflict. In recognition of these latter activities, Dr. Lown was a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate in 1985 for his work in co-founding the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and the work he had done--and of course continues to do--opposing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and promoting world peace. It is sometimes said that people who try to do too many different things can diminish their ability to do any one thing. Bernard Lown's life is an example of exactly the opposite: the many areas of important human activity in which he has excelled have not detracted from each other but rather have reinforced each other, contributing to a life's work that has been a model of how one takes his very considerable talents and puts them at the service of others. Senator Kennedy and I are delighted to have been given the privilege of representing Dr. Lown in the Congress of the United States and we are very proud to join here today in observing September 13th as Dr. Bernard Lown Day.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I guess as I get older my memory is even worse than I thought. I thought I remembered what it was like when the Republicans were in power. But I don't seem to remember any of those bills my friend from Texas was just talking about. Apparently they were saving them up until we came to power, because I don't remember them ever bringing them up when we were here. Having said that, I do want to apologize to my friends on the other side for talking about the legislation under consideration. I hope they will indulge me as I do that. And as I do it, I want to say that I think what we've seen in the bill being brought forward by our newest colleagues from Louisiana and Mississippi is the importance of timing. We've had this problem in which public housing authorities in Louisiana and Mississippi were being treated unfairly. This is not singling them out for special treatment. This is ending a bureaucratic glitch that disadvantaged them. And we're doing it in the way that was suggested by the Bush administration, and I give them credit for that. But it ought to be clear to people that having new Members here from Louisiana and Mississippi, the areas affected, had an impact. They are both on the Financial Services Committee, and I'm very proud that the Financial Services Committee on which they are now members gave them the opportunity to bring this bill forward. I also want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Mississippi and the gentleman from Texas, the Chair and Subcommittee Chair of the Homeland Security Committee. One of the things that plagues this institution is jurisdictional arguments and turf fights. I'm very pleased that we've been able, my colleagues particularly on the Homeland Security Committee, to work so closely together on this. I'm also glad to say that this is genuinely a bipartisan issue, and I appreciate the Republicans supporting us. But I do want to stress again, this is no special deal for Louisiana and Mississippi. By a bureaucratic glitch, the existence of a provision that has never been funded keeps them from getting money to replace public housing that was destroyed. And there's a Federal program under FEMA that provides Federal funds for public buildings that are destroyed. This simply allows public housing a fair share.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to express the strong feelings that I and many others have on the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel. Israel was created by a U.N. resolution 60 years ago. People who have stressed the importance of U.N. resolutions with regard to the Middle East sometimes forget to note that when a U.N. resolution was passed which created the State of Israel in a fairly small part of what had then been Palestine, it evoked violent opposition from almost all of Israel's neighbors. That is, those countries which launched an armed attack aimed at obliterating Israel as it was born, in defiance of a U.N. resolution, do not come with clean hands when they talk now about living up to every U.N. resolution. That's no reason to ignore them, but it is a context that ought to be clear. There are a number of perspectives that people bring to the existence of Israel and its history. There is one that I want to talk about in particular as a liberal. By all of the values that motivate me to be in public life, the State of Israel is the only nation in the Middle East today that qualifies as a nation that respects them. Whether it is the principle of nondiscrimination--and some things are very controversial in their own country--the rights of women, free speech, the rights of gay men and lesbians, Israel stands out by a very strong margin over all of its neighbors. I do want to address some of my friends on the left who are critical of some of the geopolitical aspects of this. It's legitimate to do it. Indeed, if you want to hear criticism of the approach Israel takes towards the peace process or the question of settlements, one of the best places to go is Israel. Because unlike every other Middle East nation, Israel is a place where democracy thrives. Indeed, one of the important lessons the existence of Israel teaches the world is that those who argue that if you have threats to your national security, democracy becomes a luxury, are wrong. Israel was born under attack. It has lived its entire 60 years to date with the great hostility of its neighbors. It has fought a number of wars. And it is today confronted by many nations, Iran, for example, that profess to be interested in its obliteration. Despite that, it has maintained a strong democracy; governments win and governments lose. And the Israeli High Court has a record, frankly, that in some ways exceeds our own U.S. Supreme Court in vindicating civil liberties. Now, having said that, I will add that I am critical of some aspects of Israel policy. The point, however, is that that's a right that people have within Israel to exercise those differences that others don't. I thought the recent comments by Secretary Rice that were somewhat critical of what Israel was doing were useful in helping move towards the peace process. On the other hand, it ought to be clear, and I do believe Israel should continue to maintain its willingness to withdraw from most of the West Bank, I think they should be removing settlements, but it must be remembered, Israel did withdraw from southern Lebanon and it did withdraw from Gaza in the face of a good deal of controversy at home, one under Prime Minister Barak, one under Prime Minister Sharon, of two different parties. Tragically, in both cases, Israel's voluntary withdrawal was followed by the entrenchment in those two areas of organizations dedicated not simply to territorial change, but to Israel's obliteration, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza. And they have used those places from which Israel withdrew as bases for attacks. I understand the emotional reaction that says, ``We'll never do that again.'' I think it would be wrong; I do not think it would be in Israel's best interest. That does not mean they should not be able to defend themselves, of course they should. But the fundamental point is this: Yes, there are serious issues about how to pursue peace. Nowhere are they more openly debated than within Israel itself, and that is one of the great glories of its 60 years.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, Special Orders, such as I am now entered into, are a time when Members can fairly freely say things without fear of contradiction because generally no one is here. And as you listen to many of the Special Orders, there is a very good reason why no one is here: No one ought to want to pay any attention to them. And we have a certain amount of tolerance when it comes to Special Orders, but sometimes the stupidity level, it seems to me, is exceeded. In a Special Order yesterday, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) said the following. He was denouncing the notion of financing public transportation from the gasoline tax. It does seem to me that having public transportation available is one of the good ways to reduce the use of oil. High prices have driven more people to use public transportation, but that's a legitimate subject for debate. What is not a legitimate subject is to make things up. The gentleman said yesterday, and I quote from the Record, ``And if you go to Barney Frank's district and you jump on--I don't know what they call it, the subway, the ``Big Dig,'' the major multibillion dollar boondoggle--and you buy a ticket to ride along on that thing, you get a cheap ticket because it's subsidized by H5321.'' Well, you can't buy a ticket to ride on the Big Dig, but if you could, it should be cheap because there's nothing to ride on. In fact, quite contrary to what the gentleman from Iowa made up yesterday, the Big Dig is not a subway, the Big Dig is a highway. Now, it did cost a lot of money, but it was money that was spent on a highway. So when the gentleman says, ``I don't know what they call it, the subway, the Big Dig, the major multibillion dollar boondoggle''-- and by the way, it's not in my district. But that is such a small error compared to the major errors the gentleman made that I mention it only in passing. But I am baffled by why the gentleman would get up and purport to talk about something in Massachusetts and so mis-describe it. So let me be very clear: The Big Dig is a highway, it is not a subway. A subway is a mass transit conveyor that goes underground. A highway is something on which cars go. So you can't buy a ticket on the Big Dig, and it is not a subway. He said further, by the way, that you get a cheap ticket because it's subsidized by H5321. I don't know what H5321 is. There is a bill, H.R. 5321, which has absolutely nothing to do with public transportation, but accuracy does not appear to have been the governing principle in that conversation. I do note that the gentleman from Iowa singled out three districts to discuss: San Francisco, represented by the Speaker, New York City--and he imputed all New York City to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Rangel--and myself. Why we three districts were singled out--myself, San Francisco, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Rangel--I don't know what emotions the gentleman from Iowa was seeking to evoke by, out of all of the public transportation districts, picking the three of us. Again, that's something he is entitled to do, but he is really not entitled to call a highway a subway and denounce us for that. So, as I said, I understand that when you are here under Special Orders, you can generally get away with a great deal because there is no one to point things out. And I actually felt sufficiently concerned about the accuracy of what's said in the House that I waited around for a while. And I learned many interesting things about NASA, more than I had planned to, but that was an educational experience. But I would hope that Members in the future, when they want to go and attack things, would put a little effort into trying to know what they are talking about. It might elevate the debate.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 682) to award a congressional gold medal to Edward William Brooke III in recognition of his unprecedented and enduring service to our Nation.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this bill was sponsored in the Senate by our very cherished colleague, Senator Kennedy, who served with former Senator Brooke for many years. It has been carried in the House with great vigor and care by our colleague from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and I yield her such time as she may consume.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 4 minutes. I consider it a great honor to be able to stand on the floor of this House and as the Chair of the committee bring out the bill that would honor Ed Brooke. As a citizen of Massachusetts in 1972 and again in 1978, and as a fairly partisan Democrat, I was proud publicly to endorse him for reelection both times to the Senate. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia made the point he was the first African American elected attorney general and then to the Senate only shortly after this country officially said segregation was morally and legally wrong. 1954 was the Brown v. Board of Education decision, not made final until 1955 in its decree. Seven years later Ed Brooke is elected attorney general. And as we look back now, it is probably difficult for some people to understand what an important accomplishment that was. But he is not a man who should be honored simply for having broken those barriers, because having gotten the opportunity, he used it. The committee I chair has jurisdiction over housing. As I work in the housing area, I find myself frequently trying to preserve some of the pioneering efforts on behalf of affordable housing that Ed Brooke created. I was very proud about a month or so ago when he called to say that he liked what we were doing. I was just reminded, Mr. Speaker, when I was up in our State of Massachusetts over the weekend, that it was in 1978, in his last year in the Senate, that Ed Brooke began the policy of saying that when housing had been built with Federal help with a certain restriction that set it aside for lower income people and those restrictions expire, it shouldn't be simply sold to the highest bidder, but that public policy ought to make some efforts to preserve it for people who were in need of housing. We are still fighting that fight today. We have something known as the Brooke amendment, one of the greatest acts of compassion ever to pass this body. It said originally that the poorest of the poor who get housing through various public programs shouldn't be expected to pay more than 25 percent of their income for housing, precisely because they have so little. That was changed, regrettably, in the eighties. I voted against it, but it was changed to 30 percent. But it is still there. It is still the Brooke amendment. It is still a major barrier to a degradation in the quality of life of lower income people, because there are those who would make them pay 40 and 50 and 60 percent of their income, depriving them and their children of the necessities of life. So it is with great pride that we fight and have fought to continue the Brooke amendment. Senator Brooke was a leader in a number of areas. Yes, he broke the barrier of racism and became the first African American to win statewide office in Massachusetts and then to come to the Senate at a time when racism was even more virulent than it is today. We have made strides in diminishing it. But, as I said, he didn't just do that. He was a leader in a number of areas, and particularly in the housing area. I don't believe anybody who has ever served in the Congress of the United States has a record that exceeds his. So I am delighted to join under the leadership of our colleague Senator Kennedy and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) in voting for this medal, the second medal, the third medal that Brooke will have gotten, because he got the Presidential Medal of Freedom and he earned the Bronze Medal in World War II, fighting in a segregated outfit, putting patriotism ahead of the indignities to which he submitted in the fight against that terrible tyranny. This is a medal well earned by a man who exemplified the commitment to the public welfare that we could well remember today. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that because of the energy of a number of people, we are going to be awarding this gold medal to a man who so richly deserves it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. How much time remains, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am about to yield back. Ed Brooke, in addition to being a superb United States Senator who fought very hard and very effectively for economic fairness and obviously against racial prejudice, but he also was the chief law enforcement officer of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for 4 years. Just to give people a flavor of that, I will mention one accomplishment. It was under his attorney generalship that the Boston Strangler was prosecuted and imprisoned. So people who may not otherwise be able to relate should know. And if you saw him in the movie, I think he was played by Raymond St. Jacques, but if you go see again the movie of the Boston Strangler, you will see a part of that book. We are here to talk about a number of other parts, including a superb legislative record on behalf of social fairness. I am prepared to yield back if the gentlewoman is.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. First I ask that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to submit their comments and material on this matter.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, this year marks the 150th Anniversary of an extraordinarily important religious congregation in the city of Newton, which I am proud to represent in this body, and where I have lived for 28 years. Congregation Mishkan Tefila has been an important part of the city of Newton since 1858. At that point, of course, Jewish citizens of the city were a very small number of a much smaller city. Over time, both the city and the Jewish population have grown significantly, and Temple Mishkan Tefila has been an important element in the growth of both. Temple Mishkan Tefila has of course been primarily a place of worship for large numbers of Jewish men, women and young people, and through a series of outstanding rabbis and other leaders, it has performed that essential function superbly. It has also been a forum for community leadership in a number of other ways. Its doors have always been open to the community, both its own members and the community at large, and I have personally benefited from that openness on a number of occasions by being able to participate in forums that the temple has run, which have helped me and others fulfill our duties to relate to our constituents. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to salute the members of the Mishkan Tefila Congregation on this 150th Anniversary, and congratulate them on their opportunity both to look back on a very proud history, and to look forward to the promise of continued great service in the years ahead.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, the overriding economic issue confronting our country is the task of proceeding with the increased globalization of the economy in a manner that promotes an equitable distribution of the benefits. For too many years, until fairly recently, there was a consensus supported by many in the academic and business establishments that argued that concern about the distribution of the benefits of globalization was unnecessary at best and disruptive at worst, and that if we simply proceeded with greater openness, in trade, in the freeing of capital from any restraints, and in other ways, we would all be better off. It is now indisputable that this is not the case, and that growth has proceeded in the U.S.--and in some other parts of the world--in recent years in a manner that has increased both wealth and inequality. Of course it is the case that in a capitalist system, some inequality is necessary for the economy to function. But we have seen inequality grow far beyond what is either productive or, in the minds of many of us, morally justifiable. Many of us have argued to people in the business community that the resentment that is being generated--very legitimately--by this increased inequality has become an obstacle to the adoption of policies that they think are in our national interest. Many of us, including I believe the leadership on economic issues of the Democratic Party here in the House, believe that we should proceed with globalization in a reasonable and orderly way, but accompanied by policies that offset its tendencies to increase inequality, erode environmental standards, and promote reckless deregulation. Recently, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers wrote interesting articles in the Financial Times strongly arguing that such a position is both necessary and achievable. In the Financial Times of May 21, Martin Wolf, a very thoughtful economic commentator, makes a further important contribution to this debate. The movement from an unqualified cheer for globalization without any concern for its negative consequences on substantial numbers of Americans to a thoughtful discussion of how to go forward with the economic integration of the world in a socially useful manner is a very welcome one. Martin Wolf's contribution to that debate in the Financial Times is therefore very important and I ask that it be printed here. [From the Financial Times, May 21, 2008] How To Preserve the Open Economy at a Time of Stress (By Martin Wolf) Is the spread of prosperity in the interests of citizens of today's high-income countries? Is globalisation of their economies in their interest? These distinct questions are raised in my mind by two important columns from Lawrence Summers (``America needs to make a new case for trade'' on April 27 and ``A strategy to promote healthy globalisation'' on May 4). In these, Mr. Summers argues that the international economic policies of the U.S. need to be coupled more closely to the interests of its workers. Many Europeans will concur. This is not to argue that the interests of citizens of high-income countries are more important than those of others. On the contrary, the view that increases in incomes of the poor offset equivalent losses for the rich is morally compelling. But politics is national. Unless or until a global political community emerges, politics will respond only to perceptions of national interest. So is the rising prosperity of China, India and other emerging economies in the interests of today's high-income countries? The correct answer to this is: not necessarily. It would be absurd to pretend otherwise. The big advantages of the spread of prosperity include a wider distribution of innovation and bigger opportunities for profitable exchange. The rise of the U.S. brought such benefits to the U.K. Also valuable (though not certain) is greater political stability in previously impoverished countries. The big disadvantage is greater competition for scarce resources. Power is a scarce resource: if country A has more, country B has less. Resources are also limited. If commodity prices rise, the terms of trade (the relative prices of exports and imports) of net importers will deteriorate: countries have to sell more exports to obtain given imports. Since the end of 2001, U.S. terms of trade have deteriorated by an eighth, as commodity prices have soared and the currency devalued. This has turned an 18 per cent increase in real gross domestic product between the last quarter of 2001 and the fourth quarter of 2008 into a 16.4 per cent increase in real national income. The difference is not huge. But it is worth some $220bn in today's dollars. So countries may indeed be harmed by the prosperity of others. (See charts). The answer to this is: so what? As Willem Buiter has pointed out (Economic Internationalism 101, Maverecon, May 5), nothing can be done to halt the diffusion of ``knowledge, skills, technology, management systems'' and so forth. Or at least nothing rational or decent can be done. Of course, the U.S. could launch an unprovoked blockade or even war against China or India. To mention such ideas is to reveal their strategic and moral bankruptcy. The U.S. could, it is true, try to halt the flow of ideas. The U.K. tried to halt the spread of technology to the U.S. in the early 19th century: it failed. The Chinese empire once made it a capital crime to export silkworms: that failed, too. Similarly, protectionism against the emerging countries might slow their growth, but would not halt it. Yet it would guarantee a breakdown in international relations that threatened hopes of a peaceful future. To repeat, nothing can be done about the rise of emerging countries, as they follow the lead of the west. What cannot be helped must be accepted. This takes us to my second question. Given the rise of the emerging world, should the developed world limit the globalisation of its own economies? Of course, so long as high-income countries depend on imports of commodities, trade will be essential. Self-sufficiency is a mirage. It is a question rather of how much openness to trade and movement of capital and labour there should be. One issue has been the huge current account deficits of the U.S. Yet these are at last contracting, as export growth explodes (see chart). On trade more narrowly, the basic point is well known: free trade is in the interests of the country adopting the policy, unless it has monopoly power. But--an important ``but''--the benefits and costs are likely to be unevenly distributed. The latter is particularly likely for trade between rich and poor countries. Free movement of capital or labour may also harm important interest groups within a country even if it raises aggregate incomes. The freer movement becomes, the harder it may also be to impose taxes and regulations on those able to move. As Mr. Summers argues, it is hard for a democracy to proceed with policies that a large minority believes are against their interests. If the fall-back position is not to be protectionism, itself no more than an inefficient tax and subsidy programme, more creative options must be chosen. The most obvious point, at least for the U.S. is the need to shift the provision of security from employers to the state. Corporate welfare states are unsustainable in a dynamic and open economy. Yet if the U.S. is to have a more generous welfare state, including universal health provision, as in every other high- income country, taxes will have to be raised. Indeed, they will have to be raised even to meet existing commitments. Mr. Summers argues, in response, for international action against harmful tax competition, He argues, too, for greater international agreement on regulation. In some areas, notably finance, the latter makes sense. But the view that the U.S. must obtain such agreements if it is to raise some of the lowest levels of taxation and weakest regulation in the advanced world is unpersuasive. If Sweden's taxes can be 56 per cent of GDP, it is not tax competition that keeps the U.S. at just 34 percent. The mobility of capital and people is an excuse, not a justification, for low U.S. tax levels. What is desperately needed is an honest debate about these issues. Such a debate would, I believe, reach four fundamental conclusions. First, whether or not citizens of the U.S. (or other high-income countries) welcome it, the global spread of economic development is ineluctable. Second, protection against imports is a costly and ineffective way of dealing with the consequences. Third, parties of the centre- left should argue for redistributing the spoils of globalisation, not sacrificing them. Finally, a necessary condition is higher taxation of the winners. But the chief obstacle to that is a lack of domestic political will. Globalisation is not a reason for low taxes, but an excuse. It should be discarded. Everybody should remember, above all, that the opening of the world economy is the west's greatest economic policy achievement. It would be a tragedy if it were to turn its back on the world when the rest of humanity is at last turning towards it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, for much of the past decade, we have had a debate between those calling for substantial deregulation in the financial markets, and those of us who are concerned that we did not have sufficient regulation to deal with the powerful innovations that we have seen in that market recently. Recent experience, in which disarray in the financial markets due in part to an absence of sensible regulation has led to serious economic problems in the world, very much strengthens the argument for appropriate public intervention that seeks to preserve the advantages of recent innovations while diminishing the harm that they have caused. Earlier this week, Horst Kohler, a man of significant experience in the financial world, and not one previously suspected of radicalism in any degree, spoke out strongly to emphasize that ``We need more severe and efficient regulation, higher capital requirements to underpin financial trades, more transparency and a global institution to independently oversee the stability of the international financial system.'' Madam Speaker, reasonable people can differ with Mr. Kohler on some of the specifics, and on how they would be constituted. But the voice from this respected, experienced participant at the highest levels of the financial system should be heeded. It is truly time for us to work together here in the U.S. and in cooperation with legislators and regulators in other countries, to put in place the kind of system that Horst Kohler calls for, one in which we can try to increase the benefits of innovation while diminishing the damage that unchecked activity can cause. Madam Speaker, I note that among the areas that Mr. Kohler calls on us to address is what he calls ``the grotesquely high compensation of individual finance managers.'' In this connection, it should also be noted that Joaquin Almunia, Monetary Affairs Commissioner of the European Union, also recently noted that ``When we talk about wage moderation and the need to link wage increases with productivity increases, then we also have to say something about levels of remuneration that sometimes don't seem to reflect productivity'' for top executives. I ask that this important contribution to the debate about financial services regulation be printed here. German President Lashes Out at ``Monster'' Market and Its Bankers (By Bertrand Benoit and James Wilson) Global financial markets have of become ``a monster'' that ``must be put back in its place'', the German president has said, comparing bankers with alchemists who were responsible for ``massive destruction of assets''. In some of the toughest comments by a leading European politician since the start of the subprime crisis, Horst Kohler--a former head of the International Monetary Fund-- called for tougher regulations and the reconstruction of a ``continental European banking culture''. Mr. Kohler singled out excessive executive pay, the focus of much public resentment against top managers, as a factor in the subprime crisis and accused bankers of acting irresponsibly. ``The complexity of financial products and the possibility to carry out huge leveraged trades with little [of their] own capital have allowed the monster to grow . . . also responsible [is] the grotesquely high compensation of individual finance managers.'' Mr. Kohler's words will revive memories of the 2005 remarks by Franz Muntefering, then German vice-chancellor, who attached hedge funds as ``swarms of locusts'' whose ``profit- maximizing strategies inspired by international competition'' posed ``a danger to our democracy.'' The comments from Mr. Kohler came as European Union finance ministers ratcheted up the pressure over boardroom pay-- describing excessive remuneration as ``scandalous''. ``When we talk about wage moderation and the need to link wage increases with productivity increases, then we also have to say something about levels of remuneration that sometimes don't seem to reflect productivity,'' sand Joaquin Almunia, EU monetary affairs commissioner. Bankers ``have made huge mistakes'', Mr. Kohler told Stern magazine, published today. Referring to the subprime crisis, he said: ``I am still waiting for a clear, audible mea culpa. The only good thing about this crisis is that it has made clear to any thinking, responsible person in the sector that international financial markets have developed into a monster that must be put back in its place. ``We need more severe and efficient regulation, higher capital requirements to underpin financial trades, more transparency and a global institution to independently oversee the stability of the international financial system. I have already suggested that the IMF assume this role.''

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a very active member of the committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. How much time is there remaining, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), member of our full committee.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The committee and the House are constrained by a number of rules that cause substantial numbers of days to elapse. Does this motion, if it passes, in any way empower us to forget those rules of the House which require a certain number of days in committee, certain number of layovers, an announcement of a markup, a delay before the bill is reported, the Rules Committee, et cetera? Does this motion in any way reduce any of those timetables?