Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1066. It does occur to me on reflection that we should have asked the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Hastings and Mr. Hastings, to join in supporting this bill given its number. But in their absence, I will note that this is a bill that passed the House last year unanimously as part of a larger regulatory relief bill that came out of the Committee on Financial Services. It went to the Senate, and the Senate passed much of what we sent them but not all of it. The Senate deleted some provisions. We, in the interest of getting some legislation through, accepted the Senate's proposal, and so much of what we sent originally did become law. Some pieces did not. This is a piece that provides more flexibility for banks that are engaging in what is called, and it is a particular legal term here, public welfare investments. Banks are allowed to spend, invest up to 15 percent of their capital in what are called public welfare investments. This would allow that very good policy some more flexibility. I would note, that, for instance, the Association of Affordable Housing Lenders, people who build subsidized housing, are in favor of this change. What it does is it broadens the definition. It doesn't change the 15 percent, but it gives more flexibility. We have this situation where we do want these investments to be for the benefit of low and moderate income people. But it is one thing to say that they should generally be for the benefit of low and moderate income people, and another to strictly confine them to areas that have this direct benefit. What you do is you lose the flexibility we would like. Mr. Speaker, I will include in the record at this point letters from John Reich, the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, and John Dugan, the Comptroller of the Currency. Office of Thrift Supervision, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC, February 23, 2007. Hon. Barney Frank, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Hon. Spencer Bachus, Ranking Member, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus: I am writing to provide my support for H.R. 1066, the ``Depository Institution Community Development Investment Enhancements Act,'' legislation that you recently introduced and that I understand will soon be considered by the House. H.R. 1066 will enhance the ability of savings associations to support important public welfare initiatives. I encourage Congress to take swift action on this bill. Similar to Section 202 of H.R. 3505, the ``Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2005,'' which passed on a bipartisan basis in the full House of Representatives and H.R. 6062, the ``Community Development Investment Enhancements Act of 2006,'' which also passed on a voice vote by the full House, H.R. 1066 will enable savings associations to support important community development programs. Specifically, H.R. 1066 will increase the ability of federal savings associations to make investments primarily designed to promote the public welfare of low- and moderate- income communities and families through the provision of housing, services, and jobs. Your bill accomplishes this by raising the limits on the ability of federal thrifts to invest in entities primarily engaged in making these public welfare investments. Thank you for your leadership in sponsoring this important legislation and your continued interest is this issue. I applaud your efforts to remove barriers to the growth and stability of low- and moderate-income communities and urge immediate consideration of H.R. 1066. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or Kevin Petrasic, Managing Director of External Affairs, at 2012-906-6452. Respectifully yours, John M. Reich, Director.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1066) to increase community development investments by depository institutions, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, In accordance with clause 2(a)(2) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I am reporting that the Committee on Financial Services adopted the following rules for the 110th Congress on January 31, 2007, and as amended on February 13, 2007, in open session, a quorum being present, and submit those rules for publication in the Congressional Record: Rules of the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, 110th Congress, First Session Rule 1--General Provisions (a) The rules of the House are the rules of the Committee on Financial Services (hereinafter in these rules referred to as the ``Committee'') and its subcommittees so far as applicable, except that a motion to recess from day to day, and a motion to dispense with the first reading (in full) of a bill or resolution, if printed copies are available, are privileged motions in the Committee and shall be considered without debate. A proposed investigative or oversight report shall be considered as read if it has been available to the members of the Committee for at least 24 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except when the House is in session on such day). (b) Each subcommittee is a part of the Committee, and is subject to the authority and direction of the Committee and to its rules so far as applicable. (c) The provisions of clause 2 of rule XI of the Rules of the House are incorporated by reference as the rules of the Committee to the extent applicable. Rule 2--Meetings Calling of Meetings (a)(l) The Committee shall regularly meet on the first Tuesday of each month when the House is in session. (2) A regular meeting of the Committee may be dispensed with if, in the judgment of the Chairman of the Committee (hereinafter in these rules referred to as the ``Chair''), there is no need for the meeting. (3) Additional regular meetings and hearings of the Committee may be called by the Chair, in accordance with clause 2(g)(3) of rule XI of the rules of the House. (4) Special meetings shall be called and convened by the Chair as provided in clause 2(c)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of the House. Notice for Meetings (b)(l) The Chair shall notify each member of the Committee of the agenda of each regular meeting of the Committee at least two calendar days before the time of the meeting. (2) The Chair shall provide to each member of the Committee, at least two calendar days before the time of each regular meeting for each measure or matter on the agenda a copy of-- (A) the measure or materials relating to the matter in question; and (B) an explanation of the measure or matter to be considered, which, in the case of an explanation of a bill, resolution, or similar measure, shall include a summary of the major provisions of the legislation, an explanation of the relationship of the measure to present law, and a summary of the need for the legislation. (3) The agenda and materials required under this subsection shall be provided to each member of the Committee at least three calendar days before the time of the meeting where the measure or matter to be considered was not approved for full Committee consideration by a subcommittee of jurisdiction. (4) The provisions of this subsection may be waived by a two-thirds vote of the Committee, or by the Chair with the concurrence of the ranking minority member. Rule 3--Meeting and Hearing Procedures In General (a)(l) Meetings and hearings of the Committee shall be called to order and presided over by the Chair or, in the Chair's absence, by the member designated by the Chair as the Vice Chair of the Committee, or by the ranking majority member of the Committee present as Acting Chair. (2) Meetings and hearings of the committee shall be open to the public unless closed in accordance with clause 2(g) of rule XI of the Rules of the House. (3) Any meeting or hearing of the Committee that is open to the public shall be open to coverage by television broadcast, radio broadcast, and still photography in accordance with the provisions of clause 4 of rule XI of the Rules of the House (which are incorporated by reference as part of these rules). Operation and use of any Committee operated broadcast system shall be fair and nonpartisan and in accordance with clause 4(b) of rule XI and all other applicable rules of the Committee and the House. (4) Opening statements by members at the beginning of any hearing or meeting of the Committee shall be limited to 5 minutes each for the Chair or ranking minority member, or their respective designee, and 3 minutes each for all other members. (5) No person, other than a Member of Congress, Committee staff, or an employee of a Member when that Member has an amendment under consideration, may stand in or be seated at the rostrum area of the Committee rooms unless the Chair determines otherwise. Quorum (b)(l) For the purpose of taking testimony and receiving evidence, two members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum. (2) A majority of the members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum for the purposes of reporting any measure or matter, of authorizing a subpoena, of closing a meeting or hearing pursuant to clause 2(g) of rule XI of the rules of the House (except as provided in clause 2(g)(2)(A) and (B)) or of releasing executive session material pursuant to clause 2(k)(7) of rule XI of the rules of the House. (3) For the purpose of taking any action other than those specified in paragraph (2) one-third of the members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum. Voting (c)(l) No vote may be conducted on any measure or matter pending before the Committee unless the requisite number of members of the Committee is actually present for such purpose. (2) A record vote of the Committee shall be provided on any question before the Committee upon the request of one-fifth of the members present. (3) No vote by any member of the Committee on any measure or matter may be cast by proxy. (4) In accordance with clause 2(e)(1)(B) of rule XI, a record of the vote of each member of the Committee on each record vote on any measure or matter before the Committee shall be available for public inspection at the offices of the Committee, and, with respect to any record vote on any motion to report or on any amendment, shall be included in the report of the Committee showing the total number of votes cast for and against and the names of those members voting for and against. (5) Postponed record votes.--(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the Chairman may postpone further proceedings when a record vote is ordered on the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment. The Chairman may resume proceedings on a postponed request at any time, but no later than the next meeting day. (B) In exercising postponement authority under subparagraph (A), the Chairman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to notify members on the resumption of proceedings on any postponed record vote; (C) When proceedings resume on a postponed question, notwithstanding any intervening order for the previous question, an underlying proposition shall remain subject to further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the question was postponed. Hearing Procedures (d)(1)(A) The Chair shall make public announcement of the date, place, and subject matter of any committee hearing at least one week before the commencement of the hearing, unless the Chair, with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, or the Committee by majority vote with a quorum present for the transaction of business, determines there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner, in which case the Chair shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. (B) Not less than three days before the commencement of a hearing announced under this paragraph, the Chair shall provide to the members of the Committee a concise summary of the subject of the hearing, or, in the case of a hearing on a measure or matter, a copy of the measure or materials relating to the matter in question and a concise explanation of the measure or matter to be considered. (2) To the greatest extent practicable-- (A) each witness who is to appear before the Committee shall file with the Committee two business days in advance of the appearance sufficient copies (including a copy in electronic form), as determined by the Chair, of a written statement of proposed testimony and shall limit the oral presentation to the Committee to brief summary thereof; and (B) each witness appearing in a non-governmental capacity shall include with the written statement of proposed testimony a curriculum vitae and a disclosure of the amount and source (by agency and program) of any Federal grant (or subgrant thereof) or contract (or subcontract thereof) received during the current fiscal year or either of the two preceding fiscal years. (3) The requirements of paragraph (2)(A) may be modified or waived by the Chair when the Chair determines it to be in the best interest of the Committee. (4) The five-minute rule shall be observed in the interrogation of witnesses before the Committee until each member of the Committee has had an opportunity to question the witnesses. No member shall be recognized for a second period of 5 minutes to interrogate witnesses until each member of the Committee present has been recognized once for that purpose. (5) Whenever any hearing is conducted by the Committee on any measure or matter, the minority party members of the Committee shall be entitled, upon the request of a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon. Subpoenas and Oaths (e)(l) Pursuant to clause 2(m) of rule XI of the Rules of the House, a subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Committee or a subcommittee in the conduct of any investigation or series of investigations or activities, only when authorized by a majority of the members voting, a majority being present, or pursuant to paragraph (2). (2) The Chair, with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, may authorize and issue subpoenas under such clause during any period for which the House has adjourned for a period in excess of 3 days when, in the opinion of the Chair, authorization and issuance of the subpoena is necessary to obtain the material or testimony set forth in the subpoena. The Chair shall report to the members of the Committee on the authorization and issuance of a subpoena during the recess period as soon as practicable, but in no event later than one week after service of such subpoena. (3) Authorized subpoenas shall be signed by the Chair or by any member designated by the Committee, and may be served by any person designated by the Chair or such member. (4) The Chair, or any member of the Committee designated by the Chair, may administer oaths to witnesses before the Committee. Special Procedures (f)(l)(A) Commemorative medals and coins.--It shall not be in order for the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology to hold a hearing on any commemorative medal or commemorative coin legislation unless the legislation is cosponsored by at least two-thirds of the members of the House. (B) It shall not be in order for the subcommittee to approve a bill or measure authorizing commemorative coins for consideration by the full Committee which does not conform with the mintage restrictions established by section 5112 of title 31, United States Code. (C) In considering legislation authorizing Congressional gold medals, the subcommittee shall apply the following standards-- (i) the recipient shall be a natural person; (ii) the recipient shall have performed an achievement that has an impact on American history and culture that is likely to be recognized as a major achievement in the recipient's field long after the achievement; (iii) the recipient shall not have received a medal previously for the same or substantially the same achievement; (iv) the recipient shall be living or, if deceased, shall have been deceased for not less than 5 years and not more than 25 years; (v) the achievements were performed in the recipient's field of endeavor, and represent either a lifetime of continuous superior achievements or a single achievement so significant that the recipient is recognized and acclaimed by others in the same field, as evidenced by the recipient having received the highest honors in the field. (2) Testimony of certain officials.-- (A) Notwithstanding subsection (a)(4), when the Chair announces a hearing of the Committee for the purpose of receiving-- (i) testimony from the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board pursuant to section 2B of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 221 et seq.), or (ii) testimony from the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board or a member of the President's cabinet at the invitation of the Chair, the Chair may, in consultation with the ranking minority member, limit the number and duration of opening statements to be delivered at such hearing. The limitation shall be included in the announcement made pursuant to subsection (d)(l)(A), and shall provide that the opening statements of all members of the Committee shall be made a part of the hearing record. (B) Notwithstanding subsection (a)(4), at any hearing of the Committee for the purpose of receiving testimony (other than testimony described in clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A)), the Chair may, in consultation with the ranking minority member, limit the duration of opening statements to ten minutes, to be divided between the Chair and Chair of the pertinent subcommittee, or the Chair's designee, and ten minutes, to be controlled by the ranking minority member, or his designee. Following such time, the duration for opening statements may be extended by either the Chair or ranking minority member for an additional ten minutes each, to be divided at the discretion of the Chair or ranking minority member. The Chair shall provide that the opening statements for all members of the Committee shall be made a part of the hearing record. (C) At any hearing of a subcommittee, the Chair of the subcommittee may, in consultation with the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, limit the duration of opening statements to ten minutes, to be divided between the majority and minority. Following such time, the duration for opening statements may be extended by either the Chair of the subcommittee or ranking minority member of the subcommittee for an additional ten minutes each, to be divided at the discretion of the Chair of the subcommittee or ranking minority member of the subcommittee. The Chair of the subcommittee shall ensure that opening statements for all members be made part of the hearing record. (D) If the Chair and ranking minority member acting jointly determine that extraordinary circumstances exist necessitating allowing members to make opening statements, subparagraphs (B) or (C), as the case may be, shall not apply to such hearing. Rule 4--Procedures for Reporting Measures or Matters (a) No measure or matter shall be reported from the Committee unless a majority of the Committee is actually present. (b) The Chair of the Committee shall report or cause to be reported promptly to the House any measure approved by the Committee and take necessary steps to bring a matter to a vote. (c) The report of the Committee on a measure which has been approved by the Committee shall be filed within seven calendar days (exclusive of days on which the House is not in session) after the day on which there has been flied with the clerk of the Committee a written request, signed by a majority of the members of the Committee, for the reporting of that measure pursuant to the provisions of clause 2(b)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House. (d) All reports printed by the Committee pursuant to a legislative study or investigation and not approved by a majority vote of the Committee shall contain the following disclaimer on the cover of such report: ``This report has not been officially adopted by the Committee on Financial Services and may not necessarily reflect the views of its Members.'' (e) The Chair is directed to offer a motion under clause 1 of rule XXII of the Rules of the House whenever the Chair considers it appropriate. Rule 5--Subcommittees Establishment and Responsibilities of Subcommittees (a)(1) There shall be 5 subcommittees of the Committee as follows: (A) Subcommittee on capital markets, insurance, and government sponsored enterprises.--The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises includes-- (i) securities, exchanges, and finance; (ii) capital markets activities, including business capital formation and venture capital; (iii) activities involving futures, forwards, options, and other types of derivative instruments; (iv) the Securities and Exchange Commission; (v) secondary market organizations for home mortgages, including the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, and the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation; (vi) the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight; (vii) the Federal Home Loan Banks; (viii) the Federal Housing Finance Board; (ix) terrorism risk insurance; and (x) insurance generally. (B) Subcommittee on domestic and international monetary policy, trade, and technology.--The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology includes-- (i) financial aid to all sectors and elements within the economy; (ii) economic growth and stabilization; (iii) defense production matters as contained in the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended; (iv) domestic monetary policy, and agencies which directly or indirectly affect domestic monetary policy, including the effect of such policy and other financial actions on interest rates, the allocation of credit, and the structure and functioning of domestic financial institutions; (v) coins, coinage, currency, and medals, including commemorative coins and medals, proof and mint sets and other special coins, the Coinage Act of 1965, gold and silver, including the coinage thereof (but not the par value of gold), gold medals, counterfeiting, currency denominations and design. the distribution of coins, and the operations of the Bureau of the Mint and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing; (vi) development of new or alternative forms of currency; (vii) multilateral development lending institutions, including activities of the National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Policies as related thereto, and monetary and financial developments as they relate to the activities and objectives of such institutions; (viii) international trade, including but not limited to the activities of the Export-Import Bank; (ix) the International Monetary Fund, its permanent and temporary agencies, and all matters related thereto; and (x) international investment policies, both as they relate to United States investments for trade purposes by citizens of the United States and investments made by all foreign entities in the United States. (C) Subcommittee on financial institutions and consumer credit.--The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit includes-- (i) all agencies, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve System, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the National Credit Union Administration, which directly or indirectly exercise supervisory or regulatory authority in connection with, or provide deposit insurance for, financial institutions, and the establishment of interest rate ceilings on deposits; (ii) the chartering, branching, merger, acquisition, consolidation, or conversion of financial institutions; (iii) consumer credit, including the provision of consumer credit by insurance companies, and further including those matters in the Consumer Credit Protection Act dealing with truth in lending, extortionate credit transactions, restrictions on garnishments, fair credit reporting and the use of credit information by credit bureaus and credit providers, equal credit opportunity, debt collection practices, and electronic funds transfers; (iv) creditor remedies and debtor defenses, Federal aspects of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code, credit and debit cards, and the preemption of State usury laws; (v) consumer access to financial services, including the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and the Community Reinvestment Act; (vi) the terms and rules of disclosure of financial services, including the advertisement, promotion and pricing of financial services, and availability of government check cashing services; (vii) deposit insurance; and (viii) consumer access to savings accounts and checking accounts in financial institutions, including lifeline banking and other consumer accounts. (D) Subcommittee on housing and community opportunity.--The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity includes-- (i) housing (except programs administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs), including mortgage and loan insurance pursuant to the National Housing Act; rural housing; housing and homeless assistance programs; all activities of the Government National Mortgage Association; private mortgage insurance; housing construction and design and safety standards; housing-related energy conservation; housing research and demonstration programs; financial and technical assistance for nonprofit housing sponsors; housing counseling and technical assistance; regulation of the housing industry (including landlord/tenant relations); and real estate lending including regulation of settlement procedures; (ii) community development and community and neighborhood planning, training and research; national urban growth policies; urban/rural research and technologies; and regulation of interstate land sales; (iii) government sponsored insurance programs, including those offering protection against crime, fire, flood (and related land use controls), earthquake and other natural hazards, but not including terrorism risk insurance; and (iv) the qualifications for and designation of Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities (other than matters relating to tax benefits). (E) Subcommittee on oversight and investigations.--The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations includes-- (i) the oversight of all agencies, departments, programs, and matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee, including the development of recommendations with regard to the necessity or desirability of enacting, changing, or repealing any legislation within the jurisdiction of the Committee, and for conducting investigations within such jurisdiction; and (ii) research and analysis regarding matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee, including the impact or probable impact of tax policies affecting matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee. (2) In addition, each such subcommittee shall have specific responsibility for such other measures or matters as the Chair refers to it. (3) Each subcommittee of the Committee shall review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration, execution, and effectiveness of those laws, or parts of laws, the subject matter of which is within its general responsibility. Referral of Measures and Matters to Subcommittees (b)(l) The Chair shall regularly refer to one or more subcommittees such measures and matters as the Chair deems appropriate given its jurisdiction and responsibilities. In making such a referral, the Chair may designate a subcommittee of primary jurisdiction and subcommittees of additional or sequential jurisdiction. (2) All other measures or matters shall be subject to consideration by the full Committee. (3) In referring any measure or matter to a subcommittee, the Chair may specify a date by which the subcommittee shall report thereon to the Committee. (4) The Committee by motion may discharge a subcommittee from consideration of any measure or matter referred to a subcommittee of the Committee. Composition of Subcommittees (c)(l) Members shall be elected to each subcommittee and to the positions of chair and ranking minority member thereof, in accordance with the rules of the respective party caucuses. The Chair of the Committee shall designate a member of the majority party on each subcommittee as its vice chair. (2) The Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee shall be ex officio members with voting privileges of each subcommittee of which they are not assigned as members and may be counted for purposes of establishing a quorum in such subcommittees. (3) The subcommittees shall be comprised as follows: (A) The Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises shall be comprised of 49 members, 26 elected by the majority caucus and 23 elected by the minority caucus. (B) The Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology shall be comprised of 26 members, 14 elected by the majority caucus and 12 elected by the minority caucus. (C) The Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit shall be comprised of 47 members, 25 elected by the majority caucus and 22 elected by the minority caucus. (D) The Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity shall be comprised of 26 members, 14 elected by the majority caucus and 12 elected by the minority caucus. (E) The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations shall be comprised of 20 members, 11 elected by the majority caucus and 9 elected by the minority caucus. Subcommittee Meetings and Hearings (d)(l) Each subcommittee of the Committee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, receive testimony, mark up legislation, and report to the full Committee on any measure or matter referred to it, consistent with subsection (a). (2) No subcommittee of the Committee may meet or hold a hearing at the same time as a meeting or hearing of the Committee. (3) The chair of each subcommittee shall set hearing and meeting dates only with the approval of the Chair with a view toward assuring the availability of meeting rooms and avoiding simultaneous scheduling of Committee and subcommittee meetings or hearings. Effect of a Vacancy (e) Any vacancy in the membership of a subcommittee shall not affect the power of the remaining members to execute the functions of the subcommittee as long as the required quorum is present. Records (f) Each subcommittee of the Committee shall provide the full Committee with copies of such records of votes taken in the subcommittee and such other records with respect to the subcommittee as the Chair deems necessary for the Committee to comply with all rules and regulations of the House. Rule 6--Staff In General (a) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the professional and other staff of the Committee shall be appointed, and may be removed by the Chair, and shall work under the general supervision and direction of the Chair. (2) All professional and other staff provided to the minority party members of the Committee shall be appointed, and may be removed, by the ranking minority member of the Committee, and shall work under the general supervision and direction of such member. (3) It is intended that the skills and experience of all members of the Committee staff be available to all members of the Committee. Subcommittee Staff (b) From funds made available for the appointment of staff, the Chair of the Committee shall, pursuant to clause 6(d) of rule X of the Rules of the House, ensure that sufficient staff is made available so that each subcommittee can carry out its responsibilities under the rules of the Committee and that the minority party is treated fairly in the appointment of such staff. Compensation of Staff (c)(l) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Chair shall fix the compensation of all professional and other staff of the Committee. (2) The ranking minority member shall fix the compensation of all professional and other staff provided to the minority party members of the Committee. Rule 7--Budget and Travel Budget (a)(l) The Chair, in consultation with other members of the Committee, shall prepare for each Congress a budget providing amounts for staff, necessary travel, investigation, and other expenses of the Committee and its subcommittees. (2) From the amount provided to the Committee in the primary expense resolution adopted by the House of Representatives, the Chair, after consultation with the ranking minority member, shall designate an amount to be under the direction of the ranking minority member for the compensation of the minority staff, travel expenses of minority members and staff, and minority office expenses. All expenses of minority members and staff shall be paid for out of the amount so set aside. Travel (b)(l) The Chair may authorize travel for any member and any staff member of the Committee in connection with activities or subject matters under the general jurisdiction of the Committee. Before such authorization is granted, there shall be submitted to the Chair in writing the following: (A) The purpose of the travel. (B) The dates during which the travel is to occur. (C) The names of the States or countries to be visited and the length of time to be spent in each. (D) The names of members and staff of the Committee for whom the authorization is sought. (2) Members and staff of the Committee shall make a written report to the Chair on any travel they have conducted under this subsection, including a description of their itinerary, expenses, and activities, and of pertinent information gained as a result of such travel. (3) Members and staff of the Committee performing authorized travel on official business shall be governed by applicable laws, resolutions, and regulations of the House and of the Committee on House Administration. Rule 8--Committee Administration Records (a) (1) There shall be a transcript made of each regular meeting and hearing of the Committee, and the transcript may be printed if the Chair decides it is appropriate or if a majority of the members of the Committee requests such printing. Any such transcripts shall be a substantially verbatim account of remarks actually made during the proceedings, subject only to technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections authorized by the person making the remarks. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require that all such transcripts be subject to correction and publication. (2) The Committee shall keep a record of all actions of the Committee and of its subcommittees. The record shall contain all information required by clause 2(e)(1) of rule XI of the Rules of the House and shall be available for public inspection at reasonable times in the offices of the Committee. (3) All Committee hearings, records, data, charts, and files shall be kept separate and distinct from the congressional office records of the Chair, shall be the property of the House, and all Members of the House shall have access thereto as provided in clause 2(e)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of the House. (4) The records of the Committee at the National Archives and Records Administration shall be made available for public use in accordance with rule VII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The Chair shall notify the ranking minority member of any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3) or clause 4(b) of the rule, to withhold a record otherwise available, and the matter shall be presented to the Committee for a determination on written request of any member of the Committee. Committee Publications on the Internet (b) To the maximum extent feasible, the Committee shall make its publications available in electronic form.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to give more flexibility to our municipalities. They are allowed to use Community Development Block Grant funds for cleaning up brownfields. By the way, I do want to comment for a minute on brownfields. We hear a great deal about public sector-private sector, and I believe that people have unwisely seen this as if there was an opposition. In fact, we need to cooperate, and I particularly here want to call attention to an aspect of this bill that is relevant to those who tend to see the private sector as the fountain of all benefits and the public sector as somehow a source of negative activity. What we are doing here is giving local governments the right to use Federal money to clean up messes that were left behind by the private sector. Brownfields overwhelmingly are the result of industrial activity that was once profitable and no longer is. That doesn't mean that the people that did it were bad people, necessarily. It does mean given the change in economics, private sector entities walked away in many cases and left the public sector responsible for these cleanups. What we are doing here is giving more flexibility to local communities so that they don't have to take out a section 108 loan, which can tie up their Community Development Block Grant funds for a long time. It does give in to local judgment. I do want to note one very important point that the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, has stressed, and a point on which I am in complete agreement with him, namely that the funding flexibility here should be for brownfields, not for Superfund sites. In the Superfund situation, we have provisions for those who polluted to have to pay in to cleaning up the messes they left behind. We do not want the brownfields money here to be used in any way to diminish that liability. So I very much agree with the point that was made by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). In fact, when we sent this bill previously to the Senate, they removed the restriction that we had put in there that would have prevented this from happening, and we then would not pass the bill. We will send this again to the Senate and we hope they will accept that this is for brownfields, it is not for Superfund. It should be used in this very strict way so as to not become a substitute for private contributions that ought to be coming. If we limit this to CDBG money for the brownfields situation, we will be doing it right. This bill is entitled the Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act. We want moneys that are freed up here to be used only for that purpose. Mr. Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 644) to facilitate the provision of assistance by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the cleanup and economic redevelopment of brownfields.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Financial Services have until midnight on Friday, February 23, 2007 to file a report on H.R. 556.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we have just heard a great example of an important form of political debate. The Republicans specialize in this. It is kind of political necrophilia. There is this love of dead Democrats among many Republicans. Democrats who, when they were alive were trashed by the right wing, once they are dead and safely no longer possibly candidates for office, get lionized. Nothing of course shows that better than with Harry Truman, but it is John Kennedy, and it is others. The assertion that the Democrats who are supporting this resolution, and the unspoken Republicans who will be joining with us, that we somehow oppose the use of force is terrible history. It is wrong. In fact, the most recent entirely successful use of military force by the United States came from a Democratic President, Bill Clinton--he's still alive, so don't say good things about him--and supported by Democrats in Congress, and it was opposed by many of the Republicans, including many of the current Republican leadership. Under Bill Clinton, American military forces were used quite successfully; and the result is not perfection but a much better situation in the former Yugoslavia than we had before. And the Republicans brought forth, guess what, nonbinding resolutions. Now, they pretend to be upset about nonbinding resolutions. Frankly, I was a little encouraged when I heard the Bush administration criticize nonbinding resolutions, because, up till now, I had thought that Bush and Cheney thought that everything we did was nonbinding with regard to national security. So they were at least implicitly conceding that some things can be binding. But the fact is that the Democrats strongly supported--I didn't mean to make it partisan, they did--the effort in Yugoslavia over Republican opposition. And then let's talk about terrorists. We were attacked in 9/11 from Afghanistan and overwhelmingly, with only one exception, Democrats in the House and Senate supported the war in Afghanistan. We are continuing to support that war in Afghanistan. I am critical of an administration which has diverted military resources and energy and political resources from Afghanistan. They are weakening the number one fight against terrorism, which is in Afghanistan. And that is one of the reasons for opposing this war in Iraq. Now, the war in Iraq has been, in my judgment, the greatest national security disaster in America history. And it isn't one in which we got sucked in and had to defend ourselves. It was an entirely voluntary error. This administration unwisely went into Iraq on inaccurate grounds; and not only did they make the wrong war, they have been disastrously wrong in virtually every decision. So the question now is, are we doing more good than harm to the causes we care about? I believe, in fact, that fighting terrorism, fighting extremism, fighting that particularly radical fundamentalist form of Islam, not all Islam, obviously, by all means, that that is weakened by our being in Iraq. It has clearly weakened our effort in Afghanistan. The commanders in Afghanistan beg for more troops, and instead they go uselessly to Iraq, uselessly not because of the lack of capacity of the fighting people but because they are condemned to fight in a very mistaken strategy. It has emboldened radicals elsewhere. This administration predicted that our overthrowing Saddam Hussein would strengthen the forces of moderation. In fact, it has weakened them. Let's remember that when America invaded Afghanistan with the overwhelming support of both parties and the united support of this country, we were popular in the world. We mobilized the world. And since that time came the invasion of Iraq. And because of the mistaken decision and the poor way in which it is carried out, I do not think there has been a time in recent history when America has been less able to accomplish in the world the things we want to accomplish. So then the question is, okay, but isn't this escalation going to change that? There is zero reason to think that. First, we are told this is what the administration says. If ever any group of people forfeited their right to be listened to, it is the collection of people who have shown an aggressive incompetence with regard to Iraq. Can anyone think of a single decision from the invasion forward that has been correct, that has been borne out by events? So why do you take people who have been wrong about everything, wrong about the politics, wrong about the military situation, wrong about the economy, and then you say, oh, but this time we think they got it right. Maybe it is the theory of random occurrences, that people, having been wrong so often and so consistently, they are owed one. But that is not a basis on which we ought to be making a decision. This war in Iraq continues to hurt rather than help our efforts overall. If I thought we were doing some good there, then it would be a different story. But the causes of the disaster, in addition to the rampant incompetence of this administration at virtually all levels, the cause of the disaster is internal, it is ethnic and political and a whole range of other things within Iraq. It is not a lack of American firepower. So to try to resolve this disaster by taking the advice of people who created the disaster and have been wrong about it would be a terrible error, and I hope the resolution passes.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman from California wants to claim Iraq as a success, he is entitled to do that. I must say that the initial victory was a very deceptive one, because it led to the current situation. But the biggest difference between us, I guess, is when he cites Lebanon as one of the successful ripples, as he says. In fact, the terrible tragedy that went on in Lebanon that was initially something that was promising, we have had that war with Hezbollah in control in Israel, I think Lebanon is a further sad example of the extent to which this misguided and badly run operation in Iraq has sadly strengthened the most radical and anti-American forces in the Middle East, not weaken them.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Does the gentleman consider Lebanon or Syria free today?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield to me 15 seconds to respond?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam. Speaker, in the February 14 edition of Roll Call, one of the most accomplished authorities on the workings of Congress pays a heartfelt and well-deserved tribute to another authority on our workings--Nelson Polsby. Sadly, Nelson Polsby died recently. He was an extraordinary intellect, who paid this institution the enormous compliment of taking it very seriously and helping both the general public and those of us who serve here understand our workings. Norman Ornstein was a colleague of Nelson Polsby in this important work, and in today's edition of Roll Call, in a few short paragraphs, he does a great deal to capture the essence of Nelson Polsby and to help people understand why so many of us will miss him. Madam Speaker, self knowledge is always important, and I ask that Mr. Ornstein's words be inserted here, both in tribute to one of the great scholars of our time, and in the hope that Members of Congress will, if they have not already done so, discover the works of Nelson Polsby and learn from them. A Friend Lost Three topics of discussion this week beginning with this: Congress lost a true friend and one of the all-time great scholars of its history and dynamics last week with the death of Nelson Polsby. Polsby was a larger-than-life figure in every respect (The Times in London, in its wonderful obituary, described him as ``a mountain of a man; he looked like an American footballer gone to seed.'') His imposing physical presence was matched by an even more imposing intellect. His tongue, and pen, could be withering, but legions of students and colleagues, me included, could not have a better friend and mentor. Polsby's scholarship spanned many areas, but Congress was his true love and the subject of his best work. His article ``The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives'' is among the most cited scholarly pieces ever published in the American Political Science Review. His last book, ``How Congress Evolves: Social Bases of Institutional Change,'' is typically elegant and deep, a huge contribution to the scholarly literature but written so that a nonprofessional reader can learn mightily from its insights. It is a must-read for every Member of Congress who wants to understand his or her institution in a historical and political context--which should be every Member of Congress.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, last week, several of my colleagues and I memorialized the life and record of the late Father Robert Drinan, one of the most distinguished people to have served in this body. Father Drinan's political career began in 1970 when he ran for Congress as an opponent of American participation in the Vietnam War. He was a consistent fighter for peace throughout his life. When I returned to my district last weekend, I received from Father Drinan's sister-in-law, Helen Drinan, a woman who played a very important role in nurturing his political career, a copy of a letter she had received that meant a great deal to her and the Drinan family. The letter is from the Vietnamese Ambassador to the United States, hailing Father Drinan ``as a tenacious advocate for social justice and a resilient fighter for peace.'' Madam Speaker, I ask that this letter from the Government of Vietnam to the Drinan family be printed here. Embassy of Vietnam, Washington, DC, January 31, 2007. Mrs. Helen Drinan, Newton, MA. Dear Mrs. Drinan, On behalf of the people and Government of Vietnam, I would like to extend the most profound condolences to you and to your family on the passing of your brother-in- law, Father and Congressman Robert F. Drinan. Father Robert F. Drinan will be always remembered by many as a tenacious advocate for social justice and a resilient fighter for peace. For the Vietnamese people, he will remain a staunch fighter who made significant contribution to ending to the Vietnam War in the 1970s, thus bringing peace to the country after so many decades of wars. May your family overcome this most difficult time. Respectfully, Nguyen Tam Chien, Ambassador.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate the gentleman mentioning me. I just want to explain, I hadn't really expected to be here, but as I was walking by, I thought I heard someone yelling, The plane, boss, the plane, and I wanted to come in and see what was happening.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank my colleague. And I would now recognize another colleague who is carrying on very much that work. The gentleman from Massachusetts who just spoke alluded to Father Drinan's role in Central America, and our next speaker is a man who along with our late colleague Joe Moakley played a very important role in carrying forward that work of bringing people to justice which had begun with Father Drinan. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman. Let me call on another of Father Drinan's former students who now serves on the committee where Father Drinan did such good work, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise with a sad duty, although also a proud one. It is a chance for our colleagues to mourn the death and celebrate the life of one of the ablest and most principled people ever to serve as a Member of this body, the late Father Robert Drinan. Madam Speaker, I will include for the Record of these proceedings the eulogies that were given at his funeral mass last Thursday by two of his fellow Jesuits, the Reverend John Langan and Professor Ladislas Orsy; by John DeGioia, the President of Georgetown University, where he taught for so many years; by our colleague Senator Edward Kennedy; and by former Ambassador Max Kampelman. The Speaker also gave a eulogy, which she herself inserted in the Record. Madam Speaker, Bob Drinan was an extraordinary man. He had several careers, any one of which would have been extremely impressive. He was a Member of this body for only 10 years. By Congressional standards, that is not a long career, and many people are surprised to learn it was only 10 years, because his impact on this body and through this body, this country and this world was so significant. He was a man of such force of intellect and strength of character and energy and determination that he made 10 years here do more than many do in 30 or more years. He was a prolific author of serious and thoughtful books. As I said in Massachusetts on Saturday, Father Drinan wrote more books than some high officials in this town have ever read. He was a very distinguished educator. Had he been nothing but the Dean of Boston College Law School, and two of our colleagues who attended that law school during his deanship, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey and the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, will be addressing us soon, had he simply been that dean for 16 years when he helped make that into the first rate educational institution it is today, that would have been a significant career. Then on leaving this place, he spent 26 years teaching at Georgetown. At 86, Bob Drinan was a vigorous and engaging teacher who was widely sought after by students interested in the intellectual stimulation that they got from him. Now, with all of this, he was, of course, a Jesuit priest, and it was striking to me last Thursday here in Washington, Saturday at Boston College, to see the justifiable pride that his fellow Jesuits had in this man. And not just their pride in him, but their pride and gratitude that he remained first and foremost a member of that Jesuit community, an extra community of people who have made such contributions to education and other important causes in this country. But what was particularly striking was the gap between the immensity of his accomplishments, the dignity of his intellect and his person. No one was ever less inclined to stand on ceremony. He was a down-to-earth individual. People who met him, and simply met him without knowing who he was, although that became increasingly harder as his fame grew, would be surprised to learn that he was a man of such accomplishments. He was a delight to be with. He was one of the most irreverent reverends you will ever meet, and did not need ceremony, did not need any kind of false dignity. He had the talents. What I want to talk about now is the common theme in that multiplicity of careers, of teacher and law school dean and Member of Congress and priest and author. We have a lot of debate in our society and American politics about morality in politics, what is the role of morality in politics, and there are some who style themselves as very religious, who believe that they are the exemplars of morality in politics and who have been critical of people like Father Drinan and said that he failed in that task. Absolutely the contrary is true. Father Drinan's life was dedicated to public morality. Few people worked as consistently and effectively to bring a moral tone to the relationships we have with each other. Now, people have said, ``well, what about on some of these individual matters?'' Let's be very clear. This is a man who lived by an extraordinary exacting moral code personally. He was a priest. He was a priest for over 60 years and a member of the Jesuit community. As a Member of Congress, he served the Jesuit community in Georgetown. When he went back to his district, it was the Jesuit community at Boston College. He voluntarily subjected himself to the very stringent discipline that the Jesuit community and priests in general follow. In 1980, when he was ordered by Pope John Paul II not to run again for Congress, that was a decision that caused him great anguish. It denied him the chance to do something that he thought was terribly important to his very being, and he wished that he could reverse the decision. But when it became clear that that decision could not be reversed, there was no hesitation. People who want to talk about living by a moral code should look at the example of this very important Member of Congress with great accomplishments behind him who voluntarily left this body because the moral code of the priesthood to which he had committed himself required him to do that. So in his personal life, he lived by the code of celibacy and of obedience and of poverty. And it was a voluntary decision, and anyone who knew him knew that he had talents which would have allowed him to break those bonds, but he didn't see them as bonds, he saw them as an essential part of his being. So for those who wonder about his dedication and personal morality, look at his life. Look at this man, who at 86 awoke 10 days ago feeling ill, feeling very sick, and ignored the advice of others to stay home and went to class to teach at 86 and collapsed in class, because he had a sense of duty and an insistence on living by that personal code that no one could deny. On the other hand, he did not believe, and I do not claim that this is something he told me, he was a man who taught in his life by example as well as articulately. As the Speaker said in her eulogy, he quoted Saint Francis of Assisi, who said, ``Preach the gospel, and sometimes use words,'' and Bob Drinan preached the gospel by his life and his life's work very effectively. I believe that his view was that, yes, he was happy to follow a stringent moral code personally that few human beings would be able to do with the dedication and discipline that he did for as long as he did, but he also felt that that was his personal choice. It was a choice that he would urge on others. He was a member of that important religious community, and through that religious community, yes, he would convey that message. But he did not believe, and this is what is critical, that it was legitimate to use the coercive mechanism of government to impose his personal choices on others, and that is the distinction that Father Drinan stands for. In those matters of life where we affect each other, where human beings come together and impact each other, than morality must guide our actions. I would caution many of my liberal friends who say, well, we don't want to have morality in politics, because they are reacting against people who would use the government to impose personal choices on others. That is not morality, and the problem there is not that they are imposing morality in politics, but that they are intruding politics into personal lives. What Father Drinan stood for in his writings, as a Member of Congress, as an activist, as an advocate, as a teacher, was that in those areas of life where we come together and affect each other, we are obligated to follow a moral code, and that is a moral code which focused on the dignity of human beings and the right of every human being to be treated decently, because that was the common core of Bob Drinan. What issues did he care about? He cared most about those issues where there was a danger that some people would be mistreated. In the fifties and sixties, he was the leader in the fight against racism and for racial justice, one of the great examples of wrongdoing in American history, of people of African descent being mistreated. Bob was a leader in the civil rights movement. He was a great civil libertarian, opposing efforts to oppress people who spoke in terms that other people did not like. He was a great defender of the Jewish community, against anti- Semitism. He then became the founder, more than any other individual, of the doctrine of international human rights. Before the seventies, there were people on the left who criticized governments on the right for not respecting human rights. There were people on the right who criticized left governments for not following human rights. Bob Drinan was one of those who forged the doctrine that we could demand respect by any government of any political stripe, that they respect the rights of individuals, and he was a leader in his writings and his work here in the Congress. That was the central core, whether it was racism or anti-Semitism, whether it was governments denying people basic rights, whether it was our own government denying the rights of our own citizens in the name of security. He was a very good lawyer. In fact, in the seventies, he was working hard on rewriting a criminal code which some of the people on the left thought was too tough, because he understood that people had a right to be protected against those who would violate their rights and property. But he also believed deeply from his experience that there was no need for the government to disregard basic human rights in protecting all of us, and there were no more articulate defenders of that principle. When he stood up against Richard Nixon, it was because of his conviction that the Nixon administration was defying fundamental human rights, a conviction which, of course, proved to be absolutely true. That is the common thread. And Bob Drinan believed, and this is very important I think to note, that it was as a priest that he wrote, as a priest that he served here, as a priest that he advocated for human rights, because he genuinely believed that in his insistence that we treat each other with the dignity that human beings are entitled to, he was following the word of his God as he understood it, a God that created in his mind human beings with this inherent dignity. So this is a man whose life had many parts, but they had a common theme. They had a common theme, whether it was in his religion or his politics or his writing or his teaching. It was that we owe each other the duty of respect and dignity. And, yes, morality belongs in politics, and Bob Drinan's life, both as a Member of Congress, as a political activist afterwards, yes, it was dedicated to morality in politics. He was a man who understood that there is no greater political immorality than an unjust war; that nothing more greatly degrades human beings than wars which violate the doctrine of the just war. And he came to this Congress as a leading opponent of the Vietnam War at a time when it was not the most popular thing, and up until his last days he was a leader in agitation against another unjust war as he saw it. So I am very proud to be the inheritor of that tradition. I do not claim to exemplify all aspects of it. But I do share with him this commitment, that people have a right to make personal choices; that your personal choices ought to be guided by a moral code; and that we ought to urge on each other that we bring out the best. But that when it comes to using the coercive mechanisms of the government, the central point is to make sure that people are treated fairly by each other, that the role of morality in politics is to enforce the fundamental right of each person to be treated with dignity and respect. Bob Drinan was an exemplar of what is appropriately morality in politics. We will miss him terribly, but we have, enduring, his example to drive us forward. Now, Madam Speaker, I want to yield to one of my colleagues, who is the only member of the Massachusetts delegation who was able to serve with Bob Drinan, one of the few Members who served with him and who has the dual distinction of both serving with him and being his student at Boston Law School and is a man who very much carried out the ethic of respect for human rights that Bob exemplified. The gentleman from Massachusetts, I yield him such time as he may consume.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate the indulgence of the House; I appreciate the Members who spoke and submitted information and material for this Record. Mr. Speaker, I submit for printing in the Record the eulogies for Father Robert Drinan referred to previously. St. Aloysius Church, Washington DC, February 1, 2007. Homily for the Funeral of Robert Drinan, S.J. (By John Langan, S.J.) John XXIII, in his great encyclical, Pacem in terris (1963), which was written exactly halfway through the course of Robert Drinan's life, has a passage which puts before us an important goal, the vision of a society of citizens exercising and claiming rights: It is agreed that in our time the common good is chiefly guaranteed when personal rights and duties are maintained. . . If any government does not acknowledge the rights of man or violates them, it not only fails in its duty, but its order completely lack juridical force.'' Pacem in terris (60-61) A society built on the practice of rights is not so sweetly transcendent as the holy mountain of feasting and joy which Isaiah summons up for us; it is not so intimately and delicately responsive as the virtue of charity or agape which St. Paul commends to us. But it is essential to the realization of the common good in a world which is marked by enormous human diversity and intermittently intense social conflict. It is a reality which protects those of us who are neither beasts nor angels from our own worst impulses and from the harms which others would do to us. It is the not the realm of the best but of the imperfect good and the necessary. It has been the favored realm of Anglo-American jurisprudence and a refuge for those who suffered from brutal and destructive social experiments carried on in the name of ideology and religion. It is a realm which Robert Drinan, as a distinguished American lawyer and professor of law, and John Courtney Murray, the great American theologian, valued and commended to other Catholics, especially for its affirmation of religious liberty. It is a realm of ideas which has enabled Catholicism to flourish in this country and which has taught Catholicism important lessons about the theory and practice of human rights, a cause to which Bob Drinan devoted enormous amounts of his apparently inexhaustible energy and many years of that life whose end we now mourn. It is a realm which always needs to be defended, but especially in times of fear and uncertainty when false prophets would persuade us that the magnitude of some threat justifies the overriding of those rights which constitute the core of our liberty. It is a realm which we as Americans have been anxious to extend, perhaps even beyond the limits of our capabilities. In taking up the causes of South African victims of apartheid, of Soviet Jews, of the disenfranchised in Central America and the disappeared in the Southern Cone, and of the Muslims of Darfur, and in arguing for effective judicial protection for universal human rights, our friend Robert was preaching the same values and ways of thinking as he did in opposing segregation and capital punishment and protecting civil liberties in this country. For the most part, his advocacy of human rights harmonized with the social and moral teaching of the Catholic church. But it must be acknowledged that on the immensely painful subject of abortion there was sharp conflict, a conflict which I wish neither to minimize nor to revisit but only to put into a larger context of common concern for the well- being of women and children in a society wracked by moral disagreement. This point also reminds us that the notion of human rights is not transparent in its content but is often used to express profound conflicts in a common legal language. It is not what Bob would call a MIGA, it does not ``make it go away.'' In the matter of abortion, it is important to remember that a decisive point of disagreement for many Catholic politicians is about the appropriate limits of state action and about the attainability of a stable democratic consensus on a matter on which the major religious and philosophical traditions reach conflicting conclusions, not about the moral issue in itself or about Catholic teaching. The shape of legislation can be a matter for prudential disagreement, not an issue of faithfulness. Three years after Bob began his career in Congress, Roe v. Wade turned abortion from a contested legal issue to a divisive political issue. This he had to live through, for in addition to being an advocate for human rights, he was also a practicing politician. This, in combination with his priesthood, was the feature of his life which most attracted the attention of the media and the general public. It was also what made him particularly significant to his colleagues; for here was a moral and religious leader who was ready to walk the walk and talk the talk of politics with them. In fact, it became clear to everyone that he enjoyed doing so and that he was very good at it. In listening to comments from various of Bob's colleagues over the years, I heard a gratitude and a pride which arose from the fact that he as a priest was ready to work alongside them in the demanding though often derided task of legislation in a modern democracy. This is an indispensable and noble contribution to our common life, a vocation in itself. Bob had the vision and the grace to combine two difficult vocations in a way which strengthened the commitment and the morale of his colleagues. His ability to do this was a consequence of the fact that he lived what he was doing as the work of justice, not merely the ambitious pursuit of a career. The contribution which he made as a priest in politics was a suitable prelude to the work of his later years in promoting the study of legal ethics and in founding the Journal of Legal Ethics here at the Georgetown University Law Center. Events of the last twenty years have presented a series of disillusioning crises which have created widespread public demands for reform of the profession and a continuing need for careful scholarship and prudent judgment. This was a work in which Bob could find a happy convergence of his professional and priestly roles. It also provided an academic and professional counterpart to the concern he always had for the growth and the well being of those aides whom he called his ``minions'' and whom he enjoyed for the generous energy which they brought to political life. This energy was, of course, their imitation of and response to his own enormous energy and sharpness of focus. If Robert Drinan, was like Christ and all Christians, a grain of wheat destined to fall into the earth and die, as today's Gospel reminds us, he has born much fruit in those supporters and aides and in the generations of students who cherished him as one of the most remarkable teachers they ever had and who have been filling up the web page at the Law Center with testimony to his impact and his dedication. But the underlying unity of the incredible amount of work he did as teacher, writer, speaker, political leader was his commitment to his identity as a member of the Society of Jesus and as a Catholic priest. When he was confronted with a very stark and public choice, he made it clear what his own priorities were. This may have puzzled and pained many of his friends and colleagues, but it made it clear that his commitment to the work of justice in the law and in politics was truly an expression of his response to the love of God, a response which affirmed that love and justice are indeed bound together, but that neither requires a particular office or role, that at the center of his being he would be God's faithful servant first, last, and always and that this meant he would continue to be a very American, very pragmatic idealist, an advocate of the society of right in which the work of justice still needed the dedication and guidance of one who would remain priest and prophet. I do not know what purgatory will be like for Bob. He would dismiss any form of physical suffering or infirmity as a trivial restraint on the desire of his heart for the good and an empty distraction from the important work to be done, as he did in the year before his death. I surmise that the central part of his purgatory will be accepting that he has indeed arrived in a jurisdiction where justice can be attained without lawyers and where the administration is reliably good and beyond impeachment. But I cannot imagine that this will be a long or traumatic episode. Through his eighty-six years he learned much and gave much to his students, is colleagues, his country, and to his community of vocation and choice, the Society of Jesus. As a result, so many of us mourn him and look to him as an iconic and exemplary figure, a man in whom the religious and political issues of our age came together fruitfully, if not always happily. We salute a life well lived for the good of others. We recognize a Catholic son of New England, who learned Protestant virtues and institutions and who came to share Jewish joys and sorrows, and who in consequence became more comprehensively Catholic and more universally human. We give thanks for a man of talent who seized opportunities to serve and a man of peace who was not afraid of conflict. We give praise for a friend who gave generously of his time and his knowledge to so many of us even while he remained splendidly and eccentrically himself. But in this task of capturing Bob's special union of the vitally personal and the universally good, the deeply Christian and the proudly American, I will give the last and best word to our fellow Jesuit, Gerard Manley Hopkins, who wrote in 1881 this sonnet: ``As kingfishers catch fire, dragonflies draw flame; As tumbled over rim in roundy wells Stones ring; like each tucked string sells, each hung bell's Bow swung finds tongue to fling out broad its name; Each mortal thing does one thing and the same: Deals out that being indoors each one dwells; Selves--goes itself; myself it speaks and spells, Crying What I do is me: for that I came. I say more: the just man justices; Keeps grace: that keeps all his goings graces; Acts in God's eye what in God's eye he is-- Christ--for Christ plays in ten thousand places, Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his To the Father through the features of men's faces.'' So we salute a man who has challenged our judgments of what is truly important, who has given a superlative example of generous service, and who never rested from his desire to do the work of justice. As he said to me in what turned out to be our final conversation, ``I do not rest in the daytime.'' He goes on one final trip back to the district, where he will finally rest with his brother Jesuits in New England. We pray--may God be with you, Bob, and may God be with us as we take up our share in the great work. For, as Congressman Hoyer reminded us the other day of the motto above the Speaker's Rostrum in the House, where Bob spent his happiest and richest years, ``In God We Trust.''

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentlewoman. As I summarize, let me say I think there is a common theme here. We have discussion again about the global morality of politics, and the role of morality in our lives. Father Robert Drinan exemplified that. In his personal life for over 60 years a priest, he gave the exemplary disciplined life that he chose as a priest and adhered to a code of personal morality that very few human beings achieve with a dedication and a belief. At the same time, he recognized that the personal moral choices he made as a priest, and that he urged others to make, were those personal choices and voluntary choices, and he understood the difference in the scope of governance. He understood that there is a private morality and a public morality. Not that they are in conflict, but that they cover different spheres, and where human beings interact with each other, it is required that government set the rules. He was a man who did as much to make sure that those interactions were governed by a set of moral principles founded on what was for him a fundamental religious belief and the dignity of man, and in his side- by-side example of a strict code of personal morality, which he followed as a matter of choice, and his insistence that government, when it became coercive, followed the morality of recognizing the dignity of all human beings, he helped us, if, when we listen and read the lesson of his life, to understand what for some people is a difficult decision.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I think the gentlewoman would agree that he was confident there would not have been much daylight between our voting records. So he could do either one.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman, and finally, very appropriately, a colleague of Father Drinan's in the fight against racism on the central, moral fights then and now in this country, the delegate from the District of Columbia, a woman who prior to coming here was a leader, as she still is, in the movement against racism and for civil rights, and in that capacity, worked very closely then and later with Father Drinan who paid her the ultimate political tribute I think of becoming her constituent. Although I think he was still voting absentee up in my district, I will tell the gentlewoman, but you had his body. I had his vote. It was a good trade. I recognize now the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order tonight.