Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his contribution, and now let me call on another member of the Massachusetts delegation who did not serve with Father Drinan here, but has provided very important service to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the State legislature as a leader during the time that Father Drinan was here and another one who carries on in that tradition, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, when I hear some of my Republican colleagues leap to the defense of section 8, I can only compare that to learning that Ahmadinejad had applied for membership in B'nai Brith. We have been trying to defend section 8 against assault for some time. One form of the assault has been formulaic rules that prevent all of the money that is appropriated from being spent. Because there is a lot of support for section 8, the administration has been unhappy when we have voted here more money than they have asked for. So they have had a series of formulaic restrictions that keep us from getting it all spent. I will note, by the way, that the particular change here that the committee has recommended is supported by the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, and the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association. That is, all of those who administer section 8 through their organizations endorse it. Here is the way it has worked. There were formulas put in there that kept some agencies from spending money which they received. That is, many agencies were given money that could not be spent and had not been spent that came out of the hide of agencies that needed to spend more. What this bill does is to make sure that every appropriation is spent; and as to those agencies that might be losing an allocation, in every case they are losing money that they had not been able to spend because they did not have the legal authority to do it. This bill guarantees, and we will be here to make good on that guarantee, that any agencies that can say, well, we are not getting the same allocation that we got before, they will have reserves available to them on which they can draw. So we can guarantee that no one will be unable to serve everyone they are now serving. What it does mean is that money which this formula has prevented from being spent in some agencies will now be spent. We will not give some agencies more than they can spend and some less. We will even it out. And I stress again that the reserves will be available, and that is why every one of the agencies in this country that spends money on section 8, all of the public housing authorities have explicitly supported this particular change. Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, Washington, DC, January 31, 2007. Hon. David Obey, Chairman, House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Council of Large Public Housing Authorities (CLPHA) represents 60 of the nation's largest housing authorities that own and manage 40 percent of the nation's public housing and administer over 30 percent of the Housing Choice Voucher program. We are writing to support the FY 2007 Joint Resolution in the House of Representatives. CLPHA greatly appreciates the inclusion of an additional $300 million for Public Housing Operating Fund in the legislation and the $487 million increase in the Housing Choice Voucher account. The increase in operating funds is a good start in addressing the chronic under-funding of public housing programs. Public housing is still significantly under-funded and we look forward to working with Congress to provide full funding for public housing. CLPHA commends the House for unraveling the complicated and inefficient funding system HUD has imposed on housing authorities since 2004. By adopting a formula. that bases funding on the most recent 12 months of leasing and cost data the House action will guarantee funding for all vouchers in use. The increase in funds, combined with the change in how these funds are distributed ensure that housing authorities do not have to reduce the number of families they currently serve. However, in order to effectively transition to this new formula, housing authorities need access to currently allocated funds to help them to offset losses and to increase leasing levels in their communities. Congress must protect these funds and prohibit HUD from recapturing them for either punitive reasons or to meet a rescission target. Thank you again for supporting public and assisted housing programs. We look forward to working with you on these most important issues. Sincerely, Sunia Zaterman, Executive Director.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, earlier this session I inserted into the Record a cogent editorial from the Boston Globe calling for the dismissal of Deputy Assistant Secretary Charles Stimson, who outrageously urged corporations in America to boycott attorneys who performed their duty as lawyers in defending people accused of violating the law who were incarcerated in Guantanamo. While Mr. Stimson has since been forced to apologize, the apology was an entirely unconvincing one, in which he claimed not to have meant what he clearly said. A recent article in The Washington Post by the very able writer Richard Cohen correctly questions the apology, makes clear once again how wildly outrageous Mr. Stimson's comments were, and concludes correctly that ``his words show that he is unfit for government service. . .'' I ask that Mr. Cohen's thoughtful column be printed here because it is our responsibility as elected officials to continue to protest Mr. Stimson's presence in our Government, particularly in a position where he should be advocating policies exactly the opposite of his call for the boycott of conscientious and courageous attorneys. Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Indefensible (By Richard Cohen) ``On the cold moonlit evening of March 5, 1770,'' writes David McCullough in his magisterial ``John Adams,'' ``the streets of Boston were covered by nearly a foot of snow.'' A crowd set upon a lone British sentry at Boston's Province House, taunting him. Quickly, reinforcements arrived, and so did a larger crowd. Soon the crowd hurled snowballs, chunks of ice, oyster shells and stones. The soldiers, now nine, opened fire, killing five Bostonians--``bloody butchery,'' Samuel Adams called it. Only one lawyer would defend the British soldiers. He was a different Adams--John Adams, a good man on the path to being great. I resurrect this tale about Adams because it is sorely needed. Just this month, an official in the Bush administration, a deputy assistant secretary of defense named Charles D. Stimson, suggested that lawyers who defend terrorism suspects being held at Guantanamo not only should not do so but that their firms ought to be blackballed as a result. ``I think, quite honestly, when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms,'' he said in a radio interview. You may want to read that again. It's hard to know where to begin. Shall it be with the notion that the Sept. 11 terrorists did not so much murder about 3,000 people as hit the ``bottom line'' of American corporations? This is a stunningly original take on that awful day, an auditor's reading of history that Stimson, in the spare time he deserves to have in abundance, might want to apply to the bombing of Pearl Harbor or the burning of Atlanta. I doubt that any CEO look at Sept. 11 as a bad day at the office. More to the point, what sort of lawyer--and Stimson is one--not only thinks that a terrorism suspect does not deserve counsel but that the counsel ought to be punished as a result? It's hard to fathom a lawyer saying such a thing-- even hard to fathom it from a mere citizen. It would be just a waste of my time, I suppose, to point out that the Guantanamo suspects are just suspects, convicted so far of nothing. In fact, some of them have been released and others, arrested and held elsewhere, turned out to not be the mass murderers and master criminals the government, in a fit of hype, originally accused them of being. Anyone who thinks all prosecutors speak nothing but the truth need only familiarize themselves with the case of the lacrosse players at Duke. There's a sad lesson in American jurisprudence for you. Naturally enough, Stimson's repudiation of everything John Adams stood for produced some protest, condemnation and outrage. Following the well-established Washington rule, Stimson apologized, doing so in a letter to The Post. He said his remarks did not reflect his ``core beliefs.'' He did not blame his utterance on drugs, booze, Twinkies or a deep depression; he merely said that his words had left the wrong ``impression.'' With that, he has returned to the obscurity from whence he came, his job presumably secure. I, for one, do not accept Stimson's apology. I think it is insincerely offered and beside the point. What matters most is that he retains his job, which means he retains the confidence of his superiors in the government. How anyone can have confidence in such a man is beyond me. There are only two explanations, one inexcusable, the other chilling. The first is that his bosses don't care. The second is that they agree with him. I would guess that Stimson strongly felt it was No. 2-- agreement. From the get-go, the Bush administration has taken the position that anyone it detained on terrorism charges was guilty. Throw away the key. No need for lawyers. No need for judges. No need for anything except, of course, the word of the authorities. In recent months, a more assertive Congress and the courts have unaccountably challenged this view, and the Bush administration has beaten a tactical retreat on unchecked eavesdropping and the legality of trying alleged terrorists before military commissions. Still, we all know where its heart is on these matters. Justice is what the administration says it is. By now, any other administration would have fired Stimson, apology or not. His words show that he is unfit for government service, not to mention membership in the bar. Fortunately for him, if and when someone does drop the ax, some misguided lawyer, infused with the spirit of John Adams, will defend him. I hope Stimson will forgive him.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to express themselves on this and to include therein extraneous material.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 323) to amend section 5313 of title 31, United States Code, to reform certain requirements for reporting cash transactions, and for other purposes.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would certainly recommend the way this bill is being treated and received on both sides as a precedent that I hope will be followed.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman, and if the gentleman would yield.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this is an example of sensible regulation because sensible regulation includes deregulation when that is appropriate. The Committee on Financial Services reported this bill out last year. It passed the House. Surprisingly it managed not to make it through the Senate. The efficiency of that body failed us on this occasion apparently, but we are going to try again. We believe in regulation, and this is an important area where we provide information to our financial detectives, and it is especially important with regard to terrorist financing. But too much regulation can defeat the purpose for which regulation is intended, and we have a situation now where the banks are required to report every year on customers' transactions of $10,000 or more. Now, one of the things this bill would do is give the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to increase a dollar figure that has been left unadjusted for inflation for too long. More importantly, we are talking now about the exemption that is given to what we call seasoned customers of the bank. When the banks are dealing, and this is particularly important for our community bankers, when they are dealing with people whom they know, with whom they have had regular and continuing relationships, having to report every time they do a transaction of $10,000 or more generates extra work for the bank, and I believe, if anything, interferes with the ability of the regulators to find what they should be looking for. If we are telling people to find needles, we should not set about building them bigger haystacks. What this bill says is that where we are talking about regular customers, regular seasoned customers, they can apply for the exemption, which is in the control of the Secretary of the Treasury, with careful criteria. And having received that exemption, as long as they remain seasoned customers of the same bank, that process does not have to be repeated every 2 years. It reduces the regulatory burden on banks, and it is particularly important to small banks. I would ask at this point, Madam Speaker, under my general leave to include a letter to myself and the gentleman from Alabama from America's Community Bankers strongly endorsing this bill. America's Community Bankers Washington, DC, January 22, 2007. Hon. Barney Frank, Chairman, Financial Services Committee, House of Representatives Washington, DC. Hon. Spencer Bachus Ranking Member, Financial Services Committee, House of Representatives Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus: America's Community Bankers is pleased to support H.R. 323, the Seasoned Customer CTR Exemption Act of 2007. The legislation would make important improvements to the current exemption system for cash transaction reports (CTRs) by making it easier to exempt the routine transactions of certain seasoned business customers. H.R. 323 would more appropriately balance the cost and benefits of the Bank Secrecy Act's CTR reporting requirements. The legislation would also reduce the number of CTRs filed on routine transactions of well-known, law abiding customers. We urge the full House of Representatives to adopt H.R. 323 and look forward to working with you to enact this important legislation. While we fully support H.R. 323, we urge the Committee to modernize the Bank Secrecy Act further by increasing the $10,000 threshold that triggers CTR filing. This threshold has not been updated since 1970. Increasing the $10,000 trigger would more appropriately balance the reporting obligations of depository institutions and the information needs of law enforcement agencies. Sincerely, Robert R. Davis, Executive Vice President and Managing Director, Government Relations. What this will do is to reduce the paperwork burden on the banks; it will ease the burden on the regulators. It will not diminish in any way the flow of information that is needed for those whose job it is to keep us safe. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 41) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I am sometimes thankful for small things--for example, the fact that I am not in charge of judging what pronouncement from the Bush administration is the most outrageous. While I do not have to pick the winner, I do want to note an entry that would be a strong contender for that title: the extraordinarily wrong-headed and morally flawed attack by Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Cully Stimson on American lawyers who are defending people detained in Guantanamo. Not only does Mr. Stimson impugn people who have taken on an unpleasant job that is in the best traditions of the legal profession, and very much in the mainstream of American constitutional doctrine, he actually called on business leaders in this country to punish these lawyers economically for upholding these important American values. As the Boston Globe editorial from January 16th points out, ``the right to counsel is a pillar of the U.S. justice system'' and the Globe correctly asserts that ``Stimson's boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, should go beyond the Pentagon's pro forma disavowal of these remarks and ensure that Stimson watches this `play out' from someplace other than a job at the Defense Department.'' It is intolerable for a high public official of the United States Government to try to inflict economic harm on lawyers for upholding American constitutional tradition. Cully Stimson's blatant unfitness for an important public position ought to be clear to even officials of the Bush administration. It is incumbent on the President, Mr. Speaker, to repudiate these outrageous sentiments and to take the only action that can reassure lawyers in America that they will not suffer from doing their duty--firing Mr. Stimson. [From the Boston Globe, Jan. 16, 2007] Another Pentagon Smear When the shameful history of the Guantanamo detention center is finally written, one of the few reassuring chapters will be the way lawyers from many U.S. law firms have given pro-bono representation to prisoners who have been denied their Geneva Convention rights. It is especially outrageous that the Pentagon official responsible for detainees has maligned these lawyers and encouraged corporations to take their legal business away from their firms. In an interview last Thursday, deputy assistant secretary of defense Cully Stimson said he found it ``shocking'' that lawyers from prestigious firms were representing Guantanamo detainees. ``I think, quite honestly,'' Stimson said, ``when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms, and I think that is going to have major play in the next few weeks. And we want to watch that play out.'' Since the right to counsel is a pillar of the U.S. justice system, Stimson's boss, defense secretary Robert Gates, should go beyond the Pentagon's pro forma disavowal of these remarks and ensure that Stimson watches this ``play out'' from someplace other than a job at the Defense Department. Gates might also set the record straight by pointing out that the only inmates at Guantanamo suspected of links to the Sept. 11 attacks were brought there just recently, after long being held in secret Central Intelligence Agency prisons where they had no access to counsel whatsoever. Twice, the Supreme Court has ruled that Guantanamo detainees' rights are being denied by the Bush administration in cases brought by the lawyers whom Stimson vilifies. In another case on behalf of Guantanamo detainees in 2005, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler said the petitioners' lawyers are acting ``in the very finest tradition of the American legal profession.'' It was a tradition established in part by John Adams's representation of the British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre of 1770. Stimson's remarks came just as critics of U.S. detention policies were noting the fifth anniversary of the use of Guantanamo as a center for indefinite imprisonment of persons captured during the war in Afghanistan, or other fronts in the war on terrorism. The administration should close Guantanamo and try any detainees that it believes responsible for acts of terror or war crimes in U.S. courts. Congress's new Democratic majorities should repeal the law passed last year that denies detainees their habeas corpus right to challenge their continued detention. That, like the right to counsel, is another mainstay of the American legal system that must not be a victim of the war on terror.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, Tim Geithner, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, combined economic and political wisdom in a recent speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in which, according to the report of the speech in the Financial Times, he told that influential audience ``that the `political challenge' of sustaining support for integrating global economic integration `may be the most important economic challenge of our time.' '' Mr. Geithner came to his current position with significant experience in the Treasury Department during the Clinton Administration, which makes him very well-positioned to understand how economic and political forces interact, and even more important, how they should interact if we are to achieve what is our national goal economically--significant growth that is widely shared. I very much appreciate Mr. Geithner's thoughtful words, and I hope that people concerned about economic growth will accept the validity of his point so that we can all act together accordingly. [From the Financial Times] Wages Gap `Undermines Support for Free Trade' (By Krishna Guha in Washington) The widening gap between the rich and middle-class Americans is undermining political support for free trade in the US, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, warned yesterday. Tim Geithner told the Council on Foreign Relations that the ``political challenge'' of sustaining support for further global economic integration ``may be the most important economic challenge of our time.'' The New York Fed chief also warned that the inflow of surplus savings from abroad could be distorting US asset prices and keeping risk premiums artificially low across financial markets. His comments were made amid growing concern in US political and business circles over the risk of a populist backlash against free trade caused by rising inequality and a protracted period of stagnation in median wages--the wages earned by the average US worker. While recent data show real wage growth has at last picked up, many economists fear this could be short-lived. Mr. Geithner said maintaining support for open markets would be made more difficult ``because of what has happened to the distribution of income and economic insecurity''. He cited as big political problems the ``long-term increase in income inequality'', the ``slow pace of growth in real wages for the middle quintiles of the population'', increased volatility in income and the greater exposure of families to risks involved in financing retirement and healthcare. Echoing views expressed by Larry Summers, his former boss as Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, Mr. Geithner said it was ``not enough to explain that globalisation is inevitable'' and protectionist policies were self-defeating. Better education and an improved safety net were a ``necessary part of the solution to this challenge''. But, he warned, ``these reforms will have a long fuse and they may not yield the hoped-for increase in support''. Mr. Geithner cautioned that the low level of risk premiums across asset markets was ``unusual'' and might not prove lasting. He said there were many sound reasons why risk premiums might be low, including better monetary policy, strong underlying productivity growth and better risk-sharing across more globally integrated financial markets. But he warned that the inflow of surplus savings from abroad--including ``very substantial official accumulation of dollar reserves'' by countries seeking to maintain fixed exchange rates--could be distorting asset prices, sending the wrong signals to savers and investors. Mr. Geithner said these forces were ``surely transitory'' but could ``mask or dampen the effect on risk premiums in financial markets that we might otherwise expect'', given the huge US trade deficit and its long-term fiscal challenges.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would ask for a colloquy. One of the key provisions in this is the requirement that the Regional Fishery Management Councils develop annual catch limits based on the Science and Statistical Committees. This annual catch limit provision has the potential to contribute in important ways to the process of improving science. But it is vital that in analyzing the options and preparing recommendations, the committees consider a wide range of scientific opinion to ensure that the management plans that are based on their work represent the best possible scientific understanding of the current state of the relevant fisheries as well as projections for the future. Is it the ranking member's, soon to be chairman's, understanding that the Science and Statistical Committees will in fulfilling their role under this legislation consider this broad array of scientific opinion and sources?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for this and I thank him for also inserting a provision that would make sure that if there is a referendum on quotas that the working fishermen, not just the permit owners, could vote in our region. But having said that, I want to say that rarely have I seen such a distinguished and thoughtful and intelligent group of my colleagues get something kind of wrong. Let me emphasize it in this way. We heard how there is a special provision here for flounder, where summer flounder are concerned, then there can be flexibility in rebuilding. And I have to ask the question, why is it not the case that what is sauce for the cod is sauce for the flounder? When did the flounder become the exalted species? And if you really, Mr. Speaker, believed in the principles of this legislation, why have you floundered in applying this uniformly? Why did you make this exception for the flounder? The problem is partly procedure. This bill was developed mostly in the Senate. I appreciate the good work of the chairman of the committee, Mr. Pombo. He and his staff, Mr. Whaley, worked very hard with us to get this kind of flexibility for all species. And Peter Kovar of my staff worked very hard on it and we had frankly, I thought, a pretty good bill coming out of the House. Then the election came, and I understand that it had consequences, and we are winding up with the Senate bill plus an exception for flounder. I don't object to the exception for flounder. I object to the fact that it is an exception. And I hope I will hear at some point why the flexibility in rebuilding flounder makes sense when no other flexibility for any other species is involved. I will make a prediction, Mr. Speaker. Let me say in this, I believe that we have here an overreaction and that many of my environmentalist friends have an inability, an unwillingness to recognize that some of the hardest-working, most dedicated, practical environmentalists in this country, the fishermen, people whose commitment to the environment is whole because that is their livelihood, that their legitimate concerns have not been fully recognized. I look forward to working in some other areas in health and safety, but I will make a prediction. The rigidity in this bill for everything but flounder is going to cause problems in the future. I will give the sponsors of this bill one kudo. I don't know if you can have a singular of kudos, but I will give you one kudo. The precedent you have set with the flexibility for flounder will in fact be extended to other species. There is no logical reason for that and I believe experience will soon persuade you of that.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on October 23 one of the most accomplished and distinguished people to serve in this House was the recipient of a wholly deserved high honor from one of the leading law schools in this country--Georgetown Law School. On that day, Georgetown Law School, where Father Drinan has taught since leaving the House 26 years ago, established the Robert F. Drinan, S.J., Chair in Human Rights. The establishment of this Chair--a very significant honor in academia-- recognizes the pioneering work that Father Drinan did as a Member of this House for 10 years, and his continued commitment to that great work. Few people in our history have had as great a dedication to the cause of human rights and have been so consistently effective in advocating for this cause. Unlike many who have tried to make this a partisan issue, Father Drinan was equally fierce in his objection to human rights violators of the left, right and center, and accepted no excuses from those who would deny the basic rights of others. Mr. Speaker, Father Drinan served here in this body for 10 years as one of its intellectual leaders, having been elected in 1970 as one of the most effective opponents at that time of the war in Vietnam. He also played a very significant role in the impeachment of President Nixon, insisting that appropriate legal standards be applied in that matter. He was also a leader in matters that did not divide the House on either partisan or ideological lines, for example in the field of copyright, where he made contributions during that period that remain important foundations of our law today. Mr. Speaker, when Father Drinan declined to run for reelection in 1980 at the direction of Pope John Paul II, I was elected to succeed him. While I had been aware previously of the great respect and affection in which he was held by his colleagues, I came to appreciate that even more fully when I took the seat he had so ably filled in 1981. In the years since leaving this body, Father Drinan has continued to be a leader in the application of religious teachings to important moral issues; in lecturing and teaching about the law; and of course in continuing his great work in the field of human rights. Georgetown Law School deserves recognition, Mr. Speaker, for establishing this Chair in Father Drinan's name. I congratulate Judge Thomas Buergenthal, who will be the first holder of the Chair, and I ask that the discussion of Father Drinan's work included in the program announcing the event be printed here so that people will understand how important his impact has been on the best traditions of our country. Robert F. Drinan, S.J., Chair in Human Rights Law Today, Georgetown Law proudly announces the creation of the Robert F. Drinan, S.J., Chair in Human Rights. Priest, scholar, lawyer, politician, activist, ethicist, and one of the nation's leading advocates for international human rights, Father Drinan has dedicated his life to humanitarian causes and to improving the legal profession. A member of the Law Center's faculty since 1981, Father Drinan teaches courses in international human rights, constitutional law, civil liberties, legislation, legal ethics, and professional responsibility. During his tenure at Georgetown, he has taught over 6,000 students. Father Drinan earned his B.A. degree in 1942 and his M.A. degree in 1947 from Boston College and his LL.B. in 1949 and LL.M. in 1951 from Georgetown University Law Center. He entered the Society of Jesus while at Boston College, and in 1953, he was ordained a Jesuit priest. From 1956 to 1970, he served as Dean and Professor of Law at Boston College Law School. During the ten years between his deanship and joining the Georgetown Law faculty, he served in the United States Congress as a Representative from Massachusetts, where he was a member of various committees and chair of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice of the House Judiciary Committee. Throughout his career, Father Drinan has stood as a leading voice in the human rights movement. He serves on the boards of numerous organizations devoted to the furtherance of human rights, including the International League for Human Rights, Human Rights First, the Council for a Livable World Education Fund, Americans for Democratic Action, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. He was a founder of the Lawyers' Alliance for Arms Control and the National Interreligious Task Force on Soviet Jewry. Father Drinan has traveled the globe, both as a member of Congress and as a private citizen, on human rights missions to Chile, the Philippines, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Argentina, France, and Vietnam to document human rights abuses and to work for their eradication. He is the author of several notable works on human rights, including The Mobilization of Shame, of which Elie Wiesel said, ``Anyone interested in human rights will read Robert Drinan's informative, passionate and challenging book with deep concern and hope.'' In 2004, Father Drinan joined such American legal luminaries as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Thurgood Marshall, and Sandra Day O'Connor when the American Bar Association awarded him its ABA Medal--the organization's highest honor which recognizes exceptionally distinguished service to the cause of American jurisprudence. The award citation notes, ``For more than half a century, Father Robert F. Drinan has been an esteemed and beloved leader of the bar and a fearless advocate for the powerless and oppressed around the world. . . . Throughout his career, Father Drinan has heeded the call for human rights and social justice. With unparalleled passion and dedication, he has strived to improve the plight of the disadvantage and oppressed, and to advance the rule of law throughout the world.'' Through the generosity of alumni and friends, Georgetown now recognizes and honors one of its greatest sons, Robert F. Drinan, S.J., L'49, L'51, with the creation of the Robert F. Drinan, S.J., Chair in Human Rights. This meaningful and lasting tribute will enable the Law Center to attract teachers, advocates, and scholars who share Father Drinan's passion and concern for liberty, equality of opportunity, and human dignity and who will inspire the next generations of Georgetown Law students to become leaders, protectors, and defenders of human rights.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on November 23, William D. Green, chairman and CEO of Accenture, published a very important article in the Boston Globe on the vital role of two-year colleges. As Mr. Green notes, ``America's system of junior and community colleges has proved to be powerful and very effective in preparing students for success at 4-year colleges and beyond.'' Mr. Green speaks from very relevant experience, both as someone who himself attended Dean College, a 2-year school in Franklin, Massachusetts, and as a leader in American business. He thus understands the importance of community colleges both as one who benefited from a community college education and one who now draws on community college graduates, among others, to staff his important company. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Green does note one trend that I think we should all be trying to overcome--namely, that ``state support (of community colleges and junior colleges) continues to decline.'' Many people with whom I have discussed the problem of inequality in America have noted that the most important thing to do to help close that gap is to increase educational opportunity. I profess to be somewhat skeptical that this is going to do as much as many argue, but that is no reason not to go forward with increased educational opportunity as much as we can. And this will not happen if we allow ``state support (to) continue to decline'' for these schools. They are an essential avenue for young people from families that are not affluent to begin achieving a college education. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will read Mr. Green's words and accept the relevance of what he says to our job of increasing public support for higher education. I am grateful to Mr. Green for sharing his experiences with us on this important point. [From the Boston Globe, Nov. 23, 2006] The Vital Role of Community Colleges (By William D. Green) Americans finally have an issue on which they can all agree. If the country hopes to sharpen its competitive edge, it will take a significant investment in education, especially math and science. America must also boost their analytical thinking to address challenges and innovate in business and society. Often overlooked and under appreciated, not unlike the people who attend them, these colleges can help enhance the Nation's competitiveness, improve the skills of the workforce, and contribute to a more fulfilling life for millions of citizens. The son of a plumber and a school secretary in western Massachusetts, I had the good fortune to attend Dean College, a two-year residential college in Franklin. My two years at Dean focused me, taught me to appreciate the value of continuing my education, and provided me with the foundation for building a career in global business. America's system of junior and community colleges has proved to be powerful and very effective in preparing students for success at four-year colleges and beyond. The potential of these institutions to raise the game of those who attend and to enhance our Nation's competitiveness is clear. The challenge is to keep community colleges and junior colleges strong at a time when State support continues to decline. Many who have chosen to attend a junior or community college have found that the experience can lead to exciting places. Graduates can be found in Congress and on the judicial bench. They've flown aboard the space shuttle, commanded troops, and written for major publications. Some, like me, run large corporations. These colleges mirror the communities they serve. They enable students to continue their education at an affordable cost, develop careers in a range of fields that is expanding all the time, and, more frequently nowadays, change careers to find greater job satisfaction and fulfillment. In healthcare alone, nearly two-thirds of the industry's new workers have studied at community colleges. As the number of baby boomers who are near or at retirement age swells and the need for healthcare services grows, community colleges will fill an important gap in the workforce. In addition to teaching people new skills, junior and community colleges often help students learn how to learn--to gain the kind of solid footing it takes to continue their education. Research shows that students who transfer from a two-year institution to a four-year college or university are often more successful than those who start at a four-year institution. As a society we need to applaud the accomplishments of two- year college graduates and encourage baccalaureate institutions to accept transfer students who have proved they can be successful students. In the long run, junior and community colleges not only help students gain confidence in their ability to learn, but they also provide them a foundation for achieving better jobs. The potential ripple effect on the economy is obvious. As the world becomes flatter and we're faced with new global competition, we must redouble our efforts to ensure that future generations of Americans enjoy a standard of living that matches or surpasses our own. A strong system of junior and community colleges with stepped-up support--financial or otherwise--from business leaders, legislators, and educators can go a long way toward making that goal achievable. If junior and community colleges win, we all win.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, who has done such an extraordinary job in trying to bring fairness and coherence in this process. Unfortunately, he will soon be in the business to do so, although carrying the burden that he has to get out from under. I first want to join him in saying that I am glad to see we finally recognize the incongruity of pay raises for ourselves and no minimum wage increase. Many of us tried to argue that on logical grounds and on moral grounds. It is interesting to see that the loss of 30 seats apparently succeeded, where morality and logic was less persuasive. But I will take it any way I can get it. Then I also want to congratulate my colleagues on the other side for their consistency because they end this Congress governing in the same way in which they carried on for 2 years: frankly, incompetently, without respect for democratic procedures, and with a willingness to inflict harm on the most vulnerable members of our society. Earlier today we voted on packages of things that in a Democratic legislature, for example, Iraq, we would not have had all lumped together. Members who opposed some and supported others would have had a chance to say so. Today we got have one continuing resolution, as the gentleman from Wisconsin said, we have no choice but to vote ``yes'' so that the government does not stop acting. But let us take a look at what they have done. I have a particular responsibility in my committee for housing. The one housing program that the Republican Party has not undone is the section 8 program. But we have today a resolution that substantially and deliberately provides fewer dollars for the section 8 program than the housing authorities of this country need to meet their existing commitments. This is a budget that goes into, what, January of this current fiscal year. Months will have gone by in this current fiscal year, and you are funding section 8 at significantly less than your president asked for for this fiscal year, significantly less than is needed to meet commitments. And in January housing authorities will be faced with dilemmas. They may be told by HUD that they cannot continue to service what they are now doing. There is section 8 project-based assistance you put forward in a bill here which is $636 million below what your President asked for just to meet existing commitments. And housing authorities that have jurisdiction over projects which house elderly people and disabled people may be in turmoil and there will be uncertainty. We will probably be able come to their rescue; but why should we have to? Why should we create, Mr. Speaker, you and your colleagues, a situation in which this difficulty exists and we have to come to the rescue? Why such little regard for the poorest people in this country, the most vulnerable? Why are they going to be treated this way, as pawns, so you can avoid having to make difficult decisions, Mr. Speaker? So I just want to echo what the gentleman from Wisconsin said about the inappropriateness of this. I do want to point out in particular what happens here. And let me say to those Members on the other side who supported this rule and supported this approach, I will predict now, Mr. Speaker, that many of them will be hearing from the housing authorities and from section 8 residents in January complaining of the uncertainty, complaining of the difficulty. You will have no justification in claiming that it wasn't your fault, those of you who voted to send this procedure. So please be ready to explain to people in January why you so callously, Mr. Speaker, disregarded once again the interests of the poorest people in the country.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, in the Congressional Record for Tuesday, December 5, 2006 I inserted remarks noting the justifiable honor that Georgetown Law School paid to our former colleague, Father Robert Drinan, by naming a Chair in Human Rights in his honor. Unfortunately, I marred that insertion by incorrectly naming the first holder of the Chair. In that insertion, I said that Professor T. Alexander Aleinikoff was holding the Chair. In fact, he is the Dean of Georgetown University Law Center and he spoke at the ceremony in recognition of the first Chair holder. That recipient of the honor of being the first holder of the Robert F. Drinan Chair is Judge Thomas Buergenthal. Mr. Speaker, because I think it is a very important step that one of our nation's leading law schools has so honored a man who pioneered in the important field of human rights, and further that the proceedings in which that occurred be fully and accurately portrayed here in this Record, I have submitted for printing elsewhere in the Record a copy that corrects my mistake. I ask separately that these remarks be included so that people who note that there were two versions of this important ceremony printed in the Record will understand why. I apologize to Judge Buergenthal for not having recognized initially his being designated as the holder of this Chair and I repeat my congratulations to Georgetown University Law Center for honoring a great man, former Congressman Father Robert F. Drinan, and a great cause to which he has donated and continues to donate so much of his talent and time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I join with the gentleman from Texas in urging the House to pass this bill. It is an example, I think, of how we should be flexible in our approach to regulation. Regulation plays a very important role in a sensible, capitalist economy, but it can only play that role if it is flexible and appropriate, and overregulating does damage in ways different, but still quite tangible, than underregulating. We are in particular here responding, our committee is, in a bipartisan way to a very important group of officials, the State bank supervisors. In fact, it was the Conference of State Bank Supervisors who most pushed for this because what they have asked us to do is to give the Federal regulators with whom they work the flexibility that most of them have on their own. As Members know, Mr. Speaker, some banks, depending on how they are chartered, are entirely Federal in their regulation but some are State-chartered and are regulated by both State and Federal regulators in various ways. This bill will allow better coordination between State and Federal regulators. It will give the regulators the discretion, not the mandate, to be more flexible in the timing of regulations. It is an example of how we should make regulation appropriate, not unduly burdensome, and therefore, I am glad to join with the gentleman from Texas in urging passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, that is very gracious of the gentleman from Texas. I guess I should note that this may be the first of many collaborations between myself as chairman and his role, and I congratulate him as the new chairman of the Republican Study Committee, but he is absolutely right. The parting chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), set a very good tone for this committee of bipartisan cooperation. As I have said often, bipartisan cooperation does not mean that legitimate differences between the parties disappear. It means that we pursue those where they exist in a civil manner so that differences there do not poison our ability to work together on areas where there is no partisan difference as this one. The gentleman from Texas has been a part of that tradition and I look forward to working with him and the other Members in that way, and I appreciate very much his kind remarks.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important institutions in the region I represent in this House is the New England Council. No organization does a better job of advocating in a sensible and reasonable way for the economic interests of our area. The Council is composed largely of businesspeople and it is important to note that they are businesspeople who recognize that we need both a vibrant private sector and an adequately funded and well run public sector working together to make the kind of progress that will improve the quality of lives of all of those we represent. James T. Brett is a very able chief executive of the Council. Mr. Brett is a former State Representative who has a very impressive understanding of the importance of this private-public interaction. During our recess, he wrote a very interesting article published in the Patriot Ledger of Massachusetts making in very strong terms the case for significant improvements in the way in which the federal government deals with Amtrak. As Mr. Brett notes, ``the regional consequences would be disastrous if Amtrak were unable to operate.'' Mr. Brett cogently addresses one of the important issues that will be facing us when we convene for the 110th Congress, and I ask that his important article be printed here so that Members will have the benefit of this information as we do so. [From the Patriot Ledger] Government Support Critical to Amtrak (By James T. Brett) Passenger rail is vital to our quality of life and economy in New England, where rail is an integral part of the region's multi-modal transportation system and relied on by so many for daily commuting and business travel. Yet the future of Amtrak, including the future of the nation's busiest rail route--the Northeast Corridor--will be affected in the coming weeks as Congress works to finalize spending bills before the end of the session. In July, the full Senate Committee on Appropriations approved $1.4 billion in funding for Amtrak in the Senate Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill for the 2007 fiscal year, an increase over the current $1.3 billion allocation, and well above the President's budget request of $900 million. In June, the House passed its Transportation- Treasury bill for the 2007 fiscal year, which funds Amtrak at $1.14 billion. It is critical that Congress approve adequate funding for Amtrak in the upcoming appropriations debate. A 2007 funding level for Amtrak that, at the very least, meets its 2006 of $1.3 billion will allow Amtrak to continue to operate with some infrastructure investment. Over the last several years, Amtrak has implemented many reforms, modified service and reduced personnel. More than 14 million people rode Amtrak trains in the Northeast last year and Amtrak had its third straight year of record ridership. In addition, Amtrak has continued its efforts to implement a capital investment plan to bring its infrastructure closer to a state of good repair. Despite the progress, much important work still needs to be done. In this year's fiscal 2007 request, Amtrak cited Northeast Corridor infrastructure improvements as a critical priority. These include three major bridges in Connecticut-- the Thames River, the Niantic River and the Connecticut River Bridges--which date back to the turn of the century and need to be replaced. Forty Amtrak trains run over these bridges daily, providing service between New York and Boston. Other projects, cited by Amtrak, include the replacement of wood ties on main tracks; the rehabilitation or replacement of much of the overhead catenary system that supplies power; the replacement of major portions of the power supply systems; and the upgrading of interlockings and signal systems. Amtrak is a vital transportation link for millions of New Englanders. At a time when our highways are increasingly congested, the regional consequences would be disastrous if Amtrak were unable to operate. Amtrak serves hundreds of thousands of commuter rail riders and represents thousands of jobs in the region. And highway congestion is not a problem that is going away anytime soon. A new study by the nonprofit think tank the Reason Foundation reported this summer that traffic delays will increase 65 percent and the number of congested lane- miles on urban roads will rise 50 percent over the next 25 years. Even in smaller cities, traffic congestion is expected to worsen substantially over the next two decades. In our region, Massachusetts and Connecticut are both ranked in the top 25 of states that will have the most congested lane miles by 2030. A safe, reliable passenger rail system is vital to managing transportation in the Northeast. The region's ability to sustain and enhance its economic growth and remain competitive is linked to an efficient regional transportation system which includes intercity passenger rail. Government support is critical to Amtrak's survival. And it is important that Congress consider these economic factors as they debate funding for Amtrak.