Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I congratulate the delegation from Iowa on bringing forward this very important symbol honoring a very great man, a man who has performed enormous service for humanity. It was first called to my attention by the gentleman from Iowa who is I believe now the dean of the majority of the Iowa delegation, and I am delighted to be the first to recognize him in that context, my very good friend and a very good leader. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time and as much corn as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell). (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, in this Congress I run out of Iowans before the other side does. So I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I just want to express my appreciation. Those words coming from someone I admire as much as I admire the gentleman from Iowa, they mean a great deal. I guess I would say I have never been less happy to see my side win.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the typically thoughtful intervention by the gentleman from Iowa who often brought to our deliberations more than was there before he did, it is just one reason why I will miss him. And as the gentleman knows, I have previously been an advocate for the country making great use of his services. I am torn now, Mr. Speaker, between expressing my hope that the administration will find a way to use his services for the country, and my fear that my saying so will make that less likely. Given that dilemma, I guess that is as much as I will say. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, my congratulations to the two gentlewomen who are presiding over this bill. I think this is one more example, as this Congress draws to a close, of the way in which the Committee on Financial Services under the leadership of our retiring chairman, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Oxley, was able to deal in a very bipartisan way on issues that deserve to be bipartisan. I always want to point out that partisanship is a good thing in a democracy and there are issues where the parties legitimately ought to be presenting different viewpoints. The important thing is not to allow those legitimate differences to spill over and poison the ability to work together where there aren't differences of an ideological sort. This is an example. Indeed, I want to thank the Members on the majority side for accommodating many of the concerns that we had here. The gentlewoman from New York who took the lead in forging this compromise from our side correctly mentioned some of them. But in particular we have always felt that it is important to promote engines that help the economy grow but to recognize that growth does not automatically produce fairness. In our job, we have seen it as when we deal with these pro-growth engines, as I believe the Export-Import Bank can be when it is done right, that we put in some elements of fairness, and that is what has been done here with regard to smaller businesses, with regard to women and minorities. Indeed, our colleague, the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Velazquez, who will chair the Small Business Committee in the next Congress, had some particular concerns, some of which have been accommodated, and I want to take this opportunity to say that if I become the chair of the committee, and the gentlewoman from New York will still be on the committee and will still be playing a major role, we intend to further work with the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Velazquez, to make sure that small business gets a piece of this. Let me say, in an ideal world, we wouldn't have an Export-Import Bank. If there were no interventions in the market by other countries, there would be no need for this entity. But neither in economics nor in the military area do I think that unilateral disarmament makes sense; and I would hope, and we did this with regard to China, that this would be regarded as an instrument to be used in the legitimate self-defense of American industry. And to the extent that we can ever negotiate a disappearance of this kind of export subsidy everywhere, then I would be in favor of our dropping it. But until then, we need to be able to deal in this world, and I think this bill does this in the best possible way, and I thank the gentlewoman.

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 twenty-six 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 ten 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 ten 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 Viet Nam. 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 Professor T. Alexander Aleinikoff, 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, EI 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 generation of Georgetown Law students to become leaders, protectors, and defenders of human rights.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I concur with the substantive discussion of this bill from the gentleman from North Carolina. His comments on bipartisanship seem to me rather odd, and I will not dwell further on them. It does seem to me if you were trying to promote bipartisanship, as we all are, beginning by attacking the sincerity of those who will be in charge of it is not a good idea. But the gentleman is free to speculate as he wishes. The bill itself is, as he described it, a good idea. We originally passed it with an amendment from the Judiciary Committee. Frankly, I was not in favor of that amendment. I think what the Senate has done has improved the bill; and that is not a sentence I always get to say, but I do want to say in this case. I think it is now a good bill and more consumer friendly. The gentlewoman from Florida was very much interested in this, and quite right to push for it. Our colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) had some concerns about some potential negative effects on consumers. It has all been worked out, so it is now a bill that improves the administration of the system, and I generally support it. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. That the old direction was partisanship?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will confess to sometimes starting slow, and I am getting old. It would probably be helpful in the future if the gentleman would find some way to signal when he was being sarcastic. That would help my understanding.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. When the gentleman from North Carolina says he hopes this is a new direction that will lead to bipartisanship, does that not mean that he believes that under his party's rule there was none?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate what he said, particularly about the staff members he named who really took care of this for us and made it very easy. 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. It is especially appropriate for us at a time when we are celebrating or trying to give due recognition to the importance of innovation in our economy that we take this action to make sure that we properly memorialize Thomas Edison in whose honor this whole project has been conceived. I appreciate very much the majority accommodating us in this, and I want to say especially that the staff on the majority side was particularly helpful. We had a little glitch in terms of how this was drafted and whether or not it was a private bill, and everybody worked very hard to make sure we could do this promptly, since, obviously, we don't expect or hope to be here a whole lot longer. So I am glad we are able to go forward. Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to the author of the bill and the man who represents the area affected, our friend from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Thank you. I would point out that here we are working closely with those who are in the business of making loans for affordable housing. Those are the ones who have particularly been interested in these kind of changes. We were glad to do it. Let me also note, Mr. Chairman, that section 405 of the original bill, which is now section 702, which leads me to wonder why we ever mentioned section 405 in the first place, but we are now talking about section 702. It was included at the request of the regulatory agencies to clarify that written conditions and applications and written agreements with institution-affiliated parties are enforceable in order to protect the safety and soundness of insured depository institutions. Institution-affiliated parties, a wonderful phrase that trips off the tongue, institution-affiliated parties can include bank directors, officers and principal shareholders. Some concerns have been expressed that the regulatory agencies may use this language inappropriately to require personal guarantees from bank directors and officers. Mr. Chairman, would you clarify what section 702 is intended to do?

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. He is the chairman. That is why he has to say more than me. But I would like to add that it is my understanding that the regulatory agencies, specifically the Officer in Control of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of Thrift Supervision, agree with the interpretation the gentleman has just given, as does the Senate.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am in substantial agreement with my colleague from New Jersey, but, first, and most of all, in expressing our best wishes to our colleague, the gentleman from Delaware, who has been such a constructive Member and whom we hope to see back with us very soon. Secondly, I think the gentleman has accurately portrayed the situation. About a month or so ago, the Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the SEC had twisted a statute further out of shape than is permissible to get some jurisdiction over hedge funds. I think the Circuit Court made the correct legal interpretation. The SEC had been reaching, and I think the decision was a correct one. I then, however, filed a bill to change the statute, not because I or I think anyone else is able to be sure right now exactly what we should do about hedge funds, but because I would agree with the gentleman from New Jersey, this is an important, relatively new phenomenon. It has a major impact in our economy. At the rate at which they are growing, it may be we will reach the point in which there is more money in hedge funds than there is money; and that at least ought to call up some attention. I simply did not think we should adjourn for the year with some people thinking that we have now decided that the appropriate action is nothing at all. That may in the end be a decision, but I do not think it is one that we have yet had a chance to look at. So there were various ways that we were looking at this. I had a bill, the gentleman from Louisiana, the chairman of the subcommittee, had a bill. The gentleman from Delaware, a very thoughtful Member, suggested this as an approach. It has the advantage, I think of saying, look, we believe there is something that has to be looked at. The gentleman from New Jersey correctly mentioned one of the things that has a number of people particularly concerned, which is the increasing interface between hedge funds and pension funds. That is something that we want to look at. So I think that we have an appropriate vehicle today, legislatively, to say this is something we want to look at. We will come back next year and deal with it further. I think this is the appropriate way to do it. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, just as the ranking member, I want to say that the leadership shown both by the gentleman from Kansas and the gentlewoman from Florida on this has been very important. Particularly I would say the gentleman from Kansas has been a very steady contributor to our deliberations regarding the importance of balance; and given the physical conditions that have occurred in Florida and the reaction thereto, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) has been a real leader in trying to get an appropriate Federal response to the insurance crisis, and I am glad we were able to take this step today.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I understand the lack of compassion for terrorists. I share much of it. But this is not about terrorists. This is about people accused of terrorism. And there may be human realms where infallibility is a valid concept, not in the arresting of people and certainly not when this is done in the fog of war. Have we not had enough examples of error, of people like the recent case, to our embarrassment, of a man sent to Syria to be tortured by the United States wrongly; of Captain Yee; of Mr. Mayfield in Oregon? Have we not had enough examples of error to understand that you need to give people accused of this terrible crime a way to prove that the accusations were not true? That is what is at risk here. I believe that the law enforcement people of America and the Armed Forces of America are the good guys. But they are not the perfect guys. They are not people who don't make mistakes, particularly acting as they do under stress. It is a terrible thing to contemplate that this bill will allow people to be locked up indefinitely with no chance to prove that they were locked up in error. We should not do it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, as we prepare in the post- election session to deal with legislation involving the management of our fisheries, particularly the bill cosponsored by the gentleman from California, the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Pombo, and myself, it is important for Members to get information on these issues from people who fully understand them. I know of no one in the country who is better informed or has better judgment on how to proceed than Dr. Brian Rothschild. He is the Montgomery Charter Professor of Marine Science at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, and the former head of the school's School of Marine Science and Technology. Indeed, UMass lost a little bit of his time and his administrative leadership of that school when the newly elected mayor of New Bedford, Scott Lang, understandably prevailed upon Dr. Rothschild to come to work for him as a policy advisor. Mayor Lang is an energetic and thoughtful mayor dedicated to among other things, protecting the important fishing industry in that city, and it is for that reason that he wisely chose Dr. Rothschild as his advisor. In my own work on fishing I have relied heavily on his advice because it has proven accurate in a number of cases. He points out here that better information is an essential element in sensible regulation. As Dr. Rothschild says in the article recently published by him on this subject in the New Bedford Standard Times, we need significant improvements in the data we gather about fish, in part to ``send a signal to Congress that the real conservation and management of fishery stocks lies in developing the technical underpinnings to determine major uncertainties that we have on how fish interact with fishing and the changing ocean environment. This would be so much better than the cant characterizations of the fishing industry by some conservation groups. And finally, consideration of uncertainty points toward the need of investing fishery management regulations with the flexibility contemplated in the Pombo-Frank bill.'' Mr. Speaker, Brian Rothschild's experience, wisdom and judgment are greatly needed as we prepare to return in November to debate the important issues involved in the fishing legislation, and I ask that his thoughtful analysis be printed here. It originally appeared in the New Bedford Standard Times, which has done a very good job of covering these issues, on September 21. The fisheries of Massachusetts are economic engines for the ports of New Bedford, Gloucester and Cape Cod. New Bedford is the number one port in the nation. In this respect, the future is bright. Yet clouds loom on the horizon. While many stocks are increasing in abundance or are at historically high levels, other stocks have declined. The management actions undertaken to conserve the stocks seem lax to some, but to others the actions seem overly stringent and difficult to understand. There is no question that regulations are generating economic hardship (losses of tens of millions of dollars) and waste, even in the number one port in the nation. Evidently, no stock is optimally fished. Stocks are either overfished or underfished and a substantial bycatch is thrown overboard because of regulations that mandate waste. Improving management decisions, building confidence in regulations, and reducing bycatch in a biological and economically sustainable way require better information on the status of the stocks. At least three areas require significant improvement: (1) understanding the interactions among species or stocks, (2) understanding the role of the ocean environment in causing fish stock fluctuations, and (3) systems technology to develop new sensors for counting fish and accelerating the flow of data. Regarding the interactions among species, all fisheries are in a sense multi-species fisheries. The groundfish or dragger fishery encounters perhaps fifty species of fish. It is not unusual to have ten species on deck in a single tow. The scallop fishery appears to be a single species fishery, but in reality scallop fishery is regulated to some extent by the amount of yellowtail flounder taken in the scallop dredges. Haddock appear occasionally in herring nets. Some scientists believe that herring eat cod eggs. Rebuilding predatory species like striped bass affects their prey species. Interactions such as these need to be better understood. Until we do, our options for management will be limited as we continue to assume that all species can be rebuilt to their historical maximum abundance at the same time, which flies in the face of standard ecological theory. The effects of the environment are ignored in developing management decisions. It is clear from the historical record that the ocean environment plays a powerful role in modulating the abundance of fish populations. Ignoring this leads to the mistaken notion that any time a stock decreases, the cause is overfishing, while any time a stock increases, the cause is successful management. The role of the environment is typically ignored in fishery stock assessments. Without such understanding, it is misleading to set rebuilding schedules and to think about mid- to long-term management strategies that match the scale of capital investment time horizons used in the fishing industry. There is even a greater imperative now that climate variability must be affecting the population of stocks even though we do not understand, even in an approximate way, the nature of this impact. Given the substantial shortfalls in scientific understanding, the present system for obtaining data from the fishing fleets and the technology used to measure the abundance of fish is archaic. New systems need to be developed to deliver data to scientists and managers as well as the development of techniques to measure fish abundance that depend on electronics and optics rather than outmoded prone-to-error fishing nets. The articulation of these concerns has a function beyond catharsis. It identifies areas that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries needs to address to improve fisheries management as NOAA and 21 other federal agencies move forward in an attempt to develop a coherent ocean plan for the nation. The articulation also sends a signal to Congress that the real conservation and management of fishery stocks lies in developing the technical underpinnings to determine major uncertainties that we have on how fish interact with fishing and the changing ocean environment. This would be so much better than the cant characterizations of the fishing industry by some conservation groups. And finally, consideration of uncertainty points toward the need of investing fishery management regulations with the flexibility contemplated in the Pombo-Frank bill. Having said all of this, it is important to remember that the regulation of fisheries is not analogous to designing a better governor for a gasoline engine or a valve to regulate water flow. A critical element is the livelihood and well being of the men and women that catch and process the fish. It is important to them of course, but it is as important to the welfare of the entire community. Significant steps forward are being made in developing the ideas of cooperative research. The UMass Dartmouth School for Marine Science and Technology has pioneered cooperative work with the fishing industry on cod tagging, scallop stock assessments, and study fleets all with incredibly strong support from the fishing industry. These efforts are now bearing fruit at the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute that includes the partnership between the University of Massachusetts, principally SMAST, the state Division of Marine Fisheries, and NOAA Fisheries. Fostering the next generation of fishery scientists in an educational environment of cooperative research will promote the advancement of our science through collaboration with fishermen.