Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from North Carolina has explained one of the provisions. There is another provision, and it deals with the preemption of a provision in the article of the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, if we were talking about a provision that was statutory in the State of Arkansas or elsewhere, I would not be supportive of preemption. I do not think we should do what legislatures can do, but things have found their way into State Constitutions which it can be difficult to deal with it, and it does seem to me that this particular preemption that I understand is fairly widely supported in Arkansas, which would modify but not completely repeal restrictions on interest that can be charged, is a reasonable one. I think it would be allowed for reasonable transactions. It would not, and is so worded, is not to allow things that are now abusive like payday loans, and this will now go to the other body and the Senators from Arkansas who decided this. But it does seem to me that responding to this request from our colleagues to deal with something that is inappropriately, in my judgment, wedged in a Constitution because it is something that should be a matter of legislative policy, not constitutional, that it is okay. Let me say this: if after we were to do this, if the people of that State or any other State wanted to reassert a certain limitation by legislation, I would agree that would be their right. So I do agree that we should not deal with this constitutional problem, but if they were to decide they wanted to do it legislatively, I would then be prepared to modify this. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. The gentleman from North Carolina has more than adequately explained it. I do just want to comment on the procedure. A version of this is included in the earlier bill we passed today providing regulatory relief. We have two versions. This is the way it should be. What we did earlier is what the Senate will accept. So it was important for us to show what it should be. The Senate will go apparently part of the way. There have been negotiations and conversations. There were things in there, like including thrifts, that the Senate was not willing to accept; but there will be another legislative session. It seems to me the better part of wisdom and better part of public policy is to take what we can now, and that is what we have done. I think this will prove to be a good thing and that it will help us make the case for, in fact, doing everything that we wanted to do. I just at this point, Madam Speaker, include into the Record letters in support of the original bill, but also obviously in favor of the other version that we did because that is all we could get through on the other side from the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Comptroller of the Currency. Office of Thrift Supervision, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC, September 25, 2006. Hon. Barney Frank Ranking Member, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Frank: I want to thank you for your work on H.R. 6062, the ``Community Development Investment Enhancements Act of 2006,'' and offer my support for your bill. Originally included as Sections 202 and 112 of H.R. 3505, the ``Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2005,'' which passed the full House of Representatives, this legislation is especially important to supporting important community development programs. In particular, your bill increases the ability of federal thrifts 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. H.R. 6062 accomplishes this by raising the limits on the ability of federal thrifts to invest in entities primarily engaged in making these public welfare investments. While we are encouraged that the original Regulatory Relief Act, H.R. 3505, may be enacted in the next few weeks, we strongly support passage of H.R. 6062 as a freestanding bill if it is not included in the broader package. Just as it is important to reduce burdens on financial institutions in order to remove unnecessary regulatory obstacles that hinder profitability, innovation, and competition in our financial services industry, it is equally important to remove barriers to the growth and stability of low- and moderate-income communities. Thank you for your leadership and continued interest is this issue. We applaud your efforts and urge swift action on H.R. 6062. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or Kevin Petrasic, Managing Director of External Affairs, at 202-906-6452. Respectfully yours, John M. Reich, Director.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I just wanted to note the good work that we have been able to do in our Subcommittee on Housing. There are some differences between the parties, and I have to say that we on our side regret that we were not able to get into the increased production, but that disagreement, and it is an important one, being what it is, hasn't kept us from working together in a number of other areas, including some efforts to preserve. And the leadership that the gentlewoman has shown, and the chairman of the full committee has worked there, and I must say the former chairman, the gentleman from Ohio, who is not with us now but good work should be recognized no matter what circumstance has followed, in working together, we have managed to do, I think, a good job in the housing area. And the gentlewoman from California has been an excellent ranking member. This is another good piece of it, and I am very glad that we were able to do this today.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. My spontaneity is always rehearsed, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I concur with the description given by my colleague from Ohio. I am a liberal. I believe that regulation is important if we are going to have the kind of society that preserves the quality of life. And, as a believer in regulation, I feel obligated to make sure that we do not have more regulation than is required and that we should not have inefficient regulation. I was very pleased to participate in this bipartisan effort to strip away unneeded regulation and to reform regulation that has a role to make sure that it does the job right. I regret the fact that our colleagues in the Senate did not fully accept what we offered, but this is a compromise. We want to get something done. This represents our best effort to send them something that they will accept, and I am glad to do that. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I would like to engage the Chairman in a colloquy or two. Mr. Chairman, in this bill, the amendment to section 305 seems to change the community development investment standard for banks. Will this invalidate or otherwise affect any investments or written commitments that banks may have made under the law that is now in effect?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman. History gets misused and used as a tool, but I think one thing is very clear. The people who are pushing this, had they been contemporaries of Thomas Jefferson wouldn't have been great fans of his.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas has been an eloquent, true conservative on the question of the entanglement of religion and government, because he expresses what every religious leader ought to share, the distrust of government if it seeks to intervene in religious matters. Religion needs no protection from government in this country. Yes, there are times when you may need protection if there are people trying to interfere physically with your right to worship, but in a free society like ours, religion flourishes independently. It does not need the government's stamp of approval. What theology says is that for religion to be freely practiced, the government has to say it is okay, the government has to put forward a symbol. So my friend from Texas has expressed a true conservative vision, but he did not fully describe how flawed this bill is. I guess he could not fully understand the reasoning. He said that, even if you win to decide attorney's fees. No, only if you win. Let me read from the bill. ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a court shall not award reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys to the prevailing party on a claim of injury consisting of the violation of a prohibition against the establishment of religion brought against the United States.'' Now, this is not the most actually honest piece of legislation I have ever seen. They describe some of what they are talking about: a veterans memorial, not a veterans cemetery. By the way, there is no prohibition anyone has ever thought of the families of any veterans to put any religious symbol he or she wants on that grave, except there was an effort to block a victim who wanted to put the symbol on, but they prevailed as, of course, they have to under this theory not just of this bill but of freedom of religion. But it says the Boy Scouts, a Federal building containing religious words, but it also says this bill shall include but not be limited to these examples. In other words, the examples are there because they kind of add a little spice to the bill because, understand what this bill would purport to do. Any violation of the Establishment Clause, any activity by a State or a Federal agency to establish a religion, to favor a particular religion, this is not limited to signs in the cemetery. It says any violation of the Establishment Clause, if you win you do not get your attorney's fees. Now, the gentleman from Georgia correctly said this bill does not take away rights. I understand that. I also understand that there is a lot of frustration on that side of the aisle that they cannot. They would like to take away the rights. This goes as far as they can diminishing them. The gentleman says, well, the ACLU will be able to do it. Has he become an agent of the ACLU, Mr. Speaker? Is he interested in giving the ACLU a monopoly on bringing these lawsuits? I am not. Whether or not the ACLU is bringing the lawsuit is not determinative. What about the right of an average citizen who might disagree with the ACLU and who would not be able to pay the attorney's fees? And, again, it only applies if you win. Now, I know people on the other side have had a phrase that they like in tort law called ``loser pays.'' That may be controversial, but this one is a lulu. This is winner pays. Bring a lawsuit based on a blatant violation of the Establishment Clause, not limited to the examples here. It is what the language says. Bring a lawsuit against a State or a city or a county or the Federal Government that favors a particular religion, that says we are going to teach this particular religion's tenets in the school and win the lawsuit and get no money. Well, now, obviously that is because they do not trust the courts. They think the courts cannot be given the freedom to do this. The United States Supreme Court consists of nine members, seven of them appointed by Republicans. Six, because I know they do not count Gerald Ford, Mr. Speaker. He is kind of suspiciously liberal by Congress Republican standards. But Ronald Reagan, George Bush and George Bush have appointed six of the nine justices. Now, what this bills say is if the appointees of George Bush, George Bush and Ronald Reagan decide that there has been a clear-cut violation of the Establishment Clause, the person who brought the lawsuit cannot get legal fees. It is probably right that the ACLU would not be retarded, but, as I said, I agree with the ACLU on many issues. I am not interested in promoting them a monopoly over litigation in the United States. I want to address this notion, too, well, you have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and history. People who came to this country, some of them were objecting to being forced to profess other religions or support other religions. Religious freedom means that your religious practice, whether it exists or does not exist, is none of the government's business. The notion that your right not to be religious does not exist is appalling to me. The gentleman from Georgia said you have freedom of religion, not from religion. Agnostics, atheists, people whose religion you may not think worthy, they do not have freedom in this country? What kind of a distortion of the principle of freedom is that? The notion that you do not have freedom from religion means, literally, I guess, that you can be told, okay, look, you have got to pick a religion, pick one; you cannot have none whatsoever. That is not the American Constitution. What we have here is not going to pass, we understand that, and I have to say I do not fully agree with my colleagues when they lament the fact that we are wasting time. Because given the penchant of the majority for atrocious legislation, I would rather have them waste their time than use it on something that might become law. Because when they do make laws, they make bad ones. So wasting time is better. Although I do find it very offensive that in defense of constitutional principles we once again have a closed rule. Democracy to them is a spectator sport. They want to look at it somewhere else, they want to watch it in other countries, but not practice it on the floor of the House. A closed rule on a fundamental matter of constitutional principle is an abomination.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I would ask the gentleman, he says he is not for keeping these things from going to court. Am I incorrect, I had thought that the gentleman from Indiana, when we were on the committee together, before I took leave and on the floor, had supported legislation in the area of church and state taking jurisdiction away from the courts. Would the gentleman reconcile for me his support of legislation that would remove jurisdiction from the Federal courts, in many cases, with his support for letting the cases go to court?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana did not reconcile the position. He said, we are Congress, and if we want to take these cases away, we can. I understand that, but that is not consistent with saying they ought to go to court. Secondly, there are two parts to this bill. One says you should not have monetary damages. That is relevant to his argument about intimidation. But the other section says if you bring a claim based on a violation of the establishment clause, no matter how blatant, if a county or city or any other government entity formally prefers one religion over others, one denomination over others, and provides funding for that, if you bring a lawsuit challenging that and you win, you don't get attorneys fees. And the answer again is, well, the ACLU can do it. Again, I am not letting only the ACLU be involved here. And that has nothing to do with intimidation of the county. The question is, and, again, it is only if you win. Let me read what it says: ``No court shall not award reasonable fees and expenses to the prevailing party on the claim of injury consisting of the violation of a prohibition of the establishment clause.''

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. That is just nonsense, Mr. Speaker. Absolute nonsense. There is nothing that keeps the county or the city from defending because the other side will get attorneys fees. The gentleman is trying to collapse a couple of things. The threat of monetary damages arguably would keep you from going to court, but a denial of attorneys fees to an individual plaintiff who does not happen to have an organization, that is not the fact that the other side may get attorneys fees if they win. And, remember, the gentleman suggested that people were being deterred from bringing lawsuits that they could win, or defending lawsuits they could win by the threat of what would be the expense. But in this case, you only get the fees if you win. This only denies successful plaintiffs the fees. So that is what this bill does. It has nothing to do with keeping it from going to court. It is trying to discourage things from going to court. I guess what they say is, you can't bring such a lawsuit unless you get the ACLU. If you are an individual that has a different theory about this, and you don't have the money for an attorney, you can't go to court. And the gentleman said, well, that is whatever happened before the 1976 act. Singling out one class of cases for the denial of attorneys fees when every other one gets them does seem to me an odd way to run a constitution. This right and that right. And, by the way, no one should think that if this ever became law, which, of course, no one thinks it will, that it would stop here. There would be other unfavored rights where a minority would be at risk, where you would be denied legal fees. So let's not collapse two issues. This has no deterrent effect, the part about attorneys fees. It is an effort on the other side to keep people out of court in case they might win.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I appreciate this eloquent defense of his bill that it doesn't do very much, but I do question that. And I understand your concern about monetary damages; but if the restriction on attorneys fees only for the party that wins in a case doesn't do anything, what is it in here for?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I feel like I am in Dickens, the artful dodger is apparently about to leave. I repeat the question: If banning attorneys fees from people who win a lawsuit based on a blatant violation of the establishment clause, which this bill does, doesn't do anything, what is it in there for? Is it just an expression of dislike for people who happen to enforce a part of the Constitution that people on the other side don't like? What is it in there for?

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would the gentleman please answer the question? He asked me to yield. Why are you banning attorneys fees from people who win a lawsuit based on a blatant violation of the establishment clause? Why are you doing that?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. But the gentleman is for letting it go to court, I thought.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. And only under this bill, if you bring a lawsuit and you win, and the court decides that you are correct and there was a blatant violation of the establishment clause, you don't get your attorneys fees, and I still don't understand why.

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

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Historically, I know the gentleman from Indiana previously had a location issue on Mr. Jefferson, but he was in France during the debate on the Constitution. You said he was in France during the debate on the Bill of Rights. I don't think that is accurate. I know there were slow boats then, but I think he had gotten back by that time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, there is a cliche of the unsung hero. Cliches can be tiresome, but generally they have to be true to become a cliche. One such unsung hero in the history of this House recently died. His name was Leo Diehl. Tip O'Neill was a great Speaker, and we have seen before and since that it is not as easy to be a successful Speaker as it may look. One reason Tip was so good at his job was the friendship and partnership he had with Leo Diehl. Leo Diehl was a man of integrity, vision and intelligence. He had lost the use of much of his body, but his brain worked, and his eyes and ears and mouth. Because of the great friendship with Leo Diehl, because he could so clearly rely on a man of such strength of character and wisdom, that was one of the reasons that Tip O'Neill's speakership, as he was free to acknowledge, was so successful. Leo Diehl recently died at the age of 92. He was a great figure in the history of this House, and I think it is appropriate that those of us particularly who served under Tip O'Neill's speakership with Leo Diehl mourn him today.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the Boston Globe Editorial on Friday, September 22, accurately describes the antics of Venezuelan President Chavez at the U.N. He was simultaneously outrageous and outlandish, using the great forum of the U.N. General Assembly for a semi-coherent diatribe. He gave a clear example of why his support in elections in Latin America has been toxic to those who've received it. Recently, in Peru and in Mexico, being tied to Chavez by their opponents, accurately or not, was very damaging to presidential candidates. I hope Americans will also make it clear to Chavez that his crudity and disrespect for democracy will find little support here.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, in my representation of the City of New Bedford, I have of course spent a significant amount of time on matters affecting the fishing industry that is so vitally important to that community, economically, culturally, and in every other relevant way. In doing so, I have benefited from the wisdom and experience of a number of people involved in the fishing industry, one of whom is Deb Shrader, the executive director of an excellent organization called Shore Support Inc. As part of a very useful series that the New Bedford Standard Times is carrying on the fishing industry, Deb Shrader published an article in the Standard Times for September 20, which gives an excellent summary of the difficult economic position in which current fishing policy puts so many hardworking people and their families. I hope my colleagues will read this because they will understand why I am working as hard as I am for amendments to the Magnuson Act, which will thoroughly recognize the legitimate economic interests of people in the fishing industry and will do so in ways that do not jeopardize any valid environmental concerns. Mr. Speaker, no one should be voting on fishing issues without having a full understanding of the matters that Deb Shrader discusses so well, and for that reason I ask that her article from the Wednesday, September 20, Standard Times be printed here. [From the Standard Times, Sept. 20, 2006] Fishing Rules Take Their Toll (By Deb Shrader) How fishing regulations affect the people in a fishing community is nearly a taboo subject. Though the Magnuson Act of 1976 requires that the social and economic impact of fishing regulations be studied, in fact the impacts are rarely measured, the information that is gathered is considered anecdotal or it's ignored. Measuring the cumulative effects of these omissions is impossible, much like retracing the steps of a dinosaur after their extinction. Presently, Shore Support, Inc. is working with UMass Dartmouth and its School for Marine Science and Technology, and economics Professor Dan Georgianna, to study the most recent effects of regulations on groundfishermen. We have been meeting with fishermen, aboard their boats, to talk with them. I recently spoke with members of a crew who, after spending 10 days at sea, working two nine-hour shifts with three hours rest in between, came home to a paycheck of $750. If you work out the 18 hour day, multiply by 10, and then divide the $750 by the 180 hours worked, these fishermen worked for well below minimum wage at about $4 an hour. The high cost of fuel, coupled with the low prices for fish make me wonder why they still ``go down to the sea in ships,'' and I'm not afraid to ask that question of groundfishermen. The answer is usually that they are fishermen through and through, and with most of the men in their mid to late forties, the idea of starting at the bottom of a ladder in a new trade is more than depressing. They are used to the unique lifestyle of commercial fishing with its sense of independence, competitiveness and chance to work close to nature. In 2005, Professor Georgianna and I published a study called ``Employment, Income and Working Conditions in New Bedford's Offshore Fisheries.'' As part of this study, we visited and spoke with the captains and crews from more than half of the offshore scallop and groundfish boats that call New Bedford home port, and are 50 feet or longer. In this study, working with fishermen and settlement houses, we put a human perspective on the industry. After meeting with crew from more than 200 boats, we found that the workers in the industry are rapidly aging. The average age of a scalloper is 40 with 19 years at sea; the average age of a groundfisherman is 46 with an average of 26 years at sea. These fishermen are professionals with many years of experience, in some cases more than half their lives. During our entire process, we spoke with only four groundfishermen who were 25 years old or younger. We attribute this to the fact that fishing is so very dangerous, that considering the difficulties and insecurities created by a regulatory system, young men are not choosing to fill their father's boots, a practice in previous generations that has kept our port so strong. In fact, many fishermen discourage their children from joining them on the boats. Instead, they discourage their sons from being involved in an industry that has become too complicated and laden with bureaucracy. It has been predicted that the Port of New Bedford will lose approximately $15 million due to the changes presented in the most recent Framework 42 (a framework is a process for amending a fisheries plan) of the groundfish regulatory system. Please keep in mind that because we have an offshore fleet, our boats are larger and carry more men than some of the coastal fisheries in other areas. Each groundfishing boat carries three to five men. At the end of each fishing trip, the boat owner and crew split the proceeds. The boat owner usually gets 50 percent of the value of the fish caught, while the crew splits the remaining 50 percent (after expenses like fuel, food, and ice are deducted). Each groundfishing boat represents four to six families' incomes. If this community loses $15 million in commerce from these regulatory changes, $7.5 million will be removed from fishermen and their families, which has a wider spread effect than a corporate loss. This would mean $7.5 million less to pay mortgages and auto loans held by local banks, less to buy groceries in local markets and home goods at the local mall. If you think this crisis will not affect you because you are not involved in this noble industry, you are wrong. These types of losses in a community with rampant unemployment will be devastating to all. New Bedford is also one of the last great ports as far as what is available for shoreside support industries. The failing of the industry in Gloucester, and other smaller ports, has already caused a collapse of the net makers, dredge builders, welders, ice makers, chandlers, and other support industries in those ports. New Bedford has become one of the last remaining sources for supplies and labor on which all the boats depend. The big question is whether these crucial support industries will survive this regulatory process. Many of these are small businesses and are presently carrying a great deal of debt owed by the boat owners who have a difficult time paying for expenses due to changing regulations (limited days at sea, catch limits and gear restrictions). Support industries are crucial to the survival of the fleet. And the survival of the fleet is crucial to the survival of the support industries. This interdependence puts our port city in danger of losing not only our fishing fleet, but these businesses as well. While we all know that money does not bring happiness, not being able to support your family will take the joy out of life. Recently implemented regulations and those proposed in Framework 42 have added a new degree of insecurity to an already difficult industry. Fishing has always been physically demanding and dangerous work. Fishermen's wives have always worried about whether their husbands would return safely to port. But today, because of these regulations, with each trip, groundfishermen wonder whether they will be able to provide for their families.