Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I have to say to my friend, I would be impressed if they would come forward and say, yes, we think, as the gentleman from Florida said, we should be able to go to Mars. But to argue that because an amendment which says no money can be used for a manned space mission to Mars, that that means you can't use it for the Moon or anything else simply isn't the English language. The fact is the amendment is very narrowly drawn. It says you cannot use the money for manned space to Mars or for another purpose.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Can't we get an honest debate about whether or not to go to Mars?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would the gentleman from West Virginia yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I do not believe that anybody seriously says that if the bill says you can't spend, an amendment says you can't spend it on a manned mission to Mars, that anybody would then think you had to stop it on the Moon. Of course, that is one of the arguments you would make beforehand that you would have to disregard after. But let me disagree with my friend from Tennessee. He said, he agrees we should slow it down. What is stopping us? Where is the language that does that?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have never been an advocate for drug testing for Members of Congress, but hearing that marijuana use can dull the brain makes me think maybe this is something that we ought to be checking into. I am always heightened in my support of an activity, an amendment, when those opposing will not argue it directly. We are not talking about 18-year-olds getting into methamphetamines. This is a very narrow amendment. It says, where a State has decided by its own democratic processes to legalize marijuana according to a doctor's prescription, we will not arrest people who try to do it federally. Very few of the arguments have met that. The question of marijuana in general is not before us. This does not legalize marijuana. We have many drugs that can legally be prescribed that are far more behavior altering, far more addictive than marijuana has ever alleged to be. This is a question about whether or not we are going to reach into medical practice and say to medical practitioners whose States would allow them to do it that, because of cultural and other concerns about this drug, we ban its use when you might find it medically appropriate. This is, again, the time when I think the slogan of this House ought to be: We are not doctors; we just play them on C-SPAN.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining for me?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, once again, the gentleman totally misrepresents my argument. I didn't say everyone was affluent. I said, in fact, that those who are of low income ought to get the relief here, as they should elsewhere in the program. But some will be affluent. The point, however, is this. If you give some people flood insurance for free, as this amendment would do, then everybody else who gets flood insurance pays for it. The flood insurance program is supposed to be self-financing, so it will result in increases in flood insurance premiums. The gentleman said, if it is going to impose costs, that should be taken into account. That was precisely my original point. The costs to people who will now have a flood insurance obligation ought to be taken into account when you do the benefit/cost analysis of the flood control program. But that is not what happens. Under the gentleman's amendment, we have two separate processes. You decide to do flood control; and then, having done flood control, if that results in some people having to pay flood insurance, the flood insurance program gets stuck with it. It has nothing to do with the financial side of flood control. I agree we should look at that but from the same source the flood control programs come in. Telling everyone who now pays flood insurance premiums that they will be subsidizing these people is also an unfairness. As the gentleman said, if you start this principle of I was here first and then the flood came, I don't know how extendable that would be. I think it is a mistake to set the precedent that some people will get flood insurance for nothing.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, the gentleman misses my point entirely. I was talking now, assuming that point, as to where the compensation should come from. I do not think it is reasonable to charge the Federal flood insurance program. We have problems with Federal flood insurance. If in fact the gentleman wants to pursue that principle, it ought to be with regard to the financing of the flood control programs. That is, if as a consequence of flood control there is going to be this problem, I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that we ought to charge the Flood insurance program with it. The second thing I would say is that the gentleman talked about people on fixed incomes. Several times today in the amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and an amendment that was going to be offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), the question of some special consideration for lower-income homeowners has come up. I am all in favor of that. I think we should go forward with that. I think we ought to be looking at some kind of relief for lower-income people, and I would include those who will be affected this way and others. But where we are talking about people who are quite prosperous, the Federal flood control programs are done for a good reason; and it may be, by the way, that while, yes, you, as a result of the Federal flood control program have some more costs, you may also get some benefits. I don't think you can do a general principle in that. You may benefit. But the main problem I have is this: the result of this amendment, if adopted, would be to weaken the principle of the fiscal balance and integrity of the flood insurance program. It would say that people would get flood insurance who were at risk of flooding and either pay nothing for it or pay far less than they should be. I hope this amendment is defeated. I would then be glad to join the gentleman in talking to the committee of jurisdiction, to say when you are doing a flood control program take this into account, and maybe you want to put some funding into that. But I do not want to weaken the fiscal integrity of the flood insurance program. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, to the extent there is an issue here, it is being addressed in the wrong place, that is, if we have decided to get benefits from the Federal flood insurance program, any cost that accrues from that ought to be part of the flood control program. That is, it does not make sense from the budgetary standpoint to give a hit to the Federal flood insurance program because of a Federal flood control program. That is what this amendment does in this structure, that is, we pay for the Federal flood control program over here, and that will result in some people under this amendment now getting Federal flood insurance and not paying anything for it. It will, therefore, undercut our efforts to make the Federal flood insurance program a fiscally sound one.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, we debated earlier an amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey, which as adopted would put residential properties into the phase-in. This would take nonresidential properties and second homes out of the phase-in. I believe it would be a mistake and could result in a severe economic shock to a number of communities. We are talking about, in the bill, accomplishing the goal that this amendment accomplishes. The question is, how quickly do you do it? We have a phase-in to full actuarial rates at 15 percent a year. For some individuals who may own an isolated second home, that is one thing. We have many communities in this country where the basis of their economy is second homes, vacation homes and also facilities that service vacation homes. To immediately raise all the insurance rates on all of those properties in that community seems to me to subject them to an economic shock which is unwise. The 15 percent rate, we think, is an unreasonable one. We are talking about a period of years, 5 or 6 years, before you get to the full amount. But that is the issue. Do you go to these communities, and, again, we do have, and that has been one of the issues here, people who bought under certain assumptions, people who paid for property figuring a certain amount. Vacation homes is one thing. People brought commercial properties. People figured out, okay, I bought this property. This is how I am going to make my living. How can I make money on this? What is the cash flow? And the insurance premiums are a part of it. To increase those insurance premiums in 1 year, without a phase-in, could threaten the viability from small businesses, small business people who have been careful about calculating their risk. We have given them the 15 percent increase. There was obviously resistance to that. There were people in shoreline communities and vacation communities and elsewhere who don't like the notion of getting to actuarial soundness. But to do it without any phase-in at all, to do it overnight, is a problem, not just for the second homes, and maybe people are less sympathetic to people's vacations, but with noncommercial property small business owners. You are talking about a significant, immediate significant increase in the insurance of small business owners. That seems to me an unwise thing for us to do when we can get there a little bit slower but get there with the phase-in. I would remind people that, even with the phase-in, the Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste support this bill. I do not think it is a mistake for us to be gradual, not taking forever, 5 or 6 years, in hitting business owners, small business owners with a very significant increase in their flood insurance. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first, you don't get $500,000. There is a cap. Secondly, we do agree that people should reach to full actuarial amounts. It depends on when. Third, I would say, every time something comes up, there are cost subsidies. People in my district don't grow much corn or much wheat, and we pay some subsidies. There are people who don't have any public transportation, and they do. This is one country. The government is not a supermarket where you go in and pay for only exactly what you buy off the shelf. There is some joint effort. But the other problem is the gentleman from New Mexico has not described his amendment completely. What about small business people, he says, second homes and other properties? You have that problem with people who have businesses. What do you do with smaller businesses, people who have brought businesses in these vacation areas who are trying to make a living and who made a calculation based on insurance? What about them? These are not necessarily fat guys. What do you do to them when you immediately and without any phase-in at all give them what could be a very significant increase in their insurance? So that is the problem that we have. That is where we have the difference with our friend from New Mexico, not simply with regard to the second home but to the businesses. Mr. Chairman, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to say, as I said before, we are running here a national program. And if it becomes 50 separate State programs or a couple of thousand separate county programs, you lose the insurance principle. And it is also the case, and I understand that there are programs into which Massachusetts pays more than it gets back. Under Medicaid, we get a lower percentage of reimbursement than other States do. We have public transportation and we benefit. But we don't have much that is subsidized agriculturally. I think the notion that every State can have a balance sheet destroys, the Articles of Confederation embody that principle, but not the Constitution. You cannot run a national program based on need, based on response to situations on a nationwide basis if you have this kind of a balance thing. So I agree, we should be pushing FEMA to do the right thing; but if we begin to pick and choose based on one State, you know, we will have a situation where every State will be looking to make money and none will be paying in, and pretty soon there won't be anything left.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentlewoman would continue to yield, we also find the amendment very acceptable.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman would yield, I am perfectly prepared to offer support subsequent to the thanks. Sequence doesn't seem important.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I will just say that it would certainly be my intention and I think that of whoever the successor is to my friend from Ohio will be next year to take this seriously; that is, this is a study that will not simply languish. I think it has been indicated there are some concerns about the impact of a fully fiscally responsible program on people, low-income homeowners, and that will be helpful as we try to work out an approach to that.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, there are two aspects that have to be considered, one, the impact on vacation communities. It is not only wealthy people. You are talking about the businesses, the hotel owners, the small business people, the restaurant owners, the rooming house owners. They would get a heavy impact here. Cumulatively, if you affect all the commercial property in one of these areas, then you will also affect the whole area. The economic impact on small business people and on entire communities of a 100 percent overnight significant increase in insurance is not something we ought to be inflicting on people. The phase-in is reasonable. They should be getting actuarial rates but at a reasonable pace.