Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman from Ohio who has been one of the Members who has not been willing to give up our responsibility, and we will work together.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Obviously, there is a great degree of support in the Congress for getting the money out right away. We have people who were victims of this flood, and they have been victims in a number of ways. This is one small piece of the compensation that goes to them. There will be people who will be uncompensated, people who did not have flood insurance, people who are not able to make the kind of partial payment that is required, but the least we can do is to make this payment. But as we vote quickly to send this money, we need to work in the next few weeks and months to deal with and resolve some broader questions. I believe that the country has suffered over the past decade, and it is particularly suffering now, from a philosophy that has undervalued the need for us as a civilized people to come together and work together on some things. We are a society run, to a great extent, according to the principles of the free market of private capital. It is a wonderful system for generating wealth. The goods and services that are produced through the free market system benefit all of us, and that free market system leads to the best possible production. The problem comes with people who are so enamored of that system that they value it not only for what it does, but for what it does not do, is not supposed to do, and should not be burdened with trying to do. That is, there are in this society a number of very important values that we have as civilized people with a moral commitment to each other's well-being that can only be done if we pool our resources. Let us take the specific issue we are now talking about: insurance. The insurance industry is a private industry. It is an industry that provides important services to people, that provides jobs for people, that pools resources and provides investment capital. But even in the area of insurance, we have recognized historically, there are some gaps. The very existence of the Federal Flood Insurance Program, which we are here today financing, is an acknowledgment that there are limits to the private system. Private insurance, we have decided as a society, cannot handle the flood question, so the government must step in. I say that because it has become fashionable to denounce government, to take credit for less government. Well, less government, what does that mean? Less FEMA, less flood insurance, less for the Corps of Engineers? This is an example. We are here today to provide more government. We are here today to provide public resources, $2 billion. By the way, this $2 billion, we are authorizing the flood insurance program to borrow it. They are going to borrow it from the Treasury. They will be borrowing it from the Treasury which will, of course, in turn borrow it from the capital markets, from the American people, from China, and from everybody else who lends us money. That is the second point I want to make. As we now acknowledge after this terrible disaster and an inadequate response to the disaster, partly caused by a failure to appreciate the importance of our coming together through government to perform important functions, we will be spending a great deal of additional money. We are adding this $2 billion, I assume, to the deficit, let us be clear. We are not having any offsets. And this is a very small part of what we are doing. The time has come to recognize that we have over these past years left this Federal Government with too little in the way of resources to carry out our purposes. And we talk a lot about values and about the moral purposes we seek to achieve. I believe strongly that morality ought to be an element of public policy. I believe that we have not fulfilled our moral duty to the poorest people and working people and lower middle income people in New Orleans and elsewhere who have not been treated fairly as they were victimized. That is a moral question. It is a moral question when people are left behind because they do not have the resources to leave and other people leave. It is a moral question when people are not rescued when they could be rescued. It is a moral question when we let people live now in conditions brought about by this flood that are not decent conditions for human beings. And part of the answer, not all of the answer, but a necessary part of the answer is for the government to have the resources. And those who subscribe to the view that we must here in this House carry out our moral duty to each other should understand one of our moral duties right now is to go to people in need, to people who are frail, who are ill, who are young, who are old, who are in good health, but who have been reduced by physical forces to circumstances that no one of us would want to live in. And only if we come together through this mechanism called government, and only if we give this mechanism called government resources, tax money, because that is where the money comes from, will we have the capacity to discharge our fundamental moral duty. We talk a lot about family values. Let us value the families that have been so badly battered by this hurricane and whose condition was exacerbated by an inadequate response by the rest of the country. I cannot think of a better demonstration of family values than to go to the families living in Astrodomes and Superdomes and other places, hardly adequate for a family to live in. Let us go show our family values by doing whatever we can. We can never make people whole in the situation, but let us try to alleviate their misery. Well, again, we are borrowing $2 billion today, and I am glad we are doing that because we need to get to their aid. But it is a very small part of what we need to do. But I hope that this $2 billion will not stay borrowed. This $2 billion, a very small piece of what we need to do, underlines the importance of our, let me put it this way. We have, I think, a greater recognition of the value of government than we used to. I have not heard anybody today boast about how much they have reduced government. Indeed, I have heard virtually universal insistence that the government has got to do more in housing. We have got to do a better job with the Corps of Engineers, and we have got to do a better job with the EPA to deal with the terrible environmental problems that will result from this. We have to increase Medicaid funding at the Federal level for some of the States that are receiving people. We have to provide more funding for education. We are going to have to rebuild streets; we are going to have to pay police officers overtime. There will be enormous demands on this government for money. And what does that mean? It means enormous demands that we recognize our moral obligation to each other and each other's families to alleviate the effects of the disaster. Let us not just borrow that money. Let us not just add it to the deficit. The time has come to say that we have left ourselves inadequately prepared to deal with this. For anyone, an individual, a company, a nonprofit institution or a government to live deliberately and consciously on the edge is irresponsible, but that is what we have done to ourselves in this country. We have so reduced the resources available to this Federal Government that when this terrible disaster hit, we left ourselves inadequately prepared financially to deal with it. We did not do enough because of financial problems in the past. But let us now say, okay, we now understand this. There is a war going on in Iraq. I opposed it, but the war is there, and it imposes costs on us. There is still an effort in Afghanistan which I supported. Now we have this disaster. The time has come to recognize that this government, the instrument of our collective moral capacity in this instance, and volunteers will be very helpful, and I salute the volunteers who have done this. But no one thinks that individual volunteerism is going to resolve this crisis. There needs to be a common effort, coordinated and organized; and that means government. So for those who have joined in the insistence that we spend more, we have spent $50 billion in the supplemental, $2 billion here, and then we will do more in housing. And the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), who has been a great leader for us in the housing area, his committee. As we sit here today and stand here today, in another part of this complex a meeting is going on. The gentleman from Ohio, to his credit, convened all of the groups dealing with housing, low-income advocates, public officials, manufactured housing, homebuilders, people who finance housing. They are giving us an important set of ideas about how to respond. Now, some of them can be done by cutting red tape and by giving flexibility. They do not all cost money. But some of them cost money. You cannot take people who have lost physical homes and house them decently without money. So we have in every area virtually where the Federal Government is involved a need to spend more money. The height of irresponsibility would be, it seems to me, to join in this insistence on spending more money and to refuse to address the revenue problems of the government. How can you be in favor of spending hundreds of billions perhaps, certainly well over a hundred billion extra in addition to everything else we have been spending, but say, oh, and by the way let us cut some more revenue from the government. Let us leave the government less able to do this. And understand that people said, well, it will be a deficit and we can live with a deficit. This absence of resources puts a constraint on spending. Of course spending should not be wasteful. But it is clear, if you look, I have been here, we have done these appropriations, and appropriations chairman after appropriations chairman has come up and said, you know, I agree, we do not have enough money here. I wish we had more money for housing. I wish we had more money for transportation. I wish we could have done more for medical research. I wish we could have done more for environmental cleanup. But given the budgets, that is all we could do. In other words, the self-imposed restriction has hurt us. Previously, it was maybe a philosophical debate. Today, it is a moral necessity. It simply is not, it seems to me, morally acceptable, it is not in consonance with family values to continue to deprive ourselves of the resources we need to meet these needs. And so I support this two billion, and I will support many billions more, tens of billions more. But I will also support changing some of the policies of the past. The wealthiest people in this country, people who make more than $500,000 a year in income, I think it is reasonable for us to say to them, you know, over the past few years, your taxes have been reduced and you have profited. The time has come for us to undo some of those tax breaks. Leave in place everything up to $500,000, if that is what you want to do. I would change it even further. But at the very least can we not say that people's incomes above $500,000 should no longer get the tax reduction they got? None of them will be hurting. None of them will be competing for space in the shelters. None of them will need any reconstruction of their homes. And if we do not do that, no matter how much we say, oh, we do not care, we will just add it to the deficit. We do not care. We will care because nobody is so irresponsible as to totally disregard that deficit impact. And so if we are going to be true to what we have been saying we want to do, if we are true to our own moral profession, then we have two obligations, one, sensibly, thoughtfully, not wastefully, to spend the resources it is going to take to deal with this problem. And by the way, let us be clear. We do not want to alleviate this problem by exacerbating others. We do not want people from this area to go and take housing that is already scarce and knock other people out or knock other people's schools out or compete for scarce Medicaid dollars. We need to increase what we are doing. We need to do a better job of preparing for this in the future. This will take, we all agree, a very large amount of money. It may be fun to spend the money, or at least it is popular. It would not be morally appropriate to spend all this money and to take credit for spending the money without going back and undoing some of the tax reductions so that some of the wealthiest people in this country who have enjoyed great prosperity lose a little of their tax breaks and contributed so at the very least this additional spending will not add to the deficit, will not be a burden for the future; and the fact that it is a deficit will not be a constraint on our willingness to spend what is necessary. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, preliminarily, I yield myself 1 minute just to introduce as our first speaker the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). The gentleman from Ohio correctly noted that we made our committee and the Congress follow some very substantial improvements from the standpoint both of fiscal responsibility and environmental sensitivity to the flood insurance program. Now, we obviously did not have in mind at that point something of this particular disastrous consequence, but we did put into the law, for the first time really, some of the environmentally important issues that should be there. I am hoping that elsewhere, as we go through the appropriations process, that program will be fully funded, particularly in the proposals for mitigation. But on our side, it was a genuinely bipartisan issue. The former Member, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), collaborated with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who was the main co-author of that important reform in flood insurance.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, just before we adjourned, the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston issued a very thoughtful statement in support of the disengagement by Israel from the Gaza Strip, and the dismantling by the Israeli government of Israeli settlements in that area. Mr. Speaker, this was a very wrenching process for many in Israel, and the willingness of the government of Israel--supported by a majority of the people of Israel--to engage in this withdrawal with all of its difficult emotional strains speaks highly of that country's willingness to take steps for peace. The withdrawal from Gaza should not be the last action taken in this process, but it is unreasonable to expect that they will be able to take further actions in the absence of a showing by the Palestinian Authority of its willingness and ability to respond in kind to this disengagement. The statement of the JCRC is a first-rate statement of what should be done going forward, and it is an appropriate expression of support of a majority of the Jewish Community of Greater Boston for a peace process that is thoughtful, balanced and prudent. I ask that this important statement be printed here. Jewish Community Expresses Support for Israel's Disengagement Plan July 19, 2005. Nancy K. Kaufman, Executive Director and Susan A. Calechman, President of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston issued the following statement today regarding Israel's plans to disengage from the Gaza Strip and communities in northern Samaria. ``The JCRC fully supports Prime Minister Sharon and the government of Israel as they begin implementation of the Gaza disengagement plan. Israel's vigorous democracy is taking bold and courageous risks in an effort to protect her security and to renew the process of resolving the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. We also support the Israeli government's effort to resolve the conflict through a negotiated two-state solution as expressed in the Road Map. Final borders and other final status issues must be left to the parties themselves to negotiate in a peace process free from violence and the threat of violence. Disengagement will only lead to a peaceful outcome if there is a commitment on the part of the Palestinian leadership to put an end to terrorism. We call upon the Palestinian Authority (PA) to disarm the terrorist groups and their infrastructure. This includes removal of existing stockpiles of weapons and preventing such stockpiles from being rebuilt; preventing the smuggling of weapons; closing of clandestine weapons manufacturing and preventing attacks, especially during the engagement process. The future of peace, and the stability of the PA itself, is fully dependent on it taking this action. We recognize the profound sacrifices being made by the families who are being relocated, some after living in their homes for nearly 30 years. The loss of their homes, synagogues, farms, businesses and schools is an immense sacrifice which should be recognized with efforts made to bridge any gaps that develop among Israelis as a result of this effort. We condemn the rhetoric of a tiny extremist fringe that promotes violence as a response to policies undertaken by the democratically elected Israeli government. At the same time, the rights of free speech and lawful dissent which are basic and indispensable in a democratic society must be protected. It is critically important that those with differing views of the peace process condemn explicit hate speech, venomous language, and threatening words. It is also important that discussion among all the conflicting viewpoints be created to promote an atmosphere in which differences can be expressed with civility and respect. We call the U.S. Government to continue its work with Israeli and Palestinian leaders to ensure that all commitments are met and that a resolution to this conflict leads to a secure peace for both sides.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would ask to what guidelines the gentleman refers. I know there have been guidelines about bringing a bill up at all, but I am not aware of any guidelines that govern the deliberations of a bill once it has been brought forward. Could the Speaker enlighten us as to what guidelines he is discussing? I am not aware of guidelines that deal with the bill once it is before us. I understand they have dealt with whether or not you consider the bill.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the amendment I sought to offer which was kept out by an objection from the bill's manager would have dealt with the section referred to by the gentleman from Indiana. I also, like the gentleman from Indiana, am prepared to vote for, as I have in the past, some restrictions on medical malpractice. But what we have in this bill which has not gotten a lot of attention, and the gentleman from Indiana pointed it out, is a total exemption from punitive damages for drug manufacturers who get an FDA approval even though we have seen flaws in the FDA approval process. What the majority has now made clear, they are insisting that this be taken in whole. The gentleman from Indiana made a good point, an objection to this amendment, and I share his objection. What I do not share is his faith that this is going to be taken care of. The gentleman from Indiana, my good friend, was uncharacteristically mellow today in accepting an assurance that this will be looked at. I agree it will be looked at. It will be held up to the light. It will be turned upside down, and it will be looked at and looked at and looked at until it is signed into law, and then people will still be able to look at it as the law and those drug companies will have that exemption. So what I offer today, and one might have thought under democratic procedures this would have been allowed, was simply to vote on that. I was, in the spirit of bipartisanship, acting on the suggestion of the gentleman from Indiana. Forget about everything said about medical malpractice; the amendment I sought to offer and was blocked from offering by that objection, as we were by the Committee on Rules' heavy-handedness, simply would have allowed this body to decide whether as part of a medical malpractice bill you would give an exemption from punitive damages to drug companies. That is not medical malpractice. That is not related to the core of this bill. The majority will not even allow this to be discussed. I think it is wrong to give that kind of exemption certainly without a lot more consideration, but what is even more wrong is this further abuse of power. The majority simply will not allow this House, like the gentleman from Indiana, elected representatives of the people, to decide on whether or not we give an exemption to the drug manufacturers. They take medical malpractice, a sympathetic issue, and use it to cloak immunity for the drug manufacturers in part, and then arrogantly refuse to allow the House to vote on it. Mr. Speaker, I will say what I have said before. We are working with the people of Iraq and we are trying to get them to implement democracy. To the extent anyone from Iraq is watching the proceedings here, I would say to them, Please do not try this at home. Please do not, in the Iraqi Assembly, show the contempt and the disregard and the arrogance for minority rights and democratic procedures, and maybe majority rights. I should amend this. They are not afraid of minority rights; they are afraid if we had an open and honest vote on this that a majority would decide not to let the drug companies carry out under that darkness.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to offer an amendment which is in writing at the desk and is germane.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Does that mean any unanimous consent request to amend a bill is out of order unless it meets what standard? Could the Chair enlighten us as to how one would become in order?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. We are told that these guidelines supersede the rules, during the consideration of a bill that unanimous consent is not in order? I had not previously heard that. Further, I understood they dealt with whether or not Members were recognized. Once recognized, as the gentleman from New York was, I am not aware of any restriction on what the gentleman can do as long as it is within the rules. Those guidelines dealt with recognition, as I understood it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, why would I have to approach the Chair? This is a public forum. I believe this notion of appropriateness is a gloss on the rules that does not exist. Can we not have a citation to the rule of appropriateness?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Would someone point to the rule of the House? First, Mr. Speaker, I must say ``inappropriate'' does not seem to me to be a parliamentary term. Something is either in order or it is out of order. Appropriateness may deal with etiquette, it may deal with how well Members are dressed and how nice they look, but I understood under parliamentary procedure you are either in order or not in order. Would someone refer to me the section of our rules, Jefferson's Manual, which talks about appropriateness?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas is right. I did vote for this bill last year, because I thought it was about medical malpractice and did not read it carefully. In fact, what happened was I made the mistake last year that the gentleman from Indiana might make this year. I believed that they would honestly talk about medical malpractice, and it did not occur to me they would try to sneak into this bill something that gave partial immunity to the drug manufacturers. So I admit that I did not read it thoroughly, but I will not when the gentleman is managing bills make that mistake again.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, while I am not an expert in time management, I do have a suggestion that would allow the House to better use its time. Last night we spent well over an hour here, a lot of very busy people, while the leadership variously cajoled, bribed, browbeat, et cetera, a few Republicans who wanted to have it both ways, who wanted to give people the impression they were opposed to CAFTA while they were ready to cave in for sufficient inducement. What we should have done, and I propose this for the future, is the next time we have one of those tough votes where they are going to have to do that with their Members, let us schedule an evacuation drill from the House. The fact is at the time the plane was flying over here and a roll call was open and we evacuated the House, it took about the same time as it took them to cajole and blackmail and browbeat their people last night. So why not do two things at once? The next time they know there is a bill they are going to cram down people's throats that they do not want to vote for and want to pretend to their voters they are against it, and it is going to take them an hour or 2 to find out ways to get them to help fool people, why not schedule in advance an evacuation drill, and that way we can kill two birds with one stone? And since people might not know it is a drill, they can threaten people who do not vote with them: They can make them stay here in case there is a plane crash.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, last week I opposed an amendment to the State Department Authorization Bill that would have put restrictions on the ability of the President to decide on the appropriate flow of aid to the Palestinian Authority, because I believe that a Palestinian Authority both willing and able to confront violent opposition to the peace process with Israel is essential for peace to succeed. Later that day, after our debate, I read--a bit tardily--an excellent article that had been published in the Washington Post, for Wednesday, July 20, by the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Daniel Ayalon. I believe that Ambassador Ayalon is an extremely able diplomat, who is himself a dedicated supporter of a rational process leading to a genuine two state solution in the Middle East. The article he wrote underlines the importance of a commitment by the Palestinian Authority to take the steps necessary to curtail the activities of those in the Palestinian community who are determined to bring the peace process to a violent halt. As Ambassador Ayalon notes, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has confronted those within Israel who are opposed to the peace process in general, and very specifically to the withdrawal of Jewish settlers from Gaza. This is of course, as the Ambassador points out, a cause of great anguish within Israel, and Prime Minister Sharon and his allies ought to be commended for the dedication to peace they are showing in their willingness to confront this opposition. It is entirely reasonable for Israel to ask, as Ambassador Ayalon does, for a comparable level of effort from President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority. I do not mean by this to equate the opposition faced by President Abbas on the one hand and Prime Minister Sharon on the other. While I disagree strongly with those settlers who are seeking to derail the peace process, they have not in any significant degree resorted to the kind of murderous violence that has been the response of Hamas and others within the Palestinian community seeking to put an end to peace. I say that they are people seeking to put an end to the peace process, Mr. Speaker, because there is no other explanation for the decision to engage in terrorist murders of Israelis within Gaza while the Israeli Government is in fact in the process of withdrawing from Gaza. Individual Israelis are not the only victims of these murders--the peace process is also an intended victim. I believe it is important for the United States to provide strong support for all those trying to go forward with this difficult peace process, and I think it is fair for Ambassador Ayalon to point out that the effort so far of President Abbas have fallen short of what Israel has a right to expect. I will continue to oppose, as I did last week, measures that seem to me to undercut President Abbas' ability to go forward with this admittedly difficult task. At the same time, I think it is important for those of us who are strong supporters of the peace process to join in reminding President Abbas of the importance of his being more successful than he has in the past in this regard. Mr. Speaker, I ask that Daniel Ayalon's article be printed here. [From the Washington Post, July 20, 2005] In Gaza, a Test Case for Peace (By Daniel Ayalon) Next month thousands of Israelis will be uprooted from their homes in 25 settlements, against the backdrop of widespread political opposition and intensifying Palestinian terrorism. Israel faces difficult days ahead. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is boldly determined to move forward with disengagement from Gaza and the northern West Bank out of a deep conviction that it is critical to Israel's future. Unfortunately, the Palestinian leadership has failed to meet him halfway. The Palestinian Authority's refusal to disarm terrorist organizations has enabled the terrorists to regroup and renew deadly attacks against Israelis, compounding the difficulties of this engagement and casting an ominous shadow on the possibility of future progress. The sharp increase in Palestinian terrorist attacks, particularly in the past week, underscores the precariousness of the situation. While Israel is committed to completing the disengagement as planned, we will not sit idly by while our civilians are under attack. Time is running out for the Palestinian leadership to confront the terrorists. Should it fail to do so, Israel will be forced to take the necessary steps to defend its people. Lest the Palestinians miss another historic opportunity, the world should insist that they crack down on terrorism now. After numerous failed attempts by Israelis and Palestinians to reach peaceful accommodation over the past 15 years, Sharon decided to embark on a different course. Disengagement is an immense political, strategic and indeed historical undertaking, aimed at reducing friction between Israelis and Palestinians, jump-starting the peace process and providing the Palestinians with a unique opportunity to build institutions of responsible self-governance. At the same time, it puts a terrible burden on thousands of Israelis called on to leave their homes against their will. Many have lived there for more than three generations. Specially trained, unarmed units will move from house to house as part of a massive logistical operation involving some 50,000 security personnel, accompanied by teams of social workers and psychologists. Living, breathing communities, some more than 30 years old, will simply vanish. Businesses, factories and farms will be shut down. Schools, synagogues and cemeteries will be relocated. The removal of graves, including those of terrorism victims, will be especially heart-wrenching. The trauma of disengagement has unleashed dangerous rifts in Israeli society. While the withdrawal is supported by most of the public, many Israelis deeply oppose it on moral, religious and security grounds. Sharon has demonstrated steadfast leadership in the face of an unprecedented political backlash from his traditional supporters. Given the intense political opposition and growing civil disobedience, the prospect of violent resistance cannot be ruled out. Regardless of the outcome, the repercussions of disengagement will be felt in Israel for years. At stake is not only the success of disengagement but also the very fabric of Israeli society. Adding fuel to the fire, public anxiety in Israel has increased because of the resurgence of Palestinian terrorism, including suicide bombings, drive-by shootings and rocket attacks. Rather than confront the terrorist organizations and disarm them, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has invited Hamas into his government, thereby providing a terrorist organization with an official seal of approval. The result has been an emboldened Hamas, a further weakening of the Palestinian Authority and a potentially disastrous perception that disengagement is a victory for terrorism rather than an opportunity for peace. Abbas must seize the moment and lead the Palestinians toward peace. The terrorist organizations must be disarmed as called for in the ``road map'' if Palestinian statehood is to be achieved. This is nonnegotiable. Gaza is both the opportunity and the test for the Palestinian leadership. Will that leadership prove itself capable of governing a functioning democratic society, free from terrorism and focused on improving the lives of its citizens, or will it squander yet another opportunity? After leaving Gaza, Israel will no longer provide an easy excuse for Palestinian failure. The rock-solid, principled and bipartisan support for Israel in the United States has been vital to our ability to overcome terrorism and prepare the ground for a political initiative. The notion of disengagement would have been unthinkable had Israel not prevailed in the latest round of sustained terrorism waged by the Palestinians since September 2000. The stakes for Israel are enormous. We are a strong but small country facing a largely hostile region roughly 500 times our size. We can ill afford to make mistakes. Iran's nuclear weapons program is imminent, posing an existential threat. Syria and Iran promote and support Palestinian terrorist groups sworn to our destruction. Hezbollah has intensified terrorist attacks against Israel from Lebanon, opening a second front aimed at derailing any progress. Despite these challenges, Israel has shown it is prepared to take difficult steps to achieve President Bush's vision for peace in the Middle East. The world should insist on no less from the Palestinians. The writer is Israel's ambassador to the United States.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I salute the work of the committee. I know that the ranking member has done an excellent job, the chairman has been a diligent supporter of science and of scientific freedom and I admire that, but I do want to express my profound disagreement on policy terms with much of this bill. Mr. Chairman, we have held up for years now a transportation bill, literally years, because we are quarreling over the amount of money. To commit billions of dollars to go to Mars when we are not providing the funds for Americans to go from one city to another is simply a waste of money. The Mars money is in a zero-sum situation, and to commit $3 billion now, I am told, and billions more in the future to go to Mars when day after day when appropriations bills come up we are told, no, we can't do enough for housing and we can't do enough for health care, and the appropriators say, look, we agree with you, it's a good program we're cutting, we wish we had more, but we then set aside billions for Mars. Indeed, I think this is a fundamental debate that the country ought to have. I hope we will see a bill that will put this question about whether or not we commit these untold billions to go to Mars coming at the expense of other important programs before us. On this whole question of our priorities, I was struck on July 7 by a very thoughtful editorial in USA Today, with which I agreed, which called for a diminution of human space and more of the sort of scientific space travel that has in fact been so beneficial. Under the General Leave, I am going to insert this as well as a rebuttal from Mr. Griffin, but I believe, particularly now, that we have to talk about the priorities. These are not separate entities. The money that goes, the tens of billions that are being committed to go to space travel, come at the expense of cleaning up Superfund sites, of building transportation, of providing health care and providing housing. The country may decide in context to go forward with that, but we need to have that decision put before us in an explicit way. Public Support Can't Fly if Manned Flights Remain Costly and Aimless NASA's Deep Impact probe, which smashed into a comet Monday, was a big hit. In fact, it was a billion hits. That's how many computer ``hits'' NASA's website recorded in just 24 hours around the event. This deep interest in Deep Impact is illustrative of a new reality that the human space program confronts as it gears up for next week's planned return of the shuttle. Robotic probes, once the domain of pointy-headed academics, have become NASA's new stars. The probes have always generated more science. Now they generate more enthusiasm and romance. They are cheaper, faster and more exciting. They go farther and stay longer. They explore the frontiers of the cosmos. What's more, they make better use of the pre-eminent technology of our times, the Internet. Thanks to signals sent back by the Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity, the Red Planet has been ``visited'' a little more than 670 million times since January of last year. When and if astronauts arrive there, the product they provide the Internet consumer will be, in many respects, inferior. No sooner would they arrive than attention would shift to getting them home safely. Rovers, on the other hand, plow on, month after month, sending data, living off nothing but sunshine. For its 22-year history, USA TODAY has been an avid supporter of the human space program. We continue to believe it should be maintained for such a day when engineers find a way of bringing down its costs, making more ambitious projects possible. But it's impossible to deny its current status as a cure for insomnia. The International Space Station, its main focus for the past decade, orbits in near oblivion. The shuttle doesn't really go anywhere. Sadly, it makes headlines only when its flights end in tragedy. The launch of Discovery, scheduled for Wednesday, night generate attention, but only because of its novelty as the first in more than two years. President Bush's plan for sending astronauts back to the moon and on to Mars, announced in 2003, was met by public apathy and unfavorable polls. Having pushed budget deficits to the moon, he also has no plan to pay for it. Nevertheless, Bush and Congress seem oblivious. They are intent on a vision whose main impact is not to explore space but to channel money to aerospace companies and bureaucracies. NASA is embarking on a costly shuttle replacement program, when far cheaper options exist. This project is being undertaken in the name of Bush's moon-Mars plan, an iffy prospect at best. Even now, in the early stages, almost two thirds of NASA's budget, a little less than $10 billion annually, goes into human space programs--the shuttle fleet, the Space Station and Bush's plan. NASA, to its credit, did come up with an elegant and cost- effective way of continuing the human space program without having it eat up most of its funding. The so-called Orbital Space Plane was to have been lifted into space atop existing commercial rockets. Alas, the idea was too good to survive. Lawmakers representing aerospace contractors and major NASA employment centers made sure it died. That has left the space program on a costly and uncertain trajectory. The shuttle replacement might get built by 2014, or even 2010, as some people hope. Or it might end up like the X-33 and the National Launch System, two programs abandoned when their costs became clear. The moon-Mars idea is even more problematic, requiring increasing allocations of money from future presidents. What does appear certain is that lawmakers will pump vast amounts of money into a directionless human space program just as the public's attention has shifted away. That's too bad. After watching Deep Impact and other robotic missions of late, it's clear that NASA's science division has become a veritable hit machine. It would be fascinating to see what it could do if set loose.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is a two-page amendment. If it were a one-page amendment, I would be an enthusiastic supporter. The declaration of policy urging our government to promote the emergence of a democratic Palestinian government is greatly to be desired. I must say the fifth item, insisting that it acknowledges, respects, and upholds the human rights of all people, if they would do everything else here, respect the right of Israel to exist, repudiate terrorism, that would be sufficient for me. We have some people we work with who do not uphold the human rights of all people. But in general I like the declaration. I do not think, however, that we should impose these restrictions on the funding. This is an issue on which I trust President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon. Those are not people with whom I am always allied. I believe that Prime Minister Sharon, a political figure with whom I have not always found myself in agreement, I have said if I lived in Israel, I would not vote for Ariel Sharon. If he lived in Brookline, he would not vote for me. We can get along. Although I think he probably occupies more of my thinking than I do of his. But I admire his willingness to go forward with a policy that I think is very much in the interest of Israel. I, as an American Jew, and I will be in Israel in August and I will be there again in January, I share the goal of a secure Israel as a Jewish democratic nation, and I admire the insight of Prime Minister Sharon and Deputy Prime Minister Olmert, that an Israel which governs millions of hostile Palestinians will have a hard time being Jewish and democratic, and, therefore, I support Israel's effort to reach peace. There is no guarantee that it is possible. It is a difficult situation. But I do not think we in Congress should make it more difficult. There are people within Israel who do not agree with what Prime Minister Sharon is doing, but they have not been able to get a majority in the Israeli parliament, the Knesset. I do not want to see them win a partial victory in the U.S. House of Representatives that they cannot win in the Knesset. While I agree with the declaration of policy, I believe that restrictions on funding to the Palestinian Authority ought to be left to the decision of the executive branch. I trust George Bush on this, and I trust this administration. I believe they are as committed to the declaration of policy as any of us. And I think in this case it is important for them to have some flexibility. I do not find the Palestinian Authority any model of democratic governance, but it is clearly in everybody's interest, and the Israeli government agrees to this, to have the Palestinian Authority strengthened vis-a-vis the terrorists of Hamas. Maybe the right way to do it will be to cut back; maybe it will not be. I do not think that is a judgment we can make here. Again, when we have in power an Israel and a United States with democratically elected governments that are committed to this process, having these congressional restrictions, I believe, is a hindrance; and this notion no more than 25 percent can be spent in a quarter does not, to me, have any substantive policy reason. Maybe there will be a joint decision by Prime Minister Sharon and President Bush that the Palestinian Authority is in fact doing what it should do and they want to be able to give them more money in a period of time. I do not think it is appropriate for this Congress to restrict that. So I agree with the declaration of policy. If we were in the whole House, I would ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified for that purpose, but I cannot do it in the Committee of the Whole, and I would vote for that. But I do not think we should impose these restrictions on the funding for the Palestinian Authority as a sign we do not trust President Bush and the Government of Israel jointly to make those decisions. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I am always puzzled when in defense of an amendment we are told that it is really not going to mean anything. We are told the President can waive it. Well, frankly, I think the purpose of an amendment is not to waive it, W-A-I-V-E, but for some of us to wave it, W-A-V-E, as a sign of what we think. I am all in favor of this declaration, but I think the amendment's operative part restricting funding might get in the way. The single most important issue, it seems to me, is that the Palestinian Authority should agree to disarm and dismantle any terrorist agency network or facility. I agree that is essential. They have to be willing to confront Hamas, but they cannot do it without money. What are they going to do it with, rhetoric? We are taking a gamble, there is no question. If the Palestinian Authority is in the end unwilling or unable to meet these responsibilities, then there will not be peace. That will be a tragedy for all concerned, but mostly for the Palestinians. No one should ask Israel to go forward if that is not the case. That makes it all the more important to do everything we can to enable the Palestinian Authority and pressure them to do this. The problem is playing yo-yo with the funding does not work. The President has the authority now to stop. We cannot force him to spend foreign aid. The President will do this in consultation with the Israeli government, with Vice Premier Paris, who works on this. I believe this is an unwise intrusion of Congress. We do not have a disagreement here. We say we agree with Sharon's government of trying to see if peace can be made. We agree with the administration. I do not think that this kind of intervention by Congress is going to be helpful with a difficult and delicate peace process.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, one of the gravest weaknesses in our financial system is the growing pattern of grossly excessive compensation which the leaders of some major firms are paying themselves, with the acquiescence of passive boards of directors. The issues raised by the extraordinarily large pay packages some top executives are granting themselves go beyond simply the inappropriateness of people enriching themselves at the expense of their stockholders and their employees. Increasing inequality in income distribution in this country has broader policy implications, and there is also the growing problem of perverse incentives that result from executives receiving grossly disproportionate compensation based on decisions they themselves take. That is, it is clear that some of the accounting abuses we have seen, and some decisions to sell large companies to others are being influenced not by the basic economics of these situations, but by the extent to which top decision-makers personally profit from these decisions. One of the most egregious recent examples is the $32 million payment made to the co-president of Morgan Stanley, Stephen Crawford, for work of only a few months as part of the upheaval that led to the ouster of Philip Purcell. In the New York Times on Wednesday, July 13, there is an excellent editorial on this subject, which notes that ``stockholders and employees are properly seething at the deal cut for Mr. Crawford . . . by a board that was oblivious to protecting the bank's reputation as it over-rewarded his fealty to Philip Purcell . . .'' Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is a subject which Congress must address. In particular, we must act to find ways to press boards of directors to do more to safeguard stockholders and employees from excessive compensation abuse, and we should in particular be looking at ways to curb the extent to which these sorts of compensation schemes based on various contingencies give perverse incentives to decision- makers. I and others on the Financial Services Committee will be offering some legislative proposals in this regard, and I offer the New York Times editorial here for Members' edification as an example of why some action is necessary in this regard. [From the New York Times, July 13, 2005] The Wages of Failure on Wall Street Words like golden parachute hardly do justice to the stunning $32 million worth of a not-so-fond adieu engineered at Morgan Stanley, the troubled Wall Street securities giant, for its departing co-president, Stephen Crawford. Stockholders and employees are properly seething at the deal cut for Mr. Crawford--after a mere three months on the job-- by a board that was oblivious to protecting the bank's reputation as it over-rewarded his fealty to Philip Purcell, the chief executive who was driven out in a messy power struggle last month. The board majority appointed by Mr. Purcell opened the bidding on failure's rewards by ushering Mr. Purcell to the exit with a $43 million sweetener. Now others from his team of loyalists--sycophants is the term outraged critics prefer--are lining up to walk the platinum plank behind Mr. Crawford, who never ran a business division at the bank yet rose to the top as Mr. Purcell's attentive protege. Mere groundlings juggling finances at their neighborhood A.T.M.'s must pause slack-jawed at how Wall Street insiders are so ludicrously compensated for plain failure at steering their companies. Few of life's losers land so affluently. The repair task now falls to John Mack, the new chief executive and Morgan Stanley veteran. Facing a furor among stockholders and staff over the severance machinations, Mr. Mack had second thoughts about his own guaranteed salary of up to $25 million, so he is instead invoking a merit-pay standard for himself. This amounts to innovation at Morgan Stanley, where dozens of bankers, traders and managers quit when the Purcell team ascended and ensconced their own in top positions even as the bank lagged behind its competitors. Mr. Mack is already seeking the return of the more respected departees who ran profitable divisions. He has retained the other Purcell co-president, Zoe Cruz; she was smart enough to turn down the board's garish compensation package. The new chief won't get far with recovery, however, unless he impresses workers and investors with a fresh dedication to merit. That has to begin with the departure of the current directors--on terms worth no more than their true value in having compounded the turmoil at Morgan Stanley.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, I agree that this is a very important improvement to what was a very important piece of legislation. At a time when people wonder about whether or not we are able to go forward, it ought to be noted clearly there are strong ideological and partisan differences over some issues, as there should be in a democracy, but we have been able, from time to time, to work together on things where there is a consensus of common sense. In this particular instance, the underlying legislation here was one which was strongly supported by a coalition of environmentalists and taxpayer groups who had a common understanding that in effect encouraging people to continue to rebuild in areas that were going to be flooded made no sense from either the environmental or the taxpayer perspective. There was also an unusually fruitful bipartisan collaboration that brought us this bill. Our former colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), a senior member of the Committee on Financial Services, worked very closely with a continuing Member, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and they did an excellent job of putting this piece of legislation together. And we now, having enacted the legislation, encounter something that was unanticipated. This would clean it up. It would make a very good piece of legislation better.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he would consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) who will be my last speaker.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, the right wing hit man, who is now the deputy chief of staff in the White House made an outrageously, consciously dishonest set of attacks on Members of this body by arguing that liberals had show ignored the terrible events of September 11, despite the fact that we virtually unanimously voted to go to war in Afghanistan, and voted for a homeland security department, in fact advocated it over the administration's objections. We now have learned that the response of this hit man was to leak the name of a CIA agent, probably in violation of the law, certainly in violation of the rules that ought to be in place. And now we have this defense, the lawyer having previously denied that he did it, now says, well, it was not really a problem because he only said it was Joe Wilson's wife, he did not mention her name. Now, perhaps the President's hit man maybe got him confused with one of his Saudi prince friends that thought that Mr. Wilson was a polygamist and had several wives and therefore identifying his wife would have thrown people off the track. But I do not think that is really acceptable in a court of law. And as to the argument that by not naming her no one knew who he meant, does anyone doubt that the right wing hit man I am talking about, whose name I have not previously mentioned, is Karl Rove.