Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr). (Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to me. I would just stress no one who understands what drives immigration, legal or illegal, thinks that illegal immigration will decrease by one person if they do not have the matricula consular. I have never heard anyone argue that it is the ability to have the matricula consular that brings people here illegally. So the question is, as the chairman has phrased it, whatever we can do or not do to stop illegal immigration, this has nothing to do with it. There will be people here. This is part of an effort to try to identify some of the people who are here. It is a separate question. And, again, I would ask does anyone really think that if we get rid of the matricula consular that this would decrease illegal immigration by as much as one person? I see no argument for that. And then once we accept that fact, the chairman's argument is correct, that it is a way of dealing with facts that are here, while we try to diminish them to other means, that do have the support of law enforcement because better information is helpful.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 642 as legislation in an appropriations bill.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that section 644 is legislation on an appropriations bill and therefore should be stricken.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on September 16, the Hispanic Recognitions Awards Committee Incorporated in the City of New Bedford, Massachusetts will have its annual ceremony, giving awards to a number of individuals and organizations. The recipients of these awards, to be presented at 5 p.m. at New Bedford High School on September 16, have distinguished themselves by their dedication and energy on behalf of the Hispanic community in our area, and on behalf of the community as a whole. I congratulate Emilio E. Cruz for the work he has done in making this possible, and I wish to join Mr. Cruz and others in recognizing the important community service performed by these recipients. The list of awards and those receiving them is as follows: Community Organization Award 2004--Catholic Social Services; Cultural Achievement Award 2004--Johnny Arellano; Youth Award 2004--Chayrel Adams; Health Awards 2004--Marta Gonzalez; Education Award 2004--Sara Rodriguez; Public Safety Award 2004--Jose A. Perez; Latino Organization Award 2004--Association Maya Kiche USA, Inc.; Community Service/Leadership Award 2004--Reverend Abraham Torres; The Rising Star Award 2004-- Marilyn Vega.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, as the Representative of a district which contains a number of abandoned industrial sites, I have a particular interest in the Superfund program. Sadly, the priorities of the Congressional majority and the current administration do not include Superfund, and as a consequence, this important environmental cleanup program has been denied the resources needed to meet the promise we have made to many American communities. In my own district there are three Superfund sites on which I have worked hard, and where we have made some progress, but where inadequate funding threatens to deny the people of the City of New Bedford and the Towns of Fairhaven and Norton the full environmental response to which they are entitled by federal law. This is a problem of national scope, as evidenced by the fact that the United States Conference of Mayors, one of the leading voices for sensible public policies in our country, recently passed a resolution at its 72nd Annual Meeting in Boston calling for ``increasing appropriation levels for Superfund.'' The resolution notes the slowdown in remediation that is taking place because of the preference for tax cuts for the wealthy over important public needs, and urges us to increase the Superfund appropriation by $300 million a year for the next five years. This is a very well informed and important statement from a group of thoughtful public officials who share with us the responsibility for public policy in this country, and I ask that the Conference of Mayors' very cogent resolution be printed here.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this is not just about gays and lesbians. I have been here 24 years. We never do anything only once. When you have developed a particular procedure to use in defense of your views, that gets used again and again. Today, I was going to say you set a precedent if you pass this bill, but you do not set a precedent. You go back in history to the Articles of Confederation. Passage of this bill will mean that the United States Constitution, in this particular area, will have different meanings in different States because States will then be the ultimate decider of the Constitution, and anyone who thinks that if we do it in this case that is the only time we will ever do it does not follow things closely. I am the ranking member on the minority side in the Committee on Financial Services. There is not an area in our jurisdiction with respect to the business community of America where the financial community does not come to us and say we need one uniform law. Do you not understand, Mr. Speaker, that if you set this precedent, it will apply in other areas? Indeed, it will become boilerplate. If you are passing legislation dealing with the second amendment and gun rights; and environmental land takings under the fifth amendment; the commerce clause, financial regulation, it will be a matter of course to add this language that says, and by the way, we believe so strongly in what we have done, it will be none of the business of the courts. There will be different views in different States. Forget the Uniform Commercial Code. We will have the ``multiple commercial code,'' the multiple choice commercial code. We will have the ``Multiple Choice Constitution.'' I guess I am regretful, maybe I can apologize, that the sight of two lesbians falling in love and wanting to formalize that has so traumatized the majority that they are prepared to make the biggest hole in the United States Constitution that we have seen since we became one Nation. You are saying there will be no more uniformity in the Constitution, and you say it is only here. By the way, I know a few scholars who think you will lose on full faith and credit. You make a terrible mistake to set a precedent that will be followed time and again. It will become truth that you really care about an issue that you say that the United States Constitution will no longer be a uniform document, but will be subject to dozens of separate State interpretations.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I disagree with my friend from Illinois. This does not take the matter out of the courts; it takes the matter of constitutionality away from the United States Supreme Court and confers it on the 50 State supreme courts. What this bill says is, no court created by act of Congress and the Supreme Court shall have no jurisdiction to hear or decide any question pertaining to, among other things, the validity under the Constitution of Section 13, et cetera. The State courts have, as has been acknowledged, also the right to interpret the Federal Constitution. Frankly, from the standpoint of there being more same-sex marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, I think there would be more if this bill became law. I do not want the bill to become law because of its terrible precedential consequences. But, frankly, the likelihood that this U.S. Supreme Court will find that full faith and credit compels the nationwide recognition of same-sex marriages is quite slight. It is likelier that there are four, five or six State courts that will find that. So what you are saying is not that the people will decide it as opposed to the courts, the courts presumably made up of aliens that you have appointed in many cases, but the fact is that it will be decided by State supreme courts. Now, this is the problem. The gentleman from Wisconsin says there is precedent. He is wrong. All of the things he cited had to do with administrative matters, with deportees who are by definition noncitizens and who do not have the same rights. There is no case in American history of this language: you cannot decide any question pertaining to the validity under the Constitution. This is the first time we have said, not that it will not be litigated, but it will not be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. What you are doing here, you are not repealing anything except the Constitution by going back to the Articles of Confederation. Here is the problem, and it is not just about same-sex marriage. As I have said, I think there will probably be more State courts that will find full faith and credit than national. But we all know that we never in this body do anything only once. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) was right when he said, what about other issues. Once you establish this as the way you show your fealty to a principle, it will be demanded with regard to everything else. This will become boilerplate. So on issue after issue we will pass legislation, and we will say, but it cannot be questioned by the Supreme Court. Now, I can tell you, on the Committee on Financial Services on which I serve, the business community of the United States overwhelmingly comes to us and says we need uniformity, we need uniformity. What you are enacting here today does not say the courts do not have the final say; it says that instead of there being one United States Supreme Court binding interpretation on constitutional questions that are controversial, there will be different State court interpretations, and the impact will be much less on same-sex marriage than on economics, on land-takings, on gun control and a whole range of other issues.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the leadership the ranking member of our subcommittee is showing here. I am somewhat torn on this bill because I do agree, it is certainly beyond question, that the granting of stock options in the high technology industry, especially for start-up companies, has been enormously beneficial, and I do not want to see it changed. I do not even want to take the strong risk of it being changed, so if I were in charge of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, I would defer this. But I am not, and I do not want to be. We are in danger, I think, on this and on other issues of collapsing entirely the notion of a kind of respect for procedures. It is a mistake for this body always to legislate to get the specific outcome it wants on a particular issue without regard to the institutional frameworks. I think the institutional framework of a separate and independent and autonomous Financial Accounting Standards Board is a valuable asset. I do not want to impinge upon it. Members of this body are well aware that we never do anything only once. Maybe you can eat one potato chip, but you cannot overrule a board once only. If we set the precedent today of dictating to the Financial Accounting Standards Board what the accounting standards ought to be, I believe we will live to regret it. With regard to the options, here is the issue. I think they are a good thing in companies, particularly young start-ups. They ought to be able to give them. I guess if you are an old start-up, you ought to get out of the business. Young start-ups ought to be able to continue to give them. Here is the argument, because nothing in what FASB says says you cannot do them. What we are talking about is this: If companies are mandated to change the way in which they do the accounting on this, no change in the reality, but they change the accounting, will this leave the investment community to abandon a whole class of investments? I do not think a large number of people are now misled because it is in the footnote. I would assume if you are going to invest, you read the footnotes. But neither do I think that people will abandon the whole class of investments because when the accounting changes and it goes in the footnote to an expense, some of these companies will have gone from having shown a profit in one form of accounting to showing a loss. That is the argument. The argument is because nothing is being proposed. It would ban stock options from being done. What we are being told by the high-tech community, and I understand their fears, they do not want to take this risk. They are arguing that the investment community is apparently pretty dense and as long as the options are put into a footnote and they show a profit, they will invest. But if we change the accounting, the reality has not changed one iota, they will walk away from the whole class of places. Where is the gentleman from Texas, the former majority leader, Mr. Armey? Because he is the one who said, government is stupid and markets are smart. Would he please explain to them that markets are not stupid? In this case, he may have been right, because this is the argument. The crux of the argument is that if you change the accounting and do not change the reality, you will collapse investor interest in this whole class of industry, and I think that is wrong.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I welcome the gentleman from Louisiana's (Mr. Baker) concern for congressional prerogative and not excessive delegation. I just wish it extended to the war power and a few other trivial matters. On this particular subject, the gentlewoman's amendment is quite sensible. We have had criticism of the FASB arguing that they are going to make a decision that has broader public policy implications on grounds that are too technical. The gentlewoman's amendment gets us out of that box. And I have some sympathy with that argument because I do not think the FASB ought to go ahead, but I do not want to set the precedent of overturning the regulators. What her amendment does is to say, okay, it will not be up to the FASB, making a narrow technical accounting decision; it will be up to the Securities and Exchange Commission and specifically instructs them to take into account the public interest. In other words, it seems to me that this is what Members have been saying, that this decision obviously should not ignore accounting principles but that should be leavened by a concern for the public interest. So it is not simply a repeat of the whole bill. It does say it will not be up only to the FASB as current law would allow it, but it does say we will let the SEC make that decision. As to the argument this would somehow let the SEC overrule Congress, we would be voting to say to the SEC, here, we think based on invested protection and the public interest, you should make that decision. It would not be setting any precedent of overruling us or giving away our authority at all. I would love to have a consistent regard for congressional authority. I wish we could do it with regard to overtime rules and the war powers. This is not one of those problems.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, one of the most damaging myths that people in Washington seek to perpetuate is that opposition to recent trade pacts is rooted in isolationism and unreasonable protectionism. In fact, many of those who best understand the value of international economic cooperation, done properly, reject the Administration's approach. Among the most thoughtful advocates of an alternative approach to globalization is Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winner in economics in 2001, who also served as Chief Economist at the World Bank and in important economic positions in the Clinton Administration. In the New York Times for July 10, Professor Stiglitz set forward part of the argument against the Bush Administration trade policies, and explained exactly why those people most dedicated to alleviating worldwide poverty and social distress seek an alternative approach. I ask that Mr. Stiglitz's very thoughtful column be printed here. [From the New York Times, July 10, 2004] New Trade Pacts Betray the Poorest Partners (By Joseph E. Stiglitz) The United States and Morocco last month signed a new bilateral trade treaty. The Bush administration has been bragging that it exemplifies the way its economic policies can build new ties and new friendships around the world. This is especially important in the Middle East, where, in other respects, America's foreign policy seems to have left something to be desired. The cooperation with moderate Arab governments is meant to demonstrate our broadmindedness, our willingness to offer a carrot (rather than the proverbial stick) to those who behave reasonably. But regrettably, in negotiating the trade agreements with Morocco, Chile and other countries, the Bush administration has used the same approach that earned us the enmity of so much of the rest of the world. The bilateral agreements reveal an economic policy dictated more by special interests than by a concern for the well-being of our poorer trading partners. In Morocco, prospects of the trade agreement were greeted by protests--an unusual occurrence in a country that is only slowly moving to democracy. The new agreement, many Moroccans fear, will make generic drugs needed in the fight against AIDS even less accessible in their country than they are in the United States. According to Morocco's Association de Lutte contre le SIDA, an AIDS agency, the agreement could increase the effective duration of patent protection from the normal length of 20 years to 30 years. Morocco is not the only country that is worrying about access to life-saving drugs. In all its bilateral agreements, the United States is using its economic muscle to help big drug companies protect their products from generic competitors. For a country like Thailand, which is facing a real AIDS threat, these are issues of more than academic concern. President Bush's policy, in this area seems puzzling and hypocritical. While he talks about a global campaign against AIDS, and has offered substantial sums to back it up, what he is giving with one hand is being taken away with the other. Most Americans, I believe, would support greater access to life-saving generic drugs. The loss to the drug companies would be small, and must surely be dwarfed by the huge tax breaks they get. Nor are drugs the only arena in which the United States has used its economic power to advance some special American interest. The agreement with Chile limited its ability to restrict the inflow of speculative, hot money--money that can come in and out of a country on a moment's notice. Chile had recognized the potential destabilizing effects of these capital movements, and had imposed moderate taxes on these flows. Such restrictions had helped Chile grow a remarkable 7 percent a year in the early 1990's. That is because, unlike many of its neighbors in Latin America, Chile did not have to face the economic havoc caused by capital suddenly flowing in and then just as quickly flowing out. Today, even the International Monetary Fund recognizes that capital-market liberalization often leads to more instability instead of faster growth. In telecommunications, too, in Morocco and elsewhere, we have put forward demands (for example, concerning the use of transmitting facilities and the wholesaling of transmission capacities) that we would oppose strenuously if someone were to impose them on us. In the view of the developing world, the bargaining has been extraordinarily one-sided--with all the power on America's side. The United States and its trade representative, Robert Zoellick, are right that trade policy can be an important instrument for building good will. But when conducted as it has been by the Bush administration, it can be, and is, a way to build ill will, especially among the young, who worry that their elders are selling them short. If the trade agreements bring the economic benefits promised, if the lack of access to affordable drugs (including generic drugs) proves less troublesome than the naysayers worry, then all may be forgiven. But there is a good chance that this will not be the case: in Mexico, for example, real wages actually declined in the decade after the North American Free Trade Agreement. And looking ahead, the demands for capital-market liberalization have a good chance of exposing Chile's economy to disruption, while the AIDS epidemic and the need for cheap drugs to fight it are not about to go away. The good news is that the damage has been limited so far because we have been able to pressure only a few small countries to sign bilateral trade agreements. The bad news is that the enmity that we are earning through these pacts will only grow.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to serve in this House as the successor to one of its most distinguished former Members, the Reverend Robert F. Drinan, who represented the Fourth District of Massachusetts from 1970 to 1980. Father Drinan came to Congress after a very distinguished career as a legal scholar and administrator, having served with enormous distinction as Dean of the Law School at Boston College. For 10 years he played a leadership role in this body on a wide range of issues, significantly enriching the deliberations of the House with his vigorous intellect and strong commitment to the public interest. Upon leaving Congress in 1981, he resumed his academic career and has for more than 20 years continued to make extraordinary moral and intellectual contributions to the law. To take just one example, no one in the world has done more to advance the cause of international human rights--defending basic human rights without regard to the ideology of those would deny them--than Father Drinan, both as a Member of Congress and subsequently. In recognition of his extraordinary career--which still goes forward--the American Bar Association will present its highest honor to him on August 9 at the ABA Annual Meeting in Atlanta. As ABA President Dennis Archer said in announcing the decision to award the ABA medal to Father Drinan, ``By his standards of leadership, he contributes to the luster and dignity of our award.'' Mr. Speaker, the American Bar Association in explaining its decision to confer this award on a man who ``has demonstrated to lawyers what it means to be committed to public service and to countless law students what is embodied in the highest dedication to ethical, moral legal practice'' gives a summary description of his extraordinarily productive career. I ask that this announcement by the American Bar Association be printed here. ABA Confers Highest Honor on Former Congressman, the Rev. Robert F. Drinan, Georgetown Law Professor Chicago, June 28, 2004.--The American Bar Association today announced it will present the 2004 ABA Medal, the association's highest honor, to the Rev. Robert F. Drinan, S.J., a former congressman, law school dean, ethicist and human rights activist. ABA President Dennis W. Archer will present the medal at 11:30 a.m. Aug. 9 during the opening session of the association's House of Delegates during the 2004 ABA Annual Meeting in Atlanta. ``In an amazing career that has spanned more than half a century, Father Drinan has never faltered in his extraordinary humanitarian efforts and support for justice under the law. He has demonstrated to lawyers what it means to be committed to public service and to countless law students what is embodied in the highest dedication to ethical, moral legal practice. By his standards of leadership, he contributes to the luster and dignity of our award,'' said Archer in announcing the selection. The ABA medal recognizes exceptionally distinguished service to the cause of American jurisprudence. In nominating Drinan, admirers described him as ``an eloquent and effective advocate for the most downtrodden in society,'' someone ``active in so many areas of the law and human rights that there is not enough space to catalog them,'' and such a ``towering figure in the academic, professional, clerical and public service fields'' that he ``is the stuff of which legends are made.'' They noted the ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities created the Robert F. Drinan Distinguished Service Award in 2001, recognizing his leadership in protecting and advancing human rights, civil liberties and social justice. Drinan represented the Fourth District of Massachusetts in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1971 to 1981, and was a member of House committees on the Judiciary, Internal Security, and Government Operations and of the House Select Committee on Aging. He chaired the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice of the House Judiciary Committee, and was a member of the Executive Committee of the Democratic Study Group of the Environmental Study Conference and the Steering Committee of Members of Congress for Peace Through Law. As a congressman, he traveled in congressional delegations and on human rights missions around the world, and he has subsequently served as an election observer in Armenia and Panama. Drinan has been a professor at Georgetown University Law Center since 1981. He began teaching at Boston College Law School, where he became a professor in 1966 and also served as dean. He has been a visiting professor or guest lecturer at universities and law schools internationally and across the U.S. He is a prolific author, and his eleventh book, ``Can God and Caesar Coexist Balancing Religious Freedom and International Law,'' is due to be published in August by Yale University Press. His previous books all have dealt with major public policy issues. He is the recipient of 21 honorary doctoral degrees. In the ABA, Drinan is among a very few people ever to serve as chair of two distinct substantive legal sections: the Section of Family Law in 1966-67 and the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities in 1990-91. He also is a past chair of the association's Standing Committee on Professionalism and Standing Committee on World Order Under Law, and a former member of the association's policy-making House of Delegates. In other law-related organizations, he has been vice president of the Massachusetts Bar Association and chair of its Committee on the Administration of Justice, chair of the Boston Bar Association Committee on Family Law, chair of the Massachusetts Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and a member of the National Executive Committee of the American Judicature Society and of the Executive Committee of the Association of American Law Schools. Drinan's public service has taken him to leadership roles in many other organizations. He is a member of the National Governing Board for Common Cause and the National Council for the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, and the Board of Directors of People for the American Way, and a past president of Americans for Democratic Action. He was a founder and member of the Board of Directors of the Lawyers Alliance for Nuclear Arms Control, and a member of the boards of directors for Bread for the World, the Council for a Livable World Educational Fund and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., and an advisor to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Commission. He served on the Advisory Committee to the U.S. National Archives and the Advisory Board of the Union of Councils for Soviet Jews. He was vice chairman of the National Advisory Council for the American Civil Liberties Union and is a member of the Helsinki Watch Committee. Drinan chaired the International Committee for the Release of Anatoly Scharansky and Peace PAC, is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Bar Foundation, and was a founder of the National Interreligious Task Force on Soviet Jewry. He is a past board member of the National Board of Trustees of the National Conference of Christians and Jews and a member of the American Law Institute. With more than 400,000 members, the American Bar Association is the largest voluntary professional membership organization in the world. As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA works to improve the administration of justice, promotes programs that assist lawyers and judges in their work, accredits law schools, provides continuing legal education, and works to build public understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law in a democratic society.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it is now very clear we are talking here about whether or not we should keep open this rule to amendment, and the amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts will offer will be to prevent keeping open the roll call for the purpose of manipulation. Now, I was talking about that before, and I was told I was out of order. It is an interesting sequence. Yesterday, many of us thought we were changing a provision of the PATRIOT Act, which we find to be insufficiently cognizant of democratic values, and the majority then used what many of us believed to be very undemocratic procedures to prevent us from dealing with an undemocratic provision. And today, to complete the trifecta of disrespect for democracy, I was silenced when I tried to talk about, in an open forum, the undemocratic approach to yesterday's democracy. Now, I know one of the things we are trying to do is to instruct the people of Iraq, to help the people of Iraq understand democracy. We want them to be open. We want them to fully engage debate, not to suppress dissension. And the only thing I can say is this, Mr. Speaker, and I know we are not supposed to address the television audience, so I address this to you. I hope you will convey to any Iraqis who might be watching the proceedings of this House on television with regard to democracy, if they see what we are doing, please do not try this at home. Now, let me explain why we are upset about the delay. It is not simply ``the delay.'' Delay is not bad. We will have a chance today to show, in fact, that we are prepared to delay things as well. The question is what happens during the delay. The purpose of delaying a roll call, the reason the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) will offer this amendment, is to preserve the integrity of the House, because here is what happens. We have a roll call and Members vote, and Members will have, in some cases, said to their constituents, I support this position and I will vote that way. Then the vote tally is taken, and when the vote tally is taken, it turns out that the Republican side has lost. Then the roll call is held open, and that is why we want to prevent the reoccurrence and why we will be offering this amendment if the previous question is defeated. What happens then is this: The roll call is held open indefinitely so that Members who have told people in their districts they will vote one way can be pressured into voting another way. That is the purpose of holding the roll call open, to orchestrate a scheme by which the voters are misled; to orchestrate a scheme in which people can take a certain position, with the silent footnote that that position that they are taking will hold only so long as it does not prevail. But if it looks as if what they have told their constituents will prevail, they are prepared under the pressure from their leadership to abandon it. So we are not simply talking about the convenience of the House, we are talking about the integrity of the democratic process, because the sole purpose of that sort of delay, we are not trying to accommodate people just so they can vote, this is a very particular form of delay. It is a ``DeLay-delay.'' And this kind of ``delay squared,'' carried out at the behest of the majority leader, is to allow Members of the Republican leadership to press members of the Republican Party who have voted one way to now abandoned that position lest the way they voted prevail. And the only reason for that, as I said, is to perpetuate misinformation. So let us not have this situation. By the way, there is one other thing the voters ought to understand, Mr. Speaker. What we used to have in this Congress was individual Members voting, they consulted with their party leadership and then they voted. What has become clear now, and it was clear in the Medicare prescription drug bill, it is clear with the PATRIOT Act, it is now clear the Republican leadership is not prepared to allow its Members to vote contrary to the Republican leadership position if it will prevail. Republicans are allowed by their leadership the freedom of their conscience, as long as it is not operative. But if, in fact, there is any danger that what they say they are for will, in fact, reach fruition, the rug is yanked out from under them and they have to change their position. What it means is people should understand, come election, no matter who they think they are voting for, they are voting for the Republican leadership, because the Republican leadership is prepared to change the spirits of these rules, to hold roll calls open indefinitely, as long as it takes to pressure Republican Members who have voted one way, presumably having told people in their districts they will vote that way, to switch their votes. The sole purpose of these open roll calls is to allow deception, to undermine democracy. I hope that we vote down the previous question, that the gentleman's amendment is adopted, and that we restore the principle of intellectual honesty and integrity and democracy to this House.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the decision of the Chair.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I wish to be heard on the point of order and to contest it vigorously. I understand the sensitivity of the author of the point of order to discussion of the events over which he presided yesterday, but we are talking about the rules of the House, and we were confronted with what we believed to have been a grievous abuse of the spirit of the rules of the House and we need some reassurance that we will not have a repetition of this as we go forward. We are, after all, now debating whether or not we will have a previous question motion. If it were to fail, we would then be able to offer some amendments that might prevent that kind of abuse. So I believe a discussion of the abusive pattern of behavior of yesterday is directly relevant to a discussion about whether we ought to go forward with a rule with a previous question or whether or not we ought to be allowed to propose some amendments to this rule that will protect us against the abuse of power of yesterday.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Speaker is offering this courtesy to Members in keeping the roll call open, but there will be no need to keep it open for too long because I assume the Speaker is aware that this time you are winning.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, as we discuss the rules, it is impossible for those of us on our side to proceed without talking about the degrading spectacle of yesterday. It is particularly ironic that the Republican leadership chose to use extremely undemocratic tactics because there was a fear that democracy might break out in the law. What you had was a bipartisan coalition which formed a majority of the House seeking to change a provision of the PATRIOT Act. Point of Order

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, the people of Massachusetts, and particularly of the town of Sharon in my Congressional district, lost a great priest to illness. Father Robert Bullock exemplified the virtues of the priesthood. He was a wise, loving, kind man of great compassion and unimpeachable integrity. His death at 75 saddened all who knew of him and indeed all who knew of his great work. On Tuesday, June 22, the Boston Herald published a pithy but profound editorial about the death of this wonderful priest and I ask that it be reprinted here. [From the Boston Herald, June 22, 2004] A Hero Walked Among Us Heroes come in many forms, often shaped by their times. The Rev. Robert W. Bullock, who died this weekend at age 75, had been an everyday kind of hero for a very long time. A chaplain at Brandeis University and later a parish priest in Sharon, he forged lasting ties with the Jewish community, visiting Israel, writing on the Holocaust and speaking out against anti-Semitism. But when the scandal of clergy sexual abuse broke, Father Bullock went from quiet hero to noisy and courageous critic of the church hierarchy and Bernard Cardinal Law in particular. He headed the Boston Priests Forum, which called on Law to step down in December 2002. His was a courage born of faith, the kind of courage that will truly be missed around here. But the inspiration that his life was lives on.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I know that this is being carried on C-SPAN, but I think we should broaden our broadcast efforts. When we did the tax bill last week, I thought eBay should have been transmitting it. Today I think it really belongs on the Cartoon Network. There is much in this resolution I agree with, but what is most important is what is left out. The gentleman from California, a very distinguished and thoughtful legislator, although, unfortunately, in the minority and not in a position to write resolutions, said that it is our democratic responsibility to express legitimate criticisms of the administration. I agree. Sadly, because the majority is in control, there are none of them in this resolution. This resolution is a cartoon. It describes an Iraq that resembles nothing as much as Brigadoon. I expect maybe it will appear once every hundred years. I agree with many of the aspirations of this resolution. I agree that our troops deserve credit for the terrible situation in which they have been put. But if one read this resolution and had not read the newspapers or watched television about Iraq, one would not know what country was being discussed. The gentlewoman from California alluded to our congratulating Mr. Bremer for ably advancing the goals of making Iraq safe, secure, stable, sovereign, and democratic. The Iraq that is safe, secure, stable, sovereign, and democratic, are there two countries named Iraq? Is this Iraq anywhere near the Iraq that we have been worried about? I wish Iraq could become that. But to congratulate ourselves as if it already had is simply not accurate. I am troubled by the procedures we are seeing. The majority obviously feels concerned that the public no longer shares its view so they have decided to legislate opinion. They have a pattern now of coming forward with resolutions which include some things Members agree with, like support for our troops and aspirations, and then they wrap into that a lot of misrepresentative, inaccurate descriptions of reality and then demand that people vote it. We are told if we do not vote for a resolution that talks about Iraq as a safe, secure, stable, sovereign, democratic state, that somehow we are not in favor of the troops. It is a misrepresentation of the situation of Iraq, and a grievous misuse of the legislative process.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be part of this bipartisan recognition that sometimes you have to expand government. There are times when government is too limited and too small to perform its vital social role, and, apparently, Members on both sides recognize this is a case where we have not given the government enough of a role in providing housing to our veterans. Since our veterans, of course, fought for this country and served, it is appropriate that we do this. What this bill does is to raise the loan limit to the VA, which means, of course, into this very important government program, the Veterans' Affairs Department being part of the Federal Government and being supported by tax dollars, although this is a program that does not need a lot of subsidy, under this bill, this particular government program will be expanded. It will make more people eligible and it will cover more homes. In particular, it will bring some States back into the union. In much of Massachusetts, in much of California, in parts of Illinois programs like the Veterans' Affairs housing and the FHA and others might as well be in Ukraine, for all the use the American citizens who live there can get from them because the housing prices have gone too far. So I am very supportive of this. It is a very important way to show one more example of how we appreciate what our veterans have done. It is a very relevant example of the times when you should expand the reach of government so we can provide services that the private sector alone would not do. Obviously, if the private sector was entirely able to do this on their own, there would be no need for the VA guarantee. This is a good example of how public and private sectors cooperate. It is not a case of either/or. It sets a useful precedent, too, for legislation that I hope we will be dealing with soon, that the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) and I and others have sponsored to do a similar adjustment for the FHA. So I thank the members of the committee for this sensible recognition that we need to adjust programs to meet different conditions, and in particular, for understanding that there are times when the responsible thing for us to do, I hope on a unanimous basis, is to expand the role of the Federal Government.