Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am struck by the unwillingness on the Republican side to speak out on this. I will give them credit; they know indefensibility when they have promulgated it, and this is indefensible. For a while they were complaining that last year the parties were unable to produce a budget, so they have overcompensated. They have produced 2 budgets. Because this is 2 budgets where it counts. This is a budget for the House and a budget for the Senate, all in one. Why do we have it here? We have it here to accommodate a large number of Republican Members in both bodies who want to say one thing in public and vote another way. This budget has to be explained. The key part of the budget, a lot of it is purely notional, but the key part is the reconciliation instructions. It has, bizarrely, for the first time in history, contradictory reconciliation instructions for the House and the Senate. The House is reconciled to $550 billion in tax cuts. Now, in the Senate they are only reconciled to $350 billion. That is a critical difference, because that means you do not need 60 votes when you reconcile it in the Senate; that means you can do it with 51 votes. The problem is that there are Senators who have said loudly, passionately, we will not vote for a tax cut of more than $350 billion. But we had a problem here in the House. I am told we had 29 Members who said they would not vote for less than $750 billion, and 15 that said they would not vote for more than $350 billion. That is 44 Members taking an irreconcilable position. Well, how do you get there? Thirty- five of them did not mean it, and this budget allows them to back away. In particular what it does is this: This budget, by that dual reconciliation, allows the Senators to claim that they are only voting for $350 billion. But the Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that if a conference report goes back at more than $350 billion; namely, $550 billion, that will not be subject to the filibuster. In other words, the sole purpose of this dual reconciliation gimmick is to allow some Senators to pretend to be firmly committed to a $350 billion figure and vote for a bill that they know will allow them to facilitate $550 billion. I am reminded here of one of the great figures from literature, Big Daddy, from ``Cat on a Hot Tin Roof,'' because he would have hated this budget. My colleagues will remember how much he hated mendacity. And this is a monument to mendacity. This enables mendacity. The sole purpose of this is to allow Senators to claim they are for $350 billion, but vote for something that they know will accommodate $550 billion. Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, one of the important activities of the Veterans of Foreign Wars is the Voice of Democracy contest which that organization conducts for high school students. In 2003, more than 80,000 secondary school students took part. Given this, it is obviously a great honor for a young person to have won in one of the important categories. I was therefore very pleased to be informed by Dennis Cullinan, Director of the National Legislative Service of the VFW, that Kathleen M. Gearty from the Congressional District that I represent won the 2003 broadcast scriptwriting contest. I am very pleased to have a chance to congratulate Ms. Gearty on her very significant accomplishment, and because the theme of her inspirational essay is so important, I ask that it be printed here. Freedom's Obligation (By Kathleen Gearty) On a crisp January morning a baby girl entered the world. The cards were given, the gifts were received and a couple of months later the christening gown, a simple satin sleeveless under dress with a hand stitched cover dress and lace robe with matching bonnet, was placed on the baby and she was baptized. Although I don't know all the details I do know that someone painstakingly and lovingly hand-stitched this gown as if knowing it would be passed down and treasured by my family. After that baby girl followed two more little girls. As the oldest had, the two after her wore the gown. This tradition has been passed down for forty years and will continue as more babies in my family are brought into the world. As the gown is passed down the obligation to preserve it, responsibility to inherit it and the love to cherish it is passed along with the garment. In a way freedom's obligations are similar to this heirloom. The christening gown that was worn by the three sisters was then worn by the older daughter's two daughters and the youngest daughter's youngest child. While passing the gown down there was much at stake. The preparation of preserving the gown and the preparation of letting it go. The gown was kept and locked in a large cedar chest in its original box wrapped in tissue paper. Passing it on is a challenge but inheriting it is an honor. The next keeper of the beautiful gown has the responsibility of the task of preserving it, so that it may be passed on and treasured by the next proud mother and father. As the gown was sewn together, so was our country, stitch by stitch. We fought for this freedom and the obligations that go along with it. We were all pierced by that great needle, and blood was shed but looking at the creation we have developed makes us realize that the sacrifices were worth while. The gown like our country's freedom had transformed and was no longer merely a piece of white cloth and a spool of thread but a privilege, an obligation and honor. The gown was worn then passed on; freedom is earned and then also passed on. The baptism dress must be preserved and cherished by the holder whose children will wear it next. Freedom must also be conserved in a manner of respect and loyalty so that children can live an even better life than their parents. Both, the heirloom and freedom are similar in the respect that both have to be treasured, or the joy in possessing such beautiful treasures is gone. As an American it is an obligation to respect freedom and to care for it, for freedom is like a fragile christening gown and with one little snag of a thread it could unravel before your very eyes and be gone forever. My obligation is to ensure that whatever I do with my life involves the preservation and the passing on of freedom just as I will honor my family obligations.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I support this legislation. It is a very useful synthesis of several important elements. It merges the two bank funds. We have had two bank funds because we previously had a separate thrift and commercial system that was undone by earlier events. We deal here to some extent with the complication of newer entities now coming into the system as a result of the previous legislation we adopted repealing the old restrictions on banking. There is one particular point I want to stress, that is, that an amendment that is included in this, and I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), for agreeing to this, cosponsored, when we last debated this bill last year when it passed in our body and did not go further, sponsored by our colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters). Years ago, two Members, two former Members, a Member from Pennsylvania named Ridge and a Member from New York named Flake, sponsored a bill to get low-income people who are outside the banking system into the banking system. The bankers of America should recognize this for what it is, a great compliment, a tribute to the role that a banking system plays in enhancing the ability of consumers to manage their lives well. We have people who are victimized by unscrupulous lending practices. We have people who pay too much to do remittances to other countries, hard-working people in this country who are sending money to family elsewhere. We have payday lending exploitation. Getting people into the banking system is a way to resolve that. The problem was, there was no funding source for that. In this bill there is a funding source. It comes through deposit insurance. I know there are people in the banking industry, with whom I agree on many issues, who do not like that funding source. If they can come up with an equally reliable alternative funding source, I will work with them. But I want to make clear, this bill is a synthesis. It helps the people in the banking industry, who are a very important part of our economy; and I am all for it for that reason. It also, and there is one provision, does something about equity. I think that is the model we ought to be following. We ought to be doing what we can to enhance the ability of the free market system to create wealth, which it does so well; but we ought also to be looking for opportunities to accompany those moves with smaller measures, generally, in scope, measures that do not cost any great deal of money very often, although sometimes it might be more, that provide some equity, as well. This bill does both. It is to me a whole joined together; and it will leave here, and I appreciate the support of the leadership of the committee on the majority side, with those two elements conjoined. I do want to note that if it came back and somebody has put asunder what we have joined, the support for this bill would not be what it is. So I thank the gentleman from Alabama for his leadership. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, did any Member claim the opposing time?

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I did not want time to expire while discussing the absent gentleman from California, and I did want to make sure I had a chance to express my opposition to this amendment. I think the committee product is a reasonable approach and so I hope the amendment is defeated. And, once again, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it is sadly too late for truth to be the first casualty of this war, because we have already had brave people killed. But truth is taking a beating tonight. We had the floor manager of this bill object to efforts to democratize the process and give Members more choice to make real votes in the name of letting the House work its will. He blocked unanimous consent requests that would have allowed amendments, that would have allowed separated votes, theoretically in the name of democracy. We had another gentleman from California come and say, ``let us not make this partisan,'' in defense of a resolution that is very partisan, that is drafted in a way that will minimize, rather than maximize, the goal Members pretend to want to be in favor of. We have had Members who savaged Bill Clinton during the war in Kosovo, now announcing their convergence to the doctrine that once the guns start, the President is untouchable. Why? To use the unanimous admiration felt in this House for our troops for political purposes. The gentleman from California who is managing the bill asked before, he said, people will be watching and they will say to us on the Democratic side, what are you doing? I will tell them what we were trying to do. We were trying to stop the Republicans from taking the troops politically hostage to serve the President's political purposes. We were trying not to allow the support that is unanimously felt for the troops, the admiration for their courage, the sympathy for the plight that their families are in; we did not want that used to puff up support that does not exist for decisions made by the President. Sadly, we failed, because the majority used its control of this body, and so Members were put in an unfortunate position. But let us be very clear. Had the majority wanted to do it, there would have been a unanimous vote in this House, every Member voting, in support of the troops. The resolution, those parts of it that support the troops would have been unanimous. Unfortunately, partisanship has resulted in what will be a diminution in the vote that is cast for the support for the troops.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, one of the areas where national policy is weakest is that of affordable housing. The very prosperity of the nineties that so benefited most Americans in fact exacerbated the housing crisis for many, because of the unevenness of the housing market and of that prosperity. Sadly, recent proposals from this administration not only do nothing to alleviate these areas of housing crisis, they would worsen them. One of the areas where the administration's proposals would worsen an already bad situation is that of Section 8 Housing, the main program by which we help people rent housing when they cannot afford decent homes on their own. Not only has the program been insufficiently funded recently, the administration's new budget proposal seeks to make this a block grant, removing any federal protections for those in need, and subjecting them to the already strong pressures that many state budgets face. A coalition of some of the most important groups in the housing field, including many of those business organizations that seek to help us meet the need for affordable housing, recently wrote to Secretary Martinez expressing their strong opposition to this proposal. Their letter lists several reasons why this program would be harmful to our major current effort to help low income people meet their housing needs, and given the expertise and commitment of those who have signed the letter, as well as their reasoning, I ask that it be printed here so that the members may benefit from their very sound judgment. February 25, 2003. Hon. Mel Martinez, Dept. of Housing & Urban Development, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Martinez: The undersigned groups are writing to express our concern regarding HUD's FY04 Budget proposal to block grant the Housing Choice Voucher program. The voucher program, created under the Nixon Administration, has become the cornerstone of federal affordable housing policy and has broad support among many constituencies. In recent years, an increased number of conventional apartment owners have begun participating in the voucher program. While the program is not perfect, professional apartment owners in partnership with the current voucher administrators have made great strides in helping low-income families find quality affordable rental housing--a partnership that helps the community as a whole. Apartment owners and managers look to uniformity and consistency of program rules and funding levels when deciding to participate as voucher landlords. HUD's proposal creates uncertainty in this regard, the result of which will have a chilling impact upon market participation in the program. In addition, multifamily property owners often operate in multiple States. If each State creates its own program, it would necessitate the understanding of new rules created by up to 50 different administrators. Further, any shifting of federal funds to state block grants raises serious concerns about future funding availability, begging the question of why States would be interested in HUD's proposal. A dramatic shift in program rules and administrators will also jeopardize the new homeownership voucher programs launched by local agencies in partnership with the real estate and lending community. This homeownership initiative holds promise for increasing opportunities for low-income families. Devolution may have a place in any sound federal housing policy, but not in relation to the House Choice Voucher program. We stand ready to work with HUD on alternative approaches to strengthening its tenant-based assistance. Sincerely, Council for Affordable and Rural Housing. Institute for Responsible Housing Preservation. Institute of Real Estate Management. National Apartment Association. National Association of Realtors. National Leased Housing Association. National Multi House Council.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, in our efforts to do our jobs, we are aided by private organizations, which share our commitment to the public, and have first-hand experience with how the policies we enact work in practice. Three of the organizations to which I am indebted for their advice and their important public roles are the Massachusetts Hospital Association, the Home and Health Care Association of Massachusetts, and the Massachusetts Extended Care Federation. They are together, extremely important institutions both for the services they provide and for the economic role they play. I was therefore particularly impressed when they sent along a copy of the letter they sent on February 20 to Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, in which these three responsible and important organizations say with regard to the President's Medicare reform proposal, ``our coalition firmly opposes the President's proposed plan since it would have long term detrimental effects on MassHealth recipients and providers.'' As their letter concludes, ``the nearly 1 million Massachusetts residents covered by MassHealth deserve federal action to address the current crisis that does not put additional financial pressure on our state, nor diminish the guarantee of coverage for our most vulnerable patients.'' Mr. Speaker, I have for some time thought that the President's policy of fighting two wars and financing that with three tax cuts inevitably means serious social harm in our country in many areas. This letter from these three organizations, which play such an important role in the health and welfare of our citizens, underlines that point and I ask that the letter be printed here. Massachusetts Hospital Association, Home Health Care Association of Massachusetts, Inc., February 20, 2003. His Excellency Mitt Romney, Office of the Governor, State House, Boston, MA. Dear Governor Romney: On behalf of the Massachusetts institutions dedicated to patient care, we must voice our grave concerns with President Bush's Medicaid reform proposal, which the National Governors Association (NGA) plans to discuss next week. Though the plan is promoted by the Administration as an answer to states' current financial problems, we urge caution in embracing this or similar future proposals. The proposal offers short-term federal relief for increasing state financial risk over the long term. Our coalition firmly opposes the President's proposed plan since it would have long-term detrimental effects on MassHealth recipients and providers.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, at its recently concluded meeting, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs adopted a number of resolutions. One very important one was the resolution ``On Combating Terrorism and Protecting Civil Liberties.'' The very title of this resolution indicates its importance--that is, the JCPA recognizes that it is important for us to be fully mindful of civil liberties as we adopt the measures needed to protect ourselves against terrorism. As a Member of Congress, and also as a Jewish American, I welcome the balanced and thoughtful resolution, coming particularly as it does from a group which ranks high on the target list of those who engage in terrorism. In this context, when the JCPA notes that it is ``particularly concerned about the treatment of United States citizens, including questions of indefinite detentions, denial of legal counsel and trials that are closed in their entirety,'' its members provide an excellent example of the approach that all of us should be taking in this critical time--namely, protecting ourselves against violence without infringing on our constitutionally protected freedom and liberties.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, one of the most difficult issues that we have been dealing with in these past years has been that of immigration. Sadly, it has become politically popular to blame immigrants for a wide variety of problems for which they are not, in fact responsible, and people have increasingly overlooked the important cultural and economic contributions immigration continues to play in our Nation of immigrants. In my efforts to provide fair treatment for immigrants, both as a matter of equity and as a matter of correctly assessing our national interest in a sensible immigration policy, I have benefited enormously from the counsel, advocacy and commitment of Helena Marques. She has been an extraordinary asset to all of us who are charged with helping to make national policy on this matter, and she has been a beacon of strength for those in the immigrant community and their families who have been affected by our policies. I concur wholeheartedly with the decision of the New Bedford Standard Times to designate her the south coast woman of the Year, and I ask that the article describing her work from the Standard times be printed here, because I believe our colleagues will benefit from reading about her important work on the immigration issue. After Sept. 11, 2001, Helena Marques had bad news for the mothers of area residents deported from the area to Portugal. As she delivered the news during a meeting in a South End Holy Ghost club, she couldn't maintain her composure, an wept with the women. She wept because she felt helpless. She wept for the victims of the terrorist attack. The following day, she was back at her office at the Immigrants' Assistance Center, advocating for immigrants' rights with the same energy she always carried, even if the woes were now almost insurmountable. Those who know Ms. Marques say she is the kind of woman: one who easily gets involved in the suffering of those she helps, but also one who can be a non-nonsense advocate and diplomat, businesswoman and lobbyist. Ms. Marques, 42, picked up an agency in tatters when she took over the helm in 1996, led it through its greatest growth, and is now fighting on several fronts to maintain the level of service she helped create. For all she has done since 1996, Ms. Marques is The Standard-Times' 2002 SouthCoast Woman of the Year. Ms. Marques, a mother of one from Acushnet, with a bachelor's degree in business administration, started her job with IAC as a secretary more than 20 years ago, when the agency had only four employees and a small budget. She rose through the ranks and in 1996 became the executive director of the now much bigger 31-year-old agency. Coincidence or not, the year 1996 would forever be engraved in the history of IAC and of immigrant rights in America. The agency was placed on probation by the United Way due to administrative shortcomings and it had also suffered severe cuts in funding from the state and federal governments. Nationally, immigrants were losing welfare benefits and a new, stiffer deportation law was quietly coming into effect, which would soon devastate many area families. ``When I got promoted to this position it was at a time things were the worst,'' Ms. Marques said. ``The worst year anybody can take over an agency.'' Nevertheless, Ms. Marques, one of seven Madeiran immigrant children and the product of the New Bedford public schools, persisted. She rolled up her sleeves and got to work. In four years, Ms. Marques tripled IAC's size, turning it from a struggling agency into a major immigrant services and advocacy group. New programs sprung up during the time and the agency opened two branch offices, including one in Taunton. Some of the programs Ms. Marques helped create include the native language citizenship classes, educational in-jail programs for individuals facing deportation and citizenship programs in schools. Additionally, she helped form the Women Immigrants Support Hub for family members of deportees. The agency also expanded beyond the Portuguese community and started serving other immigrant groups in the city. One major effort included raising national and international attention to the effects of the 1996 deportation laws, which locally have resulted in the deportation of more than 400 Portuguese nationals and more than 100 Cape Verdean nationals. The plight of those immigrants struck a chord because many were being deported for seemingly minor crimes after living most of their lives in the United States. Ms. Marques took the cause whole-heartedly. As a deportation fighter, sometimes she stood in the rain with WISH members, holding signs in front of District Attorney Paul F. Walsh Jr.'s office to stop a local deportation program. She also shared hugs at community events and personally talked with anyone who wished to speak with her. Other times she traveled to Washington to bring the local message to politicians or appeared on television and radio shows to spread the word. She also became a well-known person in the community, befriending Sofia Milos, the star of the yet-unreleased romantic comedy ``Passionada.'' What's surprising, or not, is that she has played all the roles well, say those who know her. ``What I'm struck by in Helena is how she is so committed but careful,'' said congressman Barney Frank, D-Mass., who has consulted Ms. Marques on several pieces of legislation. ``It's easy to be a diplomat if you don't care. It's very difficult to find someone that is both a zealot and a diplomat. She doesn't allow her passion to impair her judgment.'' Rep. Frank said he met Ms. Marques around the time she took over IAC. He said his office has worked with her since that time. I think she does a great job representing the immigrant community,'' Rep. Frank said. Ms. Marques says that what she does comes naturally. ``A lot of times, the immigrant populations are in fear of speaking about issues that are important to them,'' she said. ``Being an immigrant myself, seeing what my parents have gone through, I can relate. ``Not too many people have jobs that they feel they're helping out the community. At the end of the day I know that I've made a difference. To me it's a very humble job,'' she said. Ms. Marques works behind her desk at the Crapo Street IAC offices; dinners with politicians and her networking efforts have helped turn IAC into a $450,000 agency, but it's her advocacy work that has made her visible in the community. ``She's deeply committed to the work that she does, and she's deeply rooted in the community,'' said Nancy Lee Wood, a sociologist who helped form the WISH group with Ms. Marques. ``She has a deep sense of compassion and caring about what happened to her people.'' Ms. Wood has accompanied Ms. Marques on vigils, meetings with public safety officials and politicians and has helped organize WISH meetings and other programs. Ms. Marques' enthusiasm has impressed her. ``I think she has worked very hard to build up the IAC. That takes a lot of energy, a lot of faith in the future,'' she said. ``It just takes a lot of courage to just forge ahead and implement a lot of programs.'' Ms. Marques became the executive director of IAC at a time when the agency was under scrutiny and executive directors changed with the tide. Today, the members of the board of directors of the organization think they made the right choice when they decided to name Ms. Marques executive director. ``She totally believes in what the center stands for. We have complete trust in her,'' said Edward Macedo, president of the board. ``She deals with the board very well, she knows where the board is coming from. We work very closely together.'' Mr. Macedo has been president of the board at IAC for three years, but has been a member at least since Ms. Marques took the job. He said that during that time he has seen her go beyond her obligations. ``She goes way beyond,'' he said. ``She gives of herself beyond her time also.'' Ms. Marques, who is currently working hard to secure $150,000 in lost state funds, said she is as committed as ever in her job, despite the difficulties. ``I'm looking anywhere and everywhere for money,'' she said. ``Now, more than ever, I feel I need to do what I'm doing. When the immigrant population is being targeted like it is right now, people like me need to be vocal.'' Ms. Marques' dedication started when she first stepped into IAC as a secretary. ``Because (IAC) was so small I did everything,'' she said. ``I was like a sponge, I wanted to learn as much as I could about the agency.'' Ms. Marques said at times, when the job seems to be too much to handle, the gratification from helping others has kept her going. ``I do feel with so much tragedy coming in, I see it on a daily basis, that I feel lucky,'' she said. ``I don't take anything for granted because of what I see here.''

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for standing up for democratic procedures, but as I understand it, we will not be in session. The President does not have an item veto. I am interested to learn that the President is somewhat distrustful apparently of the Republican majority and does not want to sign anything from them without having a chance to hold it up to the light, and maybe he has a point there. But when he reads it if he does not like it, what is he going to do, veto the whole thing? In that case, the CR probably ought to go to March or April. We are giving the President not much of a choice if we go with a CR to the 24th; we are still not in until the 25th. So if the President does catch you at something, and apparently there may be some things in there he is a little nervous about, what is his remedy? Veto the whole omnibus? I mean, if you had not done it in this way, we would all not be in this bind. But it does not make sense to me that even giving the President these extra few days, he will have no remedy if he does find something he does not like, because if he vetoes this, the CR is out on the 24th, then there is nothing and we do not come back until late on the 25th and you have that thing anyway. So I do not understand what this accomplishes, in any case.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the intellectual capacity of those making policy in the Bush administration--so much respect that I find it very hard to believe that they themselves really believe the rationales they have put forward for their two current major policy initiatives: a major tax cut, including an abolition of the tax on some dividends, and a war in Iraq. Specifically, I do not believe that the top economists in the Bush administration really think that enactment of his latest tax relief package will have any significant near term stimulus effect on our sputtering economy. Similarly, I do not think that the administration's foreign policy and defense experts really believe that Iraq is a significant threat to the United States. There are broader, philosophical, ideological and political reasons behind both proposals. In an extremely well argued, comprehensive essay published in the New York Times for February 2, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt very forcefully refute the argument that we must to war with Iraq because it is a threat to our security, and point our cogently what the negative effects of such a war will be on us. Because Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt do a very good job of making clear a case against going to war in Iraq, and because that is the single most important question now facing this country and this Congress, I ask that this essay be printed here. [From the New York Times, Feb. 2, 2003] Keeping Saddam Hussein in a Box (By John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt) The United States faces a clear choice on Iraq: containment or preventive war. President Bush insists that containment has failed and we must prepare for war. In fact, war is not necessary. Containment has worked in the past and can work in the future, even when dealing with Saddam Hussein. The case for preventive war rests on the claim that Mr. Hussein is a reckless expansionist bent on dominating the Middle East. Indeed, he is often compared to Adolf Hitler, modern history's exemplar of serial aggression. The facts, however, tell a different story. During the 30 years that Mr. Hussein has dominated Iraq, he has initiated two wars. Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, but only after Iran's revolutionary government tried to assassinate Iraqi officials, conducted repeated border raids and tried to topple Mr. Hussein by fomenting unrest within Iraq. His decision to attack was not reckless, because Iran was isolated and widely seen as militarily weak. The war proved costly, but it ended Iran's regional ambitions and kept Mr. Hussein in power. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 arose from a serious dispute over oil prices and war debts and occurred only after efforts to court Mr. Hussein led the first Bush administration unwittingly to signal that Washington would not oppose an attack. Containment did not fail the first time around--it was never tired. Thus, Mr. Hussein has gone to war when he was threatened and when he thought he had a window of opportunity. These considerations do not justify Iraq's actions, but they show that Mr. Hussein is hardly a reckless aggressor who cannot be contained. In fact, Iraq has never gone to war in the face of a clear deterrent threat. But what about the Iraqi regime's weapons of mass destruction? Those who reject containment point to Iraq's past use of chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iran. They also warn that he will eventually get nuclear weapons. According to President Bush, a nuclear arsenal would enable Mr. Hussein to ``blackmail the world.'' And the real nightmare is that he will give chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to Al Qaeda. These possibilities sound alarming, but the dangers they pose do not justify war. Mr. Hussein's use of poison gas was despicable, but it tells us nothing about what he might do against the United States or its allies. He could use chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians because they could not retaliate in kind. The United States, by contrast, can retaliate with overwhelming force, including weapons of mass destruction. This is why Mr. Hussein did not use chemical or biological weapons against American forces or Israel during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Nor has he used such weapons since, even though the United States has bombed Iraq repeatedly over the past decade. The same logic explains why Mr. Hussein cannot blackmail us. Nuclear blackmail works only if the blackmailer's threat might actually be carried out. But if the intended target can retaliate in kind, carrying out the threat causes the blackmailer's own destruction. This is why the Soviet Union, which was far stronger than Iraq and led by men of equal ruthlessness, never tried blackmailing the United States. Oddly enough, the Bush administration seems to understand that America is not vulnerable to nuclear blackmail. For example, Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, has written that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction ``will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration.'' Similarly, President Bush declared last week in his State of the Union Address that the United States ``would not be blackmailed'' by North Korea, which administration officials believe has nuclear weapons. If Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear arsenal is ``unusable'' and North Korea's weapons cannot be used for blackmail, why do the President and Ms. Rice favor war? But isn't the possibility that the Iraqi regime would give weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda reason enough to topple it? No--unless the administration isn't telling us something. Advocates of preventive war have made Herculean efforts to uncover evidence of active cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and senior administration officials have put great pressure on American intelligence agencies to find convincing evidence. But these efforts have borne little fruit, and we should view the latest reports of alleged links with skepticism. No country should weave a case for war with such slender threads. Given the deep antipathy between fundamentalists like Osama bin Laden and secular rulers like Saddam Hussein, the lack of evidence linking them is not surprising. But even if American pressure brings these unlikely bedfellows together, Mr. Hussein is not going to give Al Qaeda weapons of mass destruction. He would have little to gain and everything to lose since he could never be sure that American surveillance would not detect the handoff. If it did, the United States response would be swift and devastating. The Iraqi dictator might believe he could slip Al Qaeda dangerous weapons covertly, but he would still have to worry that we would destroy him if we merely suspected that he had aided an attack on the United States. He need not be certain we would retaliate, he merely has to think that we might. Thus, logic and evidence suggest that Iraq can be contained, even if it possesses weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, Mr. Hussein's nuclear ambitions--the ones that concern us most--are unlikely to be realized in his lifetime, especially with inspections under way. Iraq has pursued nuclear weapons since the 1970's, but it has never produced a bomb, United Nations inspectors destroyed Iraq's nuclear program between 1991 and 1998, and Iraq has not rebuilt it. With an embargo in place and inspectors at work, Iraq is further from a nuclear capacity than at any time in recent memory. Again, why the rush to war? War may not be necessary to deny Iraq nuclear weapons, but it is likely to spur proliferation elsewhere. The Bush administration's contrasting approaches to Iraq and North Korea send a clear signal: we negotiate with states that have nuclear weapons, but we threaten states that don't. Iran and North Korea will be even more committed to having a nuclear deterrent after watching the American military conquer Iraq. Countries like Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia will then think about following suit. Stopping the spread of nuclear weapons will be difficult in any case, but overthrowing Mr. Hussein would make it harder. Preventive war entails other costs as well. In addition to the lives lost, toppling Saddam Hussein would cost at least $50 billion to $100 billion, at a time when our economy is sluggish and huge budget deficits are predicted for years. Because the United States would have to occupy Iraq for years, the actual cost of this war would most likely be much larger. And because most of the world thinks war is a mistake, we would get little help from other countries. Finally, attacking Iraq would undermine the war on terrorism, diverting manpower, money and attention from the fight against Al Qaeda. Every dollar spent occupying Iraq is a dollar not spent dismantling terrorist networks abroad or improving security at home. Invasion and occupation would increase anti-Americanism in the Islamic world and help Osama bin Laden win more followers. Preventive war would also reinforce the growing perception that the United States is a bully, thereby jeopardizing the international unity necessary to defeat global terrorism. Although the Bush administration maintains that war is necessary, there is a better option. Today, Iraq is weakened, its pursuit of nuclear weapons has been frustrated, and any regional ambitions it may once have cherished have been thwarted. We should perpetuate this state of affairs by maintaining vigilant containment, a policy the rest of the world regards as preferable and effective. Saddam Hussein needs to remain in his box--but we don't need a war to keep him there.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Boy Scouts of America are being profoundly unfair to many young people by refusing admission to their program to gay teenagers and adults. It should be emphasized that the Boy Scouts make no claim that this is based on the need to protect scouts from sexual abuse. Every organization dealing with young people ought to have very strict policies, with rigorous enforcement, to protect young people against any adult engaging in inappropriate sexual activity with them. But the Boy Scout policy is based not on this fear, but on their explicit view that being gay is inconsistent with being ``morally straight'' and being ``clean in word and deed.'' In other words, the Scout's policy is simply a condemnation of the character and integrity of all gay men. This official policy by the national organization puts a number of people of good will in a difficult situation. There are a large number of men--and women as well--who participate in and are supportive of the Boy Scouts because the organization does do a great deal of good work. But they quite correctly abhor the cruel, discriminatory policy of the Scouts. Some have responded by ending their affiliation. Others have taken an equally honorable course--staying for now within the organization but fighting explicitly and openly against its discriminatory policy. I admire the willingness of people to do this. At some point it may become clear that the Boy Scout organization is irrevocably committed to this biased policy, but there have been encouraging signs of dissent in many parts of the country and I am hoping that those courageous people who are making this fight within the Boy Scouts will at some point succeed. I am particularly impressed when young people take this position, because it is especially hard for teenagers to stand up against authority in this way, and indeed to risk the disagreement of their peers. One very impressive scout--an Eagle Scout in fact--who has articulated the courageous moral position of those within the Boy Scout movement who disagree sharply with the organization's discriminatory policy is Michael Peiser. I first came into contact with Mr. Peiser when I was asked to write a letter to congratulate him on his becoming an Eagle Scout. As is my practice, I wrote to him and congratulated him, but simultaneously wrote to the Boy Scout organization that had solicited my letter noting that as a gay man, I did find it odd that they would simultaneously, as an organization, characterize me in such a negative fashion and ask me to congratulate one of the young people. I do not think that the young people themselves should be further victimized, so I write these letters to them of congratulations, but also remind the adult sponsoring entities of my strong disagreement with their policy. In the case of Mr. Peiser, the Scout leaders to whom I had written shared my letter with him, and he was gracious enough to let me know of his agreement with my position. In fact, he shared with me an essay he had written for his college admissions application, which is a very powerful statement of opposition to the Boy Scout policy. I admire very much Michael Peiser's stance of fighting from within the organization to change this policy, and I ask that his essay be printed here as an example of moral leadership by a young man. Michael Peiser's Essay Two years ago, I attended my high school's first Gay/ Straight Alliance meeting. As soon as the meeting began, the topic of my involvement in the Boy Scouts of America, which openly discriminates gays, became the focus of the discussion. Suddenly I was being harangued by the other four people at the meeting. The hypocrisy of my being an active member of my local Boy Scout troop, while also being an ardent liberal and supporter of gay rights, had never occurred to me. The official position statement (BSA 1991) is as follows: ``We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirement in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts.'' The two halves of my scouting experience, the first in a culturally diverse troop in Los Angeles and the latter in an affluent northeastern suburban troop, have been quite skewed on the issue of gay scouts. My troop and many other troops with liberal attitudes approach this controversy with a ``don't ask don't tell'' policy. However, I cannot hide from the fact that this evasion does not address the quandary in any manner. The Boy Scout Organization teaches its members not to hate or to discriminate; yet, having a policy that discriminates against certain individuals inevitably feeds hate. Last year, at one of my meetings, I was teaching backpacking skills to a group of sixth graders. During the session one of the scouts started to make ``gay jokes'' toward another scout. The rest of the kids began to make denigrating remarks about homosexuals in scouting. I interjected and asked them why they were making fun of homosexuals and also what they knew about the Scouts' actual policy on homosexuality. The seven scouts in my group unanimously argued that ``being gay was not natural and, therefore, should not be allowed in scouting.'' These notions, which are probably developed outside of the Boy Scouts as well as in my troop, only teach young kids to be closed-minded. What disturbs me the most about this issue is that Scouting was formed to be a safe haven for all youth. Scouting is supposed to be a place where those who are fortunate and less fortunate can experience what their communities and world have to offer them. Scouting offers so much leadership, friendship, and guidance, that it pains me to see so many different people and organizations, ranging from synagogues to companies like Levi Strauss, completely cut off all support for the Boy Scouts. While I understand the rationale for choosing to do so, I do not feel this helps scouting in any way. I firmly believe that Scouting needs to change its anti-gay policy. Boycotting the organization only makes change more difficult. Change can only occur from within Scouting. When people ask me how I believe this can be achieved, I tell them the following: when I see discrimination either happening or being talked about among the scouts, I sit down with them and have an open discussion. I believe that, if individual scouts learn to be open and accepting, then, with time, these discriminating policies will change. Today, when people question my support of the Boy Scouts, I tell them exactly what I disagree with, and how I plan to change it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I have to say with respect to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) even if the conference was not just himself and the gentleman from Wisconsin, if it was just himself, many on our side would not be so nervous, but he is for all dedication not autonomous, less autonomous, less nearly autonomous than he used to be under the current regime, and we fear that the instructions he will be getting from the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue will outweigh commitments that we think ought to be made to the people we are here to serve. I wish we were not dealing with all of these issues in one instruction motion, but it must be repeated again. The way in which this House leadership has chosen to deal with the appropriations process this year has been one of the most thorough degradations of the democratic process I have ever seen. And people have said, well, but the Senate did not pass a budget. What does that have to do with the constitutional right of this body to pass appropriations bills? We, in fact, passed two appropriations bills for defense. There was no obstacle there, and there was no obstacle with the other appropriations bills except the political reality that by the time you get through financing two wars with three tax cuts, you do not have enough money left to meet fundamental social obligations. And what the gentleman from Wisconsin is trying to do and he says, in a burst of reasonableness, within the scope of conference, indeed I think that might be the part of it to which the other side objects the most, because staying within the scope of the conference has rarely been their practice in recent years, but the gentleman from Wisconsin has correctly in parliamentary terms framed his motion, and he says we would have liked even more in some of these areas. At least let us go to the level that the Republican-controlled United States Senate voted for. What happens if we do not do that? Veterans get a good deal of rhetoric from this institution. I wish they got 25 percent as much help as they get rhetoric. In the New England region Category 8 veterans have been shut off altogether because we cannot afford it because we have got to do a big tax cut, because we have other priorities. The gentleman from Wisconsin's motion is giving a chance to say do that. I will say this: If people do not vote for the gentleman's motion, and if, as he stressed, even more importantly they do not vote for a conference report that reaches that level, if they vote for a conference report that has less than that, then any of them who then talk about how sorry they are that veterans' medical care is being cut are indeed guilty of the grossest form of hypocrisy, as the gentleman from Wisconsin said. There are other areas we cannot touch here because of the unwillingness of the majority to let the normal process go forward. The Securities and Exchange Commission even at the Senate level will be substantially below what the President said they should get when he signed the corporate responsibility bill. The last time we debated this, the gentleman from Virginia, who is a subcommittee chairman, said to me, ``I am introducing a bill to give them the money.'' He introduced the bill. It remains introduced. It has not been voted on. It has not been acted on. Housing is also significantly underfunded, and there will be terrible problems in public housing, in Section 8. But in the areas of the gentleman's motion, health care for veterans, research at NIH, and education, a failure not simply to vote for this instruction motion, because I am not sure that we may not be able to rope-a-dope here, in which people will vote for an instruction motion and then act contrary to it, and try and get coverage because they voted for the instruction motion, if we do not have an appropriation that at least reaches these levels for the National Institutes for Health, for education, for veterans care, then we will have really thoroughly failed in our obligation to the American people. We passed an education bill, and we cheered for it, and now we have imposed on the localities without giving them the money. We have done this time and time again. The gentleman from Wisconsin's motion and its being taken seriously by the conference committee is the minimum that decency requires, and I wish I was not skeptical that we will achieve it. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

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

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, after listening to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), it sounded like the gentleman was saying that the conferees would be himself and the gentleman from Wisconsin. I want to say if that is the deal, if there are going to be two conferees, the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, I would urge the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to withdraw the motion to instruct because if those are the two Members, as the gentleman said, I would have complete confidence in them. Pending that, if the gentleman would just confirm that he said the conferees will be himself and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I am ready to go home.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, the ``maybe one other'' just ruined it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker One of the pieces of evidence that convinces me that we have reduced taxes by too much in the face of the very significant demands that have been placed on our national security both domestically and internationally since September 11, 2001 is the refusal of this administration to support adequate funding for programs of assistance to local public safety officials. As we were adjourning, I and others in the Massachusetts Delegation received the attached resolution from the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association. I am very pleased to have a good working relationship with the chiefs of police in the district I represent, and I know that these people are deeply committed to the protection of our citizenry, against both the traditional forms of crime and against the newer threats we face. And they are not people who easily jump into controversies that are partisan or ideological in nature. So when they report that they and their fellow chiefs of police across the country adopted a resolution which ``strongly recommends that the Bush administration reconsider the funding levels that have been reduced for local agencies'' in the police field, I believe this is an argument to which we should pay attention. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this very thoughtful and important resolution be printed here. Homeland Security Funding Submitted by Division of State Associations of Chiefs of Police (SACOP) WHEREAS, the approximately 740,000 law enforcement officers in local and state agencies have the best knowledge of and access to their communities, and those communities are turning to their local agencies for guidance and protection more than ever; and WHEREAS, local law enforcement is the first to be called upon to respond to any emergency or critical incident; and WHEREAS, because of their daily interaction with the community, local law enforcement has access to local information and grassroots intelligence that is an invaluable resource in the fight against terrorism; and WHEREAS, demands on specialized training (interrogation techniques, recognition of terrorist threats, federal immigration law, immigration documentation, response to critical incidents. response to biological, chemical or nuclear terrorism), specialized equipment (protective clothing, isolation equipment, electronic surveillance and security equipment), and drastically, increased manpower requirements, continue to take their toll on already stretched law enforcement budgets; and WHEREAS, the over 19,000 members of the International Association of Chiefs of Police are concerned that while the federal government is proposing greatly increased funding for Homeland Security programs, federal intelligence programs, and additional increases for federal agencies, the local and state agencies will be left with dwindling resources in their daily response to local community requirements, including those caused by increased threats and fears from terrorism; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the lnternational Association of Chiefs of Police, duly assembled at its 109th Annual Conference in Minneapolis, Minnesota, strongly recommends that the Bush Administration reconsider the funding levels that have been reduced for local agencies, such as universal hiring programs, Byrne Grants, COPS Programs and others. We urge the administration to continue these programs, or reconfigure the funding for local agencies with the recognition that these agencies are truly on the front line of the war against terrorism.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I was assured that the gentleman said there will be debate on these appropriations. My only question is, in which fiscal year will the debate on the current appropriations occur, this one or next one? We are starting to run out of fiscal year.