Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on Monday night, literally on the eve of our swearing in as members of the 108th Congress, I spoke in Wellesley, Massachusetts at the Unitarian Universalist Society of Wellesley Hills at the invitation of that society. The topic they asked me to address was the potential war in Iraq, and I spoke to a crowd of several hundred people expressing my reasons for opposing a war in Iraq at this time. I was struck by the extremely large turnout--overflowing the hall--on a weeknight, and on a day when there had been a significant snowstorm, leaving the roads in difficult condition. At the conclusion of the question and answer period, a representative of the society presented me with the attached statement, signed by approximately 160 people in the group. (I should note that the attendance at the meeting was much larger because not everyone who attended had been previously solicited to sign the statement.) Mr. Speaker, given the grave nature of the question of whether or not to go to war, and the strong interest expressed by these citizens, I welcome their contribution to our debate and I ask that the Statement Against A Preventive War In Iraq presented by Members and Friends of the Unitarian Universalist Society of Wellesley Hills be printed here.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this rules package is a very important continuation of the majority's effort to shut down democratic debate. The ranking minority member spoke about this rule allowing the chairs of committees to roll votes. Basically what it represents is a willingness of the Republican Members to roll over, to beg, to sit up and do whatever their leadership tells them, because what this does is degrade the possibility of democratic debate in committees. People not familiar with the jargon probably do not fully understand what is being proposed. You will go to a committee session, a markup as we call them, and vote on the legislation, and you will offer an amendment to try to change things. Under these rules you may very well not know whether your amendment has won or lost. There will be a debate on the amendment and the Chair of that committee can then postpone the voting on that amendment until the end of that session. And what do you do if you have offered an amendment that might be somewhat controversial that has a chance to pass? What do you do if you could have passed the amendment if you have made a slight change? How do you then decide what to do next? Obviously there is no way you can have a rational debate in a committee if, having offered an amendment, you cannot tell whether or not that amendment has passed or not. So what this does is simply ratify the Republican approach, which is all power is lodged in whatever leadership is in charge at the particular moment and the Members are to be excused from the irritation of having to think about it. When the majority came to power in 1995 they wanted to give it a proxy. They said the problem with proxy voting is that people vote without listening to the debate. They are not there. They vote by proxy. So they have now come up with a proposal that has all of the abuses of proxies and none of the efficiencies. At least proxies allowed you to determine an issue one at a time. What will happen is you will go to a committee meeting. Members will not be there. They will troop in obediently at the end and vote as the Chair tells them, and it will have destroyed the possibility of debate earlier because you simply cannot logically legislate if you do not know what the outcome has been of these amendments. Now the majority has succeeded in a number of ways in this House, during my tenure here with their being in control, in shutting down debate. I have to say that sadly they have had an accomplice in this, the media. We had wide coverage in the press gallery of our ceremonial oath taking. Now that we are dealing with extremely controversial measures that will further the degradation of democracy in the U.S. House of Representatives, very few people are here to cover it. So I guess they will once again get away with it. But the consequence will be very clear. The extent to which there is now rational debate and openness in the committees will be substantially diminished. The Republican leadership is apparently willing obediently to vote for this rules package, although I am told that many of them objected to parts of it, to give once again their right to make decisions to their leadership.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I signed the ``Dissenting Views'' to the Committee Report on H.R. 4689, the ``Fairness in Sentencing Act of 2002,'' which included these two inaccurate statements: If enacted, the bill would prevent individuals who perform low-level drug trafficking functions from qualifying for a mitigating role adjustment under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. and The bill prevents low-level, first-offense drug offenders from receiving a mitigating role adjustment under the sentencing guidelines. H.R. Rep. No. 107-769 at 307-08 (Oct. 31, 2002) (``Dissenting Views''). The Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, Rep. Lamar Smith, has brought to my attention that these two statements are inaccurate because the bill does not in fact do this. I acknowledge and regret the error.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, for the past several years, I have had the privilege of working under the leadership of our colleague from New York (Mr. LaFalce) in his role as Senior Democrat on the Committee on Financial Services (as it is now officially called, after our Republican colleagues gave a hint of their policy preferences by excising from the Committee's title any reference to cities, urban affairs or housing). In his leadership of the minority on this important committee, Mr. LaFalce has been a committed, creative, forceful advocate of policies that combined support for a strong free market with concern for fairness for consumers and social justice for people with low incomes. No opposition was strong enough to deter him from fighting for an America that was both prosperous and fair, and he helped people understand that these goals are mutually supportive, not exclusive. Personally, I have been the beneficiary of his ability to lead in a cooperative spirit, and to perform both his partisan and bipartisan roles with great skill. That is, when possible, he worked constructively with the majority party to improve legislation, when necessary he led the minority in an effective and cohesive way. The financial community, the House, and I personally will miss him. As an indication of this, I ask that the well-merited tribute contained in a recent editorial from the official publication of America's Community Bankers be printed here. And, I thank America's Community Bankers for this gracious--and entirely accurate--summation of John LaFalce's work. The LaFalce Legacy: Three Decades of Leadership for Banks Congressman John J. LaFalce (D-N.Y.), who represented western New York's 29th Congressional District since he was elected to Congress in 1974, will retire at the end of the current Congress. His departure represents the end of an era. Congressman LaFalce has been a good friend of the banking industry. In his years of service, from the U.S. Army Adjutant General Corps, to the New York State Senate and State Assembly, to the House of Representatives, John LaFalce personified the best in public service. He listened to those on all sides of an issue, staking out his position and, as a pragmatist, using his skills as a politician to craft compromises on both sides of the aisle to move needed legislation. In his leadership role as the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, John LaFalce exercised extraordinary influence over the outcome of financial services and housing legislation. He contributed greatly to the historic Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act by first introducing his own bipartisan bill and then by helping to craft the final product. In his long career, Rep. LaFalce was involved in all of the major legislative initiatives on banking and financial services. John LaFalce is a consumer and community advocate, and a staunch defender of the Community Reinvestment Act and financial privacy. And yet bankers also found him to be a champion of balance. As chairman of the House Small Business Committee, John LaFalce paid special attention to the needs of women who are small business leaders and entrepreneurs. He wrote the Women's Business Ownership Act, which improves access to credit for women. Rep. LaFalce's public service career was aptly summarized in a citation by Niagara University when it awarded him the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws. It read, in part, ``Three qualities emerge as best describing the man: honesty, energy and conviction.'' These qualities, along with his integrity, leadership, and good humor, will be missed in the halls of Congress. John LaFalce leaves behind a legacy of outstanding achievement. America's Community Bankers extends its best wishes for the future.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. So it is not a conference report, and therefore if we were to pass it, it does not have the status of a conference report when it goes to the other body?

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FRANK. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. FRANK. The gentleman referred to this as a conference report. Conference reports are handled under one set of procedures. Is this in fact still a conference report, and will it be treated in the other body that way, or is it a brand new bill, to be treated as a brand new bill?

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, as I realized how much time was going to be wasted on this effort to allow some Members to get back in the graces of some of their financial supporters whom they had to alienate, and as we were lionizing, justifiably, Mr. Morris, the refrain kept going through my head, Hey, Mr. Tally Clerk, tally up our votes; daylight comes and we want to go home. We cannot go home because here is what happened: the bankruptcy bill came up, and some Members on the Republican side had to choose between people who are interested in vigorously protesting abortion and the financial community; and they decided to support the people who vigorously protest abortion, which meant that the bill died. Now, there is no way this bill is going to pass. Understand that what they did then was this. Let us be clear about the sequence. The bill died because some of the Members there were torn between the people opposed to abortion and the people with money. And you would have thought they could have waited until maybe February or March to get back in the graces of the people with money. But apparently the separation anxiety on the Republican side of not being continuously in the bosom, if not the pocket, of large financial interests, was so great that they had to come up with, and let me use the technical parliamentary term, the cockamamiest scheme I have ever seen on the floor of a legitimate democratic legislature. You bring a bill to the floor, it is losing, and you do everything you can to get people to vote for it. And when you cannot get them to vote for it, you then decide that what you try to get them to vote for violates the rules of the House. So you bring back your own bill, which violated the rules of the House, and say to people, well, you know these rules, maybe they are more important than we thought. So you then make a point of order against your own bill to change it, knock out a very important provision about judges, the gentleman from Delaware asked a legitimate question, he gets a little bit of mumbo- jumbo because none of this makes any sense, and he sits down with a little grumble, and now you want to vote to send this bill to the Senate. People should understand, this will go to the Senate not as a conference report, but as a stand-alone bill. It will pass in the other body if someone gets unanimous consent to pass it. Now, I think frankly there are a lot of things more likely to get unanimous consent than this. No one thinks that this bill will even be taken up in the Senate. So here is what puzzles me. Yes, I understand that people in the financial industry to whom many of you are attached emotionally, politically, and in any other way, they are distressed that you voted no, and they want you now to vote yes, so you can vote both ways on the same bill in the same evening. Not that bad. But here is the problem. When the bill had a chance to pass, you voted to kill it. Now, when it is dead, you vote to pass it. And I got to say this, I have to ask you this question, I have to ask you this question because I am interested in your techniques. For this you are going to get credit? I mean, if you can persuade, and let me say in tribute, if you can persuade these sophisticated financial people to give you credit for something this phony, then you are selling too cheap. Why do you not get a platinum credit card with negative interest rates? I mean, you are going to these people and they are going to accept this? You killed the bill when it could have passed, and now you are going through this, it is not a charade because there is talking, but I do not know what it is. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, just to summarize, Members kill a bill because of some honest concern about the first amendment rights of people who are protesting. I honor that. Do not degrade that. Stay with that. What you have done is to transform this statement of principle by then bringing back the bill you tried to get people to vote for, announcing that your own bill violated the Rules of the House, now alleging allegiance to the Rules of the House, and engaging in the most transparent, cynical, legislative maneuver I have ever seen, giving Members a chance to switch their votes to be recorded on a bill to make contributors and other financial interests happy in the full knowledge that it will end here. Mr. Speaker, politics is a nice business, and we are all in it. But this is so cynical, so an interruption of the legislative process that you ought to be embarrassed about it.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. So the point of order is against the very conference report that this leadership which is now making the point of order tried to pass. I have heard about being born again in some context, but born again parliamentarian is a new concept to me, and I think it ought to be clear. I want to be heard on the point of order, and I want to say that I want to defend the House leadership. If you sustain this point of order, you will be ruling that the very bill this House leadership tried to get majority Members to vote for a few hours ago was out of order. I do not think we ought to have the ruling calling into question the fealty of the House Republican leadership to the Rules of the House.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order. Mr. Speaker, I gather that this point of order is being lodged by the leadership of the House against the very bill that the leadership of the House was trying to persuade Members to vote for a couple of hours ago. So my concern is, how did a bill that was perfectly in order at about 8 o'clock fall out of order? And I am concerned that we have a situation in which the leadership of this House apparently consciously brought forward a bill that they knew to be violative of the rules of the House, sought to pass it, and when not enough arms could be twisted, they now have become late converts to the rules. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. FRANK. The parliamentary inquiry is, is this the same piece of legislation on which we voted a couple of hours ago? I think a parliamentary inquiry is relevant when we ask about what is in fact before the House. I have not had a chance to read it. Is this the same bill that the House was voting on a few hours ago?

Mr. FRANK. So, Mr. Speaker, I do have a parliamentary inquiry. I am sorry the gentlemen do not want to hear this flip-flop, but I did not bring it up. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, which I believe is regular order. You might want to explain to a few of them over there. I understand on that side knowledge and commitment to the rules is a sometime thing, but a parliamentary inquiry is in order. Is this bill against which the point of order has been lodged exactly the same bill that the leadership was trying to get people to vote for a few hours ago?

Mr. FRANK. Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, but the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) has made a point of order against something. I guess that is the question. The parliamentary inquiry is against what it is that the gentleman from Missouri has lodged a point of order? You said does anyone want to be heard on the point of order. He made a point of order. Against what vehicle did he make a point of order, then?

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the members of this committee for the product and the way in which they have done it. I was particularly impressed by the very gracious remarks of the chairman of this committee about his opposite, the ranking minority member, and frankly at a time when there is some political sniping going on that seems to me wholly inaccurate, having him so generously acknowledge the important role the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has played on the single most important national security issue now before this Congress is a very impressive act, and I appreciate his doing that. I should underline that what we have here is the gentlewoman from California in her role on this committee having played a wholly responsible constructive role at the center of national policy. I would ask people to contrast that with some of the silly political assassination efforts that are going on. Speaking of silly, I want to talk about an amendment we need. We have had a policy for driving gay people out of the military lest gay men and women be allowed to help defend this country, and it has been called the policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. We have a new name for it. It is called Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Translate, because the Army in its wisdom pursuant to a dictate given to it by this body in its wisdom has just thrown out over the past year nine linguistic specialists, six of whom were studying Arabic. Apparently the Army feels that worrying about what people do in their private lives is more important than enhancing our ability to translate from Arabic. As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations said, it is a good thing for Lawrence Arabia they were not around when he was getting involved in the Middle East. The notion that they would take people who were studying Arabic, one member of this group had completed 30 weeks of training, he was getting very good marks, he trying to learn Arabic, in the process of learning Arabic, no, we do not want him because he is gay. I understand that anti-gay prejudice gets a certain leeway here. I have been fighting against that, but to put it ahead of national security seems to me excessive. We have been told that we have a problem because we do not have enough skillful linguists. So when they kick out six Arabic speakers, two Korean speakers, and someone who speaks Mandarin Chinese, I am appalled. And let us be clear that while there is a policy on the books of which I do not approve, it is not self-executing. The military has the discretion not to apply it in some cases, and to expel from the military American citizens who are motivated by the most profound patriotism and are in the process of learning Arabic at a time when that is essential to national security, to kick them out because they are gay is preposterous, and while it is late in the session and late in the evening, too late I hope for my colleagues to bring up that bankruptcy bill they were playing with, I hope when we return next year we will look at this Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Translate policy, and the notion that the Federal Government at this time should deprive itself of skillful people who want to work for national security in translating from Arabic into English and from Chinese and Korean into English, the notion that we would deny ourselves this greatly needed asset because some people do not like people like me is as silly as I can think. We are not here talking about trivia. We are not talking about anything superficial. We are talking about prejudice being elevated over national security. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record at this point an article from the AP by Margie Mason and an article from the New Republic by Nathaniel Frank which document this particular piece of stupidity. [From the Associated Press] Military Dismisses 6 Gay Arabic Linguists Amid Shortage of Translators (By Margie Mason) San Francisco.--Nine Army linguists, including six trained to speak Arabic, have been dismissed from the military because they are gay. The soldiers' dismissals come at a time when the military is facing a critical shortage of translators and interpreters for the war on terrorism. Seven of the soldiers were discharged after telling superiors they are gay, and the two others got in trouble when they were caught together after curfew, said Steve Ralls, spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a group that defends homosexuals in the military. Six were specializing in Arabic, two were studying Korean and one was studying Mandarin Chinese. All were at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, the military's primary language training center. The government has aggressively recruited Arabic speakers since the Sept. 11 attacks. ``We face a drastic shortage of linguists, and the direct impact of Arabic speakers is a particular problem,'' said Donald R. Hamilton, who documented the need for more linguists in a report to Congress as part of the National Commission on Terrorism. One of the discharged linguists said the military's policy on gays is hurting its cause. ``It's not a gay-rights issue. I'm arguing military proficiency issues they're throwing out good, quality people,'' said Alastair Gamble, a former Army specialist. Harvey Perritt, spokesman for the Army Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe in Tidewater, Va., confirmed the dismissals occurred between October 2001 and September 2002, but declined to comment further on the cases. He said 516 linguists enrolled in the Arabic course this year at the Monterey institute and 365 graduated. The military's ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy allows gays to serve provided they keep quiet about their sexual orientation. Gamble and former Pfc. Robert Hicks were discovered in Gamble's room during a surprise inspection in April, Gamble said. After their discharges, Gamble and Hicks applied for other federal jobs where they could use their language skills in the war on terrorism, but neither was hired, Gamble said.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that Secretary of Agriculture Veneman has proclaimed October of this year National Cranberry Month. The district I have the privilege of representing is one of the most productive in our country in the growing of cranberries, and of course, given that cranberries are native to the U.S., this means Southeastern Massachusetts is one of the most important cranberry growing areas in the world. Cranberry growers have been strong contributors to the economy of Massachusetts, to the protection of open space and other environmental values, and to the addition of nutritious fruit to the American diet. I appreciate Secretary Veneman's proclamation underlining the importance of the growth and processing of cranberries in so many ways and I ask that this proclamation be printed here. National Cranberry Month, October 2002

Mr. FRANK

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

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my deep appreciation to the gentleman from California, and to the majority, for this very generous action. It is not always the norm, and I just want to express my appreciation.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me this time, and thank him as well for having undertaken this thankless, but very important, job and has done it well. When I listened to the President's speech the other night, I found myself in agreement with much of it, but then I find myself in disagreement with his conclusion. I think the President made a pretty good case for a multilateral approach to making sure that Saddam Hussein is disarmed, but that is not what he is asking us to do. The President is asking us to authorize a unilateral invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein because he is an immoral and evil ruler. I wish he were the only immoral and evil ruler in the world. Our job would be simpler. But I do not see a rationale for a unilateral American invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein that does not apply to a number of other governments, some of whom we are allied with. In fact, there will be a choice tomorrow for a very well-thought-out proposal that would empower the President with the full support of Congress to undertake a serious effort to get a multilateral approach, using force if necessary, to impose disarmament on Saddam Hussein. It is the resolution that will be offered by the gentleman from South Carolina. And the President said, let us have unity, let us have a large majority here. He could get, I believe, more than 90 percent, if he were willing to throw his support behind a resolution that said let us use force in a multilateral context not to overthrow this government, because we cannot be in the position of, I think, invading every government that fails to meet our moral standards, as much as I believe those moral standards to be correct ones. He, instead, will choose a more divisive path. Why? One reason is that we are told the policy of deterrence will not work with Saddam Hussein. We are told that deterrence, which has worked with the Soviet Union and with the People's Republic of China and with North Korea and with Iran and with other nations, uniquely will not work with Iraq because of the nature of Saddam Hussein. The problem with the argument that deterrence will not work, that is the policy that says the way to keep him from using chemical and biological and, ultimately, nuclear weapons, if he gets them, and we should try to stop him from getting them, but the way to keep him from doing it is to threaten him with overwhelming retaliation. The President says it does not work. But American intelligence says it does. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the Washington Post article from last Monday from which I want to read. ``Although Iraq's chemical artillery shells and warheads were deployed during the war of 1991, they were not used. U.S. officials now believe this was because the United States had repeatedly cautioned Iraq before the fighting started that use of such weapons would draw an immediate and possibly overwhelming response that would topple Hussein from power. ``One reason the Pentagon has adopted a plan to dissuade Iraqi officers from ordering the use of chemical and biological weapons is that, unlike in 1991, this deterrent has been rendered moot by the administration's decision to make removing Hussein the goal of any military action.'' This is the conclusion of American military intelligence, not rebutted by the administration. It was recently reinforced by a letter released by the CIA, and the CIA said he is not likely to use the weapons because he is being deterred effectively by the threat of our force. In a colloquy with a Senator from Michigan he was asked the question, What about his use of weapons of mass destruction? If we initiate an attack and he was an extremist or otherwise, what is the likelihood in response to our attack he would use chemical or biological weapons? Senior intelligence witness: ``Pretty high, in my view.'' In other words, deterrence according to American intelligence analysis in 1991 and American intelligence analysis today works. So there is no need for this unilateral invasion. Yes, I think it is useful for the international community to put maximum pressure on Saddam Hussein to disarm. I believe that the resolution offered by the gentleman from South Carolina is an authorization to do that. I disagree with the President about this policy of a unilateral American invasion with us paying all of the costs and having all of the responsibility for the subsequent administration with Iraq. I disagree with it; but if one agrees with it, it is the height of irresponsibility to pretend that we can pay for it in the current situation without serious social harm. This administration put through a major tax cut 2 years ago with the consent of Congress, over my objection and many others. Since that time, we have committed to spend on a war on Afghanistan, which I supported; reconstruction of Afghanistan, our moral obligation; significant increases to compensate the victims, both municipal and individual, of the mass murders of September 11; significant ongoing increases in expenditure of homeland security. Now add to that a war in Iraq and the subsequent responsibility to run Iraq and leave that tax cut in place. Members should understand the consequences: a deterioration in our environmental cleanup; a lack of transportation spending; indeed, a reduction of real spending for virtually every other domestic program. Mr. Speaker, the fact that deterrence still works means that is unnecessary. The previously referred to material is as follows: [From The Washington Post, Sept. 30, 2002] U.S. Effort Aimed At Iraqi Officers (By Walter Pincus) The Pentagon is preparing a campaign aimed at deterring Iraqi officers from firing chemical or biological weapons during a U.S. invasion because intelligence officials believe President Saddam Hussein has given field commanders conditional authority to use the weapons in the event of an attack, according to defense and intelligence officials. The effort would include massive leafleting of Iraqi military positions--a tactic used by U.S. forces during the Gulf War in 1991--but also might employ covert techniques that would enable the U.S. message to reach Iraqi commanders, the officials said. Final authority to use weapons of mass destruction has resided with Hussein. But the Iraqi president's knowledge that the United States would seek to take down Iraqi command centers and communications systems at the outset of any military strike means he has likely already given authority for firing chemical and biological weapons to his most loyal commanders in the field, the officials said. They said Hussein issued similar orders before the Gulf War. As a result, the sources said, the Pentagon plans to appeal directly to these officers not to use the weapons. One of the biggest challenges before military planners is determining which Iraqi military units can be encouraged to defect in the event of a U.S. invasion and how to communicate with them, defense officials have said. A British intelligence report released Tuesday by Prime Minister Tony Blair said Iraqi could deploy nerve gas and anthrax weapons on 45 minutes' notice. It also said Hussein may have already delegated authority to order use of such weapons to his youngest son, Qusai, who leads the Republican Guard--elite units that control deployed weapons for mass destruction. The Pentagon's campaign was signaled recent by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee, Rumsfeld said, ``Wise Iraqis will not obey orders to use WMD [weapons of mass destruction].... The United States will make clear at the outset that those who are not guilty of atrocities can play a role in the new Iraq. But if WMD is used, all bets are off.'' Rumsfeld added that if the order to use chemical or biological weapons were made by Hussein, ``that does not necessarily mean his orders would be carried out. He might not have anything to lose, but those beneath him in the chain of command most certainly would have a great deal to lose.'' A Pentagon official said Rumsfeld's comments ``are at least the start of telling them were are serious.'' After the Gulf War, coalition force interrogators learned that Hussein had decided ahead of time to give commanders the go-ahead to use chemical weapons if Baghdad's communications were interrupted. One administration source said the Iraqi president issued specific orders to use the weapons if ``the allies were winning the ground war and they had crossed a line due west of the city of Al-Amarah,'' which is 200 miles south of Baghdad. Iraqi unit commanders were also told they should employ the weapons against Iranian forces if they crossed the border during the war and moved into Iraq's Maysan Province, where Al-Amarah is located. Although Iraq's chemical artillery shells and warheads were deployed during the war, they were not used. U.S. officials now believe this was because the United States had repeatedly cautioned Iraq before the fighting started that use of such weapons would draw a immediate and possibly overwhelming response that would topple Hussein from power. One reason the Pentagon has adopted a plan to dissuade Iraqi officers from ordering the use of chemical or biological weapons is that, unlike in 1991, this deterrent has been rendered moot by the administration's decision to make removing Hussein the goal of any military action. Whether a plan to deter Iraqi commanders from employing the weapons will work is a matter of disagreement among military experts. the Republican Guard units that control the weapons are run by Hussein's most loyal officers. They will face a short-term or a long-term problem'' one former senior intelligence official said. ``We may come after them when the fighting is over. But there may be a Saddam loyalist with a gun who is threatening to kill him right away if he doesn't follow orders.'' Judith Yaphe, an Iraq specialist at the National Defense University, said that in 1991, according to documents found after the war, Hussein had tried to persuade his commanders to use the weapons because they would be killed anyway. Also, Hussein had placed loyalists with the commanders to enforce his wishes. ``The question is, are they still there?'' she said. Richard Russell, a CIA area analyst who specialized in Iraq and is now at the National Defense University, said the effort to deter individual commanders ``makes sense as an attempt.'' But he noted that Iraqi operational security was very good in the Gulf War and ``you have to assume it is much better now.'' After Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, U.S. officials talked openly of American forces making preparations for waging combat in a chemical environment. Then-Secretary of State James A. Baker III told Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz that Hussein's government would be endangered if such weapons were used. Then-Defense Secretary Richard B. Cheney hinted that if such an attack took place against Israel, that country might respond with nuclear weapons. In the war's aftermath, U.S. intelligence officials learned that Iraq had been deterred from using chemical weapons by the threat of massive retaliation. Iraqi artillery units armed with chemical shells were segregated from the rest of the forces and chemical munitions were never moved to Kuwait and never moved toward the front as coalition forces approached, and in some cases breached, the Iraq-Kuwait border.

Mr. FRANK

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, the speaker has just violated the rules of the House with regard to references to the Senate.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, the point of order I raised was not when the gentleman referred to inaction, but when the gentleman characterized that inaction and gave a value judgment to the inaction.

Mr. FRANK

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

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, it has been my experience that not everybody following the debate fully understands the rules. The gentleman from Wisconsin knows them well, both the rules of the House and the rules of the Committee on Appropriations. Is there any rule, law, statute, constitutional principle that in any way hinders this House from taking up appropriations bills whenever it wants because somebody else has not done anything?